Witch’s Will For A Morning In March

I will remain in “mourning” so long as Obama’s unworthy ass sits in the Oval Office.

My Pick of the Litter Today

Senate passes its first budget in four years on 50 to 49 vote

The close vote was a big victory for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)  and Senate Budget Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who had to overcome large  differences within their caucus to push the resolution through.

Centrist Sens. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Joe Donnelly  (D-Ind.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)  and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) were all non-committal up until the end.

Baucus, Begich, Hagan and Pryor joined the entire GOP caucus in voting  against the budget resolution. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) missed the  vote.

All the Democratic senators who voted “no” are up for reelection in 2014 in  states that voted for GOP nominee Mitt Romney

Democrats had been dogged by criticism for failing to approve a budget  resolution since 2009 and the vote removes that GOP talking point from the  political scene.

Had the budget failed, it would have been a significant setback for the  Democrats and raised questions about the party’s ability to govern.

“I am proud of the work we did in the Budget Committee and on the Senate  floor to write, debate, and pass a responsible budget plan that puts economic  growth and the middle class first,” Murray said in a post-vote statement. “The  Senate Budget takes the balanced and responsible approach to tackling our fiscal  and economic challenges that the vast majority of families across the country  support.”

Screw you, you liberal scumbitch piece of shit!

Vulnerable Senate Democrats Mary Landrieu (La.), Mark Warner (Va.) and Tim  Johnson (S.D.) could pay the price in the 2014 elections for supporting the  budget, however. The Democrats who voted “no” on the overall budget could be  hurt in next year’s campaign season by numerous controversial budget amendments  and motions, including by voting against one calling for a balanced budget by  2023.

The body approved a plan that relies heavily on $975 billion in new tax  revenue to stabilize the growth of the national debt within the next ten years.  The budget does not balance, however, and has a deficit of $566 billion in 2023.

The Murray budget contains $975 billion in spending cuts, including $275  billion in new cuts to Medicare and Medicaid spending. But it also turns off  $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts scheduled over nine years. Factoring that in,  the budget does not constitute a net spending cut.

“Now that the Senate majority has written a plan we can finally begin this  conversation: Do we balance the budget and grow the economy for all Americans?  Or do we continue to enrich the bureaucracy at the expense of the people?” Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said after the  budget passed.

“This budget is a rehash of the extreme policies that continue to hobble the  economy and crush the middle class,” Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell  (R-Ky.) said.  “The only good news is that the fiscal path the Democrats laid  out in their Budget Resolution won’t become law.”

Passage of the budget at approximately 5 a.m. came after a marathon “vote-a-rama” on the floor during which leaders tried to tackle 562 filed amendments.

McConnell called the session “one of the Senate’s finest days in recent  years.”

Democrats argue that America cares first and foremost about economic growth,  and their approach eschews austerity that could cost millions of jobs. They  argue that the budget is a “balanced approach,” like the one that President  Obama ran on during his reelection campaign.

Officially, the House and Senate can now conference the Murray budget with  the budget of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), which  passed the House on a 221 to 207 party-line vote on Thursday.

Reconciling the budgets would bring order to the annual appropriations  process for 2014 by settling the top-line spending number. As it stands, the  number reflects the automatic spending cuts and would be about $966 billion, a  cut from this year. A concurrent budget resolution could also become the vehicle  for tax reform, since it cannot be filibustered.


Anyone that voted for this POS bill is an idiot. The idiot that conceived it, Patty Murray, the so-called “grandmother in tennis shoes” is a traitor, a thief and disgusts me beyond belief.

Scum like her is why I laugh at feminist types that say we should vote by gender to get more women into elected office. Why would I want more scumbitches like Patty Murray and Debbie Wasserman Shit to name just two?

And it’s a national disgrace that you haven’t!

More Stuff:

What Sequester? One Night of Biden in Paris $585,000

Katie Pavlich by Katie Pavlich

While the rest of us eat cake and brace for the oh so horrible sequester cuts, Joe Biden is jet setting around the globe spending half a million dollars per night in taxpayer money….to sleep. The Weekly Standard has the scoop:

As it turns out, Vice President Joe Biden’s London stay in February was not the most expensive part of his trip. A government document released on February 14, 2013 shows that the contract for the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand came in at $585,000.50.

Meanwhile, let’s not forget President Obama has no plans to cut back on his lavish vacations and travel, either.

