This morning on an MESSYNBC Obama rally disguised as a talk show, Chuck Todd said that Democrats’ internal polls showed their candidates dropping 6-9 percentage points when Obama went golfing after speaking about Foley’s murder. That’s what tonight is about. It’s a salvage operation but instead of pirate gold they will try to salvage the bones of pirate Obama.
Part of the Obama speech will be a performance to come off as tough. Obama will say he will bomb and bomb ISIS (he calls them ISIL because he doesn’t like the Syria reminder) “wherever they exist“. Twitchy asks if that means he will bomb Minnesota Mosques.
As noted in our comments section the New York Times for years held back the truth about Iraq from the American public in order to protect Barack Obama. Tonight, Jay Carney who recently evacuated the White House spokesman position will be an impartial “analyst” for CNN. Big Media will do all to salvage Obama’s Titanic mess.
Tonight we will watch the primary returns from those voting (Delaware, Rhode Island, Massachusetts) but especially the votes from New York and New Hampshire for more clues about November. The clues are already piled up high like dumped from a box pieces of a double jumbo puzzle. Politicodumps the puzzle pieces:
Gallup: Why Dems should worry
The Gallup poll found 14 percent of Americans approve of how the legislative branch is handling its job, the lowest approval rating two months before elections that the poll has measured since 1974.
“Americans indicate that these negative attitudes will increase their probability of voting this fall, and history suggests it is more likely that Democrats than Republicans will suffer as a result, given Democratic control of the White House,” the polling firm wrote.
Blame Barack you dumb-asses. You support Obama and now you must suffer and die.
A majority of voters believe Barack Obama’s presidency has been a failure, a new poll says.
According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Tuesday, 52 percent of Americans say Obama’s presidency has been a failure, compared with 42 percent who believe it has been a success. Thirty-nine percent believe strongly that his presidency is a failure, just 3 points below his total success score.
Political analyst Stu Rothenberg sees a wave election coming for Senate Republicans in November.
In a Roll Call column published Monday, the electoral expert said he is expecting Republicans to gain at least seven seats in the Senate and earn a November victory more dramatic than several pollsters have suggested.
“I am now expecting a substantial Republican Senate wave in November, with a net gain of at least seven seats,” he said. “But I wouldn’t be shocked by a larger gain.” [snip]
“The combination of an unpopular president and a midterm election (indeed, a second midterm) can produce disastrous results for the president’s party,” he later added, a reference to President Barack Obama’s sagging approval numbers throughout the summer.
Rothenberg is not alone. Although most of the vote counters in D.C. have (as recently as a week ago) mocked the idea of a Republican wave in November they all project the likelihood of Republican control of both houses of congress. They all blame Obama for the dire condition of the Obama Dimocratic Party.
This is a race in which we wish every candidate would lose. Hillary Clinton robocalls in support of Cuomo. But Cuomo’s treatment of the Teachout loon reminds us of Barack Obama’s snub of Hillary in the U.S. Senate. Take a look at Cuomo and DeBlasio snub Teachout and see why we don’t want Cuomo to win even though he will, absent a miracle:
Disgusting. It is also reprehensible that Cuomo refused to debate at all. May they all lose. A low vote total for Cuomo will be a loss for Cuomo and a slap in the wrist for his obnoxious unaccounted for behavior.
In New Hampshire we’ll look to Scott Brown’s vote totals too. But here the question will be to what extent Brown solidifies Republican support after his win tonight. If Brown unites the Republicans quickly he can then make a play for independents. Soon enough we will see if New Hampshire will be another “unexpected” Republican win in November.
In Massachusetts Scott Brown’s vanquished opponent Martha Coakley better win big or she might lose to her strong Republican opponent Charlie Baker. Baker ran and lost to Governor Deval Patrick. These days Deval Patrick is the latest proposed Hillary Clinton 2016 opponent. Every so often Deval Patrick gets out of Barack Obama’s ass and attacks Hillary in the type of slimy way only a close ally of Obama is capable of. Go to Hell Deval Patrick!
Daval Patrick and many Obama acolytes still inject themselves in the morning with Hopium. But have the “dreamers” quit and woken from their Hopium drunk? Will Hopium addled “dreamers” save Obama and Obama Dimocrats this November??? Some Hopium sniffers are, these many years too late, bowing at the altar of Big Pink with their lace mantillas on reciting our catechism:
Obama cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his foes. Obama cannot be trusted.
When it comes to immigration, Obama has a long trail of half-truths and broken promises. In July 2008, the presidential candidate told the National Council of La Raza that, if elected, he would make the issue a top priority and address it within the first 100 days. That didn’t happen.
White House officials then moved the goal line to, well, the first term. That didn’t happen either.
From 2009 to 2011, Obama told supporters that he couldn’t curb deportations because he was “not a king.”
Yet, in 2012, eager to re-engage Hispanic voters for his reelection, Obama summoned his inner monarch when he unveiled “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” which gives undocumented young people a temporary reprieve from deportation and work permits.
In 2013, Obama did another about-face and returned to his rhetoric about how he couldn’t act alone to stop deportations. [snip]
Now, we’re in another election year, and Obama is back to cynically using the promise of immigration reform to get Latino voters to turn out. He dangles it like a carrot in front of a donkey pulling a cart. [snip]
Latinos should be furious at Obama’s betrayal. But they should save some anger for themselves for believing the lies.
As for Obama, he continues to insult Latinos with more blame-shifting and double talk.
Latino carts chasing the donkey carrot. Anyone who believed Barack Obama ever is an ass. No pity, just contempt from us for this level of stupidity from these dumb-ass “dreamers”.
Anyone who believed Barack Obama deserves all the insults and snubs from Obama they get. Slap them in the face Barack! They’re losers in desperate need of kicks to the face, hammers to the head, and punches to the kidneys. Sic ‘em dog Barack. Make them rue the day they voted for you as we sit back and laugh as they get what they deserve.
Easy answer: ’cause you’re stupid you dumb-asses. You deserve all the misery you get.
Latino Obama supporters have not learned much. Have other Americans learned? Will November be a massive rejection of Obama and Obama supporters at the polls?
Tonight, on 9/9/14 we have the primaries to entertain us. Tomorrow on 9/10/14 we have Barack Obama to torture us. Next up on 9/11/14 we have the anniversary of the Muslim extremist attacks on the United States to remind us of what is at stake.
Update II: You can stop laughing now. “Red line” Obama has made his move. Unable to decide on whom to stab in the back, Barack Obama will stab everyone in the back – friend and foe alike. You know our first rule on Obama:
Obama cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his foes. Obama cannot be trusted.
Obama Dimocrats running for office will still have to answer for their support of Barack Obama as he burns the Constitution on the altar of illegal immigration amnesty politics. Their acts as co-conspirators who support diktat Obama will heighten as an issue because Obama says he will still violate the Constitution after the election and they will continue to support Obama.
The American public opposed to illegal immigration amnesty has been stabbed in the back too and will not be fooled by Obama’s attempt to hide from accountability for his actions and the actions of Obama Dimocrats. The illegal immigration amnesty “dreamers” have a knife in their backs too:
Obama’s decision abandons a pledge he made June 30 to act quickly after summer’s end, and it prompted an immediate and furious backlash from immigration advocates. [snip]
Cristina Jimenez, managing director of United We Dream, said the decision was “another slap to the face of the Latino and immigrant community.”
“Where we have demanded leadership and courage from both Democrats and the president, we’ve received nothing but broken promises and a lack of political backbone,” she said.
“But Dreamers will not soon forget the president and Democrats’s latest failure and their attempts to fool the Latino community, and we remain resolute in fighting for justice for our families,” Jimenez added. [snip]
“We advocates didn’t make the reform promise; we just made the mistake of believing it,” Sharry said. “The President and Senate Democrats have chosen politics over people; the status quo over solving real problems.”
“It is hard to believe this litany of high expectations and broken promises will be mended by the end of the year,” he said.
Adding onto what could be viewed as calls to mobilize against Democrats during a crucial election year, Sharry said “the stakes have only been raised; so is our determination.”
Arturo Carmona, director of Presente.org, an online Latino organizing group, called the delay a “betrayal” and one of the “single biggest attacks on Latino families by the Democratic Party in recent memory.”
“Treachery” and “Obama” are two words you will often find in the same sentence.
[Thanks again to PowerLine for selection of our well timed article as a "pick".]
Barack will violate the Constitution and that is criminal enough. But the Obama Dimocrats who want Obama to wait to make his unconstitutional diktat after the November elections in order to spare them from the wrath of the voters are even worse. Senator Jeff Sessions has it right:
“The only thing that is more shocking than Senate Democrats’ support for the President’s planned executive amnesty is the cravenness of asking him to proceed beginning the day after the midterms. Once again, powerful politicians are colluding with powerful interest groups to deny you, the American citizen, the protection of your laws and your voice in government. They don’t care what you want, or what you think—they scorn and mock our good and decent citizens for wishing their laws to be enforced.”
It’s not very often a sentence includes “GOP” and “smart” in it.
Like careless mountain climbers twisting in the wind after a slip, with only a slight grip on a few loose roots of dead vegetation to halt the fall into the abyss, Obama Dimocrats are down to race-baiting on immigration and the gender-baiting War On Women act to rescue them this November. But the GOP has a smart ax to chop hands off and hurtle Obama Dimocrats to a blood splattered end.
Obama Dimocrats gender-baiting on the Hobby Lobby court ruling with distortions about how that is an assault on the right of women to contraception was to be THE prime tool to woo daffy young single women back into the Dim ranks of voters this November. But oddly, and it comes as a shock to all, Republicans came up with a very effective response.
