On TPP Trade And Middle East: Obama Cannot Be Trusted

Hey, remember Austan Goolsbee in 2008? As Obama tries to lie his way to a TPP trade deal it is useful to recall Austan Goolsbee and Barack Obama in 2008 on NAFTA:

Despite repeated requests, Barack Obama’s campaign is still neither verifying nor denying a CTV report that a senior member of the team made contact with the Canadian government — via the Chicago consulate general — regarding comments Obama made about NAFTA. [snip]

On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama’s campaign called the Canadian government within the last month — saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.

The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.

However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama’s senior economic adviser — Austan Goolsbee — and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters. [snip]

Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government — who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp — have reconfirmed their position.

In 2008 Obama lied to friends and foes about the trade deal called the NAFTA. Now Obama is upset that some of his closest friends do not believe him on his latest talk in defense of the TPP trade deal. In 2008 candidate Obama promised to renegotiate NAFTA or opt out of the deal. After 2008 Obama did not renegotiate anything and certainly made no noise about opting out of the NAFTA.

Now Obama has reassembled the best liars from his 2008 campaign team to create new lies in order to pass the TPP trade deal Obama wants as his legacy. Obama lied repeatedly about NAFTA in 2008.



Change “NAFTA” to “TPP” and the picture is complete. That’s why Barack Obama is now attacking his kookiest Kooks:

Obama continued his war on Warren through the weekend, reminding Democrats that she doesn’t walk on water, that she’s a politician. Warren, he insists, is fighting an old fight going back to NAFTA, a free trade agreement signed by President Clinton in 1994. [snip]

Warren punched back in an interview with NPR airing Tuesday pointing out that American courts would not be the deciders, that “private corporate lawyers who get paid by big corporations to sit and decide” would be the arbiters. “And let’s be clear, once those private corporate lawyers make a decision, there is no appeal.”

Try and understand the level of Obama hypocrisy on TPP. Obama is accusing TPP critics of fighting the NAFTA fight all over again. Somehow Obama forgot Austan Goolsbee and Obama supporters won’t bring Goolsbeen into the debate because the memories of how they race-baited and lied for Obama in 2008 and 2012 is too painful for them in light of Obama’s latest stabs in the back:

The vast majority of lawmakers in his own party oppose him on trade legislation. Yet rather than accept that they have a legitimate beef, he shows public contempt for them — as he did in an interview with Matt Bai of Yahoo News released over the weekend.

“Their arguments are based on fears, or they’re fighting NAFTA, the trade deal that was passed 25 years ago — or 20 years ago,” he said with a laugh. Sighing, he added, “I understand the emotions behind it, but when you break down the logic of their arguments, I’ve got to say that there’s not much there there.”

He said one of his Democratic critics’ arguments “doesn’t make any sense,” another is “pure speculation,” and others are “made up” or unrealistic. “There’s no logic that I think a progressive should embrace that would make you opposed to this deal,” he said, accusing those who disagree of taking the “not smart” position of trying to “ignore the fact that a global economy is here to stay” and of acting to “shrink the overall economic pie just because we’re mad about some things that have happened in the past.” [snip]

If Obama loses on trade, blame should go to the twin pillars of detachment that have underpinned his presidency: insularity and secrecy.

Where is Austan Goolsbee these days?

‘Obama attacks strongest Obama supporters’ type headlines are no surprise to us. For so long we have written the obvious:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

In short: Obama cannot be trusted neither by friend nor foe.



Pity fat Ed Schultz. Not only is Schultz on a loser network, Schultzie is only now realizing the monumental mistake he and his fellow Kooks committed when they worshiped the Mess-iah:

I supported you big time. I was the first liberal talker to support you. I’ve carried your water big time when it comes to health care, I’ve carried your water on the economy and defending your move on the automobile industry, but Mr. President, you can take shots at this network, but I guarantee you, you are wrong on this and you cannot prove to the American people,” Schultz said.

“American workers will suffer if this deal goes through, and Mr. President, your recovery of the economy, the automobile industry and health care will not be your legacy. It will be what you’re doing to the very people who put you in office, had you not had the unions, you would never beat John McCain, had you not had the unions, you would have never beat Mitt Romney and now turning your back on these people trying to convince them that they have to do this phony trade deal that’s going to ship jobs overseas. I’d love to talk to you face to face, Mr. President,” Schultz declared.

Alice Palmer, Ed. Alice Palmer. Obama will stab friend and foe in the back to advance himself.

Schultzie is not the only one who is whining about the knife Obama stuck in his back.

Barack Obama stabbed Israel in the back. In 2008 at the Cairo speech Obama stabbed Jews and Israel firmly in the back. Obama bowed and scraped to the Arab potentates as he stabbed Israel in the back. Now, Obama is stabs the Arab leaders at the behest of his radical pals.

Israel and many Arab countries are now learning the lesson:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

In short: Obama cannot be trusted neither by friend nor foe.

Arab leaders, like Israel before, realize now that Obama cannot be trusted and they are on letting the world in on the lesson:

Ever since he decided to chase the mirage of a “Grand Bargain” with Iran, President Obama has pretended that the only opposition comes from Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu and “hardline” Republicans in the Congress.

He was to highlight that claim by hosting a summit for “key Arab allies” at Camp David this week.

Yet the exercise has instead shown the failure of Obama to sell his narrative to “key Arab allies” even before the first round of orange juice is served at Camp David.

Of the six heads of the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, only two, the emirs of Kuwait and Qatar, will attend.

Even the offer by Obama of a separate tete-a-tete in Washington could not persuade Saudi Arabia’s King Salman to attend what Riyadh sources describe as “a photo-op” aimed at hoodwinking the American public.

Obam’s snubs turn into Obama snubbed:



First Obama stabbed Israel and the Jews in the back. Then Netanyahu fought against Obama and won reelection. Now the Arabs realize they are stabbed in the back by Obama at the behest of the Persians. So the Arabs fight back in the first phase of their long war:

The goal is to reassure the king of Saudi Arabia—along with the emirs and princes of Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates—that the U.S. will continue to support them despite the nuclear deal with Iran. [snip]

But at the last minute the senior Arab leaders are finding excuses not to make the trip. New Saudi King Salman pulled out on the weekend only days after confirming his attendance, and he will send lower-level officials instead. Bahrain’s king has also bowed out. These rejections can only be described as political snubs rooted in distrust of President Obama and his diplomacy. [snip]

The White House will now have to scramble to rescue its policy, and one thing we can expect is a new round of arms sales to the Gulf. The region is already awash in new weapons, including a recent announcement that Qatar will purchase $7 billion in French fighter jets. The signature U.S. contribution will probably be the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (Thaad), which can shoot down Scuds and other ballistic missiles fielded by Iran.

There’s nothing inherently destabilizing about arms sales. But the pace of Arab purchases, up 50% in the last year alone to $18 billion, along with the types of weapons they are buying, says something about their assessment of the threat they face. Why buy the multibillion Thaad system if diplomacy neutralizes the Iranian nuclear threat? What’s the sense of fielding brand new air squadrons if they are confident in traditional U.S. defense guarantees?

Mr. Obama also hopes to dissuade the Arab states, particularly the Saudis, from seeking their own nuclear weapons. [snip]

Arab leaders have already shown how little trust they put in Mr. Obama’s assurances.

Whether in the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Indian, the Arctic or the Antarctic, oceans – Obama cannot be trusted. In Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia/Oceania, Europe, North America, or South America – Obama cannot be trusted.

Obama cannot be trusted by “friend” nor foe.

Share

149 thoughts on “On TPP Trade And Middle East: Obama Cannot Be Trusted

  1. This just in as we hit the “publish” button:

    http://thehill.com/policy/finance/241780-senate-deals-stinging-defeat-to-obama-trade-agenda

    Senate deals stinging defeat to Obama trade agenda

    Senate Democrats on Tuesday delivered a stinging blow to President Obama’s trade agenda by voting to prevent the chamber from picking up fast-track legislation.

    A motion to cut off a filibuster and proceed to the trade bill fell short of a 60-vote hurdle, 52-45. Sen. Tom Carper (Del.) was the only Democrat to back it. [snip]

    It faces even more opposition from Democrats in the House, and the surprise Senate failure will raise doubts about whether the legislation will make its way through Congress.

    Labor unions and other left-leaning groups have declared war on the fast-track bill, which they argue would ship jobs overseas. The Senate is generally a more pro-trade body than the House, and it has been easier to move trade agreements through the upper chamber.

    The standoff Tuesday focused on procedure, though there is significant opposition to fast-track itself in the Democratic conference.

    Senate Democrats demanded that McConnell combine the fast-track bill with three other pieces of trade legislation, including a customs bill that would address currency manipulation.

    The opposition included Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.) and other pro-trade Democrats who back the fast-track bill.

    Must be Obama hating racists blocking Obama.

  2. Admin, it makes my day to see Ed Shultz get his. His arrogance and condescending attitude toward anyone who did not get on board Obama’s love train have been over the top prior to and since O’s selection.

    Dims were expected to defeat this bill, but I just couldn’t quite believe they would refuse to march to Obama’s drum. Glad to see miracles still happen. Or maybe just self-protection and self-interest happen. Either way. Good.

  3. Labor unions and other left-leaning groups have declared war on the fast-track bill, which they argue would ship jobs overseas.
    ———-
    Left leaning?

    How about pro American?

    More inside the beltway crap designed to enrich the political class.

    When I was in Texas, meeting with an old Teamster, he said the way to succeed in this economy is to line yourself with someone who has found a new way to fuck the American wagon,and hitch your wagon to his star.

    Prescient.

  4. in vino, typos:

    When I was in Texas, meeting with an old Teamster, he said the way to succeed in this economy is to line yourself with someone who has found a new way to fuck the American PEOPLE,and hitch your wagon to his star.

  5. Unbekownst to many (because big media never bothered to report it, union pension funds are being cut to poverty levels) (#k–down to 1.5 k), thanks t messiah obama, and a piece of legislation sponsored by a Nancy Pelosi lieutenant (Gorge Miller) and a republican tin horn from Minnesota. Miller of course is retiring and Poospie maintains that unemployment is not such a bad thing because it offers new-found opportunities for the great uwwashed to (finger) paint and dance. Shadow, tell me that Miller was NOT your congressional representative.

  6. Baracko and his MO had better get headhunters busy finding them new foreign jobs.

    By the time next year ends, their packed donkey cart is going to be tomatoed all the way out of DC.

    When his beloved Kooks and unions turn on him, he has only himself to adore.

    The Senate stands up against him? Hark, the waters are finally starting to part.

    Admin, thanks for filling us in on the TPP fiasco.

  7. Shadow, tell me that Miller was NOT your congressional representative.

    Feinstein is, and beyond boycotted Boxer, I don’t know what district Miller is in. The newbies are too green for me to give a vote to.

    I vote against all incumbents…until someone good makes waves.

  8. “He’s completely focused right now on the foundation,” Tina Flournoy, President Clinton’s chief of staff, told the paper.

    I’m sure that’s a relief to the Clinton campaign….

  9. Okay, my above statement was a little wacky.

    I don’t support any candidate unless they have a history that I agree with.

    So I normally vote (in CA politics) against incumbents. New people have not gained my trust, so voting for new people is like playing darts.

  10. This makes us laugh on soooo many levels:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-senator-accuses-obama-sexism-toward-elizabeth-warren_944873.html

    Democratic senator Sherrod Brown is subtly accusing President Barack Obama of sexism in his attacks on Senator Elizabeth Warren, also a Democrat.

    “I think the president was disrespectful to her by the way he did that…made this more personal,” Brown told reporters.

    “I think referring to her as her first name, when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps–I’ve said enough.”

  11. Shadowfax,

    If you want to play with the troll, be sure to keep you sense of humor. You can tell they are an anal obsessed progressive, by how they drop another turd with Alinsky crap about how we are a bunch of disillusioned Hillary supporters who were thrown out of the Democratic party, anytime you post stuff about their dysfunctional ideology of FAIL.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don%27t_feed_the_Troll

    Remember, it is the progressive thugs and their anti-democratic treachery that put Obama in office. They are the ones who are tied to him and own his bucket. And Admin is right, that their failures will not stop them from pushing their agenda of destruction. Hillary announced too soon. Treachery is afoot.

