Friday, July 24, 2015

THIS JUST IN! WILL THE JUSTICE DEPT COME A'COURTING?

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE


CRANKY CLINTON WAS HOPING INVESTIGATIONS INTO HER LIFE THIS GO ROUND WOULD GO NO DEEPER THAN TODD S. PURDHAM'S 2008 INVESTIGATION INTO A POSSIBLE 'BIMBO EXPLOSION' ONCE AGAIN INVOLVING HUSBAND BILL.

INSTEAD, CRANKY MAY BE UNDER FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AS TWO INSPECTORS GENERAL ARE CALLING ON THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO LAUNCH A FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO CRANKY'S USE OF HER PRIVATE E-MAIL ACCOUNT BECAUSE HER PURSE COULD ONLY ACCOMMODATE AN iPAD, A BLACKBERRY AND POSSIBLY A SMALL TRUCKLOAD OF ANTI-AGE CREAM.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "I SURVIVED TRAVEL-GATE,  I WILL SURVIVE THIS AS WELL.  SCANDALS DON'T BRING ME DOWN, THEY ONLY BUILD ME UP!"






In the US, today could have been a very important day for veterans.  Instead, some members of Congress -- on the Republican side -- elected to play games and mess with veterans.

Senator Patty Murray has worked years to highlight a very serious problem for many veterans.  You are injured while serving.  Your injury may mean you and your spouse are unable to become pregnant.

Now if you're still active duty, if you're DoD and not under the VA, the government will cover efforts at in vitro fertilization.

But if you're VA?  No.


This isn't fair.

And Murray has led the fight for equality and the fight to see that veterans have the same rights and opportunities as anyone else.


Today, she pulled her bill because some members of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee (on the Republican side) attempted to turn a veterans issue into something else, a vote on Planned Parenthood, abortion and other issues that had nothing to do with helping wounded veterans start families.


Murray called the amendments a "partisan attack on women's health," and said her bill, which passed the Senate in 2012 but failed in the House over funding concerns, would have ensured that the nation is doing "everything we can to support veterans who have sacrificed so much for our country."
"I am so disappointed — and truly angry that Republicans on the Veterans Affairs Committee decided yesterday to leap at the opportunity to pander to their base, to poison the well with the political cable news battle of the day, and turn their backs on wounded veterans," she said.
Tillis said the amendments were not intended "to kill in vitro fertilization." Rather, he said he has concerns about veterans who are waiting to receive medical care or are being denied care, including some of his constituents who have diseases related to exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
"At some point, it may make sense to add another half a billion dollars for this medical treatment that's been proposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but not until we're absolutely certain that the promises we've already made going to be fulfilled," said Tillis, a freshman congressman.



Oh, it's not worth money to help an injured veteran start a family?

The Camp Lejeune issue?

You want to block a nominee over that?

I'll support you, I'll defend you.  I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, I will support you.

And I have.

I've supported Senator Richard Burr on this issue.  I've defended him here for blocking a nominee or a bill because of this issue.

But I can't support using Camp Lejeune as an excuse for denying other veterans and their families in need.

I can't support.

I can't defend it.

I think it's outrageous and I'm deeply, deeply disappointed in Tillis who I have had favorable impressions of as a result of recent Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearings.

He and others chose to play politics instead of standing up for veterans.

If he can't stand up for veterans, he really doesn't need to be on the Committee.

That's something only he can decide.

And I'm not calling for him to be ejected.

But this move wasn't about what was best for veterans.




RECOMMNEDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Salt"


Posted by at

Thursday, July 23, 2015

THIS JUST IN! CRANKY'S CRASHING!

   BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE



REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY INSISTED THE POLL WAS MEANINGLESS AND "AFTER ALL, I'LL BE CONTROLLING THE VOTING MACHINES SO IT DOESN'T REALLY MATER WHO'S IN THE LEAD OR NOT."







In the latest episode of The Real Bitches of DC, Barack Obama addressed the VFW and insisted that those objecting to his precious Iran deal were the same ones who supported the Iraq War.

Really?

Because Jim Webb has serious questions about the deal and I thought he was among those calling out the Iraq War.



    1. 8 hours ago
      Obama says those who oppose the Iran deal were the ones in favor of the Iraq war. So does that mean Kerry is conflicted about the Iran deal?
      3:12 PM - 21 Jul 2015 · Details


    • Along with the factual problems with Barack's claims, there's also the sheer bitchiness of it.

    Is Barack one of the ones wrong?




