White Appreciation Day – Celebrate Freedom Of Speech On #WhiteAppreciationDay And #VEDay70

Update: O’Reilly: You know who wouldn’t have held a Mohammed cartoon contest? Jesus, that’s who. Disgusting. Wrong. Self-censoring appeasement is not a wise tactic to defeat Islamic nuts and jihadists. Assassins’ Veto as we wrote below.

Fortunately Megyn Kelly is on the job and she goes directly after Obama softie O’Reilly without specifically naming him:

Kelly did a good job with Eugene Volokh too in defense of free speech (Kelly slaps Chris Cuomo who does not understand free speech applies to hate speech):

There is value in an act of defiance.


Think things are crazy now with the Obama race-baiting? It’s going to get worse as the Obama ballyhooed demographic changes take place or don’t take place in America.

The left is going nuts (nuttier?) on Twitter today because it is “White Appreciation Day”. If you’re white you can get a 10% discount at some BBQ place no one ever heard of before and therefore the left has gone as nutty as a squirrel who munched on a hallucinogenic acorn.

To be accurate, today is not “White Appreciation Day” today is more “Hate White Appreciation Day”. “White Appreciation Day” will be on June 11 at the aforementioned BBQ emporium no one heard of before today. So, as if needed, here is the rationale for “White Appreciation Day”:

White patrons who visit Rubbin Buttz BBQ in Milliken, Colorado, on June 11 will receive a 10 percent discount on their orders as part of “White Appreciation Day.”

While they realize the move might anger some people, the Hispanic owners, Edgar Antillon and Miguel Jimenez, are standing by their decision.

“White Appreciation Day! June 11th. Because All Americans Should Be Celebrated,” the sign posted outside the restaurant reads.

We have a whole month for Black History Month; we have a whole month for Hispanic heritage month, so we thought the least we could do was offer one day to appreciate white Americans,” Antillon told KUSA-TV.

The restaurant is already experiencing some backlash.

Civil rights activist Ricardo Romero called the discount a “perpetuation of racism,” while a spokeswoman with the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies said the decision could result in lawsuits if customers “felt like they were being discriminated against.”

If you celebrate White Appreciation Day you might get a lawsuit as punishment. Even if you live in a predominantly non-white area of the country you can’t celebrate “White Appreciation Day” even though as a white person you might be the minority. And if the ObamaRoid dream of a minority majority country ever comes to pass will White Appreciation Day be a civil right or a civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen?

What about the United Negro College Fund? What about “historically black colleges”? What about “BlackPeopleMeet”?

Is BlackPeopleMeet racist? Is there a WhitePeopleMeet website? Why can you have a BlackPeopleMeet website but not a WhitePeopleMeet?

As the ObamaRoid nightmare of race-baiting becomes an everyday occurrence the full horrors of identity politics become apparent. Can you picture a White Appreciation Day in majority black Baltimore without riots and lawsuits?

Is there institutional racism in the United States? Not against blacks. Any time the “racist!” charge is merely heard the government along with all the institutions of power jumps right in to fight against the accused racist no matter how frivolous the charge or the accuser.

Is there institutional racism in the United States? To an extraordinary extent institutional racism is in favor of blacks. Think we exaggerate? Did you hear the one about the phony black man?:

Mindy Kaling’s Brother Reveals He Pretended to Be Black to Get into Medical School

In a new website-slash-pitch for a memoir, Vijay Chokal-Ingam, the brother of comedian Mindy Kaling, reveals that he gamed the system and managed to get into medical school by claiming he was African-American.

Chokal-Ingam, who graduated from the University of Chicago with a meager 3.1 GPA, says that his ploy began after the self-described party boy saw his fellow Asian Indian-Americans, many of whom had higher grades, fail to get into medical school. “I shaved my head, trimmed my long Indian eyelashes, and applied to medical school as a black man,” he wrote on his website, AlmostBlack.com. [snip]

With this, “Jojo” managed to get into the selective Saint Louis University School of Medicine with the exact same application he used as an Indian man. As a fake black man, he allegedly secured interviews at nine highly selective medical schools, including Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania. As he told The New York Post:

“I disclosed that I grew up in one of the wealthiest towns in Massachusetts, that my mother was a doctor, and that my father was an architect,” he said Saturday, describing his med-school applications.

“I disclosed that I didn’t receive financial aid from the University of Chicago, and that I had a nice car,” he said. “I was the campus rich kid, let’s just put it on the table. And yet they considered me an affirmative-action applicant.”

Well but that is just one weird example right? Certainly no proof of institutional racism on behalf of black people, right? For such an extraordinary claim there must be extraordinary proof. Here is the proof of outrageous institutional racism on behalf of blacks:

In a windowless classroom at an Arcadia tutoring center, parents crammed into child-sized desks and dug through their pockets and purses for pens as Ann Lee launches a PowerPoint presentation.

Her primer on college admissions begins with the basics: application deadlines, the relative virtues of the SAT versus the ACT and how many Advanced Placement tests to take.

Then she eases into a potentially incendiary topic — one that many counselors like her have learned they cannot avoid.

Let’s talk about Asians,” she says.

Lee’s next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant’s race is worth. She points to the first column.

African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.

She points to the second column.

“Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”

The last column draws gasps.

Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.

“Do Asians need higher test scores? Is it harder for Asians to get into college? The answer is yes,” Lee says.

“Zenme keyi,” one mother hisses in Chinese. How can this be possible?

That is racist institutional bias against Asians on behalf of blacks (and Latinos). Yet this racism is institutionally tolerated and encouraged by the institutions of power in the country.

Such is the depravity at the center of power that race-baiting presentations against “white privilege” are now forced indoctrination at the U.S. Army.

None of this vile “identity politics” stink is why the world went to war in the 1940s. Today we celebrate the triumph of the forces of the Western enlightenment against the forces of pagan totalitarianism in Europe. It is 70 years ago that the West celebrated victory after we went to war in defense of Western civilization and values. It was on a day like today 70 years ago that freedom won over the forces of totalitarianism.

Yet now, after that great victory over totalitarianisms of every stripe, after a great triumph for the values of the West, the leader of the West is in Obama led retreat. The values of free speech are the first casualty in the new war against totalitarianism:

There’s a war on free speech — and radical Islam is winning [snip]

Radical Muslims are succeeding in eroding fundamental American values, but the reality is more nuanced. Through a combination of fear, intimidation and exploitation of the liberal reflex to sympathize with supposedly marginalized groups, radicals have been steadily eroding our long-standing conception of free speech.

In the most recent example in Garland, Texas, two men with body armor and assault rifles shot up a community center that was holding a cartoon contest to draw the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. Luckily, they were shot dead by police before they could harm anybody.

Yet, in a horrendous case of mass victim-blaming, media figures across the political spectrum have been pointing fingers at the contest organizers — and worse, suggesting limits on offensive speech.

The New York Times ran an editorial distinguishing between “free speech” and “hate speech” writing that the event “was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.” CNN’s Chris Cuomo wrote on Twitter that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” later claiming it was a “clumsy tweet.” Fox’s Bill O’Reilly got into the act, saying the organizers of the event “spurred a violent incident.”

Alia Salem, executive director of the Dallas and Fort Worth chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, floated restrictions on the First Amendment freedoms, stating, according to the New York Times, that, “The discussion we have to have is: When does free speech become hate speech, and when does hate speech become incitement to violence?”

Powerlineblog gets it correctly on the question of free speech and “hate speech”:

Free Speech vs. Hate Speech?

I wrote in Blaming Pamela Geller that many liberals are more critical of Ms. Geller than of the Muslim extremists who tried to murder her at the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Texas. Of course, for over-the-top leftism, you can’t beat the New York Times editorial board. They weighed in on the relative merits of Pamela Geller and the Islamic terrorists yesterday in an editorial titled “Free Speech vs. Hate Speech.”

Which is an error right off the bat. Hate speech is free speech. That is, with narrow exceptions that do not apply to Geller’s art exhibit, hate speech is constitutionally protected. The editorialists start off on the right foot:

There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies. There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.

If they had quit there, it would have been their shortest and best editorial in a long time. Unfortunately, they continued:

You want to be disgusted by Pamela Geller, go right ahead, be disgusted all you want – but Geller has a right to be heard without threats against her life. Years ago when so-called Nazis marched through the streets of Skokie, Illinois, many of the Holocaust survivor residents of Skokie as well as many Americans were disgusted. But the Nazis marched – all the while protected by the glorious First Amendment and the values of the West – which defeated the Nazi pagan religion 70 years ago today.

The American left as exemplified by the Obama Dimocrat Party is become the totalitarian left of a bygone era. Even some on the left, Obama acolytes, begin to realize the monster of totalitarianism comes from the left:

Jonathan Chait suddenly realizes that what he calls “political correctness” — i.e., the radical Left’s need to demonize, denounce, ban, shut down, and exile anyone who offends them with a contrary thought, a.k.a., “rage-whiners” — is a threat to good progressives like himself:

But it would be a mistake to categorize today’s p.c. culture as only an academic phenomenon. Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size. Today’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media, where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.

In a short period of time, the p.c. movement has assumed a towering presence in the psychic space of politically active people in general and the left in particular. “All over social media, there dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to launch hashtag campaigns and circulate Change.org petitions in response to the slightest of identity-politics missteps,” Rebecca Traister wrote recently in The New Republic.

Recently, students from a frat house sang clearly racist songs. Due process and the First Amendment were immediately discarded by the school authorities. Under the guise of fighting racism, the University of Oklahoma became a totalitarian force against free speech rights.

The most offensive speech should be protected by the government. This does not mean that we as a website have to publish pro-Obama propaganda. This does not mean that a Jewish organization must publish good wishes to Hitler on his birthday. This does mean the government and government institutions shall not infringe on the free speech of Americans:

1. First, racist speech is constitutionally protected, just as is expression of other contemptible ideas; and universities may not discipline students based on their speech. That has been the unanimous view of courts that have considered campus speech codes and other campus speech restrictions — see here for some citations. The same, of course, is true for fraternity speech, racist or otherwise; see Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University (4th Cir. 1993). [snip]

UPDATE: The university president wrote that the students are being expelled for “your leadership role in leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile educational environment for others.” But there is no First Amendment exception for racist speech, or exclusionary speech, or — as the cases I mentioned above — for speech by university students that “has created a hostile educational environment for others.”

2. Likewise, speech doesn’t lose its constitutional protection just because it refers to violence — “You can hang him from a tree,” “the capitalists will be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes,” “by any means necessary” with pictures of guns, “apostates from Islam should be killed.”

3. To be sure, in specific situations, such speech might fall within a First Amendment exception. One example is if it is likely to be perceived as a “true threat” of violence (e.g., saying “apostates from Islam will be killed” or “we’ll hang you from a tree” to a particular person who will likely perceive it as expressing the speaker’s intention to kill him); but that’s not the situation here, where the speech wouldn’t have been taken by any listener as a threat against him or her. Another is if it intended to solicit a criminal act, or to create a conspiracy to commit a criminal act, but, vile as the “hang him from a tree” is, neither of these exceptions are applicable here, either.

4. [UPDATE: Given the president’s letter, it’s clear that the students are being expelled solely for their speech, and not for the reason discussed in the following paragraphs.]

At the leftist The Atlantic instead of a celebration of the First Amendment we read an attack on the First Amendment for tolerating free speech the author does not like. Presumably if the writer was alive at the time of Martin Luther King the fact that King’s speech was reprehensible to the majority would have been sufficient cause to repress the free speech rights of Dr. King.

The enemies of Western civilization and the enlightenment values of the West are everywhere these days. Usually they have great rationalizations to justify their worship of Big Brother.


The thought police and the enemies of freedom are everywhere and making progress. But they are doomed to failure. Suppression of thought will not work.

In Great Britain suppression of thought attempted to wipe out racism. This attempt at suppression of thought by the leftist totalitarians was a monumental error and a monumental failure. The failure was documented by the former “equality chief”:

We were wrong to try to ban racism out of existence, says former equality chief

Trevor Phillips was head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission
Branded his ten years working to end racial discrimination as ‘wrong’
Anti-racism doctrine has encouraged abuse and endangered lives, he says

A former equality chief has branded his years working to stamp out racial discrimination as ‘utterly wrong’.

Writer and broadcaster Trevor Phillips said efforts made under the Blair government turned anti-racism into an ‘ugly new doctrine’.

Mr Phillips is the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and has waged a 30-year campaign to tackle issues around discrimination and equality.

In an upcoming Channel 4 documentary, called Things We Won’t Say About Race That Are True, he says attempts to stop prejudice instead encouraged abuse and endangered lives as well as contributed to the rise of parties like Ukip.

In the 75-minute documentary, he delves into Britain’s racial tensions and stereotypes as well as hostilities towards immigrants.

He explains: ‘It was my job to to make sure that different racial and religious groups got on.

Campaigners like me seriously believed that if we could prevent people expressing prejudiced ideas then eventually they would stop thinking them.

But now I’m convinced we were utterly wrong.’

Mr Phillips, a Labour party member, says anti-racism began with good intentions but turned into ‘thought control’.

He says the London 2005 bombing by British Muslims, forced him to do rethink his views.

Now, he insists that only a willingness to talk more openly about race, despite risk of causing offence, will help those in need.

After the Charlie Hebbdo assassinations in France there was much nonsense written about theories against free speech that amounted to legitimization of the “assassins veto”:

The Assassin’s Veto
USA Today finds a deadly common ground.

“Common ground” is vastly overrated as a political virtue, and USA Today demonstrates why. In a pair of the paper’s recent op-eds one finds common ground between an Islamic supremacist and the dean of an American journalism school. Both men agree that free speech should be severely curtailed in a way that would empower violent extremists. [snip]

But what can one say about this week’s column by DeWayne Wickham, dean of Morgan State University’s School of Global Journalism and Communication in Baltimore? Choudary and Wickham make nearly identical arguments. Their columns are titled, respectively, “People Know the Consequences” and “ ‘Charlie Hebdo’ Crosses the Line.” Neither man expressly endorses the terrorists’ actions, but both strongly imply the victims had it coming because they offended their killers’ religious sensibilities.

Choudary: “Because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see. Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred. . . . So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity [sic] of its citizens at risk?”

Wickham: “If Charlie Hebdo’s irreverent portrayal of Mohammed before the Jan. 7 attack wasn’t thought to constitute fighting words, or a clear and present danger, there should be no doubt now that the newspaper’s continued mocking of the Islamic prophet incites violence. And it pushes Charlie Hebdo’s free speech claim beyond the limits of the endurable.”

Oddly, Wickham frames his argument in terms of First Amendment law, which, as he acknowledges, doesn’t apply in France. “Given the possible ripple effects of Charlie Hebdo’s mistreatment of Islam’s most sacred religious figure,” he writes, “at least people in this country should understand the limits America’s highest court has placed on free speech.

To which one might add: especially people in this country who take it upon themselves to educate their fellow citizens, whether on campus or in the pages of a national newspaper. Wickham knows something about First Amendment law—but only enough to make an embarrassing show of how much he doesn’t know.

Wickham’s argument rests on two doctrines from early-20th-century First Amendment law: “clear and present danger” (Schenck v. U.S., 1919) and “fighting words” (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942). It is ludicrous to suggest that either doctrine would justify censoring a magazine’s irreverent depictions of Muhammad.

It is doubtful that Schenck is even good law anymore. “The Supreme Court hasn’t used the ‘clear and present danger’ test for First Amendment cases in decades,” notes HotAir.com blogger “AllahPundit”:

The test now for inflammatory speech is the Brandenburg test, a strciter [sic] standard that allows the state to criminalize incitement only in narrow circumstances—when the speaker intends to incite violence and violence is likely to quickly result. Charlie Hebdo’s Mohammed cartoons may have met the “likely” prong of that test but they sure didn’t meet the “intent” part. [snip]

Brandenburg dealt with speech that advocated violence, something Charlie Hebdo has never to our knowledge done. And the incitement whose prospects the justices weighed and dismissed was of violence by supporters of the speaker—in Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader—not of an angry or violent reaction from opponents of his viewpoint.

The fighting-words doctrine, which is still good law, would be inapplicable for overlapping reasons. Fighting words have in common with incitement that a necessary element of their definition is the instantaneity of their effect. In Chaplinsky, Justice Frank Murphy defined fighting words as “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” The key words here are “utterance” and “immediate.” To put it in laymen’s terms, if you encounter a stranger on the street and insult him—in Chaplinsky’s case by shouting, “You are a goddamned racketeer!”—you can’t escape prosecution by claiming you were just exercising your right to free speech and he started it by throwing the first punch.

One can imagine a case in which a Charlie Hebdo caricature would constitute fighting words (albeit of a symbolic nature): if, say, a latter-day Chaplinsky taunted a Muslim on the street by waving a copy of the magazine and a fight ensued, both men could be booked for a breach of the peace. But the publication of offensive words or images is not fighting words. [snip]

In this case, if Choudary and Wickham had their way the terrorists really would win—which is to say that they would succeed in their goal of suppressing by force criticism of or irreverence toward Islam.

Call it the assassin’s veto.

That article above is quite comprehensive and well worth the read for those that want to acquaint or refresh their memories of Justice Holmes, the clear-and-present-danger doctrine, and earlier fights over the First Amendment and protected speech.

Yes, there is a “freedom to hate” and a “case against outlawing vile speech” that must be made and deserves to be not only heard but practiced.

So it is Friday, not quite White Appreciation Day and Victory in Europe Day seventy years on. We’ll celebrate Free Speech in our own Friday music spectacular way.

We’ll celebrate free speech and the First Amendment with a “racist” album cover:

We’ll celebrate freedom and free speech via the First Amendment with a song that was ironically banned because of its title even if it was a commentary on George Orwell and his anti-totalitarianism masterpiece 1984:

We’ll celebrate freedom of speech and the First Amendment with a song that was banned – because you are not allowed to be a racist but you can be a misogynist.

We can’t post “Innocence of Muslims” because that is still banned.

