Trump Week 4: Michael Flynn Flies; Vigo Vigor; Immigration Idiocy; Netanyahu Nears; Trudeau Talks; Trump Trumps

Ed Koch used to ask, “How am I doing?” Big Media, as President Trump begins week 4, thinks “It’s over for Trump”… again. America, thinks things are just grand. Consider a nastily testy report from Trump hater Politico which asks Vigo, “how is President Trump doing?”:

‘I’m Still All Trumped Up’

Hundreds of miles from the din of D.C., the nation’s bellwether county thinks the new president is doing just fine. [snip]

Almost a month into Trump’s administration, Vigo—population 108,000, the nation’s swingiest swing county—seemed to be an ideal place to take the temperature of voters. This year, Vigo swung for Trump (who took 55.4 percent to Hillary Clinton’s 40.2 percent), continuing a 60-year streak as the nation’s most accurate bellwether county. [snip]

What I heard, in conversations with nearly a dozen Trump supporters, is that like the Ameses, most of Vigo County is still “Trumped up.” [snip] The lies, the fumbles and faux pas that have rattled the D.C. establishment and global allies? None of it seems to resonate here.

I think Trump is doing exactly what he said he was going to do,” said Keith Kindsvatter, a 64-year-old system specialist with the Federal Aviation Administration, as he chomped on his BLT sandwich at Boo’s. [snip]

To a person, the Trump voters I talked to in Vigo offered a similar refrain as they assessed Trump’s first days in office, almost as if they were reading from a fresh batch of talking points issued by the president’s director of Surrogate Outreach: “He’s doing exactly what he promised he would do,” Kelly, 48, a pharmacist in Terre Haute who felt uncomfortable divulging her last name, told me when I asked her about Trump’s controversial immigration executive order, as she ate a slice of cheese pizza at the food court in Honey Creek Mall. Nor are voters like Kelly lamenting his Twitter tirades: “He’s speaking directly to the people. Like Reagan!” Dick told me over lunch. Trump’s brusque, shoot-from-the-hip conversations with world leaders and allies? “We’re not going to go to war with Australia,” Kindsvatter said.

I think he’s pretty much following The Art of the Deal,” said Ken Warner, 60, who works in the finance industry. “He’s got the price of fighter jets down. It’s not something we’re used to. It’s a little unorthodox. Listening to his Carrier negotiation, you have to shrug on the means but can’t disagree with the ends. You don’t want to be picking winners and losers. You don’t want to see a president calling out people on Twitter. However, the results so far have not been bad. So I can’t say it’s wrong.” [snip]

“He’s done more in the two weeks he’s been president than the other president did in eight years,” Dick told me.

Even as Politico acknowledges the people of Vigo are happy with President Trump and his results thus far, the condescension that Vigo does not think like the people in places Politico has offices in is clear. The message from Vigo to President Trump? “Stand strong.” “We’re with you!”

A short while earlier, Politico published an article about alleged chaos and calamity of poor befuddled nincompoops in the White House who realize they are in over their heads and, well, “it’s over for Trump.” After thirty paragraphs of gloom and doom, Politico is forced to admit that even if Big Media and coastal elites are bothered and bewildered, President Trump supporters stand strong:

If the opening days of Trump’s presidency have been rocky and unconventional, many of his admirers aren’t bothered by it.

“I’m not disappointed in the president’s work so far — he operates like many great CEOs I know — and I hope he continues to manage the country in a manner worlds apart from the way we’ve seen in the past,” said Michael Caputo, who was a Trump campaign aide. “It’s about time.”

Ignore Big Media. How is President Trump doing?

President Trump started the working week (he also works on weekends you know) with a meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that from all accounts went very well. If this was President Obama that would have been enough activity for the entire week, or month. But we’re talking about President Trump here, so a lot more was done.

The corrupt Vice President of Venezuela Tareck El Aissami was sanctioned for his international drug smuggling. President Trump continued to get his cabinet officials confirmed by the Senate. The Veteran Affairs and Treasury Department secretaries both confirmed as week 4 begins.

Two in, one out. On Monday, President Trump mulled the questions about his good and faithful National Security Advisor Mike Flynn. By the end of the day Flynn flew.

The story of Mike Flynn is very simple. During the transition Mike Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador about sanctions on Russia. Mike Flynn however “misled” Vice President Pence about those conversations. Pence went on TV to say the Flynn calls did not discuss sanctions on Russia. See the problem?

Mike Flynn did not violate the law. Mike Flynn did nothing wrong. Mike Flynn was smart to have those conversations with the Russians. Mike Flynn did commit a grave crime in Trump world: stupidity.

Mike Flynn made a stupid mistake. The mistake is not what Big Media wants Americans to think however. Mike Flynn’s stupid mistake was he did not take precautions even though he knew full well that the political establishment and especially the intelligence bureaucracy is out to destroy President Trump with leaks. Mike Flynn’s stupid mistake was to put himself into the line of fire of the hidden assassins.

Also, don’t mess with Pence (or Bannon).

Investigations into the leaks will have to go into the secret encrypted communications that many of the federal bureaucrats use to plot against President Trump. The moles will have to be dug out and removed. These treacherous bureaucrats manage to get a scalp from a good man. As an honorable man, Mike Flynn resigned. The White House and President Trump stood behind him but everyone knew it was time to go. So he went. He fell on his sword for the President that stood by him. Well done by all.

As the Flynn noise gathered, there was a lot of noise on immigration too. The Obama Dimocrats have a lot of problems with the immigration issue. Still, the “legal garbage” by the courts on President Trump’s immigration order continued.

Lots and lots of noise on immigration and the President Trump executive order:

A Seattle federal district court has issued a preliminary injunction on President Trump’s controversial immigration executive order, which temporarily banned most immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries and also shut down the refugee program for 120 days.

The injunction, by Judge James Robart, effectively extends the temporary restraining order he issued earlier this month into an indefinite nationwide block of Trump’s immigration order.

Robart rejected calls from the Trump administration to postpone the district court case while the 9th Circuit considers a request from one of its judges for a rehearing of last week’s decision, which denied a motion to lift the restraining order. [snip]

Meanwhile, a federal court in Virginia issued a preliminary injunction on Trump’s executive order, but the edict only applies to the state. The judge in that case rejected Virginia’s request to apply the decision nationwide, restricting it to legal permanent residents of Virginia and valid visa holders who work or attend school there.

But the judge in that case, Leonie Brinkema, wrote that “the Commonwealth has produced unrebutted evidence supporting its position that it is likely to succeed on an Establishment Clause claim.”

The ‘Muslim ban’ was a centerpiece of the president’s campaign for months, and the press release calling for it was still available on his website as of the day this [opinion] is being entered.”

“The major premise of that argument – that one can only demonstrate animus toward a group of people by targeting all of them at once – is flawed,” Brinkema added. “It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution.” [snip]

While the administration is expected to release new orders, it is Evan’s understanding they will likely include introductory remarks indicating the new orders are intended to “clarify” or “supplement” the existing executive order. [snip]

Trump may issue multiple orders so that if the courts strike down one part, it wouldn’t affect the order as a whole, according to Evans’ understanding of the issue.

Evans says he believes the administration wanted to keep the 9th Circuit case active so they can take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court at the right time and reverse last week’s unfavorable ruling. [snip]

Another Trump strategy is to delay the 9th Circuit case until Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, can get on the bench, according to Evans’ understanding. One way to do this is to file for a reconsideration en banc to the 9th Circuit, which is already in motion because a judge on Friday requested a judges’ vote.

You can buy yourself 28 days,” said Evans, adding that “there’s a lot of chess and legal maneuvering going on.”

“Based on what I’ve read and seen the Trump Administration wants to maximize the chance to have the full Supreme Court decide whether the commander-in-chief indeed has the broadest discretion in deciding what is in the interest of the United States,” Evans said.

Yeah, lots of noise. Court cases around the nation will proceed. The Seattle lunatic judge is crazier than ever. The Ninth Circus is having second thoughts. This is all a lot of noise. What matters is, President Trump will win:

If immigration ban goes to Supreme Court, Trump is shoo-in to win [snip]

The states claim that the order’s 90-day ban on admitting lawful permanent residents and non-immigrant visa holders from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the United States without notice and an opportunity to respond violates their right to due process under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

But a visa does not guarantee entry into the United States. It just allows an alien to travel to a United States port-of-entry and request permission to enter. [snip]

The 90-day suspension is based on Section 212(f), which gives the president authority to exclude aliens from the United States without regard to whether they are in one of the classes described by section 212(a).

In other words, when entry is denied under section 212(f), the determination on admissibility is made by the president, not by an immigration judge. [snip]

According to the Congressional Research Service, “Neither the text of Section 212(f) nor the case law to date suggests any firm legal limits upon the president’s exercise of his authority to exclude aliens under this provision.”

It does not state even what the president should consider in determining whether the entry of an alien is “detrimental” to U.S. interests.

According to the states, the order “was not truly meant to protect against terror attacks by foreign nationals but rather was intended to enact a ‘Muslim ban’ as the president had stated during his presidential campaign that he would do.”

The states claim that therefore the Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. [snip]

According to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, the 90-day suspension does not violate the establishment clause. President Trump picked countries that have high levels of terrorism. When you focus on real perpetrators and the impact is heavily on one particular religion, that does not create a constitutional problem.

Although the government may have to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court, I will be surprised if the order is not upheld in the end.

It’s just a matter of time. On immigration and all the current noisy battles, Trump will trump.

As week 4 progresses, Trump will be even more trumpy.

On hump day, President Trump will meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel. Oh, oh, there’s sure to be a big fight between those two right? After all, Big Media reported that President Trump had just stabbed Israel in the back. Um, Big Media lied:

More Fake News: Trump ‘Opposes’ Israeli Settlements

The mainstream media are abuzz with reports that President Donald Trump has come out against Israeli settlements. The New York Times was exultant: “Trump Embraces Pillars of Obama’s Foreign Policy,” it crowed.

That kind of story serves two propagandist purposes. First, it provides a kind of justification for Obama’s betrayal of Israel at the UN Security Council over settlements last month; second, it nods at the old NeverTrump claim that Trump would never keep his word to conservatives.

There’s just one problem: the story is false. [snip]

The Trump administration’s statement is a complete reversal of the Obama administration’s policy.

As legal scholar Eugene Kontorovich explains:

The White House Press Secretary’s statement about settlement building is a huge change of policy, in which the U.S. broadly accepts all building within settlements, including those settlements outside of “blocs.” This is huge.

In the statement, the White House says the building of entirely “new settlements” is not great (but not sharply criticized). On the other hand, building “within existing settlement lines,” ie municipal boundaries, is totally OK. Since all building for 20 years has been within existing lines, and all planned building is within existing lines, this is as big an authorization as it gets.

This is such a big deal, that the press is trying to spin it as a limitation on settlement activity, whereas it is a broad and historic green light. It can no longer be said that the US opposes settlement building.

Perhaps the White House deliberately spun the statement as a limitation to fool the media. That is not hard to do, and it is to President Trump’s benefit, as a negotiating tactic, to appear unpredictable — aggressive one moment, compromising the next.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration has just signaled its intent to back a permanent Jewish presence in eastern Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), with or without a Palestinian state.

Israel Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has a friend in the White House. Thanks to President Trump, Prime Minister Netanyahu is now a hot ticket:

Israeli PM Netanyahu Becomes D.C. Darling as Democrats Clamor
for Meetings

After years of tense relations, Netanyahu most coveted meeting in D.C.

After years of tense relations with the United States under former President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is emerging as one of the most prominent international personalities, according to multiple sources who told the Washington Free Beacon that Democrats, Republicans, and high-level White House officials are clamoring for a sit down with the Israeli leader when he arrives in town on Tuesday.

Senior officials across party lines hope to let Netanyahu know that America has Israel’s back and that years of tension during the Obama administration is just water under the bridge, according to both congressional sources and those close to the Trump administration.

Netanyahu’s schedule is already packed with powwows between President Trump, senior administration officials, and a cast of leading lawmakers on Capitol Hill from both sides of the aisle.

Meetings will center on U.S. lawmakers’ desire to reset relations with the Jewish state. Multiple sources told the Free Beacon that sit downs with White House officials will focus on holding Iran accountable for violations of the nuclear deal, moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and combatting efforts at the United Nations to delegitimize Israel. [snip]

There is a strong desire among all parties to show Netanyahu that after nearly a decade of chilly relations during the former administration, the United States is prepared to restore the historic relationship with the Jewish state.

“Netanyahu’s schedule is so full that he literally can’t find time for all the high level meetings people want to have with him,” said one veteran foreign policy adviser who is closely in touch with the White House on Middle East issues. “The truth of this is, it’s nature taking its course.”

Even stab-em-in-the-back Chuckie Schumer wants to hug Bibi. It’s like a St. Valentine’s Day miracle, Jewish version.

If you want to know how President Trump is doing, ask the residents of Vigo and Benyamin Netanyahu.


Horrible Week For #Hillary2016 Due To Horrible Month For Barack Obama – And Where In Hell Is Michelle?

NBC dumps Trump for “derogatory” comments about immigrants. Big winner? Donald J. Trump. For other Republican candidates this is not good news. For Hillary2016 this is not going to be good news either as Americans see the danger of corporations and government united to suppress anything but politically correct speech. For Hillary2016 it is going to get much worse.

We warned this was not a time to stand near the stink. #Hillary2016 had a horrible week due to the horrible month for Barack Obama. But Big Media of course believes Barack Obama is having a great June and that last week was a great week for Barack Obama:

After momentous week, Obama’s presidency is reborn

He sang. He wept. He cheered. And many say they finally saw the man who inspired them in ’08.

What were the Obama Hopium Guzzlers happy about? Nine black Christians got killed in Obama’s post-racial presidency seems to be the answer. What else can it be?

Remember Obama was going to “turn the page” on all those pesky issues from the 1960s? How is that going? Every Obama promise from 2008 has blown up in the faces of his most fervent worshipers.

The black community? Oh they’re having a great time in this post racial presidency. Unemployment, riots, racial strife, killings, only #BlackLivesMatter ’cause you can’t say #AllLivesMatter lest you be seen as a racist. Yeah, bringing down the Confederate flag will be as good for the black community as electing Barack Obama. Meanwhile as Barack sings and sways where is Michelle Obama? Haven’t nine black Christians been slaughtered? In what cavern in Hell is Michelle Obama?

