Friday, May 19, 2017

Cruising the Web

Somehow I can't get excited about Joe Lieberman to be the new FBI chief. CNN is reporting that he's the leading candidate to replace James Comey. I've always liked Lieberman and I think he's an honorable man. But he's a 75-year old man with no prosecutorial experience, no experience with the FBI or the Justice Department. Since he left the Senate, he's been working at the law firm Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP which has done business for Trump including charges of sexual harassment. There's no indication that Lieberman has done law work for Trump, but it's still a connection that Trump doesn't need as a complication. There are better choices out there. I just don't think picking a politician is the solution even though Lieberman is a Democrat, or a lapsed Democrat. The party that nominated him enthusiastically for vice president in 2000 is quite different from the Democratic Party today. Trump shouldn't expect Democrats to be thrilled about such a nomination.

Quin Hillyer writes to explain why Lieberman would be a bad choice.
Second, the nature of the job itself is not that of a mere CEO type in the way that some of the lesser cabinet posts are. This is a job for a person not just broadly familiar with, but extremely well versed in, the tools of law-enforcement investigations, the technical interplay of various federal agencies, and the granular details of patient inquiry. Lieberman, despite his long government résumé, has not a single day of federal law-enforcement experience. If he were named director, he would be the first person ever to hold that post without prior Justice Department experience. He just does not have the requisite base of knowledge that the Bureau’s chief should have....

Fourth, Lieberman clearly is being considered as an answer for immediate crisis of sorts, with thoughts of who can inspire widespread political acceptance for the current circumstances — but what is needed is for somebody to be chosen without regard to the Russia-related investigation or for today’s headlines, but instead chosen for aptitude with the broad range of FBI responsibilities over the long haul. Appointment of Lieberman may achieve short-term political reassurance, but only at the expense of a more explicitly qualified leader intent on institutional-operational competence, stability, and progress.
I agree.

Politico reports
that quite a few Senate Democrats reject Lieberman as the new FBI director.
Some Senate Democrats hold a grudge against Lieberman for his rightward turn and opposition to some of President Barack Obama's agenda late in his Senate career. Others say even though they respect Lieberman, the job of FBI director should not go to a former politician. And all Democratic senators interviewed for this story said the former Connecticut senator lacks the kind of experience needed for the post.
The reasons that Democrats don't like him is why I like him - he opposed Obama's awful nuclear deal with Iran. That showed good judgment that rose above partisan loyalties. However, it does nothing to demonstrate that he can manage a large bureaucracy and supervise all the many investigations that the FBI is involved in. Maybe his name was a trial balloon and the reaction the possible nomination is getting will persuade Trump to pick someone else, but I've seen no indication that Trump pays attention to others' opinions.

Now we're learning that the Trump team knew that he was under federal investigation for being a paid lobbyist for Turkey without having reported that connection. Yet Trump chose him anyway.
Michael T. Flynn told President Trump’s transition team weeks before the inauguration that he was under federal investigation for secretly working as a paid lobbyist for Turkey during the campaign, according to two people familiar with the case.

Despite this warning, which came about a month after the Justice Department notified Mr. Flynn of the inquiry, Mr. Trump made Mr. Flynn his national security adviser. The job gave Mr. Flynn access to the president and nearly every secret held by American intelligence agencies.

Mr. Flynn’s disclosure, on Jan. 4, was first made to the transition team’s chief lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, who is now the White House counsel. That conversation, and another one two days later between Mr. Flynn’s lawyer and transition lawyers, shows that the Trump team knew about the investigation of Mr. Flynn far earlier than has been previously reported.
Streiff at RedState notes the mistake in that NYT story. A lot of this story had already been reported and Streiff notes the timeline that wasn't in the NYT.
To accurately date these stories, Mike Flynn was appointed as national security adviser on November 17, so from the CNN story, we know the White House knew of Flynn’s Foreign Agents Registration Act problem before that date. So Flynn’s Turkish lobbying was known to be known to the Trump transition team two months ago....

