Which brings us to the strange case of President Obama’s decision to hire Neil Eggleston to be his new White House Counsel.
Eggleston is the kind of guy you go to when someone tells you, “time to lawyer up.” [snip]
Which begs and pleads the question, is Obama looking for more protection for the White House from the various GOP congressional probes, or is he aware of the possibility that something much, much worse could break?
We’ve been calling for a select committee almost from the day of the Benghazi attack as the only way to get answers. The Issa committee has been so incompetent that we still don’t even know simple things like “where was Barack Obama?” on that night. Did he go to bed early in order to be fresh for his fundraising trip to California then next day? Where was Obama and what did he do?
The likely Chairman of the select committee on Benghazi is the smart Trey Gowdy whose efforts in the IRS investigation so outclassed Chairman Issa. Perhaps Trey Gowdy will not get distracted by side issues and thereby get the answer to the question that matters: Why was the United States unprepared on September 11 for a potential commemorative attack by Muslim creeps and why was the United States without a quick response military team ready to go on the night of September 11?
From the very beginning, on September 11, 2012, we made several points about the terror attacks and deaths of American diplomatic personnel in Benghazi which prove with every passing day to be more and more astute and accurate.
The truth-seeking points we have made from the very beginning, which have not been popular with partisans on any side, are: (1) the central issue and only issue is that this was a terror attack purposely staged on the September 11 anniversary of the Al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center and the question that must be answered is why the United States was not prepared on a world-wide basis for attacks from Al Qaeda on that very special date; (2) Barack Obama is to blame; (3) the C.I.A. is a major player in all this and until we get honest testimony about what the Benghazi base was really about this will all add up to much of nothing; (4) Big Media is complicit in the Barack Obama cover-up of the death dealing scandals centered around Benghazi; (5) Hillary Clinton will come out smelling like a rose.
Shortly after we made the above 5 points we added a few others: (1) a select committee or a special prosecutor is needed to get answers from Barack Obama and his henchmen; (2) the investigations have been bungled almost beyond repair. We’ll expound on all these points in no particular order and as briefly as possible.
Let’s look at how the Benghazi investigations have been completely bungled.
The latest Benghazi “bombshell” is a memo written by then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Benjamin Rhodes which leads directly to the White House as lying creators of the talking points on Benghazi in order to corruptly advance the election of one Barack Obama.
Proof of the bungled Benghazi investigation is clear when one considers that this Benghazi bombshell memo is now public due to the efforts of the private organization Judicial Watch, not congressional investigators. Congressional investigators are unable to find sh*t on a pig farm it seems.
But this talking points memo is a minor detail in what congressional investigators should be focused on. What should congressional investigators be focused on? How about the only fact that matters. The only fact that matters? What is that? Well, the only fact that matters is our original point #1: (1) the central issue and only issue is that this was a terror attack purposely staged on the September 11 anniversary of the Al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center and the question that must be answered is why the United States was not prepared on a world-wide basis for attacks from Al Qaeda on that very special date
And by the way, are we asking too much when we say that the brother of Benjamin Rhodes might be someone that should be mentioned in a consistent manner by anyone who wants to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi? It’s all about Big Media complicity in the cover-up of deadly lies concerning the Benghazi terror attack:
Today, Lasky notes that Rhodes’s brother heads CBS News, which recently lost reporter Sharyl Attkisson – at least partly, she alleges, because the network did not like her reporting on Benghazi and other Obama administration scandals, including Operation Fast & Furious.
CBS President David Rhodes, brother of Benjamin Rhodes, got rid of Sharly Attkisson in part because of her Benghazi reports. Does anyone think that is is a fact worth emphasizing? Does anyone think that maybe CBS can be shamed into at least mentioning the Benghazi scandal in their network news broadcasts if congressional committees or someone/something consistently mentions this sibling Big Media connection?
Congressional investigators can’t find sh*t on a pig farm, blood in a blood bank, or ugly outfits in Michelle Obama’s closet. It’s more than time for a select committee of experienced prosecutors with a hired experienced prosecutor for staff lawyer that knows how to ask questions and get answers. What we have now is an army of fools trying to prove what is more than obvious to everyone: the September 11 2012 attack in Benghazi was a premeditated terrorist attack.
But most importantly how about sticking to what matters and not the peripheral? Today, Darryl Issa’s congressional committee is once again investigating everything but the central issue about Benghazi. Instead of demanding to know why the United States was unprepared on SEPTEMBER 11 for a terrorist attack, the committee gloried in post-terrorist attack musings from a USAF general: “We should have tried” to respond to Benghazi attack.
Um, isn’t the question that needs to be answered why the United States was not on alert on September 11 for a terrorist attack? A focus on lack of preparation and “we should have tried” after the attacks sort of misses the point doesn’t it?
Missing the point has been the hallmark of congressional investigators. On October 10, 2012 the Issa’s Government Oversight Committee held a hearing on Benghazi. We tried to help the committee unravel the Sunday Susan Rice “Libya Fibya”:
First draw the organizational chart. Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State and she runs the State Department. But it is not that simple. Recall that in 2009 Barack Obama put in one of his enforcers as the #2 at the State Department in order to thwart Hillary Clinton and to keep eyes on her.
Recall also that Susan Rice, an Obama supporter in 2008, was placed by Obama without Hillary Clinton’s input as United Nations Ambassador. Rice was supposed to be a power center against Hillary Clinton and therefore was also given cabinet level status and a direct line to Barack Obama without having to go through the Secretary of State.
Also in 2009 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was purposefully circumvented when Obama appointed special envoys to coordinate policy with him, not Hillary, in major areas of foreign policy. [snip]
Susan Rice was deployed by Barack Obama to go on political shows in order to lie about what happened in Libya. It was the Sunday of the Libya Fibya.
Hillary Clinton refused to go on the Sunday talk shows to do the Libya Fibya and Obama did not trust her to go on the Sunday talk shows to Libya Fibya on his behalf. Still, many believe that Hillary Clinton 2016 is cooked, burnt to a crisp, because of Benghazi.
We’ll have more to say on Hillary Clinton’s record at the State Department and what she did there in an upcoming post. For now we can say that the full record of Hillary Clinton and Benghazi is yet to be written. Answers will have to be provided and the truth of what happened in Benghazi revealed fully. But is Hillary Clinton 2016 doomed because of Benghazi? Um, no.
What do the latest Benghazi revelations tell us about Hillary Clinton 2016? Karl Rove talking to Bill O’Reilly on April 30 thinks Hillary Clinton 2016 is helped by the Ben Rhodes Benghazi memo.
Starting at 3:45, after a good summary discussion of the latest events, Bill O’Reilly gets to what everyone is politics-wise interested in. At the 4:50 mark, Karl Rove with O’Reilly in full agreement says that Hillary Clinton 2016 will run away from Barack Obama, blame Barack Obama, and succeed because of the separation from Barack Obama.
Karl Rove thinks that it is “ironic” that the Ben Rhodes memo will help Hillary Clinton 2016. What is really ironic is that one of Hillary Clinton’s most virulent enemies in the White House will unwittingly provide the knife to stick in the backstabbing Barack Obama.
So where are we in Benghazi? We still require a select committee to investigate Benghazi. If not Benghazi is nowhere. The Benghazi investigation goes nowhere.
At some point the truth about what happened in Benghazi will emerge. As we wrote in September 12, 2012 the truth should have emerged before the November 2012 elections. But that did not happen. The truth will have to emerge before 2016 if not before November 2014.
A physically hideous married rich guy on the phone with a young physically ugly girlfriend reminds us all of the long lost art of the Big Media feeding frenzy. The world is falling apart but Big Media is frenziedly feeding on the private phone call obnoxiousness of an 80 year old troll and his goading younger girlfriend.
Donald Sterling who owns a basketball team comprised of mostly black males made racist comments in private, which became public, and now the frenzy of feeding Big Media types and just about everyone else is in full swing. Sponsor companies of his team are dumping the team, there are attacks on him from just about everyone including Barack Obama and his pig friend Oprah. Even Don Imus of the “nappy headed hos” scandal is going after Sterling in an effort to prove how non-racist he now is.
How this physical grotesquerie has a girlfriend appears not to be an issue. How this monstrously ugly man managed to wrangle a wife is not an issue. We imagine his wealth has something to do with his allure.
The allure of wealth not only snared a wife and girlfriend. Sterling’s wealth got him awards and adulation from corruptions such as the NAACP.
The NAACP used to be a worthwhile organization. Now the NAACP just raises money to keep itself in business. The corruption called the NAACP, just like most mainstream organizations which purport to help this or that cause/group, is really only in it for itself. Donald Sterling was an NAACP favorite because Sterling gave them money:
Sterling had been a prominent donor to the NAACP chapter for more than a decade. He ran newspaper ads touting his charity’s generosity to L.A. organizations that help the poor communities.
But the real estate magnate had just paid $2.73 million to settle U.S. government claims that he refused to rent his apartments to Latinos and blacks in Koreatown. [snip]
The organization decided to go ahead give him the award. And in May, it was set to hand him a second honor as part of a gala marking the NAACP’s 100th anniversary. [snip]
“We deal with the actual character of the person as we see it and as it is displayed,” he said.
Jenkins said NAACP officials spoke with Sterling in 2009 about the housing discrimination case as well as a suit that NBA great Elgin Baylor filed accusing Sterling of racism when he ousted Baylor as general manager.
Baylor claimed that the organization had a “plantation mentality” in a deposition, and that Sterling rejected a coaching candidate, Jim Brewer, because he was black.
Jenkins said the NAACP officials told Sterling: “If any of the allegations in those lawsuits are true, you need to pay those people, you need to make amends.”
The mentality and character betrayed by the NAACP in the comments of Jenkins is one of race hustlers out to make a buck. Want to wash away charges of racism? Pay, baby, pay.
In 2008 Harry Reid referred to Barack Obama as a potential winner because he was “light-skinned” and had “no negro dialect”. There was no Big Media feeding frenzy. Harry Reid flaunted his racist mentality but by supporting Barack Obama he got a get-out-of-jail-free card. Since 2008 Harry Reid has said and done many things worthy of a Big Media feeding frenzy but thus far not even a sign of a nibble.
