#Hillary2016 Agonistes – Barack Obama’s June Travails As China, Greenberg And Trump Rise

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.

Humiliation and rejection of Obama is not yet over:

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?

Share

129 thoughts on “#Hillary2016 Agonistes – Barack Obama’s June Travails As China, Greenberg And Trump Rise

  1. Regarding the South Carolina shooting: We wish politicians would keep their mouths shut. The left is despicable on this shooting. The right is cloying when sympathy is expressed. We just wish all politicians would shut up about this. Big Media pundits should stop bloviating about this too.

    The only people that should talk right now, the only people that have spoken with eloquence of a divine nature should have the first and last word:

    The Obama kook left has never had anything nice to say about Christian churches Christians until now when they want to exploit Christians and Christian churches for their political agenda.

    Those eloquent people who forgave Storm Roof have taught the left a lesson about Christian love.

  2. Admin
    Bingo on the shit Storm. A madman did a terrible thing. Less than 12 hours after the incident it was a circus. Let the people process and grieve.

  3. Ron Paul has been talking about a coming crash for awhile. His main concern is that our dollar is not backed by gold, or anything secure…and the gov. just keeps printing more paper money that has become more and more unstable.

  4. Admin,

    You forgot to mention our housing market. It is still inflating some on foreign and Chinese money that is trying to escape the housing market collapse there. But the sub-prime lending has restarted and they now have these rental deals ponzied up, too.

    The next collapse has been projected for 2017 with a bottom lower than the last.

    The only place you will find talking bad about the housing market is at thehousingbubble.com the rest is propaganda 24/7 to pump it up.

  5. I saw this a couple of years ago, and this is part of the problem for China…

    ——

    China’s real estate bubble

    China’s economy has become the second largest in the world, but its rapid growth may have created the largest housing bubble in history

    [snip]

    a “ghost city” of new towers with no residents, desolate condos and vacant subdivisions uninhabited for miles, and miles, and miles, and miles of empty apartments.

    Lesley Stahl: Why are they empty? I’ve heard that they have actually been sold.

    Gillem Tulloch: They’ve all been sold. They’ve all been sold.

    Lesley Stahl: They’ve all been sold? They’re owned.

    Gillem Tulloch: Absolutely.

    Owned by people in China’s emerging middle class, who now have enough money to invest but few ways to do it. They’re not allowed to invest abroad, banks offer paltry returns, and the stock market is a rollercoaster. But 16 years ago, the government changed its policy and allowed people to buy their own homes and the flood gates opened.

    Gillem Tulloch: So what they do is they invest in property because property prices have always gone up by more than inflation.

    Lesley Stahl: And they believe it will always go up?

    Gillem Tulloch: Yeah, just like they believed in the U.S.

    Actually, property values have doubled and tripled and more — so people in the middle class have sunk every last penny into buying five, even 10 apartments, fueling a building bonanza unprecedented in human history. No nation has ever built so much so fast.

    [snip]

    Lesley Stahl: Giant cities being built with people not coming to live here.

    Gillem Tulloch: Yes. I think they’re building somewhere between 12 and 24 new cities every single year.

    Unlike our market driven economy, in China it’s the government that has spent some $2 trillion to get these cities built – as a way of keeping the economy growing. The assumption is “if you build it, they’ll come.” But no one’s coming.

    Lesley Stahl: Wow. This is really completely, totally empty and it goes up –

    Gillem took us to this shopping mall that’s been standing vacant for three years.

    Lesley Stahl: Can I find this all over China?

    Gillem Tulloch: Yes, you can. They’ve simply built too much infrastructure too quickly.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-real-estate-bubble-lesley-stahl-60-minutes/

  6. Yes, Ofucktard is now blaming his supporters for his failure. What else would you expect? That is his rational behind screwing them with the TPP.

  7. Wbb,

    I know Lincoln was a dictator, but if he hadn’t done what he did, I don’t think there would be a USA. Roosevelt, although he didn’t go to the extent of Lincoln, he did obviously abuse his powers .
    Obama abuses his powers, these executive actions, drives me crazy, can this really be the intent of our founding fathers?
    We always say what a failure obama has been, I think he has succeeded in everything he has sent out to do, destruction of this County, Constitution, our very way of life…

  8. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/labor-amps-up-pressure-on-key-senators-ahead-of-trade-vote-119242.html?hp=t4_r

    Union officials and progressive Democrats said Friday they’re gearing up for the next front in the congressional trade wars ahead of next week’s critical votes in the Senate.

    Immediately after the House passed fast-track trade legislation Thursday, labor leaders and leading progressive opponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership began waging a pressure campaign to sway key “swing” senators who could decide whether the latest gambit by GOP leaders to facilitate the 12-nation trade pact will succeed or be stymied again in Congress.

    Officials with the Coalition to Stop Fast Track, comprised of unions and other progressive groups that oppose the trade legislation, said labor leaders plan to call senators over the weekend, as well as hold events and make phone calls to intensify opposition as the debate moves to the Senate.

    It’s also expected to be the main topic of conversation when union activists huddle at AFL-CIO headquarters Monday morning for a strategy session.

    “This (House) vote won’t stop us,” Communications Workers of America President Chris Shelton said. “CWA members, union members and activists from nearly every progressive group are fighting back against this sell-out by some members of Congress. We expect our representatives to listen to their constituents, and we’re taking that message to the Senate.”

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) conceived an elaborate plan to resurrect the trade legislation after House Democrats thwarted it a week ago. It appears to have a decent chance of success. But there are still real hurdles, and the trade debate has already encountered many unexpected twists, giving opponents hope.

    The core GOP strategy was to delink so-called Trade Promotion Authority — which would give President Barack Obama power to complete the Pacific Rim trade deal without having it be amended by Congress — from a companion measure called Trade Adjustment Assistance to help workers who lose their jobs to free trade. The decision to separate them was a direct response to the move by House Democrats to vote down the aid program last week, in order to tank the entire trade agenda.

    The House passed TPA narrowly on Thursday, and a key vote on it is expected Tuesday in the Senate. But some pro-trade Democrats are wary of the separation strategy, seeking a guarantee from the Republican leaders that they will subsequently pass TAA. Boehner and McConnell have said they will, but several Democrats aren’t satisfied yet.

    Obama and pro-trade Senate Democrats, led by Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), need to convince 5 to 6 Democrats to back the deal.

    That’s already a hard sell, and labor is aiming to make an even tougher one.

    Over the past several months, unions have threatened to support primary opponents and withhold campaign money from lawmakers who back the trade legislation. Now labor is turning its attention to the Senate.

    Many of the Democrats who voted for the trade bill when it first passed the Senate did so because workers aid was part of the package. They were also given assurances that a vote would be scheduled to reauthroize the Export-Import Bank, which expires at the end of the month.

  9. http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2015/06/down_goes_the_danish_left_111275.html

    An election campaign largely focused on immigration helped take down the Danish left, leaving Denmark’s leading anti-immigration party as a big winner. A block of right-wing parties is now expected to form a new government. The campaign should serve as a warning to parties in other European countries where anti-immigration movements are thriving.

    Never let your opponent pick the battleground on which to fight. If he picks a battleground, let him fight there by himself.” So spoke Franklin D. Roosevelt, four-time U.S. president and political animal extraordinaire. This wise lesson went unheeded over the three weeks of the hard-fought Danish election campaign. The staunchly anti-immigration Danske Folkeparti (Danish People’s Party, or DPP) has for years been a kingmaker in Danish politics. The DPP routinely came in as the third or fourth party on the right and supported right-wing coalitions while never joining the government itself.

    Left-wing parties usually succeeded in making the economy, education, or the environment the centerpiece of election campaigns. However, this time the Social Democrats – the biggest party on the left, headed by now-former Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt – decided to help push immigration into the spotlight. This was a gift to the DPP.

    Thus Thorning-Schmidt committed the cardinal error; she fought on the battleground picked by the Danish People’s Party. Other parties joined in, with the expected results: Nearly all parties on the Danish right lost seats to the DPP, allowing it to score a record win. The DPP secured the second-largest allotment of seats in the Folketing, the Danish parliament.

    The election campaign followed a classic path. Whenever moderate right-wing parties proffered new, stricter anti-immigration measures to lure voters away from the DPP, the party simply moved to the right, thus leaving its competitors looking soft on immigration. The DPP not only picked off voters from its direct competitors on the right – its more extreme positions also enthused normally apathetic voters, who turned out and voted DPP.

    The election campaign should serve as a warning to moderate parties throughout Europe who are faced with the rise of anti-immigration movements. Only rarely do moderate parties succeed in wrestling the immigration issue away from more extremist competitors without turning extremist themselves. In the Netherlands – a country highly comparable to Denmark in its political makeup – the right-wing Liberal Party (VVD), does constant battle with Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party (PVV) over immigration. Thus far the VVD has succeeded in keeping the PVV at bay by making elections revolve around issues like the economy, crime, and security. In other words, the VVD has so far been able to pick the battleground, forcing the PVV to fight there and lose.

    In many other Western European nations (France, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Austria, Italy, Sweden, Norway, and most recently Germany), moderate parties are increasingly faced with popular anti-immigration parties.

    The challenge to the moderate parties is to mitigate immigration through smart policies, and continue to choose the battleground on which the election is fought, regardless of what the focus groups advise. That is the lesson of the Danish election campaign for the rest of Europe.

  10. I could not agree more with this post…

    I have been saying this for months…have tried to be diplomatic and gentle because I know so many of us have been waiting for Hillary…

    but, imho, so far her stragegy is not a winning strategy and she has sounded really shrill at times trying to articulate the usual talking points…I have been embarrassed for her…and have been thinking the same thing…how long can she carry on this charade…

    as far as Trump goes…he can also do damage to Hillary…if she persists in uttering some of these futile and foolish far left policies and seeming to be campaigning small and narrow then don’t be surprised if Trump starts clobbering her too and making her sound silly and short sighted…

    …the country does want a truth teller…Trump may be running as a republican but his presence can function as a Third Party in many ways…and for the people on both sides who are sick and tired of all the lies and corruption…Donald Trump will be heard and resonate…

    Hillary is smart…Bill is smart…they must be able to see the writing on the wall…

  11. gonzotx
    June 19, 2015 at 7:59 pm
    Wbb,

    I know Lincoln was a dictator, but if he hadn’t done what he did, I don’t think there would be a USA. Roosevelt,
    ———
    Well, that depends on the meaning of what he did.

    He punished free speech.

    He suspended habeus corpus.

    He failed to control his troops when the devastated the south.

    He waged total war against the civilian population which bred bitter emnity for 100 years.

    Those offenses violated the Constitution.

    Were they necessary and proper to save the union?

    His contribution was in other areas.

    One of them was his determination to hold the union together at all cost.

    Another was his firing of McClelland and his hiring of Grant.

    Another was his pursuit of the Anaconda Plan championed by Winfield Scott.

    Another was his willingness to take the political heat.

    Another was his poetic ability to feel and express the cost of war to a war weary population.

    Another was the emancipation proclamation.

    But he did not need to violate the Constitution to win the war.

  12. Let me clear up some confusion here. He never said yes I can. He said yes we can. He did his part. But we failed to do our part. And Obama is not responsible for what we failed to do.

    Here then is a cursory list of the things the big media beloved messiah is NOT responsible for through 2014::

    Obama Blames Arab Spring and Japan’s Earthquake on Struggling Economy and Job Situation, August 5th, 2011.
    Obama Blames Messy Democracy for His Failed Policies, August 3rd, 2011; remarks by the president at a DNC event.
    Obama Blames Congress for US Debt Mess; Obama news conference, June 29th, 2011.
    Obama Blames Republicans for Slow Pace on Immigration Reform, July 25th, 2011.
    Obama Blames Media for Lack of Compromise in Washington; remarks by Obama at a town hall meeting July 22nd, 2011.
    Obama Blames Technology for Struggling Economy; June 14th, 2011, NBC Today interview.
    Obama Blames Oil Spectators for High Oil Prices; April 19th, 2011, remarks by Obama at a town hall meeting.
    Obama Blames Reagan for America’s Out of Control Debt and Spending; remarks by President Obama April 13th, 2011, Federal News Service.
    Obama Blames Bush and Congress for Lack of Fiscal Discipline, April 13th, 2011; remarks by Obama, Federal News Service.
    Obama Blames Bush-Congress for Putting Off Tough Decisions, August 17th, 2010; remarks at a fundraiser for Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) 0%.
    Obama Blames Bush for Tax Cuts, Deficits; Obama town hall meeting on the economy in Racine, Wisconsin, June 30th, 2010.
    Obama Blames Bush for Deficits, June 8th, 2010; remarks by Obama at a second fundraising reception for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 0%.
    Obama Blames GOP for Events that Led to Gulf Oil Spill; remarks by President Obama June 3rd, 2010, Federal News Service.
    Obama Blames Republicans for America Not Being Able to Solve Problems; remarks by President Obama June 3rd, 2010, Federal News Service.
    Obama Blames Corporations for Everybody’s Problems, June 3rd, 2010, Federal News Service. He said, “If you’re a Wall Street Journal bank or an insurance company or oil company, you pretty much get to play by your own rules regardless of the consequences for everybody else.”
    Obama Blames Bush for Overall Standing of American Economy, April 19th, 2010, at a fundraising reception for Senator Boxer.
    Obama Blames Bush, Congress for Deficits, February 1, 2010, delivering remarks on the budget.
    Obama Blames Bush for Regulatory Policies; January 17th, 2010, remarks by the president at an event with attorney general Martha Coakley in Massachusetts.
    Obama Blames Bush for Overall Standing of Economy and American Standing, April 19th of 2010. Obama delivering remarks at a fundraising reception for Senator Boxer and the DNC.
    Obama Blames Bush and Congress for Deficits, February 1st, 2010, in remarks delivered on the budget.
    Obama Blames Bush for Regulatory Policies, January 17th, 2010, remarks by the president at an event with Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.
    Obama Blames Wall Street Fat Cats for Economic Disaster, December 13th, 2009, CBS News’ 60 Minutes.
    Obama Blames Bush for Overall Economy, September 27th, 2009, remarks by the president at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual dinner.
    Obama Blames Bush for Stifling Unions, September 7th, 2009; remarks by the president at the AFL-CIO Labor Day picnic.
    Obama Blames Bush for Prescription Drug Bill; remarks by the president, health insurance reform town hall, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, August 11th, 2009.
    Obama Blames Bush for Jobs, July 22nd, 2009; news conferences by the president.
    Obama Blames Bush for Failure to Recognize Europe’s Leading Role in the World, April 3rd, 2009; remarks by President Obama at a Strasbourg [France] town hall, and in those remarks he said this: “So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we’ve allowed our alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there’s something more that has crept into our relationship.” “In America there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world, instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive of you.” That’s Barack Obama, speaking in Europe at Strasbourg, blaming Bush for a failure to recognize Europe’s leading role in the world, April 3rd, 2009.
    Obama Blames Bush for Deficits, February 23rd, 2009; Obama delivering opening remarks at fiscal responsibility summit.
    Candidate Obama Blames Fox News for his Elitist Label, New York Times, October 2008.
    Candidate Obama Blames Fox News for Likely Loss in Kentucky Primary, May 2008.
    Candidate Obama Blames Washington for High Gas Prices, April 25th, 2008; remarks of Senator Barack Obama, press availability on energy plan, 25 April 2008.