Michael Moore’s Irrational Reasoning: White Gun Owners Racist, But  Understandable They’re Not Afraid Of White Neighbors

Call it Michael Moore’s Jesse Jackson moment . . . Jackson once famously said that when he walked down the street and heard footsteps behind him, he was  relieved to turn around and find a white person behind him.

This  evening, on Ed Schultz’s soon-to-be-extinct weeknight MSNBC show, a histrionic  Michael Moore accused white gun owners of racism . . . then proceeded to say it  was reasonable for them not to be afraid of their white neighbors  . . .  and admitted he felt more comfortable walking down the streets of Toronto than  Detroit. View the video after the jump.


I’ll spare you the sight of Moore’s bloated, ugly mug. And myself too.

Where Higher Education Went Wrong

A forum on the failures and future of the American university

The economist Herbert Stein once said that something that can’t go on forever, won’t. That observation, sometimes called Stein’s Law, could well turn out to be the theme for the current decade. But nowhere is it truer than in higher education. American higher education is first in the world, but it can’t go on forever on its current path.

Colleges are raising tuition and fees every year, at a rate of increase that far outpaces any reasonable expectation. One might think this is the kind of thing that couldn’t continue forever, but that’s precisely what has been happening over the past several decades. Prices have gone up, and buyers have poured in anyway, buoyed by a flood of seemingly cheap government money in the form of student loans.

As with any bubble, there are doomsayers who are mostly ignored and cheerleaders who say that this time it’s different. But—as with any bubble—reality is starting to intrude.

Though people have been talking about a bubble in higher education for a while, one major indicator that the swelling is approaching its limit was found in last year’s Occupy protests. While the protesters represented a diverse array of grievances, one common thread was that many had run up huge student loan debts for degrees that weren’t capable of generating sufficient income to make the payments.

At an annual growth rate of 7.45 percent, tuition has vastly outstripped both the consumer price index and health care inflation (see chart). The growth in home prices during the housing bubble looks like a mere bump in the road by comparison. For many years, parents could look to increased home values to make them feel better about paying Junior’s tuition—the so-called “wealth effect,”in which increases in asset values make people more comfortable about spending. Or at least they could borrow tuition costs against the equity in their homes. But that equity is gone now, and tuition marches on.

So where does that leave us? Even students who major in programs shown to increase earnings, such as engineering, face limits to how much debt they can sanely amass. With costs exceeding $60,000 a year for many private schools, and out-of-state costs at many state schools exceeding $40,000 (and often closing in on $30,000 for in-state students), some people are graduating with debt loads of $100,000 or more. Sometimes much more.

That’s dangerous. And the problem is not a small one: According to the Ohio University economist Richard Vedder, writing in theChronicle of Higher Education, the number of student-loan debtors now actually equals the number of people with college degrees. How is this possible? “First, huge numbers of those borrowing money never graduate from college,” Vedder explains. “Second, many who borrow are not in baccalaureate degree programs. Third, people take forever to pay their loans back.”

Total student loan debt in America has passed the trillion-dollar mark. That’s more than total credit card debt and more than total auto loan debt. Students graduating with heavy burdens of student loan debt must choose (if they can) jobs that pay enough money to cover the payments, often limiting their career choices to an extent they didn’t foresee in their undergraduate days.

Even students who can earn enough to service their debts may find themselves constrained in other ways: It’s hard to get a mortgage, for example, when you’re already effectively paying one in the form of student loans. And unlike other debt, there’s no“fresh start” available, since student loans generally aren’t dischargeable under bankruptcy. The whole thing looks a bit like the debt slavery schemes used by company stores and sharecropping operators during the 19th century.

Now the whole scheme is starting to break down. In my own world of legal education, applications have plummeted over the past few years. According to the ABA Journal, there has been a 22 percent drop this academic year alone, and they’re down almost half from 2007. Business schools, with declining pay and employment prospects for MBA graduates, are experiencing similar declines. Even in undergraduate admissions, colleges are losing the ability to set prices as applicants become more value-conscious. These trends have led the Moody’s rating service to downgrade the outlook for the entire higher education sector to “negative.”

Some in higher education are offended. College should be about improving your mind, they say, not about future salaries. But a recent study of more than 700 schools by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that many have virtually no requirements. Perhaps that’s why students, on average, are studying 50 percent less than they were a couple of decades ago.

