Friday, June 20, 2014

BEST of Scathing Hillary Book Reviews...

Reaganite Republican ^ | 20 June 2014 | Reaganite Republican
Not only did it not reach #1 on the Amazon Best Seller list, but Hillary Clinton's disingenuous re-invention of herself 'Hard Choices' is already headed south at #5-and-tanking on the Amazon. Small wonder some see a wider case of Hillary-fatigue setting in, just when she's trying to re-con/launch the Hillary brand for 2016.

And the reviews are more than a little bit harsh...

It is just as bad as we all figured it would be. So glad I didn't have to pay for it or I wouldn't have bought it.
Hillary is the consummate power hungry witch, a crooked lawyer in every way. She is a national disgrace and this is yet another self serving pack of lies as she so desperately tries to brag to us about all she did as Secretary of State when in fact she has NOT ONE accomplishment, just as she had no success as the phony senator to New York, even she never lived there.
This may be her last shot at running for president and with nothing to show for all of her years in the White House (except for a stained dress, a cigar butt and a few dead bodies) she obviously hopes this festering TURD of a book will fool the voters....

More at Reaganite Republican...
(language warning)

Don't Forget

NO SHIT!

...ate it!

Axis of Evil

Leading From Behind!

Not Enough!

Too Late!

National Interest

What they left behind

Protection Money

Fiction

PEE-WEE

My Pretty

It's Bush's Fault!

SHIT CREEK!

What Difference?

To Tell The Truth

Moochelle Obama Tells the Congress ‘It’s Unacceptable’ To End My School Lunch Program

IJ Review ^ | 6-20-14 | Kevin Boyd
House Republicans are trying to end Michelle Obama’s school lunch initative and the First Lady’s not happy about it.She used a White House event on Tuesday to rally opposition to a bill passed by a House subcommittee that would allow districts to suspend the program. From Fox News:
Seeing her nutritional standards under threat, the first lady hosted a discussion with school leaders on Tuesday afternoon at the White House where she ripped efforts to roll back those guidelines. “This is unacceptable,” Obama said. The first lady said families realize the country is facing a “health crisis,” and the “last thing we can afford to do right now is play politics with kids’ health.”
School districts are claiming that the lunch guidelines are overly restrictive and kids are throwing away the required fruits and vegetables. Some children have complained they were still hungry due to limited portion sizes as a part of the initative (the USDA eventually scrapped the strict portion limits).It is not “unacceptable” to believe that local school districts, who deal with students and parents on a daily basis, would have a better idea of how to feed their students than Washington bureaucrats and bored un-elected activists who dare to tell the people’s elected representatives how to do their jobs.

