Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Cruising the Web

So Bernie is fully behind Clinton. That doesn't seem to fit his campaign that he repeatedly said wasn't about him, but about his followers. Now, he's imploring his supporters to do what he wants and support Clinton. It really seems contrary to his entire message.
Bernie Sanders promised his supporters they could change the world if they just tried hard enough and worked hard enough. “Temper your expectations, be reasonable, compromise and settle” was the opposite of Sanders’ rallying cry for the past year, and yet that’s pretty much what he’s asking of his supporters now.

Perhaps that is why Sanders is weaseling when asked if he trusts Hillary.
Bernie Sanders has endorsed Hillary Clinton, but that doesn’t mean he trusts her.

Speaking at a Bloomberg Politics forum Tuesday, Sanders was asked if Clinton could be trusted to enact the left-leaning Democratic platform.

“Sorry, I’m not going to get into the trusted or not. Hillary Clinton, you know, as I just said a moment ago, (you asked me to) characterize somebody in a way I’m not going to. Hillary Clinton is a very, very intelligent person … I’ve known her for 25 years.”
Gee, if he thought she were honest, he could easily have said so; it's pretty clear that he doesn't want to go there.

The Democrats are pretending that they're the positive ones compared to the negative, nasty tone coming from the Republicans. Jim Geraghty reminds us of this 2012 Obama ad attacking Romney for on all sorts of grounds with this slogan: "Mitt Romney: Not One of Us." Just imagine if Republicans used that slogan against Barack Obama. The hysteria would be deafening.

Featured Deals in Sports and Fitness

Today’s Deals at Amazon

Best-selling Vitamins

Another tidbit from the DNC leaks.
Leaked emails show the Democratic National Committee scrambled this spring to conceal the details of a joint fundraising arrangement with Hillary Clinton that funneled money through state Democratic parties.

But during the three-month period when the DNC was working to spin the situation, state parties kept less than one half of one percent of the $82 million raised through the arrangement — validating concerns raised by campaign finance watchdogs, state party allies and Bernie Sanders supporters.

The arrangement, called the Hillary Victory Fund, allowed the Clinton campaign to seek contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend extravagant fundraisers including a dinner at George Clooney’s house and a concert at Radio City Music Hall featuring Katy Perry and Elton John. That’s resulted in criticism for Clinton, who has made opposition to big money in politics a key plank in her campaign platform.

Clinton’s allies have responded publicly by arguing that the fund is raising big money to boost down-ballot Democratic candidates by helping the 40 state parties that are now participating in the fund.

But privately, officials at the DNC and on Clinton’s campaign worked to parry questions raised by reporters, as well as Sanders’ since-aborted campaign, about the distribution of the money, according to a cache of hacked emails made public late last week by WikiLeaks.
Gee, you mean Hillary was being hypocritical about big money in politics as well as screwing over the state parties while lying about it? Shocking. Of course, perhaps the state parties remember how they were hurt politically during her husband's and now during Obama's presidencies.

President Obama must be asking himself why Americans are so gloomy. After all, he accomplished almost everything that he campaigned on. And he did it without Republican help. He should be running victory lap after victory lap. But it hasn't worked out that way.
Even opponents of Mr. Obama’s agenda have to admit that he has achieved most of what he campaigned on. With a Democratic supermajority in 2009-2010, he passed the largest stimulus spending bill in decades, pushed through ObamaCare, nationalized the student-loan industry, and turned the banks into public utilities answerable first to government.

Democrats resisted him on cap and trade and union card check, but he has since achieved by executive fiat most of what he wanted on climate change and labor organizing. As the Bush tax rates expired in 2013, he insisted on and won a huge tax increase. His one major unfulfilled ambition is immigration reform, but that hangs on who nominates the next Supreme Court Justice.

On foreign policy, he has also largely fulfilled his goal of reducing America’s global commitments. He has struck deals with adversaries and distanced the U.S. from allies. Perhaps most important, by refusing to reform entitlements he has narrowed the budget room for future military spending. He has put defense spending on a path to 3% of GDP, and falling, down from 4.6% when he took office. He has Europeanized the U.S. defense budget.

