So... Michele Bachmann is calling it quits after this, her fourth term, is up.
She announced in a video released yesterday that she won't be running for a fifth term.
Well... GOOD RIDDANCE says I!
Yep... after she announced her "surrender" to the RINOs in January via voting to re-elect Boehner (the Brainless and Ballless) to the House Speakership I washed my hands of her.
Remember, folks... Bachmann was the one who after having the courage to run for GOP nomination for president then showed even more courage by trying to "out" the corrupt forces within the Clinton State Department prior to the debacle in Benghazi... but after being shut down by Boehner and McCain(iac) that was the apparent end of her standing on principle.
I can't explain how today's GOP came to be today's GOP, but I will tell you this, folks - it's a disaster for the country.
For all intents and purposes we have a one-party progressive corporatist (fascist) oligarchy running American - and the world - off the road of liberty, progress, and prosperity. Indeed, just speaking financially, the oligarchs are robbing us blind. The Fed/Wall Street Dempublicans and Republicrats steer low interest due direct federal loans to the "private" banks who then turn around and "invest" them at slightly higher interest in Treasury bonds... and so it goes and so it goes as the debt pile up and the taxpayer who ends up paying via inflation also ends up holding the bag when eventually the whole mess blows up.
Liberty? The Constitution? A mere handful of Republican elected officials give a damn about the American Creed... American Ideals... Republican (as in "Republic") Ideals...
Those of you who read my newsbites and have the courage and intellect to face the truth know that I do not exaggerate! We've got some state governors who are worth a damn... four, five, maybe six U.S. senators... perhaps a couple... maybe three dozen (tops!) members of the House...
(*SHRUG*)
See, folks, the Democrats were smart! Back in the 19th and early 20th century the Republicans were known as the "Party of the Rich." (Fairly? Unfairly? It doesn't matter!) The problem with such a bedrock is that it's small. There are relatively few truly rich individuals and at the higher levels the richest of the rich get to have oversized influence over "their" party regardless of whether we're talking the Democrat or Republican Party! What the Democrats realized is that with their base of the poor and the unions along with their "share" of the truly wealthy, the way to lock in control was to become the party of the upper middle class... the professional managerial class... those who run government on a day to day basis, who run the educational and healthcare infrastructure...
(*SHRUG*)
Anyway, folks, my point - to wrap up from whence we started - is simply this: It doesn't matter that Bachmann is gone... she's been gone... she "left" in January - five months ago!
What does matter is that there aren't enough Ted Cruz and Rand Paul Republicans and thus when it comes right down to it...
(*SIGH*)
...for all intents and purposes your choices at the ballot box come down to Democrat vs. Democrat Lite - aka: RINO.
7 comments:
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/05/28/fire-eric-holder-column/2367713/
* BY JONATHAN TURLEY
Recently, Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions about the administration's sweeping surveillance of journalists with the Associated Press. In the greatest attack on the free press in decades, the Justice Department seized phone records for reporters and editors in at least three AP offices as well as its office in the House of Representatives. Holder, however, proceeded to claim absolute and blissful ignorance of the investigation, even failing to recall when or how he recused himself.
* ...EVEN "FAILING TO RECALL" WHEN OR HOW HE RECUSED HIMSELF.
I am neither a Republican nor conservative, and I believe Holder should be fired.
Holder is what we call a "sin eater" inside the Beltway — high-ranking associates who shield presidents from responsibility for their actions. Richard Nixon had H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. Ronald Reagan had Oliver North and Robert "Bud" McFarlane. George W. Bush had the ultimate sin eater: Dick Cheney, who seemed to have an insatiable appetite for sins to eat.
For Obama, there has been no better sin eater than Holder. When the president promised CIA employees early in his first term that they would not be investigated for torture, it was the attorney general who shielded officials from prosecution. When the Obama administration decided it would expand secret and warrantless surveillance, it was Holder who justified it. When the president wanted the authority to kill any American he deemed a threat without charge or trial, it was Holder who went public to announce the "kill list" policy.
Last week, the Justice Department confirmed that it was Holder who personally approved the equally abusive search of Fox News correspondent James Rosen's e-mail and phone records in another story involving leaked classified information. In the 2010 application for a secret warrant, the Obama administration named Rosen as "an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator" to the leaking of classified materials. The Justice Department even investigated Rosen's parents' telephone number, and Holder was there to justify every attack on the news media.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Yet, at this month's hearing, the attorney general had had his fill. Accordingly, Holder adopted an embarrassing mantra of "I have no knowledge" and "I had no involvement" throughout the questioning. When he was not reciting the equivalent to his name, rank and serial number, he was implicating his aide, Deputy Attorney General James Cole. Cole, it appears, is Holder's sin eater. Holder was so busy denying responsibility for today's scandals, he began denying known facts about older scandals, such as the "Fast and Furious" gun operation.
