Thursday, April 30, 2015

Chelsea - Poor Little Rich Girl! Carter Cancels! Listen To George Pataki Hillarious Candidate No No!

Iran's Foreign Minister interprets our Constitution and offers advice.

Between nationwide protests, illegals coming to America at will and foreigners telling us what and what not our Constitution means are we losing total control of our nation?

Is this the change Obama had in mind and is actively implementing?

Thank you radical Democrats! (See 1 below.)
Response from long time female friend and fellow memo reader: "Dick share your thoughts re: takeover. 
It is the final piece in the Alinsky model.

I would not put it past Obama to declare martial law to protect us from ourselves. Pathetic to see complete incompetence from Baltimore's city mgmt and police.  What is worse...I do not see any recognition of what is being done to us among the average person on the street.  Complete and willful oblivion.

Hope you are well in spite of the trash whirling past us. B-----."
My friend, Khaled, reminds us there are Palestinians being killed by their own brethren but the world, Obama  and Jimmy Carter only focus on Israel.  (See 2 and 2a  below.)

03.23 Graham Israel Floor Remarks
Why Hillarious does not deserve to be elected. (See 3 below.)

She could bathe all day and night and she still will never come clean.  (See 3a below.)
Former New York Governor, George Pataki, is someone worth listening to.
1)Iran's Zarif Says Congress Can’t Stop Obama
If Iran strikes a deal with the West, all sanctions will be lifted very quickly and there’s nothing the U.S. Congress can do to stop it, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told a New York audience Wednesday.
In a set of blustery and self-righteous remarks, Iran’s top diplomat assured the crowd at New York University that President Barack Obama would be compelled to stop enforcing sanctions only days after any nuclear agreement was signed and would have to figure out how to lift congressional sanctions on Iran within weeks, no matter what Congress has to say about it. He also said that any future president, even a Republican, would be compelled to stick that agreement.
Zarif also took several shots at the U.S. Senate, just as it debated amendments to a bill designed to slow the lifting of sanctions against Iran and give Congress an oversight role on the deal.
“As a foreign government, I only deal with the U.S. government. I do not deal with Congress,” Zarif said. “The responsibility of bringing that into line falls on the shoulders of the president of the United States. That’s the person with whom we are making an agreement.”
Zarif said that if there is a nuclear agreement by June 30, the negotiators' latest self-imposed deadline, then within a few days the United Nations Security Council would pass a resolution lifting all UN sanctions and requiring Obama to stop enforcing all of the U.S. sanctions immediately.
“He will have to stop implementing all the sanctions, economic and financial sanctions that have been executive order and congressional. However he does it, that’s his problem,” Zarif said. “The resolution will endorse the agreement, will terminate all previous resolutions including all sanctions, will set in place the termination of EU sanctions and the cessation of applications of all U.S. sanctions.”
The U.S. would have to endorse this resolution “whether Senator Cotton likes it or not,” Zarif said, jabbing at Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton, who initiated an open letter to the Iranian leadership promising that Congress could unravel any deal Obama makes with them.
At the event, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius pointed out that according to the Obama administration’s statements, sanctions would be lifted only after the Iranians met an initial set of conditions. Zarif responded that it would take “only a few weeks” to meet those conditions and that “preparatory steps” would be taken in advance of such verification. He added: “That is the point where we take these measures, preparation for these measures, and the sanctions will be removed. How this will be done, we know the concept. The concept is these will be simultaneous.”
Zarif also said that if the next president tries to change or withdraw from the agreement, as some Republican presidential candidates have promised, the U.S. would risk isolating itself in the world and ruining its credibility.
“The American president is bound by international law, whether they like it or not. And international law requires the United States live up to any agreement this government enters into,” he said. “You know that, maybe Senator Cotton doesn’t.”
Zarif criticized the effort in the Senate to pass a bill from Senator Bob Corker that would delay the lifting of sanctions by several weeks while Congress reviews any deal. Several Republican senators are trying to add amendments making the bill tougher on Iran. Zarif said the U.S. will pay if Congress successfully interferes with nuclear deal.
“If the U.S. Senate wants to send a message to the rest of the world that all of these agreements that the United States has signed are invalid, then you will have chaos in your bilateral relations, although you are welcome to do it,” he said.
Zarif also insisted that Obama would not be able to “snap back” sanctions after they are lifted, as the White House has repeatedly claimed. And he accused the U.S. government of violating the interim agreement in various ways, including the Treasury Department having added sanctions designations on Iranians that were not related to the nuclear program.
“If people are worrying about snapback, they should be worrying about the U.S. violating its obligations and us snapping back,” he said. “That is a point that the United States should be seriously concerned about. This is not a game.”
The last round of nuclear negotiations will begin in earnest next week, and will go non-stop until June 30, said Zarif. This week, negotiators are working on a first draft, which will identify differences remaining between the sides and set the baseline for new negotiations.
That June 30 deadline could change, he said, and but he declined to specify where the remaining gaps lie.
Zarif also commented on the Iranian Navy’s seizing of a cargo vessel Tuesday that was flagged from the Marshall Islands, a country that depends on the U.S. for and security. He said the Iranian Navy was executing a legal order based on a failure by the owner, the Danish company Maersk, to pay fees some 15 or 20 years ago. Zarif said the diversion of the Maersk Tigris wasn't meant to send a signal to the U.S. or anyone else amid the heightened tensions caused by the crisis in Yemen. He said the incident should have no impact on the nuclear negotiations.
“It has nothing to do with Yemen,” he said. “This was a legal case … We shouldn’t read to much into it. Some people do try to read too much into it in order to torpedo a process that is independent of this.”
Zarif also commented on several other regional issues. He denied that Iran has a controlling influence in any of four Arab countries --  Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen -- but that the citizens of those countries want an Iranian presence. "People of the region feel close to us because we were on the right side of history" in fighting a war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, he said.
He said that Iran has a good relationship with Saudi Arabia and would welcome Saudi Arabia developing a peaceful nuclear program similar to Iran's. He also accused Saudi Arabia of creating, funding, and arming the Islamic State. He criticized Saudi Arabia for bombing in Yemen but refused to acknowledge that Assad is using that tactic on much broader scale in Syria.
When asked about the imprisonment of Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian at a Tehran prison, Zarif said Rezaian will have to defend himself in court against serious charges. He added that many Iranians are imprisoned abroad, but Rezaian is better known because “the Washington Post has a much better publicity campaign.”
Zarif’s statements about the nuclear negotiations -- and everything else, for that matter -- should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism. But the gap between his view and Obama’s of how sanctions relief will occur shows that there is no agreement on the issue. And Zarif may be right that Congress can’t stop the administration from lifting sanctions. On this point, the Iranian foreign minister and the speaker of the House seem to agree.


