After watching this video, I’m suddenly seized with equal portions of
nostalgia and amazement. Jesse Ventura returned last night to CNN, in a
long segment with Piers Morgan, and it’s almost like being in Minnesota
from 1998-2002 … and that’s not a pleasant feeling. Ventura tells
Piers Morgan that he’s considering a run for President in 2016, but
Ventura doesn’t get off to a good start on his campaign.
Morgan essentially dices him up on the issues, where Ventura says
more “I don’t knows” than Eric Holder in front of a House committee
these days. Morgan starts off each issue by having Ventura offer his
incredibly superficial opinion, challenges him on the basics, and then
watches as Ventura admits he doesn’t know much about it. The capper
comes on the Maryland v King decision yesterday on DNA samples
taken during bookings, which Ventura opposes because that should only
happen when people are arrested and charged, which is … exactly what a
booking does.
Be sure to stick around until the end, when Ventura explains why he’s suing the widow of a murder victim, too (via Twitchy):
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/04/video-jesse-ventura-running-in-2016-with-howard-stern/
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Has Bill Clinton’s Favorite Co-Conspirator Just Lost His Magic Touch?
In the 1990s, Eric Holder was known as a “fixer.” He was always
cleaning up for Bill Clinton’s controversial Attorney General, Janet
Reno.
Reno had a string of problems. You may remember some of them… Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Oklahoma City bombing. All of these events caused Reno serious headaches.
But Holder made sure the government suppressed any damaging info, protecting Reno and Clinton.
As a result, Holder became a hero in liberal circles. He was rewarded for his loyalty by being named Barack Obama’s Attorney General.
How, during the second term of Barack Obama, Holder has lost his magic ability to suppress damaging information. He needs a fixer of his own. The sharks in Washington, D.C. are circling.
Blood is in the water.
The Untouchables
Until recently, Holder had the reputation of being as untouchable as Barack Obama.
But that ship sailed as soon as Holder signed off on the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) surveillance of Fox News reporter James Rosen. To make matters worse, Holder told Congress a totally different story… and now he’s hanging on to his job for dear life.
You see, the damning disclosure of the DOJ surveillance has raised the ire of Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He’s recently launched a probe to see if Holder lied to Congress under oath, which seems likely.
When the scandal broke, Holder told the committee that he hadn’t been involved in any such surveillance of reporters. In fact, Holder’s exact words to Congress were: “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material – this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”
But the record is clear. Holder did personally sign off on just such a venture. At a minimum, Holder misled Congress. The Goodlatte investigation will determine whether his misleading statements were intentional.
And Holder’s involvement in DOJ’s tracking of Rosen isn’t his only problem. He’s also dealing with the fallout from the secret subpoena of Associated Press telephone records. The records the DOJ grabbed included those of at least 20 AP journalists.
One knowledgeable friend called me to say that Holder is the John Mitchell of the current Obama scandals. In case you don’t recall, John Mitchell was Nixon’s Attorney General and was convicted in 1975 of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. He served 19 months in prison.
The Power of the Press
Severe damage has been done to Holder. Even left-leaning news outlets and personalities, who regularly defended Holder in the past, have had enough. Some are even calling for him to leave office.
The Huffington Post ran this headline: “Time to go: Holder OK’d probe.” Former MSNBC anchor and outspoken liberal Keith Olbermann has called on Holder to resign or be fired by Obama.
You can expect Congress to be emboldened by the cheers from the media as they take apart Eric Holder this summer. In many respects, it was news organizations that brought down President Nixon. Now, given Holder’s illegal intrusions on the media, that same institution will likely end his career as well.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/bill-clintons-favorite-co-conspirator-just-lost-his-magic-touch/
Reno had a string of problems. You may remember some of them… Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Oklahoma City bombing. All of these events caused Reno serious headaches.
But Holder made sure the government suppressed any damaging info, protecting Reno and Clinton.
As a result, Holder became a hero in liberal circles. He was rewarded for his loyalty by being named Barack Obama’s Attorney General.
How, during the second term of Barack Obama, Holder has lost his magic ability to suppress damaging information. He needs a fixer of his own. The sharks in Washington, D.C. are circling.
Blood is in the water.
The Untouchables
Until recently, Holder had the reputation of being as untouchable as Barack Obama.
