posted July 03, 2014 07:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
"LOL, kind of like the upcoming elephant hopefuls for 16, or is that little girls and their tea parties [b]I'm confused?"

Yes you are but there's medication for that and it's probably covered under O'BomberCare.[/B]

---

posted July 03, 2014 08:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fishbull11:
Lol, make sure you don't address the fact the R party is in the dumps with no viable candidate for 16...kind of like Rick Perry when he is asked about his homophobic/alcoholism comments, never seen somebody attempt to change the topic so quickly in my life and this is one of those hopefuls I spoke about LOL. I think I will go ahead and look into the medication now for posting 20,000+ characters a day I actually think people will read..wait that's not what I need it for, its for my confusion right?

---

Well when you have amazingly intelligent and respectable people like Rick Santorium in your party, why would you worry about your upcoming candidates?

His upcoming documentary on the Hobby Lobby situation compared it to Nazi Germany, when Christians in Germany did not “wake up.”

Nazi Germany, definitely a place where the rights of gays, women and minorities were put above Christians!

Its like Republicans can't decide if Obama is Hitler or Stalin. At least be consistent with your delusions. Which is it: Fascism or Communism???? I'm convinced they have no idea what these really mean.

posted July 05, 2014 09:18 AM            

Get back to me when those 20,000 characters you post each day are strung together in a coherent manner which make some rational sense.

Yeah, I don't know anyone who's excited about the media generated list of potential Republican candidates...except for perhaps Rand Paul and perhaps Ted Cruz.

posted July 05, 2014 09:53 AM            

Silliness of the 1st order. Both Stalin and Hitler were Socialists. So is O'Bomber...of the Marxist Progressive branch. The Fascists were the political party of Benito Mussolini..another Socialist and war collaborator of Hitler...of the National Socialist party in Germany. You don't have to look any further than Barack Hussein O'Bomber to find the foremost fascist president in US history. All those Czars with which to control American business, not to mention trying to take over American energy via Cap and Trade and American health care via O'BomberCare. Fascist to his core.

Now put your free time to some good use and go read...

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change Paperback – June 2, 2009
by Jonah Goldberg

...“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?

Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism....."

posted July 28, 2014 09:07 AM            

My reaction to the revelation that Democrat senator John Walsh, a retired brigadier general and one-time adjutant general (head) of Montana’s National Guard, had plagiarized much of his master’s thesis at the Army’s Command and General Staff War College was similar to that of most veterans. I felt a queasy disgust, not so much at the offense but at his attempt to blame it on PTSD. For an officer of his seniority and long military experience to try to weasel out of an embarrassing exposure of his lack of professional and academic ethics by falsely claiming the stress of battle made him do it, is a huge disservice to all those warriors who, due to their combat experiences, truly are dealing with the very real debilities of post-traumatic stress disorder. My assessment as an old former infantry NCO is that this guy isn’t much of a leader. Reading comments around the internet from soldiers who served under him reinforces that belief.

Those of us who try to stay attuned to developments in the veteran community are keenly aware that PTSD is all too often the first defense thrown up by those phony veterans claiming military service and valorous awards for service and deeds never rendered, once they are exposed, or it is part of their original scam to milk public sympathy. These frauds, most who have never served and the rest actual veterans foolishly trying to add some macho glamour to their military record, are such a prevalent phenomenonin America today that they’ve earned their very own federal criminal statute, the Stolen Valor Act of 2013.

That a United States Senator throws in with that legion of losers as soon as his own Stolen Valor is exposed says a lot about his lack of devotion to the troops he actually led in combat, some of whom no doubt are suffering the real effects of PTSD. Why don’t you just steal their wheelchairs and prosthetic limbs while you’re usurping their emotional wounds for your phony defense, Senator? And yes, I know, you’re trying to backtrack now but your first defensive instinct is what is so telling.

