GermanWings Rand Paul

Update II: If it’s true that Rand Paul’s First Challenge: Defeat Ted Cruz then Rand Paul just headfirst hit a roadblock called Ted Cruz. Bloomberg Exclusive: New Ted Cruz Super-PACS Take in Record Haul.

Ted Cruz’s presidential effort is getting into the shock-and-awe fundraising business.

An associate of the Texas senator, a recently announced presidential candidate, tells Bloomberg that a cluster of affiliated super-political action committees was formed only this week, and among them they are expected to have $31 million in the bank by Friday.

Moneybags Jeb Bush and his own shock and awe strategy of a blockbuster $$$ announcement just took a hit too. This amount of moolah keeps Ted Cruz in the game even if Jebby tops well over $100 million in his first cash haul report.

——————————————–

Update: Quotes of the Day (not necessarily from today):

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul formally announced his presidential campaign Tuesday, and notably failed to mention a top target of GOP hopefuls: Obamacare.

It’s not just on ObamaCare that wackadoodle has ‘splaining to do:

“As I have said all along, I believe it is in everyone’s best interest to find a peaceful way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons,” Paul said on March 3.

“As to Rand Paul, I like Rand a lot,” Sen. Graham told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren on Monday. “But at the end of the day, his foreign policy is to the left of Barack Obama.

Graham noted that Rand Paul was the only senator in September 2012 to vote against Graham’s resolution saying that containment would not be the policy of the United States — that the U.S. would not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. The resolution passed 90-1, with Paul providing the only no vote. [snip]

“I don’t think the best way to negotiate with the Iranians is to have the one senator who would be okay with a nuclear Iran to go in to take Obama’s place.”

——————————————————-

April asserts itself as the “cruelest month” once again. This is the month the very many Republican candidates for president realize they must announce if they are to have sufficient time to organize a campaign and fund-raise a serious run for president. Today it is Rand Paul announcement day. Jeb Bush got the jump on them all late last year and a short time ago it was Ted Cruz’s turn.

In the past we’ve had some nice things to say about Rand Paul (“stand with Rand”) and some painful things to say about the “wackadoodle two-headed dentist”. On candidate announcement day, today and in the future, we will examine the positive and negative aspects of the debutant. Like a shooting gallery in a circus arcade, as the metallic ducks slide by we will take shots at them along with our impressions of how their opening day went.

So what are the positive aspects of Rand Paul?

We like that Rand Paul realizes and articulates very clearly that the 2016 elections will be about change. Deep and profound changes in American government policy and organization are needed and Rand Paul articulates that very well.

We really like that Rand Paul articulates his vision of how government should work in a schematic way. It’s fine for conservative candidates to say that they want the government to “follow the Constitution”. It’s fine for conservative candidates to say they want to govern with “conservative principles”. But what does that mean?

Candidates for president should articulate very clearly how their principles and visions work for everyday Americans. For liberals/progressives this is very easy to do. If there is a problem of any sort, no matter how minute, no matter how personal, the liberal/progressive has a new law or a new government intervention to fix the problem.

For conservatives the problem is that they have to not directly address the problem at hand but to warn about how in the future every government intrusion/solution whittles away at liberty of the individual. For conservatives concerned about fiscal probity every government intrusion/solution also has a price tag and the conservative flails against the demand to “do something now” with “look at the cost”.

For libertarian Republican Rand Paul the solution is to have “the least government that is necessary” which is a good counter to the liberal/progressive “as much government as we want”. For both sides the mantras fail, the visions fail, and that’s why Americans go back and forth between the two visions even as the liberals/progressives/government interventionists intrude further and further into every detail of life.

For liberals/progressives today’s solution requires solutions to the solutions and then solutions to the solutions to the solutions. It’s a mousetrap that never gets completed because the mouse always outwits the trap maker. The liberal/progressive requires impermeable doors on airplane cockpits post 9/11 only to discover that that same impermeable door can also be used to protect a miscreant pilot.

Against the ever growing power of government and government intrusion, always for some great reason, comes Rand Paul. For Rand Paul every government attempt to make something better only ends in things getting more fouled up. For Rand Paul every government do good intervention means the problem does not get solved, the problem only becomes more complicated.

Rand Paul can thank Barack Obama for any success Rand Paul has achieved and will achieve. Barack Obama has not only demonstrated that government is not always the solution, Barack Obama is a poster child for the Reaganesque proposition that all too often the government is the problem.



For Rand Paul and his libertarian brethren the test is how to communicate the “best government is the least government” message. The “great communicator” Ronald Reagan did it. We doubt Rand Paul will.

Rand Paul simply does not have the skill set of Ronald Reagan. Rand Paul does not even have a good grip on the issues of interest to Republican primary voters. On illegal immigration reform, Rand Paul is Eric Cantor. On foreign policy and Israel, despite all denials, Rand Paul is Ron Paul. Rand Paul is a Ron Paul only a Ralph Nader could love.

As we watched, and we did watch, today’s Rand Paul announcement we came upon the same conclusions we have previously about the candidate. Something is just not right.

Rand Paul spoke from a teleprompter today but he still has not mastered that skill. Rand Paul was reading instead of communicating.

Rand Paul read his lines as if he had to speak above the roar of the crowd. But their was no need to do so because the staging of the event oddly kept the excitement of crowds out of the picture. Rand Paul was surrounded by flags but stood alone. The crowd seemed to be far away. The noise and fervor of the crowd was oddly at bay.

It was odd. In some odd way Rand Paul reminded us of the Cambridge Cherokee, Elizabeth Warren. Both are fervent as snake oil salesmen who really believe their snake oil will cure the maladies described. But the snake oil, like Obama Hopium, only gets you drunk.

Rand Paul also oddly resembles GermanWings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz. We can see him in the cockpit. We can also hear the Republican Party leadership trying to break down the cockpit door.

Share

133 thoughts on “GermanWings Rand Paul

  1. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/rand-paul-foreign-policy-strategy-116737.html?hp=t4_r

    As Rand Paul announced his presidential campaign Tuesday, he called for a national defense “robust enough to defend against all attack, modern enough to deter all enemies, and nimble enough to defend our vital interests.” He also called for a “foreign policy that protects American interests and encourages stability — not chaos.”

    Later this week, the Republican senator from Kentucky will speak in front of an aircraft carrier as part of his campaign rollout. In the months ahead, he’ll talk far more frequently about foreign policy. He is also planning to issue a series of position papers on America’s role in the world.

    It’s all part of a campaign strategy to eliminate the widespread suspicion that Paul is an isolationist echo of his father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the libertarian icon who frequently inveighed against U.S. intervention overseas.

    It’s all part of a campaign strategy to eliminate the widespread suspicion that Paul is an isolationist echo of his father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the libertarian icon who frequently inveighed against U.S. intervention overseas.

    But even as Rand Paul spoke Tuesday, a group calling for a more hawkish U.S. policy on Iran prepared to launch a $1 million ad campaign casting him as weak on the issue. And to many foreign-policy conservatives, Paul’s past expressions of skepticism about U.S. intervention abroad and support for sweeping cuts to the defense and foreign-aid budgets speak more loudly than his words on the campaign trail.

    Rand Paul has been mugged by reality, and he’s adjusting a bit — but only a bit,” Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said. “From my point of view, he’s not really come to grips with the world as it is.”

  2. I’m still reading your welcomed post, Admin…and talking about the whackadoodle-two-headed-dentist, he and his pop suck at foreign policy ideas, but the dentist child is no Ron Paul. Ron Paul is actually very intelligent and I found him very interesting to listen to.

    I didn’t always agree with Ron, but I did come away learning something every time I listened to him.

    The dentist should stick with teeth extractions. He at least is not the cookie-cutter, ‘Young Guns that go ‘POP” GOP candidates.

    Heck, I would even like Trump in his long coat rather than listen to another thoughtless sweater vest type from the Repub camp.

  3. In this day and age of the Internet and YouTube, his past isolationist comments about foreign policy will be used over and over by his enemies both in the GOP and in the left to discredit whatever new message he is trying to craft in his campaign. He is toast.

  4. Admin

    Most curious to me is that you didn’t mention the Hillary 2016 build up reported by the media this week.

    Is it best not to talk about it in hopes that Hillary will lay low another couple of months?

  5. Wonderful post, Admin. The great wordsmith Bill Clinton, himself, would be jealous of the skill that oozes from every phrase. Delightful to read and flawlessly accurate.

    Paul is just a nasty piece of work, IMHO. His repeated and voracious attacks on Hillary have, at times thoroughly stretched and mangled the truth to the point of embarrassment. Some of his attacks have been personal and entirely inappropriate in nature. The offensive he launched against Hillary some months ago makes him appear to be a small and frightened little cretin with little of substance to say.

  6. Free

    Yes, the dentist is still the fat little red headed kid that would never grow into his daddy’s shoes, and takes potshots to make himself feel like a man.

    IMalmostHO 😉

  7. Shadowfax
    April 7, 2015 at 4:05 pm
    ——————————————

    The longer Hillary can hold off, the more likely her GOP and Loony Left enemies will be forced to reveal their hands at the poker table and the more time she will have to plan her strategy against them.

  8. Fantastic post. Thank you.

    The two-headed-dentist gave Bibi a sideways look I did not care for during Bibi’s speech. As it relates to Israel I also believe he is 100% his father’s son.

    So, I am afraid I will have to pass on Rand. So far I’m still a visitor to the Cruz and Walker camps and like what I hear. If HRC comes out swinging, I’ll be paying close attention. If it is promises of more of the last 7 years I am afraid I will have to pass on her too.

    By the way, as a gay guy, I loved the last post. I get it as I am also a deeply religious individual. Those pizza folks have my deepest sympathies. I know there are many other gays and lesbians who feel as I do. You do not have to go far to imagine horrible scenarios if the shoe had been on the other foot.