Either the headline is false or the previous reporting by numerous media outlets, including the New York Times, is false as Flynn was named national security adviser nearly two weeks before he was informed that Justice was examining his FARA problem.
Allahpundit adds,
Trump didn’t name him NSA knowing that he was under investigation; even Flynn didn’t know when he accepted the position. But the fact remains that they let him stick around through the inauguration and into February, and maybe would have let him linger even longer than that if natsec people hadn’t started leaking to WaPo about Flynn potentially having been compromised by his sanctions chat with the Russian ambassador. The loyalty here runs weirdly deep.
Loyalty is all well and good, but the Flynn connection has caused so many of Trump's current problems. At some point, he needed to cut the cord.

Now we're hearing reports that Flynn and Trump are still in communication.
Not only did he remain loyal to President Trump; he indicated that he and the president were still in communication. “I just got a message from the president to stay strong,” Flynn said after the meal was over, according to two sources who are close to Flynn and are familiar with the conversation, which took place on April 25.
According to anonymous leakers, the White House lawyers are warning Trump about the dangers of talking with Flynn because it could seem to be witness tampering.

25% Off in Office and School Supplies

Deals in Office Products

Deals in Home and Kitchen

Alan Dershowitz is another lawyer who isn't convinced that, if Trump asked Comey to let the Flynn investigation go, the President obstructed justice.
Additionally, constitutional issues regarding the power of the President to direct the FBI would only be raised if the facts established that anyone other than the President — a lay citizen — would be guilty of obstruction of justice in a comparable situation. That conclusion might well depend on what, precisely, the President asked the FBI director to do.

If he simply asked the director to consider going easy on the fired national security adviser because “he’s a good guy,” that would not amount to a charge of obstruction of justice if the request were made by an ordinary citizen.

But this request came from the President — the only person who has the power to fire the person whom he is asking to “let this go” with regard to a White House staffer. Moreover, the President himself may have been a subject of the FBI investigation — though he claims Comey told him he was not — and so the request may have been self-serving.

Accordingly, the fact that the request came from the President is a double- edged sword....

On balance, the obstruction case against President Trump is not strong, as a matter of law. But impeachment is more a matter of politics than law. And the political reality is that Republicans control both houses of Congress. So impeachment is unlikely, at least at this point.
While some eager bomb-throwers on the left are already calling for impeachment, a lot of party leaders are not so eager. They seem to be willing to let the investigations play out before they jump to a conclusion. What an extraordinary idea. Even Nancy Pelosi is calling for Democrats to "curb their enthusiasm" about the idea of impeachment.

Echo and Alexa Devices

Amazon Fire TV

Hot New Releases in All Categories

Seth Lipsky derides the "left's ridiculous double standard on spilling secrets." The contrast to their reaction to Trump having supposedly leaked intelligence to the Russians and their prior reactions to leaks about intelligence when Bush was president is stark.
What a contrast to, say, 2006. That’s when the Gray Lady thumbed its nose for news at President George W. Bush’s pleadings that the paper refrain from disclosing how the government, in its hunt for terrorists, was mining data of the Swift banking consortium.

The Bush administration had begged the Times not to proceed. Yet it did so. President Bush called it “disgraceful,” adding that the “fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror.” Treasury said it would hamper the pursuit of terrorists.

Such a hullabaloo arose from long-suffering Times readers that the paper’s executive editor, then Bill Keller, issued a 1,400-word “personal response.” In it, he suggested that if conservative bloggers were so worried they should stop calling attention to it.

Keller acknowledged that others might have come out differently than the Times did. But, he declared, “nobody should think that we made this decision casually, with any animus toward the current Administration, or without fully weighing the issues.”

Goodness. Who in the world could have imagined the Times acting out of animus to the George W. Bush administration?

Then there’s the case of The Washington Post. Three years ago, it won the Pulitzer Gold Medal for what it called “a series of stories that exposed the National Security Agency’s massive global surveillance programs.”

It had based its articles on what it called “classified documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the former government contractor who has fled to exile in Russia.” The Post quoted its lead reporter, Barton Gellman, as saying he was “relieved that we didn’t screw it up.”
Lipsky points to a post by Marc Thiessen listing times when the media has joyfully "published “disastrous” stories which damaged US national security and exposed the involvement of US partners." It's quite a long list. For example,
Where was the outrage when The New York Times exposed the US government’s cyberattack on Iran’s nuclear program, including the fact that Obama personally ordered cyberattacks on the Iranian nuclear program using a computer virus called Stuxnet? The Times cited as sources “members of the President’s national security team who were in the [Situation Room]” and even quoted the president asking during a top secret meeting: “Should we shut this thing down?” Only Obama’s most trusted national security advisers would have been present when he uttered those words. One of those advisors shared highly classified intelligence with the Times.