Democrats will cheer all of this, yet they might stop to ask themselves why, amid so much progressive success, the country is so frustrated and miserable. When Reagan left office the U.S. mood was buoyant and Americans celebrated immigration as a point of national pride. The political turmoil of the 1970s had vanished.

As Mr. Obama leaves office, the national mood is more sour than at anytime since the 1960s. The polls say some two-thirds of the voters think the country is on the “wrong track,” and a majority say they expect their children to do less well financially than they did. This reflects the historically slow economic recovery and incomes that have only recently begun to return to where they were when the recession ended.

Mr. Obama will claim he inherited a recession (he did) and saved the U.S. from depression (doubtful), but his policies have been in place for eight years. His appointees run the Federal Reserve. He is the one who chose to block tax reform and pile regulatory costs on nearly every part of the U.S. economy.

The resulting economic anxiety that sometimes becomes anger is bipartisan. Sanders and Trump voters represent the mirror image of frustration with slow growth and stagnant incomes, even if they prefer different villains. The Sanders crowd blames inequality, big business and foreign trade. The Trumpians blame big government and business, immigration and foreign trade. Neither vindicates the results of Obamanomics.
The Democrats are trying to pretend that the GOP convention was absurdly dark, but the mood of the country is pretty dismal. Bernie and Hillary both campaigned that they would be the ones to fix this depressing state of affairs. So it's rather late to pretend that it's unpatriotic to criticize how the country is doing now.

Perhaps this is the sort of fact that has put the brakes on Obama's victory laps.
Since Obamacare’s rollout in the fall of 2013, 16 co-ops that launched with money from the federal government have collapsed.

The co-ops, or consumer operated and oriented plans, were started under the Affordable Care Act as a way to boost competition among insurers and expand the number of health insurance companies available to consumers living in rural areas.

Coupons for Vitamins and Dietary Supplements

70% Off Clothing, Jewelry, Shoes, Watches, and More

Health and Personal Care Coupons

Hillary Clinton has certainly changed her position on immigration since 2008 when she was against illegal immigrants to get drivers' licenses.
In 2016, the debate over drivers’ licenses seems trivial. This year, the Democratic platform calls for the federal government to provide health-care to all residents of the United States, “regardless of immigration status,” and expresses support for Obama’s executive orders granting amnesty to children and parents. Last night, the convention’s progressive slate of speakers repeatedly emphasized these actions; nary a word was spoken about border security.

In eight years, Hillary Clinton’s views on immigration have come a long way. Whether the American people have shifted with her will be apparent soon enough.
There's a whole list of policies that she's flip-flopped on such as free trade and gay marriage. Remember when Romney was excoriated for similar flip-flops? With Hillary, it's just a sign of her nobility. It all depends on which way one flips.

As William McGurn writes, Hillary's campaign is a repudiation of her husband's presidency.
Start with the platform. Now, it’s true that platforms are not binding, but they give a good sense of how parties and candidates see themselves. Notwithstanding the “lock her up” chants from Bernie supporters here in Philly, Mr. Sanders says of the prevailing draft that “we now have the most-progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party.”

It’s hard to recall these days, but Bill Clinton’s 1992 platform and presidency were once thought to deliver the Democratic Party from precisely this kind of thinking. Back then, Mr. Clinton was the face of the “New Democrat” who aimed to persuade the American people Democrats had changed from the McGovern days and could be trusted on values, the economy and national security.

In 1992, the party of Bill Clinton called business a “noble endeavor.” Its platform sounded downright Paul Ryanish, listing its “first priority” as “broad-based, non-inflationary economic growth and the opportunity that flows from it.” And it declared its opposition to “the adoption of new programs and new spending without new thinking.”

In his administration, Mr. Clinton would work with Republicans to pass welfare reform and repeal the Glass-Steagall provisions forbidding affiliations between banks and securities firms. He would sign the North American Free Trade Agreement. And in his 1996 State of the Union address, Mr. Clinton would declare that “the era of big government is over.”

