Why bother? The Media Cartel

"The ultimatum follows Trump’s announcement last week that the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate change accord and his refusal to specifically pledge allegiance to European defense at a NATO summit last month."



Trump has never said the US would not defend Europe.  Never.  Ever.  Ever.

Obama did however - he stopped a missile defense shield to Poland, thus leaving it open to Russia ... and he did that as a capitulation to Russia.

Obama did do that ... multiple times to Eastern European allies, leaving them to their own devices, to find their own defense systems.

Obama did that many times.  He said one thing and did another and NEVER once did the WP question him.  Anne should pay more attention.

But when Trump tells the European allies they need to pay their legitimate and legally obligated portion as defined by the very treaty he isn't obliging, then he is apparently not pledging allegiance to the Euro cause.

We have defended Europe, even when Europe didn't want our protection - we liberated them -- we did so despite cost and the lives lost.  We will always do so, but they MUST pay their fair share.

We have always paid more than our share.  Always.
 

This is all a bit much ... Trump, the Swamp, and the domestic enemies of everyone ...

More than 5 months ago, I stated that if Trump screwed up, people would abandon him like rats from a sinking ship.  I thought it would be easier keeping track of his administration given a brand new start.

It wasn't.  It isn't.

So, I don't believe I can keep up with this tireless tirade of tyrannical leftists ... Trump is a bozo and I cringe when I hear or see him, but they are despicable.

The whole Russian thing - nothing.  There is nothing there.  What they have is ... the democratic party was hacked by Russians who released their emails, along with Hillarys emails.  So say the Democrats and Hillary.  But, Wikileaks says it wasn't, and Assange is quite certain.  As certain as he was when he went after Bush and the left rejoiced at his every release.  They salivated waiting his next release.  Today, not so much.  It wasn't the Russians.  Any high school hacker could access the emails.

Instead you blow it up.  The Russians did it and the fact Trump won't answer means they did, and they are still in control and when he denies it, it means they are controlling him.

And then Kushner did X, and that only proves the ties are deeper than previously known.  And because of that it proves the Russian connections, and that Russia did influence the election.

Yet, IT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING.  It is just mindless drivel spit out at a public either salivating with desire to know more dirt, or people sickened by the shit coming from the NYT and WP.


Another Washington Post anonymously sourced hit job dropped on the Trump White House — this one about Jared Kushner asking the Russian ambassador for a “secret channel.”

The story about Kushner is basic Poli Sci 101 - back channels are always set up (even with Obama), with countries you have so-so relationships with.  We have a back-channel with Iran, but the WP doesn't go on about that.  We use Switzerland.   We have a back-channel to North Korea - we use China.  I would also bet we have low level back channel, through individuals who met and know the North Korean leader.  There are multiple levels to back-channel relationships done for any number of reasons.  We had them in place during the Cold War - Armand Hammer was used by the Nixon and Carter administrations.  Democrats know this.  And legitimate and objective reporters know this.


Mindless drivel by petulant children and you wonder why Trump disregards you.  You are not worth paying attention to.  Honestly.



The below is taken from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/05/28/thanks-to-trump-germany-says-it-cant-rely-on-america-what-does-that-mean/?utm_term=.eae377d6d51c

Agence France-Presse reported Sunday that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has told a crowd in southern Germany that Europe can no longer rely on foreign partners.

The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I’ve experienced that in the last few days,” Merkel told a crowd at an election rally in Munich. “We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands,” she added. While Germany and Europe would strive to remain on good terms with America and Britain, “we have to fight for our own destiny.”

This is an enormous change in political rhetoric. While the public is more familiar with the “special relationship” between Britain and the United States, the German-U.S. relationship has arguably been more important. One of the key purposes of NATO was to embed Germany in an international framework that would prevent it from becoming a threat to European peace as it had been in World War I and World War II. In the words of NATO’s first secretary general, NATO was supposed “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” Now, Merkel is suggesting that the Americans aren’t really in, and, by extension, Germany and Europe are likely to take on a much more substantial and independent role than they have in the past 70 years.
This is thanks to Trump
Merkel’s comment about what she has experienced in the past few days is a clear reference to President Trump’s disastrous European tour. Her belief that the United States is no longer a reliable partner is a direct result of Trump’s words and actions. The keystone of NATO is Article 5, which has typically been read as a commitment that in the event that one member of the alliance is attacked, all other members will come to its aid. When Trump visited NATO, he dedicated a plaque to the one time that Article 5 has been invoked — when all members of NATO promised to come to the United States’ support after the attack on Sept. 11, 2001. However, Trump did not express his commitment to Article 5 in his speech to NATO, instead lambasting other NATO members for not spending enough money on their militaries. When Trump went on to the Group of Seven meeting in Italy, he declined to recommit to the Paris agreement on climate change, leaving the other six nations to issue a separate statement.
This cements the impression of the United States as an unreliable partner. Trump has ostentatiously refused to express his commitment to an agreement that has been the bulwark of Europe-U.S. security relations over the past three generations. He also has declined to say that the United States will work within the previously agreed framework on global warming. While many authoritarian states are cheered by Trump’s election and actions, since he is unlikely to press them on human rights and other sore points, traditional U.S. allies are enormously disheartened.

Yet another bit of witless wonder from the WP -

But some former administration officials on Sunday criticized the use of such secret channels, especially during a presidential transition, saying they could send a confusing message and be manipulated by a foreign power.

I really need to go back to UCLA and request a refund from the courses taken in poli sci, because apparently people like Dukakis and Dallek, and other professors I took classes from were wrong compared with these 'experts'!




 BULLSHIT.

Facts?  Or just OPINION mixed with a few details that have no bearing on anything written above.

