Archive for Liberal Fascism

Badgered

Gov. Scott Walker’s successful restoration of sanity and balance in Wisconsin was noteworthy in its own right. But the ruckus that it kicked up among the liberal fascists in the public-sector unions and their supporters was equally remarkable. The blowback reached even our distant shores, via long-winded, tendentious comments from comsymps on the scene.

But we still don’t know the half of it:

Conservative targets of a Democrat-launched John Doe investigation have described the secret probe as a witch hunt.

That might not be a big enough descriptor, based on records released Friday by a federal appeals court as part of a massive document dump.

Attorneys for conservative activist Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth point to subpoenas requested by John Doe prosecutors that sought records from “at least eight phone companies” believed to serve the targets of the investigation. O’Keefe and the club have filed a civil rights lawsuit against John Doe prosecutors, alleging they violated conservatives’ First Amendment rights.

Subpoenas also demanded the conservatives’ bank records, “emails from every major private email provider” and other information in what some have described as a mini-NSA (National Security Agency) operation in Wisconsin.

“In fact, Defendants’ submissions confirm and expand upon the scope and intensity of retaliation previously demonstrated,” O’Keefe’s attorney wrote in documents ordered unsealed by the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

The documents raise serious concerns about the tactics of Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, two of his assistant DAs and others involved in the investigation targeting dozens of conservatives.

Chisholm, a Democrat, launched the dragnet two years ago, and, according to court documents, with the help of the state Government Accountability Board, the probe was expanded to five counties. The John Doe proceeding compelled scores of witnesses to testify, and a gag order compelled them to keep their mouths shut or face jail time. Sources have described predawn “paramilitary-style” raids in which their possessions were rifled through and seized by law enforcement officers.

Using government agencies to target and intimidate conservatives: where have we heard that before?


On a clear day, you can see Milwaukee.

I have a dream (as someone once said): that this whole steaming edifice of leftist bullcrap collapsed like a dung hut in an earthquake zone. The whole Obama decade, from his DNC speech to his illegitimate elections(s), gone, discredited, flushed away. It won’t happen, America will suffer (in the short term) if it does, but it will be stronger for it in the end. A dream, as I say.

Comments

Fetus…Baby…Whatever You Call It…

Don’t call it “difficult”:

Planned Parenthood calls abortion “a difficult decision” in many of its consent forms and fact sheets. When NARAL launched a film on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in 2013, the president of the pro-choice organization called abortion “a difficult decision” women and couples face.

Lawmakers use the adjective, too. “It was a difficult, difficult decision, but it was the right one,” Nevada Assemblywoman Lucy Flores said last month in defending her choice to have an abortion at age 16. In 2005, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton described the decision to have an abortion as “one of the most fundamental, difficult and soul-searching decisions a woman and a family can make” and “often the most difficult [decision] that a woman will ever make.”

However, when the pro-choice community frames abortion as a difficult decision, it implies that women need help deciding, which opens the door to paternalistic and demeaning “informed consent” laws. It also stigmatizes abortion and the women who need it.

Often, abortion isn’t a difficult decision. In my case, it sure wasn’t.

Good for her. I’m glad it was a piece of cake. Easy-peasy. A snap. (Or was that the baby’s spine?)

Who needs the agro?

Today, when advocates on both sides of the debate talk about the decision to have an abortion, they preface their statements with adjectives such as “difficult,” “hard” or “reluctant.” For anti-abortion conservatives, the reason for using such language is clear: Abortion is murder, they contend, but characterizing a woman who has one as a murderer is a bit, well, harsh. A more charitable view is to assume that she must have struggled with making this immoral choice. Pro-choice advocates use the “difficult decision” formulation for a similar reason, so as not to demonize women. It also permits pro-choice candidates to look less dogmatic.

But there’s a more pernicious result when pro-choice advocates use such language: It is a tacit acknowledgment that terminating a pregnancy is a moral issue requiring an ethical debate. To say that deciding to have an abortion is a “hard choice” implies a debate about whether the fetus should live, thereby endowing it with a status of being. It puts the focus on the fetus rather than the woman.