  9. An interesting piece on the next economic collapse and the Presidential Elections. So watching our over inflated markets that the Obola Administration and inflated to new heights, one wonders what the next POTUS will receive.

    Zero Hedge Reads
    ……….Written by Jeff Nielson

    The second commentary of note concerns the most likely time these bubble-markets will be torpedoed, allowing the sheep to be fleeced, and allowing Warren Buffett to ‘invest’ his hoard of money, which is now well in excess of $60 billion. Even in the Wonderland Matrix, no bubbles can be inflated forever. At some point the bubbles must be “popped”, or they will simply burst on their own – in an uncontrolled/uncontrollable manner.

    The premise of the second commentary is that the U.S. 2016 election cycle the most likely time for the One Bank to engage in its bubble-bursting/sheep-shearing orgy. It’s also precisely the same pattern in which these financial psychopaths have engaged in the last, two great bubbles they manufactured: the dot-com bubble, and the even larger (and much more-fraudulent) U.S. housing bubble, where the preordained crashes also matched the U.S. election cycle.

    The reason why this Old World Order likes to stage its crashes at the end of U.S. presidencies is both simple and obvious. Despite the fact that the bankers control both halves of the U.S. Two-Party Dictatorship (and have controlled them for over a century), the binary-minded Zombies of the U.S. population still suffer from the delusion that they are being given “a choice”.

    Given this mentality, the timing of these “crashes” becomes elementary. The bubbles are burst near the end of one presidency, in order that the mouthpieces of the Corporate media can demonize that outgoing president as the villain/scapegoat – while the stooge representing the other half of the dictatorship is depicted as some sort of White Knight, riding to the rescue. In practical terms, it’s nearly identical to the system of government of the old, Soviet Union.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-06/why-us-economic-%E2%80%98statistics%E2%80%99-get-more-and-more-absurd

  10. I just watched some of Rand Paul on Hannity. He was saying how he is similar to Reagan, and wants peace through strength, saying how there is a section of republicans that think war is the answer.

    I certainly like the idea of peace through strength, it sounds good. But this isn’t 1980 – now we have all kinds of non-state actors, many who are ready to do suicide missions. If you’re willing to die anyway, why would someone’s strength scare you off? If you aren’t acting on behalf of a state and are travelling around killing people, why would a state’s strength scare you, you could keep moving on, they’d have to find you.

    I’m anything but an expert in these kinds of things, but it just seems like he’s not quite right in using the exact phrase or outlook, as the times are very different. It doesn’t mean that war IS the only answer, but it just means that projecting strength might not be enough to get some groups to stand down.

  11. I watched Rand Paul on Hannity as well tonight. Hannity surely led him down a path of attacking the Clintons in a panty sniffing way didn’t he. Don’t know that it will help Paul that much but it surely feeds into Hannity’s narrative about the Clintons and using them to advance himself and his program.

  12. Maybe we should start rating the candidates in terms of how likely they are to win the primary and the general election.

    Here’s my rating for those in the race so far…

    Two-headed proctologist = 0, and 0

    Shrub3 = 8, .001

    Rubio = 2, 0 (Is Rubio in the race yet?)

  13. “Is Rand Paul a dentist or ophthalmologist?”
    ****
    He is an Ophthalmologist who isn’t quite right in the head; I guess he got that from his father. As an example, he got into a pissing contest with the American Board of Ophthalmology so he set up his own Ophthalmology certifying board with his wife in charge of the program.

  14. Hannity would literally die if he didn’t have Hillary to smear. He was probably jumping for joy when she announced she was running for senator – he was probably crying because Bill wasn’t around to smear,then Hillary “saved” him. I love it when he brings certain things up again and again, saying “this is going to bring her down”, but you know it isn’t, it will be forgotten soon, even if he keeps bringing it up.

    (not denying that he and others can create a narrative and hurt her, just saying that he thinks everything is going to bring her down, and some things obviously aren’t going to)

  15. He is an Ophthalmologist

    My God, what is the man anyway??

    I guess what ever certification his wife declares him to be.

  16. he got into a pissing contest with the American Board of Ophthalmology so he set up his own Ophthalmology certifying board with his wife in charge of the program.

    lol maybe he should reframe that as his being an out of the box thinker, having the ability to go around mountains if they’re too tall to climb..

    He and his father always seem to win that (or one of the) conservative straw polls (where they all gather in one place for the vote), but always come in last in elections… I believe they bus people in to those polls. And they seem to mostly be favored by college kids.

    He’ll never win. I heard tonight that Huckabee and Santorum might run. These people are rich. Can’t they find some way to learn how real people are thinking, and that they have no chance? I mean, Romney won the nomination and isn’t running again. I think Huckabee was last or dropped out – why would they think a few years would propel them to the top? It only worked for big loser Biden because O needed a bigger idiot to not make him look bad….

  17. Is Hannity still complaining that the Clinton’s won’t come on his show?

    Hannity wouldn’t have a show if he didn’t have the Clinton’s to make fun of.

  18. I heard tonight that Huckabee and Santorum might run.

    ——-

    Hahahaha, are they serious? Naders all over again.

    Hell, may as well just let McCain and Sarah run again too.

    Call in the whole 2008 GOP gang to try it all over again.

  19. Update: Quotes of the Day (not necessarily from today):

    Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul formally announced his presidential campaign Tuesday, and notably failed to mention a top target of GOP hopefuls: Obamacare.

    It’s not just on ObamaCare that wackadoodle has ‘splaining to do:

    “As I have said all along, I believe it is in everyone’s best interest to find a peaceful way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons,” Paul said on March 3.

    “As to Rand Paul, I like Rand a lot,” Sen. Graham told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren on Monday. “But at the end of the day, his foreign policy is to the left of Barack Obama.

    Graham noted that Rand Paul was the only senator in September 2012 to vote against Graham’s resolution saying that containment would not be the policy of the United States — that the U.S. would not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. The resolution passed 90-1, with Paul providing the only no vote. [snip]

    “I don’t think the best way to negotiate with the Iranians is to have the one senator who would be okay with a nuclear Iran to go in to take Obama’s place.”

    ——————————————————-

  20. If the other GOP candidates had even a milligram of brains in them, they’d relentlessly attack Paul on Graham’s resolution.

  21. Tony Stark

    US District Court Judge Hanen refused to lift the injunction against Obama’s executive amnesty.

    ——-
    That’s the best news of the day.

  22. I just watched some of Rand Paul on Hannity. He was saying how he is similar to Reagan, and wants peace through strength, saying how there is a section of republicans that think war is the answer.
    ________________

    What a shock! Another Republican candidate claims to be like Reagan. He’s sleepy and confused?

  23. Comes now from the top of the mountain, the warning signal from the two greatest diplomats in our lifetime: Kissinger and Schultz, in today’s Wall Street Journal. Those two have a bad habit of ignoring the group think of the elites, and cutting to the chase. Towit:

    Mixing shrewd diplomacy with open defiance of U.N. resolutions, Iran has gradually turned the negotiation on its head. Iran’s centrifuges have multiplied from about 100 at the beginning of the negotiation to almost 20,000 today. The threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran. While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal. In the process, the Iranian program has reached a point officially described as being within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon. Under the proposed agreement, for 10 years Iran will never be further than one year from a nuclear weapon and, after a decade, will be significantly closer.

    (then, after damning the great big media beloved messiah with faint praise, after big media compares this nonsense to opening China, and showing that they so called framework presents more problems than it answers and is more full of holes than a mountain of Swiss cheese, they conclude with this evisceration of the delusions which we hear from our Harvard betters in Washington about the consequential benefits of this deal which is a distant mirror of Chamberlain’s nonsense about peace in our time, and Santyana’s observation that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, and only the dead have seen the end of war, they like St. Christopher they slay the dragon of liberal utopian thinking which always leads to future wars. Nunc pro tunc.

    Watch the masters of diplomacy at the highest level, whose track records speak for themselves, at work in these paragraphs:

    For some, the greatest value in an agreement lies in the prospect of an end, or at least a moderation, of Iran’s 3½ decades of militant hostility to the West and established international institutions, and an opportunity to draw Iran into an effort to stabilize the Middle East. Having both served in government during a period of American-Iranian strategic alignment and experienced its benefits for both countries as well as the Middle East, we would greatly welcome such an outcome. Iran is a significant national state with a historic culture, a fierce national identity, and a relatively youthful, educated population; its re-emergence as a partner would be a consequential event.

    But partnership in what task? Cooperation is not an exercise in good feeling; it presupposes congruent definitions of stability. There exists no current evidence that Iran and the U.S. are remotely near such an understanding. Even while combating common enemies, such as ISIS, Iran has declined to embrace common objectives. Iran’s representatives (including its Supreme Leader) continue to profess a revolutionary anti-Western concept of international order; domestically, some senior Iranians describe nuclear negotiations as a form of jihad by other means.

    The final stages of the nuclear talks have coincided with Iran’s intensified efforts to expand and entrench its power in neighboring states. Iranian or Iranian client forces are now the pre-eminent military or political element in multiple Arab countries, operating beyond the control of national authorities. With the recent addition of Yemen as a battlefield, Tehran occupies positions along all of the Middle East’s strategic waterways and encircles archrival Saudi Arabia, an American ally. Unless political restraint is linked to nuclear restraint, an agreement freeing Iran from sanctions risks empowering Iran’s hegemonic efforts.

    Some have argued that these concerns are secondary, since the nuclear deal is a way station toward the eventual domestic transformation of Iran. But what gives us the confidence that we will prove more astute at predicting Iran’s domestic course than Vietnam’s, Afghanistan’s, Iraq’s, Syria’s, Egypt’s or Libya’s?

