Friday, June 24, 2016


I emailed Mike a few days ago to check on him. Tonight I got an email from his wife, Kim. Mike Died on June 9th of his kidney cancer. RIP my friend.

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Are You Scared Yet?

If the answer is no, then you'd better read this:

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

“I am here to tell you that every little act counts."

A great speech by Armando Valladares

“I am here to tell you that every little act counts. No man or woman is too small or simple to be called to bear witness to the truth. I’m here to remind you that each of you possesses great wealth in the sacred domain of your conscience. And I’m here to tell you that each of you is called to stay true. I am also here to tell you that when you make that choice, from that moment forward, even if you are naked, in solitary confinement for eight years, you are never alone because God is there with you. 
“For many of you, particularly the young people, it may seem I come from a faraway land from a long time ago. Young friends, you may not be taken away at gunpoint, as I was for staying true to my conscience, but there are many other ways to take you away and to imprison your body and your mind. There are many ways you can be silenced, in your schools, your universities, in your workplace.”


Wednesday, May 18, 2016

2016 Senate Works Fewest Days In 60 Years

So much for "back to work".

Monday, May 16, 2016

You Mean The New York Times Lied?

A woman who dated Donald Trump said early Monday that The New York Times "spun" her comments for an article about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's treatment of women, adding that he always treated her respectfully.  
“He never made me feel like I was being demeaned in any way,” Rowanne Brewer Lane said on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends.”
“He never offended me in any way,” the former model added. "He was very gracious. I saw him around all types of people, all types of women. He was very kind, thoughtful, generous. I did not have a negative experience with Donald Trump.”
The Times on Sunday published an article documenting Trump’s past behavior with women.
The newspaper’s report said that the outspoken billionaire both nurtured women’s careers and demeaned their appearance, creating a “complex, at times contradictory portrait.”
Lane on Monday said the Times had distorted her account of the time she spent as Trump’s companion.
“The New York Times told us several times that they would make sure that my story I was telling would come across,” she said.
“They told me and my manager several times that it would not be a hit piece and that my story would come across in the way I was telling it and accurately. It absolutely was not. I don’t appreciate them making it look like it was a negative experience,” she added.

Thursday, May 12, 2016

And what about this?

Mr. Putin, Please Release Hillary Clinton’s Email

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor An open letter to Vladimir Putin, President of Russia President Putin, As you are certainly aware,  a great controversy is roiling here in the United States whe…

Sunday, May 8, 2016

Perhaps the time is right

Hey all, I just read that post about merging the group or opening up for new members. I've enjoyed coming to this spot and sharing this with people. I can truly admit, no matter diametrically opposed I am to some in terms of politics, there is no one here I would not want to have dinner with and bring my wife Kim along. I know at times I have been way way over the top in firing off some angry and ultimately unnecessary remark. I've also made things kind of personal at times and do regret. Nonetheless, the dinner remark is 100% true.

Some of you know and some don't that I was diagnosed with kidney cancer just about a month ago. In the first few weeks, things have been a bit chaotic. My scan that was suggestive of renal cell carcinoma was completed on April 11, and then I had a biopsy on April 12 and after a few days, the results of that were inconclusive. Nonetheless, we started treatment based on likely histology and after they re-ran the biopsy, it appears I have non-clear cell renal sarcoma.

This is not a curable cancer and the only thing they can do with treatment is buy some time. How time is quite variable. I am going to USC in LA soon for a second opinion, and already have started a treatment that, by itself, is appropriate. However, I may soon also need adjuvant therapy, such as chemo. Quite honestly, I have literally no solid idea right now how much time I may or may not have. I am still up and getting around, but I have lost gobs of weight and have not yet returned to work for light duty.

So, I have decided to make a "signing off" post. With all else that is going on, I don't have much time to chime in and additionally, I have found that the more I focus on my relationship with Kim and the warm wishes coming in from friends, I feel peace. I'm not likely to significantly alter the path of my cancer, and I have made peace with that as well. When it is time, I will sign on to hospice care and try to live what I have preached to others for so many years now. If anyone is interested in stay in touch, I'd love to hear from anybody. This is my best email   From here on out though, it is likely I won't be chiming back in here unless I have some insomnia LOL

to everybody, I have truly enjoyed the back and forth we have had. I wish at times my tone was less harsh, but I think we have all learned something from each other at times, I know I have and even William has made me admit to myself (if no one else) I was wrong about some point. To all of you, God bless and may peace and health be with you and your families. Perhaps i will continue to interact with some of you by email.

Take care everyone,

Mike Kemp

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Why Donald Trump could actually become the next President

God help our country but the Donald could actually pull this off. Trump has done the one thing that John McCain couldn't do and Mitt Romney couldn't do. He has won the republican nomination from the center and the center is where our presidents get elected.
  McCain and Romney both were forced to run in the primary far right of where they actually stand in the political universe. When they scurried back towards the center they looked like flip floppers and statements made in the heat of a far right primary came back to bite them both in the ass.
   Who can forget McCain quitting the road and racing back to Washington as the economy failed in 2008 and ending up on the wrong side of history on that one. Who can forget Romney's 47% remark during a speech to wealthy far right donors that became a slogan against his campaign.
    But Trump, he has won the nomination with his give no quarter rhetoric against anything and everything he feels stands in his way. He has hit every nerve in the American psychic on both sides of the aisle.
    If it were just Democrats and Republicans who could vote in the general election I believe the Donald might very well win.
     What we don't know, what is the wild card is the independent. Many states have open conventions where independents can vote and Trump did very well. But many largely populated, mostly blue states in the north do not allow independents to vote in the primary. Trump faired well with the base in these places but how will he appeal to independents who will get to make their first vote in November between Trump and probably Hillary Clinton. How many moderate republicans will follow the lead of the Bush family and sit this one out. And how will Trump affect the down ballot races. Will he have any coat tails or will the independents cut him off at the knees. It will be an interesting election cycle.

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Is it time for us to migrate?

Unfortunately we have lost very many valuable members of this once enjoyable MW blog. Our hearts go out to them and their loved ones.

Does anyone have any suggestions for migration? Perhaps I can attempt to contact Brandt (Twins Dad) who originally set up this blog to have it opened up to new comers.

The Suggestion Box is Open!


Monday, May 2, 2016

Near Crisis Avoided

Democratic Club's liquor license expired!

Monday, April 25, 2016

Trump Reacts To Cruz - Kasich Alliance

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump coined a new nickname for rival John Kasich: "1 for 38 Kasich."
"Lyin' Ted Cruz and 1 for 38 Kasich are unable to beat me on their own so they have to team up (collusion) in a two on one. Shows weakness!" Trump tweeted Monday morning.
"Shows how weak and desperate Lyin' Ted is when he has to team up with a guy who openly can't stand him and is only 1 win and 38 losses," he tweeted minutes later.