The Stuxnet leak exposed intelligence sources and methods, including the top secret codename for the program (“Olympic Games”) and the involvement of a US ally, Israel. At one point in the Times story, a source says the Israelis were responsible for an error in the code which allowed it to replicate itself all around the world. The Times directly quotes one of the president’s briefers telling him, “We think there was a modification done by the Israelis,” adding that, “Mr. Obama, according to officials in the room, asked a series of questions, fearful that the code could do damage outside the plant. The answers came back in hedged terms. Mr. Biden fumed. ‘It’s got to be the Israelis,’ he said. ‘They went too far.’”

Where was the concern for the exposure this intelligence or the involvement of our liaison partner? The damage this leak did — both to the operation and the trust between our two countries — is incalculable.
And remember when the media identified the Pakistani doctor who helped track down bin Laden. He is in a Pakistani prison today.
Did his exposure by Obama officials bragging about the president’s accomplishment have a chilling effect on intelligence cooperation? You bet.
Another example involved the Obama administration for leaking information involving a double agent that British intelligence had recruited who exposed a new underwear bomb plot in Yemen. That leak certainly angered British intelligence. There are quite a few more leaks from the Obama administration that endangered our intelligence gathering.
These are just a few examples. The list of leaks and liaison partners exposed during the Obama years goes on and on.

None of this excuses Trump’s accidentally sharing top-secret intelligence with Russian officials. But it takes chutzpah for the media to express outrage over his apparently inadvertent disclosure of classified information – or to feign concern over the effect his actions might have on cooperation by our intelligence partners in the fight against terror – when they regularly published often intentional leaks from Obama administration that exposed sources and methods and endangered our national security.

Trump may have stumbled badly in his meeting with the Russians, but he has a long way to go before he does the kind of damage that President Obama and his team of intelligence sieves did – with the help of The New York Times and other news outlets now crowing over his error.

Tom Rogan calls for a strong reaction to Turkish protection forces (TPPD) for President Erdogan who attacked anti-Erdogan protesters during his visit to Washington, D.C. We can't just accept foreign security forces assaulting peaceful protesters in our nation's capital.
Still, in this latest incident — a premeditated assault on the U.S. constitutional right to peaceful protest — the TPPD has crossed a line. It, and the Turkish government more broadly, must face consequences for their actions. For a start, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson needs to show public anger. Outdoing yesterday’s placid semi-condemnation from the State Department, Tillerson should summon the Turkish ambassador and call out Turkey’s breach of U.S. law. Tillerson should also — and specifically — note the TPPD’s ludicrous hypocrisy. On its website, the TPPD takes care to outline “human rights” and diplomatic-communications training as key priorities. I’m not joking.

Second, the U.S. should ban the TPPD officers who were involved from entering the United States. Their faces can be cross-referenced with their visit credentials in order to identify them. Ramazan Bal, the TPPD’s commanding officer, should be included in their number. Bal was head of ministerial security when Erdogan was prime minister, before following him to the presidential palace. He clearly retains Erdogan’s trust and confidence. Yet the sustained misconduct by Bal’s officers suggests that he either is totally incompetent or is directing these acts. Erdogan will whine. Let him.

Third, the U.S. government should suspend all training exercises with Turkish protection agencies. Seeking their unparalleled facilities and expertise, foreign governments frequently send protection teams to train with U.S. government agencies. For example, according to Turkish media, the TPPD’s attached counter-assault team (which is responsible for repelling attacks) was trained by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

The key here is the pursuit of broader strategic effect. Enacted quickly and unapologetically, each of these actions would prove to Erdogan that America is no longer willing to tolerate his antics. Erdogan must understand that his anger, for example, over President Trump’s decision to arm Kurdish forces in Syria is ill-directed against U.S. citizens.

Turkey is an important U.S. ally, but Erdogan is not America’s overlord. The TPPD and its master must be corralled.
It would be shameful if we don't have a strong reaction to such an abuse of our nation's freedoms right there in Washington, D.C.