Harry Reid is not alone in doing and saying as he pleases without risk of a Big Media feeding frenzy. It is usually those that beat their chests the most about not being racists that do the darnest things:
The Unbearable Whiteness of the American Left
At a panel titled “Grassroots Organizing” at the Network for Public Education conference in Austin in March, an audience member asked the all-white panel for its definition of “grassroots.” The conference had been called to “give voice to those opposing privatization, school closings, and high-stakes testing.”
As the questioner pointed out, those disproportionately affected by these developments are poor and minority communities. Chicago, for example, a city that is one-third white, has a public school system in which 90 percent of the students are children of color and 87 percent come from low-income families. When the city schools shut down last year, 88 percent of the children affected were black; when Philadelphia did the same, the figure was 81 percent.
You’d think black people might have something to contribute to a discussion about that process and how it might be resisted. Yet on this exclusively white panel at this predominantly white conference, they had no voice.
One panelist said he found the question offensive. “I didn’t know it was a racial thing,” he said.
At the end of November 2008 Howard Dean put on the same act as those all white panelists in Austin. Dean feigned he was unaware that the 2008 campaign was mud deep in misogyny because he did not have cable TV! Howard Dean was on an all male post election panel
During this election cycle, Chairman of the Dimocratic Party Howard Dean remained silent on sexism and misogyny but any “racial” statements were quickly condemned even if the “racial” statements were merely hoaxes set up by the Obama campaign. The condemnation of “racist” statements however were not made against the Obama campaign when the barely veiled racism benefited Obama. [SNIP]
Howard Dean attributed his silence on sexism and misogyny to ignorance because he did not get cable television. The Chairman must have missed the sexism and misogyny on broadcast television, in Obama statements, in newspapers, magazines and every conceivable Big Media outlet. The Hillary Clinton “nutcrackers” and the “Bro Before Ho” merchandise must also have escaped the Democratic Chairman from the Democratic Left. The good German did not know what was going on – he did not smell the furnaces burning.
Now that it is convenient, in a forum of only men the Democratic Chairman from the Democratic Left, is attempting to rehabilitate his legacy and excuse his complicity. Asked by a woman at the forum about the lack of discussion of women, in an historic campaign that featured a woman candidate, the men on the panel made more excuses and the Democratic Chairman from the Democratic Left outdid himself in hypocrisy. [Dean begins to speak 3 minutes, 45 seconds into the video]
There was no Big Media feeding frenzy when sexism and misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton and/or Sarah Palin smeared the landscape. None. Instead there were calls to “man up” and not complain directed to these women from Barack Obama campaign affiliated Big Media.
An ugly old man and an ugly young woman get into a racist private conversation and the whole world of Big Media explodes into a feeding frenzy never seen against more deserving culprits. It’s not as if Donald Sterling has much of a future in basketball considering that the majority of his team fans and team players are black.
Granted, we don’t know much about basketball nor do we want to know much about basketball. But we believe we are correct in asserting that basketball fans and players are either (a) not racist; or (b) if racist not willing to be seen as such by their fellow fans or teammates due to the demographics of basketball fans and organizations. Donald Sterling is like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs – at some point he’s going to have to get out or have his as… er, tail handed to him.
We’re not excusing Donald Sterling or what he has said in private. The fact is that once his remarks became public he has to answer to the ticket buyers of his team and his league.
And now the poor guy’s girlfriend (undoubtedly ex-girlfriend now) is on tape cajoling him into revealing his racism. Man, what a winding road she led him down to get all of that out. She was like a sexy nanny playing “pin the fried chicken on the Sambo.” She blindfolded him and spun him around until he was just blathering all sorts of incoherent racist sound bites that had the news media peeing themselves with glee.
They caught big game on a slow news day, so they put his head on a pike, dubbed him Lord of the Flies, and danced around him whooping…
Shouldn’t we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn’t we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizen’s privacy in such an un-American way? Although the impact is similar to Mitt Romney’s comments that were secretly taped, the difference is that Romney was giving a public speech. The making and release of this tape is so sleazy that just listening to it makes me feel like an accomplice to the crime. We didn’t steal the cake but we’re all gorging ourselves on it.
“What Donald said was wrong,” Cuban said. “It was abhorrent. There’s no place for racism in the NBA, any business I’m associated with, and I don’t want to be associated with people who have that position.
“But at the same time, that’s a decision I make. I think you’ve got to be very, very careful when you start making blanket statements about what people say and think, as opposed to what they do. It’s a very, very slippery slope.
“Again, there’s no excuse for his positions. There’s no excuse for what he said. There’s no excuse for anybody to support racism. There’s no place for it in our league, but there’s a very, very, very slippery slope.
“If it’s about racism and we’re ready to kick people out of the league, OK? Then what about homophobia? What about somebody who doesn’t like a particular religion. What about somebody who’s anti-semitic What about a xenophobe?
“In this country, people are allowed to be morons.”
Secretary of State John Kerry found his own unique way of marking Yom HaShaoh – Holocaust Remembrance Day – by proposing that Israel is destined, if it doesn’t make peace with the Palestinians, to become an “apartheid state.”
Speaking to the Trilateral Commission Friday, Kerry said that unless Israel agrees to the birth of the Palestinian state he is feverishly trying to midwife, it will become the 21st century South Africa, according to the Daily Beast.
On Holocaust Remembrance Day the American Secretary of State states in a speech that Israel will be an “apartheid state” and from Big Media all we hear is the gnashing of teeth over a ugly old basketball team owner proving being rich does not mean you necessarily have brains nor decency.
Our modest proposal in the spirit of Jonathan Swift?: Ban basketball from the United States because it is now proven to be a racist game. Get it out of the schools, out of the colleges, out of the White House, and out of our TV sets. Basketball fans won’t like it but hey, we have to fight racism right?
Also, let’s have a Big Media feeding frenzy to force anti-Semite John Kerry to resign. And most importantly we require a Big Media feeding frenzy to force Barack Obama out of office for consorting with known hard drug dealers.
Now that Donald Sterling has demonstrated that Big Media is still capable of conducting a feeding frenzy we want more.
Sideshow Bob, a.k.a. Barack Obama is gallivanting around the globe again, stepping on one rake after another. When there is work to do, Barack Obama hops on a plane.
When Obama wants to go on vacation, which is frequently the case, he goes on vacation no matter what is happening in Washington. Obama acolytes and Obama himself defend these constant trips with declarations that Obama can work from anywhere because of all these new technologies. Of course these new technologies also allow Obama to get work done internationally with video conferencing equipment yet stay in Washington to get work done. But Barack always opts for trips in which he gets to hear applause and the banter of mutual masturbatory praise.
This week Obama is wasting taxpayer money in Asia in order to avoid the hard work that needs to be done. Work? Hey, the oceans are not receding and world peace has not broken out as promised by Obama in 2008. Indeed, today the Obama/Kerry Mideast boobery exploded like rotten eggs in a Michelle Obama imposed high school lunch. Don’t blame Bibi, although Obama undoubtedly will.
What is going on with Barack and why is he wasting taxpayer dollars on another vacation trip? Usually an Obama apologist, Dana Milbank does the honors:
Overseas, President Obama projects a whole lot of nothing
President Obama landed in Japan on Wednesday night and delivered an important message on behalf of the American people.
“That’s some good sushi right there,” he said.
That sushi starts at $300.00. We hope Barack loaded up on the expensive treat if the Japanese are paying. An Obama fed on someone else’s dime (if you don’t count the tens of millions in taxpayer money this trip will cost) might be the only good news from the entire trip.
This is another taxpayer paid Obama vacation just like Mooch Obama’s taxpayer paid China vacation. This trip is so important Mooch decided to stay home and away from stinky Barack. For Barack it is a double vacation away from Michelle and away from work:
The seven-day, four-country Asian tour promises to be an excellent adventure for the president. He’ll visit the Meiji Shrine in Japan and dine with the emperor. He’ll visit Gyeongbokgung Palace in South Korea and lay a wreath at the National War Memorial. In Malaysia, he will attend a “royal audience” and visit the National Mosque in Kuala Lumpur. And in the Philippines, he’ll check out an electric vehicle, place another wreath and enjoy his third state dinner.
But one thing is missing from the president’s otherwise exciting itinerary: making news. The one hope for a breakthrough on the trip — an announcement of a trade deal called the Trans-Pacific Partnership — fell through.
Dusting off the myriad defenses of Obama so often applied, like manure to crops, Milbank manages a bit of truth: “He’s seeing the sights, getting some good pics and moving along — more tourist than architect of world affairs.” Tourist Obama.
At a press conference the other day he was being interrogated about Ukraine when a reporter asked a question about health care. Obama was delighted. As the excellent Peter Baker reported in The New York Times, “Mr. Obama seems intent on not letting Russia dominate his presidency.” This is not the first time the president has attempted to resist such intrusions upon his idea of how the world ought to be. He has been trying to escape the Middle East for years and “pivot” to Asia, as if the United States can ever not be almost everywhere, leading and influencing, supporting or opposing, in one fashion or another. [snip]
What is this strange choice, this retiring either / or calculation? Only small powers think this way. Can the United States ever have “top priorities” only in one place, even if it is a place as big as Asia? Are our “security interests” not also broached by the failure of the Syrian state, or our “core values” not also invoked by its slaughter without end?
The tiresome futurism of Obama, his dogmatic views about what this ritualistically ballyhooed century will be like and what it will not be like, are only a part of what lowers his vision. The bigger problem is that the president feels inconvenienced by history. It refuses to follow his program for it. It regularly exasperates him and regularly disappoints him. It flows when he wants it to ebb and it ebbs when he wants it flow. Like Mr. Incredible, the president is flummoxed that the world won’t stay saved, or agree to be saved at all. After all, he came to save it. And so the world has only itself to blame if Obama is sick of it and going home.
Obama has concluded, according to Baker, that he “will never have a constructive relationship with Mr. Putin,” and so he has decided that he “will spend his final two and a half years in office trying to minimize the disruption Mr. Putin can cause, preserve whatever marginal cooperation can be saved and otherwise ignore the master of the Kremlin.” Ignoring the master, of course, has the consequence of ignoring the master’s victims: the Obama administration abandons to their fates one people after another, who pay the price for the president’s impatience with large historical struggles. The Ukrainians, the Syrians, the Iranians, the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Egyptians, the Saudis, the Moldovans, the Poles, the Czechs, the Japanese, the Taiwanese, the Baltic populations: they are all living with the jitters, and some of them on the cusp of despair, because the United States seems no longer reliable in emergencies, which it prefers to meet with meals ready to eat. No wonder that so much of our diplomacy consists in tendering reassurances. The United States now responds to oppressed and threatened peoples by making them more lonely and afraid—a sentimental objection, I know, and one that is unlikely to trouble Henry Kissinger’s epigone in the White House.