  13. Amid that orgy of denials, there are a few things Obama does claim credit for such as:
    Obamacare which extends coverage to everyone, at lower fees and letting them keep their doctor (all proven lies)
    Closing Guantanamo (even though it is still open)
    Meeting with the Supreme Leader of Iran in the first year of his presidency (in his mind)
    Pressing the reset button with Russia
    Extending diplomatic recognition to Cuba.
    Violating the constitution because Congress will not act on immigration.
    Hosting every winning baseball, football and basketball team.
    Playing golf with Tiger Woods.
    Taking more vacations than any president before him.
    Those are his ostensible successes.

  14. Admin is right: in the dying days of his benighted presidency the walls are closing in on him and his ardent supporters. Things are moving with dramatic precision to denouements which no one devised but which everyone will recognize as inevitable after he is gone. If you examine the long list of things he refuses to take responsibility for, and the incoherent nature of his governance, it is impossible to avoid the conviction that Messiah Obama is a bad joke on the one hand, and an unmitigated disaster for the nation on the other.

  15. 20 June, Puteaux

    From Q.E.D. etc.

    We must be clear about one thing here: This and any following posts under the moniker “jeswezey” are and will not be written by Ed Swezey: For reasons he is not at liberty to explain, Ed can no longer participate directly on this or any other public forum related to Hillary Clinton or anyone close to her.

    Rather, these posts will be written by the group of Ed’s project and quality managers that he previously referred to as “Q.E.D. etc.” and they will be clearly signed in as such.

    For reasons that only admin can explain, however, our attempts to create a new moniker such as “QED etc” were rejected as an “Invalid username”. So, Ed gave us permission to use his old moniker/password and make some contributions of our own, stipulating each time that they do not come from him.

    The style of the following posts may be similar to his, because we all work in the same profession as Ed, and in fact work every day under his direction.

    The content will also be similar, because we are all (but one) American citizens living and working abroad, in the same offices as Ed, albeit with different backgrounds and life and political options. His all-out feminist option has a new twist to it, for example, because almost all of us are women and we work in a woman’s profession (translation), so that Ed’s pressing need for a woman president is not viewed the same way by us.
    +++++++++++

    Here are the first remarks from QED etc. concerning the last thread about Trump’s announcement. First we find:

    Tony Stark June 16, 2015 at 1:39 pm

    The good thing about Trump’s candidacy is that he’ll end up forcing all the other candidates, including Hillary, to deal with the issues head on or risk appearing shifty and evasive to the voters. In a way, he’s the Ross Perot of this generation of voters.

    Shadowfax June 16, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    That is my hope too Tony. I was for Ross Perot before I learned to trust the Big Dawg.

    Shadowfax June 16, 2015 at 5:13 pm

    Trump’s speech isn’t off the cuff. These are things he has been saying, very outspokenly for at least 3 years…. My perfect partnership would be Hillary/Trump, wouldn’t that be a hoot.

    Sadly, HRC/Trump is not to be (both from same state); but there may be a Trump/HRC face-off: This will depend on Trump’s staying power and strategy.

    For one thing, we didn’t hear anywhere in the “speech” that Trump was running for the GOP nod. He just said he was running. So, is he already running as an independent?

    If he’s running for the GOP nomination, at what point will he give up? And what will he do then? Run as this generation’s Ross Perot, as Tony Stark suggests? Or simply opt out?

    Because, underlying the whole incipient Trump affair is the fact – we’re sure he’s aware of it – that the GOP establishment does not think he is a Republican, distrusts him, and will never let him get their little nomination. If he gets close, they’ll pull some kind of stunt like the Dems did to eliminate HRC’s chances in 2008. Why are they so opposed to him? Consider for example –

    He’s not loyal to the party; NYC is teeming with Democrats and he’s rubbed elbows with far too many of them; he’s even friends with the Clintons, for Christ’s sake; and he’s made it super-rich on his own but, like Romney, shows no sign of loyalty to the GOP economic religion….

    While the GOP (and some on the Dem side) is already using HRC’s wealth against her just like the Dems did to Romney??

    Where and how can Trump fit into the GOP paradigm? No way!

    But of course, the GOP has no paradigm, no model, no ideals or coherent ideology but only fond memories of their beloved Reagan, who showed everybody that the best way to get over Vietnam was to forget about it, lessons and all; which brought us Bush 43 and his crusades in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    If 2016 becomes a three-way race, the result will be the same as with any single GOP challenger: HRC wins anyway.

    Because nobody will care who the Republican nominee is, and DJT on his own cannot beat HRC. The aristocracy of the “stupid” class will vote for the Republican. Disaffected Republicans will stay home or vote HRC. The Dems will vote HRC. Only the Independents will divide evenly between Trump and HRC, and that will not give Trump enough to win.

    We say the Independents will divide evenly, even though our own choice, as independents all, goes unanimously to HRC. This is because, listening to DJT and HRC alone without all the dissonant voices of the right and left, we find parallels between the two. They both “speak English” and know how to strike a deal (or “triangulate” in the case of WJC), and both learned these things from their fathers.

    But HRC also learned from her mother – one reason she eventually bolted the Republican Party altogether and for good, and also one reason she has spent her entire career fighting for others (“fight like a girl”) and, incidentally, making quite a bit of money at it.

    That is what a lawyer does – fight for others. That is also what a good (i.e. not corrupt) politician does in a representative democracy – fight for others. A good Representative or Senator will fight for all his constituents, not just his contributors, not just for the lobbyists that reach him, and not just for those that voted for him.

    The President’s situation is even “worse”, because he is not a representative. He is a decision-maker, and his decisions affect everyone – not just those who voted for him, but also those who voted for the other guy, and those who didn’t or couldn’t vote, such as minors. You need someone who fights with others’ interests at heart.

    You see where we’re going here:

    A businessman (or woman) does not fight for others. He fights for himself and his own profit – which may mean, in the case of a shareholder corporation, making money for his shareholders. But that’s where the fine intentions stop. The shareholders are not the general public. They are not the company’s employees either, nor the customers.

    The purpose of a business is not to create jobs, as Ed Swezey tried to demonstrate at length here at HillaryIs44 early this year; nor is it to create products or services that please everybody. It is sufficient that the businessman’s products please enough customers and bring in enough to pay expenses plus pay off the businessman and any shareholders with profits.

    Optimizing these profits may mean changing the product, focusing on another clientele, or just firing staff. Optimizing profits may also mean upside items like hiring new staff, perhaps increasing production and lowering prices. But whatever the strategy and outcome, all the decisions are made in a very small universe and for the benefit of that universe alone, which, in the case of DJT, consists of Donald Trump and his immediate family (DJT doesn’t even have shareholders to satisfy).

    We are not trying to impugn DJT’s intentions. Perhaps he believes himself when he says he wants to “repeal and replace Obamacare”? Excuse us, but DJT dispenses with this throbbing issue in just four words in his speech, which sounds like hollow political pandering from a healthy rich dude who prides himself on winning tough real estate deals and doesn’t need any medical insurance or reduction of drug prices anyway. Does he have any healthcare plans that would rival HRC’s?

    He wants to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? Very nice. How? By showing how the other Republicans want to destroy these things? What if some other Republican says he wants to save these things too? What will Trump do then? Come up with something specific?

    He wants to strengthen the strongest military in the world and protect our vets. Very nice too. Then, pray tell, why do the military and the vets support HRC so strongly? Isn’t it because she has actual five years’ experience on the Armed Services Committee, Donald, and four years’ experience as Secy of State working hand-in-hand with the Defense Dept with two wars on its hands and tens of thousands of new vets?

    Against that, DJT is going to have to wrangle with other Republicans who are also going to say they want to strengthen the military and protect vets. And then he’s going to have to show how he can do it better than HRC, or that it’s a higher priority for him than it is for HRC. Or something….

    Despite this evidence pointing toward the superiority of HRC as a good-lawyer-turned-good-politician as opposed to the usual GOP practice of hiring self-interested businessmen for public office, we think Independents will divide evenly between HRC and DJT because of DJT’s forthright Brooklyn style – as admin says, “he speaks English”. There will be a lot of things like:

    Tony Stark June 17, 2015 at 1:07 am
    Trump is the only worthy opponent to Hillary on the GOP side.

    Shadowfax June 16, 2015 at 6:04 pm

    I would much rather hear someone that keeps it real then to hear a trainload of pc bullshitters selling the public lies and false hope.

    freespirit June 17, 2015 at 9:12 am

    I feel the same. I am so sick and tired of the far left’s political correctness on steroids. Trump actually sounded like an American – not a “citizen of the world”.

    Shadowfax June 17, 2015 at 11:37 am

    If Hillary were not running… I would be supporting Trump 100%….

    I want Trump in Hillary’s cabinet, Chief Negotiator.

    [Our choice would be Treasury or Commerce Secy, pretty much the same as the way she used Geithner on her trips to China.]

    So, HRC will have her hands full showing Americans that a “citizen of the world” is not necessarily a bullshitter; and that a lifetime of fighting for others is more of a qualification for the presidency than a lifetime of building up a fortune for your family out of a business of building garish casinos and office buildings.

    This “prejudice” favoring DJT is indeed due largely to his personal history and his “English”. DJT has an Ivy League education (Wharton) but he still has a Brooklyn accent and is a loudmouth New Yorker shining with success.

    It’s hard for Americans to call someone like that a “bullshitter”. As a result, few people will do so (witness Tony Stark’s, Shadowfax’s and freespirit’s testimonies just above).

    But when you look at the substance of his speech – what he wants to do for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the military & vets, Obamacare… we are entitled to entertain the idea that DJT is offering the same kind of bullshit as the other GOP conmen, just in a snazzier down home style.

    So, if DJT faces HRC in the general election, it will be up to the independents to look a little more closely at the candidates’ resumes and proposals, and go for HRC by the I/E path.

    So anyway, if DJT drops out before Nov 2016, HRC wins. If he stays in, there’s a three-way race and HRC still wins. So, as we said earlier this year, “Barring assassination, HRC will be the next President.”

    The only question remaining for us is: Who will the VP be? (We think Ed has the answer already.)

  16. 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.
    ————-
    Yes, there will come a tipping point–when it becomes obvious to all concerned that if she hopes to win she must separate herself from Obama. But the timing of that Road to Damacus moment is critical. If she waits until Obama sinks even further in the polls, and then tries to separate herself that will not work. The left will accuse her of failing to save a drowning man and the republicans will call her cynical, and opportunistic. I cannot tell you when that tipping point will arrive. Arguably, that ship has already sailed. On the other hand, I could be entirely wrong because whatever the country thinks of her at that point, her party has a lock on 240 electoral votes, and all they need is 271. But if she wins the presidency for that reason alone, it may prove to be a phryic victory when it comes to governing the nations given the challenges it faces. The next president will need to have restore some level of trust in government and no heir to the Obama bloodline can achieve that objective, if it is achievable at all. If Talleyrand was right that treason is a matter of dates, so is campaign strategy.

  17. Where and how can Trump fit into the GOP paradigm?

    The GOP has no paradigm, no model, no ideals or coherent ideology but only fond memories of their beloved Reagan, who showed everybody that the best way to get over Vietnam was to forget about it, lessons and all; which brought us Bush 43 and his crusades in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    ——
    What is important is not for Trump to fit into a non existent GOP paradigm.

    What is important is not that Trump be acceptable to big media.

    What is critical is that he connect with the base, and convince them he can deliver.

    Challenging the establishment of your own party is never easy.

    Teddy Roosevelt did it, and Perot tried.

    Trump tried before and then just gave up.

    If he can go the distance, he can redefine the debate in Washington.

    And he can play the role of a spoiler for those candidates who are too clever by the halves.

    If he can do that he will have rendered an important contribution to the nation.

    Any reform of our system must begin in the Republican Party which as wandered so far away from its founding principles.