  12. Admin says:

    Whether in the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Indian, the Arctic or the Antarctic, oceans – Obama cannot be trusted. In Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia/Oceania, Europe, North America, or South America – Obama cannot be trusted.

    Obama cannot be trusted by “friend” nor foe.

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

    maybe Hillary will get the message now…

    the ball is in her court with this trade deal…at least the dims are getting alittle spine back…

    the road is being paved for her to show strength and leadership…

    (Hill do not lose your nerve now)

  13. Am I playing with a troll Lu?

    It wouldn’t be the first time… 🙂

    I don’t ever remember being swayed in politics…except to vote for any Repub to get out Baracko. That was a first, and it could have been Popeye the Sailor Man…running against Barry, and I would have voted for spinach power.

  14. S

    Hillary hasn’t lost her nerve, she is running for President again, after the massacre in 2008.

    She doesn’t need to comment on every stumble Obama makes, she will have a gigantic mess to clean up in 2016, if she wins.

  15. Shadowfax,

    I would like to see open discussion of the issues and the Clinton campaign. But that is not what the troll is here to do. It is not just about convincing you, it is about the audience.

  16. Look, it is a long way to go until the Democratic Primary. Hillary announced too soon and is in trouble already. Obama is a massive crash and burn right now. That’s what the big pressure was to get her to announce. The less she says, the better. Let him knock himself out first and then she can start cleaning up.

    I keep telling myself the woman I saw in 2008 was who she is, under adversity, and that is more real than anything else I have seen since. Some people thrive on adversity. She will have plenty of time to thrive after she gets elected.

    So I am suggesting we watch and stay amused. I signed up at the campaign and made a small donation. Yea, she will get those big bucks elsewhere, but she needs the statistics on donors also as a form of support. I called and emailed the campaign with what I thought about illegal immigration. I say get involved, raise your voices and do not back down.

    Otherwise, let’s chill out and get some popcorn and mash mellows for the Obama-roast. This could get good.

  17. shadow…again, I am talking about a particular issue, TPP, that she has not taken a stand on…as everyone waits for her to do so…

    I am interested in what her positions are…or will become…

    TPP is a major issue, not just O’s stumble…of course, people are getting more and more curious about where she stands

    and what I meant do not lose your nerve on breaking from O on this issue…especially if she seeks to take the reins and lead the democratic party once again…the dims just shut him down on this issue…she is the main candidate running to take over as leader of the democratic party…hence…most of us want to know what she would do…is her loyalty with him…the dims…or the American workers?

    ball is in her court…sooner or later…she will have to take a stand…and I am hoping she agrees with the american workers

  18. Senate Democrats demanded that McConnell combine the fast-track bill with three other pieces of trade legislation, including a customs bill that would address currency manipulation.

    The opposition included Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.) and other pro-trade Democrats who back the fast-track bill.
    ——–
    You asked for it. You got it, McConnell. The majority leader position. How does it feel to be on the hot seat now, unable to do the bidding of your donors. You can explain senate procedures to them until you are blue in the face, but the only thing they care about is markets and cheap labor. I doubt that is a problem for you, but where will you you cobble together enough votes to get your donors what they want. In the meantime, you need to rot in hell.

  19. S
    May 12, 2015 at 6:54 pm
    ——————————–
    2015:
    “Hillary Clinton believes that any new trade measure has to pass two tests. First, it should put us in a position to protect American workers, raise wages and create more good jobs at home. Second, it must also strengthen our national security. We should be willing to walk away from any outcome that falls short of these tests. The goal is greater prosperity and security for American families, not trade for trade’s sake.”

    Specifically regarding TPP: “She will be watching closely to see what is being done to crack down on currency manipulation, improve labor rights, protect the environment and health, promote transparency and open new opportunities for our small businesses to export overseas.” (Campaign statement from aide Nick Merrill.)

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade

  20. Well, you are obviously watching closely for a chance to drop another turd, “Breaking the normal flow of debate/discussion.”

    Gee, you picked two words and made a sarcastic remark about it.

    Bold!

  21. S

    I do not think the Democrats would be launching opposition to Obola if they thought their presidential candidate was going to push for it. Her campaign statement is enough. Lizzy is right to go on the attack. It is a gamble that can backfire. If it gives her enough of a boost to make a run so be it. And watch the nasty narcissist react. Maybe it is something that can help reunite the party. It’s kind of cool to see Hillary and Lizzy roll out two different forms of opposition on the creep. Then he attacks and someone calls it sexism.

  22. wbboei
    May 12, 2015 at 7:05 pm
    ———————————-

    A trade deal via EO? Would that not go away in January 2017?

  23. An interesting article on the economy by David Stockman

    http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/a-tale-of-two-graphs-why-bubble-finance-will-fail/

    He does a nice job of tying it all together with what we are living right now.

    The next POTUS will be walking into a big one. How will the campaign issues change if the bubble burst? Harry Dent says the baby boomer population will do it and it will happen before early 2017.

    I watch the markets as they are manipulated by the Corporations and Banks. They have become so inhuman. They cannot seem to stop themselves from going over the edge.

    It is like watching elections of officials who do not represent their electorate.

  24. hwc
    May 12, 2015 at 8:51 pm
    ————————
    Another hour past another turd dropped.

  25. If you want to take a break from the “turd-dropper”, The Big Dawg is going to be on Letterman tonight.

  26. Lu4PUMA
    May 12, 2015 at 8:19 pm
    wbboei
    May 12, 2015 at 7:05 pm
    ———————————-

    A trade deal via EO? Would that not go away in January 2017?
    —-
    My understanding is, it would continue unless revoked by the next president. If it were up to the RINOs in Congress, it would never be revoked, because they have no loyalty to the working class or the middle class. They are all about their donors. I do not need to list them, you know who they are, and they serve only the god Mammon. If in some Alice In Wonderland scenario, Jim Webb became president, he would take the 45 automatic he packs in District, and shoot all of those trade deals in the head. Like NAFTA, they are an abomination, which is why in 2008 Hillary told voters in Ohio that she would re evaluate them to see they were working for the American People and it is why Obama said me too, but then dispatched his current Czar Goolsbee to Canada to assure them that he did not mean what he said, and under the arrangement which was decided in February 2008 by party enders and memorialized at the RGB hearing Obama would be president. I am not sure that a similar deal was not cut on the other side of the aisle as well, based on McCains cowardly behavior, but that part is speculation. The Teamsters and the AFL should have conducted a nation-wide strike to prevent NAFTA. If Hoffa the elder was around, as opposed to his idiot sun, that would have happened. Don’t let anyone tell you different, Jimmy Hoffa Sr. was a great man. A much greater one than his main adversary Bobby Kennedy. The guy who understood what Obama was and what he was not before anyone else did was Chris Hedges. He referred to him as brand Obama, the latest puppet of the elites. He tried to tell his fellow leftists and they refused to listen. Now, they know. But now is too damned late. Justice delayed is justice denied.

  27. Hillary Clinton believes that any new trade measure has to pass two tests. First, it should put us in a position to protect American workers, raise wages and create more good jobs at home. Second, it must also strengthen our national security. We should be willing to walk away from any outcome that falls short of these tests. The goal is greater prosperity and security for American families, not trade for trade’s sake.”
    ———-
    That is exactly, verbatim, word for word what I would have advised her to say. But I would have also mentioned how NAFTA has not fulfilled its bold promise to the American worker or even to Mexico. If you travel to Mexico City, and pick up a statue of the Virgin of Guadalupe–the patron saint of Mexico, you will discover that it is not made in Mexico but China. Thanks to NAFTA US jobs went to Mexico. And thanks to free trade and the unending search for new markets and cheap labor, they eventually migrated to Obama’s best friend China. You may recall his statement admiring their dictatorship and wishing that he had the same authority they do. Well, with Boehner and McConnell guarding the fort, and big media manning the ramparts, he is a dictator. This is why my the information supplied by Sharyl is not a book report which three people on this blog find disgusting. It is a roadmap of the how and the why Obama did this, and people need to understand how our system has been systematically undermined to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

  28. hwc
    May 12, 2015 at 8:51 pm
    New feature in the Washington Post

    ———–
    Enough already, this crap is just annoying and pure spam.

  29. hwc
    May 12, 2015 at 7:25 pm
    So, “watching closely” is the position statement?

    Bold!
    ———
    It may or may not be. It depends on what she does if in the course of watching closely she determines that the trade deal which Gary Locke and his cohorts are cutting meets the criteria she has laid out. If it does not, will she recommend against it? How will she do that? Will she tell Obama it should not be signed? Will she call members of Congress who are willing to stand their ground against a bad deal and tell them she has their back? Will she join with Elizabeth Warren, Ron Widen, and quite possibly Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions, or will she side with Obama and Goldman Sachs. If it gets to that point, then the question will be answered. The statement we have today is a good first step, but it depends on what she does to follow through on it.

  30. This reference to watching closely is diplomatic talk. It implies that if things do not go the right way she will intervene.

  31. Lu4PUMA

    May 12, 2015 at 8:16 pm


    It’s kind of cool to see Hillary and Lizzy roll out two different forms of opposition on the creep. Then he attacks and someone calls it sexism.

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

    Yes it is…

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

  32. Hillary statement on the Trade post on is in direct opposition to her statement on immigration. You can’t protect the American worker and promote illegal immigration.

    Can’t have it both, ways.
    If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.

    I think “they” think, we all are idiots. Maybe we are.

  33. http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/05/12/obama-complains-about-people-who-send-kids-to-private-schools-and-use-private-clubs-203841

    Obama complains about people who send kids to ‘private schools’ and use ‘private clubs’

    President Obama’s lack of self-awareness was on full display when he spoke at the Catholic-Evangelical Leadership Summit at Georgetown University today and criticized people who send their kids to “private schools” and “private clubs.”

    A panel including Robert Putnam, professor of public policy at the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government and Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute were discussing ways to overcome poverty.

    Obama stated that those who have economic advantages are withdrawing from societal common areas. He claimed those who socially separate themselves are contributing to a sluggish economy that lacks opportunity.

    The hypocrisy was not lost on social media users who were quick to point out Obama’s glaring hypocrisy.

  34. What ever happened to Jersey or Jewerzy or whatever name he, she, it went by here? I was gone from this site for awhile several months ago taking care of an elderly parent so perhaps I missed the good-by. I’m not a believer in reincarnation, however, I may have to re-think that. If it talks like the duck, writes, like the duck, thinks like the duck, and tries to cause commotion like the duck…by golly, maybe it is the same old duck.

  35. Obama stated that those who have economic advantages are withdrawing from societal common areas. He claimed those who socially separate themselves are contributing to a sluggish economy that lacks opportunity.
    ———-
    About that, he is 100% right. We get steerage, they get the gold plated lifeboats as the iceberg approaches.

    I will give the devil his due on that.

    And I do not mind that he overlooks the most blatant offender of all—himself, because that is what he always does.

    Think back to the time he was asked whether he would accept Obamacare for his own family and he responded no, he wanted his family to have the best care in the world. Oh the American People heard that, but still they swooned. And they were too busy swooning to notice the blatant hypocrisy. A mere mortal advancing Obamacare would have said, of course, I will not ask the American People to accept anything I would not accept myself for my own family. That is what the stick figure in the Madison Avenue ad promoting a product typically says, i.e. its great, its the best, and my own family takes it every day. Obama, being a big media messiah says, this is a good program, but I would not touch it myself because I am better than the rest of you, and you should be glad of that. Well, 50% of the public still buys that tripe, but to the House of Saud that got him into Harvard, it is wearing a bit thin. I am sure it was not a snub however. One does not snub a messiah. They simply had more productive things to do, like sifting through camel turd, than listening to the big media beloved messiah and watching to denisons of big media work themselves up into their usual state of amore and writing their usual rapsodies in red.

