The Netanyahu ObamaCare Hillary Email #Scandal Squirrel, Or, Who Replaces Hillary If Hillary Is Not #ReadyForHillary????…???

Update: No sooner did we hit the “publish” button than common sense begins to assert itself. Did the White House expose Hillary’s e-mails this week to protect their deal with Iran?

Lee Smith wonders: Who ordered the Code Red on Hillary, and why? Why, when we’ve known for two years that she used private e-mail thanks to the “Guccifer” hacking, was this the week that all of this suddenly blew up?

Or to put the question another way, why did Hillary Clinton become the Obama administration’s bête noire this very week, the same one during which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pulled all of the world’s focus onto the issue of the administration’s negotiations with Iran?

The answer is because the two are related: This week’s tarring of Hillary Clinton is part of the White House’s political campaign to shut off debate about its hoped-for deal. It’s not hard to see why they’re anxious. With Netanyahu’s speech forcing lawmakers and editorial writers to face up to the proposed agreement’s manifest problems, the administration fears the prospect of Democrats jumping ship and signing on to Kirk-Menendez sanctions legislation that also would give Congress oversight on the deal. So far, the White House has managed to keep Democratic lawmakers in line, no matter how much they seem to question the wisdom of the proposed deal. Hillary Clinton, gearing up for a 2016 run in which she is likely to put some distance between herself and Obama’s dubious Middle East policies, is the one major national Democratic figure who can give Democrats in Congress cover.

Our answer (below) is better, but this is a step into reality and the right direction. Rick Wilson is also giving Republicans the same advice we do at the end of our article.

————————————-

What a week it was! ObamaCare near death and Netanyahu as Churchill! Even the Obama illegal illegal immigration diktat this week featured plaintiffs filing their response brief against a stay!

In other words, it was a nightmare week for Barack Obama. The only respite for Obama was a squirrel that captured the national attention.

Now maybe in this squirrelly matter we are influenced by the two Cate Blanchett period movies about Elizabeth I and the Golden Age. In the past few weeks we have watched these two movies repeatedly (aired by the Ovation channel). In one of the moves, after an assassination attempt on the queen her shrewd counselor Walsingham is asked “who did it?” Walsingham notes that for various reasons it could not have been France (Elizabeth was at the time pretending to consider a marriage proposal from the transvestite Duc D’Anjou) nor Spain (the ambassador was present at the assassination attempt). Walsingham’s suspicions are immediately drawn to the treacherous Duke of Norfolk. As to Hillary’s emails we will answer “who did it?” much like Walsingham.

For those not interested in our Walsingham interrogatory as to the political questions we refer you to the Slate magazine understandings and the legalistic arguments put forth by Lanny Davis:

Fact: Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail account when she was secretary of State was lawful. The law restricting such private accounts by public officials was changed in 2014.

Fact: The 2009 Archives Preservation Law was not violated. [snip]

Fact: Thousands of State Department officials and others received e-mails from Secretary Clinton during her tenure, and all knew that she was using a private e-mail address. This flat out contradicts all the baseless innuendo that she was attempting to hide her use of a private e-mail address.

Back to Walsingham. So who then “dunnit?” It wasn’t the Benghazi Select Committee. Who? Try the treacherous boob who stabs everyone in the back (Mary, Spain, Elizabeth, his wife) the Duke of Norfolk a.k.a. Barack Obama.

For weeks Barack Obama plotted ways to disrupt Netanyahu’s speech on March 3. Charles Krauthammer joins us today it calling Netanyahu’s speech “Churchillian”. But Krauthammer is no Walsingham:

Netanyahu’s Churchillian warning

Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress was notable in two respects. Queen Esther got her first standing O in 2,500 years. And President Obama came up empty in his campaign to preemptively undermine Netanyahu before the Israeli prime minister could present his case on the Iran negotiations.

On the contrary. The steady stream of slights and insults turned an irritant into an international event and vastly increased the speech’s audience and reach. Instead of dramatically unveiling an Iranian nuclear deal as a fait accompli, Obama must now first defend his Iranian diplomacy.

We agree with Krauthammer that the attacks on Netanyahu drew more attention to Netanyahu’s speech on March 3. Krauthammer misses with his assertion that “Obama came up empty in his campaign to preemptively undermine Netanyahu”.

Contra Krauthammer, as March 3 dawned, a squirrel captured the national attention. The New York Times on March 3 published a report on Hillary’s emails. Hillary bypassed government email systems and established her own server and email system at her home in Chappaqua, reported the Hillary hating left wing Times.

Netanyahu’s speech and ObamaCare should have dominated the national headlines without respite this past week. Instead Republicans/conservatives and Obama Dimocrats/leftists fixated on the squirrel to the detriment of what should have been to undisturbed topics of conversation – Netanyahu and ObamaCare.

Think we’re nuts talking about squirrels? Consider, the Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi knew about Hillary’s email system since August 2014. August 2014! But someone released that squirrel on March 3 which disrupted news coverage of the Netanyahu speech and lessened coverage of the ObamaCare fiasco the very next day (not to mention the relevance of Israel v. Iran Purim on March 5, 2015). As soon as Netanyahu’s speech was over it was Hillary email squirrels on the headlines. As soon as the Supreme Court ObamaCare arguments were over it was back to Hillary email squirrels.

Yup, the Republicans on the Benghazi committee knew about the Hillary email system in August 2014.



Representative Mike Pompeo evades Greta Van Susteren’s repeated questions about why the Benghazi committee knew since August 2014 about Hillary’s email system but never issued a subpoena. We’re not attacking the Benghazi Select Committee, we’ve supported the creation and the work of the Benghazi Select Committee. Our point Walshingham-like is the Benghazi Select Committee knew since August 2014 about the Hillary emails – so the Committee is not a likely suspect in the release of the Hillary email squirrel on March 3, 2015 which has removed Netanyahu and ObamaCare from the headlines.

“Who then?” asks Walsingham. Mark Levin does a good impression of Walsingham:

Mark Levin believes that the recent leaks about Hillary’s private emails and email server are an inside job by the Democrats who either want to take her down a notch or want to take her out completely:

Bingo! “This is an inside job.”

Levin is misinformed when he says that Republicans did not know about Hillary’s emails and private server. Republicans knew but they did not have the MOTIVE.

For Republicans the smart move was to confront Hillary with their “bombshell” at a public hearing of the Benghazi Select Committee. Better timing for Republicans would be to drop this story the minute Hillary announces (if ever).

So who has the motive?

Sean Hannity, always ready to blame Bill or Hillary Clinton says this entire email release is a ploy by Bill and Hillary to get the bad news out early to bleed it dry of news value before Hillary announces. Sean is sure Hillary will run for president.

Hannity’s theory has some merit to it. In fact, it has a great deal of merit to it. If Hannity’s theory is correct then Hannity and Republicans and Conservatives and Hillary haters are dancing to Hillary’s tune and helping Hillary Clinton 2016. Indeed, if Hannity’s theory is correct Hillary should send free ReadyForHillary merchandise to every Republican, Conservative, and Hillary hater so fixated and focused and in love with the Hillary email story. It’s as if Hillary’s server is serving up the heads of her Mary Queen of Scots style detractors. Hannity’s theory is most definitely tasty.

But Hannity’s tasty theory is not very nutritious. For one thing, if true, Hillary could have waited until she had a full complement of campaign workers hired and ready for her announcement – prepared to fight back against the email story she according to Hannity released herself

Also, if Hannity is correct Hillary undertook a risk that without a response team ready the story might then acquire “legs” and keep going for months and months. Bottom line is that Hannity’s theory does not hold up. So Walsingham goes back the Mark Levin theory.

Let’s amplify on the Mark Levin theory. Back in December 2014 Dick Morris figured it out and Powerline stumbled onto the Obama Dimocrat Left Wing strategy for 2016 we are now watching unfold:

Going into the campaign season, President Johnson was the heavy favorite (as Clinton is now) but many on the left were urging Robert Kennedy to run (as they are now urging Warren to do).

Kennedy lacked the guts to challenge LBJ, but Eugene McCarthy was up for the fight. Though McCarthy didn’t defeat Johnson in the New Hampshire primary, he did well enough to cause Kennedy to enter the race. Soon thereafter, Johnson announced that he would neither seek nor accept his party’s nomination.

I would expect Warren to follow Kenney’s example and enter the race if Clinton were to withdraw or falter in 2016. Warren’s challenge will resemble Kennedy’s in terms of ideology, though she will be nothing like the campaign trail dynamo Kennedy was in 1968.

With Johnson out of the race and with two left-wing antiwar candidates fighting for the nomination, Vice President Hubert Humphrey announced his candidacy and attempted to rally the party establishment around him. Would Joe Biden do the same in 2016? I believe he would.

Bingo! Bingo! Bingo! All that is needed now is a willing dupe to set the stage like Eugene McCarthy for the Massachusetts Mohican, the Bay State Squaw – Speaking Bull. How?

Here’s who and how from the Hillary hating left:

With all the coverage of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, another bit of political news has been largely overlooked. At a press conference in Baltimore on Tuesday, Martin O’Malley, the former Democratic governor of Maryland, said that he won’t seek the U.S. Senate seat that Barbara Mikulski, Maryland’s five-term Democratic senator, has announced she will vacate in 2016. Rather than entering a Senate race in which he would immediately be the favorite, O’Malley appears set to go all-in and challenge Clinton for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

Officially, O’Malley is still merely considering a bid. But his travel schedule suggests otherwise. Last weekend, he was in South Carolina; this weekend he’s headed to New Hampshire. He has also scheduled trips to Iowa this month and next.

In South Carolina O’Malley attacked “triangulation”. Looks like he’s a Eugene style stalking horse. But really O’Malley? Well here’s another stalking horse suggestion from the Hillary hater left:

Biden should run. Now

It’s too convoluted an argument for Bumblin’ Joe to run for president so we won’t publish an longer excerpt. But really, Joe???



It’s desperation time on the left. Conservative Joseph Curl writes there’s “agita” for Dimocrats because of Hillary’s emails and other alleged failings. It’s not just the right wing. National Journal writes:

In 2013, The Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza posed a question: “If not Hillary Clinton in 2016, then who?”

For the once great Democratic Party that has been taken over by Obama (we now refer to it as the Obama Dimocrat Cult) there really is only one candidate. Only one candidate that can win. Blue collar, well known, not afraid to tell the truth to a nation hungry for truth, if not Hillary then there is only one candidate that can run and win. Warren can’t win. O’Malley can’t win. Webb can’t win, Schweitzer can’t win, Cuomo (baring prosecution in the Silver scandal so he can even run for president) can’t win, Gilibrand can’t win, the Castro brothers (not Raul and Fidel) can’t win, Michelle can’t win. If Hillary doesn’t run and says “screw you” to Obama Dimocrats, there is only one candidate that can get the nomination and win the general election.



So where does this all leave us? Let’s summarize:

(1) We think as is typical for Republicans when it comes to Hillary and Bill, they are overplaying their hand. An email “scandal” is not going to hurt Hillary in any meaningful way (meaningful meaning keep her from the Oval Office as President).

(2) We do think it is smart for Republicans/conservatives to continue to dig for information against Hillary especially through the Benghazi Select Committee. But let the facts speak for themselves without spin or hyperbole because history should inform everyone that when Republicans go up against the Clintons, Republicans lose and Clintons win.

(3) Elements in the left who want Elizabeth Warren to run but who know she won’t run as long as she is sure Hillary will win intend to pave the path for her. The left wants a stalking horse to weaken Hillary (think Johnson in 1968 or stalking horse for Bill Clinton Tom Harkin in 1992). The left wants Warren.

(4) The left sprung the leak. Someone got spooked when it was announced that Hillary would announce in April. They needed to move fast.

(5) Barack Obama hates Hillary and wants Warren. Obama unleashed Axelrod but Axelrod alone or with other Obama goons won’t get the job done. Obama pulled the trigger on Hillary this week to big foot Netanyahu.

(6) Everyone politically inclined who is not Hillary loves this “scandal”. We like it because we think it will teach a lesson we’ve been trying to teach Hillary. The left loves this “scandal” because the left wants to destroy Hillary (they would rather rule in Hell with Warren than serve in Heaven with Hillary). The right loves this “scandal” because they think it will either destroy Hillary or weaken her. Big Media loves this “scandal” because they hate Hillary and Bill and because it provides something to get attention and readers/viewers. The public that is not politically inclined, does not care.

(7) Why did Hillary set up a private server and private email service for herself? It wasn’t to keep documents from the government. Hillary knew eventually she would have to produce all her emails. Hillary set up her private system to keep Obama’s nose out of her business.

(8) This is a great “scandal”. This might be what Hillary needs to wake up. Hillary has to realize that her enemies are in the left.

(9) How should Hillary respond to the attacks on her?



Share

162 thoughts on “The Netanyahu ObamaCare Hillary Email #Scandal Squirrel, Or, Who Replaces Hillary If Hillary Is Not #ReadyForHillary????…???

  1. Update: No sooner did we hit the “publish” button than common sense begins to assert itself. Did the White House expose Hillary’s e-mails this week to protect their deal with Iran?

    Lee Smith wonders: Who ordered the Code Red on Hillary, and why? Why, when we’ve known for two years that she used private e-mail thanks to the “Guccifer” hacking, was this the week that all of this suddenly blew up?

    Or to put the question another way, why did Hillary Clinton become the Obama administration’s bête noire this very week, the same one during which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pulled all of the world’s focus onto the issue of the administration’s negotiations with Iran?

    The answer is because the two are related: This week’s tarring of Hillary Clinton is part of the White House’s political campaign to shut off debate about its hoped-for deal. It’s not hard to see why they’re anxious. With Netanyahu’s speech forcing lawmakers and editorial writers to face up to the proposed agreement’s manifest problems, the administration fears the prospect of Democrats jumping ship and signing on to Kirk-Menendez sanctions legislation that also would give Congress oversight on the deal. So far, the White House has managed to keep Democratic lawmakers in line, no matter how much they seem to question the wisdom of the proposed deal. Hillary Clinton, gearing up for a 2016 run in which she is likely to put some distance between herself and Obama’s dubious Middle East policies, is the one major national Democratic figure who can give Democrats in Congress cover.

    Our answer (below) is better, but this is a step into reality and the right direction. Rick Wilson is also giving Republicans the same advice we do at the end of our article.

    ————————————-

  2. Unfortunately this is freeing Obama to continue his March to give nuclear weapons to his Arab brothers and decrease public pressure on SCOTUS. Roberts, as always, will be grateful, much to the demise of the American people.

    Just so much energy.

  3. “the administration fears the prospect of Democrats jumping ship and signing on to Kirk-Menendez sanctions legislation that also would give Congress oversight on the deal”
    *****
    DOJ sending a message to Dems. with charges against Menendez. Just a reminder from Obama thugs, similar to Rangel for his support of Hillary, Eric Massa for his opposition to Obamacare, etc., etc.