In 2016, the party of Hillary Clinton has chucked all this overboard, embracing a plethora of new programs and spending. It has come out for “free” college education and a government health-care option. Mrs. Clinton opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the biggest trade deal since Nafta. For this Clinton, the era of big government is back.

Apparently, Michelle Obama's blue dress on Monday night was sending a powerful message.
Cobalt blue silk crepe, with cap sleeves, a flared skirt and a neat waist, it was by the designer Christian Siriano, and it pretty much matched the backdrop, playing down Mrs. Obama’s appearance and playing to the patriotic theme, especially when contrasted with the bright red jacket that Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts wore during her speech.

But the simplicity and the color were just the beginning. See, Mr. Siriano is a former reality TV star — the only designer to really have emerged from the television show “Project Runway” (he won the fourth season competition) and carved out a place on the New York Fashion Week scene.

But unlike another reality TV star, Mr. Siriano has built his career on being inclusive: on catering to women regardless of size or age.

Most recently, he was, for example, the designer who stepped forward (via Instagram) when Leslie Jones, the late-40-something six-foot-tall star of the movie remake “Ghostbusters,” complained that no designer wanted to dress her, making a custom off-the-shoulder red gown for her premiere that became something of an internet moment. He also has a collaboration with the plus-size store Lane Bryant, for which he held a runway show at the United Nations this year, and has dressed other celebrities, including Kate Hudson and Zendaya.
I guess it was a different message from Hillary's clothes.
Hillary Clinton’s New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement. It was a clear attempt to position herself as an everywoman.

But an everywoman she is not — she gave the speech in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani tweed jacket.

Deals in Tools and Improvement

Deals in Appliances

Deals in Bedding and Bath

Cheers to Richard Sherman of the Seattle Seahawks. In an interview on The Undefeated, he expresses his opinion of the BLM movement and he's not afraid to say the forbidden words, "All lives matter."
We hear a lot about Black Lives Matter. But I think race was created. I think everybody is a human being first and then the color of their skin wouldn’t matter if nobody told you it mattered, if that makes any sense....

What is your opinion of the Black Lives Matter movement?

It’s hard to formulate an opinion and generalize because they have several different messages. Some of them are peaceful and understandable and some of them are very radical and hard to support. Any time you see people who are saying, ‘Black Lives Matter,’ and then saying it’s time to kill police, then it is difficult to stand behind that logic. They are generalizing police just like they are asking police not to generalize us. It is very hypocritical. So, in that respect, I find it difficult to fully support that movement.

I stand by what I said that All Lives Matter and that we are human beings. And speaking to police, I want African-Americans and everybody else treated decently. I want them treated like human beings. And I also want the police treated like human beings. I don’t want police officers just getting knocked off in the street who haven’t done anything wrong.

Those are innocent lives....

If a coalition of athletes was to form, what should they do?

I think we target the inner city and the black community and a lot of the places that have high gang violence and beg for them to stop the senseless violence within our own community. Because once we stop that, once we unite as a people, once we come together and stop looking at each other as enemies, then we can move forward in a very powerful way. And combat issues in a different way than it has ever been done before. But until we do that, we are fighting on two fronts.

What do you say to people who say that violence in the black community is a result of institutional racism? Their communities are devoid of opportunity and that creates a circumstance that breeds crime and violence.

I’d say, to some degree, that’s true. There is low funding for education and very few jobs to go around. But there are also people who work hard to take care of their families. My parents did a great job, same inner city, Watts, South Central, [California]. They worked hard, didn’t make the most money, but took care of the kids in the neighborhood, took care of us, made ends meet, kept us out of gangs and all the nonsense. But I think there is also a mentality that we want to blame someone else for black fathers not being there for all these people having all these kids and nobody raising them. We want to say that’s systematic, but when do we stop saying it’s systematic and move forward and make a difference?