  36. Hillary statement on the Trade post on is in direct opposition to her statement on immigration. You can’t protect the American worker and promote illegal immigration.

    Can’t have it both, ways.
    If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.

    I think “they” think, we all are idiots. Maybe we are.
    ———-
    That is a true statement. Whether you farm out their work to the third world or you invite the third world into this country to take that work, the working class is the victim.

    As for we being idiots, I am not worried about you or me Gonzo. Its the rest of the country in general, and the 50% in particular that lack common sense and understanding.

    The ground is shifting beneath their feet and they don’t even know it. But they know they love Obama. And Krathammer loves Jebediah. High praise for his intellect is greatly exaggerated. Mondale, then Carter, then Jebediah is not a voting record to be proud of.

  37. One company in my state really ticks me off.

    Apple, one of the wealthiest companies in the US…farms most of their manufacturing out of the US. Heck, Apple hardware is over priced as it is, making it in the USA would make it beneficial to American workers and AppleHeads would pay almost any price for the next new thing anyway. Let’s send all our crap technology to fill up 3 world countries, toxic to their environment and people. Free trade that!

    Who wears a freakin’ watch anyway…and now you can pay hundreds or over a thousand dollars for an Apple watch that’s big and bulky, that displays text messages from your iPhone. How about iShoes and iUnderwear…make it in America, Apple!

  38. Shadowfax
    May 12, 2015 at 5:42 pm

    Am I playing with a troll Lu?

    It wouldn’t be the first time… 🙂

    I don’t ever remember being swayed in politics…except to vote for any Repub to get out Baracko. That was a first, and it could have been Popeye the Sailor Man…running against Barry, and I would have voted for spinach power.
    _________

    Me too! And like you, I needed no persuasion. Anybody would have been an improvement. The vote for McCain was a tosser, since he barely campaigned. Second time, I voted for the female Green Party candidate. It was clear by then that the circus was not going to allow The Clown to be voted out.

    Lu, I have a feeling much popcorn will be consumed in the coming months.

    It’s interesting that the sexism charged was made because of Barrack’s use of Feathers’ first name. Media, Barack, Republicans, others have always referred to Hillary by her first name – when she was senator and SOS.

    Big Dawg on tonite? Thanks for info.

  39. May 13, 2015, 07:31 am
    Bill Clinton: I’d move back to White House ‘if asked’
    President Bill Clinton said he would return to the White House only if his wife, Hillary Clinton, wins her bid for president and asks him to join her at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

    “First of all, Hillary has to win the nomination. If she wins the nomination, then she has to win the election,” he said during an appearance on CBS’s “Late Show with David Letterman.”
    “If she wins the election, the chances are 100 percent I’ll move back if I’m asked.”
    He added that he’d help a president from either party if asked, but is hopeful that his wife is the one that replaces President Obama in 2017.
    “I hope I’ll be invited. It would be a good thing America if she was, I hope she does,” he said.
    Clinton gave his wife some advice, adding that she should be “grateful” for their “wonderful life.”
    “I urge her to go out there and have a good time, tell the American people what you want to do, explain what the challenges are from her point of view and just be grateful,” he said.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/241875-bill-clinton-id-move-back-to-white-house-if-asked

    He’s still offering to help any president.
    Even so, he’s still very lovable.
    Lucky couple. I hate to think of what USA would have lost if Hillary left him over Monica.

  40. In litigation, it is no uncommon for one side to have a mountain of incriminating evidence which it intends to present against the other side, and a proffer of that evidence is met with a seemingly magnanimous gesture by the opposing counsel offering to simply stipulate that his client did not do everything the situation required, and not waste the court’s time. Given the kind of people Obama has appointed as judges, that stipulation in lieu of proof is likely to be accepted if it helps Obama. But that must not be allowed to happen, because the proponent of the evidence wants the trier of fact, in this case the judge, to hear all of it, so he or she understands how malignant the other side really is. It goes to their bona fides.

    I though of that when I heard Time Magazine’s pre eminent douchebag, Mark Halperin, dismiss big media’s betrayal the standards of journalism and their breach of trust with their audience with the benign explanation that the press did not do its job. The specific reference was to Obamacare, but obviously the net can and should be cast far more widely than that, so as to encompass every scandal which has occurred on his watch, and every failure. Why would any interviewer let him get away with that throw away line, which equates to yet another lie. This was a conscious policy by big media to foresake the roll of journalist for the role of propagandist in service of a god which to this very day refuse to admit is a fraud. They refuse to hold him liable for anything that occurs on his watch, in the absence of a written confession, whereas with Bush they imputed liability to him without any evidence that he was personally responsible.

    What should have happened in this instance for the interviewer to take the douchebag through every failure by big media, from inflaming racial tensions, to burying evidence that incriminates Obama, to promoting his serial failures, and conclude with the question do you really believe this was a simple failure to do its job in one specific case, or, as you have implicitly acknowededged through your prior answers to my questions, there is more going on here than that—indeed a wholesale betrayal of the critical role of a journalist in our democracy, and because the only possible answer to that question is yes, pray tell why anyone with any awareness and common sense should credit the things you say in the future. A betrayal such as this cannot be lightly dismissed with the ridiculous explanation that the media in general, naming no particular culprit, simply failed to do its job. And then, if he refuses to budge, ask the douchebag to explain to his audience how he himself failed to do his job.

    of the American People suggest that the betrayal of the American People by big media in the service of Obama, the statement by the head of MSNBC that we are

  41. Part of it I forgot to mention was big media’s villification of the critics of Obama care.

    That is a bit more than a simple failure to do its job.

    Yes?

  42. The die cast in the 2008 primary and it tumbled and came to rest the day after the general election when the touretts syndrome afflicted Matthews blurted out: “our goal (meaning the goal of big media) is to make Obama successful. Thereafter, it was confirmed by 10,000 breaches of the standards of journalist, which are tied together neatly with a bow ribbon, but that smoking gun statement by the head of MSNBC fat bald headed Phil Griffin: outsiders are cool. They wear leather jackets and ride motor cycles. We in the media are not outsiders and we do not behave as such. We are INSIDERS in the Obama administration. As the mathematicians and logicians say: fucking Q.E.D.

  43. HWC: you can add to the fact that Jebediah is a henpecked version of Al Bundy, and a speaks 10 dialects of Spanish, and once claimed in writing that he was Spanish, the fact that he may also be D-I-R-T-Y. As the actor Claud Raines was heard to say: I am shocked, shocked tht there is gambling going on, etc. But Krauthammer loves him, and he did collect $100 million from donors, so nothing else really matters.

    ——

    Schweizer reported, “We’re about four months into the research project, as governor of the state of Florida, you have a lot of things that you can do. So we’re following the money. We’re looking at land deals. We’re looking at an airport deal. We are looking at some of the educational reforms that were instituted, and some of the big corporate winners there, and the flow of funds to foundation. And we expect, Hugh, to have something on that in early September. And I’d love to come back and talk about it.”

    He added, “And look, we are in the middle of the investigation. I would tell you that if there was nothing there, we would have stopped the investigation. I think we’re finding some interesting, compelling things. But I don’t want to create the impression that we have decided that we know what we’ve found. This is very much an active inquiry.”

  44. Hillary and Bill are mates for life. They love each other though thick and thin. Big Dawg had to spend some time in the basement for being a very bad dawg…but he was always loved.

    Thank God I am alive to experience these two great leaders.

  45. I found another set of campaign stump speeches on CSPAN, this one at a Republican candidate forum in NH a few weeks ago. I watched Jeb Bush’s last night. Still have to check out Rand Paul’s. I won’t post links anymore, since that apparently angers folk.

    I don’t think Jeb Bush is going far in the Republican contest. He was polished but low key. I didn’t see anything that was going to get the base rev’d up. All in all, a pretty Romney-like performance. Combine lack of base enthusiasm with the cringe-worthy thought of nominating Bush to run against a Clinton in an anti-establishment anti-Wall Street anti-fat cat election. I just don’t see him being the new face of the Republican party — impressive fundraising or not.

    Wrong place. Wrong time. Ironically, I think Jeb’s prospects would improve dramatically if Clinton weren’t the presumptive Dem nominee. Then, you might prefer “experienced” and “presidential” against a neophyte opponent. But, a Bush/Clinton groundhog day faceoff is not the way to drive turnout and engage younger voters.

    To be honest, it would be fantastic if Bush ran for Rubio’s Senate seat in Florida. He’s win in a landslide. Rubio’s nuts to give up that seat.

  46. Maybe I’m wrong, but I seriously doubt there will be more than a love fest book by Schweitzer about the Bushs and Jeb. If he were to “accidentally” find some wrong doing he would probably not be able to publish the book until 2017 or at least until after the election. I have little faith that he will find “anything” but not because there is nothing to find, however. He certainly would not want to publish a book about the Bushs that did not connect the dots and was based on a lot of innuendo would he?

  47. hwc is not jewsy who has a pro islam slant in everything it said.

    I personally think someone from the other side of the divide is needed around here.
    stimulates conversation and if you dont like the links don’t click on them.

    Hillary has said some crazy stuff lately and needs to be called on it.

    so I was asked: “can you tell me one thing Hillary has done since she became secretary of state and traveling millions of miles doesn’t count?”
    fair is fair: I asked my friend the same about obama when he was running and mr pro obama sweatshirt wearing supporter who was proud of shouting down and bullying the Hill supporters in his caucus.

    sadly I couldn’t come up with anything to say.
    she has supported obamas plan as far as I know including covering for him during the benghazi scandal.
    she could have stopped him from having a second term.

    can admin or one of you guys give me a list of accomplishments since she stepped up and down as secretary of state?

    I can find a list of palins accomplishments but not much for Hillary.

    an example is: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/13/heres-a-list-of-hillary-clintons-accomplishments-so-quit-saying-she-doesnt-have-any/

    secretary of state accomplishments:
    “Was a major proponent of sensible diplomacy which brought about a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, and brokered human rights with Burma.
    Oversaw free trade agreements with our allies such as Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
    Was the most traveled Secretary of State to date.
    The Clinton Foundation, founded by her and her husband, has improved the living conditions for nearly 400 million people in over 180 countries through its Initiative program.

    thats kind of thin addicting info is progressive site from what I can tell.

    thanks
    mrks

  48. oops: fair is fair: I asked my friend the same about obama when he was running and mr pro obama sweatshirt wearing supporter who was proud of shouting down and bullying the Hill supporters in his caucus couldn’t come up with much except he was black and had better answers to the debate questions as compared to Hillary.

    refresher. what the bastard did was answer the question in the next debate after analyzing Hillarys answer changing it a bit then presenting it as a far superior solution. obama is dumb as a rock in my opinion.

  49. …when Democrats rebelled against Obama’s bipartisan trade initiative this week and voted to stop debate on a fast-track bill, we learned that the Senate is now run by Elizabeth Warren, who is not your average liberal.

    Obama is correct. Warren’s arguments on trade don’t stand up to scrutiny. But they also stand well outside the traditional Democratic Party stance on free trade. According to a recent Wall Street Journal poll (though, admittedly, these polls often have as much to do with who is president as they do with strongly held ideological positions) Democrats are less likely today to be averse to trade than Republicans. Asked whether free trade between the U.S. and foreign countries helped or hurt the country, only 26 percent of Democrats said it has hurt, but 36 percent of Republicans — and 44 percent of Tea Partiers — believe trade has hurt the U.S.

    So perhaps our future is anti-trade. But at this point, it’s far-fetched, to say the least, to believe that Warren or Sherrod Brown rallied their party to shut down the TPP because of a profound concern about transparency or executive abuse. When it comes to climate change, for example, the administration functions without any congressional oversight as it implements legislation by fiat–not to mention a possible international deal–yet the duo is not only quiet, but supportive of the effort. When it comes to the Export-Import Bank, cronyism and a lack of transparency don’t stop the duo from supporting it. The reason there is no deal on trade is that Warren, like many progressives, is a protectionist. And now Senate Democrats are also protectionists.

