kim kardashian

Kim Kardashian Photos

2012-05-24T23:26:00.000-07:00

Kim Kardashian Hairstyles

2012-05-24T12:28:00.000-07:00

Try on Kim Kardashian's hairstyles with our virtual hair styling system.

View hair styling tips for Kim Kardashian's hairstyles.

Biography Kim Kardashian

2012-05-24T11:09:00.000-07:00

Early life

Kardashian was born in Los Angeles, California, the daughter of attorney Robert Kardashian and his wife Kris Kardashian (née Houghton). Her father was a third generation Armenian American, and her mother is of Dutch and Scottish descent. Kardashian has two sisters, Kourtney and Khloé, and one brother, Robert. She has stepbrothers Burton Jenner, Brandon Jenner, and reality TV star Brody Jenner, step-sister Casey Jenner, and half-sisters Kendall Jenner and Kylie Jenner. She attended Marymount High School.

In 2000, Kardashian married music producer Damon Thomas; their relationship ended in divorce in 2004. Subsequently she dated R&B singer Ray J, NFL star Reggie Bush and Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Miles Austin. She also dated model Gabriel Aubry.

Barack Obama, Mocking The "Real World" Experience Of Others? Are You Fckng Kidding Me?

2012-05-24T10:09:00.000-07:00

This, coming from a guy who spent one year in the private sector (and hated every minute of it). Who then went on to be a "community organizer", where he was the recipient of tens of thousands of dollars in grants he did not have to work for. Who then went on to be a Sate Senator, where he handed out tens of millions of dollars in grants (all other people's money, of course). Who then went on to become a Untied States Senator, where he handed out tens of billions of dollars in grants. Who finally fell up to the position of President, where the amount of other people's money he doles out reaches into the trillions.

Who somehow feels qualified - based on a lifetime of not earning a single dime he has received or passed along - to discuss and define what "real world" experience is:

Well, those of us who’ve spent time in the real world — (laughter) — know that the problem isn’t that the American people aren’t productive enough — you’ve been working harder than ever. The challenge we face right now, and the challenge we’ve faced for over a decade, is that harder work has not led to higher incomes, and bigger profits at the top haven’t led to better jobs.

All this explains why Obama's economic policies as president amount to no more than taking other people's money (now, "the rich") and offer them out to favored groups, as...grants. He's never earned a dime, nor created one - he's only taken and redistributed that which was created by others.

Obama's "real world" is a lot different from mine, I can say that.

So is Michelle's, apparently:

It would probably be rude of me to think about Michelle Obama’s work, where her salary jumped from $121,910 to $316,962 per year after her husband became a U.S. senator, a job that was strangely left unfilled after she stepped down to focus on her husband’s campaign.

Such positions are quite challenging to find in the… real world.

Barack Obama: Dumber Than Dubya?

2012-05-24T07:13:00.000-07:00

The UK's Daily Mail leads their story with three bullet points with a quod erat demonstrandum feel:

*Average SAT score of Obama's 1981 transfer group to Columbia was 1,100

*Bush got into Yale with score of 1,206 out of 1,600

*Obama refuses to release his academic record

Not that this is further proof, but...note that Obama eventually released his birth certificate after the "citizenship" controversy reached a level where it was no longer counter-productive to the Right, but instead was seeping into the mainstream consciousness.

With Barack Obama now looking less like a philosopher-king, and a lot more like Evita Peron, one wonders why he hasn't finally "proven" his intellectual bona fides by allowing the release of his college transcripts.

Unless, of course...they were a bit subpar, and perhaps the final proof that Obama was, and still is, the ultimate affirmative action baby.

Sad times too - as I mentioned yesterday - that in order to get any investigative journalism on Democratic politicians, Americans need to look overseas...

Catholics March To Court; Media Ignores Them

2012-05-23T11:08:00.000-07:00

It just might be one of the most significant First Amendment cases in...oh, ever. Refusing to bow down to the browbeating of Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, and the Democratic party, 43 different Catholic dioceses, colleges, and other organizations have filed suit against the Obama administration claiming the HHS contraceptive mandate is unconstitutional.