Saturday, April 23, 2016

What Your 2015 Income Taxes Went For

The average household paid $13,000 in income taxes to Uncle Sam for 2015. Of that, the federal government spent:
  • $3,728.92 (or 28.7%) on health programs
  • $3,299.13 (or 25.4%) on the Pentagon and the military
  • $1,776.06 (or 13.7%) on interest on the debt
  • $1,040.93 (or 8%) on unemployment and labor programs
  • $771.26 (or 5%) on veterans benefits
  • $598.74 (or 4.6%) on food and agriculture programs
  • $461.59 (or 3.6%) on education programs
  • $377.50 (or 2.9%) on government expenses
  • $250.03 (or 1.9%) on housing and community programs
  • $207.68 (or 1.6%) on energy and environmental programs
  • $194.29 (or 1.5%) on international affairs programs
  • $150.68 (or 1.2%) on transportation funding
  • $143.20 (or 1.1%) on science funding
Now that you've filed your federal income taxes, your total tax bill for 2015 should be fresh in your mind. If you want to know exactly how much of it went to each of these areas down to the penny, just plug the number into NPP's federal tax receipt calculator to find out.

Friday, April 22, 2016

Is This The America We Want?

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Supreme Court Rules Against Iranian Central Bank

Victims of Iranian sponsored terrorism can collect two billion.

Friday, April 15, 2016

Prophesy of the fall of American democracy


Progressives of today are clueless of yesterday!
When you do not know history, you will repeat History!
Alexander Fraser Tytler, a European historian published The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic.
In his publication, Tytler reported that from his research he had determined the following:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the MOST benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy ALWAYS collapses over a loss of fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship.
The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith,
From spiritual faith to great courage,
From courage to liberty,
From liberty to abundance,
From abundance to selfishness,
From selfishness to complacency,
From complacency to apathy,
From apathy to dependency,
From dependency back again to bondage."
** Henry Wallace, Roosevelt's VP from 1941 to 1945, also wrote that he had observed the beginning of a SLIDE into Despotism and Socialism within the attitudes of Washington's elite. According to Wallace, well-intended leaders with personal agendas would precipitate the LOSS of individual freedoms:
*** "So enlisted, men may rightfully feel they are serving a function as high as that of any minister of the Gospel. They will not be Socialists, Communists, or Fascists, but plain men trying to GAIN by DEMOCRATIC methods the professed objectives of the Communists, Socialists, and Fascists…"
**** Likewise, in 1944 Norman Mattoon Thomas espoused Wallace's theory with his prophesy of the fall of American democracy—and the mechanism that would be used:
"The American people will never knowingly ADOPT socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will ADOPT every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a SOCIALIST nation, without knowing HOW it happened.
I need no longer run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party.
The Democratic Party has ADOPTED our platform."

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

An Open Letter to The Boss.

An Open Letter to Bruce Springsteen and His Band

In this November 2, 2008 file photo, Singer Bruce Springsteen and his wife Patti Scialfa listen as then-Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama speaks during a campaign rally at the Cleveland Mall in Cleveland, Ohio.
By Michael Brown Published on April 10, 20161899 Comments
Dear Bruce,
As a resident of North Carolina since 2003, I read with interest that you decided to cancel your April 10th concert in Greensboro because of HB2, the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act.
In your statement you explained that, in your view, the bill is “an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress.”
You added that it was time for you and your band “to show solidarity for those freedom fighters” (speaking of transgender activists), and you ended your statement with these powerful words: “Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry — which is happening as I write — is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.”
I also read that your guitarist, Steven Van Zandt, has likened HB2 to an “evil virus” that is spreading through the United States in the form of similar legislation.
These are strong words, and they represent strong convictions. So, let me first commend you and your band members for putting your principles before your livelihood, even to the disappointment of your North Carolina fans. I have read that you regretted not performing at the 1985 Live Aid concert in Wembley, and perhaps this is your way of saying, “I do care and I’m here to make a difference.”
Whatever your motivation, I admire anyone who puts morality before money. My question to you and your band is simply this: In boycotting North Carolina and siding against HB2, did you really side with morality? Are you truly standing with “freedom fighters”?
I’m assuming you read HB2 for yourself and you’re not just listening to media reports attacking the bill or, worse still, getting your talking points from biased lobbyist groups like the Human Rights Campaign. (If you’re not really familiar with the bill, then click here and here and here.)
So, please allow me to ask you some questions.
First, how do you know if someone is really “transgender” or not? Is it determined entirely by how they feel about themselves? If so, do you think that it might be hard to make laws based entirely on how people feel? Did you ever stop to consider that?
Second, what’s the difference between someone with “gender dysphoria” (or, as it used to be called, “gender identity disorder”) and someone, say, with schizophrenia or “multiple personality disorder” or some other psychological condition? In other words, if a man is a biological and chromosomal male but believes he is a woman, is he actually a woman, or does he have a psychological disorder?
If he does have a psychological disorder, should we try to treat that disorder or should we celebrate that disorder? And is it right to call biological males who feel they are women and biological women who feel they are men “freedom fighters”? Perhaps that’s not the best use of the term?
If you are deeply offended that I would dare suggest that many transgender individuals are dealing with a psychological disorder, could you kindly point me to the definitive scientific literature that explains that these biological males are actually females and these biological females are actually males?
I’m not saying they don’t deserve compassion. To the contrary, I’m saying that’s exactly what they deserve: compassion, not celebration.
But perhaps I’m being too abstract here, so let’s get really practical. Let’s say that a 6’ 4” male who used to play professional football and who has secretly agonized over his gender identity for years finally determines that he must be true to himself and live as a woman.
Do you think it might be traumatic for a little girl using the library bathroom to see this big man walk into her room wearing a dress and a wig? Should we take her feelings into account, or is she not important? What if that was your granddaughter? Would you care if she was traumatized? And when you speak of “the human rights of all of our citizens” does that include little girls like this?
I understand that this gentleman will have difficulties should he decide to dress and live as a woman, but that is still a choice he is making, and it is not fair to impose his struggles on innocent little children, is it?
And what if this same man, whom we’ll assume is not a sexual predator, wants to share the YMCA locker room with your wife and daughter, standing there in his underwear as they come out of the shower stalls wrapped in towels. Is this fair to them?
Let’s take this one step further. If any man who claims to be a woman can use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, then how do we keep the sexual predators out? I’ve asked people to watch this short video, giving examples of male heterosexual predators who donned women’s clothing to get into the ladies’ rooms, and I’d encourage you to watch it too. Without HB2, rapists and voyeurs and pedophiles would have free access to our women and daughters in the safety of their own bathrooms and locker rooms.
Since you don’t like HB2 — indeed, your guitarist called it an “evil virus” — what’s your plan to keep the predators out? How can we tell the difference between a “genuine” transgender person and a sexual predator? Since everyone knows you as “The Boss,” what would you do to keep the ladies and children safe?
And one final question.
When you booked the concert in Greenboro, the laws in North Carolina were just as they are today: In public facilities, people had to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that corresponded to their biological sex. Why, then, did you agree to come in the first place? Why cancel the concert when things today are just what they were six months ago?
Again, I appreciate your sincerity, but I question your judgment. In your zeal to do what is right, you have actually done what is wrong.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Florida Laws That I Have Willingly Broken.