We hate “Hate speech” laws.

We are intolerant of those who are “intolerant of intolerance”.

Stop the bullying under the guise of “anti-bully” “campaigns”.

Death to Big Brother!

Embrace freedom.


180 thoughts on “White Appreciation Day – Celebrate Freedom Of Speech On #WhiteAppreciationDay And #VEDay70

  1. My question is: Do you have to be all white, or just part white, to get the discount?

    Happy white appreciation day!

  2. Leave it to Admin to bring on the thunder and lightening, and get us dancing anyway with Friday music specials.

    Hip, hip, hooray Admin!

    So many of my favorite songs too.

  3. Free speech against the Man…

    Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young Ohio 1970 Kent State University

  4. Excellent article. These people who want to kill or hurt others because of their free speech, need to move back to their 5th century country. And the far leftists who are encouraging the suppression of free speech (especially whatever numbskull came up with “micro-aggressions” and “trigger alerts”) need to just go… somewhere else.

    It’s not nice to intentionally hurt others’ feelings to be mean. But you can’t be walking a tightrope through life trying to never offend anyone – especially if the topic of your speech is very important to you. People in this country need to get strong again, and they need to learn coping skills. Little kids have to start singing that song again, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”.

    Right now we seem to be overpowered by the Islamists’ version of that – “if your words (or drawings) hurt me, then I get to use sticks and stones and guns to break your bones”. That’s not America. If you can’t handle that not everyone subscribes to your religion, if you can’t handle your magic man to be drawn, then leave. Just leave. We won’t change for you. (Especially since you’re crazy lol)

  5. Lu
    Do you have to be all white, or just part white, to get the discount?

    My guess is that you have to be all white. The biracial people we’re aware of (Obama, Holder, etc) consider themselves black, not biracial. Heck, that Melissa something Perry is very specific that she doesn’t consider herself to be white at all – I always wonder if that breaks her white mother’s heart, being erased like that.

    But I think it shouldn’t be called White Appreciation Day – I think a better name would be White and Most Colorful Appreciation Day. I read something that other day that is so true. Black people have black squiggly hair, brown eyes, and brown skin. Asian people have straight black hair and brown eyes.

    Who has color? White people! We can have a variety of eye colors, hair colors, skin tones – we ARE the people of color. We ARE the supreme model of diversity! Ha!

  6. I’m Asian and my wife is white, so I guess we are doubly screwed in the Obamaroids’ Paradise.

  7. Awesome and a bit cheeky, admin. Also much appreciated.

    Yesterday beginning at 11 AM NYC buried now Detective Brian Moore, one of its finest and youngest at a Seaford Long Island R.C. Church. 20 – 20,000 came in uniform from as far away as Australia to attend in a house of worship which can seat 800+. Due to logistics in the small residential community, schools were closed. Parents interviewed had brought their young children to join the thousands outside the church so that their children could experience the side of our cops’ story not being told.

    I thank ABC News New York for carrying live the 2 1/2 hour mass. And I thank the heavens that NYPD Chaplain Monsigneur Robert Romano seemed unaware of the Jesus ban Obama has placed upon military chaplains. What I saw, and what I can now find links to, are two different things. But there is this and it needs to be known:

    Bratton Says Good Work of Police Gets Lost in ‘Loud Criticism’ | Observer
    Brian’s death comes at a time of great challenge in this country,” [Commissioner] Bratton told mourners in Seaford on Long Island… Moore, 25, died Monday after being shot Saturday evening in Queens, allegedly by a man named Demetrius Blackwell whom Moore sought to question after seeing him adjust his waistband. Blackwell fled but was apprehended a few hours later, police said; a gun was recovered stashed in a nearby yard days later.
    …”He [Brian] had an eye for the street, he loved working the street. He could smell the gun” Bratton said…
    His death came just days after protesters took the streets in New York City – and were arrested in large numbers – to protest the death of Freddie Gray, an unarmed black man who died in police custody in Baltimore….
    Amid loud criticisms of the department, Mr. Bratton said, the help, the service, the empathy, the bravery, and the protection of police officers is lost….
    Mayor Bill de Blasio, who ran on a platform of reforming the NYPD and has had a tense relationship with the police force, left the ongoing strife between communities of color and police unmentioned in his remarks….
    http://observer.com/2015/05/at-funeral-bratton-says-good-work-of-police-gets-lost-in-loud-criticism/#.VU3tOvf1gSY.twitter #MooreMatters

  8. Suspicions confirmed. This is not our imagination. We are not Hillary haters–those of us who question this radical turn to the left. The question is whether that will work as well in the general election as it will in the primary. If you believe that Obama is as popular as rasmussen would have us believe, and if they can get the illegals to swarm the voting booths and scream racist to those who ask for proof of citizenship, and she paints her face black like Al Jolsen and if the limpest dick on the federal bench says it is a tax, well then anything is possible. But short of that, this is unwise. But for those who want a woman president or want Hillary with no strings attached her “careen” to the left (its the video, no no I am careening, no no we knew it was a terrorist attack all along–just didn’t want to offend Muslims) this will preempt the candidacy of sacagajawea and guarantee her nomination. Watch big media spin on a dime. Overnight you will see them become her most ardent supporters, to preserve their wealth and power. Well, so here is the Kraut, sour as usual, but accurate, if you believe your lying eyes.


  9. Rep King D NY2 perturbed? At his dot gov site are tweets incl “liberal media’s police bias”
    Pete King Slams AG Lynch for [Announcement of Baltimore] Police Probe on Day of NYC Cop’s
    “It was not sensitive at all — and the fact is, if that was the other way, it would be called racism,” King told Megyn Kelly on Fox News.
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Pete-King-Loretta-Lynch-Baltimore-Brian-Moore/2015/05/08/id/643626/ via @Newsmax_Media

    Maybe a teachable moment is approaching.

  10. Lu4PUMA
    May 9, 2015 at 9:19 am
    The mischief wrought by bureaucrats watching porn at their work stations 8 hours per day is as nothing compared to the mischief wrought when they are fully engaged in their jobs undermining civil liberties, and tying us up in red tape.

    Just ask Lois Leaner.

  11. Lu, wbboei:
    yes and yes.
    Here’s a new stirrer, mentioned in case any one is following this stuff.
    New Boston University professor: White males a ‘problem population’
    She’s attractive and black. Her employer defends her tweets saying she’s just practicing free speech.

    Exasperated, I turn to the post above noting admin’s very first thought,& realize it is time to take a deep breath.

  12. If you common sense does not suggest to you that what Hillary is doing now is idiotic, then you had best take a hard look at your common sense. Someone has convinced her that extending citizenship to every illegal past present and future will energize the base, and divide republicans and that is beyond the pale. This position places her outside the mainstream of public opinion. Even if Rassmussen ran one of their phony polls on that one, it would read no sale. Even the blacks who will vote for anyone as long as they are a democrat will blanch at that one, because surely they know that their gravy train of welfare benefits is now threatened. May-be.

  13. It is unclear how much black democrats worry about the loss of jobs. They are unmoved by the fact that the majority of new jobs created by the economy went to illegals. But if they stand to lose welfare benefits–that is when the black lives matter response kicks in, and its time to go to war with the man.

  14. If this is a case of mixed motive, my sense it will not pacify the left, except for the marxist hispanics like Gutteriez and his ilk. The left is not concerned about immigration policy nearly as much as they are concerned with the undue influence of Wall Street. Put differently, taking a radical position on immigration–to the left of even Obama, which is making the White House squirm because viewed from the radical perspective they should be doing far more to take down whitey, will not erase their main objection to Hillary, and that is her close affiliation with Wall Street part of which is being planned out of the offices of Goldman Sachs. That is also why Bill is staying in the closet until the general election, where he will show up in the battleground states etc. The workfare policies he implemented in the 90s which are part of what made him a great president went down like a mouth full of grass burrs with the left, because they are either the direct or direct beneficiaries of the expansive welfare state.

  15. some of us are really concerned about the sovereignty of our country…

    the routine in the era of O seems to be…remain as secret as possible…leave the Congress in bondage…and do as much as you can as fast as you can in the time left and take the money and run…


    New trade warning: International ‘tribunal’ could junk U.S. laws to help foreign firms

    An Asian trade deal being negotiated in secret by the administration would let an international tribunal overrule state and federal laws to help foreign firms, a new issue congressional and legal opponents are raising in hopes of slowing the race for passage.

    “It is really worrisome,” said top House Ways and Means Committee Democrat Rep. Sandy Levin. “Countries do not want to give away their jurisdiction away to some arbitrary panel,” he added.

    (me – WTF???)

    At issue is the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty and a provision called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS, that would let foreign firms challenge U.S. laws, potentially overruling those laws and resulting in fines to be paid by taxpayers. The provisions are becoming common in some trade deals between other nations.

    Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said that the White House has dismissed the fears, claiming that the country normally wins legal trade disputes. But he noted how a U.S. cigarette maker is challenging Uruguay and Australia packaging rules because the laws challenge trade treaty language that bars legislation that could damage profits.

    “ISDS is a real issue,” said Levin.

    Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has warned that it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

    Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions has also raised a concern about another phase in the legislation, “living agreement.” He and other experts say that phrase means that the treaty can be changed after Congress approves it.

    The Asia trade deal would be up first if Congress OK’s the pending Trade Promotion Authority, which fast-tracks trade agreements. Levin said it is in trouble over concerns about the secret TPP.

    At a media breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, Levin appeared with Jeffrey Sachs, prominent international economist at Columbia University, who panned the provision as a bid by foreign companies to make an “end run” around tough U.S. laws and regulations.

    “Essentially, ISDS allows companies to sue states in a special ad hoc tribunal that is outside the court systems and outside of the legal systems of the host countries,” he warned. “U.S. law, U.S. court findings, could be set aside by this ad hoc process really designed and pushed by the corporate sector which sees this as an end run around national law,” he added.

    Levin also joined in Sessions’ demand that the Asia trade pact be opened to the public. Currently, it is being kept in secret and only those cleared to see it are allowed to. Levin said, for example, that he was barred from discussing some TPP provision with Sachs.

    The White House has dismissed the secrecy claims, but Sachs said, “It is secret. I haven’t seen it. I can’t see it.” (WH are a bunch of freaking liars)

    Levin also said that the treaty would include communist Vietnam which has far different worker rights laws than the U.S. He recalled recently meeting with a Vietnamese woman who was thrown in jail for trying to form a union. “There has to be changes,” he demanded.

    Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner’s “Washington Secrets” columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.


    I am no fan of Ed Shultz…but again yesterday I just happened to catch his segment with Bernie Sanders on this trade topic…

    …both of them went after O for his trade pep rally yesterday at Nike…they explained that Nike has something like 67 factories in Viet Nam and the people are paid about 57 cents an hour…they have over 300,000 workers in Viet Nam

    Nike has something like 27,000 workers in the USA but none of the products or factories are made here…not one shoe is made in the USA

    …this trade deal is going to be a major rip of on the American people…and even put them at risk to pay for foreign law suits

    freaking insanity…this is not good for the american worker in any way shape or form…

  16. Here is how the left will interpret this careen to the left on citizenship for illegals: this is not about giving me your poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free. It is about doing the bidding of Wall Street, in its relentless search for cheap labor. That is how it will be portrayed–and accepted by both sides of the aisle. Big media loves Obama, but they do not like Hillary. That’s the difference.

  17. Update: O’Reilly: You know who wouldn’t have held a Mohammed cartoon contest? Jesus, that’s who. Disgusting. Wrong. Self-censoring appeasement is not a wise tactic to defeat Islamic nuts and jihadists. Assassins’ Veto as we wrote below.

    Fortunately Megyn Kelly is on the job and she goes directly after Obama softie O’Reilly without specifically naming him:

    Kelly did a good job with Eugene Volokh too in defense of free speech (Kelly slaps Chris Cuomo who does not understand free speech applies to hate speech):

    There is value in an act of defiance.


  18. admin…and then there was also this



    Host Sean Hannuity then shouts: ‘You want her to die!’

    To which Choudary replies: ‘She should be put before a Sharia court and tried and, if guilty, face capital punishment.’

    Geller says: ‘To blame me and say that my cartoons are controversial… murdering cartoonists is controversial.’


    …Geller shouted over him “I live in America”


    does the left not understand that the radical islamists want to supercede our laws and try everyone under Sharia law and execute them…

    what does the left have to say about radical islamists that want to kill all gays and stone women…and they do so as we discuss this…

    are they crazy? she was provocative…maybe people do not agree with her tactics…but her point is…America is free…

    the man she is debating insists she should be tried by Sharia law and executed…

  19. The majority appear willing to give up nearly every right to appease Islam and any government authority..Oh for the Americans who fought for us, gave birth to this great nation…they must all be crying from heaven because I can feel the collective visceral pain.

  20. http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/05/cnns-chris-cuomo-explains-clumsy-constitutionally-inaccurate-tweet-sort-of/

    After showing the internet how little he knew about free speech yesterday, Chris Cuomo attempted to rectify his Constitutional missteps in a short video.

    “I got beat up for this tweet I made; it was a clumsy tweet. I was caught up in a back and forth…” he began.

    First, the tweet:

    it doesn’t. hate speech is excluded from protection. dont just say you love the constitution…read it

    We’ve been searching high and low for Cuomo’s version of the Constitution to no avail. But in the mean time, not only do we say we love the Constitution, we’ve actually read it (though not on the counsel of Cuomo). Our version of the first amendment completely disagree’s with Cuomo’s because it simply states:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    But maybe words are hard?

    For the full story, see our previous post here, but Cuomo found himself in a “back and forth” because he was misquoting the Constitution and misinterpreting case law. And then doubled down, tripled down, even quadrupled down on his inaccurate statements.

    Somewhere along the way, Cuomo decided a rudimentary civics lesson was the best way to explain his misapprehension of rudimentary civics:

    “Of course, hate speech is almost always protected under the first amendment. It doesn’t say that in the first amendment, but the case law does. It’s always about the case law in understanding the Constitution. It’s all about how it’s interpreted by our justice system. So I created confusion that I was actually trying to clarify, that’s the irony, but that’s on me.”

    “It doesn’t say that in the first amendment” because there’s really no such thing as hate speech. Unless of course you’re a progressive or a despot.

  21. http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/05/08/the-whos-pete-townshend-isis-makes-it-very-important-that-we-keep-our-ammunition-ready/

    The Who’s Pete Townshend: ISIS Makes It ‘Very Important That We keep Our Ammunition Ready’

    In an interview published by Rolling Stone on May 7th, the Who’s Pete Townshend said ‘it’s very important that we keep our ammunition ready.”

    He said this in response to a question about the Islamic State jihadist group — a question seeking his take on the state of a world in which ISIS and other terrorist groups play a growing threat.

    Rolling Stone asked Townshend: “While we’re on the subject, when you look at ISIS and Boko Haram — and even what Putin has been up to, to some extent — do you worry about the state of the planet?”

    Townshend responded by saying he hopes his answer does not earn him the label “neocon” again, by “Arianna Huffington… that dimwitted woman.” He then said, “I do think it’s very important that we keep our ammunition ready. I do feel there is nothing to worry about as long as we’re willing to protect ourselves.”

    He continued:

    Had America not interceded in World War II, Germany would have taken over the whole of Europe. I think the most important thing is that we remember that. But also remember that we don’t need to act until this shit comes to our door. When that happens, whether it comes to our door in a Charlie Hebdo scenario or in a 9/11 scenario, we need to keep calm and to honor our own sense of values and justice and law and the way that we want to live.

    Townshend and his fellow bandmates are practicing now for the upcoming launch of their 50th anniversary tour.

    Free speech – don’t just say it, live it.

  22. Brilliant thread above Admin.

    Some ask why big media condemns Geller, not ISIS.

    The answer is self evident.

    For big media it is ALL ABOUT THE NARRATIVE.



    Their narrative.

    The narrative that says the cure to ISIS is jobs.

    If they had jobs they would turn their AK-47s into plowshares.

    And the gun control freaks could confiscate them.

    And donate them to the black lives matter hordes.

    The other thing it reflects is their sense that they are safe.

    That when those chickens (the ones Jerry Wright warbled about)

    Come home to roost.

    That they will be in the box office of the Collusseum

    Wagering on the gladiators, egging them on, and demanding blood.

    That is why the elites stick to their narrative.

    But that is no excuse for the rest of us to do that.

    Including that idiot O’Reilly.

  23. For big media, their narrative takes precedence over everything else—including but not limited to the Constitution, civil order, public safety, and national failure. Their narrative contains a big carve out, which has a Hobbsian flavor to it: the sovereign is above the law, that is what he said, and it is likewise what they believe. For them, they believe there will always be a safe harbor. They are wrong. And the reason they are wrong, because unlike before, today we–most of us at least, know who the string pullers are.

  24. The remarkable thing about the narrative of big media is it does not evolve. It is a dead river. Nothing deters it, nothing animates it, it is Pavlovian, and its ultimate aim is to institute chaos, followed by complete control. Orwell said it best:

    1. TRAMPLED UPON: “Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress toward more pain.”

    2. THOUGHT POLICE: “There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”

    3. THREE SLOGANS: “From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:

    4. HOLLOWED OUT: “Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling. Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves.”

    5. PURE POWER: “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

    6. ERRONEOUS THOUGHT: “We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be. Even in the instance of death we cannot permit any deviation . . . we make the brain perfect before we blow it out.”

    7. PERFECT UNITY: “The ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible, and glittering—a world of steel and concrete, of monstrous machines and terrifying weapons—a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting—three hundred million people all with the same face.”

    8. ECSTASY OF FEAR: “A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.”

    9. PICTURE OF THE FUTURE: “There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent there will be no need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”

    10. VICTORY: “He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

  25. Wow. Just wow.
    Great post.
    Haven’t been here in awhile and stopped into see reponse to Hillary and illegal immigration. I no longer support her for a number of reasons but respect your commitment.
    Great article for a drive by. Do look forward to your take on her stance on amnesty.

