The weapon against the ObamaCare scam is none other than the “architect” of ObamaCare and what he himself said about ObamaCare.
Repeatedly and without shame pro-ObamaCare con artists repeat the lie that there was no intent to provide ObamaCare subsidies only to individuals on ObamaCare exchanges established by the states. These pro-ObamaCare liars defraud the courts and the public by insisting ObamaCare subsides were intended to go to the federal exchanges too. Now the “architect” of ObamaCare, via the magic of video, has exploded another torpedo below the waterline of the sinking S.S. ObamaCare.
This week, an unprecedented circuit split emerged in Halbig v. Burwell and King v. Burwell over whether health insurance premium assistance is available in states that didn’t set up health insurance exchanges. Many commentators have since claimed that there’s no way Congress intended to deny premium assistance to residents of the 36 so-called “refusenik” states that have not set up their own health insurance exchanges.
But in January 2012, Jonathan Gruber—an MIT economics professor whom the The New York Times has called “Mr. Mandate” for his pivotal role in helping the Obama administration and Congress draft the Affordable Care Act—told an audience at Noblis that:
What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.
The Fourth Circuit judges who issued their convolution mess of an opinion must be hiding behind their toilets muttering epithets against Jonathan Gruber, who, because of his video, exposes them as idiots. Likewise the D.C. Circuit judges must be basking in the blessed glow of justice:
Earlier this week, a three-judge panel in the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that, contrary to the Obama administration’s implementation and an Internal Revenue Service rule, Obamacare’s subsidies for private health insurance were limited to state-run health exchanges.
The reasoning for this ruling was simple: That’s what the law says. The section dealing with the creation of state exchanges and the provision of subsidies states, quite clearly, that subsidies are only available in exchanges “established by a State,” which the law expressly
defines as the 50 states plus the District of Columbia.
Obamacare’s defenders have responded by saying that this is obviously ridiculous. It doesn’t make any sense in the larger context of the law, and what’s more, no one who supported the law or voted for it ever talked about this. It’s a theory concocted entirely by the law’s opponents, the health law’s backers argue, and never once mentioned by people who crafted or backed the law.
It’s not. One of the law’s architects—at the same time that he was a paid consultant to states deciding whether or not to build their own exchanges—was espousing exactly this interpretation as far back in early 2012, and long before the Halbig suit—the one that was decided this week against the administration—was filed. (A related suit, Pruitt v. Sebelius, had been filed earlier, but did not challenge tax credits within the federal exchanges until an amended version which was filed in late 2012.) It was also several months before the first publication of the paper by Case Western Law Professor Jonathan Adler and Cato Institute Health Policy Director Michael Cannon which detailed the case against the IRS rule.
ObamaCare con artists say one thing; ObamaCare scam opponents say the contrary. Who’s correct?:
And what he says is exactly what challengers to the administration’s implementation of the law have been arguing—that if a state chooses not to establish its own exchange, then residents of those states will not be able to access Obamacare’s health insurance tax credits. He says this in response to a question asking whether the federal government will step in if a state chooses not to build its own exchange. Gruber describes the possibility that states won’t enact their own exchanges as one of the potential “threats” to the law. He says this with confidence and certainty, and at no other point in the presentation does he contradict the statement in question.
The central issue is whether the PPACA allows the IRS to issue tax credits through health-insurance Exchanges established by the federal government. Said government argues it’s implausible that Congress intended to withhold tax credits in states that don’t establish Exchanges. On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit set off a firestorm when it ruled in Halbig that the PPACA’s language authorizing tax credits “through an Exchange established by the State” cannot be reasonably construed to authorize them in the 36 states with federal Exchanges. On the same day, the Fourth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in King. On Thursday, however, the plaintiffs’ interpretation got another boost from an architect of the PPACA named Jonathan Gruber.
The government argued in Halbig that the potential for adverse selection makes “it…untenable to suggest that Congress withheld premium tax credits from individuals who live in States with federally-run Exchanges. Congress sought to reform the non-group market, not to destroy it.” The government described as “baseless” the Halbig plaintiffs’ claim that Congress used the tax credits as an inducement to encourage states to establish and operate Exchanges.
These arguments did not fare well in court. The D.C. Circuit found that the PPACA “encourages” states to establish Exchanges. Moreover, in other parts of the statute—the “CLASS Act” and the law’s treatment of U.S. territories, to name two—Congress showed a rather high tolerance for adverse selection, so the fact that a provision created the potential for adverse selection in the Exchanges did not render it implausible. Finally, even as the Fourth Circuit found the plaintiffs’ reading of the statute “plausible,” implicitly rejecting both of the government’s implausibility claims, even as it ultimately ruled for the government.
The plaintiffs’ interpretation became even more plausible with the discovery of a January 2012 presentation by Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber. I’ll get to why Gruber is significant in a moment. For now, note how he unequivocally agrees with the plaintiffs’ interpretation: the PPACA only allows tax credits in states that establish Exchanges.
It’s like O.J. Simpson walking into court with a knife soaked in Nicole Brown’s blood. Yeah, it’s that bad.
Questioner: You mentioned the health-information Exchanges for the states, and it is my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them for the states.
Gruber: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.
Gruber doesn’t just acknowledge the conditional feature of the PPACA’s tax credits. He also supplies a plausible purpose for that feature (there were people in Washington who either wanted to “squeeze the states to do it,” or saw the law as directing them to do so). He describes the mechanism by which this provision achieves that purpose (taxpayers will pressure their state officials to create Exchanges so they can receive tax credits). He acknowledges that the conditional nature of the tax credits sits perfectly well alongside the law’s requirement that the federal government establish an Exchange within states that do not (providing another refutation of the argument offered by Yale law professor Abbe Gluck that these provisions are somehow in tension). He even explains why the Obama administration might try to ignore this part of the law (the politics of the PPACA “can get ugly,” and the lure of tax credits might not be enough to induce states to cooperate).
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Gruber is now pleading amnesia and disavowing what he said in the video. Gruber has no choice but to plead a form of insanity because in many televised appearances he has angrily denied saying what he said when he says he does not remember because he does not remember what he said or didn’t say or can’t remember he said and anyway STOP QUOTING ME because I can’t remember saying what I said and I could never have said what I said because I am on with O’Tingles calling the plaintiffs and their case “screwy” “nutty” and stupid” – and yes I joined an amicus on those two court cases and I have testified before state legislatures specifically saying things contrary to what I said in the video and LEAVE ME ALONE… I’m having a nervous breakdown and hope no one checks to see if I said anything under oath or wrote anything under oath knowing full well well I was lying, and perjury, and OMG… leave me alone… and anyway it was only one time I said it… leave me alone….
“I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake,” he claims. He added, “My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo.” A typo is usually a simple slip of the finger on the keyboard, i.e. a misspelling or missed bit of punctuation. Gruber’s statement is nearly a minute long.
Also, it turns out it was not the only time he made such a statement. An audio clip from a public appearance Gruber made at the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on January 10, 2012 reveals he made the same connection between subsidies and state-based exchanges on at least one other occasion (hat tip to MorgenR).
It wasn’t a bug. It was a feature.
The architect of ObamaCare built ObamaCare on sand, not on a solid foundation. Now ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber is one of the biggest threats to ObamaCare. Justice.
Earnest is joshing. Presidents better obey the courts. If the ruling is stayed – by the courts – pending appeal then there is no problem. But what this is really about is Obama trying to thug the Supreme Court by warning them that he might disregard a ruling by them he does not like. This is Obama trying to intimidate the high court with the threat of a constitutional crisis.
We wrote about Halbig HERE. It’s a big, big, big, decision which almost surely forces an an Obama appeal to a full panel of the appellate court. Obama will win that fight because he packed the court when Harry Reid ended the Senate filibusters on judges to courts other than the Supreme Court. But then the case will go to the Supreme Court and we’re walking on the sunny side of the street and believe the Supreme Court will ratify today’s three judge panel decision.
It might be an update kind of day but we’ll start with the basic news on Halbig.
If you thought the worldwide path of destruction by Obama – a soft invasion on the American southern border, Russian adventurism and Russian allies destroying passenger aircraft as Obama whimpers, Obama and face-lift Kerry hatin’ on Israel, Midas-in-reverse Obama economics, Obama still voting “present” by ceaseless fundraisers-vacations-golf outings with the boys – made the scam called ObamaCare any less relevant — read it and weep tears of laughter:
President Obama’s healthcare law was dealt a new blow Tuesday as a U.S. appeals court ruled that due to a wording glitch in the Affordable Care Act, some low- and middle-income residents are not entitled to receive government assistance to subsidize their insurance.
In a 2-1 vote, a panel of judges on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia judges rejected the Obama administration’s argument that the problem was triggered by imprecise language in the complex law and that Congress had always intended to offer the subsidies nationwide to low-and middle-income people who bought insurance through one of the state or federal health exchanges created under the law.
But as written, the law states that subsidies should be paid to those who purchase insurance through an “exchange established by the state.”
That would seem to leave out the 36 states in which the exchanges are operated by the federal government.
“Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states,” wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph in his majority opinion, where he was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith “We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly.” [snip]
If upheld, the ruling could lead many, if not most of those subsidized customers to abandon their health plans sold on HealthCare.gov because they no longer would find them affordable without the often-lucrative tax credits. And if that coverage then is not affordable for them as defined by the Obamacare law, those people will no longer be bound by the law’s mandate to have health insurance by this year or pay a fine next year.
If there were to be a large exodus of subsidized customers from the HealthCare.gov plans, it would in turn likely lead to much higher premium rates for non-subsidized people who would remain in those plans, who are apt as a group to be in worse health than all original enrollees.
The ruling also threatens, in the same 36 states, to gut the Obamacare rule starting next year that all employers with 50 or more full-time workers offer affordable insurance to them or face fines. That’s because the rule only kicks in if one of such an employers’ workers buy subsidized covered on HealthCare.gov.
Here’s a complication: There is another case on the same issues in the Fourth Circuit. It is likely the Fourth Circuit appeals court will rule in favor of ObamaCare. The losers in that case will then be able to appeal directly to the Supreme Court if they so choose and force the issue faster than anyone expects but still after the November 2014 elections.
As we wrote in an update to our earlier Halbig article, Obama’s law professor thought the ObamaCare scam was likely to lose today:
“I don’t have a crystal ball,” Tribe told the Fiscal Times. “But I wouldn’t bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare.” [snip]
The problem for the IRS, though, is that the subsidies language is not ambiguous. Even Tribe acknowledged that the language is clear, according to the Fiscal Times.
“Yet in drafting the law, Tribe said the administration ‘assumed that state exchanges would be the norm and federal exchanges would be a marginal, fallback position’ — though it didn’t work out that way for a plethora of legal, administrative and political reasons,” the Fiscal Times writes.
The ObamaCare law was and is a mess. The ObamaCare law was not read by those that passed it. They voted for the ObamaCare scam more as Obama idolatry than good policy. Now, the illiterate chickens are coming home to roost. The law was badly written and Obama tried to write new law using agencies and departments of the federal government. But in our system of government only the legislature, the Congress, can write laws.
Because we are a nation of laws and the words in our laws matter this happened:
Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to health law
A federal appeals court panel in the District struck down a major part of the 2010 health-care law Tuesday, ruling that the tax subsidies that are central to the program may not be provided in at least half of the states.
“Never let a crisis go to waste” is a concept Republicans have forgotten. There are a lot of legal options for Republicans in the current illegal immigration crisis – but that is an article for another day. Today we want to focus on what Republicans should do politically.
Consider, Barack Obama plotted to use illegal immigration as an issue to win the crucial November 2014 elections. Obama’s goal was to use illegal immigration (as well as race-baiting) to incite his base vote of young white liberals and black voters as well as Latinos to the ballot box and thereby forestall disaster. Instead, the illegal immigration crisis at the southern border has focused attention on the illegal immigration issue as never before and Barack Obama and his political henchmen are on defense on the illegal immigration issue.
But the damage to Obama politically could be even greater if Republicans took advantage of the crisis swarm at the southern border.
If Republicans took a refresher course in politics the damage to the Barack Obama coalition could be even greater than to Barack Obama himself.
Consider these two videos:
Republicans, if they were smart, would approach black Americans and remind them of the dangers illegal immigration poses to the black community in particular.
The goal of a Republican approach like we suggest would not be to win the votes of black voters. The goal is to inform black voters of the dangers to them of illegal immigration and thereby checkmate Barack Obama’s political aim of flooding the November elections with his base vote.
If Republicans do not fail to take advantage of a crisis they can split the pro-Obama vote on the issue of illegal immigration while at the same time flooding the polls with their own voter base.