It’s like lobbing a mortar explosive into the enemy camp ammunition dump. The ammunition dump explodes. The massive ammunition dump explosion kills those in the camp. The camp is destroyed. What is left of the enemy army finds itself without ammunition to fight. The GOP has Cory Gardner of Colorado to thank for the direct hit with his mortar on the ammunition dump in the War On Women:
Republicans want to beat Democrats at their own game this November by proposing a new way to widen access to birth control.
GOP candidates around the country are saying they want to make the pill available over the counter without a doctor’s prescription for the first time since it was approved in 1960.
The party hopes its stance, widely shared by healthcare providers, will help neutralize tough debates over birth control coverage and cut into Democrats’ traditional advantage among women voters.
“Cory’s proposal puts women in control,” said Alex Siciliano, spokesman for Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), the first 2014 Senate candidate to talk up the idea.
“Making oral contraception available to adults at every pharmacy, without the trouble of a doctor’s visit, would drop the retail price and save money and time and hassle,” Siciliano said in a statement.
Obama Dimocrats are aghast. ‘Make it easier to obtain cheaper birth control’ that must be racist or something, they seem to say. They say its a “distraction” from the War on Women which they thought was the path for them to avoid destruction this November.
Appearing more confident and prepared than the incumbent, Tillis became the latest Republican Senate candidate to come out in support of expanding access to oral contraceptives. In a race with a wide gender gap, the state House speaker — who has been defending attacks from Democrats on women’s issues — for the first time went on the offense.
“First I believe contraception should be available — and probably more broadly than it is today,” Tillis said. “I actually agree with the American Medical Association that we should make contraception more widely available. I think over-the-counter oral contraception should be available without a prescription. If you do those kinds of things you will actually increase the access and reduce the barriers for having more options for women for contraception.”
When treatments go over-the-counter, two things happen: they get dramatically cheaper and consumers save time and hassle by avoiding unnecessary doctors’ appointments just to get the pharmaceuticals they already know they need.
Fewer unneeded doctors’ appointments mean fewer missed workdays and child-care expenses, more productivity and more time with family. This is particularly true for rural families like mine where doctors are not always nearby.
Women in my hometown of Yuma drive one hour to see their obstetrician/gynecologist in Fort Morgan, even if it’s just to get a prescription renewed. With over 50,000 pharmacies in America and no appointment required, the increase in convenience and access would aid every adult woman who uses oral contraceptives, whether it’s the first time they get them or when they run out and need a refill far from home.
The inevitable cost savings from a switch to OTC status should not be underestimated. Almost all therapies that move to OTC drop in price dramatically. Many insurers and state Medicaid programs have covered common OTC therapies for this economic reason. For those without coverage, these OTC costs are usually cheaper than a co-pay for a prescription drug.
Since January 2011, an obscure provision of Obamacare has blocked insurers from covering OTC medicine without a prescription. If Democrats are serious about making oral contraception affordable and accessible, we can reverse that technical provision.
Driving the price down for a safe medicine is a better way to provide access to adults who want it than President Obama’s insurance mandate. Many women don’t have access today in spite of the Obamacare mandate, and it violates religious liberty in the process. If a new generation of senators puts partisanship aside, we can protect the liberties of women to have easy access to affordable oral contraception at the same time we protect the rights of those with conscience objections.
In his article Cory Gardner cited support in 2012 for the idea from a committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. So why hasn’t this good idea happened?:
Since it makes so much sense, you might wonder why this change has not happened yet. It’s because too many people in Washington would rather play politics with contraception instead of actually making life easier for women. Too many Democrats prefer to attack Republicans on the issue of contraception rather than actually make contraception more available and affordable and too many Republicans are afraid to break the mold.
So why hasn’t this happened? For his political profit Barack Obama is waging a War On Women.
Likewise, for his political profit Barack Obama is race-baiting on immigration reform.
Barack Obama promised to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” in 2008. In 2009 the promise turned out to be another Hope and Change lie. Obama had total control of the congress back when he promised to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” in 2010. That was another broken promise. Ditto 2011. Ditto 2012. Ditto 2013. Now it is 2014 and the plan was to dupe Latino voters again. But Republicans accidentally fell headfirst into a smart strategy.
Barack Obama threatened. If the congress would not bow to his imperious demands then Obama threatened to act on his own. Barack Obama threatened and threatened some more. Republicans quivered in fear but fear also prevented them from moving forward with amnesty. Obama threatened again. Increasingly Republicans lost their fear and stood their ground.
Barack Obama threatened again. He would act alone like an imperial personage in a backwater country. Republicans began to quiver less and less and wonder why Obama was threatening so much and doing so little. Then came the flood of border crossing children goaded to come by Obama and his allies and the public began to take notice of what was happening at the border.
Barack Obama’s threats became a hole he dug for himself. Barack Obama thought that he could bully Republicans into doing what he demanded. But then Republicans saw that this was a case of MISERY LOVES COMPANY. Republicans smartly refused to provide company to the miserable Obama.
Obama Dimocrats meanwhile began to panic and fear for themselves. The calls from those running for election in November for the senate solidified into opposition to Obama’s imperial presidency diktats on immigration amnesty.
Morning Plum: Why top Dems are worried about politics of deportations
The Los Angeles Times reports this morning that the White House is considering whether to postpone Obama’s politically explosive executive action to defer deportations until after the elections. This would “bow to the concerns of Democratic lawmakers running in Republican-leaning states who have expressed opposition to Obama’s plans to act unilaterally on the hot-button issue.”
I’m not sure how seriously to take this. But it does seem likely that Dems will mount internal pressure on the White House to hold off as the elections heat up.
So it’s worth detailing why, exactly, Dems worry that Obama acting could make a GOP Senate takeover more likely. The conversations going on among high level Dems, as I understand them, focus not just on worries that Republicans would seize on any act of Obummer Lawlessness to argue that Dem Senators are powerless to halt the Obama agenda and that a GOP Senate is necessary as a check on it. They also focus on the peculiar makeup of this midterm electorate.
As Sargent pointed out, “Meanwhile, Dem hopes for survival rest heavily on turning out the unmarried women who are increasingly key to the Dem coalition but sit out midterms.” Well, that is not going so well either is it?
“Expectations are sky high,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the immigration advocacy group America’s Voice, adding that if there is yet another delay to immigration reform, “the disappointment and anger is likely to be profound.”
Barack Obama dug the trap Barack Obama is in. If he does not dictate amnesty via an unconstitutional usurpation of congress “the disappointment and anger is likely to be profound” and turnout in November for Obama Dimocrats will be um, profound. It’s already damned bad.
It wasn’t that long ago (August 29, 2014) that Obama was (on immigration amnesty, not ISIS or Ukraine) “spoiling for a fight”:
The White House Is Spoiling for a Fight on Immigration
Obama seems determined to push ahead, despite the fears of some Democrats.
The White House appears to be moving full-speed ahead on an executive order that would provide widespread protection to illegal immigrants from deportation, Republicans—and maybe some Democrats—be damned.
Those close to the process expect an order in the first few weeks of September—and expect it, in the words of one immigration advocate, to be “significant.” [snip]
Yet the administration’s posture has been one of anticipating—even inviting—a highly public confrontation with Republicans over the issue. And while the concerns of vulnerable Senate Democrats in key races are being taken into account, they don’t seem to be persuading the White House to deviate from its course—suggesting that the matter is viewed less in terms of the politics of the moment and more in terms of President Obama’s long-term liberal legacy.
“Have no doubt, in the absence of congressional action, I’m going to do what I can to make sure the system works better,” Obama told reporters at the White House on Thursday.
Even as the ultimate scope of the order remains unclear, Obama is in a position where he almost has to go big, because no matter what he does, it will be construed that way by the GOP. [snip]
Moreover, once it became clear that the House wasn’t going to act on the Senate bill, high-profile Senate leaders such as Chuck Schumer of New York called for Obama to act on his own. Schumer’s office said that he hasn’t shifted from that stance and has not asked the White House to delay the order until after the midterms.
Indeed, there’s a school of thought that if Obama waits until after the midterms to act, he may be doing so in advance of a Republican Senate that will dedicate itself to rolling back the order. Doing it now at least affords the possibility that the ensuing controversy will galvanize base voters and ward off a handover of the chamber to the GOP.
Unfortunately for Democratic incumbents, however, the map affords them very little opportunity to use the issue to drive Hispanic turnout. [snip]
Otherwise, it’s more than possible in states such as Arkansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, and North Carolina that Obama’s order will feed the Republican narrative of an out-of-control chief executive, perhaps serving as the wedge issue that puts the GOP candidates there over the top. The National Republican Senatorial Committee points to polls that show that a majority of independents who favor legislative reform oppose unilateral action.
Compounding the issue from a messaging standpoint is that Obama spent much of the first part of the year talking about how he lacked the power to make bold moves to reshape the nation’s immigration system. Those words will certainly be used against Obama and Democratic candidates in GOP campaigns.
It was almost a year ago. The Labor Union Movement died. Labor Unions killed it. It wasn’t Scott Walker. It wasn’t Detroit. It wasn’t Big Business. Labor Unions killed the Labor Union Movement along with themselves.
We can pinpoint the exact day, hour, and minute the Labor Union Movement died. It was almost a year ago. It was September 9, 2013:
Blue-collar laborers rebel at AFL-CIO’s embrace of progressives
The AFL-CIO needs to stick with representing workers and stop trying to take on social causes for the far left, said the union head for the International Association of Fire Fighters.