And we can’t have that! The “status of a being”? Piffle!

If the fetus is not a being (as if!), she doesn’t tell us what it is instead. I’d kind of like to know.

Not only is abortion not a difficult choice, it’s not even a choice:

Abortion rights groups are struggling to expand their message from “pro-choice” — which they say no longer resonates with voters as it once did — to more broadly encompass women’s health and economic concerns. The movement needs such recalibration precisely because it was drawn into a moral debate about the fetus’s hypothetical future rather than the woman’s immediate and tangible future. Once these groups locked themselves into a discussion of “choice,” terminating a pregnancy became an option rather than a necessity. Pro-choice groups would be a lot stronger, more effective and more in sync with the women they represent if they backed away from the defensive “difficult decision” posture.

Option, shmoption—get busy abortin’ or get busy buyin’…diapers.

There’s not all that much room between me and the pro-choice crowd. I want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare, just as they do. The only difference is I mean it. The “pro-neccessity” crowd does not.

Comments

All the News That’s Fit to Suppress

The UK Guardian opinion section quotes an old editor: “Comment is free, but facts are sacred.”

Funny, that:

The British newspaper The Guardian rejected an advertorial piece penned by famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, JNS.org has learned. In the ad, Dershowitz refutes statements by many media outlets that all of the Gaza Strip is densely populated, a claim that has been used to justify the use of human shields by Hamas in the terrorist group’s recent conflict with Israel.

“The British media is divided,” Dershowitz said in an interview. “But The Guardian, which holds itself out to be a purveyor of diverse truth, clearly reflects a bias against Israel on its editorial pages, as well as in its presentation of the news. Now that bias has spread to the advertising pages.”

Dershowitz told JNS.org that newspapers “have a right to decide which ads to accept and reject,” but questioned The Guardian’s decision not to run his advertorial.

“My column was factually sound and not a personal attack on anybody. It simply laid out the geographic facts of the Gaza Strip and its implications,” he said.

“Dershowitz was presenting a new point of view in this article,” Harry Wechsler of the Wechsler Family Foundation told JNS.org in an email.

“Hamas was not forced into shooting their rockets from pads located in urban areas, thereby leading to unavoidable civilian deaths,” wrote Wechsler. “They were not shooting from some of the densest population centers anywhere because they had no other choice. No—the choice was there. Though not large, Gaza had ample space that was not densely populated—farm land, empty spaces where rockets could have been stored and shot from. Furthermore, the U.N. could easily have developed temporary quarters in these same spaces for the sheltering of civilian refugees, far away from the sites of battle.”

“The Guardian rarely shows photographs of Hamas fighters firing from densely populated areas. They continue to perpetuate the myth that all of the Gaza is densely populated. They continue to perpetrate the myth that the vast majority of people killed in this was have been children and women, when the fact is the vast majority of people killed have been males of terrorist age,” Dershowitz said.

It is important for Americans and British readers to know that the worst kind of distortion is “distortion by omission, where the media refuses to print the truth or opposing points of view, and the rejection of this ad [by The Guardian] is a manifestation of that,” added Dershowitz.

Exactly. No one in Britain knows anything except what the media report. If the media report an Israeli massacre, that’s what they believe. If the truth is far different, well, that’s someone else’s job.

But I reject even Dershowitz’s point. So what if Hamass were forced by population density to fire from crowded areas? That’s still on them. Nobody’s making them shell, rocket, and mortar Israel continually over the the past nine years. That’s their choice. If Israel doesn’t have the right to put an end to that, even if protecting their citizens from terror might harm Gaza’s citizens, she is the only country I’ve ever heard of so constrained. Nonsense. Israel may kill as many Gazans as necessary to secure Israelis, no more, no fewer. Indeed, it must.

Comments

[Bleep] Liberals Say

Aggie wrote this comment to a post below:

Yesterday, one of the low information crowd told me, quite seriously, that the Tea Party was an outgrowth of Occupy Wall Street. Can you believe that?