  18. jeswezey
    June 20, 2015 at 10:41 am
    ————
    This sounds to me like what I believed seven years ago about what voters will and will not do. It assumes an intelligent voter. 2008 and 2012 disabused me of any such illusion. This election will not be controlled by strategy. It will be controlled and won by tactics. That is a sad commentary, but it begins and ends with a public that has learned nothing and forgotten nothing, and wants more and more and more from government paid for with opm—a Brandeis colloquialism meaning other people’s money. This whole business with TPP/TPA is indicative of the problem. The republicans don’t care about the working class, whereas the democrats care only about those who are union because they are part of their base. So what we end up with is the paradigm of 2008 all over again: privatize the profits and socialize the losses. The democrats will let big business have its way and reap huge profits, and make the taxpayers pay the cost of the displaced union workers. It is another chapter in the Tragedy of the Commons, which is the game that ruins nations. If it is in the national interest to do this trade deal let the multinational corporations who profit from this arrangement pay the cost of the relocation and retraining of their employees. Not the taxpayer.

  19. jeswezey

    [snip]

    We must be clear about one thing here: This and any following posts under the moniker “jeswezey” are and will not be written by Ed Swezey…

    [snip]

    Rather, these posts will be written by the group of Ed’s project and quality managers that he previously referred to as “Q.E.D. etc.” and they will be clearly signed in as such…

    Welcome back jeswezey

    I don’t know if you are playing head-games with me/us or if you have multiple personalities…but I can’t respond as one individual to another when:

    1. You are supposedly not writing these posts any longer.

    2. Your team, who are mainly women are the only ones writing these posts from now on.

    Sorry, but I only intend to reply to one person that I think I have somewhat of a feel for who they are, not a group of people that I never know who I am speaking too.

    If your ‘team’ wants to blog here, they should do so with their own moniker/s, and the person we knew as ‘jeswezey’ can just watch in silence, if he chooses to do so.

  20. This article by Oren confirms much of what we have written about Obama and Israel. Obama’s daddy issues are addressed and demonstrated to be as pathetic as we have described. Obama’s embrace of Islam is part twisted personality, religious affection, and anti-America treachery.

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/19/barack-obama-muslim-world-outreach-consequences-israel-ambassador-michael-oren/

    How Obama Opened His Heart to the ‘Muslim World’

    And got it stomped on. Israel’s former ambassador to the United States on the president’s naiveté as peacemaker, blinders to terrorism, and alienation of allies.

    Days after jihadi gunmen slaughtered 11 staffers of the Charlie Hebdo magazine and a policeman on January 7, hundreds of thousands of French people marched in solidarity against Islamic radicalism. Forty-four world leaders joined them, but not President Barack Obama. Neither did his attorney general at the time, Eric Holder, or Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, both of whom were in Paris that day. Other terrorists went on to murder four French Jews in a kosher market that they deliberately targeted. Yet Obama described the killers as “vicious zealots who … randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli.”

    Pressed about the absence of a high-ranking American official at the Paris march, the White House responded by convening a long-delayed convention on “countering violent extremism.” And when reminded that one of the gunmen boasted that he intended to kill Jews, presidential Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained that the victims died “not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be.”

    Obama’s boycotting of the memorial in Paris, like his refusal to acknowledge the identity of the perpetrators, the victims, or even the location of the market massacre, provides a broad window into his thinking on Islam and the Middle East. Simply put: The president could not participate in a protest against Muslim radicals whose motivations he sees as a distortion, rather than a radical interpretation, of Islam. And if there are no terrorists spurred by Islam, there can be no purposely selected Jewish shop or intended Jewish victims, only a deli and randomly present folks.

    Understanding Obama’s worldview was crucial to my job as Israel’s ambassador to the United States. Right after entering office in June 2009, I devoted months to studying the new president, poring over his speeches, interviews, press releases, and memoirs, and meeting with many of his friends and supporters. The purpose of this self-taught course — Obama 101, I called it — was to get to the point where the president could no longer surprise me. And over the next four years I rarely was, especially on Muslim and Middle Eastern issues.

    “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” Obama declared in his first inaugural address. The underlying assumption was that America’s previous relations with Muslims were characterized by dissention and contempt. More significant, though, was the president’s use of the term “Muslim world,” a rough translation of the Arabic ummah. A concept developed by classical Islam, ummah refers to a community of believers that transcends borders, cultures, and nationalities. Obama not only believed that such a community existed but that he could address and accommodate it.

    The novelty of this approach was surpassed only by Obama’s claim that he, personally, represented the bridge between this Muslim world and the West. Throughout the presidential campaign, he repeatedly referred to his Muslim family members, his earlier ties to Indonesia and the Muslim villages of Kenya, and his Arabic first and middle names. Surveys taken shortly after his election indicated that nearly a quarter of Americans thought their president was a Muslim.

    This did not deter him from actively pursuing his bridging role. Reconciling with the Muslim world was the theme of the president’s first television interview — with Dubai’s Al Arabiya — and his first speech abroad. “The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam,” he told the Turkish Parliament in April 2009. “America’s relationship with the Muslim community … cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism.… We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith.” But the fullest exposition of Obama’s attitude toward Islam, and his personal role in assuaging its adherents, came three months later in Cairo.

    Billed by the White House as “President Obama Speaks to the Muslim World,” the speech was delivered to a hall of carefully selected Egyptian students. But the message was not aimed at them or even at the people of Egypt, but rather at all Muslims. “America and Islam are not exclusive,” the president determined. “[They] share … common principles — principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.” subsequent articles in which he insisted that all scholars of the region be “genuinely engaged and sympathetic … to the Islamic world.” Published in 1978, Orientalism became the single most influential book in American humanities. As a visiting lecturer in the United States starting in the 1980s, I saw how Said’s work influenced not only Middle East studies but became a mainstay of syllabi for courses ranging from French colonial literature to Italian-African history. The notion that Islam was a uniform, universal entity with which the West must peacefully engage became widespread on American campuses and eventually penetrated the policymaking community. One of the primary texts in my Obama 101 course was the 2008 monograph, “Strategic Leadership: Framework for a 21st Century National Security Strategy,” written by foreign-relations experts, many of whom would soon hold senior positions in the new administration. While striving to place its relations with the Middle East on a new basis, the authors advised, America must seek “improved relations with more moderate elements of political Islam” and adapt “a narrative of pride in the achievements of Islam.”

    In addition to its academic and international affairs origins, Obama’s attitudes toward Islam clearly stem from his personal interactions with Muslims. These were described in depth in his candid memoir, Dreams from My Father, published 13 years before his election as president. Obama wrote passionately of the Kenyan villages where, after many years of dislocation, he felt most at home and of his childhood experiences in Indonesia. I could imagine how a child raised by a Christian mother might see himself as a natural bridge between her two Muslim husbands. I could also speculate how that child’s abandonment by those men could lead him, many years later, to seek acceptance by their co-religionists.

    Yet, tragically perhaps, Obama — and his outreach to the Muslim world — would not be accepted. With the outbreak of the Arab Spring, the vision of a United States at peace with the Muslim Middle East was supplanted by a patchwork of policies — military intervention in Libya, aerial bombing in Iraq, indifference to Syria, and entanglement with Egypt. Drone strikes, many of them personally approved by the president, killed hundreds of terrorists, but also untold numbers of civilians. Indeed, the killing of a Muslim — Osama bin Laden — rather than reconciling with one, remains one of Obama’s most memorable achievements.

    Diplomatically, too, Obama’s outreach to Muslims was largely rebuffed. During his term in office, support for America among the peoples of the Middle East — and especially among Turks and Palestinians — reached an all-time nadir. Back in 2007, President Bush succeeded in convening Israeli and Arab leaders, together with the representatives of some 40 states, at the Annapolis peace conference. In May 2015, Obama had difficulty convincing several Arab leaders to attend a Camp David summit on the Iranian issue. The president who pledged to bring Arabs and Israelis together ultimately did so not through peace, but out of their common anxiety over his support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and his determination to reach a nuclear accord with Iran.

    Only Iran, in fact, still holds out the promise of sustaining Obama’s initial hopes for a fresh start with Muslims. “[I]f we were able to get Iran to operate in a responsible fashion,” he told the New Yorker, “you could see an equilibrium developing between [it and] Sunni … Gulf states.” The assumption that a nuclear deal with Iran will render it “a very successful regional power” capable of healing, rather than inflaming, historic schisms remained central to Obama’s thinking. That assumption was scarcely shared by Sunni Muslims, many of whom watched with deep concern at what they perceived as an emerging U.S.-Iranian alliance.

    Six years after offering to “extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist,” President Obama has seen that hand repeatedly shunned by Muslims. His speeches no longer recall his Muslim family members, and only his detractors now mention his middle name. And yet, to a remarkable extent, his policies remain unchanged. He still argues forcibly for the right of Muslim women to wear — rather than refuse to wear — the veil and insists on calling “violent extremists” those who kill in Islam’s name. “All of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam,” he declared in February, using an acronym for the Islamic State. The term “Muslim world” is still part of his vocabulary.

    Historians will likely look back at Obama’s policy toward Islam with a combination of curiosity and incredulousness. While some may credit the president for his good intentions, others might fault him for being naïve and detached from a complex and increasingly lethal reality. For the Middle East continues to fracture and pose multiple threats to America and its allies. Even if he succeeds in concluding a nuclear deal with Iran, the expansion of the Islamic State and other jihadi movements will underscore the failure of Obama’s outreach to Muslims. The need to engage them — militarily, culturally, philanthropically, and even theologically — will meanwhile mount. The president’s successor, whether Democrat or Republican, will have to grapple with that reality from the moment she or he enters the White House. The first decision should be to recognize that those who kill in Islam’s name are not mere violent extremists but fanatics driven by a specific religion’s zeal. And their victims are anything but random.

  21. wbboei
    June 20, 2015 at 1:13 pm

    That is a sad commentary, but it begins and ends with a public that has learned nothing and forgotten nothing, and wants more and more and more from government paid for with opm—a Brandeis colloquialism meaning other people’s money.
    —————–

    That is unfair. I have been talking to people about the TPP because I cannot understand why people are not organizing massive protests. What I hear over and over again is that they are too overwhelmed, by how difficult everyday living has become, to have the energy and focus to do anything about our corrupted political state.

    I am a strong, smart woman. I mean, I have a genius level IQ, a good education and decent physical and mental health. I am struggling. I wonder about the less fortunate.

    I have been taking time to get involved in these things, but it is at a sacrifice. And today, I have even gone to the Kooks website to get best the Stop TPA/TPP links for the next assault on the populous scheduled in the Senate next week.

    If you want to see some real misery as we may have coming, look at what is happening in Greece. ZeroHedge.com has a lot posted about what is going on there as they are actually provoking bank runs in some kind of economic warfare to impose austerity. But be warned, they also have some stupid stuff there posted on Hillary as they have more economic acumen, than political.

    I have to think we are not just looking at a failed US economy, but a failed global economy and the failed aristocracy getting more predatory about feeding it’s gluttony. Like we are living Atlas Shrugged. That is the issue of productivity versus simply acquiring wealth. Like, how could they not get that? Viewing people and societies as disposable commodities to be used and discarded instead of establishing a society of productive people with decent standards of living. That is the failure of the globalist elite that makes them predators and parasites. Obola is their avatar.

  22. That is a sad commentary, but it begins and ends with a public that has learned nothing and forgotten nothing, and wants more and more and more from government paid for with opm—a Brandeis colloquialism meaning other people’s money.
    —————–
    That is unfair.
    ——
    1. Obama won in 2008 with no resume, and a very bad history.

    2. Obama won again in 2012 with a very bad track record.

    3. With the collapse of our economy and the world economy which you refer to his approval rating is 45% and after this big media gooses the numbers with this Charleston debacle he will be back hovering around 50% .

    4. If that is not stupidity then it must be something else.

    5. You suggest it is because of the demands of rigorous demands of modern living they haven’t the time to keep up with what is going on. I heard that same argument in the 1950s when the pace of living was much slower. To me it sounds more like an excuse.

    6. I have maintained that it is the fault of big media, and that is true but only up to a point. But even if it is true, the habit of the masses which is to take their news from a corrupt source is a form of stupidity.

    7. Whatever talents the American people may have in other areas, it does not translate into political wisdom. The elegant and sustained arguments appearing on blogs like this one have fallen on deaf ears as far as the public is concerned.

    8. In south Philadelphia, the choice comes down to two issues: Is the candidate like me? and Can I trust him to gimmesomething in exchange for my vote. Having a functional system based on democracy is an abstraction which hurts their wittle heads.

    9. I wish it were different. I wish what I said above really was, as you so eloquently put it: unfair. Unfortunately it is not. Unfortunately, it is accurate.

    10. The picture I carry around is of my late mother a life long democrat at a precinct caucus in 2008 reading the job description for president and showing how unqualified Obama was. Old white people sat there and listened, with folded arms, shaking their heads. Come hell or high water they were determined to elect the first black president. They never stopped to consider whether he was the right black president. That is what I call stupid. And we all paid the price for their stupidity. This goes beyond partisanship.

  23. The most searing indictment of the American People is their failure revolt against a man who is determined to destroy a constitution based system which has brought liberty and prosperity to generations of Americans—a man who is in the clearest sense of the term, a destroyer of worlds. Can you imagine in your wildest dreams the generation that won World War II putting up with this maniacal cocksucker? I cannot.

  24. 20 June from Q.E.D. etc. writer Peter Huntz not viewed by Ed Swezey

    Shadowfax June 20, 2015 at 1:24 pm

    … I can’t respond as one individual to another when:

    1. You are supposedly not writing these posts any longer.

    2. Your team, who are mainly women are the only ones writing these posts from now on.

    Sorry, but I only intend to reply to one person that I think I have somewhat of a feel for who they are, not a group of people that I never know who I am speaking to.

    If your ‘team’ wants to blog here, they should do so with their own moniker/s, and the person we knew as ‘jeswezey’ can just watch in silence, if he chooses to do so.

    Actually, while “Q.E.D.” includes a dozen people, it is impractical to generate a post by more than one person at a time. A person volunteering a post sends his document around to others for criticism and ideas, and then publishes what he or she wants. Ed is part of the group only in that he will fill us in on who we are talking to, so that we can “respond to an individual” just as you wish to do.