But that ship sailed as soon as Holder signed off on the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) surveillance of Fox News reporter James Rosen. To make matters worse, Holder told Congress a totally different story… and now he’s hanging on to his job for dear life.
You see, the damning disclosure of the DOJ surveillance has raised the ire of Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He’s recently launched a probe to see if Holder lied to Congress under oath, which seems likely.
When the scandal broke, Holder told the committee that he hadn’t been involved in any such surveillance of reporters. In fact, Holder’s exact words to Congress were: “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material – this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”
But the record is clear. Holder did personally sign off on just such a venture. At a minimum, Holder misled Congress. The Goodlatte investigation will determine whether his misleading statements were intentional.
And Holder’s involvement in DOJ’s tracking of Rosen isn’t his only problem. He’s also dealing with the fallout from the secret subpoena of Associated Press telephone records. The records the DOJ grabbed included those of at least 20 AP journalists.
One knowledgeable friend called me to say that Holder is the John Mitchell of the current Obama scandals. In case you don’t recall, John Mitchell was Nixon’s Attorney General and was convicted in 1975 of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. He served 19 months in prison.
The Power of the Press
Severe damage has been done to Holder. Even left-leaning news outlets and personalities, who regularly defended Holder in the past, have had enough. Some are even calling for him to leave office.
The Huffington Post ran this headline: “Time to go: Holder OK’d probe.” Former MSNBC anchor and outspoken liberal Keith Olbermann has called on Holder to resign or be fired by Obama.
You can expect Congress to be emboldened by the cheers from the media as they take apart Eric Holder this summer. In many respects, it was news organizations that brought down President Nixon. Now, given Holder’s illegal intrusions on the media, that same institution will likely end his career as well.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/bill-clintons-favorite-co-conspirator-just-lost-his-magic-touch/
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Weiner Holder 2016:
My name is Barney Frank and I endorse this advertisement
http://www.westernjournalism.com/weiner-holder-2016/
http://www.westernjournalism.com/weiner-holder-2016/
Monday, June 3, 2013
Bill Clinton’s Half-Million Dollar Speech Is Drawing Outrage in Israel
Senior Israeli media figures are
voicing outrage at a revelation this weekend that former U.S. President
Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a gala speech later this month in
honor of Israeli President Shimon Peres’s 90th birthday.
The commissioned speech at the Peres
Academic Center in Rehovot is expected to last 45 minutes, meaning each
minute is costing sponsors $11,111.
According to Israeli news accounts,
the large sum will go to the William J. Clinton Foundation which
focuses its efforts on a range of causes including economic, health,
leadership and environmental.
The Jewish National Fund paid the half-million dollar fee to secure the former president’s participation a year in advance, according to Yedioth Ahronoth.
The Jewish National Fund is known for
its tree planting campaigns, park planning and nature reserve
construction, which includes encouraging Jews around the world to buy a
tree in Israel. As TheBlaze reported
last year, it has also been the focus of pro-Palestinian activists who
accuse the organization of “war crimes” for its environmentally-friendly
activities in Israel which the activists consider to be on Palestinian
land.
The liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz called the fee paid by the nonprofit a “cause for embarrassment.”
Ayala Hasson, chief diplomatic correspondent for Israel TV tweeted she believes it indicates “a loss of all shame.”
“The founders of the JNF are turning in
their graves,” she posted. “The JNF spokeswoman didn’t answer me who
approved this scandalous amount. She only responded that it is a great
honor blah blah…”
Amir Mizroch who edits Israel Hayom’s English language edition tweeted, “Aren’t they supposed to plant trees with donor cash?”
“I guess money does grow on trees,” he quipped.
Clinton regularly commands high speaking fees, earning $13.4 million from speeches in 2011. His most lucrative speech that year, in Hong Kong in November 2011, came with a $750,000 price tag.
Haaretz said the Jewish National Fund
had hoped “to generate positive PR for itself abroad − where
pro-Palestinian activists have been attacking the agency − by inviting
Clinton to speak on sustainability at its annual conference, while at
the same time introducing some of its biggest donors to Clinton. This
was in the hope of facilitating the JNF’s long-term fund-raising goals.”