I can, Aggie, because I hear [bleep] like that all the time. It’s time to start a column of it.

Yesterday:

I was killing time in Cambridge and overheard two students at a language school waiting for their class to start. One was local, and worked in web design for politics. The other was from out of town, but noted that Massachusetts was a pretty blue state, that the politics must be left wing. The local one assured him that was so, and added “I hate Republicans.” The second one responded “I can’t imagine a Republican learning Portuguese.” They continued in like-minded palaver until their class started.

Why would a Republican not take Portuguese? Why would a Democrat? Is there a hidden logic to that statement? People learn Portuguese only to hit on hot Brazilian chicks. Can’t Republicans fantasize about Shakira?

But it was the “I hate Republicans” line that I really should address.

Now, we all use “love” and “hate” liberally (pardon the pun): We “love” pickles, but “hate” relish; love Sandra Bullock, hate Maggie Gyll…Gylen…you know the one I mean. The one everyone hates.

But “hate” Republicans? How many does this person know? There aren’t that many of us around here—which is why she felt so free to speak of us that way. What are the odds, as the other person observed, that one would be loitering outside a Portuguese language class? Or loitering anywhere other than near a Catholic girls’ school or a highway rest stop? It’s a safe hatred, a comfortable hatred, a without-fear-of-contradiction hatred. Aren’t those the most dangerous kind?

The Governor is a Democrat. The Mayor (of Boston) is a Democrat. Both Senators are Democrats, as are all nine Congressmen (it used to be ten until we mercifully lost one to redistricting). There are only four Republicans in the 40-member State Senate, and 30 out of 160 members of the State House. Shouldn’t Republicans in Massachusetts be pitied rather than hated?

Except for the threat (and reality) of violence, Republicans in liberal strongholds are like blacks in the Jim Crow South. Despised, resented, under-(or un-)represented, misrepresented—if our politics were as readily apparent as the dark skin of African Americans, we would only have more such stories to tell, not fewer. But probably not the threat (or reality) of violence.

Move over, “It’s Unexpected!”™ and Dispatches From the Front Lines of Socialized Medicine, we have a new standing headline, [Bleep] Liberals Say.

Comments

Here’s Your Casket, What’s Your Hurry?

Liberals are like wild animals kept as pets. They may seem cute and furry, but you never know when they’ll return to their native state and bite the hand that feeds them pablum:

President Barack Obama’s comments speculating about openings on the Supreme Court were “unseemly,” columnist Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday.

At a fundraiser Monday night, Obama told supporters of the need to keep the Senate in Democratic control as the November midterm elections approach.

“Not to mention the fact that we’re going to have Supreme Court appointments,” Obama added.

Appearing on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” on Tuesday, the conservative Krauthammer agreed the statement likely was intended to get the Democratic base out in a year when Democratic voters aren’t excited.

“But it is mildly unseemly,” he said.

Liberal activists have been urging Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is 81, to resign soon so Obama can appoint a younger successor in case Democrats lose the Senate.

Justice Ginsburg may not be to my political liking, but I have to admire the old bird. She’s licked cancer twice, and is still as sharp (if wrong) as she ever was. But she’s never faced an angry, paranoid Democratic base. Poor, poor girl.

Comments

Our Friends, Hamass

Indiscriminate killing, ethnic cleansing, documented intentions of genocide, violent intimidation and summary executions, human shields and other war crimes: Jimmy Carter’s people!

“Hamas cannot be wished away, nor will it cooperate in its own demise. Only by recognizing its legitimacy as a political actor – one that represents a substantial portion of the Palestinian people – can the West begin to provide the right incentives for Hamas to lay down its weapons.”

In the article, Carter praised Hamas for making a “major concession” in April when it entered into a reconciliation agreement with the Palestinian Authority’s President Mahmoud Abbas. In the reconciliation agreement, Hamas gave up all of the top government positions to technocratic Fatah appointees pending elections.

