Monday, July 29, 2013

Harder and Harder for Nero Obama To Reach Out and Blame Others!


 Israelis are very considerate. They ask bomb belt suspects to take off their watches and rings before they enter the disposal unit so their families will have remembrances..
 ---
Nero Obama?  (See 1 below.)
---
It is getting harder and harder for 'Nero' to reach out and blame someone.  (See 2 below.)
---
The Clintons are not happy that comparisons are being made between their marriage and the Weiners.

That said, the similarities are sufficient given a few deviance's! (See 3 and 3a below.)
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Syrian army and Hizballah capture Homs - opening way to Aleppo and decisive Assad victory

Three months after winning the strategic town of Al Qusayr, the combined Syrian and Hizballah armies have captured the historic Muslim Brotherhood city of Homs, 162 kilometers northeast of the capital Damascus. Military and intelligence sources report that Sunday, July 28, jeeps with recoilless guns, pick-up trucks with anti air guns - all loaded with defeated rebel Farouq Brigades fighters were to be seen fleeing the city. As they fled, Syrian and Hizballah army tanks facing no resistance rolled into the center of Homs, the old city and the Khladiyeh district and hoisted images of President Bashar Assad.

The fall of Homs, which the rebels designated from the start of the uprising “capital of the revolution,” opens the way for Syrian-Hizballah forces to move north on Aleppo, Syria’s largest city.

Aleppo’s capture would grant Assad a decisive victory in the civil war and confer on the Lebanese Shiite terrorist Hizballah for the first time the standing of an armed force with strategic capabilities, as well as giving the Iran-Syrian-Hizballah alliance a major boost.

Early Monday, Syrian ground-to-ground missiles were pounding rebel fortifications Aleppo to soften their resistance, while Syrian air force helicopters struck Kurdish PYG units ranged along the Syrian-Turkish border. Although the helicopters flew over the frontier, they did not run into any interference from the Turkish air force, its artillery emplacements or the NATO Patriot anti-missile batteries deployed there.
The Kurdish units were targeted to prevent them moving into Aleppo in defense of the city’s Kurdish quarters against the Syrian army-Hizballah advance.

After the fall of Homs and the fast approaching Syrian assault on Aleppo, Washington, Jerusalem and Ankara have run out of time for quibbling whether to step into the Syrian conflict. The critical decision facing them now is whether to save Aleppo from a savage Syrian army-Hizballah onslaught that will determine the final fate of the war, or continue to stand aside.

The various tactics outlined by top US soldier Gen. Martin Dempsey last week for US military intervention at a cost of $1 billion per day have been overtaken by events. The Obama administration must now decide very quickly whether Assad and his Russian and Iranian backers should be allowed to win the Syrian civil war or stopped at Aleppo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Obama’s hunt for a legacy — the politics of division
By Joseph Curl


With his signature second-term agenda priorities — gun control and amnesty — all but dead, President Obama has once again begun to search for someone — anyone — to blame.

See, none of this is his fault. Five years of sky-high unemployment, an out-of-control federal deficit, spending run amok, gas prices twice what they were in 2008: Not His Fault.

Yes, he did promise to be the great savior of America (he even pledged that the sea levels would drop under his leadership, remember?), but that was before “They” rose up to fight his every valiant effort to save the nation. And this week, the president of the United States rode out of into the hinterland to declare war on “Them.”

Who are “They”? Well, us — Americans. Some, even, who voted for Mr. Obama, but, mostly, those who didn’t. And don’t fool yourself: In the president’s world, if you’re not with him, then you’re an enemy to be struck down where you stand. America be damned — it’s Us or Them. And for Democrats, the ends always justify the means, no matter how divisive, how destructive.

More precisely, in Obamaland, it is “America” that is to blame. The Land of the Free, where hard work means success, a better life — better, at least, than those who have not worked as hard, sacrificed as much, to rise up, sometimes over generations of back-breaking labor — does not make sense to the community organizer from Chicago. He sees only two groups, the Haves and the Have-Nots, and he has one simple explanation for the world as it is: The Haves stole from the Have-Nots, robbed them of their rightful fortunes.

To the president, health care is a birthright. An education at an excellent college? A birthright. A job with an always increasing salary, a long and steady career? Birthrights. A wonderful home? Birthright. An early retirement in luxury? Birthright. All 300 million Americans have all that and more as their God-given birthright, says the president. Who will pay? “They” will.

Now, “They” are, of course, “We” — Americans. In fact, “They” are the very ones living the American dream Mr. Obama alludes to when he cites “the engine of our economy” — those middle-class Americans working hard, rising up, earning their way, striving for better, maybe even that once-vaunted but now vilified “1 percent.”