The gala dinner drew further scrutiny
when former Member of Knesset Yossi Sarid revealed that each invited
guest was being asked to donate approximately $800 (3,000 New Israeli
Shekels) for scholarships distributed by the Peres Academic Center.
Haaretz reports:
But after learning of the event’s fund-raising ambitions, the chief of staff of the President’s Residence, Efrat Duvdevani, sent a letter to the heads of the Peres Academic Center in which she made it clear that Peres would not attend the dinner if donations were solicited during the event.The PAC [Peres Academic Center] declined the offer by the president’s staff to cancel Peres’ attendance to enable the fund-raising to go ahead; instead, the institution would waive the ticket fee.
Globes quoted
the JNF spokesman’s office which stated: “The Peres Academic Center in
Rehovot invited Clinton, closed the financial terms with him, and paid
him.”
The Peres Academic Center issued this
statement, as quoted by Globes: “President Bill Clinton will be the
guest of honor at the special tribute which the center will hold in
Rehovot. The event at the Center’s campus will be held in the presence
of the President of Israel, ministers, and public figures. Belying
previous reports, it was decided that there will be no fundraising at
the event, and people attending will not be asked to pay for their
participation.”
While in Israel, Clinton is also
scheduled to take part in the President’s Conference in Jerusalem along
with other celebrity headliners such as Barbra Streisand, Robert De
Niro, Sharon Stone, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former
Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/02/bill-clintons-half-million-dollar-speech-is-drawing-outrage-in-israel/
New book: Bill Clinton forges secret deal with ‘incompetent’ Obama:
Noted political writer Edward Klein claims in his latest book that Bill Clinton dismissed President Obama as inept and incapable of performing the duties of the White House — but that he formed a secret deal
to give him an endorsement for office anyway.Mr. Klein’s book
is called “The Amateur,” and it’s published by Regnery.The deal was this: Mr. Clinton would endorse Mr. Obama for the White House in 2012 if Mr. Obama would endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton for president in 2016, the book claimed.
At the same time, Mr. Clinton wasn’t completely happy about the deal — he would have preferred his wife challenge Mr. Obama for the White House in 2012, Mr. Klein’s book claimed.
Bluntly, Mr. Clinton thought Mr. Obama wasn’t up to the job, Mr. Klein wrote.
In the book, Mr. Klein writes that several sources attributed Mr. Clinton as saying: “I’ve heard more from Bush, asking for my advice, than I’ve heard from Obama. I have no relationship with the president — none whatsoever. Obama doesn’t know how to be president. He doesn’t know how the world works. He’s incompetent. He’s an amateur.”
Nonetheless, Mr. Clinton ultimately endorsed Mr. Obama for a second term — at the pushing of political adviser David Axelrod, who was watching Republican challenger Mitt Romney’s rising poll numbers with alarm, Mr. Klein said in his book.
Mr. Klein has previously penned books
about Mrs. Clinton and the Kennedys, and is a former foreign editor with Newsweek.Saturday, June 1, 2013
Early 20th Century Progressive”, Hillary Proudly Proclaimed To The World — You Remember
The individual must go, be squashed into submission. Individualism is their enemy, thinking people cannot be tolerated. Haven’t you read the new lesson books for our school children? You tell me what that is all about? Changing our history, because the U.S. Constitution is in their way.
The Corporate Socialist now call themselves, progressive patriots. As they try and hide their true intentions.
Hillary Clinton uncloaked herself in our 2008 campaign.
Hillary Clinton Cites History in Call For New Progressive Movement
Hillary Clinton has called upon Democrats to look back to the history of the original progressive movement in the early 20th century for inspiration in the building of a new progressive movement for the early 21st century.
“Back then, the American economy was dominated by large corporate monopolies. Corruption was far too common and good government far too rare. Women couldn’t vote, and the minimum wage, well, that wasn’t heard of and worker rights were completely unimagined. Back then, America was a country filled with haves and have nots — and not enough people in between.
In response to these excesses, the progressive movement was born. Throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, the progressives busted trusts and fought for safe working conditions and fair wages. They created the national park system, and replaced a government rife with cronyism with a merit-based civil service. They understood, as the great progressive President Teddy Roosevelt once said, that ‘The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us.’
