Obama State Department stonewalls everybody on FOIA requests

Story here. No mention that this is the State Department's long record of behavior under Hillary Clinton, let alone under her successor John F. Kerry, who served in Viet Nam.

At least the judge is as pissed as he can be.

I guess they are too busy over there at State securing Obama's legacy, and covering up Benghazi:

Hillary Clinton was for the TransPacificPartnership only 45 times before she was against it

John F. Kerry was a piker by comparison.

CNN reports:

'But as members of the Obama administration can attest, Clinton was one of the leading drivers of the TPP when Secretary of State. Here are 45 instances when she approvingly invoked the trade bill about which she is now expressing concerns:'

The rest is here.

Secretary of State John Kerry who served in Vietnam fined $50 for not shoveling snow at his Boston residence

Story here:

Boston city officials issued a ticket to Kerry’s home for neglecting to shovel his sidewalk on Thursday, according to Citizens Connect, a website run by the city of Boston where residents can upload complaints.

John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, has also been rumored in the past to avoid stopping at four way stop signs in his Jeep, and to avoid paying taxes on his yacht domicile.

One law for me, another for thee. 

Secretary of State John F Kerry does The Mussolini

Climate-change activists are exasperated beyond endurance by the gullibility of the people

So says Clive Crook for Bloombergview here.

It illustrates a more general point, that the vision of the anointed is always frustrated by the lumpenproletariat. The elites' response to them is sometimes hyperbolic, as in Lenin's recourse to a vanguard to foist the revolution on a less than enthusiastic population, or as in a certain Penn State climate scientist's recourse to the courts to shut down his critics.

Old Clive doesn't mention those, but he does mention Secretary of State John Kerry's kooky statements, and adds this:

[T]his cause isn't advanced by exaggerating what is known in order to scare people into action, nor by denouncing everybody who disagrees with such proposals as evil or idiotic.

The scientists themselves -- some of them, at least -- are partly to blame. They chose to become political advocates, no doubt out of a sincere belief that policies needed to change a lot and at once. But scientist-advocates can't expect to be seen as objective or disinterested. Once they're suspected of spinning the science or opining on questions outside their area of expertise, as political advocacy is bound to require, they lose authority.

I'd say Clive is definitely showing signs of mellowing since his association with Bloomberg. Before that he seemed less temperate, although too temperate for Paul Krugman.

The incremental change of good old Fabian socialism is what Clive seems to have settled on, as has Obama after an early explosion of revolutionary zeal in 2008 when the realities of office overwhelmed everything.

Fortunately for those of us who disagree about the climate alarums, the John Kerrys and Penn Staters don't seem to have received the memo and keep doing everything to hurt their cause.  

Face It, The Heritage Foundation Has Been And Remains Confused (By Liberalism)

As the photo at left demonstrates but conservatives want to ignore, including Erick Erickson here at Red State, a Heritage Foundation representative was present for the signing of RomneyCare in 2006 because Heritage invented the damn idea way back before HillaryCare raised its ugly head and Heritage was happy to see it made into law (so was Senator Ted Kennedy). That was just seven years ago, but now Heritage would just rather have you ignore all that.

Forcing people to sign up for health insurance at the point of a gun has its analog, of course, in forcing people in distant lands to adopt Western-style democracy, something we heard the heir of Republican conservatism, George Bush, incessantly preach: "The long-term solution is to promote a better ideology, which is freedom. Freedom is universal." (Whether they want it or not). To this day, as Molly Ball's article in The Atlantic points out here, "universal coverage" is still Heritage's position:

In my interviews with them, Heritage officials could recite chapter and verse on why Heritage turned against the individual mandate -- a turn, they claim, that occurred before Romney or Obama adopted the idea. “We still believe universal coverage is a good idea,” [Phillip] Truluck [VP and COO] said. But none of the four Heritage officials I interviewed could tell me offhand how the foundation proposes to reform health care and cover the uninsured if Obamacare is scrapped. (Later, an assistant followed up by emailing me links to Heritage papers on “putting patients first,” regulating the health-insurance market, and Medicare reform.)