Like a freshly minted whore taking her first stroll down her street Michelle Obama has been on vacation on the taxpayer dime. Yeah, that killing of Christians, Christians in America, not the many Muslim countries where Christians are regularly killed, so convulsed the nation that Barack did Marvin Gaye and Michelle continued to vacation. Don’t worry black people Michelle Obama really really cared but stayed on vacation.

Maybe the Hopium Guzzlers are happy because of the Obama win on ObamaTrade? The party was against ObamaTrade and Obama sided with Republicans to pass ObamaTrade. Maybe the Hopium Guzzlers applauded that stab in the back so deftly administered by Barack Obama of Chicago.

Maybe the gay marriage decision victory on Friday is the cause for the “reborn” HOPE of 2008? Barack had colored lights deface the White House to celebrate and thereby “pass” as if he was a gay marriage or gay rights supporter all along and responsible for the gay marriage result. Where was Donnie McClurkin gay bashing and singing along with Barack as in the glory days of 2008? In 2008 Obama made other promises and commitments on gay marriage:

State law? Not in the Constitution? God’s in the mix? 2008 reborn?

Maybe on Friday Barack Hussein Obama was celebrating his other great promise of 2008. In 2008 Obama said the “Muslim World” was his buddy and he would make Americans and Muslims BFFs. All America got from the “Muslim world” has been more terrorism and more hate along with Christians and Jews killed. On Friday the “Muslim World” also celebrated on gay rights:

ISIS Celebrates Gay Love by Tossing 4 Gays from Roof of Building

ISIS celebrated gay love today by tossing four more gays from top of a highrise.

Of course a crowd gathered below to watch the execution.

Several Islamists tweeted out #LoveWins – the same hashtag that was used today after the Supreme Court ruling.

Of course this wasn’t the first time…
A massive crowd assembled to watch ISIS rebels throw another gay man off a building top earlier this month.

Hundreds of spectators came out to watch the brutal public execution.

It looks like they drove their cars to the execution!

They hung the man from his feet and then let him drop!

The execution was most likely filmed in Nineveh Province where the Islamists have murdered several gay men.

ISIS is reportedly using “flirting squads” to single out gay men for trial and execution in the Caliphate.

The Islamic State has posted several public executions of gay men online.
ISIS released photos and video of Islamists throwing two men off a rooftop in January.

Video HERE.

The Obama presidency “reborn” propagandists at Politico somehow forgot that June has 30 days. On Monday, like Michelle in front of a mirror, the sh*t hit the fan.

On Friday the China stock market hit the skids. On Monday the China skid accelerated. Today, China stocks free fall into a bear market reports CNN. China is kind of a big country so…. the worst is yet to come.

On Monday Greece hit the grease on it’s downward slide too having elected their very own Obama. The banks are closed. The stock market is closed. The mess will only get worse and it is damn bad now.

As the American markets slide several hundred points the questions on many minds are all about Italy, Portugal, and Spain along with the entire Eurozone. Europe should not feel lonely.

On Monday Puerto Rico went the way of a greased Greece down the tubes:

Puerto Rico’s Governor Says Island’s Debts Are ‘Not Payable’

Puerto Rico’s governor, saying he needs to pull the island out of a “death spiral,” has concluded that the commonwealth cannot pay its roughly $72 billion in debts, an admission that will probably have wide-reaching financial repercussions. [snip]

A broad restructuring by Puerto Rico sets the stage for an unprecedented test of the United States municipal bond market, which cities and states rely on to pay for their most basic needs, like road construction and public hospitals.

That market has already been shaken by municipal bankruptcies in Detroit; Stockton, Calif.; and elsewhere, which undercut assumptions that local governments in the United States would always pay back their debt. [snip]

Its call for debt relief on such a vast scale could raise borrowing costs for other local governments as investors become more wary of lending.

Perhaps more important, much of Puerto Rico’s debt is widely held by individual investors on the United States mainland, in mutual funds or other investment accounts, and they may not be aware of it.

Puerto Rico, as a commonwealth, does not have the option of bankruptcy. A default on its debts would most likely leave the island, its creditors and its residents in a legal and financial limbo that, like the debt crisis in Greece, could take years to sort out.

The bottom line on all this economic world-wide horror is that it is going to get much worse because:

The world is defenceless against the next financial crisis, warns BIS
Monetary policymakers have run out of room to fight the next crisis with interest rates unable to go lower, the BIS warns

The world will be unable to fight the next global financial crash as central banks have used up their ammunition trying to tackle the last crises, the Bank of International Settlements has warned.

The so-called central bank of central banks launched a scatching critique of global monetary policy in its annual report. The BIS claimed that central banks have backed themselves into a corner after repeatedly cutting interest rates to shore up their economies.

These low interest rates have in turn fuelled economic booms, encouraging excessive risk taking. Booms have then turned to busts, which policymakers have responded to with even lower rates.

Thanks Obama. You’ve been a real world leader when it comes to economic malfeasance.

On Monday “The Supreme Court Case That Could Upend Obama’s Climate Agenda” did just that. Remember, Obama’s Second Term Is All About Climate Change is what we were told by the Obama apologists.

Also on Monday, Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktats hit the greasy skids:

Two judges who dealt a significant blow to President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration last month will again play key roles in deciding whether the controversial programs are legally sound.

Fifth Circuit Court Judges Jennifer Walker Elrod and Jerry Smith, both Republican appointees, in May ruled against the Obama administration’s request to proceed with the executive actions — which would protect more than 4 million immigrants here illegally from being deported — while the larger case on the legal merits of the new programs winds through the courts.

And on July 10, they’ll both again hear arguments from Justice Department lawyers and officials from more than two dozen GOP-led states who have sued to stop the immigration actions, when the Fifth Circuit takes up the broader legal case.

June is not over yet. On the last day of June expect the Obama “O-bomb to Iran” talks to explode as well. All the rationales posited by the incompetent, treacherous boob Barack Obama have blown up like a Bikini atoll nuclear test. Still Barack Obama is not done helping Iran get a nuclear bomb. Barack Obama is not yet done nuking America.

This all spells disaster for #Hillary2016. We warned years ago that Hillary2016 needed to become a “time for a change” campaign. Instead Hillary2016 has tied itself to Barack Obama. The consequences of such a catastrophic decision begin to be seen by all but the blind.

ObamaCare is a healthcare disaster as well as an economic disaster. The ObamaCare “victory” of last week means an economic catastrophe for Hillary2016:

The economics of Obamacare are very bad. The law is inflicting broad damage on job creation and new business formation. It ruins job incentives by making it pay more not to work, thereby intensifying a labor shortage that is holding back growth and in turn lowering incomes and spending.

And across-the-board Obamacare tax increases are inflicting heavy punishment on investment — right when the U.S. economy desperately needs more capital as a way of solving a steep productivity decline.

Because of Obamacare, there’s an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on salaries and self-employment income, a 3.8 percent tax increase on capital gains and dividends, a cap on health care flexible spending accounts, a higher threshold for itemized medical expense deductions, and a stiff penalty on employer reimbursements for individual employee health policy premiums.

Each of these tax hikes is anti-growth and anti-job.

There is so much talk about “secular stagnation,” inequality and stagnant wages these days. But there’s little talk about the negative economic impact of Obamacare. It’s a much bigger story than SCOTUS jurisprudence.

The worst is yet to come. Yet now Hillary2016 has tied itself, like Captain Ahab, to that Moby Dick.

Only 1 poll out of 189 has ever shown ObamaCare to be anything but a hated law. Now every health insurance disaster will be blamed on ObamaCare and Hillary2016 will be tied to that stink. In an attempt to make excuses for ObamaCare the ObamaCare lovin’ Huff n’ Puff Post tried to explain why ObamaCare is a bomb:

But the debate over President Barack Obama’s controversial health care law is likely to continue no matter how the justices rule. And one reason is that Americans, on the whole, remain deeply ambivalent about it.

While the popularity of “Obamacare” has fluctuated a bit in the five-plus years since it became law, the amazing thing is how little public opinion has changed. [snip]

The best guess is that people are holding the law responsible for all of the problems of the health care system — including those like rising deductibles, narrowing hospital networks, or even long waits at the doctor’s office that most experts believe have little or nothing to do with the law itself.

Opinion on ObamaCare is hardly “ambivalent”. ObamaCare indeed, contra what those ObamaCare pimps try to excuse, is responsible for making the heath insurance markets a bigger mess than ever. Both ObamaCare supporters and ObamaCare critics (who knew ObamaCare would be a disaster) all agree that the American “people are holding the law responsible for all the problems of the health care system”. And guess who is now left holding the bag full of sh*t? Hillary Clinton and Hillary2016.

On last week’s Supreme Court gay marriage decision, Hillary2016 is also in a mess. Consider, both on ObamaCare and gay marriage – the very two reasons Politico considers the Obama presidency “reborn” – Hillary gets a bag stuffed with sh*t and no benefits. Why?

The political reality for Hillary2016 is that on neither gay marriage nor ObamaCare does Hillary2016 profit. In fact on gay marriage and ObamaCare Hillary2016 gets deeper in sh*t. That’s because on neither of these issues does Hillary2016 get increased enthusiasm or greater support. For those supporters of gay marriage as their #1 issue it’s effectively over and they still might vote for Hillary2016 but it is a less urgent matter. Probably zero gay marriage supporters will change against Hillary2016 to pro-Hillary2016 based on this issue. On ObamaCare, few people will say “now that ObamaCare is upheld I will vote for Hillary.” Quite the contrary.

The political reality for Hillary2016 is that last week was GOP turnout-palooza. Those that oppose gay marriage are now ready to vote with a vengeance in 2016 against Hillary2016.

It gets worse on the issue of the Confederate flag for Hillary2016. As has been reported repeatedly people are lying to pollsters because they don’t want to be attacked for politically incorrect views. But then when they get to the polling booth they express themselves with alacrity. Guess what those who want to celebrate Southern traditions and wave the Confederate flag will do in 2016. They will emit politically correct sounds now but in 2016, watch out. Here comes Denmark, and Great Britain, and GOP 2014.

At one point Hillary2016 could have gotten white working class votes. As the Confederate flag goes down, so do Hillary’s chances with the white working class constituencies in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana, North Carolina, and many others. In some of these states Hillary2016 had no real chance anyway but that Florida panhandle area right next to Georgia will harbor grudges as they persist waving the Confederate flag.

All the Obama economic contagion? Guess who will pay the price?

It’s been a horrible month for Barack Obama and it’s not over yet. For Hillary2016 the tsunami waves from that sinking presidency threaten to sink it as well.


Peak Disgust This #GoodFriday – Obama, #IranDeal #MemoriesPizza #KenyaAttack

Update: How should we punish grandma and grandpa for opposing gay marriage? It’s good to see other supporters of gay rights and gay marriage speak out against the totalitarian mindset that grips the left. We’ve made our own “whole world is watching” argument against the totalitarian left infection of the gay rights movement in our main article. Here’s another:

What do white evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, conservative Republicans, and immigrants from Africa, South America, and Central America all have in common? They’re less likely to support gay marriage than the average Californian. [snip]

The owners of Memories Pizza are, I think, mistaken in what their Christian faith demands of them. And I believe their position on gay marriage to be wrongheaded. But I also believe that the position I’ll gladly serve any gay customers but I feel my faith compels me to refrain from catering a gay wedding is less hateful or intolerant than let’s go burn that family’s business to the ground. [snip]

A relatively big digital mob has been attacking this powerless family in rural Indiana, but I don’t get the sense that its participants have reflected on or even thought of these questions. I don’t think they recognize how ugly, intolerant and extreme their actions appear or the effect they’ll have on Americans beyond the mainstream media, or that their vitriolic shaming these people has ultimately made them into martyrs. I fear that a backlash against their tactics will weaken support for the better angels of the gay rights movement at a time when more progress needs to be made, and that they’re turning traditionalists into a fearful, alienated minority with a posture of defensiveness that closes them off to persuasion.

We detest bully boys and bully boy tactics. It doesn’t matter if the bully boys wear brown shirts or rainbow shirts… blue shirts or red shirts.


We’re disgusted. Not discouraged, not resigned, disgusted.

Why? Sample the news stories of past few days, weeks, months, as they appeared on one day.

On one day this week Vladimir Putin threatened nuclear war over Crimea, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. That was not all, “Russia has threatened to use “nuclear force” to defend its annexation of Crimea and warned that the “same conditions” that prompted it to take military action in Ukraine exist in the three Baltic states, all members of Nato.” Anyone think NATO, under current leadership will fulfill it’s treaty obligations to the Baltic States and defend them if strong leader Putin attacks? Anyone think still occupied Crimea will be an issue for the craven West?

On that same day yet another Muslim attack against Christians took place. 147 Christians killed by Muslims. This July Obama can witness his anti-Christian anti-Jew handiwork when he visits his ancestral homeland of Kenya.

On the same day two Muslim women in New York City were arrested because they plotted bomb attacks against the United States. These Muslim women planned attacks in and against a democratic country where women are free in order to defend a religion and political movement that despises women (and gays).

The reaction to the two Muslim potential killers from an American woman senator? Censorship. That disgusting woman senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, thinks that the thing to do is remove the “Anarchist Cookbook”and terrorist publications from the internet. It’s freedom hating censorship in the name of freedom. Think this silly censorship will work? Instead of a call for a vigorous defense of freedom in national policy and destruction of the totalitarian movements which propel the Putins and the Muslim killers, we get a futile call for censorship that at best will not work. We will not defeat this Muslim terror mentality with hashtag Twitter campaigns nor internet activism censorship. Did #BringBackOurGirls bring back those girls?

On the same day as the above events occurred we also saw continued attacks against a pizza store because the owner surmised they would not cater a gay wedding if they were ever asked. What person, gay or straight, would cater their wedding with pizza?

It wasn’t about pizza of course. The pizza shop in Indiana was collateral damage in a bigger fight against anti-gay institutional discrimination and the rights of conscience (which have been a fundamental bulwark in every movement for freedom in this country) guaranteed under the First Amendment.

How foolish was this “fight” on the part of gay activists? The very powerful gay boss of one of the most powerful companies in the world, Apple, denounced Indiana and a new religious rights law and threatened to economically deprive Indiana of Apple dollars. Think about that. The economic powerhouse Apple is led by a gay man who opens Apple stores in the most anti-women and anti-gay Muslim countries yet the target of his gay ire is Indiana because the presumed anti-gay wedding non caterers are Christian.