Tools and Home Improvement

Today’s Deals

Fashion Sales and Deals

Jason Whitlock whose opinions are often controversial, has a good explanation of why NFL teams are hesitant to hire Colin Kaepernick. And it's not due to his views, but his supporters.
In reality, the 29-year-old has struggled to find work because his supporters inflated the risk of signing him, and his skills don’t compensate for the uncertainty he brings. An owner, general manager or coach runs the risk of being publicly vilified as racist depending on how his team uses the mixed-race quarterback.

The same risk does not exist if an NFL decision maker mishandles rookies like Mitchell Trubisky and Deshaun Watson, or veterans such as Blaine Gabbert and Geno Smith. A coach knows he can bench or cut any NFL quarterback, except Mr. Kaepernick, without having his personal integrity questioned. This explains why former Kaepernick backup Mr. Gabbert has already signed a one-year contract with the Arizona Cardinals. Critics of the Gabbert acquisition can question Arizona head coach Bruce Arians’s football acumen without politics becoming an issue. Mr. Gabbert is in that way an ideal backup: somewhere between invisible and boring.
And the comparison that comes to mind is a very different athlete, Tim Tebow.
Former quarterback Tim Tebow’s rabid, irrational supporters undermined his NFL opportunities in much the same fashion as Mr. Kaepernick’s. In 2011 he started 11 games for the Denver Broncos and led them to a come-from-behind playoff victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers. In celebration of big plays and touchdowns, Mr. Tebow knelt in prayer and became a polarizing religious symbol. He was also a below-average passer. The Broncos, and several other teams, discarded the fervent Christian when it became clear his production didn’t justify the controversy associated with his presence.

Mr. Kaepernick’s kneeling is an even riskier proposition. The social-justice warrior has cultivated media alliances far more aggressively than the pious Mr. Tebow. Mr. Kaepernick is also closely aligned with Black Lives Matter media activists. No NFL owner, executive or coach—regardless of race—wants his football decisions second-guessed in the tendentious way BLM activists Monday-morning-quarterback police officers.

20 comments:

trigger warning said...

It was never about Russians... it's about the Obama Asylum Demolition Crew. Latest victory:

The Neutered Network is dead! Long live a Free Network!

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/18/528941897/fcc-votes-to-begin-rollback-of-net-neutrality-regulations

Buh-bye!

But perhaps even [ahem] sweeter (though far less consequential) was the demise of Moochelle O'Mama's X-ray Carrot school "lunch" diktats.



Putin done it!

tfhr said...

trigger,

MO: "School kids? As long as we're not talking about Sidwell Friends and my girls' lunch, I say let them eat rice cakes!"

According to a typical HuffPo investigative report on things Obama, Michelle picked the menu for the state dinner in honor of the President of the Republic of Korea:

First Course

Butternut Squash Bisque, Honey Poached Cranberries, Virginia Cured Ham, Pumpkin Seed Praline, Crème Fraiche

Second Course

Early Fall Harvest Salad on Daikon Sheets, Masago Rice Pearl Crispies, Rice Wine Vinaigrette

Main Course

Texas Wagyu Beef, Orange-Ginger Fondue, Sauteed Kale, Roasted Kabocha Squash

Dessert

Chocolate Malt Devils Food Layers With Pear and Almond Brittle

For more on the state sanctioned feast, including a video, the HuffPo is a one stop shopping location for Obama bootlicks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/white-house-korea-state-dinner_n_1011033.html






tfhr said...

I don't really agree with the Jason Whitlock assessment of Tebow visa vis Kaepernick:

In celebration of big plays and touchdowns, Mr. Tebow knelt in prayer and became a polarizing religious symbol. He was also a below-average passer. The Broncos, and several other teams, discarded the fervent Christian when it became clear his production didn’t justify the controversy associated with his presence.

The knock on Tebow wasn't the posing or the prayers - that's not a new thing in the NFL and it continues today as it has for decades - the circus around Tebow stemmed from the Superbowl commercial involving Tebow's mother and her decision to carry him to term. Put it this way: Planned Parenthood does not feel threatened when wide-receivers point to the sky after they score a touchdown. (A very rare event for Minnesota Vikings, so I have no dog in this fight)

While NFL football gets dragged into politics - against the wishes of most fans, including myself - Tebow's inclusion in the Whitlock article is an apple and orange comparison. Tebow's apple pie followers didn't advocate violence against the police, engage in riots in American cities, or accuse anyone that disagreed with them of being racist.