Barack Obama’s counter-move to any Republican outreach to the black community would be race-baiting. Obama would race-bait any Republican who speaks to the black community. Obama will also use Republican opposition to illegal amnesty to attempt to bring out the Latino vote. But the Republican riposte would be graceful.
Republicans can quote Hillary Clinton and Paul Rodriguez to counter Barack Obama race-baiting on illegal immigration:
Republicans can use the illegal immigration crisis to drive a wedge that splits the Obama coalition at its most elemental root, black voters. Republicans at the same time will build on their coalition of white working class voters.
The white working class fears lower wages and that alone explains resistance to amnesty for illegal immigrants. The white working class knows that Orwellian tags like “comprehensive immigration reform” are code words for amnesty.
Black Americans are against amnesty for illegal immigrants too even as black “leadership” supports Barack Obama’s failed policies. Republicans should take advantage of the current illegal immigration crisis and use it as a wedge issue to inform black voters that Barack Obama has stabbed them in the back. A stab in the back. That is the Barack Obama way. Ask Alice Palmer.
Obama cannot be trusted… neither by friend nor foe….
Immigration reform fizzles as campaign issue for Democrats
Immigration reform has fizzled as an issue for Democrats, who are barely mentioning it on the campaign trail despite making the issue their top domestic priority in 2013 and 2014.
Latino voters, who are the most energized about overhauling the nation’s immigration laws, will have little impact on the battle for control of the Senate, with the possible exception of Sen. Mark Udall’s (D) race in Colorado.
White working-class voters will play a more important role in the midterm election compared to the 2012 presidential election. They are not energized by immigration reform. Instead, they are concerned about downward pressure on wages, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has linked to higher immigration levels.
Coincidently, President Obama’s support among white voters without college degrees has steadily eroded.
Democratic strategists admit their party’s record on immigration reform will do little to help candidates this year, although they predict it could be a potent weapon in the 2016 presidential election.
“In light of turnout models it’s probably not as strong an issue as it would be in presidential years,” said Steve Jarding, a Democratic strategist and former advisor to several senators from conservative leaning states such as former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.). [snip]
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has led the effort in Congress to link high immigration flows to stagnant wages but many Republican lawmakers have not joined in because the business community wants more guest workers and visas for high-skilled employees.
Despite the lack of concerted effort by GOP leaders in Washington to used immigration reform as a weapon against Democrats, the issue could hurt them among white working-class voters who are slipping away from Obama.
Polling by Rasmussen, a GOP survey group, showed working and middle-class Americans oppose large expansions of immigration flows.
Republicans should tell the black community that this illegal immigration crisis will not abate until their communities are destroyed by joblessness. Republicans can cite Ruben Navarrette Jr.:
Recently, my sources in Texas who have been close to the border kids story since the start — and have batted 1.000 in terms of the accuracy of their reports — have been giving me a dire warning. It’s the equivalent of: “You ain’t seen nothing yet.”
Many Americans are angry and frustrated over the government’s handling of the border kids calamity. The Obama administration — which, according to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, was warned by state officials in the Lone Star State that this was happening as early as 2012 and obviously didn’t do enough to prepare — estimates that by the end of this year, as many as 90,000 young people will have crossed the border into the American Southwest.
Then there are the tag-alongs. Looking for jobs, and seizing on the opportunity presented by the fact that so many border patrol agents are preoccupied caring for the children, an unknown number of adults from Mexico are riding the kids’ coattails right into the United States.
It’s a total mess. But what if what we’re witnessing now is just the beginning? What if the real wave is yet to come?
My sources tell me that it is well-known that in the Rio Grande Valley, there are tens or even hundreds of thousands of people from Central America — mostly women and children — in northern Mexico right now, waiting for their chance to cross into the United States.
We should stop looking for an endpoint. This story has no end in sight.
The illegal immigration crisis caused by Barack Obama will not abate. The illegal immigration crisis created by Barack Obama’s policies and weakness will not end nor be restricted to border states and communities. Already Massachusetts is alarmed at the “spikes in detainees coming up from Texas“.
As Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson declared “We’re all becoming border sheriffs now with these people being carted all over the country.” “The blame goes all the way up. It’s a travesty and people ought to be upset.” “This is un-American and has raised the stakes to the public health and public safety threat.”
Barack Obama is to blame. Republicans would be wise to clue black voters about how and why Obama has stabbed them in the back.
Black Americans once were the elemental base of the new abomination called the Barack Obama coalition. We called it the “situation comedy” coalition because it so resembled what television programers want for their silly programs. But a “situation comedy” coalition is not a way to organize a political party nor govern a nation.
Barack Obama’s silly “situation comedy” coalition replaced the FDR coalition of seniors and the white working class as the Democratic party base vote. That upending led to disaster in 2010 even though the new travesty coalition helped Barack Obama personally get elected and reelected.
Republicans should tell black Americans that they are about to get the Obama stab in the back. Black voters are next in line to be dumped in favor of Latino voters from the latest incarnation of the Obama coalition.
In 2014 the failures and fissures of the new Obama “situation comedy” coalition will lead to new disaster in the November elections. If Republicans take advantage of the crisis Barack Obama created for his political benefit, Republicans can win in a rout never before seen in this countries electoral history – but first Republicans have to learn to not let a crisis go to waste.
Notice how more and more the truth we wrote long ago is conventional wisdom even on the left – when they are not drunk but sober? We wrote the truth. Then the attacks on us for being “batsh*t crazy” or not very bright, or Republicans, or disgruntled Japanese soldiers fighting a lost war on a deserted island, or racists, or dinosaurs, or whatever the Obama cult could dream up to excuse their own stupidity, began. We get the last laugh.
BILL MAHER: There was a study done that found out online conversations that were intercepted and stored by the NSA — nine out of ten were not from foreigners, they are from ordinary citizens, and I want to read this: Many files, it says, described as useless by the analysts had a startlingly intimate, even voyeuristic quality. Stories of love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental health crises and disappointed hopes. Move over, Taxicab Confessions, we have a new –
This is exactly what they said they weren’t going to do. Just, you know, be nosy and look into the lives of private people for their own shits and giggles. And I just want to say, if this were happening under Bush, liberals would be apoplectic. I’m sorry, but liberals are just sometimes useless Obama hacks without a shred of intellectual honesty. (HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, July 11, 2014)
If Bush did it the Obama cult would explode in anger. But the Obama cult, of which liberals comprise a large segment, are hypocritical liars concerned not with issues but with enabling the cult leader. Maher says “liberals are just sometimes useless Obama hacks without a shred of intellectual honesty.” Condemned by his own words.
Instead of an endless article of other hypocritical liars beginning to regurgitate what we wrote years ago, here’s Republican pollster, Alex Castellanos, assessing Barack Obama with words and language we wrote for years but words even the Republicans/conservatives have until now been too scared to use:
Obama hasn’t hit rock bottom yet
(CNN) — Ordinarily, being ranked as the worst modern president of the United States would be considered unfortunate. For you Mr. President, that’s the good news.
As painful as it is to note, your presidency has not yet hit bottom. You’ve got a long way to go in your descent.
Everywhere you walk, Mr. President, the world unravels. Americans are whispering that each political missile you fire seems to hit not its target but our own house.
You have undone the core idea you’ve advanced, that a larger public sector can save us. You are becoming the one-man Keystone Cops of an experiment in weakness and incompetent government.
Your Veterans Administration is a dysfunctional mess. Some veterans who have lived through war have not survived contact with your VA.
Your immigration agents are changing diapers and crying for fresh underwear for detained immigrants awaiting deportation. Your IRS has been accused of targeting political opponents, and your best defense is their ineptitude: They lose their e-mails and files.
Your own signature initiative, the Affordable Care Act, has turned on you. You’ve repeatedly delayed and altered the law, gluing and taping together, on the fly, the health care of an anxious nation.
Your Supreme Court is telling you to read the manual that came with your office: You are not allowed to run a Nixonian presidency. In three years, you’ve suffered numerous humiliating and unanimous reversals of your executive authority.
You are protected by the thinly manned barricades of an attorney general who refuses to investigate misconduct in your executive offices. Four out of five Americans believe the government you would like to expand is corrupt, a view that is a 7-point increase from the last year of the Bush administration.
You are fortunate you cannot be impeached because of the cost to our exhausted, divided country. If you were a car manufactured by GM, not the president who bailed it out, you would be recalled for your defects.
Nicely done, even if it is years late and two presidential campaigns short. It does succinctly summarize some of the rock bottom Obama presidency. Rock bottom Obama has not hit rock bottom and blockhead Barack Obama supporters, like Google executives cavorting with heroin hooker killers, have not hit rock bottom either:
In foreign affairs, you have undone one of the great accomplishments of the 20th century: You have resuscitated the Soviet Union. A two-bit KGB thug named Putin has been kicking sand in the face of your country. In the absence of American leadership, the Middle East has devolved into chaos, and you are reduced to unpalatable choices: Either you negotiate with our Iranian enemies or abandon our allies, if we still have any, to jihadist wildfires that threaten Israel’s borders and set desert sands aflame.
Young people who voted for you to earn a better life than their parents are now living with their parents. Our nation has the lost the hope you promised us. We fear our freedom is in decline: A 48% plurality feel our best days are in the past.
Even the one thing you have been good at, Mr. President — politics — has abandoned you. You have now been reduced to pathetically small political “listening tours.” Even on such an inconsequential stage, you are tone-deaf, incapable of striking the right chords: You tell your audiences you are there to tell them that you are listening.
Alex Castellanos, like almost all other Republican consultants and pollsters, like Mitt Romney who stupidly praised Obama as nice instead of telling the truth about how “nasty” Obama is, adds a sentence about Obama’s “bright smile” but finally joins us in denouncing the narcissist as a narcissist.
But now, we are beginning to notice; you laugh too hard at your own jokes.
Behind the smile, we see an ego inflated beyond merit. Your intellectual detachment, we now find, was merely cluelessness. The distance between what you’ve promised and done has grown too large for us to blame anyone else.
Is this as bad as it can get? Actually, no, Mr. President. The road ahead is worse for you.
Even your supporters will soon say publicly what we are all thinking privately. In days to come, it will become increasingly cool to snicker and then laugh at your presidency.
Disagreement is not the cruelest cut in politics; it is ridicule.
Politicians who have survived everything else are done in ultimately by laughter. The gristliest moment for an incumbent is not when voters express their anger. There is respect, even in those dark days. What an incumbent never wants to hear from a voter is pity. Your worst day will be when a voter says, “Poor President Obama. He’s done the best he can.”
When that day comes, Mr. President, your favorable rating will crash another 10 points into the basement. Democratic candidates will not only ignore you, as they now do, they will turn on you.
Hillary Clinton will betray you. That will start a war within your party as candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Jerry Brown rush to defend you. If they depose the Clintons, mere anarchy will be loosed upon the Democratic world.
At this moment, our emperor is naked, but no one has yet said it publicly. That will change soon.
When it is too sad to cry about our presidents, America laughs. That’s what will really hurt.
In April 2009 we began to mock the “Obama is doing the best he can” defense. Contrary to what Castellanos writes there were voices from long ago saying and writing what Castellanos has only now had the courage to write. In February of 2010 we wrote:
The “he’s doing the best he can” ploy has not worked because of the inherent truthfulness of that statement. Obama is doing the best he can for his friends and himself, but for the American people Obama is doing nothing. Also, Americans understand that if this is the best Obama can do – boy oh boy are we all in trouble. The “he’s doing the best he can ploy” was abandoned.
The “he needs more time” ploy has collapsed under the weight of time. With every passing minute the ploy limps, weaker and weaker. The “he needs more time” ploy also demonstrates the truthfulness of what Hillary and Hillary supporters have said since early 2007 – Obama is not ready. Obama was not ready on Day 1, Obama was not ready on Day 2; Obama was not ready on Day 3; Obama was not ready on Day 365, ad infinitum. The “he needs more time” ploy was abandoned too.
Hillary betray Obama? No, as we have written Hillary Clinton will either tell the truth about Obama or Hillary Clinton 2016 will be as strong as Obama’s shriveled raisin-y testicles. We are and have been Hillary Clinton supporters and we have been and maybe still are some sort of liberals, but we will never be hacks for anybody and when Hillary says perfunctorily silly things such as on Hobby Lobby or that we should ever vote or support Barack Obama – uh, no.
“The emperor has no clothes” – we and a few brave others have written that so many times it is a cliche by now.
Castellanos is right that ridicule is a potent weapon against government officialdom. That is especially true against a pompous clod like boob Obama who is more a full time golfer/part time government perks official. We’ve been mocking treacherous boob Barack Obama for a long time. As treacherous boob Barack Obama hits rock bottom, we are not the only ones laughing at the clown.