Author:  Khaled Abu Toameh 

The international community seems to have forgotten that Palestinians live not only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but also in a number of Arab countries, especially Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.
Western journalists covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict regularly focus on the “plight” of Palestinians who are affected by Israeli security policies, while ignoring what is happening to Palestinians in neighboring Arab countries.
These journalists, for example, often turn a blind eye to the daily killings of Palestinians in Syria and the fact that Palestinians living in Lebanon and other Arab countries are subjected to Apartheid and discriminatory laws.
A Palestinian who is shot dead after stabbing an Israeli soldier in Hebron receives more coverage in the international media than a Palestinian woman who dies of starvation in Syria.
The story and photos of Mahmoud Abu Jheisha, who was fatally shot after stabbing a soldier in Hebron, attracted the attention of many Western media outlets, whose journalists and photographers arrived in the city to cover the story.
But on the same day that Abu Jheisha was brought to burial, a Palestinian woman living in Syria died due to lack of food and medicine. The woman was identified as Amneh Hussein Omari of the Yarmouk refugee camp near Damascus, which has been under siege by the Syrian army for the past 670 days. Her death raises the number of Palestinian refugees who have died as a result of lack of medicine and food in the camp to 176.
The case of Omari was not covered by any of the Western journalists who are based in the region. As far as they are concerned, her story is not important because she died in an Arab country.
Had Omari died in a village or refugee camp in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, her story would have made it to the front pages of most of the major newspapers in the West. That is because they would then be able to link her death to Israeli measures in the West Bank or the blockade on the Gaza Strip. The same journalists who report about the harsh economic conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip do not seem to care about the Palestinians who are being starved and tortured to death in Arab countries.
Nor are the journalists reporting to their readers and viewers the fact that more than 2800 Palestinians have been killed in Syria since the beginning of the civil war there four years ago. A report published this week by a Palestinian advocacy group also revealed that more than 27,000 Palestinians have fled Syria to different European countries in the past four years. The report also noted that Yarmouk camp has been without electricity for more than 730 days and without water for 229 days.
Earlier this month, another report said that eight Palestinians died of torture while in Syrian prison. Three of the victims were women, including 22-year-old Nadin Abu Salah, who was pregnant when she died. The report said that 83 Palestinians died of torture in Syrian prison during March this year.
These Palestinians are unfortunate because they do not live in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. The international community pays attention to Palestinians only when they are “victims” of Israel.
Similarly, the international media continues to ignore the “plight” of Palestinians living under Palestinian Authority (PA) rule in the West Bank and Hamas rule in the Gaza Strip.
In the West Bank, PA security forces continue to arrest Palestinians who post critical remarks on Facebook or speak out against Palestinian leaders.
Last week, for example, the Palestinian General Intelligence Service arrested Khalil Afaneh, an employee of the Wakf (Islamic Trust) Department, for “slandering” Yasser Arafat on his Facebook page.
On April 25, the PA arrested journalist Ahmed Abu Elhaija of Jenin as he was on his way to attend a conference in Jordan. No reason was given for the arrest, which is not the first of its kind involving Palestinian journalists and bloggers.
Another story that has been ignored by the international media is that involving Jihad Salim, a member of the Hamas-affiliated Islamic Bloc at Bir Zeit University in the West Bank. Salim was arrested by Palestinian security officers shortly after the Islamic Bloc won the student council election of the university.
Upon his release, he said that he had been physically assaulted by his interrogators, who questioned him about the reasons why the Islamic Bloc won the vote. “The Palestinian Authority does not want democracy,” his mother said after his release. “Why are they arresting students and who does this serve?”
The situation regarding the Gaza Strip is not much different. Most stories that appear in the international media ignore the practices and violations committed by Hamas against Palestinians. Take, for example, Hamas's recent decision to impose a new tax on a number of goods. The decision has drawn sharp criticism from many Palestinians, with some openly calling for a rebellion against Hamas.
A Palestinian woman, shopping at an open-air market in Gaza, complains to Al Jazeera News about a new tax being imposed by Hamas, April 25, 2015. (Image source: Al Jazeera video screenshot)
Again, this is not a story of interest to many Western journalists based in the Middle East, mainly because Israel is not involved.
By turning a blind eye to the plight of Palestinians in Arab countries and under the rule of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, journalists are doing a disservice not only to their publics, but also to the Palestinians themselves. The continued obsession of the media with Israel allows the Arab countries, as well as the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, to proceed with their systematic violations of human rights and freedom of speech.

2a) Carter cancels awaited Gaza visit

BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) -- In a last minute move, former U.S President Jimmy
Carter on Wednesday canceled his visit to the Gaza Strip, scheduled on
Thursday, according to the Associated Press.

The removal of the Gaza Strip from Carter's itinerary was announced without
reason Wednesday evening by the Elders, a non-governmental organization that
describes itself as a group of "independent global leaders working together
for peace and human rights."

Carter's stop in the Gaza Strip was to be the first of a larger trip, to be
following by visits to the occupied West Bank and Israel to address pressing
political issues and bring international attention to the current
humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.

In response to Carter's decision to meet with Hamas leadership, Israeli
President Reuven Rivlin said on April 20 he would refuse to meet with the
former president due to his "anti-Israel" positions, according to Israeli

Israeli news source Jerusalem Post reported Wednesday that the Israeli
Foreign Ministry recommended Rivlin not meet with Carter, in order to convey
the message that those who harm Israel will not meet with the president.
Carter is a longstanding critic of what he views as Israel's unjust and
violent policy against Palestinians.

During last summer's war, Carter demanded that the the Israel-Gaza status
quo change, calling for the international community to recognize Hamas as a
"legitimate political actor."