    Absent the linkage between nuclear and political restraint, America’s traditional allies will conclude that the U.S. has traded temporary nuclear cooperation for acquiescence to Iranian hegemony. They will increasingly look to create their own nuclear balances and, if necessary, call in other powers to sustain their integrity. Does America still hope to arrest the region’s trends toward sectarian upheaval,

  24. When I compare that clear eyed analysis to the cloud cuckooland response to the Framework which issues forth from the heavy breathers at NYT and WashPo, of the David Ignatitus sort, I think the wheel has come full circle. They (the elite class) are what SHV pronounced them to be—“the dumbest generation”—and since they control big media and set the public agenda, it is fair to say shit flows downhill. Hoe can the ignoranti understand, much less adopt the skepticism of these two sages. How much easier to simply believe in the tooth fairy–meaning whatever lies pour out of the mouth of the big media beloved messiah before and after le deluge.

  25. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/08/federal-judge-denies-request-to-lift-hold-on-obama-immigration-action/

    Federal judge denies request to lift hold on Obama immigration action

    A federal judge in Texas denied a Justice Department request Tuesday to lift his temporary hold on President Obama’s executive action shielding potentially millions of illegal immigrants from deportation.

    U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen refused to set aside his Feb. 16 decision granting a preliminary injunction requested by 26 states. [snip]

    In his order Tuesday denying the government’s request, Hanen said the government hasn’t “shown any credible reason for why this Directive necessitates immediate implementation.” [snip]

    In a separate order Hanen, told the government it has until April 21 to file to the court and plaintiffs detailed information about its March advisory about the 108,000 three-year reprieves.

    The order asks the government to produce “any and all drafts” of the advisory, including information on when each draft was written, edited or revised. Hanen also asked for a list of each person who knew about the advisory.

  26. Their bottom line is the same as mine:

    What is says essentially is far from promoting regional stability this manifestation of utopian thinking in the face of a megapolitical threat will not mitigate regional stability be undermine the prospects for it. Until the US develops a clear headed assessment of its future role in the region, the drift will be all in the wrong direction. Thus, to me at least, this is yet another manifestation of Obama’s obsession with headlines, and ignorance/impatience with the details on which the best of ambitions are either advanced or thwarted. Getting this thing wrong, like Obama has, will cost millions of lives. The question is not what Congress will do, what the court will do, not even what the benighted Obama will do. The question is what will Israel do to prevent a second holocaust.

  27. Government attorneys lying to a federal judge on a material matter before the court can have consequences. Falso in uno falso in omnibus. From that point forward, a proctological examination of the government’s case is not only warranted but required.

  28. This article from the Israeli Times whose owner tried to defeat Bibi in the recent election represents a change of tune, after seeing how far the big media beloved messiah went to save the world–blessed are the peacemakers etc, or, perhaps, just for a cheap headline to titilate his rabid supporter, so they could start the bamboozler machine running through big media:

    The Unfolding of Obama’s Farce Deal With Iran
    by David Horowitz

    Time and again, President Barack Obama and his indefatigable secretary of state promised that they and their P5+1 negotiating partners would not sign a bad deal with Iran on its nuclear weapons program.

    Get The Times of Israel’s Daily Edition by email
    and never miss our top stories Free Sign up!

    And, lo, they were as good as their word.

    They didn’t sign a bad framework deal in Lausanne, Switzerland, last week. They just agreed on one in principle, and left it unsigned, allowing for multiple conflicting interpretations.

    It was immediately plain that the US-led negotiators had mislaid their moral compass, and indeed any clear sight of their own self-interest, when they agreed to conduct the negotiations as scheduled even as Iran’s ruthless, arrogant leader Ali Khamenei was intoning his “Death to America” mantra, and one of his military chiefs was declaring that Israel’s destruction is “nonnegotiable.”

    What is becoming increasingly plain is the extent to which the Obama team and their colleagues were played for fools by the Iranians in the talks themselves.

    Iran was dragged to the negotiating table by the accumulated impact of a painstakingly constructed sanctions regime. It was allowed to leave the table with much of its nuclear weapons program intact, and with the promise of those sanctions being removed.

    Unsurprisingly, Iran was not required to acknowledge its nuclear weaponization efforts to date. Unsurprisingly, it was not required to halt its missile development program. Unsurprisingly, sanctions removal was not conditioned on its abandonment of terrorism, a halt to its financing and arming of Hezbollah, Hamas and other Islamic extremist groups, or an end to its relentless incitement against Israel. Nobody who had followed the Obama administration’s abject handling of the negotiations prior to Lausanne had expected anything in these areas.

    But the deal is far worse than even our relentlessly lowered expectations had given us reason to anticipate. The Arak heavy water plant is not to be dismantled. Why not? Because this was the best deal we could get. The Fordo enrichment facility, built secretly into a mountain, is not to be shuttered. Why not? Because this was the best deal we could get. Thousands of centrifuges are to be allowed to keep on spinning. Thousands more will remain intact. For heaven’s sake, why? Because this was the best deal we could get.

    All this according to the — so far — undisputed elements of the unsigned agreement.

    Less than a week after those sickening scenes of back-slapping in Lausanne, however, more and more of the central elements of the framework are being disputed.

    Are economic sanctions to be lifted only in phases, dependent on Iranian compliance, or all at once, the moment the deal is signed? It’s not clear. Is Iran to be subject to “anywhere, anytime” inspections of all suspect sites, nuclear and military? It’s not clear. Will Iran be obligated to ship out of the country almost all of its stockpile of lower-enriched uranium? It’s not clear. Will Iran be permitted to continue its R&D on more sophisticated centrifuges, to enable a still-faster breakout to the bomb, come the day? It’s not clear.

    And not only can we read the starkly conflicting accounts of what was agreed in official American and Iranian fact sheets — massive discrepancies across the negotiating table. We also have conflicting accounts from the same side of the table, with a French fact sheet adding to the confusion.

    If it were not so grave it would be farcical to witness the disingenuous attempts by the Obama administration to depict the unfolding disaster as an achievement worthy of admiration — the best deal; historic; a guarantee, in the glib, empty formulation of presidential adviser Ben Rhodes, that Iran will never get the bomb.

    In an NPR interview gone horribly wrong on Monday, the president did honestly admit a huge, dire, failing of the accord — the fact that, even if Iran keeps to the deal (and what a colossal, improbable “if” that is), it will be able to break out to the bomb in next-to-no-time when key provisions expire after a decade. (The president had gone part-way down the road to that admission in his New York Times interview on Saturday, saying: “I’ve been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch.” — D.H. emphasis)

    But there can be no candid acknowledgement of so momentous a flaw, for that would be to confirm Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s endlessly reiterated indictment of the deal as paving Iran’s way to the bomb. And so a State Department spokeswoman was pushed out in front of the cameras on Tuesday to stammer her way through an absurd reinterpretation of Obama’s remarks, an attempt at revisionism that insults our intelligence.

    It gets worse. The Iranians’ latest contention is that the deal gives them the right to start injecting gas into their most sophisticated centrifuges — the IR-8s — which they say can enrich uranium 20 times faster than their current IR-1s. And therefore, that smiling, avuncular Foreign Minister Zarif and his nuclear expert colleague Ali Akbar Salehi told Iranian MPs on Tuesday, Iran will begin working with the IR-8s on the first day that the deal goes into effect. This, according to Iran’s own news agencies.

    Needless to say, that makes a mockery of the entire deal.

    Doubtless there is more of this travesty to come. That’s what you get when you allow a brutal, murderous regime to smell your hesitancy, your weakness, your neglect of your own and your allies’ essential interests.

    “This is our best bet by far to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon,” Obama asserted to The New York Times. Really, Mr. President? It doesn’t look like that from here. From here, it looks like you could have done a whole lot better.

    In fact, it looks like the very outcome you promised you’d avoid: A deal that lifts the economic pressure on an evil regime, and clears its route to the bomb. A bad deal. Far, far worse than no deal at all.

    Read more: The unfolding farce of Obama’s deal with Iran | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-unfolding-farce-of-obamas-deal-with-iran/#ixzz3WjAe8jFH
    Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

  29. Pizza, pizza. Pretty much what we wrote:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/04/07/indiana-gay-protection-memories-pizza-eich-column/25373045/

    Liberals should be celebrating in good cheer, not by muzzling opponents for wrongthink.

    The only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner.

    After decades of fighting for gay rights, those who should be guzzling the bubbly are muzzling the vanquished.

    It’s hard for the people who call themselves liberals (while acting like anything but) to top their past bullying and intolerance of those who won’t fall in line with their worldview. Yet, with the Indiana religious freedom bill, they pulled it off. After Memories Pizza owner Crystal O’Connor told an Indiana reporter that she would not cater a gay wedding because it would conflict with her religious beliefs, the world exploded.

    A girls golf coach at an Indiana high school tweeted, “Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?” The pizzeria outside South Bend received death threats and harassment and felt forced to shut down the shop. It’s Yelp page was vandalized with obscene and homo-erotic pictures. The owners have said they don’t know if it will be safe to re-open.

    How many gay people had asked to have their wedding catered by this small-town pizza joint? None. What number of gay people had been denied a slice by O’Connor? Zero. In fact, the owners told the reporter that they would never refuse to serve a gay customer who came to the restaurant to eat. The wrath of gay rights supporters rained down on Memories Pizza because O’Connor committed a thought crime. She discriminated against nobody, but thinks the “wrong” thing about same-sex marriage and she said it out loud.

    Here’s the thing: I didn’t support the original Indiana law. I am both a Christian who doesn’t believe the Bible prohibits serving a same-sex wedding and a vocal LGBT rights supporter who has blasted laws similar to Indiana’s for fear that they could provide legal protection to those who discriminate against gay people.