    In your case in particular, but also for wbboei, freespirit, gonzotx and a few others, we feel that we already know quite a few people here, as you will see in future posts. We will also dispense with the editorial “we” if you are more comfortable with that; but it would be a little dishonest of me, Peter Huntz (writing this post) to say “I” when “my” post is actually the product of a group effort.

    Actually, Ed Swezey had been doing that for a long time – signing “I” when he should have been signing “we”. For example, “his” lengthy posts about supply-side economics and the “Clinton economic agenda” on February 3 were in fact a group effort involving several “Q.E.D.” members, especially Carol Ann Mangin and me. We remember you in particular “zoned out” in the middle of those five long posts. There seemed to be only one person who read all of them and raised a pertinent question.

    As to your admonition that we each use our own moniker, we tried to explain in our first post yesterday that we wanted to create a Q.E.D. username or individual usernames but couldn’t find a way to create new usernames at HillaryIs44: There seems to be no provision for it, and all the names proposed came back “Invalid username”. Finally, after months of trying unsuccessfully to create new names, Ed let us use his old username with the strict proviso that he be clearly isolated from any authorship of the post – he really can’t participate any more and can only “watch in silence,” as you say.

    He is free to read the articles and blog; of course; thanks you for your “Welcome back jeswezey”; and enjoys telling us about the foibles and strengths of the bloggers and admin, like old friends; but no, this is no “head-game”. The original creation of “Q.E.D. etc.” was a kind of head-game, when Ed made up “Almighty Gods Inc” or whatever and the spokesman “Q.E.D. etc.”, those telex messages and stuff. But “Q.E.D. etc.” really operates as explained above – one writer reviewed by up to a dozen people.

    You will see that, as we said, the style is similar to Ed’s (a professional malady), but the content will be different from his; and the fact that the team has so many women doesn’t mean that the writer is a woman. That’s one of the differences: Ed is so much of a whackjob feminist it’s funny – the women in the office (3/4 of the employees) get even more of a kick out of his feminism than the men! His daughter-in-law is a Japanese cartoonist whose second comic book is about her trip to Paris and her meeting with her bizarre father-in-law.

    I hope I’ll be giving you some “feel for who I am” and you can respond to Peter Huntz or “PH”. Other writers are to come and will identify themselves. Carol Ann Mangin wrote the original post at 20 June @ 10:41 am and will probably contribute often. If you have any backlash against what she says about Trump in that post, for example, you can address her directly.

  25. Billed by the White House as “President Obama Speaks to the Muslim World,” the speech was delivered to a hall of carefully selected Egyptian students. But the message was not aimed at them or even at the people of Egypt, but rather at all Muslims. “America and Islam are not exclusive,” the president determined. “[They] share … common principles — principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.” subsequent articles in which he insisted that all scholars of the region be “genuinely engaged and sympathetic … to the Islamic world.” Published in 1978, Orientalism became the single most influential book in American humanities. As a visiting lecturer in the United States starting in the 1980s, I saw how Said’s work influenced not only Middle East studies but became a mainstay of syllabi for courses ranging from French colonial literature to Italian-African history. The notion that Islam was a uniform, universal entity with which the West must peacefully engage became widespread on American campuses and eventually penetrated the policymaking community.
    ———–
    I started to write a long rebuttal, and settled on a short one.

    The man is an idiot.

    And, the results speak for themselves.

    Successful engagement is based on power–not utopian thinking.

    That is more true of the middle east than anywhere else.

    Power cannot be reduced to photo ops, hissy fits and vague statements like we share the same goals etc.

    The man does not know how to bargain from a position of strength.

    He throws away leverage, on the erroneous assumption he does not need it because he alone is the messiah.

    I have negotiated with many people over the years.

    Obama is far and away the most inept negotiator I have ever seen.

    He is a rube.

  26. 20 June from Q.E.D. Carol Mangin, no view by Ed Swezey

    wbboei June 20, 2015 at 1:04 pm

    What is important is not that Trump be acceptable to big media.

    Good point, we hadn’t thought of that.

    But in fact, the second video of today’s article says, “He is saying things that millions of Americans shout at their TV sets every night” and yet DJT is a “cultural icon” and “Master Showman”, so it seems that big media is pretty much obligated to accept him for what he is.

    In any event, such language as “cultural icon” and people shouting at their TV sets have little meaning to us, given our distance from both the media and DJT, his TV show etc. This “Master Showman” bit says it all: It sounds like a certain empty suit and show horse we knew who actually won the presidency in 2008. Maybe, rather than show horse, a leather jacket on a motorcycle would be more appropriate for DJT – feels more like Brooklyn. We’ve seen that before and we’re not about to get excited about a bullshitter just because he has a Brooklyn accent and has already earned a lot of money for himself.

    What the hell, weren’t you fond of favoring government by the Brooklyn phone directory rather than the Harvard faculty? Now you can be governed by the best of Brooklyn and graduate of the U of Penn (Wharton), i.e. a less imposing fourth-rated Ivy League. Do you think that’s a good compromise? For us, it’s a no-go.

    What is critical is that he connect with the base, and convince them he can deliver.

    OK, but what is this “base” you mean? The Republican base? Or that of the general public? What base is going to go for this Master Showman? Are you part of that base? Not all of us are.

  27. Obama’s idea of negotiation is pay for play. When dealing with the middle east he looks to spend taxpayer money in exchange for headlines which he can use to augment his despotic powers at home. I suspect some will view that word despotic as a little over the top. I would if I did not know better. Hang on to your hat. I am betting that in the short time that remains that word will not seem so foreign and distant to the ear. Just remember who and what we are dealing with, namely a sociopath personality and if he gets shut down on Obamacare and amnesty then it is rather likely that he will respond grotesquely. At that point, his quixotic quest for a legacy will become irrational.

  28. Interesting stuff in China. As we know, the housing market crashed last year and the Chinese economy started crashing. They started QE measures such as reducing interest rates with several hundred thousand people per day opening stock market accounts and drove the stock market to insane heights. This last week, the market was up and down 5% or so per day. That is like the DJIA changing 1,000 points. Watch for the crash.

    You will not hear about it from the MSM.

  29. wbboei
    June 20, 2015 at 6:21 pm
    At that point, his quixotic quest for a legacy will become irrational.
    ——————————
    That is what the TPP is.

  30. wbboei,

    If Obama gets TPA for the TPP and comes up with something outrageous (i.e. unconstitutional), can it be challenged in the courts?

  31. LuPuma:
    ——–
    I beg you—and everyone else to listen to this video.

    It is one of many interviews by the only journalist I respect.

    She is bold, brilliant and incorruptible.

    Obama and his thugs hate her for that very reason.

    So much so that they have hacked her computer.

    She is trusted by whistleblowers–who put their careers –and even their lives in her hands.

    Obama people have told them if you talk to journalists we will “fuck you over and put you in a cage.”

    This is what is happening to our country.

    This is why I say Obama is a destroyer of worlds.

    If we could get the American People who have every excuse in the world for not getting involved to just listen to this . . .

    But they will not, because they are too stupid.

    Believe me, it gives me no pleasure to say that, nor do I say it lightly.

    I am not talking about the air heads who you meet on the Santa Monica pier.

    I mean the highly educated dolts who think they know and don’t, and support O-Ba-Ma.

    And avert their eyes from the pattern of failure and corruption that define his presidency.

    https://youtu.be/6qrdaUAds-Y

  32. Well, I posted the wrong one. The video above is fantastic, but it is longer than the one I intended. I believe if you listen to the one below, which I originally intended to post first, you will want to watch the longer one as well.

    But here is the one to start with. It explains, among other things, why I said what I did above, namely that the big media beloved messiah is despotic is accurate. I might well add, he is also demonic.

    https://youtu.be/6qrdaUAds-Y

  33. I give up. It is the Mark Levin interview:

    Here is the web page which contains the video—I hope.

    It explains how, among other things, her computers and phones were hacked by the government.

    She has the name of the one who ordered it, however she does not identify that individual.

    It appears to me from her comments that it is someone who reported to Holder.

  34. 21 June by Pete Huntz not viewed by Ed Swezey

    wbboei June 20, 2015 at 6:07 pm

    “President Obama Speaks to the Muslim World”…

    The man is an idiot.

    Successful engagement is based on power–not utopian thinking… vague statements

    The man does not know how to bargain from a position of strength… throws away leverage….

    Obama is far and away the most inept negotiator I have ever seen.

    “Inept negotiator” is true; but it doesn’t mean that Obama’s vague statements and “utopian thinking” are untrue or have no value, or that America should be spewing forth some other nonsense such as the “principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings”, freedom and democracy, are the exclusive property of the US.

    Obama is a lecturer – lecturing is the first and only job he ever had.

    The lecturer assumes that (i) he is right, which he may very well be; but also assumes that (ii) those listening to him will follow him in the righteous path of light, lest they get a bad grade on their examinations. That’s the way it happened at university.

    Lecturing “carefully selected Egyptian students” who were not even asked to pass an examination or ask any but carefully selected questions, and were not told what to do with their newfound knowledge, was pointless. There was nothing to negotiate.

    We’ve had professorial presidents before. Wilson comes to mind. Wilson couldn’t negotiate with his own people to join the Allied war effort early on, and couldn’t negotiate a valid League of Nations at the end because the US hadn’t engaged the war effort early enough and hadn’t done much fighting. The US didn’t even join the League of Nations. Obama is a replica of Wilson.

    Just before Obama, we had a negotiator of your definition in the Oval Office. Dubya engaged based on power; used it; and then thought about explaining himself later and wondered why Afghans and Iraqis didn’t want him fiddling around with their countries. He was the reverse of the lecturer – shoot first and aim later.

    What we need is someone with a head on his shoulders that is going to explain his objectives – at home and abroad – and how he plans to do it, and just carry the big stick for show. We need a new TR. Today, TR translates to HRC.

    You figure it out: Obama’s ideas are not all bad. He just doesn’t know how to wield power, or negotiate; and that makes him a poor president indeed.

    HRC’s ideas don’t differ much Obama’s. They worked fruitfully together for four years and they’re friends. The difference is, she doesn’t often express herself in broad generalities but in specific programs and objectives, often with a roadmap that will have to be re-tailored along the way, but these programs will galvanize the efforts of the interested parties. From there, she knows how to leverage her way from a bad to a better position, and then doggedly continue until something good comes out of it all. And the credit always goes to the other people.

    This is why we shouldn’t get all excited about HRC making sharp distinctions between Obama and herself. Regardless of his 45% popularity, Obama’s rhetoric may be verbal diarrhea; but the differences between the two are already obvious to the American population, and she has no need to point them out. Why are we so worried, here at H44, about people confusing the two?

  35. U of Penn (Wharton), i.e. a less imposing fourth-rated Ivy League.?
    ————
    Fourth rate? Don’t tell that to Andrea (Mitchell). She is a U Penn grad. Today, she is on the short list of the most influential women in Washington. And she has got a plaque to prove it. Actually, I like Andrea as much as you can like anyone you agree with rarely if ever.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Andrea_Mitchell

  36. “Inept negotiator” is true; but it doesn’t mean that Obama’s vague statements and “utopian thinking” are untrue or have no value, or that America should be spewing forth some other nonsense such as the “principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings”, freedom and democracy, are the exclusive property of the US.
    ———–
    Their value depends on the sort of negotiation you are talking about.

    In an integrative type of negotiation, where the sum can be greater than the whole of the parts, they can be useful. In that context, they can foster a constructive climate where agreements can and do take place. The problem you run into however is justice depends on whose ox is being gored, and it is often true that the party invoking those principles honors them more in the breach than in the observance. Obama tries to anticipate this, by proclaiming those principles and then chastising his own country for violating them. At that point his adversary watches in disbelief and wonders whether Obama will land a haymaker on his own chin.

    In a distributive type of negotiation, where more for me means less for you, they are interpreted as a sign of weakness. They beg to be tested. Therefore, experienced negotiators go light on such things, and concentrate on building trust. Trust does not mean weakness. It means impressing the opposite number that it is not in his interest to do X, because if he does, then he will be punished for the violation and the bargaining process will cease until he some time after resumes reasonable behavior. Obama–being the genius that big media assures us he is, is not constrained by these rules. He draws red lines and when the adversary crosses them, he accuses them of terrible things like (be still my heart) being on the wrong side of history, and taking them to the UN.

    In any negotiation, trust is sine qua non. On that fine point, Obama is a living breathing example of Failure Theater.

  37. Personally, I would not use Bush as an example of power based strategy, or real politic.

    Metternich, Bismark and Kissinger come to mind.

    An iron fist in a velvet glove.

    Bush was more of an iron fist in an iron glove.

  38. We need a president who puts country above party.

    We need a president who puts constituents above donors.

    We need a president who adheres to the Constitution.

  39. wbboei,

    Attkisson is my hero. I have always wanted to be an investigative reporter but I have noticed they have been disappearing. I view the news as what the government wants me to believe. I live my life like they are watching everything I do. And I would only hope they have heard every thing I have said and think about them.

    They are so busy spying and controlling that they have totally failed to do their jobs. That is why they are a big mess and a FAIL.

  40. Obama’s ideas are not all bad.

    He just doesn’t know how to wield power, or negotiate.

    ————-

    I disagree.

    His ideas are ipso facto bad.

    His goal is to transform this nation, and to disenfranchise the American People.

    He seeks to concentrate all power in Washington and to feed the political class.

    He wants to change the demographic composition of this nation.

    These are all bad ideas. Very.

    The only saving grace is that he does not wield power artfully.

    And for only that reason he has not succeeded in this perversity.

    Thus, I do not think you can say the policy is fine, the execution is the problem.

    Honest to god, it is both.