  50. Maybe I’m wrong, but I seriously doubt there will be more than a love fest book by Schweitzer about the Bushs and Jeb. If he were to “accidentally” find some wrong doing he would probably not be able to publish the book until 2017 or at least until after the election. I have little faith that he will find “anything” but not because there is nothing to find, however. He certainly would not want to publish a book about the Bushs that did not connect the dots and was based on a lot of innuendo would he?

    I won’t post a link or give you a book review, but I might suggest that you read the chapter on Tom DeLay and the chapter on John Boehner in Schweizer’s book Extortion if you think he wouldn’t go after Republicans.

    As he said on a recent interview (again no links), “I am definitely a Conservative. That doesn’t mean I’m a Republican.”

    From National Journal:

    Author of ‘Extortion’ Book Draws Heat From Boehner’s Office

    October 23, 2013 A new book that argues politicians in Washington manufacture crises and manipulate vote scheduling and other legislative activity as part of a Mafia-like “protection racket” to extort campaign donations is drawing attention from such divergent corners as The New York Times and Sarah Palin.

    But the book, Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes and Line Their Own Pockets, is predictably not drawing rave reviews from House Speaker John Boehner, whose office is lashing out at author Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution and an editor-at-large at Breitbart.

    “He should probably read ‘Congress for Dummies’ before he starts making bogus and salacious claims to sell books,” Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said in a statement.

    Schweizer, in an interview on Wednesday, said he’d not yet heard directly from Boehner’s office. But he expected blowback, given his assertions.

  51. ulsterman feed off of facebook: “Don’t believe what you hear and less what you see. The rift between Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren is not what you think. It’s all been rehearsed, packaged and now released to the public and coming directly from the Jarrett media office inside the White House. Elizabeth Warren is being made into a progressive saint with a halo put onto her head by Barack Obama at the expense of Hillary Clinton.”

    link: http://www.hillaryis44.org/2015/05/12/on-tpp-trade-and-middle-east-obama-cannot-be-trusted/#comment-447262

    obama is jarrets puppet.

  52. WASHINGTON (AP) – An analysis by The Associated Press of surveillance video just before the deadly crash of an Amtrak train indicates it was traveling about 107 miles per hour as it approached a curve where the speed limit was only 50 miles per hour.
    The video shows the train – which was roughly 662 feet long – passes the camera in just over five seconds.
    But AP found that the surveillance video inexplicably plays back slightly slower than in real time.
    So, adjusting for the slower playback puts the train’s estimated speed at 107 miles per hour. The surveillance camera was located at a site just before the bend in the tracks.
    Light from an apparent explosion is visible in the video just over three seconds after the train passes.
    http://abc27.com/2015/05/13/ap-estimates-train-in-deadly-crash-was-traveling-107-mph/
    —–

    Perhaps Twitter has influenced how this story is playing out on TV. There were many tweets from early until now, pointing out that train was rounding a sharp curve – which CNN reporter inadvertently mentioned and had cameraman pan to early on – to those debunking need for more spending on the line.
    Maybe there is reason for some hope course of rotten media.

  53. That sounds like “evidence” from a security camera that should be taken with a grain of salt.

  54. Except that trying to determine the speed of a something from the time it takes to pass a security camera is a VERY complex analysis and may be impossible even if you had a month. Security cameras record at very low frame rates and are notorious for dropping frames and other time anomalies. And, you would need to know more than “approximately” how long the train was for the calculation. For example, what was the angle of the train passing by the camera as that would change the “apparent” length.

    I would be sceptical of any report about the train’s speed until he data recorder info is available. 107 mph in downtown Philadelphia, shortly after passing through two stations, seems unlikely.

  55. And, the black box says 100 mph:

    PHILADELPHIA — The Amtrak train that derailed in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, killing at least seven people, was traveling at a speed of at least 100 miles an hour, twice the speed limit on that stretch of track, according to the National Transportation Safety Board.

  56. hwc
    May 13, 2015 at 12:29 pm
    —————
    I argued until I was blue in the face that experience mattered, to anyone who would listen, only to discover that to the average voter, it doesn’t matter. They want to be inspired, and for that a ham actor presidential candidate is always your bet. And because that average voter lacks wisdom, understanding and perspective, the bigger the ham factor, the more likely they are to eat it up. Moreover, the voters tend to reward the biggest liar, as long as big media gives its seal of approval. Private polling has established that corellation to a fare thee well. The bigger the lie–the bigger the bump. And, lastly it helps immensely if you can throw race or gender at the voter, so he feels noble if the votes for someone who will promise him heaven and delivers a hell on earth, against with the full support of big media. Lots of Hollywood testimonials from pre pubescents is also helpful. Twain compared the legislative process to making sausage. Campaigns are infinitely worse. There is a inverse correlation between campaign promises, and actual results. There is a direct correlation between campaign promises, and contrary results.

  57. For the final word on the wisdom of the average voter you can reflect upon the statement by H.L. Mencken—nobody ever went broke underestimating their intelligence—or lost an election doing so. Or you can consider the following passage by the 19th century French satirist, Charles Baudelaire who addressed the larger issue of mass culture–such as we see today in rap music and those glorious Hollywood contributions to the cause of educating the public and making us all better people:

    VIII. The Dog & The Perfume Bottle
    (a free translation)

    “My beautiful dog, my good little doggy, my pooch, come here and breath in the wonderful cologne I’ve just bought at the best perfume shop in town.”

    And the dog, while wagging his tale—a gesture, I believe, that corresponds to laughter and smiles among these poor creatures—ran up and stuck his moist nose with curiosity into the unstoppered bottle. Recoiling suddenly with fear, however, he barked at me as if in reproach.

    “Ah! miserable dog, if I’d offered you a package of excrement, you’d have sniffed it with pleasure. You might have devoured it. So, dog—my sad life’s undeserving companion—you resemble the public that one must never exasperate with delicate perfumes. Better, instead, to offer them carefully chosen manure.”

  58. The problem with that argument is that if it is true, then representative democracy cannot work. And that is why the left is striving with such vigor to prove that it is true, through their lies and misdeeds. They do not want representative democracy, any more than they want people to deviate from the party line. They punish severely those who do. Every day now this is happening. Their goal is not to encourage debate, but to shut it down, just as they have done so effectively in the Democrat Party. If I thought the Republican Party was much better I would say so. Notice I am not talking.

  59. hwc
    May 13, 2015 at 2:01 pm
    ——–
    I saw a debate one time between Lori Wallach of Nader’s organization, and one of those faceless, nameless, stamped out in the foundary that lies beneath Harvard square representatives of WSJ on the subject of free trade.

    My impression?

    The Wall Street Journal expert talked economic THEORY.

    Lori on the other hand talked IMPACTS on the working class.

    Disclaimer: I like Lori personally. Inspite of that her arguments were sound, whereas his were cloud cuckooland. The guy reminded me a lot of an ignoramus named Barry Sotero now known as Barack Obama and in the next life, who knows?

  60. Well, there’s certainly debate on the Republican side of the nominating race. The field, by any analysis, is wide open.

    I don’t think anyone, from Karl Rove to the Koch Bros. would predict a winner at this time. On top of that, there is a stunning range of views on a number of issues. For example, you’ve got neocon hawks and rabid isolationists.

    That’s why I find it interesting to watch the candidate forums. Any one of several candidates could catch fire and grab the nomination.

    The other thing I find interesting…. by political standards (an admittedly low bar), several of these candidates are not already bought and paid for. For example, on a scale of political corruption, I would put Carson, Cruz, Fiorina, Walker, and Paul at the lightweight piker end of things — in large part because they haven’t been around long enough. Walker is, literally, dead broke with a net worth of minus $72,000.

    If anything, I think the Republican establishment is probably frustrated at their relative inability to shape the race. They know that they can’t be seen as jamming a RINO candidate down the throats of the base. Even if they get behind somebody (JEB), he’s going to have to go out and win it — and not against the likes of Herman Cain or Rick Santorum.

  61. ObamaCare is a massive shift of taxpayer dollars to insurance companies. Likewise, liberal Fed policies are a massive transfer of funds to big banks via interest payments to banks by the Fed on their excess reserves paid for by middle class taxpayers who get zilch interest on funds deposited in banks. Obama and his ilk talk against the powerful and wealthy but Obama policies and Dimocrat policies are robbery of the middle class to transfer wealth to the rich and powerful.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/241836-reckoning-for-the-fed

    Responding to a recent editorial in The Wall Street Journal citing persistent low economic growth as perhaps an indication that the Fed’s unconventional monetary policies are not working as intended, Bernanke fairly bristled with indignation, writing in his Brookings Institution blog that he never promised monetary policy would be a “panacea” for our economic troubles — and besides, “nobody claims that monetary policy can do much about productivity growth.”

    Such defensiveness is not reassuring. It’s been nearly six years since the recession officially ended in June 2009. Still, the Fed continues to pursue its zero-interest-rate policy in the name of supporting the recovery, even as the negative aspects of this approach are imposing significant economic costs.

    According to a report issued in March by Swiss Re, the world’s second-largest reinsurance company, the Fed’s policy of financial repression has cost U.S. savers roughly $470 billion in lost interest income. Other unintended consequences described in the report include “crowding out viable private markets” and “lowering the funds available from long-term investors to be used for the real economy.

    Bernanke’s riposte to those who would question the wisdom of perpetuating zero rates is to assert that the inflationary consequences predicted by some have not materialized. But after so much pumping, subdued inflation is hardly grounds for crowing; it’s further proof that the Fed’s policies are not working. Cheap money is not expanding production and raising wages as planned, it’s not increasing demand — and thus not raising prices for goods and services. Inflation is the dog that’s not barking.

    Something is wrong. The monetary stimulus theory behind zero interest rates is not playing out in reality. Where’s the economic growth? [snip]

    But when monetary authorities themselves are repeatedly stymied by less-than-optimal results, it’s time to consider changing course. An accountable Fed would accept the notion that its monetary stimulus strategy needs to be examined because it has not delivered anticipated results, by the Fed’s own projections, within a reasonable time period.

    Maybe the problem stems from the Fed’s enhanced regulatory scrutiny over banks’ lending decisions in the wake of the crisis. Overregulation may have had an especially inhibiting effect on community banks. Before the Dodd-Frank bank regulation law passed in 2010, an average of more than 100 new banks opened each year; in the five years since 2010, only one new bank has opened. Fear of violating regulations has caused many hometown banks to reject loan applications from traditional customers — with the result that small business lending has been dampened. And that factor alone is a blow to economic growth.

    Then, too, the normal money multiplier has not been functioning properly due to banks’ massive buildup of excess reserves, which have gone from $1.9 billion in August 2008 to a staggering $2.6 trillion currently. A study issued by the Cleveland Fed in February states that banks now find it “both easier and more attractive” to hold excess reserves than make loans. Why? Fed policies have altered the terms of the trade-off; the marginal benefit of holding reserves has increased because the Fed now pays interest on them, while the marginal cost in terms of forgone interest on loans has decreased under the low-rate conditions engineered by the same Fed.

    So in crafting its monetary strategy to stimulate economic growth, it seems the Fed has given short shrift to the middle-income Americans who fuel the private sector — the true engine of productive economic growth. How much has consumer demand decreased because personal savings accounts pay zilch? How much has employment and production suffered because entrepreneurs can’t get loans from their local banks?

    Yet, even as business investment languishes and manufacturing has hit the skids, and with America’s annual growth rate coming to a near halt at 0.2 percent for this year’s first quarter, our monetary authorities seem clueless about the impact of their own policies. Indeed, the Fed’s instinctive position is to call for more government intervention in the economy. Don’t expect any initiatives to scale back regulatory burdens or liberate market forces to spur real economic growth.

    Instead, you can expect increasing calls from Fed officials to give themselves more room to maneuver by raising their target rate of inflation to 4 percent or higher — never mind that such monetary mischief utterly confounds business planning and leads to the misallocation of investment resources. And you can expect further demands for massive government spending on “public infrastructure development” to create jobs. It’s what Bernanke recommends in his blog post, insinuating that some other part of government needs to join the Fed’s stimulus party to attain economic growth.