Now, while Democrats are rallying ‘round another of their tarnished war heroes, we hear that the Army Command and General Staff College is opening an investigation of your possible cheating. That became much more interesting to me when I read an excerpt from a Google Book edited by Douglas Higgins, titled Military Culture and Education: Current Intersections of Academic and Military Cultures which contains this very interesting observation regarding the very real seriousness of the offense of plagiarism in a military academic setting.

Academic misconduct is also covered by the UCMJ. Plagiarism is significantly less prevalent among CGSC students. When plagiarism is suspected, however, the procedures involved are significantly more serious than in a civilian setting. If a written assignment aroused my curiosity at the university -- or even the seminary, I would call a student in for an informal discussion. At CGSC faculty are required to have an active-duty officer of greater rank than the student involved present to read the student their legal rights under article 15-6 of the UCMJ prior to that conversation. Depending on the circumstances and severity, an investigative board may be formed and -- theoretically at least -- a student could face the “long course”: confinement in the Disciplinary Barracks, or military prison, at Fort Leavenworth. Here plagiarism is literally a crime. (Emphasis mine.)

Perhaps the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which has jumped to the senator’s defense, should pause for a moment and consider that last sentence from the above quote:

Here plagiarism is literally a crime.

That might also give some pause to his former running mate and now Montana governor, Steve Bullock, who has been staunchly supportive of a man he perhaps doesn’t know quite as well as he thought. The Dems attempts to whitewash a possible military crime by one of their own is typical.

And this is for you, John Walsh: you are now numbered among those who have Stolen Valor. You knowingly allowed the Army to confer upon you a master’s degree that you had not honestly earned. If the successful completion of that course contributed to your promotion to brigadier general then that rank was falsely attainedand your promotion should be rescinded. And because you benefitted financially by the higher pay grade of your fraudulently achieved rank, you have brought yourself under the jurisdiction of the Stolen Valor Act of 2013, which makes it a crime for a person to fraudulently claim having received any of a series of particular military decorations with the intention of obtaining money, property, or other tangible benefit from convincing someone that he or she rightfully did receive that award. If a court should deem your master’s degree from the War College to be an award or decoration, enhancing promotion, you could be prosecuted.

Or, because you’re a Democrat and now have demonstrably phony military credentials, your party might now be looking at you as future presidential material like Jean Fraud Kerry. AS IN JOHN TRAITOR KERRY!

posted September 13, 2014 02:08 PM            

September 13, 2014
DoJ, IRS, and Democrats march in lockstep to undermine investigation
Rick Moran

The Keystone Kops Korruptibles - that's what what we should tag the unholy alliance among the IRS, the Department of Justice, and congressional Democrats who are all seeking to undermine the oversight committee's investigation into IRS targeting of conservatives.

The bi-partisan idea that the IRS behaved wickedly is long behind us. As the scandal has grown, so have partisan efforts to scotch the investigation and attempt to hide wrongdoing by the administration.

Investors Business Daily:

Of particular interest to us has been Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., ranking member on Rep. Darrell Issa's House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, who has made every effort to keep the committee from finding out the true extent of IRS corruption and abuse of power in its targeting of conservatives.

As we've noted, emails released by Issa, a California Republican, show that Cummings' Democratic staff had requested information from the IRS' tax-exempt division, the one headed by Lois Lerner, on True the Vote, a conservative group that monitors polling places for voter fraud and supports the use of voter IDs, something that Cummings opposes.

"The IRS and the Oversight Minority made numerous requests for virtually identical information from True the Vote, raising concerns that the IRS improperly shared, protected taxpayer information with Rep. Cummings' staff," the Oversight panel said in a statement.

According to Issa, Cummings and his staff sought "copies of all training materials used for volunteers, affiliates or other entities" from True the Vote.

Five days later, True the Vote received an almost identical request for information from the IRS.

As we reported, Holly Paz, the deputy of Lois Lerner who headed the IRS division handling tax-exempt organizations, had forwarded True the Vote's 990 forms (on which nonprofit groups report their financial information) to Cummings' staff.

Now we have Brian Fallon, a former aide to New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and a communications aide to Attorney General Eric Holder, who mistakenly called Issa's office thinking it was the office of Cummings and asked for help in leaking documents to selected reporters for the purpose of creating media spin before Issa and his committee could make them public.