    But I’m starting to wonder: who needs the protection here?

    What happened in Indiana is reminiscent of the bullying that led to the ouster of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich exactly this time last year. Eich was harangued for a six-year-old donation supporting an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative, but ultimately purged for refusing to recant his beliefs about marriage.

    Last week, Hampton Catlin — a computer programmer and gay rights advocate — started taunting Eich on Twitter. Catlin tweeted, “…couple weeks since I’d gotten some sort of @BrendanEich related hate mail. How things going over there on your side, Brendan? Eich responded, “You demanded I be ‘completely removed from any day to day activities at Mozilla’ & got your wish. I’m still unemployed. How’re you?” Catlin continued to gloat.

    Yes, both Catlin and Eich got hate mail, but only one lost his livelihood. Is this really what winning looks like?

  30. Update II: If it’s true that Rand Paul’s First Challenge: Defeat Ted Cruz then Rand Paul just headfirst hit a roadblock called Ted Cruz. Bloomberg Exclusive: New Ted Cruz Super-PACS Take in Record Haul.

    Ted Cruz’s presidential effort is getting into the shock-and-awe fundraising business.

    An associate of the Texas senator, a recently announced presidential candidate, tells Bloomberg that a cluster of affiliated super-political action committees was formed only this week, and among them they are expected to have $31 million in the bank by Friday.

    Moneybags Jeb Bush and his own shock and awe strategy of a blockbuster $$$ announcement just took a hit too. This amount of moolah keeps Ted Cruz in the game even if Jebby tops well over $100 million in his first cash haul report.

    ——————————————–

  31. Tony Stark
    April 8, 2015 at 1:29 am

    In other news, US District Court Judge Hanen refused to lift the injunction against Obama’s executive amnesty.
    _________- Applauding here!!! 😀

  32. Wbbs

    Falso in uno falso in omnibus

    ——-
    You’d think by now I would have learned Latin with all the terms you toss out and I have to google. Thank God for the internet!!

  33. Hanen writes more Kraken. Fun to read his findings and opinions:

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/judge-slams-justice-department-for-misconduct-in-immigration?utm_term=.pf2Ynmg1Nment-for-misconduct-in-immigration?utm_term=.pf2Ynmg1N#.nlEmmgGw1n

    In addition to that, though, Hanen issued a second ruling, ordering the government to provide drafts and other information about a March 3, 2015 Advisory that the government had filed in the case.

    The technical nature of that order, however, understates Hanen’s action. The March advisory concerns a small, but substantial change to the previous deportation deferral program that Obama implemented in 2012, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). [snip]

    In granting additional discovery on Tuesday night, Hanen harshly criticized the federal government’s actions — clearly siding with the states on this side-issue.

    “[E]ven under the most charitable interpretation of these circumstances, and based solely upon what counsel for the Government told the Court, the Government knew its representations had created ‘confusion,’ but kept quiet about it for two weeks while simultaneously pressing this Court to rule on the merits of its motion,” Hanen wrote.

    Later, he noted, “Fabrications, misstatements, half-truths, artful omissions, and the failure to correct misstatements may be acceptable, albeit lamentable, in other aspects of life; but in the courtroom, when an attorney knows that both the Court and the other side are relying on complete frankness, such conduct is unacceptable.”

    Referring to the federal government’s actions in these circumstances as “misconduct,” Hanen wrote that “further investigation” of the issue was merited and went on to state:

    The Court orders the attorneys for the Government to file, complete with courtesy copies to the Court and Plaintiffs, the following: (i) any and all drafts of the March 3, 2015 Advisory [Doc. No. 176], including all corresponding metadata and all other tangible items that indicate when each draft of the document was written and/or edited or revised; and (ii) a list of each person who knew about this Advisory, or about the DHS activity discussed therein, and each person who reviewed or approved its wording or filing, as well as the date and time when each person was apprised of this document and/or its contents, or of the DHS activity that is the subject matter thereof. No documents, electronic mails, texts, communications, or tangible items (including without limitation all computer records, hard drives, and servers) of any kind that deal with the Advisory or the subject matters discussed in the Advisory, whether or not owned by the Government, are to be destroyed or erased.

    The federal government is to provide the information ordered by April 21.

    Thus, writes the Kraken.

  34. Probably a damn good idea…is Hillary finally learning that she has to move quickly with the times to gain the advantage? Tech is everything now in elections.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/08/hillary-clinton-hires-google-executive-to-be-chief-technology-officer/

    Hillary Clinton hires Google executive to be chief technology officer.

    Hillary Rodham Clinton has hired a longtime Google executive to oversee her likely presidential campaign’s technology development and build new ways for Clinton to engage with voters, according to Democrats with knowledge of the move.

    Stephanie Hannon, who is Google’s director of product management for civic innovation and social impact, will become the chief technology officer of the expected Clinton campaign, according to the Democrats, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the appointment.

    At Clinton’s New York campaign headquarters, Hannon will serve on the senior staff and oversee a team of engineers and developers, which could include outside consultants, to devise Web sites, apps and other tools for the former secretary of state and her staff to engage with supporters and voters.

    Their first challenge is to have the technological infrastructure in place for Clinton’s pending campaign launch, expected in coming days, to immediately connect with her supporters, capture information about them and raise money from them.

    The Clinton team does not plan to debut what one Democrat called “a glitzy, shiny suite of apps” on the campaign’s first day but will build innovative tools over time under Hannon’s leadership.

    Hannon, who has worked in Silicon Valley for two decades, would be the first woman to hold the title of chief technology officer on a major presidential campaign. She will work closely with Katie Dowd, a longtime Clinton aide who will serve as the campaign’s digital director, and Teddy Goff, an outside consultant who help lead digital strategy and was the 2012 Obama campaign’s digital director.

    At Google, Hannon recently has focused on building technological tools to help communities respond to natural disasters and sharing information about elections, including ballot locations and candidates. She previously helped develop the popular Google Maps app and oversaw its global expansion, incorporating geo-coding in dozens of countries and creating the transit tool that allows users to plan itineraries on public buses and trains.

    Hannon does not appear to have political campaign experience but has worked at a number of Silicon Valley companies, including Facebook, Cisco and Intel, according to her LinkedIn profile. She earned a bachelor’s degree in computer systems engineering and a master’s degree in electrical engineering at Stanford University as well as a master of business administration degree at Harvard Business School.

  35. Hell freezes over…..

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/tom-coburn-praises-hillary-clinton

    Top conservative praises Hillary Clinton

    In the Senate, Tom Coburn earned the nickname “Dr. No” for his penchant for blocking anything that didn’t fit his small-government conservative ideology. But now retired, the Oklahoma Republican has kind words for his former colleague, Democrat Hillary Clinton, who is set to launch a second presidential campaign very soon.

    “I think Hillary’s experience would make her a very effective president, I think, if she were to win,” Coburn said Wednesday during a meeting with msnbc reporters and editors in New York. “First of all, she’s been on the inside of politics for a long time, so she knows the inside game inside and out. She also knows the relationship game. Her husband was great at it.”

    Coburn was asked if he thought Clinton would be better or worse than President Obama, who has sometimes been criticized for failing to build better relationships with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Despite their ideological differences, Coburn was friendly with Obama in the Senate and said he was “proud” the country elected its first black president in 2008.

    Coburn also praised Clinton’s work in the upper chamber, where she represented New York from 2001 to early 2009 before stepping down to become Obama’s first secretary of state.

    “She was a good senator,” he said. “She worked across the aisle. She kept her word. She became knowledgeable about a lot of issues while she was a senator. So she did that job well,” Coburn continued.

    And while Republicans have focused on trying to discredit Clinton’s four years as the nation’s top diplomat, Coburn had almost nothing but praise and compared her favorably to her successor, John Kerry.

    “I think history overall will probably show that she did a more than adequate job, with a couple of blips, as secretary of state. Better than the secretary of state we have now, for sure. So there’s nothing wrong with her qualifications,” he said.

    …………..

    sounds like he’s auditioning for a job…..

  36. Finally!!

    One American,

    with some authority,

    stands up for the American public.

    BRAVO to Judge Kracken!

    [quoted]

    Later, he noted, “Fabrications, misstatements, half-truths, artful omissions, and the failure to correct misstatements may be acceptable, albeit lamentable, in other aspects of life; but in the courtroom, when an attorney knows that both the Court and the other side are relying on complete frankness, such conduct is unacceptable.”

    and this…

    No documents, electronic mails, texts, communications, or tangible items (including without limitation all computer records, hard drives, and servers) of any kind that deal with the Advisory or the subject matters discussed in the Advisory, <b.whether or not owned by the Government, are to be destroyed or erased.

  37. Moon posted…

    Hillary Clinton hires Google executive to be chief technology officer.

    —-

    This proves to me Hillary is running. And Hillary picked a female geek…

    Bravo Hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  38. Hmmmmmmm…….Hillary’s make up artist returning to her….

    http://www.ibtimes.com/barbara-lacy-veep-makeup-artist-could-return-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-1873438

    Normally when pundits bemoan Washington’s revolving door they complain about lawmakers leaving public life in favor of corporate interests. That phrase could soon have an entirely new meaning now that the makeup artist from “Veep” might be leaving the HBO show for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

    Barbara Lacy worked as Clinton’s makeup artist for more than 12 years before jumping to “Veep,” the popular comedy that pokes fun at the goings on in the White House. Clinton is perceived as the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 though the former secretary of state has yet to announce her candidacy officially. “Veep” stars Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Selina Meyer, a vice president who struggles to overcome the hilarious ineptitude of her own staff.

