Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, April 1, 2014


I... have... a... cold.
(*BLOWING MY NOSE*)

 This... sucks.
(*COUGH*)

 Oh, well...
(*SNIFFLE*)

Posted by at

10 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/31/cia-ignored-station-chief-in-libya-when-creating-t/?page=all#pagebreak

Before the Obama administration gave an inaccurate narrative...

* L*I*E*D...

* DELIBERATELY AND KNOWINGLY LIED...

...on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest, the CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred, documents and interviews with current and former intelligence officials show.

* FOLKS. NOTHING REALLY NEW HERE. JUST FURTHER CORROBORATION VIA FURTHER INTERVIEWING.

The attack was “not an escalation of protests,” the station chief wrote to then-Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell in an email dated Sept. 15, 2012 — a full day before the White House sent Susan E. Rice to several Sunday talk shows to disseminate talking points...

* L*I*E*S...

...claiming that the Benghazi attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video.

That the talking points used by Mrs. Rice, who was then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, were written by a CIA that ignored the assessment by its own station chief inside Libya, has emerged as one of the major bones of contention in the more than two years of political fireworks and congressional investigations into the Benghazi attack.

* FOLKS. AS I'VE NOTED TIME AND AGAIN, AMERICA HAS EXPERIENCED A POLITICAL COUP. MOST PEOPLE SIMPLY REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE IT AS SUCH. POLITICAL LOYALTY TRUMPS HONOR AND INTEGRITY AS NEVER BEFORE. (RECALL... EVENTUALLY THE GOP DID TURN ON NIXON.) WE CAN TRUST NEITHER THE MILITARY TOP BRASS NOR OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AS OVERSEEN AND CONTROLLED BY OBAMA/DEMOCRAT LOYALISTS.

Another former intelligence official told The Times that then-Deputy CIA Director Morell did tell the White House and the State Department that the CIA station chief in Libya had concluded that there was no protest but senior Obama administration and CIA officials in Washington ignored the assessment.

Why they ignored it remains a topic of heated debate within the wider intelligence community.

* OH, PLEASE! GIVE IT A FRIGGIN' REST! OF COURSE WE KNOW WHY THEY DID IT! AND OF COURSE WE KNOW WHY ONCE THEY DID IT THE "NEEDED" TO EXPAND AND CONTINUE THE COVER-UP OF OBAMA/CLINTON FOREIGN POLICY INCOMPETENCE! (AND... THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT... THEY WON RE-ELECTION IN LARGE PART BECAUSE THE COVER-UP WORKED!)

A third source told The Times on Monday that Mr. Morell and other CIA officials in Washington were weighing several pieces of “conflicting information” streaming in about the Benghazi attack as the talking points were being crafted. “That’s why they ultimately came up with the analysis that they did,” the source said. “The piece that was coming out of Tripoli was important, but it was one piece amid several streams of information.”

* BULLSHIT! WE'RE TALKING THE CIA'S STATION CHIEF DIRECTLY AND POINTEDLY TELLING HIS SUPERIORS IN WASHINGTON THAT "NO SUCH DEMONSTRATION OCCURRED."

One of the former intelligence officials said the Libya station chief’s assessment was being weighed against media reports from the ground in Benghazi that quoted witnesses as saying there had been a protest. Analysts at the CIA, the source said, also were weighing it against reporting by other intelligence divisions, including the National Security Agency. “The chief of station in Tripoli who was 600 or 700 miles away from the attacks wouldn’t necessarily have the only view of what actually went on in Benghazi,” that former official said.

* HERE'S THE PROBLEM, FOLKS... BOTH THE MILITARY AND CIA HAD ALREADY TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE THAT BENGHAZI WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK!

* HERE'S THE PROBLEM, FOLKS... RICE'S INTERVIEW DIDN'T TAKE PLACE THAT DAY... THAT NIGHT... BUT INSTEAD DAYS LATER!

U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack.

April 1, 2014 at 10:07 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/31/Gap-Between-Super-Rich-0-1-and-Poor-Grows

The rich keep getting richer and the gap between the super rich and poor has widened even more under President Barack Obama.

According to a report from Sadoff Investment Research, the "average household in the top 1% pulled in earnings of $1,264,065 in 2012," which is "41 times greater than the $30,997 average income of Americans."

But the top .1% did considerably better than the top 1%, posting "average earnings of $6,373,782 - or 206 times the average families' income."

According to the report, nearly a quarter of the .1% work in the financial industry, 40% are "executives, managers and supervisors," and a "vast majority of the 0.1% live in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington D.C. or Houston."

April 1, 2014 at 10:11 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2014/03/31/cleveland-clinic-ceo-three-quarters-of-americans-who-signed-up-for-obamacare-now-have-higher-premiums/

The CEO of the Cleveland Clinic says that a majority of Americans who signed up for ObamaCare have seen their premiums rise.

“About three-quarters of them find that their premiums are higher than they had been previously with other insurance,” Toby Cosgrove told Fox News.

Cosgrove explained that the Affordable Care Act is having a “major effect” upon health care providers. “We know for example that we’re going to get paid less for what we do,” Cosgrove stated. “Hospitals are going to be paid less for what they do. We also know that insurers are paying less for what we do.”

Cosgrove said providers need to “become more efficient” in how they deliver health care.

* MEANING... RATIONED CARE... A LOWER STANDARD OF CARE... OBAMACARE...

(*SIGH*)

April 1, 2014 at 10:19 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/30/political-hunt-for-sex-abusers-puts-military-justi/?page=all#pagebreak

The push from the commander in chief, generals and politicians to punish sexual offenders has become so relentless that it endangers the fairness of the military justice system, defense lawyers say.

* YA THINK...?!?!

A military judge already has ruled that “unlawful command influence” infected the infamous case of an Army general charged with a string of sex offenses.

John M. Dowd, a defense lawyer who charged the Marine Corps commandant with unlawful command influence in a dereliction of duty case, likened the political climate in Washington to a “hanging party.”

“We seem to be in a climate where folks can pick and choose which part of the criminal justice they like depending on their particular bias and political correctness,” Mr. Dowd said. “It does not seem to matter to the political and chattering classes that female officers are free to perjure themselves in sexual harassment cases without consequence. Perjury is a serious crime which subverts the entire system of justice. Do the ends justify the means? Is it more important to protect the system or just have a hanging party based on false accusations?”

* FOLKS... THIS IS OBAMA'S AMERIKA.

The Obama administration last year selected sexual assault in the military as a prime topic after a Pentagon survey found that 26,000 active-duty troops — 12,000 women and 14,000 men — said they were victims of “unwanted sexual contact” in 2012. Such behavior is defined as abusive sexual contact up to and including rape. The number officially reported to commanders was much smaller: 2,949 military victims in the 1.39 million active force.

The report said the justice system disposed of 444 “unfounded allegations.”

(*SMIRK*)

False accusations have risen 35% since 2009, the report states.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

The push from the top to punish sex abusers seems to be seeping into the justice system. In the infamous case of Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, who was accused of violating military ethics and sexual assault in Afghanistan, the military judge ruled that “unlawful command influence” tainted the prosecution. Outside political forces, including an advocate for the accused, behind the scenes urged a top general not to accept a plea bargain, which he then rejected. Gen. Sinclair pleaded guilty to lesser charges of improper relations with two female officers and conduct unbecoming an officer.

“The Obama administration is wrong in trying to redefine ‘justice’ to mean that a person’s guilt can be proven by accusations alone,” said Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness. “The Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair case was no different from many others, except for his rank. The judge was correct in suspending proceedings when a meddlesome ‘victim advocate’ tried to inject political considerations into the courtroom, egged on by politicians, the media, and nervous Pentagon officials.” “The ultimate long-term goal should be justice based on truth, not politics,” Ms. Donnelly said.

A Navy Top Gun F-18 pilot has conducted and posted online a study asserting that an “over-focus” on social issues, among a list of other fleet developments, is hurting retention. “Sailors continue to cite the over-focus on social issues by senior leadership, above and beyond discussions on war fighting — a fact that demoralizes junior and mid-grade officers alike,” Cmdr. Guy Snodgrass wrote this month on the U.S. Naval Institute website, an independent forum for active and retired sailors and Marines. “Put simply, there is no dollar amount that can be spent, or amount of training that can be conducted, that will completely eradicate complex issues such as suicide, sexual assault, or commanding officer reliefs for cause — yet we continue to expend immense resources in this pursuit,” he said. “Sailors are bombarded with annual online training, general military training, and safety stand-downs — all in an effort to combat problems that will never be defeated.”

April 1, 2014 at 10:40 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/business/cobalts-were-seen-as-lemons-from-start-state-data-shows.html?_r=0

Long before the Chevrolet Cobalt became known for having a deadly ignition defect, it was already seen as a lemon. Owners complained about power steering failures, locks inexplicably opening and closing, doors jamming shut in the rain — even windows falling out.

* GOVERNMENT MOTORS, FOLKS...

In more than 120 instances, General Motors was forced under state lemon laws to buy back faulty Cobalts, pay settlements to owners or let them trade in the cars, an analysis by The New York Times of state databases and court records shows. The buybacks came as dozens of claims were filed separately at G.M. from 2005 to 2009 that fit a specific pattern — moving cars, sometimes traveling at high speeds, would suddenly stop working.

“There were transmission issues, issues with the clutch, engine issues, air-conditioning issues,” James Gonzales of Riverview, Fla., said of his 2006 Cobalt, which G.M. repurchased under Florida’s lemon law. “Everything went wrong with that car, and everything that went wrong needed a big fix. Mechanically, it was a huge nuisance.”

* AND YET FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES PRESIDENT OBAMA SERVED AS AN UNPAID SPOKESPERSON LAUDING THIS VEHICLE!

General Motors declined to disclose how many Cobalts had been bought back under lemon laws... But in Florida, a state that collects data on repurchased lemons and some other buybacks, the Cobalt was the most-repurchased car in its class manufactured in 2005, its first model year. And in May 2005, G.M. was so alarmed by the early number of buybacks, according to a G.M. filing with federal regulators, that the automaker’s brand quality division urged its engineers to reopen an investigation into the car’s faulty ignition switch, which was one source of buyback complaints. The flawed switch, and G.M.'s failure to correct it for more than a decade, will be the focus of a congressional hearing on Tuesday, when Mary T. Barra, the G.M. chief, and David J. Friedman, acting head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, are scheduled to testify.

The automaker has linked 13 deaths to the defect in Cobalts and several other models. In her prepared remarks, filed with House investigators on Monday, Ms. Barra said, “I cannot tell you why it took years for a safety defect to be announced.”

The Times review of the lemon law databases shows the Cobalt had problems well beyond the ignition switch. Complaints from buyers included such bizarre occurrences as the engine running after the key had been removed. At least four of the repurchased cars in Florida were resold to new owners, The Times found, including one that was identified as potentially having an ignition switch problem.

(There is no law against reselling lemons, and a G.M. spokesman, Greg A. Martin, said the automaker “complies with all state lemon law requirements, including the resale of repurchased vehicles.”)

The Cobalt is among the six models of small cars that General Motors has recently recalled for the faulty ignition switch that is prone to turn off if it is bumped, shutting down the engine and disabling air bags. The automaker has recalled nearly 2.6 million of the cars, including over a million Cobalts, in the last two months.

April 1, 2014 at 12:34 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374498/papa-reid-matthew-continetti

Another man might have assumed, correctly, that launching a campaign of insult and insinuation against two billionaires would result in renewed attention to his own finances.

Not Harry Reid.

The fact that Harry Reid’s political and influence operation includes his five children has been established for some time. A few weeks ago, when I first heard Reid accuse private citizens of being un-American, I dredged up a Los Angeles Times article from 2003 with the headline, “In Nevada, the Name to Know Is Reid.”

Chuck Neubauer and Richard T. Cooper’s meticulously researched and reported article begins with the story of the “Clark County Conservation of Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002,” a land bill of the sort that puts people to sleep. “What Reid did not explain” when he introduced the bill in the Senate, Neubauer and Cooper wrote, “was that the bill promised a cavalcade of benefits to real-estate developers, corporations, and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons’ and son-in-law’s firms.”

(*SMIRK*)

Firms tied to the Reid family, the Los Angeles Times reported, earned more than $2 million from 1998 to 2002 “from special interests that were represented by the kids and helped by the senator in Washington.”

How much more have they earned in the eleven years since this article was published?

Land, energy, water, gaming, and mining — the Reids manage a diversified portfolio. They are not financial investors but political ones. Reid’s four sons are lawyers, as is his son-in-law. They make their money furthering the interests of paying clients, clients operating businesses in the state represented by Reid.

Those businesses are not necessarily American.

* NO...???

After a 2011 trip to China, Harry Reid began touting the virtues of ENN Energy Group, a Chinese firm that sought to build a $5 billion solar farm in Nevada. Reid’s son Rory represented ENN, though Rory claimed in a 2012 Bloomberg article never to have discussed “the project with my father or his staff.” Somehow, though, commissioners friendly with the Reid family agreed to sell property to ENN for one-sixth of the land’s appraised value.

* FOR ONE-SIXTH OF THE LAND'S APPRAISED VALUE...?!?!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 1, 2014 at 1:35 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

In another instance Reid pressured Homeland Security officials to approve the visas of Chinese casino investors represented by Rory Reid.

(Rory’s brothers should not feel left out, however. Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer says Papa Reid has “sponsored at least $47 million in earmarks that directly benefited organizations that one of his sons, Key Reid, either lobbies for or is affiliated with.”)

Who could have been surprised, then, when the Washington Post in 2012 “uncovered nearly 50 members who helped direct millions of dollars in earmarks to projects that either held the potential to enhance the surroundings of a lawmaker’s own property, or aided entities connected to their immediate family.”

One of those members was Reid.

The Post zeroed in on an almost $22 million earmark, passed close to a decade ago, that financed a bridge over the Colorado River. The bridge connects the gambling resorts of Laughlin, Nev., to Bullhead City, Az. Harry Reid owns 160 acres in Bullhead.

(*SNORT*)

Reid and his family appear to work within the confines of the law, which should not be surprising, because Reid writes that law, and illegal activity hurts the bottom line. Others are not so careful. Last year one of Reid’s longtime donors, Nevada lobbyist Harvey Whittemore, was sentenced to two years in prison after being found guilty of violating campaign-finance laws. Whittemore used associates as “straw donors” to run around donation limits, giving more than $130,000 in dirty money to Reid’s campaign. His sentence is delayed pending appeal.

This week we learned that Reid’s willingness to funnel other people’s money to members of his family extends to a third generation. On Wednesday the veteran Nevada journalist Jon Ralston reported that Harry Reid had used $31,000 in campaign funds to buy “gifts for my staff and supporters” from his granddaughter, Rory Reid’s daughter, Ryan Elisabeth Reid, a “performing-arts professional” living in Brooklyn.

* AND THIS SHIT IS LEGAL...

* GEEZUS...

Ryan Reid is the artistic director of the Sprat Theatre Company, which says it receives donations from the likes of the Caesars Foundation, the NV Energy Foundation, the Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Keep Memory Alive, one Peter Palivos, and the Clinton Global Initiative. (Peter Palivos is a Las Vegas developer, Reid donor, onetime client of Rory Reid, and convicted felon.)

(*CLAP...CLAP....CLAP*)

April 1, 2014 at 1:35 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374728/aca-still-falling-short-james-c-capretta

The ObamaCare open-enrollment season (supposedly) closed yesterday, so it is good time to step back and assess where things stand with the law and its first-year implementation.

Interestingly, ObamaCare remains something of a Rorschach test for journalists and health-policy analysts. Looking at the same set of facts, two observers can reach very different conclusions. For instance, Noam Levey of the Los Angeles Times writes that ObamaCare “has spurred the largest expansion in health coverage in America in half a century.” Meanwhile, health consultant Howard J. Peterson, writing at the Philadelphia Inquirer news site, says “the first four years of ObamaCare has led to solving about 10% of the problem of uninsured citizens.” He expects no further improvement in the coming years.

So which is it? Is ObamaCare on track to be an historic achievement? Or is it falling well short of the lofty goals set for it by the administration?

Americans were told that reform would lower costs for everyone...

* DIDN'T HAPPEN. COSTS ROSE FOR MOST - INCLUDING ME.

...and that no one would lose the policies they previously held and liked.

* OBVIOUSLY THAT TOO WAS A LIE.

People are dissatisfied with ObamaCare because they’ve realized the law will never deliver on these promises. Indeed, just yesterday it was announced that health-care costs rose at the fastest pace in a decade in the last three months of 2013. Most Americans are seeing no benefit whatsoever from ObamaCare, and in fact are paying much more than they ever have before.

The Obamacare exchanges reportedly will have enrolled at least 7 million persons in health insurance plans through the end of March.

* HOW MANY HAVE PAID THEIR PREMIUMS? WHAT PERCENTAGE ARE NOT BEING SUBSIDIZED BY... er... ME AND YOU?

As the Obama administration predicted, there was a large increase in sign-ups in the final days of the open-enrollment period, pushing the total enrollment numbers up[;] this is without question good news for the law’s supporters and a significant turnaround since last November.

* BUT IF THE LARGE INCREASE IN SIGN-UPS REPRESENTS PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T ACTUALLY PAID THEIR PREMIUMS YET...

* AND IF THE LARGE INCREASE IN SIGN-UPS REPRESENTS A NET NEW COST TO A GOVERNMENT DEEPLY IN DEBT WITH DEFICITS ON THE HORIZON AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE...

(*SHRUG*)

Administration officials realized when the fiasco was unfolding last fall that nothing mattered in the first year except getting people on the program — and so they did whatever was necessary to HealthCare.gov to make signing up easy. Those fixes are likely to lead to a large percentage of erroneous subsidy payments, as controls and other checks were turned off.

* ...AS CONTROLS AND OTHER CHECKS WERE TURNED OFF.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 1, 2014 at 6:31 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Seven million is also an overstatement of true enrollment in the insurance plans. About 20% or so of the enrollees have failed, or will fail, to continue payment of their required premiums, according to insurance-industry observers. So 7 million sign-ups translates into a little less than 6 million people who are expected to receive coverage.

And who are these enrollees?

Remember, ObamaCare forced the cancellation of many millions of insurance plans sold in the individual insurance market. The president later indicated that these plans could be reopened, but only in states with insurance regulators willing to go along with the president’s last minute change of heart. Some number of people with canceled plans likely ended up in the exchanges because they had no other real choice. Thus, several surveys have unsurprisingly shown that a relatively small percentage — perhaps one-third or lower — of the enrollees in the exchanges were previously uninsured.

* RE-READ THAT, FOLKS... RE-READ THAT LAST SENTENCE!

That implies that, so far, enrollment in the exchanges has reduced the ranks of the uninsured by about 2 million people.

* WHILE CAUSING ABSOLUTE CHAOS FOR MILLIONS OF OTHERS! WHILE CAUSING RATE SPIKES FOR MILLIONS OF OTHERS!

The administration also touts the Medicaid expansion as helping to reduce the uninsured. But most of the millions of new sign-ups in Medicaid are by people who were previously eligible for the program anyway. The number of people now on Medicaid who would otherwise have been uninsured is likely around 3 million or so at this point.

* AND AGAIN... HOW IS ADDING MORE PEOPLE TO THE DOLE "GOOD?" MY GUESS... GOVERNMENT CLINICS WHERE SUCH PEOPLE ARE TREATED FOR "FREE" WOULD BE FAR MORE COST-EFFECTIVE AND LESS FRAUD-ENCUMBERED THAN OBAMACARE.

The original goals for ObamaCare were far more ambitious. At the time of enactment, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that ObamaCare would lower the ranks of the uninsured by 19 million in 2014. Even as recently as last May, CBO estimated the reduction in the uninsured would be 14 million this year.

* GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT. WE'VE GONE OVER THIS BEFORE; THE DEMS DELIBERATELY GAVE THE CBO UNREALISTIC NUMBERS TO PLUG IN. IF THIS HAD HAPPENED TO YOU WHILE BUYING A NEW CAR THE DEALER WOULD GO TO JAIL FOR FRAUD.

Moreover, [post-ObamaCare,] for every newly insured American there are several others who are now getting far worse health coverage than they had last year. Their premiums have gone up. They are facing much higher deductibles. And they are being forced to pay for mandated benefits that they would rather not have. (This is the reason that ObamaCare's poll numbers continue to sink, and are unlikely to be buoyed by encouraging enrollment numbers.)

At its heart, Obamacare was a large-scale redistribution program. It provides large new subsidies to lower-income households and to those with previously expensive insurance due to risk rating of their premiums. These subsidies are paid for by raising premiums on many millions of previously insured households, raising taxes significantly, and cutting Medicare. The end result will be a reduction in the uninsured of some magnitude, that’s for sure. But it was never going to be hard to reduce the uninsured if that was all that concerned policymakers. Massive public subsidies and expansion of free public-insurance programs can expand insurance enrollment, so long as others were willing to pay for it.

But that wasn’t what was promised.

April 1, 2014 at 6:31 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.humanevents.com/2014/04/01/war-party-oligarch/

* BY PATRICK J. BUCHANAN

Is the Republican Party’s Middle East policy up for bid? For four days ending Sunday, a quartet of presidential hopefuls trooped to Las Vegas to attend the annual gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Sheldon Adelson, the Vegas-Macau casino mogul whose fortune is estimated at $39 billion — 8th richest man on the planet — and who dumped $92 million into the election of 2012, kept Newt Gingrich alive with a $15 million infusion of ad money, gutting Romney, and then sank $30 million into Mitt’s campaign. This time Sheldon wants to buy himself a winner.

Ari Fleischer, press secretary to Bush 43, and a member of Adelson’s RJC fiefdom, put it plain and simple: “The ‘Sheldon Primary’ is an important primary. … anybody running for the Republican nomination would want to have Sheldon at his side.”

The 2016 presidential hopefuls “are falling at his feet,” said a veteran Republican strategist of the 80-year-old oligarch. Each of those who came — Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Govs. Scott Walker and John Kasich — apparently auditioned, one by one, before the godfather.

During his talk before the few dozen members of the RJC, Gov. Chris Christie recounted his recent trip to Israel: “I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories” and came “to understand the military risk that Israel faces every day.”

(Christie’s effort at bonding boomeranged. An angry Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America confronted Christie to demand that he explain just what he meant by “occupied territories.”)

For half a century, the United States has considered the West Bank occupied land where Israeli settlements are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Whatever Christie’s response, it did not satisfy the ZOA or Klein who declared: “Either [Christie] doesn’t understand the issue, or he’s hostile to Israel.”

Whereupon Christie, in a private audience with Adelson, apologized.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

A source close to Adelson told Politico that Christie made clear “that he misspoke when he referred to the ‘occupied territories.’ And he conveyed that he is an unwavering friend and committed supporter of Israel, and was sorry for any confusion that came across as a result of the misstatement.”

The governor is a tough guy, but this sounds like groveling.

Is this what Republican presidential candidates must do now? Kowtow to this fattest of fat cats who wants to buy himself an American war on Iran? Is that what has become of the party of Reagan?

April 1, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)