Carter was scheduled to meet Hamas leaders including Ismail Haniyeh to
discuss national reconciliation, Hamas leader Ahmad Yousef told Ma'an
earlier this week.

He added at the time that since Egypt has no role in mediation now, Carter
would come accompanied by international officials to meet Hamas leaders and
then President Mahmoud Abbas.

Carter was also scheduled to meet faction leaders and ministers in Gaza, and
had planned to discuss a ceasefire with Israel as well as Palestinian

The former president is assumed to continue as usual with his plans to
Israel and the occupied West Bank, as reported by the Associated Press.
3)  Hillary and the American Future

Hillary Rodham Clinton must never be elected president. Indeed, she must not even be allowed to run for the office. Because her emails may be in Russian, Chinese, and other hands, she is personally compromised. The future of the country should never be permitted to pass (again) to someone who has secrets that can be used to undermine policies that would otherwise serve the interests of our citizenry. It should be apparent to every voter and each official of every security organization concerned with the survival of the United States that the blackmailing of a sitting president is possible and perhaps likely, given the present climate of distrust among international players. Ms. Clinton is now exquisitely and uniquely vulnerable to such problems given recent revelations.
Others have mentioned Clinton’s personal vulnerability to extortion tangentially, so the idea is “out there.”  However, if she is indeed elected, damage to the country is written on the wall. That is not a prophetic statement. Rather, her election would have negative consequences that most reasonable people could agree would result.

1) Those officials and worker bees (careerists) in all government departments who have knowledge of any wrongdoing would be retained in place or promoted.  These folks might operate either seperately or together as a cabal to further their positions with their special knowledge of corruption without regard to the welfare of the country.

2) As for new employees, only those who could be trusted, bought, or suborned would be asked to come on board, thus further undermining the purer purposes of our government.

3) Fear of exposure would worm its way into all decisions, great and small, thus warping policies. Paralysis would dog each policy proposal, since its merits would be tainted by unspeakable factors that no one outside the inner circle could understand. We still, at this late date, have no idea why Obama’s strengthening of Iran to the point of anointing it as a nuclear power is supposed to benefit the people of the United States.

4) The purpose of free and fair elections in our country would be undermined because the fraud‑tainted group headed by Ms. Clinton would do anything -- anything at all -- to remain in power so as not to be exposed. We now have the situation where all our new citizens (originally illegal aliens) are being franchised with the vote merely to maintain the power of the Dems. This approach is not new, having been used by Roosevelt, Nixon, and now Obama, but the extent of its use by Barack Hussein is breathtaking. Such policies will continue in spades under a Clinton administration, since they will have as much or more to hide than the current menagerie. Grateful new citizens will continue to be unconcerned about the corrupt reasons they have been admitted to the greatest country in the world. And these new citizens will gift power, perhaps for generations, to those who saved them from even greater corruption.

5) We, the cynical, must at least consider the possibility that Clinton is seeking higher office inter alia to avoid possible legal prosecution that may come her way if the Department of Justice begins to take seriously the country’s laws again. It is unnerving to hear Clinton’s supporters screaming that there is no evidence of influence-peddling against her. Of course, there is no evidence of such activities, since “evidence” is a legal term for material presented during trial proceedings. If and when Clinton is tried in a court of law, information will be presented and its veracity will be judged by her peers. Her guilt, given a conviction, will then be a matter of law and the information will then be considered “evidence.”

6) The secretiveness imposed upon the decision-making processes of a future Clinton regime will be in part determined by the secretiveness of the Obama administration of which she was an integral part. There will be no chance for fresh air to enter the system. The very act of criticism has become forbidden (or verboten, if you will) when directed against Hilary Rodham Clinton. While her circumstances have raised some questions about her even in the progressive press, she will never again be wrong if she is elected, not unlike our Obama. And many will suffer given her self‑presumed infallibility. In short, those with personality disorders such as narcissism and psychopathy will remain in charge of government to the continued detriment of the American people, the American legacy, and the future stability of the world.

Are further reasons necessary to spotlight Hillary’s unfitness for the presidency?  It’s clear enough that the world can’t afford her, and the United States deserves better. 

3a) Hillary Clinton: Congenital Rule-Breaker.

It's past time she come clean for the sake of "restoring trust in our politics."

That's not a partisan attack. It's not a talking point. It's not a fantasy. It's a factan agonizing truth to people like me who admire Clinton and her husband, who remember how Bill Clinton rose from a backwater governorship to the presidency on a simple promise: He would fight for people who "work hard and play by the rules."
The evidence is overwhelming and metastasizing: To co-opt a William Safire line, Hillary Clinton is a congenital rule-breaker.
In the three days since my last column on Clinton, the headlines are revealing:
"More than 180 Clinton Foundation donors lobbied her State Department." "That's not illegal," writes Vox reporter Jonathan Allen, "but it is scandalous." The coauthor of a fair-minded Clinton biography, Allen notes that while there's no evidence of illegal corruption, "The size and scope of the symbiotic relationship between the Clintons and their donors is striking." He adds, "The Clintons have shown they can't police themselves."
"Clinton Foundation failed to disclose 1,100 foreign donations." The cofounder of the Clinton Foundation's Canadian affiliate revealed to Joshua Green of Bloomberg Politics that 1,100 donors to the foundation had never been disclosed. "The reason this is a politically explosive revelation is because the Clinton Foundation promised to disclose its donors as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of State," writes Green, a widely respected political reporter.
"Clinton charity never provided foreign data." A spokeswoman for the Clinton Health Access Initiative, which makes up nearly 60 percent of the Clinton charitable network, told TheBoston Globe that CHAI never submitted information on foreign donations to State Department lawyers for review during Clinton's tenure as secretary of State. The reviews were required as a condition of her joining President Obama's Cabinet, the Globe reported.
In March, Reuters reported that CHAI didn't disclose any donors to the public, as required. The Washington Post reported that a donation from Switzerland to the group was not reviewed. While digging deeper into the review process, the Globe was told by a Clinton spokeswoman, "The charity deemed it unnecessary."
Just like that, the Clintons deemed an ethics rule unnecessary.
This was not an insignificant mandate. It was part of a "memorandum of understanding" between the White House and Clinton to soothe senators' concerns about known conflicts of interest within the Clinton family charities.
"Transparency is critically important here, obviously, because it allows the American people, the media, and those of us here in Congress ... to be able to judge for ourselves that no conflicts—real or apparent—exist,'' John Kerry said during a Senate floor speech on January 21, 2009, according to the Globe.
Kerry replaced Clinton as secretary of State. Clinton is now the likely Democratic presidential nominee. She spoke with great passion Wednesday about the importance of institutional integrity in the wake of Baltimore's riots.
"We must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americansbetween police and citizens, yes, but also across society. Restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets," she said. "Between and among neighbors and even people with whom we disagree politically."
Restoring trust in our politics? Let's remember who and what's behind this controversy:
Hillary Clinton seized all emails pertaining to her job as secretary of State and deleted an unknown number of messages from her private server. Her family charity accepted foreign and corporate donations from people doing business with the State Department—people who hoped to curry favor.
She violated government rules designed to protect against corruption and perceptions of corruption that erode the public's trust in government. She has not apologized. She has not made amends: She withholds the email server and continues to accept foreign donations.
It's past time Clinton come clean. Return the foreign donations. Hand over the email server. Embrace an independent investigation that answers the questions and tempers the doubts caused by her actions. Repeat: Her actions.
This is not the fault of a vast right-wing conspiracy, sexism, or unfair media coverage. It's the result of actions taken by an experienced and important public servant whose better angels are often outrun by her demonsparanoia, greed, entitlement, and an ends-justify-the-means sense of righteousness.
Can she still be president? Absolutely.
Even if she continues to duck and dissemble? Perhaps. But only because somebody has to winand the GOP might nominate a candidate even less trustworthy.
But why be president, if only by default?
Clinton should rather be totally honest and transparent, true to her word, and a credible force for restoring trust in our politics.