Jazz Shaw goes behind the scenes
to report on the DNC and how they're channeling even more people to the women's restrooms. Just what women need at any mass event.

Shop Amazon Gift Cards. Any Occasion. No Expiration.

Shop Amazon - Get the New Kindle Fire HDX Tablet

Best Sellers in Electronics - Updated Hourly

Really? They're remaking Ben-Hur? I guess that today's generation isn't up for watching a classic film on Netflix and needs to just watch a new version instead. Every year, I refer to Ben Hur when I'm discussing religion in the Gilded Age as an example of the movement for Muscular Christianity. And fewer and fewer kids have even heard of the movie, much less the book.


mark said...

Given his lie about his connection to Putin and his comments today encouraging Russia to engage in cyberespionage against the US, it is clear that Trump should be investigated for treason and, if appropriate, charged accordingly.

Gahrie said...


I suppose you were calling for the arrest of Ted Kennedy too...right? I mean we know he really did try to get the SOVIETS to help him get elected. You know the people we were actually engaged in a life or death struggle with?

mark said...

I've not called for "the arrest" of anyone. In our great country, even a racist cheez-it is entitled to due process. Read the Constitution!

tfhr said...


What has Trump done that makes him a racist? I don't like the guy but calling him racist suggests to me that you don't think you can compare him to Bill's doormat in a way that Trump comes off worse than Hillary.

As for actions that could be deemed to be harmful to national security, has Trump shared classified materials with our nation's enemies? Hillary deliberately sought to evade FOIA regulations and in doing so, exposed classified materials to our nation's enemies. If that's not enough, Hillary's Libyan gambit with Blumenthal ended up creating a failed state that is the conduit for the nightmare that now descends on Europe. The resulting disaster in North Africa and the chaos it has created in Europe, along with the Syrian calamity, while not acts of treason, are clear examples of what a disaster she was as a corrupt Secretary of State.

As usual, when leftist sling accusations at their opponents, it's probably because they are doing exactly what they falsely condemn their rivals of doing.

mark said...

As I've already written, his idiotic birtherism and comments on Judge Curiel are two examples. Don't accept that? Fine.
Coming from the same moron who has labeled people child-rapists and human-traffickers without providing a shred of evidence, your dissent is meaningless.

Perhaps you and Gahrie can become study-buddies and brush up on the Constitution.

tfhr said...


Trump is one of yours, at least when it comes to borrowing Hillary's 2008 birther tactic and talking like Sotomayor with regard to judiciary potential. So if acting and talking like Bill's doormat and Obama's Supreme Court appointee makes Trump a racist, go ahead.

Moving unaccompanied children illegally across state lines and/or international boundaries is human trafficking. Not sure why you don't see that.

Perhaps your inability to see human trafficking for what it is has something to do with your own proclivities.

mark said...

You're now claiming I've advocated for "illegally" moving unaccompanied children? Another insane accusation that I have sinister intent towards children?
Just more disgraceful lies that will go unchallenged by your fellow conservatives. Just one more example of how the republican party has devolved into a cesspool of cowardliness and paranoia.

tfhr said...


You HAVE advocated moving unaccompanied children here - you favor the mass, illegal immigration of children from Central American countries. On top of that you support bringing unknowable minors from states in the Middle East that are rife with terrorists.

It's so odd to me that anyone would support such things but then in your last sentence in the previous entry, you reveal that it also hinges on your politics, besides whatever furtive motivation you may have.

mark said...

No trumpette, I have cited the fact that there are many organizations that are willing to help children who are fleeing their countries to survive. I have never advocated doing it illegally. I have no "furtive" motivation.
Once again, you are lying and making disgraceful accusations.
A few weeks ago you accused me of using my time in the Peace Corps to set up a human-trafficking operation. An insane lie.

I have watched Trump rallies, listened to Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones and read this blog. There is no longer a difference between them. Paranoia, lies and conspiracies. Ever since Betsy and other conservatives decided to put politics above the Constitution when calling on Sen.Menendez to step down due to an anonymous accusation of soliciting prostitution, this site has devolved into a cesspool of un-American, cowardly accusations that won't (can't) be backed up. You more than anyone have led the way.