Henry Farrell is a poor example of a writer.  You should do creative writing, because that is what your article is.  Creative writing.  A poor example of, but still, far from serious news reporting.

This is an example of what has been tossed at Trump for the last 5 months.  Shit.  And his inability to restrain his fingers from tap tap tapping away, only makes it worse, and they play on it.  Sad stupid people.

I do recall a statement from Der Spiegel - in which Merkle stated that she did not TRUST Obama, and he was not trustworthy.  Poland didn't think we were either, they set up relationships because Obama didn't show respect for the security of Poland.  Ukraine - they were left on their own, and felt we had abandoned them - Hillary and Obama.  Latvia - they needed to create alliances because NATO made it clear they would not help.  Estonia same thing.  South Korea - as the US pulled troops out of Korea, we made it clear we could not be counted on to protect them from N Korea.  In fact, if you are that animated about all this - look into 1993-1998, Clinton White House and North Korea, as to who provided North Korea with what today is the basis of their most worrisome weapon system.

Given all that - and the fact that on DAY ONE, HOUR ONE, Obama called not the Canadian Prime Minister, nor the British ... he called Abbas in West Bank.  Abbas was also his last call.  THAT showed how the US would treat our ally Israel.  That showed how valuable we prized the relationship with Canada.  And then, Obama making it clear in his words, that our relationship with England was important and valuable ... but he did not use the words special.  He signaled a change.

The former French President Sarkozy turned away from the US, The English were not engaged.  The Australians were dictated to - Obama forced them to accept terrorists from Guantanamo Bay.  They did not want nor ask for them, but he made them take them, thus placing Australians at greater risk.

The French, Estonians, English, Latvians, Ukrainians, Polish, Hungarian, South Korean, Canadian, Israeli ... and Germans ... all saw the writing on the wall.  He worked with them, but they knew they had to build their own alliances because the US wasn't willing to continue our defensive efforts to protect those countries.  We would go so far, but not beyond.

THAT is a bloody disgrace.

Trump comes along and says - Euros, pay what the NATO Charter says you will pay.  We will always be here for you, but you need to be responsible and keep up your end of the treaty.  We will do our part.

And for that the WP says "This cements the impression of the United States as an unreliable partner"  Ha ha ha ha.  To whom.  Your readers.  You are a joke.  The writer of this trash is a disgrace.  You are pathetic - both as  a newspaper and the writer who most likely thinks of himself as a journalist.  Ha Ha.

It is too much though.  It is everyday, every article.  They never tire.  They have no conscience.


Do you want something to investigate besides North Korea and Bill Clinton?
Look at how much money Hillary and Bill received from Russian sources (government, or NGOs or personal parties who are Russian).
Look into how much money John Podesta made from Russian stocks and or received from Russian sources.

That is something real!

That is worth noting given her billion dollar funding source she calls a non-profit ... which was originally set up for ??? what reason???  And of the total $1 received in donation, how much was spent and where????

That is something real!

The LEFT is melting down! Just like a nuclear reactor.

It was the latest example of Haley, a former South Carolina governor with no prior foreign policy experience, acting as a tough-talking bellwether of President Trump’s foreign policy. 


 Samantha Power, the woman who called Hillary 'a monster' was the 28th Ambassador to the UN, under Obama.  One of her best writings, in my opinion, was 'A Problem from Hell' which I recommend to everyone.  She was a journalist, and then served on a Human Rights program at Harvard where she was a professor.  This far in our story, her total experience in foreign policy is living in Ireland and as a journalist.  She is probably par for Obama, given his abject lack of experience.  She went to work for Obama, then quit after her comment about Hillary, and then got back on and became a senior foreign policy expert, among the experts Obama had in the White House that served the US so well.  She said Obama would always "call a spade a spade, and speak the truth about it" when it came to genocide (reference to Armenian) - and that went well, I believe we have made it clear the US believes it was genocide, yes?

Prior to Power was Rice.  A woman who clearly was prepared for foreign policy matters -  I won't bother relating the resume but will link to wikipedia.  The point is, she began having no experience - she did research in graduate school on Zimbabwe and the UK peacekeeping.  THAT got her into Dukakis' campaign where she had no experience and that transitioned into a job with Clinton, again, that position was based upon Zimbabwe and whatever peacekeeping the UK did.  Then she went to "(NSC) from 1993 to 1997; as director for international organizations and peacekeeping from 1993 to 1995; and as special assistant to the president and senior director for African affairs from 1995 to 1997."  Again, by 97 I am sure she was more aware internationally but she is clearly an example of someone who began with no international experience and she just ... plopped into each position through luck.  And then during the Rwandan genocide, she was as active as a comatose patient - like the rest of the most experienced staff at State and the WH.

Now, she has no experience on the level Rice or Power did when they finally landed the job, but we saw how much of a mess their experience brought us - from N Africa to Rwanda to Syria and Iran ... chaos, death, destruction, and a significant lack of respect for the US in the world.

She also made a fool of herself and the office she held - she appeared on several Sunday news shows to defend the adminstration's later debunked claim that the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Libya was triggered by an Internet video.

Rice also told ABC News in 2014 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl "served the United States with honor and distinction" and that he "wasn't simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield."

Bergdahl is currently facing court-martial on charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for allegedly walking off his post in Afghanistan.

I think I will take someone with character and little experience to the 'experience' of Obama and his entourage.

Having values and character makes any job much easier.  Let Haley have a go.  And stop talking-down, condescending, speaking so poorly of her ... it is an ongoing effort to disparage everyone associated with Trump and this administration, no matter the cost, or how much of your soul you have to give up to attack the people with innuendo and lies.








  

Snoop Dog ... Retarded Mother F*#ker

From the following link, is a story about the video made showing Snoop Dog shooting a Trump clown ...