Of 300 million Americans, some rise, some fall, some do better, some do worse, hard workers succeed, loafers fail. But the Harvard-educated Mr. Obama, in his own words, finds that “inequality” “morally wrong.” For him, the successful “owe” the failures some, even much, of their hard-earned money. It’s just that simple: They don’t “deserve” what they’ve worked to achieve. No, everyone should have a piece of their success. That, to him, is America.

And America’s first half-white, half-black president has taken his politics of division to his favorite place, The New York Times, with an explicit threat, enough to scare post-Trayvon America.

“Racial tensions won’t get better; they may get worse, because people will feel as if they’ve got to compete with some other group to get scraps from a shrinking pot,” he told two star-struck reporters in an interview last week.
Of course, the president — one-third of the Founders’ co-equal trio of power — blames Congress (forget that Democrats control the Senate).

“With an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball,” the president said in Galesburg, Ill. Already, word has leaked he plans a budget strategy that could lead to a government shutdown, which he will no doubt blame on those “obstructionist” Republicans.

Of course, everything now — especially the president’s “pivot” to the economy, his 19th since taking office — is geared toward the 2014 midterms. Blame Congress, especially Republicans in the House, for all of America’s woes, and perhaps he can win a majority for his final two years and “fix” America — his way.

But his second term is, except for the shouting, over. He has legacy on his mind now, and with his woefully weak record, he’s thinking, “Who can I blame for this dismal mess of a presidency?”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)Empress Hillary, 2016
By Stella Paul


Hillary has already ordered the diamond tiara and gold scepter for her 2016 coronation, and a whole village of enslaved Chinese orphans is weaving her red carpet right now.
Sooner than you can say "Obama who?" Hillary will ascend to her rightful position of World Empress. The optics will dazzle us. Adorned in a floor length cape made from the dead cats of Bill's mistresses, she will bless us all from her 20-foot- platinum throne, gifted by our dear friends in Saudi Arabia.
True, she'll be a bit long in the tooth, but a federal edict, upheld by the Supreme Court, will force us all to wear Google Glass.  Hillary's face, devised by Hollywood courtiers, will appear as a clever blend of her own features, circa 1983, and Scarlett Johansson's.  A subtle halo will hover at all times.
Do you find this vision objectionable? Fear not, for Empress Hillary will care for us with the tender ministrations she lavished on the abandoned, slaughtered Americans in Benghazi.
And should you find yourself raped and dragged through the streets by screaming Muslim mobs, be assured that Hillary will comfort your survivors by jailing an unknown filmmaker.
If that was good enough for an American ambassador, surely that should be good enough for you.
Now what Royal Personage do you picture reigning by her side? His Supreme Excellency Bill, chuckling amiably and feeling up the maids?
That's been the plan all along, but we may be thinking too conventionally.  Give the Clintons their due as fearless improvisers, able to maneuver and respond to the times.
Maybe we should prepare for a glamorous Muslima Royal Regent. Think "The Consort Wears Prada." Yes, Huma Abedin Weiner, a.k.a. Mrs. Carlos Danger, may deign to co-rule us yet.
If you're having trouble following this story, let's review the background I so helpfully laid out in September 2012 in "Bill and Hillary and Huma and Anthony." Describing "the vilest soap opera in American history" I noted, "This one's got it all: two sham marriages, sexual perversions, and national treachery at the highest level." 
The Huma Comedy now bewitching the media is an utter crock. The commentariat's burning questions about the state of poor lil' Huma's marriage mask the cold truth: There is no Abedin/Weiner marriage.
There's only a political deal brokered by the Clintons: Weiner would marry Huma, Hillary's top aide, to stop increasingly uncomfortable attention to Hillary's intimate relationship with her. In turn, the Clintons would back Weiner's bid to be New York mayor.
When the pathetic Weiner committed a complete Twitter-ectomy of his Congressional career, The Plan temporarily derailed. But scandals that would force the rest of us to quiver in lifelong shame are mere temporary annoyances for this lot.
Weiner was soon back, sexting worshipful females and running for the Right Honorable Flasher of New York, with the help of his lovely bride. And if it hadn't been for that mean Sydney Leathers, they might have gotten away with it.
Of course, as the nation finds itself transfixed by Weiner's very public privates, the media studiously ignores the real scandal: Huma Abedin is a Muslim Brotherhood asset, planted at the highest level of national power.
The invaluable Andrew McCarthy lays out the whole sordid shebang here, including how Secretary of State Hillary and Huma collaborated to abandon Israel, bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power abroad, and impose Shariah-ism at home.
But, in the words of our Presumptive Empress: "What difference at this point does it make?"  Hillary's fixers will continue to smooth the path for Huma's ascension to saintly wronged woman status, whose stoic nobility we must reward with our love.  As the Washington Post reports, "The chatter was, if you wanted to stay in Hillary's good graces, you answer the call from Huma."
Which brings us to Plan B.  The Weiner/Abedin farce may be past its sell-by date, but why not unleash a bold new plan? Now that the Supreme Court has fast-tracked gay marriage, why shouldn't Hillary and Huma publicly tie the knot?
Two wronged woman, so strong and brilliant, bravely make a new future together, because they have so much love to give each other and the world. How lucky we are to have them! Vote for these magnificent trail-blazers and Make History!
But wait a minute, you say. What about Bill? Well, nature might take its course and Bill could succumb in the arms of a particularly nubile female receptacle. Or maybe he'll agree to a friendly staged divorce, in which he'll get a piece of the action.  The obedient media will shriek at us about the Clintons' awe-inspiring maturity at handling difficult life transitions and harangue us into learning important Life Lessons from them and worshiping them even more.
Or maybe Bill will join Huma in the White House for A New Paradigm Three-Way.  After all, our moral betters will lecture us, "What is 'family' anyway?"  Perhaps Bill will donate the goods for Huma to get pregnant and the whole world will celebrate the birth of Baby Mohammed in the White House.
You don't want Huma in the White House? Homophobe! Racist! Islamophobe! Hater! Bigot! Right-wing Christian!
This bunch didn't get where they are through failure of nerve.