It is very easy to see why Donald Trump is your leader.

tfhr said...


Please. I think you're starting to thrash. Minors don't "flee" their countries. They are taken from their families and moved to other locations. That is human trafficking. These "organizations" may well want to help but unless they are illegal in the first place, they can have not direct involvement in the movement of the children. You may say you want these organizations, which you never name, to care for these children but then how do they get there? Who is responsible for them? What ultimately happens to them?

You can say all kinds of crap and usually do but you cannot answer those simple questions and that calls your character into question. Why on Earth would you risk the health and welfare of a child to send the unaccompanied, in violation of the law, to an uncertain end?

If you think they cannot be helped in their own countries of origin, then why does a person like you bother with the Peace Corps?

Trump is not my leader. I wanted Cruz.

You will vote for Hillary because she is a leftist and you don't care that she is corrupt to her core any more than you care about the Constitution.

Nobody violated Menendez's rights and he has not cleared his name any better than that of his accomplice. Thousands upon thousands of children are pushed into the sex trade and human trafficking is how they get there. You are in favor of sending unaccompanied children across state and national borders without legal protections or proper adult supervision and you do it by saying there are unspecified "organizations" that will take care of them. Which one are you a part of?

mark said...

You've mentioned La Bestia before, so I know you're already aware that minors do indeed flee other countries. I suggest you watch the documentary Which Way Home. I believe it's available on Netflix. Why don't you take a break from splashing around the cesspool you've created and watch it? You might learn.

tfhr said...


Minors are put on trains, like the Beast, by adults and then left to the perils of the trip and those they encounter. Don't try to deny that.

You haven't named a single organization that moves children into the United States that are not accompanied. Not one. A reputable person or organization would not permit the unaccompanied transportation of a minor to a foreign country. What in the hell is wrong with you?

mark said...

Yet another issue in which the gap between what you claim to know and what you actually know is astounding.
Many children in Latin America (and, I assume, elsewhere) are pretty much forced out of their houses when they hit their teens due to poverty and the lack of resources to feed and support large families. Many live on the streets, resorting to crime, prostitution and drugs (often "huffing" glue). When I lived in Guatemala, it was very common to see groups of kids in the city begging for money. Unfortunately, it is still a huge problem.
A number of kids (and adults) flee for the borders in a number of ways. Adults do not put their kids on La Bestia. It is a freight, not a passenger train. The kids and adults ride on top of the train, not inside. Children who get "caught are put into facilities and shelters on both sides of the border. Some are lucky enough to be put in foster families here in the states.
There are many good people who are dedicated to helping them make the best of a bad situation; government, social and religious organizations. That you insinuate they have a perverse motive is disgraceful.
I don't expect you to take my word for it, so spend some time educating yourself. On the other hand, you can go to your usual default and accuse me of perverse intentions. Seems to be the way you (and the Donald) operate.

tfhr said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tfhr said...

Blogger tfhr said...
Let's see....

First, you avoided providing the name of a single reputable organization that moves unaccompanied children across that border.

Do you dispute that you failed to provide an answer to my question?

Why can't you provide the name of a single reputable organization that moves unaccompanied children across international borders?

Second, your tortured explanation of whether a child is placed on top or inside a train that is NOT meant to bring people, let alone unaccompanied children, into the United States, is you thrashing in a deep pool of your own sick politics...and who knows what else. I'm really disgusted by your attempt to sugar coat it with, "some are lucky enough to be put in foster homes in the states." What the F__K happens to the ones that aren't lucky? Who is responsible for them? Do you even care?

I lived in Panama for three years and during my command there I took my unit to visit the orphans at Ciudad del Nino for Christmas but we knew that even though this was just one day out of the year, they were very lucky to have good people caring for them the other 364. Nearly every day I saw Panamanians struggling simply to live.