  26. Tony Stark
    May 9, 2015 at 7:05 pm
    Yet another reason why Huckabee is a lousy candidate.


    If you have not been to the Asian museum in Volunteer Park, you should go. It began as a small collection by the original curator who bought what he could afford at tremendous bargains, and over time, with some generous benefactors, it grew into the magnificent collection we see today spanning 4000 years. I go to that park almost every day, so if you ever want to meet up there is a Starbucks not too far away.

  27. Big Media is the second least trusted institution in this country. They refuse to report the news if it conflicts with their narrative. Shockingly, Laura Ashton disputes this. Obviously, she has not read Sharyl Attkisson’s book Stonewalled. Brent Bozelle refutes this contention very effectively:

    Big media is too infatuated with government to act as an effective watchdog. But when Ashburn disagreed that journalists were ignoring liberal scandals, Bozell called that “nonsense.”

    They have not gotten to the bottom of a single one of the Obama scandals….Look at the IRS, look at Benghazi, look at the VA, look at so many scandals — they’ve been dropped.

    NEIL CAVUTO: The government does this, the government can do that. Is the media simply too busy kissing up to the government to objectively cover the government? Because the media itself is now one of the least trusted institutions, second only to Congress. That’s according to at least one recent poll. Media watchers Brent Bozell and Lauren Ashburn say that the fourth estate stopped being the government’s watchdog decades ago. Well, Brent, it’s very interesting to me that, despite all of that, it’s like the media wants double down on this faith in government and question those who would dare question government.

    BRENT BOZELL: Yeah, isn’t it incredible that their response to being marginalized is to be even more marginalized. They’ve become so radicalized. We’ve seen something in the last two years that I frankly hadn’t seen before: This — since 2008, I should say — this commitment, this deliberate commitment not to report news if it harms the narrative of the left. This is not one example, this is not two examples, I can give you 20 examples. As a matter of fact, you and I have talked about this many times on your show. They are deliberately not reporting news.

    BOZELL: They have not gotten to the bottom of a single one of the Obama scandals. They did not get to the bottom of a single one of the Clinton scandals [in the 1990s]. Just think about their coverage of watergate and Nixon where they would not let go until they’d gotten to the bottom of it. Now look at the IRS, look at Benghazi, look at the VA, look at so many scandals — they’ve been dropped. This one, this Clinton one, will be dropped as well.

    – See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2015/05/09/mrcs-bozell-news-media-have-become-radicalized-and-marginalized#sthash.56UgFFcN.dpuf

  28. Shadow
    Free, I’m beginning to think you and I, Admin, Southern, Moon and a few others are the only Hillary supporters still on Big Pink any longer. I am tired of the same old complaining, the same GOP talking points.

    Shadow, I really think that’s not fair. First of all, admin has also raised criticisms of Hillary. Second, your statement seems based on a very black and white view of Hillary. Like a Bush or Obama, “you’re either with us or against us”. I don’t understand that.

    Hillary is going out of her way to tell us that she is not the person she said she was in 2008. Was that not the real her or has she changed? I have no idea. Those aren’t republican talking points, that is Hillary herself making the case that she has different beliefs now. But considering all the changes, I don’t think it’s fair to denigrate people who are wondering what’s going on.

    Look at all the long term supporters who drop by here now to say “I’m can’t support her now”. She’s in dangerous territory, seriously Shadow. She’s supporting illegals over the huge numbers of down and out Americans. She’s supporting lawlessness. At least there are some of us trying to grapple with it (and which may be to the benefit of both Hillary and the country).

    But with your black and white view of it all, apparently you’d like *us* gone, too. Who will be left to vote for Hillary if the questioners are pushed out? Well, maybe that’s what the not wanting voter ID and the support of amnesty is about. But that breaks my heart, if it’s true.

    I address this whole comment to you because I’ve always felt you were a kind of friend (even though when there was someone on this blog bullying some of us years ago none of you stood up to her because she wasn’t bullying you guys, but I let that go a long time ago). I remember telling you a couple of times over the years how I loved that you were always there for Hillary (because I felt the same way about her myself). So imagine how it feels to me that I see a different Hillary now, with different principles than those we agreed on in 2008 (heartbroken is a good characterization). And I’m not the only one. And then imagine how it feels to have long term allies jumping on us because our head is spinning and we’re trying to figure out what’s going on.

    It’s like a double whammy. Why does it have to be black and white? The election isn’t tomorrow. Why can’t we be in Hillary’s corner but with a lot of questions that we need to have resolved? Why do we have to be a “My Hillary, right or wrong”, type of supporter?

    For your part, I’m sure it’s disconcerting to have fellow supporters either quitting Hillary or sticking around but wanting answers. You referenced something about people acting like they’re the intelligent ones because they’re asking questions (something like that). I don’t know why you feel that way, maybe I missed something, but I hope I haven’t said anything to make you feel that way. Please understand that it’s disconcerting to us, as well. I thought Hillary was our hope for the world. Now I’m not sure – based on her own statements. It’s scary, Shadow.

    Basically, I just want this to be a safe place for *all* Hillary supporters. I don’t want YOU feeling uncomfortable, and I don’t want people like ME feeling uncomfortable. If it turns into a black and white place, my fear is that it will either turn into a republican comment section (many Hillary blogs long ago went republican, as you may know), or else into a rerun of a 2008 obot blog, where the Messiah can’t be questioned.

    Can’t there be a gray space where we all fit? Maybe this blog could be like Murphy’s old blog and do some activist things, but in this instance get Hillary to be her old self (if that’s who she truly is still).

  29. Mark Levin Blasts Fox News for Attacking Ted Cruz: Do They Want Jeb Bush for President? Corporatism for the win.

    by Michael van der Galien

    Mark Levin criticized his “friends from Fox News” for secretly supporting Jeb Bush and attacking real conservative candidates like Ted Cruz:

    As you all know I’m a huge fan of the Fox News channel. Particularly certain hosts. But I have to wonder: if Ronald Reagan was running in 1976 starting in ’75 against Gerald Ford, how most of the people at Fox would treat him. Because to my great dismay – as I was preparing for the program, I had my favorite cable network on – and a number of the people were trashing Ted Cruz. Not enough experience, he’s too young, too conservative, needs a bigger tent, he’s down in the polls… These people are neophytes. Neophytes. They’ve never fought in Republican primaries for conservative candidates. They don’t even take the time to learn the history of this country or the Republican Party. And I am convinced that if Reagan were alive today and Gerald Ford were live today, and we were doing a rerun of 1975-1976, Reagan would be trashed all over our favorite cable channel.

    He continued:

    The question isn’t whether Reagan would be supported by conservatives today – he most assuredly would – the question is whether he’d be supported by several people on our favorite cable channel. And the answer is no.

    Levin added that those people probably support Jeb Bush.

    The question is, of course: is he right? Well, he followed his criticism up with these Facebook updates:

    Screen Shot 2015-03-24 at 16.40.23


    Screen Shot 2015-03-24 at 16.41.07

    So, yes, every single thing Levin said yesterday is correct. Fox News does indeed oppose Cruz — and any other real conservative candidate like him. The reason is that Fox isn’t conservative, but corporatist. They support candidates who are pro-amnesty (because it supposedly means cheap labor for businesses) and pro-corporate welfare. Cruz isn’t, Jeb is. So it’s a no-brainer for them.

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/03/24/mark-levin-blasts-fox-news-for-attacking-ted-cruz-do-they-want-jeb-bush-for-president/#ixzz3ZhGpM550

  30. Lorac-

    Shadow, I really think that’s not fair. First of all, admin has also raised criticisms of Hillary. Second, your statement seems based on a very black and white view of Hillary. Like a Bush or Obama, “you’re either with us or against us”. I don’t understand that.

    …But with your black and white view of it all, apparently you’d like *us* gone, too.


    Don’t twist my words Lorac…I said I would be gone –

  31. Jebediah is a corporate stooge.

    And so for that matter is Rubio.

    Jeb is also a bit of a geek.

    Rubio is a fast talking used car salesman.

  32. Admin: here is a great take down of O’Reilly, by the best mind on Red State Blog–easily 40 IQ points above Erickson. He is almost in Richard Fernandez territory.

    Bill O’Reilly is an idiot
    By: streiff (Diary) | May 8th, 2015 at 04:00 PM | 41

    I know this will come as a shock to a lot of you. But the blowhard Bill O’Reilly can actually be an idiot when he longs for “strange new respect.” Such is the case with how he dealt with Pam Geller and the Garland, TX terrorist attack. Via the Daily Caller:

    “The dead men deserved what they got,” O’Reilly said. “But the incident was ignited by a contest featuring cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Any depiction of that Islamic icon is a sin in the Muslim world.”

    “Many Americans believe the provocation was legitimate under freedom of speech, but that is not the issue,” the host contended. “No one I know favors curtailing speech in this case. The real issue is whether the exposition was the right thing to do.”

    See the problem here? The incident was not “ignited by a contest” any more than the Benghazi attack was caused by a video. The contest was privately sponsored and by invitation only. The two yahoos who ended up on the morgue slab ignited the incident by driving over a thousand miles to attack people who made them mad. The only issue here is curtailing free speech because if, Heaven forfend, Bill O’Reilly gets in the business of deciding if something is the “right thing to do” then we are really screwed. In all seriousness, if the “right thing to do” standard was in force, does O’Reilly think he wouldn’t be forced off the air by the very people he’s fellating right now?

    “Rev. [Franklin] Graham represents the Christian point of view that you don’t demean other people unnecessarily. Jesus would not have sponsored that event,” O’Reilly said. “The goal of every decent person in the world should be to defeat the jihad. And in order to do that, you have to rally the world to the side of good, our side.”

    I must confess, I really don’t even know what this means. First, and most obviously, I don’t think Pam Geller has ever claimed to be Christian. This is not a criticism of Geller, or even an assertion that a plurality of American Jews support her, only to point out that Franklin Graham’s opinion doesn’t really bear on the subject and if it did, I think a lot of people would say that it is unnecessary to assert your rights in the face of threats of terrorism.

    “Emotional displays like insulting the prophet Mohammed make it more difficult to rally law-abiding Muslims, for example. Including nations like Jordan and Egypt, who are actually fighting the fanatical Islamists,” O’Reilly said. “In any war, you have to win hearts and minds, and the situation in Garland, Texas goes against that. Again, the freedom of speech issue is bogus. No one is saying the exposition was illegal. The point is winning, defeating the jihad.”

    This is true if you work from the perspective that Muslims are unable to function in a pluralistic society. That may be the case. From what we’ve seen of how Muslim communities operate in Western Europe and Islamic ghettos like Dearborn, Michigan and the antics of CAIR and various “Muslim student associations” in suppressing free speech I think it is something that should be up for discussion. More to the point, if you need to rally “law-abiding Muslims” to oppose murder we have a problem completely different than the one O’Reilly thinks we have. And if the support of Muslim populations in the Middle East is dependent upon us totally kowtowing to their peculiar set of values then the war with ISIS is already lost because if they make a value judgment that they’d rather live under ISIS than have non-Muslim caricaturing Mohammed then they were never really in the fight to begin with.

    I hold no brief for Pam Geller. I’m generally not a fan of anyone afflicted with a monomania. Personally, I wouldn’t have done this not because I give a fat rat’s ass about offending Muslims but because it strikes me as bad form. I didn’t like Martin Scorcese’s perfectly awful and ugly little movie “The Last Temptation of Christ.” I think Jose Serrano (of “Piss Christ” fame) and Chris Ofili (the elephant dung Virgin Mary) are no-talent hacks barely more artistically interesting than my 10-year old and kept on the public dole by a certain self-identified cultural elite. But I didn’t kill them. That’s because God doesn’t need me with an automatic rifle to take up the slack. God will take care of business in His own time. And you know what, they, in a nation of a couple of hundred million sorta-Christians (by the then Census count) these jerks were never in danger and neither were the people who went to their exhibits. (Just as an aside, if Jesus is an honored prophet according to Islamic mythology, why didn’t Muslims try to kill these douchebags?)

    The real issue here is Islam. Pure and simple. In a big country that has hundred of millions people not everyone will do the right thing and not a plurality will even agree on what the right thing is. There is noting wrong with that. We have a right, guaranteed by the Constitution, to say wrong, hurtful, false, and unwise things (with some minor limits). And if we hear those things we can protest, boycott, ignore or write opposing wrong, hurtful, false, and unwise things. I mean you know that, hell, you’re reading a political blog. But, if keeping the peace with a people depends upon not offending them, the problem isn’t speech. The problem is the people listening to the speech. Then they have a decision to make. And making everyone shut up because of fear of giving them hurty pants is not one of the choices on the table.

  33. And just for the record, I am sure I have said this…oh, maybe 6-10 times on this blog…I am not for any kind of amnesty…I would like the borders closed. I do not agree with the Dream Act, Anchor Babies……….I am a centrist. Always have been, always will be.

  34. I refrain from commenting here because it is a Hillary blog and I no longer support her. I do read a few times a month and although I differ on many issues I find admin always a great read and the comments evocative. I used to think I was a liberal but never a progressive. I am gay and believe in equality but going after a 75 year old woman for not providing flowers does not sit well with me. No one batted an eye when obama campaigned with Mary Mary. I cannot stomach debbie watchamacallit Shultz championing late term abortions. Sharpton and Holder. Ferguson, Baltimore. Summits. Czars. Lectures. Harry Reid. Nancy.
    The lies about illegal immigration. No one with an IQ over ten can believe it will not be a huge burden on our school systems.
    Baltimore is a sanctuary city what is the unemployment rate for African Americans there.
    Common Core. Michelle’s lunches. Middle East. Putin.I could go on for days. I have not changed what I thought was the democratic party has. Maybe I was wrong all along. I now find some of what the TEA Party has to say appealing. Abortion, gay rights,and all the splinter issues bore me.
    Seems to me especially in light of her immigration statements that hillary is embracing the far left. I am not far left what she has said recently is not what I supported in 08.
    I admire many of you here and as I said refrain from posting because this is a site supporting her.

  35. I do eagerly await admins response to Hillary’s immigration stance. I am intrigued. My opinion likely will not change but I enjoy alternate perspectives. I am not yet at the point where I place my fingers in my ears and scream I can’t hear you.

  36. One other thing the relentless attacks on straight white men have become exhausting. Lena Dunham may not have anything to do with Hillary but she screams democrat. I have a father and three brothers that I cherish. Constant bashing might draw a few but things are being pushed to far. Opinions cannot be articulated without a phobia label branded.Thought itself is under attack and it seems to me Hillary is doing nothing to speak of sanity.
    When I found this blog my pup was a few months old. She will be 9 soon. Getting her fourth belt in taekwondo. STraight A’s. Takes voice and acting classes. Dance. Piano. We start archery together in two weeks. She was a throw away child. I want her to own herself. Have an inner strength. I want her to meet a good guy and have a full life. The eternal male bashing to get a vote is perverse. I pray my little one ends up nothing like Lena Dunham. The dims do with women what they do with blacks. Create a non existant war. Sorry Gosnell was a serial killer. How do you spin killing a viable fetus with a Sandra Fluke iPhone 4 in hand attending a top tier law school crying she and her friends cannot afford birth control. There are real injustices but the fake stuff negates the real pain. Last thing I want for the brat is to play victim. The democrats and Hillary as the presumptive nominee own the lies of the Dunham ilk. Sorry but the most disgusting thing I may have heard was her talking about how many men on New York City streets have fantasized about her. Singular worst thought I have ever had. Dims own this and Hillary gets pulled in. 2008 sexism played a very unfair role now I think fatigue stemming from faux stories will have an impact.

  37. I’m not speaking for Shadow. She’s more than capable of doing so, and has articulated her thoughts quite clearly. She has said, as has everyone here than they disagreed with Hillary’s stand on immigration. There have been other points on which all have expressed disagreement.

    It’s not this kind of disagreement and questioning that I have made negative comments about. I don’t think Shadow or anyone else here has taken issue with this type of questioning. It’s the constant accusations of everything in the book, and the ongoing pissing party about the her statement about Benghazi and other past actions. She can’t unsay it. It happened 2 years ago. If it’s deal breaker for some, then it’s a done deal.

    Some may still be deciding whether or not to support Hillary, and I assume posting their disagreement with her positions on various issues may be part of that process. They certainly have that right. I just don’t think the piling on with accusations, angry insults, etc., is helpful – especially if at the end of the day this blog remains a Hillary site. Questioning is one thing – crazy accusations and repeated attacks is quite different.

    That’s just my opinion. Obviously free expression is and should be encouraged, and people have the right to insult Hillary. Likewise those of us who got it the first 20 time it was mentioned, and who don’t care to read just one complaint after another have a right not to do so and have a right to say that we plan not to do so.

    What I am real damn sick of are posts that accuse those of us who don’t care to read the negative comments over and over of being blindly loyal to Hillary, like the Obamanuts are to Barack, or of refusing to be objective. I’m sick of those kinds of black and white, over-simplified, sophomoric judgements and accusations.

    At this point, Bernie and O’mally our only alternatives to Hillary on the Dim side – maybe De Blasio and Biden, possibly Feather Head before it’s all over. Do you see anyone better than Hillary in that group? I don’t. On the Republican side, the choices run from Bat-Shit Crazy to Another Effing Bush to It’s 2015 But I’m Still Anti-Choice to I’m Still Bat-shit Crazy. No one better in this group either, IMO. Others my feel differently. Their right to feel and to say what they want.

    From the opinions I’ve read about future congressional election, the Republicans will likely hang onto their majority in both houses. The number of seats they win may even increase. Even if I were likely to vote Republican next year, which I’m not, that possibility would seriously discourage me from doing so.

    Whether we agree with Hillary on everything or nothing – she may be the best candidate running. For me, I have no doubt she will be. I won’t like everything she does, says, or proposes. I don’t expect to agree with any candidate on every issue.