Obamacare could take another spin in front of the Supreme Court – with vastly uncertain consequences.
Harvard legal scholar Laurence H. Tribe warned Tuesday of a “very high risk” that a crucial aspect of Obamacare – its government subsidies provision – could fall victim to a major legal challenge being mounted by conservatives. That is why, he also said, that the Supreme Court will almost certainly get “a second bite of the apple” in determining the fate of President Obama’s signature health law, with uncertain consequences.
Tribe, 72, a prominent proponent of the Affordable Care Act – who taught both Obama and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as constitutional law students at Harvard Law School years ago – warned of the ACA’s prospects for surviving intact during an exclusive, hour-long interview in New York with editors of The Fiscal Times. [snip]
“It looks like the panel is quite divided over what to do with what might [have been] an inadvertent error in the legislation or might have been quite deliberate,” Tribe said. “But it’s very specific that only people that go onto a state exchange are eligible for the subsidies. And if that becomes the ultimate holding of the U.S. Supreme Court, where this is likely to end up – that’s going to have massive practical implications for the administrability of Obamacare.”
“I don’t have a crystal ball,” Tribe said in discussing the law’s chances should it reach the Supreme Court for yet another critical review. “But I wouldn’t bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare.”
Tribe, whose new book, Uncertain Justice, takes a deep dive into the Roberts court, said the plaintiffs make a strong argument. The legislative language is clear, he said, that the subsidies apply to exchanges established by states. Yet in drafting the law, Tribe said the administration “assumed that state exchanges would be the norm and federal exchanges would be a marginal, fallback position” – though it didn’t work out that way for a plethora of legal, administrative and political reasons.
Tribe suggested that the case will, like the individual mandate challenge before it, hinge on Chief Justice John Roberts’s decision. “He would be asking himself the hard question: ‘Is it so clear under existing law that it has to be construed in this literal and somewhat bizarre way . . . that subsidies or tax credits cannot be provided on the federal exchanges, or is it sufficiently ambiguous that it gives me the necessary legal wiggle room’ [to side with the administration once again?]” Tribe said.
“The power of executing the laws necessarily includes both authority and responsibility to resolve some questions left open by Congress that arise during the law’s administration. But it does not include a power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in an opinion that Roberts joined in full.
So Tribe thinks the law is “very specific” and also thinks the question for Roberts is “Is it so clear under existing law” – it’s almost as if Tribe is answering himself and making the case for Roberts – shutting, opening, then shutting the door again.
As Halbig goes big time, Judge Walton hit the IRS over the head today as he prepares to crush the IRS soon:
A federal judge Friday gave the IRS one week to hand over details on Lois Lerner’s crashed hard drive and how to track it, the second federal judge in as many days to seek more information about the elusive emails.
Judge Reggie Walton of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia ordered the the tax agency to find out by July 18 what happened to the crashed hard drive responsible for erasing two years worth of the former IRS official’s emails, including whether it’s traceable through a serial number.
If such information is gone, the judge wants an affidavit written under penalty of perjury by an IRS IT professional with “firsthand knowledge” of the situation. [snip]
Walton did not rule on the request for expedited discovery or injunction relief — both of which the government argued were not necessary.
Instead he ordered more information due by next Friday, including a rundown of TIGTA’s qualifications for the probe, a date when it will be completed and the qualifications of individuals who “previously conducted forensic examinations or otherwise attempted to recover information” from Lerner’s computer.
“I still would want to know the expertise of the individuals doing the investigation, and also why the hard drive can’t be identified,” Walton said.
It is unclear when Walton will rule on the potential of appointing an outside forensic specialist.”
“Now we’re cooking with peanut oil” as the Duck man says. For now, we’re staying on the sunny side of the street with galoshes on and an umbrella handy.
Later on Friday we will hear from yet another judge. Judge Reggie Walton will soon issue another decision/assault against the gangster government iron triangle – the Obama White House, the Holder Justice Department, and Obama congressional henchmen/hemchwoman (all aided by a corrupt Big Media).
Oh, and before any Obama race-baiters start spewing “lynch mob” or “raists!” against these potential John Sirica’s, both Judge Sullivan and Judge Walton are African-Americans.
So many Barack Obama caused disasters are raging through this land and the world it is quaint of us to focus on the Frankenstein monster still pillaging the nation – ObamaCare. Pardon us for not focusing today on the Obama gangster government disasters at the southern border of this country, Obama’s pals attacking Israel with rockets and commandos, VA illegalities and Va whistle-blower suppression, the Marine held in a Mexican prison, and the many other high crimes and misdemeanors, as well as the usual day-to-day treacheries and booberies of King Boob Obama I.
Today we take another walk on the sunny side of the street.
We are way overdue for a court decision on an ObamaCare case Halbig v. Sebelius that if successful would be equivalent to sawing through the axles of a covered wagon. The rickety contraption known as ObamaCare – thus far kept from collapse only by the gangster lawlessness of Barack Obama and his henchmen, might find itself without an axle to grind as early as this Thursday if and when the Federal District Appeals Court issues its decision.
Halbig v. Sebelius can be explained simply. In brief and in plain English, the printed letter of the ObamaCare law specified that subsides for individuals buying ObamaCare insurance must do so “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311”. Obama and his henchmen and henchwoman ignored that wording and declared that everyone, whether on the federal or state exchanges, would qualify for government subsidies.
If the Federal Appeals Court says that the letter of the law applies, that Obama cannot rewrite laws though rules and regulations, ObamaCare is deader than dead. Yes, Obama and his lawless henchmen will appeal that decision to a full panel of the appeals court and they will likely win in the full panel. But then the case would go to the Supreme Court with a victory notch in the belt.
Many will scoff that the Supreme Court will not rule against ObamaCare and their sturdy evidence is the contortions Chief Justice John Roberts underwent to pronounce the law “constitutional”. Without delving into whether it was Obama thuggery, or that ObamaCare really is not a mandate but a tax (a political argument Mitt Romney failed to exploit), or gay blackmail against Roberts, we/ve espoused a much more generous attitude towards the Chief Justice which many do not share but which leads us to believe that the Supreme Court will eventually send ObamaCare to a death panel.
Why do we think the above? A small part of our confidence is based on the post ObamaCare case decisions. Chief Justice Roberts has mustered unanimous decisions for more than half the decisions issued in the last term. Some of those unanimous decisions, such as the recess appointments opinion, have been disastrous for Obama’s lawless rule. When necessary, Roberts and the conservatives on the court have proven they will issue tough opinions. The Hobby Lobby ObamaCare decision is an example of the lessened temerity of the court’s conservative wing.
The main reason for our belief that the Supreme Court might cut the axles on the ObamaCare Conestoga is the strategic landscape on Halbig.
The strategic benefits of Halig v. Sebelius are that the ObamaCare collapse would be in slow motion not in one fell chop. In the big ObamaCare case which rescued ObamaCare by declaring it a tax Chief Justice Roberts was aware that a declaration by the Supreme Court that ObamaCare was unconstitutional would have meant the immediate sudden death of ObamaCare. The Supreme Court would have been the central issue in the 2012 presidential campaign and no doubt charges of racism and other lies would have been spat out by Obama and his thugs.
With Halig v. Sebelius the political trap is avoided. A slow death of ObamaCare after the November elections will deprive Obama of a new politically useful distraction from his myriad other catastrophes and prevent Obama from denouncing the Supreme Court for his nefarious political schemes.
There is also a matter of complexity. On the big ObamaCare case there were legal issues aplenty to consider such as the Anti-Injunction Act and Commerce Clause jurisprudence which to most American are difficult to understand. Not so with Halbig v. Sebelius:
Obamacare may have its problems, including more bugs than you can find in the cornfields of Nebraska, but its legal worries were meant to end after the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, the heart of the Affordable Care Act. [snip]
“This is literally the simplest case I’ve ever had in 30 years of practicing law,” Carvin said at a Cato event this summer. “No one but a lawyer could seriously stand up here and tell you that north means south, black means white and state means federal. And all you need to do is read the statute and know that that is what the law is.” [snip]
Defenders of the law argue that the phrase “established by the State under section 1311” does not exclude federally-run marketplaces. Their legal argument is simple: the law defines an “Exchange” as established by the state, then orders the federal government to establish the exact same exchange, denoted as “such Exchange,” if a state fails to act. In other words, it authorizes the government to act as the state and set up an exchange as it is defined in section 1311. Whether a particular section of the law references an “Exchange” or an “Exchange established by the state” is the same thing as referring to the law variously as the “Affordable Care Act” and “Obamacare,” two terms with identical meaning, because a federally-run exchange is, for the purposes of the law, the same as a state-run exchange.
While it is true that the Supreme Court provides great leeway for agencies to implement laws as they see fit the question remains as to whether the subsidies are meant only for state exchanges. The plaintiffs in Halbig should easily demonstrate that Congress meant to induce the states to establish ObamaCare exchanges with the sweetener of subsidies denied to the federal exchange. The implications are enormous:
In a nutshell, plaintiffs in the case Halbig v. Sebelius claim those often-valuable subsidies are illegal because the Affordable Care Act only authorized such tax credits for people who bought insurance through one of the exchanges originally set up by an individual state or the District of Columbia—not the federal exchange. Nearly 90 percent of the people who enrolled in plans via the federal exchange qualified for those subsides because they had low or moderate incomes.
Take away those subsidies and many, if not most, of the enrollees on HealthCare.gov might not buy insurance next year because they will find it unaffordable at the full premium price. That, in turn, could create a much-feared “death spiral,” where insurance pools have too many sick enrollees and not enough young healthy ones, and premium rates skyrocket. [snip]
And if those subsidies are not available to individuals in the states served by HealthCare.gov, it would also mean that businesses in those states could not be mandated starting next year to offer affordable health insurance to their workers or pay a fine. That’s because the so-called employer mandate is linked to the availability of those subsidies for workers who opt to buy individual insurance.
So, the IRS rode to the rescue. It wrote a regulation that, despite the provisions in the ACA itself, provided a subsidy for all income-qualified purchasers, even those on federally-run exchanges. A result is that an employer could face a substantial new tax if just one employee receives a federal subsidy, even if the employer’s state has chosen not to set up an exchange. And the states would no longer have an incentive to run an exchange since residents would receive federal subsidy on federally-run exchanges.
This seems pretty straightforward: There are two types of exchanges under the ACA, one established by states, and another established by the federal government. The statute only authorizes subsidy on state-run exchanges.
“If the legislation is just stupid, I don’t see that it’s up to the court to save it,” Judge A. Raymond Randolph said during oral arguments in March.
Randolph, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said the text of the statute “seems perfectly clear on its face” that the subsidies are confined to state-run exchanges. Carter-appointed Judge Harry T. Edwards slammed the challengers’ claims as “preposterous.” So the deciding vote appears to be with George W. Bush-appointed Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who wasn’t resolute but sounded unconvinced of the Obama administration’s defense, saying it had a “special burden” to show that the language “doesn’t mean what it appears to mean.”
Turley said, “If this case were decided on the basis of the statutory language, the advantage goes to the challengers. If the court is willing to broaden its interpretation then the administration may have an edge. It depends entirely on how the panel structures its analysis.”
If the three judge panel decides based on the language of the law and thereby guts ObamaCare, ObamaCare defenders will go to the full appeals panel (7 Democrats, 4 Republicans). Barack Obama has appointed four of the eleven judges on this panel during his second term – which demonstrates he is worried about this decision and that is why he instructed Harry Reid to destroy the Senate rules on the filibuster.
Most state health insurance rates for 2015 are scheduled to be approved by early fall, and most are likely to rise, timing that couldn’t be worse for Democrats already on defense in the midterms.
ObamaCare is in a death spiral already but Halbig might be the pillow over the face that finishes it off. And Halbig is about much more than just ObamaCare. Remember all that stuff in our first paragraph we said we weren’t writing about today? Halbig is about all of them in a way. Jonathan Turley sees it that way too:
In crafting the act, Congress created incentives for states to set up health insurance exchanges and disincentives for them to opt out. The law, for example, made the subsidies available only to those enrolled in insurance plans through exchanges “established by the state.” [snip]
The administration attempted to solve the problem by simply declaring that even residents of states without their own exchanges were eligible for subsidies, even though the law seemed to specifically say they were not. [snip]
But the D.C. Circuit Court may see things quite differently, especially in light of recent Supreme Court opinions holding that the Obama administration has exceeded its authority and violated separation of powers.