Harold Schaitberger, who presides over the IAFF, said there is “great value” in aligning with political groups — but only as a secondary mission, he told The Hill. And the AFL-CIO’s recent push to bring in environmental groups and progressive-minded organizations to the union cause is leading the IAFF to express concerns about politics becoming the priority, over the representation of members.
On September 10, 2013 Big Labor chiefs stabbed the workers in the back:
“To say that we are going to grow this labor movement by some kind of formal partnership, membership, status, place in this federation, I am against. This is the American Federation of Labor. We are supposed to be representing workers and workers’ interests,” Mr. Schaitberger said in The Hill. “We are not going to be the American Federation of Progressive and Liberal Organizations.”
He’s not alone in that view. Union members from the construction sector have been especially vocal against bringing environmental groups into the AFL-CIO family, viewing them as the enemy in the Keystone XL pipeline fight.
“Does that mean we are going to turn energy policy of the AFL-CIO over to the Sierra Club? I have concern about that, as well as I should,” said Terry O’Sullivan, president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, in The Hill report. “I grew up in the movement to do one of two things. We support anything that’s good for another union brother or sister, or we keep our mouths shut. That seems that has changed along the way.”
Labor unions were supposed to represent the interests of workers. But the workers have been stabbed in the back.
Big Labor stabbed the workers in the back. Big Labor’s betrayal of workers takes many forms the most flagrant being support for illegal immigration amnesty. If Big Labor cared about higher wages for workers it would try to lesson the labor supply not increase it.
Big Business has an interest in a surplus of workers to drive down wages. Big Labor on amnesty for illegal immigrants is on the side of Big Business not the little worker.
LOS ANGELES — The AFL-CIO on Monday opened the door to becoming a group that is more representative of the left than of its members.
Facing what AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka called a “crisis” of membership, officials took the dramatic step at their annual convention of adopting a resolution that invites anyone in the country to join, regardless of union affiliation.
The move faced stiff resistance from union officials who fear the AFL-CIO’s primary mission of representing workers will be left behind if the federation becomes a mouthpiece for liberal and progressive groups.
Despite the resistance, the resolution was adopted without a single “nay” vote being heard in the convention hall.
Death by suicide. Not a “nay” vote to be heard on behalf of the workers and the interests of the workers.
The workers will now be guided by “student representatives, academics, civil rights advocates”. The “creative class” which loathes the white working class is become in America the vanguard of the proletariat. The Labor Union Movement dies not with a bang nor a whimper but with a laugh at the expense of the working class.
Private sector unions, having mostly destroyed the jobs they were organized to represent, are dying. Public sector unions are doing better, and now represent more than half of union membership. But they, in truth, aren’t doing so great either.
So the AFL-CIO has come up with a novel solution: open up membership to people who are not actually members of unions:
The AFL-CIO on Monday opened the door to becoming a group that is more representative of the left than of its members.
That has been true for a while, but now they apparently are making it official.
It’s official. On that date, at that hour, at the moment no “nay” votes were heard – the Labor Union Movement died. The workers are dead! Long Live The Soviets! Long Live The Workers Party Without The Workers!
Sure, by funneling more dollars to the Democratic Party, whether actual union workers like it or not. There is a certain logic to the transition of the union movement away from unionized workers. The Democratic Party wrote off the American working class some years ago, except insofar as it may happen to overlap with a favored constituency. Labor bosses have long been more interested in supporting leftist causes and politicians than representing their members in collective bargaining. So why not make it official? If you are a MoveOn member, say, the doors are now open, whether you have had a job in recent decades or not. Join the AFL-CIO!
Ruy Teixiera has been aided and abetted in his toxic theories by books that deride “Bubba” such as the dangerous and idiotic “What’s The Matter With Kansas?” Books such as the Kansas book provided “theorists” from the left a “we’re smarter” snob attitude and justification for a class based hatred of poor whites.
“Here is the thing: I don’t care if Democrats ever make up any ground among Reagan Democrats, as long as we lock up the support of expanding groups like the creative class, white non-Christians, Latinos and Asians for a generation. I’ll take that trade any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Importantly, it feels to me as though we can make that trade if Barack Obama becomes the nominee, but that we will be making the opposite trade if Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee. While Clinton’s advantage among Latinos and Asians does not make it a perfect match, Obama’s primary coalition is far closer to the coalition we need for an expanding future of the Democratic Party, while Clinton’s primary is a lot more like the coalition we have been chasing after for the past twenty-five years or so. It is in this demographic sense that I partially accept Obama’s message about “moving beyond the political divides of the past” and into a new America. I’m tried of the old coalitions, and eager for the promising new ones that hold such tremendous potential for a generational progressive majority.
I am so sick of chasing after the “Reagan Democrats” whose backlash against the civil-rights movement has held progressivism in America back for so long. While I freely admit that there are many people opposing Hillary Clinton for equally chauvinistic and offensive reasons as there are people opposing Barack Obama, overall those voters are probably a minority of the same Reagan Democrats after which I am tired of chasing. I’m just sick and tired of this group being the dominant swing voting block in the United States, and I want to move past it. Demographically speaking, Obama does appear to be the candidate who can do that better than Hillary Clinton, and I freely admit that is one reason I would prefer for Obama to be the nominee.”
Because of the AFL-CIO vote a little over a year ago, the white Christian hating – white working class hating – haiku writing skinny white boy “creative class” punk can now join what used to be a labor union and lead the working classes to his Soviet Gulag utopia.
Companies lay off thousands, then demand immigration reform for new labor [snip]
In all, it’s fair to say a large number of the corporate signers of the letter demanding more labor from abroad have actually laid off workers at home in recent years. Together, their actions have a significant effect on the economy. According to a recent Reuters report, U.S. employers announced 50,462 layoffs in August, up 34 percent from the previous month and up 57 percent from August 2012.
“It is difficult to understand how these companies can feel justified in demanding the importation of cheap labor with a straight face at a time when tens of millions of Americans are unemployed,” writes the Center for Immigration Studies, which strongly opposes the Senate Gang of Eight bill and similar measures. “The companies claim the bill is an ‘opportunity to level the playing field for U.S. employers’ but it is more of an effort to level the wages of American citizens.“
Big Business, The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce and state and local Chambers of Commerce are doing what they should be doing which is to represent their members. These business groups want to keep wages low or lower them if possible. They want a huge labor supply of illegal immigrants and higher legal immigration in order to keep wages down or pressure them even lower. These business groups are doing what is right for their members.
The workers? The workers have no one to represent their interests. The workers have been betrayed. The workers have been stabbed in the back.
There once was a Labor Union Movement and Labor Unions to represent the workers. But Labor Unions committed suicide. On September 9, 2013 the Labor Union Movement died. Not one voice was raised to stop the self-slaughter.
We have been too kind and generous towards Barack Obama. Our generosity has been in our assumption that it is not Barack Obama’s willful purpose to do everything he can to destroy the United States of America. With every day that passes this assumption appears less rational.
We’ve made these same arguments and caveats before. In March of this year while discussing Russia and Ukraine we stated that it is possible that Barack Obama’s actions are motivated by a desire to do America harm. When we first started to broach the possibility of willful treachery against America we generally gave greater credence to the “boob” aspect of Barack Obama.
But after Barack Obama’s conduct this week the scales tip from boobery to malevolent treachery. The argument can be made, if one is watching the sideshow not the center ring, that it is sheer stupidity for Obama to say and do the things he says and does. But that level of stupidity beggars imagination.
To us Barack Obama’s comments appeared to be a green light to terrorists, Putin, China, all the world’s bad actors, to do their worst because Barack Obama would protect them from the United States and any harm. It was Barack Obama distracting the United States, its military, and American allies and their armies to chase their tails like circus pets instead of baring teeth as watchdogs in the burglar-shielding night.
How else to explain what was going on? As the Russian bear gobbled up Crimea and targeted Ukraine Barack Obama chose that perilous moment to announce the American military was shrinking to pre-World War II levels. We wrote “It was brilliant timing if the intent was to signal weakness to Russia at a critical tipping point in the Ukraine and world-wide.
As to Syria and ISIS the Obama strategy is to inform terrorists via a high visibility press conference from the White House that they have a green light to carry out their nefarious plots because Barack Obama’s strategy is to be without a strategy to stop them. It was a green light to terrorists and malefactors worldwide:
SO WHY NO STRATEGY YET?
Couldn’t he have come up with something on the back of the scorecard between the fourth and fifth holes?
ISIS, which did not spend the month of August golfing, has a strategy. They’ve announced it. And as Obama’s own advisors have made clear, ISIS means business.
Other world leaders are focused on the job, returned from vacations, terror alerts to terror alerted police issued. Obama is back to the playgrounds of the rich to raise money and cavort. “I wonder what you think about the optics of the president, from that podium yesterday, does not have a strategy to deal with ISIS in serious military, and then next day, without that strategy, goes out and raises campaign money?”
We worry for the country. Big Media outlets worry about Obama. Even the supposedly “critical” outlets are focused less on the damage of Obama treachery against America than Obama’s damage to Obama:
As with all gaffes, the worst ones are the ones that confirm people’s pre-existing suspicions or fit into an easy narrative. That’s why “47 percent” stung Mitt Romney so much, and its why “don’t have a strategy” hurts Obama today.
Polls have increasingly shown that Americans view Obama as a weak commander in chief without much direction or heft t0 his foreign policy. The latest is a Pew Research Center survey, released shortly before Obama’s errant statement Thursday, that showed 54 percent of Americans say he’s “not tough enough” when it comes to foreign policy and national security.
