SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Carolyn who wrote (9367)4/8/2014 2:42:48 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Why Obama’s Presidency Has to Be All About Race Now
................................................................................
The Federalist ^ | April 8, 2014 | Robert Tracinski


Barack Obama’s presidency is failing.


Despite what he and his cheerleaders in the press think, he is still losing the argument over ObamaCare. The program has posted a few non-catastrophic enrollment numbers lately, but a lot of the public has already made up their minds. They never liked the program much to begin with, and now that they know what’s in it, they like it even less. The economic recovery, such as it is, continues to be slow, painful, and jobless.

The president’s foreign policy is spinning out of control in all directions.


So the left is doing what they always do when their policies fail: make everything about race, instead. If the Obama presidency itself is what’s failing, then his whole presidency—the one that was supposed to usher in a post-racial era—must be all about race, too.

Hence a long article by Jonathan Chait in New York magazine informing us that yes, Obama’s term in office was really about race all along:“if you…set out to write a social history of the Obama years, one that captured the day-to-day experience of political life, you would find that race has saturated everything as perhaps never before.”

Chait accurately identifies the distinctive racial politics of Obama’s post-racial era, describing an incident in which Bill Maher attributed the entire rise of the Tea Party to a visceral reaction against a black president. There you have the new racial politics: white people calling other white people racists.

Liberals dwell in a world of paranoia of a white racism that has seeped out of American history in the Obama years and lurks everywhere, mostly undetectable. Conservatives dwell in a paranoia of their own, in which racism is used as a cudgel to delegitimize their core beliefs. And the horrible thing is that both of these forms of paranoia are right.


This formulation might make you think that Chait is being even-handed and trying to build a bridge between the two sides. And he does make a show of sympathizing with the right’s predicament, though in a somewhat condescending way. Here’s about as conciliatory as he actually gets: “Though the liberal analytic method begins with a sound grasp of the broad connection between conservatism and white racial resentment, it almost always devolves into an open-ended license to target opponents on the basis of their ideological profile.” Equating conservatism with racism: it’s a good idea taken just a little too far.

So we find that Chait’s actual theme is to justify this coupling of race with political loyalty—and to project it into the indefinite future.

His expressions of sympathy are short and somewhat perfunctory, and mostly lead in to long passages attempting to dredge up some historical or factual basis for smearing the right as racist. My particular favorite is the study purportedly showing a stark correlation between racial animus and right-leaning politics. Except that here’s how racial animus is measured: by asking whether respondents support more welfare funding targeted at blacks.

[T]he racially conservative view—that blacks are owed no extra support from the government—has for decades corresponded more closely with conservatism writ large and thus with the Republican Party. The same is true with the racially liberal view and the Democratic Party: Many of the Americans who support government programs that disproportionately offer blacks a leg up are Democrats.


Well, that begs the question, doesn’t it? In assuming that welfare-state policies are good for poor blacks—despite decades of evidence to the contrary—it already assumes a connection between leftist politics and enlightened views on race. Then it reliably spits this initial assumption back to us as if it were an objective result of the study.

There are plenty of other howlers in here, such as Chait’s casual reference to how “The lineal descendants of the segregationists, and in some cases the segregationists themselves, moved into the Republican Party.” No, I’m sorry, most of the old Dixiecrats stayed right where they were: in the Democratic Party. That puts a whole new light on Chait’s reference to a party’s “fervent scrubbing away of the historical stain of racism.” Projection, perhaps?

As for the “Southern Strategy,” which makes its obligatory appearance, Sean Trende over at RealClearPolitics has pretty thoroughly demonstrated that it was largely a continuation of a Southern trend toward the Republican Party which began decades earlier and continued even while Republican politicians were the ones offering the most support for the civil rights struggle.

Chait reaches his lowest point w
hen he complains that “conservatives believe that the true heir to the Civil Rights Movement and its ideals is the modern Republican Party” and sneers at people on the right making positive references to Martin Luther King and at “the ritual of right-wing African-Americans’ appearing before Tea Party activists to absolve them of racism.” Here we have yet another “progressive” who opposes the (ideological) mixing of the races.Don’t those Tea Partiers know that they’re only supposed to have white members and white heroes? And don’t those “right-wing African-Americans” understand that black people are supposed to associate only with Democrats?