    (Note: if it were only the policy then Hillary could argue the case that way. But because of Benghazi she is mired in both the policy and the execution as well. And more is the pity for that. I was a fool to think and argue she should take the job of SOS. Admin and others saw the risk which I did not see. But unlike the bots, I see it now.)

  41. What is critical is that he connect with the base, and convince them he can deliver.

    OK, but what is this “base” you mean? The Republican base? Or that of the general public? What base is going to go for this Master Showman? Are you part of that base? Not all of us are.
    ——-
    It is hard to imagine that Donald will win the nomination, and we have seen him cut and run before. If the goal is not to win the nomination, then what is it? I believe it is to serve as a lightening rod, to advocate for the country against the entrenched interests in Washington, to highlight what is happening to our people, to shine a krieg light on corruption, to tear apart failed policies which hobble us, and to clear a path to the nomination of someone who will restore the constitutional order after the Obama pestilence. By my lights, Tednado is the man to do it. He would be the right challenger for Hillary and much good should come of it. Unfortunately, we are more likely to get a mushball like Rubio who forgets his promises, but is Hispanic and talks fast.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=tednado&rlz=1C1CHWA_enUS629US629&espv=2&biw=960&bih=615&tbm=isch&imgil=uSdCOlVyBIir5M%253A%253BcWM-zXKxp6ybsM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Ftwitter.com%25252Fhashtag%25252Ftednado&source=iu&pf=m&fir=uSdCOlVyBIir5M%253A%252CcWM-zXKxp6ybsM%252C_&usg=__pEHRaW0pGnTYiFTDRNnYSbhPOfw%3D&ved=0CC0Qyjc&ei=cx2GVe6qD8vToASi0Kf4Cw#imgrc=uSdCOlVyBIir5M%253A%3BcWM-zXKxp6ybsM%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fpbs.twimg.com%252Fmedia%252FBU9mHNsCQAAkVOM.jpg%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Ftwitter.com%252Fhashtag%252Ftednado%3B600%3B841&usg=__pEHRaW0pGnTYiFTDRNnYSbhPOfw%3D

    .

  42. In order for Trump to play that role, he must appeal to the base of the Republican party who wants red meat, and Donald showman that he is is just the man to do it. Thus, the Republican base is what I was referring to in the comments above.

  43. jeswezey
    ——–
    Great points made by your group. Got me thinking for a change. Glad they are here.

  44. Lu4PUMA
    June 20, 2015 at 9:42 pm
    wbboei,

    Attkisson is my hero. I have always wanted to be an investigative reporter
    —–
    You would have been a terrific investigative reporter.

    As for Sharyl, she is the most brilliant and consequential person in the media.

    Its a funny thing.

    Two great actors of the 40s–Hepburn and Tracy refused to live in Hollywood.

    Two great actors of the 50-60 refused to live in Hollywood.

    Why not? They did not want to be part of the scene, and the ridiculous pecking order that defines that company town.

    It is a way to preserve your independence and your integrity, and to hone your craft.

    For the same reason, Sharyl does not live in Washington DC.

    Those that do, and have some talent, quickly succumb to the group think that defines that company town.

    I can think of no better example than Andrea Mitchell.

    The Cuban banker went to Princeton and was inducted into the Scroll and Key (like the Skull and Bones)

    The whole point of it was control, to get something embarrassing on someone which you could hold over them in later life.

    Which is why it is wise to live far from the madding crowd to preserve your integrity.

  45. So Peter Huntz, I hope all of you do not use your real name on the internet, for your own safety, of sorts.

    Are you saying that Hillaryis44 no longer accepts new members to blog, or is it the group thing that prevents some of you from getting your own username?

    I don’t mind commenting now and then to individuals, I personally don’t like commenting to some group, because ideas are only valuable to me, one on one.

  46. The question of legal and illegal immigration will not be shut down with race-baiting. Anywhere.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3132223/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-EU-refuses-message-migrants.html

    Good news has been in short supply for David Cameron during his whistle-stop tour of European capitals, with most EU leaders shaking their heads and insisting that nothing can be done to help his referendum negotiations.

    On Thursday, the Prime Minister also found himself subjected to a bizarre rant from the president of the European Parliament, who falsely claimed that Britain’s desire to limit the benefits paid to EU migrants is based on ‘lies’ and ‘hatred’ of Eastern Europeans.

    Most tellingly, Martin Schulz also arrogantly said that Britain ‘belongs’ to the EU – Brussels code for instructing Mr Cameron to stop rocking the boat.

    How delighted the PM must have been, then, when he woke yesterday to the news that Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt had been swept from power in her country’s general election.

    First, Ms Thorning-Schmidt – the wife of Labour MP and red prince Stephen Kinnock – was a vocal opponent of his ‘discriminatory’ plan to make EU migrants work in the UK for four years before claiming lucrative tax credits.

    Second, Downing Street will have noted the reason for her party’s defeat: the huge surge in popularity of the Danish People’s Party, which campaigned on a platform of stricter border controls and, yes, limiting welfare payments to immigrants.

    The success of the DPP – which becomes the second largest party in Denmark, allowing a centre-right coalition to take power – makes it far more likely Mr Cameron will be able to strike a deal with the country.

    But, more importantly, it sends a thumping message to Mr Schulz and the eurocrats that they are hopelessly out of touch with the continent’s voters on immigration.

    Wanting to tighten the rules has nothing to do with ‘hatred’, as the EU parliament’s leader so offensively suggested.

    It’s the simple reality that a country can only absorb so many new arrivals in a short space of time before schools, hospitals and other infrastructure struggle to cope.

    The next time Mr Cameron sits down with an EU leader who is refusing to negotiate on the need for stricter controls, he might point them in direction of Helle Thorning-Schmidt and ask: Do you want to be the next out of the door?

  47. jeswezey
    June 20, 2015 at 7:38 pm
    21 June by Pete Huntz not viewed by Ed Swezey
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry over how unbelievably weird this site has gotten over the last 2-3 months.

    Next thing, Morpheus and Neo will start posting here.

  48. wbboei
    June 20, 2015 at 9:52 pm

    These are all bad ideas. Very.

    The only saving grace is that he does not wield power artfully.

    Hello all!!

    Happy Fathers’ Day to all the dads here, and to all the dads of all that come here! In the wake of the terrible tragedy in SC by that waste of protoplasm, let we celebrate what is the same about us rather than fear what is different. I haven’t been posting as much, but I am not missing any articles or any discussions.

    I have been, am and will be ride-or-die Hillary since ’07 and nothing that the media is saying is proving enough to change that. That said, I really really REALLY hope that she is just playing to the Kooks because she still does need to win some of them over to get the nomination and win the general. Some of the positions she is taking are just not tenable. But that is an argument for another post.

    Admin – your writing is as good as ever.

    wbb – I do get that uncle bumble’s ineptness is a saving grace for us as he is unable to get some of the more damaging policies thru Congress and into law. But it is exactly that ineptness that is putting us in SO MUCH harm’s way. Case in point – our relations with our number one partner and the only true democracy in the Middle East is strained to the breaking point. Now, our most powerful friend in the Middle East could be looking to dump us (at the very least, they are openly cheating on us) for our biggest rival.

    Saudi’s star prince keeps rising, visits Putin in St. Petersburg
    Bruce Riedel | June 19, 2015 9:22am

    from article…{EXCERPTS MINE}

    Deputy Crown Prince and Minister of Defense Mohammed bin Salman visited St. Petersburg this week, and signed several agreements with the Russians concerning oil cooperation, space cooperation, peaceful nuclear energy cooperation, and nuclear technology sharing. It is another high-profile mission for the 29-year-old son of King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud Salman.

    Prince Mohammed was accompanied by Foreign Minister Adel Al Jubeir, Minister of Petroleum Ali Al Naimi, and other senior military and intelligence officials. Details on the agreements are few. The Saudis and Russians discussed cooperation on energy issues, investment, and the global oil market. The two agreed to cooperate to achieve stability in the global energy market.

    Prince Mohammed chairs the Saudi interagency committee that oversees the oil and gas industry in the kingdom. This trip to St. Petersburg marks the first time the prince has engaged publicly on oil issues.

    Read more at…http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/06/19-saudi-arabia-russia-mohammad-bin-salman-putin

    So in the Age of Obingo, the Saudis look to Russia for a global partner on space, peaceful nuclear energy solutions and global oil issues? Here, it is not what teh one did, its the fact that, as Admin has said from day one, OBAMA CANNOT BE TRUSTED BY FRIEND OR ENEMY. The Kingdom recognizes this and the next in line for the throne is developing partnerships, long term EXTREMELY IMPORTANT partnerships, with new allies. Don’t forget, bumbles (and horseface) kiss Saudi assess regularly, and that STILL wasn’t enough to gain their trust. Any coordination of oil policy between OPEC and the Russian state will surely NOT favor the U.S. I really hope that we can survive until there IS another president. They will have a toilet bowl full of poooo called the world to swim thru after this joke is done.

    Hillary 2016

  49. The Children of the Corn
    ______________________________________

    You figure it out: Obama’s ideas are not all bad. He just doesn’t know how to wield power, or negotiate; and that makes him a poor president indeed.

    HRC’s ideas don’t differ much Obama’s. They worked fruitfully together for four years and they’re friends. The difference is, she doesn’t often express herself in broad generalities but in specific programs and objectives, often with a roadmap that will have to be re-tailored along the way, but these programs will galvanize the efforts of the interested parties. From there, she knows how to leverage her way from a bad to a better position, and then doggedly continue until something good comes out of it all. And the credit always goes to the other people.

    This is why we shouldn’t get all excited about HRC making sharp distinctions between Obama and herself. Regardless of his 45% popularity, Obama’s rhetoric may be verbal diarrhea; but the differences between the two are already obvious to the American population, and she has no need to point them out. Why are we so worried, here at H44, about people confusing the two?
    _________________________________________________

    Boy, the water must be very bad over seas, I see you are all experiencing the same disastrous symptoms. You actually think the frauds ideas are good and Hillary simply needs to execute them better?

    Dang, your not living in Kansas anymore, or ANY part of America…

  50. wbboei
    June 20, 2015 at 10:38 pm
    jeswezey
    ——–
    Great points made by your group. Got me thinking for a change. Glad they are here.
    ________________________________

    Really?

  51. ‘We’re On Our Own’
    Column: Michael Oren reveals how Barack Obama tore apart the U.S.-Israel alliance

    BY: Matthew Continetti
    June 19, 2015 5:00 am

    By the summer of 2013, President Obama had convinced several key Israelis that he wasn’t bluffing about using force against the Iranian nuclear program. Then he failed to enforce his red line against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad—and the Israelis realized they’d been snookered. Michael Oren, the former Israeli ambassador to the United States, recalls the shock inside his government. “Everyone went quiet,” he said in a recent interview. “An eerie quiet. Everyone understood that that was not an option, that we’re on our own.”

    Reading Oren’s new memoir Ally, it’s clear that Israel has been on her own since the day Obama took office. Oren provides an inside account of relations between the administration of Barack Obama and the government of Bibi Netanyahu, and his thesis is overwhelming, authoritative, and damning: For the last six and a half years the president of the United States has treated the home of the Jewish people more like a rogue nation standing in the way of peace than a longtime democratic ally. Now the alliance is “in tatters.”

    Oren is not a conservative looking to make a political issue of support for Israel. Indeed, by Washington Free Beacon standards, he’s something of a squish. The author of a classic history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East and a sometime professor at Yale, Harvard, and Georgetown, Oren served for five years as a contributor to the New Republic, has contributed to the New York Review of Books, and supports what he calls a “two-state situation” focused on institution-building and economic aid to the West Bank. He’s a member of the Knesset, but not of Netanyahu’s Likud Party. He joined the comparatively dovish Kulanu Party last December.

    Oren’s credentials and relationships make him hard to dismiss. “The Obama administration was problematic because of its worldview: Unprecedented support for the Palestinians,” he told Israeli journalist David Horovitz, another centrist, this week. Obama and his lieutenants, including Hillary Clinton, have often behaved as if the Palestinians don’t exist—Palestinian actions, corruption, incitement, campaigns of de-legitimization and terrorism are overlooked, excused, accommodated. Oren tells the story of what happened when Vice President Joe Biden asked Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to “look him in the eye and promise that he could make peace with Israel.” Abbas looked away. The White House did nothing.

    (“Obama and his lieutenants, including Hillary Clinton, have often behaved as if the Palestinians don’t exist—Palestinian actions, corruption, incitement, campaigns of de-legitimization and terrorism are overlooked, excused”

    (DISTURBING..HILLARY BEING INCLUDED ISN’T IT…mine)

    It was Israel that had to agree to a settlement freeze before the latest doomed attempt at peace negotiations; Israel that had to apologize for possible “mistakes” against the Gaza flotilla; Israel that had to close Ben Gurion airport; Israel that faced a “reevaluation” of her diplomatic status after Bibi’s reelection. Obama addresses the bulk of his lectures on good governance and democracy and humanitarianism not to the gang that runs that West Bank, nor to the terrorists who rule Gaza, but to Israel. During last year’s Gaza war, the State Department was “appalled” by civilian casualties inflated and trumpeted by Hamas propagandists. Oren points out that in the past the president had used the word “appalling” to describe the atrocities of Muammar Qaddafi. Qaddafi and the IDF—two peas in a pod, according to this White House.

    What Obama wanted was to create diplomatic space between America and Israel while maintaining our military alliance. Oren says military-to-military relations are strong, but the diplomatic fissure has degraded Israel’s security. America, he says, provided a “Diplomatic Iron Dome” that shielded Israel from anti-Semites in Europe, at the U.N., and abroad whose goal is to delegitimize the Jewish State and undermine her economically.

    This rhetorical missile shield is slowly being retracted. The administration threatens not to veto anti-Israel U.N. initiatives, Europe is aligning with the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement, and anti-Israel activism festers on U.S. campuses. Obama’s unending criticism of Israel, and background quotes calling Israel’s prime minister a “chicken-shit” and a “coward,” provide an opening for radicals to go even further.