One would think that with the media pushing the administration's claim of a Republican "war on women", they would be all over this, if not as a possible landmark religious rights case, then as proof that those over-zealous Catholics are trying to force women to remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

And yet we literally hear...nothing:

Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell has seen a lot of media abuse in his time as the master monitor of the liberal press. Now, he’s seen the very worst: The broadcast networks “all but spiked the largest legal action in history to defend our constitutionally protected religious freedom,” the analyst says, citing CBS, ABC and NBC for skimming over news that 43 Catholic dioceses and organizations filed a lawsuit Monday against the Obama administration.

CBS managed to air 19 seconds on the subject. But that was it, between all three networks.

“This is the worst bias by omission I have seen in the quarter-century history of the Media Research Center,” he says, insisting that the networks fear the lawsuit could compromise President Obama’s popularity with voters.

“This is not a mistake, nor is it an editorial oversight by the broadcast networks. This is a deliberate and insidious withholding of national news to protect the ‘chosen one’ who ABC, CBS and NBC have worked so hard to elect.”

Lead stories and in-depth reports are in order, he suggests, following revelations that the Catholic Church unleashed “legal Armageddon” on the White House, promising not to comply with health care reforms that would require religiously affiliated institutions to offer birth control to employees.

“Instead, these networks are sending a clear message to all Americans that the networks will go to any lengths — even censoring from the public an event of this historic magnitude — to prevent the release of any information that will hurt Obama’s chances of re-election,” Mr. Bozell concludes.

Sorry times in which we live. Like in Soviet Union, we must look to foreign sources of news to get the truth about what is happening around us.

Our media dropped the mask and jumped the shark some time ago...

Obama Goes Negative On...Joplin High School Grads?

2012-05-22T10:47:00.000-07:00

When negative is your default position, it is very hard to up-shift, even when your job is to uplift, especially when you are speaking at a high-school graduation in the tornado-ravaged city of Joplin, Missouri.

But our Barack Obama cannot miss any opportunity to rage against the machine. Like a Third World dictator (perhaps his true calling), there is no public gathering of three or more than is not seen as an opportunity to propagandize on behalf of the regime, and to exhort the naive to join the revolution:

President Barack Obama’s high school commencement speech in the tornado-stricken town of Joplin, Mo., pushed a sharply ideological message and included partisan jabs and a call for military-style community action during crises.

“You are from America. No matter how tough times get, you will be tougher,” he told the students and parents May 22. “The road has been hard. The day has been long. But we have tomorrow, so we march. We march together,” he said on the first anniversary of the deadly tornado strike.

“As you begin the next stage in your journey, you will encounter greed and selfishness; ignorance and cruelty. … You will meet people who try to build themselves up by tearing others down; who believe looking after others is only for suckers,” he said.

Does this guy hate his countrymen, or what? Seems as if the vibe is getting through to the kids, who seemed to give him a less-than-enthusiastic welcome:

The jab [mocking Congress] was one of the few that got any response from the audience, which was muted in comparison to Obama’s usual audience of college students in Democratic districts. Before the speech, Obama shook hands with a group of students who swarmed to him in the gym where they waited for the ceremony to begin.

But a press pool report noted that “about half the seniors, all wearing burgundy caps and gowns, remained back.”

Is there any better indicator that Barack Hussein Obama has "lost his cool"?

Or maybe the kids were just afraid for the safety of their as-yet-untaxed graduation gifts, tucked neatly in an inside pocket, underneath their graduation gowns...?

The Incredible Shrinking Sample Size of Republican Voters In MSM Polling

2012-05-22T06:07:00.000-07:00

If people don't like the president or his policies, just...don't poll them.

The Washington Post gives us this headline, which no doubt they believe is a negative for Romney:

Poll: Obama, Romney in dead heat on economy

The parity on economic issues foreshadows what probably will continue to be a tough and negative campaign. Overall, voters would be split 49 percent for Obama and 46 percent for Romney if the November election were held now. On handling the economy, they are tied at 47 percent... ...

One key indicator has hardly budged this year: Asked where they stand financially compared with when Obama took office in January 2009, 30 percent say they are worse off, and only 16 percent say they are better off.