  4. SHV, it’s all about Netanyahu and Iran:

    http://jpupdates.com/2015/03/03/sen-menendez-vows-iranian-nuclear-weapon-watch/

    U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the co-author of a bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran if the Islamic Republic does not reach a political framework agreement in nuclear negotiations with world powers by March 24, gave an impassioned speech against a nuclear Iran at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference on Monday night.

    As long as I have an ounce of fight left in me… Iran will never have a pathway to a weapon,” Menendez said. “It will never threaten Israel or its neighbors, and it will never be in a position to star a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Not on my watch.”

    Menendez said Iran “needs to understand that there are consequences to an impasse [in the nuclear talks], and those consequences are additional consequential sanctions.”

    The senator also defended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s much-debated speech to Congress on Iran, saying that while he agrees “with some Democrats that the political timing of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress tomorrow may have been unfortunate,” he “must disagree” with those who say the speech is “destructive” to U.S.-Israel relations—a specific reference to recent comments by U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice.

    It’s sad when corrupt Obama Dimocrats are the good guys in the party.

  5. After first read of this post, may I express gratitude Admin, for being clued in on what is behind the scenes.

    Certainly, the twitter crew I hang out with has been driving me nuts with this Hillary stuff. Mostly I’ve responded with prohibiting retweets where that is sufficient, or unfollowing if that is the only recourse. There are a few who take care not to be crude in their displeasure of her.

    As much as they want small govt and God (is their Christianity more true to the cause than Barack’s?)they can easily be led by their own noses.

    Sad about Menendez. Overall I do not care for the man, but recently he was so strong in principles real Americans espouse.

  6. Some people are catching on. Note the update to that article:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/06/chuck-todd-obama-white-house-probably-didnt-know-about-hillarys-secret-email-address/

    Chuck Todd, the moderator of NBC’s Meet the Press, is pretty sure that the president’s hands are clean when it comes to the scandalous revelations about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email accounts. And he makes a reasonably good case for why he believes Barack Obama was personally out of the loop (hat tip to Mediaite for flagging this clip):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXM2Troa8Bo

    “They’re not very forgiving on this,” Todd said of Obama’s core 2008 staffers who have made conspicuous efforts to distance themselves from Clinton of late. “This was sort of, at the core, of how they went after candidate Hillary Clinton in ’07 and ’08; on issues like transparency, on issues like good government issues.”

    “You’ve got to think the Obama White House didn’t know – I’d like to know if they knew about this email server in advance,” Todd added. “I would be surprised if they did because if they did, I got to think: knowing how they raised so many objections to even individual hires, that she attempted to make, like Sidney Blumenthal, I got to think if the White House knew about it at that time, they would have raised a red flag.”

    For his part, Joe Scarborough agreed with Todd’s assessment. “I find it hard to believe that Barack Obama’s people would allow her to conduct the affairs of state on a server in Chappaqua, New York,” the MSNBC host contended.

    Todd added that Clinton lobbied hard to bring on her former advisor Blumenthal onto her speechwriting staff at State before taking office in 2009, but David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs “fell on their sword to stop it.” [snip]

    UPDATE: As it happens, the White House was informed of the coming scandal involving Clinton’s emails in August of last year. So, so much Todd’s extension of the benefit of the doubt.

    It was on Obama’s orders that the dime was dropped.

  7. (7) Why did Hillary set up a private server and private email service for herself? It wasn’t to keep documents from the government. Hillary knew eventually she would have to produce all her emails. Hillary set up her private system to keep Obama’s nose out of her business.
    —————
    It is that. But it is more than that as well.

    If you have control over your email traffic, then you can fashion your own narrative and censor what you do not want the world to know.

    We have seen this kind of thing from Lerner, Cummings and so many other public officials.

    Enough people do it to employ an army of political operatives at enormous cost to create false trails, brush away tracks and throw everyone off the scent. These operatives are paid to create layers of complexity to obfuscate the facts, construct entire alternative channels of communication and sometimes manufacture a complete fictional record to present for inspection. Sealing records, classifying information, intimdating leakers — it’s all in a day’s work

    In foreign policy, this business of constructing a false narrative is the root cause of failure.

    U.S. Foreign Policy Leaders ‘Have Lost The Ability To Think’, I think he is asserting essentially asserting our inability to distinguish between simulated reality and real reality.

    From his time briefing generals in the Pentagon, Stephen Coughlin — a leading expert on national security and author of the soon-to-be-published book, “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” — has always feared for our nation’s safety and thinks it’s time for the government to stop lying….

    He contends that government bureaucrats have become so focused on fighting “narratives” consistent with a post-modern, politically correct worldview, rather than the facts on the ground, that America’s war on terrorism has become a catastrophic failure.

    We are fighting ISIS and Putin inside the video game while our opponents are fighting us in the real world by strangling us in the physical chair we sit in. We’ve lost the ability to tell the difference and wondering, why if we are winning in the game inside the computer there is a razor slashing across our cheek. In the end the author of the lie becomes its victim. The real danger of the lie is that the liar inevitably comes to believe it himself.

    (Richard Fernandez helped me understand this phenomenon. Big media is the quintessential example. What matters to them is not the truth, but the narrative. The narrative uber alles. 93 million people of working age are not working or are under employed. And yet, in the midst of this terrible state of affairs, big media celebrates that the unemployment rate has dropped from 5.6 to 5.5%—a leading indicator of the robust economic recovery—that never comes.)

  8. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-senator-obamas-iran-talking-points-straight-out-tehran_824204.html

    “I have to be honest with you, the more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran,” Menendez. “And it feeds to the Iranian narrative of victimization when they are the ones with original sin–an illicit nuclear weapons program, going back over the course of 20 years, that they are unwilling to come clean on.”

    Menendez is the highest Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

  9. Great post Admin.

    I guess the trend is set, when the skinny, golfing fraud is in trouble, and to distract the public from bad news…

    release the Crackin’!!!

    Start another bull$shit scandal surrounding Hillary.

    It’s like the squirrel that cried for help too many times, after awhile…nobody pays any attention.

  10. It’s sad when corrupt Obama Dimocrats are the good guys in the party.
    ———–
    Actually, it is a very post modern play.

    The playwright has written no good guys, no heroes, no protagonists into the script.

    The characters we find run the gambit from bad to worse.

    The name of the play?

    “Satan’s Circus: Washington in the Age of the Obama Psychosis”

  11. When you mentioned West Coast Hotel, as it related to Roberts, my first thought went to that other Hotel where it is easy to check in, but impossible to check out.

    In Washington, buying into the Obama narrative is the golden handshake, and now that it is collapsing everywhere you look, the problem for the elite class is akin to being trapped in the other Hotel during a fire.

    Maggie Haberman meanwhile is on the Obama payroll. I have it on good authority.

  12. Thanks for exposing this WH for this desperate act, Admin. We had suspected this latest straw grasping tactic had come from the Left. Acts of desperation by small, insignificant cult members at the direction of a failed cult leader/president who recognizes that his presidency has been a sham and that even those who continue to worship his alter know on some level that that his slogan of hope and change were “words, just words”. His people and MSM (who are just more of his people) can apply all the lipstick they want to their pig, but ….. One must acknowledge, however, that a golf-playing pig is unique – maybe even has entertainment value. But, that’s about as far as his ability can realistically take hime..

    I think if Admin’s ok with it, at some point, we need to take a moment of silent meditation for the Kooks and others out there who were so thoroughly duped by Barack.. Granted, they were willing dupees, and many remain so – which makes them all the more pathetic. They lash out at Hillary and attempt to derail her candidacy before she even has one because they are subconsciously angry with themselves and with their leader. Like the kid who is mad at his mother, but knowing he can’t unload on her, takes a whack at his big sister – the cognitively challenged aides, followers, media personalities, and supporters of Obama unload their anger by falsely accusing Hillary of some BS charge. In so doing they resort to one of the most revealing and primitive of defense mechanisms. When The One fails or makes himself appear foolish, as he did about Netanyahu’s speech, let’s dig up some fake dirt on Hillary.

    Well people are becoming wise to their con game. They have pulled that trick once too often. Obama’s fighters are just as irrelevant and flaccid as he is.

    Shadow, it’s time to give that crying squirrel a swift kick – give him something to really cry about.

  13. There is truly a special place for Jarret – a place where mean, spiteful, small-minded, unpatriotic, lying, self-important, power hungry jack asses are sent when they can’t pull the cart any longer. Jarret has definitely turned the cart over more times than can be counted. Next to O being gone in 2016, seeing Jarret and Holder gone will be the best news evaaaah!

  14. “I have to be honest with you, the more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran,” Menendez. “
    ——–
    Remember what my friend the doctor told me about what the Mullah demanded from him as a condition precedent to doing business in Iran?

    An equitable distribution of the profits:

    Doctor (who created the value): 30%

    Mullah:(the gatekeeper): 70%

    Take it or leave it.

    Question: do you really believe that Horseface Kerry and round heels Wendy Sherman will do better than the doctor?

    Note: Obama is fiction writer. Why does he not just right a fair agreement and forge the Mullah’s signature to it? Obama is a messiah according to that unimpeachable source big media. Thus, if he would merely do that then he could have his cake and eat it too. The problem is Imelt wants access to Iran, and the survival of the world must therefore yield to GE’s business model.

  15. There is truly a special place for Jarret
    ——
    I quite agree.

    It is called solitary confinement,

    Or in prison jargon The Hole.

  16. Screw email. Hooray snail mail! “my baby just sent me an email” is not as good as “my baby just sent me a letter”:

    Friday.

  17. We stumbled onto this while looking for “the letter”:

    Seemed extra appropriate for a Friday. Fun lyrics.

  18. The question is will this faux scandal over her emails stop Hillary from issuing anymore statements voicing her agreement with Obama’s policies?

  19. Free

    Shadow, it’s time to give that crying squirrel a swift kick

    ——
    😉

    We have been kicking Obama around for over six years and you would think this Squirrel Game is as worn out as the Race-card Game. Only the Kooks, Featherhead and the GOP fall for it.

    It’s all just news spam wrapped in a squirrel costume.

  20. Hot damn! I love video Fridays :0

    For all of the Hillary-hating liars and the low life lies they tell:

    (I know you’re lying) Your Lips are Movin”

  21. Admin> I am sorry for posting that Jerry Vale clip. But two piss holes in the snow Jarrett made me do it. I saw Johnny Carson video of an interview with old blue eyes. Carson took judicial notice of the fact that Frank’s songs were romantic catalyst for that generation, and he wanted to know who Frank listened to when the company, the wine and the . . were right for action. Frank told him why Jerry Fale of course–another Italian crooner. After the laugh he admitted he listened to Sunken Cathedral etc. For Chris Buckley it was Obama speeches that put him in the mood. He confessed as much and more in 2008. Go figure. How could Bill Buckley have a child like that? Worse than the case of a federal judge I knew–Vorhees who was much revered by his colleagues for his collegiality and his left of center judicial philosophy whose first son was a card carrying Nazi. Again, go figure.

  22. glad to see that clip posted of Valerie Jarrett…I was just getting ready to come here and say that I just saw her throw Hillary under the bus on, I think, CNN…

    also flipping thru channels…MSNBC is pummeling Hillary on this…saw Lani Davis fight and push back hard against Tamron Hall and the NYT writer who broke the story…to listen to Tamron seething and going hard against Hillary you would think Hillary was Ted Cruz…

    think alot ot this is designed to force her into the race earlier and then try to beat her up…deja vu 2007/8…or at worse…to just take her out

    btw…Bill, Hill and Chelsea are in Florida this weekend for Clinton Foundation

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

    also isn’t it interesting that simultaneously while the “forces” are trying to take out Hillary … or wound her and make her submissive…

    at the same time the justice dept is filing corruption charges against Mendenez…the most vocal senior democrat opposing O and O’s Iran deal…

    not even one week after the highest ranking Democratic latino voiced outrage and said he would not be intimadated by anyone…Holder comes out with corruption charges to take him out…

    ****

    these are very, very dirty players…

  23. Wbboei, we’re joking about “stop the music!”

    However we really do recommend the audio of the SC argument on ObamaCare. We just heard Kagen’s attack on Carvin at round 7:00 in the audio followed quickly by Alito doing a masterful save regarding an example by Kagen which was unfair and that Carvin was not as quick in rebutting as was Alito.

    The audio with the transcript scrolling along in a very lucid manner is quite a bit of fun. We recommend people listen to it.

    ————-

    Music:

    Screw email, “Call me”:

  24. S:

    Charles Cooke does some clever agitprop for Republicans with this:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414968/progressives-its-time-start-panicking-about-hillary-charles-c-w-cooke

    Progressives, It’s Time to Start Panicking about Hillary

    There is no Plan B for 2016. I’ll say it, happily: Democrats should be worried about Hillary Clinton, and moderately panicked about the immediate future of both their party and their cause. [snip]

    Rather, it is because the last few days have underscored just how tenuous the Left’s grip on power and influence truly is in the waning days of the once-buoyant Obama era. At present, Republicans control the House of Representatives, they lead the Senate, and they enjoy pole position within a vast majority of the states. The Democratic party, by contrast, has been all but wiped out, its great historical hope having relegated himself by his obstinacy to the role of MVP on a team of just a few. For the next couple of years, Obama will dig in where he can, blocking here, usurping there, and seeking to provide for the Left a source of energy and of authority. But then . . . what? After last year’s midterm elections, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait contended grimly that the sheer scale of the Republican wave had rendered Hillary Clinton “the only thing standing between a Republican Party even more radical than George W. Bush’s version and unfettered control of American government.” The customary rhetorical hysterics to one side, this estimation appears to be sound. On the surface, the knowledge that Clinton is ready to consolidate the gains of the Obama project should be a matter of considerable comfort to progressivism and its champions. Indeed, as it stands today, I’d still bet that Hillary will eventually make a somewhat formidable candidate, and that, despite her many, many flaws, she retains a better than 50 percent chance of winning the presidency in 2016. In part, this is because she is a woman, yes, and because she will play ad nauseam upon this fact between now and November of next year; in part this is because she has been distressingly effective at selling herself as a moderate, and because her husband is remembered as a solid caretaker and remains popular across partisan lines; in part this is because the Democratic party is currently benefitting from a number of structural advantages that Republicans will struggle to overcome, whomever they choose to be their standard bearer; and in part this is because the economy will almost certainly be doing well enough by next year that the “Obama saved us all” narratives will seem plausible to a good number of voters. But — and this is a big but: Once we take Hillary out of the equation, the game looks rather different. [snip]