    The diplomatic rupture endangers Israel in another way. It preceded Obama’s quest for détente with Iran, Israel’s greatest enemy and most pressing threat. Oren was outraged in 2013 when he learned that the administration had been conducting secret negotiations with the mullahs. Now, with the United States about to clear the way for Iranian nukes and flood the Iranian economy with cash, Israel is all the more at risk.

    “Obama says Iran is not North Korea,” Oren said, “and Bibi says Iran’s worse than 50 North Koreas. It all comes down to that.” Fixated on striking a deal, Obama is preparing to concede the longstanding demand that Iran disclose its past nuclear weapons research, is ignoring the issue of Iranian missile development, and is standing idle as Iran props up Assad, arms Hezbollah with rockets, and promotes sectarianism in Iraq. Israel is hemmed in—by Iranian proxies and Sunni militants on its borders, by the threat of a third intifada on the West Bank, by global nongovernmental organizations, by a condescending, flippant, and bullying U.S. president whose default emotional state is pique.

    As if to make Oren’s case for him, the Obama administration responded to the publication of Ally with neither silence nor a reiteration of American policy toward Israel but with vituperation, demanding that both Kulanu Party chairman Moshe Kahlon and Prime Minister Netanyahu apologize for criticisms Oren had made. Kahlon sheepishly distanced himself from Oren, and Netanyahu won’t comment publicly, but the episode illustrates precisely the model of U.S.-Israeli relations outlined in this book: A “family” argument where the criticism runs in only one direction. On the one hand, when the supreme leader of Iran calls John Kerry a liar and details plans to destroy Israel, the Obama administration brushes it off. On the other, when a former ambassador writes a memoir based on a diary he kept while in office, the administration loses its mind.

    The alliance has faltered to such a degree that Oren is morose. He wonders whether Israel is in the same precarious position it was in 1967, before the Six Day War, or in 1948, when it came close to never being born. Neither option is comforting. David Horovitz asked him, “Are people going to look back in a few years’ time and say, ‘This is what they were talking about in Israel as Iran closed in on the bomb and they were wiped out?’” Oren’s response: “It’s happened before in history, hasn’t it?”

    It has. And it may happen again. But whatever happens, thanks to Michael Oren, history will know that an inexperienced and ideologically motivated president drove a lethal wedge between the United States of America and the young, tiny, besieged Jewish State.

  52. I gotta say that the level of mayhem Trump is causing, from angst to apoplexy, is great. He and Ann Coulter tag teaming the professional left by simply stating the obvious in the most in your face non-politically correct means is fascinating. The reaction is the tell. Their language is quite mild compared to the violent and insane incendiaries of the left.

    OT: A friend who does a lot of business in Mexico told me the Mexican government is cracking down on Central Americans for reasons that are not going to be covered in the media. It seems the Central Americans are impinging upon what Mexicans have come to see as a right to get jobs and ship money home to Mexico which is a very integral part of their economy. The Mexicans who live in the US and the families back home raised hell. El Norte is also a social safety valve to prevent economic revolution, an open market for illegal drugs, and a place to send criminals so they don’t have to catch, try or jail them. They export their expensive social problems to the US.

    The Obama administration’s stunt to shuttle Central Americans though Mexico turned out to be a means to devalue Mexican labor both legal and illegal in the US (Zuckerberg and US Chamber of Commerce like this), cut the money flow from said Mexicans to Mexico, displace Mexicans in social services and education resources, etc in the US, and turned out to be a really bad deal they struck with Obama. Cause and effect and trusting Obama is a loose-loose game for the Mexican government. So they reversed it.

  53. I have decided that I love Donald Trump. I went to his website and thanked him and I have it on my todo list to make a small donation – not that he needs it but, just because he may need a count on “small donors”. He, at the very least, has upset a nationally destructive status quo. It is not about the winning, that he has a very small chance of, it is about the running. GOP or independent is just fine. He is smart enough to know, if he spits the vote badly for Americans, he needs to endorse the candidate he wants to win and drop out. One way or another, he will change this election for the better.

    Hillary’s campaign sucks. I still think she is the person I saw emerge out of adversity in 2008, but she will not show that under the current circumstances. I can only hope she shows up before the election.

  54. jeswezey,

    Whoever and whatever you are, your posts are too long and convoluted to be generally useful. Maybe wbboei can sort through it, but it is too disorganized and abstract to hold my attention long enough to find the point. I generally skip it. Funny how you showed up just after we lost our troll.

    A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

  55. Too soon old/

    Too late smart.

    Silly me.

    When I wrote that job description to show Obama was not qualified . . .

    I selected the wrong job.

    I wrote it for a president.

    I failed to realize what he and his supporters were really looking for was an arsonist.

    To destroy this country from within and across the world.

    With the help of big media and the stupidity of the electorate and the corruption of the political class

    They have succeeded in destroying this nation.

    Not to be too pessimistic, but the next president will have an impossible task

    No different than the task Hercules faced cleaning out the Agean stable

    The horses could shit faster than he could clean it up.

    Which is why leftists invariably deal in a drug called horseshit.

  56. I thought about it overnight, including your reaction Gonzo.

    I tried to say that the problem with Obama is as much his agenda as it is his incompetence.

    I read that as an attempt by our new friends on the blog to clear a path for Hillary.

    The thought being that she could embrace Obama’s policies so as not to offend the left.

    But to have other people say all that he promised I will deliver because I have the experience, etc.

    I did not want to take the issue on frontally, because I respect that opinion, but I do not agree with it.

    The principle problem is precisely what their comment seeks to minimize or negate.

    And that is a perverse Soros driven transformative agenda.

    Which is based on his own observation that the the American People as currently constituted would never accept his transformative agenda.

    Our new friends may or may not be paid Soros bloggers, I have no idea.

    Nor do I know where hwc is coming from but he does display a level of sophistication which is refreshing but for its partisanship.

    All I know for sure is Admin has lit the path here and woe betide those who fail to follow it.

    If Hillary wants to be president, then she will stop listening to the Obamaites and start listening to Admin

    Whose track record has been brilliant and unblemished.

    The only other person who rises to that level that I see on the horizon is Sharyl Attkisson.

  57. Is he incomptent or is he evil?

    Is a cat’s ass punched or bored??

    How many angels can dance on the head of a pin???

    Who gives a fuck??????

    The problem is the agenda, the blue print, the plan to remake this nation.

    To strip is constitution.

    To lower its stature in the world.

    To change its demography.

    To disenfranchise its citizens.

    To let multinationals run the show.

    That is what Obama stands for.

    That is what the uniparty stands for.

    And the worst of it?

    The direct cost of this transformation of this nation

    Will be paid for by the taxpayers

    And what they will get for it is a defective product.

    Forget about Info Wars, etc.

    Watch what is happening

    And believe your lying eyes.

  58. Let me change one word in the above.

    This is important and our friend in Britain–Nigel Farage uses it early and often.

    The operative word is not transformation (my bad)

    The operative word to describe what the elites are doing to this country is:

    TRANSMOGRIFICATION

    Need a dictionary?

    Let me save you the trouble.

    Transmorgrification means to change in appearance or form, especially strangely or GROTESQUELY.

    The motive is wealth and power.

    The excuse is China.

  59. I thought of a perfect analogy to the Soros agenda: forcing American citizens to pay for their own funeral, so others can take over, while the electorate is led like lambs to their slaughter. It is a ceremony of human sacrifice worthy of an Aztec king.

  60. Unless I miss my guess, this is what we will be hearing from Donald. He has an in your face way of reducing the complex to the simple so more minds can grasp it. The only time complex works, and people are willing to defer to the Mandarins is when there is trust in the system. Trust is sine qua non in any organization, and the political class has made a mockery of it. Consequently, they are about to reap the whirl wind.

  61. Even if you were not privy to the backroom work that Soros (and his man Wolfe of UBC) did to get Obama nominated and elected including planning his campaign, implementing the Dean model, and lining up donors, even if you did not realize that the ground campaign Obama used was previously implemented in the eastern Europe (Ukraine, Georgia, Russia) etc., even if you did not know that Soros owns an interest in nearly 200 newspapers around the world, and big media megastars and nowhere men like Browkaw (who sips fine wine, imbibes caviar, and claims that Bill O is not a journalist, whereas he is) and Moyers (who harbors a guilt complex that could fill Yankee stadium, has this perverse desire for unilateral disarmament, and had his one and only original thought forty years ago) sit on Soros boards and even if you were unaware of Soros nazi past and the games he has played as the largest currency trader in the world to sink the British pound and bragged that he made a billion and was later convicted of unethical financial practices by a French court, even if you knew none of that, even if you believed he as simply a wealthy benefactor and did not realize this was nothing more than a way to cover up what he is really doing, you would still be struck by how closely the Soros agenda and the Obama agenda coincide. Correlation or causation. You decide.

  62. I get your appreciation of well written comments wbb, not many can match your style or acum, but these expats are left wing socalists at best.

  63. wbboei,

    It sounds like you are trying to figure out insanity. Soros, Obama and the elite class currently running the show do what they do because they are mentally ill and out of touch with reality. We have too many mentally ill leaders who have taken control as our democracy reached the apathy stage. That was apparent in 2000 when George Dubya got elected. All the problems of the past were correctable until then. Then the globalist agenda accelerated. Lies of a better world, they are noting but looters. Then the looting accelerated under Obola.

    It is sad we had to get here to prove the globalists are nothing but looters. World trade, my ass, they are seeking world economic dominance. But the looters apparently do not have a plan for what happens after they have looted everything. Sucking the world dry because there is not enough wealth in it to fill their empty souls. Essentially fear driven, they will never be safe enough or rich enough, but they may be very destructive.

    Tough times ahead.

  64. Mark Levin, the great one, has called conservatives to oust John Boehner, just as they did Eric Cantor.

    He points out that Boehner is systematically defrocking Members who voted their conscience rather than their party on the blind give away of American sovereignty wealth and power to the third world otherwise known as TPP/TPA.

    Boehner is a bon vivante. Intellectually, he is vapid. I played golf with him over ten years ago and he told me he does not worry about his constituents because to use his exact words, they let him do whatever he wants.

    If his constituents do not control him, who does. The answer is pretty obvious. Years ago they used to call Dick Gephart Mr. AFL-CIO. By the same token, Boehner is Mr. Chamber of Commerce. It is no exaggeration to say, whatever Lola wants Lola gets, Lola here being Tom Donahue and his board.

    The Chamber has called for this elimination of conservatives who opposed their trade giveaway, on the grounds that it is bad for the American People, but good for the Chamber. Boehner is just the executioner. Therefore the great one calls for the beheading of the executioner, which makes eminent good sense to me. Boehner is a dunk, womanizing, Quisling. Other than that he is great.

  65. Admin: I know you will agree with this, since you believe, as do I, that the national interest is best served through the clash of competing ideas rather than their suppression based on the premise we know better. The evolution we see today marks the decline of this nation, as it did in every great civilization in history that preceded it. The author is Jay Cost:

    It has never been easy to be a conservative in “polite” society, but these days it seems to be getting harder. We live in an age when opposition to liberalism is increasingly deemed illegitimate.

    (There is) a pattern to mobilize bias against conservatives. The idea is to cast conservative ideas and opinions as illegitimate a priori, not even worth the time or consideration of a thoughtful person. The assault comes from so many directions simultaneously that one can’t help but feel that the point is to castigate conservatism itself as a function of radicalism, superstition, and bigotry.

    This is an unhealthy development for the body politic. Today, we take for granted that principled, robust opposition is the backbone of a well-functioning republic. Yet this is a relatively recent conception in the Western political tradition. It is still a fragile view that must be actively defended against the impulse to squash opposition to one’s own firmly held beliefs.

    In Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770), Burke defined a party as “a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed.” There is a subtle, yet enormously influential concept embedded in this characterization. Parties, in Burke’s view, are formed on conceptions of the national interest.

    Contrary to many of his contemporaries, Burke explicitly disclaimed the capacity of abstract reason to delineate universal moral or political principles. From this vantage point, competition among opposing principles is essential to good government.

    THE ALTERNATIVE IS SHUTTING DOWN DEBATE, WHICH LEADS INEVITABLY TO CORRUPTION.

    This casts the left’s efforts to mobilize bias against conservatives in a very unfavorable light. Early modern republicans might have thought that good government depends on proper reasoning from first principles, but today we know better. It depends on an open, robust combat between groups with different, irreconcilable views of the national interest.

    Which brings us back to the subject of John Boeher. He does not seem to know there is a war going on. He is too caught up in the perks, and the parlor games to notice. The big picture for him is entirely lacking. He needs to be replaced with a competent general who is willing to fight, for the same reason Lincoln had to replace McClelland with General Grant, if there was any hope of winning the war.

  66. It may or may not be true that replacing John Boehener is akin to replacing McClellan in the sense that it is the only way to hold this country together.

    In my view the strategy for taking back the country from the elites must begin in the House of Representatives, and must target those Members who are in the hip pocket of the Chamber.

    This effort may or may not inspire patriots in the democratic party to undertake a similar process of house cleaning, fumigating, de Nazification, call it what you will.

  67. Your absolutely right wbb, perks and parlor tricks, that really sums up the vast majority in politics today…
    Ryan also turned out to be an a#swhipe too, well he is their Eric Cantor now,,,Next clown up…

  68. 21 June Pete Huntz not reviewed by JE Swezey

    wbboei June 20, 2015 at 8:36 pm
    U of Penn (Wharton), i.e. a less imposing fourth-rated Ivy League.?
    ————
    Fourth rate? Don’t tell that to Andrea (Mitchell).

