SUCKER Dept.: Union Bashes ACA, Sees Loss Of Worker’s Wages

Unite Here, a union representing hospitality workers has some strong criticism for Obamacare.



From Washington Examiner:


acaA national union that represents 300,000 low-wage hospitality workers charges in a new report that Obamacare will slam wages, cut hours, limit access to health insurance and worsen the very “income equality” President Obama says he is campaigning to fix.

Unite Here warned that due to Obamacare’s much higher costs for health insurance than what union workers currently pay, the result will be a pay cut of up to $5 an hour. “If employers follow the incentives in the law, they will push families onto the exchanges to buy coverage. This will force low-wage service industry employees to spend $2.00, $3.00 or even $5.00 an hour of their pay to buy similar coverage,” said the union in a new report.

“Only in Washington could asking the bottom of the middle class to finance health care for the poorest families be seen as reducing inequality,” said the report from Unite Here. “Without smart fixes, the ACA threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage,” said the report, titled, “The Irony of Obamacare: Making Inequality Worse.”
Based on government and private reports, polling and statements from administration officials, the report, to be sent to pro-union members in Congress, charges that low-wage workers are taking the hit under Obamacare, while wealthy insurance companies fatten up on government subsidies.

Union head Donald “D.” Taylor, in a note also being sent to Congress, demands changes and admits to being reluctant to bash a president his union supported.

“Believe me; I enter this entire debate about the consequences of the ACA with a deep reluctance,” he wrote. “Unite Here was the first union to endorse then-Senator Obama. We support the addition of health care to millions of Americans. Yet facts are facts, and Obamacare will cost our members the equivalent of a significant pay cut to keep their hard-won benefits.”

Taylor and other union leaders have criticized Obamacare before. His union’s report was uploaded by Ralston Reports.

Unite Here’s document charges that the administration is putting union health care into a “death spiral.” It endorsed criticism that employers will move workers to part-time status to avoid the requirement that those working 30 hours or more a week be provided health insurance — or else the company pays a penalty. And it says the Affordable Care Act will shift workers from union insurance to the more expensive Obamacare health exchanges, costing them up to half of their pay to cover premiums.

“The information addresses the very unfortunate irony of Obamacare,” Taylor said in his letter about the report. “Namely, that it will inevitably lead to the destruction of the health care plans we were promised we could keep. And, as a result, it will lead to greater income inequality for the very segment of the population Obamacare should want to help most.”

Taylor also suggested that Democrats in Washington are telling unions to stop griping about the impact of Obamacare on their members. He quoted a Senate aide saying, “Labor needs to regress to the mean.” Said Taylor: “In other words, roll back what you have and take one for the team. Ironic, given that Congress and the president carved out an exemption for staffers on the ACA. We cannot sit idly by as the politicians carve up our health plans while they carve out exceptions for themselves and every special interest feeding at the trough in Washington.”
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner’s “Washington Secrets” columnist, can be contacted at

And it says the Affordable Care Act will shift workers from union insurance to the more expensive Obamacare health exchanges, costing them up to half of their pay to cover premiums.

Which means the unions will lose their lucrative insurance business.


Should a Catholic pharmacist be forced by law to dispense birth control pills and condoms also?

From the Daily Mail

Christian bakeshop MUST serve same-sex customers after owner refused to make wedding cake for gay couple, rules judge

jackJack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, Colorado refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple
Charlie Craig and David Mullins got married in Massachusetts but wanted a cake to celebrate their union in Colorado
When Phillips found out that the cake was for a same-sex ceremony, he turned the couple away
The ACLU filed a suit against the bakeshop on behalf of the couple
While the judge ordered that Phillips can’t discriminate against customers in the future, no fines were imposed on his business

By Associated Press

PUBLISHED: 23:49 EST, 6 December 2013 | UPDATED: 00:56 EST, 7 December 2013

A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.

The order from administrative law judge Robert N Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple ‘because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage’.

The order says the cake-maker must ‘cease and desist from discriminating’ against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.