    Does the party have such a figure, other than Hillary? I cannot see that it does, no. Certainly, it is amusing for us to sing “Run, Liz, Run,” to tease Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden, and even to pretend that Andrew Cuomo or Martin O’Malley could ever be elected president of the United States. But, idle levity to one side, there is ultimately no hiding from the recognition that Clinton is the only viable game in town. Historically, running for a third term is extraordinarily tough. Are Americans expected to return a nobody to the highest office in the land purely because the on-paper estimates favor his party? In the last few days, we have seen a host of progressive commentators begin to call for an alternative. And yet for all the thrilling “Challenge!” headlines that this dissent has inevitably provoked, it remains the case that pretty much every single person who has called for a contested Democratic primary has chosen to rest his argument on the presumption that a nomination fight would help Hillary to improve, not that it would help her party to select a more appropriate candidate. A quote, from radio host Deborah Arnie Arnesen, sums up the pattern well: “The Democratic base that isn’t wedded to her is nervous about it,” said Deborah Arnie Arnesen, a progressive radio host in Concord, New Hampshire. “It makes her more vulnerable. What is this anointed candidate getting us? A much more flawed candidate than we thought. And Republicans now have material they never thought they would have.” “We need to litigate this in a primary so that she will be better at it, or it will be the Republicans who will be doing it for her,” she added. This fear is well placed. Indeed, were I a progressive Democrat, I daresay I’d be saying the same thing. Suppose, arguendo, that I thought, as does Jonathan Chait, that there was quite literally one human being standing between my agenda and a sweeping set of market and political reforms that would destroy my dreams for a generation. Suppose I believed, as does ThinkProgress, that if a Republican president is given the opportunity to nominate two or three more Supreme Court justices, the dream of a progressive judiciary will be dead for a generation or more. Suppose that I considered Obamacare to be a great and historic political victory, and that I was desperate for an executive who would protect it against Republican — or popular — repeal. Wouldn’t I be rather worried that Clinton might . . . die? Wouldn’t I find myself lying awake at night, fretting that Hillary might become too sick to run? Would I not entertain with horror the possibility that this latest scandal might be the tip of the iceberg, and that Hillary might have one too many crimes in her well-stocked closet? Wouldn’t it occur to me that she might begin to stumble and fall on the campaign trail, the better to be shown up by a young and fresh-faced alternative from the right? The old adage holds that only a fool elects to put all his eggs in one basket, and, for all our technological progress and social ingenuity, this remains as true now as it ever was. In the New York Times yesterday, Frank Bruni inquired of Hillary: “Does she have a political death wish?” He might well ask that of her party as well. The lights are going out across Blue America. The amplifying fear that there will be nobody viable to light them back aflame is grounded in reality. Time for a little sweating, perhaps.

    This is the type of agitprop that makes us heartily laugh. We just love thinking about all those Hillary hatin’ Hopium guzzlin’ Obama thugs on the left who now have to pray Hillary runs because as much as they want the Bay State Squaw to run they know only Hillary can win.

  25. admin
    March 6, 2015 at 6:16 pm

    This is really freakin’ interesting.

    Great technology, showing the photo of the person speaking, their words in text and sound.

    Partisan, for sure.

  26. The above is a tribute to you Admin–the real Pink Panther.

    Or, as Bogie said: here’s looking at you kid.

  27. just how tenuous the Left’s grip on power and influence truly is in the waning days of the once-buoyant Obama era.
    ———–
    This is too good an insight for Charlie.

    Somebody must have written it for him.

  28. Thanks Wbboei. Shadowfax, it is really great technology. The voice inflections help non-lawyers understand the arguments fairly well even if the jurisprudential knowledge is lacking. As you say “really freakin’ interesting.”

  29. Speaking of interesting, we have this youtube in our vaults for use in a future article – imagine what audiences in 1956 thought of this astonishing performance by the powerful talent of Screaming Jay Hawkins:

  30. imho…O has dumbed down the Dims in their cult worship of him…and the rabid left is not rational…they are that stupid that they would ‘cut off their noses to spite their faces’…they want what they want and everything else be damned…

    and with the desperate O ego in its last hurrah it appears they are trying to throw anything and everything against the wall to see how far they can push his/their ‘executive’ power and limits…they don’t care about how careless or dangerous the ramifications of their actions are…O will leave that for someone else to deal with…he’ll be golfing…or body surfing in Hawaii, now free to take off his shirt…

    O only cares about what he will get recognized for…”his legacy” (and the cult left is too dumb to realize O flies solo)…once he is out of the office he does not give a damn about the devasted democratic party he left in his shadows or Hillary…

    I dare say you will never see O come to the side of Hillary and/or Bill the way they saved his sorry butt during his last run for his second term…

    Hillary (and Bill) should be on notice to expect the opposite from O

  31. The Annie Lennox version of Screaming Jay Hawkins’ “I put a spell on you.” Annie Lennox sings the song from the point of view of an abused woman who takes control of her abuser. Wild.

    The video is from the Grammy Awards and follows Hozier’s current hit which is OK but nothing juxtaposed with Lennox’s emotional power interpretation.

  32. Woolsey is one of the few people in a high position who is looking out for the country.

    He is bi partisan in the best sense of the word.

    And he is sounding a warning on the power grid.

    At this point, it is not a problem.

    Oh, . . . why not?

    Because we are protected by the Big Media Beloved Messiah.

    He can leap tall buildings in a single bound.

    And, if necessary, he can slap down those incoming ICBMs

    With a deadly forehand and back hand–within the red lines.

    And he can out think his opponent based on his 124 IQ and Harvard degree.

    And he loves America with all his heart, his soul and his mind.

    According to big media.

    Thus, it is hard to explain why everything he touches turns to shit.

    Either big media is lying–

    Or, big media is lying.

    Yes, we can rely on them to speak truth to power.

    And to tell us that our skepticism is really veiled racism.

    If he says 1=1=3 that is good enough for them.

    But given the fact that saints like him do have an expiration date

    Woolsey should have the final word:

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/happening-now/index.html#/v/4097630242001

  33. alcina
    March 6, 2015 at 8:18 pm
    —————–
    I haven’t seen that music video of Carly Simon since 1988 on VH-1 when Working Girl came out. It inspired me back then to visit NYC from Boston just to ride on the Staten Island ferry and see the skyline of Manhattan from it. Thanks for posting that!

  34. Just got home from work, jumped on the blog, first thing checked out the tunes and cranked up Blondie. It put me in the Friday mood and noticing the pink background of the video, maybe it should be posted in the future every time a new Kook or GOP try to trap Hillary with the bs email scam?

    So far, I am half way though the Supreme’s link, it is a hoot. I know that when they try to use simplistic examples, like SodaMyAss did, they would have to duct tape my mouth closed, to refrain from being tossed out of court. She talks like everyone else is an idiot, so she has to give idiotic examples that don’t even come close to the issue.

  35. admin
    March 6, 2015 at 7:30 pm

    Agreed Admin, and also listening to how some break in, are condescending and have their minds locked on trying to save Berry’s butt on this healthCareScam, and egotistically try to still sound smarter than the rest of the planet, makes it a good comedy too. I almost expect some of them to start throwing their pb&j sandwiches at each other.

  36. talent of Screaming Jay Hawkins:

    That is a trip. It’s so weird yet you can stop watching.

    I thought it was Rev. Wright at first,

    then thought it was MO in drag…

    had to read the title to see who it was 😉

    Blarlaaabubula!

  37. Annie Lennox

    You still have it woman!!!!

    Awesome.

    ———-
    That Hozier guy has a sweet face, good voice…but someone has to wash that product out of his hair and shape his locks better. 😉

  38. Sure smells like an Obama hit job to me. They even had Dick Harpootlian going off on Hillary this week. Prebably see the 1984 big brother ad in 3…2…1….

    It was just a matter of time. The Dems are never going to nominate Clinton. They hate her.

  39. “Fabulous!” they called him—big media I mean. Hillary would be speaking and the camera would sweep away to wherever that cocksucker was reading from his teleprompter. Breathless big media whores would salt their panels with his operatives. No tough questions for him. Killer questions for his opponents. Bad fact—quick—bury it! Present that airbrushed image of the man who will save the world. The dirty work they all did for him—for this Trojan Horse, this latter day Joel McCarthy, this Muslim loving Barack Hussein Obama. Let us at least pray that he destroys big media before he implodes and before he can destroy the country. Because, with no bullshit, that is the glide path we are on. This was all predictable and it was predicted. But nobody would listen. Here is Richard Fernandez:

    “Barack Obama is a man on a mission. It’s No More Mr. Nice Guy. The Justice Department announced that it would bring corruption charges against Democratic senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, a man who while perhaps as richly deserving of the attentions of the law as anyone in Washington is also an outspoken opponent of the president’s Iran policy. “Menendez has been one of the top Democratic critics in Congress of the Obama administration’s negotiations and forthcoming deal with Iran over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions. Earlier this year, the New Jersey Democrat said the White House’s talking points on the Iran deal were “straight out of Tehran.”

    He’s ripping down the forest to get at the goal. The president’s thrusting attack comes at a time when doubts are growing about his ability to confront whoever you want to call the opponents. Politico reports that the president’s requests for a grant of military authority are running into trouble with both parties on the Hill. The objections to the authorization are of two kinds. Neither party can agree on what strategy it should authorize, nor is there any apparent confidence in the Leader of the Free World or willingness to give him a free hand.

    Key Democrats are hardening their opposition to President Barack Obama’s proposal for attacking Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, raising fresh doubts the White House can win congressional approval of the plan as concerns grow over its handling of crises around the globe.

    In interviews this week, not a single Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee expressed support for the president’s war plan as written; most demanded changes to limit the commander in chief’s authority and more explicitly prohibit sending troops into the conflict.

    That opposition puts the White House and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, in a quandary — stuck between Republican defense hawks who are pushing for a more robust U.S. role against the terrorist group known as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and liberals who fear a repeat of the Iraq war. …

    “He is asking us to do something that takes us nowhere,” Corker said of Obama. “Because from what I can tell, he cannot get one single Democratic vote from what he’s sent over. And he certainly wouldn’t get Democratic votes for something Republicans might be slightly more comfortable with. … It’s quite a dilemma.”

    Whatever one’s views of the president might be, America is like a giant lying paralyzed with a stroke. It can’t move its mighty limbs. It can’t speak to even name its foe. It can’t even decide what to do. It is wide open to its foes. And so it may remain not just until 2016, but for as long as the confusion and befuddlement lasts.

    An administration that came to office promising to unite the world under its glorious banner, bring all Americans together, abolish nuclear weapons and roll back the dark clouds of Global Warming contemplates a scene in ruins. Who is Robert Malley? Who is Barack Obama? What is the foreign policy of the United States?

    Confused? Ask Marie Harf for enlightenment.

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/03/06/payback/#ixzz3TfEOW1h9

  40. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), was a VERY poor choice for the job of Foreign Relations Committee chairman at a time of crisis. He is a whiner and he is owned by Wall Street and the Insurance industry. He is a big recipient of their largesse. And the man has no fire in his belly. Worse still, he is not a strategic thinker and when it comes to execution he has got no balls.

  41. Gee, wonder where all those Obama documents are? Maybe Hillary should ask to see Obama’s “missing” boxes that would bring light to his relationship with Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

  42. hwc
    March 6, 2015 at 9:55 pm

    Sure smells like an Obama hit job to me.

    They even had Dick Harpootlian going off on Hillary this week.

    Prebably see the 1984 big brother ad in 3…2…1….

    It was just a matter of time. The Dems are never going to nominate Clinton. They hate her.

    ————-
    Well, I suppose that is one way to look at it.

    The other possibility is that what you are hearing now is the death rattle of the left.

    Their bark is disproportionate to their bite.

    As for Harpootian–a proven racist, there ain’t nothing wrong with him that Jack Kavorkian couldn’t cure, with finality.

  43. hwc: also, keep in mind Cook’s point from the article above posted by Admin:

    “The last few days have underscored just how tenuous the Left’s grip on power and influence truly is in the waning days of the once-buoyant Obama era.”

    The sound you are hearing now, barely audible over the histrionics over a non-issue, is the sound of power slip sliding away.

  44. I see where Harpoolian is a “Biden backer”.

    Racist.

    Biden backer.

    He is floridly delusional.

    I don’t think we need to waste any more time on him.

  45. admin
    March 6, 2015 at 10:10 pm

    ——–
    Cudos to Lanny.

    An excellent performance–by a seasoned crisis manager.

    Lesson: when your opponent frames the question with false facts, in order to put you on the defensive and gain partisan advantage, then you MUST call them on it. The proper response is: I disagree with your question, drill down on the error once twice three times and throw them on the defensive. Just like Lanny did.

  46. Ann Althouse cites Rush Limbaugh on Hillary:

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2015/03/i-am-genuinely-intrigued-at-what.html

    “That’s her e-mail address at clintonemail.com, HDR, Hillary Diane Rodham. No mention, no relationship, no mention whatsoever of her husband, Bill…. At any rate, it’s stunning, the New York Times, the Associated Press, the New Republic, Politico, it is unprecedented,” said Rush Limbaugh, at the beginning of yesterday’s show.

    Now, one of the things that it could possibly mean… is they don’t want her to begin with. They resent her being forced on them. They resent the idea that the presidency is hers again, just like it was in 2008, just because…. What we’re looking at here, ladies and gentlemen, is an actual War on a Woman…

    Let’s try to keep in perspective what has happened here, and going back some years. First, they used a young, inexperienced, community organizing, chain-smoking man of color to kick Hillary to the curb in 2008. In 2008 it was a coronation, remember? In 2008 it was going to be hers to lose. In 2008 it was the Democrat Party paying her back for all she had done, subordinating herself to her husband, subordinating herself to the party in order to maintain her husband and his political viability and keep him in office….

    We’re talking 2016, the next Democrat president… In the normal ebb and flow of events… [t]he media would be trying to sweep all of this stuff under the rug…. Just because her husband spent countless hours with a playboy pedophile flying all over the world, what difference does that make now? Just because Hillary ruined innocent women’s lives to protect her husband who sexually assaulted those women, what difference does that make now?…

    Big Media protected Obama. As we have argued, Hillary will not get her pillows fluffed.

  47. …as far as msnbc goes…just like back in 2007/2008…they start attacking Hillary in the first early morning show and just keep up the drumbeat all the day long…

    the leader of the morning pack is Mika Brezenski…she really hates the Clintons…she is squarely against N and thought his coming to speak was appalling…so smug…she is her father’s daughter in more ways than one…

    she is also vying for number # 1 butt kisser of O…it is nauseating…

    it has been reported that msnbc is said to be changing their hard left style because ratings are so, so, so bad…but they have all gotten the word and green light to coordinate and go after Hillary and reduce her to distrustful, entitled, a law breaker, “rusty”, out of touch, bla, bla, bla…

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

    Bill and Chelsea are in Coral Gables tonight…Donna Shalala is going to become the new CEO of the Clinton foundation…

    she introduced Bill…he looks good…healthier…Chelsea spoke and they introduced students who have come up with some innovative ideas…

    Hillary will be here speaking tomorrow…and meeting with people

  48. admin
    March 6, 2015 at 10:11 pm

    Gee, wonder where all those Obama documents are? Maybe Hillary should ask to see Obama’s “missing” boxes that would bring light to his relationship with Antoin “Tony” Rezko.
    ——–

    I just want to go and punch that MSNBC woman in the nose for being such a stupid Obot. Jeeze.