    Lol! U of P is rated fourth after Hahvid, Yale and Princeton, by some mystifying measure of their alumni or endowments or something. Anyway, I think you got my point, that the best of the Brooklyn phone directory plus a step down from entire Hahvid faculty might have been more pleasing to Buckley.

    wbboei June 20, 2015 at 9:10 pm

    Interesting disquisition on “integrative” and “distributive” negotiation. You’ve obviously engaged in more negotiations than any of us.

    You still side-stepped my remark that, in lecturing the “carefully selected Egyptian students”, there was no negotiating going on at all. No give, no take. The students went to the lecture probably knowing they had to stay awake for an hour before lunch, and were expected to applaud when the prompter told them to. The lecture was ineffectual, yes. But that still doesn’t mean that Obama’s remarks were stupid.

    I compared Obama to Wilson, and I think you agree. If Teddy Roosevelt had been President during those 8 years instead of Wilson, we may have seen the US enter the Great War in the spring of 1915, bring it to a close earlier, lead the peace negotiations, establish a League of Nations with teeth in it, oversee the establishment of a republican government in Germany. And maybe no Second World War.

    Of course, that’s just the Monday morning quarterback talking; but a stronger President in DC – a good negotiator who was willing to use the big stick – probably would have changed the face of the 20th century.

    With a century of hindsight, though, Wilson is not viewed as an especially bad president. The same may happen to Obama, because I (we) insist that his lofty ideas are not all bad. I can see by your post at 9:52 pm that we are crossing swords on this point, and I hope I have time to reply to that post.

    As for your remarks at 9:15 pm, I would put Bismark in the same “iron glove” category as Bush, but agree with your assessment of Metternich and Kissinger. A propos, do you remember Kissinger’s praise for HRC’s conduct at State? Wouldn’t you put HRC in the same category of power-based strategists as those two? And perhaps TR?

  69. From Pete Huntz without review by JE Swezey

    Shadowfax June 20, 2015 at 10:59 pm
    … Are you saying that Hillaryis44 no longer accepts new members to blog, or is it the group thing that prevents some of you from getting your own username?

    No, it’s not the group, it’s HillaryIs44. There is no mechanism for creating new usernames. We tried quite a few times with different machines (Mac and PC) and different monikers but we always get the message “Invalid username”.

    Finally, Carol wanted to post and she has a lot of pull with the boss, so J Ed let her and a few selected others use his moniker as long as we put a demurral in each time.

    I don’t mind commenting now and then to individuals, I personally don’t like commenting to some group, because ideas are only valuable to me, one on one.

    Right, we get it. So from now on, we will identify ourselves individually and hope you respond. We still have to put the demurral at the beginning about “not reviewed by Ed Swezey”. We know that looks crazy and artificial, but it’s gotta be that way.

  70. jeswezey
    June 21, 2015 at 2:08 pm
    Pete Huntz

    …The lecture was ineffectual, yes. But that still doesn’t mean that Obama’s remarks were stupid.


    First let me cut into your comments to Wbb, if you don’t mind…only because this comment about “Obama’s remarks were not necessarily stupid”, has been bugging the heck out of me.

    What do you base your facts on that his lectures where to the level that a Harvard lecturer should be?

    As someone that knows this type of educational system, lecturers are temporary instructors that are normally either Ph.D. STUDENTS that take on the ‘job’ to have some sort of CV padding, relieve the load of the faculty member and/or pay part of their tuition.

    Lecturers can range from very competent, to just plain poor. Many are poor because they are not necessarily a good student, but are being pushed though the system, as I believe Obama was to make way for his push into the White House, or they might be poor because they are just testing their ability to get ‘new’ ideas out there, (that the faculty sponsoring them has approved of), or they are trying to get experience as teachers. Being a lecturer is a university’s equivalent to a ‘teachers aid’, in many cases…but not all. Some lecturers are hired from outside the university, and they have a range of competency of their own.

    To me, Obama has never come up with any policy or bill that shows that he has any higher intelligence. He has been taken care of, told what to say, what to think and advancing his own perception of himself is all he has ever cared of. Most of the bills he has tried to push though are not his own, like health care…he pushed thought the biggest piece of crap, and it’s nothing like Hillary tried to put though in Bill’s presidency.

  71. We still have to put the demurral at the beginning about “not reviewed by Ed Swezey”. We know that looks crazy and artificial, but it’s gotta be that way.

    Why, what’s up with jeswezey?

  72. Pierre Abel without review from Ed Swezey

    wbboei June 21, 2015 at 10:46 am

    … leftists invariably deal in a drug called horseshit.

    Is this supposed to say something bad about leftists? I ride horses every weekend and love these vegetarian athletes. Their feces aren’t just good fertilizer but good food too – dogs love it! So I guess I could make a living dealing in horseshit. But I’m no leftist. What’s wrong with people dealing in horseshit, anyway?

  73. jeswezey
    June 21, 2015 at 2:08 pm
    Pete Huntz

    ——-
    Actually, Pete…don’t waste your time trying to prove to me that Obama as a lecturer or as a pResident is intelligent. There is no way you could convince me that he is, after all these years.

  74. The International Tribunals have already started running our country. And now you get Mystery Meat:

    Remember the World Trade Organization, which slipped into the shadows after massive Seattle protests in 1999? The same day last week that Congress initially blocked the possibility of fast track approval for the TPP trade agreement, the House voted to overturn rules requiring country-of-origin labeling for meat. Those supporting the vote said they were responding to a World Trade Organization ruling, judging US country-of-origin labeling unfair competition with meat coming from foreign countries like Canada and Mexico, and therefore a violation. They said they had no choice for fear of triggering sanctions or lawsuits from countries exporting meat across our borders.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/06/20/why-tpp-worse-mystery-meat

  75. What’s wrong with people dealing in horseshit, anyway?
    ———–
    There is nothing wrong with people dealing in horseshit UNLESS it is marketed, labeled and sold as fine French cuisine.

    The problem is they will eat it, regardless.

    Pierre, a countryman of yours had something to say about this:

    To wit:

    The Dog and The Perfume Bottle

    “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.”


    From Le Spleen de Paris
    by Charles Baudelaire

  76. Interesting disquisition on “integrative” and “distributive” negotiation. You’ve obviously engaged in more negotiations than any of us.
    ————
    I am sure that is true.

    We all have our crosses to bear.

    I wonder whether I would have turned out better if I had spent my time in pool halls and beer taverns.

    When Budweiser asked “Who Says You Can’t Have It All” I say, Reality says that.

    That answer also applies to Obama, the man who promised to sit down with the leader of Iran and iron our our differences.

    Harvard professors perform miracles like this in the twinkling of an eye.

    So could Amie Semple McPherson who told her congregation folding money please, I hate the sound of coinage.

  77. You still side-stepped my remark that, in lecturing the “carefully selected Egyptian students”,
    ————-
    I sidestep nothing.

    Not even mud puddles.

    I simply assumed that you knew those students were props in his stagecraft.

    The negotiation was with the Muslim world.

    The medium was big media.

    The beneficiary was not the American People.

    It was the corporations LIKE GE who are sick and tired of selling their goods through Kuwait.

    They want direct access to those markets.

    Educated Iranians/Persians have told me this.

  78. Lecturers can range from very competent, to just plain poor.
    ———-
    Lecturers do not want a dance partner.

    They want only an audience.

    Big media which is now the surrogate of big business is the same way.

    Top down indoctrination bereft of any feedback mechanism.

    The husband of a friend of mine ran the best small town newspaper in the country.

    He said if they got a story wrong, they would hear about it at in various social settings.

    The writers lived in the same community as the writers.

    Not so now.

    The other thing he told me goes to Lu’s observation about the decline of investigative journalism.

    Now that big business owns the media and the politicians it is a closed loop.

    He said, investigative journalism is very expensive because it takes time, and often the stories had to be trashed

    The reason was mindful of the rights at issue, he would not publish a story unless it could be validated by 3 sources.

    Compare that to the reckless way CNN and NBC operate today— ready, fire, aim.

    He said the 24 hour news cycle was the catalyst.

    Whatever the explanation, most people would agree we now have a big media who serves its owners, not the public.

  79. From Pete Huntz without review by JE Swezey

    Shadowfax June 21, 2015 at 3:35 pm

    Actually, Pete…don’t waste your time trying to prove to me that Obama as a lecturer or as a pResident is intelligent. There is no way you could convince me that he is, after all these years.

    Believe me, I won’t waste your time or mine trying to do that. But I and everybody else here spend day in and day out serving some obviously intelligent people (translation is very demanding intellectually), so we tend to have a modest assessment of our own intelligence and don’t venture to judge that of others. Carol Ann has something to say about that, to Lu4PUMA, who claims to have “genius-level IQ”.

    When describing Obama as a lecturer or professor, I’m talking about general mindset, not intelligence.

    I love the “pResident” spelling. It’s a more accurate indication of Obama’s mindset than demeaning his intelligence.

  80. Great Balls ‘o Fire! What is happening to Hillary is 44? We’ve had trolls over the years but this feels like a take over. Recently we have been on troll patrol and have not been feeding the last troll. So then…ta-da…suddenly he-she-it is ba-c-k but now with multiple personalities.

    We now have not only a former poster, presently known as the boss, J Ed, but also Pete, Carol Ann and Pierre. Any day now, probably Joe Blow and John Doe will show up as well. Obviously “they” are trying to take over Big Pink.

    Notice how all of the above plus our recent troll post in pink as if they were Administrator. Notice how they said they might be banned by administrator…like Brier Rabbit. “Oh, please, please do not throw me into that brier patch!” Notice how the former poster wants us to “guess” his identity and marvel at “his” intelligence.

    Is this an attack on Administrator? Is this “bunch” being paid big bucks to take over this site and silence Administrator? Obviously, they are here to keep us off track, demoralized, bore us stupid, and change our minds about Hillary.

    Once again, gang, please, please DO NOT FEED THE TROLL/TROLLS. If we scroll on past those posters and DO NOT COMMENT, Lord knows “who” will show up next and try to take over so it seems the best thing for us to do is just ignore, ignore, ignore, stick together, support Administrator and be amused at the efforts to try to distract and take Hillary and us down.

  81. Southern: what the trolls do not understand is whose interest and what agenda they are really serving.

    Truth to tell, they are unwitting dupes in a sophisticated business plan aimed at destroying the constitution, disenfranchising the American People, and imposing world government for the benefit of the elites. They are a cheap date. Give them minimum wage, a pat on the head, and assurance that they are transforming the world and they gladly report for duty. When you hear someone talk about intelligence, be wary. When I was doing work with a cattle coalition, an old Texas cattlewoman named Mary Prudhome (aunt of the Louisana chef by that name) put her finger on it when she said: our kids here in this little town were doing just fine until we sent them away to college and they educated the common sense out of them. To hell with intelligence. Judgment is what counts.

  82. Dang, your not living in Kansas anymore, or ANY part of America…

    LOL Good one, Gonzo! To me, at this point, it feels like a computer talking to us, each time when it says, “now I am speaking in the voice of my character Peter”, “now I am speaking in the voice of my character Mary”. Especially the, “and our programmer has informed us all of your individual foibles and personalities on this website so that we can better interact with you earthlings”. It’s weird. I’m sure admin could have helped them with the sign-in process. And Admin always speaks as “we” – it’s very disconcerting for them to do the same thing. The whole thing just feels weird.

    PS can you post the link for the article by Matthew Continetti you posted? TIA

  83. displace Mexicans in social services and education resources,

    Eh, I think they’ll just raise our taxes to provide free stuff to every illegal….

  84. 22 June By Carol Ann Mangin unviewed by JE Swezey

    As a woman dealing with smart women (and men) every day, I was flabbergasted by this post –

    Lu4PUMA June 20, 2015 at 3:41 pm

    … I am a strong, smart woman. I mean, I have a genius level IQ….

    … because I’ve never heard a woman (or even a man) openly state such confidence in her own intelligence.

    But then, before I could do any research on the TPA/TPP (which was what the post was about), I find:

    Lu4PUMA June 21, 2015 at 9:53 am

    jeswezey, your posts are too long and convoluted… too disorganized and abstract to hold my attention long enough….

    So, now we are dealing with a genius who seems to have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. You might take Valium to overcome this disorder… or maybe a psychoanalyst could help your distended self-esteem?

    Anyway, I for one take your criticisms to heart and will heretofore do my best to be succinct, down to earth, and organize my posts better. For now, I humbly apologize because I should know better: improving other people’s writing skills is part of my day job.

  85. as someone who has been here a LONG time when you first popped on the scene jeswezey I considered you a schitzo nutbag muslim sympathizer troll. your posts were long and convoluted and did not seem to come to a point and rambled too long.

    I tried to read them but after a while just scrolled by you as the writing style was difficult to read and sometimes offensive due to you subtly and sometimes not so subtly tried to swing the readers opinion.

    so while you may make light about organizing your posts better for those of us who tried to follow you initially… if you were multiple writers at that point it definitely makes sense as to why you were so difficult to read/follow.

    quite a few long time people here no longer post much due to hillary changing for the worse but there are probably quite a few who still check in and read regularly. admin and WB are very insightful people whether you support hillary or not.

  86. 22 June from Pierre Abel unviewed by JE Swezey

    wbboei June 20, 2015 at 10:38 pm

    Great points made by your group. Got me thinking for a change. Glad they are here.

    The credit for this enormous compliment can only go to Carol Ann Mangin – certainly not me, in any event.

    I am not only the sole non-American in the group, I’m not even French (as you assumed in your humorous remarks about my beloved horseshit) but Lebanese, and also a recent adjunct to the “QED” gang (about 3 years). Also, my English is not so good (I have someone ‘brush it up’ before I post).

    Peter Huntz has known Ed Swezey since college about 50 years ago.

    Carol Ann is a much more recent find, and she is a generation younger than J Ed and Peter; but she has a reputation for ‘psyching out’ people within minutes of first encounter, and that’s why J Ed latched onto her. The story goes that they met in the company of Ed’s wife, and Carol Ann saw the incompatibility instantly, made some incisive remarks to the couple that spoiled the dinner, and convinced Ed right afterwards to get a divorce.