NFL ownership, rightly or wrongly, feared the fervent opponents of pro-life politics, not the potential for spontaneous prayers or the sale of Tebow shirts.


mardony said...

Dogged anti-feminist Betsy may have some serious heartburn over this.

LAURA BUSH AND HILLARY CLINTON UNITE TO FIGHT FOR WOMEN'S MUSEUM IN D.C.

http://www.newsweek.com/laura-bush-and-hillary-clinton-unite-fight-womens-museum-dc-611829

tfhr said...

Mardony,

With all of Bill Clinton's corruption and dishonesty (and then some) and absolutely none of his ability to triangulate and schmooze, Hillary's hopes for riding his coattails to the Presidency will end up in the museum - alongside the other First Ladies - or maybe as a doormat at the entrance.

Will Monica be joining the fight?

tfhr said...

Mardony,

There were some other things I meant to ask....

Is Hillary really a feminist?

I think she's just a weak and left-leaning opportunist that knew long ago that she lacked the strength, skills and ability to make her own path and made the choice to allow herself to be subjected to demeaning, degrading and dishonest treatment by a man that walked all over her while maintaining the pathetic hope that she could get dragged through the Whitehouse doors one last time - stuck to his shoe - so that she could make a claim to a historical first with no real goal for America, only the dream of elevating herself above the humiliation of a sham marriage.

That's your girl!

Here's one for you: Do you think conservative women can be feminists or is that reserved for lefties?

PS - Are you a male or female today?

trigger warning said...

tfhr: I said from the beginning in 2008 thhat the Obamas were living like trailer park 'necks that hit the Powerball. But Punkin' Seed Pralines before dinner? That's the very embodiment of Seedy Trailer Park culinary choices. Good roughage, tho'. I'll bet Deep-Fried Twinkies were served to the Queen. :-D Along with the iPod filled with Buraq's Most Inspiring Teleprompter Hits.

By the way, did you happen to catch the news that Buraq decided not to marry his "first love" (excluding Himself, of course) because he was afraid that his political base was too opposed to miscegenation?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/05/02/before-michelle-barack-obama-asked-another-woman-to-marry-him-then-politics-got-in-the-way/?utm_term=.c18fb06a3387

tfhr said...

trigger,

Did I catch the news? I certainly did see that unsurprising reveal but I always figured Michelle to a beard of one sort or the other.

I'll throw a bone to Mardony with the following comment:

Obama passed on what was supposedly a marriage with someone he is said to have loved. He took that pass based on his concern for blowback over an interracial marriage. Of course Obama would make that choice but then again he's a bitter and damaged individual that has never been able to come to grips with his horrid parents and "their marriage". It's only natural that he would do this given that he has spent his professional life trying to scapegoat a country and a culture that gave him every opportunity in the world.

Whether it was his parents' failed relationship or his overriding concern for finding and maintaining political traction in Chicago, Obama makes the choice to declare that he is black, not mixed race. There are millions upon millions of mixed race Americans - why shun them? Why not proudly give as much credit to one parent's DNA as the other's? Why pick one race over another if not for political advantage in the party of grievance and for the convenience of having a shield and a cudgel to play in the form of the race card?

Mardony is tripping over himself in a wild-eyed, headlong rush to the garage, a whole new deck of race cards streaming from one fist, a chokehold on the neck of a one-string banjo with the other, searching desperately for clothes pins he'll use to replace the tattered cards in the spokes of his Schwinn Sting-ray, that dusty ride that used to be his best friend before he found out about "marches" and pink, flapped hats.

Mardony, is that a girl's bike or a boy's bike today?

mardony said...

tfhr ~
Are you still mooching off TRICARE or have you found some other tax benefit to sponge from?

tfhr said...

Mardony,

I'm glad you ask.

After over twenty years of military service, my wife and I do qualify for continued TRICARE benefits (TRICARE Prime) until I reach the age where I qualify for Medicare. Then TRICARE becomes a supplement to Medicare. I currently pay for our TRICARE and I also pay for a TRICARE supplement through private insurance to cover TRICARE co-pays and other uncovered expenses that TRICARE does not absorb.