When will the gay rights movement target Muslim bakeries and ask them to cater gay weddings? When will some proud gay black man walk into a business owned by a member of Chicago’s Nation of Islam and demand his gay wedding be catered by anti-gay anti-Christian anti-woman Louis Farrakhan?

What disgusts us about the gay activist attacks against Christianity is not so much the hypocrisy of the protection of gay killing Muslims and gay killing Muslim countries. What is particularly disgusting is the totalitarian mind control exhibited by the supposed defenders of gay rights. And we issue this warning to our allies that support gay rights: “the whole world is watching”.

“The whole world is watching” is typically used by freedom movements to advance on the moral high ground. But in this case, “the whole world is watching” is more of an ominous threat. In many of the Muslim countries the gay rights movement in the United States is watched with loathing (and yes this is despite the fact that many of the Muslim countries have huge closeted gay populations within them and even some not so closeted (think dancing boys of Afghanistan) gay populations). They’re watching the gay movement in America and see the intolerance of the gay movement here and prepare.

In Russia the anti-gay movement is as intolerant as the gay movement in America is becoming. An Associated Press poll finds that anti-gay bigotry is gaining ground in Russia and new laws against gays are on the rise. The gay movement in America and the West should remain on the high ground of tolerance and freedom not on the mind control totalitarian repression of opposing views. Don’t become what you fought against Gay America.

So, as a pizza shop was under attack for expressing an idea, not doing or not doing anything, but for the expression of a thought, Yemen too was in the news. In Yemen Muslim nuts fight Muslim nuts. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Kenya, throughout the Middle East and every Muslim Country and beyond “the world is on fire”, as Speaker of the House John Boehner said.

What was the Obama response to a world on fire? Gasoline!

In Iran the people danced in the streets. Good reason for the celebrations, Iran has gotten the deal of the century:

The thing that no one, supporter or opponent, can deny about the Iran deal is this: Under the agreed “framework,” after ten or 15 years, Iran will be permitted to develop all the nuclear weapons it wants. This agreement is not, as the White House claimed it would be, a deal to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It is merely a way to manage and delay it. [snip]

The principle is simple. Crazy, violent, apocalyptic, militaristic, expansionist sponsors of terrorism are not to be trusted with the atom bomb.

An Iranian bomb would also mean the end of nonproliferation efforts. [snip]

This deal leaves the entire Iranian nuclear weapons production line in place. Iran will even be permitted to continue spinning thousands of centrifuges and enrich uranium, though not at the level needed for a bomb. Assuming they don’t cheat, which they always have. [snip]

Iran’s decades of illegal work on a nuclear weapon is now officially legitimized.

“I’m a little puzzled by the political agreement,” said Olli Heinonen, a previous inspections chief at the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. “You’re going to leave Iran as a threshold state. There isn’t much room to maneuver.”

The US surrendered to Iran on nuke deal, says …. France. An Obama capitulation at treacherous levels according to the French gave Iran the deal they and Obama wanted.

As we have documented before, Obama has always wanted to be the “Arabs’ lawyer”. Persians’ lawyer too? According to an Iranian defector Obama at the negotiating table negotiated for Iran, not America:

Iranian Defector: ‘U.S. Negotiating Team Mainly There to Speak on Iran’s Behalf’

An Iranian journalist writing about the nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran has defected. In an interview Amir Hossein Motaghi, has some harsh words for his native Iran. He also has a damning indictment of America’s role in the nuclear negotiations.

The U.S. negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” Motaghi told a TV station after just defecting from the Iranian delegation while abroad for the nuclear talks. The P 5 + 1 is made up of United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China, France, plus Germany.

The “Arabs’ lawyer” is now also at work for the Persians:

France felt the Americans were keeping France and the other negotiating partners in the dark about the talks. Rather it being P5+1, it has really been the U.S. only talking to Iran. And the French negotiators complained in private the Americans were trying to “force them to make concessions on issues like the number of centrifuges allowed or sanctions.

The French ambassador to the US tweeted his displeasure at the beginning of March, “We want a deal. They need a deal. The tactics and the result of the negotiation should reflect this asymmetry.”

Can’t disagree with the WaPo: The Iran deal is a cave — by Obama’s own standards:

None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years. [snip]

The proposed accord will provide Iran a huge economic boost that will allow it to wage more aggressively the wars it is already fighting or sponsoring across the region. Whether that concession is worthwhile will depend in part on details that have yet to be agreed upon, or at least publicly explained.

Obama’s Iran deal is disgusting:

To quote Winston Churchill under remarkably similar circumstances after Munich: We have suffered an unmitigated defeat. And just like in 1938, our national leader is painting it as a victory over the warmongers without any recognition that he’s just set loose the real warmongers, and what follows will be disaster and ignominy.

We’re disgusted with good reason(s). Allies we thought better of now act more like the totalitarians they oppose. At every level the West and its ideals of tolerance and freedom are in retreat. A party and party leadership we once respected follow the treacherous leader into managed decline of America and all the dread consequences that will bring about.

But we’re not despondent, dispirited, despairing.

For Christians, Good Friday is not because it is particularly “good”. It’s more “solemn”. On “good” Friday the founder of their religion was crucified. The “lamb of God” on a gibbet much like a butchered Passover lamb is not a pretty sight. But the idea of “good” comes from the sacrifice for humanity and the promise of the Resurrection on Easter Sunday and a latter resurrection for humanity through His sacrifice.

So we’re not despondent, dispirited, or despairing, although we are disgusted. We’ll take the disgust on this Good Friday and hope that things get better soon. It won’t be Sunday. But a better day is sure to come. It can’t get worse.


Hillary Clinton Under Attack And On Fox News

Update II: MoonOnPluto in the comments section provides coverage of the Hillary appearance on CNN. As to the Fox News interview Hillary did very well. Hillary planted a lot of time bombs against Obama in these interviews (for example calling for more investigations of the IRS scandal). Without naming Sarah Palin while answering a question about Sarah Palin, Hillary shows some sister solidarity. She also attacks age based discrimination from Obama White House dudes against Ambassador Holbrook. Here’s Part I of the interview which is mostly about Benghazi and Bergdahl:


Update: Hillary Clinton on a CNN “townhall” at 5:00 EDT is sure to be asked about the news that is breaking: US captures first suspect in Benghazi attack. CNN’s “townhall” is bound to be boring. There will be questions CNN will feel they have to ask and they will ask them. But to get a sense of what CNN really wants to dish about listen to the questions they choose “from the public”.

The real show will be tonight on Fox News when two, real, tough, fair and balanced journalists (brutal Bret Baier at 6; mighty Greta Van Susteren at 7) question the unsinkable Hillary. Fox News is Ready for Hillary. Hillary better be ready for Fox News.


It’s fun to watch Hillary Clinton lead Republicans/conservatives and leftist haters down the garden path. The Hillary Clinton book tour is underway.

The reviews of Hillary Clinton book tour week one (and now week two) are in and they foolishly proclaim the whole ordeal to be a disaster. Those that lack the courage to attack Hillary directly take a dive and proclaim the book ‘a bore without news’. The left denounces Hillary as not sufficiently Obama level crazy. Republican/conservatives miss the point entirely.

Well not all Republican/conservatives. Sarah Palin and Matt Drudge showed Republicans/conservatives how to utilize the Hillary Clinton book tour to their advantage. But instead of following Sarah Palin and Matt Drudge’s lead most Republican/conservatives took a u-turn into futility.

What did Sarah Palin and Matt Drudge do? Last week, underneath a picture of a pig nasty Barack Obama observed by a serious Hillary Clinton, Matt Drudge blasted this headline: ‘SEXISM’ IN ’08

The DrudgeReport link was to a story in Politico:

In her new memoir, “Hard Choices,” Clinton wrote that she rejected a request from the Obama campaign to attack Sarah Palin, who was then running for vice president.

“That very first day, the Obama campaign said, ‘Well, we want you to go out there and criticize her,’ and I said ‘For what? For being a woman? No, let’s wait until we know where she stands, I don’t know anything about her. Do you know anything about her?’” Clinton said she told the Obama campaign.

In response to Clinton’s revelation, Palin tweeted: “Look who fired the 1st shot on the real ‘war on women.’ Hint: it wasn’t the GOP. See this excerpt from Hillary’s book,” accompanied by a picture of “Hard Choices.”

A senior Obama campaign official said that the request for Clinton to speak was tailored specifically to Palin’s speech after McCain picked her as his running mate, in which she made a direct pitch for Clinton supporters.

Notice, Hillary Clinton’s truth-telling gave Republicans a way to repudiate the Obama “war on women” attack against Republicans. The Obama henchmen saw the danger to their 2014 hopes and tried to limit the damage Hillary Clinton inflicted on them. To this day Hillary Clinton repeats the charge every time she is asked possibly because Hillary knows that if any leftist can be found to run against her in 2016 the sexism and misogyny of 2008 will return full force against her. Only Sarah Palin took advantage of this new weaponry.

Why did Hillary do this? Aside from a potential leftist candidate running against her using sexism as a not wo veiled weapon, Hillary takes seriously her commitment to women’s rights and wants to let out a bit of the truth of what happened in 2008. A lot of purist know-nothings that supported her in 2008 are angry that Hillary did not “speak out” at the time about the Obama sexist attacks on Sarah Palin. But we all knew and it was remarked at the time that Hillary Clinton never attacked Sarah Palin.

Lots of political “observers” waited in vain for Hillary to drop a bomb on Sarah Palin in 2008 but that never happened. The purist know-nothings wanted Hillary, remember she was at that point smeared as a “racist” and has-been by Obama thugs and Big Media, to say something against the Obama campaign that Obama Big Media would discount as “sore loser talk”. Instead Hillary managed to block, at least for a while the hate driven misogynistic and sexist attacks against Sarah Palin.

All this Sarah Palin understands and that is why she began to tweet. The “war on women” strategic lie which has so profited Obama Dimocrats could be undermined and Sarah Palin went for it. If Palin dared, she would send Hillary a very public thank you and ask for a meeting to discuss Obama sexism and how to fight politically motivated misogyny.

Palin and Drudge showed the way. Instead of taking a lead from Sarah Palin and Matt Drudge the blood ran hot on one too many Republicans/conservatives who chose to refight fights they have lost, lose and will continue to lose.

So what did Republican/conservatives do instead of investing time and publicity on this potentially game changing gift from Hillary? They went for broke.

It was sad. Republicans/conservatives and the leftist loons mocked Hillary saying that she and Bill were broke and in debt when they left the White House. What Hillary said is a fact and historically accurate. Further, other than feeding a need for mockery it gains Republicans/conservatives nothing. The Hillary hating left does not gain anything from this either.

Hillary and Bill left the White House broke and in debt because of all the futile panty sniffing investigations brought about by Republicans forced them to hire lawyers and get into debt. The public still has not forgotten nor forgiven Republicans/conservatives for such panty sniffing stupidity so Republicans/conservatives are doing their best to remind the public of their panty sniffing stupidity and how they are not to be trusted with the investigative tools of government.

Hells Bells, Kenneth Starr the sniveling panty sniffing inquisitor has admitted he made a mistake in his panty sniffing pursuits. Richard Mellon Scaife and his right hand man Christopher Ruddy – the top Hillary and Bill Clinton tormentors of the 90s – are now Hillary and Bill Clinton friends and even contributed to Hillary Clinton 2008. David Brock the top Clinton tormentor now is in the Clinton camp too.

But old habits die hard and instead of helping themselves by undermining the “war on women” hogwash Republicans/conservatives undermine themselves. The self described “morons and moronettes” at Ace of Spades are featuring frequent comments in many articles about Hillary requiring a walker to prop herself for a People magazine cover photo. This all comes from a moronic article at Washington Free Beacon alleging that Hillary was using a walker. More and more stories came out about doddering ol’ Hillary and the walker. This from a party that twice nominated for vice president a guy with many heart attacks.

The morons and moronettes at Ace of Spades are having fun and using some clever mockery of Hillary photos to pleasure themselves. We get it. It’s often fun to poke fun and laugh at your opponents and that is what Ace of Spades is engaged in even while trying to keep alive a narrative of Hillary being too old and feeble to be president. It’s a waste of time but we can see the fun of having fun. It will eventually come back to haunt them when sexist pigs fighting for survival in 2014 attack them as waging a “war on women”.

Tommy Vietor and the misogynist sexist dudes of Obama 2008 will clutch their pearls at those dastard Republican/conservatives who are saying such mean things about Hillary even though they are the ones who began the “war on women” and hate Hillary more than any Republican/conservative.

Smart Republican/conservatives should be inoculating themselves and their political interests by talking nonstop about nasty sexist misogynist Barack Obama. Hey we wrote about that long ago. But somehow they just can’t help it.

As foolish and emotion driven as Republicans are, the left is much worse. Take for example the Hillary interview at NPR. We’ll just copy from our comments section:

Hillary haters think this interview on gay marriage somehow hurts Hillary. But this is the tough Hillary we like. Hillary is right on the facts and the leftist interviewer is one of those “liberals” who ignores reality. Bill Clinton signed DOMA because it was the best strategy to stop a constitutional amendment against gay marriage proposed by Democrats such as Sam Nunn. It’s great to listen to Hillary call her out:

Hillary Clinton Snaps At Radio Host In Defensive, Testy Gay Marriage Interview

Transcript: [snip]

HILLARY CLINTON: “I think you’re reading it very wrong. I think that, as I said – just as the President has said – just because you’re a politician doesn’t mean you’re not a thinking human being. You gather information, you think through positions, you’re not one hundred percent set, thank goodness, you’re constantly re-evaluating where you stand. That is true for me. We talked earlier about Iraq, for goodness sakes. So for me, marriage has always been a matter left to the states and in many of the conversations I and my colleagues and supporters had, I fully endorse the efforts by activists to work state-by-state. In fact, that is what is working and I think that being in the position that I was in the Senate, fighting employment discrimination which we still have some ways to go, was appropriate at that time. As Secretary of State, I was out of domestic politics and I was certainly doing all I could on the international scene to raise the importance of the human rights of the LGBT community. And then leaving that position, I was able to very quickly announce that I was fully in support of gay marriage and that it is now continuing to proceed state-by-state. I am very hopeful that we will make progress and see even more change and acceptance. One of my big problems right now is that too many people believe they have a direct line to the divine and they never want to change their mind about anything. They’re never open about new information and they like to operate in an evidence-free zone. I think it’s good if people continue to change.”