As Jonathan Strong reports at Breitbart News, now the subject of an IRS audit, a letter sent by Issa to Holder about the call "describes Fallon as 'audibly shaken' when he realizes his request to leak documents to help get ahead of news stories about them was mistakenly made to the very office he was seeking to undermine."

Not very smart. Nor are they very subtle. But they proceed with the extreme confidence that no one except Republicans will call them out for their illegal activities - which means the press can safely bury the story.

In fact, what should have been front page news with calls by media for an immediate investigation into Cummings, Fallon, and the IRS became a one day inside the beltway story that disappeared immediately.

posted September 16, 2014 10:02 AM            

The IRS "follows the law...when it can"!

And...when it can't, or chooses not to, nothing happens to the "law breakers" because they're just following O'Bomber's orders and he throws a blanket over any investigation of the law breaker(s).

Is this the new standard for Americans? Follow the law when you can...and if you can't or don't feel like it, no worries, we'll look the other way and not prosecute you. Right! Check!

This is the most "lawless" administration in US history.

September 16, 2014
Outrageous IRS Commissioner False Claim: 'Whenever we can, we follow the law'
Mark J. Fitzgibbons

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen made a disturbing statement before Congress that the IRS follows the law “whenever we can.”
As Thomas Lifson wrote, “The law, to Koskinen, evidently is a suggestion, not an ironclad requirement.” Actually, the situation is even worse than that.

Lernergate unveiled for the public a deeper, even more sinister problem at the IRS. The evidence of criminal wrongdoing in the Tax Exempt unit of the IRS, with its cover-up involving widespread destruction of evidence, is like one highlight reel of a bigger reality within the Service and government agencies generally.

The IRS, like other government agencies, is in fact is a perennial, institutional lawbreaker. Professor Paul Caron’s TaxProf Blog, for example, annually covers the report of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) about IRS lawbreaking in asset seizures.

In the review period through June 2012, the IRS violated the law 30 percent of the time in asset seizure matters, up from 22 percent the prior year. It was 38 percent the year before that.

These are stunning statistics made more disturbing by the lack of being cured. Property, right up there with life and liberty, is a fundamental right expressly identified in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. This raises the obvious questions: What is the level of lawbreaking at the IRS when the stakes are not so high, and what lawbreaking at the IRS does TIGTA not look for?

Both Congress and the courts, however, have contributed to the underlying lawlessness at the IRS in ways that most Americans find offensive -- or would if they were to understand the abdication of power to the IRS.

The tax code is a behemoth loaded with goodies for special interests. It has become a social policy Christmas tree, and its complexities are not understood by IRS employees, never mind ordinary taxpayers. It is plagued and zealously guarded by powerful interests and lobbyists in Washington. The tax code is ripe for abuse.

Again covered by TaxProf Blog, in 2010 TIGTA reported that the IRS wasted billions in stimulus and procurement spending. This past year, and without due process, the IRS seized tax refunds of the adult children of taxpayers who had been overpaid federal benefits decades ago. The IRS was recently caught opening emails without warrants.

The buck never really stops with our elected officials, who later seem surprised that these abuses are the result of power and discretion given to the IRS by Congress.

One area of IRS abuse caused by Congress and the courts falls under the Fourth Amendment. Cato Institute’s 1981 paper The IRS and Civil Liberties: Powers of Search and Seizures shows just how long this has been a problem.

The IRS has to large extent been exempted from the Fourth Amendment. This is a problem because it fosters politically motivated or other improperly targeted audits.

In United States v. Powell from 1964, the Supreme Court solidified that the IRS was somehow exempted from the probable cause standard. The Constitution, it seems, would “hamper” the IRS:

Although a more stringent interpretation is possible, one which would require some showing of cause for suspecting fraud, we reject such an interpretation because it might seriously hamper the Commissioner in carrying out investigations he thinks warranted, forcing him to litigate and prosecute appeals on the very subject which he desires to investigate, and because the legislative history of 7605 (b) indicates that no severe restriction was intended.