Medical care for myself and my family was a condition of my enlistment and it followed me from NJ to GA to KY back to GA to the ROK back to KY to AZ to TX to Panama to the UK to DC to HI back to the ROK and finally to VA. It came with the package that sent me to IZ as well. Any objections to that or do you think that military personnel don't deserve medical care, don't deserve the same for their families, and that the US government need not deliver on the commitment it made to its service members and their families after the latter have lived up to their end of the contract agreement to support and defend the Constitution?

My medical benefits and the rest of my retirement are based on my years of service and compensation for duties performed, the costs of frequent relocations, health risks, and the rigors of extended separations. Do you feel that service members do not deserve compensation for these things? I'd like to hear why.

If you think military retirees are sponges, I think you should go to your nearest VFW or American Legion post and let them know exactly how you feel. I don't think you really feel that way but that you are feeling angry and frustrated, not very pretty, and that your misguided loyalty to a hack politician that could not ride her hubby's coattails over the goal line is just so unappreciated that you finally are beginning to understand that you've been played for a fool for so much of your life. And you don't even get a "thank you for your service" from the party let alone free health care for your "sacrifice"!

Seems like we've covered this ground before...long, long ago. Are you ready to announce anything? Come clean perhaps? Truthfully, I could care less but if you want to throw military healthcare into change the subject, I'm game.

tfhr said...

I forgot to ask about the "tax benefit" thing. Is it your idea that I didn't pay taxes while in uniform? Do you think I could tell the IRS where to send my tax dollars then anymore than I can now?

If any of that was true, maybe you should have signed up for the Marine Corps and not the Peace Corps since there's no difference, other than that "tax benefit", right?

mardony said...

tfhr ~
Ah, you're letting your usual baloney and crapola fly, but hiding behind the uniform with self-pitying pablum can't conceal your problems. Weirdly obsessing about my gender, hmmm..... Having your blood rise up KKK-style at the very thought a black man (Obama) had a relationship with a white woman, hmmm...
Did you run out of Tricare mental health coverage or did their shrinks just give up on you?

Note to twigger: you better take a cold shower and swallow some saltpeter before you have any more of that Pres. Obama book read to you.

trigger warning said...

mardony: trust me son, I have no interest in buying any books about that skell's miserable, corrupt life. I have no doubt it'll end up on the remainders table very soon, so if I were you I'd wait until it's a buck and a quarter or so.

But I do find it interesting that miscegenation is still an issue among his base. Pure bloodlines and all that. That's so 19th century raciss.

:-D

tfhr said...

Mardony,

That KKK gig is a Dem thing, so no thanks. You know one of these days burning crosses will be considered a form of renewable, sustainable, gluten free, alternative energy and Kloset Klansters like you will rejoice!

Leave it to you to miss the point made about Obama's rejection of his mother and his choice to dump a girl because of her race. Do you work extra hard to do that or does it come naturally?

Who's hiding here, Mardony?

mardony said...

toad & chigger ~

You're sad cases, two geriatric white lightweights with the fetishy need to degrade women, most often Hillary and Michelle, but your hate list of women is long. Meanwhile, your true heartthrob and role model, the serial sexual predator Trump, is watching his presidency circle the drain. But, never mind, it's all about the past and Hillary, Michelle, and other women you demean daily on this page.

But, Betsy is an abettor, regularly sprinkling her page with enough snark (and worse) directed at women to make you two pitiable losers feel legit in exposing your Oedipean guilt psychoses in the public square. But, on a reassuring note, Roger Ailes is rooting you on from hell. So, there's that.

tfhr said...

Mardony,

It's fun to watch you thrash! You lead off with the usual racist thing - I guess there's an ageist element added in now - but it only makes me laugh harder because you're an old white dude too! Unless you've decided that in addition to being a woman (when it suits you) that you can Dolezal into something else when it's convenient.

It just struck me as I was writing that last paragraph that you actually admire Obama for abandoning his white mother's identity and politicking with only his father's! While he doesn't have to immerse himself in Rachel Dolezal's psychosis to get the desired race based politically correct cred, he could also use his appearance alone to put down concerns about his advantaged upbringing - attending the best schools on his grandparents' dime.