In the end, Holder was the best witness against his continuing in office. His insistence that he did nothing was a telling moment. The attorney general has done little in his tenure to protect civil liberties or the free press. Rather, Holder has supervised a comprehensive erosion of privacy rights, press freedom and due process. This ignoble legacy was made possible by Democrats who would look at their shoes whenever the Obama administration was accused of constitutional abuses.
On Thursday, Obama responded to the outcry over the AP and Fox scandals by calling for an investigation by ... you guessed it ... Eric Holder.
Our President ordered Holder to meet with news media representatives to hear their "concerns" and report back to him.
Obama sent his old sin eater for a confab with the very targets of the abusive surveillance. Such an inquiry offers no reason to trust its conclusions.
* REPEAT: "SUCH AN INQUIRY OFFERS NO REASON TO TRUST ITS CONCLUSIONS."
The feeble response was the ultimate proof that these are Obama's sins despite his effort to feign ignorance. It did not matter that Holder is the sin eater who has lost his stomach or that such mortal sins are not so easily digested. Indeed, these sins should be fatal for any attorney general.
* WHICH STILL LEAVES US WITH... OBAMA.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/29/news/economy/furlough-unemployment-benefits/index.html
The local union affiliate of International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers has signed an agreement with the Navy which would allow their civilian federal workers to group furlough days in one-week blocks. It's a strategy with one key goal: enable those employees to recoup some of their lost wages through unemployment checks.
Here's how it works:
Bill Coleman, a mechanical engineer who works for the Navy, makes around $104,000 a year, before taxes. Like most Department of Defense employees, he expects to be furloughed for 11 days between July and September. He will lose roughly $4,400 in pay during that stretch.
If his furlough days are scattered throughout the three month period, he will not qualify for unemployment benefits in Pennsylvania. Workers in that state cannot earn more than $745 in one week and still qualify for unemployment benefits.
* QUESTION: FEDERAL WORKERS PAY INTO STATE UNEMPLOYMENT FUNDS...?
Based on government pay grades, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry estimates most federal employees will not be eligible for benefits unless they work less than 28 hours per week. Indeed, if Coleman works just four days a week he would surpass the $745 limit.
However, the scenario changes completely now that Coleman can group his furlough days together in five-day blocks.
In that case, he will lose a full week of wages at a time, and the state would consider him like any other worker on a temporary layoff. Coleman hopes this will allow him to collect roughly $1,100 in unemployment checks this summer.
* AND COLMAN HAS BEEN PAYING INTO THE PA UNEMPLOYMENT POOL...???
"I went through a very expensive divorce, I have five kids - two of them are in college - and I can't afford this," he said. "When you take away 20% of my salary during those three months, it's putting me into the range where I do not have money left for gasoline and food."
* BTW... JULY HAS 31 DAYS... AUGUST HAS 31 DAYS... SEPTEMBER HAS 30 DAYS... COLEMAN IS LOSING 11 DAYS PAY - OUT OF 66 WEEK DAYS PAID. (HE'LL BE GETTING PAID FOR 55 DAYS HE'LL WORK PLUS HIS PAID HOLIDAYS THAT FALL DURING THESE MONTHS.)
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100461159
The U.S dollar is shrinking as a percentage of the world's currency supply, raising concerns that the greenback is about to see its long run as the world's premier denomination come to an end.
When compared to its peers, the dollar has drifted to a 15-year low, according to the International Monetary Fund, indicating that more countries are willing to use other currencies to do business.
For a country with a budget deficit in excess of $1 trillion a year, the consequences of losing standing as the world's reserve currency would be dire.
"If the dollar loses status as the world's most reliable currency the United States will lose the right to print money to pay its debt. It will be forced to pay this debt," Dick Bove, vice president of equity research at Rafferty Capital Markets, said. "The ratings agencies are already arguing that the government's debt may be too highly rated. Plus, the United States Congress, in both its houses, as well as the president are demonstrating a total lack of fiscal credibility."
Generally speaking, it is not believed by the vast majority that the American dollar will be overthrown," Bove said in a note. "But it will be, and this defrocking may occur in as short a period as five to 10 years."
"The No. 1 security issue we have as a nation is the preservation of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency," said Michael Pento, president of Pento Portfolio Strategies. "It's a thousand times more important than a nuclear bomb being tested by North Korea. It's a thousand times more important that we keep the dollar as the world's reserve currency, and yet we are doing everything to abuse that status."