The court even relied on one of those contrived floor colloquies among two senators to allow the IRS to violate the Fourth Amendment under the guise of actually protecting taxpayers:

"Mr. WALSH. . . . So that up to the present time an inspector could visit the office of an individual or corporation and inspect the books as many times as he chose?

"Mr. PENROSE. And he often did so.

"Mr. WALSH. . . . And this provision of the Senate committee seeks to limit the inspection to one visit unless the commissioner indicates that there is necessity for further examination?

"Mr. PENROSE. That is the purpose of the amendment.

"Mr. WALSH. . . . I heartily agree with the beneficial results that the amendment will produce to the taxpayer.

"Mr. PENROSE. I knew the Senator would agree to the amendment, and it will go a long way toward relieving petty annoyances on the part of honest taxpayers." 61 Cong. Rec. 5855 (Sept. 28, 1921).

Remarkably, the Supreme Court held that Congress could simply legislate away constitutional protections:

“For us to import a probable cause standard to be enforced by the courts would substantially overshoot the goal which the legislators sought to attain. There is no intimation in the legislative history that Congress intended the courts to oversee the Commissioner's determinations to investigate.”

In June this year, the Supreme Court in United States v. Clarke was handcuffed by precedent and ruled that the burden is on the taxpayer to prove bad faith audits. Given what we have seen with how the IRS operates when under congressional subpoenas and court scrutiny to produce emails, taxpayers are at the mercy of the IRS.

Justice Kagan’s opinion at least leaves an opening:

The taxpayer is entitled to examine an IRS agent when he can point to specific facts and circumstances plausibly raising an inference of bad faith. Naked allegations of improper purpose are not enough: The taxpayer must offer some credible evidence supporting his charge. But circumstantial evidence can suffice to meet that burden; after all, direct evidence of another person’s bad faith, at this threshold stage, will rarely if ever be available. And although bare assertion or conjecture is not enough, neither is a fleshed out case demanded: The taxpayer need only make a showing of facts that give rise to a plausible inference of improper motive. That standard will ensure inquiry where the facts and circumstances make inquiry appropriate, without turning every summons dispute into a fishing expedition for official wrongdoing.

The irony lost on the Supreme Court, Congress and most certainly the IRS is that the Fourth Amendment’s protections, including probable cause, evolved from abuses of searches and seizures for collecting taxes and suppressing what are now First Amendment rights.

The bottom line is that intentional lawbreaking within the IRS and other government agencies exists mostly because it can. Think of many bureaucrat ‘Barack Obamas’ taunting “so sue me” for violating the law. They are mostly insulated from consequences of lawbreaking because of a lack of congressional oversight of our monster-sized federal government, legal immunity, and the practical immunity of fear by their challengers -- even internal whistleblowers -- that they will face retribution.

Then there are the enablers. Democrats in Congress and progressives in the nonprofit community see the Lois Lerner situation as “missing the point.” The partisan Nonprofit Quarterly actually blames the lack of “adequate funding of the tax-exempt unit which has been starved for financial and staff resources,” and Lernergate shows the need for “stronger rules and regulations concerning the definitions and operations of 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations.”

posted September 22, 2014 02:38 PM            

The underlying crime(s) committed by Lois Lerner and other IRS officials are..ALSO FEDERAL FELONY OFFENSES.

Unfortunately...for these congressional, Justice Dept and IRS criminals, their guy at the Justice Dept called the wrong political party..which was not a party to their cover-up and detailed actions they should take to blunt the effects of emails/documents which were about to be released pursuant to a Congressional subpoena.

Editorial: Boy, did he get a wrong number
Justice Dept. official offers conditional leak of IRS documents, to House GOP staffers.
ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Published: Sept. 15, 2014

posted October 20, 2014 08:57 AM            

Corrupt federal prosecutors presenting false evidence in order to shake down a blameless corporation and bring in tens of millions of dollars seems like a pretty dramatic story. Especially when former prosecutors support the charge and a chief judge acts on the allegations and takes dramatic action. Yet the media silence is deafening.