Snoop Dogg recently jumped on a rework of BADBADNOTGOOD and Kaytranada’s IV single “Lavender.” Snoop stars alongside a cast of clowns (including one played by Michael Rapaport) in the track’s new video, directed by Jesse Wellens and James DeFina. Watch it below. Of the clip, in which a Donald Trump parody reigns supreme—at one point announcing the deportation of all dogs—Snoop told Billboard, “Nobody’s dealing with the real issue with this f--king clown as president, and the shit that we dealing with out here, so I wanted to take time out to push pause on a party record and make one of these records for the time being.” In a climactic scene, Snoop pulls a gun on the Trump clown in a parking lot; later, a chain-bound Trump tries in vain to join Snoop and his accomplice in smoking a blunt. Read Snoop’s elaboration on the song and video concept below, via Billboard.

The ban that this motherf--ker tried to put up; him winning the presidency; police being able to kill motherf--kers and get away with it; people being in jail for weed for 20, 30 years and motherf--kers that’s not black on the streets making money off of it -- but if you got color or ethnicity connected to your name, you’ve been wrongfully accused or locked up for it, and then you watching people not of color position themselves to get millions and billions off of it. It’s a lot of clown sh-t going on that we could just sit and talk on the phone all day about, but it’s a few issues that we really wanted to lock into [for the video] like police, the president and just life in general.

So Snoop explained the video above in 8 lines.  Trump apparently is to blame for everything Snoop doesn't like, that has occurred for decades, and shooting a Trump clown just made sense.  Really.

Snoop - NOTHING in your 8 lines of explanation made ANY sense.  NONE.  I understand individual components of the 8 lines, but retard ... you need to stop saying much because it was total gibberish.

Why didn't you shoot an Obama clown ... he presided over the same mess and left the mess as bad.

Fake News and Voter Sppression

Tim Berners-Lee calls for tighter regulation of online political advertising

March 11, 2017, The Guardian -

"This can become unethical when voters are pointed to fake news sites and using messaging to discourage people from turning out to vote, as the Trump campaign did with certain groups whose support Hillary Clinton needed to win."


The link from the above leads to the article below, which includes ...



To compensate for this, Trump’s campaign has devised another strategy, which, not surprisingly, is negative. Instead of expanding the electorate, Bannon and his team are trying to shrink it. “We have three major voter suppression operations under way,” says a senior official. They’re aimed at three groups Clinton needs to win overwhelmingly: idealistic white liberals, young women, and African Americans. Trump’s invocation at the debate of Clinton’s WikiLeaks e-mails and support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership was designed to turn off Sanders supporters. The parade of women who say they were sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton and harassed or threatened by Hillary is meant to undermine her appeal to young women. And her 1996 suggestion that some African American males are “super predators” is the basis of a below-the-radar effort to discourage infrequent black voters from showing up at the polls—particularly in Florida.


And Sir Berners-Lee would have us believe the effort to persuade voters to NOT support Hillary was messaging to discourage voter participation ....

No, to point out why you should not support her ... and not voting for HER is participating if you will not vote for Trump.

There is nothing untoward about this practice.  Obama did it.  Hillary did it.  Bush did it.  Gore did it.  ... THEY ALL do it.  And have done it.

Liar Liar: Fake News

NBC story -

"Once he assumed the highest office in the land, his first order of business was to close our borders to immigrants and refugees, particularly those from Muslim-majority countries," Langevin, said in a statement. "Diversity makes our nation stronger, and I believe it should be celebrated."


NBC is covering FAKE NEWS, and Democrat Langevin is a LIAR

Trump DID NOT close our border to immigrants and refugees.

Nor did he pick on particularly Muslim-majority countries.  Saudi Arabia wasn't on the list.  Neither was Afghanistan and the last time I checked they were pretty high up.  Indonesia - nope.  Not on the list.  Lies.

Immigrants are coming from Canada, Britain, South Africa, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Honduras .... clearly the door was NOT shut on all immigrants.

Lies.

And then the lies are covered by NBC and printed on their webpage and further spread ...

Liars covering lies.  Fake News.

 

More on Trump and the Lies

STUFF:  I have a life - both personal and professional - a career, and issues - I have all the same issues everyone has - car, leaks in garage and patio from all the rain, things to be repaired (a Samsung TV), stuff to grade, going to work, driving to and from and back again and work at home, kids, cat ... a life that cannot wait for protesting and whining, so I choose the grown-up path.

Almost everything said about Trump is a lie, or highly exaggerated.  Every time I read something I want to post, but can't due to the above listed STUFF.

I don't have the luxury of being a special snowflake and crying or feeling sad or scared.  I have responsibilities and they don't take time off for snowflake updates.

However, I am going to try, but there is sooooo much.  It will take time.  Almost EVERY article, column or news story is full of ... well, if not outright lies, then partial truths mixed with mischaracterized statements about generalizations of statements someone else attributed to Trump or simply vast simplification that is little more than slander or libel.

But I will try.

Over the top!

What to say/write about Trump.  I don't know.  I am very disappointed he was the choice and became president, BUT I prefer him over the alternative.  Just to make clear I would never have chosen him, do not like him, do not believe he is the best possible ... but he is leagues above the alternative.

So he has invoked God a dozen times in last few days and in last 18 months hasn't invoked Him that many ... so what?  Obama didn't put his hand over his heart when he was campaigning whenever pledge was said nor during national anthem ... and he didn't want a flag pin.  That took some work on someones part to get him to use it.  His church attendance was probably as good as Trumps.  Don't whine about Trump and God ... not when you never ever gave a sigh let alone critique of Obama.

Oh but Obama didn't invoke God all the time ... which is exactly why you are offended.  Not that Obama never attended church, but that Trump invokes God.  Pretty clear actually, to anyone who tries to be objective.