The place is universally incoherent, and always has been. It has been against Drugs for Seniors as an expansion of big government, but supported the line-item veto, thus expanding the authority of the executive part of government, even as it once used to warn about the imperial presidency. Today it is famously against the current immigration amnesty plan but was pro-immigration for the longest time. It had a founder who has moved notably left liberal, but now it has a libertarian-friendly leader in Jim DeMint. It was for ObamaCare before it was against it. Something about the Heritage Foundation is really off for it to be the home of so many contradictory currents. If conservatism is the negation of ideology, as Russell Kirk taught us, Heritage knows nothing about it.

Maybe they should just rename the place The John F. Kerry Foundation and be done with it.

Secretary Of State John Kerry Causes 11 Letter Pile-Up Between Kyrgyzstan And Kazakhstan, Causing Kyrzakhstan

The former senator from Massachusetts was not seriously injured in the accident, physically.

Story here.

h/t Chris

Rush Limbaugh Is Grasping At Straws To Explain Romney's Loss

Yesterday Rush informed us that maybe Romney lost because there are now more of "them" than of us.

In other words, we on the right are now demographically outnumbered by Democrat Hispanics, Blacks, etc. and won't be able to win anymore without more of "them" in the Republican Party. That is the reflexive interpretation of the Republican Establishment, as reported here:

"It's not about geography anymore with the Republican Party," said Margaret Hoover, a Republican strategist and CNN contributor. "It's about demographics, and we've got to start thinking about growing the party."

Today he's changing his tune. Today he's blaming . . . the white or conservative or Christian Republican base!

In other words, because Romney may have underperformed McCain's turnout (by 2.8 million) therefore Republicans didn't turn out for Romney.

Well, how does Rush know they were Republicans? What if they were independents?

I don't know how you can blame the base when for the first time ever I had to wait in line to vote on Tuesday, in deep red semi-rural Michigan, like many others all across the country.

And I don't know how you square that with the fact that it wasn't even close in South Carolina, ground zero for Tea Party antipathy toward Mitt Romney. The right everywhere held its nose and turned out, not for Romney it is true, but to defeat Barack Obama.

And now Rush is blaming US!

Gee, thanks Rush. You've just given the Establishment another reason to exclude conservatives from the Republican Party, and it isn't even true.

Turnout yesterday won't be precisely known for weeks, and it is important to wait, not just to learn the Republican turnout, but the Democrat contrary to what Rush is saying today.

In 2008 McCain slightly underperformed Bush in 2004 in the swing states, but in 2008 Obama way outperformed John Kerry from 2004, by 3 million in the swing states if I remember correctly. Obama won in those states by a margin of only 1.4 million. A half million Republicans weren't to blame for that.

   

Can Liberals Count? Can Liberals Remember?

George Bush won Ohio in 2004 by 118,000 votes, but Andrew Sullivan remembers it differently, here:

"At this point in 2004, one recalls, George W. Bush was about to see a near eight-point lead shrivel to a one-state nail-biter by Election Day."

The real nail-biters were in Iowa, where Bush won by just 10,000 popular votes (7 electoral college votes), and in New Mexico, where Bush won by just 6,000 popular votes (5 electoral college votes), neither of which separately or together would have given victory to Democrat John Kerry.

Be that as it may, the real point of Sullivan's story is this:

"If Obama wins, to put it bluntly, he will become the Democrats’ Reagan."

Ah, no, he'll become the Democrats' W, or maybe their George H. W. Bush. Or if he's really really lucky maybe their Richard Nixon.

Obama's economic performance in the next four years would have to improve by 40 percent in seven key categories of economic measurement in comparison with all previous presidents to achieve the fair-to-poor record achieved by Ronald Reagan, whom I have shown elsewhere scored a lousy 42, just like Jimmy Carter.

President Obama's current score after 4 years is already 2 points worse than George Bush's score of 51 after 8 years, the worst two records in the post-war period. That means Obama would have to pull out  of his hat a veritable golden age to make him look as good as Reagan, which as I've said isn't saying much. To do it Obama would have to score a 32 in the next four years just to average out to a 42.

Can you imagine an Obama second term turning in an overall performance roughly close to that of JFK/LBJ, who rank 4th best out of 10 since WWII? Because that is what it would take.

Obama would have to go from worst for unemployment to 4th (think Clinton and W), starting tomorrow. He would have to go from worst to 4th for GDP (think Reagan and Eisenhower), for the next four years. He would have to go from worst to 4th for housing values (think Harry Truman). Only George Bush has been worse for the increase in Americans' total household net worth than Obama has been. To address that Obama would have to restore at least 1960s levels of prosperity to the country, if not Clinton era levels.