    Because he can lie to a lot of stupid people and he can get a lot of whores to go along with him but I will always remember his support for the war in his statements to Elaine and I when he was running for the US Senate.


    You can ride high atop your pony
    I know you won't fall. . . 
    'cause the whole thing's phoney.
    You can fly swingin' from your trapeze
    Scaring all the people . . . 
    but you never scare me 
    -- "Bella Donna," written by Stevie Nicks, first appears on her album of the same name.


    Again, there are a lot of stupid people and he can easily fool them.

    But the reality is, as Bill Clinton so expertly put it, Barack's opposition to the Iraq War was always as "fairy tale."

    It's no way to sell a policy so most of will laugh at him as he yet again acts the littlest bitch in the world.

    What it mainly does is remind people that Barack's promoting a high risk, low yield treaty.

    Reminds them of how desperate he is.

    But it also serves to harden divisions and lines in this country -- remember when Barack was going to erase those?

    He was going to leave behind the cultural wars and the "Tom Hayden Democrats."

    But all the can do is bring out the bitchery.

    That's what happens when the Hopium has run out completely and the great leader stands before the country exposed as the fraud he always was.

    What else was Barack going to do in 2015, standing before the VFW but show his ass?

    Did you think he was going to talk about veterans homelessness?

    He promised, remember, to end that by the end of 2015.

    Which would be this year.

    This year which has five more months in it.

    Haven't heard anything on that, have you?

    Because it doesn't appear the deadline will be met.

    Well at least he could brag about reducing wait time for veterans at the VA, right?

    We remember that VA scandal, right?

    Christina Littlefield (Los Angeles Times) jogged memories yesterday as she noted:


    Concerns over waiting times for care at VA hospitals erupted in April 2014 after whistle-blowers in Phoenix accused administrators of keeping a secret waiting list to hide delays in treatment -- delays that were so long, at least 18 veterans died before being seen.  Similar problems were found in facilities across the country, and the chief of the VA stepped down.


    Barack couldn't stand before the VFW and brag about fixing that problem because -- well, because he didn't.

    Just a few months ago (April 9th), David B. Caruso (AP) was reporting, "A year after Americans recoiled at revelations that sick veterans were getting sicker when languishing on waiting lists, VA statistics show that the number of patients facing long waits has not declined, even after Congress gave the department an extra $16.3 billion last summer to shorten waits for care.


    Well he's got to have something regarding veterans care to brag about, right?

    Wrong.





    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"

  • Posted by at

    Tuesday, July 21, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! THEY'LL ALWAYS HAVE BASIC CABLE!

    BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE


    CHARLIZE THERON MAY HAVE INVITED HIM TO A STRIP JOINT BUT FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O LIKES ROLLING WITH THE BOYS.


    REACHED FOR COMMENT, NO LONGER FUNNY BOY JON TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "I JUST LOVE HIM! I COME A LITTLE IN MY MOUTH EVERY TIME I THINK ABOUT HIM."



    The whores never stop working it.

    So Amy Goodman must be very, very tired.

    June 22nd, she brought Jill Stein on.  Stein was the 2012 Green Party presidential candidate.  She ran a hideous campaign yet insists she deserves to be gifted with the party's 2016 nomination.

    This attitude has led to cries of White entitlement and charges that she's no different than the perception of Hillary Clinton -- that both women expect a coronation that will crown them the nominee.

    Goody let Jill prattle on about Bernie:


    DR. JILL STEIN: It’s wonderful, and I wish him well. I wish him the best. The difference is that my campaign will be there in the general. And Bernie has already announced that if he does not make it—and in the Democratic Party, we’ve seen wonderful efforts—Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton—who had extremely vigorous, spirited, visionary campaigns. It’s very hard to beat the system inside of the Democratic Party. And, you know, when those efforts ended, that was the end. Ours will keep going, and it will continue into the general election. And when it’s over, we’re building a party that’s not going away.



    It's cute how White Jill Stein could name check one man after another but not the 2008 presidential nominee for the Green Party: Cynthia McKinney.

    Search in vain, in the last four years, for any praise or even acknowledgment of Cynthia McKinney from Stein.


    Jill's a Queen Bee -- as defined by Gloria Steinem, Queen Bees are women who present themselves as the exception and stand apart from other women, women who want to be the only woman in the room.


    Jill's also a liar.

    Her 'campaign'?


    She doesn't even have the nomination.


    Not only that, but two men declared before Jill, declared they were running for the Green Party's presidential nomination.

    Jill doesn't note them, Amy Goodman doesn't bring them on her show.