Scroll down for video
Ordered to accept: Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Bakeshop was told by a Colorado judge today that he can’t discriminate against same-sex customers, unless he wants to pay a fine

Ordered to accept: Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Bakeshop was told by a Colorado judge today that he can’t discriminate against same-sex customers, unless he wants to pay a fine
Refusing service: Phillips found himself the center of a lawsuit when he refused to make a wedding cake for same-sex couple Charlie Craig (left) and Dave Mullins (right) in June 2012

Refusing service: Phillips found himself the center of a lawsuit when he refused to make a wedding cake for same-sex couple Charlie Craig (left) and Dave Mullins (right) in June 2012

gayThe American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against shop owner Jack Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission last year on behalf of Charlie Craig, 33, and David Mullins, 29. The couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado.

Mullins and Craig wanted to buy a cake in July 2012, but when Phillips found out the cake was to celebrate a gay wedding, he turned the couple of away, according to the complaint.

Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, said the judge’s order puts Phillips in an impossible position of going against his Christian faith.
His religion: Phillips said he wouldn’t make the cake because of his Christian religious beliefs

Not fined: In the judgement handed down Friday, Phillips was told he can’t discriminate against same-sex customers but no fines were levied against his business

Not fined: In the judgement handed down Friday, Phillips was told he can’t discriminate against same-sex customers but no fines were levied against his busines

‘He can’t violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck,’ she said. ‘If Jack can’t make wedding cakes, he can’t continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for.’

The Civil Rights Commission is expected to certify the judge’s order next week. Phillips can appeal the judge’s order, and Martin said they’re considering their next steps.



Hizzoner Mayor Koch Dead At 88

kochOne of New York City’s most colorful mayors Edward Koch is dead at age 88. A three term mayor (1978-1989), Koch was noted and respected for his outspoken opinions. Still sought out for endorsements after his term in office, Koch went on to become a vocal voice through his newspaper columns and radio show. Below are some examples of his sharp tongue and wit. He’ll be missed.


‘If they want a parade, let them parade in front of the oil drums in Moonachie.’

(After denying the 1987 Giants a Super Bowl parade in Manhattan’s Canyon of Heroes)


‘I’m not the type to get ulcers, I give them.’


‘If you don’t like the President, it costs you 90 bucks to fly to Washington to picket. If you don’t like the governor, it costs you 60 bucks to fly to Albany to picket. If you don’t like me — 90 cents.’


‘The knife of corruption endangered the life New York City. The scalpel of the law is making us well again.’


‘If you agree with me on nine out of 12 issues, you should vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, you should see a psychiatrist.’


‘The people have spoken … and they must be punished.’

(Responding to a supporter who asked if he’d run again after his defeat in 1989)


‘Have you ever lived in the suburbs? … It’s sterile. It’s nothing. It’s wasting your life, and people do not wish to waste their lives once they’ve seen New York! … This rural American thing — I’m telling you, it’s a joke.’


“What Difference Does It Make?” Add It To The List Of Dumb Hillaryisms

hillaryLet me state right off the bat I do not like Hillary Clinton. Never have. If there was one redeeming thing in the 2008 election it was that Obama and his Chicago thugs bitch slapped Hillary out of contention. I always felt she thought she was entitled to the Presidency and was hers for the asking. At the Senate hearings on Benghazi yesterday she displayed the typical Clinton diversionary tactic when Sen. Ron Johnson called into question her department’s accounting of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi, Libya.


Clinton went on the defensive, raising her voice and condescendingly tried to berate the senator by stating “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” Clinton responded, raising her voice at Johnson, who continued to interrupt her. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”


Well Hillary if you don’t know why it makes a difference, then I suppose it’s a good thing you are leaving the State Dept. Reacting to and preventing future scenarios like Benghazi makes a big difference between guys out for a walk and a premeditated attack. A very stupid remark that I’m willing to bet will come back and bite you in the ass. Add that remark to a list of your other words of wisdom.


“I have to confess that it’s crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian.”