So ... Trump has said things (I do not disagree he has said them), but given the generalizations of him that are categorically false, I have to take a position and say - what Trump said, has almost entirely been taken out of context, but what his detractors have said about him, are pretty obvious - lies.

Liars all.  And you all believe it.  That's the saddest part.  And you create a cause out of lies.  And lots of women join that cause - one built on lies and hate.

The biggest revelation of the last few weeks is just how unqualified so many people are to do very much.

You think Trump is a threat to democracy ... just watch the protestors.  Mindless twats who would sign up for a fascist as long as that fascist was in the Democratic party and or supported a women's right to have an abortion.

We are closer to a dictatorship than you are aware, but it comes from those protesting Trump, not those who support him.

Take some time and think on it.  Maybe a day, maybe it will take your brain forever to figure it out.

Predatory Russians UPDATED

The Witch hunt is alive and well in the US.  And Democrats with witless Republicans are chasing after the perpetual enemy of all that is holy - Russia.  Well, at least part of that is true.

And Democrats have to demonize the Russians.  They MUST.  In an ongoing effort to de-legitimize Trump's election, and diminish the reconciliation Trump will manage with Putin (look at how bad the Russians are, how can he be friends with them, they haven't even apologized for x,y,z).

After reading several columns / JV writing bits in the Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, and Seattle Intelligencer ... I thought we were dealing with an arch-enemy after finishing the last paper.  Diabolical and evil.  The Soviet Union reincarnate.  I was fearful and wanted to hide under my table.  Afraid to look outside that a Russian spy might be lurking at Elliott Bay or under the Needle.

I reminded myself I too had been hacked by the Russian government.  I had a malware installed on my computer and after consulting with a very reliable tech consultant in Colorado, I was informed it was Russian malware and the Russian hackers wanted bitcoins before they gave the code to decrypt the files.  Those damned Russians.  Always hacking computers.  How did they know I was the Green Hornet!

And Kennedy, look what they did to President Kennedy - they murdered him.  Oswald was Russian, his wife was Russian - the Russian government was involved.  Killing our presidents and hacking our elections and electrical grids.  We need to nuke them quick.


Then I climbed out from under the table, stood up, shook off the fear and reminded myself liberal retards had written that rubbish.  Bad people can be Russian, English, French, Egyptian, Saudi, Yemeni, Afghan ... and if you are a bad person, why not head to Nigeria.  Every email scam is Nigerian, and Nigerians buy computers and some of them come from Russia, therefore the Russians are behind every computer scam.

THAT is the level of intelligence being passed off today in the media and by our government.

Retards.

Is Putin innocent of all crimes and misdemeanors?  Nope.  probably should be indicted for something (including ordering assassinations), but not for hacking the electrical system nor the voting system (you want a nearly 100% means of ensuring it won't be hacked - I should get paid for this - STOP with internet or digital, return to days of paper.  It may take a couple days, but the level of corruption will be no higher than the 1960 election.).

Russian policing of their internet is primitive.  The bad guys in Russia are better than the police and if you want to be a bad guy, go to Russia, or not wanting the hassle, route your actions through Russian servers.

What could these 'bad agents' want?  Easy peasey.  MONEY.  Even a Hillary supporter should be able to figure that out.

Find a weak link, sell it to Al Qaida or ISIS (the JV team and not the JV writers at the major media outposts) ... to use against the US.  Could they be Russian citizens?  Possible, but also possible they aren't.


However, in the US, fear feeds fear, especially if you are a fear-monger - AKA Democrats.

From Bloomberg -

BURLINGTON, Vt. –  Malware code linked to Russian hackers and found on a Vermont electric utility's computer is further evidence of "predatory" steps taken by that country against the U.S., a Vermont Democratic congressman said Saturday.

(so maybe we need 1000 more nukes to help)

 The Burlington Electric Department confirmed Friday it had found on one of its laptops the malware code used in Grizzly Steppe, the name Homeland Security has applied to a Russian campaign linked to recent hacks. The company said U.S. utilities were alerted by the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday of the code.

"This attack shows how rampant Russian hacking is. It's systemic, relentless, predatory," Rep. Peter Welch said in a statement. "They will hack everywhere, even Vermont, in pursuit of opportunities to disrupt our country."

(Welch should be retired.  He is a twit, twat, and a fear-monger)

 Welch said the breach also underscores that sanctions President Barack Obama took against Russia this week were warranted. Russia, which has denied hacking U.S. systems, has been accused of interference in the U.S. presidential election by hacking American political sites and email accounts.
Sen. Patrick Leahy said the latest discovery of the malware "goes beyond hackers having electronic joy rides." It is the latest example that state-sponsored Russian hacking is a serious threat, the Vermont Democrat said in a statement Friday.

 (AS I stated above, THEY MUST argue this to discredit Trump, diminish any effort at reconciliation, and carve out a whacking stone they can take a swat at whenever they are feeling hurt)
 
The Washington Post first reported on the Vermont utility's discovery of the malware. Burlington Electric, which is municipally owned, confirmed in an emailed statement to The Associated Press that it detected the malware in a laptop not connected to its grid systems. It said it took "immediate action to isolate the laptop and alerted federal officials."

....

(and a governor who deserves to be retired also, another fear-monger who knows less about less)

"Vermonters and all Americans should be both alarmed and outraged that one of the world's leading thugs, (Russian President) Vladimir Putin, has been attempting to hack our electric grid, which we rely upon to support our quality-of-life, economy, health, and safety," the governor (Peter Shumlin)  said in a statement.

 NOW, the coup de grâs ... "it detected the malware in a laptop not connected to its grid systems."
[emphasis is mine]

Hmmm.  Someone took the laptop home, used it at home, downloaded emails or visited webpages they shouldn't have, received a virus, went to work, plugged it in, and the virus checker found the malware.