Eric Holder’s Justice Department is implicated in a dramatic and shocking case of alleged corruption that is so bad that the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of California has taken what can rightly be called the “nuclear option” and recused all the judges in the district from the case because they may have been defrauded by the DoJ prosecutors.

So far, aside from the local paper, the Sacramento Bee, it is only Sidney Powell of the New York Observer, writing in the opinion pages of that publication that has paid attention to what should be a prominent national media scandal. In brief, the Sierra Pacific Industries, a lumber producer, was accused by the federal government of starting a large wildfire, and fined $55 million, and compelled to hand over title to 22,500 acres of land. The only problem is that the prosecution was allegedly corrupt, and knowingly submitted false evidence.

In an extraordinary development, Judge England, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, ordered the recusal of all the Eastern District judges from the case because of serious allegations that the Court itself was defrauded by the government in the original prosecution. To avoid any appearance of partiality, he has referred the case to Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski to appoint a judge from outside the Eastern District to handle the case going forward. Judge Kozinski has excoriated prosecutors for failing to meet their legal and ethical obligations.

The order notes that the defendants filed an action this week to set aside the $55 million settlement because, as the defendants allege, “the United States presented false evidence to the Defendants and the Court; advanced arguments to the Court premised on that false evidence; or, for which material evidence had been withheld, and obtaining court rulings based thereon; prepared key Moonlight Fire investigators for depositions, and allowed them to repeatedly give false testimony about the most important aspects of their investigation; and failed to disclose the facts and circumstances associated with the Moonlight Fire lead investigator’s direct financial interest in the outcome of the investigation arising from an illegal bank account that has since been exposed and terminated.”

The Sacramento Bee reported on the Defendant’s filing. Indeed, the Defendants’ motion informs us that a former Assistant United States Attorney came forward and disclosed that he believes that he was removed from the original prosecution by “his boss, David Shelledy, chief of the civil division in the United States Attorney’s office,” because he “rebuffed” pressure to “engage in unethical conduct as a lawyer.” Of course, like other former prosecutors who were unethical, Mr. Shelledy is to receive Attorney General Holder’s highest award for excellence—this week.

The defendants also reveal that another former federal prosecutor, Eric Overby, left the Moonlight Fire prosecution team also, stating: “It’s called the Department of Justice. It’s not called the Department of Revenue.” According to the motion, Mr. Overby told defense counsel that in his entire career, “I’ve never seen anything like this. Never.”

Powell aptly sums up the banana republic nature of what seems to have been going on:

This is part of a disturbing and rapidly increasing pattern of abuses by this Department of Justice to line government coffers or redistribute the wealth to its political allies—using its overwhelming litigation might and federal agencies as a tool of extortion and wealth redistribution.

The entire original prosecution against Sierra Pacific appears to have been driven by the Department of Justice’s interest in hitting a “deep pocket” for millions of dollars of revenue. The Defendants’ motion to set aside the settlement reveals a series of fraudulent acts by federal and state authorities that defiles our system of justice.

posted March 06, 2015 08:21 AM            

But it's not just the Marxist Messiah who's participating in crony Socialism!

Report: Harry Reid Secured 'Green Energy' Subsidies for Ex-Staffers
Thursday, 05 Mar 2015
Joel Himelfarb

Corporate donors to a green-energy nonprofit operated by a current campaign operative and former staffers for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid have received billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees and grant money as a result of his advocacy, the Washington Free Beacon reported Thursday.

Fulcrum Bioenergy began contributing to the Clean Energy Project (CEP) two years ago. Last year, the Nevada Democrat steered tens of millions of dollars in federal grant money to the California biofuel company.

Fulcrum is one of at least nine CEP corporate donors "that have secured federal financing for themselves or a client due in part to Reid’s behind-the-scenes advocacy," according to the Free Beacon.

Some ethics watchdogs warn that such activity "could be construed as unethical," the website reported.