Obama’s impatience with history has left him patient with evil. It is not a pretty sight; but his broken foreign policy is riddled with such ironies. Here is another one: Baker reports that the president has elected to revise his Russia policy into “an updated version of the Cold War strategy of containment.” How twentieth century!
Wieseltier writes: The only country that American containment is containing is America.
Obama’s surprisability about history, which is why he is always (as almost everyone now recognizes) “playing catch-up,” is owed to certain sanguine and unknowledgeable expectations that he brought with him to the presidency. There was no reason to expect that the Ayatollah Khamenei would take Obama’s “extended hand,” but every reason to expect that he would crack down barbarically on stirrings of democracy in his society. There was no reason to expect that Assad would go because he “must go,” but every reason to expect him to savage his country and thereby create an ethnic-religious war and a headquarters for jihadist anti-Western terrorists. There was no reason to expect Putin to surrender his profound historical bitterness at the reduced post-Soviet realities of Russia and leave its “near abroad” alone. There was no reason to expect that the Taliban in Afghanistan would behave as anything but a murderous theocratic conspiracy aspiring to a return to power. And so on. Who, really, has been the realist here?
The Dissing of the President
The world is treating Obama like another failed American leader.
I’ve never liked the word diss—not as a verb, much less as a noun. But watching the Obama administration get the diss treatment the world over, week-in, week-out, I’m beginning to see its uses.
Diss: On Sunday, Bloomberg reported that Hasan Rouhani named Hamid Aboutalebi to serve as the ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. Rouhani is the Iranian president the West keeps insisting is a “moderate,” mounting evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Mr. Aboutalebi was one of the students who seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979. [snip]
Diss: On Friday, Vladimir Putin called President Obama to discuss a resolution to the crisis in Ukraine. The Russian president “drew Barack Obama’s attention to continued rampage of extremists who are committing acts of intimidation towards peaceful residents,” according to the Kremlin, which, as in Soviet days, no longer bothers distinguishing diplomatic communiqués from crass propaganda.
Mr. Kerry was immediately dispatched to Paris to meet with Sergei Lavrov, his Russian counterpart. Mr. Lavrov—who knows a one-for-me, one-for-you, one-for-me deal when he sees it—is hinting that Russia will graciously not invade Ukraine provided Washington and Moscow shove “constitutional reforms” favorable to the Kremlin down Kiev’s throat. And regarding the invasion that brought the crisis about: “Mr. Kerry on Sunday didn’t mention Crimea during his remarks,” reports The Wall Street Journal, “giving the impression that the U.S. has largely given up reversing the region’s absorption into Russia.”
Diss: “If your image is feebleness, it doesn’t pay in the world,” Moshe Ya’alon, Israel’s defense minister, said last month at Tel Aviv University. “At some stage, the United States entered into negotiations with them [the Iranians], and unhappily, when it comes to negotiating at a Persian bazaar, the Iranians were better.” [snip]
Diss: “It seems to me that some kind of joker wrote the U.S. president’s order “. That was what Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin tweeted after learning last month that the Obama administration had sanctioned him for his role in the invasion of Ukraine.
Gotta love the ” “.
Diss: In March, Iranian Gen. Masoud Jazayeri offered his view of Mr. Obama’s threat to use military force against Iran if negotiations fail. “The low-IQ U.S. President and his country’s Secretary of State John Kerry speak of the effectiveness of ‘the U.S. options on the table’ on Iran while this phrase is mocked at and has become a joke among the Iranian nation, especially the children.“
It’s a painful read of insult after insult. Unfortunately they are deserved mockery of a boob who thinks he is bright. A clown stepping on rakes who thinks he is tip toeing through tulips.
More mockery came from Iran when Obama threatened vetoes if Congress dared impose sanctions on Iran. Iran thanked Obama by placing a wreath at the memorial to the mastermind of the 1983 bombing in Beirut, the 1985 hijacking of TWA 847 and other terrorist acts.
No surprise then when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, began his attacks against the American Ambassador in order to distract from a corruption scandal that threatens to remove him from power. Obama had previously stated how much he favored Erdogan and followed that love note up with psalms about the “bonds of trust” he had with Erdogan.
The Wall Street Journal‘s Stephens catalogs only the most recent examples of insults directed towards the boob in the White House. The most alarming of these insults was the very public mocking in a New York Times editorial op-ed by the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United Kingdom.
Ron Fournier at the National Journal cites the Peter Baker article in the New York Times then proceeds to wrap the entire stinking foreign and domestic Obaminations up, like a Michelle Obama “outfit”, in one stinking, hideous bow:
Baker reports on a debate inside the administration about how to contain Putin: [snip]
The more hawkish faction in the State and Defense departments has grown increasingly frustrated, privately worrying that Mr. Obama has come across as weak and unintentionally sent the message that he has written off Crimea after Russia’s annexation. They have pressed for faster and more expansive sanctions, only to wait while memos sit in the White House without action. Mr. Obama has not even imposed sanctions on a list of Russian human-rights violators waiting for approval since last winter.
That last paragraph reminds me of Democrats who privately gripe about Obama’s lack of engagement with Congress, his unwillingness to build meaningful relationships, his allegiance to polls and focus groups, and his cautious nature that, in their minds, holds him back from greatness. “He can’t handle Putin. He can’t handle Republicans,” said a veteran Democratic consultant and part-time adviser to both of Obama’s presidential campaigns. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the Democrat told me, “He just is not a natural leader.”
No, he is not a natural leader. He’s not any kind of a leader other than self-interested in his self-interests. He’s a boob. A Boob in America. A Boob in Europe. A Boob domestically. A Boob abroad. This week he is a Boob in Asia.
April 19, 2007 was the date we first published. In one sense much has changed. Now much of our analysis is indisputable. Can Obama be trusted? Most Americans agree with us that Obama cannot be trusted. Is Barack Obama a boob too? Even his most ardent acolytes realize that Barack has botched his presidency. Barack’s big majorities in congress have been devoured. Barack’s assertions of being a world historical leader are exposed as the delusions of a clanking miniature clod. Barack’s promises of receding oceans have drowned in tsunami seas of troubles.
Hillary Clinton? In 2007 the claim from Obama Hopium guzzlers in her own party was that Hillary was a racist dynasty corporatist neo-con war-monger ugly old witch vagina third way Mcauliffe has-been evil monster loser who should be taken into a back room and beaten with a 2×4 until she disappeared forever and ever. Now? The same DailyKooks and party apparatchiks who thought or said such things see Hillary as their salvation and the only tool they have to save the memory of their once and future Messiah.
But much has not changed at all since 2007. There is still the crazy. Consider the recent shoe thrown at Hillary. Hillary handled the episode very well, to the point of amazingly well. Hillary ducked, then amusingly asked if that flying object was a bat. From there on Hillary, like a super talented jazz musician improvising new riffs and melodies on a popular tune, asked if it was all part of a stray Las Vegas act that had escaped from the strip. Hillary ended with a home run by declaring that the shoe thrower missed her mark because she did not possess the training Hillary acquired as a youthful softball player. That last remark was aggressive, mocking, endearing, and boastful, all at once.
The shoe incident should have come as no surprise to anyone. Hillary has some adversaries that want to throw shoes at her. No surprise. Hillary has been giving speeches for generations to hostile and friendly audiences so no surprise that Hillary can handle just about anything. It’s called experience. But we were back to 2007 real quick as callers to Rush Limbaugh (and others who should know better) could not accept Hillary’s grace under fire and quick wit responses:
“Her theory was based on the fact that Mrs. Clinton looked like she knew it was coming. She didn’t look that shocked. She had too many really cute, pat answers just ready to go. And then this woman said the Clintons, they stage things, the Democrats stage things and I said, “You know, I hadn’t thought about it.”
From there Limbaugh educated his audience with more Monica Lewinsky stories.
Limbaugh was not as bad or stupid as the DailyKooks with their conspiracy stories, but if Republicans want to know why they lose to the Clintons the whole episode is a good lesson. Why not accept that Hillary has a lot of experience handling hecklers and critics? Why not accept that Hillary is very good at interactions with audiences, whether hostile or friendly? No, instead it all had to be staged because that delusion emotionally satisfies more than the obvious truth that Hillary is a force to be reckoned with.
So now it’s out there. After five years of studied reticence (unless they were talking privately to one another or their supporters), Democratic leaders in Washington finally went public last week with what they really think is motivating Republican opposition to Barack Obama. As Steve Israel, one of the top Democrats in Congress, told CNN’s Candy Crowley, the Republican base, “to a significant extent,” is “animated by racism.” [snip]
But it’s not the reaction of Republicans that Democrats should probably have some concern about. It’s the way American voters, and a lot of younger voters in particular, may view a return to the polarizing racial debate that existed before Obama was ever elected.
Coming in an election year, and in the wake of sporadic campaigns to solidify support among women and gay voters, the sudden Democratic focus on race felt like an orchestrated talking point.[snip]
As far as I can tell, though, this eruption on race actually wasn’t born in the kind of strategy session where consultants lay out which issues will move which voters. What seems to have happened was something rarer: Washington Democrats, unable to suppress their frustration for a minute longer, simply blurted out what they have always believed to be true but had been reluctant to say. One catharsis emboldened the next.
As a unifying explanation for the abject dysfunction of our political system, latent racism seems unsatisfying, at least by itself.”
That article is written by Matt Bai. It is a silly circa 2007 article which tries to convince that the race-baiting to help Obama is not planned but somehow organic or excusable at some level. We read the same crap in 2007.
In 2007 the race-baiting by Obama supporters was masked by talk of a new coalition, ascendant and on the march. Any one who opposed this new coalition and thought the winning coalition was the FDR/Kennedy/Clinton coalition was deemed a racist. This race-baiting strategy was and is by design.
Hillary had experience. Barack Obama had little to no experience outside of his “community organizer” efforts. But to say this was deemed “racist”. Anything said on behalf of Hillary Clinton, or later John McCain, was deemed racist and “old” by these race-baiting “ageists”. Yet Matt Bai dares to publish an article that claims the race-baiting is not by design, not planned, not a filthy scheme to win elections.