“God bless the America we are trying to create.”


“We have a lot of kids who don’t know what works means. They think work is a four-letter word.”


“He ran a gas station down in St. Louis… No, Mahatma Gandhi was a great leader of the 20th century.” –introducing a quote by Mahatma Gandhi


“Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.” –on Bill Clinton’s bimbo eruptions


“If I didn’t kick his ass every day, he wouldn’t be worth anything.” –on Bill Clinton


“I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.”


“We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”


“I have said that I’m not running and I’m having a great time being pres — being a first-term senator.” —on her presidential ambitions


“I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.”


“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” –on visiting Bosnia in 1996, contradicting other accounts that said there was no threat of gunfire. Clinton later said she “misspoke”


Benghazi: Obamas Watergate?

The White House’s stonewalling of the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack in which four Americans were killed including Ambassador Chris Stevens is beginning to show all the classic maneuvers of the Watergate scandal that brought down the Presidency of Richard Nixon. The phrase that was made famous in the Watergate Hearings was “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”


That pretty much describes the scenario that President Obama is facing right now. As more facts have come out, they blatantly contradict what what the White House stance is. The President said it was a spontaneous attack in protest of an anti muslim video.


Here is the Benghazi timeline of events as they occurred from FactCheck:

The question won’t go away: Did President Obama and administration officials mislead the public when they initially claimed that the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began “spontaneously” in response to an anti-Muslim video?

The question surfaced again on Oct. 25 — more than six weeks after the incident — when government emails showed the White House and the State Department were told even as the attack was going on that Ansar al-Sharia, a little-known militant group, had claimed credit for it.

We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come — both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.

But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.

What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:

  • There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
  • Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
  • Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
  • Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.

Here is our timeline:


Here is the CIA Timeline

The CIA timeline was described Thursday by a senior intelligence official. The narrative of events is dramatic and disturbing. Rather than try to parse each detail, here’s a summary of the highlights. The time sequence is Benghazi local time on the night of Sept. 11 and the morning of Sept. 12:

•9:40 p.m.: A senior State Department security officer at the consulate in Benghazi called the CIA base, at an annex about a mile away, and requested assistance. “The compound is under attack. People are moving through the gates.” CIA officers at the base can hear the alarm, and a team immediately begins gathering weapons and preparing to leave read more


Some Post Election Thoughts



For a year President Obama said that Gov. Mitt Romney wants to take us back to the old policies and ideas that got us into this economic mess…. yet the very first thing he said after being reelected was his desire to sit down face to face with Romney to explore ways to get the economy going. Huh?…..Huh?



Linda McMahon spent $50 million in her quest for Joe Liebermans Senate seat, which she lost to Chris Murphy. This is on top of the $50 million she spent in her run against Richard Blumenthal in 2010. In both campaigns McMahon ran on the issue of jobs and how she was a job creator who knows how to get things done. Now I voted for McMahon both times but I also feel that if she was such a jobs creator (which she was), then I would have thought she could be more productive by taking that $100 million along with access to just as much if not more in credit lines,  and either buy, start or transplant a company to Ct and create more jobs. Because quite frankly Linda that $100 million is now just pissed away.



The Monday morning quarterbacks were out in full force Wednesday spouting off on why Romney lost the Presidential election. Oh Romney ran a bad campaign, obama ran a good one, voters still blame Bush for the bad economy, the hurricane knocked the wind out of Romneys sails, that lovefest between Gov Chris Christie and President Obama was somehow interpreted to mean Christie was endorsing Obama, blah, blah, blah. The reason Obama won was because more people voted for him. It’s that simple.



The worst thing about the election? As of yesterday the race for 2016 is now in play.




People See What They Want To See Even When They Didn’t See It

I would like to say only in Hollywood where this took place, but I’m sure it’s all over. ABC Late night host Jimmy Kimmel, sent a staffer out in the streets of Hollywood asking people who won the Presidential debate.This was four hours before it occurred.