The damage Barack Obama does every day to America must be the focus. Even the House Intelligence Committee Chairman who is a Republican does not understand the problem. Here is what he said about Obama’s lack of strategy:
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers did not mince words Thursday, slamming President Barack Obama for an “odd” news conference during which the president said, “We do not have a strategy” to deter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
“It was an odd press conference at the very best, but to have a press conference to say we don’t have a strategy was really shocking given the severity of the threat. That’s what’s so concerning to me,” Rogers (R-Mich.) told Wolf Blitzer on CNN.
“I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet,” Obama said from the White House press briefing room Thursday afternoon.
Blizter said White House aides have clarified Obama’s remarks to say the president meant a strategy specifically targeting ISIL in Syria, before asking Rogers if he was “happy with that.”
“Well, I’m not OK with it, and it just confirmed what we’ve been talking about really for almost two years: There has been no real strategy,” the congressman said. “I mean this just tells you how far we have to go and I’m just not sure the severity of the problem has really sunk in to the administration just yet. Clearly, that’s what that told me today.”
Mike Rodgers must begin to realize that for Barack Obama not having a strategy is the strategy. No strategy against America’s enemies is quite possibly what Barack Obama is up to. Sounds crazy doesn’t it? But give us a better explanation. Boobery? This is so far beyond stupidity… well, no one entity is that stupid. Even paramecium have more of a survival intelligence than that.
President Barack Obama tried to get himself a bit more political space Thursday to make a decision about whether to expand the U.S military campaign against Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, but in so doing he may have dealt himself a significant political blow by suggesting that his policy on the issue is adrift.
“We don’t have a strategy yet,” Obama said as he took questions from reporters in the White House briefing room.
Instead of concocting silly reasons about why Obama announced to the world’s thugs that it is open season on an unprepared America as well as worrying about Obama’s damage to Obama, Gerstein should consider that maybe Obama’s purpose is to damage America. It’s a crazy proposition but it makes more sense than Gerstein’s.
Just last week, when even Politico writers were horrified that Obama had once again gone golfing immediately after (and I mean minutes after) announcing how very concerned he was about the beheading of James Foley, Joe Scarborough offered the counterintuitive spin that Obama was actually broadcasting his strength via this maneuver.
Scarborough’s takeaway was that IS must look at this Golfin’ Genghis Khan, this Saladin of the Seven Iron, this Mulligan MacArthur, this Desert Fox of the Sandtraps, and tremble, for they must be saying to themselves, “Wow, we killed a guy and he just went golfing. Well, that is one cold bastard.”
No he really spun it that way — that Obama signaled himself to be “one cold bastard,” veins filled with ice water, and not the sort of man you should trifle with.
America is in very real danger and very dangerous trouble. Barack Obama is having the time of his life vacationing, fundraising, golfing. Maybe Barack Obama’s good times and America’s bad times are connected. Maybe that’s the Obama strategy.
Mark Pryor in a tough reelection fight in Arkansas says Barack Obama does not have “carte blanche authority to sidestep Congress when he doesn’t get his way.” That’s what Obama used to say when he was fighting off the no borders crowd in order to win his reelection.
Panicked Democrats locked in tight midterm races as the party tries desperately to hold onto control of the Senate fear President Obama’s anticipated executive amnesty for about 5 million illegal immigrants may doom their re-election campaigns.
Hagen and Begich are also whining. Hey, Obama got his, now screw you. Sacrifice yourselves for “Obama’s latest legacy” item which will explode in Dimocrat faces just like Obamacare.
Update: Forthwith the counterargument to the one we make. We’ve been hearing a lot of background noise about how Obama Dimocrats have a master plan that is producing incredible results such that this November will be a big success or at least not a complete bust. This is what they are up to which Republicans should match:
Inside the Democrats’ Plan to Save Arkansas—and the Senate
The party’s desperate bid to hang onto the majority rests on an unprecedented political organizing effort in red states like this one.
PINE BLUFF, Arkansas—No sign announces the purpose of this little storefront, squeezed between a Bestway Rent to Own and a Rent-a-Center in a dilapidated shopping center. But the words hand-lettered in black and red marker on three pieces of paper taped to the window—“Register to Vote Here”—and a cluster of placards for candidates give it away: It is a Democratic Party field office.
Democrats aren’t advertising this office and 39 others like it that are scattered around Arkansas—in fact, their locations are a closely guarded secret. When I visited last week, having tracked it down through creative public-records sleuthing, I took Chita Collins, the field organizer on duty there, by surprise. But I wanted to see the evidence of what Democrats have been claiming they’re building in states like this one, and what could be crucial to their uphill quest to keep the Senate: an Obama-style community-organizing effort of unprecedented scale for a non-presidential election.
The office in Pine Bluff is a cavernous, mostly empty space. Six full-time, paid staff work out of the unit, which is open seven days a week. [snip]
This year, Republicans are in danger of getting organizationally overmatched once again. [snip]
But the Republicans’ effort pales in comparison to what the Democrats have built: Democrats are spending more than five times as much money in Arkansas, and have four times as many field offices and triple the number of staff. In the month of July alone, the Arkansas Democratic Party reported nearly $900,000 in federal campaign spending, while Arkansas Republicans reported $155,000. (Most of the money the Democrats are spending has come directly from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.) Democrats listed 64 staffers on their payroll; Republicans listed 22. The RNC claims it has 50 people on the payroll in Arkansas, including some being paid by other GOP committees, but I could not find a record of them and staffers on the ground were not aware of them. According to public records, there are Democratic staffers in places like Cabot (population 24,000), Marion (12,000), Arkadelphia (11,000), and Dardanelle, Tom Cotton’s hometown, with fewer than 5,000 residents.
On election day 2012 the incompetent Romney GOTV program crashed in one massive ORCA mess. Instead of asking What’s the matter with Kansas? it might be wiser for Republicans/conservatives to make sure they don’t have another GOTV crash and burn in places they should easily win like ArKANSAS.
The New Hampshire Senate race is tightening, according to a just-posted WMUR poll that puts Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen up only 2 points, 46-44, over Republican Scott Brown.
That’s within the margin of error. The same poll last month had Shaheen ahead by 12 points. [snip]
President Barack Obama’s slipping popularity is an anchor dragging down the incumbent, the pollster found. Obama’s approval rating is 37 percent, with 59 percent disapproving. Brown leads 71-17 among those who disapprove of the president.
Scott Brown is still fighting for the nomination (primary election day is September 9) and he is already well within striking distance of removing an incumbent senator from power. Scott Brown is not even that popular in New Hampshire. His favorable/unfavorable numbers are upside down. Yet Scott Brown is within the margin of error in New Hampshire. Why? ObamaCare is one reason. Here is another answer:
Republican Tom Cotton of Arkansas informs the voters on the record of incumbent Senator Mark Pryor using the Scott Brown template to victory:
Terry Lynn Land is doing much the same in Michigan:
Some of Barack Obama’s most loyal subjects and even the most loyal of the loyal who play piano in the Obama whorehouse (yes, we’re talking about you Greg Sargent) are predicting that pressure from Obama Dimocrats will build to stop Obama from illegal immigration amnesty before the November 2014 elections.
Obama drew criticism from the left for not being forceful enough in speaking out on the fatal shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson and from the right over the death of Foley and the rise of the militant Islamic State. Then there was the golf; nine rounds during his 16 days on Martha’s Vineyard, including a trip to the links immediately after his condemnation of Foley’s killers.
That series of events left the impression of a disconnected president, frustrated with both the expectations and the limitations inherent in being the nation’s leader at this moment in history.
It also led to worries — expressed privately — among Democratic party strategists that Obama’s seemingly long-view approach to international and domestic conflicts could spell doom for the party’s chances in the midterm elections, which are only about 10 weeks away.
The country is going to Hell in an Obama woven hand-basket and all these corrupt Obama enablers can think about is the November elections. The November elections will be a combination Waterloo and Barack Obama out in the sun for a week without deodorant. P. U.
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) – Her re-election in doubt, North Carolina’s Democratic senator has an uncomfortable decision to make as President Barack Obama appears in her state before a critical audience she’s trying to woo: Veterans.
Join in the same camera shot as Obama, who lost North Carolina in 2012 and is unpopular in the state, and Sen. Kay Hagan could offer her Republican opponent fresh attack ad footage tying her to the president. Stay away from Obama while he visits North Carolina on Tuesday, and Hagan risks alienating minority voters who generally support the president.
Either way, Obama is casting a shadow on an event with the potential to boost Hagan’s credibility with veterans and military personnel. The president’s speech is scheduled about an hour before Hagan’s. Even if they don’t appear together publicly, they’ll be in the same building at the same time. Already Monday, GOP candidate Thom Tillis released a statement accusing Hagan of being a “rubber stamp” for the Obama administration.
But the American Legion National Convention is a speaking engagement Hagan cannot afford to skip in a state with some of the nation’s busiest Army, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard installations.
Hagan, locked in one of the country’s hottest Senate races as Republican attempt to gain six seats and a majority, is one of several struggling Democrats in the South distancing herself from Obama.
North Carolina has been one of the most abusive when it comes to veterans and veteran health care. Veterans will be further abused by having to listen to Barack Obama and Obama enabler Kay Hagen. The methane stink on Tusday in North Carolina will numb schoolchildren and finish off aged veterans.
It’s not just the Atlantic coast fearful of the Obama stink. In Minnesota near the Canadian border the stink threatens Obama enabler Al Franken:
Is Al Franken vulnerable?
After winning by just 312 votes in 2008, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) sought to keep his head down and shed his comedian persona.