    But shouldn’t we start by figuring out the reasons for the Fed’s own lack of success?

  62. The fire next time will not be conquered because Obama has gifted trillions to his powerful cronies via phony “stimulus” and assorted robber baron policies (while spewing anti robber baron talk):

    http://www.businessinsider.com/hsbcs-stephen-king-on-the-world-economy-2015-5

    HSBC chief economist Stephen King is already thinking about the next recession.

    In a note to clients Wednesday, he warns: “The world economy is like an ocean liner without lifeboats. If another recession hits, it could be a truly titanic struggle for policymakers.”

    Here’s King (emphasis added):

    Whereas previous recoveries have enabled monetary and fiscal policymakers to replenish their ammunition, this recovery — both in the US and elsewhere — has been distinguished by a persistent munitions shortage. This is a major problem. In all recessions since the 1970s, the US Fed funds rate has fallen by a minimum of 5 percentage points. That kind of traditional stimulus is now completely ruled out.

    King notes that this far into the recovery, there’s a lack of “traditional policy ammunition.” For instance, Treasury yields have not risen, the budget deficit is not falling, and welfare payments are still on the rise.

  63. Here’s one for the Progressives bucket:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-13/its-only-fair-tax-wealthy-obama-says-they-are-societys-lottery-winners

    Of course, “society’s lottery winners” simply because they have all the money and influence, will never agree to voluntarily part with their wealth by handing over more of it to Uncle Sam. Instead they will bribe Congress with a fraction of what taxes they would pay to crush any incipient tax reform.

    After all they “won the lottery” precisely because they knew how to best game the system.

    Instead what they will stronly “suggest”, is for the Fed to go ahead and fund America’s money needs by way of continuing to monetize its deficit: it may even require a rate hike first just to make sure the economy resumes its depressionary ways, just so there is cover for QE4, QE5 and so on.

    And yes, for those who wonder, it was this “deficit monetization” process that since it was first launched in 2008, has made them richer than anything conceived in their wildest dreams.

  64. Yes, they already know the system is failed and crashing. And the FED has essentially amplified the wave. They are planing the next round that will end up in their pockets.

    This is why the party should not have nominated an unqualified amateur in 2008. This is why the progressives should not be allowed to select another candidate.

    The crash has already started and I believe it will become undeniable by the third quarter of the year. Supposedly they will continue to ineffective measures as the situation worsens on in to 2017. This will be a deflationary period. Things would not be expected to get better until after 2020. After that we will face inflation.

    The next five years are going to be bad. But look at it this way…Maybe all the illegal immigrants will leave.

    It is a long time until the Democratic Convention. Hold on to your asses because life is a trip.

  65. House voted overwhelmingly this afternoon to strip prevent the NSA from collecting phone metadata on US calls:

    From the NYTimes

    WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved legislation to end the federal government’s bulk collection of phone records, exerting enormous pressure on Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, who insists that existing dragnet sweeps continue in defiance of many of those in his Republican Party.

    Under the bipartisan bill, which passed 338 to 88, the Patriot Act would be changed to prohibit bulk collection by the National Security Agency of metadata charting telephone calls made by Americans. In addition, the legislation would bar permitting bulk collection of records using other tools like so-called national security letters, which are a kind of administrative subpoena.

    The near unanimity in the House is not reflected in the Senate, where a bipartisan group that backs the House bill faces opposition from Mr. McConnell and a small but powerful group of defense hawks who want no change, and from another faction led by Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, that is pressing for even greater restrictions of data collection.

    Republican candidates weigh in:

    Among the likely Republican presidential contenders, while Mr. Cruz favors the bill passed by the House, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, supports Mr. McConnell’s approach. Mr. Paul said the reform bill does not go far enough, a position now posited by some privacy groups in light of the court decision.

    House dems voted overwhelmingly with the Republicans in the House. (338 to 88 vote). Haven’t see the positions of the major Dem candidates, although presumably Sanders, O’Mally, and the Cherokee would be in favor of the House bill.

  66. It’s very scary about the economy. We lost soon much money in 2001 and 2008. Can’t afford anymore loses. I really don’t know what to do.
    We have a guaranteed fund at work that pays next to nothing, like 1%. Ridiculous, but my money from 403 would b safe there. Now our money Po upside of work, that’s another story. Don’t think I can cash out without losing lots.
    Any financial wizards here?

  67. gonzotx,

    It is going to take a wizard to fix this. Literally. I had a small inheritance when my Mom died 2 years ago and have had a total dilemma about how to best use it. I have basically been sitting on cash, even with the near zero interest rate.

    My brother is a bankster and I have asked him about it, but they are all in fantasy land. The stock market is toxic and overly inflated. So is the housing market. If you sit on cash you get nil interest and there are even talk of negative interest rates. I do not know who to talk to about how secure your investments are. I like Harry Dent, if you want to see how they compare with his recommendations. I paid like $50 to get his newsletter.

    The people with the power want to take your wealth. They are willing to destroy the country to do it. There is no where to hide.

    What I plan to do is sit on cash until the bottom around 2017-2020 and buy a house and maybe a car. That is the time to make any major purchases and prepare for the inflationary period.

    The only thing I am spending money for the next year or two is health and education. That you can keep when the markets crash.

    Stinkin’ fucktard Obama. Incompetence and corruption in perpetual motion. Those anal obsessed progressives sure can pick ’em.

  68. NYTimes Magazine:

    For a giddy moment seven years ago, Democrats dared to believe that Barack Obama’s election would significantly reconfigure partisan alliances. Instead, his presidency has only calcified them. “When Obama swept the 2008 primary and general elections, Democrats’ image suddenly came to be defined by a city-dwelling law-school professor whose life experiences had been far different from those of most working-class whites,” said David Wasserman, a congressional analyst for The Cook Political Report. “It was the culminating moment of a half-century of realignment. Democrats had already ceded Southern whites, but in the last few years they have lost droves of Midwestern, small-town and working-class whites who feel like they have little in common with the party anymore.”

  69. If anything, I think the Republican establishment is probably frustrated at their relative inability to shape the race. They know that they can’t be seen as jamming a RINO candidate down the throats of the base. Even if they get behind somebody (JEB), he’s going to have to go out and win it — and not against the likes of Herman Cain or Rick Santorum.
    ————-
    That is a very astute observation. The fat little pig they have entered into the county fair has a ring around his nose and his candidacy is all about back to the future, as in: Bush 41-Bush 43-Bush 45. Plus he claims to be Hispanic and speaks 10 dialects, which is an excellent qualification to be president. Not knowledge just fluency. A geek for all seasons. But what if the base gives Rove and company the good old Robin Williams fuck off reply. In that case they will move to either Walker or Marco The Red. Their tool of choice? FOX News. Perhaps you recall how they used FOX News to undercut Newt in favor of that fellow elitist Romney. By now it will be obvious that they will do the same thing to sink the conservatives, unless their viewers threaten them not to, on pain of leaving them en masse.

  70. I’m no wizard on banking and investment…but with the banksters and government fraud playing with printed paper money that can become worthless in days…the only thing you can be sure of is that LAND or property has the best chance of retaining value as long as you don’t sell it for less than you paid, and you do your research on getting a good or at least better than fair deal when you buy it. That’s where I would put most of my cash, not in a bank, not on some risky stocks. Don’t buy real estate with on a loan, if possible.

    If you don’t have enough money to put into real estate, gold or silver is stable, but you can’t buy it when it’s overpriced…like now.

  71. Under the bipartisan bill, which passed 338 to 88, the Patriot Act would be changed to prohibit bulk collection by the National Security Agency of metadata charting telephone calls made by Americans. In addition, the legislation would bar permitting bulk collection of records using other tools like so-called national security letters, which are a kind of administrative subpoena.
    ——–
    You can thank Snowden for this. He should be Time Magazine’s Man of the Year, if they could ever in all their born days shake their Obama fetish. Is that what it is—a fetish? Or is it simply the fact that they are every bit as corrupt lying cocksuckers as Obama is? Now that one is an imponderable.

  72. FOX News. Perhaps you recall how they used FOX News to undercut Newt in favor of that fellow elitist Romney. By now it will be obvious that they will do the same thing to sink the conservatives, unless their viewers threaten them not to, on pain of leaving them en masse.

    Yeah, but Newt was a joke. I mean, seriously. President Newt Gingrich? In 2012. Jesus, it’s like bad acid flashbacks or something. The 2012 Republican field was a clown show. My God… Herman Cain. Newt Gingrich. Rick Santorum.

    I think the establishment Republican movers and shakers are driven by one goal and only one goal: winning elections. If one of several serious plausible (i.e. not a clown show) candidate emerges from the primaries, so be it. There are a number of good candidates. It’s a strong (young) field this time around. Notice that they weren’t torpedoed by fruit loop Todd Akin or Christine O’Donnell candidates in 2014. That wasn’t by accident.

  73. Just noticed my phone auto spelling mm mistakes lol. Thank Shadow and Lu4…I have a financial guy, but, I don’t think anyone knows what the hell is going on, it’s so surreal. I do believe you are right, invest in real estate, unfortunately I should have done that in 2008 when it was doable, now everything is mucho inflated in Austin area, and the outlying areas are not any better. Even small towns seem to be inflated. Then there is the Eagle Ford franking from south Texas to east central, big oil find. Good luck there.
    At work a couple of people have made the right decisions, and bought real estate after 2008, several houses in Austin that have sky rocketed in price. Well good for them. I actually thought of it but my husband and I have no ability to fix, repair anything, so the rehab houses, which saw the most profit, was a no go.
    I have a beautiful piece of land on a lake that has dried up…that’s an awful thing to witness. Lake Buchanan. ..Once the King of Lakes in the hill country. We have b getting tones of rain, but all to the east of the lake. It’s been like a bad movie for the land owners there.

  74. BTW, I don’t think Marco Rubio is going to get much traction as a Presidential contender. Maybe a VP nod (for Florida’s electoral college votes). The abstract idea of Marco Rubio seems attractive, but he’s just not very effective on the trail.

    You are going to have to play good ball to win this nomination. Somebody is going to connect with voters and emerge from the pack in a way that can’t be predicted at this point.

    I thought Cruz showed two moments of astute political instincts this week:

    1) accepting that idiot Halpern’s apology with grace

    2) Instantly answering “of course not” when asked if he would have invaded Iraq knowing what we know now about no WMD. I think that’s the answer approximately 300 million Americans would give. By not shucking and jiving, he drew a clear distinction with candidates who supported the war AND with from the stereotypes of Republican neocons.

    Having good instincts as the campaign gets underway will drive some candidates to the top of the pack.

  75. Wbb

    You can thank Snowden for this. He should be Time Magazine’s Man of the Year

    ——–
    Absolutely

  76. This would explain why all the spying, the military exercises, the attack on civil liberties—and Obama.

  77. Wbb,
    Jim Rickard, is he worth the 79$ a year? He sounds so pessimistic it makes me want to hud myself in a corner.
    I have been thinking of buying large arts of canned goods…not a survivalist by any means, maybe I should become one.
    When you think of the military exercises happening in Texas..you have to wonder..

  78. OK. I’ve done my civic duty. I’ve watched stump speeches from all of the Republican candidates I can stand listening to. Finished up with Rand Paul in New Hampshire. Quite effective. He has a devastating 5 minute Benghazi riff.

    Notably, he was the only candidate I saw speak ill of other Republicans. All in all, he did a good job of making it seem like he’s not crazy like his dad.

    I see five, maybe six, effective candidates as far as making a coherent, forward looking pitch: Bush, Walker, Cruz, Paul, Fiorini, and Jindal.

    I can’t wait to hear from Hillary at some point.

    I tried watching Rubio read his big foreign policy speech today. Just couldn’t do it. I lasted about 2 minutes. I didn’t even make it to his big neo-McCain doctrine.