In Michigan vs. Bay Mills Indian Community, for example, Justice Elena Kagan noted that “this court does not revise legislation … just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address.” In Utility Air Regulatory Group vs. EPA, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stressed that “an agency has no power to tailor legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms.” And a third strike came last week in National Labor Relations Board vs. Canning, when the Supreme Court unanimously found that President Obama had violated the Constitution in circumventing Congress through his use of recess appointments.
The D.C. Circuit Court is expected to rule any day now on the Halbig case, and supporters of the Affordable Care Act are growing nervous. In January, an Obamacare advocate described the Halbig case to a reporter for the Hill as “probably the most significant existential threat to the Affordable Care Act. All the other lawsuits that have been filed really don’t go to the heart of the ACA, and this one would have.” And in a fraught oral argument before the D.C. Circuit Court, the administration seemed to struggle to defend its interpretation.
Halbig is an opportunity for the courts and the judicial branch to lock arms with Congress, the legislative branch in opposition to Barack Obama and the Chicago gangster lawlessness he represents and imported to the nation’s capital.
There are blood feuds which already disgorged the majority of their scarlet corpuscles. Then there are blood feuds just beginning to gush their essence. Yup, it’s time to discuss Edward Klein’s book “Blood Feud: The Clintons v. the Obamas.”
Edward Klein’s long history of imagined Hillary Clinton conversations with Bill, imagined conversations about Hillary and Bill, imagined conversations about imagined conversations, are so comic and badly rendered they more properly belong in a Nelson Eddy/Jeanette McDonald operetta or an early Joan Collins melodrama. Some of Edward Klein’s “facts” are equally comic.
Did you know Hillary has “a right transverse venous thrombosis“? Her thyroid is shot as is her heart. In short, Hillary Clinton is falling apart according to Edward Klein. If Hillary Clinton decides to run for president in 2016 her medical records will be revealed and Klein’s reportage on Hillary’s health will be confirmed or repudiated – so we won’t worry about Klein’s reports as to Hillary’s health.
Less likely to be settled, ever, are other Edward Klein “revelations” about Hillary. Did you know Hillary did not shave her legs during her university years which to Klein is indicative of lesbianism? Did you even know that Hillary is a lesbian having affairs with other lesbians – although we never can figure out how she made time for lesbianism what with all her wild sexual cavorting with the murdered Vince Foster? Did you also know that lesbian Hillary refused Bill Clinton access to her lesbian parts so Bill raped her and that is how Chelsea was produced?
For all that rubbish, Edward Klein is still more believable in his latest book than most of Big Media.
Edward Klein is possibly performing a public service with his latest book. Perhaps, because of Klein, some on the right will consider that they fail to beat Hillary and Bill Clinton because their basic premises about Hillary and Bill Clinton are wrong. Some on the right want to prevent a lucid analysis of Hillary and Bill Clinton and are afraid of Edward Klein’s new book:
However, the broader purpose of the book is to show that there is a heated battle going on — dating back to the brutal primary contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential election cycle — that continues to manifest itself in various ways as we move towards the 2016 presidential election. [snip]
Word of caution to readers: “Blood Feud” according to Klein is based on dozens and dozens of interviews with those close to the Clinton and Obama camps, none of which of course are sourced. Further worth noting is that the book almost universally portrays the Obamas in a negative light, which by comparison makes the Clintons, despite their ruthlessness and apparent lust for political power, seem almost universally sympathetic.
The facts, as reported by Hillary Hater Edward Klein, portray Hillary and Bill Clinton as “almost universally sympathetic” so ‘ignore the facts’ advise the thought leaders on the right.
As deranged as the Sunni Right is, the Shiitty Left is even worse. Both extremes have been denying facts and distorting reality. Those on the Right have an imperative interest to tie Hillary to Barack Obama. Tie Hillary Clinton 2016 to the despised, distrusted, disgusting, Barack Obama and Republicans win in 2016,
Those on the Left likewise have a survival instinct to tie Hillary to Barack Obama. Indeed, The New Republic claims that Hillary Clinton 2016 is invincible because Hillary wooed and has won the crackpot left of the party. However what explains the loony left’s new found support of Hillary Clinton is that Hillary can save Barack Obama from becoming only an historical pimple on the body politic. If Barack Obama gets a third term called Hillary Clinton 2016 then the loony left won’t feel as defeated and stupid for their elevation of Obama.
On both sides of the political spectrum there is an interest to tie Hillary Clinton to that loser who currently occupies the White House. But for a long time we have been reporting what Edward Klein is reporting in his new book:
Any doubts about the accuracy of our many reports (list of links HERE) on the secret and sometimes not so secret war by Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton should have been completely dispelled this week.
All the while Big Media and blowhard drunks kept assuring us that Hillary loves Barack and Barack loves Hillary. But we reported what we were told.
On Benghazi we repeatedly declared that not only were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at war but we also stated that Benghazi was an issue that deserves great scrutiny and a select committee. We also asserted repeatedly and without evidence we could discuss, that yes, indeed, Hillary Clinton would come out “smelling like a rose” from the entire Benghazi mess.
On September 30th of 2012 we wrote before anyone else “People Died, Obama Lied”. We stated we want a full and complete investigation of all these matters – NOW – before the election even as we declared Hillary Clinton would come out “smelling like a rose.”
In Where’s Benghazi Now? we noted that the main question on Benghazi is still why there was no special alarm around the world for any and all American facilities on the anniversary of 9/11? We explained why Susan Rice, not Hillary Clinton went on the Sunday talk shows and we again asserted that Hillary Clinton would come out “smelling like a rose.”
Little did we know that a renown Hillary Hater par excellance would confirm much of our reporting even as he put a spin on the reasons for what Hillary and Bill did:
Bill and Hillary then apparently played out various scenarios, including Hillary potentially resigning over what had occurred. They ruled this out however in part because her State Department was providing cover for the CIA in terms of what operations were taking place in Benghazi, in addition to the fact that her resignation could hurt Obama’s chances for reelection which might destroy Hillary’s own political future.
A new book claims President Obama instructed then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to blame the Benghazi terror attack on a protest over an anti-Islam film, over Clinton’s objections.
The anecdote is included in the book “Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas,” by Edward Klein. An excerpt was published Sunday in The New York Post. Klein reported that, according to an unnamed Clinton legal adviser, Obama called the secretary of State late on the night of Sept. 11, 2012.
“Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,” the source reportedly said. “Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.”
According to Klein, Clinton advised Obama that the story “isn’t credible,” but Obama nevertheless told Clinton to put out a State Department release. According to Klein, Bill Clinton also told his wife “that story won’t hold up.”
The State Department did put out a statement the night of Sept. 11 that cited “inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”
Clinton herself never has publicly claimed she was pressured into citing the faulty video explanation.
Author Ken Timmerman, who reported on the same phone call in his book “Dark Forces: The Truth About What Happened in Benghazi,” on Monday cast doubt on the latest version of events — he called this account a “desperate ploy to defend her presidential aspirations.”
Timmerman claimed the “story” about the video was not “created” on the Obama-Clinton phone call. Rather, he said, “I think that’s where they agreed on the story between the two of them.”
In an interview with Fox News last week, however, Clinton did indicate she had personal doubts about that narrative at the time. [snip]
“My own assessment careened from the video had something to do with it, the video had nothing to do with it — it may have affected some people, it didn’t affect other people,” she said in the interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren.
Clinton added: “There’s no doubt terrorists were involved.”
Who to believe? Right wing Ken Timmerman or right wing Edward Klein? It’s an important question and one we have stated is key to understanding what happened post Benghazi. Our reports before Edward Klein’s book are congruent with what Edward Klein reports.
Bret Baier asked Hillary the question we think is so important and that so much depends on. Hillary seemingly implicated herself in the interview.
Unfortunately, the answer as to when the State Department release blaming the video went out, is not definitive and Bret Baier did not follow up with the necessary questions about who wrote the release and whether anyone from the Obama White House instructed as to what the release should say. Trey Gowdy will no doubt ask the right follow-up questions.
On September 11 2012 Hillary Clinton was on the phone to all the top military and intelligence officials. Then Obama late at night called Hillary. When was the call?
WH: Obama Called Hillary on Night of Benghazi Attack–More Than Six Hours After It Started
(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama called Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at approximately 10 p.m. on the night of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told CNSNews.com.
That was more than six hours after the attacks started, more than an hour before Tryone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed–and about the time that Clinton first released a statement linking the attacks to “inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” a reference to an anti-Muslim video on YouTube. [snip]
Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told the Senate Armed Services Committee they first notified the president of the attack during a Sept. 11, 2012 meeting that began at 5 p.m. and ran for about 30 minutes. They also told the committee they did not talk to Obama or anyone else at the White House after that meeting.
But when was the call? Was the call before the State Department press statement? Or was the call after the State Department press release? Was the State Department forced by the White House to concoct an improbable story? Did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama conjure a pack of lies together in order to protect the C.I.A. or to protect the Obama presidential campaign? Did Barack Obama call Hillary Clinton in order to force her to release a statement she did not want to release? Trey Gowdy may borrow our list of questions.
There have been many attempts by many to get these questions answered with precision. According to ace reporter Sharyl Attkisson the State Department immediately knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack and not a Rotten Tomatoes critical film review:
Internal Emails: State Dept. Immediately Attributed Benghazi Attacks to Terrorist Group
A newly-released government email indicates that within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya; the State Department had already concluded with certainty that the Islamic militia terrorist group Ansar al Sharia was to blame. [snip]
The email is entitled “Libya update from Beth Jones. ” Jones was then-Assistant Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. According to the email, Jones spoke to Libya’s Ambassador at
9:45am on Sept. 12, 2012 following the attacks.
“When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,” Jones reports in the email.
There is no uncertainty assigned to the assessment, which does not mention a video or a protest. [snip]
Another State Department email sent at 5:55pm on Tues. Sept. 11, 2012, while the attacks were underway, includes a report that “the extremist group Ansar Al Sharia has taken credit for the attack in Benghazi” and that U.S. officials asked the offices of the [Libyan] President and [Prime Minister] to pursue Ansar al Sharia.”
So the State Deparmtnt knew immediately, as any sensible person informed of an attack on an American installation on any September 11 would, that Benghazi was a terrorist attack but then issued a statement blaming a video. Who does this benefit? Does it benefit Hillary Clinton in any way? Quite the contrary. Does it benefit Barack Obama two months before the election? You bet your sweet ass it does:
Clinton bristled at Benghazi deception [snip]
She had no doubt that a terrorist attack had been launched against America on the anniversary of 9/11. However, when Hillary picked up the phone and heard Obama’s voice, she learned the president had other ideas in mind. With less than two months before Election Day, he was still boasting that he had al Qaeda on the run.
If the truth about Benghazi became known, it would blow that argument out of the water.
“Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.”
This adviser continued: “Hillary told Obama, ‘Mr. President, that story isn’t credible. Among other things, it ignores the fact that the attack occurred on 9/11.’ But the president was adamant. He said, ‘Hillary, I need you to put out a State Department release as soon as possible.’”
After her conversation with the president, Hillary called Bill Clinton, who was at his penthouse apartment in the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, and told him what Obama wanted her to do.
“I’m sick about it,” she said, according to the legal adviser, who was filled in on the conversation.
“That story won’t hold up,” Bill said. “I know,” Hillary said. “I told the president that.” “It’s an impossible story,” Bill said. “I can’t believe the president is claiming it wasn’t terrorism. Then again, maybe I can. It looks like Obama isn’t going to allow anyone to say that terrorism has occurred on his watch.”
Hillary’s legal adviser provided further detail: “During their phone call, Bill started playing with various doomsday scenarios, up to and including the idea that Hillary consider resigning as secretary of state over the issue. But both he and Hillary quickly agreed that resigning wasn’t a realistic option.
Mocking clowns will no doubt rage that Hillary Clinton did not resign in protest. But laughing clowns do not have to consider what it would mean to the country to have Obama unfettered without any responsible power centers challenging him at every turn. Belay that. We now know what is is like to have an Obama unfettered by Hillary Clinton and/or Leon Panetta. Have you noticed what has happened to the country now that those two are no longer restraints on Obama’s treacheries and booberies?
Police detectives know that in any crime search for a motive. Who had the motive to lie? Whose election was two months away? Of course for those who ain’t buying the obvious, for those who chose to ignore all our reports well before the Edward Klein book published there’s this for them to explain away too:
The feud between the Obamas and ‘Hildebeest’
In his new book, “Blood Feud,” journalist Edward Klein gets inside the dysfunctional, jealous relationship between Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack and Michelle Obama — and how it could explode in 2016.
Outwardly, they put on a show of unity — but privately, the Obamas and Clintons, the two power couples of the Democrat Party, loathe each other.