With a 3.5+/- margin of error, it seems as if the boys are deadlocked. But only if you don't look at the sampling used by the WaPo pollsters to come up with these less-than-stellar results for the incumbent. Hot Air:

Today’s D/R/I is 32/22/38, which means this model would only be predictive for a turnout model where only 22% of voters are Republican. Just to remind readers, the 2008 turnout split from exit polls showed a 39/32/29 split, and that was considered a nadir for Republican turnout. In the 2010 midterms, the split was 35/35/30.

Take a close look at the Republican representation in WaPo/ABC polls this year. Starting in January, that has been 25%, 23%, 27%, 23%, and now 22%.

Even with this poor sampling, though, Obama can’t gain any momentum. His job approval dropped in this series from 50/45 to 47/49. His rating on the economy sank to 42/55, not as bad as March’s 38/59 but slipping from last month’s 44/54. Among all adults (as in the preceding figures), Obama only leads Romney by 4, 49/45 — and a Democrat who can’t get to 50% among general-population adults is in serious trouble. The 49/46 comes from registered voters, with its substantial handicap among Republicans.

So while in reality the Republican turnout figure on election day has increased over 20% from 2008 to 2010, the WaPo pollsters have decreased their numbers by 37% in their sample. And they still get a president who can't break 50% in their polls, and whom respondents claim has not helped improved their lives by a freakin' smidgen of the last 3+ years...

Maybe the media should just drop the charade, and simply interview only Democrats and claimed "independents" for their polling purposes. Maybe then you'll see Barack Obama surpass a 50% approval rating, and take some sort of a real lead on Mitt Romney.

Maybe.

(More from The Weekly Standard and NRO's Campaign Spot on the oddities of this poll...)

What does Warren Buffet want with 63 newspapers, anyway?

2012-05-21T06:12:00.000-07:00

Warren Buffett made good Thursday on his promise to buy more newspapers, agreeing to buy 63 daily and weekly newspapers in the Southeast for $142 million from financially troubled Media General Inc. of Richmond, Va.

And Buffett said Thursday he may buy more newspapers. “Any time we can add properties we like, to management we like, at a price we like, we're ready to go.”

What an odd purchase. It's obvious to even the most hardcore Luddite that newspapers are a thing of the past, about to be buried by the avalanche of ever-more-convenient portable digital devices. It's like buying up 63 buggy factories in the early 1900's. Sure, you might want one or two to have a monopoly on the buggy market - there's always the Amish. and those romantic rides through Central Park - but you'd likely need no more than that.

Warren Buffett is no dummy; he's supposed to be the savviest investor in the universe. Does he really believe the daily is going to make a huge comeback? Or is he planning on parlaying this purchase into more...tangible benefits?

The newspapers, in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama and Florida, would be combined with the Omaha World-Herald Co. into a new Berkshire Hathaway Inc. division called BH Media Group. They would be managed by World Media Enterprises, a new sister company of The World-Herald...

The sale would close June 25, subject to Federal Trade Commission and anti-trust reviews.

Interesting list of locations. Swings states all, save South Carolina.

With a closing date of 6/25, that leaves plenty of time for Warren to install compliant editorial boards prior to the 2012 election. Shoot, he can have them in place by the time the Democratic convention opens in NC in early September.

Is this purchase of 63 newspapers at a realitively piddling sum really an investment in...Barack Obama?

Would be Buffett's second in a week, actually. On the very same day he made his massive press purchase:

The investment by Warren Buffett's investment company in General Motors gave the automaker's stock at least a short-term bump.

Omaha, Neb.-based Berkshire Hathaway's purchase of 10 million shares for $256.6 million, revealed in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing, energized investors.

GM shares rose 2.29% to close at $21.91 on Wednesday, the first day of trading after the investment was made public. At one point, shares were up more than 4%.

"Just having the Berkshire name attached to it gives it a nice little bounce," Morningstar analyst David Whiston said.

Any bounce helps for a government-owned company that had its IPO at $33 a share, but needed $50 per for the taxpayers to break even, and is currently sitting below half of that figure.

And we know that Obama has helped Buffett before - the president's bizarre refusal to build the Keystone Pipeline turns out to have turned quite the profit for the "Wizard of Omaha".

Quid pro quo, Mr. Buffett?

Or just a savvy investment for a man who feels he can make more money as a crony of the corrupt and economically illiterate Barack Obama, than he can working with a hard-headed capitalist like Mitt Romney?