It’s almost as if folks on the left don’t want people on the right to embrace the Civil Rights Movement and equality for racial minorities. And that is exactly what we find.

In fact, Chait ends his piece by linking race with political loyalty, into the endless future.

It’s the left’s version of“segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”: let us score political points off of segregation today, tomorrow, and forever.So he projects that the racial tensions he describes will only disappear when today’s old white men start to die off.

In the long run, generational changes grind inexorably away. The rising cohort of Americans holds far more liberal views than their parents and grandparents on race, and everything else (though of course what you think about “race” and what you think about “everything else” are now interchangeable). We are living through the angry pangs of a new nation not yet fully born.


That “new nation” seems to be a reference to the theory of an “Emerging Democratic Majority,” in which a rising number of black and minority voters, combined with the demographic march of left-leaning youngsters, combines to hand Democrats a permanent political majority.

“Permanent majority” theories have a pretty rough history, and I’m afraid this one doesn’t hold up much better. It assumes, for example, that the young people who voted for Barack Obama when they were 18 will mostly maintain their political orientation as they age—despite ample evidence that as people get jobs, have kids, buy houses, and move to the suburbs, they also move to the right.

In the current context, the most glaring problem with this theory is the evidence that the very tactics Chait is justifying here—the equation of race with political orientation—is actually driving white voters away from the Democrats and toward Republicans. RCP’s Sean Trende has looked at the numbers and concludes: “The Democrats are reaping the benefits of our increased diversity. But they’re paying it back with an increasingly poor showing among whites.” A party that already commands 85-95% of the vote among black voters, for example, will need to get even higher levels of uniformity—to compensate for creating an almost equal level of uniformity in the white vote.

This is what I call the Southern Strategy in Reverse. The great blunder of the Southern Strategy is that Republicans pursued the votes of white Southern Democrats at the cost of neglecting and alienating black voters. Now, Chait and others want the Democrats to bet everything on holding their death grip on the minority vote, at the expense of alienating white voters with precisely the kind of smears and intimidation tactics Chait is excusing here.

That’s a huge electoral cost, and for what?

Here’s for what. As I said, it’s almost as if they want to polarize the electorate into racial voting blocs and keep them in conflict. They don’t just find it convenient and self-flattering to think their opponents are all racists. They need us to be racists. Because what would happen if the racial arguments actually did fade away, and we all began arguing just on the basis of the actual issues?

What is so offensive about Chait’s arguments
is that he often writes as if there are no issues beyond race and no other political history or legacy. Hence his assertion, at one point, that America’s unusual opposition to the welfare state can be explained by a leftover reaction against the end of slavery, as if there were no other cultural or intellectual traditions that might be relevant.

Suspicion of central power, belief in small government, a broad conception of individual liberty, a love of self-reliance—these are constant themes of American culture that go back to the very beginning.


The idea that these are all just code for some other issue is astonishingly narrow, parochial, anti-intellectual, self-serving—and self-defeating.

At some point this is all going to wear thin, and arguments like Chait’s just might finally do it. After all, a bunch of idealistic millennials voted for President Obama precisely because of the promise that he was going to be “post-racial” and put an end to this kind of racial recrimination. Yet now they’re told that Obama’s entire presidency was just about race all along.

If that happens, when that happens, where does that leave the left? All along, many of us on the right have been using basic ideas about the role of government, free-market economics, and the meaning of the Constitution, and we haven’t been using them as “code.” We’ve been taking them seriously. We’ve been studying them, arguing about them, and preparing for an ideological contest. The left, by contrast, has dismissed all of these ideas as irrelevant and tried to avoid the battle. Which side do you think is going to be better prepared when racism begins to fade as an issue and the ideological battle is all that is left?

Chait has done us one important service. By so openly naming our roles in this new artificial drama of racial politics
—liberal tries to shut down the debate by accusing conservative of racism, conservative reacts with defensive anger—he might encourage a few more people to challenge their assigned roles and stop playing along.