The Presidential Debate Round 2


Last nights debate between President Obama and republican challenger Mitt Romney was a feisty head to head, toe to toe word fest in which both sides held their own. Columnist Charles Krauthammer described it as “a boxing match, this was heavyweight, this was Ali Frazier.”

“At one point I thought they were sort of going to use their mics as weapons and it would turn into the Taiwanese Parliament where you get these fantastic fist fights,” he added.

President Obama was much more aggressive in last nights debate and compared to his aloof performance in the first debate, that was a plus. Romney also remained as assertive as the first debate so he didn’t lose any ground. Here’s some of the more memorable lines from last nights debate.


1. “When do you graduate? 2014. When you come out in 2014, I presume I’m going to be president. I’m going to make sure you get a job.

2. “When we’re talking about math that doesn’t add up, how about $5 trillion of deficits over the last four years. That’s math that doesn’t add up.”

3. “We took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks.’ And they brought us whole binders full of women.”

4. “You shouldn’t have to hire a lawyer to figure out how to get into this country legally.”

5. “The president took Detroit bankrupt. You took General Motors bankrupt. You took Chrysler bankrupt. So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did. And I think it’s important to know that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet so they could start hiring more people.”


1. “Gov. Romney doesn’t have a five-point plan; he has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules.”

2. “When he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considers themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility, think about who he was talking about: folks on social security who have worked all their lives; veterans, who sacrificed for this country; students, who are out there trying to hopefully advance their own dreams but also this country’s dreams; soldiers, who are overseas fighting for us right now; people who are working hard every day.”

3. “We haven’t heard from the governor any specifics beyond Big Bird and eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood in terms of how he pays for that.”

4. “I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours, so it doesn’t take as long.”

5. “Gov. Romney was a very successful investor. If somebody came to you, governor, with a plan that said, ‘Here, I want to spend $7 or $8 trillion and we’re going to pay for it but we can’t tell you until maybe after the election how we’re going to do it.’ You wouldn’t have taken such a sketchy deal and neither would you, the American people.”


Commentary: These People Might As Well Vote Throwing Darts

Duh which way did he go George, which way did he go?

Tonight is the second Presidental debate between President Barack Obama and republican challenger Mitt Romney set in a Town Hall format. Questions during the 90-minute debate, which takes place at 9 p.m. Eastern Time at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., will be asked by local uncommitted voters from a variety of socio-economic, racial and political backgrounds selected by the Gallup Organization. Roughly 12 audience members out of about 80 will get to ask questions, with moderator Candy Crowley of CNN determining which questions will be posed, and in what order.

Uncommitted voters? Are you kidding me? Who are these people?


President Obama has been in office nearly four years. His policies are well known, most famously the years long debate about healthcare, as well as issues about taxes, social issues like gay marriage, and the war on terror. His stance on a plethora of issues is well known. It pretty much favors liberal ideology.


Republican candidate and former governor Mitt Romney has been campaigning for the 2012 nomination since June of 2011 and has participated in 23 of the 26 primary debates.His stance on taxes, the war on terror, and healthcare have also been laid out. His ideology is more conservative to moderate.


With today’s access to the media on so many levels, TV, radio, internet, newspapers, etc. the amount of  information made available to the voting public needed to make an informed decision has been overwhelming. So how on earth can anyone just three weeks away from election day, NOT know who they want to vote for right now? What is it you are waiting for that you cannot make up your mind? More info? Like what? The truth of what is going on with these undecided voters is when they get into the booth to vote, it is going to be eenie, meeny, miney, mo.


Debate Highlights Of The Past


Commentary: C’mon People Lighten Up!

The reaction to the above picture is just another indication of how anal elective politics have become. What should have been a normal reaction to the picture has turned into a myriad of interpretations by both sides of the political aisle.


The Right is alleging that it makes Romney look foolish, exploits children, and is suggestive, while the Left is yukking it up saying Romney looks like an ass. The fact that Romney is not looking back in a leering manner discredits those allegations and renders them baseless.