GROSS: “So you mention that you believe in state by state for gay marriage. But it’s a Supreme Court too. The Supreme Court struck down part of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented the federal government from recognizing gay marriage. That part is now struck down. And DOMA was actually signed by your husband when he was president. In spite of the fact that he signed it, were you glad at this point that the Supreme Court struck some of it down?”

CLINTON: “Of course. And you know, again, lets…we are living at a time when this extraordinary change is occurring and I’m proud of our country, I’m proud of the people who have been on the front lines of advocacy, but in 1993, that was not the case. And there was a very concerted effort in the Congress to make it even more difficult and greater discrimination and what DOMA did is at least allow the States to act. It wasn’t going to yet be recognized by the federal government but at the state level there was the opportunity. And my husband was the first to say, that you know, the political circumstances, the threats that were trying to be alleviated by the passage of DOMA, thankfully, were no longer so preeminent and we could keep moving forward and that’s what we’re doing.”

GROSS: “So, just to clarify, just one more question on this, would you say your view evolved since the 90s or that the American public evolved allowing you to state your real view.”

CLINTON: “I think I’m an American, I think that we have all evolved, and it’s been one of the fastest, most sweeping transformations that I’m aware of.”

GROSS: “I understand but a lot of people believed in it already back in the nineties. They supported gay marriage.”

CLINTON: “To be fair Terry, not that many. Were there activists who were ahead of their time, well that was every true in every human rights and civil rights movement but the vast majority of Americans, were just waking up to this issue, and beginning to think about it, and grasp it for the first time, and think about their neighbor down the street who deserved to have the same rights as they did, or their son, or their daughter. It has been an extraordinarily fast, by historic terms social, political and legal transformation and we ought to celebrate that instead of plowing old ground when in fact a lot of people, the vast majority of people, have been moving forward. Maybe slowly, maybe tentatively, maybe not as quickly and extensively as many would have hoped but nevertheless, we are at a point now where equality, including marriage equality, in our country is solidly established although there where be places, Texas just to name one, where that is still going to be an ongoing struggle.”

GROSS: “I’m pretty sure you didn’t answer my question about whether you evolved or was the America public the change –”

CLINTON: “Because I said I’m an American so of course we all evolved and I think that’s a fair conclusion –”

GROSS: “So you’re saying your opinion on gay marriage changed”

CLINTON: “You know, somebody is always first, Terry. Somebody is always out front and thank goodness they are. But that doesn’t mean that those who join later, in being publically supportive or even privately accepting that there needs to be change, are any less committed. You could not be having the sweep of marriage equality across the country if nobody changed their mind and thank goodness so many of us have.”

GROSS: “So that’s one for you changed your mind?”

CLINTON: You know I really, I have to say, I think you being very persistent, but you are playing with my words and playing with what is such an important issue.”

GROSS: “I’m just trying to clarify so I can understand -”

CLINTON: “No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify. I think you are trying to say that I used to be opposed and now I am in favor and I did it for political reasons. And that’s just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like I think you are implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record. I have a great commitment to this issue and I am proud of what I’ve done and the progress were making.”

GROSS: “You know I’m just saying, I’m sorry – I just want to clarify what I was saying – no, I was saying that you maybe really believed this all along, but, you know believed in gay marriage all along, but felt for political reasons America wasn’t ready yet and you couldn’t say it. That’s what I was thinking.”

CLINTON: “No. That is not true.”

GROSS: “Okay.”

CLINTON: “I did not grow up even imagining gay marriage and I don’t think you did either. This was an incredible new and important idea that people on the front lines of the gay right movement began to talk about and slowly, but surely, convinced others about the rightness of that position. When I was ready to say what I said, I said it.”

GROSS: “Okay, thank you for clarifying that.” (National Public Radio, “Fresh Air,” 6/12/14)

Leftist loons will attack Hillary for all the above. But Hillary is passionately stating the historical truth. The looney DailyKooks left will join Republicans/conservatives in attacking Hillary even on silliness such as this.

Then there is Iraq. Iraq is where the Shiite Left meet the Sunni Right to attack Hillary. Consider this National Journal article:

Hillary Clinton’s ‘Wicked’ Iraq Problem [snip]

On Syria, her early support for air strikes revived liberal concern about her self-described “bias towards action,” recalling her vote for the Iraq War in 2002 that stymied her last presidential ambitions. She recently apologized for the vote in her new book.

Now on Iraq, she finds herself in a familiar and uncomfortable position between a war-weary Democratic Party on one side and hawkish Republicans eager to paint her as weak on the other. She’s tried to thread this needle before and it didn’t work well.

“The current crisis in Iraq is a reminder of the dangers Hillary Clinton faces with the Democratic base,” said Stephen Miles of the progressive group Win without War. “Today, with the threat of military action once again on the table in Iraq, … we’ll be looking to see if her recent denunciation of her 2002 vote for the Iraq War represents a true change of heart or was simply an effort to rewrite history in advance of a 2016 run.” [snip]

A policy of weakness and accommodation that came from the Obama and Hillary Clinton team is one that’s led to very serious and negative results,” said Mitt Romney, the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee, on Fox News. “There’s almost not a place in the world that’s better off because of [Clinton’s] leadership in the State Department.” [snip]

Some analysts predicted al-Maliki’s crackdown on the Sunni minority in the country would revive a dormant insurgency, but on Thursday, speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton said the insurgents’ success was unforeseeable. “I could not have predicted, however, the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq and trying to erase boundaries to create an Islamic state. That’s why it’s a wicked problem,” she said.

Voters will have to debate that one, to determine if it’s a satisfactory answer for someone who likely wants to be commander in chief.

ISIS’s rise in Iraq may have no American policy solution, and for Clinton, that makes it an equally “wicked” problem politically.

WOW. That’s certainly damning and Hillary Clinton comes off as a total BOOB doesn’t she? Doesn’t she? Wow! Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! Horrible if true! Problem is… well let’s get the entire quote the author of this National Journal nonsense snipped – from an article in the New York Times Rebels’ Fast Strike in Iraq Was Years in the Making:

Now that the spotlight has shifted to Iraq, the decision by the Obama administration not to arm moderate Syrian rebels at the outset is coming under scrutiny by critics who say the hands-off policy allowed the extremists to flourish.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, “this is not just a Syrian problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought it was a regional problem. I could not have predicted, however, the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq and trying to erase boundaries to create an Islamic state.”

Gee, Hillary Clinton sure sounds smart and on the job when you read the entire quote. Hillary saw that this was a regional problem not just about one country. Wow, way to go girl.

Sure, the leftist loons at DailyKooks won’t be happy ever with her. But she sure sounds as if she knows what she is talking about. Mitt Romney’s comments sound kinda stupid when you read the full quote.

Read a little more from the National Journal article in which the author tries to belittle and wave away another interesting quote by Hillary Clinton:

In a different move that now looks more prescient, she in August of 2007 called on the Iraqi Parliament to replace al-Maliki with “a less divisive and more unifying figure,” prompting an angry response from the leader.

Now, her response to the situation in the country is dependent on the man who wielded her Iraq policy against her six years ago. As a Democrat and one of Obama’s top foreign-policy officials, the strength of her foreign policy record—and by extension, her raison d’etre for a White House bid—rides on the success of Obama’s.

Read that last line and you will understand why Hillary Clinton has to begin a protracted attack against Barack Obama and his failed policies. The left will hate her and the right will be confused, but that is what Hillary must do.

We’ll be watching Fox News on Tuesday to see if Hillary Clinton says “it’s time for a change, we can’t stay the course Barack Obama is disastrously on.”


Race-Baiting For Political Profit – Barack Obama: If I Had A Father He Would Look Like Trayvon Martin

Update: How did Barack Obama follow-up on his lascivious race-baiting remarks on Friday? Saturday golfing of course – golf trip #132 for the comfy shoe guy. No serious work for Barack – it’s the weekend. There is no serious discussion coming from Obama of “stand your ground” laws like the ones others have published and we published in our article below. For Obama the grounds for standing your ground is the grounds of the golf course.

And by the way are we the only ones who have noticed the connection between the Boston Bombing Killer Tsarnaev and Trayvon Martin? Tsarnaev got his puss glamorized on the cover of the Rolling Stone magazine. Trayvon got himself youth-enized by Big Media as picture after picture deceived the public into thinking Trayvon was a sweet looking 12 year old kid instead of the thug he developed into.


In 2008 race-baiter Barack Obama was the son of race-baiter Jeremiah Wright. When Wright became an electoral burden, exposed as a race-baiter and anti-American swine, his acolyte of more than 20 years cut Wright off like a gangrenous arm.

We Hillary supporters along with Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were smeared as “racists” in order to help Obama win South Carolina and the black vote generally. Race-baiting was not enough so Rachel Jeantel style homophobia was also brought into the political arsenal.

Now Barack Obama is claiming that he is Trayvon Martin 35 years ago. The time trippin’ is to win politically and overturn his sinking fortunes. Once again Barack Obama is racebaiting for profit. ObamaCare, unions claim, is ObamaDon’tCare. Detroit is sinking into an Obamaville and ObamaDon’tCare. Russia, China, and the rest of the world hold America in contempt and ObamaDon’tCare. But Barack Obama realizes that race-baiting has helped him before and it will help him again.

In Florida, Barack Obama sees the chance to distract from the disaster that is ObamaCare and to win by race-baiting. Race-baiting it is HOPEd will get rid of Republican governor Rick Scott:

“African-American leaders outraged by the not-guilty verdict in the death of teenager Trayvon Martin are assailing Scott for supporting the “Stand Your Ground” law that arguably helped Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, go free. Students protesters are camping out in the governor’s office, musician Stevie Wonder has announced a boycott and Attorney General Eric Holder denounced the law at the NAACP convention in Orlando earlier this week.

If black voters turn out in force against Scott in 2014, they could swing a race as close as his last, which he won by only 61,550 votes.”

Overall Florida voters support “stand your ground” by 57 percent (according to a Quinnipiac poll). White voters support the law by 62 percent. Black voters oppose the law by 61 percent. Rep. Dennis Baxley cuts right through the bullsh*t when he says about Obama Dimocrats “People are looking to 2014 and need a banner to run on, and this could be it. They’re not going to have Barack Obama on the ballot to excite the people with his charisma, so they’re going to fan the flames and make this an issue that is going to be motivational for turnout.”

Barack Obama and his army of race-baiters are telling little black boys and little black girls they are losers and the evil whites are out to kill them. For Michael Eric Dyson: U.S. Legal System Rigged to Protect White Privilege – the race-baiting never ends. Desperate for attention Jesse Jackson calls Florida an Apartheid state and denounces America to the United Nations. It’s all being said and done for political profit.

The Big Losers once again are African-Americans especially the dumb ones that voted for Barack Obama thinking he was someone other than the sleazy self-interested Chicago politician he still is.

It is not just that black boys are being taught they are losers and that white men are out to kill them and that the “system” is so tilted against them that they can never win (this is said straight-faced even with a black president and a black attorney general and black mayors in many cities). The very system of law that protects many black men suspected of crimes is in danger, but ObamaDon’tCare as long as he benefits politically.

According to the believe-anything-Barack-Obama-says National Journal Obama has three aims:

“To combat these larger social issues, President Obama offered three broad suggestions:

1. Get the Justice Department involved with training local governments to reduce mistrust in the legal system. (It’s worth remembering that this episode started over an outcry that Zimmerman wasn’t arrested at all after the incident.)

2. Examine local laws — such as “Stand Your Ground” — and see if they “may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case rather than diffuse potential altercations.”

3. Think about ways to bolster and reinforce African American boys so they do not get caught up in the legal system (as the statistics indicate they are more likely to be).

How ridiculous are these claims/goals? After conducting a wave of protests and Big Media speeches telling black boys and black girls (along with black men and black women) that the “system”, legal and otherwise, is targeting them for death and abuse Obama then turns around and says he wants to “bolster” black boys versus the legal system and reduce “mistrust” in the legal system. What a liar and scoundrel Barack Obama is.

Then there is the Barack Obama nonsense and lies about the “stand your ground” law. As has been noted in our comments section “Blacks benefit from Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ law at disproportionate rate“. That’s right. And this is true even as “the majority of victims in Florida “Stand Your Ground” cases have been white.” Black people are better off in Florida with the “stand your ground” law but ObamaDon’tCare.

Barack Obama is race-baiting for political profit and hurting black Americans (even if most are so invested in skin color they refuse to recognize their own interests). At CNN Walter Olsen is warning black Americans:

“People upset at George Zimmerman’s acquittal are calling for awarding various new powers to prosecutors at the expense of protections for criminal defendants.

Maybe this would make it easier to hang a rap on some future Zimmerman. But it also would have an effect that its backers probably don’t intend: increasing the number of persons convicted and sent to prison. As part of that effect, more young black men — as well as more members of other groups — will end up behind bars.

On Twitter and Facebook, many people have expressed frustration with the conviction standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which the state of Florida was unable to overcome. Couldn’t we lower it? Others hoped prosecutors could appeal the verdict (right now, they can’t; an acquittal is final).

To change either of these basic features of our judicial system, we’d have to overturn the Supreme Court’s settled view of the Bill of Rights or amend the U.S. Constitution itself. And what would happen if we did? Convictions would rise, and the nation’s outlandishly large and disproportionately black prison rolls would swell yet further.

Or consider the popular notion of retrying Zimmerman on federal charges.

Under our Constitution, even serious crimes such as murder are traditionally offenses under state law only.

In a controversial 1959 opinion, Bartkus v. Illinois, the Supreme Court ruled that consecutive prosecutions under state and federal law do not violate the Constitution’s ban on double jeopardy. Interestingly, that was the view of the court’s five more conservative justices. The dissenters, who warned eloquently of the dangers of letting government try people twice for the same conduct, were the four liberals: Earl Warren, William Douglas, Hugo Black and William Brennan.”

That is how perverse these excrements who call themselves “progressives” or “liberals” have become. They want to destroy what liberals from ages past built all in the name of hunting down a Latino man with the non-Latino name of Zimmerman. Those of us who voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries don’t recognize ourselves or our views in the filth that occupies the White House and the “Department of Justice” and certainly not in the DNC. Our political beliefs might be “liberal” but we do not identify with these creeps.

Barack Obama’s statement today is about race-baiting. Some claim that in this Video: Obama tries to break it to the left that the DOJ’s not going to prosecute Zimmerman. This claim is misguided. It’s about race-baiting.