  79. For many reasons (the big one is still Florida, and Colorado – Mitt Romney refused to submit to reality) it is almost a sure thing that Marco Rubio will be on the Republican ticket in 2016. We think Rubio has some major drawbacks and we also think he made a big mistake in his foreign policy speech – but… Florida. Florida’s 29 electoral votes are absolutely must win in 2016 for Republicans. If Hillary wins Florida the election is over. So, yeah… Rubio will be on the ticket. There are too many reasons for Rubio to be on the ticket. Here’s another one:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/larry-ellison-marco-rubio-fundraiser-117895.html

    Sen. Marco Rubio now has another billionaire in his corner: Oracle founder Larry Ellison.

    Ellison will host a fundraiser for the Florida Republican’s White House bid at his mansion in Woodside, Calif., on June 9, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO.

    A VIP reception and photo opportunity with Rubio will cost attendees $2,700 per person. The fundraiser will also include a host committee dinner for couples who have raised $27,000.

    Ellison, who has a net worth of nearly $54 billion, hosted a fundraiser benefiting the National Republican Senatorial Committee last year that featured another presidential hopeful, Sen. Rand Paul, who has been courting major Silicon Valley donors.

    The software giant executive’s support could mean millions for Rubio and outside groups supporting him. Ellison contributed $3 million to the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future in 2012.

    Miami billionaire Norman Braman hasn’t discounted talk that he’ll pitch in as much as $10 million to support Rubio’s bid.

  80. Maybe. The FLA electoral votes are certainly a factor.

    On the other hand, all the PAC money in the world isn’t going to salvage a bad candidate and I’m not sure Rubio is ready. Of the speeches I’ve watched, he is the most disappointing. And, hanging his hat on neocon hawk foreign policy in 2016 is a bit of a political tin ear.

    It is still early. I’ll have to go back for round two in a month or so and see how everyone is developing on the trail.

    No matter who emerges, the Republican party wins. You’ve got a half dozen new young leadership faces who will gain exposure and refine their political skills.

  81. Hwc,
    Rubio, initially, was an excellent speaker, that was what drew me to him.
    Surprised to hear from you he is so disappointing in his delivery.
    Like many here, his support of citizenship for illegal immigrants early on, shut the door for me. He ran as a Tea party candidate, but hasn’t looked back.
    I literally hate these guys that run for Senate and then immediately begin their pitch to be President.

  82. hwc
    May 12, 2015 at 5:10 pm
    Hill and Bill on the campaign trail
    ———————————————-

    beautiful labor day campaign kick-off, market square, Portsmouth, NH. nice pic.

  83. On the other hand, all the PAC money in the world isn’t going to salvage a bad candidate and I’m not sure Rubio is ready. Of the speeches I’ve watched, he is the most disappointing. And, hanging his hat on neocon hawk foreign policy in 2016 is a bit of a political tin ear.
    ——
    He is not presidential. The base will not support him, because he betrayed them on their hot button issue: illegal immigration. Unfortunately, with the money he has behind him, the electoral votes, and his Hispanic heritage he is Vice Presidential. He is exactly the kind of fraud big media will fall for given its hatred for Hillary and its hope to shake off the stench of being anti-Republican to a fault. A bad vice president. And he will use that position as a stealth perch to build his resume, and pursue the top of the ticket in a future election. But he will betray people in a heart beat, and has much in common with the fast talking used car salesman, which is essentially all that he is. When a producer sells a defective product in the marketplace there are legal remedies under the Uniform Commercial Code and its progeny. But when a political party–either one of them does this in an election, there are no remedies, because the American People are gullible as hell, and big media is incapable of delivering an honest assessment. Instead, what we have today is not a marketplace of ideas, but a monopoly controlled by the heads of the major networks, which treat the American people in the dark and feed them shit. That is a fine prescription for growing mushrooms, but it is the antithesis of the representative government envisioned by Madison and Jefferson. They deplored the rise of “factions” and would vigorously condemn what we are seeing today.

  84. I see where former msnbc exective dan abrams, the son of floyd abrams, is flummoxed that Ted Cruz was not offended by the silly racist questions by the Mark Halperin (hereinafter the douchebag), but instead said he was not offended and described the douchebag as a fair and honest journalist (Note: as a politician, Ted is entitled to some political license, but surely not that). For Abrams, this defense of the indefensible, this reacting in a way that a stereotypical republican is supposed to act to an overreaching left wing journalist, this categorical refusal to curtail free speech for the sake of political correctness, was too much for abrams. His head exploded and he has never been he same since. He still runs Medialite, his dad is still pretends to be the premier First Amendment rights for the media in the country, but Dan has developed a tick around the eye, his speech has become slurred, and some suspect he has had a mini stoke. I think they call these things TIAs. And in Dan’s case, let us hope they are in the words of that old Steve Allen song: the start of something big. And if so, let us also hope that we are there to see it.

  85. I’m not sure Rubio is ready.
    ——-
    I would not worry too much about Rubio not being ready, as you put it.

    Marco Rubio is always:

    Ready,

    Willing, and

    Able—

    To sell out the American People to the global elites

    Which is all that Larry Ellison and his fellow billionaires

    Are really interested in.

  86. One of the things big media will love about Marco is the witty repartee he gives them in those up close and personal interviews he gives them. They eat it up. It makes them feel . . relevant. I am quite sure he walks away from their interviews secretly laughing at them. Frankly, I cannot blame him for that. They are after all quite laughable, and not to be taken seriously.

  87. Times are a changin’ according to that fast greezy pig, Donna Brazille in 2008.

    Well, it is now 2015, the country is falling apart, and guess what fatso.

    Times are a chang’in again.

    There is a new zeitgeist, a favorite idiom of the idiot much beloved by big media who promised to role back the tides, Obama.

    To these continuing claims to victimhood uber alles, echo answereth back: so (fucking) what. And: kill your own snakes.

    And we have no one to blame but Obama.

    Here is Richard:

    ———

    So What? The End of the Era of Compassion

    by Richard Fernandez

    May 14, 2015 – 5:05 am

    Compassion fatigue may finally be setting in. David Cameron’s newly elected conservative government is planning to repeal the “1998 Human Rights Act [which] had the effect of extending the protections listed in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic UK law” and replacing it with all British legislation. Everyone on the left, including the Scottish National Party, has vowed to oppose Cameron, believing — rightly — that it would drive a stake through the legal edifice the progressives have so carefully constructed.

    But Cameron probably senses which way the political wind is blowing. The strong turnout of UKIP, which polled twice as many voters as SNP, is an indicator that many voters have had it up to their necks with human rights. And it’s not just the Europeans.

    Thomas Fuller of the New York Times notes that thousands of Muslim Rohiyngya refugees are sailing the Andaman Sea looking for a country to take them, but no one will. Not even, probably especially not, Muslim countries.

    A wooden fishing boat carrying several hundred migrants from Myanmar was spotted adrift in the Andaman Sea on Thursday, part of an exodus in which thousands of people have taken to the sea in recent weeks but no country has been willing to take them in.

    Cries of “Please help us! I have no water!” rose from the boat as a vessel carrying journalists approached. “Please give me water!” …

    Their presence has created a regionwide crisis in Southeast Asia. Most were thought to be headed to Malaysia, but after more than 1,500 migrants came ashore in Malaysia and Indonesia in the past week, both countries declared their intention to turn away any more boats carrying migrants. Thai officials have not articulated an official policy since the crisis began, but Thailand is not known to have allowed any of the migrants to land there.

    There’s a real possibility that the Southeast Asians are just going to let them die. Over by another narrow sea, the Mediterranean, just a stone’s throw from Europe, millions of Syrians have pretty much been given up for dead. Gas is once again being openly employed. It now appears clear that president Assad lied to Obama when he said he would surrender his chemical weapons. Such weapons and evidence of their use is becoming increasingly apparent, and international humanitarian organizations are urging Obama to draw a real “red line” this time, as Peter Baker and Eric Schmitt of the New York Times report.

    If President Obama hoped that the danger of chemical warfare in the Middle East receded when Syria gave up tons of poison gas, mounting evidence that toxic weapons remain in the strife-torn country could once again force him to decide just how far he is willing to go to enforce his famous “red line.”

    The discovery of traces of ricin and sarin in Syria, combined with the use of chlorine as a makeshift weapon in the country’s grinding civil war, undercut what Mr. Obama had viewed as a signal triumph of his foreign policy, the destruction of President Bashar al-Assad’s chemical arsenal.

    But Mr. Obama appears no more eager to use military force against Mr. Assad’s government today than he was in 2013 when he abruptly called off a threatened airstrike in exchange for a Russian-brokered agreement in which Syria voluntarily gave up its chemical weapons. Instead, the Obama administration responded to reports of violations this time by seeking renewed assistance from Russia and exploring a new United Nations Security Council resolution addressing Syria’s continued use of chemicals as weapons.

    “You’re dealing with a regime that is not very credible on weapons of mass destruction programs,” said Robert Ford, the Obama administration’s former ambassador to Syria. “No one should be surprised the regime didn’t declare all of its facilities. But the bad news in all of this is the regime is using chemical weapons regularly — even if not sarin gas now, they’re using chlorine gas regularly and they are not deterred from doing so.”

    The “signal triumph” of Obama’s foreign policy turned out to be as phony as 3 dollar bill. Ford should have added that the Obama administration is not very credible on drawing red lines either, which is probably why Obama is awaiting help from Putin, so that his threat is a “red, red line” this time. But realistically, Obama has neither the stomach nor the political support, to start something no one is convinced he’ll finish.

    The repeal of the 1998 Human Rights Act, the closing of the doors to refugees and the kick-the-can-down the road of president Obama suggest that an era is ending and a new, Hobbesian age is begun. People are suffering and voters are saying “tell me something I don’t know”. There are more than 50 million refugees wandering the world today, more than at any time since World War 2 and it looks like we’re going to let them keep wandering. The Europeans are actually planning to bomb people smuggler boats while they’re on the beach in Libya to to stem the tide of “migrants” to Europe, despite the Guardian’s impassioned plea to desist.

    In the small Libyan port of Zuwara, one of the main points of departure for migrants seeking to reach Italy, dozens if not hundreds of fishing boats line the quay. It’s an innocuous sight: blue wooden skiffs knocking against each other in the breeze. But if Europe wants to use military force to smash Libya’s smuggling trade, these are the boats they will have to destroy.

    On Monday, the EU seeks to persuade the UN security council to back military operations against smuggling fleets in Zuwara and other coastal towns up and down Libya’s western seaboard. But even with the UN’s go-ahead, such a strategy may not be straightforward – and the blue boats bobbing in the harbour in Zuwara illustrate why.

    Contrary to mainstream portrayals, Libya’s smugglers are not one cohesive organisation with a clear chain of command, or identifiable assets. They do not have an easily targeted fleet at their disposal, anchored in areas separate from civilian life.

    “They’re civilians! They’re fishermen! They are people of color!” In the past, such an objection would be unanswerable. Today the answer is probably, “so what?” Many years ago I wrote a post called the Three Conjectures in which I argued that the whole point of the War on Terror was to nip it in the bud, because once things got bad, once things got out of hand, the liberal Western populations would be begging their leaders to commit any atrocity — any atrocity at all — to keep them safe and fed.

    We think of ourselves as civilized. Yet mortal danger and need have a way of wearing away the veneer of civilization leaving only the raw human animal underneath. The Guardian may well appeal to “humanity”, but it should always remember that it was “humanity” — the base humanity which we don’t like to think about — which caused these tragedies in the first place.

    The first rule of civilization is to preserve it. Once enough of it is conceded to barbarism, when a sufficient quantity of it has been worn away then things tip over entirely into savagery. It goes right over the cliff. The lesson of the Second World War was that anyone, pushed hard enough, could be an animal. We’re not there yet. But we’re on the way.