  38. Shadow, I wasn’t twisting your words – I didn’t even remember you saying you’d be gone. But your curt response and your assuming that I was playing a game twisting your words suggests to me that we can’t discuss the Hillary issues. I was trying to communicate with you, but I think you took it as an argument. I guess maybe we’ll all be on one of two boats passing in the night on the same blog. I’m sad about that.

  39. Shadow – one addendum – just fyi, I feel no ill feelings towards you, and I have not been trying to argue with you. I sincerely thought we could communicate about our differences or our perceptions. But I’m sad, too, that what you got out of my comment to you was simply your mistaken impression that I was trying to twist your words.

    You mentioned nothing about my hope that perhaps we could all work together somehow (writing Hillary, calling her, I don’t know, maybe more creative things) to see if we can get Hillary to be more centrist (if she is – last thing we need is political pandering to US!). I had some hope that together we all could make things better, somehow… Somehow the far left has captivated her. Maybe we could do the same..

  40. freespirit
    May 10, 2015 at 1:03 am
    Since we are all speaking candidly, and with people we have who we have traveled a long journey with, I will state my views.

    Let me begin by saying that I agree with what Lorac said, 100%.

    There is that school of thought that says, my country may she always be right but right or wrong my country.

    And I am hearing some of that now.

    Likewise there is the fatigue factor—hearing people like me seeming to parrot criticisms we hear from anti Hillary people.

    The problem is those criticisms emerge from the facts, the inconsistencies, the backtracking and the passionate embrace of a set of values which are the antithesis of what she stood for in 2008, and spell even greater havoc for this nation.

    Again I say, these objections do not emanate from the RNC. They originate from the facts–if you care about the facts.

    I will tell you a dirty little secret.

    In 2008, I accepted everything that came out of the Hillary campaign, until I finally realized they did not know what they were doing.

    By what sophistry of reason does your chief strategist, Penn, conclude that California is an all or nothing state?

    By what sophistry of reason does your campaign write off the caucus states?

    By what lapse in judgement do you make Patty Solis Doyle your campaign manager?

    My candidate, may she always be right, but right or wrong my candidate?

    Is that the answer to questions such as these?

    And what is a friend?

    Is it someone who gives you carte blanche? Or is it someone who risks the friendship to tell you when you are wrong?

    I too feel a sense of fatigue, but mine emanates not from hearing the negative reactions, but from Hillary herself not giving us anything to cheer about.

    The one thing that the past eight years has given me—that I did not have before, despite decades of interest and involvement in politics was a keen sense of how corrupt things are and how neither party serves the public interest.

    I knew, because my godfather said it to me–and he was insider, that an honest politician is one who stays bought, but never before to the degree we are seeing now. Those policies spell the destruction of this nation, and it is unseemly for a candidate I support to adopt them promote them and bless them.

    The other salient is big media. They are corrupt beyond recognition. It is a case of their narrative uber alles. Above the truth, above the facts, and above the welfare of the nation. They censor information harmful to Obama. They cheer him on from one disaster to the next, each of which leave their patrons richer and the country less secure, less prosperous, and headed for Armageddon.

    Put differently: It’s always been bad, but it’s never been THIS bad. They’re approaching Obama’s presidency like a parent that’s cheering on a disabled kid at the Special Olympics – loud applause, standing ovations, feigned enthusiasm, and never a discouraging word. It’s just not politically correct to criticize a retard’s performance when he’s trying his best – don’t be insensitive. Isn’t it about time we had a retard in the White House? 230+ years without a Down Syndrome President, what a travesty.

    But then again, at least winning the gold in wheelchair basketball is a lot closer to a signature achievement than a disastrous, farcical healthcare law.

    It is against that backdrop that we cannot help but compare the boast of her 2008 campaign commercial about who do you want to answer the 3 am phone call, vs. her performance at Benghazi, because in any functional operation the buck must stop at the top. If you are the captain of the ship, you are strictly liable when an apprentice seaman runs the ship aground, and it is worse when you attempt to shift the blame to a video.

    Everyone must decide the issue for themselves, but for me, I cannot turn a blind eye to these things, because they are the criteria by which any candidate must be judged. I cannot ratify these behaviors, and be true to my values and hopes for this nation.

  41. The imprimatur of their corruption, the despositive factor, the incontrovertible proof is the refusal to hold Obama personally responsible for ANY of the scandals that plague his benighted administration. Nothing, short of an outright written confession by him, will convince them that he bears any responsibility for anything. This is one of the thousand profound points that Sharyl Attkisson makes in her book Stonewalled. The larger point is that there are journalists who want the public to know the truth, but when the truth conflicts with the narrative of big media, the story is rejected by the news division, and if the reporter presses the issue, then he or she is subjected to all sorts of slanders and pressures from the administration, and from a network that is hopelessly conflicted by the fact that its president is the brother of a top administration official who is up to his eyeballs in the Benghazi cover up. The other thing, besides spying on the reporter, and planting incriminating evidence on her computer, this administration tells would be whistle blowers: “if you talk to reporters we will fuck you up and you will end up in a cage!” (Note: that is a direct quote)

  42. Last night’s SNL put on a fake Pictionary-like game show called Picture Perfect, but with a timely twist: One character, Family Matters‘ Reginald VelJohnson (played by Kenan Thompson) was asked to draw Muhammed and, well, considering recent events, balked at the opportunity snip

  43. So, what is in the TPP and why Obama wants it secret?


    The TPP, which involves 12 nations and 40% of the earth’s trade, has been called “NAFTA on steroids.” (NAFTA, recall, was the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement of 1993 negotiated during the Clinton Presidency). Every such agreement has been sold to the public by the promise that free trade floats all boats. What’s the reality? According to Buchanan, “… almost all [the big trade agreements] have led to soaring trade deficits and jobs lost to the nations with whom we signed the agreements.” Over the past four decades of free trade, America, cites Buchanan, has lost 55,000 factories and 5-6 million manufacturing jobs, all while racking up $11 trillion dollars in trade deficits.

    So, who, if anyone, benefits by so-called “free trade?” Only the multinational corporations set “free” to scour the earth for the hottest sweatshops and the cheapest labor. Free trade is a global race to the bottom.

  44. Hi, all and Happy Mother’s Day to all our moms on this blog.

    While I agree that Hillary is still the best choice among all the candidates running so far from either party (and frankly, I can’t really think of anyone who isn’t running that I would like either), I am growing concerned with this pandering to the left. My reasoning for this is because of what has been happening in other elections this year. The polling in both Israel and the UK indicated a sweeping victory for the left, yet when the only poll that counts, the voting, occurred, conservatives outright won.

    We all know how atrocious the polling is in this country so I can’t believe Hillary or her staff could possibly believe that a left turn, especially her illegal immigration view, is a winning position.

    I will vote for Hillary, but she is making it harder and harder for me to open my wallet to her this go-round.

    Admin, great job on your recent posts. Not that I am the least bit surprised by that.

  45. HWC: this whole business of corruption has been with us since the early days of the country. The republican class consisting of Jefferson and Madison believed fervently in representative government, that the people (not the elite class) were sovereign, and that the end of government should be the general welfare, as opposed to the welfare of insiders. The opposing view was held by Hamilton and his cohorts, who believed that if it was necessary to bribe small minded members of congress to do something then so be it. The Bank of the United States, devised by Hamilton, was a clear example of this. It was a private institution backed by public money, which was heavily invested in by insiders with financial knowledge in the northeast, and it cost may less sophisticated people in the south and the west their fortunes when it went belly up. Andrew Jackson saw through this, of course, and he attacked those inside interests. This is not very different from the green energy con men who Obama favored with stimulus moneys etc. Here is a good expose of this hidden part of American history: http://www.redstate.com/2015/02/11/jay-cost-talks-new-book-republic/

  46. We all know how atrocious the polling is in this country so I can’t believe Hillary or her staff could possibly believe that a left turn, especially her illegal immigration view, is a winning position.

    I doubt she thinks it’s a winning position in a general. Just an essential position to head off a challenge from the left flank and get the nomination. She, of all people, must understand the power of the moonbats in the Democrat caucus states.

    It’s the same thing as Mitt Romney taking a hard right turn and becoming severely conservative in a futile attempt to make the loons in the Republican party love him.

    In both cases, it’s politicians cynically tossing red meat to rabid party activists.

  47. Lu4PUMA
    May 10, 2015 at 12:02 pm
    Well, its mothers day weekend, ergo today may be the best or times–or the worst of times to bring up a subject that may or may not drive us all deeper into that winter of our discontent. But as Dorothy Parker would say, I would love to dance with you, I would love to have my tonsils torn out, I would love to be on a burning ship at midnight–well hell its too late we are getting underway . . .

    We are told by the liveliest intellects of our time, that we have passed from the industrial age to the information age, that it makes no economic sense to hang on to jobs that can be done in other venues cheaper (like 10 cents per hour in Viet Nam) and that the brick and mortar operations we are familiar with have been superceded by the virtual office, the internet and the contingent workforce, concerning which the NLRB and the EEOC are endeavoring to pass new regulations to regulate, control and tax.

    What if . . . national borders fall in the same category? What if the low birth rate in the county compels us to take a flexible view point on illegal immigration? What if the real goal here is—or should be to attract the brightest minds on the planet to come to these shores, to main the main batteries of our arsenal against competitors like China. What if we need a low cost population to take care of the aging baby boom population, to fund social security? What if the dominant culture in this nation is receding like the tides at Dover Beach because our elites haven’t the courage to defend them? In that case, quo vadis???

    I maintain that if we are prepare to give up our borders, our culture and our institutions, then private property rights, like the right of Zuckerberg to buy up surrounding properties adjacent to his compound and to repel invaders should be null and void as well. Unless we are willing to make meaningful distinctions on who we let into this country, who we reward with citizenship, and what specific skills and attributes they bring to these shores, we should build a wall high enough to keep them out. And we should still socialize Zuckerberg’s real and personal property.

  48. wbboei:

    I agree. Government corruption is certainly not a new thing. I mean, the founding fathers worked quite hard to put in place checks and balances and limitations on the power of the federal government. The larger and more pervasive the government, the more opportunity for corruption and the larger the scale.

    Is is precisely because I think politicians in both parties are corrupt and robbing us blind that I have come to realize that anything that puts downward pressure on the scale of the federal government is a net benefit, really without regard to the details of the laws, regulations, and bureaucracies being scaled back.

    For example, once you see the IRS being used as a political weapon (or instrument of political extortion), how can I not favor a simple flat tax that effectively abolishes the IRS? It’s irrelevant whether I think such a tax system would be the theoretical optimum. Those considerations pale against the important of preventing our government from using the IRS as a political weapon.

  49. In both cases, it’s politicians cynically tossing red meat to rabid party activists.
    Toss red meat all you like. But at some point you run out of it. And then its your hand and then your arm that the wild beast demands. Short of that there is the general election. The promises made in the primary to appease the extreme elements in the party boomergang in the general election. Whom among the undecided would say rewarding illegal immigration on a broad scale will endear a candidate to the great undecided–all 3 of them. The greatest problem Hillary will face is if she faces a Republican candidate who is not aligned with Wall Street, because she cannot pretend that she is not, and that their interests will not figure prominently in any administration she would cobble together. The fundamental problem with Wall Street is their interests are global, not national, and so is their perspective. When you tell them that despite this phony nonsense about a 5.4 percent unemployment and point out that 93 million are not working, that illegals get most of the new jobs created, and less than half the nation are paying taxes, all you get is blank stares. That is the gravaman of the complaint. It is where the interests of the hard left and the hard right coalesce. They may not join hands but they will each attack the status quo from different directions, and the undecided voter will be left to wonder whether what the status quo preaches is simply the long con.

  50. Thanks for the link, Shadow. This is why I will still vote for Hillary. My heart of hearts still believes she gets it.

  51. You’re welcome Voting. I don’t always agree with Hillary, but I do believe she will make a great President. She has inspired me for decades. It also takes a Hell of a lot of courage to run again after all she went though in 2008.

  52. wbboei:

    I suspect that the country may be primed for the message of a firebrand, anti-Washington populist. I don’t think the “Tea Party” (whatever that is) has the political power, but I think that the “mad-as-hell” sentiment of the Tea Party is real and much more widespread than a corner of the Republican Party. As I start to watch the various candidates in the Presidential race, I’m going to be paying attention to those who are skilled enough demagogues to tap into that anger. Someone who is really good at it is going to be able to cut through the media filter.

    Speaking of which, CSPAN has a bunch of speeches from the Republican forum in South Carolina yesterday. First chance I’ve had to compare and contrast the nascent stump speeches from several of the candidates.


    I’ve watched Walker and Cruz, so far. I guess Rubio is probably next up. I can only take it in small doses. Hopefully, I’ll be able to watch Hillary give a stump speech at some point, although as long as she is running effectively unopposed, she might not agree to appear at a multi-candidate forum.

  53. Thanks, Shadow. Still always has good Hillary info and pics.

    Hello VH. Good to see you. I tend to agree about Hillary “getting it”. As time goes on, I think we’ll get a clearer picture of things. I hope so.

  54. wbb, I don’t want to monopolize the blog with my part in this discussion, so I would just reply this last time by saying that I agree that all relevant information – positive or negative – about Hillary or any other candidate should be considered. I have done that and will continue to do so. However, I don’t expect that a better candidate (according to my own criteria) or one of whom I could be more supportive will enter the race. Your criteria may be different from mine. Obviously, it’s your right and responsibility – as I have said repeatedly – to believe and to say whatever you want.

    I think the people who have been the most disappointed in Hillary are those who identified with her on a personal level. I believe this was obvious when numbers of her supporters became angry and done with her after she took the SOS position – not because they felt she would not do a good job, but because she would be working for Obama – after the rancorous campaign. I understood to an extent how they felt because that race had become personal. However, Hillary recognized the need to rise above personal issues and accept the job. I hated to see the qualified older woman yet again, relegated to a position beneath that of a less qualified, younger man. However, I believed that if Hillary had a shot at election in the future, she would have to set aside (at least for the time being) the deep personal wounds, inflicted at the hands of her long term fellow Dims, and be a team player – as she has always been.

    I fully recognize that in order to succeed in politics candidates must bend their principles a bit, re-shape their policy proposals, compromise their beliefs to some degree. This is our system. It’s not pretty. But, it is what it is. I don’t think that in accepting that some components of Hillary’s positions on policy will differ from my own is the same as turning a blind eye.

    In a post several weeks age, after much discussion about Hillary’s move to the Left, I made the statement that if I felt she fully and genuinely embraced the political views of the far left, I would not be able to support her. Your response was that Dem candidates always campaigned to the Left and governed toward the center – or something to that effect. That made sense to me, as did the discussion about the issues on which she appeared to be moving to the Left. Such discussions are helpful.

    In my mind, there is a difference between intelligent, objective discussion and repeated, ongoing attacks. Perhaps that difference doesn’t exist in your mind or the minds of others. Perhaps, it’s a matter of interpretation. I recognize as you pointed out that you have been on this blog for a long time. I know that you are aware of some of the issues you mentioned. I think many of us are aware of those or other issues during that campaign. I just find some of them less surprising.

    I agree that you can and should express your views as you see fit. And, I would ask you not to assume that those of us who do continue to support Hillary, and who find it unlikely that a better candidate will enter the picture are turning a blind eye.

  55. It is where the interests of the hard left and the hard right coalesce. They may not join hands but they will each attack the status quo from different directions, and the undecided voter will be left to wonder whether what the status quo preaches is simply the long con.

    Yes, I agree. Status quo is not a good place to be in this election. Status quo doesn’t play with the Tea Party. Status quo doesn’t play with Occupy Wall Street. “Mad as Hell” is pretty much the operative mood…

    If a populist demagogue can tap into that, you might see some reshuffling of the traditional party affiliations. Who knows what the outcome will be, but that’s at least what makes the race potentially interesting (and populist demagogues are always a bit frightening).

    I’m now through Walker, Cruz, and Rubio. I’m going to try to plow through Fiorina, Carson, and Perry.


    Are the Democrats going to have debates?

  56. I believe this was obvious when numbers of her supporters became angry and done with her after she took the SOS position – not because they felt she would not do a good job, but because she would be working for Obama – after the rancorous campaign.

    Yes. That for sure.

    And, then we are forced to examine whether or not she did a “good job” as Secretary of State. The Middle East is in turmoil. Russia is invading neighbors. Long-standing allies have lost faith in the United States. And we have the still the unexplained events of an unprotected US Ambassador burned alive and his body dragged through the streets by radical Islamic terrorists in Libya. And, there are serious questions about transparency and accountability.

    That’s why we have campaigns. Questions get asked. Questions get answered.

  57. However, Hillary recognized the need to rise above personal issues and accept the job. I hated to see the qualified older woman yet again, relegated to a position beneath that of a less qualified, younger man.
    That was the issue for a friend of mine who used to blog often here. When that happened she withdrew, and I have not heard from her since. This development mirrored what she had experienced in her personal life plus being gay. We all bring our life experiences here, and it is hard to argue with or deny what life teaches. But for the life of me, it always comes down to first principles–a concept grounded in values, which tells us what we can support and what we cannot accept. That was something Admin made reference to—first principles. First principles trumps party or even candidate. For me first principles are the ones Madison came up with, after a meticulous study of what causes republics to fail throughout history. I believe in institutions, and when institutions are corrupted there is little anyone can do to save the Republic, human nature being what it is. Liberty and the consolidation of power are contradictory. They cannot live together under the same roof. That is why Madison say fit to set them in opposition. That is why we have a constitution. And as long as that constitution is adhered to we can have a republic. A republic sir—if you can keep it.-Benjamin Franklin.

  58. hwc
    May 10, 2015 at 4:06 pm

    And, then we are forced to examine whether or not she did a “good job” as Secretary of State. The Middle East is in turmoil. Russia is invading neighbors. Long-standing allies have lost faith in the United States. And we have the still the unexplained events of an unprotected US Ambassador burned alive and his body dragged through the streets by radical Islamic terrorists in Libya. And, there are serious questions about transparency and accountability.