Fat chance.

Despite all the ruin which one man can rain down on a country through sheer incompetence and arrogance, the American people are a resilient lot and things will improve no matter who gets elected. The economy adjusts and moves on, and in many respects there is only one way to go but up. But if it's Obama who is elected again, I don't expect him to finish much better than a 48 after 8 years overall, because the first 4 have been such a disaster.

US Senate's Biggest Prick Gets What He Deserves

A puck to the face:

Story here.

Rush Limbaugh Slams Obama's 'Peace is Hard,' Forgets Bush's 2004 'Hard Work' Remarks

"We don't elect presidents expecting them to tell us how damn hard the job is." 

-- Rush Limbaugh, Thursday, September 22, 2011, reacting to Obama's comments to the UN that Mideast peace is hard.

I guess Rush doesn't remember these lines from George W. Bush from the first 2004 presidential debate with Senator John Kerry:

"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard.

"I understand the serious consequences of committing our troops into harm's way. It's the hardest decision a president makes.

"There's a lot of good people working hard.

"I work with Director Mueller of the FBI; comes in my office when I'm in Washington every morning, talking about how to protect us. There's a lot of really good people working hard to do so. It's hard work.

"And now we're fighting them now. And it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. And I'm optimistic. See, I think you can be realistic and optimistic at the same time. I'm optimistic we'll achieve -- I know we won't achieve if we send mixed signals. I know we're not going to achieve our objective if we send mixed signals to our troops, our friends, the Iraqi citizens. We've got a plan in place. The plan says there will be elections in January, and there will be. The plan says we'll train Iraqi soldiers so they can do the hard work, and we are. And it's not only just America, but NATO is now helping, Jordan's helping train police, UAE is helping train police. We've allocated $7 billion over the next months for reconstruction efforts. And we're making progress there. And our alliance is strong. And as I just told you, there's going to be a summit of the Arab nations. Japan will be hosting a summit. We're making progress. It is hard work. It is hard work to go from a tyranny to a democracy. It's hard work to go from a place where people get their hands cut off, or executed, to a place where people are free. But it's necessary work. And a free Iraq is going to make this world a more peaceful place.

"You know, every life is precious. Every life matters. You know, my hardest -- the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm's way and then do the best I can to provide comfort for the loved ones who lost a son or a daughter or a husband or wife. You know, I think about Missy Johnson. She's a fantastic lady I met in Charlotte, North Carolina. She and her son Bryan, they came to see me. Her husband PJ got killed. He'd been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq. You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way.

"There are 100,000 troops trained, police, guard, special units, border patrol. There's going to be 125,000 trained by the end of this year. Yes, we're getting the job done. It's hard work. Everybody knows it's hard work, because there's a determined enemy that's trying to defeat us.

"I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that.

"We've done a lot of hard work together over the last three and a half years. We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace."

Wasn't George W. Bush re-elected shortly after these debate remarks?

Nine States and 1.4 Million Votes in 2008 Made Obama President Instead ofMcCain

That's what we said here about Obama's vote margins way back in 2009, which looked like this:

Colorado 215,000

Florida 236,000

Indiana 28,000

Iowa 147,000

Nevada 121,000

New Mexico 126,000

North Carolina 14,000

Ohio 262,000

Virginia 235,000.

Now others are catching on, especially as Obama's support in those states dries up.

From The Washington Times, here:

Mr. Obama was able to win three years ago mainly because he captured nine states that had gone for Republican George W. Bush in 2004: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada. Combined, those states will account for 112 electoral votes in 2012.

But with just over a year until the next election, Mr. Obama’s rating has fallen below 50 percent in every one of those states — always a warning sign for an incumbent. In only one state, Iowa, is his approval rating, 48 percent, higher than his disapproval rating, 45 percent.

The key point missing from the article, however, is that Obama turned out a massive Democrat vote in those states, garnering 3.04 million more votes than John Kerry received in 2004, while McCain failed to turn out the Republican vote, receiving nearly 200,000 fewer votes than George Bush did in 2004.

Obama is extremely vulnerable in 2012 for a host of reasons, not the least of which already is enthusiasm.

Senator John Kerry: Enemy of a Free Press and Free Speech

Story here, about media reporting on the Tea Party:

"The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual."

In other words, free speech and a free press are only for some people.