It was not connected to the grid, had not been, and the virus it received was separate from and unrelated to the grid or the electric company.  But, when you're a Democrat, you don't need to tell the truth - use it to your advantage and the witless Republicans fall all over themselves like seizure victims.

And these people are the leaders.

Oh dear Lord.  Protect us from the witless and hapless many, who do more to harm the United States than all our foreign enemies combined.



UPDATED:
The Washington Post, without apologizing or calling to task the morons who made ridiculous comments did run a new story about this issue -

"An employee at Burlington Electric Department was checking his Yahoo email account Friday and triggered an alert indicating that his computer had connected to a suspicious IP address associated by authorities with the Russian hacking operation that infiltrated the Democratic Party. "


 But they are sticking with the Russians infiltrating the DNC ... media quoting Democrats quoting other Democrats who quote the media who hear it from one source ...

You are worse than the National Enquirer.  They are respectable. 

I believe ... I believe ...

I believe in love, love, love, love, love!
When you can't see the forest for the trees,
follow the colors of your dreams
just turn to friends their help transcends to love, love, love, love, love

The winter's finally passing on,
the king is back, the queen is gone,
come dance with me cause now we're free to love, love, love, love, love.

(from the movie - Mirror Mirror)

I believe ...

One can believe in LOVE or HATE or one may even believe in leprechauns, but one doesn't believe in science.  Science is not a belief nor is it within the realm of beliefs.  It is.  Simply. Factually.  Without question, science, is.

Hillary Clinton made a big deal, as did her followers, at the Democratic National Convention, that she believed in science.  Patronizing and not true.




The source for the material below is from this link.

What are the facts in the climate science debate?

• Average global surface temperatures have overall increased for the past 100+ years
• Carbon dioxide has an infrared emission spectra
• Humans have been adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

That is pretty much it, in terms of verifiable, generally agreed upon scientific facts surrounding the major elements of climate change debate.

Human caused global warming is a theory. The assertion that human caused global warming is dangerous is an hypothesis.  The assertion that nearly all or most of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans is disputed by many scientists, in spite of the highly confident consensus statement by the IPCC. The issue of ‘dangerous’ climate change is wrapped up in values, and science has next to nothing to say about this.

Truthiness and factiness abounds in the climate science debate, and the greatest proponents of truthiness and factiness are the climate ‘alarmed’ – their opponents are mostly calling b.s. on their truthiness and factiness.  In slinging around terms like denier, anti-science etc, the defense of climate alarmism in terms of ‘science’ and ‘facts’ starts to become more anti-science than what they are accusing their opponents of.

From the Rational Wiki:

The term “antiscience” refers to persons or organizations that promote their ideology over scientifically-verified evidence, usually either by denying said evidence and/or creating their own. Antiscience positions are promoted especially when political ideology and/or religious dogma conflict with actual science. 

The most glaring ‘factiness’ and anti-science strategy is the linking of extreme weather events to human caused climate change.  Roger Pielke Jr has an eloquent op-ed in the WSJ (unfortunately behind paywall, which I will have more to say about in another post next week).

So . . . who fits the definition of ‘anti-science’?  Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?  Ignoring science (Trump) does not qualify him for ‘anti-science’.  Science does not prescribe public policy.  The political dogma of Obama, Clinton and Pope Francis surrounding climate change seems like more of a recipe for ‘anti-science.’


SO .... to repeat (emphasis is mine) -

"who fits the definition of ‘anti-science’?  Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?  Ignoring science (Trump) does not qualify him for ‘anti-science’.  Science does not prescribe public policy.  The political dogma of Obama, Clinton and Pope Francis surrounding climate change seems like more of a recipe for ‘anti-science.’"


And I would go one step further, and 'defend' or 'explain' Trump, not that he needs it ... he is the President of the United States -

He doesn't ignore science, he simply questions whether humans have much/any impact on climate change. And how much if any.

That is not anti science.  That is not someone who disagrees with science or the facts, he questions how much if any impact humans have.  That would be reasonable to ask.  

Hillary Lost: Reason 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003 ...

The Russians hacked the election (which might suggest to a reasonable person we should stop with electronic/digital voting and go back to, entirely, paper ballots) and wanted Trump to win (despite statements of Trump voters that they watched as, before their eyes the Trump vote became a Hillary vote).

Comey did it.  The FBI Director caused the election to be won by Trump.

Within a day of the election, the Hillary campaign made it clear why she lost the election:

uneducated white men!

Shortly after, perhaps 96 hours or so, came excuse number 2:

educated women!  self hating women!


And the reasons just rolled on in ...

The most recent, by Robby Mook at Harvard -

- millenials didn't vote!



Why not admit what everyone knows!  Everyone voted against her.  38% of Hispanics voted FOR Trump.  Women.  Men.  Millenials, African Americans, James Comey, and the Russians ...


She lost because SHE was the reason!

Her campaign argued (not the DNC - they know she was the problem) she actually won.  Nooooo


Silly bunnies, she didn't win.  Votes for her came from people like Bush ... people who said they would not vote for Trump.  Not because she was the better person, but because they voted against him.

By the way, NO ONE, NO AGENCY OF THE US GOVERNMENT HAS DEFINITIVELY STATED THE RUSSIANS hacked anything.  More lies and fake news spread by ... oh my gosh ... Democrats.

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

Hillary Emails #13,587

I suppose accusing Trump of some sort of connection to Russia and having the media chase that around, is ok.

Asking Hillary why she sent her daughter classified material via unsecured server - not ok.

Asking Hillary why she deleted the email to her daughter, a person who did not need to know, possessed no security clearance, containing classified material via an unsecured email server sent to an unsecured email server is also not ok.