Carter also credits Hamas with adopting de facto the unity government’s pledge to nonviolence, recognition of Israel and adherence to past agreements.

Heck, give them a Nobel Peace Prize—yours! So, if Jimmuh loves himself some Hamass, guess whom he doesn’t like?

“Tragically, Israel rejected this opportunity for peace and has succeeded in preventing the new [Palestinian unity] government’s deployment in Gaza.”

If you can’t live with Hamass, with whom can you live?

Comments (1)

We May Be A-Holes, But We Ain’t No…

I can’t say it, but while we’re on the subject of bodily orifices:

An email exchange released by a Republican-led House committee investigating scrutiny by Lerner’s unit of GOP political groups seeking tax-exempt status suggest she’s no fan of conservative talk radio.

“Well, you should hear the whacko wing of the GOP … The right-wing radio shows are scary to listen to,” read an email to Lerner from an unidentified sender in November 2012 as Congress was probing the matter.

“Great. Maybe we are through if there are that many a**holes,” Lerner replies.

“And I’m talking about the hosts of the shows. The callers are rabid,” another email to Lerner, apparently from the same person, shows.

“So we don’t need to worry about alien terrorists. It’s our own crazies that will take us down,” Lerner responds.

I don’t have a problem with the language. I hear it every day out and about, sometimes from flesh and blood. But I do have a problem with who said it. And what she could have done to my…orifice by any number of her jack-booted thugs. No wonder she tried to claw the files off her hard drive with her gnarled talons.

And it’s not just conservatives:

Emails uncovered by the House Ways and Means Committee show that the State Department was involved in the IRS’s attempt to deny tax-exempt status to Z-Street, the pro-Israel organization founded and run by AT contributor Lori Lowenthal Marcus, based on Z-Street’s pro-Israel positions that conflicted with Obama administration policy. This is known as “viewpoint discrimination,” and is strictly illegal.

In an April 16, 2009 email, Treasury attache to the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem Katherine Bauer sent IRS and Treasury colleagues a 1997 JTA News article sent to her by State Department foreign service officer Breeann McCusker. The subject was whether 501(c) groups buying land in Israel’s disputed territories were engaged in “possible violations of U.S. tax laws.” The article chronicles the controversy and whether “ideological activity” can “legally be financed with the help of U.S. [tax] dollars.”

“Thought you might find the below article of interest—looks like we’ve been down this road before,” Ms. Bauer wrote. “Although I believe you’ve said you can’t speak to on-going investigations, I thought it was worth flagging the 1997 investigation mentioned below for you if it can be of any use internally when looking for precedence [sic] for the current cases.” A Treasury spokesman declined comment on Ms. Bauer’s behalf.

The “current cases” would have been applications like Z Street’s in which Israel-related activity was apparently being scrutinized for its ideological and policy content. The government says Z Street got special scrutiny because it was focused in a region with a higher risk of terrorism, which is hard to believe and in any case doesn’t explain all of the IRS’s behavior.

It doesn’t cover, for instance, why one questionnaire we’ve seen from the IRS to another Jewish group applying for tax-exempt status asked, “Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel?” and “Describe your organization’s religious belief system toward the land of Israel.” No matter the answers, they should not affect the processing of an application for 501(c) status. The State-IRS emails reveal a political motivation for IRS scrutiny that gives Z Street powerful evidence for its suit charging IRS bias.

This is now a scandal that involves a conspiracy between different departments of the federal government, strongly implying a coordinating effort senior to the Departments of State and Treasury. Which would be…the White House.

This is so incriminating that a full court press is being invoked to delay further discovery. The lawsuit filed by Z-Street in 2010 is the furthest along of any judicial inquiries into the IRS scandals. And the IRS is doing everything possible to slow it down:

On Monday the IRS filed an appeal of the judge’s decision denying its motion to dismiss Z Street’s case. The government says the action stops all discovery while the appeal is pending, a process that could take months or even years. By filing the appeal on the last possible day, the Justice Department is running out the clock on discovery during the remainder of the Administration.