    While everyone is being so dang transparent, roll out Obama’s birth certificate, his school records and his history.

    It’s okay for him to have been born the day he became a trick pony for Uncle Teddy and the Kook side of the party, but Hillary has to let them examine her underwear drawer and Featherhead gets away with lying about her frickin’ race and gets carried around like the Queen of Sheeba.

    Glad I haven’t been able to stomach MSNBC since Oberhoser started screaming about Hillary in 2007.

    MSNBC is a Kook tv station.

  49. Ann Althouse

    Back to bringing up the blowjob and Hillary’s eternal disgrace because of it.

    I have to stop reading about these aholes, it’s ruining my Happy Friday mood. 😉

  50. First, they used a young, inexperienced, community organizing, chain-smoking man of color to kick Hillary to the curb in 2008. In 2008 it was a coronation, remember? In 2008 it was going to be hers to lose. In 2008 it was the Democrat Party paying her back for all she had done, subordinating herself to her husband, subordinating herself to the party in order to maintain her husband and his political viability and keep him in office….
    ———-
    For that they should be hung from the neck until dead.

    The animus against republicans is understandable. The crave big government. Big government means trillions of dollars earned by hard working Americans sucked into the vortex of Washington so bureaucrats can make half million dollar per year salaries. You should see for yourselves the mansions these people live in at your expense. I mean it. It would turn your stomach. Ditto with all the hangers on–the lobbyists, the trade association types, the staffers, the think tanks, the law firms, the whole fucking lot of them for who big media is the mouth piece. Not for nothing did that goofball Tom Brokaw call Washington and its environs the New Versaille. Just to give you an idea of how bad it is Washington lawyers charge twice as much as their counterparts in other parts of the country. And they all have this to the manor borne attitude. That is the base of the new democrat party. They are not of the people by the people and for the people. On the contrary they are all about themselves. That light bringer Gruber Peas gave us a good look at who these people are.

    But their animus toward Hillary is a different matter. They hate her because she thwarted their determined efforts to bring down Bill Clinton, whom they never really liked in the first place, because was not an elitist like they were. Sally Quinn is the gatekeeper for these elites. Mind you, I do believe that final authority must end somewhere, therefore I do not object to the idea of a ruling class, to represent the people. But the ruling class we have today hates America, has not faith in western values, is self indulgent to a fault, and has failed in its essential mission to promote the general welfare. And big media is their mouthpiece.

  51. The more I think about it, the more I realize that apart from power and money these people stand for nothing.

    Essentially, they are nihilists.

    They are the architects of national decline.

    It is a damned tragedy, because there are so many good people who have risked their lives for this nation.

    But not the elites. They are what a mathematician would call the null set.

  52. Once upon a time, Keynes was asked whether he was being inconsistent.

    He replied, not at all. Change the facts I change may answers. What do you do?

    The elites in this country refuse to change their answers.

    They are bound by the politically correct narrative and cannot deviate.

    Even in response to conflicting evidence.

    They have no grasp of reality.

    They prefer the rosier lights of their irrelevant narrative.

    If you want to know why we are losing the battle against ISIS, therein lies your answer.

    This problem is not unique to this country. It besets Western Europe as well.

  53. Now, one of the things that it could possibly mean… is they don’t want her to begin with. They resent her being forced on them. They resent the idea that the presidency is hers again, just like it was in 2008, just because…. What we’re looking at here, ladies and gentlemen, is an actual War on a Woman…
    ————
    That is very true. Very.

    The New York Chapter of NOW kept a list of all the sexist things which MSNBC in general and that scumbag Matthews said about Hillary. There were hundreds of vile statements–hundreds— a concerted effort by NBC to poison the well.

  54. Mark Levin has important things to say. In addition to this post’s intricate analysis above, there is fare which should be shouted from the hilltops, for the simple [I include myself] can assimilate it:

    …“This is an Obama scandal,” Levin said of the firestorm over Clinton’s use of a private e-mail. Levin cited former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s use of an email under the the pseudonym “Richard Windsor” and former Deputy EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe’s use of private email during his time at the EPA, and Justice Department stonewalling of public records requests.
    Levin continued, “This is an Obama scandal, Hillary, yes, no question. But it is an Obama administration scandal, it is happening in department after department and agency after agency, and the entire purpose is to prevent us, the American people, from finding out what’s going on in our own government.
    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/03/05/levin-hillarys-e-mails-are-an-obama-scandal/

  55. I just want to go and punch that MSNBC woman in the nose for being such a stupid Obot. Jeeze.

    While everyone is being so dang transparent, roll out Obama’s birth certificate, his school records and his history.

    It’s okay for him to have been born the day he became a trick pony for Uncle Teddy and the Kook side of the party, but Hillary has to let them examine her underwear drawer and Featherhead gets away with lying about her frickin’ race and gets carried around like the Queen of Sheeba.

    Glad I haven’t been able to stomach MSNBC since Oberhoser started screaming about Hillary in 2007.

    MSNBC is a Kook tv station.
    _______

    Amen!

    It’s pretty amazing that Rush and Levin, both of whom on any given day, would walk 10 miles in a snow storm to get to a mic from which they could slam Hillary. Of course conservative media took her side in the MSM/Obama war against her in 2008 – primarily to boost their own ratings. They were soon right back on the Slam Hillary or Die Trying band wagon.

    Possibly, they do recognize the injustice of this and have no ulterior motive. If so, props to them.

    MSNBC thinks they are doing their part to stop Hillary from becoming the nominee. I’m sure all 13 of the people who actually watch them already are safely in One Drop’s camp to begin with.

    Admin, Lanny said the the emails would be available for examination by the State Dept., Gowdy, McCain, etc. Given the antipathy toward Hillary by many of O’s people in the WH and State Dept. is it not possible, likely even, that this leaves Hillary even more vulnerable to sabotage by that bunch of cretins?

  56. Because big media has an agenda favorable to the elites, but adverse to the American People, no politician should feel any obligation to respond to their questions. Let them speculate on things, and then cut them off at the knees, pointing out their errors, their agenda, and reminding the world of their main man ly’n Brian. When they pulled their usual crap on Reagan, what did he do? He would laugh, look down, shake his head, and then look them in the eye and say there you go again. He was more of a gentleman than I would be with them. But today, the best way to deal with those ravenous hyenas is the give them a Robin Williams salute: fuck off.

  57. Lawmakers, Obama, civil rights leaders to honor Selma’s ‘Bloody Sunday’ this weekend
    By Renee Schoof and William Douglas
    McClatchy Washington BureauMarch 5, 2015
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/03/05/258821/lawmakers-obama-civil-rights-leaders.html
    Obama’s giving a speech of course. W’s going to be there. The McClatchy article is fairly comprehensive.

    PIX11 also came up in the search. Did not have much to say, but it may be significant that it affirms Michelle will also be there.

  58. This guy Dagan was in the Israeli Times this morning alleging that Bibi has misled congress on the current state of Iranian bomb development, and even though they shout death to Israel, and profess great admiration for Hitler, they are a very rational regime. Hence, it would be madness, he says, for Israel to pursue military action while non military options are still possible. Options like allowing them to continue to build the bomb, and sending in UN inspectors to try to find it, like one big Easter Egg hunt. This guy served in Bibi’s Adminstration as head of Mossad but was later replaced much to his disdain.

    The reason I bring this up is because CBS, whose president is the brother of Obama’s deputy national security adviser will be pushing this guy to counter Bibi, while Obama’s minions are over in Israel trying to rig that election. They have given him one interview already on 60 Minutes. What I am saying is be wary of this guy Dagan. He has an axe to grind with Bibi. And be very wary of what CBS does to undercut Bibi’s position on Iran. CBS is not objective. Their coverage is tainted, by bias, motive and interest, and should be categorically rejected for that reason, by any thinking person.

  59. As long as big media has degenerated into the role of advocate, it makes no sense to simply resist the positions they take on the merits. That is a losing battle, because they have the microphone and the American People, frankly, do not. The better approach is to attack them as well as their position. In other words, if they wish to be an advocate, then they should be prepared to the ad hominum attack against them. Wherever possible, we should dismiss their reporting on any issue, if there is any possible hint of bias, motive or self interest. And we must not let anyone forget all the lies they have told about Obama up to this point, and the conflict of interest which permeate their organizations, which render it impossible for them to report objectively. They are interested in two things only: protected their predetermined narrative and enhancing their money and power. Truth, service to the nation and journalistic integrity are not part of their equation. How different from how it was 50 years ago. Before you dismiss what I say, read Sharyl’s book Stonewalled, and see for yourself how these miscreants operate, behind the silver screen.

  60. Given the importance of primacy and recency, the first thing anyone should do when responding to big media is to point out their bias. This can be done in a friendly manner–as Reagan did, in a clinical manner, or in a counter attack manner. Whatever the method, whatever the means it must be done. Every time this is done, it throws their robots off track, short circuits their predetermined narrative. Gingrich did it brilliantly against John King of CNN and Sununu did it brilliantly against Andrea Mitchell. Yes, I am here to explain my position. But no, I will not play your game. I will not respond to your loaded questions. I will turn them back on you. And I will go on only when you throw away your gotcha script and assume an objective posture–if you are capable of this. Nearly 50 years ago, Admiral Richover, the testy father of our nuclear program, gave them exactly what they deserved. He told them they were not what they pretended to be–meaning objective reporters, but merely soap and deoderant salesmen, and then he told them this interview is cancelled. It is in the national interest that all sides push back against the efforts by big media to control–and determine our election process.

  61. National Geographic has a cover story lamenting the fact that scientific conclusions on such issues as global warming are no longer accepted ex cathedra (as holy writ) like they once were and they go on to suggest that otherwise reasonable people now reject reason itself.

    Much of this has to do with what Richard Rodriguez wrote about and I posted here. The politically correct narrative promoted by the elites, begets counter narratives by those who do not wish to surrender to the elites, until suddenly the facts no longer matter. You see this in spades in the legislature, where they cannot agree on solutions to real problems, but are willing to do honorariums to Selma, to honor that light weight Lewis. In other words, they never get to the facts.

    Second, the integrity of science depends on fair testing procedures and fair interpretation. In controversial areas, like climate change, where trillions of dollar and national security are in play, the tendency to cheat becomes obvious. And when you find a miscreant like Soros mixed up in it, you know it will not end well for most people.

    For these reasons, I do not think it is at all unreasonable for reasonable people to be skeptical of science. For science can become just another religion, and can lead to places no reasonable person wishes to go.

  62. Now would be a nice time to check in on Ly’n Brian and see how he is doing.

    We could pass along glad tidings from his many admirers at NBC.

    We all look forward to that belle di when he is back in the saddle

    Peddling the lies given to him by his script writers.

    But he will need a new persona to lure back the superficial people who waste their time viewing his network.

    He could shave his head, streak across the set naked, something, or scream Allah Akbar before Letterman does.

    Something. He needs something so his viewers can get comfortable and realize just how much his Joe Friday demeanor is missed.

    It could be like the closing scene in the western classic Shane: shane, come back, we love you etc. Only the name is Brian.

  63. Obama’s late to Selma – exploding hotdog cart. Really.

    White House lockdown lifted, Obama leaves
    A security lockdown at the White House triggered by a loud bang just as President Barack Obama was due to leave was caused by a food vendor cart catching fire on a nearby street, the Secret Service said on Saturday.
    The security alert happened just moments before Obama and his family had been due to board a helicopter from the presidential mansion’s South Lawn for Andrews Air Force Base.
    Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary said the fire had now been contained and that a vehicle near the White House was being investigated after a bomb-sniffing dog detected something on it.
    Obama and his family left the White House by motorcade instead of helicopter an hour later and boarded Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base.
    The Obamas are traveling to Selma, Alabama, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of a civil rights march….
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/white-house-lockdown-lifted-obama-leaves/

  64. way OT…

    Season 3 Premiere Announcement…

    Bates Motel…this Monday, March 9 9 PM on A&E

    it’s the characters…Norma and her two sons, young Norman and his brother, Dylan… and the rest…

    a little background review…doesn’t do the actors/characters justice…Vera, Freddie and Max are intriguing and draw you in…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/07/arts/television/bates-motel-grows-in-character-and-creepiness-in-season-3.html?hpw&rref=television&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

  65. Drudge is licking the bottom of the barrel now, his new headline to slime Hillary is about a painting of Bill with a effin’ shadow.

    Drudge is gone all batshit on Hillary, even more so than normal.

  66. S, there is another family living in a motel. You can view them on the “POP” cable channel (yes, we never heard of that channel before either). The show is “Shitt’s Creek”. It’s about a video chain store owner whose money is confiscated by the IRS so he has to live in a motel in a town he bought when he was rich called “Shitt’s Creek”.

    The star is Eugene Levy but the real star is his wife (played by the funny Catherine O’Hara) a former soap opera star who has seen better days. They have two kids who live with them in the small hotel suite they occupy. Chris Elliot plays the mayor of the town to round off the talented cast. It’s not much of a show but the two old pros are very funny. We watch for O’Hara’s great performance as a ditzy self-absorbed wife and the mismatch of her former life to her new circumstances.

    http://www.metacritic.com/tv/schitts-creek

    Also in our vain attempt to fill in the time slot formerly occupied by American Horror Story we watched the first episode of “Dig“. It’s very predictable and we fear we guessed everything that is going to happen in the series after we watched the first show. The guy who played Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter movies is the star. He plays an FBI agent in Jerusalem. We’ll probably keep watching for one reason only: Jerusalem. Beautiful city nicely captured by this show. Now we want to go to Jerusalem (with a fabulous wardrobe in tow).

  67. http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/06/heres-what-the-unemployment-rate-looks-like-if-you-add-back-labor-force-dropouts/

    Here’s What The Unemployment Rate Looks Like If You Add Back Labor Force Dropouts

    The Department of Labor announced today that the official unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent last month, the lowest it’s been since Spring of 2008. Good news, right? Well, kind of. The official unemployment rate masks a problem that’s been plaguing the economy since shortly before the 2009 recession: a continuing decline in the labor force participation rate, which basically measures the percentage of the able-bodied population that’s either working or looking for work. After holding steady at roughly 66 percent from 2004 through late 2008, the labor force participation has been falling, and falling, and falling some more, with no end in sight.

    This decline has significant effects on the official unemployment rate. People who are unemployed and eventually stop looking for work are no longer counted as being part of the labor force, which means they’re no longer counted by U.S. statistical agencies as being unemployed (you can read in detail about the math underlying this dynamic here). The result? An artificially low official unemployment rate.

    So what does the unemployment rate picture look like if you take into account all of the labor force droputs since the end of the recession in June of 2009? Not pretty. If you take those labor force dropouts into account, the U.S. does not have an unemployment rate of 5.5 percent. Instead, it has a likely unemployment rate of 9.6 percent, and that’s hardly good news.