When higher education was cheap enough that students could pay their own way by working part-time, “study what interests you” was reasonable advice. When the investment runs well into the six figures, students would be crazy not to worry about the return. If there’s no return, it’s not an investment; it’s a consumption item. A six-figure consumption item is well beyond the resources of most college-age Americans; nobody would advise an 18-year-old to purchase a Ferrari on borrowed money. But if a college education is a consumption item, not an investment, then they’re basically doing the same thing.

Higher education needs to be cheaper, more flexible, and better. It’s possible that technology will show the way: With the proliferation of online courses, some offered by major brand-name schools like Harvard, MIT, or Georgia Tech, there’s no reason why students should have to go into massive debt. And while an online degree from MIT (when such becomes available) probably won’t be worth as much as traditional MIT sheepskin, it may well outperform degrees from many less prestigious brick-and-mortar schools.


What also went wrong, IMO, is that for a generation many parents have been teaching their children that not only can they have it ALL, but that they can have it all their way.  Karma ain’t the only bitch. Reality is one too.

What’s Up With the Democrats?

Obama Will Need to Curb Kerry’s Folly

President Obama is being praised for his peace advocacy during his visit to Israel this week. But it hasn’t escaped the notice of savvy observers that for all of his eloquent appeals for coexistence, he did not commit himself to any specific peace plan. In fact, he actually endorsed Israel’s call for negotiations without preconditions, a clear change from previous U.S. demands for a settlement freeze and other concessions. Even more to the point, since Palestinian attitudes toward Obama’s visit ranged from indifference to outright hostility, it’s hard to see how the president’s attempt to urge young Israelis to work for peace will change a thing.

The president was wise to avoid specifics since the prospects for progress in negotiations, or even holding talks, are bleak. But it appears that new Secretary of State John Kerry has no such inhibitions. According to an article in Politico today, Kerry is straining at the leash this week as he prepares to dive headfirst into an all-out effort to restart the peace process. Kerry is undaunted by the unbroken record of failure on the part of a long list of his predecessors, and seems blithely indifferent to the current situation in which the Palestinians remain divided and unable to move toward peace. The president appears willing to let Kerry waste his time on another go at mediation, so long as, Politico notes, “he keeps a low profile and doesn’t generate a political backlash.” But Kerry’s open desire to use his new position to make a place for himself in the history books seems to be setting up the president for exactly what he seems to want to avoid: an embarrassing fiasco that could distract both the Europeans and Israelis from the main security threat to the region coming from Iran and set the stage for more Palestinian violence.

That Kerry would embark on such a quest at a moment when success seems impossible speaks volumes not only about his ego but his inability to grasp the realities of the region.

Though the president addressed his pleas for peace to Israelis, given the fact that, as the president acknowledged in his Jerusalem speech, they have already taken risks for peace, the ball is clearly in the Palestinians’ court. But with Hamas in control of Gaza, the Palestinians are not merely divided; Abbas and the PA understand that any move toward recognition of a Jewish state, no matter where its borders are drawn, would bolster the Islamist terror group’s ambition in its rivalry with Fatah.

The New York Times helped prop up the idea that Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas is eager to resume negotiations by publishing a piece claiming internal PA memos testify to his willingness to talk. But since this is the same man who has been studiously avoiding returning to the table for more than four years after he fled from an Israeli offer of statehood, it’s difficult to take such stories seriously.

Kerry’s fatal flaw appears to be, as Politico puts it, that he is “in lockstep with European leaders, who view the Israeli-Palestinian issue with great urgency.” He also stands “a bit closer to the Palestinians than his predecessor, Hillary Clinton, and less likely to reflexively embrace the Israeli position.” But one must ask why Kerry thinks Hamas or a fearful Abbas will respond to his charms when years of President Obama attempting to tilt the diplomatic playing field in their direction yielded only disdain?


  7 Liberal Hypocrites Who Call For Gun Control While Being Protected By Guns

One of the great ironies of the gun control debate is that everyone who calls for gun control still wants a man with a gun protecting him. Every governor in America has armed security. You have to go through a metal detector guarded by men with guns to get into the Capitol building. Barack Obama has hundreds of Secret Service agents carrying fully automatic weapons who protect his safety. Even run-of-the-mill Democrats who want to take guns away from everyone else will unhesitatingly put up the phone and call the police if they feel threatened — so that a man with a gun can show up and make them safe.