At one time, you would look at that picture and react with amusement, elicit a chuckle and be on your way. It was a photographic moment that had unintended consequences but was received in an innocent manner. Today it seems like people on both sides of the aisle will read into something and make it fit their political agenda to slander the other side. This isn’t mudslinging in the traditional sense, it’s selective interpretation to inflict damage to the opponent. There’s a difference.


With less than 30 days left until the election, I find it incredulous we are talking about this picture and Big Bird with so many pressing issues facing the nation.


Enough Is Enough!: Campaign Shenanigans


Enough Is Enough is a recurring column about the ramblings of a frustrated man.

I’m always amused at the blatant presumptions of politicians when campaigning for office that the voters will buy into their nefarious attempts to convince and sway their messages into votes. Some are just annoying, some are insulting and some are comical.

Annoying (always a favorite). The Diner Campaign. You know, that’s when political candidates feel compelled to visit the local diner and press the flesh for votes. They enter through the doors  like the patrons extended a personal engraved invitation to come in and interrupt their meal with concerns of their welfare. This concept always baffled me. I’m sitting down eating my meal when Mr or Mrs Candidate strides up to my booth and invades my space and inconveniently catches me with a mouthful of food to ask how things are going. As I hastily chew and swallow, I’m under pressure to acknowledge their presence and when I’m able to speak, I return the obligatory handshake and then proceed to partake in the patronizing act of the back and forth of ” how’s it going?”. Being the polite lad I was brought up to be, both my wife and I go through the niceties and then they are off to the next booth. This is really annoying. Does the candidate in question have any idea of the intrusion he is inflicting on people who are trying to enjoy eating their meal? Do they really think this is a venue for discussing issues that those diners are concerned about? Your food is getting cold, some don’t have any concerns, and if they did, they know how to find you. (question is do they know where to find you? I mean other than the diner). A bit of advice for the candidates who think these diner runs resonate with the voters- try leaving us alone while we are enjoying a meal out. If you annoy me when I support you, imagine how annoyed I am if I don’t.

Insulting. Yes I’m talking about those ads where the candidates use family members to extol all their worldly and godlike virtues. Do you really think we can be swayed because your mom says your a nice guy and would make a great leader? Here’s the way to use family members effectively in campaign ads. Candidate A would get Candidate B’s mother to come on the air and say when she gave birth to her son the doctor slapped her (apologies to Rodney Dangerfield). Candidate B would get Candidate A’s daughter to come on and say “my dad was so busy helping everyone else out and living in Washington, that we didn’t recognize him when he finally came home with a full head of white hair”.  (ok, this one may backfire on Candidate B). Or if Candidate X gets Candidate Y’s wife to come on and say “my husband is a terrific guy when he’s not drinking and chasing women. I can tell you I have more black eyes than Goobers has peas”.  Not subtle I’ll admit, but certainly more effective.

Comical. Those commercials where the candidate is walking and talking with the elderly who robotically nod their heads, the obvious staged town hall meetings, again with the robotic theatrics, the tour of the factory in a hard hat talking with a worker who has “who’s this guy?” written all over his face, the licking of an ice cream cone because who wouldn’t vote for a guy who can tongue a good cone, and then the shameless ending of the commercials where the candidates stand there and say they approve this message. Grounds alone to vote against them for thinking we are that stupid. Or are we?


Oh Brother Dept: Obama’s Barking Up The Wrong Tree

In this day and age of political correctness, it seems there is no end as to who may be offended by what used to be considered a universally  accepted phrase that was   meant for what it was. Case in point. In his press conference  last Wednesday announcing the release of his birth certificate, President Obama made a point of getting off a dig at the so called “birthers”, those who demanded he show proof he was born in this country. After two years of this controversy, he released his official birth certificate and afterwards admonished the time and attention paid to this issue by saying “We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.”
Ooopsy Daisy, now you’ve done it Mr President. Carnival barkers across the land are up in arms over that disparaging remark, belittling their long held profession of hawking circus acts to the public. Frank Zaitshik, a second generation carnival worker said  “I am extremely upset by the reference,” going on to say he prefers the word “carny”. He says he has spent much of his life battling negative sterotypes about his industry. Hmm well I guess we all have our own fights. He also didn’t have nice things to say about President Obama.