Have Democrats Learned To Avoid Stink Bombs? Logic Supplanted By Pure Crap and Espoused By Politicians Who Have S--- For Brains!!

Can Grandma Hillarious continue to snow voters?  The Clinton's have a demonstrated ability allowing mud to dry and fall off their Sunday best without leaving a stain. You have to hand it to them, they are clever, they know how to enrich themselves, all the while playing to the little people. Their interests always come before nation and they have proven they know how to amass a personal fortune and escape jail because their machine is well oiled, well connected and their defenders are shameless.

James Carville will say and do anything.

If this is who voters want to run our nation then they deserve what they will get.  One would think that 8 years of Obama would have taught Democrats to avoid stink bombs.

Time will tell.  (See 1 below.)
It would have been interesting to have Pat Condell at our lunch with the Imam..

The Imam does not accept Condell's claim that Islam is a violent religion but he does acknowledge it has been hijacked by criminals. He brought published articles attesting to the fact that he has spoken out on many occasions but admits his influence is less than atom size.

I made the point that if Jews acted as so many Muslims,  I would renounce my religion. I did not press the Imam why he remains a Muslim when he renounced being a Baptist for much the same reasons, ie. the actions of worshipers  failed to square with their biblical teachings.

They talked the talk but did not walk the walk and he was referring to the Civil Rights Period.

Here is the link to the newest Pat Condell video: A Society Of Cowards

Obama and Hillarious would have us believe police are criminals and looters, rioters and anarchists are misunderstood and ISIS beheaders simply need employment.

The mayor of Baltimore tells the police they must allow the rioters space because destruction of property is just that and Obama tells us those who lost that property never really earned it because it was earned for them by the government and the woman running to succeed him tells us business does not create jobs.

Logic no longer counts for anything and we are being told that what is up is actually down and we know politicians are in the business of selling bridges to the unwashed. and if the unwashed are not buying they are the guilty ones.  

We also have a woman running for president who has questionably  enriched herself telling us we need to restore our faith in the integrity of the likes of herself.

I ain't buying this crap and I am willing to call it what it is - pure unadulterated crap and it is being espoused by politicians who have s--- for brains!
Now that sympathetic protests are spreading throughout the land is America about to be taken over by Obama?

I know this is a very conspiratorial thought but I have concluded one should not put anything past him.
1)- Hillary, the Loser

Hillary has already lost one presidential campaign.

This fact was stuffed down the memory hole so fast that it took a large number of political commentators along with it. How else do we explain how, in all the discussions of the upcoming elections, it has simply failed to come up? Nobody talks about it. It’s as if it didn’t happen.

It’s a rule in American politics that a major figure who blows one presidential campaign has little hope for a second act. But like all other rules, this one goes by the board when the name “Clinton” is involved.
This is particularly true in light of the way she lost. She didn’t simply lose the nomination, or the general election. She lost in one of the most ignominious ways possible: a pure dark horse appeared out of left field (metaphors have a life of their own, don’t they?) blew straight past her, and relegated her to an unimpressive second by the time the convention rolled around. For any other politician, that would be the end of the road. For Hillary, it’s one more thing to paper over and ignore.

Looked at from this viewpoint, Hillary pretty clearly fails as a viable candidate -- which is one reason why the fact has been buried by our honest media. If we were to make a closer examination, we might learn a little too much about Hillary and her actual chances. Close study of 2008 would pay great dividends, which is why the Dems and the media today are oohing and ahhing at Photoshopped pictures of Chelsea instead. (The Republicans, for their part, think it’s be unseemly to discuss a lady’s shortcomings.)
To exploit a weakness, you need to know what it is. Why did Hillary lose?

1. An attractive alternative candidate. Stop laughing out there. At the time, Obama was a fresh and promising politician. He was everything that Hillary was not. A clean and articulate African-American, according to no less an authority than Joe Biden. One with no paper trail, no skeletons in his closet, no shadowy or shifty associates. Well spoken, sincere, and truly interested in the country’s future prospects.
Well, we know how that worked out. But still -- it was enough to beat Hillary. This long shot from out of nowhere, unable to give a good account of himself, and with oddities in his record that will be debated as long as the fate of Kasper Hauser, was able to knock off the liberals’ favorite daughter while scarcely working up a sweat. If you were ask him now, he wouldn’t be able to tell you how he did it.