"Five to 10 years - that would be an outlier," Pento said. "I would say 2015, 2016, that would be the time when it becomes a particularly salient issue. When we're spending 30% to 50% of our revenue on debt service payments, we enter into a bond market crisis. The dollar starts to drop along with bond prices. That would set off the whole thing."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/29/us-usa-justice-holder-idUSBRE94S12I20130529
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and colleague James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin sent a letter to Holder saying recent media reports "appear to be at odds with your sworn testimony."
* HOLDER LIED. UNDER OATH.
At the May 15 hearing, Holder said he had never been involved in any decision to pursue a criminal investigation of a journalist and said it would not be "wise policy" to do so.
* AND YET...
Last week, news outlets reported that Holder had approved a decision to seek a search warrant for Fox News email records as part of a leak investigation. Reuters later reported Holder signed off on a subpoena for telephone records as well.
(*SHRUG*)
The Fox News reporter involved, James Rosen, was described as a "co-conspirator" by investigators, but was not charged.
* BUT... WAS... NOT... CHARGED...
(*SHRUG*)
* FOLKS... I'M NOT A LAWYER... BUT I KNOW THAT THE FIRST TWO JUDGES SUBPENAS WERE SOUGHT FROM SAID NO... IT WAS ONLY AFTER "JUSTICE" DESCRIBED ROSEN AS A "CO-CONSPIRATOR" THAT A THIRD JUDGE SIGNED OFF ON THE REQUEST. HOWEVER... IF THE JUSTIFICATION (CO-CONSPIRACY) "JUSTICE" PROVIDED WAS NOT ENOUGH FOR THEM TO INDICT, THEN THE QUESTION IS DID "JUSTICE" DELIBERATELY SEEK TO TRICK THE JUDGE INTO BELIEVING THAT THEIR SUBPENA REQUEST (REMEMBER... TWICE NIXED ALREADY) WAS LEGITIMATE WHEN IT WASN'T. (SURE LOOKS LIKE IT TO ME!)
In a defense of Holder, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that Holder had testified truthfully.
* HOW'S THAT A "DEFENSE" OF HOLDER...?!?! THAT'S JAY CARNEY SHOOTING HIS MOUTH OFF... GIVING HIS OPINION... PROVIDING NO EVIDENCE OR EVEN VIABLE ANALYSIS TO BUTTRESS HIS CONTENTION!
Carney told reporters at a briefing on Wednesday there was an "extremely large distinction" between describing a reporter as a co-conspirator and charging him with a crime.
* BUT NOT WHEN ONE IS SEEKING A SUBPENA FROM A JUDGE AND AFTER HAVING TWO JUDGES SAY "NAY" TELLING THE THIRD JUDGE THAT THE SUSPECT WAS A "CO-CONSPIRATOR" YET THEM REFUSING TO CHARGE THAT "CO-CONSPIRATOR" WITH A CRIME! WAS THE WIG PULLED OVER THE THIRD JUDGE'S EYES - THAT'S THE QUESTION! THE ANSWER SEEMS SELF-EVIDENT!
Carney said there are no plans to prosecute Rosen.
* EXACTLY!
President Barack Obama "absolutely" has confidence in Holder to continue as the chief U.S. law enforcement officer, Carney said.
* OF COURSE HE DOES! HOLDER IS OBAMA'S CREATURE!
Concern from journalists and free speech advocates last week prompted Obama to order a review of Justice Department procedures governing investigations that involve reporters. Many of those procedures predate email.
* YES... OBAMA ORDERED HOLDER TO INVESTIGATE... HOLDER.
(*SNORT*)
The Republicans' letter asks Holder to give a detailed account of his role and to respond to eight questions, including whether the Justice Department ever intended to prosecute Rosen.
* AND THAT SHOULD CLEAR THINGS UP... (ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!)
A Justice spokesman was not available for comment.
* NO... OF COURSE NOT...
(*SNORT*)
U.S. Representative John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Holder had been "forthright and did not mislead the committee."
* NOT THAT THERE AREN'T PLENTY OF REPUBLICANS WHO ARE BUT THE FLIP SIDE OF THE CONYERS OF THIS WORLD, BUT WOULDN'T IT BE REFRESHING IF THERE WERE NO CONYERS... NO PARTISANS WILLING TO PLACE PARTISANSHIP ABOVE PRINCIPLE AND ABOVE THE RULE OF LAW?
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/former-white-house-official-deletes-embarrassing-tweet-about-koch-brothers-taxes_731862.html
In August 2010, Austan Goolsbee, serving at the time as economic adviser to President Obama, told reporters during an anonymous background briefing that Koch Industries doesn't pay corporate income taxes.