  68. admin, thanks for the tip…I have never heard of Pop TV either…however I found it on my lineup and I will check it out

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

    last night I watched the 1971 version of ‘Fiddler on the Roof’ and have seen it so many times and love that film…

    the thing that struck me is that here we are in 2015 and the script is rewriting itself again in the 21st century…

    I will never understand the cruelty and evil that exists in humanity

    there is a story and photos on the daily mail website “Welcome to Hell’ of what ISIS has done to Syrian soldiers…these people are not even human…they are animals with no hearts at all…brutal, deranged and ruthless

  69. (7) Why did Hillary set up a private server and private email service for herself? …. to keep Obama’s nose out of her business.

    wbboei March 6, 2015 at 4:11 pm

    It is that. But it is more than that as well.

    No, it’s not more than that: admin has said it all.

    All the things you say about the secrecy of foreign policy matters are true: I can confirm that from direct experience.

    However, the State Department is aware of its own confidentiality requirements and has adequate traditional and modern methods for protecting diplomatic secrecy. Wikileaks is a failure of the past for the State Dept and for Hillary Clinton. As Secy of State, she had no need to protect her communications from foreign bureaucrats and certainly not from anyone in the US intelligence services.

    She did have to have her own private line, though, over which her own boss would not have oversight. That is clear from cover to cover in Ames & Parnell’s book HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton.

    So, it is also clear that Obama was the one who found this private line to be “scandalous”. This is why he released it.

    It might have been better for him, if he wanted to destroy the HRC candidacy, to release the story at a later time. But just in advance of Bibi’s speech and the ObamaCare spectacle was pretty good timing too. Things are going badly for Obama. He doesn’t have much ammunition left to defend his legacy from its imminent takeover by a competent President.

  70. Just catching up on a week of truly great H44 articles after being distracted by many other matters of interest.

    In the last article on ObamaCare, I find the following:

    “… a great idea is just an idea if you can’t execute. And the government has proven time and time again, it can’t execute.”

    {to which admin adds:}

    “… the law as written and as intended to be written was and is a complete and total mess that can never work.”

    {then:}

    “The big contortion of the elves was to essentially try to rewrite the law at the morgue of compassion and logic – the IRS. The elves discovered the ObamaCare screws were not an inclined plane wrapped helically around an axis but rather large square “screws” attempting to fit tiny triangular “nuts”. The contraption was designed so badly that it would not work no matter what they did so they continued to change and rebuild until little recognizable was left of the original design.”

    “the morgue of compassion and logic”?? I LMAOed for minutes when I read that! How apt, insightful, true, and funny! And the “square screws” with “triangular nuts”? admin was on a roll !!

    As expressed in its 2500 pages, I now agree that the PPACA has at least one aspect that is unconstitutional. This aspect is not the individual mandate — that issue has already been decided. What is currently under fire is the wording attacked in the Halbig case, which shows that, no matter how you address the matter, the PPACA is unconstitutional.

    I’ve understood that much, then. But what I don’t understand, is why this matter can’t be settled and the PPACA saved by changing the language —

    “enrolled in an Exchange established by the State”

    — to read simply:

    “enrolled in an Exchange.”

    In other words, just delete four words and the question is no longer.

  71. Another thing comes to mind when I read:

    “a great idea is just an idea if you can’t execute. And the government has proven time and time again, it can’t execute”

    This clearly indicates that the author thinks there are other things that the government can’t execute.

    I agree: One such thing is the immigration law. The present law is not executed, because it is unenforceable. Even the new law no sitting under Boner’s elbow will be unenforceable, and thus not executed.

    Other countries have ways to enforce their immigration laws, and do so. We don’t have the same laws in the US and can’t enforce the immigration law in the same way as other countries.

    But given the differences, is it really impossible to enforce the existing law?

    I see one way to enforce immigration law without the deferred action that the DHS is contemplating. This way is to have the IRS and immigration service work hand in hand to:

    (1) locate undocumented aliens at their place of work by asking employers for the social security numbers and social security contributions of their employees, coupled with inspection of the workplace to check the list of employees against who is actually working there;
    (2) arrest any persons who have no social security number;
    (3) bring them in for interrogation/identification;
    (4) bring their employers with them;
    (5) register the aliens;
    (6) determine how much they owe in back taxes;
    (7) propose payment of back taxes and delivery of temporary working papers for the future, versus immediate deportation on their own nickel. Any back taxes they don’t pay in this latter case would be kept in a special register at the IRS, immigration service and State Department.
    (8) fine the employer for conspiring to break federal law.

    The above procedure is legal in the US. It was used to put Al Capone in prison. The FBI never got Capone, but the IRS did.

    So the IRS and Immigration Service can solve this problem. It might take ten years, but there would be no more undocumented aliens in the US. Half of today’s undocumented aliens would be deported and the rest would become documented aliens paying taxes, perhaps only temporarily.

    Also, the above procedure is not my brainchild. It was a proposal I read about in the 1990s (don’t remember where).

    There was/is a problem with it, though: The employers pay taxes, kickbacks and political contributions. So, who in the political class is going to check their books, examine their employees, pull them in for interrogation and fine them? Certainly no Republican politician!!

    So, the Republicans can squeal all they want about Obama or any other Democrat enforcing the existing immigration law. They’ve had their chance for quite a few years, dating from Nixon. Dubya said they were part of American life.

  72. Happy to see Bill explain the CGI. 🙂

    _______________

    The former president defended the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation for its acceptance of millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments, including during his wife’s State Department tenure.

    “I believe they do a lot more good than harm,” he said, acknowledging donations from other countries, including some in the Middle East.

    Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article12960368.html#storylink=cpy

  73. Foxy,

    The bottom line is that the Clinton Foundation does massive good works around the world. Bill works with human good will capital. That is who the Clintons are. The greedy elites of today would well take a good lesson in values from them. There is not enough money in the world to fill their empty souls. That is why they can never get enough.

  74. gonzotx
    March 8, 2015 at 3:30 am
    —–
    I remember them picketing outside the offices of NBC/MSNBC in New York city which resulted in Matthews issuing a non apology apology, while the national organization sat there mute through the entire affair. They are living proof of an organization more interested in power than in the vindication of their professed principles. If they ended up supporting the no good son of a bitch in the White House, in response to the will of their national organization, it would not surprise me. If so, then I am in error.

  75. One of the “things of interest” I did this week was to see American Sniper. From the trailer, I was expecting a truly great film about a war hero. I came away disappointed and bewildered.

    I was and am sure that Eastwood wanted everyone to view Chris Kyle as a fallen American hero who spent his life in defense of his country and countrymen, and was felled by a man whom he was trying to help. That was what was so bewildering about the movie: I couldn’t believe such a man could be taken as a hero.

    The most sympathy I could muster for Chris Kyle’s fate was that he was a man misled by a stupid father, but was not smart enough himself to see how stupid his father had been; he then went off and killed a lot of people thinking he was defending victims from harassment by villainous aggressors, and was finally killed without ever realizing how wrong he had been all along. = A poor sap.

    There was only one pang of conscience that he felt. It was visible in the movie trailer and what attracted me to the film: It was when he had second thoughts about killing a little boy. As I watched the trailer, I thought that must be the moment when he began to repent and relent and would begin on a path of atonement.

    But no, that little-boy incident occurred right at the outset of the movie: He killed the boy, and then his mother, and then wrote the event off as “I didn’t think my first one would be like that.” There was another sequence like the first later in the movie, when a boy picked up a rocket launcher and Kyle whispers “Put it down, put it down” and exhales relief when the boy does so.

    So, he did have a conscience of sorts: Maybe he didn’t like the idea of killing little boys? I saw that women were OK targets for him, certainly adult men were too; but what about little girls? That question went unanswered, unless it was during the few minutes I took to go to the bathroom. When I came back from the bathroom, my soul-mate was asleep: the film bored her because it was just killing after killing and we both had enough of that about a half-hour into the film.

    The killing went on and on, though, and we stuck it out so we could find out what the point of the whole movie was.

    Now, please understand that neither of us is a pacifist. My soul-mate is more hawkish than I; but even I will admit the utility of warfare under certain circumstances, and the “necessity” to kill; and I was ready to admire the skill and usefulness of a sharpshooter like Kyle.

    But therein lies the first rub: There was another sniper called “Mustapha” in the movie, who was just as sharp of eye, and also the strong, silent athletic type like Kyle; and both my soul-mate and I admired him even more than Kyle. We were both saddened when he got killed, but not when Kyle was killed, because Mustapha was fighting on the right side, whereas Kyle was on the wrong side of the conflict.

    That is, Kyle was defending the Marines, while the Marines were invading a country that was neither theirs nor Kyle’s. The Marines were thus not the victims, no less sheep (human type 1 according to the stupid father), and were only the potential victims of untrained people who were defending their own country. The people wanted the Marines to leave, the Marines wouldn’t do so, so the people were fighting them. That, in my book, is a good reason to take up arms and go to war against the Marines, if you’re an Iraqi.

    As such, Kyle resembles much more the German war “hero” in Inglorious Basterds, who was a successful sniper who supposedly killed hundreds of Americans from a tower in an Italian city. The only difference in Inglorious Basterds is that the audience is expected to sympathize with the fallen Americans, and not the sniper, because nobody (including me) is ever going to admit that anybody working for Hitler was a really good guy. (The movie-within-the-movie was called “Nation’s Pride”, the “Nation” being Germany).

    With American Sniper, that is exactly what Eastwood wants his audience to believe: That Kyle was a good man doing the right thing. But the movie will have an opposite effect depending on the audience that watches it. Indeed, as my soulmate claimed after the movie, “Any Arab who sees that film is going to want to enroll in ISIS.” She was right, in my opinion.

    So, why do I say Mr. Kyle (father) was the guilty party? Because he didn’t know how to count. He was stupid, and he imposed his stupidity on his sons.

    That stupidity hit me right off the bat when I heard him say, “There are three types of people in the world.” That was an arresting statement to say the least. Without even waiting to know what the three types of people were in his wee mind, I said to myself, “The man doesn’t know how to count. You can never start with three types; and above all, you can never end with three either. You always have to start with 2, then 4, 8, 16, 32 and so on.”

    The three types he conceived were (1) Victims = Sheep; (2) Aggressors = Wolves; (3) Defenders = German Shepherds. Mr. Kyle wanted both his boys to be German Shepherds. Chris turned out to be the more successful German Shepherd of the two boys; but he was never anything more than a German Shepherd, and German Shepherds are not known for their pangs of conscience — ipso facto, the whole movie from beginning to end.

    Had he known how to count, Mr. Kyle would have started with (1) Victims and (2) Aggressors, and then subdivided into something like:

    (1A) Victims who like being punished = Masochists;
    (1B) Victims who don’t like punishment = Normal people;
    (2A) Aggressors who like punishing people = Sadists;
    (2B) Aggressors who want to redress undue punishment = Policemen.

    The above is pretty simplistic; but it’s already a sight better starting with four types than with three, because with four, you already have more logical possibilities, and then you can also continue your divisions/multiplications by the same process to get 8, 16, 32 types and so on, eventually reaching the conclusion that there are at least as many possible types of people on earth as there are people, i.e., that everyone is different.

    But even short of such a “philosophical” conclusion, Mr. Kyle could have told his boys he wanted them to be 2B types = Policemen. Then Chris and his brother could have spent their lives defending 1B types = Normal people and their fellow 2B type Policemen against 2A type sadistic Villains, and leave the 1A type Masochists to their own devices.

    If Chris Kyle had followed the Policeman path instead of the German Shepherd path, he may well have trained to be a sniper and would still have had my blessing; but he would never have gone to Iraq to shoot 1B Normal people trying to be 2B Policemen defending themselves against the unjust invasion by the 2A Sadistic Americans. He may even have gone as far as to join forces with his fellow 2B type, “Mustapha”.

    I have a friend who joined the army gung-ho for an experience in Iraq, to defend the American way of life. He came back with an ankle injury and permanent handicap, and sad stories of his buddies gunned down by the likes of Mustapha. He told me, “I’ve changed since then. I should never have gone there.” He’s still alive.

    Chris Kyle never changed, though, and was killed by a 2B Policeman type that he took for a 1B Normal victim or a 1B Masochist. It was bound to happen with his (3) German Shepherd mindscape.

  76. jeswezey
    March 8, 2015 at 8:55 am
    (7) Why did Hillary set up a private server and private email service for herself? …. to keep Obama’s nose out of her business.
    wbboei March 6, 2015 at 4:11 pm

    It is that. But it is more than that as well.

    No, it’s not more than that: admin has said it all.
    ———
    You are amazing. Really.

    You do not know her personally—do you?

    She has not discussed her motives with you—has she?

    And you are aware that many other people in this administration have been doing the same thing?

    Yet you alone know what her motives were–and what they were not.

    How does one acquire such insight?

    Astrology, tea leaves, tarot, palmistry, I would like very much to know.

    Right after you have given me your response to the Sowell videos, which is now 30 days in arrears.

    Admin is right that her motive is to keep Obama out of her foreign policy.

    I am sure that is true.

    His minions, i.e. Rice the liar, Power the Israel hater, and the two big Irishmen who are always leaking information to a certain reporter at NYT as proven by Pat Caddell want access to it, and would use it for purposes contrary to those of the nation.

    But you are naive as hell if you believe that is not a political motive here as well, knowing how many people have their knives out for her and knowing that she wants to be president. You discount that possibility altogether with your insistence on sole motive.

    If you care to react to something why not focus on the moral and intellectual depravity of big media.

    These are the people who whine that this administration is the least transparent in history, yet they sit there and let him tell them that he is personally transparent, ignore the fact that every time he opens his mouth within a day he he has contradicted himself, discount the fact that he is setting the stage for WWIII in his deal with Iran, flooding the nation with illegals, that many of his people do business of state through private email servers, and that his relationship with Soros and others warrants close scrutiny.

    Against that backdrop, who in their right mind gives a flying fuck about emails? Except for the morally debased big media.

    In sum, don’t waste your arguments on me. Turn them on a strategic target big media–because as things now stand, as they go, so will the 2016 election.

  77. The other thing big media should do is ask that fucking prick why he wears the American flag on his lapel when the told us previously he felt no obligation to do so, and insisted on that Martian symbol of his campaign on his placard, airplane and everything else, courtesy of George Soros. That is false advertising and he should be called on it.

  78. He is so fucking warped that he ignores Lexington, Concord, Valley Forge, Shilo, Bella Woods, Iwo Jima, et.al. and focused instead a minor skirmish in Selma where Lewis got struck and has never been the same since? That is one more attempt to polarize this nation along racial lines, and to distract attention from the key issue de jour–what he is doing–in secret–with Iran—to glorify himself and to fuck the rest of us. Big media should be reporting that as well.

  79. If anyone deserves the vaudeville hook it is big media.

    They are a very bad act.

    They undermine our democracy.