But, if a man in a bad neighborhood wants a gun to make his family safe, a rape victim wants a gun to be protected, or just the average Joe wants a gun in case his life is endangered by a burglar, thug or the next Adam Lanza, these same people want to take their guns away. Pro-gun control Democrats may think we have an “upper class” that deserves to be protected with guns while it’s okay if the “peons” get shot, but that goes against the core of what America is supposed to be. If your child’s life is in danger, you should have every bit as much of a right and opportunity to defend his life as the Secret Service does to defend the President of the United States when he’s threatened.

Unfortunately, there are some people in this country who apparently believe they’re so special, so elite, so much better than the rest of the “riff-raff,” that they should have a right to be protected even if you don’t.

1) The Journal-News: The Journal News printed “the names and addresses of gun permit holders in Rockland and Westchester counties” as its way of taking a dig at gun owners. But, this attitude about guns certainly did change when the shoe was on the other foot.

Veritas video reporter James O’Keefe has released a new video of his team posing as an anti-gun group promoting an initiative to journalists.

At each home, the group dubbed as “Citizens Against Senseless Violence” asks homeowners if they are willing to put up a “Gun Free” sign in their yard.

O’Keefe primarily focuses his efforts on employees of the Journal-News – the New York newspaper that published a controversial map of registered gun owners online.

Armed security welcomes the Veritas team at some of the homes – as some of the newspaper’s employees felt threatened once bloggers retaliated by posting their names and addresses online.

2) Dianne Feinstein: She introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 in the Senate.

“I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me.” — Dianne Feinstein

3) Mark Kelly, the husband of Former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ):Mark E. Kelly, gun-control proponent and husband to former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, recently purchased an AR-15 (an “assault weapon,” he called it)—which he now says he intended as an illustration of the need for more stringent gun laws.

Kelly reportedly bought the AR-15 and a 1911-style semi-automatic pistol at a gun store in Tucson, Arizona.

Testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee January 30, Kelly had urged senators to restrict sales of firearms based on their lethality–a common refrain with other witnesses that day who argued that semi-automatic weapons, which chamber subsequent rounds as bullets are fired, and other guns with military-style features, level the playing field against law enforcement.

Kelly and Giffords founded their own advocacy group to restrict gun rights, Americans for Responsible Solutions, in January.

…Similarly, the ARS website says: “Congress should act to limit the sale of assault weapons.”

4) Shania Twain: Shania Twain didn’t exactly have a shotgun wedding….in Puerto Rico … but it sure was a pistol — as in what the guards were packing on the beach during the ceremony,” reports.

We’re told there were ‘several armed security guards.’

…But here’s the thing about the privileged Ms. Twain employing armed guards (lawbreaking or otherwise) in the first place—she’s a big advocate of infringements against those of us who can’t afford an armed security presence and must rely on being our own first line of defense.

She was one of the signers…of the Handgun Control, Inc. (since changed to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, to help mask their intentions) “Open Letter to the NRA,” a full page ad published in USA Today.”


Wasserman Schultz: Cuts Would Further Lower “Quality Of Life” On Capital Hill

Yeah, I’m sure most Americans are really concerned about the “quality of life” on Capital Hill. These staffers can tighten their belts a little now in the sure knowledge that if they enter politics later in their careers they can steal enough to become as rich as they want to be. Just like their bosses.

  White House withdraws court nominee who was blocked twice by GOP

President Obama on Friday withdrew his nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the  federal appeals court in the District of Columbia after the New York lawyer was  twice filibustered by Republicans in the Senate.
“I am deeply  disappointed that even after nearly two and a half years, a minority of senators  continued to block a simple up-or-down vote on her nomination,” Obama said in a  statement.

“This unjustified filibuster obstructed the majority of Senators from  expressing their support. I am confident that with Caitlin’s impressive  qualifications and reputation, she would have served with distinction.”

Halligan requested that her nomination be withdrawn, according to the White  House.

The Senate failed  to advance Halligan’s nomination in a 51-41 vote last month, falling  well short of the 60-vote threshold necessary to cut off debate. Last year,  Halligan’s nomination was also filibustered in a 54-45 party line vote.

Republican opposition to Halligan focused primarily around her work as  solicitor general of New York State, where she aggressively pursued cases  against gun manufacturers.

In a floor speech earlier this month, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell  (R-Ky.) said that her appointment would be “a bridge too far.”

“In short, Ms. Halligan’s record of advocacy and her activist view of the  judiciary lead me to conclude that she would bring that activism to the court,”  McConnell said.