Governor Scott has just repealed the law making cohabitation by unmarried adults illegal, however these laws still exist on the books, how many have you broken?

Thursday, April 7, 2016

Doctor Shortages? Cut Tax Rates.

Doctor Shortages? Cut Tax Rates.

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) has released projections showing that we may have doctor shortages in coming years. The demand for doctor services is rising in our aging society, but various factors in the health care industry are hampering supply.
But policymakers should remember that high income tax rates inhibit the supply of top earners across all industries. America’s tax system is the most “progressive” or graduated among OECD nations, and that has consequences. If the government penalizes the most productive people, they will work fewer hours, retire earlier, and make other decisions to reduce their labor efforts.
Some politicians on the campaign trail want to raise tax rates on high earners, and they seem to consider them little more than economic leeches. The truth is that most high earners are very industrious people who add crucial skills to the economy. The nation’s 708,000 doctors and surgeons are a case in point.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that “physicians practicing primary care received total median annual compensation of $241,273 and physicians practicing in medical specialties received total median annual compensation of $411,852” in 2014.
That high pay makes sense because doctors are highly skilled, face substantial stress, and often work long hours. The BLS notes, “physicians complete at least 4 years of undergraduate school, 4 years of medical school, and, depending on their specialty, 3 to 7 years in internship and residency.” And after all that training, they often “work long, irregular, and overnight hours.”
So how does Congress reward that hard work? It imposes punitive marginal income tax rates on them of up to 40 percent, with state income taxes on top of that. Even lower-earning doctors can be pushed into the highest income tax brackets if their spouses work.
Doctors are exactly the type of workers who have large negative responses to high tax rates because they have substantial flexibility in managing their careers. With high tax rates, fewer people will want to go into this difficult profession, stay in it, and work the long hours—and that ends up hurting all of us who use the nation’s health care system.

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Have to admit, I'm surprised

So, Pfizer has dropped their tax dodge scam. It was clear what the shame deal was all about but that it was actually stopped honestly surprised me. Here are a couple of links with different perspectives

I'm not sure I totally understood the Schiff comment. If American companies are buying foreign companies to escape America taxation, why would a foreign company buy an American company and pay high American taxes? Meh, it's the same ol same ol, people with money don't want to pay any fucking taxes. They endlessly cite our corporate tax rate, and negate to ever mention how many loopholes there are. Then we have this territorial plan that Lou talks about which will accomplish one thing and one thing only, it will allow for a ton of money to come back to America to be promptly distributed up the food chain rather than down. It wont' increase investment. It won't improve our economy and it won't change anything. Nonetheless, I support it. Then I can hear what empty argument is brought up next for why we need to end all corporate taxes.

The Campaign Gets Stranger And Stranger

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's campaign says Ted Cruz's campaign is now being run by the GOP establishment and "Bush people."
“The Bush people are now running Sen. Cruz’s campaign — Neil Bush, who’s spent millions of dollars invested with Common Core, and all of these other special interest groups like Goldman Sachs, like hedge fund managers,” Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson told Fox News on Wednesday.
“This is going to be a very serious problem if Sen. Cruz continues to go down this path and then neither Trump or Cruz becomes the nominee.”
Trump's campaign accused Cruz, his chief rival for the nomination, of being "worse than a puppet" in a statement released after Trump's loss in the Wisconsin primary Tuesday night.
"He is a Trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump,” the Trump campaign said.
Pierson said Wednesday it's clear that many people in the GOP establishment don't plan to support Cruz during the convention process.
Cruz can't win "on his own merits," she said.
“When you have the establishment backing you so reluctantly to the point to where you have people endorsing you that said that you would get murdered on the Senate floor and nobody would care and the difference between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz is being stabbed or shot, their loyalty is not with Sen. Cruz,” she said.
Pierson was referring to comments made by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a former presidential candidate who backed Cruz last month as the best candidate to take on Trump after a series of negative comments about the Texas senator.

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Eliminating the National Debt

Donald Trump's Unusual Plan to Lower the National Debt: Sell Off Government Assets

As president, Donald Trump would sell off $16 trillion worth of U.S. government assets in order to fulfill his pledge to eliminate the national debt in eight years, senior adviser with the campaign Barry Bennett said.
"The United States government owns more real estate than anybody else, more land than anybody else, more energy than anybody else," Bennett told Chris Jansing Sunday on MSNBC. "We can get rid of government buildings we're not using, we can extract the energy from government lands, we can do all kinds of things to extract value from the assets that we hold."
In a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he would get rid of the $19 trillion national debt "over a period of eight years." The article noted that most economists would consider Trump's proposal impossible, as it could require slashing the annual federal budget by more than half.
Glenn Kessler, who writes the Post's Fact Checker column, deemed the plan "nonsensical" and gave it "Four Pinocchios." Kessler assessed that even if Trump were to eliminate every government function and shut down every Cabinet agency, he would still be short $16 trillion.
"We regret we have only Four Pinocchios to give for this whopper," Kessler said. "Trump is insulting the intelligence of Americans for making such a claim in the first place."
However, when pressed on whether the United States could sell off $16 trillion worth of assets, Bennett responded affirmatively on Sunday.
"Oh, my goodness," he said. "Do you know how much land we have? You know how much oil is off shore? And in government lands? Easily."
The federal government's assets totaled $3.2 trillion as of September 2015, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. However, that does not include include stewardship assets or natural resources.

Monday, April 4, 2016

More BS about abortion

After listening to Trump tap dance around Chris Mathew's "gotcha" question about abortion, I found the follow up commentary of both left and right to be interesting. Actually, more the right. Several right pundits commented and said that Trump basically proved he is not a conservative because he could not clearly explain the conservative position about abortion, and he seemed to only dig the hole deeper when he made the comment, "We should just leave the laws as they are". On Mathews show, the answer to a hypothetical question posed to Trump was that women if abortion was outlawed, women should be punished for having an abortion. Ironically, I think that was probably the most honest answer of the conservative position he could have given, but that's just my opinion.

Just to be clear, my position is as follows, I take zero delight in the number of abortions that are performed, I want to see that number go down, but I believe a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion. I also believe a majority of the country has a somewhat similar view, but that can be manipulated based on how you phrase the question. I spell that out because of the argument I'm going to make next.