It’s about race-baiting. Dance with the one who brung ya and it is race-baiting that got Obama where he is.


Big Media Lie Of 2008, 2012: The Republican Party Is Dead/Dying And Resistance To Obama Is Futile

Update: Secret recipe for cooking Rice? Answer: FIGHT. The news that’s breaking: Susan Rice withdraws from consideration as Secretary of State. This quit even before nomination is the first clear domestic policy defeat for Obama post election. It’s exactly the lesson we write about below.

As for who gets blamed for cliff jumping? A new poll answers by declaring that both the GOP and Obama will get the blame. It will only get worse for Obama if he goes to Hawaii for three weeks vacation while the United States goes from the ditch Obama has put us in to over the cliff. The answer for GOP: FIGHT.

The topic we focused on below is the GOP strength in the states. Michael Barone discusses the important news from blue Washington state in which some Democrats have joined the GOP and taken control of the state senate.

Obama’s health scam fiasco? Yup:

“Only 15 states have told the federal government they plan to operate health insurance exchanges under President Barack Obama’s reform law, leaving Washington with the daunting task of creating online marketplaces for two-thirds of the country. [snip]

But the administration would still be left to set up exchanges in at least 30 states, a challenge that is raising questions about how successfully U.S. officials can implement a key provision of the health care reform law.

Hint: FIGHT! Don’t whine. Don’t retreat.


There’s a lot of news that should cheer Obama opponents, particularly Republicans. First, let’s walk down memory lane and get some lessons from history.

* * * * *

In 2008 Barack Obama sent his gay-bashers to South Carolina in order to beat Hillary Clinton and win the socially conservative black vote in those parts. Throughout the nomination fight Obama used subtle and not so subtle misogyny and hatred of women to bash Hillary. Against John McCain and Sarah Palin the tactic was to trash war hero McCain as a doddering senior citizen (seniors were never part of the Obama Kook Klub) and Palin, well Palin was a woman so misogyny remained in style with the Obama campaign.

By race-baiting, senior and gay bashing, along with woman hating, Barack Obama won the 2008 popular vote by 7%. Obama Dimocrats won control of the House as well as the Senate by large margins and very soon a quisling Republican would give Obama Dimocrats a filibuster proof 60 vote majority. Big Media declared resistance to Obama futile.

The debate among Republicans after election day 2008 was whether or not to enable Barack Obama. Right from the start Obama bumbled and bungled and made a fool of himself (recall the president-elect seal and the garbled oath?) and Republicans decided to fight. Obama opponents such as those here soon saw Obama popularity plummet and by June the Tea Party was swinging.

In 2009 came Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell and most shocking of all Senator Scott Brown. Big Media wept as 2010 election results came in. The evidence mounted that resistance to Obama could very easily be successful. But you had to fight thug for thug, Chicago rules.

In 2012 Barack Obama was back in his element. A campaign of fear and smear began. Race-baiting was the Obama card. Mitt Romney replied with “Obama’s a nice guy” even as we advised otherwise.

We advised otherwise quite a lot this year including, what we are now more sure than ever, would have given Romney the game changing big victory. Alas, that was not to be.

On election eve 2012 the results gave Obama a 2.8% margin and the Republicans kept control of the House. Big Media declared resistance to Obama futile.

This week however, Republican resistance appears to be less than futile. All that is required is a will to fight. Hint: Michigan.

Consider Michigan a Republican 12 step rehabilitation program. It’s part of the election night story most in Big Media do not want to discuss and certainly not highlight:

Twenty-four states will be controlled by Republicans, including Alaska and Wisconsin, where the party took the State Senate, and North Carolina, where the governorship changed hands. At least 13 states will be Democratic, including Colorado, Minnesota and Oregon, where control of the legislatures shifted, and California, where the already dominant Democrats gained a supermajority in both chambers. [snip]

The fact is, they can do whatever they want now,” Chris Larson, the Democrats’ newly chosen Senate minority leader in Wisconsin, said of the Republicans in his state. He noted, glumly, that they have been holding planning meetings behind closed doors since the election.

Robin Vos, a Republican selected last week as the speaker of Wisconsin’s Assembly, voiced a willingness to work with Democrats, but also quickly ticked off plans to press for an income-tax cut, education changes and a “top-to-bottom review” of state regulations.

It’s a series of amazing numbers (2/3rds of states under one party control and Republicans at a surge of state capital power greater than in the past 60 years). These numbers from election night rarely get discussed, and oddly even with Michigan in the eye of the storm this week, few are noticing that Michigan is just part of the much bigger picture for Republicans.

It’s a much bigger picture than the one presented by Big Media. For instance, when we last discussed “Unravel #5” – Obama’s health scam – there was a question in our subsequent update concerning Tennessee. The question was answered when after a Tea Party rally the governor of Tennessee announced he will not set himself up as a bowling pin and approve an ObamaCare “exchange”. In that December 1 article we wrote the number of states rejecting Obama’s health scam was 17. Now?:

“More and more I’m convinced they are making this up as they go,” Haslam said. “It’s scary, quite frankly.”

With the governor’s announcement, Tennessee joins nearly half of the U.S. states in rejecting a state-run health care exchange. Tennessee became the 23rd state to do so.

Additionally, eight states have rejected expansions of Medicaid programs.

Chris Christie, a Republican governor in a very blue state, said “NO” bringing the resistance states almost to the 50% mark:

“Until the federal government gives us all the necessary information, any other action than this would be fiscally irresponsible. Thus far, we lack such critical information from the federal government. I will not ask New Jerseyans to commit today to a state-based exchange when the federal government cannot tell us what it will cost, how that cost compares to other options, and how much control they will give the states over this option that comes at the cost of our state’s taxpayers.”

“Financing the building and implementation of a state-based exchange would be an extraordinarily costly endeavor,” continued Governor Christie. “While the federal governmental has enabled states to apply for grant funding to cover some of the initial costs of such an endeavor, the total price for such a program has never been quantified, and is likely to be onerous. Without knowing the full scope of which exchange option would be most beneficial and cost efficient for New Jerseyans, it would be irresponsible to force such a bill on our citizens.”

A lot of states are rejecting Obama’s health scam for some very good reasons. As we go to press there is a breaking development as we learn today that Pennsylvania won’t be setting their own state exchange either:

“Health care reform is too important to be achieved through haphazard planning,” Corbett said. “Pennsylvania taxpayers and businesses deserve more. They deserve informed decision making and a strong plan that responsibly uses taxpayer dollars.” …

Corbett said it “would be irresponsible to put Pennsylvanians on the hook for an unknown amount of money to operate a system under rules that have not been fully written.” …

We’re getting awfully close already to half the states saying “No” to Obamacare, But it is not just Obama’s health scam that is in trouble in the states. Enter Michigan (btw, did AP ever ascribe “ruthless” to anything Obama has done (such as ramming through his health care scam?)):

“As the chants of angry protesters filled the Capitol, Michigan lawmakers gave final approval Tuesday to right-to-work legislation, dealing a devastating and once-unthinkable defeat to organized labor in a state that has been a cradle of the movement for generations.

The Republican-dominated House ignored Democrats’ pleas to delay the passage and instead approved two bills with the same ruthless efficiency as the Senate showed last week. One measure dealt with private sector workers, the other with government employees. Republican Gov. Rick Snyder signed them within hours. [snip]

Once the laws are enacted, the state where the United Auto Workers was founded and labor has long been a political titan will join 23 others with right-to-work laws, which ban requirements that nonunion employees pay unions for negotiating contracts and other services.”

What’s happening in Michigan is pretty much what happened in Wisconsin and for the same historic reasons and for the same cupidity of Big Labor:

“For the unions, the workers became less important. The workers essentially became only dues payers. The Big Labor bosses increasingly ignored the plight of the workers and only cared that the dues were paid. With the money from the workers’ dues unions paid for political protection and friendly negotiators in the public service labor arena. Instead of spending all their money on union organizing and increasing their ranks, unions saw their easy path on the political highway. Republicans noticed.”

When we wrote that back during the Wisconsin fight we did not have this official labor disclosure report to buttress our contentions:

“When continually focusing in the media on being “forced” to represent people who don’t pay dues under a right-to-work law, union heads are implying that they spend the vast majority of their money on contract negotiations, representation or other non-political work. That is a myth.

For example, according to the most recent federal filings, the Michigan Education Association — the state’s largest labor union — received $122 million and spent $134 million in 2012. They averaged about $800 from each of their 152,000 members.

According to union documents, “representational activities” (money spent on bargaining contracts for members) made up only 11 percent of total spending for the union. Meanwhile, spending on “general overhead” (union administration and employee benefits) comprised of 61 percent of the total spending.

So MEA members who disagree with the leadership of the union are paying up to 90 percent of their dues, but the union is only spending about a tenth of the dues money representing them. [snip]

A look at other groups yields similar results, and no major union spends the majority of its funds on local representation. The UAW spent about 41 percent of its receipts on “representational activities.” The Michigan branch of the SEIU got most of its money by forcibly unionizing home caregivers the past few years and used it to try and lock that into the state Constitution. Search for any major union with the United State Department of Labor here.

In the meantime, unions spent $4.4 billion from 2005-2011 on electing candidates and other political spending and twelve of the top 20 political donors going back to 1989 are unions. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, only 3 percent of union political spending goes to Republicans – while 40 percent of union members typically vote Republican. Here in Michigan, an MEA survey of its membership found that 45 percent of teachers under 30 classify themselves as “conservative” while 63 percent aged 40-49 say the same. At the same time, the union endorsed 97 percent Democrats. [snip]

In Wisconsin, allowing union members to have a choice in paying their dues has led to a shift in emphasis and positive changes. After the state’s largest union lost membership, the amount they spent on politics was refocused to “a potential shift to a much more grassroots model of advocacy and support for educators.”

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “That could mean becoming better advocates for different practices in teaching or for methods that recruit, train and retain high-quality educators … That could mean organizing teachers to champion what’s working best in the classroom by bringing new ideas to the school board, or working to get the community to support specific practices. It means working more collaboratively, and offering solutions.”

What’s happening in Michigan, and Wisconsin is not really about workers at all. It is about politics as the main purpose of these unions. The unions have become party activists with little concern for the workers (other than getting dues money from them) they are supposed to represent and so there has been a political response. Until Big Labor returns to making workers the focus of their activities, not the political pals of the big chiefs, they will always have to fear the day when workers are no longer a captive membership.

In Michigan as in Wisconsin Big Labor screwed itself:

“Democrats depend on millions — actually, billions — of dollars in support from the forced dues of union members. If that money supply were to dry up, or even just decrease, the Democratic Party would be in serious trouble. [snip]

In Michigan, they pushed what was known as Proposal 2, which would have enshrined union collective bargaining powers in the state constitution. If Proposal 2 had passed, what state GOP lawmakers are doing now would have been literally unconstitutional.

But Proposal 2 was decisively defeated on Election Day, 58 percent to 42 percent. The path was clear for Republicans to act.”

And act with alacrity they did. Via Huff n’ Puff:

“Republicans attempted to make the bill repeal-proof, attaching a $1 million appropriation on the measure for enforcing right to work. According to Michigan law, spending bills can’t be put on the ballot for the public to vote on.”

That was a brainy thing to do. If you fight and don’t give up resistance is not futile no matter how much Big Media tells you so. Resistance to the resistance is what is really futile.

Lesson for national Republicans from Michigan Republicans: fight.


Savage Friday Among The Flowers Of Evil

We went hunting for good news today, but came up empty. It was a gloriously beautiful day weather-wise so when we began the hunt we thought we would return with a news basketful of flowers – but weeds prevailed and the few roses found have thorns bigger than the petals.

Our tiptoe for tulips began with a bump to the toe that almost tore our legs off:

“The president exudes an air of likability and friendliness, which is endearing,” Romney told ABC News. “But at the same time, I think people recognize that he has not done the job they expected him to do and that he promised he would do.”

Now we have heard of “damning with faint praise” as a smart tactic, but to us this sounds more like faint praise damning Romney. We loathe and despise taking precious insults away from our Obama stock to use on Romney but really….. How stupid is Romney to say such things?

Has Romney read this?:

“Liberal super PAC: Calling Republicans racist more effective than criticizing policy

According to an audio recording obtained by The Daily Caller, Matthew “Mudcat” Arnold, the national campaign manager of the liberal CREDO super PAC, told a gathering of supporters in Aurora, Colo., on Sept. 8 that they’ve realized “policy did not move voters.”

He used Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King as an example.

“When we said that Steve King … is pro-life and believes in cutting Social Security and voted for the Ryan budget, no one cared,” Arnold said. “When we said Steve King’s a racist, Steve King believes that immigrants ought to be put in electric fences, people moved.”

When you talk about the substance of a man’s character, people respond,” Arnold continued.”

Um, Mitt, do you really think saying nice things about Barack Obama while he has his henchmen call you a felon and murderer is a smart thing to do? Um, character matters and exposing a Nightmare Alley creep is usually a public service and wise to do in a political campaign, we’ve heard. Will saying Big Media is doing a marvelous job in being objective and above board be the next pearl of wisdom to drop out of your mouth?

Perhaps there will be praise from Mitt for this this piece of news which is only now, after the stock market has closed, breaking: Foreign Policy President is also President Downgrade. America and its finances continue to be downgraded.

Well, we did not want our search for lovelies to be buried by such unpleasantness so we moseyed on over to a lush patch filled with herbs to aromatically refresh ourselves. Some bright green peppermint tickled our noses:

“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 45% of the vote.”

Unfortunately, there were some dried leaves that ruined the moment:

“In Ohio Obama leads by a point. In Florida, the president is up two. Romney has edged back into the lead in Missouri and now earns 51% of the vote in North Carolina.”

Soon the wafting stench from some rotting oregano chased us from our reverie:

“President Obama holds a narrow three-point advantage over Mitt Romney among Americans most likely to vote in November, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

With their back-to-back political conventions behind them and the general election season fully engaged, the poll found Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney running essentially even among those seen as the most probable to vote. The president has 49 percent and Mr. Romney has 46 percent, a difference within the margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points on each candidate.”