Should be interesting to see the editorial pages of those former Media General properties come the heat of election season...

RFK Jr: Another Kennedy, Another Female Corpse, Another Excuse

2012-05-20T06:17:00.000-07:00

RFK Jr, speaking at the funeral yesterday for his estranged wife, exonerated himself for her suicide:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shamelessly told a crowd of mourners at tragic wife Mary Richardson Kennedy’s funeral yesterday that her suicide was not his fault.

“I know I did everything I could to help her,” Kennedy said in his eulogy at St. Patrick Church in Bedford, where attendees included Chevy Chase, Larry David, Glenn Close and Susan Sarandon.

Mary, 52, hanged herself Wednesday in the barn of her Westchester mansion. Kennedy spent most of his eulogy lavishing praise on his wife — although he noted that she harbored a grudge against him.

“She was a SoHo girl . . . She blamed me for taking her away from her profession [to raise a family],” he said, referring to her former career as an architectural designer in Manhattan.

Sound familiar? Reminds me of a different Kennedy who deflected blame for a damsel's death:

In his 532-page book, True Compass, the late Ted Kennedy admitted to "inexcusable" behaviour after the Chappaquiddick car crash, saying that he was dazed, scared and panicked following the 1969 accident in which he drove off a bridge and left his passenger to drown.

He said he made "terrible decisions" in leaving the scene with Mary Jo Kopechne still in the car although he continued to be vague – as he was at the time – over why it took him 10 hours to report the accident on an island off Massachusetts.

Which leads us to WIlliam Kennedy Smith, who - after a night of pounding drinks with Uncle Teddy - decided to have some good old-fashioned Kennedy fun, even if the participants were unwilling:

The incident began on the evening of Good Friday, March 29, 1991, when Smith, then 30 years old, was in a bar in Palm Beach, Florida, with his uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy, and his cousin Patrick Kennedy.

Smith met a 29-year-old woman, Patricia Bowman and another young woman at the bar. The four then went to a nearby house owned by the Kennedy family. Smith and 29-year-old Bowman walked along the beach.

Bowman alleged that Smith raped her; Smith testified that the sex was consensual. Although three women were willing to testify that Smith had sexually assaulted them in incidents in the 1980s not reported to the police, their testimony was excluded. Smith was acquitted of all charges.

Teddy gets away with murder, William with rape...and RFK Jr.? Accused of nothing, he gets defensive - at his wife's funeral, no less. Not a criminal, just a cad, and likely a poor excuse for a husband.

Lesson for the ladies: Frolic with a Kennedy, and you wind up dishonored and/or dead. And blamed for it at your funeral...

Why Does Elizabeth Warren - 1/32 Cherokee - Continue To Enslave Native Americans?

2012-05-19T06:26:00.000-07:00

Well, I'll get to that in a moment.

Wanted to share this piece from Jonah Goldberg's free subscription-only email, the G-Files. Usually inane ramblings - more of a conservative stream-of-consciousness than anything else - he hits the nail on the headdress here when it comes to American victims of socialized medicine:

Life expectancy for the Oglala Sioux is according to some estimates as little as 48 years and the infant-mortality rate is 300 percent the U.S. average. That's horrific (and one reason we should have some humility before we condemn tribal leaders for advocating prohibition). But it's also worth noting that Oglala Sioux have long benefited from the one thing liberals insisted above all else would raise the national life expectancy rate in the U.S.: socialized medicine, in the form of the Federal Indian Health Service. And yet things are not all going well in South Dakota. How could that be?

Well, Native Americans have other contributing issues as well - poverty, alcoholism, and the hopelessness of bleak life prospects are pretty rampant through their society, for openers. But it is interesting that socialized medicine has done nothing to help rescue them from having one of the lowest life expectancies of any cultural subgroup within the United States.

Neither, incidentally, has forced segregation. We give them land, limited self-government, and food stamps as long as they self-identify as an oppressed indigenous group. And there they stay, going nowhere, accomplishing little, and not living up to their potentials.