  80. Yesterday, I mentioned this guy Dagan, and the fact that Obama is working to rig the Israeli elections, and today I see there was a massive anti-Bibi rally in Tel Aviv by what is being called “Obama’s Army”. Dagan’s motives are suspect, none of these people lived through the Holocaust, and now we see another reason why Obama was so opposed to Bibi coming to Congress, as if we did not already know. It is a shame that people like this, who urge unilateral disarmament do not qualify for the Darwin award and are the only casualties of a future war caused by their stupidity.
    ———–

    A crowd estimated at 40,000 filled Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square this weekend in what is being called an “anti-Netanyahu” rally ahead of the elections scheduled for March 17. Former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan keynoted the rally calling Netanyahu, ”the person who has caused the greatest strategic damage to Israel.” The rally was reportedly organized by the Million Hands grassroots campaign “along with other social movements.” The Millions Hands organization “campaigns for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and the creation of a Palestinian state.”

    Twitter reaction to the rally was mixed with several users referring to the organizers of the rally as the “Obama Army”:

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/03/08/video-tens-of-thousands-attend-anybody-but-bibi-rally-in-tel-aviv/#ixzz3ToUTkCyz

  81. are the only casualties of a future war caused by their stupidity.
    ———-
    Correction: their cloud cuckoo land world view, which IS stupidity–of the most dangerous kind.

  82. (7) Why did Hillary set up a private server and private email service for herself? …. to keep Obama’s nose out of her business.


    It is that. But it is more than that as well.

    No, it’s not more than that: admin has said it all.

    wbboei March 6, 2015 at 4:11 pm

    (1) You do not know her personally—do you?

    (2) She has not discussed her motives with you—has she?

    (3) And you are aware that many other people in this administration have been doing the same thing?

    (4) Yet you alone know what her motives were–and what they were not.

    (5) How does one acquire such insight?

    (6) You are amazing. Really.

    Starting in reverse order, (6) you will see that it’s not so amazing as all that, and that (5) I acquire insight by no less sure a path than admin does, which is (a) by personal experience, (b) listening to and digesting what I hear and read, and (c) thinking it over, before (d) expressing myself. I’m not sure you take the trouble to do all that.

    (4) I am not alone in claiming to know what HRC’s motives were. If you read today’s article and my blog post, you will note that I am simply agreeing with admin, who expressed the ideas before me.

    (3) Yes, I am aware that other people in this administration have been doing the same thing, and I surmise this is either (a) for exactly the same reason, or (b) for the opposite reason, i.e. they are acting on Obola’s command or in his interest and don’t want anyone to know about it. But I don’t know anything about these other people or their motives, because in fact I don’t care much about them.

    (2) I am not at liberty to say if HRC has discussed anything at all with me directly. However, I can say that I have followed her actions and speech steadily as they are reported in the press, as reported on the State Department website during her tenure, and several books about her and written by her. I have also followed WJC with the same level of interest.

    For example, even if I never discussed HRC’s economic agenda with her directly, or with WJC, I was able to post five lengthy documents here at H44 on February 3, depicting not only the reasons for her economic-related statements but also describing an economic agenda that she will certainly adopt during her upcoming campaign. Those five documents contained about 15,000 words of theory and policy, all of which I can confidently state are practically the very words of Hillary Clinton, again, whether or not I discussed anything at all directly with her.

    (1) I am not at liberty to say if I know HRC, or whom I know in relation to her, even if that person is just a member of Team Hillary or CGI or whatever. However, I am at liberty to discuss what I know about her from her public statements and her tenure at State or in the Senate.

    On this last question: You don’t ask me why I should know any more about her activities, motives and options than any other Joe Schmoe.

    I do have an awareness of the Secretary of State’s powers and constraints for having studied them in graduate school, where four of the professors were high-caliber State Department employees.

    I was studying at the time with the hope of entering the Foreign Service. I never did enter the Foreign Service; but I had the privilege of later serving as contractor to the American intelligence community — and, believe me, the intelligence community has a special treatment for people who abuse their confidence. So, I know something about how state secrets are protected.

    I repeat that the State Department also knows something about how state secrets are kept secret; and that, barring the Wikileaks scandal (in which HRC’s official emails were not leaked), the State Department has everything under control as concerns diplomatic papers.

    So there was absolutely no reason for her to protect her emails against anyone but the one person who had a legal right to see them, which was her boss, President Barack H. Obola.

    As things stand now, she wants the public to see those emails. She doesn’t care any more about Obola: he’s not her boss any more. To answer Greta Van Susteren’s question, the Special Committee probably asked the State Department for the emails, and not her. She then turned them over to State, the State Department has impounded them and it is up to State to release them.

    That’s the way it works. (6) Not so amazing, is it?

  83. wbboei March 8, 2015 at 12:04 pm

    The other thing big media should do is ask that fucking prick why he wears the American flag on his lapel when the told us previously he felt no obligation to do so.

    Hear! Hear! and LOL!

  84. jeswezey
    March 8, 2015 at 1:45 pm
    ——
    I want you in my law firm.

    Your job will be to answer the interrogatories posed by legal interns on the opposing side.

    My job will be to make sure the side show does not take over the circus.

  85. …the Special Committee probably asked the State Department for the emails, and not her. She then turned them over to State, the State Department has impounded them and it is up to State to release them.

    That is the route taken if the Special Committee knows how to ask for DPL papers, which is not necessarily the case. But if they asked HRC instead, HRC would say, “I’ll send everything to State and you’ll get it from them,” because HRC knows proper channels even if the Special Committee doesn’t.

    So, there is no reason for the Special Committee to get upset with either HRC or State, even if the wait seems long. State has the responsibility of sorting out the emails and determining which are pertinent for the Committee. That takes time.

    That won’t stop the Republicans on the Committee from making as much hay as they can about this story though. Let them make hay now while they think the sun is shining. Later on during the campaign, I’m sure they would rather that the whole thing be forgotten. This whole Benghazi thing is being treated as a scandal and black mark on HRC’s record. Some day, people are going to realize that she took responsibility for something she was not responsible for.

  86. wbboei March 8, 2015 at 2:09 pm

    I want you in my law firm.

    Your job will be to answer the interrogatories posed by legal interns on the opposing side.

    My job will be to make sure the side show does not take over the circus.

    Actually, that’s a job I would love to undertake. But are you sure you’re up to the job you’ve carved out for yourself?

  87. But are you sure you’re up to the job you’ve carved out for yourself?

    ————-
    We will never know til we try.

    (I assume your malpractice liability insurance premium is paid up?)

  88. S
    March 8, 2015 at 2:08 pm
    …has anyone ever heard of ‘Walter Mitty’?

    —–
    Yes.

    Walter Mitty Obama.

    He is an ornery critter.

    The meanest roughest toughest son of a bitch who ever stoked a ballot box with phantom ballots.

  89. We will never know til we try.

    (I assume your malpractice liability insurance premium is paid up?)

    —> Now that’s funny!

  90. John Boehner is a wonderful guy. Last time I saw him he was so drunk he could hardly stand up. This was in a restaurant in Washington DC. I tried in vain to introduce him to a partner in one of the largest law firms in the city, and had to prevent him from falling over. He told me to see a lobbyist in the morning and staggered out the door. This from the man I have played golf with, been to fundraisers with–suddenly I needed a lobbyist to introduce someone to him. Well . . . this is typical. And it is obvious grist for the tabloids. But it is kept secret–because the establishment wants it kept secret. He is useful to both sides, but not to the American People. He told me his constituents let him do anything he wants. May-be. But his colleagues in the House. May be not. They sided with him in January because he promised to fight Obamacare and illegal amnesty. Then he fell through his ass–just like in that restaurant. Well . . . fool me once–shame on you. Fool me twice . . . shame on me. His colleagues need to take a closer look at him, or else their own constituents will be taking a closer look at them. It is not enough for them to say, I voted against Obama. The question is did they declare their opposition before he struck the deal with Poopsie, or afterwards when it was merely a token vote, for which they deserve zero credit?
    ———-
    It’s Time to Vacate the Speaker’s Chair
    By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | March 6th, 2015 at 03:21 PM |

    This year began with an election on whether Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)N/A should continue as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. A number of brave House conservatives, led by Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK)91%, Tom Massie, and Rep. Steve King (R-IA)72%, waged a historic effort to deny Boehner the Speakership. What resulted was an earth-shattering groundswell of grassroots opposition to Boehner that shocked every Republican congressman. It was unsuccessful only because a handful of otherwise reliable House conservatives chose to support Boehner and give him another chance. And look at what their vote for Boehner has wrought in just two short months.

    It resulted in a historic cave from a personal and iron-clad commitment to fight “tooth and nail” to block the President’s executive amnesty on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill. Late last year, everyone knew the plan to split off the rest of the funding for the federal government into the “cromnibus,” leaving DHS alone to be funded, had no chance of success. Yet Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)N/A promised he would fight. He ended up fighting only in words. He failed to commit the financial resources of his party to move Senate Democrats off a still-untenable position of filibustering a bill to fund the DHS. The implications of this cave go far beyond the policy of amnesty. The Speaker is not just the partisan leader of House Republicans. He is the guardian of the House as an institution and its prerogatives, namely the power of the purse, and in bowing to this President, Boehner showed himself to be unfit for the office.

    Once Boehner caved, he commissioned ads against twelve of the congressmen who voted against a short-term extension of DHS funding (many of whom voted for him in January). The content of the ads were straight out of the Obama playbook of scare tactics, positing that these congressmen were hurting the security of the country by standing up against the President’s lawlessness. If House conservatives somehow thought they were on the same team as the Speaker, they now have all the evidence in the world to the contrary. They are now the hunted.

    Beyond amnesty and retaliation, incompetence and liberalism has ruled the House of Representatives this year. A common-sense ban on abortions after five months of pregnancy, previously having sailed through last Congress, was pulled the same week as thousands of abortion opponents traveled to DC to March for Life. A long-term reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was scheduled and whipped extensively by Boehner’s leadership team before being pulled at the last minute because of a conservative revolt. In order to preserve the NCLB testing mandates he personally authored with President Bush and Senator Ted Kennedy, Boehner made House Republicans choose between him and one the chief domestic failures of the Bush years. And this week, the House engaged in a bipartisan love fest surrounding the reauthorizing of Amtrak. Boehner passed an Amtrak “reform” bill that was supported by every Democrat and opposed by over one hundred Republicans.

    Thankfully, House conservatives get a do-over. House Rules provide a privileged (meaning it takes precedence over other business) resolution to vacate the office of the Speaker. It can be offered by any Member. It would be a simple majority vote. If the entire House was voting, 28 Members would be needed to depose Boehner with all of the Democrats. Once vacated, a new Speaker election would ensue.

    Again, as I argued in January, House conservatives do not need a formal candidate to take his place. Many will argue that they do, but they are wrong. It would be nice, but it is not crucial. The dynamic would be similar to that in 1998, when after Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston stepped down, House Republicans themselves recognized the need for a new person to unite around. Nobody was running. They gravitated to Denny Hastert and tapped him to be Speaker. The process of “vacating the chair” is to show that Boehner cannot continue, signaling that it is time to find a replacement. A viable replacement will likely not step forward until then.

    Would Democrats vote to vacate Boehner from his position? Doesn’t he serve their agenda well already? Couldn’t Democrats combine with enough liberal Republicans to install a Republican worse than Boehner, as happened with Joe Straus in Texas? These are the critical questions that surfaced in January and would be used as excuses by many Republicans to skirt a difficult vote against the Speaker.

    The Hill is even reporting that Democrats are now flirting with supporting Boehner on such a vote. This is just a bluff to prevent such a vote and preserve their de-facto majority. National politics is far more polarized than in state capitols with a much bigger spotlight. Even with a wink and nod in the short term by party leaders, it is simply not viable in liberal districts to have a vote for Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)N/A on your record. Democrats will have to vote, and they will vote against Boehner. They will do so because they have to, and because they can have a partisan victory of seeing the chaos and demise of the current leader of the Republican party.

    Nor will a liberal Republican be able to secure the votes of Democrats and a small minority of Republicans. Joe Straus was initially able to do that in Texas because of the limited spotlight on a part-time legislature and by promising chairmanships to Democrats. There are few districts occupied by Republicans currently where this sort of stunning political alliance of convenience would sell. Nor would any coalition last. Most House Republicans now at least profess rock-ribbed conservatism. They can get away with moderation “to govern responsibly.” They cannot be apart of formal alliance with Democrats. Any short-term political marriage of the Straus sort would be immediately vacated by the rest of House Republicans. If House conservatives move to vacate the office of the Speaker, they will get a better result than Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)HERITAGE ACTIONSCORECARDRep. John BoehnerN/AHouse Republican Average61%SEE FULL SCORECARDN/A.

    We could have been rid of Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)N/A in January. Unfortunately not enough House conservatives showed up to the fight. Since then Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)N/A has confirmed every negative critique of his Speakership. He is governing with Democrats and wreaking of incompetence in the process.

  91. I am not at liberty to say if HRC has discussed anything at all with me directly.
    ——–
    Oh . . .

    The Spiro Agnew defense

    No lo contendre.

    The plot thickens. . . .

  92. Interesting commentary regarding how the Supremes will resolve the O’care debacle.

    ________________

    Opinion

    Huntley: Only legal gymnastics can save Obamacare

    Posted: 03/06/2015, 07:00pm | Steve Huntley

    When Obamacare last faced a legal challenge in 2012, I said that the Supreme Court would bend over backward to avoid declaring a landmark act of Congress unconstitutional. And the justices, or rather Chief Justice John Roberts, did do legal contortions to save it. Once again, the high court is faced with a lawsuit that could spell doom for the Affordable Care Act. How will it go this time?

    In theory, the court is supposed to be immune to pressure and be above politics. In reality, justices read newspapers, watch TV and can’t ignore our polarized politics.

    OPINION

    It’s hard to argue that politics — and a desire to protect the high court’s reputation and standing — didn’t figure in the 2012 ruling. A decision striking down the law as unconstitutional would have been vilified by President Barack Obama, Democrats and liberal mainstream media heavy hitters. Roberts decided that penalties to force people to sign up for insurance could be construed as a tax, and thus the law was constitutional under the government’s taxing authority. That was contrary to the vigorous protests of Obama and Democrats when the law was being written that penalties were not taxes.

    The issue now similarly comes down to the plain language in the law, this time over subsidies to low-income Americans buying Obamacare insurance. The health-care act says such subsidies go to those who buy insurance off an exchange “established by the state.” The problem for the law’s backers is that only 13 states and the District of Columbia established exchanges.

    Most states opted out because the law has been unpopular thanks to the way it was muscled through Congress with only Democratic votes and the falsehoods that got it passed — if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

    How could the justices save Obamacare this time? An obvious way is to declare that the language in question would defeat the purpose of the law, to extend medical coverage to the uninsured. Denying aid would make insurance unaffordable to the more than 6 million Americans who get the subsidies.

