Another stupid WW II reference

So, I'm guessing that by now, most have seen Huckabee's description of the Iran deal,

"This president’s foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven. This is the most idiotic thing, this Iran deal. It should be rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and by the American people. I read the whole deal. We gave away the whole store. It’s got to be stopped." He served up this little diddy on Breitbart. 

Generally, I have not felt a need to unload on Huckabee they way I do on penultimate assholes like Cruz or Trump. This comment, however, is just out of any respectable boundary. You don't like deal, then say so, but to compare Obama to Adolph Fucking Hitler, a man who truly believed in cleansing the earth of the Jews, is contemptible. It goes with the turf that any POTUS will be criticized for everything they do by the opposition party. Year by year, however, the white hick fucking trailer trash of this country has continually stepped over each other in a race to see who can be the most offensive. Again, you don't like Obama? Fine, go to rallies with the rest of the hick white assholes who think it's clever to photoshop Obama's face onto Heath Ledger's joker character and shake hands with a bunch of idiots who continue to celebrate the legacy of a failed rebellion as they fly their rebel flags. But do the rest of the world a favor, stop the endless false comparisons to WW II and though it pains your stupid hick brains, how bout showing a little respect for the office of the president. 

Enjoy your fifteen minutes you stupid asshole Mike Huckabee.

So then what happens?

So I saw a blurb that some congress folks are (gasp) putting forth a measure to defund Planned Parenthood. I can understand the conservative point of view about abortion and why they are so repulsed. And especially for William, a man who is perhaps more dedicated to the plight of the black man than Martin Luther King ever was, it is especially painful to realize how singularly abortion is wiping out the black race in America. What I don't understand, however, is what people who are opposed to abortion believe will change in America if abortion is outlawed per their wishes. Will people treat each other better? Or, is it simply a matter that this is wrong and it doesn't matter what happens as long as it is stopped. I am genuinely curious.

This Doesn't Look Good For Hillary

Hillary Clinton sent at least four emails that contained classified information from her personal account while she was secretary of state, a government review has discovered. When the scandal surrounding her personal email account first broke, Clinton insisted that she "did not email any classified material to anyone on my email."


However, in a letter to Congress (a copy of which was obtained by The Wall Street Journal), the inspector general of the intelligence community concluded that emails containing "secret" information, the second-highest level of classification, had indeed been sent from Clinton's personal address.


 The inspector general has since referred the case to the counterintelligence division of the FBI. A spokesperson for Clinton did not immediately respond to the Journal's request for comment.
Source: The Wall Street Journal

Senator Cruz Out Trumps Trump

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a stunning, public attack on his own party leader, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz accused Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of lying, and said he was no better than his Democratic predecessor and couldn't be trusted.

Cruz, a Texan who is running for president but ranks low in early polling, delivered the broadside in a speech on the Senate floor Friday, an extraordinary departure from the norms of Senate behavior that demand courtesy and respect.

Another Theater Shooting

This time in Louisiana. The gunman was surrounded by police and shot himself. Details are incomplete at this time.


 https://news.yahoo.com/photos/deadly-shooting-at-a-lafayette-theater-in-louisiana-1437736668-slideshow/law-enforcement-personnel-stand-near-police-line-grand-photo-032622384.html

Only in America

JUSTICE TO PROBE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS — While congressional committees investigate Planned Parenthood’s practices, the Justice Department agreed to look into whether the group that released the sting videos obtained the footage legally. In response to a request by House Democrats, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday afternoon that Justice would “review all of the information and determine what the appropriate steps moving forward would be.” Planned Parenthood has staunchly defended its practices and claims that the Center for Medical Progress illegally obtained its footage, then excessively edited it to misrepresent what the organization does.

Four Democrats in Congress — Reps. Jan Schakowsky, Zoe Lofgren, Jerry Nadler, and Yvette Clarke — have written to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and California Attorney General Kamala Harris, asking them to open investigations into the Center for Medical Progress. The Democrats say the videos were filmed as part of an “elaborate scheme” — using “fake identification” and without the approval of the Planned Parenthood doctor who appears in them.

It’s interesting that Lynch decided so early to make a statement about the group. There are certainly more videos to come, and if Planned Parenthood’s panicked press releases are any indication, the footage may be far more damaging than anything that’s been revealed thus far. However, given the abject politicization of multiple agencies under Obama’s command — including the Internal Revenue Service, which targeted conservative non-profits, and the DOJ, which has been hesitant to investigate Obama allies — it seems unlikely that Lynch and those who report to her will ever crack down on Abortion, Inc.