Maybe the best thing to do is to encourage them to get off their reservations and intermingle & intermix with the rest of American society, where they can maintain their heritage and still partake in the everyday comings and goings of American life, culture, and morality. I can't imagine anything can be worse than being a frozen-in-time monument to the White man's guilt, yet cursed to live a short, painful life in order to somehow assuage it. An eternity spent paying penance for the sins of another...

So here's where Elizabeth Warren comes in. She pushes for ObamaCare, an offshoot of the very program that is condemning fellow tribes to an early grave. She is in favor of minority set-asides - shoot, she even uses them herself - yet by "setting aside" the Indians on reservations, she is condemning them to a short and painful life.

So why does Elizabeth Warren support polices that harm the remaining descendants of the original Native Americans? Is she some sort of"self-hating Indian", perhaps?

Or is she just an immoral fraud, using the language of liberalism and political correctness to advance her own career and increase her own power, while knowingly destroying the very people she claims as forefathers?

You claim Cherokee legitimacy, Ms. Warren? Fine. Then let your people go to enjoy the fruits of the American system. Get them off of their hopeless reservations, away from government doctors, and out of a never-ending cycle of self-pitying victim status.

Let your people go, Ms. Warren. Or be forced to admit what the liberal agenda is really about...

Hmmm....Menendez Seat Now Only "Leans" Democratic?

2012-05-18T11:15:00.000-07:00

And that's from the New York Times, no less. Via MMM, we see that Nate Silver now classifies Bob Menendez's (D-La Raza) Senate seat as one of two races nationally that have shifted in favor of Republicans:

In New Jersey, Robert Menendez, a Democrat, has middling approval ratings and is below 50 percent in the polls against the most likely Republican nominee, State Senator Joseph Kyrillos. Mr. Kyrillos would need to catch some breaks to win the race — his fund-raising has lagged Mr. Menendez’s so far, and he might need Mr. Romney to be more competitive in New Jersey than Republican presidential candidates have been in recent years. Still, there is a plausible path to an upset, and so we now classify the race as Likely Democrat rather than Safe Democrat.

Some commentary from the polling:

Democratic incumbent U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez leads State Sen. Joseph Kyrillos, the Republican challenger, 45 - 35 percent...
Independents back Menendez 39 - 33 percent...
Menendez gets a 44 - 30 percent job approval rating...
New Jersey voters have a 37 - 26 percent favorable opinion of Menendez, while 36 percent don't know enough about him to form an opinion. For Kyrillos, 75 percent don't know enough to form an opinion.

Points to ponder:

-A 44% job approval is well "below 50%"...and this in a state with a 600K+ Democratic registration advantage, no less

-only 37% of New Jersey residents have a "favorable opinion" of Menendez? Sweet Zombie Jesus, even Newt Gingrich laughs at those numbers!

-after two terms, 36% of those polled don't know enough about Menendez to form an opinion? Talk about a lack of marketplace penetration, one that can be easily exploited by a canny opponent...

-75%o of the locals have no idea who Joe Kyrillos is. Which means he can, given enough time and money, shape that opinion, assuming he moves faster than Menendez

-Chris Christie is a powerhouse political figure in New Jersey. He will stump for Kyrillos, and help raise money for him ($600K so far). Another guy who knows a bit about money is helping out Kyrillos. Goes by the name of Mitt Romney....

And we haven't even gotten into the stench of cronyism and corruption that surrounds Menendez like dirt follows Pig-pen...(much more here)

"A plausible path to an upset"?

Nate, I reckon you understate the case...this is gonna be one to watch...

IOC Officials: What's A "Munich Massacre"?

2012-05-18T05:47:00.000-07:00

Oh, they remember it, all right - but because it shows both their utter incompetence in face of terror, and the true face of the Palestinian movement - they don't want you to.

From the New York Post:

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the massacre at the 1972 Olympic Games of 11 Israel athletes and coaches by Palestinian terrorists. As a reminder of the atrocity, the Israeli Olympic Committee asked that there be a moment of silence to honor the victims at the commencement of the Games.

The International Olympic Committee has refused to agree. The best IOC President Jacques Rogge could do was to promise to attend the Israeli delegation’s traditional tribute to the victims.

Rogge also told the Israelis to “rest assured that, within the Olympic family, the memory of the victims of the terrible massacre in Munich in 1972 will never fade away.”