2. Bill. Any illusions about Bill Clinton’s stature as a political colossus were exploded in 2008. Bill spent the campaign Foghorn Leghorning his way across the political landscape hogging the spotlight, making a complete hash out his assigned role as supportive househusband, and wrapping it all up with an attempt to play the race card so blatant and shameless that it would have put any other political figure in exile. This election we can be certain that Hillary will have Bill put someplace where he can do no harm -- chained to a giant rock in the middle of the Gobi, would be my advice.

3. A Clumsy Campaign. Exactly as she’s doing today, Hillary stumbled into 2008 under the impression that the presidency was hers for the taking. She had never run for office before, in any meaningful sense (her Senate seat was in a safe New York Democratic district, the 3rd millennial equivalent of a rotten borough, seized from a befuddled Daniel P. Moynihan on his retirement), and it showed. She had no strategy, no ground plan, not even a real organization apart from the guttersnipes and hustlers that had infested Bill’s White House. When Obama began walking across the water nationwide, she had no response. Then it was too late for anything but Bill’s Orval Faubus imitation.

While all true, these aren’t enough. They lack heft. They just don’t feel right -- they’re frankly secondary. Even added together, they don’t truly explain why Hillary crashed and burned so thoroughly. Something else lies behind them.

What is that something? Simply put: the fact that almost nobody can stand Hillary. Not her most avid supporters, not her allies, not the left, not the Democrats. Hillary Clinton is the most dislikeable presidential candidate in living memory. Compared to her, Thomas Dewey was scintillating, Adlai Stevenson a pillar of charm, Richard Nixon the guy everybody wanted to be. Hillary is everyone’s despised female boss, loathed mother-in-law, troublesome subordinate, noxious bureaucrat. There is nothing likable about her. She is cold, forbidding, nasty-tempered, untrustworthy, and vindictive. All this is no way tempered by the feminine virtues. She is strictly unsensual, with not a trace of allurement about her. She is nobody’s mother, nobody’s ideal girlfriend, and nobody’s pal.

“Hillary” the public figure, the politician people are asked to vote for, is a synthesized creation that does not exist and has never existed. This is true well above and beyond the standard manipulation carried out to benefit any political career. “Hillary” is a pure fabrication, a combination of feminist delusion, left-wing wish fulfillment, and media polishing that is totally at variance with the reality.
All attempts to remake her in a more human image -- the pink suits, the soft dos, the “grannie” thing -- have failed. Hillary has gone through more image transformations than David Bowie, with the difference that Ziggy Stardust and the Thin White Duke were more realistic.

It worked for a while. For a brief period in the mid-90s, Hillary was what Obama became in his first term: a messianic figure who was going turn the entire world around, fulfil every good liberal’s daydreams, and put a unicorn in every garage, right next to the Prius. Examples of this are myriad, but one of the most embarrassing occurred during the 1993 Academy Awards ceremony. (Poor Liza -- see about the 4:20 mark.)

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Meeting With Savannah Imam. Israel Sends A Message? How Much Can Hillarious Expect Me To Swallow Without Choking?

What difference does it make?  Makes a difference to me. Does it to you? (See 1 and 1a  below.)

Hillary took advantage of Baltimor today to tell us we need to restore faith in politics etc.

The woman is amazing.

She is like the robber who robs the bank and then attacks the bank for not having better safes.

Meanwhile we now find out over 1000 foreign donors are missing from required documents of the Clinton Foundation and, of course, the e mails she erased had nothing to do with her constant shenanigans.

I admit I ain't bright but geeze Hillarious how much do you want me to swallow without choking?
Today a group of twelve met to discuss the hijacking of Islam.  Attending were four from the Muslim faith, including one of Savannah's Imam and his wife, and two congregants, a Minister, a Rabbi, a Protestant , an agnostic and four Jews.

I began the discussion by asking the Imam to explain his thoughts regarding the problem radical Islamists were causing the world body politic and what could be done to arrest it if he agreed it was a dangerous trend.

He was very forthright  and began by giving us background pertaining to his conversion from being a church attending Baptist and then stated that radical Islamists were misguided criminals and he pointed out that religion of all faiths, at one time or another, had been politicized.

The discussion is being written up by the Rabbi and I will post his comments in a later memo.

We concluded that education was critical if minds were to be changed, silence was dangerous in the face of what was happening world wide and we agreed to try and expand what we began by increasing the numbers attending our next discussion, which will be held at our home, sometime in the Fall.  If you would be interested in participating in our discussion let me know and you will be invited.

I found the Imam a breath of fresh air, a bright and serious man and very credible.  Would it not be a blessing if we could put him and those congregants who joined him in a Xerox Machine.

It would be a better world.
Finally seeing the light of day and reality. (See 2 and 2a below.)
Did Israel just send a message to Iran?  (See 3 below.)
Michelle Malkin finds Obama' comments bilious.  (See 4 below.)


Posted on 27th April 2015 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues
charityClinton FoundationfraudKarl Denninger

A charity that only distributes 5.9% of the funds it collected to charitable causes is called a FRAUD!!!
Where is the IRS investigation? Where is the MSNBC expose?

Guest Post by Karl Denninger

I have to admit, this is a pretty impressive tax return…. and belies a simple question: Why would anyone “donate” to such a “charity”?$144 million in direct contributions and grants; $149 million in total revenue (2013 numbers); of that $8.9 million went to grants paid (that is, about 5.9% of the funds that came in went to charitable causes.)

The rest was either “absorbed” (that is, the “charity” still has it) or was paid out in things like executive compensation.

You might be interested in knowing that the “charity” had 35 employees with reportable compensation (that is, over $100,000) and their top five combined had $2.6 million in direct (that is, cash) compensation and another $278,000 in benefits for approximately $3 million — or 1/3rd of all spending on “charitable causes“.  On a grossed-up basis the charity spent $21.8 million on salaries and wages or approaching three times what it spent on “charity.”
In fact this “charity” spent as much on travel ($8.4 million) and more on conferences and similar confabs ($9.2 million) as it did on actual grants for charitable purposes.

What is this “charity”?

Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clintons so-called “charity” that was operating while Hillary was Secretary of State and continues to operate today.

Again, if you were not trying to buy influence of some sort exactly why would you donate to a so-called “charity” that only spends 5.9% of the money received on actual charitable programs?