Well, today, at the beginning of the 21st century, I think it’s time we remembered those lessons.”Whether or not you support the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton in particular, her call to remember the role of progressives in improving the civic standards in American government is worth heeding. We citizens should stand up and do our part to revive that tradition.
(Source: HillaryClinton.Com, May 29, 2007)
So rather we like it or not, that is what Obama is doing. He is trying to complete the Fabian Socialist dream. Which will be a catastrophe for freedom and liberty. A world dominated by Big Government and their “customers“. Just the latest world communists dream.
Do you understand why Sen Ted Cruz must be destroyed? Why not ask Sen John McCain? You think the Republicans are on your side? Think again, Either we rebuild the GOP into the model of Lincoln or we all turn into Corporate Socialists.
Nudge, shove, shoot … it’s the way forward.
http://tarpon.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/you-remember/
Hillary Clinton: return to Whitewater mode.ON LANGUAGE; Shoulda-Coulda-Woulda
Whitewater
Whitewater, popular name for a failed 1970s
Arkansas real estate venture by the Whitewater Development Corp., in
which Governor (later President) Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, were partners; the name is also used for the political ramifications of this scheme.
When Foster, now White House counsel, committed suicide (1993), however, more questions arose. Strongly pursued in Washington, mainly by Republicans, but largely ignored by the general public,
Whitewater was investigated by a special prosecutor beginning in 1994 and by congressional committees in 1995–96. Special prosecutor Kenneth Starr's investigation included testimony from Mrs. Clinton (which was the first time a first lady was subpoenaed by a grand jury) and videotaped testimony from the president.
In a 1996 trial, the McDougals and Jim Guy Tucker, Clinton's successor as governor of Arkansas, were found guilty of fraud in the case, and in another decision the former municipal judge David Hale, who had pled guilty to fraud and had been a witness in the McDougal trial, received a jail sentence. In yet another trial the same year two Arkansas bankers were acquitted of some charges, and the jury deadlocked on others. Although nothing conclusive concerning the Clintons' involvement in the Whitewater deal was proved in the congressional or special prosecutor's inquiries,
Republicans charged Hillary Clinton with having sought to suppress politically damaging information and accused Clinton administration officials of lying under oath.
In early 1998, Starr won authorization to expand his investigation to include the Lewinsky scandal, and questions about Monica Lewinsky's relationship with Clinton quickly overshadowed Whitewater matters. However, in late 1998, when Starr presented his case for impeachment of the president for his attempts to conceal the Lewinsky affair, he indicated that his office had no impeachable evidence in the Whitewater matters. Starr resigned in Oct., 1999, and was succeeded by Robert W. Ray, the senior litigation counsel in Starr's office. In Sept., 2000, Ray ended the Whitewater inquiry, stating there was insufficient evidence to prove that President Clinton or his wife had committed any crime in connection with the failed real estate venture or the independent counsel's investigation into it; the final report was issued 18 months later. Susan McDougal was pardoned by President Clinton in Jan., 2001, shortly before he left office.
A hard-edged question was posed to Hillary Rodham Clinton at her Whitewater news conference: what about "the suggestion in the R.T.C. memorandum . . . you and your husband knew or should have known that Whitewater was not cash-flowing and that notes or debts should have been paid"?
"Shoulda, coulda, woulda," the First Lady replied. "We didn't."
Some journalists narrowed their eyes at this airy dismissal of financial responsibility in land speculation at the place Mrs. Clinton prefers to refer to as "northern Arkansas." My own investigative lust was instantly replaced, however, by linguistic curiosity: Whence the reduplication shoulda, coulda, woulda?
The order of words in this delicious morsel of dialect varies with the user. On the sports pages of The Washington Post of Dec. 7, 1978, Gerald Strine wrote about the New England Patriots football team: "The Pats coulda, shoulda and woulda been ahead of the Cowboys by at least 16-3 at halftime . . . but three field goals were blown."
Eleven
years later, in a United Press International account of another
football game, the phrase again led with coulda, as a shamefaced kicker
was quoted: "I should have kicked the extra point, but coulda, shoulda,
woulda doesn't do it."
By the 90's, football players were fumbling the order. Said a Notre Dame tackle, Aaron Taylor, offside on his subject-verb agreement: "There's no excuses. Woulda, shoulda, coulda is not going to cut it."