Kasich was straightforward and honest, he is okay with abortion in cases of incest, rape, or to spare the life of the mother. My understanding is that Cruz is not. Where I call BS on this is that Cruz went on to say "The woman should not be punished". Based on anti abortion orthodoxy, this answer seems ridiculous. Why shouldn't the woman by punished? If we break up a terrorist ring, do we let the mastermind go and only punish the people who carried acts out? Of course not. The reason why Cruz and other Republicans say women shouldn't be punished is because they know this is politically unpopular with women voters and the public in general. I don't think some here would have a problem calling abortion murder and seeking punishment for all involved, and I believe this is the REAL conservative position. However, because this isn't what a majority of voters want to hear, the Republicans like Cruz run away from giving an honest answer. If abortion is murder, as many conservatives seem to believe, I don't see how you can possibly say the woman shouldn't be punished. Grow a spine Teddy and state what you really believe.......and lose the election.

Sunday, April 3, 2016

My how times change.

In 2005, Sen. Clinton said the Senate had a right to reject a president’s nominee: “I believe this is one of the most important roles the Senate plays. This, after all, is in the Constitution. We are asked to give advice and consent, or to deny advice and consent.”

Today she calls for hearings on Garlands nomination.

My how times change.

Thursday, March 31, 2016

Excellent article

In my daily list of stories that are frequently one sided and spamish, I got a link to this story from daily kos  

I was not surprised to see the story provide a call for both Rahm and Debbie Wasserman-Shultz to call, but I was kind of surprised to see it was written by Bill Moyers. I've always kinda thought Rahm was just an abusive prick, but up until this race, I had been a little more neutral on DSW. Moyers, IMO, supports his premise pretty well of why both of these two need to go. They do not seem very concerned with working class issues, and like Hillary, both seem very connected to money and willing to help grease the wheels for their benefactors. Nothing of the sort that Moyers is suggesting will happen of course, but it's refreshing to keep seeing stories like this.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Unrest In Cuba

The Obama visit may have stirred up a hornet's nest:

Obama's Middle East Disasters

Did Obama leave more Middle East disasters than he inherited?  This author says the answer is yes.
So what will the next President do about it?

Monday, March 28, 2016

Just punishment.

DENVER (AP) — The Veterans Affairs Department has no plans to punish any other employees over massive cost overruns at a VA medical center under construction outside Denver, the agency said Tuesday.
The executives who made the decisions that caused the price to swell to $1.7 billion have already left department, the VA said in announcing the long-awaited results of an internal review. The VA said last year that three other executives were transferred or demoted.
A separate investigation by the VA's inspector general is still underway.
The decision angered members of Congress who have demanded for months that the executives responsible be fired.
"There's going to be a billion dollars wasted on this hospital that could have gone to veterans' health care," said GOP Rep. Mike Coffman, whose district includes the site.
The facility's final cost will be nearly times the amount estimated in 2014. It's expected to be finished in January 2018.
When Congress reluctantly approved additional spending in September to complete the hospital, it stripped the VA of the authority to manage large construction projects in the future and turned it over to the Army Corps of Engineers.
VA officials have repeatedly said federal personnel rules controlled what action they could take against executives. They also said they had no legal authority to stop employees from retiring amid the internal review.
Coffman said the department should have at least tried.
"I think they use that system, the personnel system, to hide behind when it's convenient to do so," he said.
Colorado Sens. Michael Bennet, a Democrat, and Cory Gardner, a Republican, also condemned the decision.
Bennet called it an abdication of responsibility.
"It's incomprehensible that the VA concluded no further personnel action was necessary to hold these individuals accountable," he said.
Gardner said the VA's decision makes it appear that "federal employment comes with a get-out-of-jail-free card."
The 184-bed medical center in Aurora will replace an old, overcrowded hospital in Denver.
The new facility is a collection of a dozen large buildings connected by a long, soaring, glass-walled corridor. It is near the University of Colorado Hospital and Children's Hospital Colorado.

A Tampa Bay Protest

A Cuban "Fan" was arrested yesterday for throwing beer into the Tampa Bay Ray's dugout to protest their going to Cuba. The man was elderly and reportedly somewhat drunk. My question is: given our current climate of political correctness, what brand of beer would be proper for such a protest? I was thinking maybe Dos Equis, which is named to celebrate the twentieth century and is, of course, Hispanic. I also thought of Schlitz, which is flat and sour, sort of like dishwater, but it's not brewed anymore. What do you think?

Friday, March 25, 2016

My God, when does it end with Obama?

President Obama has stoked controversy after he suggested to an audience of Argentinian youth that there was no great difference between communism and capitalism and that they should just “choose from what works”.

Obama responded to a question about nonprofit community organizations and the necessity of attracting funding from both the public and private sectors.

“So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate,” Obama said.

“Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it really fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works,” he added.

Obama went on to praise Cuba’s socialist system under dictator Raúl Castro, touting the country’s free access to basic education and health care, although he acknowledged that Havana itself “looks like it did in the 1950s” because the economy is “not working”.

Who Needs Planned Parenthood?

After passing a bill to defund Planned Parenthood, Florida lawmakers provided a list of other "health centers" that could provide breast exams, contraception, and other women's care — and the list included dozens of public school nurse's offices, prisons, podiatrists, and dentists. "I don't think an elementary school can prescribe me birth control," said college student Kheyanna Suarez. The Week Staff.   My question is, Why not the family vet?