"Gifts from moneyed interests to politicians' pet charities always merit added scrutiny and concern," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, the Free Beacon reports.

CEP was founded in 2008 by Rebecca Lambe, the senator's top political strategist who has taken the lead in hiring for his 2016 re-election campaign.

Lambe, who also served as CEP's executive director, is now an adviser to that organization.

Along with Susan McCue, Reid's former chief of staff, Lambe runs Senate Majority PAC, which spent $67 million last year in an effort to elect Democrats to the Senate.

Reid’s office boasts about its role in steering subsidies to donors to these groups.

"Senator Reid’s leadership on creating clean energy jobs in Nevada is something we like to talk about at every opportunity and we are glad you have chosen to cover this topic," said Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson.

Jentleson pointed to his office’s 2013 staff report, which described at great length the benefits that green energy companies such as Ormat Geothermal — which Reid helped secure a $350 million loan guarantee – were bringing to Nevada.

A news release on the staff report quoted Lydia Ball, who until February served as CEP’s executive director, touting the benefits of an "aggressive clean energy path for Nevada."

It "didn't mention that Ball is a former Reid aide, that Ormat has donated to her organization, or that the company’s president has donated to Reid," the Free Beacon reported.

While on Reid’s staff, Ball "was in charge of advising Nevada companies on how to obtain financing through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus," the website added.

Fulcrum contributed to CEP in 2013 and 2014. Last year, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack awarded the company a $105 million grant, and it received another $70 million from the Pentagon two weeks later.for the company. The Defense Department awarded it another $70 million two weeks later.

Reid's other efforts on behalf of green energy included a 2010 push for the Department of Energy to speed approval for a $737 million loan guarantee for CEP donor Solar Reserve.

Critics of "crony capitalism" expressed skepticism that the public benefited from these dealings by Reid.

"Of course these businesses viewed their donations as investments," said William Yeatman, an energy policy expert with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Free Beacon reports.

posted March 09, 2015 01:53 PM            

The technology is morphing at an amazing rate, as Tech trends to do once a barrier is broken. Solar will overtake oil and coal though it won't eliminate them Completely. Its a win win really... less overhead due to less demand will help keep profits coming in, and those who absorb the change will move sideways despite their current attempts to blacken the name of anything newm

God forbid we improve as we go along, eh wot? What was good enough for granddad is all we should expect. .not

posted March 10, 2015 12:46 AM            

The Wright Bros would be thrilled to see this. To think everyone said they'd never make flight feasible!

http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20150309%2F71609ca3-6e58-45c3-b5bf-0dc3f811bc 35

posted March 10, 2015 09:30 AM            

Just another leftist loon pipedream leftist loons want Americans to waste money funding while skyrocketing American's electric rates.

Part of demoscats culture of corruption via crony Socialism.

posted March 11, 2015 09:39 AM            

Both wind and solar produced electricity are 3-6 times more expensive than electricity produced by oil, gas and coal. Further, government mandates that a certain percentage of electricity must be produced by solar and wind have driven up electricity rates across America.

The only way solar and wind produced electricity can compete with oil, gas and coal is by having government subsidize the increased cost...which are paid for by American taxpayers.

Just another crony Socialism project where fat cat Socialists are paid off with subsidies, loans and loan guarantees as payback for campaign contributions.

posted March 11, 2015 09:49 AM            

Hillary Clinton’s twin eruptions, revelations about the Clinton Foundation slush fund and her private email system fiasco, are testing Hillary’s plumbing tradecraft in keeping the Clinton sewer pipe from blowing its cap.

Forty years of unseemly, unethical, and illegal effluent, effortlessly and unabashedly discharged by both Bill and Hillary may have finally splashed over the manhole covers on their political septic tank, clogged the leach field, and now backing up into the house threatening to splatter their live-in coterie. No mere journeyman plumber can fix these breaches; only operating engineers with a commercial grade backhoe, and a few tons of hydraulic cement might have a chance.