But as the one-time funny man heads into a reelection contest this year, Republicans are hoping there is one thing he can’t shake: President Obama’s unpopularity. [snip]
“Al Franken’s gonna have a fight on his hands. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that,” said Larry Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota and director of its Center for the Study of Politics and Governance.
For Republicans, he said, “what they want is McFadden to be a passive, pleasant receptacle for anti-Obama votes.” [snip]
McFadden has focused his campaign on his opponent, though, seeking to link Franken and Obama together. His two TV ads have both centered on repealing ObamaCare, a law Franken [voted] for.
Iowa was never supposed to be a Senate battleground for Democrats.
Following two cycles where it was GOP missteps and subpar candidates who cost them winnable races, the tables have turned and it’s now Democrats who are scrambling to right Rep. Bruce Braley’s flagging campaign before it’s too late.
Recent polls find a coin-flip race between Braley and Iowa state Sen. Joni Ernst(R), and but the national party increasingly worries it could be the tipping point for Senate control.
“If the Democrats lose Iowa, of course it becomes much harder to keep the majority,” said one national Democratic strategist. “The race could very much go either way. We feel like the worst is behind us and it’s moving back towards Bruce Braley. But we know we don’t have this wrapped up.”
Braley’s biggest gaffe took place months ago, when video surfaced of the former trial lawyer criticizing Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) as a “a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school.”
But Braley’s problems haven’t stopped there. A neighbor has claimed he threatened to sue because her chickens kept wandering in his yard, and Republicans have been hammering him for missing Veterans Affairs Committee hearings. In-state observers say he’s stiff and awkward at times on the campaign trail, while Ernst is better at retail politicking.
David Yepsen, a thirty-year veteran of the Des Moines Register who now directs the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University, said Braley’s “farmer” gaffe “really redefined the race” and was “one of the biggest political stumbles I’ve ever seen.”
“In one swoop, he made a mistake that changes the direction of the race,” said Yepsen. “This was going to be a race that Democrats initially thought would be pretty easy to hold onto and it’s turned into a far different game.”
Joni Ernst has been forced for weeks at a time to suspend her campaigning because she is a member of the National Guard and had to serve. Still, Joni Ernst is fighting like a girl.
The hog pen stench is nothing compared to the stench from Barack Obama. Obama Dimocrats are going to need a powerful deodorant to rid themselves this November of the Obama stink.
The Barack Obama Chicago dictionary defines “justice” as a perversion. For Barack Obama INJUSTICE is the goal. Perversion of the law is the means to that goal. That is why Barack Obama has in this month alone unleashed three lynch mobs.
In Ferguson Missouri Barack Obama henchman Eric Holder declared that because of his racial history he is on the side of the mob not the duly authorized officers of the law. Governor of Missouri Jay Nixon who for 16 years served as Attorney General of Missouri has also declared his mission is to lynch the police officer:
On the eve of a grand jury’s being convened to go through the facts and decide whether there should be a prosecution of the policeman in this case, Governor Jay Nixon of Missouri has gone on television to say that there should be a “vigorous prosecution.”
There was a time when elected officials avoided commenting on pending legal processes, so as not to bias those processes. But Governor Nixon apparently has no fear of poisoning the jury pool.
The only alternative explanation is that this is exactly what he intends to do. It is a disgrace either way.
Race is the wild card in all this. The idea that you can tell who is innocent and who is guilty by the color of their skin is a notion that was tried out for generations, back in the days of the Jim Crow South. I thought we had finally rejected that kind of legalized lynch law. But apparently it has only been put under new management.
Television people who show the home of the policeman involved, and give his name and address — knowing that he has already received death threats — are truly setting a new low. They seem to be trying to make themselves judge, jury, and executioner. [snip]
If we can’t be bothered to stop and think, instead of repeating pat phrases, don’t expect to live under the rule of law. Do you prefer the rule of the media and/or the mob?“
“No Justice, No Peace” means “do what we demand regardless of the law or we will riot.” “Justice” for Barack Obama and his thugs means mob rule.
MATTHEWS: I don’t know why he used the word ‘justice.’ It’s not appropriate here. This is an attack on our country, we have to react to it. This is a national, er, our country versus this group that has declared war on us.
FINEMAN: Well, Chris –
MATTHEWS: What’s justice mean in this con– I don’t know why the word’s used, like we’re going to go to the World Court with this?
FINEMAN: Well, especially since he had previously in that same statement basically depicted them as a, as killers who, cold-blooded killers who deserve no quarter.
MATTHEWS: They’re all in this!
FINEMAN: Yeah, I think he also said they don’t belong in the 21st century –
MATTHEWS: All the ISIL crowd belong –
FINEMAN: — or that they don’t belong in any century. But the question is, Chris, and some of our people at the Huffington Post have been looking into this, there’s a school of thought that says, ‘Obviously, this is exactly what ISIL wants.’ They want to engage us, they want us to attack. Their whole strategy, their whole theory is to push our buttons in a way that we commit –
MATTHEWS: Well, then we’re going to help them out.
FINEMAN: Well, that’s, that’s, that’s the concern, and that’s the conundrum [crosstalk] that the President has right now.
MATTHEWS: The American people — that’s what I’ve been saying, Andrea [Mitchell], for a long time now. No American president can survive if he lets Iran get nuclear weapons, and no American president can survive if he lets Americans be beheaded on international television with impunity. Impunity! He has to strike back, as an American, it’s in our soul!
Obama weakness or collusion (isn’t it about time for Big Media and Chris O’tingles to consider the real possibility that Barack Obama’s actions are meant to harm America?), or both, unleashed lynch mob #2. With lynch mob #2 we get an actual head on a Muslim platter.
Lynch mob #3 like lynch mob #1 features an American Grand Jury. Injustice perverts justice. The wolves run the hen house. The wolves disguise themselves:
Perry Grand Juror Was An Active Democratic Party Delegate During Jury Proceedings
Rho Chalmers, who disclosed to the Houston Chronicle yesterday that she was a member of the grand jury that indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry, was an active delegate to the Texas Democratic Party convention during grand jury proceedings. Chalmers’ active participation in Democratic state politics is important because she claimed yesterday to the Houston Chronicle that her decision to indict Perry, a Republican, was not based on politics.
“For me, it’s not a political decision,” Chalmers told the newspaper. “That’s what a grand jury is about – take the emotion out of it and look at the facts and make your best decision based on your life experience.”
More troubling, however, is the fact that Chalmers attended, photographed, and commented on an event with Democratic state Sen. Kirk Watson while grand jury proceedings were ongoing
Watson was a witness in front of the grand jury. On June 27, 2014, Chalmers shared a photo of the Watson event on a community Facebook page she started called Developer’s Dungeon. “Senator Kirk Watson telling the story of the Wendy Davis fillibuster (sic),” she wrote in a comment accompanying the picture.
The grand jury was selected in April of 2014 and its proceedings did not conclude until it returned two indictments of Perry last week. While grand jurors are not generally prohibited from engaging in political activity, Chalmers’ apparent giddiness at attending an event for a grand jury witness calls into question her ability to objectively scrutinize his testimony. [snip]
Knowingly seeking out participation in an event featuring a grand jury witness while grand jury proceedings were ongoing also seems highly questionable.
Numerous posts from both of Chalmers’ Facebook pages — her personal page, which she shares with her husband, Davis, and her “Developer’s Dungeon” page — make clear that she is a partisan Democratic activist, and that she was an active participant in the Texas Democratic Party’s state convention in June while grand jury proceedings were ongoing. [snip]
Chalmers also implied support of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis in a post, photo, and comment from November 24, 2013.
The Travis County grand jury that indicted Governor Rick Perry was a lynch mob subverting the law. As with the lynch mob grand jury convened in Ferguson the law is twisted by Barack Obama and his fellow travelers.
The rule of law is the enemy of lynch mobs. Barack Obama is a threat to the rule of law.
While in Washington vacationing from his vacation Barack Obama proved once again he is a queen-sized boob. Consider: Barack Obama plotted to exploit the riots in Ferguson to distract the country from his many international blunders and failures back to a strategy he believes will help in November’s elections. Yup, Obama thought he could get back to race-baiting to gin up what little remains of his “base” to get them to the November polls. Score another failure for Obama.
Now the hapless Nobel Peace Prize winner is sending race-baiter commander Eric Holder to Ferguson for no reason at all other than to race-bait and elevate the racial animus. We doubt Holder will speak with “Josie”.
Geez, don’t you love all the racial peace and harmony we’re enjoying these days? Don’t you love all the peace and love in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Muslim world now that we elected Barack Hussein Obama? Thanks Andrew Sullivan and John Kerry for predicting so accurately this golden age of Obama’s black “face”.
Update: Keep digging until you find what you want? Corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered a third autopsy of Michael Brown. Big Media irresponsibility continued as Yahoo News published pictures of the police officer who shot Michael Brown. The cop who previously received a commendation for “extraordinary effort in the line of duty” is now an easy target for thugs who are in the hunt for him because CNN and other Big Media outlets broadcast the picture and address of the police officer’s house.
Some of the good citizens of Ferguson are beginning to assert themselves but thugs from outside the community more interested in looting and liquor still command the night. The police in last night’s rain had difficulty maintaining order. Arrests and tear gas helped maintain what passes for order. Good citizens came out in the morning to help clean up their lawless town.
Because of Barack Obama we now live in a lawless society. Now it is often “normal” to see celebration when the “law” is either ignored or abused for political purposes. The spirit of the law is violated.
Under his self-perceived dictatorial powers Barack Obama now chooses which laws he enforces via the Department of Justice and which laws he tramples. Lawless Barack Obama has brought Chicago to America. Now many communities operate under Obama Chicago law.