Go ahead folks, tell me what possible motivation someone who is rich might have in “giving” to such a foundation when virtually none of your money is going to go to actual relief causes such as feeding poor people and helping disaster victims.

Oh by the way, that’s not really much of a one-off either.  In 2012 (the previous tax year) the ratio of spending on charitable programs to “contributions” was just under 15%

1a) Clinton Is Playing Her Fans for Fools

I once had a boss who gave me some great advice, not just for managing people but for judging politicians: You forgive mistakes; you punish patterns. Everybody screws up. But if someone won’t learn from his mistakes and try to correct his behavior, then he either doesn’t think it was a mistake, he just doesn’t care, or he thinks you’re a fool. The one indisputable takeaway from Peter Schweizer’s new book, Clinton Cash, is that Bill and Hillary Clinton fit one or all of those descriptions.
Let us recall Marc Rich, a shady billionaire indicted for tax evasion and defying trade sanctions with Iran during the U.S. hostage crisis. Rich fled to Switzerland to escape prosecution.

He hired Jack Quinn, a former Clinton White House counsel, to lobby the administration for a pardon. Quinn sought help from then–deputy attorney general Eric Holder, who advised Quinn to petition the White House directly — advice Holder later regretted. On the last day of his presidency, Bill Clinton pardoned Rich.
The ensuing scandal was enormous — and bipartisan. It was widely believed that Rich had bought his pardon. Denise Rich, his ex-wife, had made huge donations to the Democratic party, including $100,000 to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign and $450,000 to the foundation building Bill Clinton’s presidential library.
Liberals were infuriated. “You let me down,” wrote the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen. “It’s a pie in the face of anyone who ever defended you. You may look bad, Bill, but we look just plain stupid.”
 “It was a real betrayal by Bill Clinton of all who had been strongly supportive of him to do something this unjustified,” exclaimed then-Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.). “It was contemptuous.” Senator Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) chastised, “It was inexcusable.” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd suggested Clinton had “traded a constitutional power for personal benefit.” Jimmy Carter all but called it bribery and said it was “disgraceful.”
You can understand the bitterness. Democrats had defended the Clintons through Whitewater, Travel-gate, and Hillary Clinton’s billing-records shenanigans. They even defended Bill Clinton when he raised millions in re-election donations from Chinese donors and rented out the Lincoln bedroom. But this was just too much. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us half a dozen times . . .
The Clintons said it was all a misunderstanding, which is what they always say. Quinn offered a familiar defense: “The process I followed was one of transparency.” Bill Clinton: “As far as I knew, Marc Rich and his wife were Republicans.” Hillary Clinton kept quiet.
Personally, I think Jimmy Carter was right, which is not something I say often.
But let’s assume it really was just a misunderstanding. Wouldn’t a normal person — never mind a family with historic ambitions — go to great lengths to avoid even the appearance of a repeat performance? When Senator John McCain was unfairly lumped in with the “Keating Five” influence-peddling scandal, he said the dishonor was more painful than his five years in a Vietnamese prison. He dedicated himself to demonstrating the sincerity of his shame, including his decades-long — though intellectually misguided — quest to reform campaign-finance laws.
There are no allegations of pardons for sale in Schweizer’s book. After all, Bill Clinton had none to sell anymore. But the Rich scandal was equally about the wealthy buying access and influence. And though there is no clear proof that Bill Clinton illegally sold access to shady gold-mining interests in Haiti or uranium moguls in Canada, no one this side of longtime Clinton defender Lanny Davis can dispute that the Clintons have acted as if they really just didn’t care how it all looked.
As New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait notes, the “best-case scenario” is that the Clintons have been “disorganized and greedy.”
The Clinton spin on the book is that there’s not a “shred of evidence” of criminal wrongdoing, or as ABC’s George Stephanopoulos helpfully repeated over the weekend, “There’s no smoking gun.” He’s right, but not being a criminal is a remarkably low bar for a politician, even a Clinton.
The standard is that public servants should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Not only is there three decades of evidence that the Clintons don’t think that standard applies to them, but there’s growing evidence that his biggest supporters are happy to play the fool — again.


Author:  Christopher Agee

Just weeks after reports were confirmed regarding the establishment of an Islamic tribunal – the first in the nation – in Texas, a group of conservative activists announced the creation of an alliance existing solely to ban any form of foreign law from being observed in an American courtroom.
Though the effort takes aim at any law practiced outside of the U.S. system, the obvious focus of the organization is apparent in its website name: Ban Sharia Law.
Radio host Don Smith is working with the group, which he told Western Journalism was started by Tim Selaty – the driving force behind Tea Party Community, a right-wing alternative to Facebook. A number of other prominent conservatives have joined the coalition, he explained; and anyone interested in preserving American law is encouraged to show their support.
In addition to becoming a coalition partner and signing an online petition, supporters are encouraged to upload images of themselves holding signs that call for Sharia Law to be banned across the nation. An interactive map provides a quick look at which states have proposed or passed anti-Sharia – or, more specifically, anti-foreign law – legislation. On its website, the group explains why the distinction is important.
“Although we believe Sharia law is currently posing the biggest threat to infiltrating our legal system,” the notice states, “most of the states who’ve successfully passed legislation didn’t actually mention Sharia law directly. This was intentional to squash the counter efforts by organizations like the Council on America-Islamic Relations…. The successful legislation was crafted towards the restriction of all foreign/international law.” The site includes links to “graphic stories and disturbing videos” of Sharia law’s impact on society – both at home and abroad – and calls on anyone opposed to the implementation of this form of justice within U.S. borders to join the mission to prevent it.

2a) The Blue-City Model

Baltimore shows how progressivism has failed urban America.