This is a whole lot of effort to prevent discovery in a case that is not even seeking damages.

Maybe you believe this is nothing, or very little. Maybe you think nothing of an IRS Commissioner signing into the White House hundreds of times during the period in question. Maybe you think it was entirely normal for the revolutionary Tea Party spirit of 2010 to have evaporated into thin air by 2012. And maybe you think this “most transparent administration ever” contents itself with critics and alternate viewpoints. You can think that, it’s a free country.

But here in Literalville, we have a saying: whatever you’re smoking, I want some.

PS: And maybe you think that a regime that persecutes pro-Israel nonprofits and that insists on an armistice that leaves a genocidal gang of killers in power truly “has Israel’s back”. Lay off that [bleep], man. It’s scrambling your brain.

Comments

Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda

What’s Romney up to these days?

We followed family tradition this year by taking 5 of our 22 grandkids, ages 10 through 13, on a trip through the American West. My Mom and Dad began the tradition, showing their grandchildren the majesty of our country and teaching them about the sacrifices and character of the pioneers. We visited Goblin Valley, Spooky Gulch, Peekaboo Slot Canyon, Capitol Reef National Park, Bryce National Park, Zion National Park, Lake Powell, Rainbow Arch, Grand Canyon, and the four falls in the Havasupai Reservation. All totaled, we hiked over 50 miles: quite a feat for the young—and for Ann and me.

With the grandkids a captive audience, we taught them about their own ancestors: Ann’s side played instrumental roles in the foundation of the country, including William Bradford and Grover Cleveland. Mine were key to the establishment of our Church and the settlement of the American West.

The adventures were more than we had planned, with unexpected obstacles during our nine hour hike down the Subway trail of Zion National Park, a breathtaking descent to Mooney Falls in the Havasupai Reservation, and a very close encounter with a rattlesnake.

We came away more appreciative of the landscape God gave us, of the sacrifices of the pioneers, and of the comforts of air conditioning and home cooked meals!

We were also sobered by the tragic events in Ukraine and Israel. True is the principle that guided America’s founders: united we stand, divided we fall. As we experienced the grandeur of the West, our hearts went out to those millions in the world who suffer.

romney

How absolutely normal. We could have had a sane person at the helm.

- Aggie

Comments

CSI: IRS

Okay, enough already. The Lois Lerner Show has jumped the shark:

House investigators said Tuesday that the computer hard drive of ex-agency official Lois Lerner — a key figure in the IRS targeting scandal — was only “scratched,” not irreparably damaged, as Americans have been led to believe.

GOP-led Ways and Means Committee investigators, in their quest to recover missing Lerner emails, learned her hard drive was damaged but recoverable by talking to IRS information-technology experts, after the government originally refused to make them available, according to the committee.

“It is unbelievable that we cannot get a simple, straight answer from the IRS about this hard drive,” said committee Chairman Dave Camp.

The Michigan Republican said the new information also raises more questions about potential criminal wrongdoing at the IRS because the committee was told no data was recoverable and the physical hard drive was recycled and potentially shredded.

In addition, learning that the hard drive was only scratched also raises questions about why the IRS refused to use outside experts to recover the data.

“In fact, in-house professionals at the IRS recommended the agency seek outside assistance in recovering the data,” the committee said Tuesday in a release.

House investigators said they also are trying to determine whether the scratch was accidental or deliberate.

“If the IRS would just come clean and tell Congress and the American people what really happened, we could put an end to this,” Camp said. “Our investigators will not stop until we find the full truth.”

Then it’s been renewed for another season. Because there’s no way the Obama regime is going to come clean.

Democrats say there is no scandal and that Republicans are trying to turn it into an election-year issue.

That’s what happens with lies and evasions: they never go away.