Oh dear, how unpleasant! With a frown on our faces but determined to find beauty this fine Friday, we turned to the mystical and religious. Surely some devotionals would sooth our troubled breasts. “What greater enlightenment in these days of division”, we thought, “than an ecumenical feast?” We sought refuge amidst the great religions:

“Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, sources reported Thursday. The image of the Hebrew prophet Moses high-fiving Jesus Christ as both are having their erect penises vigorously masturbated by Ganesha, all while the Hindu deity anally penetrates Buddha with his fist, reportedly went online at 6:45 p.m. EDT, after which not a single bomb threat was made against the organization responsible, nor did the person who created the cartoon go home fearing for his life in any way. Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day.”

Such wisdom, albeit garish and offensive, from a self described “satirical” magazine shook us to the core. We noted that the ecumenical cartoon lacked one group of adherents who coincidentally gather on Friday’s to perform religious devotions and prayers together in peace. “What were they up to today?” we innocently wondered.

Our wonderment was drowned in a bloodbath of ugly news. Censorship, burnings, international horror, met our innocent eyes.

The sheer stupidity, if not complicity, of the past few years emerging internationally with explosions gave us some hope that the red fields of Hopium would be abandoned as the evident treachery and boobery was stripped naked:

Obama’s Middle East Policy Is in Ruins’

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said he was “deeply concerned” about the attacks on US embassies. He called on the countries in question to protect foreign missions. “Diplomats have to be able to do their work without fear,” he said.

Westerwelle said he could understand the outrage that many Muslims felt about the anti-Islam film. “But this outrage cannot justify violence.” [snip]

On Friday, German commentators analyze the violence and its implications for US foreign policy.

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

“The murder of an ambassador in Libya and the attacks on US diplomatic missions in other Arab countries is sure to strengthen the skepticism that more than a few Americans feel toward Muslims and the political changes brought by the Arab revolutions. The deeply held American belief that all you have to do is liberate people from serfdom and dictatorship, and then democracy and a market economy will develop more or less on their own, burned to ash in the trial by fire of Iraq. [snip]

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:

“The attacks on US embassies and consulates in the Arab world can not be justified in any way. If it turns out that al-Qaida is behind the attacks, as some US officials suspect, then they are acts of terrorism committed under the guise of religion. [snip] But that clearly does not help US President Barack Obama very much. He has to bear the political consequences of the recent events by himself.”

“Four years ago, Obama pledged to seek reconciliation with the Muslim world. Now, it is doubtful whether he has succeeded. The US and its European allies now have to ask themselves how much support they still enjoy in the countries of the Arab Spring.”

The center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: [snip]

America hardly has influence in the region any longer, and now sees itself confronted with anti-American sentiment in places where it no longer controls the dictators. Meanwhile, forces that simultaneously exploit and spurn America are gaining influence.” [snip]

The conservative Die Welt writes:

“US President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy is in ruins. Like no president before him, he tried to win over the Arab world. After some initial hesitation, he came out clearly on the side of the democratic revolutions. … In this context, he must accept the fact that he has snubbed old close allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Egyptian military. And now parts of the freed societies are turning against the country which helped bring them into being. Anti-Americanism in the Arab world has even increased to levels greater than in the Bush era. It’s a bitter outcome for Obama.”

Obama was naive to believe that one only needed to adopt a new tone and show more respect in order to dispel deep-seated reservations about the free world. [snip] This image of weakness is being exploited by Salafists and al-Qaida, who are active in North Africa from Somalia to Mali.”

“One thing is clear: If jihadists believe they can attack American installations and kill an ambassador on the anniversary of Sept. 11, then America’s deterrent power has declined considerably. For a superpower, it is not enough just to want to be loved. You have to scare the bad guys to keep them in check.”

The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:

“It’s lucky for Obama that his opponent Romney is acting in such a hapless manner.”

The financial daily Handelsblatt writes:

“Three years after Obama’s speech in Cairo, which was supposed to initiate a new beginning in the Middle East, the United States now has even less support in the region than before.”

The mass-circulation daily Bild writes:

“Naked hatred is raging against a country that many people in the world regard as a symbol of freedom. When US flags burn, embassies are vandalized, and diplomats are murdered, it is an attack on the West, and not just America!”

“We rooted for the demonstrators at Tahrir Square, and many of us have longed to see democracy in the Arab nations. But democracy includes honoring the lives of fellow humans.”

“The turmoil in Libya, Cairo, and Bangladesh is a return to the Middle Ages, when people were beheaded and stoned to death. No pathetic anti-Islam film can justify hate-filled murder.”

The West must be tough on terrorism. And it must show that it can differentiate between rabble-rousers and peaceful Muslims.”

For a few brief seconds we felt some hope. We were happy to see many recognize that appeasement never works. Now, we thought, Americans would wake up and even Obama Hopium Guzzlers would see that Obama will get us all killed.

In those brief seconds we read about the latest Obama policy of appeasement and offense against free speech. We read the confession from the White House: Yes, we asked YouTube to consider removing that Mohammed movie

Appeasement never works. But for the deluded Obama supporters the bumbling of Obama will be taken as a rallying cry to love Obama greater, bigger. Only a fool, will vote for Obama. But there are a lot of fools walking about these days.

In Hollywood rapist Roman Polanski (a great filmmaker for sure) is defended as not doing “rape-rape”. The vilest misogyny in rap music is defended as righteous free speech which reflects “the culture”. Gay people and women are degraded by Muslim savages but not a word from those who purport to respect the rights of gay people and women. Crucifixes of Christ in urine is defended as a free speech issue. Unpopular atheism is defended. Pornography is exulted as another legitimate viewpoint. No unpopular viewpoint or outright abomination is left undefended but a film that has a controversial viewpoint, one not shared by the Hopium Guzzlers who love Obama, is left undefended.

Yet these people who reside in the hills of Hollywood and the latitudes of Manhattan don’t see the hypocrisy they engage in when they defend Barack Obama or denounce an unpopular film whose message they deplore. Vipers brood! These are unprincipled and extremely stupid people who think they are smart and think they are principled. We wish them all retroactively to the top floors of the World Trade Center circa September 11, 2001 to contemplate on their stupidity.

We went looking today for flowers of beauty to contemplate peacefully on the state of the world. Unfortunately we only found festering lilies and flowers of evil.


Bombshell – Absolute Proof Uncovered: Paul Ryan Is A Racist With A Secret Racist History!

Update: This “incredibly dumb piece” of race-baiting we wrote about at midnight is gaining attention – as it should.

Eventually the race card will be played with ferocity against R/R and they better be prepared at all the crazy coming their way. Supporters of R/R should be prepared (read the end of our article for suggestions as to how to respond with force not weakness) for the sludge of Obama slime coming their way.

And remember, the race-baiting we write about below comes to you courtesy of Henry Louis Gates.


Keli Goff “political correspondent” of a black oriented website called “The Root” has the political scoop the Obama campaign has been waiting for.

It’s a story with twists and turns and shocking revelations. This is truly a scoop that will roil next week’s Republican convention.

The Root has the scoop of dirt that will destroy Paul Ryan:

“Shortly after it was announced that Rep. Paul Ryan would join the Romney ticket as this year’s Republican vice presidential candidate, I wrote a piece titled, “What We Know About Paul Ryan and Blacks.”

Well, I recently learned of another significant addition to this list.”

Get ready for your Pulitzer and a job at MSNBC”s prime time lineup Keli. Here is surprise twist #1:

“As reported on Twitter by CNN’s Pete Hamby, Ryan said he has a black sister-in-law, but perhaps even more interesting, his “college sweetheart” was African American.”

Shocking!!!!!!! A black college sweetheart!!!!!!!! This is supposed to be good right? This is supposed to be a sign of a modern man unencumbered by racism right? Not quite.

After those revelations Keli Goff examines the great questions of race and racism in America. Keli Goff takes no prisoners as she slices and dices racist Lou Dobbs:

“For years Lou Dobbs was the face of the anti-illegal-immigration crusade. As a result of his seeming obsession with the issue, he became in the eyes of many the face of xenophobia and racism, not to mention public enemy No. 1 of Mexican immigrants. There’s just one hitch to this narrative: Dobbs is married to a Mexican-American woman, meaning that he is the father of Mexican-American children. (His Mexican-born mother-in-law even lives with his family.)

Strom Thurmond is exhumed by Keli for a deserved trashing as well. The old segregationist fathered a black daughter (that no one disputes he genuinely loved and cared for) even as he led the movement to stop integration. The profound Keli asks:

“So then, how could he genuinely care for his black daughter and promote policies that would harm African Americans, and therefore harm her?”

Keli has a response to her own question that will shock gay activists. Gay activists believe that “coming out” to friends and family and the public at large reduces, if not eliminates, anti-gay bigotry. Civil rights activists who fought for black civil rights and integration as a way to bring the races together will also be surprised that according to Keli this strategy is doomed to failure. Keli Goff apparently has a deeper understanding of the human soul and a much more amazing insight into prejudice and bigotry:

“Research has shown that those who hold stereotypes about a particular group of people are unlikely to have those stereotypes altered merely by encountering someone who defies that stereotype. Instead, they are likely to view the individual defying said stereotype as an exception. In other words, it is possible to have a black friend, Asian friend, Hispanic friend or Muslim friend or wife and still exhibit prejudice toward that group. The friend or wife is simply viewed as the exception who is not like the others.”

Thank whatever deity you worship or your favorite scientist for Keli Goff. Such brilliance. Such understand. Such profundity of thought and expression.

Here is the ultimate Keli Goff twist (#2) and proof of Ryan the Racist:

“For the record: No, I am not calling Ryan a racist. I am saying, however, that if you want to know where a politician’s heart lies when it comes to a particular community, it may be best to look at that person’s policies — such as his or her record on civil rights — rather than personal relationships.”

Such generosity from Keli Goff in merely implying, not outright declaring, that white boyfriend to a black woman Paul Ryan is not being explicitly labeled a “racist” by her. She does not think that Paul Ryan is a racist after all. She only implies it.

Who can argue that what we should look at is policies not personal relationships and look at the effect of those policies in order to yell “RACIST”?

Bill Clinton was smeared by Obama Hopium Guzzlers as a racist during the last presidential election cycle. Bill grew up and certainly knew many black people and many black people were his closest friends and supporters. But Keli must think that does not matter.

Bill Clinton policies grew to an unprecedented degree the black middle class. Black youth unemployment was way down during Bill’s terms. Black unemployment was down generally and blacks thrived under “racist” Bill Clinton. [While we’re at it “racist” George W. Bush was probably the best president when it came to fighting AIDS in Africa.]

Compare and contrast. What has the effect of Obama policies been on the black community? We must be imagining that the black middle class is being decimated. We must be imagining that black youth unemployment is soaring. We must be imagining that black communities are being destroyed.

Using Keli Goff’s measure for racism we can only conclude: Barack Obama is a racist. Barack Obama hates black people. Barack Obama hates white people. Barack Obama hates women. Barack Obama hates men. That’s what Barack Obama’s policies tell us Keli.


Choking The Chicken – The Totalitarian Left Filets Itself

Pardon the vulgar euphemism. We don’t quite know what else to write when the story of the week is a confluence of purported gay outrage, a poultry franchise, and assorted cockerel left wing public officials preening and crowing like third world totalitarians.

As supporters of gay marriage it is excruciating to watch as the modern DailyKooks left continues to expose itself as the monsters they are. Is it really possible that with all the bad economic news the DailyKooks left and certain totalitarian gay Americans will stage a “kiss-in” at Chick-fil-A tomorrow? Instead of fighting on economic issues and the disaster Obama economy that Obama has made worse, they’re busy choking the chicken-fil-A. Sad but true.

Of course there is some justification for choking this particular chicken. After all, the evil owner of said restaurant chain opposes gay marriage. Here, have a listen/look at his evil remarks and how he uses antiquated religious beliefs as justification – the monster!:

Oops, excuse us, that’s Barack Obama talking about the “sacred union” of marriage. That’s Barack Obama discussing in Biblical terms why he opposes gay marriage and why he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

We must have missed the protesting kiss-in disruptions at Obama headquarters from the totalitarian left outraged at invocations of scripture on a public policy matter.

We also must have missed the disruptive protests as Barack Obama and his monstrous campaign apparatus spent great sums of money in 2008 to promote anti-gay African-Americans such as Donnie McClurkin, Mary Mary, Hezekiah Walker and Reverend James Meeks as they displayed themselves on behalf of Barack Obama. But that was when Obama needed black votes more than gay money.

Now of course Barack Obama needs gay money more than the slavish dedication of black voters so he has revolved 180 degrees. It’s all about the gay money this cycle – the Bible along with America, be damned.

The contemporary left of Barack Obama DailyKooks and assorted gay marriage supporters appear not to understand the dangerous, unconstitutional horror of elected officials such as the ballet dancing thug from Chicago and the daft mayor of Boston declaring a jihad against free expression backed by the full coercive power of the state. Well that’s not entirely true, the Barack Obama DailyKooks do indeed understand what they do but like flowers twisting to the sun their tropism is towards totalitarianism. It’s the dictatorship of the proletariat with the DailyKooks hallucinating themselves as the vanguard of the proletariat.

We well know these thugs. We’ve written about this Stalinist Left before:

Because we were the first Hillary supporting website and one that unashamedly called out Barack Obama and the Nutroots for their ugly tactics we were subjected to ceaseless attempts to destroy us.

Barack Obama supporters would attempt to post comments with a few sentences lavishing praise on Hillary Clinton and then immediately launch into racist attacks against Barack Obama. The “N” word was often and repeatedly used. We traced the writers of these comments to Nutroot sites and “gamer” sites who openly called on their cabals to “expose” us as “racists” by they themselves posting racist comments of the ugliest sort.

It was not just these Nutroot sites that indulged in unethical methods. One “news” website (yes we mean Politico) sent “infections” to us via email. Donna Brazile publicly declared that she was calling Hillary Clinton to complain about us and shut us down. Donna, in full nut mode even resorted to “I believe the vast right wing is also behind these rants.” Donna also declared Hillary unfit to be president because “no one who provoke [sic] this kind of anger in voters deserves to be President.” No word these days from Brazile regarding the anger stirred by Barack Obama.

On Nutroot website after website, calls were made to demand Hillary shut us down. Hillary’s campaign responded with a defense of free speech. [snip]

All these tactics were mean to suppress information. Voters who sought information were deprived of that information by these Stalinists of the Dimocratic Left. Critical stories about the dubious histories of Nutroots leaders leaders were likewise suppressed. One blogger who engaged in “hump and dump” stock schemes was protected by the Nutroots cabal and we have yet to hear that story fully aired, even though we were always assured that the facts would someday be released by these Stalinists.