Republicans also criticized Halligan’s views on abortion and terrorist  detention as “extreme.”


Good for the GOP! Enough with these liberal scumbitches on courts!

Daylight robbery in Cyprus will come to haunt EMU

One’s first reflex is to gasp at the stupidity of the EU policy elites, but truth is that most EU officials handling the Cyprus crisis know perfectly well that their masters have just set the slow fuse on a powder keg – and they can only pray that it is slow.

The decision to expropriate Cypriot savers – even the poorest – was imposed by Germany, Holland, Finland, Austria, and Slovakia, whose only care at this stage is to assuage bail-out fatigue at home and avoid their own political crises.

This latest debacle has caught me on the hop, literally, since I am in Tokyo learning about Abenomics, so let me just make a few quick points before going off for a pint of sake.

The EU creditor states have at a single stroke violated the principle that insured EU bank deposits of up $100,000 will be guaranteed come what may, and in doing so they have more or less thrown Portugal under a bus.

They appear poised to seize large sums from Russian banks – €1.3bn from state-owned VTB alone, and therefore from the Kremlin – prompting the condign riposte from Vladimir Putin that the action is “unfair, unprofessional and dangerous.”


Liberal Cockroaches

CBS Silent as Viewers Slam ‘Amazing Race’ for Airing Pro-Communist Song, Using B-52 as Prop

CBS has no comment regarding viewer outrage over an installment of The Amazing Race featuring a downed B-52 bomber as a prop and a pro-Communist tune sung to the show’s contestants.


Seldom I ever agree with Beckel about anything. In fact I loathe the POS. But I will give the devil his due and applaud his efforts on this issue. Finding myself on the same side of an issue as Bob Beckel is very strange. I think I need to go lay down.

I didn’t watch the Amazing Race very often. Now I simply won’t watch it at all.

WEDNESDAY MOURNING   ObamaCare at Three: Headed Toward Failure?

Today’s the three year anniversary of the final House vote on Obamacare. It  is one ugly toddler, and its first steps are turning out to be disastrous. But  is it here to stay?

From the beginning, there were three ways to replace Obama’s signature  domestic policy achievement. The first and best option was that you could  replace it by winning an election – and it would have to be a definitive win,  not just the White House but the Senate, too. Republicans utterly failed to do  this. Second, you could count on the Supreme Court to gut its central support  mechanism, the individual mandate. Thanks to John Roberts, this also failed, but  not utterly, since the surprise 7-2 decision allowed states the freedom to block  the Medicaid expansion, a massive entitlement increase which made up the bulk of  the coverage increase under the program. But after both of these failures, the  general chorus in the media is that the right has to give up on repealing  Obamacare altogether – that it should accept it and work to implement it. See  the recent  complaints from Nita Lowey and others about the lack of funding for  implementation, who will certainly cite this as the reason for a clumsy launch  of the online systems this fall.

They seem to have forgotten about the third path: the right can replace  Obamacare if it fails. And thus far, it gives every indication of failing. It  has contributed to growing premium costs. Its budget impacts have been revised  only in a negative direction (indeed, the only positives have been from fewer  states implementing the Medicaid expansion). It has already been stripped of one  mathematically and actuarially unsound entitlement. Most Republican governors  have no interest in helping implement a program they believe to be ill-thought  from its inception, and even Democrats don’t want their fingerprints at the  state level on exchanges and Medicaid expansions their systems can’t handle.


Media Malpractice:

Bozell: Chris Matthews Is ‘Real Face of Character Assassination’

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews is the “real face of character assassination,”  NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell argued on the March 21 edition of Fox News  Channel’s Hannity program. The Media Research Center founder and  president reacted to just the latest instance of the Hardball host bashing Tea  Party conservatives as racist, xenophobic, and anti-gay. “On Monday night, he  was so off on his attacks on CPAC” that the non-partisan  media criticism site “called it grossly unfair and inaccurate.”  Two nights later, Matthews practically wrote off as insufficiently black  African-American politicians like Mia Love, Herman Cain, former Rep. Allen West  (R-Fla.) and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), who identify strongly with the Tea Party  movement.

Also discussed on the “Media Mash” segment was a new Pew survey showing  MSNBC is 85 percent commentary to 15 percent news reporting


Obama Retreats After High Water Mark

John Ransom by John Ransom

Call it over-reach, hubris, arrogance; call it what you will, but for all practical purposes Obama’s presidency and experimentation in transformative politics is over.