Comments

So, Die

Aggie and I once had this idea of opening up a suicide bombing cafe in the heart of ultra-left Cambridge. Tables would be grouped in concentric circles around a ground zero. There would be a Death and Dismemberment zone, a Shrapnel and Fracture zone, a Blown Eardrum zone, etc. What we lacked in taste and tact, we more than made up for in creativity.

At least compared to these losers:

Untitled

BOSTON – In a corner of America’s oldest public common, some 200 anti-Israel demonstrators held a so-called “die-in” Saturday to protest Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in Gaza.

The two-hour “die-in” on the Boston Common climaxed when protest leaders read the names of Palestinians killed in Gaza since the fighting started. Holding signs printed with each victim’s name and age, demonstrators fell to the concrete as each corresponding name was read.

That wasn’t all to the fun and games:

For the third time since last week, a handful of Jewish students with Israeli flags was surrounded by demonstrators shouting anti-Semitic epithets and – according to two of the students – a tense minute of “pushing and shoving.”

Soon after the “die-in” ended, Brett Loewenstern — a Berklee College of Music student and pro-Israel activist – entered the fray with his boyfriend, Israeli-born Avi Levi.

According to Loewenstern, he and his boyfriend’s combining of an Israeli flag with a rainbow flag – the symbol for gay rights – set off a hailstorm of insults from demonstrators.

Among other things, the shouts included “Jews back to Birkenau” and “Drop dead, you Zionazi whores,” said Loewenstern and other witnesses.

We defend their right to marry, but not their right to express their pro-Israel sentiment.

Comments (1)

Transparent Hypocrisy

Everything Barack Obama touches turns to dreck: it’s the reverse Midas touch. What a pleasure it has been lately watching his reputation swirl down the cistern where dreck belongs:

Right now, here ON THE RECORD, fired “New York Times executive editor, JILL ABRAMSON.

While working at “The New York Times” and after decades of covering presidential administrations, Abramson calling President Obama’s White House the most is he secretive White House that she’s covered. And she’s not the only one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BYRON YORK, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: This is not the most transparent administration in history.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will make our government open and transparent.

One of the things I want to do is open things up. I want transparency. I want accountability.

BOB CUSACK, MANAGING EDITOR, ‘THE HILL’: This White House came in saying we’ll do things differently, we’ll change Washington. They didn’t change Washington.

OBAMA: The more transparency we can bring to Washington, the less likely it is Washington will be run by lobbyists and special interests.

Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.

A.B. STODDARD, ‘THE HILL’: He’s broken a promise.

OBAMA: This is the most transparent administration in history.

VAN SUSTEREN: You said have this administration is the most is the secretive. What is your support? Why do you say that?

ABRAMSON: I think it’s easy to demonstrate that that’s true, starting with — I love the name of your show, “ON THE RECORD.” I have never dealt with an administration where more officials — some of whom are actually paid to be the spokesmen for various federal agencies –demand that everything be off the record. So that’s secretive and not transparent.

But the most serious thing is the Obama administration has launched eight criminal leak investigations against sources and whistleblowers. And they have tried to sweep in journalists, including – it’s almost the one- year anniversary exactly that your college, James Rosen, had his record secretly looked at by the government in a leak investigation.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is it profoundly different thought than the other administrations?

ABRAMSON: It is profoundly different. Before these cases, these eight cases, and all of history, there have been fewer than half of those. And so it is different.

So, this has been an historic administration, after all.

Oh, and about “not changing Washington”, there is agreement:

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: This is within our power to change. Everybody says because we tried in ‘08 and it didn’t happen, it’s not possible.

Give yourself a little credit, Joe. You changed Washington plenty. Never before has an administration that “ended” two “wars” and governed over a five-year “recovery” been so wretchedly unpopular. If you guys were the ones we were waiting for, I wish we had been less patient.

Comments

Read Any Good Books Lately?

I said good books.

And I said read:

Hillary Clinton’s new memoir “Hard Choices” experienced a 43% drop in sales in its second week on bookshelves, according to numbers from Nielsen BookScan.

