Is this a time for a sane anyone to stand with Obama and Obama policies?
When #Hillary2016 began, the data fed from Obama parasites in the campaign to the campaign was that America (once again) was about to enter a golden age of golden calf Obama. At the time the Big Media stenographers published the White House narrative (again) without shame. They all declared the economy was about to soar based on tortured tales of 2014’s last quarter. Based upon that numbers delusion #Hillary2016 decided to go full left Kook in order to mobilize the non-transferable “Obama Coalition” on behalf of #Hillary2016.
There are so many reasons why the “Obama Coalition” situation comedy demographic is non-transferable to Hillary we won’t even begin to regurgitate the reasons today. What we will declare today is that at some point, at some time, Hillary Clinton will realize her folly in her kook left lurch and in allowing Obama operatives to hold central roles (such as pollster) in #Hillary2016.
At some point #Hillary2016 will wake up to the leftward lurch folly and admit that we are correct in our analysis of what Hillary must do and the tortured road ahead for #Hillary2016.
We stand by our analysis. We’ll admit that for a while we began to think that #3Hillary2016 would undertake a too late lurch to the center after the national convention in 2016. But looking at this June, we don’t think #Hillary2016 can afford to wait that long to make a course correction.
We’re not alone in understanding that Hillary Clinton and #Hillary2016 must move dramatically to the center and that means an all out attack against Barack Obama. Rancid Hillary Hater and kook about town Matt Bai, like a drunk on a rocky road, stumbles on the truth:
Hillary’s third-term conundrum [snip]
I’ve made this point about our recent political history before, but it’s worth repeating: In 1951, the states ratified the 22nd Amendment, which limits a president to serving two consecutive terms. In the 60-plus years since then, spanning 16 elections and six in which a party was seeking to hold the White House for more than eight years, only once has either party managed to score a third consecutive presidential term. That was in 1988, when Michael Dukakis outlasted a weak Democratic field and narrowly missed making history as our first android president.
The reason for this, most likely, is that candidates in Clinton’s position inevitably find themselves caught between powerful and conflicting currents that are all but impossible to navigate without a good bit of luck.
For one thing, after your party has governed for eight years, your ideological base is almost always dispirited and resentful of compromise. That’s the nature of governing, as Barack Obama now knows; the higher the expectations among purists coming in, the more betrayed those purists ultimately feel when the other party isn’t stamped out of public life forever and their own president makes concessions to political reality, instead.
At the same time, the broader electorate tends to tire of a president and his endless bickering with Congress after eight years (note Obama’s 45 percent approval rating), and voters hold out hope that a change of agendas will somehow bring with it a change in the political climate, too. The last thing the majority of voters want is a new president who’s more strident and less pragmatic than the last one.
Somehow then, as a party’s third-term candidate, you have to be both more ideologically pure and more flexible than the incumbent president, and you have to disown that president without appearing to be a rank hypocrite. [snip]
My guess is that the comity between Clinton and Obama won’t last through the year and that, by the time the primary campaign is over, their relationship will more closely resemble what it was during their standoff in 2008 than the way it seemed to evolve afterward.
Hillary Clinton and #Hillary2016 will have to become a “time for a change” candidate and campaign or die.
“Time for a change” and a run to the center better come soon. Obama and his occupation of the White House are under siege and in collapse. Let’s take a look at Obama in this twilight June.
Remember when Obama promised his hordes of Hopium eaters he would transform the world with HOPE and CHANGE Washington, D.C.? No longer today it’s Hitler meet Bunker. Obama on Hope and Change: You have failed me for the last time, or something. Just before he drank the poison Hitler blamed the German People for failing him. Barack Obama 2015 blames the “Yes We Can” crowd because he couldn’t:
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — President Obama wrapped up a day he began with an angry and frustrated reaction to the mass killings in Charleston, S.C., by acknowledging that he has been unable to change the culture of polarization and gridlock in Washington. [snip]
“When I ran in 2008, I in fact did not say I would fix it. I said we could fix it,” Obama told an audience of about 250 at a fundraising event here at the stately hillside home of film mogul Tyler Perry. “I didn’t say, ‘Yes, I can.’ I said, ‘Yes, we can.'”
Obama is throwing his own supporters under the bus. And he is doing so in Beverly Hills? Why not Detroit? Baltimore?