During the last two decades, an author told Vernon Scott of The Hollywood Reporter he planned a "Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda book"; a retailer opined to Investor's Business Daily about the decline of Carter Hawley stores: "There are shoulda-beens, coulda-beens, woulda-beens, but the fact is they didn't meet the retail revolution that happened in the past five years." And the funk-and-roll singer Anthony Kiedis (misidentified as a "rap singer" by the incognoscenti) wrote and sang in 1991, "Shoulda been, coulda been, woulda been dead if I didn't get the message going to my head."
We have here an elision field. Elide, rooted in the Latin for "to strike out," means "to omit"; in speech, an elision is the omission of letters and sounds to produce compressions like don't and couldn't, or as the would-be boxer played by Marlon Brando in "On the Waterfront" said, "I coulda been a contender."
In this rhyming compound, a triple elision does the hat trick: although each elision expresses something different, when taken together, the trio conveys a unified meaning. Shoulda, short for should have (and not should of, which lexies call a variant but I call a mistake), carries a sense of correctness or obligation; coulda implies a possibility, and woulda denotes conditional certainty, an oxymoron: the stated intent to have taken an action if only something had not intervened.
These meanings were explored separately in a 1977 song by the country singer Tammy Wynette, whose earlier song "Stand By Your Man" was unintentionally derogated by Mrs. Clinton during the 1992 campaign. In "That's the Way It Could Have Been," Ms. Wynette's chorus goes: "That's the way it could have been [ possibility ] ./Oh, that's the way it should have been [ correctness ] ./If I had met you way back then,/That's the way it would have been [ conditional certainty ] ."
Lexicographers have been tracking the individual elisions for decades. First came woulda, translated into Standard English in Dialect Notes in 1913: "Would a went, would have gone." Theodore Dreiser introduced coulda and the solid woulda in his 1925 novel, "An American Tragedy": "I coulda chucked my job, and I woulda." A 1933 book on crime used the third elision: "You shouldda seen him."
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/15/magazine/on-language-shoulda-coulda-woulda.html
By the 90's, football players were fumbling the order. Said a Notre Dame tackle, Aaron Taylor, offside on his subject-verb agreement: "There's no excuses. Woulda, shoulda, coulda is not going to cut it."
During the last two decades, an author told Vernon Scott of The Hollywood Reporter he planned a "Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda book"; a retailer opined to Investor's Business Daily about the decline of Carter Hawley stores: "There are shoulda-beens, coulda-beens, woulda-beens, but the fact is they didn't meet the retail revolution that happened in the past five years." And the funk-and-roll singer Anthony Kiedis (misidentified as a "rap singer" by the incognoscenti) wrote and sang in 1991, "Shoulda been, coulda been, woulda been dead if I didn't get the message going to my head."
We have here an elision field. Elide, rooted in the Latin for "to strike out," means "to omit"; in speech, an elision is the omission of letters and sounds to produce compressions like don't and couldn't, or as the would-be boxer played by Marlon Brando in "On the Waterfront" said, "I coulda been a contender."
In this rhyming compound, a triple elision does the hat trick: although each elision expresses something different, when taken together, the trio conveys a unified meaning. Shoulda, short for should have (and not should of, which lexies call a variant but I call a mistake), carries a sense of correctness or obligation; coulda implies a possibility, and woulda denotes conditional certainty, an oxymoron: the stated intent to have taken an action if only something had not intervened.
These meanings were explored separately in a 1977 song by the country singer Tammy Wynette, whose earlier song "Stand By Your Man" was unintentionally derogated by Mrs. Clinton during the 1992 campaign. In "That's the Way It Could Have Been," Ms. Wynette's chorus goes: "That's the way it could have been [ possibility ] ./Oh, that's the way it should have been [ correctness ] ./If I had met you way back then,/That's the way it would have been [ conditional certainty ] ."
Lexicographers have been tracking the individual elisions for decades. First came woulda, translated into Standard English in Dialect Notes in 1913: "Would a went, would have gone." Theodore Dreiser introduced coulda and the solid woulda in his 1925 novel, "An American Tragedy": "I coulda chucked my job, and I woulda." A 1933 book on crime used the third elision: "You shouldda seen him."
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/15/magazine/on-language-shoulda-coulda-woulda.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)