Matt Bai’s article is a warning to Obama Dimocrats that the race-baiting of 2014 exposes as a lie the racial unity promises of 2007. Matt Bai is wasting his time. Obama Dimocrats have won with race-baiting and they will race-bait again and again.
In 2007 Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton supporters were the targets of the race-baiters. In 2007 we saw the threat and saw there were no websites defending Hillary Clinton against the race-baiters. So we began to publish in April 19, 2007. We’ve been on the job ever since.
We’ve changed a lot since 2007. Experience changed us. On issue after issue experience changed us. We think it was for the better.
In 2007 we wrote what we believed. In 2008 we wrote what we believed. When Barack Obama took the nomination in Denver that year we had a choice. We could accept the truth of what we had written and declare we could not support a treacherous boob like Barack Obama. Or we could do what many of our compatriots did and say “whatever, delete everything we wrote, we’ll endorse Barack Obama.”
Our problem in 2008 was we had written the truth about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as we knew it. We decided to follow the truth as we saw it. We could never support Barack Obama nor his abominable acts. We continue to write the truth as we see it as painful as it is at times.
Some who wrote the truth about Barack Obama chose to ignore the truth of what they had written and put a political party above the nation’s interests. They now live in a Hell of their own making.
“Hillary Clinton’s top 2016 worry is ‘Obama’s economy
If Hillary Clinton runs for president, she’ll be getting a lot of help from Wall Street. But her friends and confidants there tell me she truly hasn’t decided yet.
So why is she hesitating? The big reason, according to these sources, has to do with the dude who occupies the Oval Office now.
Barack Obama’s rapidly disintegrating presidency — and the chance it will get even worse — is Clinton’s top worry these days as she weighs whether she’ll run, and can win, in 2016, these folks say.”
As in 2007 Hillary Clinton’s opponent in 2016 will be Barack Obama. Very few outside the world of Kookdom will want to vote for an Obama third term. Barack Obama has been a disaster and an obamination and like a radioactive Ebola transmitting parasite Barack Obama threatens to continue to destroy:
“She knows economic recoveries (even ones as weak as the one Obama fomented with ObamaCare, higher taxes and his attacks on business) run in cycles, which often last about seven years. In other words, it could turn sharply down just in time to leave her holding the bag.
“If you ask Hillary what she really fears, it’s that in a year or so, when she’s running, that Obama will be so unpopular that no one wants any Democrat as president,” said one Wall Street executive who knows the former first lady. “That doesn’t mean she won’t run — she’s human and when so many people urge you to do something, you often do it. But that doesn’t mean she will win.”
Hillary’s fear of being stained by Obamanomics isn’t just her own; it reflects a broad-based critique of the Obama presidency you hear muttered at Washington and New York cocktail parties where liberal elites (i.e., her Wall Street supporters) often congregate.
On the other hand, Republicans have a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory; who knows who they’ll nominate in 2016.
And time is on Hillary’s side as long as the economy doesn’t crater. She has a formidable campaign and fund-raising apparatus ready at a moment’s notice — money will be there and her celebrity isn’t going away.
One test she’ll be looking at, I’m told, is how her new memoir, due out in June, gets received. If the book tour goes well, she’s even more likely to jump in.
But count me as skeptical that she will run — and even more skeptical that, if she does run, she wins. Because, based on everything she’s telling people about the problems of inheriting the Democratic Party from President Obama, even she’s skeptical of her chances.“
In 2007 we began to publish because we saw treacherous Barack Obama as the destroyer of the Democratic Party and the single biggest threat to a successful Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. In 2007 we urged Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton supporters to realize that Barack Obama was the greatest threat to America, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
A corrupt Department of Justice which is a nest for injustice. An executive branch of government whose agencies and departments wield power to oppress the citizenry. There are constitutional remedies as we detail below.
Can executive branch gangster government be brought to justice? Is the American constitutional system of government too outdated, too badly designed, too irrelevant to modern day reality to fight back against a corrupt executive branch that employs all the vast powers of the president and the departments and agencies of government? Is “consent of the governed” no longer required as long as the executive branch, allied with a corrupt Big Media, occupies the west wing of the White House?
The American system of government can survive gangster government. The constitutional system of government instituted by the Founding Fathers and Mothers anticipated just such a corrupt system as we face today.
It is true that a corrupt Barack Obama assisted by the corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder is protected from ordinary legal process. Impeachment likewise is always a threat but that is not a viable possibility yet because there are still sufficient votes in the U.S. Senate to protect Barack Obama from justice and a penitentiary cell.
The same does not hold true for Barack Obama’s henchmen and thugs. Obama’s gangland is vulnerable to the rule of law. Exit the Department of Justice. Enter the inherent contempt power of the American Congress.
It seems that the House Judiciary Committee is considering seeking help from the Justice Department to enforce contempt citations against Bush administration officials such as Joshua Bolten who refuse to respond to congressional inquiries into alleged White House wrongdoing. That would be a mistake.
Such a strategy leaves Congress beholden to hostile executive branch officials to enforce its prerogatives on exactly the type of charges that the administration said this week it would not allow officials to pursue. This strategy also would allow the president to pardon his underlings should they ever be indicted and convicted.”
What we advocated against George W. Bush we support against Barack Obama. The Congress can bypass the corrupt Department of Justice and bring back accountability:
“Yet under historic and undisturbed law, Congress can enforce its own orders against recalcitrant witnesses without involving the executive branch and without leaving open the possibility of presidential pardon.
And a Supreme Court majority would find it hard to object in the face of two entrenched legal principles.
First is the inherent power of Congress to require testimony on matters within its legislative oversight jurisdiction.
So long as Congress is investigating issues over which it has the power to legislate, it can compel witnesses to appear and respond to questions. That power has been affirmed over and over in prosecutions for contempt. [snip]
This power of Congress to punish contemptuous behavior itself was reinforced in 1934. In Jurney v. McCracken, the Supreme Court denied a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who had been taken into custody by the Senate sergeant-at-arms for allegedly destroying documents requested in a Senate subpoena.
The limitation on the president’s pardon power was most comprehensively discussed in a 1925 opinion by Chief Justice (and former president) William Howard Taft in the case of Ex Parte Grossman. [snip]
Thus, the congressional alternative. Instead of referring a contempt citation to the U.S. attorney, a house of Congress can order the sergeant-at-arms to take recalcitrant witnesses into custody and have them held until they agree to cooperate — i.e., an order of civil contempt. Technically, the witness could be imprisoned somewhere in the bowels of the Capitol, but historically the sergeant-at-arms has turned defendants over to the custody of the warden of the D.C. jail.”
“So, far from being defenseless against the president’s refusal to prosecute or the threat of presidential pardon, Congress could take into its own custody defiant administration officials who refuse to cooperate with legitimate inquiries into executive malfeasance. Those targets would have the right to seek writs of habeas corpus from the federal courts, but as long as Congress could show a legitimate need for the information it was seeking pursuant to its legislative oversight functions, it would be standing on solid legal ground.“
Congress should get on solid legal ground and prosecute its need for information by bypassing the corruption at the White House and the Department of Justice.
“Congress Has a Way of Making Witnesses Speak: Its Own Jail [snip]
If the Justice Department refuses to enforce the subpoenas, as seems likely, Congress will have to decide whether to do so. Washington lawyers are dusting off an old but apparently sturdy doctrine called “inherent contempt” that gives Congress the power to bring the recalcitrant witnesses in — by force, if necessary. [snip]
This is where inherent contempt comes in. From the Republic’s earliest days, Congress has had the right to hold recalcitrant witnesses in contempt — and even imprison them — all by itself. In 1795, shortly after the Constitution was ratified, the House ordered its sergeant at arms to arrest and detain two men accused of trying to bribe members of Congress. The House held a trial and convicted one of them.
In 1821, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s right to hold people in contempt and imprison them. Without this power, the court ruled, Congress would “be exposed to every indignity and interruption, that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it.” Later, in a 1927 case arising from the Teapot Dome scandal, the court upheld the Senate’s arrest of the brother of a former attorney general — carried out in Ohio by the deputy sergeant at arms — for ignoring a subpoena to testify.
The Congressional Research Service issued a report in July that confirmed Congress’s inherent contempt powers. It explained how they work: “The individual is brought before the House or Senate by the sergeant at arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned in the Capitol jail.” Congress can do this, the report concluded, to compel them to testify or to punish them for their refusal to do so.
The Bush administration has been acting as if only the executive branch matters. [snip]
This country has seen far too much of this sort of dismissal of Congress’s authority.”
IRS Lois Lerner should be the first to feel the inherent power of contempt of congress and be subjected to a full examination by the full House of Representatives. The hypocrites at the New York Times agreed with us when it was George W. Bush at target range. Now the hypocrites will protect “unitary executive” Barack Obama where once they deplored executive overreach and corruption.
Barack Obama changes laws at will, decides what laws to enforce, yet Big Media protects him. Big Media and Obama Dimocrats will not enforce the law. Will Congress?:
“House Republicans won’t rule out arresting Lois Lerner if Justice Department doesn’t
House Ways and Means Committee Republicans aren’t ruling out the use of the chamber’s “inherent contempt” authority if Attorney General Eric Holder refuses to act on the panel’s accusations against former IRS official Lois Lerner. [snip]
Among those tools is the House’s “inherent contempt” authority under the Constitution, which was initially exercised in 1795 during the First Congress and on multiple occasions thereafter. Lerner could be held until January 2015 when a new Congress is seated, which could issue another subpoena and throw her in the clink again if she still balks at testifying.“
“If Congress wants to hold someone in contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena, they can do several things:
(1) Hold congressional contempt proceedings. These are quasi-judicial proceedings, rooted in the constitutional investigatory and legislative power of Congress, in which the members of Congress themselves act as judges, juries, and prosecutors. It is very important to note that this is not a judicial process. The chamber of Congress in question has the power to direct the Sergeant at Arms to arrest someone, bring them before the chamber, and put them in jail, all without seeing the inside of a courtroom.
See McGrain v. Daugherty, for an example of this upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court held that such powers were “necessary and proper” for Congress to carry out its legislative function.
This is the “historical” method by which a chamber of Congress has enforced its subpoenas. It was employed some dozen or more times up until 1934 but it was deemed too time consuming because it required the attention of the whole chamber, sometimes for more than a week. In the 1850s an alternative procedure was hotly debated and eventually created. But this method still exists. And this is the source of what is referred to as the “inherent contempt” proceeding.