I've lived in Arizona, I have family there now, so I see what comes over the border. I've been through Nogales I've seen kids stumbling around with paint on their faces. I've lived in Texas and I've seen what comes over the border from Juarez and what goes across. Look up JTF-6, if you have any doubts about what the means. But to the real point here, I say desperate and damaged people are the perfect victims for predators of every sort. Which kind are you?

Whether you seek to exploit children to further your sleazy, dishonest politics, for cheap labor, or some other perversion, you are garbage.

Finally, and if you cannot answer this question, you have no business ever coming back here: Would you put a child on a train - your own child - and send them off to face fate in another country, alone, on a route used by human smugglers, drug traffickers, and other criminals?

Answer honestly.

mark said...

One agency (of many)that helps:

Again, trumpette, I suggest you watch the documentary I suggested. I included a synopsis for you:
I think if you take some time off from making insane accusations to watch it, you'll realize just how wrong you are to claim that " Minors don't "flee" their countries". No need to even admit you've been wrong.

So climb out of the cesspool, drink some water (you're probably dehydrated from all the crap you've been spewing), and educate yourself.

tfhr said...


You are intellectually dishonest and corrupt to your core. A five year old doesn't make a decision to leave his or her family for a train ride to another life.

Save the Children does not smuggle children and they don't raise them to the age of majority and they do not obtain citizenship for children stolen, discarded, or otherwise on their plate.

As far as minors that have relocated from El Salvador, we do have some MS-13 gang members here in the DC area that are under the age of 18, but I think they're probably a little too old and a lot too violent for your taste.

In one of the eight recent killings with MS-13 ties, three young men were charged in connection with the fatal shooting of a 17-year-old in Loudoun County, Virginia. They were identified as having entered the United States illegally in 2013 as unaccompanied children who later skipped immigration hearings.

The trial comes at a time when the Justice Department and local police say MS-13 has sought to reestablish itself in the Washington region after several years of relative quiet. Also known as Mara Salvatrucha, MS-13 has long been considered one of the region’s most dangerous street gangs, with members linked to brutal murders, beatings, drug trafficking and prostitution.

In opening statements, prosecutors said the defendants all belonged to a prominent MS-13 clique known as Park View Locos Salvatruchas that operates in Northern Virginia. Prosecutors said gang members killed to bolster their reputations and climb ranks within the gang.

“MS-13 glorifies violence above all else,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Martinez said. “You must commit murder or another act of violence. Gang members did just that.”

Aqualung, be careful when you go to the bus station to meet minors.

mark said...

I knew you'd come through, trumpette.
You start with a lie (I specifically said young teens are pressured to leave, not "five year olds") and end with a fabricated accusation of heinous crimes against children.

Again, the republican party continues to devolve into a cesspool of fear, cowardice and paranoia.

Like the Donald, I suppose you can't control your impulses.

tfhr said...


Like Hillary, I suppose you cannot help but be corrupt.

Is there someone that checks the age of children being smuggled into the United States? How would that work? Do you do that sort of thing?

You could not refute my response to your ridiculous assertion about Save the Children. You still have not named a legitimate organization that smuggles children into the country. I'd think by now you would figure out that this kind of thing is done under the table because it is illegal. It is illegal because it is wrong. We believe it is wrong, and therefore illegal, because exploiting children is utterly detestable.

Funny you should bring up something such as impulses - I think you are controlled by yours and they compel you to wheedle,to advocate, and to excuse the illegal importation of children into the United States. You've become bold. There was a time when people like you used to go abroad to "help" children.

Why did you leave the Peace Corps?

mark said...

You have not named a legitimate organization that smuggles children into the country?

You're an idiot.

mark said...

You have not named a legitimate organization that smuggles children into the country?

You're an idiot.

tfhr said...


You've got an echo. Probably comes from the hollow ring emanating from your crocodile tears shed for children. You are the guy that thinks it's dandy to raise campaign funds by performing abortions and from selling parts harvested at abortion mills.

You are willing to risk the lives of children - to send them unaccompanied to whom, exactly - and to what end? Why?