Posted: 23 Mar 2016 07:06 AM PDT
(Scott Johnson) 
Yesterday the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the Circuit that includes Ohio and thus the IRS’s Cincinnati office) released its decision in United States v. NorCal Tea Party Patriots. In the court’s published decision, rejecting the IRS’s petition for extraordinary relief in a pending class action by the NorCal Tea Party and others mistreated by the IRS, the baloney meets the grinder. Judge Kethledge introduces the court’s opinion with these striking paragraphs:
Among the most serious allegations a federal court can address are that an Executive agency has targeted citizens for mistreatment based on their political views. No citizen—Republican or Democrat, socialist or libertarian—should be targeted or even have to fear being targeted on those grounds. Yet those are the grounds on which the plaintiffs allege they were mistreated by the IRS here. The allegations are substantial: most are drawn from findings made by the Treasury Department’s own Inspector General for Tax Administration. Those findings include that the IRS used political criteria to round up applications for tax-exempt status filed by so-called tea-party groups; that the IRS often took four times as long to process tea-party applications as other applications; and that the IRS served tea-party applicants with crushing demands for what the Inspector General called “unnecessary information.”
Yet in this lawsuit the IRS has only compounded the conduct that gave rise to it. The plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves and other groups whose applications the IRS treated in the manner described by the Inspector General. The lawsuit has progressed as slowly as the underlying applications themselves: at every turn the IRS has resisted the plaintiffs’ requests for information regarding the IRS’s treatment of the plaintiff class, eventually to the open frustration of the district court. At issue here are IRS “Be On the Lookout” lists of organizations allegedly targeted for unfavorable treatment because of their political beliefs. Those organizations in turn make up the plaintiff class. The district court ordered production of those lists, and did so again over an IRS motion to reconsider. Yet, almost a year later, the IRS still has not complied with the court’s orders. Instead the IRS now seeks from this court a writ of mandamus, an extraordinary remedy reserved to correct only the clearest abuses of power by a district court. We deny the petition.
Judge Kethledge quotes the comments of the district court judge handling the case at a discovery conference:
My impression is the government probably did something wrong in this case. Whether there’s liability or not is a legal question. However, I feel like the government is doing everything it possibly can to make this as complicated as it possibly can, to last as long as it possibly can, so that by the time there is a result, nobody is going to care except the plaintiffs. . . . I question whether or not the Department of Justice is doing justice. 
As one can infer from the district court judge’s comments, behind the IRS’s foot-dragging and stonewalling is Obama’s Department of Justice. Judge Kethledge therefore reserves a few choice words for the Department of Justice:
The lawyers in the Department of Justice have a long and storied tradition of defending the nation’s interests and enforcing its laws—all of them, not just selective ones—in a manner worthy of the Department’s name. The conduct of the IRS’s attorneys in the district court falls outside that tradition. We expect that the IRS will do better going forward. And we order that the IRS comply with the district court’s discovery orders of April 1 and June 16, 2015—without redactions, and without further delay.
Stephen Dinan reports for the Washington Times: “Justice Department officials declined to comment on the judicial drubbing, and the IRS didn’t respond to a request for comment on the unusually strong language Judge Kethledge used.” The decision deserves much more comment, but it won’t be coming from the IRS or the Department of Justice any time soon.
Here I will just elaborate the obvious. The Sixth Circuit decision represents a disgrace that goes to the top of the Obama administration.

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

WJC and HRC should be in jail

Judicial Watch: New Clinton Documents Raise Questions on Benghazi, Clinton Foundation

MARCH 22, 2016

Two days after Benghazi attack, Libyan president sought meeting with Bill Clinton through Clinton Foundation event

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 276 pages of internal State Department documents revealing that within two days of the deadly terrorist attack on Benghazi, Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, the president of Libya’s National Congress, asked to participate in a Clinton Global Initiative function and “meet President Clinton.”  The meeting between the Libyan president and Bill Clinton had not previously been disclosed.  The documents also show Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff coordinated with the Clinton Foundation’s staff to have her thank Clinton Global Initiative project sponsors for their “commitments” during a Foundation speech on September 25, 2009.

The Judicial Watch documents were obtained as a result of a federal court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department on May 28, 2013, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00772)).

In September 13, 2012, al-Magariaf advisor Dr. Fathi Nuah wrote to the Clinton Foundation’s Director of Foreign Policy Amitabh Desai:  “Dr. Almagariaf will be addressing the United Nations this September in New York as the Libyan Head of State, and he expressed a wish to meet President Clinton and to participate at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting for New York as well.”

Four hours later, Desai emailed Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills asking, “Would USG [U.S. Government] have concerns about Libyan President being invited to CGI [Clinton Global Initiative]? Odd timing, I know.” Mills emailed back: “We would not have issues.”

Four days later, on September 17, Desai emailed Mills again, saying, The Libyan president is “asking for a meeting with WJC [William Jefferson Clinton] next week.” Desai asked, “Would you recommend accepting or declining the WJC meeting request?”

The State Department apparently had no objection to the meeting, because on September 26, Desai emailed Mills, “He had a v good meeting with Libya …” Hillary Clinton and al-Magariaf did not have ameeting until September 24.

An August 2009 email chain including Hillary Clinton’s then- Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, Mills, then-Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jake Sullivan shows that the State Department coordinated with Clinton Foundation staff on how Mrs. Clinton to thank Foundation supporters/partners for their “commitments.”  Mills asks Desai for a “list of commitments during whole session so she can reference more than those just around her speech.”

Caitlin Klevorick, Senior Advisor to the Counselor and Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State who previously workedat the Foundation, notes:  “one question is if we want to see if there is a decent mass of fs [funds] related commitments to announce together at closing as a ‘mega’ commitment.”

The State Department material includes background information made by Clinton Foundation partners, which include Foundation donors Nduna Foundation, Grupo ABCA, and Britannia Industries.  Other CGI partners noted in the State Department documents include a federal agency (the Centers for Disease Control) and various United Nations entities, which also receive U.S. taxpayer funds.

The transcript of Hillary Clinton’s speechon the State Department Internet site confirms that then-Secretary of State did thank those making “exceptional commitments” to her husband’s foundation:

And so I congratulate all who helped to put on this (inaudible) CGI [Clinton Global Initiative].  I especially thank you for having a separate track on girls and women, which I think was well received for all the obvious reasons.  (Applause.)  And this is an exceptional gathering of people who have made exceptional commitments to bettering our world.

The documents also point to a chain of emails that show Haim Saban, a top Clinton donor, sought to entice Bill Clinton into to travelling to Damascus in 2009 to meet with a high-level Syrian delegation. The meetings were part of the Saban Forum. Evidently, the trip never took place.

As previously reported, a June 2012 email chain discusses a “firm invitation for President Clinton” to speak at a Congo conference, hosted in part by the controversial Joseph Kabila. Bill Clinton is offered $650,000 in fees and expenses, concerning which, as Desai emails Mills and others, “WJC wants to know that state [sic] thinks of it if he took it 100% for the foundation.”

This lawsuit had previously forced the disclosure of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflict-of-interest rulings that led to at least $48 million in speaking fees for the Clintons during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia, China and Iran, among others.

Judicial Watch’s litigation to obtain these conflict of interest records is ongoing.  The State Department has also yet to explain why it failed to conduct a proper, timely search in the 20 months between when it received Judicial Watch’s request on May 2, 2011, and the February 1, 2013, date Secretary Clinton left office.

“These new State Department documents show Hillary Clinton and her State aides were involved in fundraising for the Clinton Foundation.  It is also incredible that the Libyan president would call and meet Bill Clinton through the Clinton Foundation before meeting Hillary Clinton about Benghazi,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked hand in glove with the Clinton Foundation on fundraising and foreign policy.  Despite the law and her promises to the contrary, Hillary Clinton turned the State Department into the DC office of the Clinton Foundation.”

Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit has become particularly noteworthy because it has been reported that the Clinton Foundation, now known as the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, accepted millions of dollars from at least seven foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton served as Secretary of State.  The Clinton Foundation has acknowledged that a $500,000 donation it received from the government of Algeria while Mrs. Clinton served as Secretary of State violated a 2008 ethics agreement between the foundation and the Obama administration.  Some of the foreign governments that have made donations to the Clinton Foundation include Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman, have questionable human rights records.