“I hate that man Obama more than any man I’ve ever met, more than any man who ever lived,” Bill Clinton said to friends on one occasion, adding he would never forgive Obama for suggesting he was a racist during the 2008 campaign.
The feeling is mutual. Obama made excuses not to talk to Bill, while the first lady privately sniped about Hillary.
On most evenings, Michelle Obama and her trusted adviser, Valerie Jarrett, met in a quiet corner of the White House residence. [snip]
Their favorite bête noire was Hillary Clinton, whom they nicknamed “Hildebeest,” after the menacing and shaggy-maned gnu that roams the Serengeti.
The animosity came to a head in the run-up to the 2012 election, when Obama’s inner circle insisted he needed the former president’s support to win. Obama finally telephoned Bill Clinton in September 2011 and invited him out for a round of golf. [snip]
“I really can’t stand the way Obama always seems to be hectoring when he talks to me,” Clinton added, according to someone who was present at the gathering and spoke on the condition of anonymity. [snip]
“Bill got into it right away,” said a Clinton family friend. “He told Obama, ‘Hillary and I are gearing up for a run in 2016.’ He said Hillary would be ‘the most qualified, most experienced candidate, perhaps in history.’ His reference to Hillary’s experience made Obama wince, since it was clearly a shot at his lack of experience when he ran for president.
“And so Bill continued to talk about Hillary’s qualifications . . . and the coming campaign in 2016. But Barack didn’t bite. He changed the subject several times. Then suddenly, Barack said something that took Bill by complete surprise. He said, ‘You know, Michelle would make a great presidential candidate, too.’
“Bill was speechless.” [snip]
Bill Clinton would go on to campaign for Obama in 2012, but he felt betrayed when the president seemed to waver when it came to a 2016 endorsement of Hillary. Obama attempted to smooth things over with a joint “60 Minutes” interview with Hillary, and later a private dinner for the two couples at the White House. [snip]
Lately, Bill Clinton has become convinced that Obama won’t endorse Hillary in 2016. During a gathering at Whitehaven, guests overheard Bill talking to his daughter Chelsea about whether the president would back Joe Biden.
“Recently, I’ve been hearing a different scenario from state committeemen,” Clinton said. “They say he’s looking for a candidate who’s just like him. Someone relatively unknown. Someone with a fresh face.
“He’s convinced himself he’s been a brilliant president, and wants to clone himself — to find his Mini-Me.
“He’s hunting for someone to succeed him, and he believes the American people don’t want to vote for someone who’s been around for a long time. He thinks that your mother and I are what he calls ‘so 20th century.’ He’s looking for another Barack Obama.”
You can believe Big Media narratives about Hillary Clinton and the Team of Rivals friendship palsy walsy nonsense. Or, you can believe there is a blood feud between the Clintons and the dastard Obamas. We’ll side with our reports and if that means for now we are on the side of Edward Klein, so be it.
Update II: AP calls the Mississippi race for Cochran. Questions now:
(1) Will McDaniels demand a recount? Mississippi primary runoff elections allow for any voter to vote in a party primary but the voter may not have voted in an earlier primary. The likelihood is that many of Cochran’s voters voted in the primary and therefore their votes are not legal. The vote is close so will McDaniel demand a recount?
(2) After reelection how soon will Cochran retire to make room for a Haley Barbour relative?
Big question: Why did Obama Dimocrats go all out to help reelect Cochran? According to them they had a small chance to win if McDaniel was the nominee but absolutely none if Cochran won. So is the hatred by the establishment of both parties so great for the Tea Party that the establishments of both parties got together to deny the Tea Party another victory?
Update: Polls are still open in New York for Harlem’s Charliedämmerung. Polls just closed (at 8:00) in Mississippi for Cochrandämmerung. There’s also that race for the Republican nomination in Oklahoma which our emails indicate people are angry at us for not discussing.
Tonight in Harlem, New York, the oldest and bloodiest of the blood feuds will be settled. More ironies and rhythms than a Duke Ellington score in tonight’s Harlem Shuffle.
Clash down on the hi-hat cymbal ’cause Harlem ain’t the capital of black America no mo’. Swirling demographics that Obama minions promised would mean an Obama Dimocratic thousand year Reich have only led to Harlem now majority Latino. Whither minority majority districts when the minority is booted out by another minority? As a race-baiter would say ‘a majority Latino district must have a Latino representative.’ Ha! Those like Charlie Rangel that boasted about the power of majority minority districts are now on the firing line, literally. Charlie Rangel might lose his job – to a Latino:
Through immigration and redistricting, what is now New York’s 13th Congressional District — a seat Rangel has held since 1971 and viewed as the center of New York’s modern black political power structure — has experienced a seismic demographic shift from majority black to majority Hispanic.
Hoping to seize on those demographics as well as the perception of Rangel’s waning political power in the years since Congress formally censured him in 2010 for ethics violations, state Sen. Adriano Espaillat is mounting a spirited challenge to the 22-term incumbent — a rematch of the 2012 race in which Rangel topped Espaillat by just 1,000 votes. [snip]
In recent years, Rangel’s district has been recarved, turning what has for years been a majority-black district into one that is 52 percent Hispanic and adding new parts of the Bronx where Rangel is not as well-known or as well-regarded. [snip]
On Wednesday, the New York Times editorial board endorsed Espaillat:
“After a humiliating censure by Congress four years ago for failing to pay taxes and other ethical lapses, Representative Charles Rangel has steadily lost power in Washington. After nearly 44 years in office, it is now time for him to yield to the next generation.”
John Samuelsen, president of the Transit Workers Union Local 100, said: “Everybody is tired of Rangel. We need a champion that will stand up for us. That’s not Charlie Rangel.” The union has said Rangel has not done enough to bring federal money to the district to fund transit worker jobs.
It’s all about the money for some people. Somehow the unions have yet to wake up to the reality that the gravy train doesn’t stop for them anymore. It’s not that Rangel couldn’t deliver it’s that there’s not much left to deliver.
For Rangel the tax cheat it was always about the money as he now tries to outrun the History Train. The changing demographics he thought would transform America are transforming him out of a job and Harlem into Santo Domingo. There was a time that Charlie Rangel fought for his country with honor. There was a time when Charlie Rangel did the right thing. There was a time when Charlie Rangel could beat the odds:
When Rangel held a demographic revolution at bay
The parallels between what Charlie Rangel insists will be his final campaign for Congress and his first one are obvious: an entrenched, aging incumbent revered for his civil rights record but diminished by ethical misconduct scrambling to beat back a primary challenge from an ambitious state legislator who promises to bring new vitality to the position.
The twist, of course, is that Rangel’s present-day challenger, Adriano Espaillat, is now cast in the role that Rangel himself played when he stunned Adam Clayton Powell in a 1970 Democratic primary. But 44 years of incumbency, the loss of a powerful committee chairmanship to scandal, and a humiliating rebuke from his own House colleagues have created for the 84-year-old Rangel many of the same vulnerabilities that he exploited when he knocked off Powell all those decades ago.
As appealing as this narrative is, though, the bigger threat to Rangel may be simple demographics. When he wrested the seat from Powell in 1970, his Harlem-based district was arguably the center of black political power in America, but today that same district is barely one-quarter black, with a growing Latino population that now accounts for 55 percent of its residents.
Once again we see that often what we fought against in youth we become in dotage. The Charlie Rangel promise to fight corruption and privilege became the congressman tax cheat of established privilege.
The Charlie Rangel race is also a warning to those that talk about “demographic destiny” as if it is a religion that will smite only in one direction. The Robespierres who believe “demographic destiny” rings in doom only for Republicans/conservatives better prepare themselves for the unintended consequences that will lop off their heads too.
Charlie Rangel might survive tonight because he is the establishment candidate. But survive or not, Rangel won’t thrive. Rangel’s days are numbered.
In Mississippi tonight another blood feud will be settled. The McDaniel v Cochran primary runoff election is bathed in scarlet from the earlier GOP establishment loss in Virginia. The Tea Party outsiders scored a big win Eric Cantor was forced from the stage. Much of Cantor’s loss was due to the lawlessness on the southern border. And as with the Rangel race, the unintended consequences are only now looming for Obama supporters:
The Cantor defeat and the surge of Central American teens make it unlikely that House Republican leaders will advance much in the way of immigration legislation.
Two trends in polling also point in this direction. One is that Hispanic voters don’t seem hugely preoccupied with immigration. The Pew Research Center reports that many more focus on education, the economy and health than the one-third who say immigration is “extremely important” to them personally.
The other is that the president’s job approval among Hispanics has been falling sharply. He got 71 percent of their votes in 2012, but fewer than half approve his performance today.
It’s not hard to see why. The sluggish economy has hurt Hispanics more than most Americans. Obamacare and big government policies have not helped them as they apparently have hoped.
This suggests that non-passage of comprehensive legislation won’t hurt Republicans as much as predicted.
For Republicans/conservatives the problem is not the “demographic destiny” mirage adored by Obama “creative class” loons. The problem is more like that confronting Charlie Rangel in Harlem: exposed hypocrisy and ruling political class privilege and arrogance.
American governance is premised on “consent of the governed”. But now “democratic consent” is usurped by a political class – Republicans/Democrats/Liberals/Conservatives that believe themselves to be a ruling class with a mandate from Hell.
Enter the Tea Party. Enter Occupy Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street was an Obama election year scam. These liars and their dupes fooled enough people enough of the time to re-elect the flim-flam scam man from Chicago while at the same time genitally mutilating any hope for change from the left.
The moment the Tea Party emerged, on April 15, 2010, we immediately recognized it as the potent antidote to Obama’s Hopium narcotic. Most of the Republican establishment either secretly mocked the costumed Tea Party activists or openly sought to water the tea into piss water. Tonight we will once again witness the failure of the Republican establishment. The fire will spread and consume then something new will sprout through the ashes to blossom.
Whatever tonight’s election results we already know who has won this Tea Party v. GOP establishment blood feud. McDaniel won more votes than Cochran in the primary. More importantly McDaniel destroyed the Big Media inspired myth that the Tea Party was over as a political force.
There is another blood feud with origins in 2007 and 2008. That blood feud won’t be resolved tonight. But a reckoning is coming in that one too. More on that one… soon.
WORST REPORTING OF THE WEEK: about REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR SCOTT WALKER AND DEMOCRAT HILLARY CLINTON [snip]
If they did original reporting, the would know that yes, the prosecutor in Wisconsin in a document accused Governor Scott Walker of a crime (that is common and routine for a prosecutor) BUT OBVIOUSLY THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT TAKE IT SERIOUSLY SINCE NEVER CHARGED HIM WITH A CRIME. That is a HUGE difference – accusing v. charging. If the prosecutor thought Walker committed a crime, he just had to fill out a paper and charge him. And if he thought Walker committed a crime, it was his job to charge him – but that did not happen. Second, a Federal Judge ruled later that the conduct the prosecutor objected to is not a crime, that the alleged conduct fits within a loophole of the campaign law. That ruling is now on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit but if it is upheld, it means that the prosecutor accused Governor Walker of innocent conduct (conduct that is not illegal.) If it is reversed, then Walker may have trouble but that is not where the facts stand now.
If they did original reporting, they would have read the court file in the Arkansas case (I did) and seen that the affidavit filed by then 27 year old lawyer Hillary Rodham was a routine application for a court ordered psychiatric evaluation of the complainant. It was not Clinton going after the accuser – but rather filing a routine application in her constitutional job to represent a client. Clinton said she had reports about the complainant and wanted the Court to pursue it further with an examination. That’s routine. Second, if they did original reporting, they would have LISTENED to the tape and learned that Clinton’s laughter (sarcastic I thought) was about polygraphs and not the complainant or the charge.Like with Governor Scott Walker, this is a big difference. The polygraph occurred when no doubt the client was claiming he was innocent to his lawyer Clinton. Clients do that…insist insist and insist innocence. He took polygraph and passed. He then later pleaded guilty and admitted his guilt …to his lawyer Clinton and then in court at the plea…..hence the polygraph remark by Clinton.
Lying hypocrites of the left have a great deal in common, more so than with us, with lying hypocrites of the right. The Sunni Right and the Shiitty Left should shut up.
Republicans/conservatives get extra points for stupidity (1) because they are so politically inept that with all the evidence against Barack Obama and his Chicago thugs they still fail to nail Obama and won’t appoint enough select committees or utilize the inherent power of the House because they prefer to talk, talk, talk; and (2) Republicans conservatives fail to see that as much as they hate Bill and Hillary Clinton the Shiitty Left hates them even more.