Bill and Hillary Clinton are angry with efforts by mayoral hopeful Anthony Weiner and his campaign to compare his Internet sexcapades — and his wife Huma Abedin’s incredible forgiveness — to the Clintons’ notorious White House saga, The Post has learned.

“The Clintons are upset with the comparisons that the Weiners seem to be encouraging — that Huma is ‘standing by her man’ the way Hillary did with Bill, which is not what she in fact did,’’ said a top state Democrat.

Weiner and his campaign aides have explicitly referred to the Clintons as they privately seek to convince skeptical Democrats that voters can back Weiner despite his online sexual antics — just as they supported then-President Bill Clinton in the face of repeated allegations of marital betrayals.

“The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,’’ said the source. “How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.”

A longtime Hillary aide and Clinton friend, Abedin’s surprisingly unequivocal support of her husband after his bombshell admission Tuesday that he engaged in salacious online sexting well after he resigned in disgrace from Congress in 2011 left the Clintons stunned, continued the source.
“Hillary didn’t know Huma would do this whole stand-by-your-man routine, and that’s one of the reasons the Clintons are distancing themselves from all this nonsense,’’ the source said.

In the view of many Democrats, the Weiners have also alluded more subtly to the Clintons..
For instance, Abedin, with her husband at her side, declared last week, “Our marriage, like many others, has had its ups and its downs.’’

“Who didn’t think Huma was referring to the Clintons when she said that?’’ asked another prominent Democrat.

Worried about the potential impact on Hillary’s likely run for president in 2016, the political power couple has begun aggressively distancing itself from the crippled mayoral contender, according to sources.

Meanwhile, at least one prominent Hillary Rodham Clinton political operative was described as close to “going public’’ with a sharp criticism of Weiner — in order to send the message that the Clintons, fearing longtime damage to Hillary, want him out of the mayor’s race. (That would be someone other than former Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers, who said yesterday that she was sure the Clintons wanted Weiner out of the race.)

With all the explosive ammunition Republicans have to fire at Weiner and a handful of other disgraced Democrats, GOP activists expected Senate co-leader Dean Skelos and Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb to unload at least a few critical comments.

Instead, there’s been total silence from the state’s two top elected Republicans — in yet another example of the collapse of the state’s two-party system.

Skelos “couldn’t care less about what’s going on with the Democrats. He’s just focused on . . . sending out meaningless tweets,’’ said a Republican strategist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Has Netanyahu Been Rolled? From Serious To Phony!

4)-Why does Netanyahu not tell Israeli's the truth about what he has agree to? Has he been rolled by Sec Kerry? (See 1 and 1a below.)
---
---When a politician is no long running for office and becomes untethered from his party he can tell the truth and/or what is on his mind.  (See 2 below.)

Fr From serious to phony scandals and all within a few days of lies!  (See 3 below.)