“I think what Obama said is the same type of stereotype that has been placed on African Americans.” Zaitshik says. “You wouldn’t expect those comments from someone who is a minority and has faced prejudice.”

There’s a reference there somewhere about a pot and a  stove  calling each other names.  After hearing how upsetting those  insensitive remarks were, I have a a bit of advice for President Obama. Whatever you do, please do not refer to anyone in Congress as a clown or bearded lady.

For full story read


These Are The Scariest Employment Statistics

Despite todays unemployment figures which showed the unemployment rate drop to 8.8%, an article in todays Wall Street Journal by Stephen Moore, shows some startling statistics about employment, and it’s not about the unemployed, but those who are employed. It’s a sobering revelation of where the country has been heading over the last few decades, and where it will continue to head.  From The WSJ:


If you want to understand better why so many states—from New York to Wisconsin to California—are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.

It gets worse. More Americans…more


Commentary: C’mon Hillary, Get Serious

Hillary Clinton is once again spouting off the nonsense that she’s not interested in being President, and has no intention of running in 2012 or 2016.  I’ve watched the Clintons long enough to know that these are not people content to ease into retirement and out of the public eye.

The Clintons, once the most powerful force in politics were blindsided in the 2008 primaries when Obama and his Chicago gang wrestled the top spot right out of the Clintons hands, no doubt leaving them headkicked in confusion. The animosity between the two adversaries was bridged somewhat when the Obama administration offered Hillary the plum position of Secretary of State. But was it? By all accounts Hillary has been largely  marginalized in her position. Compared to her predecessor Condolezza Rice who was in the news on almost a daily basis informing the country (and world) where the United States stood in the unfolding crises in the Middle East and elsewhere, Hillary seems to make news not on foreign policy but quotes on her daughters wedding, denials of running for office, or falling down and breaking her arm. With the domino effect of rebellion in the Middle East where the heck is Hillary in all this?


This my friends has to be most frustrating to her and Bill and the plans they had set in motion for retaking the White House in 2008. There’s no doubt Hillary remembers the 18 million votes she received in the 2008 primary, and she has had the benefit of observing the mistakes the Obama administration has made and can learn from them. With Obamas approval rating in the low 40’s, I doubt very much the possibility of Hillary running for office in the future is not on the Clintons agenda. These public denials may just be intentional to foster a grass roots movement of support. Read more Outside The Beltway


Dialog: Is WikiLeaks Right Or Wrong?

The latest round of publicizing classified material from WikiLeaks has caused an uproar from both sides of the aisle. Some contend that the information released is on par with treason, while others hail the release of such material as an exposure of how leaders of the world make decisions and what they really think of one another. So is this a good thing or a bad thing?  Does leaking these cables hurt relationships among nations or open the door for a new honest approach? Can  Julian Assange founder of WikiLeaks be held on charges for the release of these documents?

From The Washington Post:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the Justice Department and Pentagon are conducting “an active, ongoing criminal investigation.” Others familiar with the probe said the FBI is examining everyone who came into possession of the documents, including those who gave the materials to WikiLeaks and also the organization itself. No charges are imminent, the sources said, and it is unclear whether any will be brought.

Former prosecutors cautioned that prosecutions involving leaked classified information are difficult because the Espionage Act is a 1917 statute that preceded Supreme Court cases that expanded First Amendment protections. The government also would have to persuade another country to turn over Assange, who is outside the United States.

But the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the inquiry is rapidly unfolding, said charges could be filed under the act. Read more

What are your thoughts?


Money:Ouch! Congress Fiddles While Taxpayers Burn

Congress has yet to act on whether or not the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire in January 2011. They have also not addressed the adjustment of the withholding tax tables if they the tax cuts do expire. read more

Powered by WordPress | Theme by Black Cat Studio