Then there's that period back in 2007 and 2008 before the Party had coalesced behind Obama - when there was plenty of talk that Obama "wasn't black enough". Leave it to Democrats - race obsessed as they are - to come up with that as a "concern", as well as a criticism!!!
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html

You're white but you're criticizing trigger and myself as being what?Are we "too white", according to you? I guess that's shades of the whole Hillary 2008 Dem critique that Obama wasn't "black enough" but just a different angle of the same desperation play. Or is it that we don't let the complexion or genitalia of an individual stand in the way of due criticism for corrupt behavior, hypocrisy and plain, bad politics.

You're left to defend the behavior of corrupt Clintons, the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the Obama's, and the historical failure of socialism with that tattered race card and when that doesn't work you trot out the misogyny meme, as if a political opponent cannot have a wife, mother, sister, aunt, niece, friend, neighbor, co-worker, or a constituent, or let alone, be a female herself. Do you think I consider Marsha Blackburn, Nikki Haley, Mia Love, Condolezza Rice, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter in the same way I view Amy Schumer, Susan Rice, Maxine Waters, or Nancy Pelosi?

It's all about the politics but my politics, in stark contrast to yours, don't discriminate and divide based on race or sex. Leave your race card and your floppy pink hat at home.

mardony said...

Toad ~
So many words, but never any sanity. You need to grift and cadge TRICARE Prime for urgent mental health treatment. You're definitely a "stat" case.

tfhr said...

You know Mardony, Bradley Manning will be using TRICARE to have himself mutilated which makes me think you must really regret opting for the Peace Corps over the Marine Corps these days.

That said, I want to congratulate you for your 1:27 post because it has been a long time since you've been able to connect two sentences without some sort of racial reference. You win a gold star today.

mardony said...

Toad ~

Pish-posh. TRICARE Prime is heavily subsidized by tax dollars, and recipients pay only a fraction of actual costs. Where else can anyone get coverage that cheaply for only 20 years of employment? Get real.

"... compensation for duties performed, costs of frequent relocations, health risks, and the rigors of extended separations."
In Panama, South Korea, and Hawaii? I guess sunburn in Hawaii is a major health risk. And almost all your other time spent stateside? And then retirement near the bare minimum 20 years? The military has always had a few gold bricks. Did you get a medal for being one?

tfhr said...

Mardony,

TRICARE is run on tax dollars, as it is part of the defense budget and taking care of service members and their families is part of how we defend the nation. What are your objections?

I pay out of pocket for my wife and I to be retained in TRICARE now that I'm retired and if we have to seek care or a particular service not available at a military treatment facility - a common reality - we also pay co-pays. This applies to all retired personnel - whether they were in for twenty, thirty or more years. Medical care is a key benefit used to attract and retain the best men and women needed -all needed - to make an all volunteer force work. What are your objections?

Your comment says a lot about your ignorance of the military and how it cares for troops and families and the blinding hatred you have for anyone that disagrees with your fetid political point of view.

You seem to think individuals have a great deal of say in where and when they are assigned by their respective services. I can tell you that is about as far from the truth as anything you've ever said here. You seem to think most of my career was spent in the United States - even without counting deployments, most of my career was actually overseas. I think you might have missed the IZ reference - that means Iraq - and before you try to decide whether I was on some sort of "frontline" or FOB there, I'd like to know what you think of those Pentagon "goldbricks" that died on 9-11. There was a time when a Pentagon assignment meant you were about as far from risk - at least in the sense of a conventional war - as possible. Have you noticed how that has changed? We have.

I left the Pentagon a week before that plane hit the other side of the building from where I had just spent 9 months working alongside the other "goldbricks". My sister - at Travis AFB in CA - and my parents, a retired military family - did not know if I was there that day or not as I was still in an out of my old office while preparing to move across the river to a new assignment. I don't know that circumstances like that happen to you often but it definitely tells me that I don't have a typical job. If you think I've had too much luck to qualify for a particular benefit, by all means, I'd like to hear how the metric works on that cut line.

There's something else about your comment - it's something that is a constant - but I've never really thought of it in the way that I do now that I'm getting to understand you better. You always refer to trigger and I as some sort of insect or amphibian - you dehumanize people you find unacceptable and impossible to fit into your jaundiced world view. Where have we heard that sort of thing before? Think about how that sort of tactic has run its course in world history and how people come to a point in their beliefs that some humans are worth less than others and some aren't human at all....