Di   Dick
---------------------------------------------------------
---
--


Israeli11) 
Kerry builds a US-Arab superstructure to direct Israel-Palestinian talks - White House reservations

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s willingness to “do everything” to avoid giving the Palestinians a pretext for not turning up for their first encounter with Israeli negotiators in Washington Tuesday, July 30, bodes ill for Israel’s bargaining position right from the start. So too does his proposal to include jailed Israeli Arabs among the 104 Palestinian prisoners to be released. Several threats from Ramallah not to make the Tuesday date had their effect.

Netanyahu sent an open letter to the Israeli people Saturday night, July 27, explaining his “incredibly difficult decision” to free the 104 prisoners as a gesture ahead of the renewal of peace talks. “Sometimes prime ministers are forced to make decisions that go against public opinion – when the issue is important to the country,” he wrote.
That letter arouses less sympathy than concern. It confirms the impression that the Palestinians only have to threaten to walk out of the negotiations in order to extort concessions from Israel, in the knowledge that US Secretary of State John Kerry or his “special envoys” will move in fast to save the process.
If so, how far will Netanyahu go when the substantive talks begin?  By including Israeli Arabs in the prisoner deal, is he saying that the Israeli Arab population is part of a future deal with the Palestinians and their regions are on the table for potential land swaps? 

If so, he is handing out freebies far too early in the game.
According to sources, the Tuesday meeting in Washington is just a preliminary step to prepare the procedures and modalities for the process. That is all Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and the prime minister’s political adviser Yitzhak Molcho, for Israel, and Yasser Abd Rabbo for the Palestinians will be asked to do in Washington.
For now, the terms of reference for the negotiations have yet to be determined and President Barack Obama has yet to sign the formal letters of assurance promised to Netanyahu and the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas.
There are reasons for this delay. Secretary Kerry wants to be certain that the talks will show real progress before he asks the president to offer formal assurances to the two leaders. Washington sources also report although Obama gave Kerry a free hand for restarting the peace track, he is slowing the Secretary down with reservations of his own, especially with regard to the Secretary’s choices of special envoys to lead the four specialist negotiating tracks or mechanisms.

Leading candidate for the political mechanism is his longtime close adviser on Middle East issues Frank Lowenstein, former Senate Foreign Relations committee chief of staff who acted as policy advisor to Senator Kerry. Another candidate is Martin Indyk, twice ambassador to Israel. It is not clear which would be the senior.

The White House would prefer a member of the National Security Council rather than a State Department loyalist in the seat assigned to Indyk.
Tagged for the military-security track is retired Marine general John Allen, former commander of US forces in Afghanistan and former supreme commander of NATO.
An appointee of this high rank to supervise the negotiations on security matters is intended to give the US the leverage to dictate the pace of this track and override efforts by Israeli security and military officials to bring their will to bear.
The Israeli side will not like this appointment.  

The third mechanism will deal with economic issues and the fourth, under the heading of general subjects, will be the framework for Arab League delegates, and especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to take a hand in the process and determining its outcome.  

John Kerry has constructed an intricate edifice over and above the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, a kind of US administration superstructure with Arab components, to stand over the Israeli government and its prime minister and the Palestinian Authority and its chairman.

Regardless of he powerful machine Kerry is building to steer the negotiating parties and bend them to Washington’s will,  Netanyahu is already racing ahead to put before the cabinet meeting Sunday, July 28, a proposal for a popular referendum that will be called to approve an accord negotiated with the Palestinians. There is a long way to go before that point is reached – if ever.

1a)Observation: Treating Israeli Public (and Cabinet) Like Children
Dr. Aaron Lerner 

We know the truth.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu knows the truth.

So the question is: why the "white lies"

"White lie" #1. Israel did not accept the precondition of a building
freeze.

Of course there is a freeze. There won't actually be any truly new
construction approved during this period.

"White lie" #2. The talks won't be based on the ’67 lines.

The Palestinians say it is. The Americans committed to the Palestinians
that it is. And the promise has been made that what transpires when the
"talks on the talks" slated to take place this week will remain a secret.

Do the math.

"White lie #3" the cabinet isn't being asked today to specifically approve
the release of all the pre-Oslo terrorists.

Instead the cabinet will vote on the release of a set number of prisoners,
thus giving these politicians deniability a few years from now, when the
public no longer recalls all the details.

Is #1 and #2 sheer speculation?

Check back in a few months…

R
--------------------------------------------------------
4)2)
Second-Term Nightmare

ObamaCare's chickens come home to roost.