    “Can you believe that we have Hillary Clinton’s makeup artist?” Louis-Dreyfus asked at Monday night’s “Veep” premiere party, as quoted by Allure magazine. “And now Hillary is apparently announcing soon. So, yeah, I’m confident that we will lose her.”

  39. When……I’d wager a bet on possibly April 14th for the announcement….

    Why….April 14th is Equal Pay Day……

    Would that make good sense?

  40. I see someone has activated the outraged usual AA mouthpieces…..didn’t take long for Jackson and Sharpton to get their asses in front of the camera…….

  41. admin

    April 8, 2015 at 1:07 pm

    Hanen writes more Kraken. Fun to read his findings and opinions:

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

    I am also very happy to hear this news…

    however I do not understand how the following is being allowed to continue AGAIN…and no one seems to be doing anything about it…

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/07/the-number-of-illegal-immigrant-minors-caught-crossing-the-us-border-is-surging-again/

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

    in addition, earlier today I hear a report that says it is not simply south americans that are coming in on our borders…

    that syrians, russians and muslims are coming across

    frankly I find it very scary that many “lone wolves” could be slipping in and positioning themselves to do great harm to US citizens…and there seems to be no urgency to do anything about it…

    I also heard another report linked to Al S and NBP that really worried me…I do not want to talk about it here but if true…really worrisome…and really transformative of the USA…

  42. The Jokar will be quite popular in prison. Especially around Muslims. Or so I hear. And, wasn’t he on the cover of Rolling Stone?

    Deep fried? How about over easy?

    Good riddance to bad rubbish.

  43. Wbb, Rush says Bibi will not act against Iran…He says the threat of total withdrawal of finance and military intervention in the air should Israel fighters take flight, will keep him in check…
    I’m not so sure…

  44. Jokar is using the defense that he was influenced by his big brother, just an innocent, freakin’ college student that knew what the Hell he was doing.

    Char-broiled for mass terrorists.

  45. moononpluto
    April 8, 2015 at 1:08 pm

    [Stephanie] Hannon, who has worked in Silicon Valley for two decades, would be the first woman to hold the title of chief technology officer on a major presidential campaign. She will work closely with Katie Dowd, a longtime Clinton aide who will serve as the campaign’s digital director, and Teddy Goff, an outside consultant who help lead digital strategy and was the 2012 Obama campaign’s digital director.

    I’m hoping that this will be the underlying theme for her campaign and hopefully the ultimate opportunity for the world. She is filling top positions not only with her people, but with qualified WOMEN. Its not going to be Democrats that put Hillary in office. It will be women. I believe if she captures 75% of the women in the country, then she will be president. Period. And that is a very dooable number.

    Hillary 2016

  46. S
    April 8, 2015 at 3:52 pm
    —————————–
    I wonder how many of them are leaving after they find out there are no jobs. Just keep them off the welfare roles and they will go away.

    The criminals are another problem. Hopefully that will end when we get rid of the criminal in the OO. We can hire Americans to detain and deport. The only real job creation Obola will have achieved.

    Get rid of the deadbeats and criminals, close the borders and do amnesty and reform.

    Why is it so hard for our leaders to solve this problem?

    Gee, maybe I should run for POTUS

  47. Lu, you are too smart and logical to run for POTUS. Most politicians are seeing illegals (even if they are violent criminals) as a voting block. That goes for both the Ds and the Rs.

    I am hoping someone, anyone, will bring back some sanity and still speak for the ones that actually pay taxes, but get an ever smaller piece of the incredibly shrinking American pie.

    I just sent a huge check to the Fed. I’m about to send a huge check to the state tomorrow. My insurance costs 3 times more but my deductible and my out of pocket is 5 times greater. I pay more but get a whole lot less. I am sick of it.

    We need more Lu4Pumas running for office.

  48. On FOX just now there was a really nasty campaign ad slamming Hillary. Good Heavens! She has not even announced and there are already very negative ads about her on TV.

  49. “She was a good senator,” he said. “She worked across the aisle. She kept her word. She became knowledgeable about a lot of issues while she was a senator. So she did that job well,” Coburn continued.
    ______________

    Seems to me that back when she was senator, a number of Republicans made similar remarks about Hillary. Few of those voices can be heard today, sadly. It’s good to know that Colbern was not afraid to speak the truth. Was Colbert on FOX the home of the unfair and unbalanced (in more ways than one) network – and reporters?

  50. Rand Paul better watch himself…lest he morphs into Rick Fazio…

    his brash, belittling, insulting and intense statements against Hillary are going to backfire…he sounds like a condescending bully…

  51. S
    April 8, 2015 at 11:28 pm
    Rand Paul better watch himself…lest he morphs into Rick Fazio…

    his brash, belittling, insulting and intense statements against Hillary are going to backfire…he sounds like a condescending bully…

    ————
    Only if Hillary is seen as a victim, like she was in the aftermath of the Benghazi affair.

    After Benghazi the victim factor is negligible—except with her ardent supporters/true believers.

    The risk Paul courts with these sustained attacks on Hillary is that people will get sick of hearing them.

    In doing so, he reduces himself to a caricature–not to be taken seriously.

    Maybe that is what you meant.

    I do not think they have any impact on Hillary, and are easily dismissed as sexism.

    Not that they meet the legal test, but to the public mind that has the intellect of an 8 year old, they work.

    Just like things that go bump in the night.

  52. Southern Born
    April 8, 2015 at 8:50 pm
    On FOX just now there was a really nasty campaign ad slamming Hillary. Good Heavens! She has not even announced and there are already very negative ads about her on TV.
    ———-
    Well . . . the stage has been set, everyone knows it, so the announcement is what? A formality.

  53. Seems to me that back when she was senator, a number of Republicans made similar remarks about Hillary. Few of those voices can be heard today, sadly. It’s good to know that Colbern was not afraid to speak the truth. Was Colbert on FOX the home of the unfair and unbalanced (in more ways than one) network – and reporters?
    ————–
    Well, sure. And if you ignore the past six years you can say that with a straight face. I still say it.

  54. gonzotx
    April 8, 2015 at 6:42 pm
    Wbb, Rush says Bibi will not act against Iran…He says the threat of total withdrawal of finance and military intervention in the air should Israel fighters take flight, will keep him in check…
    I’m not so sure…
    —————-
    That is the safe bet. The risk of acting is short term, because the west is aligned against Israel. With a new president, especially a Republican, because Hillary’s support for Israel is not what it was in 2008 given the support she has given to Obama’s anti semitism, the risk calculus changes. The problem is by then Iran will have the bomb. He is right though–the western nations with Obama doing his usual leading from behind have put all this effort into this non deal deal, and would take steps to protect it even as it turns to shit, as it undoubtedly will.

  55. Surprise surprise surprise.

    Who would have thunk this would happen

    During the glorious reign of big media beloved messiah Obama.

    And Obama so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son Kerry . . .

    Bambie to Johnnie: do we have a deal or don’t we?

    Kerry to Bambie: we have . . . a virtual deal . . . and now it will be up to big media to bamboozle the ignorant public that its good.

    Kerry: and you sir can give them that old Churchillian justification: jaw jaw jaw is better than war war war.

    That all it will take to fool the American People—and make your poll numbers rise to 2008 levels.

    Bambie to Kerry: good. That is all I care about.

    ————–

    Iran Pulls the Rug From Under Obama
    by Richard Fernandez

    According to the Oxford English dictionary, the proverb “the wish is father to the thought” means “we believe a thing because we wish it to be true”. President Obama wanted a deal with Iran so badly that he thought he actually had one. However today, president Rouhani of Iran spelled it out for him. The deal he had isn’t the one he thought he had. USA Today reports:

    Iran’s president on Thursday said Tehran will not sign a final nuclear deal unless world powers lift economic sanctions imposed on the country immediately.

    The United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany — the so-called P5 +1 group — reached an understanding with Iran last week on limits to its nuclear program in return for lifting crippling economic sanctions, after extended talks in Lausanne, Switzerland.

    The U.S. has previously said the sanctions would be lifted in phases, but the details have not yet been negotiated.

    However, in a televised speech on Thursday, President Hassan Rouhani appeared to rule out a gradual removal of the successive round of sanctions that have hit hard its energy and financial sectors — and crippled its economy.

    “We will not sign any deal unless all sanctions are lifted on the same day,” Rouhani said, according to Reuters. “We want a win-win deal for all parties involved in the nuclear talks,” he said.

    Rouhani added “the Iranian nation has been and will be the victor in the negotiations.” That’s rubbing it in.

    Only yesterday “acting State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf on Wednesday dismissed a critique of the Iran nuclear agreement from former secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, by saying their comments amount to “big words” and that the two secretaries don’t live in the real world.” “I heard a lot of, sort of, big words and big thoughts in that piece,” she said.

    So for Harf’s benefit, as well as that of her employer, here’s Agence Press France. “Tehran (AFP) – Iran wants international sanctions lifted on the day of the implementation of an agreement with world powers on its nuclear programme, President Hassan Rouhani said on Thursday. “We will not sign any agreements unless on the first day of the implementation of the deal all economic sanctions are totally lifted on the same day,” Rouhani said. Or, as CNN puts it, “Iran: No signing final nuclear deal unless economic sanctions are lifted on same day”.

    Not that Tehran’s about face changes anything. In administration’s words “a bad deal is better than no deal.” And sure this is a bad deal, but it’s a “once in a lifetime deal”.

    Obama says his doctrine is “we will engage”. But it looks like the actual doctrine is “we will be fooled”. Of course they will insist that nobody will make a fool of them, however they reserve the right to make fools of themselves.

    As I have often written. It’s painful to watch.

    It’s hard not to think that Iran is out to humiliate Barack Hussein Obama. With this calculated slight, they not only want to wipe the floor with his reputation, they want to see him crawl. And he probably will. Obama gave them Iraq, allowed Iran into Syria, permitted Hezbollah to take over Lebanon, let them run him out of Yemen, all in the expectation that Rouhani would give him his “game changer”, his “once in a lifetime deal”.