Yeah. "Within the family". Lots of ugly things can be hidden there. But the moral cowardice of the IOC cannot. They'd rather side with the Muslim world and the anti-Semites of Europe (both of whom would no doubt call for a competing show of solidarity for the "victims" of the Israeli "occupation") than remind the world of the fact that Jew-hatred has no boundaries, and that some of the greatest current proponents of this poisonous philosophy are competing in the 2012 Olympics.

The Israelis are not fooled by the IOC's "solidarity in a closet":

As Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said: “This rejection told us as Israelis that this tragedy is yours alone and not a tragedy within the family of nations.”

None will mourn. A few, however, will celebrate...you can bet on it.

For what it is worth...never forget:

FOX Poll Showing Romney Behind An Outlier?

2012-05-17T05:55:00.000-07:00

Seems as if the the dam was about to burst and panic was about to ensue when the New York Times published a poll showing Romney with a two-point lead over the incumbent president. The fact that it was skewed Democratic, and buried at the bottom of page A17, gave all the more credence to the belief that even in liberal-land, the signs of impending doom could not be ignored (only desperately hidden).

The lo and behold comes a FOX poll yesterday, showing Obama leading Mitt Romney by seven points nationally, 46% to 39%.

So which poll is the outlier? Ironically, it seems as if FOX is off the mark this time, as a few other polls have been released today mimicking the NYT results:

Via Political Wire:

A new Washington Times/JZ Analytics poll find Mitt Romney edging President Obama nationally, 44% to 43%. Key finding: "Obama is doing fine in most categories except young voters -- those under 30 -- with whom he only has a 5 percentage-point advantage over Mr. Romney."

Meanwhile, a YouGov/Economist poll finds Romney ahead 46% to 42%.

The Washington Times poll was conducted by John Zogby, who - like the NYT - is known to lean a bit left, to say the least. An interesting takeaway:

Voters also overwhelmingly think the news media is on Mr. Obama’s side, with 56 percent of them saying the media wants to see him re-elected. Strong majorities of both independents and Republicans suspect the press is rooting for Mr. Obama, and even a plurality of Democrats think reporters and editors want to see the president gain another term.

Beware, Barack: The American people are paying attention, after all...

The YouGov poll, showing Romney with an even bigger lead, had a survey sample of 53% women and, with "leaners" included, skewed 45%-37% Democratic. And even so, Obama only polled 42% here....

So - for the moment - ignore the FOX poll, and sit back and laugh as the Obama administration attempts to de-legitimize the Times - virtually a house organ - while pumping up the methodology of their greatest foes...

UPDATE: The FOX poll seems to have had a heavy Democratic bias, but it points to a specific danger - and an obvious opportunity:

A newly released Fox News poll includes 42 percent Democrats and only 34 percent Republicans — an 8-point Democratic edge — and shows President Obama leading Mitt Romney by 7 points (46 to 39 percent)...

In 2008, back when Rasmussen’s polling on party affiliation showed Democrats outnumbering Republicans by 7 percentage points (40 to 33 percent), Democratic turnout in the election exceeded GOP turnout by 7 points (39 to 32 percent) — and Obama won by 7 points (53 to 46 percent)....Now, after nearly three and a half years of Obama, Rasmussen shows party affiliation favoring Republicans by 2 points (35 to 33 percent) — a 10-point swing since the week after Inauguration Day.

But surely the Fox News poll is right: If the Democratic party has not lost any support since 2008 (and perhaps has even gained some), Obama will win.

But it has lost support. So...

The Most Important Thing To Take Out Of Deb Fischer's Nebraska Win....

2012-05-16T10:58:00.000-07:00

Jen Rubin has a list of ten interesting aspects of Deb Fischer's upset win in the Nebraska Republican primary for Senate yesterday. Since we are pressed for time at this busy blog, I'm only going to point out one. The one that Jen put last, which I believe should have been first:

Money is overrated. Fischer was outspent $440,000 to Bruning’s $3.6 million.

That's a 9-1 ratio, more or less. Now I'm not sure if that counts PAC money, which may have added $200K to the kitty. Nevertheless, I will quote from 300:

When muscle failed, they turn to their magic. When hundred nations descend upon us, the armies of all Asia, funelled to this narrow corridor, their numbers count for nothing.