By Pete DuPont


Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. The Obama administration and its allies in Congress are faced with the challenge of trying to convince Americans there are wide-ranging benefits to their 2010 takeover of our nation's health-care system, while at the same time working to delay it so as to minimize the negative consequences before the 2014 elections.
The last thing congressional Democrats want is a repeat of the drubbing their party took in 2010, courtesy of the ObamaCare backlash. But recent events have put ObamaCare and its outcomes front and center, adding to a growing fear on the left that Republicans not only will hold the House but could take the Senate.
Voters anxious for job growth cannot help but notice recent discussions about the law's detrimental effect on employment.The employer mandate, which requires entities with at least 50 full-time employees to provide costly federally approved insurance, acts as an incentive to keep payrolls at 49 or fewer or move workers to part-time status. The administration apparently agrees, as it announced it is postponing the start of the employer mandate by one year, to 2015. Even casual observers of the electoral calendar may note that's on the other side of the midterms.
Leaving aside for a moment whether it is legal for an administration simply to decree that a law won't be enforced until next year, such action keeps ObamaCare in the news. Earlier this month the House passed legislation that would make it legal to delay the employer mandate. The House passed another bill to delay the individual mandate by a year, with the logic that individuals and families deserve the same break busineses are getting. Both bills will languish in the Senate, but they have led to the rather odd situation of the president actually vowing to veto legislation that would put his extralegal action on solid footing.
The administration's problems are not just with Republicans, or the some two dozen House Democrats who joined them. Organized labor, one of the staunchest backers of Democrats in general and ObamaCare in particular, is beginning to foresee the law's negative impact on union members. A recent letter signed by leaders of three large unions and sent to congressional Democratic leaders said the law threatens to "shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class," and that labor's effort for Democrats "has come back to haunt us." Another union head has referred to the "destructive consequences" of ObamaCare.
Add sticker shock to the Democrats' concerns, with recent news of large ObamaCare-driven premium increases in the individual market (for policyholders who do not get coverage through an employer). We were promised that if we liked our current insurance plan, we could keep it. States like Indiana (projected premium increase of 76%), Ohio (88%) and others confirm what many already knew—we cannot keep our current plan if it does not meet what the administration considers "acceptable," and moving to one that meets the ObamaCare requirements can be quite expensive. True, individual-market purchasers in some states will not see these increases, and the pain of these increases will be ameliorated for lower-income families by federal subsidies, but that is small comfort for those in states with large increases who do not qualify for subsidies, and for taxpayers, who will foot the bill for the subsidies.
To top it all off, the president has implicitly admitted what every unbiased observer already knew—that relying on federal and state bureaucrats to revamp one-seventh of our economy will result in missed deadlines, severe disruptions and shortfalls. The president dismissively called these problems "glitches," but Sen. Max Baucus was close to the truth when he used the term "train wreck."
As the inefficiencies of the massive ObamaCare law and the ineptness of its rollout are becoming more obvious, some commentators have joked about then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 2010 statement that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." But the damage this law will inflict on American businesses and families is no laughing matter.

-----------------------------------------------------------

3)When Did Obama Decide That The Scandals He Once Thought Were Serious Are Now ‘Phony’?


 Israeli bomb detection equipment! Israel graciously allows bombers to stay attached to their bombs.  serious to re are wide-ranging benefits to their 2010 takeover of our nation's health-care system, while at the same time working to delay it so as to minimize the negative consequences before the 2014 elections.
The last thing congressional Democrats want is a repeat of the drubbing their party took in 2010, courtesy of the ObamaCare backlash. But recent events have put ObamaCare and its outcomes front and center, adding to a growing fear on the left that Republicans not only will hold the House but could take the Senate.
Voters anxious for job growth cannot help but notice recent discussions about the law's detrimental effect on employment.The employer mandate, which requires entities with at least 50 full-time employees to provide costly federally approved insurance, acts as an incentive to keep payrolls at 49 or fewer or move workers to part-time status. The administration apparently agrees, as it announced it is postponing the start of the employer mandate by one year, to 2015. Even casual observers of the electoral calendar may note that's on the other side of the midterms.
Leaving aside for a moment whether it is legal for an administration simply to decree that a law won't be enforced until next year, such action keeps ObamaCare in the news. Earlier this month the House passed legislation that would make it legal to delay the employer mandate. The House passed another bill to delay the individual mandate by a year, with the logic that individuals and families deserve the same break busineses are getting. Both bills will languish in the Senate, but they have led to the rather odd situation of the president actually vowing to veto legislation that would put his extralegal action on solid footing.
The administration's problems are not just with Republicans, or the some two dozen House Democrats who joined them. Organized labor, one of the staunchest backers of Democrats in general and ObamaCare in particular, is beginning to foresee the law's negative impact on union members. A recent letter signed by leaders of three large unions and sent to congressional Democratic leaders said the law threatens to "shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class," and that labor's effort for Democrats "has come back to haunt us." Another union head has referred to the "destructive consequences" of ObamaCare.
Add sticker shock to the Democrats' concerns, with recent news of large ObamaCare-driven premium increases in the individual market (for policyholders who do not get coverage through an employer). We were promised that if we liked our current insurance plan, we could keep it. States like Indiana (projected premium increase of 76%), Ohio (88%) and others confirm what many already knew—we cannot keep our current plan if it does not meet what the administration considers "acceptable," and moving to one that meets the ObamaCare requirements can be quite expensive. True, individual-market purchasers in some states will not see these increases, and the pain of these increases will be ameliorated for lower-income families by federal subsidies, but that is small comfort for those in states with large increases who do not qualify for subsidies, and for taxpayers, who will foot the bill for the subsidies.
To top it all off, the president has implicitly admitted what every unbiased observer already knew—that relying on federal and state bureaucrats to revamp one-seventh of our economy will result in missed deadlines, severe disruptions and shortfalls. The president dismissively called these problems "glitches," but Sen. Max Baucus was close to the truth when he used the term "train wreck."
As the inefficiencies of the massive ObamaCare law and the ineptness of its rollout are becoming more obvious, some commentators have joked about then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 2010 statement that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." But the damage this law will inflict on American businesses and families is no laughing matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anatomical Voting In - Integrity and Competency Out!