Asking Trump about connections that don't exist versus asking Podesta about stocks in Russian companies, under his daughters name (she is at college) - is also not ok.

Asking Bill and Hillary about payments for speeches and or donations to the foundation from Russians, or from Russian companies is also not ok.

She should be indicted on the email to her daughter alone.  That should exclude her from ever having access to top secret material.  What a disgrace.

Her husband was being blackmailed by foreign governments who gained access to communications between he and females ... and he was willing to pay!

The family is a disgrace.  A crime syndicate.

Versus Trump - an egotistical asshole.

Insightful: Hillary Should Quit!

The best thing would be for Democrats to ask her to step down now. It would be the most responsible thing to do, if the nation were more important to them than power. And the American news media — fairly or not firmly identified in the public mind as Mrs. Clinton's political action committee — should begin demanding it.


They won't.  She won't.

Power.  It's all about power.



The writer of the above words, John Kass, has written a well-reasoned article.

Note to Republican and Democratic Party

Why?

You selected a woman the vast majority of your own party do not want.  A woman who is deeply disturbed.  Her health is at best ... not good.  She will probably not finish 4 years because she simply cannot.  Her financial mess makes the Keating scandal look like a few cents were missing, Michael Milken misplaced a few dollars and Goldman Sachs issues seem like it involves change.

She has a husband who may well be a sexual predator.  He is mysogynistic at the very least and has assaulted multitudes of women, carrying on affairs with countless others, including quite possibly, under age girls (Jeffrey Epstein's private island, Prince Andrew et al).  She has allowed it.  Enabling a sexual predator is a crime, and she knew full well all about his extra curricular activities.  How else does he explain flights on Epstein's private plane darting off to a private island?

You can dress Hillary up but it doesn't change the fact she has lied to the American people on numerous occasions, lied to Congress, lied to everyone ... and you, the Democratic party know this full-well.  She has accepted donations from countries who butcher homosexuals, beat women, enslave women, traffic in human beings, and have no regard for free speech - yet your party attacks the Republicans for supporting Trump.

You have chosen someone who will very nearly be, as old or older than Ronald Reagan and you remember your attacks on Reagan for being too old.  Do you recall?  You should.  She is medically infirm.  Emails released by Wikileaks reveals a lot of evidence of her inability to stay on her feet very long.  I suppose she can be pushed around in a wheelchair.

The security who have protected her, secret service agents, and others have revealed just how much contempt she has for the military and intelligence agencies.  She lied about the classified emails, and we know she knew ... she was in the White House for 8 years.  She attended many meetings and those meetings had classified documents which she was made aware of, during attendance of same.  She is a liar, a horrible and pathological liar, and is unfit to serve in any government position.  She should not be privy to secret documents, nor should she ever be given top secret briefings.  Let her read the NY Times.  In fact, Kaine shouldn't either.  Why does your party select a VP candidate who worked with and aided a communist government.  A vice-presidential candidate who accepts liberation theology.  And you dared whine about Palin and her comments, which were true about Russia being visible from Alaska.  I feel very sad you are so pathetic a group, to have come so far from the time of Carter or even Kennedy.  And despite Kennedy's atrocious personal behavior, he believed in the United States.  The same cannot be said for Kaine and Clinton.

How do you sleep?

And Republicans, you allowed Trump to be in the position he now holds.  You are responsible.  You have allowed this to happen -  by making deals with Democrats, siding with ideologies anathema to your values, and by allowing millions of [Muslims or whomever] into this country is not an American value.  I would explain it to you but it would not be worth the time.  I'm sorry you have bought into the Democrats lies.  That is why the people of the party have deserted you and embraced an obnoxious and crass asshole.  You have created this monster and you have brought the Republican party to the brink of destruction.  He is a by product of your lack of conservative values.  He is a product of the distrust people now have for you.

And why do they distrust you?  Ever wonder?  Making deals that diminish American jobs and world respect.  Supporting policies in order that the administration throw you some crumbs.  Tolerating crumbs.  Tolerating the one-sided policies toward the United States.  Watching as a president uses force in more countries around the world than the previous two Republican presidents combined.  Allowing the use of executive orders/presidential findings, without taking the issue to the American people.  You become complicit in all that crap and why should they trust you.  Running candidates that are deeply flawed (yes, I know, Hillary was ...) - buying into the guilt complex Democrats throw at you. 

You should have had 3 of the Republicans drop out on day 1.  Yes, made them do so.  Had a tête à tête and sided with 1 and made it clear to the others everyone had to, or ... some consequence would befall them.  Then use everything on Hillary and dump it.  Attack her time in the White House - the amazing box of files on the sofa, the lies, the obfuscation, the filegate, travelgate ... then go after her financial and who has given to her ... every name.  Then go after the people around her and where their money was invested or received from.  Go after her time as Secretary of State ... each and every awful moment.  Go after everything ... but you did hodgepodge .... and it failed.  You didn't and now we find ourselves with Hillary Clinton on the verge of taking the White House ... a woman who has held congress in contempt, ignored laws and taken hundreds of millions from people and countries .... she is so tainted I cannot believe she is allowed to remain.  You all disgust me.

Where to go?  I wish there was somewhere.

None of you are worth it.

F@#$ you all.  FX$%# you all for ruining this country, for sending our country on a spiraling downward trajectory from which we cannot ever recover.  F@&%# you all for doing away with our sovereignty and independence.  F%@& you all. 

Obama and his memory

In March of 2015, Mr. Obama ...

only learned of Hillary Clinton's private email address use for official State Department business after a New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview.
CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when he learned about her private email system after his Saturday appearance in Selma, Alabama.  "The same time everybody else learned it through news reports," the president told Plante.

 According to FBI documents released on Friday September 23, 2016, from a Politico column:

In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.
"Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report says. "Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."