The Latest Scott Walker Smear, Debunked

Powerline ^ | 6-19-14 | John Hinderaker
Democrats are giddy over the unsealing of “secret” documents that charge Scott Walker’s recall campaign with illegal coordination with outside conservative groups. To name just a few: USA Today: “Prosecutors: Wis. Gov. Scott Walker in criminal scheme.” Associated Press: “Prosecutors: Gov. Walker part of criminal scheme.” Washington Post: “How the State of Wisconsin alleges Scott Walker aides violated the law, in 1 chart.” If you didn’t know better, you might think this is a big story, highly damaging to one of America’s most successful governors. In fact, the current frenzy merely demonstrates the laziness and bias of reporters who don’t understand the events they write about. Here is what is going on: a group of partisan local prosecutors launched a never-ending “John Doe investigation” into essentially every conservative group in the state of Wisconsin. The “investigation” is a scandal, a naked effort to shut down conservative speech. Federal Judge Rudolph Randa described how the investigation proceeded in an Order dated May 6, 2014: Early in the morning of October 3, 2013, armed officers raided the homes of R.J. Johnson, WCFG advisor Deborah Jordahl, and several other targets across the state. ECF No. 5-15, O‘Keefe Declaration, ¶ 46. Sheriff deputy vehicles used bright floodlights to illuminate the targets‘ homes. Deputies executed the search warrants, seizing business papers, computer equipment, phones, and other devices, while their targets were restrained under police supervision and denied the ability to contact their attorneys. Among the materials seized were many of the Club‘s records that were in the possession of Ms. Jordahl and Mr. Johnson. The warrants indicate that they were executed at the request of GAB investigator Dean Nickel. On the same day, the Club‘s accountants and directors, including O‘Keefe, received subpoenas demanding that they turn over more or less all of the Club‘s records from March 1, 2009 to the present. The subpoenas indicated that their recipients were subject to a Secrecy Order, and that their contents and existence could not be disclosed other than to counsel, under penalty of perjury. The subpoenas’ list of advocacy groups indicates that all or nearly all right-of-center groups and individuals in Wisconsin who engaged in issue advocacy from 2010 to the present are targets of the investigation. The case in which Judge Randa ruled was brought by the Club For Growth and Eric O’Keefe. Plaintiffs alleged that the purported investigation was in reality an unconstitutional infringement of their First Amendment rights, intended to deter the expression of conservative speech. Judge Randa agreed. In his May 6 Order, he found that the partisan “investigation” had no legal basis: The defendants are pursuing criminal charges through a secret John Doe investigation against the plaintiffs for exercising issue advocacy speech rights that on their face are not subject to the regulations or statutes the defendants seek to enforce. This legitimate exercise of O‘Keefe‘s rights as an individual, and WCFG‘s rights as a 501(c)(4) corporation, to speak on the issues has been characterized by the defendants as political activity covered by Chapter 11 of the Wisconsin Statutes, rendering the plaintiffs a subcommittee of the Friends of Scott Walker and requiring that money spent on such speech be reported as an in-kind campaign contribution. This interpretation is simply wrong. Judge Randa analyzed the law as it relates to campaign finance. He noted that the conservative groups denied any coordination, and their denials appear to be well-founded. But, in any event, their activities were constitutionally protected and cannot be the basis of a criminal investigation: It is undisputed that O‘Keefe and the Club engage in issue advocacy, not express advocacy or its functional equivalent. Since § 11.01(16)’s definition of “political purposes” must be confined to express advocacy, the plaintiffs cannot be and are not subject to Wisconsin‘s campaign finance laws by virtue of their expenditures on issue advocacy. However, the defendants argue that issue advocacy does not create a free-speech “safe harbor” when expenditures are coordinated between a candidate and a third-party organization. Barland at 155 (citing Fed. Election Comm’n v. Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431, 465 (2001)); see also Republican Party of N.M. v. King, 741 F.3d 1089, 1103 (10th Cir. 2013). O‘Keefe and the Club maintain that they did not coordinate any aspect of their communications with Governor Walker, Friends of Scott Walker, or any other candidate or campaign, and the record seems to validate that assertion. However, the Court need not make that type of factual finding because — once again — the phrase “political purposes” under Wisconsin law means express advocacy and coordination of expenditures for issue advocacy with a political candidate does not change the character of the speech. Coordination does not add the threat of quid pro quo corruption that accompanies express advocacy speech and in turn express advocacy money. Issue advocacy money, like express advocacy money, does not go directly to a political candidate or political committee for the purpose of supporting his or her candidacy. Issue advocacy money goes to the issue advocacy organization to provide issue advocacy speech. A candidate‘s coordination with and approval of issue advocacy speech, along with the fact that the speech may benefit his or her campaign because the position taken on the issues coincides with his or her own, does not rise to the level of “favors for cash.” Logic instructs that there is no room for a quid pro quo arrangement when the views of the candidate and the issue advocacy organization coincide. Judge Randa concluded that the Club For Growth was likely to prevail on the merits, and he issued an order directing the partisan prosecutors to cease their unconstitutional investigation: Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the defendants’ investigation violates their rights under the First Amendment, such that the investigation was commenced and conducted “without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction.” Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 126 n.6 (1975); see also Collins v. Kendall Cnty., Ill., 807 F.2d 95, 101 (7th Cir. 1986); Wilson v. Thompson, 593 F.2d 1375, 1387 n.22 (5th Cir. 1979). Judge Randa’s conclusion is politely phrased, but understand what he is saying: the partisan prosecutors are so obviously wrong on the law that they could not have had a reasonable expectation of convicting anyone of anything. Their so-called investigation was in fact mere harassment, intended to chill the exercise of First Amendment rights by conservatives. The next stage involved procedural maneuvering that I won’t try to explain. The prosecutor defendants appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and argued that Judge Randa lacked jurisdiction to order them to terminate their faux investigation. The Court of Appeals issued an order to the effect that Judge Randa would need to make a finding that the defendants’ appeal was frivolous in order to retain jurisdiction. That resulted in another Order, dated May 8, 2014, in which Judge Randa described the discredited prosecutors’ appeal as “the height of frivolousness.” He continued: To be clear, the Court is absolutely convinced that the defendants’ attempt to appeal this issue is a frivolous effort to deprive the Court of its jurisdiction to enter an injunction. An appellate judge has now ordered certain pleadings in the case to be unsealed, an order to which the Club For Growth did not object. The hysterical accusations against Scott Walker that the Associated Press, the Washington Post and others are now gleefully celebrating are simply the unfounded assertions that the prosecutors made in a failed effort to justify their partisan investigation. They are precisely the allegations that have been resoundingly rejected by the federal judge who has presided over the case and who has found the defendants’ investigation to be a naked violation of the conservative groups’ constitutional rights. So the reporters who are now trumpeting the discredited prosecutors’ assertions either have no understanding of the case, or they are part of the partisan witch hunt that gave rise to the unconstitutional investigation in the first place.