Dagny and Stella at Tybee!
---
"All you Grandpas and Grandmas, this is too funny not to forward.
What Is Couple Sex?
An 8-year-old girl went to her grandfather, who was working in the yard and asked him, "Grampa, what is couple sex?"
The grandfather was surprised that she would ask such a question, but decided that if she's old enough to know to ask the question, then she's old enough to get a straight answer.
Steeling himself to leave nothing out, he proceeded to tell her all about human reproduction and the joys and responsibilities of intercourse.
When he finished explaining, the little girl was looking at him with her mouth hanging open, eyes wide in amazement.
Seeing the look on her face, the grandfather asked her, "Why did you ask this question, honey?"
The little girl replied, "Grandma says that dinner will be ready in just a couple secs."
---
Three 'pees' in a pod: Weiner, Danger and Clinton!

Anatomical voting in, competency and integrity out. (See 1 below.)
---
IBD editorializes - shut down Obamacare not government! 

I would shut them both  and re-legislate what works.(See 2 below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)What Weiner and Clinton Have Taught Us

All veteran journalists know that the only thing to do with fish in a barrel is to shoot them, as the cliché demands. Thus, all members of the media, left, right, and center, have spent this week eagerly popping away at Anthony Weiner and his hapless wife Huma Abedin. And who can blame us? The spectacle of the serial sexter and flasher and his enabler wife is the stuff of implausible fiction, not normal political news. But not everyone is chortling along with a public that can’t seem to get enough of this scandal.