Oh sure; we’ll have four more years of strident rhetoric, of evasions, of ruses and stratagems.

Obama’s nothing if not persistent.  He wants to be the guy who transformed America -in fact, moved it on the path toward the socialist, state-sponsored model of Europe.  He might even be the guy who recognizes that only under a “dictatorship of the proletariat” or some modern version of it, will African-Americans enjoy anything like real power as a minority group that represents only about 13 percent of the population.

But his re-election didn’t change the fact that his power to change things is still limited right now.

Much of his presidency has been the story of Obama not being able to come to grips with that very fact. So instead of using the legitimate mechanisms granted a president to get things done, Obama pushes and bullies from above to try to accomplish what he can’t under the law.

No nation can undergo a permanent revolution from above. Especially a nation that essentially remains one of the most free, just and tolerant societies ever created. Eventually the 99 percent who aren’t bused-in, paid-to-protest, or paid to act as a political commissariat disguised as government employees, asks to be let alone.

At least that’s the way it works in America.

The United States of America today is not the turn-of-the-Century Russia of 1917.

It’s not even Victorian England.

It’s not even the United States of America of the 1950’s.

While racial and gender equality is not perfect in the US, nobody can argue with a straight face that, in the main, everyone doesn’t have a shot at the American Dream.  Not an equal shot to be sure, but even Franklin Roosevelt understood that government couldn’t or shouldn’t protect everyone from all the circumstances that life brings.

Obama’s problem, then, essentially, is one that he readily recognizes: “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency,” said Obama in a moment that could have been sponsored by the Contemporary Freudian Society. “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States. I’m not the emperor of the United States.”

Yes, that is his problem, but it’s our problem too.


Worth a Read:

Republicans should prepare for the collapse of Obamacare


GLAAD Tries to Ban Fox News Journalists from Attending Awards Show


Senate Signals Approval Of Keystone Pipeline With Budget Plan Vote


Massachusetts lawmaker ‘took pictures of his genitals and put them on a female  coworker’s computer’




  The  release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more  urgent the necessity of solving an existing one. ~ Albert  Einstein


  1. I just hope that Obama keeps a moderate rein on John Kerry and his outlandish proclamations and actions so that he doesn’t let his ego and big mouth get this country into more trouble. It is, indeed, a well known fact that he salivated after the position of SOS, in order to have a platform from which to launch a legacy and to write a book. His prime purpose in life, at this juncture, is strictly to promote John Kerry, Super Statesman. I don’t know why he thinks he can accomplish that which no one else could, unless he believes his own fantasies.

    He will get the Palistinians all fired up with the idea of their own state in exactly the location that they want it to be, and he will hassel the Israelis to cave in (which they will not do). The end result will be lots of trouble and headaches all around, with lots of skirmishes and bloodshed, and in the end, the innocent citizen of these
    two peoples will be the ones to suffer. Mr. Super-Negotiator will spin his own tale to the MSM, which they will lap up and glorify so that the future will laud this phoney as something that he is not. After all, the MSM considers him one of their beautiful people, and will want their readers to see him as such, and perhaps History also.

    For those of us who were anxious to see the last of Hillary Clinton, in that position, I fear that before it is all over, we will think she was another Henry Kissinger compared to Kerry. Is there no one in this great country better suited for this position than these two? Where have all the Benjamin Franklins gone?

    • While the Hillary supporters are promoting her at State as some kind of Super-Hero at least, IMO, she did little harm. Her role in Benghazi seems to have been one of doing nothing except for parroting the administration talking points. She, again JMO, wanted to keep from damaging any potential run in 2016. For that to happen she could not, cannot, anger the Obama people if she wants their support. A perfect reason, if I didn’t all ready have some many, why she is not, IMO, fit to be President. She is governed by sheer ambition. Kerry is also all about ambition and legacy. He didn’t get to be president so he sees himself as the savior of the Mideast. If his talents were as large as his ego he might actually do some good. But they are not. And now we have another loud mouth fool mucking thing up. With Larry, Curly and Moe, aka Obama, Kerry and Biden screwing things up in the Middle East God alone knows what the horrific end result will be. The end of days? Or just the end of things as we know them? A tinderbox doesn’t need some foolrunning around with a match. Again all speculation and just my worries and opinions based on years of observing these worthless men. You have no idea how much I hope I am wrong.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s