Obama is selling what soul he has to any interest group that can fund his campaign. His hundreds of millions of dollars, funneled through the narrow corridors of media, will count for nothing against a rotting economy, a de-fanged military, a morally corrupted society, and a population who does not believe a word this president says.

Not saying we shouldn't be contributing what we can to those whom will need our help. But let the media beat off to Obama's fundraising prowess. With the American people ready to man the Hot Gates of freedom, Obama has no hope of making it through to a second term...

Media Narrative Coming Off Desperate...

2012-05-16T05:29:00.000-07:00

...when you see headlines like this from the AP:

Shift on marriage energizes immigration activists

President Barack Obama's shift to support gay marriage is energizing young Hispanic voters who have been working side-by-side with gay activists in their push for immigration reform. The alliance has been growing nationwide and helping dispel what many say is an outdated notion that Hispanics are less tolerant of gays than the general public...

Forget about the Tea Party - the force to be reckoned with in American politics is the radical gay/radical Hispanic (the article uses the reprehensible La Raza as their key source) alliance !

Sheesh - what next?

Williamsburg, Brooklyn - Three hipsters, drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon at a local dive bar, agreed that Obama's new stance on gay marriage might be enough to rouse them to register to vote for the 2012 elections. Pundits, including the hot angry hippie chick that is often seen at the local Two Boots pizzeria, agree that this movement may signal a turning point for the Obama campaign...

Really....

Obama hacks White House biographies, inserts himself into the past....

2012-05-15T12:40:00.000-07:00

No, that title is not a joke. But it is as sick as it sounds.

Believing his own side's endless rants about the stupidity of the average American, Obama has gone back and altered the official biographies of multiple presidents to include himself in their actions, figuring no one would know any better:

The Heritage Foundation’s Rory Cooper tweeted that Obama had casually dropped his own name into Ronald Reagan’s official biography on www.whitehouse.gov, claiming credit for taking up the mantle of Reagan’s tax reform advocacy with his “Buffett Rule” gimmick. My first thought was, he must be joking. But he wasn’t—it turns out Obama has added bullet points bragging about his own accomplishments to the biographical sketches of every single U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge (except, for some reason, Gerald Ford)

Some examples below. As embarrassing as a Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoon, or a North Korean news dispatch:

On Feb. 22, 1924 Calvin Coolidge became the first president to make a public radio address to the American people. President Coolidge later helped create the Federal Radio Commission, which has now evolved to become the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). President Obama became the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls using Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, etc.

In a 1946 letter to the National Urban League, President Truman wrote that the government has “an obligation to see that the civil rights of every citizen are fully and equally protected.” He ended racial segregation in civil service and the armed forces in 1948. Today the Obama administration continues to strive toward upholding the civil rights of its citizens, repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, allowing people of all sexual orientations to serve openly in our armed forces.

On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations. In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.

The last one is somewhere between a sacrilege and a desecration. Claiming Reagan would support a wealth confiscation scam, while inserting the bullshit story about Buffet's secretary, is blasphemous, especially coming as it is from the office of the president.

Is he trying to disguise himself as a mainstream president here, claiming his radical agenda is a mere minor extension of the policies of previous presidents? Or is he so desperate to create a legacy for himself that he needs to alter history in an attempt to show that anything a great president has done, he can do better?

Or are there darker machinations at work here? Perhaps he has decided that it is time we understood that there was, is, and always will be....Barack Hussein Obama.

And we'd better get used to it...

Barack Obama: Gayer by the Day!

2012-05-15T06:21:00.000-07:00

Oh, the president is having a grand old time, beating his chest about how brave he is to declare his support for gay marriage, while milking every sexual confused celebrity for a donation to his re-election campaign.

He's making cash hand-over-fist, to be sure, but if his economic history is any indicator of future events, he'll probably just waste it anyway. Bottom line is, the American people are tolerant of homosexuality, but they don't want the lifestyle rubbed into their faces. So headlines like these are not helping matters:

Gay old time for Obama in Big Apple - Joined by $tars days after same-sex nuptials stance

Only days after his controversial declaration of support for same-sex marriage, President Obama was livin’ la vida loca in Chelsea yesterday at a star-studded fund-raiser hosted by singer Ricky Martin and attended by other prominent gay and lesbian donors.