    That’s why we have campaigns. Questions get asked. Questions get answered.
    That is the difference between having an opinion vs having an informed opinion. I was pleased to see a number of young people saying they like Hillary, and claimed she was a brilliant sos. At the same time, I was dismayed to learned that none of them could name a single lasting accomplishment. The concern I have is that the only accomplishment that will be talked about in the campaign will be Benghazi. If that is the case, and if I were in her campaign, I would move beyond this business of denial and blame shifting to the larger issue of weighing all the equities, and mea culpas where necessary. The public does not expect perfection from its politicians, but it is entitled to a level of candor. That is what I would be serving up when the issue arose.

  59. wbboei:

    Clinton has two options in answering questions about her term as SecState:

    1) She just followed orders and implemented Obama’s foreign policy even though she disagreed with Obama on this, this, this, and this. If she takes this route, she has to be specific.

    2) It was her foreign policy, she supported everything she did, and accepts responsibility for the results.

    Here is what her campaign website says are her accomplishments as SecState:

    And when President Obama asked Hillary to serve as his secretary of state, she put aside their hard-fought campaign and answered the call to public service once again. After eight years of Bush foreign policy, Hillary was instrumental in starting to restore America’s standing in the world. Even former Republican Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said she “ran the State Department in the most effective way that I’ve ever seen.”

    She built a coalition for tough new sanctions against Iran that brought them to the negotiating table and she brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that ended a war and protected Israel’s security. She was a forceful champion for human rights, internet freedom, and rights and opportunities for women and girls, LGBT people and young people all around the globe.

  60. So, it would appear that Clinton embraces the Obama policy towards Iran and Israel. I don’t see any effort to distance herself from those two Obama administration “accomplishments”.

  61. I must say, hwc, you do have a lot of gall to go on a blog supporting Hillary Clinton and try so hard to tie her to Obama.

    No Deal.

  62. Lu4PUMA
    May 10, 2015 at 7:25 pm

    I must say, hwc, you do have a lot of gall to go on a blog supporting Hillary Clinton and try so hard to tie her to Obama.

    No Deal.

    Exactly, Lu. Yes!

  63. She was Secretary of State in the Obama administration! It doesn’t get more tied to Obama than that!

    Have you heard her distance herself from the Obama administration?

  64. The “progressives” that selected Obama have failed. They are failures. Their totalitarian ideology is dysfunctional and they are a bunch of anal obsessed Kooks. Not only are they failures along with their messiah, but the country is now failing and so is the global economy that they infected.

    Global, colossal FAILURE.

    That’s a global NO DEAL to you and yours, hwc.

  65. Since I view Barack Hussein Obama as the worst President in my lifetime (I go back to Ike), it will be “no deal” for me if Clinton does not effectively and emphatically distance herself from the Obama administration. I wouldn’t vote for Mother Theresa if she ran on a platform of the Obama third term.

  66. Bless our hearts.

    First we read through general put downs of Hillary on this website comments. When that didn’t seem to work, we had to wade through incessant book reports, chapter and verse, on the latest book written by a Republican trashing not only Hillary but also Bill and the CGI based on innuendo. What a novel idea…a Republican writing a trash book about the Clintons during campaign season that is supposed to absolutely bring them down once and for all. WOW! Who knew?
    When that didn’t work, we have phased into the latest….Hillary is Obama Jr. because she was his Sec. of State. Maybe that tactic will work and we here at Hillary is 44 will run screaming away from Hillary straight in to the arms of Jeb Bush or whichever Rep candidate has not been “checked off the list”.

    Bless OUR hearts. It’s looking like we are gonna have a whole bunch of “wading” to do on this site before the Primaries are over. Wonder what the next tactic will be?

    The good thing is that this is America and presently the citizens get to vote for whomever they PERSONALLY choose.

  67. Southern

    Bless OUR hearts. It’s looking like we are gonna have a whole bunch of “wading” to do on this site before the Primaries are over. Wonder what the next tactic will be?

    The good thing is that this is America and presently the citizens get to vote for whomever they PERSONALLY choose.

    Hell yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  68. Actually, the book I’m reading has highlighted numerous issues where Secretary of State Clinton diverged from her boss, Barack Obama.

  69. I find it actually amazing that people that do not plan on ever voting for Hillary, feel happy as a lark to come to this site and bitch and moan about how Hillary has changed, let them down, was a terrible or do nothing SOS, is a crook and only have batshit crazy feminists voting for her now.

    If I felt that way, I sure as Hell would not come here and perpetuate the doom and gloom cloud. I wouldn’t feel good about myself for doing that.

    That’s just me.

  70. I think she has to take responsibility. It would be a profound mistake to say she was just following orders. When they point out the errors, she needs to tell them that Monday morning quarterbacking is easy compared to the onerous task of responding to unanticipated events in the moment. The other thing she could say is that she is responsible for the things she could control, but other decisions in the military, the CIA and the White House were not under her control. Then I think she needs to say, with the benefit of hindsight, here is what we should have done differently. Why wait for Light in the Loafers Lindsey and Mad King Lear McCain to spout off. Finally, she should outline her goals as secretary of state when she took office, making clear references to the article she wrote on that subject in Foreign Affairs Magazine, which was a gem. Just show some goddamed honesty, and she will be able to withstand the attacks. No one expects perfection. These decisions are not easy. But if she shows good faith rather than evasion, people will understand.

  71. In 2008 Hillary gained momentum when she said she had found her voice. Well, she needs to find it again. Those of us who are willing to red flag problems, play devils advocate, and advocate first principles have not been listened to. Time will tell whether that changes. But this business of going hard left in the primary will create a lot of chits which are not good for the nation, and the things she says to appease the Marxist audience—like you didn’t build that, or what difference does it make, or I was wrong about Iraq, are concessions she does not need to make, and will be fodder for effective attacks in the general election. It makes me wonder who is running the show. This is like they said about the Navy–always fighting the last war, rather than the next one. This will be a change election, with or without her. More of the hair of the dog that bit them may work for some hangovers, but not this one. If her opponent is Bush, then none of this matters. The nation will never elect another Bush. But if it is a reformer, then Katie Bar the doors, because that is where the pendulum in American politics is swinging.

  72. hwc
    May 10, 2015 at 8:47 pm
    Since I view Barack Hussein Obama as the worst President in my lifetime (I go back to Ike)
    I go back to Truman. He was my idea of a good president.

  73. Here is a good article on what rent seeking special interests that the estimable Nial Ferguson such out of the nation. The Import Export Bank is merely the tip of the iceberg, yet getting rid of the frigging thing requires a Herculian effort. This is the latest example by Jay Cost, author of the new book A Republic No More:

    The Import-Export bank is a breeding ground for cronyism. Major corporations are deeply invested in politics, but not out of civic duty. In 2013, Boeing received about $8 billion worth of benefits from Ex-Im; during the 2013-14 election cycle, it spent about $35 million on lobbying, in part to keep the bank afloat. From Boeing’s perspective, its lobbying investment brought a fantastic return. However, this is inconsistent with republican government. Ex-Im survives not because it enhances the general welfare, but because its clients lobby the government aggressively.

    Unsurprisingly, all that corporate cash has purchased some very powerful supporters. Barack Obama opposed the Export-Import Bank when he ran for president in 2008, but now he supports its reauthorization. The bank enjoys support from almost all Democrats and many Republicans. Normally, that would ensure survival, but this time conservatives have the upper hand in Congress. The charter for the Ex-Im Bank expires on June 30. If Congress does not act, the bank will die.

    It is good for conservatives to take on such a defective program, but there is a larger point about the health of our government that an intensive focus on the Ex-Im Bank risks obscuring. American economic policy is a mess—a tangle of client-patron relationships between government and business that costs taxpayers a princely sum while inhibiting economic growth. The Export-Import Bank is not the worst offender. Rather, it is the easiest to attack. Because it benefits a narrow band of domestic manufacturers, Ex-Im cannot build the sort of broad interest-group alliances that protect other agencies from congressional assault. Moreover, since it requires congressional reauthorization, its critics do not have to overcome our system’s bias in favor of the status quo in order to eliminate it. Instead, it is up to Ex-Im’s advocates to persuade Congress and the president to renew it.

    And yet, one can only marvel at the struggle over this program. If an agency as questionable as Ex-Im can be eliminated only by a herculean effort, what hope is there of doing away with corporate tax preferences, domestic profits held overseas, onerous regulations that benefit large businesses, farm subsidies, affordable housing payola, rampant overpayments in Medicare, and the like? None of these subsidies will go quietly. All are deeply entrenched in our political economy, not because they are good for the nation, but because the interest groups that benefit from them are the most heavily invested in the political process.

  74. And this is what that fucking geek jebediah would maintain. The welfare of the people is the furthest thing from his mind. No wonder he raises $100 million in one quarter. Our political system is on life support thanks to people like him.

  75. The “geopolitical taper.” By this I mean the fundamental shift we are witnessing in the national-security strategy of the U.S.—and like the Fed’s tapering, this one also means big repercussions for the world. To see the geopolitical taper at work, consider President Obama’s comment Wednesday on the horrific killings of protesters in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev. The president said: “There will be consequences if people step over the line.”

    No one took that warning seriously—Ukrainian government snipers kept on killing people in Independence Square regardless. The world remembers the red line that Mr. Obama once drew over the use of chemical weapons in Syria . . . and then ignored once the line had been crossed. The compromise deal reached on Friday in Ukraine calling for early elections and a coalition government may or may not spell the end of the crisis. In any case, the negotiations were conducted without concern for Mr. Obama.

    The origins of America’s geopolitical taper as a strategy can be traced to the confused foreign-policy decisions of the president’s first term. The easy part to understand was that Mr. Obama wanted out of Iraq and to leave behind the minimum of U.S. commitments. Less easy to understand was his policy in Afghanistan. After an internal administration struggle, the result in 2009 was a classic bureaucratic compromise: There was a “surge” of additional troops, accompanied by a commitment to begin withdrawing before the last of these troops had even arrived.

    Having passively watched when the Iranian people rose up against their theocratic rulers beginning in 2009, the president was caught off balance by the misnamed “Arab Spring.” The vague blandishments of his Cairo speech that year offered no hint of how he would respond when crowds thronged Tahrir Square in 2011 calling for the ouster of a longtime U.S. ally, the Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak.

    Mr. Obama backed the government led by Mohammed Morsi,after the Muslim Brotherhood won the 2012 elections. Then the president backed the military coup against Mr. Morsi last year. On Libya, Mr. Obama took a back seat in an international effort to oust Moammar Gadhafi in 2011, but was apparently not in the vehicle at all when the American mission at Benghazi came under fatal attack in 2012.

    Syria has been one of the great fiascos of post-World War II American foreign policy. When President Obama might have intervened effectively, he hesitated. When he did intervene, it was ineffectual. The Free Syrian Army of rebels fighting against the regime of Bashar Assad has not been given sufficient assistance to hold together, much less to defeat the forces loyal to Assad. The president’s non-threat to launch airstrikes—ifCongress agreed—handed the initiative to Russia. Last year’s Russian-brokered agreement to get Assad to hand over his chemical weapons is being honored only in the breach, as Secretary of State John Kerry admitted last week.

    The result of this U.S. inaction is a disaster. At a minimum, 130,000 Syrian civilians have been killed and nine million driven from their homes by forces loyal to the tyrant. At least 11,000 people have been tortured to death. Hundreds of thousands are besieged, their supplies of food and medicine cut off, as bombs and shells rain down.

    Worse, the Syrian civil war has escalated into a sectarian proxy war between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, with jihadist groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and the Nusra Front fighting against Assad, while the Shiite Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds Force fight for him. Meanwhile, a flood of refugees from Syria and the free movement of militants is helping to destabilize neighboring states like Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. The situation in Iraq is especially dire. Violence is escalating, especially in Anbar province. According to Iraq Body Count, a British-based nongovernmental organization, 9,475 Iraqi civilians were killed in 2013, compared with 10,130 in 2008.

    The scale of the strategic U.S. failure is best seen in the statistics for total fatalities in the region the Bush administration called the “Greater Middle East”—essentially the swath of mainly Muslim countries stretching from Morocco to Pakistan. In 2013, according to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, more than 75,000 people died as a result of armed conflict in this region or as a result of terrorism originating there, the highest number since the IISS Armed Conflict database began in 1998. Back then, the Greater Middle East accounted for 38% of conflict-related deaths in the world; last year it was 78%.

    Mr. Obama’s supporters like nothing better than to portray him as the peacemaker to George W. Bush’s warmonger. But it is now almost certain that more people have died violent deaths in the Greater Middle East during this presidency than during the last one.

    In a January interview with the New Yorker magazine, the president said something truly stunning. “I don’t really even need George Kennan right now,” he asserted, referring to the late American diplomat and historian whose insights informed the foreign policy of presidents from Franklin Roosevelt on. Yet what Mr. Obama went on to say about his self-assembled strategy for the Middle East makes it clear that a George Kennan is exactly what he needs: someone with the regional expertise and experience to craft a credible strategy for the U.S., as Kennan did when he proposed the “containment” of the Soviet Union in the late 1940s.

    So what exactly is the president’s strategy? “It would be profoundly in the interest of citizens throughout the region if Sunnis and Shiites weren’t intent on killing each other,” the president explained in the New Yorker. “And although it would not solve the entire problem, if we were able to get Iran to operate in a responsible fashion . . . you could see an equilibrium developing between Sunni, or predominantly Sunni, Gulf states and Iran.”

    Moreover, he continued, if only “the Palestinian issue” could be “unwound,” then another “new equilibrium” could be created, allowing Israel to “enter into even an informal alliance with at least normalized diplomatic relations” with the Sunni states. The president has evidently been reading up about international relations and has reached the chapter on the “balance of power.” The trouble with his analysis is that it does not explain why any of the interested parties should sign up for his balancing act.

    As Nixon-era Secretary of State Henry Kissinger argued more than half a century ago in his book “A World Restored,” balance is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. “The balance of power only limits the scope of aggression but does not prevent it,” Dr. Kissinger wrote. “The balance of power is the classic expression of the lesson of history that no order is safe without physical safeguards against aggression.”

    What that implied in the 19th century was that Britain was the “balancer”—the superpower that retained the option to intervene in Europe to preserve balance. The problem with the current U.S. geopolitical taper is that President Obama is not willing to play that role in the Middle East today. In his ignominious call to inaction on Syria in September, he explicitly said it: “America is not the world’s policeman.”

    But balance without an enforcer is almost inconceivable. Iran remains a revolutionary power; it has no serious intention of giving up its nuclear-arms program; the talks in Vienna are a sham. Both sides in the escalating regional “Clash of Sects”—Shiite and Sunni—have an incentive to increase their aggression because they see hegemony in a post-American Middle East as an attainable goal.

    The geopolitical taper is a multifaceted phenomenon. For domestic political as well as fiscal reasons, this administration is presiding over deep cuts in military spending. No doubt the Pentagon’s budget is in many respects bloated. But, as Philip Zelikow has recently argued, the cuts are taking place without any clear agreement on what the country’s future military needs are.

    Thus far, the U.S. “pivot” from the Middle East to the Asia Pacific region, announced in 2012, is the nearest this administration has come to a grand strategy. But such a shift of resources makes no sense if it leaves the former region ablaze and merely adds to tension in the latter. A serious strategy would surely make some attempt to establish linkage between the Far East and the Middle East. It is the Chinese, not the Americans, who are becoming increasingly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Yet all the pivot achieved was to arouse suspicion in Beijing that some kind of “containment” of China is being contemplated.

    Maybe, on reflection, it is not a Kennan that Mr. Obama needs, but a Kissinger. “The attainment of peace is not as easy as the desire for it,” Dr. Kissinger once observed. “Those ages which in retrospect seem most peaceful were least in search of peace. Those whose quest for it seems unending appear least able to achieve tranquillity. Whenever peace—conceived as the avoidance of war—has been the primary objective . . . the international system has been at the mercy of [its] most ruthless member.”

    Those are words this president, at a time when there is much ruthlessness abroad in the world, would do well to ponder.

    Mr. Ferguson is a history professor at Harvard and a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. His most recent book is “The Great Degeneration” (Penguin Press, 2013).

  76. The charter for the Ex-Im Bank expires on June 30. If Congress does not act, the bank will die.

    Perfect opportunity for “milker bill” extortion. The money will be flowing into Congressional PACs in late June….

  77. wbboei:

    I haven’t seen Jeb’s stump speech yet, but I don’t think he stands a chance. I just don’t see the American voter going for another round of same old, same old. I don’t care if he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread, I just don’t see the voters going for a third helping of Bush.

    It sure looks like a “fresh face” election to me.

    Jeb should have run last time when the Republican field was ridiculously weak…

    I’ve made it through all the stump speeches I can stand (except I still plan to watch Carson). Having seen the players in action, I see the Republican nomination ending up with Walker (establishment) versus Cruz (firebrand).


    Speaking of Cruz, did you see the jaw-dropping “race pandering” interview by Mark Halperin? How can these journalists look themselves in the mirror?

  78. If you are a bottom line type, here is the bottom line.

    Question: what-is-a-progressive-praytell?

    Answer: shorn of the rhetoric, the outrage and the empire a lies that announce their presence and animate everything they do, they are small minded bigots who aspire to become superheroes in a comic book version of reality which exists mainly in their heads, and in the heads of other delusionals who operate at right angles to the truth, and seek affirmation from trust fund babies and their ilk. Watch as Bill Whittle shows how, in case after case after case, they tilt with windmills, and drag the rest of us through a nightmare of their own making, while preening in front of the camera. And when they get caught, there is no confession, no admission, just a new indictment of the white male patriarchy. They are such a bad act that they do not deserve even the vaudville hook. Hot tar and feathers would be more fashionable and more appropriate for provocateurs such as these who live to trouble the living stream.