No probe into Planned Parenthood, only into the organization outing them.

Life in Obama's America.

p.s.  This one's for you William.

Limberbutt McCubbins is Running for President

In an internet campaign, McCubbins has announced his candidacy as a Democrat. May give Trump a run for his money. Here is the link:


http://www.limberbutt2016.com/

Rick Perry Takes On Donald Trump

Not too many of Donald Trump's fellow 2016 presidential candidates have truly thrown themselves into the ring against the real estate mogul just yet (many, in fact, likely see themselves as being above swinging punches in The Donald's intellectual weight class). However, Rick Perry is more than game. Today he declared that enough is enough — after all, during one of Trump's Trumpier speeches yesterday, Perry was personally insulted. "[Perry] put on glasses so people think he's smart," Trump claimed. "People can see through glasses."

Not one to be one-upped in the game of "I know you are but what am I," Perry had a few words to fire back at Trump during a speech in Austin, which was calmly titled, "Defending Conservatism Against the Cancer of Trump-ism." In it, Perry offered his supporters a handy glossary of what, exactly, The Donald is:

1. "A barking carnival act"

2. "A toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness, and nonsense"

3. "A cancer on conservatism" that must be "diagnosed, excised, and discarded"

4. "Suited to follow the Democrats' example" as a supporter of Hillary Clinton et al

5. A cancer that threatens to "metastasize into a movement of mean-spirited politics"

6. "Too arrogant, too self-absorbed, to seek God's forgiveness"

7. "The modern-day incarnation of the know-nothing movement"

8. An offense to John Adams

9. Senator McCarthy

10. Poison

11. Empty calories

Trump's response is undoubtedly forthcoming. Jeva Lange

I want a Lamborghini

Tue Jul 21, 2015 - 9:52 am EST

New video: Planned Parenthood official haggles over baby body part prices, jokes ‘I want a Lamborghini’

July 21, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- A second video allegedly showing a senior Planned Parenthood official negotiating for fetal tissue and fetal parts for profit has been released.
In the video, released by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), Dr. Mary Gatter, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s for-profit Medical Directors’ Council, is seen haggling over prices of fetal parts.

When Gatter initially asked for $75 per part, the undercover investigators countered with $100 -- which Gatter readily accepted. These negotiations came after Gatter said she didn't want to make an opening offer because "in negotiations, the person who throws out the first figure is at a loss, right?"
"I don't want to lowball," she said moments later. Towards the end of the video, Gatter jokes that she “wants a Lamborghini.”
Gatter also said that "we're [Planned Parenthood] not in it for the money, and we don't want to be in a position of being accused of selling tissue and stuff like that."
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America is a non-profit organization. Gatter is a director for the Pasadena, California branch of the non-profit, as well as the director for the for-profit arm.
At one point in the video, Gatter says she "would not object to asking Ian, who's our surgeon who does the cases," if he would allow clinics to violate "the protocol" Planned Parenthood uses with regards to how abortions are done.
Gatter said it was "kind of a specious little argument" to hold to protocol on how an abortion is done.
After CMP's release of a video last week showing Planned Parenthood's senior medical services director lightly chatting about fetal part harvesting over a meal, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said that CMP had misrepresented Planned Parenthood's fetal harvesting processes.
According to Richards, CMP's video showed poor "tone" by the Planned Parenthood official, but no illegal activity by the abortion giant. Fetal parts can be legally harvested if they are not done for-profit, which is what Richards claims.
However, CMP senior investigator David Daleiden told LifeSiteNews that Richards' accusations against CMP's integrity are false.
"As we all know by now, Planned Parenthood does not want to be accused of anything and will steadfastly maintain their innocence even in the face of the most shocking evidence," he said. "The prices are pure profit that go far and above any real (or imagined) costs [Planned Parenthood] might have in handing over aborted babies to another company's technician."
"It is the alleged 'costs' that are in fact designed to cover the profit," claimed Daleiden.
Regarding Gatter's support for lying to women about how an abortion will be done, Daleiden cited 42 U.S.C. 289g-1, and said that "state laws governing consent to medical procedures would also apply."
The part of the U.S. Code cited by Daleiden states that "no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue." Like the subject of the first CMP video, Gatter fully backed changing how an abortion is done "for the purposes of obtaining the tissue."
Daleiden also pointed out that, despite Planned Parenthood's claims of innocence, the organization is "refusing to produce Dr. Nucatola for the House Energy and Commerce Committee's" investigation. "She admitted to using partial-birth abortions [PBA] -- which [Planned Parenthood] has yet to address a week later -- and indicated affiliates would be happy to 'do a little better than break even' on fetal tissue sales."
"PBA and profiting off of baby parts are both highly illegal and it's not surprising PPFA will say anything to try to get away from those charges," said Daleiden.
Daleiden also responded to a claim from a Planned Parenthood lawyer that his group had lied to the IRS. "CMP's IRS application mirrored our [California] non-profit filing. Our purpose is 'to monitor and report on medical ethics and advances.' This is all we have been doing since formation."