  88. Here is some sound advice for any candidate from either party who goes into an interview with a dension of the evil empire of big media, and finds that the smiles and gestures of friendship which filled the air when he or she was being strapped in to the (electric chair) at the moderators table with microphones, wires, electrodes and body temperature monitors hooked up to them, and suddenly its lights, cameras action, and the first question out of the box from those useless cocksucker who pretend to be journalists is have you stopped beating your wife? Why did you do it? Have you sought therapy—-none of which has any basis in fact. You know, Jb, this is why in a court of law, you have to lay a foundation, yet these charlatans never do–because they are no good. What do you say back to them as a candidate, is something which the party of stupid cannot figure out. Well, here is some figuring they need to start doing, if they are going to have any chance at all. Personally, I prefer Hillary’s response of ignoring them. That is the best way to give them the attention and respect they deserve, which is to say none whatsoever.
    ———-
    Mary Katharine Ham: “Perhaps the most important thing in the modern media environment is to know when to push back, to know how to turn a question around, be nimble, not take the media’s premises as they’re stated, and show a bit of charm while doing so,” she wrote. “Plus, that kind of candidate keeps us entertained, and as long as we have to watch the whole thing, that’s the least they can do. Carly’s doing her part.”
    ——-
    And if that does not work, give do to them what George Patton aimed to do with the Germans in WWII. Grab them by the nose, and kick them in the ass. These media celebrities are latter day Goebbels, therefore I see no compelling reason to treat them differently.

  89. recalling that admin said to expect anything:

    Flashback 1996: Why ABC shouldn’t hire Stephanopoulos
    snip Now comes word that even as he interrogated Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer, and in effect served as a defense lawyer for the Clinton Foundation, he was not disclosing his own $50,000 contribution to the organization. It was a performance that seemed right out of Stephanopoulos’ War Room days; some habits of mind, apparently, never go away.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-1996-why-abc-shouldnt-hire-stephanopoulos/article/2564503

  90. From POLITICO: CLINTON CASH publisher, Harper Collins corrects 7-8 inaccurate passages in Peter Schweizer’s book.

    Among them, Schweizer says in the original version of the book that TD Bank, a major shareholder in the Keystone XL pipeline, paid Bill Clinton for speeches and then said it would “begin selling its $1.6 billion worth of shares in the massive but potentially still-born [sic] Keystone XL crude pipeline project” after Hillary Clinton left office. But as his source on the sale of TD Bank’s shares, Schweizer used a press release that was revealed to be fake in 2013.
    That passage has been removed from the most recent Kindle version of the book.
    Schweizer also appears to have edited a passage in which he claims Bill Clinton was paid $200,000 per speech by Irish billionaire Denis O’Brien for three speaking engagements he delivered in Ireland. The implication was that, while Hillary Clinton’s State Department was giving O’Brien’s company taxpayer money through the Haiti Mobile Money Initiative, “O’Brien was in turn making money for the Clintons.”
    But Clinton was not paid personally for those speeches, according to his spokesman. And the Clinton Foundation was paid for just one of the three speeches. The new version deletes any mention that Clinton was paid for those speeches, and edited a claim that Clinton received $225,000 for a speech in Jamaica sponsored in part by O’Brien’s company Digicel. Another edit appears to have been made on the timing of a speech Clinton gave in Jamaica, which was also paid for by O’Brien.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-cash-publisher-corrects-7-or-8-inaccurate-passages-117946.html#ixzz3a9tGYoku

  91. Rubio, initially, was an excellent speaker, that was what drew me to him.
    Surprised to hear from you he is so disappointing in his delivery.

    It wasn’t the delivery (although the speech impediment gets annoying). It’s that there’s no there there. The story of his bartender father and the American dream is wonderful and eloquent. Left me expecting more and that’s all there was — aside from a little neo-McCain saber-rattling.

    Most of the other candidates at least had some broad policy themes.

  92. Speaking of douchebag reporters, I was hiking on a glorious spring day this afternoon and listening to a bunch of NPR podcasts for entertainment. Got the pleasure of listening to douchbag Howard Fineman talk about Clinton’s campaign launch.

  93. Southern, thanks for posting the Politico article. The Clintons would be crazy to engage in anything too shady even if they were so inclined – knowing that their enemies would love nothing more than launch yet another “investigation”, and that MSM would be delighted to have a reason to crucify them publicly and repeatedly.

  94. The Clintons would be crazy to engage in anything too shady even if they were so inclined – knowing that their enemies would love nothing more than launch yet another “investigation”, and that MSM would be delighted to have a reason to crucify them publicly and repeatedly.

    I guess that depends on your definition of “too shady”. Would sex with an intern in the Oval Office count?

    Just sayin…. Let’s not go assigning sainthood where it demonstrably doesn’t belong….

  95. What the nation needs is not only a rejection of fast track, but also a trade policy that puts country before corporate profit, workers before Wall Street, and America first.
    ———–

    Obama’s Republican Collaborators
    Tuesday – April 21, 2015 at 12:00 am

    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    The GOP swept to victory in November by declaring that this imperial presidency must be brought to heel, and President Obama’s illicit seizures of Congressional power must end.

    That was then. Now is now.

    This week, Congress takes up legislation to cede His Majesty full authority to negotiate the largest trade deal in history, the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, and to surrender Congress’ right to amend any TPP that Obama might bring home.

    Why the capitulation? Why would Republicans line up to kiss the royal ring? Is Middle America clamoring for “fast track”? Are blue-collar workers marching in the streets to have Congress grant “Trade Promotion Authority Now!” to Barack Obama?

    No. Pressure for fast track is coming from two sources.

    First, the editorial pages of papers like The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post that truckle to the transnational corporations that provide the advertising revenue stream keeping them alive.

    Second, Obama is relying on Congressional Republicans who, for all their bravado about defying his usurpations, know on which side their bread is buttered. It’s the Wall Street-K Street side.

    Fast track is the GOP payoff to its bundlers and big donors.

    And so, we must hear again all the tired talking points about free trade, soaring exports, jobs created, etc.

    But what is reality of the last quarter century of “free trade”?

    The economic independence that enabled us to stay out of two world wars — until we chose to go in and help win them swiftly — is history.

    We are a dependent nation now. We rely on imports for the necessities of our national life and the vital components of our weapons systems. Hamilton must be turning over in his grave.

    Where once wages rose inexorably in America and the middle class seemed ever to expand, we read today about income inequality, the growing gap between rich and poor, and wage stagnation.

    Did $11 trillion in trade deficits since Bush I have anything to do with this? Or do we think that the 55,000 factories and 5-6 million manufacturing jobs that went missing in the first decade of this new century had no connection to those huge trade deficits?

    Is there a link perhaps between all those factories closing in the USA and all those factories opening in China, or between a U.S. average annual growth rate of 1.8 percent since the turn of the century, and a Chinese average annual growth rate of around 10 percent?

    We read of China’s hoard of $4 trillion in cash reserves, of Beijing creating a replica of the World Bank, of European and Asian nations rushing to sign up to get a piece of the action in building China’s new “Silk Road” to Europe.

    Monday’s New York Times tells of Premier Xi Jinping coming to Islamabad bearing gifts.

    Pakistani officials say Xi will be signing agreements for $46 billion for the construction of railroads, highways and power plants over the next 15 years.

    Where did Xi get all that money to displace America in Asia?

    Last week came news that Japan has narrowly passed China as a holder of U.S. federal debt. Between them, they hold $2.5 trillion.

    Did the tidal wave of imports from Japan and China, and the historic trade deficits we have run with both nations for decades, have anything to do with our Athens-like indebtedness to our Asian creditors?

    When we look back to NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, MFN and PNTR for China, the Korean-U.S. free trade deal, CAFTA with Central America — almost all have led to soaring trade deficits and jobs lost to the nations with whom we signed the agreements.

    As for the bureaucrats and politicians who promised us big new markets for exports, rising trade surpluses, better jobs — were they simply ignorant, or were they knowingly lying to us?

    No one can be that wrong for that long. The law of averages is against it.

    Writing yesterday, Peter Morici, chief economist in the early Clinton years at the U.S. International Trade Commission, says the Korean deal alone, and the import surge that followed, cost America 100,000 jobs.

    “Asian nations target specific industries — such as autos and information technology — and compel U.S. firms to establish factories and research facilities in their economies,” as China, Germany and Japan manipulate their currencies to keep exports to us high and imports from us low.

    Morici estimates that our annual $500 billion trade deficit costs America 4 million jobs and is a contributing cause of the fall of U.S. family income by $4,600 since 2000.

    Unless changes are made in TPP, he writes, “Congress should deny President Obama authority to negotiate yet another jobs killing trade pact in the Pacific.”

    What the nation needs is not only a rejection of fast track, but also a trade policy that puts country before corporate profit, workers before Wall Street, and America first.

    Such a policy once made the Republican Party America’s Party.

  96. No. Pressure for fast track is coming from two sources.

    First, the editorial pages of papers like The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post that truckle to the transnational corporations that provide the advertising revenue stream keeping them alive.

    Second, Obama is relying on Congressional Republicans who, for all their bravado about defying his usurpations, know on which side their bread is buttered. It’s the Wall Street-K Street side.

    Fast track is the GOP payoff to its bundlers and big donors.

    They didn’t address why Obama himself is pushing for this. Why would he want something bad for the country..? (sort of rhetorical…)

  97. Question: does the dog wag the tail? Or, does the tail wag the dog?

    Answer: both

    ——–

    V.I.P. Room
    ‘Big Money,’ by Kenneth P. Vogel

    By JAMES KWAKJULY 3, 2014

    “Throw a fit. You’ll get whatever you want.” That’s the advice given to major donors by a senior “fixer” working the high-end hotels reserved for guests of the Obama Victory Fund at the 2012 Democratic convention. The campaign’s prized financial supporters got everything from “S.E.I.U. for Obama” thundersticks to “exclusive” campaign briefings to V.I.P. party-suite passes. Those who complained about lack of access could always “write a check to get a higher package,” according to a manual for volunteers.

    This is the fine art of donor maintenance — a crucial skill for anyone aspiring to higher office in America, according to the Politico journalist Kenneth P. Vogel, the author of “Big Money: 2.5 Billion Dollars, One Suspicious Vehicle, and a Pimp — On the Trail of the Ultra-Rich Hijacking American Politics.” Citizens United and successor decisions made it legal for individuals (and corporations) to contribute unlimited amounts of money to super PACs, some devoted to one candidate. The results have included record amounts of money in politics and the extraordinary influence of a handful of organizations that are technically independent of the traditional parties. That means the real kingmakers are the billionaires and multimillionaires who write the biggest checks. (The “2.5 billion dollars” is the amount spent in the 2012 election cycle by “super PACs and other independent outfits,” which for the first time outspent the two major political parties.)

    At a high level, this is a story we’ve heard before. Who can forget the 2012 Republican primaries, when one candidate after another rode a friendly mogul’s money — Rick Santorum had Foster Friess, Newt Gingrich had Sheldon and Miriam Adelson — into the spotlight, only to be carpet-bombed by Mitt Romney’s super PAC? What Vogel gives us is a detailed look at this new political landscape, where voracious money-sucking beasts mingle with megadonors hungry for behind-the-scenes access. The book opens in a “stunning modernist mansion” outside Seattle, where President Obama deplores the onslaught of money in politics to donors who paid $17,900 each to attend. It continues with Vogel inviting himself to a succession of luxury hotels where the ­ultra-rich rub shoulders with the ultra-powerful. In the course of doing his job, he was thrown out of the Renaissance Esmeralda in Indian Wells, Calif.,the Mandarin Oriental in Washington (twice),a “hip nouveau Southern restaurant” in Charlotte, N.C., and an “opulent mansion” outside Charlotte,to name a few. (The book lingers over various attempts by the political money brokers to protect their secrets by intimidating journalists. The “pimp” in the subtitle is a private security guard who tossed Vogel out of a fund-raiser and who Vogel says was previously arrested for running a prostitution ring.)

    What do we learn from the semisecret rendezvous of the rich and the powerful? For one thing, many of the donors come off as star-struck political dilettantes, easily seduced by the promise of face time. “They’re susceptible,” one donor said of fellow participants in Democracy Alliance, a group of progressive millionaires. “They want to be in the room. They want to feel important.” Hence the need for high-touch donor-maintenance (read: coddling) programs, with exclusive events like a three-day weekend at Utah’s Deer Valley resort, orchestrated by the Romney campaign: “a faux political war room for very rich activists,” in Vogel’s words. For the more sophisticated money-extraction operations, the rich donors begin to seem like so many easy marks. You almost begin to feel sympathy for Foster Friess, who spent $2.1 million keeping Rick Santorum’s hopeless candidacy alive: “I’m so excited about becoming this instant celebrity with all you guys calling me,” he said to Vogel. “I mean, gosh, CNN, New York Times, Reuters, The Associated Press, I can’t believe it.”