    But Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out the unambiguous language, saying the law “means what it says.” What’s more, there’s evidence that the language was written to lure states into establishing exchanges. Liberals couldn’t envision that states might not accept free (to them) money from Washington.

    All this arguing over language — a penalty becomes a tax and a federal exchange should be no different from a state exchange — might make you wonder: Is the purpose of the high court to determine if a disputed law is legal or to find a way to make a challenged law legal?

    Clearly, liberals and Democrats believe the latter to be the case regarding Obamacare.

    The issue before the court this time is not one of constitutionality, but a question of how to read the statute. Yet, Justice Anthony Kennedy raised a constitutional question: did the offer of subsidies by Congress amount to unconstitutional pressure on the states to sign on to the law? Even defenders of Obamacare found that notion novel, perhaps out of fear that it might endanger other federal programs.

    Roberts wondered whether the law was so ambiguous that the court should defer to the administration’s reading. The law’s backers worry that such a ruling would allow a different administration to come to a different reading of the act’s requirements.

    Kennedy was in the dissent in 2012. Does his line of questioning indicate he’s looking for a way to become the fifth vote this time to save Obamacare? Does Roberts’ question suggest he’s again looking for a way out?

    Your guess is as good as mine.

    http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/7/71/420658/huntley-legal-gymnastics-can-save-obamacare

  93. freespirit
    March 8, 2015 at 10:42 pm
    Interesting commentary regarding how the Supremes will resolve the O’care debacle.
    ——
    Interesting?

    Or inconclusive.

    I do not have much interest in an article like this, because it tells me absolutely nothing.

    The title is intriguing, but the text is disappointing.

    If he wants to say that last time Roberts engaged in legal gymnastics, I would say this:

    The Supreme Court has more latitude in deciding constitutional issues—as in Obama I

    Than it does in interpreting a statue, when there the intent is clear, from the plain meaning of the language and legislative history.

    In this instance, it will be harder for the Court to rule in favor of Obama

    Because it would require invalidating the time honored rules of statutory construction.

    That’s why the supporters of Obamacare are interested in the standing issue—it is their only out.

    Beware of making these things more complicated than they need to be.

    And beware of reading too much into what the Justices say in open court.

  94. I guess some of these lawyer get their rocks off on this kind of speculation.

    To me it is a waste of time.

    Life is too short.

  95. The supporters could have made the argument that this situation requires an extraordinary remedy–legislating from the bench to avoid a forfeiture, but Scalia sealed off that avenue of retreat, by pointing out that congress (Senator Braso (R-Wy) is already working on a cure for that problem to prevent a forfeiture.

    I am just repeating what I wrote about this yesterday.

  96. Wbb, like you I’ve learned to believe that nothing is a sure thing – certainly nothing that can be impacted by 1) crooked politicians, 2) vested interest groups,3) media 4) the voting public (whose votes can be manipulated by media or not counted by crooked politicians – including the DNC) 5) the judicial system. There are others, but what’s the point.

    This editorial presents a couple of possibilities. Something else to file away, either to fuel hope or to help steel against disappointment. Huge decisions are currently being made – decisions that potentially alter the fabric of this republic in significant ways. It was much easier to consider and cope with negative consequences when it was possible to be a little naive and to assume that even if the “other” side won, at least that side – whether Republican or Dimocrat – supported a specific decision or action based on honest conviction about what was essentially good or bad for this country. Of course, I know life and politics were never that simple. Power and personal gain always have colored outcomes in political decisions and elections. But, it was, at least, possible to believe with some degree of certainty that whether the decisions made by politicians were right or wrong, they were not deliberately intended to harm this country and/or to advance our enemies.

    The fact that we can no longer find security and comfort in that fact tends to increase anxiety. When I feel anxious, as I have pretty much since 2008, gathering information and considering various opinions decreases my anxiety. It give the illusion of some degree of predictability. Even though on a cognitive level we have to acknowledge that illusion, there is a temporary sense – delusional though it may be – of control, of optimism, of relief.

    Works for me some of the time, anyway. And, it’s probably a healthier response than self-medicating. lol

  97. March 8, 2015 at 2:08 pm
    …has anyone ever heard of ‘Walter Mitty’?

    S, it was a book made into a movie, “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty”. Danny Kaye was the star. He was always daydreaming elaborate fantasies in which he was a hero, because in real life he was just a normal bumpkin.

  98. Sharyl Attkission says it is ironic that someone who is as obsessed with monitoring journalists, whistleblowers and the American People as Obama is, should be completely in the dark when in comes to every scandal of his administration, and only learns of them when he reads about them in the newspaper. The implication, of course, is clear. He knew about each of these scandals before the fact, and is lying through his teeth. He has a penchant for lying, and does it all the time. He is a chronic and habitual liar. No mystery here. There is something depraved about a big media never bothers to challenge his lies and covers for him, like they always do.
    ——————————————
    http://sharylattkisson.com/8-times-obama-says-he-was-way-out-of-the-loop/

    It’s a remarkable irony: the same U.S. president whose administration has gone to great lengths to monitor journalists, whistleblowers and the public, claims to be oddly in the dark regarding basic information on some of his biggest controversies.

    Here are eight instances in which President Obama said he heard it on the news—or way after-the-fact—just like ordinary Americans.

    1. Controversial Air Force One Photo Op Flyover

    Perhaps the first time we heard President Obama say he didn’t know about a major national event before the rest of us was when an Air Force One plane (not carrying the president at the time) made an unannounced pass over the Statue of Liberty on April 27, 2009. It turned out to be a White House-approved photo op, but panicked New Yorkers feared it might be some sort of terrorist attack. The next day, President Obama told reporters,

    “It was something that, uh, we found out about, uh, along with all of you.”

    Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore
    Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore
    2. Fast and Furious Cross-Border Operation Supplying Guns to Cartels

    Fast and Furious was a cross-border operation under the Justice Department in which federal agents let thousands of weapons be trafficked to Mexico’s killer drug cartels. Though illegal immigrants used Fast and Furious guns to murder a U.S. Border Patrol Agent in Dec. of 2010, President Obama says he remained in the dark about the whole thing until it was on the news weeks later.

    On Oct. 12, 2011 Obama told reporters,

    “I heard on the news about this story, that, uh, Fast and Furious.”

    For good measure, Attorney General Eric Holder—who had been sent regular briefings on Fast and Furious, a case approved by his criminal division—also said he was clueless about the case.
    3. Gen. Petraeus’ Sex Scandal

    White House officials said President Obama was kept in the dark for months as the FBI investigated his CIA Director, Gen. David Petraeus, in a sex scandal. Meantime, Obama could have been hit with a surprise question about the scandal at any time on the campaign trail, in the midst of his 2012 bid for re-election. White House officials have refused to answer the question as to when, exactly, Obama was finally briefed.

    4. The IRS Using Nixonian Tactics Against Conservative Groups

    President Obama said he was likewise unaware of the nation’s tax agency targeting conservative groups.

    In May of 2013, a reporter asked the president: “When did you first learn that the IRS was targeting conservative political groups?”

    Obama answered:

    “I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday.”

    5. The Secret Seizure of AP News Reporters’ Phone Records

    When it became public that the Obama administration had secretly seized phone records of AP news reporters, the White House said President Obama hadn’t known about it.

    Obama spokesman Jay Carney told reporters in May of 2013,

    “We don’t have any independent knowledge of that, [President Obama] found out about the news reports uh yesterday on the road.”

    6. NSA Spying on Foreign Leaders

    President Obama said he had no idea his government was spying on foreign leaders as outlined in an Inspector’s General report—until it was leaked to the news. On Oct. 28, 2013 he said,

    “I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press.”

    7. Veterans Affairs Scandal

    In May of 2014, White House spokesman Carney said that the President was clueless about the waiting list scandal and coverup involving medical care for military veterans.

    Carney told reporters, “You mean the specific allegations that I think were reported first by your news network out of Phoenix, I believe. We learned about them through the reports. I will double check if that is not the case. But that is when we learned about them and that is when I understand [V.A.] Secretary Shinseki learned about them, and he immediately took the action that he has taken.”

    8. Hillary Clinton’s Email Arrangement

    President Obama says he didn’t know about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email address and server for official business until the New York Times published it in a story. The president told CBS News’ Bill Plante that he found out “the same time everybody else learned it through news reports.”

    Earlier, White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters, “I have no idea when the president first learned” about it. But he foreshadowed the eventual explanation stating,

    “I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if he had learned about that by reading the newspaper.”

    Share

  99. alcina March 6, 2015 at 8:18 pm

    a great Carly Simon gut buster. happy Friday, everyone!

    Great video of one of my favorite movies (Working Girl) with a lot of my favorite actresses and actors, and one of my favorite songs. Thanks.

  100. But are you sure you’re up to the job you’ve carved out for yourself?

    wbboei March 8, 2015 at 6:33 pm

    We will never know til we try. (I assume your malpractice liability insurance premium is paid up?)

    LOL !!

    But please let me explain, because I think you missed the point:

    I would have no problem with someone overseeing and judging my debates with the interns and defense lawyers, or my presentations before the jury. That’s normal process and fair play.

    However, I would not appreciate being judged by someone who lets his own opinions influence his judgment of the debate — or, as you stated it, someone who decides for himself what is relevant to the circus and what is a “side show” to be curbed.

    I want my judge to be someone who is aware of and a stickler for fundamental legal concepts, and very attentive to how those concepts apply to the details of the case at hand.

    From what I’ve seen of your contributions to H44, I’m not sure you’re the kind of stickler I would be happy working for.

    For instance, let’s say we file a class suit against Big Media for all the damage it’s doing to the country: The People v Big Media.

    I have often said that we would agree on the merits of this case. However, when presenting the case to the court, there are particular strategies and tactics that would have to be adopted to win the case, and I have the feeling that the strategy I would assume would conflict with yours — mainly because of our different attitudes towards “free speech” and “irresponsible speech” and how these differences can be presented in an American court in a suit against Big Media.

    In other words, I think your own opinions on the matter would color your judgment of the debate; but they would not color mine. That’s why I would love to work under the orders of an impartial judge, but would feel I was being harassed by someone who judged parts of my debate as a “side show” to be curbed or discarded.

    So, if you are sure you are up to the task of impartial judge, I would love to join your law firm for a starting fee of $1 a year.

  101. By the way, I already have malpractice liability insurance for my profession of translator; but it never served any purpose. I’ll have to look up the ages-old policy to see if it is also applicable to the legal profession, but I’m pretty sure it is, because lawyers have the same insurer and same type of policy, and the difference with doctors is due to specific characteristics of their much-more-complex profession, involving issues like death, euthanasia, mistaken diagnoses and prescriptions and so forth, and the fact that doctors are given authority over such matters by law.

    For lawyers and translators, there’s no difference between professional and civil liability. You’re never subject to criminal charges, but just covered if somebody wins a case against you for damages, and that never happens in either profession. To my eyes, it’s a waste of money. Has your insurance ever served any real purpose?

  102. wbboei March 8, 2015 at 10:30 pm

    John Boehner…. Last time I saw him he was so drunk he could hardly stand up…. restaurant in Washington DC… I have played golf with [him], been to fundraisers with [him] — suddenly I needed a lobbyist to introduce someone to him…. But it is kept secret–because the establishment wants it kept secret.

    As is true of so many of the personal stories you relate here at H44, your sardonic presentation gets an irrepressible chuckle from me; and the truth behind the story makes it all appear tragi-comic.

    Once you tell a story, though, you always draw a conclusion from it; and it is at that concluding point that I often object or draw other conclusions of my own.

    The following is my own set of conclusions from your above story about John Boner:

    You conclude that your story “is kept secret — because the establishment wants it kept secret.”

    Having my own knowledge of what constitutes a secret and how secrets are kept, I contend that you can make no such statement, for the following reasons:

    First of all, a matter of simple logic: the story is obviously not secret any more because you have just disclosed it on a public website and it can be freely disseminated by anyone who reads it, beginning with yourself. So, it is not “kept secret.”

    Secondly, it is easily concluded from the first step in logic that you think the story is worth being kept secret by someone other than yourself. OK with that.

    But your third step either defies all logic or shows you to be legally insane:

    That is, in the same sentence that you contend that the story “is kept secret” (step 1), you expect the reader to believe that the establishment (apparently the Republican one) is the entity that has wanted the story to be kept secret all along.

    This may be true. However, if true, it implies that you have gone against the wishes of the establishment, thereby opening you to prosecution by said establishment because you knew they wanted to keep the story secret, and you, aware of their wishes and as a practicing lawyer, disclosed a story you were privy to, thus exposing yourself to a liability suit by the “establishment”.

    I hope your professional malpractice liability insurance premium is paid up !!!

    The only defense I can think of on your behalf would be to declare that, when you said your story “is kept secret — because the establishment wants it kept secret,” you were just handing us a line of BULLSHIT. In other words, you suffered a temporary lapse of normal human reasoning or were temporarily legally insane. I think the “establishment” would accept that argument as adequate retraction of your entire story, and demur.

    Now, if you would like to know how real secrets are generated and protected, with no mention of any computer firewall or any other bullshit, I will tell you how I was advised of the processes of state secrecy by identifiable agencies of the US and French governments, and lived under this cloak of secrecy from 1975 to 1995.

    The story is not necessarily a boring one. In fact, I view it as funny and can tell it that way; but I still live in that world and mindset today, 20 years after I supposedly left it.

    I can add any info you might need to understand why HRC needed to hide her emails from her boss but from no one else.

  103. I’m sure my post at March 9 @ 6:31 am made you think I was conducting a sideshow or at least making a mountain out of a molehill.

    Please give me a chance to show that your claim of telling a story that has been “kept secret” by the establishment is indeed a mountain of bullshit, covering up a molehill-size solution to the secrecy question that is very easy to implement.

    First, note that I have no prime facie evidence to dispute your story or the conclusions you draw from it, other than the fact that it is not the ‘establishment’ that is keeping the story under cover, but yourself.

    Publishing this story at H44 is not real publication. H44 is not a publishing organ laboring under the rules of Free Press, with the corresponding liabilities. You, me, admin and all the bloggers are “free” to say anything we please and are under no obligation to prove anything we say.

    “Real” publication, on the other hand, is by a legitimate press or media organ such as the Washington Post or Fox News, or Big Media if you will. These press agents are legitimate organs that practice Free Expression with all the corresponding liabilities that such freedom entails. Whether you think so or not, and whether you like it or not, there are rules governing “free speech” and professional journalists all over the world spend years learning those rules, swear to uphold the ethics of their profession, and do so.

    It is this Free Press world that has kept your story from print. Why? Because there is no corroborating evidence. No corroborative evidence => bullshit or heasay.

    You could provide that corroborating evidence if you wished, by looking up the man you wanted to introduce to John Boner. That man would confirm your statement that Boner was drunk the day he tried to meet him, and that Boner brushed off the introduction with a perfunctory “find a lobbyist.”

    With just two corroborating, sworn statements like that, an earnest journalist could take the story to press. Boner would be powerless to deny it.

    The story gets even better if you or the journalist can find corroborative evidence of Boner’s general conduct as a result of his drunkenness and/or over-bloated ego. It wouldn’t put Boner in prison, to be sure; but it might be enough to oust him from the House leadership.

    The whole thing depends on your appreciation of Free Press agents. You hold them in low esteem; but in the present case, you are rather showing that it is your own deficient knowledge of Free Press responsibilities that is holding you back. The story is not “kept secret” by the ‘establishment’ or by Big Media, but by your own poor appreciation of your own rights and responsibilities, and theirs.

    Which is, by the way, the reason why I wasn’t sure that I wanted to work under your orders in your law firm.

  104. lorac

    March 9, 2015 at 2:34 am

    March 8, 2015 at 2:08 pm
    …has anyone ever heard of ‘Walter Mitty’?

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

    Lorac…it was meant to be ‘tongue and cheek’ and rhetorical…I’ll leave it at that…

  105. freespirit March 9, 2015 at 1:37 am

    …. The fact that we can no longer find security and comfort in that fact tends to increase anxiety. When I feel anxious, as I have pretty much since 2008, gathering information and considering various opinions decreases my anxiety. It give the illusion of some degree of predictability. Even though on a cognitive level we have to acknowledge that illusion, there is a temporary sense – delusional though it may be – of control, of optimism, of relief…

    Wow, freespirit, that’s one hell of a statement. I’m really impressed. Anyone who knows themselves as well as you do certainly has no need for psychiatric treatment for anxiety, or for psychoanalysis.

    I can’t say I have the same anxiety problem as you, though; but the reason I don’t is because I have applied your solution more effectively than you (perhaps because I am living abroad): It’s a matter of recognizing that our hopes, though maybe illusory, are not delusions but are simply a matter of getting tired of holding out and holding out while awaiting the relief of and end to our grievances, when we can start afresh with a new deck of cards, so to speak, or a New Deal.

    The anxiety of waiting like this is easier for me: unfairly, because I am not directly subject to all these woes; but fairly too, because I have spelled out solutions to those woes and am certain that those solutions will borne by Hillary Clinton and their implementation will begin the day she has won the presidency — and I am more and more certain that she will get there.

    So, while hope springs eternal, it helps a lot to know that there is real cause for hope.

  106. I heard an interesting theory yesterday as it relates to Hillary and her sudden ’email scandal’

    …anyone listening to the barrage of opinions on Hillary’s emails knows there are all kinds of thoughts on this issue…

    …however thought this one interesting…Kerry is Secretary of State…and possibly part of the leak and feeding into the scandal…he is pushing for the Iran deal…

    bottom line…Hillary is getting no cover from O…who, of course, just found out about this by “reading it in the newspaper”…(never dawned on him prior or the fact that this was known years ago just flys over his head because he has “the most transparent Presidency” ever)

    she is essentially only being defended by Lani Davis…so the notion mentioned is…Hillary will continue to get pummeled…Kerry will strike his Iran deal and basically imply Hillary did nothing when she was at State…she will be weakened…and Kerry will run for President…

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

    isn’t it ‘interesting’ that the same people that did her in in 2008 are all suddenly re-appearing in a position to do so again…

  107. …the other thing I find interesting is re: taking Hillary out as far as the repubs go…didn’t they go down this road the last time and it backfired and then ended up with O…and many of them lamented they would have been much better off with Hillary

    at this juncture I line up with the theory that this is “an inside job” and O and his people are showing their hand earlier than expected…as admin implied…probably due to the push from N and their need to change the news headlines…

    …and they threw in Mendendez in the same news cycle ‘for good measure’

    btw…the pundit suggesting some of these ideas was I think Jon Leboutillier, along with Pat Caddell yesterday

    O and his Chicago peeps are worse and more ruthless than Nixon…

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

    if this doesn’t wake Hillary up fast that her enemies wear sheep’s clothing I don’t know what will…

    btw…just about every time I peek at MSNBC they are all talking about Hillary, her emails, how corrupt and devious the Clintons are, bla, bla, bla

  108. isn’t it ‘interesting’ that the same people that did her in in 2008 are all suddenly re-appearing in a position to do so again…
    __________

    Yep. Even tho we knew it was coming and have seen previous efforts by O and his hench-people, including MSM, to undermine Hillary, the attacks were more subtle than the current email non-scandal. As we move closer to 2016, they will step-up the campaign. Media are trying to link the email issue to other non-scandals for which the Clintons were repeatedly investigated – investigations which proved no wrong-doing.

    Jes, yep, I have found that being aware of one’s own neuroses and developing a measure of self-insight to be more effective, less time consuming than attempting to extinguish them.

    Regarding hope – I am genuinely glad that some people manage to feel hopeful regarding a Hillary candidacy. I’m finding it increasingly hard to come by. The notion that good triumphs over evil – at least where politics is concerned – depends upon the resources available to evil and, in this case, the media’s total devotion to itl. The lessons of 2008 were painful and plentiful. But, even when hope is flagging, we have to continue to fight and work for the desired goal. In fact, it is when we can’t count on hope to see us through that we must bring determination, strength, and stamina to bear – and keep on keeping on.

  109. how corrupt and devious the Clintons are,

    ___________

    S, this apparently is the meme. Media are harkening back to the previous accusations – even tho they have been found false – attempting to add to the talking points developed by the Repubs when Bill was running for POTUS, and after his election. As we know, the fact that this email thing is a non-issue is irrelevant. Media will repeat it enough to make it seem true to the public.

  110. Wow! Meechelle. Yes, by all means, if the Dims want to have their asses handed to them in the GE, they need to run Meechelle. It would almost be worth it to see the people in this country who are stupid enough to even consider running MO get a long overdue dose of reality.

  111. btw…I was going to post the trailer for tonight’s season 3 premiere for Bates Motel at 9 pm on A&E…but it is abit much…

  112. More on the jungle rot that infests big media.

    The problem is not mainly reporter bias, but editorial bias.

    The problem is the clubby hail fellow well met relationship between the editors and Obama,

    That is what determines what gets published and what gets buried.

    Important stories–stories the public has a need to know

    Never ever see the light of day if the editors believe their publication would adversely affect

    Their cozy relationship with key administration officials.

    And ultimately, access and influence.

    Sharyl resigned and wrote a book entitled Stonewalled to protect this corrupt practice.

    Lisa Myers resigned over it, and made sure the story got out.

    These people are more devoted to their profession than to covering up the truth for a paycheck.

    And what about the rest of them?

    What about rising stars like Dana Bash??

    And what about the grand dame of NBC, Andrea Mitchell???

    What’s it gonna be?

    The truth?

    Or bread and circuses?

    (Sorry I asked)

    ——–

    Did Brian Williams bury stories that hurt the Obama administration?

    posted at 9:01 am on March 9, 2015 by Ed Morrissey

    The departure, temporary so far, of Brian Williams has provided a measure of relief to NBC’s beleaguered news division. With Lester Holt getting good ratings and other stories erupting (notably Hillary Clinton’s scandals at State and the Clinton Foundation), people have paid less attention to efforts to scour Williams’ records for more evidence of fabulism and exaggeration. It’s been almost a month since the last big reveal, and NBC News has been very quiet about its own probe into Williams’ public statements.

    That doesn’t mean that NBC has righted the ship in its news division, though. New York Magazine’s Gabriel Sherman offers a lengthy look at the dysfunction that has gripped NBC News for years and impacted every one of its shows. However, buried dozens of paragraphs deep into the story, Sherman alleges from multiple stories that Williams buried two news stories that later rocked the Obama administration (via Justin Green):

    The Nightly News crisis exposed deep-rooted anger among many NBC journalists, who felt frustrated that Williams had been allowed to gain so much power. In recent years, the anchor had churned through executive producers who challenged him.

    Others complained about Williams’s unwillingness to go after hard-hitting stories. Multiple sources told me that former NBC investigative reporters Michael Isikoff and Lisa Myers battled with Williams over stories. In February 2013, Isikoff failed to interest Williams in a piece about a confidential Justice Department memo that justified killing American citizens with drones. He instead broke the story on Rachel Maddow. That October, Myers couldn’t get Williams to air a segment about how the White House knew as far back as 2010 that some people would lose their insurance policies under Obama­care. Frustrated, Myers posted the article on NBC’s website, where it immediately went viral. Williams relented and ran it the next night. “He didn’t want to put stories on the air that would be divisive,” a senior NBC journalist told me. According to a source, Myers wrote a series of scathing memos to then–NBC senior vice-president Antoine Sanfuentes documenting how Williams suppressed her stories. ­Myers and Isikoff eventually left the network (and both declined to comment).

    Williams didn’t want to be “divisive”? Let’s put it another way — two other ways, actually, in which people in the industry define their mission. Aren’t journalists supposed to speak truth to power, and to afflict the comfortable while comforting the afflicted? That’s how media outlets commonly define the mission of journalism. In what ways do Barack Obama not qualify as power and “the comfortable”?

    Even at the core of news reporting, the audience reaction should not enter into the equation. Isn’t it the purpose of news organizations to report the news and let everyone else decide what is “divisive”? Reporting the news means giving viewers the facts in order to have a more informed citizenry. This kind of thinking — if sincere, which seems doubtful — represents the worst kind of condescension and patronization. Williams didn’t trust his audience long before his audience found reason to lose their trust in him. Even Rachel Maddow trusted her own highly partisan audience more than Williams trusted his.

    Sherman’s report here echoes the most pervasive and insidious kind of media bias, as described by Bernard Goldberg in his seminal book Bias. Most problems of media bias come less from the reporting and more from editorial control of the content. What we call “media bias” is largely “editorial bias” — choosing which news stories to cover, and which to bury. The impact of that reaches into the reporting, not just because of hiring practices but by the incentive structures that get built up with editorial bias.

    New York Magazine may have inadvertently provided an example of this here, too. Why did this get buried near the bottom of a long analysis? Has anyone thought to ask Lisa Myers of other stories she had that Williams buried, and whether they had any similarities with the two listed — especially in regard to whether they were critical of the Obama administration? Sharyl Attkisson found herself on the outs at CBS in a very similar scenario.

    Seems like there’s a story there, for those who aren’t worried about divisiveness or afflicting the comfortable.

  113. A letter from the Rethugs to Obama warning him that he will not be president forever, and that if he signs a deal and Congress does not ratify it, it does not rise to the level of a treaty, and is voidable by the next president.

    The ONLY effect of this letter may be to encourage Iranian leaders not to do the deal, but if things stay on course, Obama will get the deal, and once it is in place, the GOP Senate will reject it, but it will become an executive order which will last for the duration of his presidency, and if it is working reasonably well, the GOP will bluster and then cave like it always does.

    What has really shaken up the GOP from behind the scenes is the possibility that key members of their delegation may be taken out for crimes and indiscretions similar to those of Menedez. He vows to fight it, and has an excellent attorney. But with that ethical cloud over his head, he has been effectively neutralized.

    Moral to the story? Never trust a RINO to do what he promises. If you do, you will get stabbed in the back.

  114. Shadowfax
    March 9, 2015 at 12:55 pm
    Obamacare premiums soar as much as 78% to help cover ‘essential health benefits’
    ———
    This should make it easier for even a spineless wimp like Roberts to apply the laws of statutory construction in a straightforward manner, decide for the states, and toss the steaming turd back into the lap of congress—the most useless deliberative body known to man.

  115. I am at that key point where I do not want to hear another speech by a RINO ever again.

    That fucking Rubio thinks he is a candidate for president?

    Rand Paul? Christy?

    Booooosch III?

    Give me a break.

  116. wbb, Andrea Mitchell is the queen of crap. I noticed a headline of an opinion piece by Andrea at RCP – attempting to stir the pot over Hillary’s emails. I didn’t post it because I didn’t want to give that witch and her propaganda any further exposure.

    At RCP today, an opinion piece at Puff Ho about how awful it would be if SCOTUS didn’t protect O’care. The author even implied that it was unfair for the future of this historic law to be decided by the Supremes – as if that were not their right and constitutionally designated function. This author, whose name eludes me, seemed to feel that mountains would crumble, the sun would fall from the sky, and the rivers run backwards if the wording of the law ( wording of laws is unimportant, dontcha know) were used to undo this law, causing multitudes to lose their health care.

    Apparently it was less of a big deal when people actually did lose their healthcare (as was the plan) when Ocare was enacted.

    Didn’t link this article either. Opinion not worth reading, IMO.

  117. Excerpt from article posted by DK Jamal quoting former Sec. State Colin Powell regarding email issue.

    _____________

    “Former Sec. of State Colin Powell, a Bush administration Republican and former Republican presidential hopeful, all but destroyed the Hillary Clinton private email “scandal” today, telling ABC’s This Week that not only did he too use private email because State Department systems were so outdated, unlike Hillary Clinton who turned over 55,000+ pages of her emails, Powell retained and turned over none of his emails.”

    http://www.examiner.com/article/bombshell-powell-used-private-email-to-avoid-outdated-system-archived-none?cid=rss

  118. freespirit
    March 9, 2015 at 2:20 pm
    Excerpt from article posted by DK Jamal quoting former Sec. State Colin Powell regarding email issue.
    ———-
    Finally, he did SOMETHING right.

    This is a bogus issue.

    I am already sick of it.

    Last night I had an article which showed everybody is doing it.

    You what makes me the sickest of all?

    Its a system where a bogus issue is critical, and a critical issue is irrelevant if big media decides it is.

    Where is it written that it ain’t Haines til they say it is Haines.

    Just who the fuck are they to determine a national dialogue?

    And, are they really any different than Goebbels?

    Only by a matter of degree.

    One headline read will Hillary make fools of big media?

    My reaction: she cannot make them anything other than what they already are—

    And have proven themselves to be through their seven year INCESTUOUS relationship with Obama.

    As for Powell, he feels he was used by making him the point man in lying to the UN about WMD’s.

    So he has gone back to his roots and is consistently anti white and anti republican.

    But in this case, in re. emails, he speaks the truth.

  119. freespirit
    March 9, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    ——-
    I’m with you Free, I don’t post most of the $hit I read and I also don’t want to give their hate articles any longer legs.

    I am not consistent, sometimes I just can’t help myself.

    Since 2012 when I dumped Foxnews on tv, I am less apt to toss frying pans at my tv.

  120. Good for Powell to come forward about this faux email scandal. Drudge and Breitbart, however, refuse to mention it at all to their readers since it would obviously make them look like complete fools to their readers for dancing like monkeys to Obama’s tune.

  121. Since 2012 when I dumped Foxnews on tv, I am less apt to toss frying pans at my tv.
    __________

    Lol! Better dump the Toxic FoX than have to keep replacing TVs.

  122. it would obviously make them look like complete fools to their readers for dancing like monkeys to Obama’s tune.
    ___________

    Plus, it wouldn’t serve their goal of weakening Hillary.

Comments are closed.