    Surely after all that … And now after he’s handed in all that earnest money and proclaimed his purchase to the world they won’t deliver the merchandise. He’s been had, pure and simple. They gave him a special surprise gift and he’s proudly opened it in front of relatives and friends only to discover it contains a pile of …

    Iran know he won’t fight because he’s already scuttled his position in Iraq and allowed himself to be humiliated in Syria by drawing “red lines” with crayons. His “moderate rebels forces” in Syra have all defected to someone else. Iran watched America flee from Yemen — Obama’s counterinsurgency model — leaving a list of local US intelligence agents to fall into their hands. Those men are probably being hunted down or dying in agony. Tehran probably gaped in amusement as he made enemies with their oldest ally in the Middle East, Israel — all for the sake of the agreement they have now thrown in his face.

    If Obama was going to fight, he would have done so already. And now it’s too late. Who in the region will trust Barack Obama? Israel? The survivors of Yemen? A loyal remnant in Syria? Maybe someone in Anbar who fought for America and then escaped first from ISIS and then the IRG? Maybe there’s somebody left who hasn’t been sold out.

    So let’s ask Marie Harf: how does it feel to be double crossed? In a way this final act of cruelty is not in Iran’s interest. The Hill reports that the Left had gone all out to endorse Obama’s “historic” deal. ”Liberal Democrats have mounted a furious offensive to convince Senate Democrats to oppose legislation the White House warns could kill a nuclear deal with Iran.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared that “these negotiations must be allowed to proceed unencumbered”.

    But some people are so craven they excite disgust even from those at whose feet they fall. They ayatollahs had to kick at the upturned faces. They just couldn’t help themselves.

    It’s not too late for Obama to ask himself: is this how an American behaves? Is this how any self-respecting person behaves? But maybe it is too late. Maybe it’s been too late for a long time.

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/04/09/iran-pulls-the-rug-from-under-obama/#ixzz3WoiQR84V

  56. We want a win-win deal for all parties involved in the nuclear talks,” he said.

    Rouhani added “the Iranian nation has been and will be the victor in the negotiations.”
    ——-
    Win win but Iran must be the victor?

    Discrimination so subtle is a feat beyond the compass of ordinary minds (Justice Cardoza)

    I must be pretty ordinary because to me it sounds like a blatant contradiction.

    That being the case, I am confident that Marie Harf can explain it

    Or confuse the issue so much that we decide it is inscrutable and then move on.

    When it comes to incompetent Obama staffers, there is no bottom of the barrel.

  57. Richard: It’s painful to watch.

    It’s hard not to think that Iran is out to humiliate Barack Hussein Obama. With this calculated slight, they not only want to wipe the floor with his reputation, they want to see him crawl. And he probably will.
    ———
    So . . . what’s so painful about that?

    I guess you can feel virtual pain, which has no symptoms except for a little—no, be honest now – – more than a little schadenfreude.

  58. Iran is helping Obama build his (Carteresque) legacy.

    Only it is not quite the legacy he had in mind.

    But surely the one he deserves.

    Frankly, most of his failures have a period of gestation.

    They will not hit the nation like a ton of bricks

    Until after he is safely out of office.

    Whereas the effects of this crisis are occurring

    In real time.

    What a pity.

    What a political obituary.

  59. The Rock

    She is filling top positions not only with her people, but with qualified WOMEN. Its not going to be Democrats that put Hillary in office. It will be women. I believe if she captures 75% of the women in the country, then she will be president.

    ——–
    Hillary doesn’t need 75% to win the election, she only needs approx 51% or more.

    Then again, she could win the election, like last time and have her votes given to the loser and stolen.

  60. So . . . what’s so painful about that?

    Agreed, wbb. I can’t think of anyone who deserves to be humiliated by those he has sucked up to than BO.

  61. Lu4PUMA

    Get rid of the deadbeats and criminals, close the borders and do amnesty and reform.

    ——

    I agree with all but the AMNESTY part.

    Amnesty shouldn’t be part of any immigration plan.

    Rewarding those that come over the border and never leave, and have anchor babies just sucks and destroys our economy.

    Paying for their health benefits and welfare isn’t fair to our homeless Americans and vets.

  62. wbboei

    April 9, 2015 at 7:26 am

    S

    The risk Paul courts with these sustained attacks on Hillary is that people will get sick of hearing them.

    In doing so, he reduces himself to a caricature–not to be taken seriously.

    Maybe that is what you meant.

    I do not think they have any impact on Hillary, and are easily dismissed as sexism.

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

    that is what I meant…when Rand says things like:

    “Hillary is not fit to lead the country” among other things…he is particularly offensive and obnoxious…and imo…goes into the ‘Rick Fazio’ zone which backfired…

    …if he wants to go after her policies that is fair game…but if he goes for the jugular on a personal level he does so at his own risk…

    btw…he is already shooting himself in the foot and stepping over his own message with the way he shushes the way questions are being posed to him

    …if he wants to play in the big league then put on your big boy pants and get ready for the rumble…btw…Hillary is eons ahead of Rand in that vein and has been wearing her big girl pants for a long, long time…

  63. Maybe Iran will make Obola an honorary Shah, when he is booted out of the Oval.

    With all the vacation $$$ the Obama’s have stolen from our tax dollars, they should be able to buy their own island, far, far away, and anoint Barry King.

  64. SOURCE: Hillary Clinton will announce her 2016 campaign this weekend

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-will-announce-her-campaign-this-weekend-2015-4#ixzz3Wra5Jox1

    A source with knowledge of Hillary Clinton’s plans has confirmed that she will officially announce her 2016 presidential bid on Saturday or Sunday. This will be imminently followed by campaign travel.

    A spokesperson for Clinton’s campaign team did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

    Clinton has long been expected to enter the 2016 race. Polls show her well ahead of all her likely Democratic and Republican rivals.

    She has been ramping up her presidential preparations including leasing office space for a headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, and hiring key staffers.

    On Tuesday, CNN reported Clinton’s official announcement was “likely only days away.”

    Two Democratic challengers to Clinton, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee have also officially launched 2016 presidential exploratory committees.

    Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is also considering entering the race.

    On the Republican side, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) have both formally launched campaigns. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) has a “big announcement” scheduled for an event in Florida next Monday.

    Clinton’s plans to kick off her campaign this weekend could complicate Rubio’s kickoff. Both Cruz and Paul enjoyed substantial coverage after their announcements. Cruz also saw his poll numbers improve following his official launch. Coverage of Clinton’s announcement and subsequent trip could diminish the attention give to Rubio’s kickoff because of her status as a strong frontrunner.

    In a message to Business Insider, an operative for one of the other 2016 campaigns teased Rubio about being “overshadowed.”

    “Poor Marco, overshadowed again,” the operative wrote.

  65. IMO, this won’t anger anyone, because it’s so CRAZY, that it’s hilarious. Hannity is upset that the media won’t ask Hillary about her terrible temper. His evidence? Something someone said in 1999 in a book, and something someone else said in 2000.

    I think he’s missing the target. I think he should have the media go interview her 1st grade teacher and publicize how rude of a person she is, because sometimes she would answer a question without raising her hand first. SMH.

  66. I should be excited that Hillary may announce this weekend, but I feel more dread at how she will be attacked from the Kooks, Media and the GOP.

    I do wish that she would wait a little longer.

  67. Free

    It’s On!!

    ——-
    Okay Free, that is the attitude I need to hear to get off the dread train.

  68. Paying for their health benefits and welfare isn’t fair to our homeless Americans and vets.

    I agree, Shadow, but guess what – I passed a newspaper stand, and our local paper had an article that CA wants to start doing that for illegals. I guess CA can race the US as a whole to see which collapses first…

  69. I’m excited, and anxious. Time to batten down the hatches the trolls will be back with vengeance.

  70. I hope and pray this is Hillary’s campaign, without Obama controlling every move. one fear is with Mook running the show.

    I eagerly await her kick-off speech. this will speak volumes.

  71. There was an extremely insightful article on the Opinion Section of the Wall Street Journal which came from an independent source not part of their stable of writers, i.e. the usual suspects. It was so good that I bought the copy which I seldom do anymore because my subscription has lapsed, and it is obscene to pay $3 for a daily newspaper. But this article was, as I say, the exception. And now I see, it is also in Real Clear Politics. (Note: did you buy a ticket when you could have got in free? Lets do what they do the people of Paree. Chantee chantee sing a little Paris song).

    In essence, what is says is that the rules for radicals were intended to be a tactic for disenfranchised minority groups to assert their political and economic rights against an otherwise unresponsive establishment.

    The sea change that the supercalafragalisticeexpialotious big media loved and craved messiah has ushered in is to allow those in power to destroy the weak and he less powerful.

    Alinsky tactics thus employed legitimate witch hunts, political persecutions, and the mindset of Salem Massachusetts, with big media applauding because they cannot get enough of their messiah who makes them and the political class wealthy beyond anyone’s imagination, and so what if he destroys the country so long as they get riiiiiiiiiiichhhhhhhhhh.

    Well, let us hope that the day comes when these tubucular people in the administration and in the media are hauled before captains’ mast to give a fair accounting for their treason.

    The larger question however is what next? If the alternative is business as usual of bleeding constituents to enrich donors, then I believe those tactics should be turned back around on the leftists to restore a constitutional system. They have thrown out the Constitution. No sense crying over spilled milk. On the contrary, let’s make the most of it.

    ——————

    The Alinsky Way of GOVERNING.

    What happens when those in power adopt ‘rules for radicals’ to attack their less powerful opponents.