    Advertisement

    Continue reading the main story
    Advertisement

    Continue reading the main story
    Advertisement

    Continue reading the main story
    It does make you wonder. Are the ultra-rich “hijacking American politics”? Or are they simply being milked by clever campaign operatives and consultants? Both, Vogel would argue. Yes, the operatives-turned-entrepreneurs are moving into somewhat fancier houses in the Virginia suburbs. But at the same time, there has been a fundamental shift in the balance of power, from the parties to the semisecret networks of super PACs and 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations — which don’t have to disclose their donors — that are funded by the rich.

    In today’s environment, candidates spend an increasing amount of time and energy courting the elite donor class, hinting strongly that they should give to their affiliated-yet-uncoordinated super PACs. More important, key decisions are now being made by shadow political organizations such as Americans for Prosperity (Koch brothers) and American Crossroads (Karl Rove, who called Vogel a “moron” while “jabbing a pudgy index finger within an inch of my chest”) on the right and Priorities USA Action (formerly Obama’s super PAC) on the left. One strand of “Big Money” traces the early development of these new political groups, which were pioneered in the 2008 election cycle by the Koch brothers’ Wellspring Committee and by Freedom’s Watch, a group manned by Rove’s associates. Vogel’s fear is that these undemocratic groups and their multimillionaire funders can largely dictate the future of American politics. For evidence, he cites the success of far-right groups in shutting down the federal government in October 2013 and the role of Priorities USA and allied organizations in reserving the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination for Hillary Clinton.

    Still, as Vogel acknowledges, American politics have always marched to the beat of money, at least since the 1896 election of William McKinley. Two decades ago, the political scientist Thomas Ferguson in “Golden Rule” described politics as a game played by moneyed interest groups that see candidates as economic investments. Did Citizens United and the super PACs mark a fundamental turning point in this history? If we look at the past few years, it’s not yet clear. Yes, Friess interrupted Mitt Romney’s march to the nomination, but in the end the Republican Establishment got its candidate. Vogel highlights the Obama campaign’s eventual decision to mobilize its big donors behind its super PAC, but in dollar terms it earned its money the old-fashioned way: While Priorities USA Action spent $75 million, the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party spent more than $985 million on the presidential race (over half of which was raised through email, social media and other digital channels). Even on the Republican side, which had the stronger super PACs (and still lost), candidate and party spending outweighed independent spending almost two to one. (And there are still exceptions to the money rule: Eric Cantor’s recent loss to David Brat is a stunning case in point.)

    Whether we are witnessing a tectonic shift or a gradual evolution, “Big Money” amply and colorfully makes the case that our elected leaders are increasingly dependent on a small number of seven-digit checks written by a few dozen members of the 0.01 percent, and therefore politics are becoming a type of thoroughbred horse racing. The ultimate problem, which Vogel refers to but does not focus on, is actual policies that cater to the preferences and interests of the horse owners. A growing (though not uncontested) body of research by political scientists provides empirical evidence that policy outcomes — the decisions politicians make when they are in power — are shaped much more by the preferences of the rich than those of the poor. In an age when politicians are forced to spend more and more of their time proving their loyalty to their ultra-rich financiers, matters can only get worse. It’s not the big donors who should be throwing a fit, but all Americans.

    BIG MONEY
    2.5 Billion Dollars, One Suspicious Vehicle, and a Pimp — On the Trail of the Ultra-Rich Hijacking American Politics
    By Kenneth P. Vogel
    304 pp. PublicAffairs. $27.99.

  98. lorac
    May 15, 2015 at 6:02 am
    ——-
    OMG–we know why Obama supported this.

    He is a sociopathic whore.

    What I want to know is why did Cruz support it?

    Is there something–anything–we are missing??

  99. wbboei
    May 15, 2015 at 10:32 am
    lorac
    May 15, 2015 at 6:02 am
    ——-
    OMG–we know why Obama supported this.

    He is a sociopathic whore.

    What I want to know is why did Cruz support it?

    Is there something–anything–we are missing??

    ———-
    Maybe that Cruz isn’t the leader you hope he is? How much experience does he have to become President?
    Just questions I would be asking myself if I supported him, which I don’t.

  100. Cruz really disappointed people with his vote for TPP..All I could find was that he supports “free trade”…not good enough Ted.

  101. Sy Hersh Does it Again, This Time Nailing Obama on Osama

    By Larry Johnson on May 11, 2015 at 8:38 PM in Current Affairs

    He may be 78 years old, but he still packs a punch. Legendary Investigative Journalist, Seymour Hersh, is out with a story dismantling the fantasy of the search for and death of Osama Bin Laden that has been spun and fed by the Obama White House. You can read Sy’s piece here, at the London Review of Books.

    NBC News is out tonight with independent confirmation of one of Sy’s key claims–we found out about Bin Laden from a Pakistani Intelligence Officer who walked into the Embassy and laid claim to the $25 million reward.

    So much for the Zero Dark Thirty bullshit and the insistence that dogged female analysts tracking a courier, with the help of waterboarding, found out where Bin Laden was.

    There are two more key points from Sy’s piece:

    1. Senior Pakistani Generals were aware and cooperated with us in order to ensure no US aircraft was shot down and that no fire fight took place on the ground around the Bin Laden compound.

    2. Bin Laden’s body was not buried at sea.

    I never stop being amazed at the audacity of Sy’s critics. The said the same shit when he broke the My Lai Massacre story back in 1969, describing the murder of Vietnamese women, children and men by U.S. troops. He faced the similar condemnations when he reported that the US military was torturing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib. He may be 78 years old, by his mind is still sharp and his spirit young.

    Prominent among the doubter is Peter Bergen. Peter is a convenient tool of the Administration. He has lived off of the interview with Bin Laden and not done any original work since. He regurgitates what he is fed. And he is pissed at Sy, who just blew major holes in Bergen’s bullshit documentary on the death of Bin Laden. Poor, pitiful Peter.

    I also found great amusement watching former acting CIA Director Mikey Morrell whine about the lies and untruths. Good Christ. Hearing Morrell kvetch about supposed lies from a genuine journalist is akin to listening to a Baboon’s swollen, red ass farting that Charlize Theron is ugly. That don’t play. This criticism from the man who headed up the CIA and admits that the analysts he was supposed to supervise got it wrong. What a despicable excuse of a man Morrell is. No honor, no integrity. At least in my book.

  102. Maybe that Cruz isn’t the leader you hope he is? How much experience does he have to become President?
    Just questions I would be asking myself if I supported him, which I don’t.
    ———-
    I am way ahead of you shadow.

    31 million dollars and no strings?

  103. gonzotx
    May 15, 2015 at 12:56 pm
    Cruz really disappointed people with his vote for TPP..All I could find was that he supports “free trade”…not good enough Ted.
    ——–
    Free trade is not fair trade.

  104. Shadowfax
    May 15, 2015 at 12:52 pm
    Telling myself…don’t play with the effin’ troll.
    ____________

    Same here. Doin’ a lot of scrolling lately.

  105. Your right wbb,
    There is no free trade when Nike pays children literally pennies a day to make soccer balls….I won’t buy anything Nike…you would think the “media would be all over this..not.

    And free,
    I too scroll past…whinners…

  106. Wbb,
    Larry is very visceral, isn’t he…I must say his anti-Israel rhetoric has caused me to visit his site almost nil…I also notice he is quick to ban any member who disagrees with him…at least that has been my experience.
    That’s what I love about Admin…very little ego, with massive insight.

  107. I have been contacted several times already for support. I will , off course, do everything to help her get elected, but my disdain for the democratic party has made it much less enjoyable. I sincerely hope that she makes a real effort to mend ties with Israel and keep her 2008 pledge of vowing to wipe out Iran should it threaten Israel’s security.
    As for any potential primary opponents, I think O’Malley, Saunders and a few others, will require her go further left in the primaries to avoid losing the fairly large constituents whose heroes of the day seem to be Warren, de Blasio,et al.

  108. cherry-picked from the Amtrak link gonzotx cited:

    …Over the years Bostian made dozens of posts on industry website Trainorders.com that were linked to him by the New York Times. The forum confirmed he had made them.
    In 2009 he commented on a debate about whether a train engineer should stop for a new crew once he reached his 10 hour working limit. Bostian bristled at the idea and said that the rules were there for a reason.

    He wrote: ‘Everyone wants an extension to hours of service to avoid inconvenience, but what will you say when the crew that’s been on duty for longer than 12 hours accidentally falls asleep and passes a stop signal and rear-ends a loaded hazmat train, killing dozens or hundreds of people?
    ‘A crew is probably not any less safe after 12 hours and one minute than they were a few moments ago, but you have to draw that line somewhere.’
    …… NTSB board member Robert Sumwalt said it was unclear whether Bostian had manually increased the speed – but insisted he was the only one who could have done it….

    ——————-
    It is fun seeing little greek break a sweat.

  109. gonzotx:

    I think it’s quaint if the tea party folk think that a candidate can be a serious presidential candidate without big dollar PAC money. I mean, I guess they could try Herman Cain again…

    I would be more concerned about any Republican candidate who is NOT able to line up some serious PAC coin. Lining up some major funding is good news for Cruz.

  110. gonzotx
    May 15, 2015 at 12:57 pm

    Just because people have serious questions about Hillary, doesn’t make them “trolls”
    ———————————————————–

    No, but the Alisky shit play is just insulting and the motives of the troll are to disrupt, not to further productive discourse. So, unless you believe we are disillusioned Hillary supporters who where thrown out of the Democratic Party, you should question the motives behind some of the negativity that is being dropped on us regularly.

  111. My feelings, as well Jbstone, with regard to the Dim Party. No longer my party. When people show themselves to be untrustworthy, mean-spirited, disloyal to long-term supporters it’s disappointing, but revealing, and it teaches a valuable lesson.

  112. valleyboy
    May 15, 2015 at 8:41 pm

    On TPP, are there any jobs left to ship overseas?
    —————————————

    It is worst than that. The deal includes powers to bring foreign workers here. There is also a mad power grab in it that allows Obola to change it after it is passed.

  113. Lu4PUMA
    May 15, 2015 at 8:50 pm
    gonzotx
    May 15, 2015 at 12:57 pm

    Just because people have serious questions about Hillary, doesn’t make them “trolls”
    ———————————————————–

    No, but the Alisky shit play is just insulting and the motives of the troll are to disrupt, not to further productive discourse. So, unless you believe we are disillusioned Hillary supporters who where thrown out of the Democratic Party, you should question the motives behind some of the negativity that is being dropped on us regularly.
    _______________

    Spot-on, Lu.

  114. I have a lot of resentment towards the Democratic Party. But the country needs us to come together as the party for the populous again. One good thing that could come out of TPP is reunifying the party. And, you know, Hillary has quietly taken a position against it as Lizzy goes on the attack. Obola is finally a great uniter of the Democratic Party, as a Republican. Scumballs. I sure wish we could win this fight. Seems like the bad guys just keep winning.

  115. Dean Potter and all the crazies who think they can fly are delusional…eventually they will all crash,as he did, and die. Was it worth it? I don’t know, he was a young man that followed a dream, albeit a nightmare in the end.

  116. Free,
    Dropped on you? You have a choice. To certainly read or not. And I think Anyone That Does Not Seriously Question Hillary as she pivots to the far, far left, well, blinded by what they believe to have been Hillary 2008.
    At this point, I think she is blinded by the title, willing to say anything, support Obamas inept polices, actually expound on them..who is this person?
    One thing that drives me crazy is the comments that she is being mislead by her handlers, as if she is a child, a dog…what. These are her words, her actions, she is the one responsible for what comes out of her mouth.

Comments are closed.