    It's funny, when the media shuts out candidates in the Democratic Party's primary, the Goody Whores hop on their Self Righteous Ponies and insist that things are unfair and that people are being wronged and that democracy is suffering.

    But when Goody Whore 'covers' the Green Party, she presents only one candidate and doesn't even mention the other two -- both of whom declared long before Jill did.

    As we love to point out, Amy Goodman loves to play Last Journalist Standing -- but it's just a hollow pose.

    At Third, on Sunday, we discussed the Green Party and noted the two candidates Amy refuses to in our "Roundtable:"



    C.I.: Okay, I need to jump in for a second here.  The media lies.  That includes whores like Amy Goodman who's devoted how much attention to Jill Stein?  Jill is not the Green Party presidential candidate for 2016 and who is won't be decided until 2016.  Most importantly, Kent Mesplay and Bill Kreml are running for the nomination and Darryl Cherney  is considering it.  Point: The Goody Whore has failed to provide Kent or Bill -- two declared candidates -- time on her hideous program.  She has promoted Jill Stein as the Hillary of the Green Party, the anointed one who will be the candidate.  That is not reality and that is not journalism.  We don't accept from the mainstream we shouldn't accept from Amy Goodman's whorish beggar media.



    Ava: And for the record, Jill announced in June.  Kent and Bill who are not getting coverage from whores like Amy Goodman or so-called Green bloggers?  Kent announced in January that he was seeking the nomination and Bill announced in May.  But Goody Whore left them out while fawning over the ridiculous Jill Stein.  Democracy Now?  No, Amy Whore, democracy when?  She's such a whore.

    C.I.: And though Kent declared in January, Goody Whore has not noted him once this year -- and only noted him twice in 2008 when he was seeking the nomination -- and she's never noted Bill.


    Again, Amy Goodman's caught pretending to support democracy and reporting but lying to her audience and attempting to shape the outcome via her lies.

    There's nothing ethical about Amy Goodman.

    But then someone with ethics would never publish in Hustler magazine.

    And someone (again) seeking the presidential nomination of the Green Party should be able to talk Iraq.  She couldn't in 2012, could she?

    Even when Tim Arango (New York Times) reported at the end of September 2012 that Barack Obama had just sent a brigade of Special Ops into Iraq, Jill Stein couldn't talk Iraq.

    She can't talk it today either.


    The Green Party, the one she claims to represent, came out against the Iraq War before it started.  The party's position did not change after the Iraq War started.

    The Green Party has consistently opposed the Iraq War.

    This is from a May 2008 press release from the political party:


    Green Party leaders today compared the Green demand for an immediate end to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan to the pro-occupation positions of the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.

    Greens said that party members supported protests planned by International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) locals on the west coast on May 1, 2008.

    "Along with the election of Greens to Congress, actions like those planned by ILWU members are what we need to force the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan," said Rodger Jennings, Green candidate for the US House in Illinois (District 12) <http://www.rodgerjennings.org>. "The longshore workers intend to press Democratic and Republican presidential candidates to change their warhawk positions. Like the Green Party, the ILWU has opposed both of President Bush's wars from the beginning."

    The text of the ILWU's February 26, 2008 resolution can be read here <http://www.labournet.net/docks2/0802/ilwu1may1.htm>. The ILWU letter to the AFL-CIO can be read here <http://www.labournet.net/world/0802/ilwu1may2.html>.

    The Green Party of the United States has called for immediate troop withdrawal and impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney for numerous crimes and abuses of power, including deception and manipulated intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. Greens also favor a sharp reduction in the military budget, shifting funds over to health care, conservation programs, efforts to curb global warming, and other urgent needs.

    "While Democrats have retreated, our own Green presidential candidates -- Jesse Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, and Kat Swift -- have aggressively promoted the Green Party's position on the wars and on impeachment," said Dr. Julia Willebrand, co-chair of the Green Party's International Committee <http://www.gp.org/committees/intl>.

    Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have promised to pull 'combat' troops, but would leave thousands of US military personnel and contractors, including mercenary security firms, in Iraq to prolong the illegal occupation. Republican John McCain would maintain the Bush policy that would extend the occupation for several generations, bankrupting America both morally and fiscally.

    On other war-related issues, Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama, and Mr. McCain agree (while Greens hold contrary positions):



    Hey look, Kent Mesplay -- he could (and did) speak out against the Iraq War.

    Still Amy Goodman can't even note that he is a candidate for the Green Party's 2016 presidential nomination or that he declared his candidacy in January and did so without a fawning interview on Goody Whore's Democracy Now.


    Jill Stein can't talk Iraq.