That statement was made at the same time that top Democrats, including President Obama himself, were demonizing Charles and David Koch, the owners of Koch Industries, for giving money to Tea Party groups.
Goolsbee's remark led to a federal investigation, the results of which have never been released.
In a September 2010 Weekly Standard interview, Mark Holden, a lawyer for Koch Industries, disputed Goolsbee's claim and asked how Goolsbee came up with the idea that Koch Industries doesn't pay corporate taxes.
Holden raised the question of whether someone in the Obama administration might have looked at Koch Industries' tax returns - which would be a violation of a federal law that was enacted in 1976 in response to Watergate.
(*NOD*)
The White House never formally explained how it came up with the claim, but an anonymous White House official told Ben Smith, then a reporter at Politico, that the claim was based on testimony to President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board and publicly available sources, such as Forbes magazine and Koch Industries' website.
Koch lawyer Mark Holden said the White House's explanation didn't make sense: "[C]ontrary to the administration official's statement on what sources were used by the administration, neither the Koch website nor Forbes' list of private companies has information regarding Koch's tax filing status. This is confidential information."
* SO AN "ANONYMOUS OBAMA WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL" LIED TO LIBERAL POLITICAL REPORTER BEN SMITH AND SMITH RAN WITH THE LIE...
(*SHRUG*)
* NO SURPRISE THERE. BUSINESS AS USUAL!
A letter from Republican senators led to an investigation by Treasury inspector general J. Russell George. But after the investigation was completed, George wrote in an October 2011 letter to Senator Charles Grassley that, due to confidentiality provisions of the law, he could not tell Grassley if anyone had illegally accessed Koch Industries tax returns or if the inspector general had taken any actions following his investigation.
* READ THAT AGAIN, FOLKS... RE-READ IT A FEW TIMES...
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
Without the inspector general's report, we don't know where the White House came up with the claim that Koch Industries doesn't pay corporate income taxes.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
But earlier this month, Austan Goolsbee offered a new explanation in light of the unfolding IRS scandal.
Goolsbee wrote on Twitter: @joerepublic1 there was no secret info on koch bros. It came fr/heresptimes.com/2003/12/28/Sta… but was a mistake - one of the other Koch bros. — Austan Goolsbee (@Austan_Goolsbee) May 14, 2013
If true, that's an embarrassing explanation of Goolsbee's 2010 remarks. The article Goolsbee cited as the basis for his false claim that Charles and David Koch don't pay federal corporate income taxes was a 2003 St. Petersburg Times report that a different Koch brother did not pay corporate taxes to the state of Florida.
* AHH... BUT HERE'S WHERE THE PLOT THICKENS! (READ ON!)
Sometime since Slate reporter Dave Weigel quoted the Goolsbee tweet on Friday, Goolsbee deleted it.
Why?
Did Goolsbee delete it simply because it was embarrassing? Or was it not true?
* OR... WAS... IT... NOT... TRUE...?
Koch Industries lawyer Mark Holden says the explanation is implausible. "It is hard for me to believe what Mr. Goolsbee is saying now on Twitter, after not raising it 3 years ago when this came up, and he and the White House stated his comments about Koch not paying taxes and how it structured itself for tax purposes were based on Forbes article, our website, and PERAB testimony," Holden wrote in an email to the Weekly Standard.
"As you recall, when we challenged those assertions the White House said Goolsbee was 'mistaken' and 'we (White House and Goolsbee) won’t' say this again. Now after the TIGTA investigation is closed, he offers yet another reason – a 2003 newspaper article that doesn’t deal with Koch Industries or federal tax issues. Very hard to believe this and makes me wonder what he really relied upon and what is in the TIGTA report."
* IT DOES SOUND FISHY...!
On Tuesday, I asked Goolsbee why he is now citing the St. Petersburg Times article when the White House pointed to different sources in 2010. He didn't reply. Nor did Goolsbee respond when asked if he met with IRS officials at the White House.
(*SMIRK*)
As the saying goes, never assume malice when stupidity will suffice. But in light of the recent IRS scandals involving not just the targeting of conservative groups for extra scrutiny but also the sharing of confidential tax information, the administration doesn't exactly deserve the benefit of the doubt.
* NOPE. ONE WOULD THINK NOT!
Without the inspector general's report, we can't know for sure if the Obama administration was merely guilty of stupidity and demagoguery regarding the Koch brothers - or something worse.
* BTW...
Both Koch Industries and the White House now agree the claim that Koch Industries doesn't pay corporate income taxes is false, but we don't know the claim is false without seeing Koch Industries' tax returns.
Post a Comment