You’re not supposed to say this in polite company, but what went up in flames in Baltimore Monday night was not merely a senior center, small businesses and police cars. Burning down was also the blue-city model of urban governance.
Nothing excuses the violence of rampaging students or the failure of city officials to stop it before Maryland’s Governor called in the National Guard. But as order starts to return to the streets, and the usual political suspects lament the lack of economic prospects for the young men who rioted, let’s not forget who has run Baltimore and Maryland for nearly all of the last 40 years.
The men and women in charge have been Democrats, and their governing ideas are “progressive.” This model, with its reliance on government and public unions, has dominated urban America as once-vibrant cities such as Baltimore became shells of their former selves. In 1960 Baltimore was America’s sixth largest city with 940,000 people. It has since shed nearly a third of its population and today isn’t in the top 25.
The dysfunctions of the blue-city model are many, but the main failures are three: high crime, low economic growth and failing public schools that serve primarily as jobs programs for teachers and administrators rather than places of learning.
Let’s take them in order. The first and most important responsibility of any city government is to uphold law and order. When the streets are unsafe and crime is high, everything else—e.g., getting businesses to invest and create jobs—becomes next to impossible.
People also start voting with their feet. MayorStephanie Rawlings-Blake has stated that one of her goals is to attract 10,000 families to move to Baltimore. Good luck with that after Monday night.
It’s not that we don’t know what to do. Rudy Giuliani proved that in New York City, which he helped to revive in the 1990s starting with a revolution in policing that brought crime rates to record lows. A good part of this was policing in areas that had previously been left to the hoodlums.
His reward (and that of his successor, Mike Bloomberg, who built on Mr. Giuliani’s policies) was to become a villain of the liberal grievance industry and a constant target of attack. Few blue-city mayors elsewhere have been willing to take that heat.
Or take the economy. In the heyday of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, the idea was that the federal government could revitalize city centers with money and central planning. You can tell how that turned out by the office buildings and housing projects that failed to attract middle-class taxpayers. Baltimore’s waterfront is a gleaming example of this kind of top-down development, with new sports stadiums that failed to attract other businesses.
The latest figures from Maryland’s Department of Labor show state unemployment at 5.4%, against 8.4% for Baltimore. A 2011 city report on the neighborhood of Freddie Gray—the African-American whose death in police custody sparked the riots—reported an area that is 96.9% black with unemployment at 21%. When it comes to providing hope and jobs, we should have learned by now that no government program can substitute for a healthy private economy.
Then there are the public schools. Residents will put up with a great deal if they know their children have a chance at upward mobility through education. But when the schools no longer perform, the parents who can afford to move to the suburbs do so—and those left behind are stuck with failure. There are many measures of failure in Baltimore schools, but consider that on state tests 72% of eighth graders scored below proficient in math, 45% in reading and 64% in science.
Our point is not to indict all cities or liberals. Many big-city Democrats have worked to welcome private investment and reform public education. Some of the biggest cities—New York, Boston and San Francisco—have also had inherent economic advantages like higher education and the finance and technology industries.
But Baltimore also has advantages, not least its port and one of the nation’s finest medical centers in Johns Hopkins. If it lacks the appeal of New York or San Diego, that is all the more reason for city officials to rethink their reliance on high taxes, government spending and welfare-state dependency.
For a time in recent decades, it looked like the reform examples of New York under Messrs. Giuliani and Bloomberg and the growth of cities like Houston might lead to a broader urban revitalization. In some places it did.
But of late the progressives have been making a comeback, led by Bill de Blasio in New York and the challenge to sometime reform Mayor Rahm Emanuel in Chicago. This week’s nightmare in Baltimore shows where this leads. It’s time for a new urban renewal, this time built on the ideas of private economic development, personal responsibility, “broken windows” policing, and education choice.
2)  I'm Out

I remember the righteous smugness I used to feel when the one conservative friend in my social circle would begin expressing his opinions at a dinner gathering. I and the other ‘enlightened’ diners would shift uncomfortably and glance at one another, rolling our eyes: "Here he goes again." My stomach would tighten with a worry not fit for the occasion. I began to feel personally offended. And the smugness sometimes boiled over into anger, as I'd listen to my friend, loyal and kind, simply share his "crazy" ideas and opinions with us.  

What I thought then was only my frustration with his views, I know now was also my own discomfort with my belief it was okay to dismiss and condemn him for expressing himself. We ganged up on him. And while he didn’t like it (who would?), he took it well, and eventually the conversation would drift into safer territory like work and sports, and all would be forgotten. 

Oftentimes after these dinners I was left thinking (no pun intended), that this guy was one of the smartest, nicest people I knew, and all he was trying to do was offer another angle on things. He was sharing a voice that wasn't that of an echoing lemming skirting over issues in search of a choir, but rather an informed, passionate, and to us, provocative perspective we were all uneasy with. And again, I could feel in my gut that I hadn’t been fair or nice. But wait, aren't us liberals supposed to be “nice” and sensitive… and open? I mean, if the basic meaning of the word liberal is to “advocate the freedom of the individual,” why then is there such hell to pay for those who don’t agree with the Left’s political or social views?  

Why the defensiveness? Why the arrogance? Why the hostility? I think it’s fear; the fear of one day realizing that we may just be wrong, and have been wrong all along. But because we’ve been entrenched in the culture for so long with this way of thinking, we can't simply admit we’re wrong – we’re just way too far down the road to turn back now. So instead of listen, absorb, and respect a contrary opinion, we resort to demeaning character or intellect, and attempt to intimidate. Feeling over facts.

So, who wouldn’t be hesitant or scared? I would be. I was. But a few years ago I did it. I decided to turn around and head back up the road and look at things from the other side. And after much rumination, research, and listening, I began to rethink my positions, and it became abundantly clear to me that I am a conservative. Not a criminal or a hater or even a telemarketer, no, just someone who doesn’t agree with the ideology, and won’t fall victim to emotional manipulation and hypocrisy of the Left any longer. 

So I decided to do something that many people won’t or can’t do. I came out…‘right’, and owned the fact that I see things differently now.

And boy howdy what a reaction I got! When I first shared my new views on Facebook it was as if I had announced that I was dedicating my life to murdering kittens. The vitriolic responses from my “friends” only reinforced my theory that the "party of tolerance" was only tolerant of those who agree with them. Soon after that experience I wrote a taut farewell to Facebook-land and haven’t been back since.

Being someone who lives and works in Los Angeles (and wants to continue to do both), I had plenty to lose by revealing this change of heart and mind. Plus, having been raised in Massachusetts by a socialist mother during the ‘60s and ‘70s, this was the ultimate about-face. Many of my old colleagues don’t call me anymore, and have become alienated because I am so “out there” now. Some members of my family keep our conversations on the light side, and I get tight smiles from certain friends. I don’t begrudge them as much as I simply don’t get it.
So now here I am, a reformed, or shall I say transformed liberal, living in the center of the religious Left, wondering whether I should I continue to open my trap or keep my opinions to myself.