Over at the Daily Beast, Peter Beinart writes to say the calls from conservatives as well as liberal organs like the New York Times for Weiner to leave the race immediately and take his severe behavioral disorder somewhere out of the public square are wrong. Beinart believes it is anti-democratic for prudes to seek to deny the voters their right to vote for the man better known by the name of his alter ego Carlos Danger. Since the need for the body politic to make room for sexual deviants is, I think, nowhere mentioned in the Federalist Papers, I think that’s an odd conception of the essentials of democracy. But in order to make this argument, Beinart stumbles across a profound truth: Democrats have already excused behavior that is, if anything, far worse than Weiner’s bizarre act. And by that he is, of course, referring to Bill Clinton:
By any reasonable standard, Weiner’s behavior is less damning than Clinton’s. Yes, Weiner committed adultery (of a kind). Yes, he repeatedly lied about it. Yes, he humiliated his wife in an effort to save his candidacy. Clinton did all that, too. What Weiner, in contrast to Clinton, has not done—as far as we know—is use his office to reward his paramours. He has not publicly besmirched their character. He has not asked them to violate the law. And he has not violated campaign disclosure laws in his effort to keep them silent. According to legal experts, he has also not committed sexual harassment.
Beinart leaves out Clinton’s lying under oath, but he’s right. But rather than using the refusal of the New York Times to condemn Clinton, let alone demand that Clinton leave the 1992 presidential race or resign once in office, as a rationale to justify Weiner’s continued presence in the public square, what he has done is remind us of the moral bankruptcy of Clinton’s many defenders who continue to ignore the voluminous evidence of his misconduct and treat him as a revered elder statesman–not to mention a future presidential spouse.
Beinart is also correct to note that if phone cameras had been available back in Arkansas when then Governor Clinton was running riot with the assistance of his faithful State Trooper bodyguards, the evidence of his disgusting carryings-on might have been too much for even his cheering section in the press to ignore or excuse. There is more than a grain of truth in his point that the difference between Weiner’s indiscretions and those of Clinton and previous generations of sexual predators and philanderers entrusted with high public office is primarily one of technology.
The point about Clinton is telling because it reminds us that allowing people who abuse and lie in the manner that Bill and Hillary did—and which Anthony and Huma would like to emulate—has consequences. The willingness of Democrats and liberal soapboxes like the Times to embrace Clinton in 1992 set us up for what would follow. From that point on, every lying predator in political office or seeking one has been able to say that if Clinton could be excused, so could they.
People like Beinart and others continually tell us that we were right to give the Clintons a pass and that it would have been a tragedy if other sexual miscreants who found their way into the Oval Office like John F. Kennedy had been made accountable for their conduct since it would have deprived of us of their gifts. Yet if there is anything that is an eternal truth about democracy it is that no man or woman is indispensable. We are a nation of laws, not men. That’s something that should not be forgotten three years from now when Huma’s mentors the Clintons attempt to regain their lapsed lease on the White House.
Perhaps what Beinart calls the “disproportionate” response to Weiner is merely the result of him being a “pioneer” in the field of using social media to misbehave rather than more private means. But instead of shrugging at this spectacle and resigning ourselves to more like it in the future as Beinart glumly expects we must, perhaps this is the moment for Americans to finally say that we demand more of those charged with the public’s trust. If the Clintons and the Weiners have taught us anything, it is that there is still a viable argument to be made for public morality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)The Case for Stopping ObamaCare Has Never Been Stronger

Health Overhaul: Republicans are fighting over a government shutdown when they should be telling a receptive public that if ObamaCare takes effect, the result will be massive taxpayer fraud and privacy violations.
News accounts have focused on GOP threats to block any ObamaCare implementation funds in next year's spending bills, even if that risks a presidential veto and a government shutdown.
That, naturally, has sparked a public debate among Republicans not over the merits of stopping ObamaCare, but over the political fallout of such a high-stakes face-off. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., called it "the dumbest idea I've ever heard."
But while the political risks of such a strategy are no doubt real, the risks to the public should the law go forward are even greater. Put simply: If ObamaCare goes into effect on Oct. 1, the result will be fraud and abuse on a monumental scale. Here's why:
In its rush to meet ObamaCare's deadlines, the administration gutted the law's verification requirements. The ObamaCare exchanges are supposed to verify eligibility and income information provided by applicants before handing out billions in taxpayer subsidies.
Not anymore. Instead, the exchanges can just take the applicant's word for it, creating an open invitation for people to abuse the system by fudging those facts.
Nor is the ObamaCare data hub, which will connect seven other huge federal databases, anywhere near ready. More than a dozen GOP lawmakers complained in a letter to HHS that the hub "has not been tested" and that it's unclear whether it will be "able to protect sensitive health and taxpayer information."
Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-Pa., said that without such protections, the Hub would be a "honey pot" for hackers and identity thieves.
In addition, the administration is cutting corners so it can quickly hire thousands of "navigators" before ObamaCare's start date. They're not even running criminal background checks. This is particularly troubling, since ObamaCare gives these navigators — who'll guide customers through the sign-up process — access to vast amounts of private tax and income data.
So, in other words, none of the key safety features of ObamaCare is ready, and won't likely be for at least another year.
The public has never been more open to such concerns, with polls consistently showing a clear majority opposed to the law. Even among Democrats and unions, support is tumbling.
So Republicans have an incredibly strong hand to play. Do we really want to open the door to vast amounts of fraud and abuse just to stick to the law's arbitrary deadlines?
Given that it's been more than three years since the president signed ObamaCare into law, putting it off one more would hardly matter, especially if it prevents these kinds of abuses. Plus, it would give ObamaCare critics more time to draft better alternatives.
But as long as Republicans are fighting among themselves over a government shutdown, this hand will never get played.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, July 26, 2013

Israeli Technology and Eric Holder The Biggest Farce in Years!


---
Holder has an agenda and it squares with Obama's. Their agenda is to challenge the Constitution in the hope liberal judges agree with their interpretations which undercut our freedoms.

Yes, there are generally two sides to any issue.

Holder's argument is citizens have the constitutional right to vote and anything that impedes this right is a violation of the Constitution.  He ignores the fact that all people entering the Justice Department need an I.D. and when anyone can vote, without showing proper identification, it undercuts the freedom of other's right to have their vote count. Uncorrupted voting is one of the greatest privileges of a free society.