This is a true story: in 2012, Democratic district attorneys in Wisconsin launched a secret probe known as a John Doe investigation with the goal of proving that conservative groups illegally coordinated activities during Gov. Scott Walker’s recall election. They issued more than 100 subpoenas, demanded the private information of conservatives and conservative groups, and actually conducted secret raids. And under state law, individuals who were targeted or witness to the investigation were forbidden from making knowledge of it public.
Fortunately, judges saw right through this partisan abuse of power. Early this year, a state judge, ruling in a secret proceeding, quashed the subpoenas and all but ended the investigation. [snip]
In February, a conservative activist and group filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the partisan district attorneys who had pursued the John Doe probe. In short order, a federal district court judge held that the plaintiffs “are likely to succeed on their claim that the defendants‘ investigation violates their rights under the First Amendment, such that the investigation was commenced and conducted ―without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction.” [snip]
Most recently, that appeals court has ordered some of the previously secret probe documents disclosed to the public, including an unsuccessful defense that the John Doe investigators made to one of their secret subpoenas. In their attempt to get a subpoena, which was rejected by a judge for lacking probable cause, the partisan investigators claimed that Walker was involved in the so-called conservative conspiracy.
To summarize, a politically motivated and harmful investigation by partisan prosecutors victimized Governor Scott Walker and his supporters. Big Media reported these facts to mean that Scott Walker was guilty of criminal activity. Big Media published the failed lies of prosecutors and willfully ignored that Scott Walker and his supporters were the victims of the failed lies.
Like Scott Walker, Hillary Clinton is also fighting a smear. This idiocy is mostly confined to Sean Hannity and the Washington Free Beacon. The “scandal” is that Hillary, as a very young lawyer, defended a rapist, a child rapist at that. This is supposed to show that Hillary hates children or something or is insincere or something.
This Hillary Clinton rape scandal was examined in the past repeatedly and used against her politically repeatedly. Now the story is revived because the Washington Free Beacon, to its journalistic credit (now if they would only go talk to Rezko), found an audio tape of a young Hillary Clinton discussing the long-ago case.
A CNN panel denounced Hillary and some few Republican/conservative websites are trying to get some mileage from the audio tape. Now the Hillary Clinton rape scandal has a new angle due to the rape victim saying some very angry things against Hillary Clinton:
The victim, whose name has been withheld in the media, spoke with the Daily Beast. The interview appears to have occurred after the conservative website The Free Beacon on Sunday published audio tapes from the 1980s in which Clinton discussed the case with a reporter. In those tapes, Clinton seemed to suggest she thought her client, Thomas Alfred Taylor, was guilty of the crime that he was not convicted of committing. [snip]
“Hillary Clinton took me through hell,” the victim told the Daily Beast, adding that she would confront Clinton if she had the chance to speak with her.
“I would say [to Clinton], ‘You took a case of mine in ‘75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me,” she said. “And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”
The above excerpt is by Maggie Haberman who is not to be trusted in anything. If Haberman says Hillary ate lunch on June 20, 2014, check to be sure Hillary lunched because Haberman makes things up about Hillary Clinton all the time. Here’s the audio of Hillary talking about 1975 when Hillary was 27 years old:
In May 1975, Washington County prosecutor Mahlon Gibson called Rodham, who had taken over the law clinic months earlier, to tell her she’d been appointed to represent a hard-drinking factory worker named Thomas Alfred Taylor, who had requested a female attorney.
In her 2003 autobiography “Living History,” Clinton writes that she initially balked at the assignment, but eventually secured a lenient plea deal for Taylor after a New York-based forensics expert she hired “cast doubt on the evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff’s office.” [snip]
Echoing legal experts, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson says the senator would have been committing professional misconduct if she hadn’t given Taylor the best defense possible.
“As she wrote in her book, ‘Living History,’ Senator Clinton was appointed by the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas to represent Mr. Taylor in this matter,” he said. “As an attorney and an officer of the court, she had an ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent of the law. To act otherwise would have constituted a breach of her professional responsibilities.” [snip]
“She was vigorously advocating for her client. What she did was appropriate,” said Andrew Schepard, director of Hofstra Law School’s Center for Children, Families and the Law. [snip]
With all the anguish she’d felt over the case in the years since, there was one thing she never realized – that the lawyer for the man she reviles was none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“I have to understand that she was representing Taylor,” she said when interviewed in prison last fall. “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job.“
One would think a responsible reporter in 2014 would note for readers that in 2008 the alleged victim said “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job.” Indeed Hillary was doing her job. Maybe Haberman or Thrush hire lawyers to represent them on the basis of doing the worse job possible but most people want the best legal representation, not the worse.
In 1975 Hillary was 27 years old and just appointed to run the University of Arkansas Law School legal aid clinic. Hillary fully expected to eventually return to work with Marian Wright Edelman on children issues. But first she was forced to represent an accused rapist:
Taylor, 41, figured a jury would be less hostile to a rape defendant represented by a woman, according to one of his friends. Cummings agreed to the request, scanned the list of available female attorneys (there were only a half dozen in the county at the time) and assigned Rodham, who had virtually no experience in criminal litigation.
“Hillary told me she didn’t want to take that case, she made that very clear,” recalls prosecutor Gibson, who phoned her with the judge’s order.
“I didn’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request,” the eventual first lady writes in “Living History.” [snip]
Gibson (who is not related to prosecutor Mahlon Gibson) had no illusions about how hard the case would be to prove, because the girl seemed to have a romantic interest in the 15-year-old. [snip]
“Taylor was alleged to have raped this girl in a car right near a very busy highway – I told her it seems sort of improbable and she immediately agreed,” said Baker, who remembered Rodham as “smart, capable and very focused.” [snip]
Prosecution case crumbles [snip]
By the fall of 1975, the prosecution’s case was crumbling under pressure from Rodham and other factors relating to the evidence and the witnesses. [snip]
In 2005, while working in a laundry, the victim stole several hundred dollars worth of checks from her boss to buy drugs. She is now living in a halfway house and looking for work.
Despite these problems, she bears Hillary Rodham Clinton no ill will and was eager to read “Living History” – at least pages 72 and 73, which contain her case.
We left out most of the details of this convoluted case loaded with witness lies and a difficult to prove crime because no one seemed to be sure if the alleged victim had consensual sex with a boy or raped by an older man. Add to all this the results of the lie detector test Hillary discusses in the audio tape and the smear of Hillary laughing at a rape falls apart.
What Haberman and other Hillary haters term ‘Hillary laughing because she got a rapist free’ appears more to us as a very young lawyer on her first criminal case beginning to realize that things are often not as they seem. Was Hillary’s laugh a decade later chagrin as she recalled herself as a young lawyer realizing that a lie detector cannot be trusted to detect lies from a man she believed to be guilty or was Hillary’s incredulous laugh a decade later a way to convey that what others saw as brilliant legal work on her part was actually very easy once you added an exculpatory polygraph test result to the other overwhelming evidence (and lost underwear/semen evidence by the prosecutor) in favor of her client? But to say Hillary Clinton laughed at the plight of a rape victim a decade later is not believable.
Some are alleging that Hillary supporters do not want “the Hillary tapes” heard by the American public and distorting the facts to claim that Hillary was not forced by appointment to defend the alleged criminal. Hells bells, we do. Here, listen again. Check out that last part with Hillary laughing because the prosecutor won’t discuss evidence in the rape trial with a lady present and listen as Hillary incredulously laughs that that really could have happened and how she stood her ground. Here listen again:
We love listening to Hillary with her southern accent. But we do think this rape scandal story is just stupid. Stop it. Stop smearing Scott Walker. Stop smearing Hillary Clinton.
Gee willikers what rage! Quelle horreur! Weez shur nuff be
skered now. Not. This display is not as scary as a Girl Scout demanding money from a delinquent cookie customer. But from the coverage we’ve seen you would think this was a volcanic eruption. It wasn’t. It was just talk. Talk, talk, talk. To be followed by more talk, talk, talk.
Cut the crap Congress. Cut the crap Republicans. Stop it. Cut the crap. You know what to do. Special prosecutor. Select committee.
Hillary Clinton told you this is a scandal during her interview on Fox News. Appoint a G_d damn select committee and demand a special prosecturo or shut up. Do something about this outrage or shut up. Stop it. Stop the bu*lshit posturing and do what you have to do.
Same goes with this immigration crap. Stop it. Do something or shut up. And by “do something” we don’t mean “immigration reform”. We mean a select committee investigation. We mean a special prosecutor.
From now on any and all Obama scandals should automatically trigger a special select committee and demands for a special prosecutor. If you can’t do that just shut up. Shut up! Stop the posturing nonsense.
Republicans in Congress know they have to power to save the nation. Eric Holder at the corrupt Justice Department is doing everything to protect Barack Obama. Barack Obama will break all the laws he wants. Congress has the power to stop this. Congressional Republicans know they have the power but rather posture than do what they must do to save the nation.
An imploding Hillary is premised on a notion by Jonathan Last that Hillary will be destroyed by the horrid mess Barack Obama is responsible for. It’s an argument we made a long time ago.
Our advice to Hillary then was to attack Obama and separate herself from his mess. As we discuss in our article below, that appears to be exactly the path Hillary has finally begun to walk. Instead of imploding, as we ourselves suggested HERE, Hillary Clinton is beginning to correct course. And as to Terry Gross and DOMA, Hillary spoke the historical truth and that smack-down is the tough Hillary Americans like to love.
The imploding Hillary article is further undermined by the authors of the imploding Hillary article with their quote from JustKarlDoes it matter whether Hillary is imploding when the GOP’s big idea is a man in a squirrel suit?
It’s a squirrel in more ways than one. Here’s how Hillary bakes squirrel pie:
Take politics out of politics! Take competition out of sports! Take sex out of pornography! Take money out of business! Take corruption out of Obama! Take conservatives out of panty-sniffing! Take deviousness out of the left! Take stupidity out of the right!
The hypocritical and devious idiots on the left along with the buffoons on the right love, just love, to criticize Bill and Hillary Clinton for playing politics. “Everything they do is so calculated… they’re so political.” Guess what – we admire a politician that plays politics. What we detest is a clod who plays politics badly.
Barack Obama is a clod who plays politics badly. Oh sure, Obama is a gussied up trollop genius at self-promotion and self-advancement. Like a transvestite hooker on a street corner Barack Obama can get the cash but once the clothes come off he can’t deliver what he promised to the customer.
Put aside the great problem for Barack Obama: Americans know his loyalties lie not with America nor the American people but with himself. That’s a great part of Obama’s problem, one that Americans sensed from the beginning, that manifested itself in demands for documentation and a birth certificate. It wasn’t, as clever Obama campaign creeps twisted it, a “racist” attack or a perception of Obama as “the other”.
The problem was that Obama advanced from nowhere having done nothing other than vote “present” on critical issues and that he expressed loathing for simple things such as buying Christmas gifts and wearing flag lapel pins. There was Obama’s Iraq speech but that was entirely “a fairy tale” told to idiots.
Having race-baited his way to the White House a smart politician would have banked his gains by releasing all the information about himself denied during the campaign and reached out to co-opt the minority in order to achieve great things. But ever the clod Barack Obama beat his chest with declarations of “I won” and publicly masturbated his ego. It was dumb politics.
“This poll is a disaster for the president,” Todd said. “You look at the presidency here: Lowest job rating, tied for the lowest; lowest on foreign policy. His administration is seen as less competent than the Bush administration, post-Katrina.”
“On the issue of do you believe he can still lead? A majority believe no. Essentially the public is saying your presidency is over,” Todd added.
A smart politician playing smart politics would not constantly be seen taking vacations and golfing especially not during international crisis explosions. A smart politician would not visit with his robot giraffe friend (we don’t mean Michelle) during an international crisis. There are those who mocked Bill and Hillary Clinton for commissioning polls on where they should vacation but who is playing smart politics and who is a boob ignoring the will of the people?
You wanna throw a good dinner party? You better poll your friends to see what they eat and drink these days. You don’t want to serve steaks and assorted meats if most of your friends have gone vegetarian. You don’t want to serve vegetarian dishes if what your friends crave is a thick steak with greasy sauce all over it. Get the point?
You want to throw a big steak barbeque you better not invite your veggie friends who will be disgusted by the slaughter. It’s smart politics on a micro level.
A smart politician playing smart politics must know what the constituents who elected her are thinking. That does not mean that a smart politician is driven entirely by polls. But a smart politician better know what the people are thinking and what the people want and don’t want. Consider FDR.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt can be considered one the biggest liars ever. FDR ran on a promise of keeping the United States out of war and as president regularly restated that the United States would not get involved in the conflagrations and horrors abroad.