Obama can’t blame his HOPE and CHANGE hordes hyped on Hopium. The Hopium Guzzlers did everything but steal for Obama. We stand corrected:
D.C. Officials Stole $110K From Children’s Program to Fund Obama Inaugural Ball
Neil S. Rodgers, a former D.C. government official, was sentenced Tuesday for his role in the misappropriation of $110,000 earmarked for D.C.’s Children at Risk and Drug Prevention Fund to cover a deficit for the 51st State Inaugural Ball for President Obama’s inauguration in 2009.
We won’t dwell on the boob that is Barack Obama or the foolishness of #Hillary2016 lurch to the Hopium kooks. #Hillary2016 has bigger worries as the protect Obama strategy hits the reality brick wall. Consider the bricks in the wall. Some of these bricks most people don’t know about. But these June bricks fall directly on Obama’s thick skull and therefore on Hillary’s:
Remember Barack Obama’s economic failures in 2009? Obama’s economic policies just got hit by a judicial truck and Big Media ignores it:
If former long-time AIG CEO Hank Greenberg prevails in his case against the federal government over the legality of the financial-crisis bailout of insurer American International Group (AIG), he and his fellow shareholders might not be alone in recouping some of the winnings. [snip]
He contends that the government’s 2008 AIG bailout represents an illegal “taking” of shareholder property because under the terms of the deal, the government financing diluted or reduced in value of existing investors in the stock, and ignored less onerous private sector alternatives. Greenberg was ousted in 2005 over unrelated regulatory issues, and was once company’s largest shareholder.
In other words, if Greenberg can prove the government illegally diluted his stake in AIG, why can’t shareholders of Fannie and Freddie make the same case? [snip]
Greenberg has argued diluting shareholders was an arbitrary and illegal act by the government that wasn’t imposed on other recipients of the government 2008 bailout package, and ignored possible private-sector alternatives.
Testimony during the trial seemed to buttress this argument. Wheeler, meanwhile, has made several rulings in Greenberg’s favor and the case has withstood numerous attempts by the government to have it dismissed.
Well, Judge Wheeler has made a ruling. Judge Wheeler agreed with Hank Greenberg. No damages were given to Greenberg but Greenberg has appealed in order to be recompensed. That battle will continue to roil the markets and pummel Obama’s economic policies.
Obama’s economic policies are in freefall. The economic news world wide is dire. Greece is still a heavy anchor trying to resist austerity policies by making responsible countries like Germany pay for Greek profligacy. Then there are Obama’s delusions about China as Bloomberg reports:
The China Bubble Is Going to Burst
It’s no longer a question of whether China’s stock-market rally is a bubble, but when the bubble will burst.
That’s the refrain from a growing number of analysts as valuations climb to levels that by some measures already exceed the peak of China’s last equity mania in 2007.
A market crash may come within six months, Bocom International Holdings Co. said Tuesday, citing an analysis of global bubbles over 800 years that shows the speed of gains in China mirroring past market peaks. [snip]
“We are probably going to be in a very volatile trading period before a crash eventually happens,” Hao Hong, the chief China strategist at Bocom International in Hong Kong, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “It is plain that China is in a bubble.”
China is in a bubble, Wall Street is in a bubble. Bubbles burst. Why would any presidential candidate align themselves with a bubble blowing administration whose economic record is failure?
In America Donald Trump’s choice for Treasury Secretary, Karl Icahn warns of the precarious Humpty Dumpty fall coming to Wall Street.
Speaking of Donald Trump, Joe Scarborough joins the list of those warning that Trump’s truth-telling soundbites hit home with many Americans and that Trump will be dangerous to the GOP field precisely because he speaks what many Americans think.
The usually wacky Ron Paul agrees that toxic bubbles are formed:
Despite record highs in the market, former Rep. Ron Paul says the Fed’s easy money policies have left stocks and bonds are on the verge of a massive collapse.
“I am utterly amazed at how the Federal Reserve can play havoc with the market,” Paul said on CNBC’s “Futures Now” referring to Thursday’s surge in stocks. The S&P 500 closed less than 1 percent off its all-time high. “I look at it as being very unstable.”
In Paul’s eyes, “the fallacy of economic planning” has created such a “horrendous bubble” in the bond market that it’s only a matter of time before the bottom falls out. And when it does, it will lead to “stock market chaos.”
Yeah, we know, it’s Ron Paul. But in this case Ron Paul is more in the center and less on the fringe.
Barack Obama’s failures multiply daily. No, he didn’t CHANGE Washington, Washington clobbered him:
House Democrats rebuke Obama, again
Four months ago, President Obama sent Congress a proposed “Authorization for the Use of Military Force” for the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — consistent with earlier demands by the House that the president seek just such an authorization. [snip]
Democrats were less permissive toward Obama, with 120 voting for withdrawal and 66 against. Those votes to force a pullout represent the second House Democratic rebuke of Obama in as many weeks, following Friday’s surprise rejection of trade legislation.