To: Carolyn who wrote (9367)4/9/2014 1:13:37 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
IRS under fire: Vote for Obama stickers, campaign cheerleading commonplace
..............................................................................................................
Agency still under fire for Lois Lerner-tea party targeting scandal


By Stephen Dinan The Washington Times Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Even as the IRS faces growing heat over Lois G. Lerner and the tea party targeting scandal, a government watchdog said Wednesday it’s pursuing cases against three other tax agency employees and offices suspected of illegal political activity in support of President Obama and fellow Democrats.

In one case the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates federal employees who conduct politics on government time, said it was “commonplace” in a Dallas IRS office for employees to have pro- Obama screensavers on their computers, and to have campaign-style buttons and stickers at their office.

In another case, a worker at the tax agency’s customer help line urged taxpayers “to re-elect President Obama in 2012 by repeatedly reciting a chant based on the spelling of his last name,” the Office of Special Counsel said in a statement.OSC said it is seeking “significant disciplinary action” against that employee.

Another IRS employee in Kentucky has agreed to serve a 14-day suspension for blasting Republicans in a conversation with a taxpayer.

“They’re going to take women back 40 years,” the IRS employee said in a conversation that was recorded. The employee also said that “if you vote for a Republican, the rich are going to get richer and the poor are going to get poorer.”

That employee went on to tell the taxpayer she knew she wasn’t supposed to be voicing her political opinions, and asked the taxpayer not to say anything.

In the Dallas situation, the OSC issued a letter to employees reminding them they aren’t allowed to do anything that would appear to be campaigning.

“Specifically, it was alleged that employees have worn partisan political stickers, buttons, and clothing to work and have displayed partisan political screensavers on their IRS computers. It was alleged that these items expressed support for President Barack Obama,” the OSC said.The federal Hatch Act prohibits most government employees from conducting politics on government time. OSC is charged with looking into those violations.

The accusations come as the IRS is still facing tough questions from House Republicans over its targeting of conservative groups seeking nonprofit status.

On Wednesday, the House Ways and Means Committee went into executive session to discuss passing a resolution officially referring Ms. Lerner, who headed the tax-exempt division of the IRS during the targeting, to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.

Ms. Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor III, issued a statement Wednesday morning questioning the committee’s plans and calling the timing “odd.”

“We have not heard from the House Ways and Means Committee. Nor has the Committee previously issued a report of its findings,” Mr. Taylor said.

He also said the committee’s referral would be meaningless since the Justice Department is already investigating the IRS over targeting.

“This is just another attempt by Republicans to vilify Ms. Lerner for political gain,” Mr. Taylor said. “ Ms. Lerner has done nothing wrong. She did not violate any law or regulation. She did not mislead Congress. She did not interfere with the rights of any organization to a tax exemption. Those are the facts.”

Read more: washingtontimes.com



To: Carolyn who wrote (9367)4/9/2014 1:19:43 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Kerry: Foreign Policy Not 'Spinning Out of Control'...



To: Carolyn who wrote (9367)4/11/2014 3:39:49 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Podesta divorce exposes D.C.'s rotten core...
...............................................................................................................

The Democratic breakup that exposes Washington’s rotten core


BY: Matthew Continetti April 11, 2014
freebeacon.com



“I see lobbying,” Tony Podesta has said, “as getting information in the hands of people who are making decisions so they can make more informed decisions.” Last week the information Tony Podesta was giving was the divorce complaint he had filed in D.C. Court against his wife Heather. The hands receiving that information belonged to a gossip columnist for the Washington Post, who made the “informed decision” to report on it. Later in the day Heather, who is also a lobbyist, informed the Post the text of her counter-suit. It published a follow-up.


The documents, which you can read below, did not become available to the rest of us until yesterday. They tell stories not only of a May-December romance gone sour, but of how obscene wealth can be amassed through rent-seeking and influence-peddling in Washington D.C., and of the hoary means by which the princelings of the capital and their consorts maintain and grow that wealth.

