Will the Media Question Her? What about her claims, what about evidence?

While Clinton told Mossberg and Swisher she did not engage in lies during her campaign, she said Trump's side did. Clinton also raised the theory that "1,000 Russian agents" were working every day to make sure that distorted "content" was appearing before internet users. Clinton did not cite her source for the claim.

Another bizarre claim Clinton made was that Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway were chosen to run the final months of the Trump campaign because of the urging of Cambridge Analytica, which is owned by billionaire Rebecca Mercer and family. The Mercers said they would "wed" their data with the RNC and Trump's data if the hires were made.

Bannon and Conway did not immediately return a request from LifeZette to respond.

Clinton also blamed the Democratic National Committee for being in poor shape, after eight years of what should have been salad days for the party, given former President Barack Obama's tenure.

"I set up my campaign and we have our own data operation," said Clinton. "I get the nomination. So I'm now the nominee of the Democratic party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic party. I mean, it was bankrupt. It was on the verge of insolvency. Its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it."


1) [EXPECT BLOWBACK on this issue from the DNC people via intermediaries. And this is only one of many!!  Click here!]

2) ANOTHER article concerning Hillary's attack on DNC.  BLOWBACK is a bitch Hillary.  No one will be with you next time! 

3) AND MORE from CNN 



 Data was on Clinton's mind, quite a bit, and not just because she was at a coding conference. Clinton laid out a three-part conspiracy in which weaponized information was coordinated on Facebook and elsewhere. Clinton came very close to suggesting Cambridge Analytica coordinated with the Russians.

The three-part conspiracy started, Clinton said, when the Russians stole information from the Democrats and Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta.

The next step was coordination, Clinton said. There was no possible way, Clinton said, that the Russians would know how to distribute the information in the most damaging way, without American help. (Clinton brushed aside the fact that WikiLeaks began leaking the information on Oct. 7, because she said WikiLeaks is the same thing as the Russian secret service.)

"The Russians, in my opinion, and based on the intel and counter-intel people I've talked to, could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided," said Clinton. "Guided by Americans. And guided by people who had polling and data and information."

 So, intel and counter-intel people divulged top secret information to Hillary ... and that is ok because?

SHE IS A LUNATIC.  She and TRUMP should get together after Melania leaves!

She hasn't acknowledged anything.  She has not been introspective nor reflective.  She eschews personal responsibility now as she did decades ago when Bill was fucking random women in the White House, and she spent her time attacking the women.

A reasonably thorough analysis of the election in the campaign book “Shattered,” journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes report they were surprised “when Clintonworld sources started telling us in 2015 that Hillary was still struggling to articulate her motivation for seeking the presidency.” Her campaign was “an unholy mess, fraught with tangled lines of authority . . . distorted priorities, and no sense of greater purpose.” “Hillary didn’t have a vision to articulate. And no one else could give one to her.” “Hillary had been running for president for almost a decade and still didn’t really have a rationale.”


One reason she lost:  Her.

Dear Everyone -

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Dear Republicans

The 17 people who stood on the stage were the 'best' you had?  You didn't have much.

Are Republicans just getting less competent, less qualified, less able to 'be'?  Are Republicans so caught up in the myriad of victimization schemes they have lost sight of the prize - the history and future of the United States of America.  They were a grand party, one with ideas, and men who stood for values and an identity - who were proud of America and were willing to fight til the end to save her from the wrong path.

You have been so long divorced from the people - the immigrants, and working class - you have bought in to the 2nd class status Republicans have held for so long that you believe capitulating to Democrats helps your chances of ... I'm not sure what, but you must believe something.  Each time Republicans hold a branch - Congress or White House, when it turns over, you work nicely to allow a smooth transition.  You don't ram bills through, you invite Democrats to the office and discuss a transition.  Why?  Collegiality?

When Democrats lose control of a branch of government they ram bills through, exclude Republicans from meetings or discussions until the new government takes office.  This has happened each and every time the switch has occurred since at least 1996.  Why do you still insist on following a path that hurts America each time.  They push bills through, hold committee hearings and don't allow Republicans input, even when the national/state votes are for the Republicans.  They play the legalistic game, you play collegiality.  Why?  Are you retarded.  There actions do not benefit America so why do you allow it.  They don't.  What are you afraid of - being called abrasive or pushy ... they already call you that and every nasty name possible.  Where is your spine.  Where is your willingness to do what is best for America and Americans.  In your socks.

Instead the party of ideas gave us 17 people - none of whom would be a very good president.