Fat Assed

Our Leader?

Islam Cheerleader

Tic, tic, tic

The Naked Self-Interest Of The Bureaucratic Class

Townhall.com ^ | June 20, 2014 | Jonah Goldberg
For understandable reasons, the IRS scandal has largely focused on the political question of whether the White House deliberately targeted opponents. To date there's no evidence that it did. That's good for the president, but it may not be good for the country, because if the administration didn't target opponents, that would mean the IRS has become corrupt all on its own. In 1939, Bruno Rizzi, a largely forgotten communist intellectual, wrote a hugely controversial book, "The Bureaucratization of the World." Rizzi argued that the Soviet Union wasn't communist. Rather, it represented a new kind of system, what Rizzi called "bureaucratic collectivism." What the Soviets had done was get rid of the capitalist and aristocratic ruling classes and replace them with a new, equally self-interested ruling class: bureaucrats. The book wasn't widely read, but it did reach Bolshevik theoretician Leon Trotsky, who attacked it passionately. Trotsky's response, in turn, inspired James Burnham, who used many of Rizzi's ideas in his own 1941 book, "The Managerial Revolution," in which Burnham argued that something similar was happening in the West. A new class of bureaucrats, educators, technicians, regulators, social workers and corporate directors who worked in tandem with government were re-engineering society for their own benefit. "The Managerial Revolution" was a major influence on George Orwell's "1984." Now I don't believe we are becoming anything like 1930s Russia, never mind a real-life "1984." But this idea that bureaucrats -- very broadly defined -- can become their own class bent on protecting their interests at the expense of the public seems not only plausible but obviously true. The evidence is everywhere. Every day it seems there's another story about teachers unions using their stranglehold on public schools to reward themselves at the expense of children. School choice programs and even public charter schools are under vicious attack, not because they are bad at educating children but because they're good at it. Specifically, they are good at it because they don't have to abide by rules aimed at protecting government workers at the expense of students. The Veterans Affairs scandal can be boiled down to the fact that VA employees are the agency's most important constituency. The Phoenix VA health-care system created secret waiting lists where patients languished and even died, while the administrator paid out almost $10 million in bonuses to VA employees over the last three years. Working for the federal government simply isn't like working for the private sector. Government employees are essentially un-fireable. In the private sector people lose their jobs for incompetence, redundancy or obsolescence all the time. In government, these concepts are virtually meaningless. From a 2011 USA Today article: "Death -- rather than poor performance, misconduct or layoffs -- is the primary threat to job security at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Management and Budget and a dozen other federal operations." In 2010, the 168,000 federal workers in Washington, D.C. -- who are quite well-compensated -- had a job-security rate of 99.74 percent. A HUD spokesman told USA Today that "his department's low dismissal rate -- providing a 99.85 percent job security rate for employees -- shows a skilled and committed workforce." Uh huh. Obviously, economic self-interest isn't the only motivation. Bureaucrats no doubt sincerely believe that government is a wonderful thing and that it should be empowered to do ever more wonderful things. No doubt that is why the EPA has taken it upon itself to rewrite American energy policy without so much as a "by your leave" from Congress. The Democratic Party today is, quite simply, the party of government and the natural home of the managerial class. It is no accident, as the Marxists say, that the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents the IRS, gave 94 percent of its political donations during the 2012 election cycle to Democratic candidates openly at war with the tea party -- the same group singled out by Lois Lerner. The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents the VA, gave 97 percent of its donations to Democrats at the national level and 100 percent to Democrats at the state level. We constantly hear how the evil Koch brothers are motivated by a toxic mix of ideology and economic self-interest. Is it so impossible to imagine that a class of workers might be seduced by the same sorts of impulses? It's true that the already super-rich Kochs would benefit from a freer country. It's also true that the managerial class would benefit from the bureaucratization of America.

The Redskins Brouhaha Has Nothing To Do With Native Americans!