    Nor can she call for the US government to stop meddling in Iraq.

    She can't note that over a year ago (June 19, 2014), Barack publicly insisted the only answer to the crises in Iraq was a political solution but in the 15 months since his administration has only focused on bombing Iraq.

    She deserves the nomination, she believes, but she's done nothing to show that she can earn it.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Iraq"
    "Iraq"
    "Iraq"










    Posted by at

    Sunday, July 19, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! BERNIE SANDERS ASKS THAT YOU KNOW YOUR PLACE!

    BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE



    REACHED FOR COMMENT, SANDERS ELECTED TO SPEAK TO ONLY ONE OF THESE TWO REPORTERS ("I DON'T SPEAK TO NO DARKIES, SORRY, THAT'S JUST HOW I BE RAISED") AND THEN INSISTED, "I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ANY PERSON OF ANY RACE IF THAT PERSON KNOWS THEIR PLACE.  BACK IN MY DAY, PEOPLE KNEW THEIR PLACE.  AND CERTAIN PEOPLE KNEW THEY WERE BETTER AT, FOR EXAMPLE, FRYING CHICKEN OR SELLING WATERMELON WHILE NOT SO GOOD AT SPEAKING UP IN PUBLIC."





    The United States needs to start paying attention and stop whoring.

    Whoring for Bully Boy Bush didn't help Iraq.

    Whoring for Barack Obama doesn't help Iraq.

    Take your mouth off the cock of which ever of the two men you're in love with and worship and stop your whoring.

    (Although some, like Andrew Sullivan, managed to worship and whore for both men.)


    If you want a military approach to Iraq -- I do not -- you need to grasp that Barack and Haider al-Abadi's strategy or 'strategy' or plan or 'plan' is doomed.

    It does not work.

    Even by military standards it will not work.

    If you want a military approach to Iraq's political crises, then what you want is not 'degrade and destroy' -- which are two bulls**t terms used to trick the American people -- many of whom want to be tricked, let's be honest.

    The two terms are "clear and hold."

    That's the military strategy that needs to be carried out in Iraq.

    You do not defeat (militarily) an 'enemy' in an area by jumping here (Tikrit) and then there (Ramadi) and then many miles over there and then many miles over here.

    If you're trying to defeat an enemy in the borders of country, a state, a province, whatever, you are doing clear and hold.

    You are starting from point X and you are methodically working to the next point.

    So if we're in California, for example, we don't clear Los Angeles and then jump tons of miles over to Monterey.

    If you made Los Angeles your starting point, you would immediately send  troops into Ventura and Kern and Orange and San Bernadino because each of those counties border Los Angeles (while keeping forces in Los Angels county to ensure that it is 'held').

    You would take Los Angeles county and then grab the immediate surroundings ones -- this is clear and hold.

    Once you had secured those counties, you would continue to work outwards.

    When you instead, grab Los Angeles county and then jump miles and miles and miles to the north to grab San Francisco, you accomplish nothing.  Between the two you have San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Benito, Merced, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, etc., etc.

    So if you retake Los Angeles and then jump to San Francisco, all those areas between the two?  That's where the 'enemy' will flood to.

    That's the point of the toothpaste analogy.  You're just pressing on one point of the tube and the toothpaste is just spreading elsewhere in the tube.

    (To be successful, you would need to work from the closed end of the toothpaste tube all the way across -- squeezing all the toothpaste out as you do -- to the nozzle.)

    This is not working militarily -- the current approach in Iraq -- and it will never work.  You can't do Tikrit in northern Iraq and then jump down to Ramadi.

    Clear and hold.

    That's basically door to door.

    And once you clear one area, you need to hold it.

    And you send additional forces into the bordering area and clear and hold that.  And you do that over and over, working through the country.

    That's the only way the approach works from a military stand point.

    From a military stand point, the current effort (whatever you want to call it -- plan, strategy, whatever) is a failure and will continue to be a failure.

    I don't support a military approach to the problems.  Maybe other Americans will.  That's fine, it's a democracy.  If they do support it, I'll still be a voice opposed to it (that's also democracy).

    But if you're going to do a military approach, you need to do one that could accomplish something and not one -- the one Barack and Haider al-Abadi are ordering -- that will never accomplish anything.

    Jumping from Tikrit to Ramadi just means the Islamic State moves all over in all directions.

    You're not 'herding' them by doing a clear and hold.

    You're allowing them to set up multiple bases wherever they want.

    The current approach is not methodical and it's insane from a military stand point.

    (And, yes, the Pentagon knows that.  That's why they don't like the approach.)




    Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)