    Today, Ed and Carol Ann live in a kind of loving father-daughter relationship; she is ‘top banana’ among the Quality Managers and Ed plans to make a separate QM firm with Carol Ann heading it up.

    Anyway, all the remarks about why lawyers do better at politics than businessmen do, plus the distaste for show biz in politics and the consequent distrust of Donald Trump, come from Carol Ann; and I think it was those remarks that prompted your compliment, “Got me thinking…” because then you say:

    wbboei June 21, 2015 at 11:18 am

    … this is what we will be hearing from Donald: He has an in-your-face way of reducing the complex to the simple so more minds can grasp it….

    … which is an excellent way of stating the advantage of the Master Showman – someone who knows the marketing ropes best. I think Carol Ann can agree with it as well as any of us.

  87. From Carol Ann Mangin without review by JE Swezey

    Despite all of Pierre’s credit thrown my way, I hasten to point to another post that indicates that my efforts have not been entirely successful:

    Mormaer June 21, 2015 at 8:00 am

    … the level of mayhem Trump is causing, from angst to apoplexy, is great….

    Yes, it is. OK. But:

    He and Ann Coulter tag teaming the professional left by simply stating the obvious in the most in your face non-politically correct means is fascinating.

    “In-your-face non-politically correct” is a good assessment too. But my take on this is not that Trump and Ann Coulter are causing “angst to apoplexy” among the “professional left” – whoever that may be – but among corporate Republicans, i.e. the GOP establishment, and nobody else.

    Let’s hypothesize that the “professional left” you’re talking about is Obama and those Dems that still support him. I contend that this “professional left” doesn’t care a farthing about Trump. What harm is he doing them?

    I doubt you take Hillary and her supporters to be the “professional left”; but if you do, I say they don’t care either, because Trump is a minor challenge they will (probably won’t) face much farther down the road, if ever.

    If by “professional left” you mean the liberal media, that’s the media’s problem. But in fact, it’s not their problem either. “Big media” doesn’t answer to Ann Coulter now or ever, and eventually HRC will make minced meat of Trump or whatever sheep the GOP sends in for the slaughter; Big Media is sure to make the most of it.

    The tag team between Trump and Coulter does no more than frighten the GOP field by shaking the scarecrow of someone who obviously masters show business better than any of the other show biz wannabes on the “professional right”.

    In fact, all of this plays so neatly into HRC’s hands that I almost suspect that the Clintons themselves spurred Trump into the race.

  88. So the Chronicles of “jeswezey” is a group effort of our betters. How funny. Committee agitprop and group-think at its most incomprehensible. It has become too obvious during the era of Obama that we need better “betters”. Huffy hectoring doesn’t work anymore.

  89. From Peter Huntz without review by Ed Swezey

    sirmrks June 22, 2015 at 6:36 am

    Wow, I (we) don’t know what to make of your post: talk about “convoluted”!!?!

    I gather you don’t like our posts generally, so I guess the best thing is for you to follow Southern Born’s advice and “ignore, ignore, ignore.” Or better: “ignore, ignore, ignore, ignore, ignore” and skip by too.

    For our part, we hope you don’t mind if we read your posts and try to understand them.

  90. I like how the committee of jeswezey works through the comments like a job assignment. “You answer the Thursday crap for commenters A-K, and you L-P, and I guess I’s do the rest.” Reminds me of Pravda.

  91. jeswezey
    June 22, 2015 at 8:05 am
    For our part, we hope you don’t mind if we read your posts and try to understand them.

    GFY.

  92. Southern Born

    June 21, 2015 at 9:56 pm

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

    well said…

    this is so tedious and obvious…please do not encourage this group troll…this is a manipulation…

  93. From Pierre Abel without review by Ed Swezey

    Mormaer June 22, 2015 at 7:49 am

    Committee agitprop and group-think at its most incomprehensible.

    English is my third language; yet I understand Carol’s post of 7:46 am perfectly well. What’s your problem?

    Yes, our posts are generally a “group effort” in the sense that others and I looked over the 7:49 post before it was posted. But what’s the harm in that? Where is the “huffy hectoring”? Is it because Carol dared to question your reference to the “professional left”?

    In fact, we all tried to figure out what you meant by that “professional left”, offered the various possibilities, and came to the conclusion that I think was clearly stated in the post.

    Aside from that, we agreed with your post of 8:00 am and therefore can only surmise that you will take it badly if we don’t understand you lock, stock and barrel.

    I guess it’s another professional malady of ours as translators: If you don’t understand a sentence in the first or second degree, you’d better ask the client for a clarification or you’re likely to make a mistake that will cost you dearly.

    So, please let me backtrack: What exactly did you mean by the “professional left”?

  94. jeswezey
    June 22, 2015 at 7:09 am
    22 June from Pierre Abel unviewed by JE Swezey

    wbboei June 20, 2015 at 10:38 pm

    Great points made by your group. Got me thinking for a change. Glad they are here.
    ——–

    Sarcasm definition: A form of irony in which apparent praise conceals another, scornful meaning.

  95. jeswezey
    June 22, 2015 at 3:50 am
    22 June By Carol Ann Mangin unviewed by JE Swezey

    As a woman dealing with smart women (and men) every day, I was flabbergasted by this post –

    Lu4PUMA June 20, 2015 at 3:41 pm

    … I am a strong, smart woman. I mean, I have a genius level IQ….

    … because I’ve never heard a woman (or even a man) openly state such confidence in her own intelligence.

    But then, before I could do any research on the TPA/TPP (which was what the post was about), I find:

    Lu4PUMA June 21, 2015 at 9:53 am

    jeswezey, your posts are too long and convoluted… too disorganized and abstract to hold my attention long enough….

    So, now we are dealing with a genius who seems to have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. You might take Valium to overcome this disorder… or maybe a psychoanalyst could help your distended self-esteem?

    Anyway, I for one take your criticisms to heart and will heretofore do my best to be succinct, down to earth, and organize my posts better. For now, I humbly apologize because I should know better: improving other people’s writing skills is part of my day job.

    ______________

    Carol/Jes/Ed … whothehellever,

    IMO you need to back off a bit. You presume to imply that Lu is lying about her intelligence, and assert that she is suffering from ADHD, in need of analysis? Seems a little out of line. She’s been on this blog a long time. You, not so much.

    Having to be on alert for trolls, impostors, or posters with hidden agendas is getting a bit tiresome.

  96. From Peter Huntz without review by JE Swezey

    Mormaer June 22, 2015 at 8:17 am

    Reminds me of Pravda.

    How would you know? Did you use to work at Pravda? Or maybe still do? Is that why you’re so sensitive about anyone questioning your pronouncements?

    Mormaer June 22, 2015 at 8:22 am

    GFY.

    Now, that’s the spirit!

    We insist on reading your posts too – especially since they’re much more understandable than those of “sirmrks”.

  97. Jes & Co started out so sugar sweet, and now have shown their true colors…so I pledge to troll by, no comments…except, I can’t resist this one thing…

    Can you imagine a man divorcing his wife after a pyscho, oh sorry, a psychic, told him he was incompatible with her? Looks like someone was shopping for a newer model….nothing special there…dirty old man syndrome, but I would be careful, the new models are out…

  98. From Carol Ann Mangin without review by J Ed Swezey

    Today, Ed and Carol Ann live in a kind of loving father-daughter relationship;

    wbboei June 22, 2015 at 9:04 am

    My advice would be to consult with a lawyer

    Incest may be an acceptable practice in France….

    LOL!! I warned Pierre about expressing it that way, that it was “too much” as you say.

    What he meant, of course, was that there is a very strong bond of the father-daughter type between us, something like between HRC and her dad. At the dinner when we met, I was already married and pregnant and there has never been any hint of an incestuous relationship since.

    That story about our first meeting is true, though. Thinking back on it, my husband and I were there to meet with Ms Swezey (an encyclopedia editor at a publishing firm where I hoped to get a job), who seemed to expect the conversation to revolve entirely around her and her accomplisments.

    She was the first person I ever met who said to me anything like “I have a very high opinion of myself.” – her exact words, and in a threatening tone. Can you imagine that? A woman with a severe ego problem?

    I came back with “Who cares about your opinion of yourself?” That cost me a job and soured the (very short) evening.

  99. Please, please, please Jeweezy.

    YOU ARE NOT LISTENING TO ME.

    This incest business is very serious.

    That said, if their intent is to continue this practice.

    Then they may wish to consider the buccolic environs of Maine and West Virginia

    Where they have a more open, tolerant, and less judgmental reaction to it.

    As they do in France.

    That tolerance could be simply leftist secular theology.

    Or, it could be the byproduct of homemade whiskey and too much in breeding.

    To the extent there is any difference.

    Your contention that this is merely a matter of semantics is unconvincing.

    For their own sake, they need to face up to the problem . . . and deal with it.

    Despite the schlockmeisters of mass culture, we still have vestiges of a Puritan culture in this country.

    And the closer they get to a criminal court room, the more that reality will become manifest.

    I cannot take the case myself.

    But if you want a good referral, let me suggest Eric Holder.

    He is intimately acquainted with all sorts of conflicts of interest qua questionable behavior.

    Good luck and godspeed.

  100. wbboei
    June 22, 2015 at 10:50 am
    ———————————————
    Wb, you are dealing with robots here. Like the Terminator, they cannot be reasoned with. Don’t even bother with them, no matter how much they tempt you.

  101. She was the first person I ever met who said to me anything like “I have a very high opinion of myself.” – her exact words, and in a threatening tone. Can you imagine that? A woman with a severe ego problem?

    I came back with “Who cares about your opinion of yourself?”

    ——-
    Well now that was not very artful–was it?

    If you wanted the job, why not say something like it is important to believe in yourself.

    Or, if you wanted to say something obliquely in French: à chacun son goût (to each his own)

    The answer you gave leads me to believe that she was not the only one with a “severe ego problem”

    You made your point, you lost the job, and all I can say in response is: congratulations.

  102. From Carol Ann Mangin without review by JE Swezey

    Shadowfax June 22, 2015 at 11:51 am

    I am very disappointed in you.

    With me? or Ed? or Peter (he was the one you were communicating with before)?

    If it’s me, please clarify… Opposition is fine with me, but I don’t see anything reprehensible in what I’ve been saying.

  103. http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/06/21/guess-the-political-party-ap-photo-lines-pistol-up-with-senator-2016-candidate-ted-cruzs-brain/

    ——-
    Associated Press published a photo of Cruz with a gun pointing at his brain.

    When challenged they claim this photo was not INTENDED to suggest anything untoward.

    Let’s parse that one out.

    They say this was not their intent, but how can we be sure?

    For the answer to that question, let’s turn to the criminal law

    When a crime is committed, intent must be proven

    There as here, the perpetrator often denies it.

    Unless there is a confession, or an admission.

    It is proven through circumstantial evidence.

    In this case, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence

    That the intent of AP is to harm Senator Cruz

    Because he is a Republican, and-

    Because he is a conservative, and-

    Because he advocates limited government, and-

    Whereas AP, like the rest of big media, are in favor of all those things

    The circumstantial evidence is compelling.

    It can be found in the statements of their ceo

    When he firmly embraced the Obama agenda

    And it is manifest in the double standard they apply to conservatives

    Given the graphic nature of this picture, their decision to publish it, and their known hostility to Cruz and all he stands for

    It becomes obvious that their intent was to harm Senator Cruz

    That much is beyond dispute.

    The question whether they wanted to plant a subliminal message.

    Given the assassination attempts against public figures

    That possibility cannot be dismissed lightly.

    I do not think there is a clear yes or no answer

    I think the most you can say is AP did not give a damned.

    Just as long as they made their political point.

    And that is, at best, reckless behavior

    Of the very kind we have come to expect for big media.

  104. I was speaking to jeswezey, not any of the people that are now posting on our blog, in ‘his place’.

  105. I still haven’t ruled out the thought that one person with multiple personalities or a pure and simple mind-fu@k are taking place.

  106. From Carol Ann Mangin without review by JE Swezey

    Shadowfax June 22, 2015 at 1:15 pm

    I was speaking to jeswezey, not any of the people that are now posting on our blog, in ‘his place’.

    OK, I guess that means J Ed then (JE Swezey). Fire away: why are you disappointed in him? I’ll make sure he reads your answer.

    I still haven’t ruled out the thought that one person with multiple personalities or a pure and simple mind-fu@k are taking place.

    Nobody I know suffers from “multiple personalities”, but I have no way of proving it one way or the other. There’s one difference between Pete and me that could be explained by different personalities: Pete spends time trying to tone down the criticism of Obama and explaining away his past sins; but I don’t care about Obama any more, since the 2012 election. I’m turned toward current events and the future – the Trump announcement and what it portends, for example, or the inevitability of the HRC presidency, justifying or criticizing her approach and so forth.

  107. I still haven’t ruled out the thought that one person with multiple personalities or a pure and simple mind-fu@k are taking place.
    ———–
    Shadow, you can see they are in a state of abject denial.

    They tell us there is a loving relationship between a father and daughter.

    Then, they deny it.

    Then, legal help is offered.

    Then, they fail to respond.

    Then, they manifest the acute symptoms of multiple personality.

    Then, they are offered help.

    Then, they refuse that help and try to change the subject.

    It pains me to see them ruining their lives this way.

    But what can you do?

    You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink.

    For their own good, I think it is best to ignore them.

    And pray for their souls.

  108. It is clear that jeswezey does not like women to think highly of themselves. An IQ is a measured, quantitative characteristic of a person, not an opinion. I have generally found that people who try to convince you to be less than, are actually trying to control you.

    Besides, it is creepy. Jeswezey is on my SCROLL PAST LIST.

Comments are closed.