They tell stories not only of an ugly divorce, but of the power of lobbying, of how one family maneuvered to the center of the nation’s dominant political party, of the transactional relationships, gargantuan self-regard, and empty posturing that insulates, asbestos-like, the D.C. bubble.

That the broken couple now uses the tools of their trade—the phone-call to a friend, the selective leaking of documents, the hiring of attorneys, the launch of a public-relations campaign—against one another is more than ironic. It is fitting. Tony and Heather Podesta reached the pinnacle of wealth and influence in Barack Obama’s Washington. Now they, like he, are in eclipse.

The stories begin in the fall of 2001. She was in her early thirties, working at a trade association, and on the rebound. Her second marriage had just ended. A friend, Dorothy Robyn, a Democratic policy wonk, suggested she meet Tony Podesta. Tony was decades older than she, and had been married once before, but he was young at heart. He took her to the opera for their first date. On the way, the story goes, they stopped by one of his homes to pick up a car. She noticed his art collection. “I don’t know why it is,” Tony said, “but I have artworks where the women have no heads.” The next day she sent him a note. It was signed, “Woman with a head.”

The woman with a head was Heather Miller, and soon she and Tony were in love. They moved in together. When they married, in April of 2003, Tony was 59, and Heather was 33. Nancy Pelosi witnessed their vows, as did Patrick Leahy, and Ed Markey, and Bill Richardson, and countless other Democratic bigwigs. According to the Post, which has chronicled the ups and downs of the Podestas’ relationships and careers, the noted D.C. chefs and restaurateurs Roberto Donna and Kaz Okuchi “personally cooked for the guests.” This was no ordinary wedding.

And Tony Podesta was no ordinary man. A longtime Democratic aide, a counselor to Teddy Kennedy, Tony had been one of the capital’s most powerful lobbyists for some time. As his lawyers would later put it, “‘Podesta’ was a widely recognized and well-respected name in the lobbying industry at the time of the marriage.” The lobbying firm he had established in 1987 was powerfully connected. His younger brother, John, was President Clinton’s chief of staff. Tony Podesta owned art and wine and real estate in Italy, in Australia, in northern Virginia, and in D.C. He was a major Democratic donor, a force to be reckoned with, and a cut-up, a character who wore loud neckties and red Prada shoes. “The Pope wears Prada,” he is known to say, “and so do I.”

Heather changed her name—something she had not done in her previous marriages—to Heather Miller Podesta. She emulated her spouse, developing, in the words of the Post, “ a penchant for flamboyantly patterned dresses.” She joined the company, began lobbying. She picked up Tony’s art habit, and together they amassed a collection of more than 1,300 pieces. She set to work, renovating their six bedrooms, six-and-a-half bathroom home in Northwest D.C. off of Massachusetts Avenue, overlooking the Rock Creek Parkway.

She wanted, her lawyers would say later, “to create a uniquely beautiful architectural space for the dual purposes of having a wonderful home in which to live and promote their shared interests, both professional and personal.” The renovation took three years and cost millions of dollars. The “marital residence,” where they promoted their shared interests in holding parties and fundraisers for Democratic politicians, and housed immense wine and art collections, is estimated to be worth some $5.6 million. Concerned about income inequality? The Podestas are the One Percent.

They would visit their apartment in Venice, Italy, up to a dozen times a year, hosting Janet Napolitano, entertaining passersby such as Reps. Shelley Berkley and Eliot Engel, “even,” the Post once breathlessly intoned, “Teddy Kennedy.” They’d open their homes to tours, so people could enjoy the art, could witness the spectacle of their wealth. One story they liked to tell took place in 2004, when the guests at their northern Virginia home, near Lake Barcroft, walked into a bedroom festooned with the works of Katy Grannan, “ a photographer known for documentary-style pictures of naked teenagers in their parents’ suburban homes.” The guests were shocked. But oh, how Tony and Heather laughed.

In 2007 Podesta Matoon became the Podesta Group. Heather formed Heather Podesta + Partners, establishing two prongs of the Podesta family empire. The third prong was the Center for American Progress, founded in 2003 by John Podesta, who would oversee President Obama’s transition team in 2009, and join the Obama administration as a senior adviser in 2014. The Podestas had become the most important non-elected family in the Democratic Party.