  79. I’ve made it through all the stump speeches I can stand (except I still plan to watch Carson). Having seen the players in action, I see the Republican nomination ending up with Walker (establishment) versus Cruz (firebrand).
    That is probably as good a bet as anyone could make at this point.

    I have worried about Rubio in lieu of Walker, because he is an establishment goon, and unlike Walker he does not ruffle feathers–and is big media friendly. He will promise the sun, the moon and the stars to everyone, and if elected, he will do the bidding of Wall Street. He is the kind that the risk adverse establishment RINO will gravitate toward, as they did toward Romney. And he would be tough for Hillary to beat, not because he is worth a tinkers damn but because he is another Reagan, Kennedy, pick your poison. Last week I was with a Texas County chairman, and I told him that I thought that Rubio was the natural enemy of Cruz—like Churchills comment about the United States and Britain being two great nations separated by a common language. Only here, what separates is Cruz represents the people and the constitution, whereas Rubio represents the elites–same as Obama. In fact, Rubio is Obama lite. You can take that one to the bank, because it is an eternal verity. The only difference is that the subtext of Obama is I hate America, while the subtext of Rubio will be I love America, my father came to these shores with nothing etc. When I look at Marco, I am reminded of that obscure quote by H.L. Mencken that with certain politicians at least patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. For those with a discerning eye his bait and switch on border security before amnesty is all you need to know.

  80. O/T. Has Obama worn out his protesters?
    Mothers of dead police brutality victims march in DC (PHOTOS)
    Published time: May 09, 2015 20:12
    Edited time: May 10, 2015 05:59
    Mothers from across the United States poured into Washington, DC on Saturday, choosing Mother’s Day weekend to march for justice for the loved ones they have lost to violent encounters with law enforcement.
    DUBBED THE “MILLION MOMS MARCH,” THE EVENT FEATURED HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE MARCHING to the US Department of Justice and calling for police reform around the country….


  81. Speaking of Cruz, did you see the jaw-dropping “race pandering” interview by Mark Halperin? How can these journalists look themselves in the mirror?
    The squalor which calls itself journalism is epitomized by this douche bag Halperin, and it is akin to the conditions that existed when the English novelist Charles Dickens visited that crime haven called the Five Points in New York city circa 1842:

    This is the place [Five Points], these narrow ways, diverging to the right and left, and reeking everywhere with dirt and filth. Such lives as are led here, bear the same fruits here as elsewhere. The coarse and bloated faces at the doors have counterparts at home, and all the wide world over. Debauchery has made the very houses prematurely old. See how the rotten beams are tumbling down, and how the patched and broken windows seem to scowl dimly, like eyes that have been hurt in drunken frays. Many of those pigs live here. Do they ever wonder why their masters walk upright in lieu of going on all-fours? and why they talk instead of grunting?

  82. After the propagandist known to some as Mark Halperin grilled Cruz just be sure he is Cuban enough to run for president, some wag asked the existential question:


    This is one of those questions for which there is no plausible answer. None. The null set. It lingers in the air, and festers. No one reaches up to grab it, or ventures an opinion. Like his brain, it is what the Buddhists refer to as The Great Empty.
    (From Hot Air)

    Halperin: There’s no doubt press failed to scrutinize Obamacare until now

    posted at 8:51 pm on November 21, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham

    Share on Facebook


    Laura Ingraham had Time Magazine‘s Mark Halperin on “The O’Reilly Factor” tonight to talk about the magazine’s new cover:

    The cover, and what I’ve heard of the story read like, well, this site did about five years ago, and four years ago, and three years ago, and you get the point. But back then, any knock on Obamacare from critics was mean-spirited, lies, fear-mongering, and possibly racist. Ingraham asks about that.

    INGRAHAM: That’s part of the issue, is it not? The President always seems to see things in terms of political solutions or political responses. So the response here is we have got to rebrand. We have got to sell it differently. We have to have a new ad, have to have the website have more colors, whatever it is. Isn’t it more of a branding problem? This is a technical problem. It’s a policy problem. It’s a substantive problem. It’s not just about whether Obama’s big legacy is intact or progressive ideas in the future are doing well. These are real concerns that were expressed frankly back in 2008, 2009, and into 2010. Forgive me, but I don’t think Time Magazine was doing cover stories on a lot of concerns that were raised back then that were routinely dismissed by many in the media, ideological, as just mean-spirited, turns out most of the Republican concerns about Obamacare were right.

    HALPERIN: Laura, there is no doubt that the press failed to scrutinize this program at the time of passage and during the context of the president’s re-election. Any reporter who would argue otherwise would be putting their head in the sand. As we write in “Double Down,” the problem for the Republicans in the re-election context was you nominated, Republicans nominated Mitt Romney, a guy who was not very well positioned, to say the least, to make the case against Obamacare because he passed the healthcare plan in Massachusetts.

    I’m always amazed how detached someone like Halperin can be while criticizing the media for an historic dereliction of duty. He is part of the Washington press corps. As “Game Change” and “Double Down” illustrate, he’s one of those with the highest access. And, yet, he couldn’t possibly ask more questions about Obamacare back when it mattered? No. Because Mitt Romney.

    Of course, Mitt Romney was nowhere near the picture when the law passed, so how does he explain that? He doesn’t. Maybe he’ll write a book with all the dirt in it a couple years from now and make a bunch of money on the HBO adaptation. Journalism.

    Laura presses and he blames Mitt Romney again, but again mentions it got no scrutiny at passage, when Romney was not a factor. WHAT IS THE POINT OF YOU, MARK HALPERIN?

    HALPERIN: Barack Obama knew he wasn’t going to run for re-election defending the program. Part of the flaws of the way the media works. If the candidates aren’t talking about it gets less coverage. No doubt a disservice was done to the country and to liberals. It didn’t get scrutiny on passage and then again when the president was running for re-election. Our cover story in the magazine lays all this out just how deep the president’s predicament is now politically and substantively.

    Now you tell us.

    Update: I’m having a technical problem with the video but will have it up for you ASAP. (Fixed!)

    Meanwhile, liberals huddled at the White House with Barack Obama. I would love to be a fly on the wall at this meeting. First to see everyone look at Juan like, “Who the heck invited him? He works for Fox.” Second, to see if Ezra Klein or any of them had the guts to ask this guy how he managed to so thoroughly ruin the biggest liberal entitlement program in decades that even the likes of Klein himself can barely defend it.

    President Obama held an off-the-record meeting with MSNBC hosts and liberal pundits on Thursday, POLITICO has learned.

    Present at the meeting: MSNBC’s Ed Schultz and Lawrence O’Donnell, Washington Post economics blogger Ezra Klein, Mother Jones Washington bureau chief David Corn, Talking Points Memo editor and publisher Josh Marshall, ThinkProgress editor-in-chief Judd Legum, Atlantic senior editor Garance Franke-Ruta, Salon political writer Brian Beutler and Fox News contributor Juan Williams.

    The participants agreed to an off-the-record classification for the meeting, though sources familiar with President Obama’s remarks said that Williams later appeared on Fox News and cited some of the president’s remarks, which he attributed to administration officials.

    The White House did not respond to a request for comment regarding the meeting.

  83. It is too bad Benedict Arnold did not try that one on for size.

    There is no doubt that that a man who bore a striking resemblance to me, but was not me, conspired with the British to defeat the Americans. However, it was not me. But even if it was me I had my reasons for doing so, and you must not judge me harshly. After all, I am a journalist, and not just any journalist, but a Time Warner whore. I am warning you here and now: if you press me too hard, I will claim that my first amendment rights are being attacked, and all of my colleagues on the left will go blatto. RINO response: oh please Mr. Tiger don’t eat me. I will give you everything you want, and more.

  84. …putting aside any personal feelings re: MO…I still expected more from her…

    she is a very bitter person…one can only imagine the kind of things she says away from a microphone…

    here is a snippet of what she said at the college commencement



    Directing her remarks to her African-American audience, Obama spoke from her own experience on how racial inequality impacts opportunity.

    “The road ahead is not going to be easy,” Obama said. “It never is, especially for folks like you and me.”

    Obama then aired a laundry list of slights she said black Americans deal with on a regular basis.

    “We’ve both felt the sting of those daily slights throughout our entire lives. The folks who crossed the street in fear of their safety, the clerks who kept a close eye on us in all those department stores. The people at formal events who assumed we were the help,” Obama said. “And those who have questioned our intelligence, our honesty, even our love of this country, and I know that these little indignities are obviously nothing compared to what folks across the country are dealing with every single day. Those nagging worries about whether you’re going to get stopped or pulled over for absolutely no reason. The fear that your job application will be overlooked because of the way your name sounds.”

    Obama also stressed that those experiences were “not an excuse” to “lose hope.”


    instead of being an “inspiration”…she was depressing…

    …don’t think she realizes that young people are much less color blind than she emphasizes and wants to make sure they think about…


    also above I had posted a clip of MO when she appeared at the “Black Girls Rock” event…

    …and I can’t help but think…can anyone imagine if Hillary or Laura Bush, as First Lady, had appeared at any event for any reason and made a statement like…

    ‘white girls rock’ or white girls or boys…did anything…

    how this isn’t reversed racism…or separtism…or division…is a mystery to me…

    MO makes one feel that if you are not black…in her world…you already have a strike against you…

    …I think she will really go rogue once she is out of the WH…alot of pent up negative feelings she has had to surpress…

  85. WBB:

    This first time through getting an opportunity to actually compare stump speeches, I’m not really thinking about about whose water they carry and so forth. I’m just trying to view it purely in terms of campaign performance. Kind of like American Idol… 🙂

    In the age of Kardashian Presidents, that’s ultimately what will determine the outcome of the election.

    All of them will improve rapidly. That’s what happens when presidential candidates engage with the media and public events.

    I was disappointed with Rubio. He has all the markings of a rhetorical one-hit wonder. Once he gets past the “my father was a Cuban immigrant who worked as a bartender to give his children the American dream” (an admittedly catchy tune), he’s got nothing. I think he’s a front runner for VP (Florida electoral votes).

    I made it about two-thirds of the way through Rick Perry’s set last night. Jindal and Carson on my list for today.

  86. “What we are doing isn’t working…”

    “The Obama economy is a disaster. Millions of Americans are hurting. The federal government is daily assaulting the constitutional rights of Americans, and the Obama-Clinton foreign policy abroad has made the world a far more dangerous place.

    “Leading from behind doesn’t work, and today our friends and allies don’t trust us and our enemies don’t fear us.”

  87. hwc
    May 11, 2015 at 12:59 pm
    When that priestess with the leastest, i.e. Pamela Digbey Harriman threw Washington Parties she succeeded in entertaining vodka drinkers and making nice guys out of stinkers so Washington. Naturally, everyone who was anyone came.

    Conversely, when the big media beloved messiah holds a kumbaya session for Arabs to explain why he sold out their interests to Iran, those Arabs starting with Saudi Arabia find colorable excuses to not attend and make themselves scarce. Racists, claims big media.

    Does this mean that the influence of Messiah Obama is on the ebb? Not to big media. They are his steadfast allies, and, with a little bit of luck those sorry bastards will go down with him and the Titanic.

  88. Good God this guy is a magnet for trouble……


    Reports: George Zimmerman shot in Florida incident

    By Adam B. Lerner

    5/11/15 2:25 PM EDT

    George Zimmerman was involved in a shooting in Florida on Monday afternoon, according to a local news report.

    According to Lake Mary, Florida Police Chief Steve Bracknell, Zimmerman and another man were involved in an altercation around 12:45 p.m. on Monday.

    Zimmerman suffered a minor gunshot wound, Bracknell said.

    Bracknell told the local news station that Zimmerman “walked normally into the ambulance” and that the shooting appeared to be the result of an “ongoing dispute” between Zimmerman and the other man, though he declined to elaborate.

    A helicopter piloted by the station saw a bullet hole in the passenger’s side window of Zimmerman’s car.

    Zimmerman first made headlines for shooting Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, who was walking home from a local convenience store. At trial Zimmerman was acquitted for his role in Martin’s death and the Justice Department subsequently declined to press federal “hate crime” charges.

    Since Martin’s shooting, Zimmerman has been the subject of a number of allegations of domestic abuse. In September 2013 his estranged wife accused him of punching her in a 911 call and two months later Zimmerman’s then-girlfriend alleged that he had pointed a weapon at her.

    This January, Zimmerman was arrested after allegedly throwing a wine bottle at another woman. All of the charges related to these incidents, though, have been dropped.


    He must know all the local cops by name by now.

  89. Don’t say I’m not fair and balanced ! I just listened to one of my favorite podcasts on state-run media (NPR) and I thought it was only fair to give the Clinton supporters a link to a the most pro-Clinton in-depth interview of the Clinton Cash author:


    It features the author of the book, the WaPost reporter, the Bloomberg reporter, and a vast right wing conspiracy out to get the Clinton author. The interviwer/journalist/Democrat spokesperson tries as hard as she can to debunk the book.

    Hopefully, it will make everyone feel better, knowing there is no proof the Clintons did anything illegal! 🙂


    PS: This is my go-to podcast to stay current on what’s trendy in moonbat/academic circles. My favorite shows are when they get four Democrat reporters talking about the state of a Republican race! Good times. Good times! I loved the show on Fox News when four of them, on an NPR podcast, went on for about 20 minutes on how Fox, with their editorial choices, just presents one side of an issue…. I was listening on my iPod while snowshoeing in the White Mountains and I just had to stop and laugh….

  90. It is the so-called Progressives that thugged and swindled Obama into office and they are the ones who will be forever tied to him. His bucket, full of death, torture, insanity and poverty for the masses is theirs.

    Hillary stood in the rain and told it like it was. One thing hwc has clearly demonstrated to me is that Hillary has nothing to prove to me now.

    And the most she will do is throw shadows at you.

  91. Bobby Jindal was surprisingly strong:


    One more to go, Carson…

    Overall, just from a campaign stump speech standpoint, I was quite impressed with several of these candidates. Most spoke without notes, even though there was a podium and teleprompter.

    I have a sneaking suspicion that Reince Priebus will make them all sign pledges for Reagan’s 11th commandment and the Republican debates may be effectively targeted against Obama and the Dems — unlike the clown show four years ago. It’s win/win for most of the candidates as they are young enough to win regardless of whether or not they get the nomination. Cruz, Walker, Rubio, Fiorina, Jindal — they all gain stature from the experience.

  92. What the Hell.

    If I wanted to listen to the Republican candidates, I would go to a Fox website or turn on the TV to Fox.

    Why are you putting all this on Big Pink, hwc?

    You think this is somehow a Republican website now????????????????

  93. Actually, I’ve never seen candidate stump speeches on Fox or any of the other networks. You have to go to CSPAN for that.

    If Hillary gives a stump speech, I’ll post a link for that, too. She’s kinda been laying low.

  94. Shadowfax
    May 11, 2015 at 9:41 pm
    You are a confirmed Hillary supporter.

    There will be an election in 2016.

    The election will be between Hillary and whoever gets the Republican nomination.

    If Bush gets the nomination, then Hillary is a shoe in.

    If a bona fide reformer gets the nomination, then Hillary will have a real battle on her hands.

    Therefore, it is not beyond the pale for someone who supports Hillary to be interested in the Republican nomination.

    If we followed the path you advocate, we would say nothing critical about Hillary and ignore the Republicans.

    Do you really believe that is a winning strategy?

  95. Whenever I hear a stump speech by a politician, I have an irresistable impulse to stand up and object: incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, a road map to nowhere, the antithesis of what they will do if elected. They do not inspire me, and I do not believe them. The question that matters is what have they actually done to prove that they mean what they say.

  96. Wbb

    If we followed the path you advocate, we would say nothing critical about Hillary and ignore the Republicans.

    —-> Believe me, none of us are ignoring the Republican’s. Heck, most of us voted for them in 2008 and 2012. For many of us, it was our first and second time.

    I know you have voted on both sides of the isle for quite a few elections so Hillary will not win nor lose if all the posts on Big Pink now become all about the perfect Republican candidate.

  97. If Hillary gives a stump speech, I’ll post a link for that, too. She’s kinda been laying low.

    Well that’s fair. Hillary might be taking Admin’s advice on laying low for as long as possible.

  98. Shadowfax,

    Those of us who are more than disappointed with Hillary Will Not Be “shamed” On Leaving The Blog . We Have Been Here Since It’s Inception And Have As Much Right To Express Our disillusionment as anyone Wants To Sing Her Praises With Minimal qualifiers.. We’ve Earned Our strips.

  99. Obviously I understand it’s hard for those that want a positive environment for Hillary supporters, but in all actuality, it’s been her actions that have caused so many to question this woman we held on such a pedestal. Maybe that was the problem, for me it’s was her abrupt tack to the left and unanswered questions with poor communication about her role in Benghazi. I can forgive a lot, but not core values.
    I can’t help but feel maybe I never really knew her at all. Maybe the unmet passion to be President has demanded her soul…power eventually corrupts all…

  100. Wbb

    If we followed the path you advocate, we would say nothing critical about Hillary and ignore the Republicans.

    Statements such as this which interprets in such black and white, exaggerated terms the objections raised by some of us to the attacks on Hillary are hard to take seriously. The intent seems to be to provoke or to incite conflict. If there is ever in interest in accurately understanding our comments and views regarding this issue, several of us have offered such information in various posts above.

  101. And I don’t feel like I am bashing her, I’m so angry with her I just really don’t know what to do because I had so much faith in her to lead us for this destruction.
    To me, she was the “One”….

  102. Good God this guy is a magnet for trouble……

    Moon, maybe you’ve noticed, but the media words things to sound like George is an aggressive threat. As far as I know, he was just driving his car, and this lout shot a bullet into the window apparently aiming for his head. This is the same guy who tried to bait George into a fight last year.

    Even notice how they say George was the guy who gunned down Martin who was walking down the street? Slanted reporting. Martin wasn’t walking down the street, he was on top of George and bashing his head into the concrete when he shot him. But that doesn’t fit the narrative.