What these B.O.T.s have always engaged in is suppression of speech and attempts to distort the truth and rewrite history. These Stalinist B.O.T.s never cared about issues, it has always been a cult of personality with them. [snip]

Many pro-Hillary websites hosted by Google Blogger were shut down by Obama B.O.T.s.

We have repeatedly warned Sarah Palin supporters and indeed, back in 2009 we warned John McCain supporters, that the tactics employed by these Stalinist Obama thugs would be turned on them. We were correct on that and now there is proof.

Today Michelle Malkin (we never thought we would quote her with anything approaching praise, but she deserves it here) published an “illustrated guide to the Tea Party saboteurs” which recalls to a “T” the race-baiting tactics deployed against us and other Hillary supporting websites:”

First they came for Hillary Clinton supporters, then for Sarah Palin and her supporters, now they come for the chickens. No one is safe. No chicken will be left unplucked.

The totalitarian Barack Obama left did not molest their golden calf with protests. They will terrorize Chick-fil-A because, they say, that organization spends money from super secret accounts to deprive gay marriage supporters of gay marriage. But what about tax exempt black churches that spend money to attack gay marriage and speak out on public policy from the pulpit?????

The totalitarian left has never taken on the black church. Why are there no kiss-ins at black churches? Act-Up gay activists once entered St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York to disrupt the Mass so why don’t gay activists and gay marriage supporters go to the source of opposition to gay marriage – the black church:

“Only now are white liberals beginning to see an ugly side of the African-American church. But these white liberals still will not see let alone condemn how Obama exploited anti-gay prejudice. These white liberals will make excuses for the ugliness in the same way they excused the ugliness of Jeremiah Wright’s “God Damn America” remarks. The Democratic Left has a soft bigotry towards African-Americans even if that bigotry sacrifices the rights and self-respect of African-American-Gay-Americans.

THE attitude of white, liberal Hollywood toward African- American churches has long been one of almost participatory respect. [snip]

It was only recently that the A-list discovered that this love is unrequited. Last month, Proposition 8 passed, making gay marriage illegal in California, and the demographic that lent insult to injury was the state’s African-American voters.

They came to the polls in record numbers to support Barack Obama, and they brought with them a fiercely held and enduring antipathy toward homosexuality: 7 in 10 blacks voted in support of traditional marriage. Whether that was the game-changer or not is a question for near-constant debate. Many gay activists have begun quietly to suggest that had Hillary Clinton been the Democratic nominee, Prop 8 would not have passed.

Hypocrites and fools. The problem is not the black church it is how Obama exploited for his political benefit African-American anti-gay prejudice while making a show at white liberal venues of his tolerance. It was a flim-flam performance and the Democratic Left ignored it. Now Gay-Americans, including Black Gay-Americans, are paying for the Obama exploited bigotry.

“It’s their churches,” somebody whispered to one of us not long after the election; “It’s their Christianity,” someone else hissed, rolling her eyes. Apparently the religion espoused by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is now the enemy, at least among the smart set, and if this sounds like a regional issue, it’s not. [snip]

“At some point in our lifetime,” said George Clooney, “gay marriage won’t be an issue, and everyone who stood against this civil right will look as outdated as George Wallace standing on the school steps keeping James Hood from entering the University of Alabama because he was black.”

To the opponents of Proposition 8, this kind of analogy is a rallying cry; but as white Hollywood has recently discovered, to the blacks who voted for the measure, it’s galling. Comparing the infringement on civil rights that gays are experiencing to that suffered by black Americans is to begin a game of “top my oppression” that you’re not going to win. The struggle for equality — beginning with freedom from human bondage (see: references to the book of Exodus at the Gospel Brunch) — has been so central to African-American identity that many blacks find homosexual claims of a commensurate level of injustice frivolous, and even offensive.

Furthermore — and perhaps even more painfully for those of us who support gay marriage and all that it represents — Christian teaching on marriage is not the only reason so many blacks supported Proposition 8. Although it has come as a shocking realization to many in this community, a host of sociological studies confirm that many blacks feel a significant aversion to homosexuality itself, finding it morally and sexually repugnant.

The black church won’t be targeted in the same way Chick-Fil-A has been abused by the totalitarian Barack Obama left. The tax exempt black church will be immune to the same outrages dumped on the chicken sandwich emporium.

* * * * * *

Yesterday, there was a mass slaughter of our clucking feathered friends. Feathers flew through the air as savory fowl lost their lives then garnished with herbs, spices, and luscious sauces. It was a horror house of gluttony and unabashed appetite.

The demonstrations of opposition to state suppression of speech and support for Chick-Fil-A were all a bloody and silly exercise. But it had to be done. The threats and ugliness from the totalitarian left had to be resisted and repelled even if chickens had to die to make it safe for democracy.

While the Barack Obama totalitarian left was busy preparing for another distraction tomorrow from the economic disaster where was Mitt Romney? While chicken haters amassed in restaurant redoubts throughout the nation to satiate themselves and stand up for free speech and free expression, where was Mitt Romney?

Mitt Romney was focused but not on the masturbating monkeys of the Obama nothing-left-but-distractions. Mitt Romney was focused on what matters:


Frodo Baggins, John Roberts, The Rolling Stones, John Marshall, Marbury, And The Return of ‘Tax And Spend Liberal’, Part II

Many on the right continue to be furious at Chief Justice John Roberts. They propose many theories for why the Chief Justice “betrayed” them. We think the Chief Justice gave Republicans/conservatives several long term constitutional gifts as well as very important and immediate political riches. But the attacks on the Chief Justice persist. We think there are some very plausible explanations for why the Chief Justice did what he did and the word “brilliant” is part of the answer.

* * * * * *

Was Chief Justice John Roberts Blackmailed By Barack Obama On HellCare Because He’s Gay? When John Roberts was nominated we remember behind the scenes attempts to destroy Roberts and the subsequent public attempts to block his nomination by sniffing his briefs and perfuming Roberts with lavender scents:

“Ever since President Bush announced his selection of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., as his Supreme Court nominee, speculation over whether Judge Roberts might be gay has run rampant throughout the blogosphere. See, e.g., Althouse, Law Dork, and Wonkette. UTR readers have also flooded A3G’s inbox with emails citing the following “evidence” that Judge Roberts is gay:

1. Despite being handsome, brilliant, rich, and nice — in other words, prime marriage material — Judge Roberts didn’t get married until the relatively late age of 41.

2. With all due respect to the perfectly attractive Mrs. Jane Sullivan Roberts, some UTR readers — not A3G — have commented that the #5 Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary could have “married someone hotter.” According to a UTR correspondent who used to work at Hogan & Hartson, Judge Roberts’s former law firm, “many of the older [Hogan] attys are married to good-looking 20-somethings after having dumped their first wives.”

3. Judge and Mrs. Roberts have adopted rather than biological children. (The “theory” behind this fact, it seems, is that we therefore have no “proof” of the consummation of the Roberts’ marriage.)

4. Judge Roberts has associated with gay people in the past:

(a) As everyone knows by now, he did pro bono work on behalf of gay rights activists, helping out colleagues in their preparation of court filings and oral argument in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

(b) While Judge Roberts was at Harvard, his pre-law advisor was William LaPiana, a law professor at New York Law School and an openly gay man.

(c) One UTR reader commented that “Roberts has had at least one gay (male) clerk while sitting on the D.C. Cir. I suspect at least one other clerk as well.”


5. Finally, in terms of evidence of gayness, let’s not leave out the notorious plaid pants.

So there’s certainly some grist for the “Judge Roberts is gay” rumor mill in the nominee’s past (even if much of it is of dubious value). And now, tomorrow’s edition of New York Times will throw more fuel on the fire, in the form of this rather interesting article about Judge Roberts’s time at Harvard and what it was like to be a campus conservative there during the 1970’s.

There are two noteworthy aspects of this article from the “John Roberts Is Gay” point of view. First, check out the provocative third paragraph — surprisingly high placement, essentially part of the lede — of Janny Scott’s piece:

“Conservatives were like the queers on campus,” said Eric Rofes, a classmate of Judge Roberts who later became an organizer on gay issues. “People made fun of them. They mocked them and saw them as jokers or losers. I don’t think in the moment many people realized this was the start of an ascending movement. People felt it was like the last cry of the 1950’s.”

Second, directly to the left of the foregoing paragraph in the online version of the article is a photograph (courtesy Don Scherer) showing Judge Roberts hanging out on Martha’s Vineyard with two handsome male friends, Don Scherer and Richard Lazarus. Call Article Three Groupie crazy — you wouldn’t be the first — but the picture strikes her as pretty “gay-looking.”


John Roberts is gay! Look at those smiling buff friends snuggled next to the next Supreme Court Justice on Martha’s Vinyard displaying the groumet meal they just made, and THEY will tell you. Now let’s hope Roberts is actually confirmed before he’s outed like a certain New Jersey Governor! Some legacy for Christian hero W. — seating the first GAY Supreme Court Justice!* This is SO GREAT!

The hope for change at the Supreme Court from some “leaders” of the left always had the barely submerged notion that Roberts could be forced out if the truth ever came out. Is anyone surprised that in big time politics such slime and smear is contemplated by those that publicly purport to be “gay friendly” liberals?

Professor Althouse, at the time made the case that the New York Times sought to portray John Roberts as a gay man. The Times will editorialize about gay rights but if necessary even the very gay staff at the Times will gay-bait.

Is there any doubt that Barack Obama would gay-bait to save himself? Anyone with doubts about narcissist Obama trashing those who stand in his way were also likely surprised by the latest Tom Cruise divorce. In the past Barack Obama has gay-bashed in order to save his political skin. In order to save himself now Barack Obama would trash the Chief Justice on being gay whether or not it is true.

We certainly hope that no one is so naive as to think that if the Obama health scam had been struck down by the Supreme Court that Obama’s henchmen would restrict themselves to arcane and barely understood Constitutional arguments about the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Tax Power. Obama’s political history is one we have discussed many times before and it is ugly. The go to sources for Barack Obama’s campaigns are always the trash dumpster of sex, scandal, innuendo, and planted stories.

The trash dumpster, including adoption records, was about to be dumped on Chief Justice Roberts head. Whatever had to be done would be done.

Obama was in a lose/lose situation. The priority for Obama, as usual, was himself. Obama did not want to suffer a personal loss even if he took whatever is left of the Dimocratic Party with him on his “victory”.

Obama did understand that a “victory” in the high court would provide more propulsive power to the opposition. But Obama also knew that despite all the brave talk from his campaign a ruling of “unconstitutional” would have finished off his presidency and ruined him personally as a loser.

This does not mean that Obama would have gone quietly into the darkness if the Supreme Court red-stamped “unconstitutional” on the health scam. The Barack Obama henchmen would have gone nuclear against the Supreme Court.

Why would Obama go nuclear even if he lost everything in a ruling throwing out ObamaCare? Perhaps firebombing Roberts and the court might might might salvage his miniscule reelection chances. Perhaps by nuking the court and Roberts vengeance would be served. The left would join Obama in the destruction of Roberts and the court at least in fear of what Roberts has planned for the next term of the court.

As head of the Judicial Branch of the tripartite government John Roberts had his own calculations to make.

John Roberts could simply have led the court in a 5-4 majority striking down the Obamination root, trunk, and branches. The Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause would both be eviscerated and the tax power ruled not germane. After such a wonderful ruling Roberts would then have to hunker down and prepare for attacks on himself personally and the Supreme Court institutionally.

A 5-4 ruling against ObamaCare could be followed by more 5-4 rulings to complete the Roberts agenda (described in Part I). But that would come at a great price politically. And what would happen if Obama won reelection by a sustained attack on the court in a fear and smear campaign?

Now, some label Roberts a “coward” for not going forward with a succession of mighty blows against the empire of liberal jurisprudence and legislation. Some charge Roberts is dishonest with an even more intellectually dishonest opinion written to twist history and find a way to declare the Obamination constitutional. Roberts is damned for not storming the barricades and leading the charge. Roberts is [falsely] hated for augmenting the Tax Power. And how dare he look at politics when his role is supposed to only be on the law and the law only, charge his critics.

Rubbish. Let’s look at what happened. Roberts found a better way. How do we know? Recent leaks from the Supreme Court, hostile to Roberts, actually impress us with Roberts’ ability to make some really good lemonade for conservatives.

Republicans/conservatives have been particularly incensed that Roberts wrote the majority opinion with the conservatives then at the last minute “switched” sides. Ladies and gentlemen, it’s called “bargaining”. It’s what Supreme Court justices do. Roberts wanted to destroy ObamaCare but he also wanted to preserve the integrity of the court in the public’s eyes. But how to get liberals and conservatives of the court on the same page? How to get sharply divided liberals and conservatives to vote 6-3 or 7-2 on the outcome? Roberts came up with a daring, dare we say “brilliant” plan:

“Five justices saw the Medicaid expansion as either constitutional as written (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) or salvageable by making it voluntary on the part of the states (Kagan, Roberts and Breyer).

Lawyers who track the court closely say it’s unclear exactly what the outcome would have been if Kagan had voted with Ginsburg and Sotomayor. It’s possible those three might have been able to drive the result, rendering the Medicaid part of the law entirely constitutional. However, if Roberts (or Breyer) was unwilling to endorse such a result, he could have crossed over and voted with the dissenters to make a five-vote majority to strike down the expansion entirely and maybe even the whole law. [snip]

Fourth, and related to the above, Kagan’s vote may have been a strategic concession to save the whole law and/or the Medicaid expansion, rather than see it all struck down. Very possible, though I doubt she’d admit it at the moment.

Some liberals and conservatives believe Kagan signed onto the Roberts-Breyer Medicaid position to avoid a defection by Roberts (or, less likely, Breyer) that could have struck down the Medicaid expansion entirely. [snip]

That was kind of a compromise that saved ‘Obamacare,‘” Fitton said of Kagan’s vote on Medicaid. “One easily could have found that you could not craft a legislative remedy from the bench. …They could have thrown out all of Obamacare.”

“That would be quite a horse trade if Kagan and Roberts did that secretly,” said Outterson, when asked what he thought of the theory.”

May we remind everyone that Kagan was Obama’s Solicitor General. Roberts managed to get Kagan to vote against Obama on the Medicaid expansion in order to “save” ObamaCare”. Roberts managed to get a 7-2 vote:

“Kagan voted for portions of Chief Justice John Roberts’s controlling opinion declaring unconstitutional a major provision in President Barack Obama’s health care law, namely the Medicaid expansion.