In 2009, with the inauguration of Obama and the dawn of unified Democratic control of Washington, business boomed. Revenues at Tony’s firm close to doubled, and revenues at Heather’s firm increased by 50 percent. The money has continued to roll in. The Podesta Group had some $13 million in lobbying income in 2013, sporting clients such as Lockheed Martin, Wells Fargo, U.S. Airways, Walmart, and the National Biodiesel Board. Heather Podesta + Partners made some $4 million, lobbying on behalf of health companies, the American Beverage Association, Brookfield Power, DeVry University, and others. A portion of that money was recycled, contributing to Democratic campaigns, opening up avenues of influence: Tony gave some $45,500 in 2013, all to Democrats; Heather some $95,798 to Democrats, Democratic committees, and liberal groups.

As government expands, extending its reach to every aspect of business, every sector of the economy, private citizens and corporations require sherpas to lead them through the mountains of regulations and tax provisions, to discover exemptions and special favors and other forms of relief or favoritism to improve the bottom line. And who better to act as sherpas than the relatives of the Democrats who impose the regulations and tax provisions in the first place, who better than the lively proprietors of a family business operating in the luxurious and morally uncomplicated world of the caste of limousine liberals who dominate politics, culture, news, and finance.

Corporations give to Democratic politicians, avoiding the scrutiny of liberal attack dogs in the media and nonprofit sectors, and enjoying the ego boost that comes with being on the “right side of history.” Then those corporations hire the Podestas to get them out of the Rube Goldberg traps the Democrats have enacted into law. John’s innovation was to establish a corporate-funded think tank where the burdensome policies would be concocted, and whose staff would go on to man the regulatory agencies that put their wool-headed ideas into practice. And to whom do the corporations turn when they find themselves on the receiving end of all this uplift, all this do-goodery, all this progress, hope, and change? Why, to the man in the red Prada loafers, and to his flamboyantly patterned wife.

It was in 2009 that the Washington Post dubbed Heather Podesta the “ It Girl in a new generation of young, highly connected, built-for-the-Obama-era lobbyists.” The appellation was bestowed in a lengthy and fawning “Style” profile, which acted as a sort of advertisement for her lobbying firm. Heather Podesta lamented in the piece that the onrush of business, the peals from health insurance and green energy companies looking for special treatment under the new Democratic dispensation, had interfered with her and her husband’s international travel. Whereas they used to visit Venice up to a dozen times annually, Podesta said, “Now we only maybe get there six times a year.” The poor dears.

The next year, Washington gadfly Tammy Haddad reported on Heather’s fortieth birthday for Politico. “Attending a Tony Podesta party is a pretty good way to start a new year,” Haddad wrote, “but a party to celebrate his wife Heather’s 40th birthday at their new showcase home is a great way to start a new decade.” It was downhill from there. Like Elvis, with whom she shares a birthday, Heather Podesta, Haddad said, had “become a rock star in the Washington power scene as a top lobbyist.” There were red-velvet cupcakes. An Elvis impersonator gyrated for guests. Democratic Congressman John Larson and “Terry Lierman, chief of staff to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, took a tour of the provocative and sometimes whimsical artwork with Jane Oates, John O’Leary, Conrad Cafritz, and Hilary Rosen.” Also there was Jonathan Silver, “the Energy Department’s new money man,” who gave the American taxpayer Solyndra, and who coordinated strategy with John Podesta’s Center for American Progress.

Those winsome days have passed, however. The couple separated a month before Obama’s reelection. Their marriage’s denouement, as related in their divorce filings, is like a retelling of The War of the Roses. He says that in March 2013, months after they had separated, she asked for money to “purchase a multi-million dollar residence for herself,” and he agreed to pay half of the down payment. What he did not know at the time was that she was seeing another man. She says he’s prevented her from accessing the database that keeps track of the art collection. He says she changed the locks on the Venetian flat. She says he’s trying to get rid of the art before the court divides it between them. He says she forced the “cancelation of a scheduled exhibition at the Australian embassy.” She wants the Kalorama house, half the art, and “an equitable division of the parties’ other marital property, including the value of each party’s lobbying firm, retirement accounts, securities, business assets, tangible personal property, including jewelry, wine collection, and all other marital property.” He just wants to be rid of her.