But FDR privately knew that he had to prepare the United States for the real world about to literally explode in their back yard. “Brilliant politician” FDR played smart politics. FDR provoked the Japanese with embargoes that threatened to choke the empire. FDR’s “lend lease program” sold as a neighbor lending his garden hose to a neighbor with a burning house is correctly called by historian Robert Dallek “patent nonsense”.
I think the lasting importance of the Atlantic conference between FDR and Churchill was that they got along, that they had a kind of mutual view of the world. They accepted the proposition that the greatest thing they had to do was to defeat Nazi Germany, that this was an absolutely crucial thing for democracy in the world. And that this blight upon western civilization had to be overcome. And that they were both committed to it and it was clear, crystal clear to both of them that this was their agenda.Whatever tactics, methods they might use, that this was their ultimate goal and they shared it and they wouldn’t lose sight of it.
Liar or leader or both? What we do know is that FDR acted in what he perceived to be America’s best interests. The same cannot be said of Barack Obama whose interest in what is good for the United States is at best incidental to his pleasures and delusions of world historical grandeur.
We rejoice every time we see a brilliant politician playing smart politics. Indeed a great deal of Bill Clinton’s charms which Republicans/conservatives refuse to see even as it stares them right in the face and bites them in the ass is that Bill Clinton is a brilliant politician constantly getting himself in trouble – and then somehow getting himself out of trouble. Millions cheer the man on the flying trapeze!
Republicans/conservatives and leftists don’t seem to recognize that this “perils of Pauline” drama exemplified by Bill Clinton is also one of Hillary Clinton’s great strengths. Why are so many Americans so supportive of Hillary Clinton even if they cannot name one single solitary Hillary Clinton “achievement”? A great part of this inchoate admiration is that Americans admire Bill and Hillary Clinton because they can take a licking and keep on ticking (pun mischievously intended).
We intended to write today about Hillary Clinton’s achievements in the State Department and beyond but Tuesday’s tour-de-force performances on CNN and Fox News deserve more discussion. You won’t find much written about Tuesday’s Hillary appearances. The DailyKooks left sulked in silence because they hate Hillary even going on Fox News let alone planting bombs in Obama’s ass. Republicans/conservatives glumly stayed mostly silent too.
She did put some distance between herself and Obama on the IRS scandal, making it clear she agreed that any controversy involving that powerful agency should concern Americans. She implied she didn’t think it was the kind of “phony scandal” the president has dismissed it as. She called for a continued investigation into wrongdoing at the IRS but insisted it be depoliticized as much as possible. [snip]
All in all, her opponents were given no new ammunition but supporters of President Obama were put on notice that she will continue to distance herself from his policies in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways.
Trippi, like us, was surprised Hillary came off “as relaxed as she did.” Trippi also said he thought Hillary’s worst moment was on the IRS.Trippi then noted that the IRS scandal hurts Barack Obama and in no way hurts Hillary. Smart politics.
First, it confirmed the Clinton is prepared to distance herself from President Obama.
For example, on the Bergdahl deal, she insisted that she wanted a different, broader deal, and declined to come right out and say she would have made the deal Obama ultimately agreed to. She also implied that the Obama State Department may not be doing enough to free the Marine being held by Mexican authorities.
Clinton even went so far as to lump Obama together with President Bush (and her husband). [snip]
Clinton also struggled to defend her claim that the five Taliban commanders released in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl pose no threat to the United States. She relied on the fact that the five are in Qatar and “are supposed to be constrained from what they can do, and certainly they are not supposed to be permitted to travel.”
Clinton’s resort to the word “supposed” gives the game away. And even if the supposed constraints are meaningful, they are good for only one year.
Clinton’s Obama problem came to the fore when she was asked whether she agreed with Obama that the IRS scandal is “phony.” She admitted that the scandal might be real, but defended Obama’s comment by interpreting it to mean that the scandal is being used by some for partisan purposes.
Obama is under the ReadyForHillary bus on the IRS scandal and when the Obama Terrorist Squad starts to conspire and kill – Hillary will be positioned to attack Obama on his failed Qatar Obama Terrorist Squad death deal.
On the NSA, the American Marine imprisoned by Mexico, the sexist/misogynist dudes that wanted Hillary to attack Sarah Palin, and the sexist/misognyist ageist dudes working at the behest of Barack Obama – Hillary took aim and fired:
Empirical evidence to the contrary, it wasn’t exactly my intent to unload on the poor guy who has to somehow turn five and a half years of Obama by-products into something that people might not retch at the mere sight of. I’ve been there, you see. I know how it feels when your party has given you nothing to work with – and at least then I still had a President with a strong moral sense and a stubborn refusal to bend on the policies that he knew that he had to defend, if he wanted to avoid going to Hell when he died. This guy doesn’t even have that, and while I will not judge anybody who callously shrugs at the author’s poor life choices I’m just a big softy sentimentalist at heart, especially since it doesn’t actually cost me anything.
But seriously: Hillary Clinton should totally run on a promise for four more years of Barack Obama. She should yell that from every podium, soapbox, sound stage, and maybe yodel it from the top of the Grand Canyon. No. Really. I insist.
Moe is goofing on Hillary but more on Barack Obama’s record of ceaseless failure. Moe Lane like every intelligent Republican/conservative wants to tie Hillary Clinton to the leper. It’s smart politics.
During a town hall on CNN on Tuesday, Clinton was asked about a recent surge of unaccompanied minors rushing over the Mexican border. When asked what the United States should do about this predicament, Clinton endorsed deportation.
“They should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns whether all of them should be sent back,” Clinton said. “But I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families.”
“We have so to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,” she continued. “So, we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”
Rub your eyes and read that again. Then there is this:
On foreign policy, Clinton did nothing to counter the prevailing notion on the left that she is far more hawkish than President Barack Obama. “I don’t think we should be retreating from the world,” Clinton said, in an implicit rebuke of the Obama administration’s unstated doctrine of global retrenchment.
She distanced herself from the present administration on Syria, noting that the White House should have armed the Syrian rebels “you know, two plus years ago.”
To the likely dismay of The New York Times editorial board, which praised the administration’s outreach to Iran on Tuesday, Clinton expressed doubts in the utility of a partnership with the Islamic Republic. “I am not prepared to say that we go in with Iran right now, until we have a better idea what we’re getting ourselves into,” Clinton said.
“What they (Iran) want to do in Baghdad is basically to envelop (Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki) in the Iranian embrace, maybe even use their own troops in Iraq, as they did in Syria. That is a very difficult position to put the United States in.”
Bush made a mess, Obama made is worse. We opposed the war in Iraq because it would benefit the theocracy in Iran. Now Obama wants to make monster theocrats in Iran American allies.
Finally, on the persistent issue of the Benghazi attacks, Clinton legitimized a congressional select committee investigation by conceding that there are several unanswered questions about that event. “There are answers, not all of them, not enough, frankly,” Clinton said. “I’m still looking for answers, because it was a confusing and difficult time.”
The former secretary of state added that “there’s a lot we don’t know” about the nature of the attack, who participated, and what their motivation was.
In a subsequent appearance on Fox News on Tuesday, Clinton answered a series of hard questions about the Benghazi attack, her role that night, and how members of Obama’s administration responded. Not once did she bristle over the nature of her interrogation, nor did she suggest, as she has in the past, that Fox hosts’ lines of questioning were motivated by partisanship.
Similarly, when asked if she agreed with the president that this and other scandals, like that involving the IRS’s alleged targeting of conservative groups with undue scrutiny, were “phony,” Clinton appeared to suggest that she did not.
“Anytime the IRS is involved, for many people, it’s a real scandal,” she conceded. [snip]
In a post-game analysis of Clinton’s appearance on CNN, former White House advisor and current Crossfire co-host Van Jones expressed concerns that Clinton may be alienating Obama Democrats with her center-left approach to a variety of pressing policy issues. These performances certainly did nothing to reassure progressives like MSNBC host Krystal Ball who Tuesday called Clinton the Democratic Party’s Mitt Romney; “tone-deaf” and “unrelatable” as she is.
What does smart politician playing smart politics Hillary Clinton fear? The evidence mounts that she is afraid of one thing only: being tied to Barack Obama or being seen as the Obama third term. Smart lady.
Update II: MoonOnPluto in the comments section provides coverage of the Hillary appearance on CNN. As to the Fox News interview Hillary did very well. Hillary planted a lot of time bombs against Obama in these interviews (for example calling for more investigations of the IRS scandal). Without naming Sarah Palin while answering a question about Sarah Palin, Hillary shows some sister solidarity. She also attacks age based discrimination from Obama White House dudes against Ambassador Holbrook. Here’s Part I of the interview which is mostly about Benghazi and Bergdahl:
Update: Hillary Clinton on a CNN “townhall” at 5:00 EDT is sure to be asked about the news that is breaking: US captures first suspect in Benghazi attack. CNN’s “townhall” is bound to be boring. There will be questions CNN will feel they have to ask and they will ask them. But to get a sense of what CNN really wants to dish about listen to the questions they choose “from the public”.
The real show will be tonight on Fox News when two, real, tough, fair and balanced journalists (brutal Bret Baier at 6; mighty Greta Van Susteren at 7) question the unsinkable Hillary. Fox News is Ready for Hillary. Hillary better be ready for Fox News.
It’s fun to watch Hillary Clinton lead Republicans/conservatives and leftist haters down the garden path. The Hillary Clinton book tour is underway.
The reviews of Hillary Clinton book tour week one (and now week two) are in and they foolishly proclaim the whole ordeal to be a disaster. Those that lack the courage to attack Hillary directly take a dive and proclaim the book ‘a bore without news’. The left denounces Hillary as not sufficiently Obama level crazy. Republican/conservatives miss the point entirely.
Well not all Republican/conservatives. Sarah Palin and Matt Drudge showed Republicans/conservatives how to utilize the Hillary Clinton book tour to their advantage. But instead of following Sarah Palin and Matt Drudge’s lead most Republican/conservatives took a u-turn into futility.
What did Sarah Palin and Matt Drudge do? Last week, underneath a picture of a pig nasty Barack Obama observed by a serious Hillary Clinton, Matt Drudge blasted this headline: ‘SEXISM’ IN ’08
In her new memoir, “Hard Choices,” Clinton wrote that she rejected a request from the Obama campaign to attack Sarah Palin, who was then running for vice president.
“That very first day, the Obama campaign said, ‘Well, we want you to go out there and criticize her,’ and I said ‘For what? For being a woman? No, let’s wait until we know where she stands, I don’t know anything about her. Do you know anything about her?’” Clinton said she told the Obama campaign.
In response to Clinton’s revelation, Palin tweeted: “Look who fired the 1st shot on the real ‘war on women.’ Hint: it wasn’t the GOP. See this excerpt from Hillary’s book,” accompanied by a picture of “Hard Choices.”
A senior Obama campaign official said that the request for Clinton to speak was tailored specifically to Palin’s speech after McCain picked her as his running mate, in which she made a direct pitch for Clinton supporters.
Notice, Hillary Clinton’s truth-telling gave Republicans a way to repudiate the Obama “war on women” attack against Republicans. The Obama henchmen saw the danger to their 2014 hopes and tried to limit the damage Hillary Clinton inflicted on them. To this day Hillary Clinton repeats the charge every time she is asked possibly because Hillary knows that if any leftist can be found to run against her in 2016 the sexism and misogyny of 2008 will return full force against her. Only Sarah Palin took advantage of this new weaponry.
Why did Hillary do this? Aside from a potential leftist candidate running against her using sexism as a not wo veiled weapon, Hillary takes seriously her commitment to women’s rights and wants to let out a bit of the truth of what happened in 2008. A lot of purist know-nothings that supported her in 2008 are angry that Hillary did not “speak out” at the time about the Obama sexist attacks on Sarah Palin. But we all knew and it was remarked at the time that Hillary Clinton never attacked Sarah Palin.
Lots of political “observers” waited in vain for Hillary to drop a bomb on Sarah Palin in 2008 but that never happened. The purist know-nothings wanted Hillary, remember she was at that point smeared as a “racist” and has-been by Obama thugs and Big Media, to say something against the Obama campaign that Obama Big Media would discount as “sore loser talk”. Instead Hillary managed to block, at least for a while the hate driven misogynistic and sexist attacks against Sarah Palin.
All this Sarah Palin understands and that is why she began to tweet. The “war on women” strategic lie which has so profited Obama Dimocrats could be undermined and Sarah Palin went for it. If Palin dared, she would send Hillary a very public thank you and ask for a meeting to discuss Obama sexism and how to fight politically motivated misogyny.