Kind of like how stop signs are only for some people, right Senator? 

Words Mean Whatever I Say They Mean, Says Alaska Judge

An Alaska judge has ruled against Tea Party candidate Miller for the US Senate because the judge doesn't understand the plain meaning of the English language, according to this story in The Anchorage Daily News. The law says a write-in candidate's name must be written in on a ballot as it appears on the candidate's declaration of candidacy, which any educated person would understand to mean that write in votes for Lisa Murkowski should match Murkowski's name on her declaration of candidacy. Instead, the judge ruled it only had to appear to match it, which isn't what the law says:

Miller argued state law doesn't allow misspelling or state judgments of what the voter intended when writing in a candidate's name. The law says write-in votes should be counted if the name "as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate, is written in the space provided."

The judge focused on the fact that the word "appears" is a part of a definition.

"The definition of 'appears' in this context does not require perfection or precision, but rather a close, apparent approximation known to the viewer upon first look ... if exact spellings were intended by the legislature, even with respect to the most difficult names, the legislature could have and would have said so," Carey wrote in his ruling.


The judge has imported meaning and intent where it did not exist. A graduate, clearly, of the deconstructionist school of law. He should be impeached.

When the clear meaning of the English language can be manipulated at will in a society, there can no longer be a society, only chaos. Stop no longer means stop. Just ask Senator John Kerry, who is famous for ignoring such signs at intersections, and yacht taxes in his home state.

Cutting Paychecks of 535 Members of Congress by 10% is Silly

Do the math:

$174,000 per year

10% of which = $17,400

x 535 members of Congress = less than $10 million.

That'll really hurt the plutocrats like John Kerry and Darrell Issa.

$10 million dollars goes into a $3.5 trillion budget 350,000 times for crying out loud. It's like taking a long piss in the Pacific ocean. NO ONE WILL NOTICE!

Get serious! Cut an entire Cabinet level department or two, starting with Education.

Story here.

The Myth of the Obama Mandate 2008

The supporters of Barack Obama like to point to his 9.5 million vote margin of victory over John McCain in last year's election as evidence of his mandate for change. But viewed from the perspective of the percentage of the popular vote he won, the rookie will have to do a whole lot better in office than he has to date to move into the "mandate" ranks with Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Eisenhower, and FDR. In the only poll that counts, Obama has no more claim to a mandate than Carter in '76, GW Bush in 2004, nor Reagan in 1980.

1964 Johnson 61.05

1972 Nixon 60.67

1984 Reagan 58.77

1956 Eisenhower 57.37

1952 Eisenhower 55.18

1944 Roosevelt 53.39

1988 GHW Bush 53.37

2008 Obama 52.87

1980 Reagan 50.75

2004 GW Bush 50.73

1976 Carter 50.08

1960 Kennedy 49.72

1948 Truman 49.55

1996 Clinton 49.23

2000 GW Bush 47.87

(Gore) (48.38)

1968 Nixon 43.42

1992 Clinton 43.01

Perhaps more to the point, however, is the fact that John McCain would be president today but for 1,383,540 more votes properly apportioned in the nine formerly red states which went to W in 2004. Mandates don't hang in the balance of so few votes out of over 30 million cast. The cracker thin margins of victory for Obama in those states for 2008 are as follows (rounded to the nearest thousand):

Colorado 215,000

Florida 236,000

Indiana 28,000

Iowa 147,000

Nevada 121,000

New Mexico 126,000

North Carolina 14,000

Ohio 262,000

Virginia 235,000.

These handfuls of people made all the difference for Obama, but he had to outperform his predecessor John Kerry in those states by 3,036,289 votes to get them while his opponent McCain had to underperform his predecessor Bush by 191,852 votes at the same time. Neither eventuality is likely next time. The Republican candidate in 2012 won't have a record of alienating the base as a maverick and won't take four weeks to cash a check, nor another four to allocate it correctly, because she won't be McCain. And the Democrat candidate will not be able to run on a platform of change because we'll all have had plenty enough of that already. And staying the course won't work either because large numbers of chronically unemployed people who've lost their homes won't find that prospect very appealing.

There's a reason sales of firearms and ammunition are up over 30% since Obama got elected. There's a reason the normally undemonstrative and silent majority recently marched on Washington. There's a reason town hall meetings this summer witnessed excessive hyperventilating. And "mandate" isn't one of them.