If Heather Podesta has a flaw in the eyes of Washington it is that she is entirely too honest about the mechanics of lobbying. When she launched her independent company in 2007 it was with the slogan, “We know people.” Dianne Feinstein once canceled a fundraiser organized by the Podestas, the Post reported years ago, after she got wind that the invitation read as follows: “The prix fixe includes the Select Committee on Intelligence for the first course followed by your choice of Appropriations, Judiciary, or Rules Committees.”

Heather Podesta’s court filing is just as direct. “As a married couple who both lobbied,” it reads, “they strategically cultivated their public image, and worked to build the ‘Heather and Tony Podesta’ brand for the success of their shared enterprise.” Now that shared enterprise is no more, the Heather and Tony Podesta brand is damaged, and all the years of strategic cultivation is in danger of coming undone. This “married couple who both lobbied” is sundered, revealing a political culture of pettiness and greed, and reminding us that there are few things as revolting, intellectually, morally, and ethically, as the “Washington power scene.”

Read both Podesta divorce filings below: Tony Podesta Divorce Filing by WashingtonFreeBeacon

Heather Podesta Counterclaim by WashingtonFreeBeacon




To: Carolyn who wrote (9367)4/13/2014 5:42:16 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 



To: Carolyn who wrote (9367)4/14/2014 3:15:45 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
The ugly story behind the persecution of Catherine Engelbrecht

.........................................................................
Flopping Aces ^ | 04-13-14



To: Carolyn who wrote (9367)4/15/2014 12:56:04 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Will HHS nominee Sylvia Burwell close hospitals to spite the GOP, like when she closed the national parks?Reading The American Spectator's recap of ABC's "9 Things You Might Not Know About HHS Nominee Sylvia Burwell," one thing really jumped out at me.

Did you know she single-handedly closed access to our national parks, so Obama could spitefully make last year's government shutdown as "painful" as possible?

The ABC story does tell us that Burwell is "really smart." It should have said, "willing to do anything the boss asks." NBC News, in a story that somehow slipped past the editors, reports the following: "A single person shut down the entire U.S. government.… Not a congressman, but an unelected woman named Sylvia Burwell who … sent the email that initiated the process that has closed national parks." This eventually led to the refusal by park rangers to allow WWII veterans into their own memorial, a travesty that clearly demonstrated how the White House was deliberately inflicting as much pain as possible on the public in order to gain political points.

She's Dear Leader's hatchet woman at OMB.

So it's not hard to envision a day at the helm of HHS when she decides to show Republicans who's boss again, this time by closing hospitals, say until they give up on trying to repeal Obamacare.

Given how she treated veterans last year, and knowing how Obama feels about our military, she'll undoubtedly start with Veterans' hospitals first.

Using the government to punish his "enemies" is what Obama does. And Sylvia Burwell is a faithful Obamabot, well-versed in inflicting pain on America. From that perspective, she's the perfect choice to lead HHS as Obamacare is firmly and completely shoved up our ass.

http://wyblog.us/blog/obama_watch/sylvia-burwell-hospital-closer.html


Obama’s nominee to be the new HHS Secretary: Sylvia Burwell is the formerly faceless OMB bureaucrat who shut down our National Parks during last fall’s congressional budget impasse. This is her reward for kicking sand in Republicans’ faces, barring World War II vets from their memorial, and stopping tourists from looking at the Grand Canyon.

credit fubho



To: Carolyn who wrote (9367)4/15/2014 9:33:53 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Latino, Female Conservatives Blacklisted from Philly ‘Diversity’ Center



To: Carolyn who wrote (9367)4/17/2014 7:44:04 PM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
WWI Red Cross dog.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................

May 1917, Belgium: An Allied soldier bandages the paw of a Red Cross working dog.