After 85,721 copies of “Hard Choices” were purchased in the book’s first week, 48,227 copies of the memoir sold in the second week, according to Nielsen numbers, which make up roughly 85% of all retail book sales and were provided to CNN by a publishing source.

There is good and bad news in the numbers for Clinton and her allies.

The good news: While her first memoir, “Living History,” sold 438,000 copies in its first week, it experienced a 62% drop off in the second week. So comparatively, “Hard Choices” didn’t have as big a fall.

“Living History” would go on to sell 1.1 million copies, according to Nielsen.

The bad news is that Clinton critics who have been closely watching how her 656-page tome to American diplomacy and her time at state will likely be given ammunition with this first to second week drop off.

Moi?

But Pinter said no matter how much Clinton sells the book, the “reviews were tepid enough to squelch interest from everyone but hardcore Hillary devotees.”

“Hardcore Hillary devotees”? That’s an image I didn’t need. But it’s hard for Hillary to compete with a better book:

On Wednesday, “Hard Choices” was No. 21 among Amazon’s best-sellers. (“Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas” by Edward Klein is No. 3.)

When given a choice between fiction and nonfiction, most readers will choose nonfiction every time.

Blood Feud—in which we learn…

Valerie Jarrett runs the White House

While followers of the White House are aware of Jarrett’s sway as the president’s closest consigliere, the extent of this closeness is somewhat staggering…

Hillary attempted to physically intimidate Obama as Secretary of State

“Some of Hillary’s arguments with the president actually turned physical. Once, according to a source close to Valerie Jarrett, Hillary jabbed Obama’s chest with her finger to make a point. When Obama reported the finger-jabbing incident to Michelle, he said that he couldn’t believe Hillary had done that to the president of the United States. He was more amazed than angry about the impulsive attack.”

Bill Clinton commissioned (and threatened to leak) a poll prior to the 2012 election that would have shown Hillary Clinton to be more popular than the president, and potentially led to a challenge to his nomination

Obama stabbed the Clintons in the back for 2016

“‘Obama cut right to the chase,’ Clinton’s associate continued. ‘He said he wasn’t prepared to turn over his campaign’s digital operations, data mining, and social media juggernaut to the Clintons. Instead, he said he was going to fold that operation into Organization for Action, his second-term political pressure group. Hillary would have to build her own data and analytics system. Bill listened, said, ‘Okay,’ and let it go at that.

‘Then Obama said it was too early to make a decision about 2016 and who he was going to support of the Democratic Party nomination. He wasn’t prepared to back Hillary now. He was keeping his options open. He was reneging on his promise.

‘Bill’s blood began to boil. He was speechless with rage.

What really happened when Hillary initially postponed testifying on Benghazi

[A]s soon as Bill appeared on the scene and was able to assess Hillary’s condition for himself, he ordered that she be immediately flown to New York-Presbyterian Hospital in…Manhattan. When Reines subsequently released a statement confirming that Hillary was being treated…it naturally intensified speculation about the seriousness of her medical condition.

While she was at the hospital, doctors diagnosed Hillary with several problems.

She had a right transverse venous thrombosis, or a blood clot between her brain and skull…

To make matters worse, it turned out that Hillary had an intrinsic tendency to form clots and faint [Klein goes on to recount several other past fainting spells].

…According to a source close to Hillary, a thorough medical examination revealed that Hillary’s tendency to form clots was the least of her problems…Put into layman’s language, her heart valves were not pumping in a steady way.”

Who Obama is going to hand-select for 2016

“‘It’s going to be a dogfight,’ replied Bill [...] ‘They say he’s looking around for a candidate who’s just like him. Someone relatively unknown. Someone with a fresh face. He’s convinced himself that he’s been a brilliant president, and he wants to clone himself–to find his Mini-Me.

He thinks that your mother and I are what he calls ‘so twentieth century.’ He’s looking for another Barack Obama.’”

I skipped the part about Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett carrying on a permanent campaign after the administration. While Michelle isn’t as pretty as he (thinks he) is, she might do.

Comments (2)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »