Header Image (book)


Friday, November 7, 2014

A Few Ideas

Post-election euphoria on the part of the victors is normal. Euphoria, however, is not governance.

What are the realities of the American political situation once the new Congress takes office in January?

Let's talk specifics — feasible specifics.

There is not enough of a majority in Congress to override the Presidential veto. Furthermore, one-branch governance, which Obama has employed, is unconstitutional; that same principle of unconstitutionality also applies to the legislative branch.

Any GOP opposition to Obama's policies has been portrayed by the Obama Administration and has caused a perception of the GOP as "The Party of No."

Turn the tables. Make the Obama Administration "The Party of No."

Perceptions aren't the whole ball of wax, either. WE THE PEOPLE have spoken via the ballot box, and this Congress was elected to get something done.

A few ideas as to what can be done (George F. Will, Washington Post):
● Abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB is empowered to “declare,” with no legislative guidance or institutional inhibitions, that certain business practices are “abusive.” It also embodies progressivism’s authoritarianism by being, unlike any entity Congress has created since 1789, untethered from all oversight mechanisms...

● Repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board....Under this constitutional travesty, an executive-branch agency makes laws unless the legislative branch enacts alternative means of achieving the executive agency’s aim. The Affordable Care Act stipulates that no measure for the abolition of the board can be introduced before 2017 or after Feb. 1, 2017, and must be enacted by Aug. 15 of that year. So, one Congress presumed to bind all subsequent Congresses in order to achieve progressivism’s consistent aim — abolishing limited government by emancipating presidents from restraint by the separation of powers....

● Repeal the Affordable Care Act’s tax on medical devices. This $29 billion blow to an industry that provides more than 400,000 jobs is levied not on firms’ profits but on gross revenues, and it comes on top of the federal (the developed world’s highest) corporate income tax, plus state and local taxes. Enough Democrats support repeal that a presidential veto might be overridden.

● Improve energy, economic and environmental conditions by authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

● Mandate completion of the nuclear waste repository in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. The signature achievement of Harry Reid’s waning career has been blocking this project, on which approximately $15 billion has been spent. So, rather than nuclear waste being safely stored in the mountain’s 40 miles of tunnels 1,000 feet underground atop 1,000 feet of rock, more than 160 million Americans live within 75 miles of one or more of the 121 locations where 70,000 tons of waste are stored.

● Pass the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. It would require that any regulation with at least a $100 million annual impact on the economy — there are approximately 200 of them in the pipeline — be approved without amendments by a joint resolution of Congress and signed by the president.
Read the entire essay HERE.

Also see Wildstar's comment to the blog post below this one.  Worth your time to read that comment!

In my view, the impractical should not be attempted so often by the GOP that the GOP is perceived as "The Party of No."

Turn the tables.  Make the Obama Administration "The Party of No."

Additional reading and worth your time: Messages and Messengers. The last paragraph is a gem!


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.


  2. Yes, Let's Take a Reality Check!
    Let’s stop tip-toeing around politically correctness and call a “Spade a Spade”, lets grow a pair and say it like it is. As a Jewish Veteran of a Four Year Term in the United States Army, I resent Mr. Barack Obama’s attitude towards Israel !!!
    How embarrassing it is to have a President that is literally is not only weakening America's defenses, but who hates the people of MY hermitage. To treat Mr. Netanyahu as if he was our Enemy and not our Ally!! Calling Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, a “CHICKENSHIT” AND “A COWARD” !!
    Let me say that with this week’s Blood-Bath win, lets hope that the republicans take a new look at the Mid-East and redefine our friendship and our need for Israel and renew our friendship towards them and treat them as our Ally once again. Perhaps they can teach us a few lessons, like building a fence on our boards.

    1. Dorcas Mayflower said

      A lot of people don't like Jews. So what? A lot of people don't like a lot of things. People are like that. You ought to be used to it by now. Your people being the object of hostility is no different from other types of old enmities some of which have lasted for centuries.Living in this world is tough for everybody, so please stop whining. Obama has been bad news for all of us not just Israel.

  3. The Barack Obama that I have seen for the past 6 years will absolutely not lay down and allow the Republicans to step all over his plans... you haven't even begun to see anything like the tirade that Obama is about to embark upon,. Now that he is in deep doo-doo. He’s going to be like a Rabid Dog. And that’s going to give you another reason to hate progressives!

  4. The GOP must keep a consistent gaze on the needs of We the People who elected them to serve. Function, as if the POTUS is the invisible lever of the end game. Govern responsibly and pass responsible legislation. The invisible lever will then respond with an executive order which shows disdain for due process. Or he may well respond with a veto which shows little consideration to the fact that the People have a voice.

    Governance must continue so the voting record of both sides can be established. Which party is the lackey of an authoritarian narcissist? Which party is the servant of a Republican form of governance?

    Governance should be firm with careful guardianship via the authority invested by our Constitution. Our officials must be careful to function as Constitutionalists and not partisans. A gaze consistently focused on the needs of the People as opposed to the maintenance of the party machine is critical. The machine functions within Constitutional scaffolding. It will do fine.

    Will the people suffer excessively with two more years of President Obama and his ideological playhouse? Probably.

    We must play the waiting game by keeping the focus on the promise and not the problem. The promise is of a future strengthened America with a healthy populace unshackled from the increased bondage inflicted by the current administration. The problem? It will take care of itself in two years. We will speak again.

    Patience with virtue....


    1. Tammy,
      Governance must continue so the voting record of both sides can be established.

      I'm glad that you brought that up!

      I believe that one reason for Obama's win in 2008 was a lack of evidence of his voting record. What kind of voting record did he have? Not much. Therefore, hard to pin him down with facts.

      Now of course, he has a governing record. It's not great. Even the liberals are saying that he's a poor manager.

      Once again, if he vetoes everything that comes to his desk, he becomes The Party of Now -- and while the people are suffering excessively (as you pointed out). The suffering is going to be mostly the direct result of his and his Party's policies. WE THE PEOPLE are going to feel the suffering and be able to recognize the source thereof, too.

      I wonder how people are going to feel when they file their 2014 tax returns.

      Also, note this information about grandfather health-insurance plans. Very informative article -- and some of the information there could affect me and many others. I have a grandfathered plan, which I love. But if it changes, it will no longer qualify -- with devastating consequences. Hmmmm....

      The additional-reading link in the blog post makes this excellent point:

      Republicans not only have won the issue war, at least for the time being, they are also well-stocked with a new generation of leaders.

      The Democratic Party -- especially Hillary Clinton -- looks downright geriatric, too.

    2. "President Obama and his ideological playhouse"

      Now, that speaks volumes!

    3. I'll ask you Berg on the slim chance you've been able to stop seeing black every time you look at Obama, where am I wrong.

      The Obama administration had four objectives:

      ▪ Health care “reform” — a privatized alternative to Medicare expansion
      ▪ A “Grand Bargain” in which social insurance benefits are rolled back
      ▪ Plentiful oil & gas, and passage of the Keystone pipeline
      ▪ Passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement

      Please tell me which of those objectives are in any danger.

      While you're at it, please tell me which benefit the middle class.

  5. Great post, AOW.

    Please allow me to add to your reality check.

    To those screaming for the GOP to repeal Obamacare, I ask a simple question:


    Some races are still up in the air, but lets make a generous assumption that the GOP will have 55 senate seats and 250 house seats.

    It takes a 2/3 vote in each body to override the president's veto.

    That's 67 senators and 288 congressmen.

    Which 12 Democrat senators do you imagine will vote to override the president's veto (or, which five senators will even vote for cloture on the original repeal bill?)

    Which 38 Democrat congressmen (38!!!) will vote against their president?

    Answer me that, and then we can talk repeal.

    1. Which 12 Democrat senators do you imagine will vote to override the president's veto (or, which five senators will even vote for cloture on the original repeal bill?)
      Especially since the bluedogs have been purged.

    2. So now you admit, ducky, that only the extremists are left in the Democrat Party.

    3. Actually Farmer, what I admit is that there is NO progressive movement in this nation and the only hope the middle class has in this nation is that they freaking wise up in two years.

      Now go shake your chains like good little slaves.

    4. Duck,
      Which 12 Democrat senators do you imagine will vote to override the president's veto (or, which five senators will even vote for cloture on the original repeal bill?)

      Be realistic. You know how politicians are. They will say anything to keep their "jobs."

    5. Not so much keep their jobs as keep the money spigot on.

      But SCOTUS has been packed and we have gone through the last 35 years getting an object lesson on why unregulated kapital and democracy are incompatible.

      So unless we stop listening to this "money is speech" nonsense and start to unwind this there is no hope for the middle class. Stick a fork in them.

    6. Unregulated kapital (ala Bretton Woods) is not limited capital (ala - unregulated "gold" standard) ducky.

      The train when off the tracks when we started listening to the idiot Keynesians.

    7. Boom and bust cycles are needed to weed out the weaker players.

    8. Teddy Roosevelt was a "Progressive". He was also a Trust Buster.

      Today's "progressives" are NEITHER.

    9. Today's "progressives" are out-and out MARXISTS.


    10. FreeThinke, Define Marx's view on excess labor and its impact on society. As productivity and effiencies improve as it has through science and technology fewer labor man hours are required to meet consumer demand. How does society handle excess labor?

      Reasonable questions. Your response, absent
      the usual sophistry, hyperbole, and usual pontificating will be appreciated.

      Thank you in advance.

      Razors Edge

    11. How does "society" handle it?

      People migrate into new industries, new technologies are developed...

      That's the way it's always worked.

      Are you still lamenting the plight of the candlemakers?

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. I can only assume that repealing the Consumer Protection Act is a kneejerk reaction to that nasty commie Elizabeth Warren.

    Once again the middle class desires to become a useful tool in it's own destruction.
    Nothing was learned from the financial collapse. Nothing.

    1. You're comment is predicated on the unfounded assumption that consumer protection depends upon a bureaucratic board of that name.

      Why not have government install an Economic Prosperity board?

      Happiness for All Bureau

      Fairness Board

      Crush all Mean People Commission

      Global Peace and Happiness Agency


    2. @ Ducky: "Nothing was learned from the financial collapse. Nothing."

      The passage of Dodd Frank, enshrining too big to fail, proved that. Tell us something we don't know.

      You want Wall Street to get back to sanity? Yank the F'ing taxpayer safety net out from under them.

      They crap their pants, they clean it up.

      Pass a simple law that makes the corporations officers liable for losses incurred, with all personal property confiscated before taxpayers put up on dime for a bailout.

      For all the fuss and blather, Obama has not thrown even one of his fatcat Wall Street Bankster cronies in jail for the damage they caused.

      Obama has not broken up even one Too Big to Fail financial fatboy.

      Bernie Madoff was a dimestore candy pilferer compared to the Wall Street pirates Obama rubs elbows with.

    3. The CPB is how the Left will ensure that bank loans will be monitored according to "affirmative action" criteria and "Sub-Prime" gets elevated and mixed into "Prime". It was too obvious in the CRA.

      Make the Middle Class pay higher interest rates to subsidize bank losses for bad loans to minorities.

    4. ...cuz that's what happened to FHA loans. The sub-primes got dumped into the same basket with them.

    5. When Liz Warren was 12, the bank repossessed her family car. Her dad had gotten sick, and he couldn't pay the medical bills. She's been sh*tting on the banks ever since.

      Paybacks are H-E-L-L

    6. Silverfiddle, why do you harp on the fact that the financial sector owns our government and the election process and at the same time belittle Elizabeth Warren who is trying to publicize the issue?

      Repeal Glass- Steagall? I see you're a big fan of equity bubbles.

    7. Pass a simple law that makes the corporations officers liable for losses incurred, with all personal property confiscated before taxpayers put up on dime for a bailout.
      Dream on, little dreamer, dream on.

      Were you paying any attention, Tuesday?
      Are you aware of anyone elected who would actually attempt to pass something like that?

      Meanwhile, we have Farmer still ranting that minority loans were the reason the American investment banking system went teats up.

      Like I say, you guys live in a dream world.

    8. Ducky,
      Setting up another useless government bureau might make the leftwing progs feel all warm inside, but it accomplishes nothing.

      Errata: I meant to say: Reinstate Glass Steagall.

      The pirates of high finance can inflate all the equity bubbles they want so long as they're the ones paying when it blows, not the US taxpayer.

    9. Ducky,
      Someone who believes more government regulations and more government "watchdogs" will save us dares to call other dreamers?

      Thanks for the Friday afternoon laugh. Did you really have a straight face when you typed that?

    10. I see, Silver, so the equity bubble can explode and the financial industry will somehow discover the capital to reinvigorate lending. And without the Federal government.

      I really want to hear more detail on how that works.
      You have to be kidding. Come on, even Greenspan admitted that kind of idea is a pipe dream.

    11. Meanwhile, we have Farmer still ranting that minority loans were the reason the American investment banking system went teats up.

      When Big G is there to cover the bank's (or Obamacare Insurer's...or FANNIE/FREDDY mortgage bundler's) losses and bail them out, we don't have a private sector investment and banking system anymore, we've got a government welfare distribution system.

    12. BINGO! The prize for clarity, brevity and accuracy goes to Thersites!

    13. That's true enough, Farmer but it has nothing to do with affirmative action loans.

    14. I can't improve on what Thersites said, but here's my answer to your question to me:

      If people who own "Kapital" know that if they lost it, it's gone and Uncle Sam won't refill their pockets, they won't be foolish and gamble with it. They will only make prudent loans and investments. You won't need hordes of bureaucratic "watchdogs" because the industry will police itself. Over-educated little imps caught making financial stinkbombs in the basement will be fired, and probably prosecuted by company executives who are responsible for the consequences.

      That is called a self-correcting system based upon human nature, rather that tottering government Rube Goldberg schemes.

      Of course, the downside of this, for it to work, government can't order the owners of the "Kapital" to do irresponsible things with it, and what fun is that :-(

    15. ... the downside of this, for it to work, government can't order the owners of the "Kapital" to do irresponsible things with it, and what fun is that?" :-(

      Aye, there's the rub. The Unholy Alliance between Government and Big Business, which came about as a direct reaction to the inroads made by early Progressives on Business prerogatives (think TR and Trust Busting here) soon became monstrous. Since the advent of FDR government has been PRETENDING to cater to the needs and desires of the Common Man, and all the while the Government-Business Alliance has been working ceaselessly to destroy even the hope of upward mobility.

      Ater all the GBA needs a vast army of slaves in order to oil and grease its machinery and maintain its ascendancy.

  8. So just what are the 'issues' that Conservatives are all upset, and get their panties in a wad about?
    Thing like:
    1. Flag burning
    2. Gay marriage
    3. Union workers have better jobs than non-union workers. They should have crappy jobs like the rest of us.
    4. Democrats have not yet paid off the huge national debt that Republicans have created.
    5. Democrats have not yet stopped all the wars that Republicans started.
    6. The poor have too much money
    7. The rich do not have enough money
    8. All Americans will soon have access to medical care
    9. The First Lady encouraged kids to eat their vegetables
    10. The President will not admit that he was born in Kenya
    11. The President will not admit that Death Panels are being set up by the Federal Government. .
    So, in order to solve these terrible problems, Conservatives go to the polls and vote for lower wages for themselves, lack of education for their kids, and tax cuts for the wealthy. Sorry, George W. Bush, but this whole mess is still your fault. Let these Teabaggers say what they may.
    Conservatism: They don't call it 'The Big Con' for nothing.
    What you Teabaggers, Conservatives and Republicans don't recognize is that;
    Bush, McCain and Romney are uber wealthy who come from elite families. The last 4 GOP candidates were born into prestige and good names. Yet conservatives cannot seem to realize that these men cannot and do not relate to the life that most of us lead. They do not have to worry about basic survival, paying the bills or keeping afloat. But you seem to be unable to realize that they do not understand working for a pay check month to month. It is not surprising that they create policies who benefit people like them, wealthy, elite and out of touch. It makes sense that the GOP legislates for the rich, by the rich.
    The man to blame for what’s happening in Iraq, and in Syria, is not President Obama — it’s President Bush.
    I can remember when someone would object to Bush's decision to invade Iraq after we had already invaded Afghan,the Republicans Called Them Traitors, and other names that I won’t even begin to mention. Invading Iraq was entirely Bush's call. Deal with it.

    1. Hey conblaster,

      The year 2003 called. It wants you to return its red propaganda.

    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    3. Duck,
      Got news for you. Not in MY Name is not FT.

      Besides, I don't know what all this weather chat is about.

      Off-topic comments will be deleted.

  9. Your Guardian Angel said

    Here's an off-topic comment for you:

    Unless and until you change the name of this blog to coincide with reality, and call it DUCKY'S CORNER, I shall absent myself indefinitely. If that happens, you might be sorry, because I have been a good friend to Always on Watch for a long time.

    Not a threat, just an observation. Enough is enough.

    My stomach isn't strong enough to participate with so much stinking garbage in the air all the time now.

    1. This is not DUCKY'S CORNER.

      If you want to leave, that's your prerogative. I don't run an echo chamber. Nor do I succumb to threats; your disclaimer in that regard is disingenuous.

  10. IMO, President Obama HAS led the nation. The problem is that this country is still in love with a fantasy of what it is not.
    Yes, Obama could have done more to promote his policies and successes, but the population was listening and watching an out-of-control media scaring them about a fictitious "epidemic" that hasn't happened here! It was a distraction from Mr. Obama’s successes, and his accomplishments.
    This election will fade in time, and in time the Democrats will come back in power. It's all cyclical.
    Aside from that, I attribute the Republican "wins" to apathy, suppression, dark money, and massive underhanded election cheating, election fraud, etc, and etc.
    Besides, if the country were trending conservative, how does one explain Obama's OVERWHELMING re-election, and his Obamacare victory!

    We, on the Left have see the quality of the people who vote for the GOP: white supremacists, anti-women (not ONE GOPer voted for equal pay for women), anti science, anti-environment, and let's not forget the pornographers and low-lifes who are The Porn Queen's best buddies. That's mostly who voted on Tuesday. I said "mostly," not all.
    This election was decided by older white, rich, stupid, uninformed, people. And the U.S. is NOT trending that way.

    1. Oh, my. You really need to find out how many women voted GOP this time...and then explain to us how Landrieu can blame Louisianans for hating women when they've voted for HER so many times?
      This 24-point margin in unmarried women's votes (leaning toward the Left, of course, because they need their free birth control, right?) is the slimmest advantage for Democrats in this group in available data back to 1992. The Left lost a lot of White men who voted for Obama, too. Think those white men suddenly turned racist or just can't take Obama anymore.?

      Don't look now but the OVERWHELMING re-election of Obama's two years ago now; heard much GOOD news since then on the foreign/political scene? Ya, I thought not :-)
      GeeeeZ. You need to watch something other than MSNBC, honestly.

    2. Z,
      I haven't tried to parse which groups cast which votes. Value in that, I'm sure, but I haven't gotten around to the task.

      But this I know: overall voters on November 4 are fed up with their elected public servants who are Democrats. This was indeed a referendum on Obama's policies.

    3. If this equal pay for equal work fiction actually existed, men couldn't get jobs. Who would hire them if you could get the same thing so much cheaper?

      And yes, it's correct to state Obamacare is HIS victory. Well, his and the Pelosi/Reid cabal that ensured its illegal passage. The rest of us are the big losers.

  11. let's remember that the Republican leadership haven't acted with EUPHORIA ...they've been pretty realistic and pretty somber about what's happened to them now.
    Also, they must have a bill repealing Obama Care; too MANY men AND women singled that out as a reason they voted Obama's thugs OUT. Everybody knows that's not going to happen.
    SO, the smart thing to do, which is what they've apparently planned, is to let the bill go UNpassed/unsigned...then get on with changing the ACA with the methodical, clear thinking the GOP had tried to assert before Obama's pen hit the paper full of ridiculous sweeping changes few were ready for.
    I'm hoping I don't have to reiterate those items they want changed, and always have wanted changed; I think we've all been down that road long enough by now. If you don't know, Google it.
    For the libs here, it'll be a fantastic SHOCK but it's good to suck it up and get educated; to stop listening to MSNBC and reading The Nation. You get little realism there.

    Did any of you hear James Carville (who I've always had some respect for, by the way) absolutely unable to grasp O'Reilly's point about how lowering the corporate tax would help in job creation and how people with better buying jobs BUY MORE, thereby stimulating the economy? Carville is a smart guy. I wonder how much HIS inability to grasp that is shared by others on the Left? Odd.

    1. Z, I'm curious why you have such a thing about the Nation.
      I subscribe but what I most enjoy about the magazine is its arts reporting and general reporting on popular culture.
      For political news I'm more likely to read The New York Review of Books or The Progressive. I still think The Economist is best for mainstream economic news.

      Where do you get your news, Fox? O'Reilly?
      You seem hardwired to cable news and somehow believe that gives you "both sides".
      My main beef with cable news is what it DOESN'T cover.
      For instance, are any of the cable news outlets covering the murder of the Mexican activist students? Just curious because it's an important story.
      But I remember your reaction to the democracy protests in Hong Kong, "Who cares about Hong Kong"? Rather insular, no? But cable news does that to you.

      How does a reduction of corporate taxes (we already have a low effective rate) increase employment?
      Does that money get to the consumer to increase demand?
      Without demand, is the corporation going to invest in increased capacity?
      Let me know, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. You can be O'Really.

    2. The Nation? Simply because you've mentioned it so many times over the years, that's all.
      Since you read my blog, you know extremely well that I read many venues and watch MSNBC, CNN and FOX.... I constantly say that, so it's odd you'd ask me about FOX.
      O'Reilly isn't news any more than Maddow is news, by the way...And doesn't bill himself as news, either.

      I wish you had a link about the "Who cares about Hong Kong" line you attribute to me. I would have thought you're keeping a list of my statements except that's nothing I'd say; particularly because because died in Hong Kong.
      I remember one thing you said, about how you wished Andrew Breitbart was in a body bag. I couldn't say anything even CLOSE to that if my very life depended on it.

      Our corporate tax rate is the highest in the world now. Stay close; there's only demand when people can afford to buy what they want. Not working doesn't help Americans buy what they'd like.

      I'd say 'call Carville,' but he didn't get it, either.

    3. Our corporate tax rate is the highest in the world now. Stay close; there's only demand when people can afford to buy what they want. Not working doesn't help Americans buy what they'd like.
      First off, our effective corporate tax rate isn't much out of line with other industrial nations.
      Again, how does a reduction in the corporate tax rate increase mainstream consumption?

    4. Z,
      I caught part of that chat between O'Reilly and Carville.

      I never expect Carville to swing in any direction other than big government throwing money at a problem of any sort solves everything.

    5. Corporate taxes are passed on to the consumers. Lower corporate taxes, consumers pay less, consumption increases.

      All predicated on having a government that doesn't have it's boot heel on the necks of the job creators, of course. People need jobs in order to have money to buy stuff

    6. Utter nonsense.

      You assume that corporations have monopoly pricing power and there is no pricing competition. Now in the case of energy that's nearly true but corporations can't raise prices unless there is supporting demand.

      Now, if a corporation can raise prices without risking a decline in share or a general decline in sales why wouldn't they do it?

      Lower corporate taxes and prices will drop.
      Outstanding rubbish.

    7. "You assume that corporations have monopoly pricing power and there is no pricing competition."

      No. You assume that. Put down the crack pipe and answer the next question you ask. Of course a corp would raise prices with impunity if it could, but thank God and Ayn Rand for competition.

      The rubbish is in your marxist (failed economic 'theory) head

    8. And you accuse me of dodging?

      Can you support that cliched Libertarian meme that corporate taxation puts upward pressure on prices?
      Absolute pantload.

    9. Businesses pass on taxes to consumers. That's an uncontroversial notion in economic theory.

  12. On the foreign affairs front his overtures to Iran and in effect telling the Saudis to take a Dixie should really stir things up.

    He's basically told mid east Sunnis to suck it.
    Strap in folks.

    1. Flipping the bird to nasty Sunni a-holes and embracing nasty Shia a-holes.

      Yeah, Obama's really brilliant. Did Larry, Moe and Curly dream up that strategery for him?

      Bush-Cheney may have been wrong, but at least they were coherently so.

      So, tell us Ducky, do you really believe that fairy tale about us arming and training the "good" Syrian terrorists so they can concurrently vanquish Assad's Iran- and Russia-back regime and ISIS?

      Wait... We're against Assad, who is allied with Iran... but Obama writes a love letter to the Iranian Mullahs... Senile old Uncle Joe Biden must have helped out his granddaughters Susan Rice and Samantha Power when they were playing in their girl-power warlord clubhouse...

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. ... but Iran has never attacked us.
      Frankly, if you have to back on side or another I'd sooner back the Shia who are removed from the Wahbi insanity.

    4. Ducky, you asshole, they did attack us, many times in Iraq.

      Maybe if you weren't such a piss down your leg coward you would have been there you miserable, cowardly POS.

      Your schtick is funny, up to a point, and then it goes rotten. Pull your head out of your ass and maybe then you can see and hear reality. Get down on your knees and thank God we're not face to face.

    5. Ducky,
      Iran killed American and British soldiers in Iraq, I saw it with my own eyes, you cowardly, smirking bastard.

      I'd love for you to go to Iran, wander around and try to take some pictures, maybe engage in a little casual blasphemy while you're at it. You'll see what kind of friends the mullahs can be, you idiotic, pampered, American moron.

      Despite my anger, I am thankful to God that clueless, mewling metrosexual old men like you can stagger through our streets unmolested while spouting ignorant fatuosities, you blathering shitbag.

    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    7. SF,
      Speaking of fairy tales as you outline above, does Obama believe in unicorns, or is he up to something else?

      I find his Middle East foreign policy incoherent at best. Unless his goal is to punish the United States and all the West for past wrongs. We don't definitively know.

      However, we do know that BHO is arrogant and vindictive.

    8. AOW,
      I don't know what's going on. The Iranian mullahs are nasty people. Reagan shouldn't have sent them that Bible, and Obama shouldn't be sending them love letters.

      We need to butt out. The Kurds and other pockets of minorities near them in the north are the only people worth helping.

      Going back in there is us doing Iran's dirty work for them. They'll facilitate our movements so long as it benefits them, but they will also sabotage us, and Americans will get killed.

      Some twisted people consider all of this a fun little game to watch, like a reality show, only unlike the garbage leftwingers are used to watching on TV, this reality show doesn't feature whiny women walking around naked, sitting on the toilet, having embarrassing sex and getting abortions like clipping a hangnail.

      Also, the Iranian regime, Quds and the Hezbos are not like that nice Iranian family that lives down the street and invites you over for a nice Persian dinner followed by a splash of Shiraz. They are cold-blooded murderers, they hate us, and they want to see the end of America.

    9. Also, Iran's Hezbo's killed 241 American servicemen in Beirut in 1983, along with more than 50 French soldiers.

      We weren't there as imperialists, we were there to try to stop the civil war, but Ducky's mullahs didn't want that; they never do. They want chaos, murder and bloodshed, until they can step in and control it all, exterminate their enemies, and subjugate the poor people who have the misfortune of not being able to stop them.

      So, once again (this is getting tiring), I have shown Ducky to be factually wrong. I don't know if it's laziness or ignorance on his part. He seems like a smart man, so I suspect it is blindness brought on by slavish adherence to ideology.

    10. Silverfiddle, if we invade the country next to Iran do you expect them to sit back and smile?
      Of course you might still believe there was cause to invade Iraq.

      Given our record going back to the overthrow of Mosaddegh, enabling the Shaw and backing Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war it's a wonder they are still willing to talk. We have indeed been the great Satan in their eyes but realpolitik is in play.

      So be a primitive and call them evil or whatever you wish but trying to make the shift away from allying with Saudi Wahabism is long overdo.

      Oh, by the way, what the bleep were we doing in Lebanon?
      Again, we invade and you expect the world to just sit. They just don't understand the benefits of bowing to American exceptionalism?

      Well, as some say. The Republicans started two wars in the east and Iran won both of them.
      Now we have a president who has the sense to finally recognize that.

    11. So, Ducky, you're admitting your factual error, and that Iran did indeed attack our forces in Iraq. Good. That's a start. As for the rest of what you say, misguided or irrelevant.

      The Mullahs are mad at us for taking out Mossadegh? Are you serious? He was their enemy. We did their dirty work for them.

      Do you think before you scatter such totally wrong brain droppings on us?

      Finally, what do we gain by becoming warm shower buddies with the Iranian mullahs? Perhaps it's a continuation of Obama's policy of hatred toward the Iranian people, whose uprising he totally ignored.

      Arab springs are fine in the O-Man's world, but not the Persian variety.

      Iran could be a great country and a force for good in that region if they could only flush the Mullahs and the religious nuts with guns. Any US rapprochement strengthens their stranglehold on Iran.

      Since you're sitting in the Henry Kissinger chair and playing the Foreign Affairs Professor today, please answer my earlier question you so studiously ignored:

      Do you really believe the "good" Syrian terrorists Obama and his amateur warlord club (Lindsay Graham, John McCain, Susan Rice, Samantha Power) plans to arm and train can topple Assad's Russian- and Iran-backed regime, while simultaneously taking down ISIS?

      Explain to us how that happens?

      How does making BFFs with Iran jibe with trying to take out their BFF Assad?

      A shift from Saudi Wahabbism to murderous Shiite extremism? Obama is hopping from one nest of snakes to another (and, pssst... don't tell anybody... but our government is still best buds with the Saudi Wahabbists...)

      You're naivete is stunning.

    12. And we "backed" both side in the Iran-Iraq war (the last sensible thing we did in that part of the world, shoveling arms to two hordes of murderous nuts so they could slaughter each other for almost a decade).

      Remember Iran-Contra?

      One could dedicate a lifetime to identifying and correcting your inaccurate outbursts. It's like a rash...

    13. No I am not admitting any error. Iran has not initiated any attacks on America.
      The Iranian culture is much more moderate and cultured than Saudi.

      Sufism is still strong in Iran. It brings mysticism to Islam, something any religion needs.

      But to critical thinker like you, Islam is Islam is Islam.

      As far as Syria is concerned. Assad is not going to be toppled.

    14. ... but you are right that Mussadegh was a democratic secularist who wanted Iran on a tract like Turkey.

      But he was bad for oil company profits.
      We really screwed the pooch on that one. Not that the American defense establishment has been capable of anything else in the last 65 years.

    15. SF,
      Going back in there is us doing Iran's dirty work for them. They'll facilitate our movements so long as it benefits them, but they will also sabotage us, and Americans will get killed.

      The Obama Administration has to know that, don't you think?

    16. You've dodged again, Ducky. You always do. It is a fact that Iran attacked us in Lebanon and in Iran; two countries they have no sovereignty over.

      We're also onto your other little trick, where you conflate two things I have gone to pains to separate out and distinguish one from the other: The nasty mullahs and their regime are one entity; the Iranian people and their culture another.

      Nowhere have I denigrated Persian culture. I have had Iranian friends and coworkers in the past and I have studied some of their history and culture. I admire the people and the culture, which is why I hate the mullahocracy so.

      But not you. The Mullahs hate America, so they are your heroes.

      You're a sick man, and you are a fundamentally dishonest interlocutor.

  13. Whoa, 1500 ground troops to Iraq but they're only advisers.

    Isn't this how it always starts?

    1. Looks like Obama is shooting for the adjective "Historic," like the Hindenburg...

    2. Reminds me of '65 when Johnson sent in 200,000 "advisors" to Vietnam.

    3. SF,
      Looks like Obama is shooting for the adjective "Historic," like the Hindenburg...

      Good one! I've grown weary of the trite comparisons to the Titanic. The Hindenburg is a better analogy, anyway, because of the crash-and-burn connotation.

    4. Thersites,
      Reminds me of '65 when Johnson sent in 200,000 "advisors" to Vietnam.

      Yeah, that worked out. Pfffft.

  14. From Duckling:

    "I'll ask you Berg on the slim chance you've been able to stop seeing black every time you look at Obama, where am I wrong".

    Well, you are wrong insofar as I don't see him as "black", he isn't. He is, however, a > 50 year old nasty little child who won't let the other kids play in his " playhouse" (as so identified by Tammy). That has been reinforced by his overt proclamation that he will just do "Executive Orders" to achieve his ruination of the USA.

    Insofar as the four things that you have attempted to identify as his objectives, I find that , as you have represented such lack of any specificity and therefore are , at best, moot. I'm quite sure that you are suffering from the reality of the rejection of B.O.'s attempt to destroy us per the last Election. Oh, how about another Republican Governor who isn't a Masshole? Someone said that you have been around for 15 years. OMG that's incredible, WHY?.

    1. Jon,
      He is, however, a > 50 year old nasty little child...

      He's also a bully. Furthermore, he actually believes that the Constitution doesn't apply to him.

  15. "Abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau." Not going to happen. It's a good and necessary thing anyway.

    "Independent Payment Advisory Board." We could get rid of it, but it really wouldn't matter. It's not some anti-constitutional monster, though, it's just another advisory board.

    "Repeal the Affordable Care Act’s tax on medical devices. Probably will happen, probably won't be vetoed. Device manufacturers have poured millions into a concerted lobbying effort to get rid of this tax for years. It will only cost 29 billion over ten years, so it's really not necessary for Obamacare.

    "Improve energy, economic and environmental conditions by authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline." Probably will happen, but will not in any way resemble this silly nonsense. Keystone will be forgotten by the public in short order anyway. It's not important to the American economy in any way at all. It's just another right-wing arbitrary fascination.

    "Mandate completion of the nuclear waste repository in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain." ? :| Did George Will really write this?

    "Pass the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act." Horrible stupid awful idea. This sounds like something a spoiled rotten dimwitted toddler would request. This would further politicize, to the point of actually preventing, implementation of regulations to ensure the security of the American people as deemed necessary by professional scientists, physicians, and engineers, inspectors, and accountants. You'd have to be a sleazy idiot to want that. A sleazy idiot who puts money ahead of the security of your own friggin' people.


    1. JMJ,
      This would further politicize, to the point of actually preventing, implementation of regulations to ensure the security of the American people as deemed necessary by professional scientists, physicians, and engineers, inspectors, and accountants.

      There is nothing in our rule of law -- namely, the Constitution -- that justifies the word of the "experts" overriding the will of the people.

      I'm sure that George III et al thought that they were oppressing (regulating, taxing) the colonists for their own good.

      As for Yucca Mountain, why doesn't the good of the many outweigh the good of the few? Isn't that what you yourself believe? And what happened to the $15 billion already allocated to construct a facility for the storage of nuclear waste?

      If nuclear waste cannot be safely stored, then let's go back to coal as fuel.

    2. Eh hem. JMJ. You, my good sir, need a refresher on the Constitution...

      Executive orders come from shaky, shaky legal ground as is. Basically, it took several big Supreme Court cases to make them legal. Roughly, it went:
      President has the authority to order around anyone (companies, citizens, et cetera) in an active theatre of war,
      President can make rules that do no apply to the US (international laws) as he sees fit,
      President can use legislative power given to him by Congress (this starts as within-strict-limits and then becomes more open with each new case).
      Congress can regulate businesses that directly effect interstate commerce-
      substantially, indirectly effect IC-
      indirectly effect IC-
      relates to C-
      relates to agriculture, mining, banking, shipping, etc.
      THAT took nearly 100 years of SC cases.

      The President ONLY has executive powers given to him by Congress. And Congress only has power granted to it by the Supreme Court or Constitution. In no way, shape or form is it wrong for Congress to rein in IT'S legislative ability. Congress giveth, and Congress taketh away.

      Nowhere, really, is the "public good" mentioned in our founding document- except the preamble and, oh, the powers of Congress to legislate. The President is the executor- or rather, the guy making sure Congresses orders are followed. NOT the other way around.

      It used to be highly illegal for Congress to even let the executive have their powers. It's mentioned in 1935 most prominently, in a little case called "Schechter Poultry Copr vs. United States. Of course, THAT case opened up the Commerce Clause fiasco, but does touch on whether the President can regulate via executive orders (under Congress's permission. The answer was no.)

      I don't say this so much for your benefit as for all you liberals- you don't seem to know the law, or how it got here. You don't understand that the President NEVER was suppose to order around private citizens, much less Congress. And Congress is not suppose to regulate people either. The states were. However, times change, laws change, and the Constitution gets overridden by Supreme Court cases.

      And now, we have one main clause to rule them all, one clause to find them (powers), one clause to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

      That clause? Commerce. The birthplace of all regulations.

      (Secondary award goes to: power of Congress to tax and spend and therefore blackmail states into doing what they want).

      You liberals throw hissy fits all the time when someone points out that what you so dearly want... is completely illegal in the first place.

      Take a hint, and take a class in law.


    3. Lower corporate taxes and regulations? Corporate profits are currently at an all time high: are we compelled to drive them even higher, when they haven't 'trickeled down' and never will?
      Keystone Pipeline? Hundreds of tank trains are hauling Bakken
      crude all over the US. So much so, that crude is down to $71 a barrel and gasoline prices are dropping. IMO those 'fix it' ideas are
      silly talk, given, the above mentioned items. The stock market just
      set a record high. The problem, one would think, is good jobs. As
      we can see from the last 40 years, businesses, (ever pampered) can not, nor will not provide good jobs. (study the plot of productivity,
      corporate profits and median wages over those years)

    4. Wildstar, GREAT overview. The overreach that led to the Schecter case is so jaw dropping, it should be 'required reading.' It stuns the mind even in 2014.

      And by all means lets pass the REINS act - a small step in re-taking proper ownership of delegated powers.

      It's easier to understand Keystone and tank trains when you understand the tank trains are owned by a Friend of Barack. No wonder Keystone never happened.

    5. Wildstar: Brilliant post.

      Your only error is assuming progressives like Jersey give a rat's rear end about the constitution. They don't.

    6. What they do understand is that the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. That's the way the system works.

      What you think it means represents something less than shinola.

    7. AoW, you cons are not constitutional scholars. The founding fathers were intellectual giants compared to today's conservatives. Here you do not even understand the law or even the word "regulation." I don't know what to say. Maybe this: if the LAW says REGULATE POISON and the SCIENTISTS LEGALLY DESIGNATED TO DETERMINE WHAT IS POISON say something is POISON, you seem to think it would be a good idea to have congress decide whether it's worth the money to follow the law or just ignore it. IDIOCY.

      Wildstar (oh God, another conservative who thinks he's a scholar), after all the blowing hard, show me where the President is exceeding his authority, ordering around citizens. Blowhard.

      Silver, he's an idiot.

      Ducky, don't you remember? The Law is handed down by God (as translated by Sean Hannity).


    8. For the most part, Duck, I am reciting what the Supreme Court says it means. From various decades. See, they change their minds quite often. In 1935, they did say that the Pres. cannot regulate. Now they say he can. Same with the Commerce Clause and regulations in general (THAT case was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, mainly). The SC does actually say at, in pre-1930 cases, that the states have the lion share of power, and that Congress cannot infringe on it. Again, they changed their mind, but they DID say that.

      Before you bother to insult me, at least read what I said. I was not interpretation the Constitution. I was regurgitating what I read in SC cases.


    9. Wilstar, your point is moot. It's not an argument. It's just whistling. Show me where you see this actually happening, because you sound like just another conservative who lives in a world of ideology with no substance in real life.


    10. JMJ,
      Just because you don't like what Wildstar and Silverfiddle have to say doesn't mean that you (1) are right in your assertions and (2) have the right to insult them here at this blog.

      You are dead wrong about some of your assertions about Wildstar -- including referring to Wildstar as "he."

      BTW, Wildstar actually reads SCOTUS decisions -- not merely essays about those decisions. Do you actually read those decisions?

    11. Jersey,

      I recommend you read some Blackstone.

    12. Blackstone is more on the side of precedent than statute.

      That makes him closer to Ruth Ginsberg than he is to "Tough Tony" Scalia.

      You're up.

    13. Hey Professor Ducky, you're still up in the foreign policy thread, where you've dodged every question when you weren't busy purposely lying.

      And phoney crap dreamed up by 60's leftwing hippies and jammed through the courts is not "precedent." Indeed, it went against the very concept as laid out by Blackstone.

      You lose again. Don't you get tired of that?


    Well! I see that all of you have been having a good time here during my temporary absence from blogging.

    Carry on. But watch your language, please.

    I'm dealing with the work front (papers to grade, tutoring) and a crisis with Mr. AOW's hospital bed.

  17. I've said this before, and I'll say it again....

    American voters overwhelmingly cast their ballots for change in 2008 and support of the 2008 change again in 2012. The pendulum swung to the Left.

    American voters overwhelmingly cast their ballots for change in 2014. The pendulum swung to the Right.

    Suck it up, Leftists and Liberals. THAT is the reality.

    We who opposed Obama in 2008 and 2012 were told to suck it up and, particularly in 2008, to give the change a try.

    Well, now it's time to give "the other side" a try.

    That's the way the American system of governance works.

    1. Historically the off year election of a serving two term president is a good kicking.

      I don't believe this one was quite so bad as the butt kicking the Repubs took when Newtie's ass got kicked to the curb.

      In positive news, the ISIS leader may have been critically wounded in an airstrike outside Mosul that nailed a chunk of the leadership.

  18. Now, about those 1500 "advisers" that Obama wants to send into Iraq.

    Riddle me this: If Obama hadn't been so eager to use the theme of "I'm ending the war in Iraq" so as to gain votes in 2012, would the IS have risen its ugly head as the IS has done -- or risen its head at all?

    The IS is "inspiring" attacks here in North America.

    Furthermore, Obama's outreach to the Muslim world and support of the Arab Spring have been consummate failures. We're on a worse footing than before.

    1. Not only 1,500 troops, but $5.6 B in additional funding for them. That's $3.7 million per advisor.

    2. Thersites,
      That's $3.7 million per advisor.

      Who's getting the rake-off?

    3. How can it possibly cost THAT MUCH?
      Or are we paying baksheesh for the PLEASURE of their ALLOWING us to HELP THEM (again)?

    4. "Riddle me this: If Obama hadn't been so eager to use the theme of "I'm ending the war in Iraq" so as to gain votes in 2012, would the IS have risen its ugly head as the IS has done -- or risen its head at all?"

      There would be virtually no change from where we find ourselves today. IS emerged from the chaos and ruin of the Syrian civil war. Even IF the Iraqi's had agreed to keep a US constabulary force in country, it would not have drastically altered the landscape where IS has ISF largely on the run.

    5. CI,
      Are you saying that all this with the IS was inevitable? No matter what?

      Your comment seems to indicate that.

    6. AOW, essentially yes. There is no conceivable situation where [given the overthrow of Hussein and the Syrian civil war] IS would not have emerged.

  19. AOW, you wrote "Unless his goal is to punish the United States and all the West for past wrongs."
    That sort of blew my mind because this morning I decided that's all he COULD be doing. He's not completely stupid. He knows Iraq's stance on US, on Israel, on everything we hold near and dear. To go to them like this can be nothing but to embarrass us, to hurt us.
    I'm so sick of hearing the liberal talking heads saying "writing to other country's leaders without congressional approval has been done before, 'secret' isn't a good term because he's perfectly in his rights to write to any leader of any country".....what they're doing is what some liberals do HERE; to deflect from THE POINT that he's playing patsy with IRAQ, they go to the legality of how he's doing it.
    WHY he's doing it must be considered and I'm starting to think this is all about lowering our standing in the world, starting by convincing squishy minded , indoctrinated liberals, that he's doing this so we ALL GET ALONG.
    that naivite is so clearly dangerous....they really do think Terrorism is all about reaction to us and the sins of the West... wow.
    I wonder how liberals will feel when burkhas are assigned to them, figuratively AND literally.

    1. Z,
      What else could it be?

      Maybe also the partnership between Science Czar John Holdren and the Ehrlichs (the book Ecoscience, which seems to advocate the redistribution of global wealth via certain "environmental" initiatives, including the plague and other methods of forcing the reduction of the earth's population. I have a post on that matter planned for November 17.

    2. Z,
      Have you yet seen the film America: Imagine the World without Her? If you haven't see it yet, you must. What is posited in that film makes sense to me!

  20. Idea:

    Abolish the consumer protection bureau.
    Please, give Liz Warren a strong talking point, please.

    If my right wing brethren understood how politics works they would be hoping to simply neuter it. Which has pretty much been done if you've been paying attention.

    1. Duck,
      I have some advice for you....

      Calm down.

      Why are you so agitated in the first place -- particularly since the 2014 Elections? Because you see the pendulum swinging to the Right now?

      That pendulum doesn't stay in one place for very long, you know.

      Like it or not, it could be that Americans have decided that they've rejected the Democratic Party's Leftism.

  21. Can't due without your affirmative action loans, can you, ducky?

  22. Wildstar has correctly pointed out that the SCOTUS often changes its mind.

    Now we have this case coming up before the SCOTUS: Final nail in the Obamacare coffin coming? Supremes to hear. Excerpt:

    The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a challenge to the subsidies that are a linchpin of President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, accepting a case that suddenly puts the law under a new legal cloud.

    More at the above link.

  23. Hold.



    Is this true?

    100% of Newly Elected GOP Senators Campaigned on Repealing Obamacare

    If that's the case, a bill has to be brought up for a vote. I think.

  24. You folks here obviously don’t know me, as I have not been here before either posting nor reading. My friends respect me because I am a man of my word.
    I heard about this blog from a good friend of mine who said that the author of this blog was one to be respected as well.
    I have been reading her work for the past several days and I do agree that she is one to be respected.
    As for some of the comments here written by the ones who disapprove with her views and who dislike, or disapprove with her... well frankly, I am glad we've never met. I don’t take too kindly to vermin. Nor do I approve with these stupid comments, or so called “jokes” about the people who happen to be in opposition to the president and his values. I have also taken a look at the blog written by the woman who several of you folks have mentioned in previous posts and comments and I I have to say about her is that I don't remember anyone denigrating our country and its people like this since Jane Fonda. And that Russia and China loves hearing that stuff. Our president has sunk to the point where he is absolute useless, he has become a joke to most of the world. . This is what happens when he spends most of his time on the Golf Course and take his Teleprompter away. You can see the real Barack Obama, the true idiot in him comes out.
    The man has nothing but loathing for America, just as his father did. Hell, his wife "For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country." even hates the US: I guess she can go back to hatred in another 3 years. Good ridance to the two of them.