Links to the full production of documents can be found here.


Tuesday, March 22, 2016

IRS rebuked for tea party targeting

IRS rebuked for tea party targeting, ordered to release secret list

A federal appeals court spanked the IRSTuesday, saying it has taken laws designed to protect taxpayers from the government and turned them on their head, using them to try to protect the tax agency from the very tea party groups it targeted.

The judges ordered the IRS to quickly turn over the full list of groups it targeted so that a class-action lawsuit, filed by the NorCal Tea Party Patriots, can proceed. The judges also accused the Justice Departmentlawyers, who are representing the IRS in the case, of acting in bad faith — compounding the initial targeting — by fighting the disclosure.

“The lawyers in the Department of Justicehave a long and storied tradition of defending the nation’s interests and enforcing its laws — all of them, not just selective ones — in a manner worthy of theDepartment’s name. The conduct of theIRS’s attorneys in the district court falls outside that tradition,” Judge Raymond Kethledge wrote in a unanimous opinion for a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. “We expect that the IRS will do better going forward.”

Justice Department officials declined to comment on the judicial drubbing, and theIRS didn’t respond to a request for comment on the unusually strong language Judge Kethledge used.

The case stems from the IRS‘ decision in 2010 to begin subjecting tea party and conservative groups to intrusive scrutiny when they applied for nonprofit status.

An inspector general found several hundred groups were asked inappropriate questions about their members’ activities, their fundraising and their political leanings.

The IRS has since apologized for its behavior, but insisted the targeting was a mistake born of overzealous employees confused by the law rather than a politically motivated attempt to stifle conservatives.

Tea party groups have been trying for years to get a full list of nonprofit groups that were targeted by the IRS, but the IRS had refused, saying that even the names of those who applied or were approved are considered secret taxpayer information. TheIRS said section 6103 of the tax code prevented it from releasing that information.

Judge Kethledge, however, said that turned the law on its head.

“Section 6103 was enacted to protect taxpayers from the IRS, not the IRS from taxpayers,” he wrote.

Edward Greim, a lawyer at Graves Garrett who is representing NorCal Patriots, said they should be able to get a better idea of the IRS‘ decision-making once they see the list of groups that was targeted.

“What we’ll be able to see is how, starting in the spring of 2010, with the first one or two groups the IRS targeted, we’ll be able to see that number grow, and we’ll even be able to see at the tail end their possible covering up that conduct,” he said.

He said they suspect the IRS, aware that the inspector general was looking into the tax agency’s behavior, began adding in other groups to try to muddle the perception that only conservatives were being targeted.

Tuesday’s ruling is the second victory this year for NorCal Patriots.

In January U.S. District Judge Susan J. Dlott certified their case as a class-action lawsuit, signaling that she agreed with NorCal Patriots that the IRS did systematically target hundreds of groups for special scrutiny.

Certifying the class allows any of the more than 200 groups that were subjected to the criteria to join the lawsuit. But until the IRScomplies with the appeals court’s ruling this week, the list of those groups is secret.

Now that the class has been certified, the case moves to the discovery stage, where the tea party groups’ lawyers will ask for all of the agency’s documents related to the targeting and will depose IRS employees about their actions.

The lawyers hope they’ll be able to learn details Congress was unable to shake free in its own investigations.

The Justice Department has concluded its own criminal investigation into the IRS and said the targeting was the result of bad management. But investigators said they found no criminal behavior, and specifically cleared former IRS head Lois G. Lerner, saying her fellow employees said she tried to correct the problems when she learned of them.

Republicans dismissed that investigation as a whitewash by the Obama administration.

Paul Ryan Is Running

Monday, March 21, 2016

Tucson Cop: Anti-Trump Protesters “Most Hateful People I’ve Ever Seen”

Tucson Cop: Anti-Trump Protesters “Most Hateful People I’ve Ever Seen”

"I could not believe what I saw"

An African-American Tucson cop who attended a Donald Trump rally on Saturday as a neutral observer described the anti-Trump protesters who crashed the event as “the most hateful people I’ve ever seen”.
Brandon Tatum said he wanted to personally attend the event in order to get a first hand experience of what it was all about instead of relying on media perception.
Describing what he saw as “very very shocking,” Tatum said anti-Trump protesters were “verbally violent,” swearing and yelling at people who were attending the rally.
Speaking about the Trump supporters, Tatum said, “everybody seemed to be peaceful, there wasn’t a lot of hatred and maliciousness going on,” and that Trump supporters were not lashing out at protesters. Challenging the media narrative that Trump is ‘inciting violence’ against protesters, Tatum said he heard an announcement before the event which told attendees not to become involved in altercations with protesters who were being unruly.“That was another thing I don’t see portrayed in the media, is that they gave a disclaimer, don’t hurt these people, you don’t need to do this”.Tatum goes on to explain how protesters were yelling “f**k Donald Trump” in front of children and that one parent had to cover her daughter’s ears because “these people are just outlandish and out of control”.

Despite being a police officer, even Tatum said he felt uncomfortable and that “at any moment I could get sucker punched by somebody”.

Although it was the protesters who were accusing Trump supporters of being hateful, Tatum asserted, “These people are the most hateful, evil people I’ve ever seen, I could not believe what I saw….I thought at some point it was going to be a full fledged riot because these people were acting so outrageous.”
“I had no problems when I was there, I’m an African-American man, I had no problems with people going against me,” added Tatum, again countering the narrative that Trump supporters are racist.
Tatum concluded by noting that the media rarely portrays the protesters in a negative light, focusing instead on violence committed by Trump supporters after they have been provoked by demonstrators “spitting and yelling in people’s faces”.

The Communist Revolutionaries/REVISED

March 1980

Flashback March 1980: Reagan Faces Probable Defeat – Trails Carter by 15 Points

reagan 1980
1980 electoral Map
Republican elites are very concerned this year that Donald Trump cannot beat Hillary Clinton or Socialist Bernie Sanders in a general election.
You hear the establishment types talk about it nearly every day on the FOX News Channel.
For his part, Donald Trump says he has not “even started” on Hillary Clinton.
The elites also worried about Ronald Reagan’s chances back in March 1980.
The CSMonitor reported, via Free Republic:
The nation’s Republicans are working against the clock to answer two key questions: Can conservative Ronald Reagan possibly attract enough independent and Democratic votes to win in November?
An if he is likely to lose, has former President Gerald Ford time enough to challenge him for the GOP nomination?
The consensus among political experts is that time has probably already run out for Gerald Ford, though he still appears the stronger choice to beat Jimmy Carter in November.
But some experts caution: Don’t count Ronald Reagan out as a national candidate for the fall. He is not, they say, “a McGovern or a Goldwater” — fringe candidates who led their parties to one-sided defeats in 1972 and 1964. Intellectuals don’t want to take him seriously, but he does well with working-class voters. He would take the West, challenge President Carter in the South, and do well in the pivotal Midwest states like Ohio and Illinois, whose southern regions titled toward Carter in 1976, they say.
Back in March 1980 the establishment the establishment said the same thing about Ronald Reagan.
They said he could never defeat Jimmy Carter.