The idea blacks and Hispanics cannot obtain identification is an insult to their status and a liberal  way of continuing to demean them.

Holder's argument is simply a political ploy to endear Democrats to blacks and Hispanics and is timed to help get out the 2014 vote in order to save the Senate and cut into Republican House numbers.(See 1 below.)
--
Schiff has not shifted his thinking and Detroit simply convinces him he remains on the right track: "
So Goes Detroit, Bernanke's Gold Confession, Obama's ACA Lies
Peter Schiff | 


---
"I said to the wife, “Get me a newspaper”.
“Don't be silly,” she said “you can borrow my new iPad”.
That spider never knew what hit it."


"The human body has 7 trillion nerves; 
my wife manages to get on every one of them!"
---

Hard to beat Israeli Technology!

I
TEL AVIV, Israel - The Israelis are developing an airport security device that eliminates the privacy concerns that come with full-body scanners. It's an armored booth you step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have on your person.

Israel sees this as a win-win situation for everyone, with none of this crap about racial profiling. It will also eliminate the costs of long and expensive trials.

You're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter, an announcement:
Attention to all standby passengers, El Al is proud to announce a seat available on flight 670 to London. Shalom!
---
Have a great weekend.
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Attorney General Eric Holder never uttered the words “Trayvon Martin” or “George Zimmerman” in his remarks today at the convention of the Urban League in Philadelphia. But his address, in which he vowed to impose “preclearance” procedures on the state of Texas in order to prevent it from making any changes in voting procedures without the express permission of the Department of Justice, must be viewed in the context of a liberal drive to take advantage of the “conversation” on race that so many on the left have urged upon the country in the aftermath of the verdict in the Zimmerman trial. Holder’s actions are primarily a response to the Supreme Court’s decision to reaffirm the Voting Rights Act while mandating that Congress redraw the map that determines which jurisdictions must get advance permission from the DOJ without the latter having to go to court first, rather than merely going by the outdated one drawn up in 1965. But there’s little doubt that Holder and the left are hoping the hysteria that race merchants like Al Sharpton have helped stir up in the last two weeks will help them turn public opinion on the question of voter ID laws that are at the heart of the federal attack on Texas.

The Martin case has been cited by many liberals who have sought to argue that the Court’s majority was somehow wrong to rule that the America of 2013 is nothing like the one that existed in 1965. The tone of much of the commentary from the left, including that of President Obama on the Zimmerman case, has been to insist that for all of the obvious progress made, the death of Martin proves we are essentially no better off in terms of racism that we were in the pre-Voting Rights Act era. But like the post-trial discussion that ignored the actual facts of the trial, Holder’s assertion that voter ID laws are, by definition, proof of discrimination is not only disingenuous; it’s flat out false.

The attorney general’s decision to go to court against Texas gives the lie to much of the fulminations from the administration about the decision in Shelby v. Holder. Far from easing the way toward a new era of Jim Crow, the court reaffirmed the Voting Rights Act’s safeguards against discrimination but merely said that the DOJ could not preempt the judicial process without a necessary re-write of the act based on the realities of contemporary America rather than one based on the situation in 1965. Thus, Holder is perfectly free to sue in federal court to stop Texas from doing anything he deems discriminatory.

But, like the incendiary rhetoric that sought to indict “Stand Your Ground” laws after Zimmerman’s acquittal as being a license for shooting down innocent young black men, Holder’s claim that Texas’s drawing of voter districts discriminates against Hispanics is unfounded. But the big prize here is his bid to prevent any state from requiring voters to identify themselves at the polls.

In an era when it has become easier to register, including at the polls on election days and where mail-in and absentee ballots have become commonplace, voter fraud has become easier, necessitating measures to ensure the integrity of results. The vast majority of Americans, including African-Americans, believe there is nothing wrong, let alone discriminatory, about asking voters to identify themselves in the same manner that they must to conduct virtually any other transaction with the government or business. Voter ID laws are a commonsense measure that are as easy to comply with as it is to register to vote. But liberals and race baiters have sought to make them the lever by which they can convince the country that racism is alive and well.

Like the Martin case, the discussion about voting rights is about assumptions about race that have little to do with facts. Trayvon Martin has been transformed from a troubled youth who died in a confusing fight to a martyr because civil rights groups and others that seek to profit from the focus on race need him to symbolize their effort to persuade America that nothing has changed since 1965. The same is true of Holder’s rant about Texas and voter ID. The courts should dismiss this claim just as decisively as the Zimmerman jury rejected a murder charge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------