    Thank You
    The Conservative.

  25. I salute and respect all great Americans for not voting for the current elected politicians, and who voted for a change instead. .
    Not like the typical Liberal who when has nothing of worth to say, just name calls and belittles the intelligence of the opposition. Voting should not be a popularity contest, nor should we be voting for a person because of his “Color” or Race!
    I also salute and respect those who had the good sense to kick out the current party and look for some REAL Hope and Change. Remember, we do have an obligation!

  26. Just in case, you have been in a Coma for the past 6 years and you haven't noticed the US is in the Crap House economially, the President is spending money that we don’t have, and that we won't have for decades to come, like its water and Obama couldn't find his ass with both hands, and a map, and a flashlight without the help of all the Democrats in Congress. Yet we can give money to other countries that would better be spent here. Something is very wrong with the direction this country is headed and the mind set of the current administration
    Even though the man is a walking disaster, let's not forget he's NOT the only one. Obamacare took a lot of stupid coming together at one time and place to make it happen. Harry and Nancy I'm talking about YOU TWO IDIOTS!! Something is seriously wrong with the quality of Congressman if something as stupid as Obamacare is the best they can do while spending our tax dollars on their ludicrous salaries and perks.. And bribes that were made behind closed doors.
    But arguing with ignorance, is fruitless, and it’s really depressing to share a country with mean-spirited malicious hypocritical a-holes like the progressives we all know and “Love” LOL.....

  27. "If Hillary Wants to Be President She Has to Answer for My Son's Death"

    Said Patricia Smith, mother of Sean Smith, who was murdered in the September 11, 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack, is part of three family members of the victims demanded that House Speaker John Boehner create a select committee to investigate the assault.. And I agree!

    She has been highly critical of Obama, which is why you haven't heard anything about it. She lost her "Total Moral Authority" when she badmouthed The One and is no longer the darling of the left-wing media..

    Remember when Ms.Sheehan, was protesting President Bush almost on a daily basis! has been very consistent in her opposition to war.
    Is the Leftist media that fickle? -- Doese it depend on whether the POTUS is a Democrat, or a Republican when you Son is Murdered?

    Hillary, Obama, Rice and the rest of the betrayers of the 4 Americans killed in Benghazi need to be held accountable. We don’t elect a person to the Highest Office in the Land without it.

  28. In an attempt to gain Iran as an ally against ISIS and push for a nuclear deal, Obama has been secretly writing to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to make just this kind of deal.
    Is Obama ready to make deal with Iran? Hummm, that is the Million dollar question.
    America historically, for as long as I can remember does not to deal, negotiate, or compromise in any way with people who have expressed in any way their intentions to kill you, or your people. .By doing exactly this with Iran, the same Iran who’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei called for the death of all Jews and the destruction of Israel. Obama has put the security of the United States,, Israel, and all other peace loving nations at risk!
    By this I mean the following... We have just recently learned that President Obama, our dear Leader, the same President Obama who had received 75 percent of the american Jews vote, has been secretly writing to the current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in an effort to get his blessing for a deal.
    Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, called America “THE GREAT SATAN” and expressed that it was his goal to kill all Jews and to completely destroy Israel This insane “goal” of his is being ignored by President Obama who should be troubled by such a fantasy. Unless of course he doesn’t fing that “goal” to be disturbing.
    But the news is not all bad, the good news is that the political leaders of a soon to be Republican Congress will be taking power in January and they have made it clear that they will not permit Obama to sign off on a such a deal with Iran.
    Unlike Ronald Reagan and even Clinton, Obama is in NO way a politician. He's a narcissistic Community Organizer that believes everyone else is the fool but him. However, the problem is that he hasn't looked in the mirror in ten years

  29. Doesn't it bother anyone that Obama said he is sending “ANOTHER 1500 “ADVISERS” to Iraq?
    These so called trainers and/or advisers are to help Iraqis and Kurds , and will not in any way be combative.
    Now isn’t that wonderful and may I add, isn’t that a Cock and Bull Story! What the hell will 3000 people do “advising” Iraqis and Kurds? It kind of sounds like a whole lot of advising to me.
    And add to that, it was also announced that the White House said they would ask Congress for $5 billion for military operations in the Middle East against the Islamic State, including $1.6 billion to train and equip Iraqi troops.
    (The White House Said?) Since when can a building say anything?
    Insisting that the additional 1500 troops, totaling to 3,000 American troops in Iraq was consistent with Obama’s policy that the United States is not engaged in combat in Iraq.

    Anyway, can you possibly Imagine what 10,0000 troops with air tank support could do... this conflict would be over in 2 weeks.

  30. Obama says he intends to issue an order easing the threat against deportation for immigrants in the country illegally.
    He'd act despite warnings from Republican leaders that he would be poisoning the well with a newly elected GOP-controlled Congress.
    Obama told ' "Face the Nation" today that even if he goes ahead, there still would be room for Congress to pass immigration legislation.
    He says if Congress does act, he will do so by himself...

    This guy is a total FOOL -------------- I guess that he didn’t watch the election results.
    There’s some thing about a president who acts against the will of the people and the Constitution. He thinks and acts with his ego and arrogance, and therefore makes really stupid decisions. And I guess that’s what he considers to be “COMPROMISE”


  31. I Said it First:

    I'm beginning to think Hillary may be through. She is too practical and too far right for today's kook fringe Danglecrap party.

    Her fanciful pronouncement a few weeks back about how jobs are created tells me her left cheek is exposed. Unfortunately for her, she came off sounding like a cheap imitation of a cheap imitation of a female Indian senator.

    Elizabeth Warren has the leftwing wackadoos sewn up, so Hillary may be in trouble.

  32. FreeThinkeNovember 7, 2014 at 5:58:00 PM EST

    Today's "progressives" are out-and out MARXISTS.


    Razors EdgeNovember 12, 2014 at 8:43:00 AM EST

    FreeThinke, Define Marx's view on excess labor and its impact on society. As productivity and effiencies improve as it has through science and technology fewer labor man hours are required to meet consumer demand. How does society handle excess labor?

    Reasonable questions. Your response, absent
    the usual sophistry, hyperbole, and usual pontificating will be appreciated.

    Thank you in advance.

    Razors Edge

    1. How does "society" handle "excess labor"?

      People migrate into new industries, new technologies are developed that open up new opportunities. That's what happens in a vital free market. Now, if we only had one of those...

      That's the way it's always worked.

      Is Razors Edge still lamenting the plight of the candlemakers?

    2. You didn't answerv the question. Think it through. Follow it to the end and it's logical conclusion.

      Get back to me when you have done so.

      Hint, oligarchs and plutocrats don't hold the answers.


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.