 https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-video-planned-parenthood-official-haggles-over-baby-body-part-prices-jo

Finally, Democrats challenge trickle-down economics

A strong middle class is the source of America’s strength
David Madland


Nearly every day a new candidate announces his or her candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, making it hard to keep track of all the primary contenders. But tracking their economic policies is a much simpler matter, because the basic proposition for the Republican candidates is the same as it has been for the past three decades: close adherence to trickle-down economics.


Some candidates may propose George W. Bush-style tax cuts that provide some modest relief for regular Americans but disproportionately benefit the rich, while other candidates would only reduce taxes for the rich. All support massive tax cuts for the 1% on the theory that doing so is good for the economy.


What makes the 2016 presidential election different is that Democrats are increasingly challenging this line of thinking. Because of a revolution in academic thought, progressive policy makers have begun to directly challenge the premise underlying trickle-down economics — that extreme levels of inequality are good for the economy.
As a result, the 2016 presidential election is shaping up to be one of those rare and especially important elections that is about ideas.


For years economists tended to think that inequality was helpful for economic growth, and thus provided cover for the trickle-down ideology. But increasingly, economists recognize that the decline of the American middle class has harmed our economy. Without a strong middle class, consumer demand is unstable and too dependent on debt, fewer people are able to develop their human capital, government becomes captured by the wealthy, and the social trust that makes transactions possible weakens.
A strong middle class is a source of America’s economic growth, and not merely the result of a strong economy, as was previously thought.


Economists have long known that inequality is high in the United States, but new data developed by economists like Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez showed just how extreme inequality in the U.S. was compared to other wealthy countries. The data also showed that the share of the nation’s income the top 1% received equaled record levels in American history.


Another blow to trickle-down came from the actual growth rates of countries around the world. In the developing world, some relatively equal countries like South Korea grew much faster than more unequal countries like the Philippines. Similarly, even in the early 2000s, it was obvious that the U.S. economy had grown more slowly over recent decades that it had in the 1950s and 1960s when the country was more middle class.


It took the onset of the Great Recession to fundamentally change the way economists thought about inequality. To be sure, there isn’t a formulaic relationship between economic inequality and financial collapse as some have claimed, but the story of the Great Recession is closely related to economic inequality. High levels of debt for the middle class and inadequate financial regulation due to the wealth and political power of Wall Street clearly helped fuel our most recent economic downturn.


This growing body of academic research has deeply affected the way many progressive policy makers think about inequality and the economy. Not surprisingly, many leading Democrats— many of whom only danced around the edges previously — have now sharpened their critique of trickle-down economics. Arguments that tax cuts for the rich would reduce the amount of money available for education spending have given way to direct challenges to the theory of trickle-down.


Hillary Clinton notes that “as secretary of state I saw the way extreme inequality has corrupted other societies, hobbled growth and left entire generations alienated and unmoored.”


Similarly, other prominent candidates for the Democratic nomination for president voice similar concerns: Bernie Sanders says that income inequality is not only a moral problem but also “an economic issue,” and Martin O’Malley argues that “trickle-down economics has been an abject failure.” And Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who is not running for president but has still has significant influence, argues that the claim that “we have to choose economic growth or our families … is flatly wrong.”


As a result, we are poised for a debate about the true sources of economic growth that will have a long-lasting impact on economic policy making. While the candidates’ personalities, campaign strategies, blunders, and gaffes will undoubtedly be the focus of much news coverage, the real story of the election will be the growing challenge to trickle-down economics.