    As far as girlfriends, he should stay clear for awhile, because they all have leverage on him, they can threaten or carry out false claims of him, “he pointed a gun at me”, “he threw a glass at me”.

    I do think he needs to mature but IMO he’s not an aggressive threat to anyone. He needs to get out of FL and maybe change his name. He’s really just a sitting duck for a crazy violent person or a manipulative girlfriend….

  103. gonzotx
    May 11, 2015 at 11:23 pm

    This kind of comment I can understand, it is from the heart.

    Fortunately for me, the times I disagree with what she has said do not out way the good she has done and I believe, is capable of doing in the future.

  104. S – I’m pretty convinced that the Os and their followers are getting anxious because their time is running out. I think they’re doing everything they can right now to cause division, particularly around race. I don’t know what their big picture is, but I know one reason is to push for federalization of police forces.

    And I think O is just trying to make as many changes as he can, even after smacked down by the Supreme Court and other courts. Remember when they said they were using executive action to let 5 million dreamers stay in the country? That’s actually supposed to be done on a case by case basis, no en masse. But they were also giving them 3 year work permits. That’s CLEARLY unconstitutional. They lied to the judge and said they hadn’t started doing that yet. He passed an injunction, NO MORE. They just recently had to confess that they kept doing it STILL. They’re supposed to rescind all those work permits, but I heard they’re just changing them to 2 years now. So, he’s just plain going to do whatever he wants to do. I don’t know why no one is stopping him, dem or repub.

    I feel we should focus more on skilled labor. Many of the adults coming illegally now left school in 2nd or 3rd grade, and can’t even read in Spanish. Any many profess they don’t want to be American, they just want to make money to send home.

    Anyway – I think it’s just going to come faster and harder, all these country-destroying actions, because they’re worried their time is running out.

    Scary. All these ISIS threats and we’re filling up on people who don’t want to be American, including middle easterners who are given citizenship but identify with those countries that hate us.

    It’s just a scary time. Probably the worst time for this clown to be in office.

  105. Just for the record, I still have my two huge framed Hillary posters on my bedroom wall, where I can see them as now when I’m sitting on the bed working on the computer, doing paperwork, reading, or watching TV.

  106. lorac
    May 11, 2015 at 11:54 pm

    Admin does talk about other candidates, as we all do now and then…but I highly doubt that anyone else ever rises to the level of Hillary. I am pretty sure of that.

  107. lorac
    May 12, 2015 at 12:04 am
    S – I’m pretty convinced that the Os and their followers are getting anxious because their time is running out. I think they’re doing everything they can right now to cause division, particularly around race.

    I think the Kooks have to in their own minds, otherwise, they would have to admit to themselves they were WRONG, that they fell for the Fraud, liar, cheater…hook line and sinker.

  108. It’s so hard to have had such faith in a candidate, to feel they are going to set things right again when American so desperately needs it , to have such hope, to put that individual on a pedestal and then to find that politician is just” regular people” like the rest of us surely can lead to serious disappointment. I understand that.

    Without doubt most of us here have privately looked closely at the present Republican candidates plus Jeb and who knows how many more. Believe me, we will continue to do so. But then we have to decide, which one of THEM is totally honest, will do what they say in the campaign, have NO skeletons in their closets, really have conservative Rep values and won’t pull a Boehner or McConnell when elected, and which one is not raising money behind the scenes from those who have an agenda? Is there actually such a politician in either party? Who has the experience to lead us out of the Obama destruction? Who will work with the opposing party to actually get something done? It surely has not happened in the present and past administration or since Bill Clinton was president. Do I feel that Hillary is perfect…no…but I’m not seeing anything any better on the other side. And I still have faith that Hillary and Bill are trying to wrestle the Democratic party away from the far left loons. And what will happen if they are not allowed to do that?

    Although I can only speak for myself, I think many of us come to Hillary is 44 to get relief from all the Clinton bashing. I think that is why it is stressful
    to many of us to come here and have the put downs continue in what was a safe haven. I’m beyond weary and have been since 1992 with the 24/7 bashing, trashing, attacking, holding to a higher standard than anyone else, hypocrisy, jealousy, actual impeachment, and fine tooth combing of every aspect of the Clinton’s lives to try to find anything to legally put them away or at least bankrupt them. I’ve never seen anything like it in my life. So that is my anger which has built for well over 20 years. The extreme unfairness eats away at me. This goes way beyond just rough and tumble politics.

    Honest discussion here at Hillary is 44 is fine even if we disagree. For those of you who have been here with us through the past elections, please stay. But for those who have an agenda, are not who they portray themselves to be and who are possibly just plain old ugly trolls who show up at election time to divide and conquer, rile us up, cause stress, let me give you a piece of advice to save you a lot of time. It “ain’t” gonna work…that dog won’t hunt here at this Hillary site.

  109. freespirit
    May 11, 2015 at 11:21 pm

    If we followed the path you advocate, we would say nothing critical about Hillary and ignore the Republicans.

    Statements such as this which interprets in such black and white, exaggerated terms the objections raised by some of us to the attacks on Hillary are hard to take seriously. The intent seems to be to provoke or to incite conflict. If there is ever in interest in accurately understanding our comments and views regarding this issue, several of us have offered such information in various posts above.
    What I am arguing against is censorship.

    I thought that you of all people would understand that.

    What you call black and white, I call clarity.

    What you call provocation, I can a plea to get beyond this woe is me response.

    I save my provocation for what Obama has done to this country.

    And I hope Hillary does not make herself a party to it.

  110. My current focus is on Benghazi, and the behavior of one particular network to cover it up. The network is CBS, and it began with the appointment of David Rhoades as president, and it got infinitely worse when Scott Pelly and his assistant Shivlin took over the nightly news. Singlehandedly, they killed investigative journalism, and endeavored to destroy the reputation of Sharyl Atkisson when she tried to educate the public on what Obama is doing. As you will recall, during the presidential debate Obama falsely claimed that he attributed the Benghazi attack to terrorism when in fact he did not. Prior to that debate, Steve Kroft interviewed Obama, and offered him an opportunity to say it was terrorism and he declined to do so. And of course he never said it in the Rose garden. Pelly people hid that transcript so the public would not know it prior to the election. Sharyl and others forced them to disclose it. It became an even stickier wicket when the White House claimed it had not changed the talking points, but then allowed reporters to review but not copy White House emails, that directly implicated the brother of the president of CBS news in changing the talking points. When this was reported by Johnathan Karl at ABC and Sharyl, Pelly people went on the Nightly News and tried to destroy the reputations of both Karl and Sharyl. WashPo got wind of this and gave CBS three pinnochios. Pelly people take their marching orders from the White House. Moreover, when Sharyl’s computer and I-Phone were compromised by Obama People, CBS hired an Obama man to protect their security. But he never bothered to contact the victim of that attack, namely Sharyl.

  111. Southern Born
    May 12, 2015 at 1:01 am

    I agree that what the Clinton’s have gone though is far worse than any candidate should ever have to endure over decades. Yes, it might have made them tougher, but I do think that both of them will go down in history as exceptional leaders, up there with JFK.

    And I also agree that I always thought of Big Pink as a safe haven for Hillary supporters, and the past month or two has been beyond stressful. I am personally angry that after the past 7 years of political $hit, we can’t be a little bit happy on this blog, now that Hillary is running for President again.

    Is that too much to ask, to actually have a sigh of relief before the real political battle begins? Maybe I am just worn down, I want to sit back and be happy…it’s been so damn long since I was hopeful about the next election.

  112. I don’t know about all the disillusioned Hillary supporters, but I was, and I suspect many of us, were in the general category of “blue dog Democrats”. You might remember them. Reasonably liberal on social issues, but more moderate/conservative on fiscal and national security.

    Talk about getting kicked in the teeth. Sheesh, we got the old heave ho from the Democrat Party. There is not even a pretense of trying to keep us under the tent.


    As for the Republicans, I’ve had several back and forths with admin and others handicapping the field. I’ve said several times that I couldn’t wait to see them in action, because I felt that the winners would emerge on the campaign trail. As far as I am aware, this weekend was the first forum when most of the candidates appeared in front of the same, generally mainstream audience (not counting some Christian Coalition shindig in Iowa. This was the first time to see their generally secular stump speeches. Whether you are sizing them up as someone to vote for or sizing them up as potential opponents for whomever the Dems nominate (I don’t personally believe it will be Hillary), I thought some folk here might appreciate the links.

  113. I don’t think I need to prove my bonafides, either. I still have photos I took at a rally in Sept 2007 after standing in line all day to stand in the front row:

  114. For my money this account is completely plausible, but as of yet, unproven. It is completely in character that Obama would create a fictional account like this to mislead the public as he has done so many times before. Also, it is more than strange that the Pakistani intelligence people, who receive billions of foreign aid from the US would put that in jeopardy to hide him. I believe Bin Laden was a trophy on the one hand, and an election opportunity on the other. The vagueness of the details surrounding the incident adds further fuel to the fire. The natural response of the Administration will be first to ignore this, then to characterize it as conspiracy theory and third to engage in a scorched earth attack to destroy any journalist who would bring the truth forward. For all intents and purposes, they have taken over big media root and branch, and the revealing account in Stonewalled gives you a precise roadmap of how they succeeded in doing it. You may wonder why Hirsh’s source (s) have not revealed themselves then the standing threat by this Administration to fuck up whistle blowers and put them in a cage (their words not mine) may have something to do about it. My first thought was to ask the man who supposedly killed Bin Laden whether there is any truth to this, until I realized that would be like asking him whether he is claiming credit for something he did not do. Still, I would like to hear Rob come forward and deny it, rather than take the easy way out by saying I will not dignify this with a response. That reaction would be tantamount to an admission.

    Osama Bin Laden was an unarmed elderly ‘invalid’ when Navy Seals killed him and Barack Obama lied about the mission, report claims

    Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says the story of how the former al-Qaeda leader died is very different to what the public was told
    ADAM WITHNALL Author Biography Monday 11 May 2015

    A Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist has claimed that Barack Obama lied about the killing of Osama bin Laden for his own political advantage, and that the former al-Qaeda leader was in fact an unarmed “invalid” when he was shot by US Navy Seals in 2011.

    President Obama was accused of making up a number of key details that were fed to the public in the wake of the assassination, including that Bin Laden died in a fire-fight and that the Pakistani government had no role to play in the mission.

    Seymour Hersh, whose previous investigations have included the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, cited unnamed intelligence officials as part of what he called his “alternative history of the war on terror”.

    Writing in the London Review of Books, Mr Hersh claimed that rather than hiding out in a compound in Abbottabad, Bin Laden was in fact being held prisoner by the Pakistani intelligence services when he was killed.

    The article quotes “a retired senior intelligence official who was knowledgeable about the initial intelligence about Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad”, who said Pakistan had secretly detained the wanted terrorist for years to use “as leverage against Taliban and al-Qaeda activities”.

    In the immediate aftermath of the killing, Obama told the media the mission had been a secret incursion into Pakistan and that a small team of Seals fought a dramatic gun battle with men inside Bin Laden’s compound.

    But according to Mr Hersh’s source, senior Pakistani officials willingly gave up Bin Laden’s location to maintain good relations with the US and in exchange for a slice of a $25 million reward fund.

    Former US Navy Seal Rob O’Neill has been revealed as the man from Team Six who shot Osama Bin Laden in the 2011 Pakistan raid They also facilitated the Navy Seals mission by cutting power to the compound and diverting the local military, it was alleged, and had even agreed with the White House upon an elaborate back story where it would be claimed that Bin Laden was killed in a drone strike in mountains on the Pakistan-Afghan border.

    The White House has repeatedly insisted that Bin Laden would have been taken alive if he surrendered – but according to the retired official quoted by Hersh, “it was clearly and absolutely a premeditated murder”.

    The Seals were given “absolute authority to kill the guy”, the official was quoted as saying, even if they only “suspected he might have some means of opposition, like an explosive vest under his robe”.

    Locals and media gather outside the compound, pictured in May 2011, where Osama Bin Laden was reportedly killed in an operation by US Navy Seals Locals and media gather outside the compound, pictured in May 2011, where Osama Bin Laden was reportedly killed in an operation by US Navy Seals “The truth is that bin Laden was an invalid, but we cannot say that,” the retired official reportedly said.

    Mr Hersh also reports that White House claims Bin Laden was still receiving information from and giving orders to al-Qaeda were “lies, misstatements and betrayal”.

    “The White House had to give the impression that bin Laden was still operationally important,” he quoted the official as saying. “Otherwise, why kill him?”

    The White House is yet to comment on Hersh’s claims. On Monday, Mr Hersh appeared on CNN to defend his article.

    “I am waiting for the White House to deny it,” he said

  115. Whether you are sizing them up as someone to vote for or sizing them up as potential opponents for whomever the Dems nominate (I don’t personally believe it will be Hillary)
    Two reactions:

    1. would you care to make a small wager that Hillary will not be the nominee? I think it is a done deal.

    2. you are a better man than I Gunga din to listen to their crap. I think stump speeches by politicians are singularly uninformative on how they would govern. If you want to know how they are likely to govern, forget about the hot air and look to what they have done in the past. With these jamokes, too often the principles they espouse on the campaign trail are honored more in the breach than in the observance once they take office, and they function as controlled beasts for the Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street. That observation goes for both parties, by the way, and I can think of no better example than the big media beloved messiah.

  116. I’m not sure what position he should be running for, but President is probably not it.
    You may not be sure, but I am:

    Piano player in a whore house.

  117. wbboei
    May 11, 2015 at 9:51 pm

    A train wreck in slow motion:

    The Arab conference was cooked up as a response to the fury at the White House for their “So what?” response after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France. It was an on the fly CYA diversion from their diplomatic meltdown. An eighty year old House of Saud absolute monarch is not going to sit and be hectored for a couple of days by the boob who is now considered an nonentity in the pecking order internationally. Obama no longer rates civility. He is not going to get any million dollar fees for speeches post-presidency either. The Sauds are sending over the kindergarten squad for a little training and to waste the boob’s time.

  118. What if Hillary chose Warren as her running mate. Hillary could handle foreign policy, Warren could handle domestic policy, and all would be perfect. And Obama could preside over the United Nations from the Magnum Mansion in Hawaii. I am kidding of course. But there is no idea too insane not to be advanced by Gloria Borger, who loves to say stupid things and end the paragraph with disclaimers such as whatever that (what she just said) means. She may be at a loss to ascribe meaning to her drivel but not me. It means less than nothing, but if you can get on one of those panels and run your mouth, you too can be rich and famous. That is the good news. The bad news: sorry Gloria, money cannot cure stupid. But there she sits with the rest of them sipping herbal tea, nodding at the stupid comments of her colleagues, and pretending that the whole lot of them are not mad as a hatter.

  119. Well hwc, why don’t you just really get to know each and every Republican candidate. Then if Admin decides to change the name of this blog to
    Hillary is not44 and Sure as Hell Won’t be 45, you can post a full and thorough report here to anyone who gives a shit.

  120. Mormaer
    May 12, 2015 at 8:41 am

    And yet, anyone who dares to suggest that the big media beloved messsiah has lost some of his mojo, or that this age of aquarius may be headed to eternal darkness and endless night will be dismissed as a racist, and if persists, fucked with and thrown in a cage, as the Obama operatives like to put it. Yes indeed. This is the most transparent administration in history, with the possible exception of the Third Reich. Too bad the public has not caught on. But that is okay. They have all the excuses for remaining ignorant that they need in order to. . . remain ignorant.

  121. I suspect that we are NOT going to have to wait for a name change, we are going to hear all about each and every Republican candidate and their elimination to prepare the way for “the one” when he announces. This morning Krauthammer was on TV praising Jeb. No doubt about it, Charles is a “Bush baby”.

    Free, please don’t encourage “full and thorough reports”. (wink) We are getting that now plus book reports.

  122. Shadow, free, all,

    Humans will disappoint you, every time. It’s the reason I became apolitical 20+ years ago. I guess some of y’all are just now realizing it. I’m sorry. Every one of these SoBs are liars. Every.One. Some are slimier than others, e.g., Rubio, Kasich, but they’re all liars.

  123. Far be it from me to put words in Admin’s mouth but if memory serves, Admin made the point that the nation is best served when democrats behave like democrats and republicans behave like republicans and the north star is the general welfare. That is a proposition which Jefferson and Madison would agree with, not so Hamilton and Adams who favored federal power and the elites. What we are seeing is the reverse of that order today, as the sovereignty of the American People is being displaced by oligarchy in its many manifestations and big media supports this through idolotry, bread and circuses. That is what we have been talking about on this blog. It is more than a narrow recitation of How Great Thou Art to benefit Hillary, and woe betide the heretic who does not worship in our church. If that is all you are after, then you have no good response to someone who is persuadable, but wants answers to hard questions. I am not a Republican at this point, but a candidate like Cruz has appeal to me for one pivotal reason. Of all the candidates and potential candidates in both parties, he is the only one who is willing to stand up for the Constitution, and he has proven this through his past actions. The Constitution is the only vehicle which can assure the American People that they too will have a future. If Hillary would do the same thing, I would be delighted and would go to work for her. But in order to do that she would have to cut loose Media Matters, and walk away from Goldman Sachs. That is the current dilemma. Learned Hand said it best: a wise man is a skeptical one. I may not be wise, but I sure try to be when it comes to politics. And trying is half the game.

  124. I suspect that we are NOT going to have to wait for a name change, we are going to hear all about each and every Republican candidate and their elimination to prepare the way for “the one” when he announces. This morning Krauthammer was on TV praising Jeb. No doubt about it, Charles is a “Bush baby”.
    And as Charles goes, so goes FOX.

    Mark Levin made that point over a week ago.

  125. If you are a Hillary supporter, then you will pray that the party of stupid nominates Jebediah. At that point, concerns over dynasty, age and illegal immigration are neutralized and are therefore off the table. We can then move on to headier subjects like whether Jeb really can speak different dialects of Spanish to different sub groups, and whether he loves illegals as much as he claims to. Neros fiddle can then call the tune, and the rest of us can move from herbal tea to arsenic.