For completness’ sake I should mention that individuals imprisoned under this procedure may petition for habeas relief from federal courts. They therefore will have some opportunity (though likely limited) to raise defenses (for example, Fifth Amendment or executive privilege) and challenge the validity of the contempt finding. On the other hand, there is general consensus that this type of imprisonment is not a criminal penalty and therefore is not subject to the presidential pardon power.“
The third option discussed at that post becomes relevant if Republican win the Senate in November. For now the House of Representatives should make it very clear that the corrupt, insolent officialdom at the White House and the Department of Justice as well as the Internal Revenue Service cannot rely on the presidential pardon power or the corruption of the laws by Obama henchmen.
“GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: The investigation to take last first, has stalled because the Justice Department has already leaked its conclusion, which is that no one would be prosecuted. It rises to that level because the Internal Revenue Service is the most intrusive and potentially the most punitive institution of the federal government and has been thoroughly politicized. Let me give you five things we know that she’s done right now. She said the delay on approving conservative groups is caused by a serious uptick in applications. The inspector general of the IRS says that is just not true. She said the Tea Party group was very dangerous. In Texas and Kentucky and probably elsewhere, IRS employees have violated the Hatch Act by using federal resources for campaigning and obviously for Barack Obama.
WALLACE: Can we — I just want to point out — because the office of Special Council came out this week with a report and they said, now, there weren’t vast cases although in Dallas they apparently — they were wearing campaign buttons and there are screen saver said Obama and stuff like that. But there was at least one case where if you called the helpline this person was in effect tell you when you should vote for Obama and not for the Republicans because they’ll keep you in this mess. On the IRS helpline. So, (INAUDIBLE) with you recitation, I’m (INAUDIBLE).
WILL: Confidential taxpayer information of the organization, the National Organization for Marriage was leaked to a rival group. And finally, when Senator Schumer and Durbin and others were exerting the IRS to be more political in their application of views, she said with regard to Crossroads GPS, the most important conservative group, we are working on a denial of the application. Not expediting, not coming to a quick conclusion, but we are working on denial of it. That’s why this rises because as Bob Woodward remembers, the Watergate scandal was fundamentally in the words of John Dean using the machinery of the federal government to punish our enemies.
WALLACE: All right, Mr. Woodward, you know something about scandals. And if that’s forgetting them, how serious is the IRS scandal and, you know, I think one of the key questions is, does this really begin and end with a midlevel bureaucrat who we never heard of a year ago named Lois Lerner?
BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, there is obviously something here. And the question is does this committee know how to investigate? And they’re worried about this one person who has invoked her Fifth Amendment rights not to answer questions and you have congressmen on the committee going on and saying we have evidence she’s involved in criminal activity. I don’t think you should cross that line. The second thing is there’s always one person who’s not going to talk. And when you conduct an investigation like this, I have not gone into the details, you need to find people who will talk. And there are always people who will do this. And, you know, we should dig into it. There should be answers. It’s quite correct. And for the president to take that position is very, very unusual and say there is not a smidgeon of evidence here. I mean George has got a good list — I think, actually, there’s more. And there’s a question and you’re right, the IRS particularly this week as we know will file our tax returns has a big place in everyone’s life. And they have immense power. And the power of the federal government to come and say we’re auditing you or we’re going to do something to you, I mean it’s a ten ton truck coming at you. And it’s the sort of thing that the leadership and the White House should take a position. Look, we will not tolerate this. [snip]
HUME: Chris, the same set of facts that Bob and George have described would have touched off, I think, in previous days a media firestorm. What we had was kind of a campfire in most of the media, which was doused before very long and the story has been basically dormant. We at Fox News have continued to pursue it and some other media outlets have as well. But when that kind of firestorm occurs, it creates an atmosphere in Washington where for the administration with a message to try to promote day by day, you can’t get it out. You can get nothing out. We can all remember what it was like. And that creates a hothouse sort of atmosphere, in which all investigations end up being accelerated. There are minute details leaked, they get reported and the thing develops a life of its own and ultimately the combination of things, you know, brings the issue out and you get to the facts. It has not happened here.”
Big Media will protect Barack Obama and his gangster government. It will be up to Congress to get the truth.
Since the beginning of the IRS scandals we have stated that a special select committee was needed. Instead on issue after issue we have seen mostly bumbling from the committees charged with investigation.
Soon the entire House of Representatives will have to rise up to defend the law. The Constitution provides the shield and sword of law for the House of Representatives to take back representative government from the corrupt gangster government of Barack Obama. “This government of the people, by the people, and for the people. shall not perish from the earth” unless Congress and the people abandon principles and the solid rock of law.
Update: Obama is right about Sebelius but not in the way he meant it. “Kathleen Sebelius resignation: Obama says the HHS secretary will ‘go down in history‘” That’s like saying “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.” She’s “going down” in history alright. We’ll make sure of that. Maybe Sebelius will retaliate like Brownie did and call out Obama as an incompetent boob not bothered about his supposed “legacy” “achievement”.
To punish Sebelius she should be forced to go on ObamaCare. She was not fired. She has not been punished. Force ObamaCare down her throat. Next stop: the nomination fight of her successor, OMB Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell.
There will be a lot of updates on this resignation as the **it hits the fan. For now it is time to polish the ammo to be used in the nomination fight to come in the midst of the November midterm elections.
In the nomination fight to come, one of the issues will be the necessary repeal of ObamaCare. The response to this from Obama ObamaCare shills is that the problem with ObamaCare is not enough ObamaCare. To them a “fix” here and there will solve the nonexistent problems.
“FiveThirtyEight, HuffPost Destroy Idea of ‘Secret Majority Supporting Obamacare’
On Thursday, a USA Today/Pew Research Center survey confirmed what most already know: the Affordable Care Act is not popular. 50 percent of respondents in that survey said they continue to disapprove of the ACA compared with 37 percent who approve of the law. That is largely stable from that survey’s results last month which found 53 percent disapproving and 41 percent approving of the ACA.
In fact, Pew’s results are consistent with other polls which have found broad disapproval of the law since it’s passage in 2010. Today, the Real Clear Politics average of opinion polls shows the ACA remains unpopular with an average of 52.2 percent of the public compared with an average of 39.8 who approve.
No matter, some of the ACA’s supporters say. For within those surveys that persistently show the public disapproving of the law lay secret subsets of respondents who, when added together, reveal that majorities actually adore the health care reform law.
“If one combines the segment that wants a more liberal approach to health care reform with those who approve of the law, a plurality of Americans view health care change favorably,” declared the New York Times‘ Allison Kopicki on the day the ACA’s troubled online presence went live last October.”
“Based on a November CNN survey which asked respondents who say they oppose the law why that is the case, MSNBC.com analyst Steve Benen declared that, in spite of the fact that 58 percent said they oppose the law, the ACA is secretly beloved. “In other words, as the CNN analysis explained, 54% of the country either supports Obamacare, or say it’s not liberal enough,” he exclaimed.”
Jamelle Bouie at The Daily Beast has written the same rubbish. Ditto CNN (“Thirty-nine percent say they oppose the law because it’s too liberal, but 12% say they oppose it because it’s not liberal enough.” “That means half the public either favors Obamacare, or opposes it [because it] doesn’t go far enough.”.)
This delusion will be tested fully in November. Kathleen Sebelius tried to sail that river of denial but reality intruded on her reveries. The “math” from the once beloved Obama acolytes at 538 and Huff n’ Puff tell another story:
“Recently, partnering with the polling firm YouGov, Huffington Post polling analyst Mark Blumenthal attempted to duplicate CNN’s method of divining support for the ACA among those who do not support the ACA. To clarify CNN’s findings, he performed one extra step. “In your own words,” HuffPost asked select respondents, “what do you mean when you say the health care law is not liberal enough?”
“[V]ery few said they opposed the law because they would prefer a ‘single payer’ system (6 percent of those answering) or would prefer either the ‘public option’ or an alternative to ensure “healthcare for all” (4 percent),” Blumenthal revealed.
A much larger portion of the not-liberal-enough group referenced high costs (15 percent), the mandate to purchase health insurance (12 percent), or more general complaints about a lack of choice or too much government control (13 percent).
“I don’t think forcing everyone to buy insurance is liberal at all,” one respondent told Blumenthal.
“Liberal means choice to me at least and it leaves us no choice, we are forced to buy insurance we may neither need or want,” another said.”
Call rewrite at the ObamaCare Dreamworks studios of delusion.
“But the fatal blow to this happy theory came from statistical guru Nate Silver‘s outlet, Five Thirty Eight. On Thursday, analyst Harry Enten observed ACA supporters have not only misread polling results that show some say the ACA is not liberal enough, but they have also misconstrued polling results which show ACA does not go “far enough.”
“The ‘not far enough’ group has been read as opposition from the political left,” Enten wrote. “But in the Democracy Corps survey, 13 percent of Republicans said Obamacare didn’t go far enough in changing health care. Only 4 percent of Democrats said the same.
The ABC News survey was more evenly split, but there was still no major Democratic opposition. Nine percent of Republicans and 8 percent of Democrats said the law didn’t go far enough, according to ABC News.
For most, the ACA is, in fact, unpopular. To the extent that this fact remains murky to some, the Pew survey released this week indicates that it will become clear as day in November.
“In the survey, taken after President Obama announced a surprising 7.1 million Americans had signed up for health care through the law’s exchanges, more than eight in 10 registered voters say a candidate’s stance on the law will be an important factor in determining their vote,” wrote USA Today‘s Susan Page. “A 54% majority call it very important.”
“By 2-1, those who rate the issue as very important disapprove of the law,” she continued. “That means it is more likely to motivate opponents than supporters to vote — a critical element in midterm elections when turnout often is low.”
We’re constantly implored/commanded by the Obama cult to “get over 2008“. But we know our Alinsky Rule #4 and we promised at the end of 2008 to hold Barack Obama’s stinking feet to the fire. Think of us as Banquo’s ghost with a red hot poker to shove up the ass of Obama acolytes.