But… let’s just say I do decide to express my utter dismay for our current president’s arrogant, divisive, and remarkably cavalier manner as he’s bulldozed his agenda across the boundaries of democracy. Abusing his authority to spy on political opponents, attempting to align us with our enemies while leaving our allies hanging in the balance, and injecting himself into every racial incident to stoke the flames in order to strengthen his preferred narrative -- well then, I hope that whomever I do share these views with, especially if they don’t agree with me, behaves better than I did when I was on the other side of the dinner table.
3):  Did Israel just use new Bunker Buster to Bomb Iranian Missile Base in Yemen? 

Editor’s Note… One of the internet’s best independent analysts, Thomas Wictor, who specializes in Open Source Battle damage assessment, believes Israel just used a new Bunker Buster to bomb Iranian Missile Base in Yemen: The Israelis and\or their Saudi allies have managed to come up with a roughly comparable substitute to the American MOAB Bunker Buster and have managed to convert a Boeing 707 tanker to a weaponized platform to carry such bombs. The beta test was carried out on the Iranian missile base in Yemen during the recent Saudi operation Decisive storm against the Iranian proxies (Houthis) and their IRGC handlers. If he is correct, the Israeli-Sunni coalition now has a feasible military option against the Iranian nuclear facilities.
There’s some amazing video of a massive explosion next to the Faj Attan neighborhood of Sana’a, the capital of Yemen. We’ve been told that the target was a SCUD missile depot or a missile base. There’s a difference between the two: A missile depot is where you store the weapons, while a missile base is where the personnel and equipment used to fire the weapons are located. The American 319th Missile Squadron, for example, is stationed at Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, near Cheyenne, Wyoming. Whatever was hit, I think it was a message to Iran.
4)Debunking Obama's Bilious Baltimore Babble

It's never enough. American taxpayers have surrendered billions and billions and billions of dollars to the social-justice-spender-in-chief. But it's never, ever enough.
The latest paroxysm of urban violence, looting, and recriminations in Baltimore prompted President Obama on Tuesday to trot out his frayed Blame The Callous, Tight-Fisted Republicans card. After dispensing with an obligatory wrist-slap of toilet paper-and Oreo-filching "protesters" who are burning Charm City to the ground (he hurriedly changed it to "criminals and thugs" mid-word), the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner got down to his usual business: hectoring his political opponents and grousing that America hasn't forked over enough money for him to make the "massive investments" needed to "make a difference right now."
If we are "serious" about preventing more riots, the president declared, then "the rest of us" (translation: all of us stingy conservatives) have to make sure "we are providing early education" and "making investments" so that inner-city youths are "getting the training they need to find jobs."
Narcissus on the Potomac wheedled that "there's a bunch of my agenda that would make a difference right now." Me, me, me! His laundry list of the supposedly underfunded cures that he can't get through Congress includes "school reform," "job training" and "some investments in infrastructure" to "attract new businesses."
I'll give POTUS credit: He can lay it on thicker than a John Deere manure spreader.
Let's talk "massive investments," shall we?
In 2009, Obama and the Democrats rammed the $840 billion federal stimulus package through Capitol Hill under the guise of immediate job creation and economic recovery. An estimated $64 billion went to public school districts; another nearly $50 billion went for other education spending. This included $13 billion for low-income public school kids; $4.1 billion for Head Start and childcare services; $650 million for educational technology; $200 million for working college students; and $70 million for homeless children.
How's that all working out? Last week, economists from the St. Louis Federal Reserve surveyed more than 6,700 education stimulus recipients and concluded that for every $1 million of stimulus grants to a district, a measly 1.5 jobs were created. "Moreover, all of this increase came in the form of nonteaching staff," the report found, and the "jobs effect was also not statistically different from zero."
More than three-quarters of the jobs "created or saved" in the first year of the stimulus were government jobs, while roughly 1 million private sector jobs were forestalled or destroyed, according to Ohio State University. President Obama later admitted "there was no such thing" as "shovel-ready projects." But there were plenty of pork-ready recipients, from green energy billionaires to union bosses to Democratic campaign finance bundlers. About $230 billion in porkulus funds was set aside for infrastructure projects, yet less than a year later, Obama was back asking for another $50 billion to pour down the infrastructure black hole.
In 2010, President Obama signed the so-called Edujobs bill into law -- a $26 billion political wealth redistribution scheme paying back Big Labor for funding Democratic congressional campaigns. A year later, several were spending on the money to plug budget shortfalls instead of hiring teachers. Other recipients received billions despite having full educational payrolls and not knowing what to do with the big bucks.
In 2012, with bipartisan support, Obama signed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act "to encourage startups and support our nation's small businesses."
In July 2014, with bipartisan support, Obama signed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to "help job seekers access employment, education, training, and support services to succeed in the labor market and to match employers with the skilled workers they need to compete in the global economy." (Never mind that a GAO review of the feds' existing 47 job-training programs run by nine different agencies "generally found the effects of participation were not consistent across programs, with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to be small, inconclusive or restricted to short-term impacts.")
In December 2014, the White House unveiled nearly $1 billion in new "investments" to "expand access to high-quality early childhood education to every child in America" from "birth and continuing to age 5."
That's all on top of the $6 billion government-funded national service and education initiative known as the SERVE America Act, which was enacted less than a month after the nearly $1 trillion stimulus with the help of a majority of Big Government Senate Republicans. The SERVE America Act included $1.1 billion to increase the investment in national service opportunities; $97 million for Learn and Serve America Youth Engagement Zones; and nearly $400 million for the Social Innovation Fund and Volunteer Generation Fund.
The "social innovation" slush fund was intended to "create new knowledge about how to solve social challenges in the areas of economic opportunity, youth development and school support, and healthy futures, and to improve our nation's problem-solving infrastructure in low-income communities." The biggest beneficiaries? Obama's progressive cronies.
Apparently, the richly funded "social innovators" haven't reached the looter-prone neighborhoods of Baltimore yet. But it's not ideologically bankrupt Obama's fault. It's ours.