Is Hillary Clinton’s sleaze factor and plumber’s license inherited or acquired? What difference at this point does it make? Her genome map is unlikely to ever be revealed. Nonetheless the presentation of her ethics deficit, and her defense of all that is tawdry and disreputable, is hardly new.

While Hillary Clinton’s ideology was inspired by Saul Alinsky, her tactical politics were acquired from watching Richard Nixon.

Hillary first displayed her predilection for deceit, cover-up, obstruction, and lying while on the job as a staff lawyer to counsel for the US House Judiciary, Watergate Select Committee. She had ample opportunity to absorb the lessons of the disgraced 37th president.

Hillary’s one-time boss Jerome Zeifman, chief of staff of counsel to the Committee, when interviewed by Dan Calabrese in 2008 had this gem to unveil on the occasion of recalling Hillary’s staff tenure:

Because she was a liar, She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.

Attempts to discredit Calabrese’s reporting, particularly about Zeifman’s claim that he actually fired Hillary, have been unresolved. And the Clinton camp has never satisfactorily explained why such a bright, gifted, and oh so promising, young attorney was unceremoniously dismissed from the Committee staff. Yet the account concerning Hillary’s conduct was apparently corroborated by Franklin Polk, Republican counsel to the Committee.

According to Calabrese:

“Polk confirmed Clinton wrote a brief arguing Nixon should not be granted legal counsel due to a lack of precedent. But Clinton deliberately ignored the then-recent case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who was allowed to have a lawyer during the impeachment attempt against him in 1970. Moreover, Zeifman claims Clinton bolstered her fraudulent brief by removing all of the Douglas files from public access and storing them at her office, enabling her to argue as if the case never existed. Polk confirmed the Clinton memo ignored the Douglas case, but he could not confirm or dispel the claim that Hillary removed the files”.

Calabrese concludes:

“Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time -– a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States.”

OK, so Calabrese is an unapologetic Hillary basher. Nonetheless, the incendiary tone of Zeifman and Polk’s commentary is extraordinary. Why would recounts of bad conduct by an otherwise obscure and inconsequential freshly minted legal apprentice, who should not have attracted such derisive attention, remain so vivid? Unless her conduct was so egregious then, and followed up with forty years of identical behaviors at the epicenter of American political life, finally meriting astringent recollections from whence it all commenced.

Hillary’s timeline working for the Committee predates Nixon’s resignation, but follows the revelations about Nixon’s secret tapes. Of course it has always been an article of faith that if Nixon had destroyed the tapes, he would have avoided his pending impeachment, and resignation. But the tapes’ demise was left in the hands of Nixon’s chief-of-staff, H.R. Haldeman, who didn’t carry out Nixon’s wishes.

Did this lesson in failed political warfare survival escape Hillary? Of course not. Maintaining and personally managing absolute control over evidence would be Hillary’s most profound lesson from her proximity to Richard Nixon. After all, while the usual axiom is that the cover-up is often worse than the crime, for a cover-up to be damaging, it has to be documented, and no evidence means no case, on any level.

Thus Hillary’s private email system, organized out of her home in Chappaqua, NY perfectly fits with her strategy of never leaving behind any incriminating documents, or a communications trail accessible by anyone else. If Richard Nixon possessed remote wireless recording technology to maintain the WH tapes at his private residence, La Casa Pacifica in San Clemente, how would such personal privacy have been be pierced?

Hillary shares with Nixon the most self-destructive attribute -- unrestrained hubris. Nixon’s hubris was that he believed his presidency was not only noteworthy but would be historically monumental, thus the desire to preserve all of his White House conversations, not unlike LBJ’s belief in marking conversations for posterity with his own Oval Office recording system. Of course Nixon, whose hubris overran discretion, never imagined his self-incriminating tapes would seep out behind the bladder of presidential executive privilege.

Hillary’s hubris arrives from derivative power as presidential spouse, afterwards spawning an undistinguished stint as a US Senator, and then as an incompetent and baleful Secretary of State. She has never accomplished anything historically significant, except successfully shielding her husband from charges of assault and rape. If she were to become the first woman president, it would say more about the electorate’s unserious infatuation with identity politics than her prospects as a statesman.