 Are they serial liars yet, or just liars ... or is there another category for them ... unaware, uncertain, forgetful ... qualities we desperately need in a president.  Perhaps Obama and Clinton both forgot they had communicated ...

Deplorable

Hillary

Over 40% of the country supports Trump, at least.  That would be, if everyone is counted including children = 120 million people.  And 50% of that many is 60 million people.

Or another way, about 40 million will vote for him.  20 million are deplorable.

I like that sincerity.  I like that 'inclusivity'.  I like her!

Deplorable is taking over 100 million from the Australians.  Over 30 million from Canadians, and close to 100 million from people who, may or may not have supported terrorists in attacking the US.

THAT is deplorable.

Deplorable is selling deals to foreign entities so that her husband can make a speech and walk away with nearly a mid six figure sum.  Deplorable

Deplorable is supporting, protecting, abetting, enabling a man who preyed on women for decades with her knowledge.

Deplorable is staying with that man after evidence surfaces of his multiple visits to Epstein's island paradise of young girls.

Deplorable and criminal.

Deplorable are those who will support her because of her husband, and ignore or 'look past' his treatment of women, because Trump is ever so much worse.  Deplorable is being unable to make judgments without political biases.

Deplorable.

Hillary as a ... deeply indebted, flawed, pathological liar, addicted to making money by selling anything to make the money. Says something.

[Emphasis mine]

Oh My Gosh - really. 

Oh but trump declared bankruptcy, oh but trump raised rent, oh but trump played with his numbers ... REALLY.  He may be an arrogant ass, but she is a pathological liar who would sell her grandchildren if she could gain the votes to win. 

What or horrible family and ... and ... the temerity of some who jumped over the Bush's ... OMG ... really.  NO POLITICAL FAMILY is equal to the Clintons.  None.  Not even the Kennedys.

You know the difference between families of money and those who just made a lot ...

Clintons are a perfect example of the crass ...

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State

August 23, 2016

WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton's help with a visa problem; and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm's corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.

The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.

The AP's findings represent the first systematic effort to calculate the scope of the intersecting interests of Clinton Foundation donors and people who met personally with Clinton or spoke to her by phone about their needs.

The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.

Clinton's campaign said the AP analysis was flawed because it did not include in its calculations meetings with foreign diplomats or U.S. government officials, and the meetings AP examined covered only the first half of Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.

"It is outrageous to misrepresent Secretary Clinton's basis for meeting with these individuals," spokesman Brian Fallon said. He called it "a distorted portrayal of how often she crossed paths with individuals connected to charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation."

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump fiercely criticized the links between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, saying his general election opponent had delivered "lie after lie after lie."

"Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to hold public office," he said at a rally Tuesday night in Austin, Texas. "It is impossible to figure out where the Clinton Foundation ends and the State Department begins. It is now abundantly clear that the Clintons set up a business to profit from public office."

Last week, the Clinton Foundation moved to head off ethics concerns about future donations by announcing changes planned if Clinton is elected.

On Monday, Bill Clinton said in a statement that if his wife were to win, he would step down from the foundation's board and stop all fundraising for it. The foundation would also accept donations only from U.S. citizens and what it described as independent philanthropies, while no longer taking gifts from foreign groups, U.S. companies or corporate charities. Clinton said the foundation would no longer hold annual meetings of its international aid program, the Clinton Global Initiative, and it would spin off its foreign-based programs to other charities.

Those planned changes would not affect more than 6,000 donors who have already provided the Clinton charity with more than $2 billion in funding since its creation in 2000.

"There's a lot of potential conflicts and a lot of potential problems," said Douglas White, an expert on nonprofits who previously directed Columbia University's graduate fundraising management program. "The point is, she can't just walk away from these 6,000 donors."

Former senior White House ethics officials said a Clinton administration would have to take careful steps to ensure that past foundation donors would not have the same access as she allowed at the State Department.

"If Secretary Clinton puts the right people in and she's tough about it and has the right procedures in place and sends a message consistent with a strong commitment to ethics, it can be done," said Norman L. Eisen, who was President Barack Obama's top ethics counsel and later worked for Clinton as ambassador to the Czech Republic.

Eisen, now a governance studies fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that at a minimum, Clinton should retain the Obama administration's current ethics commitments and oversight, which include lobbying restrictions and other rules. Richard Painter, a former ethics adviser to President George W. Bush and currently a University of Minnesota law school professor, said Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton should remove themselves completely from foundation leadership roles, but he added that potential conflicts would shadow any policy decision affecting past donors.

Fallon did not respond to the AP's questions about Clinton transition plans regarding ethics, but said in a statement the standard set by the Clinton Foundation's ethics restrictions was "unprecedented, even if it may never satisfy some critics."

State Department officials have said they are not aware of any agency actions influenced by the Clinton Foundation. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Tuesday night that there are no prohibitions against agency contacts with "political campaigns, nonprofits or foundations — including the Clinton Foundation." He added that "meeting requests, recommendations and proposals come to the department through a variety of channels, both formal and informal."

Some of Clinton's most influential visitors donated millions to the Clinton Foundation and to her and her husband's political coffers. They are among scores of Clinton visitors and phone contacts in her official calendar turned over by the State Department to AP last year and in more-detailed planning schedules that so far have covered about half her four-year tenure. The AP sought Clinton's calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records.

S. Daniel Abraham, whose name also was included in emails released by the State Department as part of another lawsuit, is a Clinton fundraising bundler who was listed in Clinton's planners for eight meetings with her at various times. A billionaire behind the Slim-Fast diet and founder of the Center for Middle East Peace, Abraham told the AP last year his talks with Clinton concerned Mideast issues.

Big Clinton Foundation donors with no history of political giving to the Clintons also met or talked by phone with Hillary Clinton and top aides, AP's review showed.