Palin and Drudge showed the way. Instead of taking a lead from Sarah Palin and Matt Drudge the blood ran hot on one too many Republicans/conservatives who chose to refight fights they have lost, lose and will continue to lose.
So what did Republican/conservatives do instead of investing time and publicity on this potentially game changing gift from Hillary? They went for broke.
It was sad. Republicans/conservatives and the leftist loons mocked Hillary saying that she and Bill were broke and in debt when they left the White House. What Hillary said is a fact and historically accurate. Further, other than feeding a need for mockery it gains Republicans/conservatives nothing. The Hillary hating left does not gain anything from this either.
Hillary and Bill left the White House broke and in debt because of all the futile panty sniffing investigations brought about by Republicans forced them to hire lawyers and get into debt. The public still has not forgotten nor forgiven Republicans/conservatives for such panty sniffing stupidity so Republicans/conservatives are doing their best to remind the public of their panty sniffing stupidity and how they are not to be trusted with the investigative tools of government.
Hells Bells, Kenneth Starr the sniveling panty sniffing inquisitor has admitted he made a mistake in his panty sniffing pursuits. Richard Mellon Scaife and his right hand man Christopher Ruddy – the top Hillary and Bill Clinton tormentors of the 90s – are now Hillary and Bill Clinton friends and even contributed to Hillary Clinton 2008. David Brock the top Clinton tormentor now is in the Clinton camp too.
But old habits die hard and instead of helping themselves by undermining the “war on women” hogwash Republicans/conservatives undermine themselves. The self described “morons and moronettes” at Ace of Spades are featuring frequent comments in many articles about Hillary requiring a walker to prop herself for a People magazine cover photo. This all comes from a moronic article at Washington Free Beacon alleging that Hillary was using a walker. More and more stories came out about doddering ol’ Hillary and the walker. This from a party that twice nominated for vice president a guy with many heart attacks.
The morons and moronettes at Ace of Spades are having fun and using some clever mockery of Hillary photos to pleasure themselves. We get it. It’s often fun to poke fun and laugh at your opponents and that is what Ace of Spades is engaged in even while trying to keep alive a narrative of Hillary being too old and feeble to be president. It’s a waste of time but we can see the fun of having fun. It will eventually come back to haunt them when sexist pigs fighting for survival in 2014 attack them as waging a “war on women”.
Tommy Vietor and the misogynist sexist dudes of Obama 2008 will clutch their pearls at those dastard Republican/conservatives who are saying such mean things about Hillary even though they are the ones who began the “war on women” and hate Hillary more than any Republican/conservative.
Smart Republican/conservatives should be inoculating themselves and their political interests by talking nonstop about nasty sexist misogynist Barack Obama. Hey we wrote about that long ago. But somehow they just can’t help it.
As foolish and emotion driven as Republicans are, the left is much worse. Take for example the Hillary interview at NPR. We’ll just copy from our comments section:
Hillary haters think this interview on gay marriage somehow hurts Hillary. But this is the tough Hillary we like. Hillary is right on the facts and the leftist interviewer is one of those “liberals” who ignores reality. Bill Clinton signed DOMA because it was the best strategy to stop a constitutional amendment against gay marriage proposed by Democrats such as Sam Nunn. It’s great to listen to Hillary call her out:
HILLARY CLINTON: “I think you’re reading it very wrong. I think that, as I said – just as the President has said – just because you’re a politician doesn’t mean you’re not a thinking human being. You gather information, you think through positions, you’re not one hundred percent set, thank goodness, you’re constantly re-evaluating where you stand. That is true for me. We talked earlier about Iraq, for goodness sakes. So for me, marriage has always been a matter left to the states and in many of the conversations I and my colleagues and supporters had, I fully endorse the efforts by activists to work state-by-state. In fact, that is what is working and I think that being in the position that I was in the Senate, fighting employment discrimination which we still have some ways to go, was appropriate at that time. As Secretary of State, I was out of domestic politics and I was certainly doing all I could on the international scene to raise the importance of the human rights of the LGBT community. And then leaving that position, I was able to very quickly announce that I was fully in support of gay marriage and that it is now continuing to proceed state-by-state. I am very hopeful that we will make progress and see even more change and acceptance. One of my big problems right now is that too many people believe they have a direct line to the divine and they never want to change their mind about anything. They’re never open about new information and they like to operate in an evidence-free zone. I think it’s good if people continue to change.”
GROSS: “So you mention that you believe in state by state for gay marriage. But it’s a Supreme Court too. The Supreme Court struck down part of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented the federal government from recognizing gay marriage. That part is now struck down. And DOMA was actually signed by your husband when he was president. In spite of the fact that he signed it, were you glad at this point that the Supreme Court struck some of it down?”
CLINTON: “Of course. And you know, again, lets…we are living at a time when this extraordinary change is occurring and I’m proud of our country, I’m proud of the people who have been on the front lines of advocacy, but in 1993, that was not the case. And there was a very concerted effort in the Congress to make it even more difficult and greater discrimination and what DOMA did is at least allow the States to act. It wasn’t going to yet be recognized by the federal government but at the state level there was the opportunity. And my husband was the first to say, that you know, the political circumstances, the threats that were trying to be alleviated by the passage of DOMA, thankfully, were no longer so preeminent and we could keep moving forward and that’s what we’re doing.”
GROSS: “So, just to clarify, just one more question on this, would you say your view evolved since the 90s or that the American public evolved allowing you to state your real view.”
CLINTON: “I think I’m an American, I think that we have all evolved, and it’s been one of the fastest, most sweeping transformations that I’m aware of.”
GROSS: “I understand but a lot of people believed in it already back in the nineties. They supported gay marriage.”
CLINTON: “To be fair Terry, not that many. Were there activists who were ahead of their time, well that was every true in every human rights and civil rights movement but the vast majority of Americans, were just waking up to this issue, and beginning to think about it, and grasp it for the first time, and think about their neighbor down the street who deserved to have the same rights as they did, or their son, or their daughter. It has been an extraordinarily fast, by historic terms social, political and legal transformation and we ought to celebrate that instead of plowing old ground when in fact a lot of people, the vast majority of people, have been moving forward. Maybe slowly, maybe tentatively, maybe not as quickly and extensively as many would have hoped but nevertheless, we are at a point now where equality, including marriage equality, in our country is solidly established although there where be places, Texas just to name one, where that is still going to be an ongoing struggle.”
GROSS: “I’m pretty sure you didn’t answer my question about whether you evolved or was the America public the change –”
CLINTON: “Because I said I’m an American so of course we all evolved and I think that’s a fair conclusion –”
GROSS: “So you’re saying your opinion on gay marriage changed”
CLINTON: “You know, somebody is always first, Terry. Somebody is always out front and thank goodness they are. But that doesn’t mean that those who join later, in being publically supportive or even privately accepting that there needs to be change, are any less committed. You could not be having the sweep of marriage equality across the country if nobody changed their mind and thank goodness so many of us have.”
GROSS: “So that’s one for you changed your mind?”
CLINTON: You know I really, I have to say, I think you being very persistent, but you are playing with my words and playing with what is such an important issue.”
GROSS: “I’m just trying to clarify so I can understand -”
CLINTON: “No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify. I think you are trying to say that I used to be opposed and now I am in favor and I did it for political reasons. And that’s just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like I think you are implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record. I have a great commitment to this issue and I am proud of what I’ve done and the progress were making.”
GROSS: “You know I’m just saying, I’m sorry – I just want to clarify what I was saying – no, I was saying that you maybe really believed this all along, but, you know believed in gay marriage all along, but felt for political reasons America wasn’t ready yet and you couldn’t say it. That’s what I was thinking.”
CLINTON: “No. That is not true.”
CLINTON: “I did not grow up even imagining gay marriage and I don’t think you did either. This was an incredible new and important idea that people on the front lines of the gay right movement began to talk about and slowly, but surely, convinced others about the rightness of that position. When I was ready to say what I said, I said it.”
GROSS: “Okay, thank you for clarifying that.” (National Public Radio, “Fresh Air,” 6/12/14)
Leftist loons will attack Hillary for all the above. But Hillary is passionately stating the historical truth. The looney DailyKooks left will join Republicans/conservatives in attacking Hillary even on silliness such as this.
On Syria, her early support for air strikes revived liberal concern about her self-described “bias towards action,” recalling her vote for the Iraq War in 2002 that stymied her last presidential ambitions. She recently apologized for the vote in her new book.
Now on Iraq, she finds herself in a familiar and uncomfortable position between a war-weary Democratic Party on one side and hawkish Republicans eager to paint her as weak on the other. She’s tried to thread this needle before and it didn’t work well.
“The current crisis in Iraq is a reminder of the dangers Hillary Clinton faces with the Democratic base,” said Stephen Miles of the progressive group Win without War. “Today, with the threat of military action once again on the table in Iraq, … we’ll be looking to see if her recent denunciation of her 2002 vote for the Iraq War represents a true change of heart or was simply an effort to rewrite history in advance of a 2016 run.” [snip]
“A policy of weakness and accommodation that came from the Obama and Hillary Clinton team is one that’s led to very serious and negative results,” said Mitt Romney, the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee, on Fox News. “There’s almost not a place in the world that’s better off because of [Clinton's] leadership in the State Department.” [snip]
Some analysts predicted al-Maliki’s crackdown on the Sunni minority in the country would revive a dormant insurgency, but on Thursday, speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton said the insurgents’ success was unforeseeable. “I could not have predicted, however, the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq and trying to erase boundaries to create an Islamic state. That’s why it’s a wicked problem,” she said.
Voters will have to debate that one, to determine if it’s a satisfactory answer for someone who likely wants to be commander in chief.
ISIS’s rise in Iraq may have no American policy solution, and for Clinton, that makes it an equally “wicked” problem politically.
Now that the spotlight has shifted to Iraq, the decision by the Obama administration not to arm moderate Syrian rebels at the outset is coming under scrutiny by critics who say the hands-off policy allowed the extremists to flourish.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, “this is not just a Syrian problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought it was a regional problem. I could not have predicted, however, the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq and trying to erase boundaries to create an Islamic state.”
Gee, Hillary Clinton sure sounds smart and on the job when you read the entire quote. Hillary saw that this was a regional problem not just about one country. Wow, way to go girl.
Sure, the leftist loons at DailyKooks won’t be happy ever with her. But she sure sounds as if she knows what she is talking about. Mitt Romney’s comments sound kinda stupid when you read the full quote.
In a different move that now looks more prescient, she in August of 2007 called on the Iraqi Parliament to replace al-Maliki with “a less divisive and more unifying figure,” prompting an angry response from the leader.
Now, her response to the situation in the country is dependent on the man who wielded her Iraq policy against her six years ago. As a Democrat and one of Obama’s top foreign-policy officials, the strength of her foreign policy record—and by extension, her raison d’etre for a White House bid—rides on the success of Obama’s.
Read that last line and you will understand why Hillary Clinton has to begin a protracted attack against Barack Obama and his failed policies. The left will hate her and the right will be confused, but that is what Hillary must do.
Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Ulster County, New York, in 1797, Sojourner Truth’s given name was Isabella Baumfree. As almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners, some of her earliest memories were of her parents’ stories of the cruel loss of their other children. [snip]
In 1843, she changed her name to Sojourner Truth – her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth – and left New York. She traveled throughout New England, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. Her life story, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850.
While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women’s rights.
In 1851, she addressed the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The applause she received that day has been described as “deafening.” From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. She became one of the nineteenth century’s most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women’s rights.
NoLimits.org will "keep you up to date with news about issues on which Hillary took a lead and we know you care so much about," group President Ann Lewis said in an e-mail to as many as 2 million people culled from the Clinton campaign database.
Because No Limits is a registered nonprofit, "it cannot do anything political. It has to be nonpartisan," said Lewis, a longtime senior adviser to Clinton.
In Clinton's job as secretary of state for President Obama, her political dealings are highly restricted.
For example, she shut down her political action committee.
Some, like Democratic consultant and former Bill Clinton aide Chris Lehane, dismiss talk that the group could be a springboard for Clinton to try again for the White House in, say, 2016.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Lehane said. "I think this is just [a] group of folks who developed relationships in an intense [electoral] environment and want to stay together."
But the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato countered: "Whenever a group like this says it's not a political organization, you just know it is."
"Maybe [this] is Hillary's answer to Obama's new 'change' group that controls his golden mailing list. Maybe it's a way for Secretary of State Clinton to mobilize backing for her objectives at the State Department," he said. "And maybe [it's] a standby committee of supporters in case Hillary decides to get back into elective politics."
Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said NoLimits.org is "one way to make sure that she - and/or the former President - still have political leverage."
Hillary World-Wide January 26, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."