In Ferguson, Missouri, a young black man, was shot to death by a police officer. A friend of the dead man told TV reporters that he and the soon to be dead man were walking along peacefully and the cop for no reason shot and killed his friend. There were violent protests and looting of stores by those supposedly outraged by the death. The protestors/looters demanded “justice” which to them meant the police officer be identified and lynched either literally or figuratively.
It turns out the young black man, who was over six feet tall and weighed close to 200 pounds, robbed a store just before he was shot. The witness/friend now admits that was a fact he withheld from his televised “eye witness” account. The initial reaction by the community to release of photos and video of the robbery was to claim the evidence was fake, tampered with, and not evidence the dead man committed a crime.
During the Trayvon Martin craziness we noted that Trayvon Martin was a very troubled young man. We noted that he had been repeatedly suspended from school. Indeed Trayvon Martin was out of school due to suspension when he was shot.
We noted at the time that the mother of Trayvon Martin had turned Trayvon over to his dad because neither she nor her family could exercise control of Trayvon. Instead of stern discipline and dictatorial fatherly watchdogging the father was irresponsible. The night of the death of Trayvon, Trayvon’s father gave Trayvon money then left Trayvon to fend for himself. The father left Trayvon at the home of the father’s girlfriend so that the father could go have fun far away in Miami with his squeeze.
That was not responsible parenting. The father was carousing while his son was busy getting himself shot due to his belligerent attitude against the wrong man at the wrong time. That was not responsible parenting.
Once the father, after his night out on the town, discovered Trayvon was shot dead all we heard from him and the mother was that Trayvon was such a good boy. Many rallied around the irresponsible parents and demanded “justice”. Their son was such a good boy.
We heard the same thing about the man shot in Ferguson. He was such a good boy.
The looters robbed the store Michael Brown robbed before he was shot.
This does not mean that the police nor individual police officers are perfect. Far from it. But the idea of the rule of law must be upheld. When there is police abuse which is clear cut it is the right, it is the duty, of those who believe in the rule of law to protest and demand redress of grievances. When the police are lawless, citizens must cling to the law more than ever and demand the rule of law, not engage in further destruction of the rule of law.
Some in the community tried to stop the looting. Some in the community stood with the law. But they were outnumbered by the criminals.
Some of the looted tried to protect their property. The police stood by. ‘”I think the first message is to remind all law enforcement that they are hired to serve and protect and if they’re going to sit back and watch looting, they’re not serving us; they’re not protecting us,” Pastor Robert White told the station.” Sorry Pastor, you live in a lawless community in a lawless country with a lawless president.
Eventually we will get both sides of the story about what happened in Ferguson. The police officer will tell his side of the story. The witnesses will tell their side of the story. We will soon know more facts.
We know the lone police officer in a squad car stopped Michael Brown. Reports are that was due to Brown and friend walking in the street stopping traffic. Did the police officer discover Brown was possibly the robber police were searching for when the reports came over his radio while he was with Brown as is claimed? Or was the cop unjustified and acting criminally when he shot Brown? We’ll know soon enough.
Rick Perry for all his power and prestige might as well be living in Ferguson Missouri. Rick Perry is living today in a land of injustice. Rick Perry is living in a lawless land.
Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, has been indicted by a grand jury in a lawless country by a lawless political party subverting the rule of law. Before You Pass Judgment On Rick Perry… watch these two videos:
The first video is from the dashboard camera of a police car when the police stopped and arrested Travis County, Texas, District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg for drunk driving.
The second video is the nasty drunk Democrat District Attorney being “booked” for drunk driving and lamenting her political career is ruined by the police for doing their job.
Governor Rick Perry saw those videos and was disgusted by DA Rosemary Lehmberg. Governor Perry demanded her resignation as well he should have. When the nasty drunken pig of a DA who is supposed to be a paragon of law but instead violated the law and endangered the community with her drunk driving refused to resign Governor Rick Perry did what he should have done.
A special prosecutor spent months calling witnesses and presenting evidence that Perry broke the law when he promised publicly to nix $7.5 million over two years for the public integrity unit run by the office of Travis County Democratic District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg. Lehmberg was convicted of drunken driving, but refused Perry’s calls to resign.
Perry’s general counsel, Marry Anne Wiley, defended the governor’s action.
“The veto in question was made in accordance with the veto authority afforded to every governor under the Texas Constitution,” she said. “We will continue to aggressively defend the governor’s lawful and constitutional action, and believe we will ultimately prevail.” [snip]
Perry was indicted on charges of abuse of official capacity, a first-degree felony with potential punishments of five to 99 years in prison, and coercion of a public servant, a third-degree felony that carries a punishment of two to 10 years.
No one disputes that Perry is allowed to veto measures approved by the Legislature, including part or all of the state budget. But the left-leaning Texans for Public Justice government watchdog group filed an ethics complaint accusing the governor of coercion because he threatened to use his veto before actually doing so in an attempt to pressure Lehmberg to quit.
“We’re pleased that the grand jury determined that the governor’s bullying crossed the line into illegal behavior,” said Craig McDonald, executive director of Texans for Public Justice. “The complaint had merit, serious laws were potentially broken.”
Michael McCrum, the San Antonio-based special prosecutor said he “took into account the fact that we’re talking about a governor of a state — and a governor of the state of Texas, which we all love.”
“Obviously that carries a lot of importance,” McCrum said. “But when it gets down to it, the law is the law.”
This indictment of Governor Rick Perry is lawlessness by a corrupt Democratic Party subverting the law, twisting the law, violating the spirit of the law.
“I intend to fight against those who would erode our state’s constitution and laws purely for political purposes and I intend to win,” a defiant Perry said during a news conference Saturday. [snip]
News of the indictment has elicited glee among many Democrats who are eager to take down Perry, a potential GOP presidential candidate in 2016.
But Perry, who has been trying to burnish his national image in the wake of his disastrous 2012 White House run, has also been receiving support from many in the GOP who claim the allegations against him are politically motivated.
Those issuing statements of support since Friday’s indictments have included Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. All three are potential rivals to Perry for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.
Rick Perry must fight for the rule of law. A governor with the plenary powers of the office is well within his rights to call for removal of a drunk driving district attorney. Indeed, not doing what he did would have been a crime against the law he is sworn to uphold.
These people are not interested in Hillary Clinton nor what is good for America. They are “pimping” Hillary Clinton for self-interests (yes Donna, we are also talking about you). So what should Hillary Clinton do?
What Hillary Clinton should do is decide on who her friends are and who has the best interests of America in heart and mind. Those Obama apparatchiks now jumping on the Hillary Clinton 2016 team should be squeezed dry of whatever benefits can be extracted from them. But at some point (the clock started ticking the moment ObamaCare registration for January 1 coverage ended) Hillary Clinton has to choose between the Obama coalition and the Hillary Clinton coalition.
Hillary Clinton can win by bringing back senior voters and the white working class voters that have dumped the Democratic Party they once gave allegiance to. This will enrage the DailyKooks and Obama apparatchiks. But it is the only way for Hillary Clinton to win.
Barack Obama apparatchiks that have infiltrated Hillary Clinton 2016 are terrified that Hillary Clinton will succumb to logic and reality and become the candidate of change from Barack Obama. These Obama loving parasites in Hillary Clinton 2016 know if Hillary tells the truth about Barack Obama their lame duck will be a dead duck.
These past few days we have seen the corrupt Obama pimps who PRETENDED to support Hillary Clinton 2016 attack Hillary Clinton for telling the truth about the failure that is Barack Obama. Axelrod tweeted a stupid attack and Obama said it was all “horseshit”. The DailyKooks and Move-On are enraged and threatening Hillary. The lawless Talkleftivists are infuriated and no longer willing to support Hillary Clinton in 2016 because the one thing they love about Obama is his hatred of Israel.
In 1992 Bill Clinton fought the Kook Left which repeatedly managed to nominate candidates hostile to the white working class. Those candidates always managed to lose and it was Bill Clinton with his appeal to the white working class bedrock of the Democratic Party who became president. The party establishment was not happy with the Man From Hope but at least he brought them power and the prestige of office.
Bill Clinton took on the rabid Left, race-baiters, the party establishment, and won. But the party then had a large component of common sense liberals. They saw the madness of nominating presidential candidates so far to the Left and so hostile, by demeanor, culture, and economic wealth, to the white working class. The party back then was not beyond saving. Hillary Clinton faces a party that is so far gone, so corrupt, so insanely to the Left that the party establishment would rather lose elections than surrender institutional control and ideological stranglehold of the party.
The Left, as we predicted, is waiting for Elizabeth Warren or some other nut to collect chits and endorsements behind the scenes, issue declarations not to run for president, then once party leaders and Obama’s corrupt machine are in place behind her – emerge to challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016. At the very least the Left wants a candidate of the Left to run against Hillary Clinton in 2016 in order to “move” and cement Hillary to the Left.
But two can play that game. Hillary can threaten not to run unless the party does as she demands and move to the center. She has the clout and the credibility. She also has an alternate successful route to the presidency that no other candidate this election cycle has. If the Left wants to deny her the nomination, and they do, Hillary should move soon to prepare for a third way.
Right now only Hillary Clinton has a clear shot to become president. Her only obstacle is getting the nomination from a party that is insane and whose leaders and power centers need her but don’t want her. Her support among the party rank and file is wide if not necessarily deep (although we do think it is deep) but as we saw in 2008 the party establishment is king and they can undermine her. The interests against Hillary don’t care that Hillary is still a powerhouse with the white working class. They know Hillary is still a powerhouse fundraiser. They fear that Hillary, in short, is a force of nature at this point but they think they can still stop her.