  126. blowme0bama
    May 12, 2015 at 9:12 am
    Shadow, free, all,

    Humans will disappoint you, every time.
    Mr.Spock, I presume.

  127. Southern Born
    May 12, 2015 at 9:06 am
    Free, please don’t encourage “full and thorough reports”. (wink) We are getting that now plus book reports.

    I’m looking at this as scouting reports to the coach. Sometimes you need to scare the $&*# out of the coach to make sure they understand the big playoff game is not going to be a cakewalk. You scout several playoff games ahead.

  128. wbboei
    May 12, 2015 at 9:28 am

    If you are a Hillary supporter, then you will pray that the party of stupid nominates Jebediah

    Jeb seems to be completely dominated by his wife. Being influenced by your significant other is not a bad thing but being a brainwashed thrall seems a bit much and kind of creepy.

  129. Humans will disappoint you, every time. It’s the reason I became apolitical 20+ years ago. I guess some of y’all are just now realizing it. I’m sorry. Every one of these SoBs are liars. Every.One. Some are slimier than others, e.g., Rubio, Kasich, but they’re all liars.
    Yes. They all have feet of clay. And that is a problem if and only if you believe that the key to liberty and prosperity lies with the leaders we choose. I reject that proposition root and branch. I believe that the key to liberty lies in having functional institutions that mitigate the ambiguous affects of human nature and the competition for power. Once those institutions are corrupted, because limp dicks like our current chief justice John Roberts lacks the testicular fortitude to do what is required, then all is lost. That is where the process is unraveling. If you want to worry about something, then worry about that.

  130. We are getting that now plus book reports.
    Book reports?

    I guess if you choose to remain ignorant on what is happening that is your choice.

    But when the shit hits the fan, and you are caught off guard, you have no one to blame but yourself.

  131. blowmeObama, I think that’s what we have been trying to say. We’re not the ones disappointed. I never once expected Hillary Clinton to be the Pollyanna of the Dim Party. I just think it’s too early proclaim that she will be just like Obama. Much posturing and pandering always takes place in a political campaign, and there’s still much to come in this one. People don’t get elected by defining themselves too narrowly.

    Something was said earlier about us “putting Hillary on a pedestal” in 2008. I did not. Nor do I think most of us did. I thought she was the best candidate, and though some would condemn this, I want to see a woman in the WH. We have a candidate who is a female and who has demonstrated the ability and desire to compromise with the Republicans and to work for the good of all. Unless someone better comes along – I will continue to support Hillary.

    We have all said that gender should not be the primary reason to vote for a candidate (despite the fact that race was the primary reason Obama’s ass is in the WH). I totally agree that it should not be. But I have a really difficult time understanding how ANYONE other than a blatant sexist could fail to recognize how important it is to some of us to see a woman elected.

    Anyway, I get what you’re saying. Politics is nasty business, and no one is or remains squeaky clean and totally true to his/her word. But, a choice must be made. If it’s a choice between rats, then our task is to select the best rat – according to our own beliefs, views, etc. We could spend our time yelling at and about all of the rats or a specific rat that we had thought was a kangaroo. But if the habitat supports only rats – as the political system in this country may – then how pointless is it to continue bitching because the rat is not a kangaroo?

    I think, as Shadow said, we just wanted a little optimism, time for celebration, and a break before facing the shit storm that will certainly come from the other side.

  132. Free, please don’t encourage “full and thorough reports”. (wink) We are getting that now plus book reports.

    Ain’t it the truth, Southern.

  133. wbboei
    May 12, 2015 at 9:43 am
    We are getting that now plus book reports.
    Book reports?

    I guess if you choose to remain ignorant on what is happening that is your choice.

    But when the shit hits the fan, and you are caught off guard, you have no one to blame but yourself.

    So again in you’re view, the only possibilities in your view are 1) we read and accept all the info posted from any source out there – including Clinton hating publications and individuals or 2) we remain ignorant.

    Your are too smart not to see the flaw in your logic.

    And, what does it mean that we’ll be caught off guard? I don’t think that any of us could avoid exposure to the anti-Hillary commentary that floods the air waves, internet, and print media.

    But, if after all is said and done, Admin continues this blog as a pro-Hillary site, what will you do, wbb? Where will you be? Will you support Hillary while still urging a move to a political position you agree with? If so, that seems to me to be a perfectly valid response. That’s what Admin has been doing. But, that’s quite different from the drive-by shooting (metaphorically) approach some here have taken recently.

  134. When Hillary conceded to Obama in 2008, we were asked to support Obama. We refused to do so, and became a campaign in exile. Was this decision personal or was it policy driven or both?

    For me, the pivotal question is this:

    If Hillary rejected the policies supported the policies of Obama, with minor variation, would you still support her?

    For Free, Shadow and Southern, and others as well perhaps, I rather suspect the answer would be yes. They would argue that she would apply those policies in a different way, and the emphasis might be different, i.e. less dissing of Israel, gender as opposed to race, but their attachment to Hillary as a symbol and as a leader is intimate and personal. Therefore, they may pay lip service to not liking her extreme position on say for example immigration, but that is no cause to reject the candidate. And those who object to those policies as stridently as I do, do not belong on a site whose purpose is to advance Hillary.

    On the other hand, there are others who accept to one degree or another the felicious premise laid down by blow me, namely that the political class are all crooks and liars. The public record is replete with examples, and no member of congress save a very few can claim to be free of corruption. Therefore, we do not expect virtue from our leader, but we do demand adherence to a set of policies and principles that protect the American People, against the tendency of those in power to sell us out. For us, that is the test of who we will support. Therefore, we look to Hillary to reject the policies of Obama and to embark on a new course. So far that has not happened.

    That is what Occam’s razor suggests to me. It is why some have a harder time than others accepting the fact that by all present appearances a Hillary presidency would look more like Obama III than what she claimed to stand for in 2008.

  135. CORRECTION: see the question below:

    When Hillary conceded to Obama in 2008, we were asked to support Obama. We refused to do so, and became a campaign in exile. Was this decision personal or was it policy driven or both?

    For me, the pivotal question is this:

    If Hillary SUPPORTED the policies of Obama, with minor variation, would you still support her?

    For Free, Shadow and Southern, and others as well perhaps, I rather suspect the answer would be yes. They would argue that she would apply those policies in a different way, and the emphasis might be different, i.e. less dissing of Israel, gender as opposed to race, but their attachment to Hillary as a symbol and as a leader is intimate and personal. Therefore, they may pay lip service to not liking her extreme position on say for example immigration, but that is no cause to reject the candidate. And those who object to those policies as stridently as I do, do not belong on a site whose purpose is to advance Hillary.

    On the other hand, there are others who accept to one degree or another the felicious premise laid down by blow me, namely that the political class are all crooks and liars. The public record is replete with examples, and no member of congress save a very few can claim to be free of corruption. Therefore, we do not expect virtue from our leader, but we do demand adherence to a set of policies and principles that protect the American People, against the tendency of those in power to sell us out. For us, that is the test of who we will support. Therefore, we look to Hillary to reject the policies of Obama and to embark on a new course. So far that has not happened.

    That is what Occam’s razor suggests to me. It is why some have a harder time than others accepting the fact that by all present appearances a Hillary presidency would look more like Obama III than what she claimed to stand for in 2008.

  136. So again in you’re view, the only possibilities in your view are 1) we read and accept all the info posted from any source out there – including Clinton hating publications and individuals or 2) we remain ignorant
    Nope. That is not it. What I am saying is this: consider the evidence rather than dismissing it out of hand. Test it in the cauldron of what you know. Recognize that there are shades of grey. Don’t fall for the talking points. Do your own research.

    It is like Cromwell said in one of his better moments.

    I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ that you may be wrong.

    A failure to do that is ignorance.

  137. I don’t think that any of us could avoid exposure to the anti-Hillary commentary that floods the air waves, internet, and print media.
    Do you ever stop and ask the question is this particular objection fair as opposed to unfair. If it is fair, then do you still reject it? Is any criticism of Hillary unfair? How do you deal with that? I know it is not the same, but good trial lawyers do not waste their credibility defending an indefensible position. For example her extreme position on illegal immigration. They concede what they cannot keep. But how would you know what to do when confronted if you have no listened to opposing views, and dismiss all of them. That is what I mean by getting caught off guard.

  138. If Hillary SUPPORTED the policies of Obama, with minor variation, would you still support her?

    Again, it has to be all or nothing? What if she supported this one policy or two policies, or one or two components of several policies?

    If you don’t plan to support her, I get it. Are you trying to convince those of us who do that we are wrong? Do you want us to declare our intention to vote Republican? What exactly is the point?

    If it’s abut organizing an effort to prevail upon Hillary to move to the center – count me the hell in! I’m right there with you.

    Is it to convince us not to support Hillary? If so, maybe this is the wrong venue in which to make that argument. It is still Hillary is 44. I don’t know if that will change or not. But if it does not, why choose to bash her on this blog?

    If you’re angry because Hillary is not who you want her to be, then maybe you can find another candidate – maybe there is someone running who is more like Hillary of 2008 than Hillary is. I just don’t think that’s terribly likely.

  139. I think one thing is getting alittle blurred here in our discussion of our support for Hillary…(yes, there are some that only want to rattle your nerves)

    from my perspective…it is not a question of supporting Hillary, or still loving Hill and Bill…or believing that she will be a great leaders…or not realizing that when it comes to Hill and Bill no attack or insult is too low for the media or their opposition…especially now that both of them are so powerful in their own way…etc, etc, etc

    …it is more of a “getting to know you” because Hillary is now beginning to portray a different person with different policies…she is coming out of the gate with very different policies that she supported last time around……this requires observation and analysis…not ignoring…

    …it is not that we do not all want to share in the happiness…heaven knows so many…so many…of us do and have waited so damn long for it…and…the chance…the opportunity…for Hillary to win and become our next President…

    …whether we like hearing it or not…currently Hillary is supporting some of O’s policies and states she will even go further and expand on them…

    …I think it is true that Hillary is doing her best at this time to in fact, follow the strategy Admin has suggested…and say as little as possible for as long as possible…

    …not only does that make anything she says all that more intense…but she can only stay mum…on the sidelines…or noncommital for so long…

    …Hillary’s next big step will be her response to whether she supports the trade deal, TPP, or not…she is already getting pressured for a response but it staying vague and quiet on the sidelines…(imo, Warren and Sanders are actually helpful in allowing Hillary to say a big No to TPP…it is not good for american workers)

    (probably after that it will be her position on the Iran deal if that does actually come together)

    for some of us…this is frustrating because we are impatient for her to start ‘strutting her stuff’ and becoming herself…and not an extension of O and his administration…

    …I never come here to bash Hillary but I will question her and her actions…I will not be blind when she does a 180′ turn into someone I would never have supported…and then not question what the hell is she doing…and just render blind support…

    I have said I will keep an open mind…because it is early and some of us really wanted her safe without declaring for as long as possible…and to keep her out of these complicated traps for as long as possible…

    but now that she is in…sooner or later…she is going to have to make hard, clear choices…at the moment I am seeing contradictions and complications as to how she plans on sewing all this together…

    …but it is early…and she has time…and truthfully…she has ‘not yet begun to fight’…

  140. freespirit
    May 12, 2015 at 10:37 am
    You do not like being pinned down on anything–do you?

    Your position mirrors the position of Obama. You do not want to debate an issue. You want to shut down debate.

    I have no time for you.

  141. “Jeb seems to be completely dominated by his wife. Being influenced by your significant other is not a bad thing but being a brainwashed thrall seems a bit much and kind of creepy.”
    How do the words go in that song, “I want a girl, just like the girl who married dear old dad.”

    As for Jeb, I surely don’t discount him as an opponent. If Karl Rove could get a guy like George Jr. elected…twice… and convince the voters that their marriage would not be worth the paper it was written on if they didn’t vote for him then maybe it is worth thinking twice about the Bush machine.

    As for shutting down debate…I don’t think Free or anyone else here wants to shut down debate. The problem is that we hear one sided debate continually on media and more often than not it is called debate so as to justify bashing. I think we are full up to our eyeballs with that and feel sensitive right now. As Shadow says, we just need a little peace and time out before the really vicious stuff starts as if the bashing on innuendo right now is not vile enough. It’s early in the campaign season. Give us a little while to recharge our batteries and gain the strength to fight through the coming war.

    And I certainly agree that no candidate is perfect. After all they are politicians. We are not into drinking Kool aid these days.

    I also agree with Wbboei…media is a huge problem and we are well aware of which way media is leaning and it surely is not to find out the truth or to be fair and balanced. Shame on them for pushing the current president on us as well as the one before him.

  142. you are a better man than I Gunga din to listen to their crap. I think stump speeches by politicians are singularly uninformative on how they would govern. If you want to know how they are likely to govern, forget about the hot air and look to what they have done in the past.

    I’m not, at this point, trying to assess how they might govern. And, in any case, I wouldn’t look to a campaign stump speech for that. All of the candidates I watched this weekend, with the possible exception of Rubio, have had careers of some accomplishment, some as successful governors. Some clerking for a Supreme Court Chief Justice and arguing multiple cases before the Supreme Court. Others in business or medical careers. Not that any of that makes them qualified to be President (as if that matters, based on recent history), but none of it disqualifies them.

    I’m looking at these early stump speeches purely from the standpoint of electability. Which ones have the fundamental chops to win an election. As I said, purely from an “American Idol” standpoint. Can they carry a tune? What types of songs are the Repubs going to sing?

    And, secondarily, I’m trying to size up what the early stages of campaign/debate season will look like. I suspect the first round of winnowing of this field will occur sooner rather than later as i just don’t see the money in the Republican party chasing fools errands (and fools) like it did in 2012.


    As for a wager on Hillary. Nope. I’ve wasted enough money on her (campaign contributions in 2008). Win or lose, I’m not “investing” in her prospects. I’m just having a hard time seeing her generating any enthusiasm among the lefty base of the Dem party. I mean, she’s already in the witness protection plan. Not only not rolling out a stump speech, but avoiding the public contact of campaigning at all costs. Insurmountable lead or not, it’s hard to see a nomination for a candidate that doesn’t want to campaign in a party that hates her. On the flip side, somebody would actually have to run against her. It’s bad news for Clinton either way. If somebody jumps into the race, Clinton could lose the nomination again. If nobody jumps in and Clinton hides for another year, she is going to be a very rusty candidate. I’m just a spectator, though.

  143. “If nobody jumps in and Clinton hides for another year, she is going to be a very rusty candidate.”

    Jeb is raising millions and millions of dollars for his “non” campaign…and it’s probably coming from a ground swell of middle class people sending in a few bucks here and there. 😉 He’s giving fluff interviews occasionally. When asked if he agrees with what President George Jr. did, he says that he loves his brother and flips to attacking Democrats. That’s about as tough as it gets.

    Is Jeb hiding? Is he out there in some witness protection program? Will he be a rusty candidate? Could it be that he does not want to get into the fray early just as Administrator advised? We all KNOW Jeb is running but we don’t hear the trashing of him for not getting into the campaign now.

    Seems to me that those who are attacking Hillary for not giving stump speeches are just wanting more to bash her with at this early point as if they can’t find or make up enough at this stage. After what the far left loons of the Democratic party did in 2008, is there anyone who is naive enough to think that Hillary does not have to be cautious. To get the nomination, she has to tiptoe through the tulips with that bunch.

    Actually when the far left bashes Hillary, it makes me respect her more. THAT TELLS ME THAT THEY KNOW SHE IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

  144. It’s good to come on the blog and see the discussion has picked up again…

    I have buckled my seat-belt and am ready to read the new comments.

  145. wbboei
    May 12, 2015 at 10:12 am

    Okay, since I actually like you after all these years, I am reading your comment…not scowling by.

    I really disagree with a lot of what you are saying, your already know me by now, and know what I disagree with. You also know what pushes our buttons, so no need to keep telling you that it makes us angry.

    That being said, I will move on to the next comment.

  146. Jeb Bush is hiding, too. For many of the same reasons Clinton is. The base of his party hates him. Same problem Clinton has.

    He’s perceived as being the same ol’ same ol, yet another iteration of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush… Same problem Clinton has.

    I don’t think he’ll get the nomination, either….

  147. Wbb

    Since I have read your comments for years, I am curious which candidate running for President you do support?

    I know you like Webb (sp?), but since he is not running, who do you like and respect?

    Is there anyone, or are you disgusted with everyone now…including some of us Big Pinkers?

  148. hwc
    May 12, 2015 at 1:13 pm

    Jeb Bush is hiding, too. For many of the same reasons Clinton is. The base of his party hates him. Same problem Clinton has.

    I must have missed something, since when are the O’Kooks Hillary’s base?

    As far as I know, she has a very high percentage of all Dims wanting her to win the primary.

  149. Shadowfax
    May 12, 2015 at 2:41 pm

    Since I have read your comments for years, I am curious which candidate running for President you do support?

    I know you like Webb (sp?), but since he is not running, who do you like and respect?
    I have problems with every one of them. The only anchor I have is the constitution. It is fundamental to my belief system. If I had to say today who I would support in the abstract, then I would support Cruz, but I doubt he will win. The reason I support him is because I believe he shares my belief that the only protection we have against the elites is the constitution. But he is unlikely to win. What is likely, but not certain is that Bush will get the nomination. In that case, I would definitely vote for Hillary. I had hoped that she would find the voice she found in 2008, but I doubt that will occur. My faith in her as a leader is not what it once was, when I campaigned and dedicated a book to her. Benghazi dimmed that enthusiasm, and although I attempted above to offer a defense for what happened there but in all candor, I do not believe it. I can understand the failure to prepare when you can never be sure which direction they will come at you. What I can never countenance however is looking at the body of a dead SEAL and assuring his father we will get the video maker. That is worrisome.

Comments are closed.