While Roberts has been denounced by conservatives as an ideological heretic and turncoat for siding with liberals to uphold the individual mandate in the law, Kagan’s conclusion that the law’s Medicaid expansion was unconstitutionally coercive toward the states has triggered no similar wave of condemnation of her by liberals.

The absence of public outrage toward Kagan is particularly notable since she wasn’t parting company just with her liberal ideological counterparts, but with the president who appointed her to the court and with the administration she served as Solicitor General immediately prior to taking the bench.

Who knew that the Solicitor General thought the Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional?” said Kevin Outterson, a law professor at Boston University who filed an amicus brief urging the court to preserve the Medicaid provisions as written.

Asked how likely he thought it was prior to Thursday’s ruling that Kagan would wind up taking such a stance, Outterson said: “Never in my wildest nightmares.”

Chief Justice John Roberts managed to acquire a 7-2 majority opinion against Medicaid expansion and the vote of an Obama appointee/ former Obama Solicitor General and there are calls from Republicans/conservatives to impeach him???

Let’s tote the score so far. On the Commerce Clause Roberts gets his way whether ObamaCare is constitutional or unconstitutional. Ditto on the Necessary and Proper Clause (which was the ultimate “trump” card as far as leftist legal commentators). Medicaid expansion crippled although an unconstitutional ruling would have removed it altogether and immediately. But do not doubt that Medicaid expansion is a central component of ObamaCare and without it the entire scheme falls.

Meanwhile, as John Roberts well knows, the battle over the Obama monstrosity is not yet over in the courts or the high court:

“More legal challenges to ACA on way

The Supreme Court lawsuit isn’t the end of the legal challenges to the health care law — and the next ones just might help Republicans keep pushing their favorite political hot buttons.

The next wave of lawsuits likely wouldn’t put the whole law at stake, as the challenge to the individual mandate could have. But they’re going after pieces of the law that happen to be red meat for many conservative voters — like the law’s contraception mandate and a new Medicare panel that Republicans call a “rationing board.”

And one possible legal challenge, which would try to block the feds from offering subsidies in a federal health insurance exchange, is meant to exploit a loophole in the law. But it could also be a good “messaging hit” — allowing them to attack the subsidies they see as a budget-busting new entitlement. [snip]

“These legal actions could be used as PR initiatives to show the massive overreach of Obamacare,” he said. “In certain places, it could move independents to a varying degree.”

The suits could get additional attention as they move toward the oral argument stages — if they make it that far. And they’ll help the Republicans keep up the broader narrative they hope to push in November: The law has so many problems that it deserves an all-out assault.

“It presents the picture that this law has a lot of problems with it and has to be adapted and changed,” said Republican strategist John Feehery. “This law isn’t getting any more popular.”

The contraception requirement which pits Obama regulators against the Catholic Church (urging civil disobedience) is a 23 state series of lawsuits already in the courts. These cases do not bode well for ObamaCare if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion on the individual mandate is any clue:

“Other provisions of the Constitution also check congressional overreaching,” Ginsburg wrote. “A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”

The “Exchange subsidies” are also going to be under attack. “Opponents of the law say that the administration can’t open the federal exchanges to tax subsidies through the regulatory process if it wasn’t in the law in the first place.” It’s a complex case[s] but sure to affect businesses until the entire law is repealed.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board is also under legal assault. This is the “rationing” board on Medicare that we have railed against for years. Physician-owned hospitals are in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals challenging ObamaCare. This is the Appeals panel that demanded the attorney general write to them and acknowledge that the courts do indeed rule on the constitutionality of laws after Obama demanded the Court uphold his “duly passed” law. The ban on “physician-owned hospitals participating in Medicare violates the doctors’ equal protection rights” say the plaintiffs. This is another case that is complex but the ramifications on the ObamaCare scheme are deadly.

Chief Justice John Roberts knew the legal fight would continue. But even smarter smarts from Roberts was that by effectively destroying the Medicaid expansion on a 7-2 vote means the states now come into play. A majority of states won’t ObamaCare:

“The Republican governors’ message was clear on a morning Republican National Committee conference call, when Jindal and McDonnell stressed their continued defiance of the Affordable Care Act and said they will resist implementing the state-based health insurance exchanges for which the law calls.

“Here in Louisiana, look, we refused to set up the exchange. We’re not going to start implementing Obamacare,” Jindal said. “We have not applied for the grants, we have not accepted many of these dollars, we are not implementing the exchanges, we don’t think it makes any sense to implement Obamacare in Louisiana.”

The response from GOP governors was similar elsewhere.”

On the afternoon of the Obama HellCare decision we wrote of the Roberts decision: “This Roberts decision reminds us of the brilliant Marbury decision which cemented judicial review.” Our comment came as Slate published an article which did not mention Marbury, as we did, but which saw the brilliance behind the decision and declared that Republicans/conservatives will one day cheer:

Roberts’ genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress’ power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.”

Subsequently others noticed the Marbury quality of the decision and the hand of a Chief Justice like John Marshall. Writers from the center right/right that we respect saw what we did and were impressed with Chief Justice John Roberts’ ability to have his cake and eat it too.

The smart Jay Cost saw the Marbury Marshall influence in the John Roberts craft-work:

“The Case for John Roberts

Many conservatives are feeling betrayed by the chief justice’s vote to uphold Obamacare. But there’s a counterintuitive case to be made that John Roberts’s decision is largely a victory for conservatives. [snip]

It’s worth remembering that there are so many people who will be made worse off by the bill – seniors who lose their Medicare Advantage, employees who get dropped from their employers’ plans, families who will see their premiums increase, businesses that have to endure the employer mandate, the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for the whole thing – that it is far from difficult to forge a broad political coalition to kill off the bill. [snip]

By explicitly and unequivocally limiting the scope of the Commerce Clause as well as the feds’ ability to coerce the states, he has done major damage to the century-long leftist project to do away with constitutionally limited government.

Not only that, Roberts has forced the advocates of big government to grin and bear it! He gave Obama and the liberals a nominal victory while undercutting their long-term agenda, which reminds me of Marbury v. Madison. Yes, Chief Justice John Marshall sided with President Thomas Jefferson on the narrow specifics of that case, but he also dealt the Jeffersonian view of the Court a fatal blow. And more importantly, Marshall’s political craftiness set the stage for further Federalist victories, despite the political power of the Jeffersonians at the ballot box. Without Marbury v. Madison, there would have been no McCullough v. Maryland, no Fletcher v. Peck, no Gibbons v. Ogden.

Roberts has perhaps accomplished something similar here. This country is hopelessly split along ideological lines, and it seems impossible for either side to gain any lasting advantage over the other. But maybe Roberts has managed to do precisely that. By nominally endorsing an overwhelmingly unpopular bill that is in major trouble anyway, he has created the political space needed to strike directly at the heart of liberal legal theory without inflaming the Democrats [snip].

Well, just maybe Chief Justice John Roberts showed the way yesterday. It’s all about taking opportunities as they present themselves, not over-reaching, and playing the long game. Just as Marshall advanced the Federalist agenda by forcing Jefferson to endorse a decision that was inimical to his long-term interests, maybe Roberts just did the same thing to Barack Obama and the liberal Democrats.

And while he did not eliminate Obamacare for us, isn’t it fair of him to ask why we can’t do that for ourselves, in November? He’s given us a huge constitutional victory, why can’t we respond with an equally large electoral victory in five months? It is unreasonable to expect the Court to solve all our problems, isn’t it?

Jay Cost followed up with a second smart piece on the hated Obamination, “Don’t Bet on Obamacare”:

“If Republicans win in November, Obamacare is finished. Surely, our sophist in chief knows that.

But even if President Obama manages to squeak out a victory in four months, the debate over Obamacare will not be over. In fact, I believe that Obamacare in its current form is doomed, regardless of who emerges victorious on November 6.

I have two reasons for this conclusion.

First, the bill is built on far too many questionable assumptions. If any one of them fails to hold, the entire thing could fall apart. [snip]

Second, the bill is nothing like Social Security and Medicare, which seem to be the political template the Democrats believed they followed. The political genius of these programs was that they were designed to benefit everybody. Indeed, this is why FDR stuck with a social insurance model for Social Security, despite the fact that its design was clunky. He understood, correctly, that it would inoculate the program from future political blowback.”

The equally smart Sean Trende also hears mystic chords of Marbury played by John Roberts:

“The Chief Justice’s Gambit

In 1803, the chief justice of the United States had a problem. His hated cousin, Thomas Jefferson, had won the last presidential election. But the outgoing Federalists opted not to go gentle into that good night. The one branch of government they controlled was the judiciary, and they meant to keep it. They had passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which allowed for several new judicial appointments.

President Adams did a remarkable job filling the appointments and getting them hastily confirmed. The so-called “Midnight Judges” by and large received their commissions. But not all of them did. Incoming President Jefferson then instructed his secretary of state not to deliver the remaining ones.

Unsurprisingly, litigation ensued. One of those who was to receive a commission, William Marbury, filed a petition directly in the Supreme Court under a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789. He requested a writ ordering the secretary of state to deliver his commission.

But Chief Justice John Marshall was a staunch Federalist. The republic was young, the court’s legitimacy fragile, and the ability of the nation to endure the peaceful transfer of power between parties uncertain. It was also unclear how Marshall’s ordering the newly installed Jeffersonian Republican secretary of state to do something would go over.

So the chief justice did something very clever. He found that Marbury was entitled to his commission, bestowing legitimacy on those Midnight Judges who had received theirs. But he didn’t stop there — to Marbury’s detriment. He then ruled that the Constitution only gave the court so-called “original jurisdiction” over a small number of cases. The provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 bestowing the court with original jurisdiction over writs of the type Marbury sought was therefore unconstitutional.

Jefferson had won, nominally. Madison didn’t have to deliver the commission, Marbury didn’t refile in the lower courts, and he never became a justice of the peace. But history remembers the case as a huge, perhaps decisive, blow against those Jeffersonians who viewed the Constitution as nothing more than a glorified Articles of Confederation.

In depriving the court of original jurisdiction, Marshall had installed the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of laws. Jefferson hated the idea of what has become known as judicial review. But having won, he was powerless to act against Marshall. Over the course of his term, Marshall would use that power to increase vastly the powers of the federal government, and to diminish those of the states.”

Many Americans assume that the Supreme Court always ruled on the constitutionality of laws passed by congress. But that is not so. It was not always thus. It was John Marshall who wrote the decision in 1803 that established judicial review. It was John Marshall that placed the Supreme Court in the important position it is today. It was John Marshall in the Marbury decision that made the Supreme Court the court we know today.

Trende is too polite to say it but we will as a public service: Marshall’s decision was a load of crap. In that too, he shares something with the crapola decision written by John Roberts. But that there is a huge degree of intellectual dishonesty and some lack of logic in the final outcome does not diminish the brilliance of neither Marshall nor Roberts. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will always have to swim and live in political waters and it is somewhat churlish to notice when the Chief Justice is all wet.

Trende was surprised by the ruling, as we were, but not shocked:

“But I think if you scratch the surface here, Roberts embarked upon a gambit much like Marshall did 200 years ago. [snip]

But Roberts is only a few years further into his chief justice-ship than Marshall was at the time of the Marbury decision. His tenure is likely to be equally as lengthy, if not more so. I think the forest for him is quite a bit different than the trees that people are focusing on. Consider:

1. The law still has a good chance of not being implemented.

If Mitt Romney wins the November election, it is highly likely that Republicans will win the Senate as well. Right now, Romney probably has no worse than a 50-50 chance of being elected. I honestly don’t think in the long run this changes things that much. The next jobs report will have a much greater impact on Obama’s re-election bid over the long haul than this decision.

If Republicans win the Senate and presidency, the law is doomed. They will use reconciliation to repeal it, or to gut it. In fact, since the court essentially allowed states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, there’s a chance that the bill would no longer reduce the deficit if a large state like Texas opted out. This makes the use of reconciliation much easier.”

Well we now know the results of today jobs report: More people went on disability than got jobs in June.

Like us, Trende proposes that this is a substantial victory for Republicans/conservatives:

“Doctrinally, The Federalist Society got everything it wanted.

But judicial conservatives who are not just concerned about the outcome got more than they could have reasonably hoped for. Doctrinally speaking, this case will likely be remembered as a watershed decision for conservatives.

Five justices just signaled to lower courts that, but for the unique taxation power argument, they were prepared to rule that a major act of Congress that plainly touched upon economic activity exceeded Congress’ commerce powers. Right now, liberals are seemingly too busy celebrating their win, and conservatives bemoaning their loss, to realize the significance of this. [snip]

The most important aspect of the ruling, however, comes with respect to the spending clause. Seven justices just agreed to real limits on Congress’ ability to attach strings to legislation. This is significant. Until today, these limits were hypothetical, and it was believed that Congress could, for example, remove all Medicaid funding as a punishment for a state’s refusal to comply with the Medicaid expansion. [snip]

3. The chief justice has built up some political capital.

Barack Obama was forced to go on television and praise the court’s ruling. In so doing, he validated — at least implicitly — one of the most pro-state’s rights decisions in recent times.

Roberts has basically done what John Marshall did…. [snip]

4. This matters in the long run — a lot.

This is not the last battle to be fought on the Roberts Court. It might not even be the most significant. In the next term, for example, the court is being asked to reconsider its affirmative action jurisprudence. There are almost certainly five votes to overturn court rulings from a decade ago upholding some forms of affirmative action.

Following that, the court will face a variety of tough decisions. There are probably five votes to uproot the entire campaign finance system, a decision that would make Citizens United look like small fry. And there are probably five votes to invalidate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. [snip]

But Roberts has something of an ace up his sleeve now. Accusations of hyper-partisanship are much harder to make against him, and he has more freedom to move on these issues.” [snip]

In so doing, he actually made significant progress for judicial conservatives while ruling against conservative policy. And he might still see that policy repealed if Republicans win in the fall.”

In a few years, possibly a very few months or weeks Chief Justice John Roberts will be seen to have written a very brilliant decision. No trash dumpster can hurt him now. He can fulfill the items on his agenda for the next several decades. Meanwhile, he has given Republicans/conservatives a mighty arsenal with which to fight the battle.

Part III soon: The Return Of “Tax And Spend Liberal”.