He was too divisive.
Reagan trailed Carter by 15 points in February-March 1980.
reagan carter polls
Reagan came back and won in a 44 state landslide.

Sunday, March 20, 2016

We need more safe places

A new crusade has emerged among college students who insist on insulation from the real world – now left-liberal campus activists demand safe spaces from U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents who recruit at campus job fairs.
Protesters at several campuses in Southern California and Arizona have demanded administrators cut all ties with the federal agency, and some have protested agents’ presence on campus. Students say border protection representatives make students – especially students in the country illegally – feel unsafe.
At UC Santa Barbara in late January, a parade of students boisterously demonstrated against border patrol recruiters at a campus job fair, loudly chanting “f*ck your borders, f*ck your walls.” One organizer told The College Fix agents’ attendance was “triggering” for undocumented students, adding “there is no space on this campus for an organization that continues to threaten the safety of students.”
Last fall, after UC Irvine students circulated a petition that called on administrators to remove a U.S. Customs and Border Protection booth from the school’s fall career fair – saying officers’ presence would make the campus unsafe for students in the country illegally – the agency backed out of the event.
“The recruiters felt that the opposition to their attendance could be a distraction from their recruitment efforts and they could be more successful utilizing the on-line job postings,” a campus official said at the time.
The UC Irvine petition had declared “having border patrol agents on campus is a blatant disregard to undocumented students’ safety and well-being.” That sentiment was echoed recently by students at San Diego State and the University of Arizona, who have taken preemptive measures against border protection agents on campus.
“The university must divest any and all partnerships with U.S Customs and Border Patrol,” according to demands lodged this month by a group of self-described “marginalized” students at the University of Arizona.
“Given the high militarization of the US/Mexico border in Arizona and the violence it promotes against undocumented/migrant communities, the presence of Border Patrol on campus promotes a hostile environment towards Latina/o communities,” the group said.
Last week, a “Multicultural Coalition” student group at San Diego State published a demand list that included: “Bar Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement from campus grounds.”

Sanders Demands Treasury Block Pfizer Tax Dodging Deal

In a bid to prevent what has been called the biggest tax evasion scheme of its kind—and others like it—Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has urged U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to use his agency's authority to block the planned merger of two pharmaceutical giants.
Viagra-maker Pfizer's proposal to acquire Allergan, which manufactures Botox, is "nothing less than a tax scam," Sanders wrote in a letter (pdf) sent to Lew on Friday.
The so-called "corporate inversion," which would allow Pfizer to profit from a lower corporate tax rate in Allergan's home country of Ireland, could starve the U.S. government of up to $35 billion in tax revenue, Sanders said, citing a recent report from consumer group Americans for Tax Fairness.

Starving, with an expectation of 4 trillion in spending, 25 billion is chump change.

Perhaps Sanders should focus on fixing our broken tax system.

Saturday, March 19, 2016

New Research Reveals Candidate's Speach Grade Levels

 Which candidates are more advanced than a 6th grader? (If any)  Here is the answer:

Friday, March 18, 2016

Well Now, That's Okay Then

When is enough enough. After all we're talking chump change compared to 19 trillion.

The Congressional Research Service reports that for requests for both 2016 and 2017 fiscal years, Obama’s proposed federal budget would expand funding through the Former Presidents Act. In 2017 alone, Obama wants nearly an 18% hike in expenditures… $588,000. That means $3.865,000 in appropriations will be available to spend on former Presidents!
The 2016 proposed budget includes an additional $25,000 increase.
The Former Presidents Act, enacted in 1958, provides living former presidents with a pension, office staff and support, funds for travel, Secret Service protection, and mailing privileges. It also provides benefits for presidential spouses. Currently, former presidents are awarded a pension equal to the salary of cabinet secretaries, which totaled $203,700 for the 2015 calendar year and was boosted by $2,000 for the current calendar year.
Critics of the act argue that it financially supports former presidents who are not struggling. Many of them, alternatively, have gone on to profit from writing books about their time in the White House or delivering paid speaking engagements.
Former President Bill Clinton, for example, earned $132 million for delivering paid speeches between February 2001 and March 2015, according to an analysis from CNN. Clinton received $924,000 in taxpayer dollars last year by way of the Former Presidents Act.
Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced legislation that would cap annual pensions for former presidents at $200,000. Additionally, the bills would cut each pension by a dollar for every dollar the former president earns over $400,000 in the private sector in a given year. The measure was approved by the House in January with bipartisan support.
“It’s pretty simple. You want a retirement and pension, it’s there. But if you’re going to go out and make enormous sums of money, then you don’t need taxpayer subsidies,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), who introduced the bill in the House, told ABC News in an interview.
“The former presidents are making gobs of money speaking and writing books, more power to them, but that doesn’t mean they need more taxpayer dollars on top of that,” Chaffetz added. “It’s embarrassing that they take that money.”

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Vladimir Putin Supports Trump?

From Bloomberg Politics:
Putin has praised Trump’s emergence as a contender to succeed Barack Obama in the White House, calling him the “absolute leader” in the presidential contest and a “very colorful character and talented” at his annual press conference in Moscow in December. Putin also said Trump wants the U.S. to have “closer and deeper ties” with Russia and “how couldn’t we welcome that?”

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

White Privilege

Harvard students debate whether whites should kill themselves due to ‘privilege’

MARCH 16, 2016

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. – White lives do not matter, according to a student debater/activist from the University of West Georgia.

Miguel Feliciano, along with fellow West Georgia student Damiyr Davis, reportedly participated in a recent debate with other students at Harvard University.

During an exchange with their opponents, Feliciano suggested that white people should kill themselves because of their “white privilege.”

The exchange was caught on video and posted on YouTube.

“White life is wrong,” Feliciano was quoted as saying by “Our argument is that we should never affirm white life. White life is based off black subjugation.”

When a white debater asked Feliciano whether he should commit suicide, Feliciano said “I don’t see why not, it’s ethical.”

When the white debater suggested that it might be better to remain alive and fight the social forces that promote “white privilege,” Feliciano rejects the notion.

“Struggling against the structure means putting yourself on the line, putting your body on the line, do it. Affirmative suicide, that’s cool, it’s one little step in the right direction,” Feliciano said, according to

Ironically, the debate topic was supposed to be about renewable energy.