The Republicans have many candidates in 2016 with lots of possibilities. Against anyone but Hillary some of these candidates will easily win the White House. Some of these Republicans have strong points of view and even stronger convictions – such as Cruz. Some, like Scott Walker, have figured out how to destroy the institutional support structure of the Left. Some, like Rand Paul, have a new direction and new ideology for the Republican Party. And some like Rick Perry have a tried and true, stick to the fundamentals typical Republican campaign strategy. All can win if the opposition candidate is not Hillary Clinton.
Against Hillary, eh, not so much now that she sees the wisdom of attacking Barack Obama and only if she continues on this course, which of course the Left hates. If she does not stay on this course she will lose but if she stays on this course she will be endangered by the Left.
So what should Hillary Clinton do? She has to attack Barack Obama. But the Left is furious at those attacks and threaten to escalate attacks against her. The Left will run a scorched earth war against Hillary. The Left wants Hillary to move to the far Left and will run a campaign to force her to do so. Hillary’s campaign is infested with Obama termites (yeah Tommy, we’re thinking of you dude) and they can undermine her from within as they did in 2008 when 2×4 Chuck Schumer and Solis Doyle (and Rangel and Rahm Emanuel) not to mention Ted Kennedy done her in with treachery.
Screw them all Hillary and run third party.
A Hillary Clinton third party run would separate the loyal women from the rats. Yes she would lose the institutional power of an established party and all the funding that means. And we are not fools, that is no small matter because the power of our established political parties is greater than most understand. But Hell, you can’t lose what you don’t really own and anyway we live with the internet and that is a great power unto itself.
Now, we are not fools when it comes to third parties. We do not believe a third party is a magic fixer of our political woes. Third parties can be as corrupt and corruptible as Republicans or Democrats. But we are talking about something quite different.
Combine the organizing power of new technologies such as the internet with the brand power of the Clinton name. Spice it with the new fundraising landscape of Citizens United. Add the intellectual juice of the founders and you have what we are talking about.
Hillary Clinton in 2016 can say:
“My fellow Americans. You know me. You know what I stand for. You might not always agree with me but you know my love for this exceptional country and my belief that America is and must remain a beacon of light for all the world.
You know me and you know that I like every other political figure in this country have been part of the problem. I have been a supporter of the Democratic Party even when I disagreed with the direction and policy positions of the party. But now it is time for a change. It is time for a new politics. It is time to finally cross the bridge into the 21st century that Bill Clinton talked about in 1996.
Crossing that bridge has been a long time coming. At the beginning of the century a Republcan president led us astray. Eight years later a Democratic president has us wandering down the wrong track into oblivion.
The blame for the loss of our democracy is directly attributable to our political parties which care more about themselves than about the American people. The founders warned us. The founders did not want political parties. James Madison stated that, human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.
As I said, I have been part of the problem but now I want to be part of the solution. Republicans hate Democrats. Democrats hate Republicans. Republican voters are angry with the Republican Party and Democrat voters are angry with the Democratic Party. Let’s end this. Let individuals stand for office on their own.
There once was a need for political parties. We needed them to organize for our political interests. But that is no longer true.
With our technology such as the internet and cell phones and text messages and emails and websites we can organize almost instantaneously.
A candidate for political office does not have to adhere to the narrow confines of a party ideology for the sake of party support. A candidate can now come to the American people and say I believe in this socially liberal policy and at the same time I believe in this fiscally sound policy and I ask for your support and financial contributions. It is then for the people to decide.
That’s why today I am asking for your support unencumbered by the chains of a political party and free to speak for the common good not narrow interests.
Whatever party you belonged to, whatever faction once had your allegiance, join me as we finally cross the bridge into the 21st century.”
Hillary Clinton can wait until the last minute to make her move. By then the party will be without a declared candidate or a candidate so weak and so far to the Left that Bernie Sanders will appear to be a giant.
The ideal Hard Choice would be for Hillary to be the destroyer of political factions and lead the country over the bridge to the 21st century to a new politics with the American people back in charge. But if Hillary decides not to bring about the Götterdämmerung, a third party run threat is her whip to beat into submission those that want her to embrace the Kook Left.
Make the Hard Choice Hillary. Give birth to something entirely new and yet entirely old and entirely American. A new birth of freedom.
Update:Thanks to Powerline for making us a “pick” of the day. Hillary Clinton’s bitch slap of Obama will now resound.
Barack Obama with his usual class (low) and style (crass, sleazy) responded to Hillary Clinton truth-telling by calling critiques of his failed Syria policy “horseshit”. Obama’s scatological obsessions are lately on full display. Obama was aware of the coming Hillary attack and he made his shitty remarks to a group of lawmakers at the White House.
I … did not expect to see big-name Democratic strategists needling the party’s next nominee over her biggest foreign policy liability in a public forum, but maybe Ax figures he has nothing to lose. [snip]
He’s better off protecting his and O’s legacy, he probably figures, by reminding a skeptical base that she voted for “Bush’s war” while Obama opposed it.
Just one really obvious problem with that logic, though. Jake Tapper, who normally stays out of political food fights on Twitter, couldn’t resist the obvious counterpoint:
O’s inner circle was and is a who’s who of believers in “stupid sh*t.” His first Secretary of State voted for war in Iraq, as did her successor (who was, by the way, the party’s nominee for president in 2004). So did his handpicked VP.
Hillary Clinton better realize, and she is as we document below in our main article, that Barack Obama will do anything for himself and that means making sure Hillary Clinton 2016 is not his legacy. Keep those bitch slaps of Obama coming Hillary.
Republicans and the Republican 2016 candidate? Republicans will reason with the electorate and say things are off track and it is “time for a change!”.
Hillary Clinton 2016? Is it “time for a change”? Or is it “stay the course”. Thus far, it is mush. In recent interview articles with Hillary we read of policy “disputes” with Barack Obama at the same time as support for Barack Obama. This is too cute by more than a half.
We understand the challenges Hillary Clinton 2016 faces and we have written about the need for the “gull ‘em then cull ‘em” strategy. First sedate the Obama hordes now in possession of what was once the Democratic Party, then the kill, the cull. But the “gull” has turned into more of a “lull” as Hillary Clinton 2016 meanders about without a winning message for 2016.
On August 25, 2014 the smart Jay Cost advised his cohort on how to defeat Hillary Clinton. Jay Cost is very worried for his Republican/conservative party. He thinks if Hillary Clinton runs, Hillary Clinton wins. Jay Cost is providing the same advice to Republicans/conservatives that we gave to Hillary. First Jay Cost flatters Hillary with the truth Republicans/conservatives prefer to deny:
Hillary Clinton’s Reputation
Don’t laugh—it’s better than you think.
The rollout of Hillary Clinton’s new memoirs, Hard Choices, was not a resounding success for the former secretary of state. [snip]
Yet her poll numbers remain surprisingly solid. Surveys conducted by Quinnipiac University, Fox News, and Rasmussen Reports—all taken since the book’s release—show her with comfortable leads nationally over Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush. A mid-July CNN poll shows her with generally strong favorable ratings, although not as positive as they were when she wrapped up her tenure at State. Even so, respondents said they thought her to be a “strong and decisive leader” who “generally agrees” with them on the issues, can “manage the government effectively,” and “cares about people” like them.
What lessons are there to draw from these numbers? The first, and probably most obvious, is the disconnect between the political class and the greater public. Clinton’s book rollout was a disaster among politicos and cable news obsessives, but people who do not dedicate inordinate time to politics and policy hardly seemed to notice. [snip]
The second lesson becomes apparent when we think of Clinton’s numbers in terms of Weekly Standard online editor Daniel Halper’s new book, Clinton, Inc. As Halper shows quite clearly, the Clintons are obsessed with brand management and have become exceedingly skilled at maintaining the improved reputation they have developed since the dark days of the Lewinsky scandal. This reputation is not going to fall apart simply because of a bad book rollout. The collapse of the Barack Obama foreign policy—of which Clinton was an integral part—apparently has done little to diminish it. Even Benghazi has hardly made a dent. [snip]
Republicans hope that a faltering Barack Obama will damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential chances. It’s true that unpopular presidents generally drag down their successor nominees.
Read the entire Jay Cost article not just our snipped excerpts. It is an intelligent, mostly historically accurate representation of Hillary’s herstory and reputation. Indeed, Jay Cost and Big Pink mostly agree on the landscape of the 2016 battlefield:
The early signs of the 2016 Clinton campaign suggest a subtle break with Obama that will reinforce her unique identity. Writing for the New Republic, Anne Applebaum took a careful read of Hard Choices as a piece of early campaign literature and concluded that Hillary Clinton is planning to run a campaign akin to Richard Nixon’s 1968 “man in the arena” strategy. She is battle-tested, experienced, ready to make the hard sacrifices for the country, and above all somebody who can be counted upon:
Clinton hopes to be . . . deeply non-ideological, a centrist. She intends to run as a hard-working, fact-oriented pragmatist—someone who finds ways to work with difficult opponents, and not only faces up to difficult problems but also makes the compromises needed to solve them. Again and again she portrays herself sitting across the table from Dai Bingguo or President Putin, working hard, searching for a way forward. Similar methods, presumably, can be applied to the Republican leadership.