Anointing her with the oils of imperious inscrutability, draping her with designer chain maille deflecting any accountability has been a job heretofore embraced, albeit guardedly, by the fawning mainstream media. Will the MSM want to preserve whatever flimsy self-respect it may still possess by pivoting from Hillary, to embrace their more kindred spirit, Elizabeth Warren?

Despite Hillary’s shameless apologists dismissing any suggestions that she is unfit to be a steward of the public trust at any level, let alone the presidency, they must now worry that their own depleted ethical reputations are beyond rehabilitation with their continued association with such a political malignancy.

The stories embedded in Hillary’s stash of coyly masked obstructions will never be fully known. But the content is less instructive than the motive. It is Hillary’s instinctive penchant for pre-emptive sleight-of-hand far exceeding a normal politician’s circumspection, that may have finally crushed unquestioned faith from her long-suffering loyal minions.

Yet Lanny Davis, long time Clinton journeyman plumber and pool-boy, still in harness for an unrepentant and disagreeable client, was pummeled by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday on whether he ever gets tired of “cleaning up after the Clintons”. Apparently not:

WALLACE: Finally, as we said at the beginning, you served in the Clinton White House handing legal matters like campaign finance, like impeachment. Do you ever get tired of cleaning up after the Clintons?

DAVIS: No, you say cleaning up because you have a certain perspective. I am proud, given the public career and the public good of Bill and Hillary Clinton, as reflected by the popular goodwill they have across the country. Unlike Chris Wallace, I don't regard it as –

WALLACE: When you say unlike Chris Wallace, unlike me in what way?

DAVIS: Well, you call it cleaning up. You're entitled to your viewpoint. I am proud to defend a great public servant.

WALLACE: Proud?

DAVIS: Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton –

WALLACE: Proud of Monica Lewinsky? Proud of campaign finance? Proud of the private e-mails? So, those are moments of pride for the Clintons?

DAVIS: There've been mistakes. The last time you got very heated about the Clintons was Whitewater for four years –

WALLACE: I never discussed Whitewater, my friend.

DAVIS: You never decided that Whitewater is a scandal?

WALLACE: Nope.

DAVIS: All right. Well, then you're about the only person that I know –

WALLACE: Nope, I never did.

DAVIS: -- in the business of the media.

WALLACE: No.

DAVIS: Remember Whitewater. This is another bogus –

WALLACE: I thought campaign finance was a scandal.

DAVIS: And what precisely ever happened with the Clintons on campaign finance.

WALLACE: Do you think that that was a great moment? Johnny Chung? You really want to re-litigate that? Do you want to re-litigate Monica Lewinsky, and misleading a grand jury and disbarment? Do you want to re-litigate all of that?

DAVIS: You ask me whether I'm proud, you call it cleanup. I don't call it cleanup. After all that you just mentioned, Bill Clinton left with a 65 percent approval rating. Hillary Clinton today is the most popular politician in the country. And you're discussing a non-scandal, nothing illegal, full access. And it's all politics.

WALLACE: Lanny, thank you. Thank you for, as always, whatever you call it, you've been doing it for a long time. Thank you we'll stay on top of this.

posted March 12, 2015 10:07 AM            

So tell me please.

Why do leftist airhead "greenies" object to inconveniencing little fishes...the variegated mugwort and others which would have to swim into the shallows if a new dam was built on a river to produce hydroelectric energy but don't give a damn about killing thousands of birds which fly into the blades of windmills or get fried by solar arrays?

Let me answer that for you.

posted March 12, 2015 11:12 PM            

Wind turns the blades of a windmill which spins a generator which produces AC electric power which is connected to the power grid. Old, old, old technology.

posted March 12, 2015 11:40 PM            

But whether its a new idea or not is not the point. Organic veg arent new either but they sure taste better and reduce the poisons in your dinner considerably.

With both, new ideas and methods are ramping up the delivery with more and more success every day.