The Presidency is not just a job.  It is not just an office.  It is not just a position within a building called the White House.  It is the single most important position on planet earth.  From the creation of said position by George Washington, and the manner he carried himself, the respect that was developed within and for the position of President of the United States ... decades and centuries of work by men who treated the position with respect and reverence (yes, I am aware some did not) - centuries of work by men who built the respect up ... to be torn down by either of the two people we are faced with choosing from ... is disgraceful.

You created Trump.  Had someone of stature and respect run, he would not.  Your bumbling useless idiots are what brought him into the game.  You did it.  You and the Democratic party put us in the horrible position we now find ourselves.  Shame on all of you.

Now that he is the President, if you fail to support him, you will destroy the Republican party and doom your chances of ever governing again for 50 years.  It is your choice, but if you choose wrong, America loses.  The world loses.

Signed,
Very unhappy camper

Sharpton on Obama and the election

The Rev. Al Sharpton received the humanitarian award, and urged the crowd to vote this November.

"This election is not just about Obama, this is about your momma," he said.

The Amateur - He certainly is.

After fleeting Supreme Court victory, Obama remains the amateur

By Edward Klein

Published July 02, 2012

 FoxNews.com

In ancient Rome, whenever a general was given a victory parade, he would be accompanied in his chariot by a slave who whispered into his ear, “Heed not the call of the crowds, for all glory is fleeting.”

Someone ought to be whispering that advice into Barack Obama’s ear right now, for if ever there was a fleeting victory, it was the Supreme Court’s ruling that ObamaCare is constitutional—a decision that will lead to the largest tax increase in American history and leave Obama and the entire Democratic ticket vulnerable at the ballot box in November.

But don’t count on David Axelrod, the president’s top political strategist, to perform the duty of the prudent Roman slave. These days, Axelrod isn’t whispering; he’s shouting from the rooftops that the Supreme Court ruling is proof that a new, politically skillful Obama has replaced the callow, arrogant incompetent that I describe in my book "The Amateur."

And Obama has joined this chorus of self-congratulation. Minutes after the Supreme Court’s ruling, he got on his smart phone and tweeted: “Still a BFD”—a reference to Vice President Joe Biden’s “big f—king deal” comment when Obama signed the health care legislation.

The notion that Obama has changed his stripes, that he is actually a better and more effective president than any of us suspected, is pure hogwash.

Talk about a “New Obama” reminds me of the effort on the part of Richard Nixon’s PR people in the 1960s to repackage him as the “New Nixon.” During the presidential election of 1968, voters were treated to TV commercials and carefully planted stories claiming that the old, mean-spirited Nixon had matured, and that a more tolerant, magnanimous “New Nixon” had taken his place. It was a brilliantly orchestrated campaign, but as we learned during Watergate and the subsequent release of Nixon’s Oval Office tapes, there never was a “New Nixon.”

The example of Richard Nixon’s non-makeover makeover should tell us something about the efforts of the Obama political team to reframe his image and resell him to voters. The entire story of ObamaCare—from inception to Supreme Court—reeks of amateurism.

It is the hallmark of a political amateur to ignore the advice of wise men and women who tell him what he doesn’t want to hear and, instead, embrace those who cater to his inexperience, vanity, and worst instincts. This has been the pattern of the Obama presidency. And that was exactly what happened in the case of ObamaCare.

Early in his presidency, Barack Obama received ample warning that he was headed for disaster if he went for broke on health care. His then chief of staff Rahm Emanuel urged the president to push for a smaller bill with popular items, such as expanding health coverage for children and young adults. Both his vice president, Joe Biden, and his top political adviser, David Axelrod, sided with Emanuel and raised a red flag.

But Obama wouldn’t listen to his wisest and most experienced advisers. Instead, he chose to listen to his wife Michelle and to Valerie Jarrett, his powerful behind-the-scenes confidante. It was Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett who persuaded the president to side with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her gaggle of far-leftwing Democrats and push for an enormously complex Rube Goldberg health-care bill.

Obama’s arrogance, his sense of superiority, and his air of haughtiness—but above all, his amateurism—led him astray and encouraged him to focus initially on a “public option” in his health care bill. Rick Scott, the health care executive who launched and ran the successful campaign to kill the public option in 2009, parlayed that victory into winning the governorship of Florida in 2010.

When Scott and his group, Conservatives for Patients Rights, defeated the public option, Obama was then stuck with going along with an “individual mandate,” which he had vigorously campaign against during the Democratic primaries. He denied time after time that the mandate was a tax, only to allow his Solicitor General to argue before the Supreme Court that it is, in fact, a tax.
Only a rank amateur could have turned months and months of debate over a widely unpopular health care bill into something even worse—an onerous tax on the middle class.

Only a rank amateur could have turned a government-run health care system that suffers from hundreds of billions of dollars in annual fraud, and is already on life support, into a $1.5 trillion Rube Goldberg machine that will destroy American medicine and deliver a poorer quality of health care to millions of people.

Only a rank amateur could conceive of a “solution” to our health care problems that cuts benefits to seniors by $500 billion and established rationing boards known as “death panels.”

Only a rank amateur could threaten to turn America into Sweden—and possibly even Greece—by passing an ill-conceived piece of legislation whose major goal is to earn him a place in history.

Only a rank amateur could levy a series of new taxes on America’s small businesses, under the guise of ObamaCare, that will raise unemployment and stall an already anemic recover.

Only a rank amateur could hand his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, an electoral game changer.

Yes, Barack Obama is still The Amateur.
















obama

Pelosi: And she says it with a straight face.

Pelosi: Holder contemptvote about voter suppression, not Fast and Furious

June 21, 2012
Joel Gehrke

The Washington Examiner

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., declared that House Republicans are charging Attorney General Eric Holder with contempt of Congress not as part of an investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, but in order to weaken his ability to prevent voter suppression.

"They're going after Eric Holder because he is supporting measures to overturn these voter suppression initiatives in the states," Pelosi told reporters during her press briefing today. "This is no accident, it is no coincidence. It is a plan on the part of Republicans.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted yesterday to recommend that the full U.S. House of Representatives find Holder in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena that he hand over thousands of documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious -- specifically, documents pertaining to the Justice Department's false claim that law enforcement never allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico to drug cartels.

President Obama asserted executive privilege yesterday over the documents subpoenaed, minutes before the committee contempt hearing began. Holder had previously offered to provide some of the documents to congressional investigators if they agreed to end the investigation.

"The only thing extraordinary about his offer is that he is asking the committee to close its investigation before it even receives the documents," committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said during the contempt vote hearing. "I can't accept that deal."

Pelosi denied that Operation Fast and Furious is the real cause of the investigation and contempt charge. "These very same people who are holding him in contempt are part of a nationwide scheme to suppress the vote," she said of her congressional colleagues. "It is connected. It's clear as can be. It's not only to monopolize his time, it's to undermine his name."

"These folks want a plutocracy where instead of the choice of the many the checks of the very very few determine the outcomes of elections," she said.

democrats

Intelligence Leaking: Obama Style

It was clear from the start that it was someone within the Obama administration who pushed for the information to be released. 

And the reason was purely political.  Real lives and real security issues are at stake, contrasted with the illusion of security when Valerie Plame's name was released and the Left went ballistic and into meltdown mode.

Underwear bomb plot: British and US intelligence rattled over leaks

Leak about UK involvement described as despicable by CIA as anger turns to Obama administration for compromising mission

Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Ian Black, Middle East editor

guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 May 2012 14.26 EDT

Detailed leaks of operational information about the foiled underwear bomb plot are causing growing anger in the US intelligence community, with former agents blaming the Obama administration for undermining national security and compromising the British services, MI6 and MI5.

The Guardian has learned from Saudi sources that the agent was not a Saudi national as was widely reported, but a Yemeni. He was born in Saudi Arabia, in the port city of Jeddah, and then studied and worked in the UK, where he acquired a British passport.

Mike Scheur, the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, said the leaking about the nuts and bolts of British involvement was despicable and would make a repeat of the operation difficult. "MI6 should be as angry as hell. This is something that the prime minister should raise with the president, if he has the balls. This is really tragic," Scheur said.

He added: "Any information disclosed is too much information. This does seem to be a tawdry political thing."

He noted that the leak came on the heels of a series of disclosures over the last 10 days, beginning with a report that the CIA wanted to expand its drone attacks in Yemen, Barack Obama making a surprise trip to Afghanistan around the time of the Bin Laden anniversary and "then this inexplicable leak".

Robert Grenier, former head of the CIA counter-terrorism centre, said: "As for British Intelligence, I suppose, but do not know, that they must be very unhappy. They are often exasperated, quite reasonably, with their American friends, who are far more leak-prone than they.

"In their place, I would think two and three times before sharing with the Americans, and then only do it if I had to. The problem with that dynamic is that you don't know what you don't know, and what opportunities you might be missing when you decide not to share. The Americans are doing a very good job of undermining trust, and the problem starts at the top."

The name of the British passport-holder has not yet been released but may come out through al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. He is reported to have spent time at at language school in Sana'a, the Yemeni capital, and been recruited by al-Qaida as a suicide bomber.

Mustafa Alani of the Gulf Research Centre in Dubai told CNN that the bomber had been recruited by the Saudis to penetrate al-Qaida about a year ago, in part because the group would be attracted by the fact that his UK passport meant he could travel to the US without a visa.

"Apparently he was able to convince al-Qaida that he is genuinely ready to carry out the mission," said Alani, who CNN said had been briefed by Saudi counter-terrorism officials. Alani said his understanding was that al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (Aqap) intended the would-be suicide bomber to fly through a Gulf country to connect to a US-bound flight.

The Saudi operation culminated with the agent and another Saudi informant – likely his handler – being whisked out of Yemen, Alani said. "My information is that he was pulled out after the device was handed to him, and they ordered the green light to carry out the operation," he told the US network.

Yemen has been a key target country for the CIA and MI6 in line with the growing strength of Aqap in recent years. But the lead on the ground has been taken by the Saudi intelligence service, the Mabahith, which is best placed to operate in the local environment and exploit links on either side of the border.

Both the US and British intelligence communities are known to work closely with their Saudi counterparts and both have liaison officers permanently stationed in Riyadh and Sana'a.

Aqap moved its operations to Yemen in 2007 after the defeat of al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia. The Nigerian "underwear bomber", Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit in 2009, was radicalised in Yemen while claiming to be there as a student.

The US, Britain and the Saudis are likely to have preferred their own intelligence operation to co-operation with the Yemeni security authorities, who are anxious to avoid being seen as a western pawn.

Cables released by WikiLeaks exposed the scale of US covert involvement in the Arab world's poorest country. In 2009 the Saudi deputy interior minister, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, told General James Jones, President Obama's national security adviser: "The Saudis have been monitoring conversations of al-Qaida operatives in Yemen very closely and whereas before the [recent] attack they were hearing relaxed 20-minute phone conversations over cellphones, after the attack the phones went virtually silent. This suggests that at least for now these operatives are more focused on their own security rather than on planning operations."

Bin Nayef's support for operations against Aqap is unsurprising. He survived an assassination attempt in Jeddah in September 2009 when a Saudi Aqap operative named Abdullah al-Asiri feigned repentance for his jihadi views in a meeting with the prince then blew himself up with a bomb concealed in his anus. Al-Asiri's brother Ibrahim is Aqap's chief bombmaker.

Gregory Johnsen, a US expert on Aqap, pondered on his blog whether the group would now reveal the identity of the undercover agent. "Undoubtedly, Aqap recorded a marytrdom video of the undercover agent before giving him the bomb," Johnsen wrote. "The US and Saudis won't divulge his identity for obvious reasons, but will Aqap?"

obama

Liberal Hypocrisy

Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist

by Kirsten Powers

Mar 4, 2012 10:00 AM EST
Daily Beast

Rush Limbaugh apologized on Saturday for calling a Georgetown Law student a slut for testifying about contraception and starting a firestorm of outrage. Kirsten Powers says the liberals who led the charge need to start holding their own side accountable.

Did you know there is a war on women?

Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh, who finally apologized Saturday for calling a 30-year-old Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut” after she testified before congress about contraception. Limbaugh’s apology was likely extracted to stop the departure of any more advertisers, who were rightly under pressure from liberal groups outraged by the comments.

Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Rush Limbaugh should not have called Ms. Fluke a slut or, as he added later, a “prostitute” who should post her sex tapes. It’s unlikely that his apology will assuage the people on a warpath for his scalp, and after all, why should it? He spent days attacking a woman as a slut and prostitute and refused to relent. Now because he doesn’t want to lose advertisers, he apologizes. What’s in order is something more like groveling—and of course a phone call to Ms. Fluke—if you ask me.

But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?

During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.

Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.

Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batshit crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)

Chris Matthews’s sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.” He asked a guest if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief—or does it make a case against it?” At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.

Matthews has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even “capable of thinking” and has called Bachmann a “balloon head” and said she was “lucky we still don’t have literacy tests out there.” Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene, who is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in 2011 that Matthews
“is a bully, and his favorite target is women.” So why does he still have a show? What if his favorite target was Jews? Or African-Americans?

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

Liberals—you know, the people who say they “fight for women”—comprise Maher’s audience, and a parade of high-profile liberals make up his guest list. Yet have any of them confronted him? Nope. That was left to Ann Coulter, who actually called Maher a misogynist to his face, an opportunity that feminist icon Gloria Steinem failed to take when she appeared on his show in 2011.

This is not to suggest that liberals—or feminists—never complain about misogyny. Many feminist blogs now document attacks on women on the left and the right, including Jezebel, Shakesville, and the Women’s Media Center (which was cofounded by Steinem). But when it comes to high-profile campaigns to hold these men accountable—such as that waged against Limbaugh—the real fury seems reserved only for conservatives, while the men on the left get a wink and a nod as long as they are carrying water for the liberal cause.

After all, if Limbaugh’s outburst is part of the “war on women,” then what is the routine misogyny of liberal media men?

It’s time for some equal-opportunity accountability. Without it, the fight against media misogyny will continue to be perceived as a proxy war for the Democratic Party, not a fight for fair treatment of women in the public square.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

Kirsten Powers is a columnist for The Daily Beast. She is also a contributor to USA Today and a Fox News political analyst. She served in the Clinton administration from 1993 to 1998 and has worked in New York state and city politics. Her writing has been published in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, New York Post, The New York Observer, Salon.com, Elle magazine, and American Prospect online.

liberals

Democrats and Republicans - Politicizing

Obama campaign to the American people:

"His Republican opponents have jumped all over him because they do want to play politics with this issue. The President spoke from his heart on this, it was trying to emphasize with some parents who had just lost a child. By any measure, this was a tragedy and we need to let the investigation take its course," Stephanie Cutter, Obama's Deputy Campaign Manager, said on MSNBC today."People have to stop politicizing it," she added. "It's no surprise that some of our Republican opponents are trying to make an issue with this. But the President spoke from the heart and we need to let the investigation take its course."



In congress however, a different story:


Congressman Rush - a Democrat decided he needed a hood because ...



Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Florida): This is Treyvon Martin. Trayvon Martin's murderer is still at large. It's been one month, thirty days, with no arrest. I want America to see this sweet young boy who was hunted down like a dog, shot in the street, and his killer is still at large.

Not one person has been arrested in Treyvon's murder. I want to make sure that America knows that in Sanford, Florida, there was a young boy murdered. He is buried in Miami, Florida, and not one person has been arrested even though we all know who the murderer is. This was a standard case of racial profiling. No more! No more! We will stand for justice for Treyvon Martin.


and still others

 

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Georgia): "He was executed for 'WWB' in a 'GC.' Walking While Black in a Gated Community."

and another

"I, personally, really truly believe this is a hate crime," said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) in a joint interview with CBC Chairman Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) on CNN.

and another

You know if I had a son he'd look like Trayvon and you know I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves.



BUT

It is the Republicans who are politicizing this!


PLEASE.













liberals

Election 2012

What is at stake is the very meaning of being an American.  What is at stake is the heart of America, the purpose of America.  What is at risk is losing the soul of America is we ....


Apparently if Pat Buchanan references Christianity in the above, he gets fired.  But when Obama says it, he is justaposing it against Republicans ... that unless he wins, the country and the future loses if Republicans win ....

Isn't he inclusive.  Making his re-election an issue of what is the essence of being an American or America. 

Obama 2012: 'Osama Bin Laden Will Never Again Walk the Face of This Earth. That’s What Change Is.'

 

Alerts

Hide

Get alerts when there is a new article that might interest you.

Send me alerts for:

Bill Kristol
Fred Barnes
Jay Cost

Your e-mail address:

Confirm e-mail address:

Please sign me up for The Weekly Standard weekly newsletter.

The Weekly Standard reserves the right to use your email for internal use only. Occasionally, we may send you special offers or communications from carefully selected advertisers we believe may be of benefit to our subscribers. Click the box to be included in these third party offers. We respect your privacy and will never rent or sell your email.

Please include me in third party offers.

At a campaign event this evening at the Capital Hilton in Washington, D.C., President Obama indicated that he had successfully brought about "change"--an ambiguous 2008 campaign promise--by killing terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. From the official White House transcript:

And change is keeping one of the first promises I made in 2008 -- ending the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home. (Applause.) The war is over and our troops are home. And instead, we refocused our efforts on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11. And thanks to our brave men and women in uniform, al Qaeda is weaker than it’s ever been, and Osama bin Laden will never again walk the face of this Earth. That’s what change is. (Applause.)

The president also listed Obamacare as a change he was responsible for, though he failed to mention the unpopularity of his signature legislation.
And the president warned that Republicans threaten the "very core of what this country stands for."

The very core of what this country stands for is on the line -- the basic promise that no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, this is a place where you could make it if you try. The notion that we're all in this together, that we look out for one another -- that's at stake in this election. Don't take my word for it. Watch some of these debates that have been going on up in New Hampshire.

obama

Obama’s inoperable Constitution

By Robert Knight

The Washington Times
Friday, January 6, 2012

ASSOCIATED PRESS Former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray has been nominated to head the new Consumer Protection Bureau. But Senate Republicans say he would have too much power. Democrats, for their part, complain of political games being played in the process.

Back in 1973, when the Nixon administration was under fire for Watergate, Press Secretary Ron Ziegler uttered an unforgettable response when caught in a lie during a news conference: "This is the operative statement. The other statements are now inoperable."

Well, the Obama administration just topped that by essentially declaring the U.S. Constitution "inoperable." President Obama did not use that term when making an illegal recess appointment of Richard Cordray to the new post of consumer czar on Wednesday, but he might as well have.

Mr. Cordray now heads the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which will do its best to strangle any thought that business owners might have of getting out from under oppressive bureaucracy long enough to create any new jobs that aren't in the government.

Remember, these are the same folks who thought it was a great idea to let Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, bring the magic of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the financial sector with the awful Dodd-Frank law. But merit aside, the Cordray appointment was made outside constitutional bounds.

Here's what the official White House blog says about why the administration staged the Cordray coup:

"The Constitution gives the president the authority to make temporary recess appointments to fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess. ... In an overt attempt to prevent the president from exercising his authority during this period, Republican senators insisted on using a gimmick called 'pro forma' sessions, which are sessions during which no Senate business is conducted and instead one or two senators simply gavel in and out of session in a matter of seconds."

What the White House regards as "gimmicks" are the letter of the law of the Constitution. Article I, Section 5, says "Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

Under Speaker John A. Boehner, the House has not granted the Senate adjournment. So, like it or not, Majority Leader Harry Reid's do-nothing Senate, which has not passed a budget in three years, is still in session. In 2007, Mr. Reid refused to adjourn the Senate in order to block President George W. Bush's recess appointments. Unlike Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush abided by the Constitution and backed off.

Mr. Obama also loaded up the National Labor Relations Board with three recess appointees who won't threaten the conviviality of the current labor-union-packed board, whose hobby appears to be sticking needles into a voodoo doll shaped like South Carolina.

The NLRB not only issued orders halting South Carolina's voter-approved measure to preserve secret ballots in union elections, but tried to close a brand-new Boeing factory and move it to union-shackled Washington state. Just the other day, the Justice Department ordered South Carolina to halt enforcement of its photo-ID law, which discourages voter fraud.

You can almost see officials sitting around in the White House, exclaiming, "What will it take to provoke South Carolina into bombarding Fort Sumter again? Should we outlaw barbecue, golf, Krispy Kreme doughnuts and mint juleps?"

The Obama administration's lawlessness is becoming so obvious that nearly everyone outside the liberal mainstream media has caught on. Many Americans are appalled, but hard-core leftists are delighted. They regard the Constitution as a sham document that enables an oppressive, racist, sexist, homophobic society of the rich to oppress college students.

They give a pass to Hollywood moguls, of course, and they think it's great fun to misquote the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom while going about scrubbing the public square clean of America's Christian heritage.

You almost have to admire Mr. Obama's audacity, which he warned us about in his autobiographies. He openly trashed the U.S. Supreme Court last January during his State of the Union address, knowing the justices who were present could not respond to his bald-faced mischaracterization of their ruling striking down the odious McCain-Feingold muzzling of political speech.

He told us he wanted the United States to get along better with other nations and then sent Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton abroad to lecture them on their stubborn resistance to abortion, homosexuality and global-warming extremism.

He said he wanted to be a healer, bringing the races together. But he appointed an attorney general whose hobby, when not sharpening needles for South Carolina, seems to be stirring up racial animosity and trying to frame Texas gun dealers.

Mr. Obama's piece de resistance, though, was ramming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, down America's throat while assuring us that we could keep our current health insurance. The lies, evasions, backroom deals and front-room bribes could fill a dozen books.

When Obamacare was being debated, the administration insisted that the individual mandate was not a tax. After more than half the states sued to halt this unconstitutional mess, Mr. Obama's lawyers told courts it was a tax after all. Apparently, the previous claim became "inoperable."

If the constitutional order is not restored and Obamacare is not struck down or repealed, enemies of the state, such as older people who refuse to go gently into the night, might routinely start hearing scarier things than lies, such as: "That patient is now inoperable."

obama

Obama Mission Continues

Two years ago, maybe less, I indicated in my ramblings that at some point, not too far off, Obama would slash the military budget to virtually nothing.  To be fair, 'virtually nothing' is subjective and for Obama $100 dollars is a lot for the military, but given the threats on this planet today, it would weaken and destroy our strength at home and around the world.  It would turn us into another Britain or worse, into a France - those two nations who whine a great deal yet can accomplish nothing without the United States support.

This idea is not new.  It is an idea situated in Marxist ideology.  It is an idea leftist Democrats not only support but drool at the prospect of finally achieving.  It is an idea situated on the left, nurtured by Marxism, and supported by those who hate America and or are simply too simple and feeble-minded to know the difference.

Today Obama plans on gutting the military -

Obama plans to cut tens of thousands of ground troops

 

Wed, Jan 4 2012

By Laura MacInnis and David Alexander

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration will unveil a "more realistic" vision for the military on Thursday, with plans to cut tens of thousands of ground troops and invest more in air and sea power at a time of fiscal restraint, officials familiar with the plans said on Wednesday.

The strategic review of U.S. security interests will also emphasize an American presence in Asia, with less attention overall to Europe, Africa and Latin America alongside slower growth in the Pentagon's budget, the officials said.

Though specific budget cut and troop reduction figures are not set to be announced on Thursday, officials confirmed to Reuters they would amount to a 10-15 percent decline in Army and Marine Corps numbers over the next decade, translating to tens of thousands of troops.

The most profound shift in the strategic review is an acceptance that the United States, even with the world's largest military budget, cannot afford to maintain the ground troops to fight more than one major war at once. That is a move away from the "win-win" strategy that has dominated Pentagon funding decisions for decades.

The move to a "win-spoil" plan, allowing U.S. forces to fight one campaign and stop or block another conflict, includes a recognition that the White House would need to ramp up public support for further engagement and draw more heavily on reserve and national guard troops when required.

"As Libya showed, you don't necessarily have to have boots on the ground all the time," an official said, explaining the White House view.

"We are refining our strategy to something that is more realistic," the official added.

President Barack Obama will help launch the U.S. review at the Pentagon on Thursday, and is expected to emphasize that the size of the U.S. military budget has been growing and will continue to grow, but at a slower pace.

Obama has moved to curtail U.S. ground commitments overseas, ending the war in Iraq, drawing down troops in Afghanistan and ruling out anything but air power and intelligence support for rebels who overthrew Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.

The number of U.S. military personnel formally assigned to bases in Europe - including many now deployed in Afghanistan - is also set to decline sharply, administration sources said, while stressing that the final numbers have not been set.

'BASICALLY DISAPPEAR'

"When some army brigades start coming out of Afghanistan, they will basically disappear," one official said.

Many of the key U.S. military partners in the NATO alliance are also facing tough defense budget cuts as a result of fiscal strains gripping the European Union.

The president may face criticism from defense hawks in Congress, many of them opposition Republicans, who question his commitment to U.S. military strength.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, are set to hold a news conference to flesh out the contents of the review after Obama's remarks, which are also expected to stress the need to rein in spending at a time when U.S. budgets are tight.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the defense cuts stemming from an August debt ceiling deal - worth about $489 billion over 10 years - need to be enacted carefully.

"The president made clear to his team that we need to take a hard look at all of our defense spending to ensure that spending cuts are surgical and that our top priorities are met," Carney told reporters this week.

The military could be forced to cut another $600 billion in defense spending over 10 years unless Congress takes action to stop a second round of cuts mandated in the August accord.

Panetta spent much of Wednesday afternoon briefing key congressional leaders about the strategic review. Representative Adam Smith, the senior Democrat on the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, said after speaking to Panetta that the review was an attempt to evaluate U.S. strategic priorities for the future rather than identify specific budget reductions.

Maintaining a significant presence in the Middle East and Asia, especially to counter Iran and North Korea, was a leading priority in the review, Smith said. So was making sure that military personnel are sufficiently cared for to guarantee the effectiveness of the all-volunteer force. Reductions in the size of U.S. forces in Europe and elsewhere are a real possibility, he said.

Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain John Kirby said with the military winding down a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is appropriate to re-evaluate the role of U.S. forces abroad.

"From an operational perspective it's ... an opportune time to take a look at what the U.S. military is doing and what it should be doing or should be preparing itself to do over the next 10 to 15 years," he said on Wednesday.

"So, yes, the budget cuts are certainly a driver here, but so quite frankly are current events," Kirby said.












obama

Unprecedented Power Grab

While Bush was president, how many such appointments did he make?

Did the Democrats say anything about recess appointments during that time?  Yes.

What did they say?  He was abusing his power.  He was ruling by fiat.  He was acting like a dictator.

So .... why are they so quiet when Obama is the one abusing the power?


Unprecedented “Recess” Appointment Contradicts Obama Justice Department     

Posted by Brendan Buck on January 04, 2012

President Obama today made an unprecedented “recess” appointment even though the Senate is not in recess – “a sharp departure from a long-standing precedent that has limited the President to recess appointments only when the Senate is in a recess of 10 days or longer,” according to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).It turns out that the action not only contradicts long-standing practice, but also the view of the administration itself. In 2010, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained to the Supreme Court the Obama administration’s view that recess appointments are only permissible when Congress is in recess for more than three days. Here’s the exchange with Chief Justice John Roberts:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess appointment power doesn't work why?
MR. KATYAL: The -- the recess appointment power can work in -- in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days. And -- and so, it is potentially available to avert the future crisis that -- that could -- that could take place with respect to the board. If there are no other questions –
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.

obama 

Jobs and Unicorns

Paul Roderick Gregory
Forbes.com
12/25/2011

Sen. Harry Reid's Unicorns: Fact Checking A Whopper

Tax policy should be serious business carried out by serious politicians using real facts and figures. This is why we have the Library of Congress and the Congressional Budget Office, among other expert institutions.

How can we take Congress seriously when the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, makes patently inaccurate, outrageous and bizarre claims on an important tax-policy issue without any heads being turned? I guess this is what we have come to expect of Congress. No wonder citizens with favorable opinions of Congress are as rare as unicorns, to borrow a phrase.

Harry Reid’s statement on December 6 on his proposed 1.9 percent surtax on million-dollar incomes has kicked up some dust. Here is his statement:

“Millionaire job creators are like unicorns. They’re impossible to find, and they don’t exist… Only a tiny fraction of people making more than a million dollars, probably less than 1 percent, are small business owners. And only a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction are traditional job creators…Most of these businesses are hedge fund managers or wealthy lawyers. They don’t do much hiring and they don’t need tax breaks.”

Taking their cue, National Public Radio launched a search for one millionaire job creator. They triumphantly announced:

“NPR requested help from numerous Republican congressional offices, including House and Senate leadership. They were unable to produce a single millionaire job creator for us to interview.”

Were it not for Google, I would have accepted Harry Reid’s unicorn story and NPR’s confirmation. Unlike Harry Reid’s office, I went to the IRS’s Table 1.4 “Sources of income, adjustments, and tax size of adjusted gross income, 2009” to check things out. (I summarize my sources in a separate blog posting). Here is what I found:

There are 236,883 tax filers with incomes of a million dollars or more. By Harry Reid’s count, only one percent, or 2,361 of them, are business owners, and a tiny fraction of them create jobs. I do not know what Harry means when he says “a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction.” If we let 5 percent represent Harry’s “tiny fraction,” we are left with 118 businesses owners who earn a million or more and create jobs. Yes, they are only slightly less rare than unicorns, if Harry is to be believed.

This leaves 236,765 million-dollar-plus tax payers, most of whom are “hedge fund managers and wealthy lawyers” who “don’t create jobs and don’t need tax breaks.”

My Google search for Harry Reid’s quarter million hedge fund managers and wealthy lawyers came up empty handed. I could identify at most sixteen thousand “wealthy lawyers and hedge fund managers,” not Harry Reid’s quarter million.

Well, Harry Reid’s numbers leave much to be desired, but maybe he is right that millionaire business owners do not create jobs.

What does the IRS have to say about this? Millionaire tax filers earn a total taxable income of $623 billion, on which they pay the highest average rate (30 percent) of any tax bracket. (Either Warren Buffet’s secretary has an incompetent tax accountant or Buffet has some pretty juicy tax breaks. I think the latter is more likely). A 1.9 percent tax surcharge on million-dollar-earners would yield $11 billion, assuming those shifty millionaires take no evasive action to avoid the tax.

Millionaire tax filers earn $221 billion – almost a quarter of a trillion — from business and professions, partnerships, and S-corporations. This is puzzling: If Harry Reid’s figure is correct (2,361 millionaire businesses), then the average millionaire-owned business earns almost a hundred million dollars, and all, except 118 of them, do this without hiring anyone. These super heroes do their own typing, selling, drafting. public relations, building, and manufacturing. They do not need employees. Remarkable!

To summarize:

Millionaire tax filers earn almost a quarter trillion dollars from their businesses. They must hire hundreds of thousands of employees to do so.

There are a trivial number of millionaire hedge-fund managers and wealthy lawyers (who, according to Harry, do not hire anyone and don’t need tax breaks). The millionaire tax surcharge is not aimed at them, but at the tens of thousands of millionaire business owners.

A 1.9 percent surcharge on millionaires would raise at most eleven billion dollars. By today’s standards, this is chump change, within the federal budget’s rounding error.

The millionaire’s tax is not about balancing the budget. It is about gaining political advantage through the use of envy and greed (two of the seven deadly sins).

Why would Harry Reid tell such whoppers, which are so easily disproved?

Ryan Streeter has hit the nail on the head. He writes that even bearded Occupy Wall Street misfits understand the difference between “earned” and “unearned” success. Those who earn success by creating value honestly are the true heroes in our economy. They should be lauded rather than targeted. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are heroes. Bernie Madoff and, now it seems, John Corzine are not, and everyone, irrespective of their political leanings, understands this.

Reid, in his clumsy way, is trying to portray Republicans as the party of dishonest millionaires, who have not earned their wealth, have not created jobs, detract rather than create value, and refuse to pay their fair share. Such class warfare will be the anchor of the Democrat election playbook.

democrats