The hypocrisy of Obama cultists who demand we “get over 2008″ was further exposed this week thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling in a major campaign finance case. Oddly, the hypocrisy of Obama supporters was exposed by a pretty good article from the Obama cult website DailyBeast. Stuart Stevens at DailyBeast made a very good policy case for not getting over 2008:
“When Obama rejected federal funding for presidential campaigns before his first term, he changed campaigning as we knew it, with candidates on both sides shifting their focus from what’s important (votes! dialogues! press!) to what’s not (money! money! money!). [snip]
Campaign finance is a complicated, vexing issue. There are freedom of speech issues which are legitimate and compelling with a fierce disparity of opinions on the proper solutions. But for over thirty years we had one positive reform that both parties embraced and maintained: federal funding of presidential elections. That ended in 2008 when Barack Obama became the first nominee since Watergate to reject federal financing.“
Hey! that happened in 2008! Obama cultists don’t want to remember that it is Obama that lied and it was Obama they let get away with his lies. That’s the DailyBeast talking, not good ol’ Big Pink. That pig Barack Obama destroyed campaign finance reform:
“Let’s look at the history.
After Watergate, a series of reform campaign finance measures were passed. For the first time in US history, a system was established to fund presidential campaigns with tax dollars. [snip]
The same legislation provided for a partial federal funding mechanism for the presidential primaries. [snip]
This system of federal funding and limits held for both primaries and the general election lasted until 1996, when Steve Forbes running in the Republican primary for President rejected federal funding to self-finance his primary campaign. On the Democratic side, the same happened in 2004 when Howard Dean realized he could raise a lot of money on the Internet and therefore rejected federal funding for the primary. It was probably a mistake as it gave permission to John Kerry, married to a billionaire, to spend personal funds. Kerry did, outspending Dean and quickly won.”
Well isn’t that special? Capitalist tool Steve Forbes and tool/fool Howard Dean broke the public finance system aided and abetted by John Kerry. It wasn’t evil Bill Clinton or corporatist evil Hillary Clinton that broke the system but rather the ‘Dimocratic wing of the Dimocratic party’ Howie and ketchup king weenie John Kerry. Who would’a guessed? According to Big Media it is those evil Clintons raising money in Lincoln’s bedroom that are the cause for all the calamities of campaign finance. Enter the DailyBeast which informs the Obama cult that it was Howie that began to kill the system they whine about.
But it was another beast, a beast that walks on hind legs, a beast from Chicago, that finally chewed the public finance system to death – IN 2008! The beast is called Barack Obama:
“But Kerry still accepted federal funding and limits for his general election, as had every candidate from 1976 until 2008. In the 2004 campaign, Kerry and Bush each received $74.6 million for the general election.
In 2008, Barack Obama, of course, pledged to accept federal funding if he were the nominee. At the time, Hillary was the fundraising juggernaut and it was assumed no progressive candidate could be the first to reject federal funding in a general election. As David Plouffe detailed in his book, The Audacity To Win, the campaign had committed in writing to stay in the federal system. “It was declarative, and it was unquestionably stated we’d be in no matter what the GOP nominee did.”
But Obama and his campaign realized they could raise a lot of money. A lot of money. “I thought if we opted out of the system,” Plouffe wrote, “We could enjoy a significant financial advantage over McCain.”
So they did what no campaign had done since Watergate: They rejected Federal funding and campaign spending limits. In a classic Obama touch, he announced the decision not to accept federal funding in a video that claimed, “I support a robust system of public financing of elections.”
Get over 2008!!!???!!! It’s a year that lives in campaign finance Big Media infamy.
How could that dog chewing carnivorous beast Barack Obama get away with such monstrous acts??? How???? How???? How indeed?:
“The Obama campaign knew they would face criticism in the media. But they were betting that Obama’s special appeal to the media would allow them to get away with it. They were right. The New York Times and Washington Post wrote weak editorials slapping Barack Obama on the wrist; meanwhile the Obama campaign went on to raise historic levels of money. Much is made of their small dollar contribution, but over 20 percent came from a single source: Wall Street, breaking all records.”
Get over 2008? Get over 2008? We’ll never get over 2008! We’ll remember 2008 for eternity and shove our red hot poker up your hypocritical asses so far you’ll see Game of Thrones episodes in holographic 3D!
Meanwhile, as treacherous liar Barack Obama was aided and abetted in his crimes by Big Media and the hypocrite horde of Obama cultists, John McCain was living up to his ideals:
“Meanwhile John McCain, long a champion of campaign finance reform, stayed in the system. He received $84 million and stuck to the limits. By Election Day, Barack Obama had raised $750 million. The Obama campaign smothered McCain in money.
Today many people, including some in the media, have a tendency to confuse Obama’s decision to reject Federal limits with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that opened the door to corporate dollars in Superpacs. The two are completely unrelated. The Citizens United came two years after Obama rejected federal funding.
The history of campaign finance reform demonstrates that once a voluntarily imposed limit is broken, it is very difficult to go back. For 2012, Obama announced early that he would continue to reject Federal funding. To avoid the financial mismatch that faced John McCain, every Republican said they’d do the same. The system was dead.“
The DailyBeast article further notes that the system that Obama spawned in the same way his father spawned him almost insures that incumbent presidents will always win reelection. That’s because a president can amass billions from now on while the opposition party will exhaust it’s finances in primaries. Of course, this scenario can be avoided with a super-rich opposition candidate that self-finances. This means that thanks to Barack Obama 2008 a super-rich candidate is empowered. And we’re supposed to get over 2008?
“A strong candidate who has grass roots appeal but lacks an ability to attract major donors can now be attacked for that weakness as a potentially disqualifying factor. “We can’t nominate a candidate who doesn’t have what it takes to raise a billion dollars from April to November” is a legitimate concern for both parties focused on winning in November.
Everybody hates money in politics. Candidates hate to raise it, most donors would rather not give it and there is almost universal agreement that our system is crazy. Still, it continues and just gets worse. Federal funding of presidential campaigns with spending limits was one of the last great reforms keeping some sanity in the system.”
Big Media and the Obama cult pigs that snort and yelp because we won’t forget 2008 or let 2008 be forgotten are the culprits, not the Koch brothers, not the Supreme Court, not Republicans. It is Barack Obama, Big Media and Obama voters that are to blame for the state of campaign finance reform:
When Barack Obama announced he was thinking of breaking the system, there should have been a much stronger reaction from those invested in good government. The Commission on Presidential Debates should have announced they would not allow any candidate who rejected spending limits in the debates. The New York Times and Washington Post should have called it disqualifying for a nominee. That would have signaled the pain was too great for anyone, even Barack Obama, to undo the Watergate reform. [snip]
The new, post-Obama system requires candidates to spend upwards of 60 percent of their time raising money deep into September and October. That takes them away from voters, away from the press, away from every dialogue we value in our campaign system.”
The Obama hypocrites that want us to “get over 2008″ can go f*ck themselves. We’ll provide the red hot poker.
The mystery is solved. One picture tells the story.
His parentage is dubious. No one is 100% sure who his real father is. His “father” was so sexually active only DNA detectives can determine who’s who and what’s what. We’re not even sure of what his name is because he has had so many. His mother was liberal when it came to sperm donors. At the beginning of his magnificent new career he was gifted with a prestigious award in spite of having done nothing at all to earn the prize. Great hope was invested in him by the political left. Many considered him a good looking brainiac. Not a he-man he can best be described as “fey”. He went to the finest schools. The toast of blue-town. A world of promise. Yet he is a big fat flop.
Of course we write of Ronan Farrow. His mother is Hollywood’s Mia Farrow. In 1966 the 21 year old Farrow married the 50 year old Frank Sinatra. One year later came the divorce. Mia’s sister Prudence was the inspiration for the Beatles song Dear Prudence. Mia’s next marriage was to composer André Previn. That marriage didn’t last either. Enter Woody Allen the same year the Previn marriage ended.
” Farrow, 28 — the opinionated, blue-eyed son of actress Mia Farrow and either Woody Allen or Frank Sinatra (even Farrow’s not sure which) — has been a disaster for MSNBC. The channel took the frequent cable-show guest and handed him his own program, “Ronan Farrow Daily,” which premiered in late February.
“He sort of stinks on TV,” an MSNBC source told Confidenti@l. “He hasn’t turned out to be the superstar they were hoping for.”
The theory was that Farrow, a Rhodes scholar who graduated college when he was 15 and went on to score degrees from Yale and Oxford, would bring his 245,000 Twitter followers with him to television. “But that hasn’t happened,” the source said. “Just because someone is a boy genius-turned-Twitter star doesn’t mean they deserve their own TV show.” [snip]
Even worse: Wednesday’s show was 708th among all programming ranked by Nielsen, in both total viewers and the 18-to-49 age group advertisers covet. The midnight airing of “Baggage” on the Game Show Network came in ahead of it, at No. 707, and the 8 a.m. “Golden Girls” on the Hallmark Channel (No. 700) crushed it.
Farrow, who has also worked for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Obama administration, has looked uncomfortable on camera and often stumbles over his words. His lack of TV experience was especially apparent last week during an appearance on NBC’s “Today” in which he seemed to have trouble linking sentences.“
Next stop for Satchel, er Seamus, er Ronan? Why a Nobel Peace Prize of course!
MSNBC thought that an inexperienced do-nothing could lead the network to victory. MSNBC invested its hopes and dreams in an educated fool. Now MSNBC has a big fat flop dragging it down like an anchor on a missing plane.
Satchel, er Seamus, er Ronan is not the only bad bet the dunderheads at MSNBC have made. They bet on Obama as a world historic transformational leader. Instead they got world historic boobery. They bet on ObamaCare as the cure. ObamaCare proved worse than the disease. Now at MSNBC there is desperation. At MSNBC morale, like the ratings, are at an all time low. They could change and face the reality that they have been entirely wrong about Obama and his Obamination works. But, at MSNBC there will be no CHANGE. At MSNBC there is no HOPE. At MSNBC the beatings will continue until morale improves.
Veteran Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn said Monday that the White House could be doing more to help Democrats in November’s midterms.
The South Carolina Democrat said while he feels “real good” about where his party stands right now, there’s still room for President Barack Obama to help further with his political apparatus.
“No, they aren’t doing everything,” Clyburn said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in response to a question. “There’s some things I would like to see done, because there’s a lot of fundraising going on. I do not believe that fundraising will be key in November.”
Clyburn said what’s needed from the administration is ground game.
“I think the organization will be key,” Clyburn said. “And if we can get the White House to come in, or at least the president’s political operations, to help us at the state and local levels the way they did in Ohio and Florida, the mechanisms they put in place were just great.”
He said he didn’t think that was happening currently when asked by panelist Mark Halperin, who suggested Clyburn look into the camera and ask the president for his help.”
Poor race-baiter Clyburn’s morale is sinking. We believe he requires a good strong beating. Beat him unil his morale improves.
“Obamacare will be a huge voting issue for Republicans — that’s already clear. They’ll turn out in droves because they hate the law. What’s less clear is how Democrats will get their supporters to the polls to say, “hey, thanks for health reform.” [snip]
The reality is, it’s probably going to be a negative message rather than a positive one. [snip]
Increasingly, liberal Democrats and outside groups are convinced that the formula that party strategists had recommended until now — telling candidates to stress that they’ll fix what’s wrong with the law — is not going to work. [snip]
But those votes will allow the drumbeat of anti-Obamacare votes and investigations to get even louder. And if Democrats can’t turn public opinion around soon, they’ll have to deal with the enthusiasm gap all over again in 2016 — this time when they’re trying to hang on to the White House.”
“Trading barbs, campaign lines and even some compliments, conservative columnist Dr. Charles Krauthammer and Barack Obama campaign mastermind David Plouffe entertained the George Washington University College Democrats and Republicans with a debate Sunday night on foreign policy, health care and the upcoming elections.
Krauthammer dominated the night delivering lines and anecdotes drawing the most laughs and applause.[snip]
Plouffe advised Democratic candidates to pay attention to all sides of the spectrum and to voter turn out, to put their opponent on trial and show them as an unsafe alternative, and to not be defensive on Obamacare but rather go on the offense and show what would happen to healthcare if Republicans take over.
Though Krauthammer called Plouffe’s 2014 analysis “brilliant” and said there’s a reason he is in the “hall of fame” of campaigns, he grinned broadly as he ironically voiced full support for Plouffe’s advice that Democrats run on Obamacare.
“I hope you do and that’s the only advice that I think their side needs,” Krauthammer said. “By the way for those of you on this side of the aisle (pointing to the College Democrats), that was meant to be ironic.”
“Early national polling is supporting the prevailing view in Washington that Democrats are in trouble in the 2014 midterm elections. While Democrats are more popular than the GOP among the general public, the party faces a number of challenges in November.
First, there’s an enthusiasm gap. [snip]
Another challenge for Democrats is winning independents, who typically decide election outcomes. Democrats trail Republicans among independents by 38% to 44%, according to Pew’s February survey. [snip]
A third challenge is the white vote. [snip]
Then there are the millennials. While support for Democratic candidates among African-Americans and Latinos remains high, young people are less enthusiastic. The Pew center’s in-depth surveys of those ages 18-34 indicate that this generation, a voting bloc so important to Mr. Obama’s two victories, is growing more disillusioned with the president. Millennial self-identification as Democrats has edged down to 50% from a high of 58% in 2009. Pew also found Mr. Obama’s job approval among millennials has fallen to 49% in early 2014, down from 70% in the honeymoon months of 2009, his highest rating among any generation.
Opinion of the president is probably the greatest problem for Democrats this year.“
For millennials, the beatings must continue. Their morale must be made to be improved. The beatings will continue. More and more beatings will be required:
“Democrats’ prospects for 2014 do not look rosy. There is little chance that they will retake the House, and a good chance they will lose seats. Even worse, there is a significant chance that they will lose control of the Senate. Our forecasting model said as many as two months ago. That forecast continues to square with the sense of many analysts — even those who mocked the forecast. [snip]
As we have begun to incorporate candidate experience into the model, our initial sense is this: Republicans may have a far better chance of winning control of the Senate than we or other analysts previously thought. Here is a preliminary estimate: The GOP could have as much as a 4 in 5 chance of controlling the chamber.”
“Bracing for a rough midterm-election outcome, Democrats aren’t waiting until Election Day to start blaming one another for the party’s problems. Anticipating the possibility that Republicans will flip the Senate, the finger-pointing game is already underway between the party’s warring factions.
Earlier this month, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas argued liberals had successfully purged so-called squishy moderates from the Democratic Party’s ranks—even if those same lawmakers had helped the party retain conservative-leaning Senate and House seats. From the middle, the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way has become more outspoken in criticizing progressive leaders, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, for advocating an agenda that will compromise the party’s ability to attract moderate voters.
The public spats between outside groups are nothing compared with the private finger-pointing over who could be responsible if Republicans ride a political wave this year. The moderate wing is prepared to blame the party for avoiding centrist initiatives like free-trade deals and entitlement reform, while the Left will argue party leaders didn’t do enough to protect benefits.
“This is a coming divide for the Democratic Party,” said one progressive strategist, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Not only about explaining 2014, but laying the groundwork for 2016.”
Our recommendation: more beatings. More beatings are necessary. Increase the beatings. Let a thousand welts swell. The beatings must continue. The beatings will continue. The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Morale will improve once Obama and his Obamaination works and allies are beaten down, never to rise again.
Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out… That Georgia’s always on my mi-mi-mi-mi-mind.
Back in 2008 Barack Obama’s mocking of Hillary and McCain triumphed. Barack Obama called those two old hat. Barack Obama was going to “turn the page”. All those pesky old time problems Mess-Obama was about to celestial choir away – along with no more rising oceans and well everything old and bad and soon we would have anti-gravity cars and planes taking us to holidays on the moon and a disco ball in the White House. Well the page has turned alright. We’re now out of the frying pan and into the fire. Elect a boob and you get boobery. Re-elect a boob and you get more boobery. Oy vey!
Back in 2008 Barack Obama was a promising star. Obama promised and promised and promised – stars and unicorns along with pennies from Heaven. It’s been Hell ever since.
“The United States does not view Europe as a battleground between East and West, nor do we see the situation in Ukraine as a zero-sum game. That’s the kind of thinking that should have ended with the Cold War.” — Barack Obama, March 24
Should. Lovely sentiment. As lovely as what Obama said five years ago to the United Nations: “No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation.”
That’s the kind of sentiment you expect from a Miss America contestant asked to name her fondest wish, not from the leader of the free world explaining his foreign policy.
Miss America is made of sterner stuff and has more lucid wits than Barack Obama. Miss America would likely agree with an argument we recently made about the Ukrainian crisis. We wrote that the task for an American president who shared Western values is to make the case for the West and the values and history of the West:
“If we had an American president with belief in American values and willing to fight for those values, instead of a president only concerned with his stinking “brand”, the Ukraine crisis could be easily turned into a Churchillian moment in Western history. [snip]
An American president at this time who believes in American values and the values of the Christian West would leap to action. The first symbolic action of such a president would be to recall the ejected bust of Winston Churchill and place it back in a place of honor on the desk in the Oval Office.
Next, such an American president would, alongside Mitt Romney fly to the German capital of Berlin and with Lech Walensa at his side address the peoples of Europe, the West, and the world. To a candid world, in words of brutal truth, such a president would place the attack on Ukraine in historic context. “Ich bin ein Ukrainer” would echo from JFK. “Mr. Putin we forced Mr. Gorbachev to ‘tear down this wall’” and Reagan could for a second be remembered. But more than that, an American president with American values would place the crisis in Ukraine in the context of the West and the long fight for freedom and self-determination of nations.
An American president with granite belief in American values would remind the world that people and nations run TO the west and FROM totalitarian regimes.
An American president with American values would remind the world that the crime of the Ukraine in the eyes of the Evil Empire redux is the preference for the values and freedom and economic hope provided by the West. An American president with American values would remind the world that there was a time when half a continent was called the “captive nations”. An American president with American values would remind the world that evil will not live forever and that even though the Hungarian revolution was crushed by the Evil Empire, tens of thousands killed, freedom came to Hungary and it is free today after a long twilight struggle between the West and the totalitarians.”
As we wrote there is a lot an American president with American values could do to shore up the West and challenge the totalitarian imperium. Roger Cohen at the New York Times is an Obama supporter who does not abandon Obama talking points but he agrees with the the main thrust of our assessment:
“LONDON — Having pivoted to Asia and done the de rigueur minimum over several years to keep the trans-Atlantic alliance off life-support, Barack Obama awakened with a jolt to Europe this week and, on his first visit to Brussels as president, spoke of “inseparable allies” with a shared mission to demonstrate that Russia cannot “run roughshod over its neighbors.”
Shaken from a view of Europe as a kind of 20th-century yawn, Obama spoke of freedom and the ideas that bind the United States and Europe still in an ongoing “contest of ideas” against autocracy and “brute force.” [snip]
Better late than never: The Russian president has benefited from the perception of a United States in full-tilt, war-weary retrenchment; of American red lines turning amber and then green; of a divided European Union; and a hollow NATO living more on the past than any vision of a 21st-century future. Obama has been making up for lost ground.
Still, his Brussels speech, presented as a capstone of his visit and one of those Obama specials designed to offset with eloquence a deficit of deeds, was a poor performance overall, a jejune collection of nostrums about binding values of free-market Western societies and their appeal to the hearts (and pocketbooks) of people throughout the world, not least Ukrainians.[snip]
It is all of this. Unless Western societies find a way to shake their moroseness, level the playing field and rediscover, as Obama put it, the “simple truth that all men, and women, are created equal,” they are going to have a very hard time winning “the contest of ideas.”
Instead of a speech of weary worthiness, Obama should have addressed how an alliance neglected through much of his presidency can be revived; and how American and European democracies, for all their failings, can right themselves because that is the great distinguishing feature of open societies — their capacity for renewal.“
Weakling Obama will not be able to bluster the new star, er, Tsar. The world looks at Obama and sees a weakling and smells the stinky fear emanating from the corpse of the unicorn man. Obama is a bumbling boob that will get us all killed. Vladimir Putin is a Tsar who wants to bring back all the Russias and has an active strategy for getting what he wants:
“Perceptions are important. Whatever his long-range intent, Vladimir Putin has Russia’s neighbors fearing and many Russians believing that he has, in effect, announced his objective to bring the former Soviet space once again under Russian influence, if not incorporated into the Russian state. He has stationed troops and other military assets in proximity and has indicated a willingness to use them. The resentment and fear his moves have created in Ukraine and other neighbors will, over time, set in motion countermoves and activities that will diminish Russia’s own security. Putin has demonstrated his willingness to cut off supplies of the large quantity of oil and gas Russia ships to Ukraine and the countries of Western Europe and to play games with prices. Russia has also developed important trading and financial dealings with Western countries, particularly Germany, Britain and France.”
The Tsar of all the Russias is up against Obama the Boob. As Krauthammer stated, it is quite a mismatch.
There are some who outright cheer Vladimir Putin’s not yet satiated hunger for territory. There are some who want us to consider why Putin is doing what he is doing and busy blaming the United States policy incompetents (if not corrupt) of officialdom. The smart Patrick Buchanan is in that latter category:
“Perhaps Americans, a fortunate tribe, should try to see the world from the vantage point of the Russian people and Vladimir Putin, and, as the poet Robert Burns said, “see ourselves as others see us.”
At 35, Putin was a rising star in the elite secret police, the KGB, of a superpower with a worldwide empire.
The USSR was almost three times as large as the United States. Its European quadrant was half of the Old Continent. The Soviet Empire extended from the Elbe River in Central Germany to the Bering Strait across from Alaska. It encompassed thirteen time zones. [snip]
Consider, then, what the last dozen years of the 20th century must have been like for proud Russian patriots and nationalists.
First, the European empire suddenly and wholly collapsed. East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria all broke away to join the West. The Red Army came home, undefeated, but also unwanted and even detested.
The Warsaw Pact, the rival to NATO, dissolved.
Eastern Europe, which Russians believe they had liberated from the Nazis at a monumental cost in blood, turned its back on Russia, hailed the Americans as liberators, and queued up to join a U.S.-led alliance created to contain Russia.
Then, as Germany was reuniting, the Soviet Union began to break apart — what Putin calls the great tragedy of the 20th century.
One-fourth of the nation he grew up in and half its people vanished. Tens of millions of Russians were left stranded in foreign lands.”
Buchanan’s history is all too true. Yes, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia joined NATO, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova left too. Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan soon packed up their lipsticks and left – former girlfriends tired of being abused. Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan hit the road too. Buchanan writes those loses are equivalent to an America without the 11 Confederate states with Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua aligned with the now defunct Warsaw Pact. There’s also this bit of “blame America”:
“State’s Victoria Nuland says we invested $5 billion in re-orienting Ukraine away from Russia. How would we respond if we awoke — as Putin did in February — to learn a pro-American government in Mexico City had been overthrown by street mobs financed by Beijing, a pro-China regime installed, and this unelected Mexican regime wanted out of NAFTA in favor of joining an economic union and military alliance with China?
A U.S. president who landed Marines in Veracruz, as Wilson did in 1914, and sent a 21st-century General “Black Jack” Pershing with an army across the border, would be over 70 percent in the polls, as Putin is today.
And if he seized Baja, as Putin seized Crimea, it would be a cakewalk to a second term.”
Fair points and one that are currently in vogue among those that, well we really don’t understand the motivations of those making excuses for Putin’s actions.
What Buchanan and others like him fail to acknowledge is that the young Putin lived in a vast totalitarian imperium appropriately described by President Ronald Reagan as “The Evil Empire”. That halcyon memory of days gone by was a nightmare for the rest of the world.
What happened to Vladimir Putin’s boyhood homeland is that the “captive nations” escaped. They fled to the West. The West was a refuge. They fled to the West for freedom and the economic growth that follows when women and men are free.
The Russia of Putin’s memory was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was the Evil Empire. It deserved to die. America and the West killed it. Pope John Paul II killed it. The U.S.S.R. was put out of it’s misery. The Berlin Wall was torn down. The KGB and the Stasi and all the apparatus of state terror against its citizens was destroyed. Temporarily.
Now, we are “turning the page” once again – to the past. Any cursory reading of the Quotes of the day reveal the utter befuddlement of Obama’s minions and the purposeful or foolish assessments they make. Unfortunately armies are massing and time is running out. The Tsar of all the Russias is calling. The Evil Empire calling. It’s time to “disconnect the phone” – we’re back in the U.S.S.R.
“As Verrilli’s situation worsened, Justice Kennedy moved in to wonder why it was that Congress would allow a government agency — the Health and Human Services Department — “the power to decide a First Amendment issue of this consequence…. That is for Congress, not for an agency.” Kennedy would repeat that criticism later in the argument.”
“As has been recounted in this space before, the plain text PPACA authorizes tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies for the purchase of qualifying health insurance plans purchased in health insurance exchanges “established by the State under section 1311” of the Act. PPACA supporters believed every state would create its own exchange. They were mistaken, however, and over thirty states have refused. In response, the IRS promulgated a regulation authorizing tax credits and subsidies in all exchanges, whether or not they were “established by the State under 1311.” Halbig is one of four pending challenges to this regulation.
On January 15, Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columba upheld the IRS rule. According to Judge Friedman’s opinion, an exchange may provide tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies even if it was neither “established by a State” nor “established . . . under section 1311.” As should be clear, I take a different view. Indeed, my work (with Michael Cannon) has been credited with inspiring this litigation and I co-authored an amicus brief in Halbig expanding on our research (see also here).”
It appears to us that Justice Kennedy in questioning whether a mere agency, not the Congress, had the authority to decide an issue of such consequence (namely a First Amendment religious freedom issue) in the Hobby Lobby case might be sending a strong signal to the Halbig litigants and justices that he is not kindly disposed to agencies, not the Congress, making consequential law. Perhaps Justice Kennedy believes that the legislature legislates?
Did we detect from Justice Kennedy something no one else saw? Or did the Rolling Stones put us in such a good mood we are deceived?
* * * * * *
Yup, we are in a good mood. Those of us in winter quarters for these past six years see the jonquils of hope bursting out through the hard ground. Finding good news is as hard as spotting red roses blooming in the snow during these lean Obama years. But we’re optimists and we’re always on the lookout for pink petals floating from the sky.
Still, it sure’s been a long cold cold winter… and the springtime takes a long way around.
The Rolling Stones confirmed Tuesday that they will perform in Tel Aviv on June 4 as part of their “14 On Fire” world tour.
“It’s the first time in 35 years that I have no words to describe the enormity of this event,” said producer Shuki Weiss, who has been trying to get the renowned band to Israel for much of his career.
The concert had been rumored for months, but organizers were only able to announce the official confirmation at a press conference in Tel Aviv on Tuesday.
“This is a historic moment,” said Weiss, who has produced many of Israel’s largest concerts. “It’s a huge honor to bring the Rolling Stones to Israel, an honor for the country, the citizens, and mostly for the fans who have waited for this moment.”
Israel continues to be under attack by the forces of “divestment” especially at American colleges and universities. If you’re a White House reporter, who is Jewish, traveling with Israel hating bow-to-Saudi-despots Barack Obama you’re out of luck in getting your travel papers to enter Saudi Arabia. Obama will no doubt denouce Israel and bow again to Saudi creeps instead of standing up for American values. Well, anyway, at least the British boys called the Rolling Stones stand up for American values.
“Bill Clinton: If The U.S. Gives Up Internet Oversight, Internet Freedom Will Suffer
According to former U.S. president Bill Clinton, Obama’s plan to relinquish control of the Internet will enable foreign governments to crack down and limit Internet freedom.
Last week the Obama administration announced that they were looking for private company to take over the US handling of internet address.
Clinton has joined a number of critics in the US and around the world who think this is a bad and would lead to vulnerability of the internet freedom.
Speaking at Arizona State University, Clinton and Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales doubted the benefits of such a change. Bluntly, Clinton claims introducing a system of global oversight will empower “governments that want to gag people, and restrict access to the Internet.”
“I understand in theory why we should have a multi-stakeholder process…I just know that a lot of these so-called stakeholders are really governments that want to gag people, and restrict access to the Internet.”
Clinton asked Wales on stage if he is concerned that this decision will negatively impact Internet freedom. In response, Wales said “yes, I’m very worried about it.”
What else will Obama give away that weakens America? Obama’s already given away nuclear reductions unilaterally. Obama proved to be very “flexible” after the elections and given Crimea to Russia because of inaction. Missile deployment? Check. Iran nuclear weapons to threaten Israel? Check. What’s left? Even Michelle is in China!
* * * * * *
Michelle torturing the Chinese – see we told you things are getting better!
Picture it: Chinese government officials used to tormenting their people wake up and have to see Michelle Obama stomping through the Forbidden City spending American cash borrowed from the Chinese lender government. The power of Karma!
Good for Sarah Palin. Palin could have been snarky and insulted Hillary. Palin eviscerated Obama in the interview. Palin could have denounced Hillary Clinton 2016 too. Palin could have said something along the lines of “I’m looking forward to Republican candidate X to get in the race”. Palin could have said a lot of avoid the topic entirely non-sequiturs Instead Sarah Palin smelled the pink roses. That’s the right thing to do in Spring.
Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Ulster County, New York, in 1797, Sojourner Truth’s given name was Isabella Baumfree. As almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners, some of her earliest memories were of her parents’ stories of the cruel loss of their other children. [snip]
In 1843, she changed her name to Sojourner Truth – her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth – and left New York. She traveled throughout New England, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. Her life story, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850.
While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women’s rights.
In 1851, she addressed the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The applause she received that day has been described as “deafening.” From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. She became one of the nineteenth century’s most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women’s rights.
NoLimits.org will "keep you up to date with news about issues on which Hillary took a lead and we know you care so much about," group President Ann Lewis said in an e-mail to as many as 2 million people culled from the Clinton campaign database.
Because No Limits is a registered nonprofit, "it cannot do anything political. It has to be nonpartisan," said Lewis, a longtime senior adviser to Clinton.
In Clinton's job as secretary of state for President Obama, her political dealings are highly restricted.
For example, she shut down her political action committee.
Some, like Democratic consultant and former Bill Clinton aide Chris Lehane, dismiss talk that the group could be a springboard for Clinton to try again for the White House in, say, 2016.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Lehane said. "I think this is just [a] group of folks who developed relationships in an intense [electoral] environment and want to stay together."
But the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato countered: "Whenever a group like this says it's not a political organization, you just know it is."
"Maybe [this] is Hillary's answer to Obama's new 'change' group that controls his golden mailing list. Maybe it's a way for Secretary of State Clinton to mobilize backing for her objectives at the State Department," he said. "And maybe [it's] a standby committee of supporters in case Hillary decides to get back into elective politics."
Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said NoLimits.org is "one way to make sure that she - and/or the former President - still have political leverage."
Hillary World-Wide January 26, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."