Obama May Face First Veto Override: Medical Device Tax
President Barack Obama has his work cut out for him if he’s going to avoid House Republicans nixing part of the Affordable Care Act with a veto override.
The 2.3 percent tax on medical devices enacted as part of that law passed Thursday in the House 280-140, giving Republicans hope they’ll have the votes for an override, which requires a two-thirds majority. That came with a dozen Republicans absent for the vote. Every Republican present and 46 Democrats voted to nuke the tax.
A nonbinding vote to repeal the medical device tax passed the Senate with a veto-proof majority backed by 34 members of the Democratic caucus as part of the 2013 budget resolution vote-a-rama in the Senate, but never got anywhere with then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., putting the clamps down on the chamber.
But that vote was on a revenue-neutral proposal, while the House-passed bill would simply add about $24 billion to the debt over a decade.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has made repealing the medical device tax a part of his agenda, so some version seems likely t0 get to Obama’s desk whenever McConnell can find floor time to squeeze it in.
The greatest failure of late authored by Barack Obama, King of Boobs and Kooks should give #Hillary2016 the most pause:
It may well be the worst cyber-breach the U.S. has ever experienced.
And yet, neither the government nor the public seems to be taking it all that seriously. It’s been getting considerably less play than the Snowden affair did, or the administration’s other massively public IT failure: the meltdown of the Obamacare exchanges. [snip]
The administration certainly doesn’t seem that concerned. Yesterday, the White House told Reuters that President Obama “continues to have confidence in Office of Personnel Management Director Katherine Archuleta.” [snip]
I’m tempted to suggest that the confidence our president expresses in people who preside over these cyber-disasters, and the remarkable string of said cyber-disasters that have occurred under his presidency, might actually be connected. So tempted that I actually am suggesting it. President Obama’s administration has been marked by titanic serial IT disasters, and no one seems to feel any particular urgency about preventing the next one.
China committed this crime because China knows Obama is an incompetent boob who tries to hide his failures. Under the guise of Obama’s incompetence and wishes to keep his incompetence hidden, China does as it will, safe and secure that Barack Obama only cares about himself, not the nation whose White House he occupies.
China has stolen all the information China needs to blackmail top American government officials.
How horrific is the Obama enabled China hack? This horrific:
Encryption “would not have helped” at OPM, says DHS official
Attackers had valid user credentials and run of network, bypassing security.
During testimony today in a grueling two-hour hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director Katherine Archuleta claimed that she had recognized huge problems with the agency’s computer security when she assumed her post 18 months ago. But when pressed on why systems had not been protected with encryption prior to the recent discovery of an intrusion that gave attackers access to sensitive data on millions of government employees and government contractors, she said, “It is not feasible to implement on networks that are too old.” She added that the agency is now working to encrypt data within its networks.
But even if the systems had been encrypted, it likely wouldn’t have mattered. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity Dr. Andy Ozment testified that encryption would “not have helped in this case” because the attackers had gained valid user credentials to the systems that they attacked—likely through social engineering. And because of the lack of multifactor authentication on these systems, the attackers would have been able to use those credentials at will to access systems from within and potentially even from outside the network.
House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told Archuleta and OPM Chief Information Officer Donna Seymour, “You failed utterly and totally.” He referred to OPM’s own inspector general reports and hammered Seymour in particular for the 11 major systems out of 47 that had not been properly certified as secure—which were not contractor systems but systems operated by OPM’s own IT department. “They were in your office, which is a horrible example to be setting,” Chaffetz told Seymour. In total, 65 percent of OPM’s data was stored on those uncertified systems.
Chaffetz pointed out in his opening statement that for the past eight years, according to OPM’s own Inspector General reports, “OPM’s data security posture was akin to leaving all your doors and windows unlocked and hoping nobody would walk in and take the information.“
Before the end of June the Supreme Court will rule on illegal ObamaCare subsidies and that ruling will lead to the destruction of ObamaCare. ObamaTrade is still on the ropes with the GOP leadership doing all it can to rescue Obama. By the end of June the Obama gift of permission for Iran to violate international treaties against nuclear proliferation will either fail and be a new low for Obama or will succeed which will be a new low for America and the world.
Barack Obama has “failed utterly and totally”. Why would anyone attach themselves to that?