The problem for Republicans here is stark: They have run a campaign like this for the last half-century. It has met with little success in the last 20 years, and it has never worked against the Clintons; Hillary Clinton’s numbers suggest she would be able to “sell” the public on this problem-solving image better than the GOP nominee could. Given a choice between a Republican and a Clinton offering basically the same thing, there is little reason to believe that the country will select the Republican. Nor, for that matter, can Republicans rest on their oars and assume that Obama’s sinking reputation will pull Hillary Clinton down as well. After all, it hasn’t yet.
What, then, is the best response for the GOP? It is simply this: The party must wrap itself unabashedly in the garb of reform. If Hillary Clinton offers herself as the wise and learned hand who will rely upon her decades of experience to guide the ship of state, Republicans have to argue that her experience is exactly what the country doesn’t need at this moment. They need to convince the public that, by being in Washington for the last quarter-century, she is too committed to a broken status quo that is in desperate need of change. The party then needs to lay out a credible and salable agenda for that change.
This should sound familiar, for it is how Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in 2008. A message of reform resonated six years ago, and it could very well resonate again (so long as it is carried by somebody other than Obama!). Now as then, the country is tired and frustrated with the status quo. The people appear to want a change in course. [snip]
If Hillary Clinton offers a Return to Normalcy in 2016, it is a fair bet that the GOP will not be able to beat her by competing on the same terrain. Instead, Republicans should focus assiduously on maximizing their gains in this midterm election, take a few weeks to enjoy (hopefully) their victory, and then have a serious conversation about exactly what kind of change they want to offer the country in 2016. For that appears to be the best—perhaps the only—way to beat Hillary Clinton.
“That’s the only way to beat Hillary Clinton.” Exactly right. Exactly on point. Exactly what we have been hammering and will continue to scream and shout.
And don’t think it is just Jay Cost following the trail blazed by Big Pink. Hillary Clinton sees the same thing we all do and she is fortifying her position so that attacks against her will fail. That’s why Hillary has gunned up and shooting holes into Barack’s tiny grapes. It’s why Hillary is bitch-slapping the bitch-boy:
Hillary Clinton: ‘Failure’ to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS
The former secretary of state, and probable candidate for president, outlines her foreign-policy doctrine. She says this about President Obama’s: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”
Before we continue we’ll clear up three points. First, the actual Barack Obama quote about his (ha, ha) foreign policy is “Don’t do stupid shit.” That was the actual phrase the White House worked so hard, in so many interviews, to inject into the national consciousness. That phrase fits Obama perfectly because he is… well, you know… a stinking piece of….
Second, “bitch-slap”. What is that? Is it an insult we direct at Hillary? No, the contrary. The definition of bitch-slap:To open handedley slap someone. Denote disrespect for the person being bitch slapped as they are not worthy of a man sized punch. Suggests the slap was met with little resistance and much whining. As to “bitch boy,” it is not just a Swedish punk band.
President Obama has long ridiculed the idea that the U.S., early in the Syrian civil war, could have shaped the forces fighting the Assad regime, thereby stopping al Qaeda-inspired groups—like the one rampaging across Syria and Iraq today—from seizing control of the rebellion. In an interview in February, the president told me that “when you have a professional army … fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict—the notion that we could have, in a clean way that didn’t commit U.S. military forces, changed the equation on the ground there was never true.”
Well, his former secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, isn’t buying it. In an interview with me earlier this week, she used her sharpest language yet to describe the “failure” that resulted from the decision to keep the U.S. on the sidelines during the first phase of the Syrian uprising.
“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.
As she writes in her memoir of her State Department years, Hard Choices, she was an inside-the-administration advocate of doing more to help the Syrian rebellion. Now, her supporters argue, her position has been vindicated by recent events.
Professional Clinton-watchers (and there are battalions of them) have told me that it is only a matter of time before she makes a more forceful attempt to highlight her differences with the (unpopular) president she ran against, and then went on to serve. On a number of occasions during my interview with her, I got the sense that this effort is already underway. (And for what it’s worth, I also think she may have told me that she’s running for president—see below for her not-entirely-ambiguous nod in that direction.)
Of course, Clinton had many kind words for the “incredibly intelligent” and “thoughtful” Obama, and she expressed sympathy and understanding for the devilishly complicated challenges he faces. But she also suggested that she finds his approach to foreign policy overly cautious, and she made the case that America needs a leader who believes that the country, despite its various missteps, is an indispensable force for good. At one point, I mentioned the slogan President Obama recently coined to describe his foreign-policy doctrine: “Don’t do stupid shit” (an expression often rendered as “Don’t do stupid stuff” in less-than-private encounters).
This is what Clinton said about Obama’s slogan: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”
Oh no she didint. Oh she didn’t just bitch slap Obama did she. Oh no she diddnt. Oh yes she did. Oh yes she did.
For a while there our Twitter account and Facebook account were the only ways for us to communicate. We were like a morbidly obese fatboy stuck in the internet water-slide while eating a cheese/mayo sandwich and queuing up a slab of peach pie à la mode. It was a no-go. We could not send out emails. We could not post a comment nor an article. We couldn’t communicate at all. It was a world devoid of Pink!
Who dunnit to such sweet people as us??? It wasn’t the Russians with their well publicized recent big hack attack getting vengeance on us for standing up for Ukraine. It wasn’t them. So the good news is that those smart 20-something Russkies and Putin are not sufficiently angry with us to hack us to bits. That would scare us ’cause the hackers and Putin are smart and determined – unlike our usual, more domestic, target(s).
In either case we’re back. Our usual boob targets are still on our screen. “Beware evil-doers! Wherever you are!”.
Just because Big Pink was on the fritz does not mean that the world stopped. Stupid doesn’t sleep.
The Political Risks of an Obama Executive Action on Immigration
With hopes fading of passing an immigration reform bill, President Obama is reportedly contemplating bypassing Congress and making sweeping changes to immigration policy before the midterm elections. [snip]
But what isn’t clear is why Mr. Obama would engage in such a move before the election. Of course, Mr. Obama faces short-term pressures to address the surge in migrant children being detained at the border, but news media reports suggest that the policy changes under consideration would be far broader, potentially providing legal status to many of the nation’s undocumented immigrants.
Such a broad executive action could provoke a backlash in the midterm elections that might be avoided with a move just a few months later. Although the public is generally supportive of allowing immigrants to stay in the United States legally under certain conditions, opinion has grown less favorable toward this prospect over time.
A recent CNN poll showed, for instance, that 51 percent of Americans now prefer an emphasis on border security and deportation versus 45 percent who prefer creating a path to legal status for illegal immigrants — a reversal from the 41 percent to 54 percent margin observed earlier this year. Polling also suggests that opponents of creating a path to legal status feel more strongly about the issue than supporters.
The New York Times is not troubled that Barack Obama is violating his oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of this country. No, the New York Times is scratching it’s grey head over why Barack Obama is timing the illegality so stupidly. ‘Why oh why is Barack so stupid,’ laments the Times:
Mr. Obama might hope to mobilize the Democratic base or boost Hispanic turnout, but midterm electorates are skewed toward an older, whiter group of voters who are likely to view a legalization plan lessfavorably. By contrast, the Hispanic population votes at lower rates and is likely to make up a small share of the electorate in this year’s most competitive House and Senate races (though their role in 2016 could be more significant).
It’s easy to overstate the effects of policy on electoral outcomes, but there is a recent worst-case example: the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Research that I conducted with a group of political scientists found that the Republican landslide in 2010 was strengthened by health care reform. In total, Democrats lost 63 seats in the House of Representatives, a substantial increase over the expected outcome, which was seemingly attributable to the depressed support for reform supporters in competitive districts, who were seen as more liberal by voters.
Given these risks, the politics of pre-election legalization seem inexplicable, creating an opening for elaborate bank-shot theories about Obama’s intentions. The columnist Charles Krauthammer floated a conspiracy theory along these lines Wednesday, suggesting on Fox News that Obama might be trying to “bait Republicans into impeachment as a way to save his party in the midterm elections.”
Such an outcome seems unlikely, but the comment illustrates just how much uncertainty there is over what Mr. Obama is doing or how Republicans — and voters — will react.
You can’t explain stupid. All you can do is recognize it and squash it every time it appears. Clue for the New York Times: whenever Barack Obama opens his mouth, touches his pen, uses the phone, or gets behind a podium or microphone, EXPECT THE STUPID.
Lined up and executed, their severed heads put on display as a warning to others: Horrific new photographs of ISIS atrocities
WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT
Sunni tribesmen marched into desert, made to kneel and shot in the head
Tribe made deal with ISIS to be left alone but agreement collapsed
Shocking close-up photos of splattered brains and severed heads released
‘Punishment for those who fight Allah and his Messenger is to crucify or cut off hands and feet’
Oh, those lucky ISIS boys. They’re up against Barack Obama. Ever seen a dog get its head trapped inside a paper bag? That’s Barack.
Gen. Barry McCaffrey, like me, wonders what the plan is in Iraq and seems to recognize that, in fact, there is none.
And so, he wonders, following the food drops, what happens when the Iraqis trapped on the mountain by ISIS finish the food?
McCaffrey appeared with an equally skeptical Chuck Todd of MSNBC:
These are political gestures using military power . . . It looks to me like a lot of this is internal U.S. politics to show we’re doing something.
I mean, if you want to use military power, you have to write down your objective and then use decisive force to achieve your objectives. So I’m a little dismayed at what we’re up to here.
This is why we have always maintained that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president. The guy just doesn’t know what he is doing. When he does know what he is doing it is only because it is (a) about himself and his self-interest in self-advancement; or (b) an act that is harmful to this country. It really does come down to that.
Malevolent and stupid can coexist in one scrawny frame. Just look at Barack. Weep for the nation.
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."