“The black debaters simply ‘chose’ to point out their opponents’ skin color and begin advocating genocide,” reported “They expressly stated that these were their ‘sincere beliefs,’ not just an argument to win a debate.”

Feliciano and Davis are not some anonymous student crackpots posing as serious debaters.

They form a respected two-person debate team that took second place at the 2013 Cross-Examination Debate Association Nationals, according to

Feliciano also acts as an instructor at the Eddie Conway Liberation Institute, an annual debate camp at Coppin State University that reportedly instructs high school students on debate strategy and radical thought, reported.

The institute is named after former Black Panther Party member Eddie Conway, who was convicted and imprisoned for 44 years for his involvement with the 1970 murder of a Baltimore police officer.

Crazy times

This race has probably been decided for awhile, but I thought last night made some things even more clear. Rubio seemed to basically kill himself a few weeks ago and seemingly needed last night to tell him the obvious. Kasich had a nice win, and after watching some of his town halls the past few days, I have to admit I found him pretty refreshing. He didn't preach the bible in a manner suggesting he has a direct line to God, instead he gave touching examples of how we should treat each other. But, the pundits say it is mathematically impossible for him to win, or even to go to the convention with a lead.

Which brings up an interesting point. Trump continues to roll. The Republican party seems to hate it. Yet, no candidate seems to want to speak to Trump voters. Cruz is openly courting Kasich and Rubio voters to come take a look at what Cruz's campaign has to offer. But, everyone seems to entirely dismiss Trumps voters as if they are simply not worth a damn because they aren't backing more traditional Republican candidates. I'll admit, there is one small subset of Trump's crowd that I have no respect for, and that subset is the racist idiots. That is not the entirety of his base, but neither is it so small that we can just overlook it. Ironically, I see a Venn diagram where supporters of Trump and Bernie have some overlap. I watched some Hillary talk last night and I can see her trying to reach out to Bernie voters. It looks false as shit to me, but in contrast to the Republicans, she is at least already making that effort. I had to laugh until I had a coughing fit when Hillary made a pitch for her crowd to send in small donations because "We really need that support" What an F'n joke coming from super pack lady. Anyway.....

I find it interesting that more than a few Republicans have said it might be just fine to go to the convention and have several ballots until they reach a conclusion where Trump loses. It seems like this would be the biggest fuck you possible that the party could dish out. Hard to picture right now what the outcome of that would look like, but I can't imagine it sitting well with a lot of people. On the Dem side, I kinda felt like last night closed the door on Bernie. He's got states coming up soon that are probably going to be more favorable to him, but I don't think he's going to overcome the superpunk delegates that basically protect the ability of the party to put their thumb on the scale in favor of whatever candidate they want. I still think Hillary is going to win the pledged delegates, but that will probably be closer. I don't expect any outcome right now other than Hillary and Trump being the nominees.

Who is politicizing this the most?

Obama noted Garland was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in 1997 with backing from a majority in both parties, including seven current Republicans senators.
Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democratic leader called Garland's section, "a bipartisan choice."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who spoke to Obama Wednesday morning, said in brief remarks on the Senate floor that Republicans must act on the president's choice. "He's doing his job this morning, they should do theirs," said the Nevada Democrat.
If confirmed, Garland would be expected to align with the more liberal members, but he is not viewed as down-the-line liberal. Particularly on criminal defense and national security cases, he's earned a reputation as centrist, and one of the few Democratic-appointed judges Republicans might have a fast-tracked to confirmation — under other circumstances.
But in the current climate, Garland remains a tough sell. Republicans control the Senate, which must confirm any nominee, and GOP leaders want to leave the choice to the next president, denying Obama a chance to alter the ideological balance of the court before he leaves office next January. Republicans contend that a confirmation fight in an election year would be too politicized.

Ahead of Obama's announcement, the Republican Party set up a task force that will orchestrate attack ads, petitions and media outreach. The aim is to bolster Senate Republicans' strategy of denying consideration of Obama's nominee. The party's chairman, Reince Priebus, described it as the GOP's most comprehensive judicial response effort ever.

On the other side, Obama allies have been drafted to run a Democratic effort that will involve liberal groups that hope an Obama nominee could pull the high court's ideological balance to the left. The effort would target states where activists believe Republicans will feel political heat for opposing hearings once Obama announced his nominee.

For Obama, Garland represents a significant departure from his past two Supreme Court choices. In nominating Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the president eagerly seized the chance to broaden the court's diversity and rebalance the overwhelming male institution. Sotomayor was the first Hispanic confirmed to the court, Kagan only the fourth woman.
Garland — a white, male jurist with an Ivy League pedigree and career spent largely in the upper echelon of the Washington's legal elite — breaks no barriers. At 63 years old, he would be the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis Powell, who was 64 when he was confirmed in late 1971.

Presidents tend to appoint young judges with the hope they will shape the court's direction for as long as possible.
Those factors had, until now, made Garland something of a perpetual bridesmaid, repeatedly on Obama's Supreme Court lists, but never chosen.
But Garland found his moment at time when Democrats are seeking to apply maximum pressure on Republicans. A key part of their strategy is casting Republicans as knee-jerk obstructionists ready to shoot down a nominee that many in their own ranks once considered a consensus candidate. In 2010, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch called Garland "terrific" and said he could be confirmed "virtually unanimously."
The White House planned to highlight Hatch's past support, as well as other glowing comments about Garland from conservative groups.
A native of Chicago and graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Garland clerked for two appointees of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower — the liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr. and Judge Henry J. Friendly, for whom Chief Justice John Roberts also clerked.

In 1988, he gave up a plush partner's office in a powerhouse law firms to cut his teeth in criminal cases. As an assistant U.S. attorney, he joined the team prosecuting a Reagan White House aide charged with illegal lobbying and did early work on the drug case against then-D.C. Mayor Marion Barry. He held a top-ranking post in the Justice Department when he was dispatched to Oklahoma City the day after bombing at the federal courthouse to supervise the investigation. The case made his career and his reputation. He oversaw the convictions of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, and went on to supervise the investigation into Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.
President Bill Clinton first nominated him to the D.C. Circuit in 1995.
His prolonged confirmation process may prove to have prepared him for the one ahead. Garland waited 2½ years to win confirmation to the appeals court. Then, as now, one of the man blocking path was Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, argued he had no quarrel with Garland's credentials, but a beef with the notion of a Democratic president trying to fill a court he argued had too many seats.
Grassley ultimately relented, although he was not one of the 32 Republicans who voted in favor of Garland's confirmation. Nor was Sen. Mitch McConnell, the other major hurdle for Garland now. The Republicans who voted in favor of confirmation are Sen. Dan Coats, Sen. Thad Cochran, Sen. Susan Collins, Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sen. Jim Inhofe, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Pat Roberts.

Monday, March 14, 2016


When You Come to a Fork in the Road, Take It!
Yogi Berra