Townhall.com ^ | June 20, 2014 | David Limbaugh
Do you think leftists are the slightest bit troubled by the public's overwhelming opposition to their crusade to force the Washington Redskins to change their name? That was rhetorical; I give you more credit. Despite leftists' ongoing effort to convince Native Americans and the rest of us that Native Americans must be offended by the long-standing name, the polls don't seem to be moving in their direction. But that hardly deters them. They are the final arbiters of who may be (and who is being) offended. In the end, this liberal crusade has little to do with protecting the sensitivities of Native Americans and everything to do with liberals setting themselves up as their guardians. Their practice of patronizing groups cannot yield to the facts. Their cause transcends reality. For the cause is not defending the oppressed or the downtrodden but about making themselves look wonderful with their latest piety. Please do not think I am exaggerating. Isn't that the way liberals operate today? They imply, for example, that African-Americans are not self-sufficient or savvy enough to procure voter identification and so to require all people to produce such documentation is racist. Is their presupposition not a form of subtle bigotry? Moreover, isn't it destructive to race relations for liberals to suggest that Republicans insisting on people having to prove they are who they say they are as a condition to voting -- as a measure to ensure the integrity of the voting process -- want to disenfranchise blacks? If liberals hadn't made such an issue of this, I honestly wouldn't have known that blacks are less likely to have identification than whites, assuming that's true. Where do these people get such dark ideas that they are so eager to project onto their political opponents? While the nation is beset with myriad administration scandals, a woeful economy, the Middle East on fire, an imploding health care system, an upside-down budget, etc., many liberals, especially the Washington bigwigs, are focusing instead on coercing a football team to change its innocuous name. Harry Reid actually said this issue is the nation's top priority. But do you think it's just an accident that Harry Reid et al. are harassing the Washington team instead of, say, the Cleveland Indians? Fear not, however; if their bullying campaign succeeds here, they'll seek to expand its reach. In this era of Obama, in which lawlessness is in vogue, it's hardly surprising that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has officiously intermeddled into this nonissue, which is none of its business. This small cabal of bureaucrats has pulled the team's trademark because of the team's "disparaging" name. Who do these mini-tyrants think they are? What makes them feel empowered to divest an entity of its legally valid trademark simply because they deem, way after the fact and in their own unsolicited and unauthorized discretion, that the protected name is offensive? Even those who insist on being offended by the name should be alarmed by this abuse of power. But they won't be, because the mentality that leads them to impose their will on Native Americans in the first place is the same mentality that leads to such abuses. You should understand that it's not just the people at large who are not exercised about this issue; polls consistently indicate that Native Americans themselves reject the phony narrative that "Redskins" is offensive. My nonconfidential sources tell me that there has never been a poll indicating that the majority of Native Americans support a name change. Even though the board's ruling will have little immediate practical effect because it doesn't affect the team's ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo, don't underestimate the left's persistence in such matters. Leftists will march on until they get their way; their ideological zeal and political energy are greater than millions of Energizer Bunnies. Their concern for the people's collective will is nonexistent. They'll either intimidate people into supporting their position -- or pretending to support it -- or ignore them. For them, "compromise" is merely an Orwellian term used to bludgeon their opponents into submission. So many of today's liberals are not content with a healthy political and cultural debate and letting democracy run its course. More and more, they seek to censor opposing views, as when they fined, suspended and sent to sensitivity training Miami Dolphins player Don Jones for posting tweets registering disapproval of Michael Sam, the first openly gay person to be drafted to the NFL. It's one thing to say you disagree with Jones, but to punish him for expressing his views? In America? The current brouhaha has nothing to do with Native Americans. They are merely props the left is exploiting in its latest self-serving exercise. It's about the growing intolerance and tyranny of today's left and what that means for the future of liberty -- thought, speech, religion and beyond. We'd better wake up and fight back.

The Redskins Ruling's Slippery Slope!

Investor' Business Daily ^ | 06/19/2014 | IBD Staff
Sticks And Stones: Whatever one's view about the name "Redskins," the public should worry about the government bowing to political pressure and stripping a trademark nearly 80 years after it was first used. Where will it end? [snip] Surely the Cleveland Indians' mascot has to go. Chief Wahoo is a goofy cartoon depiction of a Native American, whereas the Redskins logo shows a dignified and stoic warrior. And how about the "Fighting Irish"? Doesn't that feed into the disparaging image of drunken Irishmen? Or the "Buccaneers" and the "Raiders," which seem to be derogatory terms for pirates? How many "Vikings" mascots wear a farcical, and historically inaccurate, horned helmet? For that matter, what about names such as "Dago Swagg" or "Mammy Jamia's"? Both are registered trademarks that employ what could be construed as derogatory names.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...