    By PETE PETERSON
    April 9, 2015 6:50 p.m. ET
    460 COMMENTS

    Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, recently caused a stir by sending letters to seven university presidents seeking background information on scientists and professors who had given congressional testimony that failed to endorse what is the conventional wisdom in some quarters regarding climate change. One of the targets was Steven Hayward, a colleague of mine at Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy.

    Though the congressman lacked legal authority to demand information, his aggressive plan, which came to light in late February, should not be a surprise at a time when power holders from the White House on down are employing similar means against perceived enemies.

    Mr. Grijalva left a clue about how he operates in 2013 when the magazine In These Times asked about his legislative strategy. “I’m a Saul Alinsky guy,” he said, referring to the community organizer and activist who died in 1972, “that’s where I learned this stuff.”

    What sort of stuff? Mr. Grijalva sent his letters not to the professors but to university presidents, without (at least in the case of Mr. Hayward) the professors’ knowledge. Mr. Hayward was not even employed by Pepperdine at the time of his congressional testimony in 2011.

    But targeting institutions and their leaders is pure Alinsky; so are the scare tactics. Mr. Grijalva’s staff sent letters asking for information about the professors, with a March 16 due date—asking, for instance, if they had accepted funding from oil companies—using official congressional letterhead, and followed up with calls from Mr. Grijalva’s congressional office. This is a page from Alinsky’s book, in both senses of the word: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have,” reads one tip in his 1971 “Rules for Radicals.”

    Yet adopting Alinsky’s tactics may not in this case fit with Alinsky’s philosophy. This is Alinsky with a twist. Despite myriad philosophical inconsistencies, “Rules for Radicals” is meant to empower the weaker against the stronger. Alinsky writes: “The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

    In a similar vein, the political philosopher Jean Bethke Elshtain supported Alinsky’s work in getting disengaged communities—typically in lower socio-economic strata—to assume the difficult responsibilities of citizenship. As a way of challenging “big government,” even conservatives such as former House Majority Leader Dick Armey have recommended Alinsky’s tactics (minus his professed hatred of capitalism, etc.).

    But what happens when Machiavelli’s Prince reads and employs “Rules for Radicals”? In 2009 President Obama’s friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett was asked on CNN about media bias, particularly at Fox News, and she responded: “What the administration has said very clearly is that we’re going to speak truth to power.” I remember thinking: “Wait a minute, you’re the White House. You are the power.”

    In that sense President Obama’s election was both the climax of Alinsky’s vision and an existential crisis for that vision. Alinsky promoted the few tactics available to the downtrodden: irreverence, ridicule and deception. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” he wrote. So the rise to power of the world’s most famous community organizer raises a question: Should Alinskyite tactics be employed by those in power, or should they be reserved for those without?

    Mr. Grijalva’s campaign against seven academics serves as a cautionary tale of what can happen when power adopts these strategies to suppress opposition. The congressman’s office arranged additional pressure by notifying national and local media that these professors were under “investigation.” On the day the letters went out, the Washington Post blared: “House Dems: Did Big Oil seek to sway scientists in climate debate?”

    After receiving a call from a Grijalva staffer, our local Malibu Times obliged with the front-page headline, “Pepperdine Professor Investigated by Congressman.” The online Delaware News Journal, the hometown newspaper for David Legates at the University of Delaware, wrote: “UD’s David Legates caught in climate change controversy.” Alabama’s Huntsville Times had a piece under the headline: “Arizona congressman asking questions about outside funding for UAH climate expert John Christy.”

    To their credit, several editorial boards came to the defense of the professors. The Arizona Republic, the home-state newspaper of Mr. Grijalva and targeted Arizona State University professor Robert Balling, wrote that Mr. Grijalva’s campaign “fits the classic definition of a witch hunt.” Rep. Grijalva on March 2 acknowledged to National Journal that some of the information he demanded from the universities was “overreach” but defended his demand for information about funding sources.

    How did it come to this? The inability of politicians to confront another’s argument, much less to attempt to persuade the other side, has become standard operating procedure. Now this toxic approach is extending to the broader world of policy—including scientific research. Instead of evaluating the quality of the research, opponents make heavy-handed insinuations about who funds it—as though that matters if the science is sound. And now just about every climate scientist employed by an American university knows that Washington is watching.

    More broadly, what has happened is that a generation of American politicians who came of age during Saul Alinsky’s lifetime has moved into positions of institutional power that he so often derided as “the enemy.” They are showing an inability to leave behind Alinsky’s tactics that were intended for the weak against the strong. Civil discourse and academic freedom suffer while the “Prince” becomes more powerful.

    Mr. Peterson is the executive director of the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement at Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy.

  72. The objective at this point should be to pick the Obama loving big media journalist who has promoted the fraud, and covered for him, freeze him/her, personalize him, and polarize him from the profession of journalism—the thirty pieces of silver shadow group.

  73. Another interesting article on the WSJ Opinion page concerns a Wisconsis Chief Justice, deplored by her colleagues and constituents alike suing in federal court to prevent removal by voters. The noteworthy part is that her legal action is funded by a SOROS affiliated organization which seeks to change the law so the public has no say in who gets to be a judge. It would be strictly up to the Bar Association. Knowing what I know about bar associations, Buckley’s words are apt: better to be ruled by the first 200 names in the Brooklyn phone directory than by the faculty of Harvard Law School. Like we now are.

  74. lorac
    April 9, 2015 at 10:54 pm

    ——-
    I agree, and don’t even get me started on the stupidity of the California congress that gives away the farm to all the illegals in our state.

    They open the borders, look the other way, pay for their college education, welfare and then when the state is broke, they just ask us to raise our taxes, I am sick of it.

    If I didn’t love the outdoors in this state, I would move the Hell out.

  75. Shadowfax
    April 10, 2015 at 12:30 pm

    If I didn’t love the outdoors in this state, I would move the Hell out.
    ———————————————

    I finally did, to Washington state. In some ways, it is what California used to be before its politicians got the idea that they had unlimited resources and decided to establish a socialist utopia and save the world.

  76. Tony

    I finally did, to Washington state. In some ways, it is what California used to be

    ——–
    But with a lot more rain and much less sunshine unless you are in the eastern part of WA. My older sisters and their families moved there, and their summers are very short. Gray sky for too long, depresses me.

  77. She is announcing via twitter and a videotape. I get she wants to embrace technology but I hope she doesn’t seem distant So excited. This is going to be a loooong campaign.

  78. I am not so excited that H is announcing in April. I fear she should have waited to let Obola fail more and get some separation. But then, what do I know?

  79. Lu

    I fear she should have waited to let Obola fail more and get some separation.

    ———
    Berry has failed for 6.5 YEARS now, so a couple more months of failing isn’t going to make him suck any less.

    He is already wrapped up in court cases on his two big glorious contributions:
    HellCare and The Amnesty Giveaway.

    He is going to HATE it when Hillary steals all of his thunder for the next 1.5 years.

    I wish she would wait until the last second, but Hell…I am damn tired of waiting.

    GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  80. I hope we all don’t wait until Sunday at noon…and nothing happens.

    Well, we should be used to it by now. We have had lots of practice,
    W-A-I-T-……………………….i-n-g

  81. “The Democratic Party reminds me of the Republicans circa 1965 or so – impotent, shrill, no ideas, conspiratorial, reactive, out-of-touch with most Americans, isolationist, and full of embarrassing spokesmen.”[15]—-Victor Davis Hanson—a conservative democrat

    I think that is an insightful comment given the way they have ceded their political party to Al Sharpton on race issues (62 trips to the White House) and call everyone who disagrees with them on Obama’s policies a racist. Today, that is ALL the party stands for.

  82. I finally did, to Washington state. In some ways, it is what California used to be before its politicians got the idea that they had unlimited resources and decided to establish a socialist utopia and save the world.
    ———-
    I have in Washington state all my life except for the Korean War and my own military service. I can assure you it is heading down the same rabbit hole as California, no ifs ands or buts about it. It is only a matter of time. It is not in any way shape or form the city I grew up in. Twenty five tower cranes creating a rabbits warren of cheap gaudy apartment—$1700 month for a small cage in Belltown which i not the most desirable of areas. We have poor government with strong socialist ties. They raised the minimum wage to $15 per hour by fiat, and rent control is not too far off. I have half a mind to push for it if for no other reason than to fuck the developers as billions flow in from Europe. Not my town any more.

  83. I agree. I’m trying to enjoy it while it lasts, especially having no state income tax, having lots of trees and no drought, but the sales tax, liquor tax and property taxes are a royal pain in the ass. California really was the golden goose until its politicians killed it. Every other state is just a pale imitation of what California once was.

  84. I didn’t know that Victor Davis Hanson was a conservative Democrat. Some of his recent articles sounded like a Republican who is certainly no fan of Hillary. The Dem party back when Clinton was president is not the Dem party of today. BO and Sharpton’s
    policies/politics are not what the Dem party stood for.
    _______

    “The Democratic Party reminds me of the Republicans circa 1965 or so – impotent, shrill, no ideas, conspiratorial, reactive, out-of-touch with most Americans, isolationist, and full of embarrassing spokesmen.”[15]—-Victor Davis Hanson—a conservative democrat

    Have the Reps come that far since 1965? Maybe?

  85. Tony, I have a great interest in the history of Seattle. As cities go it is a young one. Founded by Arthur Denny and his party. The story of those early days is interesting. Denny himself was an interesting man. He was a conservative, but a big believer in equal rights. He owned half the city in the early days, but he lived very modestly. I wonder what he would think of the metropolis we see today. Frankly, I don’t have to wonder too long. And then there is the namesake of our city Chief Seattle. He is buried across the sound. If there is that life hereafter, I wonder what he would think of the town that bears his name. He was a great friend the Denny party, and a very very wise man. Later came the movers and shakers of the next generation—Judge Burke, McGilvra (first US Attorney for the Washington territory, and a friend of Abraham Lincoln). One of the things that generation really did get right was setting up the park system and commissioner the great landscape artist firm in the nation at that time to design it–Olmstead, who also did Central Park, Brookline and Golden Gate Park in San Francisco.

    Here is Arthur Denny’s account of those pioneer days:

    http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/elechtle/texts/Denny-Pioneer_Days.txt&date=2009-10-25+21:45:06

  86. Southern Born

    April 10, 2015 at 11:16 pm

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

    SB…and the worst trait of the O Dims is they have become intolerant totalitarians…no longer the fair minded party I once admired…now it is their way or no way…no time to try to see anyone else’s POV…just as corrupt as those they oppose…

  87. wbboei
    April 10, 2015 at 11:29 pm
    ———————————————
    Thanks for that bit on the history of Seattle. I still have much to learn about the state of Washington and its history, but one thing I can definitely say is that it’s hard to beat the view of Seattle from the Space Needle with Mt. Rainier in the distance on a sunny, summer day.

  88. admin

    where the heck are you? setting up digs in Brooklyn Heights? great eateries. check out Henry’s End if it’s still there.

  89. Shadowfax
    April 10, 2015 at 8:31 pm

    Berry has failed for 6.5 YEARS now, so a couple more months of failing isn’t going to make him suck any less.

    He is already wrapped up in court cases on his two big glorious contributions:
    HellCare and The Amnesty Giveaway.
    ——————————————
    Shadowfax,

    My concern is that the worst is yet to come. Hellcare and amnesty can be easily fixed if they really wanted to. But the economy is the Big F’n Deal. They put the QE patch on and instead of letting it off slowly, Obola kept pumping the bubble to look good. So problems have compounded. We enjoyed a recent bump with elite Chinese getting their loot out of that economy as it was collapsing and they have developed other Ponzi real estate scams in addition to Sub-Prime mortgages (i.e. real estate rental companies).

    As far as I can tell the crash has started first quarter of this year. Investors have gotten out of the Fed’s Casino and companies are buying back their own stock with bank loans to keep the prices up. We it does not outright crash, it will become a period of severe deflation. Call it what you want, the economy is tanked and the winner of the 2016 Presidential Election will be handed a bag of Bush/Obama turds.

    Maybe that’s good. Put someone competent and compassionate in the job to clean up the mess. But dump on the competent woman?

  90. These companies positioning for the crash are transferring bad debt to Limited Liability Companies and the like. Alot of them are doing it on Off Balance sheet that show up only on required FEC filings and are not even necessarily known to investors. But here is a big one, in the news, conveniently spun for the sheeple about to be fleeced.

    GE to sell bulk of finance unit, return up to $90 billion to investors
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ge-close-selling-nearly-real-094207788.html

  91. It seems to me that by engaging in years of negotiation, and driving them to impasse, they have done the impossible.

    Based on that my hat is off the the Supreme Leader of Iran.

    For he alone has done the impossible:

    He has out-bamboozled the Great Bamboozler.

    The Supreme Leader is very smart.

    Just look at what he has done to the big media beloved Messiah—under the Olympic Judging system.

    1. first, he as bought time for Iran to continue building the bomb (10/10)

    2. second, he got Obama to prevent Israel from attacking

    3. third, he went to the bargaining table–which is enough for to satisfy the liberal who always elevates form over substance

    4. fourth, he got Kerry and that seat sniffer Letterman to both say aloud: If the Prophet wills it.

    5. fifth, he got a lot of good free advertising in the western press as a man of peace

    6. sixth, he got time to consolidate his control over Iraq–wresting it from pro American forces

    7. seventh, he got a tentative commitment to lift sanctions

    8. eighth, he called Obama red handed doing what he always does: lying–about what was agreed to

    9. ninth, he set it up so the Obama is the one to back away from the bargaining table.

    10.tenth, got Marie Harf to call Kissinger and Schultz old out of touch fuddy duddies

    Concerning Kissinger, a guy I met, cousin of Princess Grace of Monaco, told me that Kissinger chastised him for playing golf. And when he asked Kissinger whether he played the game, he responded: no, I still have an active sex life.

    But we digress. The main point is with the collapse of the Iran deal, the great big media beloved messiah has achieved yet another milestone in his unbroken track record of failure, and disaster, which he can bask in as the world falls apart from the front porch of the Magnum mansion in Hawaii, as the tropical winds blow, and the big media freakos blow even harder.

  92. And, in the bonus round (assuming there is one) he will get to play wack a mole with the UN inspectors. Based on all this good news, it is not unlikely that Lurch and Letterman will convert to Islam.

  93. Misreading Alinsky
    Rules for Radicals: a strategy for giving the radical left the power needed to win.
    by Andrew C. McCarthy
    April 10, 2015 – 5:27 pm

    Print Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size
    Since the year before his disciple, Barack Obama, was elected president, many of us have been raising alarms about how Saul Alinsky’s brass-knuckles tactics have been mainstreamed by Democrats. It was thus refreshing to find an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this week, by Pete Peterson of Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy, expressly calling out a top House Democrat for resorting to the seminal community organizer’s extortion playbook.

    But in the end, alas, Mr. Peterson gets Alinsky wrong.

    He does a fine job of exposing the hardball played by Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. Grijalva attempted to intimidate scientists and professors who fail to toe the alarmist line on “climate change” by sending letters to presidents of their universities. He wrote the letters on congressional letterhead and purported to impose a March 16 due date for a response – creating the coercive misimpression that the letters were enforceable demands for information, made by a government official in a position to punish noncompliance. The missives sought information about the scientists and academics (among them, the excellent Steve Hayward of Pepperdine and Power Line), including whether they accepted funding from oil companies. Peterson adds that the letters were followed up by officious calls from Grijalva’s staff. The abuse of power is blatant and reprehensible.

    Peterson is quite right that Grijalva’s “targeting [of] institutions and their leaders is pure Alinsky; and so are the scare tactics.” He goes astray, however, in contending that this leftist lawmaker’s adoption of Alinsky’s tactics “may not fit with Alinsky’s philosophy.”

    In essence, Peterson contends that Alinsky’s systematizing of extortionate tactics can be divorced from any particular ideological agenda. He urges, as did Alinsky himself in Rules for Radicals, that the latter’s system was devised for the “Have-Nots,” advising them how to take power away from the “Haves.” Therefore, Peterson reasons, “an existential crisis for [Alinsky’s] vision” arises once the Have-Nots acquire power: i.e., the system is somehow undermined by its own success because the Have-Nots are not Have-Nots anymore.

    This overlooks a crucial detail. There is a reason why Alinsky’s self-help manual is called Rules for Radicals, not Rules for Have-Nots.

    Alinsky was a radical leftist. Of course, he struck the pose of one who eschewed faithful adherence to a particular doctrine; but that is a key part of the strategy. To be successful – meaning, to advance the radical agenda – a community organizer needs public support. Thus he must masquerade as a “pragmatist” rather than reveal himself as a socialist or a communist. The idea is for the organizer to portray himself as part of the bourgeois society he despises, to coopt its language and mores in order to bring about radical transformation from within.

    But it is not as if Alinsky organizers are indifferent to the kind of change a society goes through as long as it is change of some kind. Alinsky was a man of the hard left, a social justice activist who sought massive redistribution of wealth and power. Peterson acknowledges this in a fleeting mention of Alinsky’s “professed hatred of capitalism.” Noteworthy, moreover, is Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals critique of such seventies revolutionaries as the Weathermen: his contempt stemmed not from disagreement with their goals but from the fact that their terrorist methods enraged the public, making those goals harder to achieve. When a book begins, as Rules for Radicals does, by saluting Lucifer as “the very first radical,” it is fairly clear that the author has taken sides.

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2015/04/10/misreading-alinsky/#ixzz3X1tmJFrU

  94. Community organizing is not designed for any random Have Nots to use against any random Haves. It is for the Left’s Have Nots to use against proponents of individual liberty, economic liberty, private property, and the governmental system created to protect them. To be sure, the election of an Alinskyite to the presidency is, as Peterson describes it, a climactic event. But that does not mean Alinskyites perceive it as an “existential crisis.” To the contrary, they perceive it as an opportunity to achieve total victory over the former Haves. That is why Democrats have no compunction about using their awesome government power in the same way – except to greater effect – that a community organizer uses “direct action” (i.e., extortion).

    Alinsky was not trying to improve the lot of the Have Nots. He was trying to rally the Have Nots to his side because doing so was necessary to achieve his goal of supplanting the American system. Alinsky was not planning to switch sides if his program succeeded in turning America’s Haves into Have Nots.

    Alinsky’s program is about acquiring power in order to use it for purposes of imposing a leftist vision.

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2015/04/10/misreading-alinsky/#ixzz3X1uQoUu6

  95. Let so over that again:

    1. Community organizing is not designed for any random Have Nots to use against any random Haves

    2. It is for the Left’s Have Nots to use against proponents of individual liberty, economic liberty, private property, and the governmental system created to protect them.

    3. Community organizers perceive the acquisition of government power as an opportunity to achieve total victory over the former Haves.

    4. That is why modern democrats have no qualms about using the vast power of government to persecute the middle class.

    5. Their goal is not to improve the lot of the have nots.

    6. It is to achieve his goal which is to supplant the American system, and impose a leftist system.

    7. And that is why he is promoting an open border and flying people in from Central America.

    8. To destroy the middle class and undermine the American system.

    9. With the unabashed support of big media, and the upper class.

    10. Who have convinced themselves that they are immune from whatever happens to the middle class.

    11. Which is a paradigmatic example of short term thinking, yes?

Comments are closed.