Muhammad Yunus, a Bangladeshi economist who won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for pioneering low-interest "microcredit" for poor business owners, met with Clinton three times and talked with her by phone during a period when Bangladeshi government authorities investigated his oversight of a nonprofit bank and ultimately pressured him to resign from the bank's board. Throughout the process, he pleaded for help in messages routed to Clinton, and she ordered aides to find ways to assist him.

American affiliates of his nonprofit Grameen Bank had been working with the Clinton Foundation's Clinton Global Initiative programs as early as 2005, pledging millions of dollars in microloans for the poor. Grameen America, the bank's nonprofit U.S. flagship, which Yunus chairs, has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation — a figure that bank spokeswoman Becky Asch said reflects the institution's annual fees to attend CGI meetings. Another Grameen arm chaired by Yunus, Grameen Research, has donated between $25,000 and $50,000.

As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton, as well as then-Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and two other senators in 2007 sponsored a bill to award a congressional gold medal to Yunus. He got one but not until 2010, a year after Obama awarded him a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Yunus first met with Clinton in Washington in April 2009. That was followed six months later by an announcement by USAID, the State Department's foreign aid arm, that it was partnering with the Grameen Foundation, a nonprofit charity run by Yunus, in a $162 million commitment to extend its microfinance concept abroad. USAID also began providing loans and grants to the Grameen Foundation, totaling $2.2 million over Clinton's tenure.

By September 2009, Yunus began complaining to Clinton's top aides about what he perceived as poor treatment by Bangladesh's government. His bank was accused of financial mismanagement of Norwegian government aid money — a charge that Norway later dismissed as baseless. But Yunus told Melanne Verveer, a long-time Clinton aide who was an ambassador-at-large for global women's issues, that Bangladesh officials refused to meet with him and asked the State Department for help in pressing his case.

"Please see if the issues of Grameen Bank can be raised in a friendly way," he asked Verveer. Yunus sent "regards to H" and cited an upcoming Clinton Global Initiative event he planned to attend.

Clinton ordered an aide: "Give to EAP rep," referring the problem to the agency's top east Asia expert.

Yunus continued writing to Verveer as pressure mounted on his bank. In December 2010, responding to a news report that Bangladesh's prime minister was urging an investigation of Grameen Bank, Clinton told Verveer that she wanted to discuss the matter with her East Asia expert "ASAP."

Clinton called Yunus in March 2011 after the Bangladesh government opened an inquiry into his oversight of Grameen Bank. Yunus had told Verveer by email that "the situation does not allow me to leave the country." By mid-May, the Bangladesh government had forced Yunus to step down from the bank's board. Yunus sent Clinton a copy of his resignation letter. In a separate note to Verveer, Clinton wrote: "Sad indeed."

Clinton met with Yunus a second time in Washington in August 2011 and again in the Bangladesh capital of Dhaka in May 2012. Clinton's arrival in Bangladesh came after Bangladesh authorities moved to seize control of Grameen Bank's effort to find new leaders. Speaking to a town hall audience, Clinton warned the Bangladesh government that "we do not want to see any action taken that would in any way undermine or interfere in the operations of the Grameen Bank."

Grameen America's Asch referred other questions about Yunus to his office, but he had not responded by Tuesday.

In another case, Clinton was host at a September 2009 breakfast meeting at the New York Stock Exchange that listed Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman as one of the attendees. Schwarzman's firm is a major Clinton Foundation donor, but he personally donates heavily to GOP candidates and causes. One day after the breakfast, according to Clinton emails, the State Department was working on a visa issue at Schwarzman's request. In December that same year, Schwarzman's wife, Christine, sat at Clinton's table during the Kennedy Center Honors. Clinton also introduced Schwarzman, then chairman of the Kennedy Center, before he spoke.

Blackstone donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Eight Blackstone executives also gave between $375,000 and $800,000 to the foundation. And Blackstone's charitable arm has pledged millions of dollars in commitments to three Clinton Global aid projects ranging from the U.S. to the Mideast. Blackstone officials did not make Schwarzman available for comment.

Clinton also met in June 2011 with Nancy Mahon of the MAC AIDS, the charitable arm of MAC Cosmetics, which is owned by Estee Lauder. The meeting occurred before an announcement about a State Department partnership to raise money to finance AIDS education and prevention. The public-private partnership was formed to fight gender-based violence in South Africa, the State Department said at the time.

The MAC AIDS fund donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In 2008, Mahon and the MAC AIDS fund made a three-year unspecified commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative. That same year, the fund partnered with two other organizations to beef up a USAID program in Malawi and Ghana. And in 2011, the fund was one of eight organizations to pledge a total of $2 million over a three-year period to help girls in southern Africa. The fund has not made a commitment to CGI since 2011.

Estee Lauder executive Fabrizio Freda also met with Clinton at the same Wall Street event attended by Schwarzman. Later that month, Freda was on a list of attendees for a meeting between Clinton and a U.S.-China trade group. Estee Lauder has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. The company made a commitment to CGI in 2013 with four other organizations to help survivors of sexual slavery in Cambodia.

MAC AIDS officials did not make Mahon available to AP for comment.

When Clinton appeared before the U.S. Senate in early 2009 for her confirmation hearing as secretary of state, then- Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, questioned her at length about the foundation and potential conflicts of interest. His concerns were focused on foreign government donations, mostly to CGI. Lugar wanted more transparency than was ultimately agreed upon between the foundation and Obama's transition team.

Now, Lugar hopes Hillary and Bill Clinton make a clean break from the foundation.

"The Clintons, as they approach the presidency, if they are successful, will have to work with their attorneys to make certain that rules of the road are drawn up to give confidence to them and the American public that there will not be favoritism," Lugar said.

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

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