Obama told the crowd, “I think the American people are on our side on this.” The president hauled in more than $3 million yesterday — starting with $1 million at the Chelsea event.

And then there's this one:

Obama, touting gay marriage stance, calls for repeal of Defense of Marriage Act

President Obama openly spoke of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act at a fundraiser Monday, as he defended his personal view that gay couples should have the right to marry. While his administration has put out statements on the idea of repealing the 1996 federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, it's unusual for Obama to call for its repeal.

Which makes this headline no surprise:

Obama’s Switch on Same-Sex Marriage Stirs Skepticism

Most Americans suspect that President Obama was motivated by politics, not policy, when he declared his support for same-sex marriage, according to a new poll released on Monday, suggesting that the unplanned way it was announced shaped public attitudes.

Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed by The New York Times and CBS News since the announcement said they thought that Mr. Obama had made it “mostly for political reasons,” while 24 percent said it was “mostly because he thinks it is right.” Independents were more likely to attribute it to politics, with nearly half of Democrats agreeing.

The results reinforce the concerns of White House aides and Democratic strategists who worried that the sequence of events leading up to the announcement last week made it look calculated rather than principled...

Now why in the world would anyone think that?

Oh yeah...right:

But as is always the case, Obama has a ready-made excuse should his personal gay pride march fail him....blame the racist and homophobic American people!

You know...like this guy:

Combine the HHS Mandate w/ Obama's Gay Marriage "Stance"...

2012-05-14T10:54:00.000-07:00

...and you have simultaneously alienated most of the persons of faith in the United States. Not the Barack Obama seems to know very many, save the few that are ardent campaign $upporters. It is unlikely he has any in his inner circle - or his outer rings, even.

When the New York Times throws up a caution flag, well...

The issue of religious freedom has become a delicate one for Mr. Obama, especially after the recent furor over an administration mandate that religiously affiliated organizations offer health insurance covering contraceptives. After complaints from Catholic leaders that the mandate undercut their faith, Mr. Obama offered a compromise that would maintain coverage for contraception while not requiring religious organizations to pay for it, but critics remained dissatisfied.

After the interview, Mr. Obama hit the phones. Among those he called was one of the religious leaders he considers a touchstone, the Rev. Joel C. Hunter, the pastor of a conservative megachurch in Florida.

“Some of the faith communities are going to be afraid that this is an attack against religious liberty,” Mr. Hunter remembered telling the president.

“Absolutely not,” Mr. Obama insisted. “That’s not where we’re going, and that’s not what I want.”

The Rev. Jim Wallis, another religious adviser to Mr. Obama and the president and chief executive of Sojourners, a left-leaning evangelical organization, said that he had fielded calls since the announcement from pastors across the country, including African-American and Hispanic ministers. Religious leaders, he said, are deeply divided, with some seeing it as the government forcing clergy to accept a definition of marriage that they consider anathema to their teachings.

Mr. Wallis said that it was clear to him that the president’s decision was a matter of personal conscience, not public policy. But he said that some religious leaders wanted to hear Mr. Obama say that explicitly....

Sorry, Reverend Jim, but it doesn't matter what Obama says. You will be forced, via the rule of the "slippery slope", to perform marriage services for homosexual couples. Look - If Barack was able to betray Cardinal Dolan of New York and not lose a moment's sleep over it, do you really thinks he gives two shits about you?

Dolan said he met with the president weeks ago in the Oval Office to talk about the law. Dolan said the president gave his promise the provision would go away, but it hasn’t.

“It seems to be at odds with very sincere assurances that he gave me, that he wanted to continue to work with the church in these endeavors and views and projects he shared a passionate interest in, so I can’t figure it out,” Dolan said.

Sources close to the Cardinal-designate tell CBS 2 that Dolan feels betrayed...

And Cardinal Dolan isn't the only one feeling they got a presidential-sized screwjob. Out of Maryland:

When Obama announced that his position on same-sex marriage had evolved, it outraged some African-American pastors like Pastor and Del. Emmett Burns.

“He has said to his base, African-Americans, ‘I am going against your beliefs and your thoughts,’” Burns said.

He’s so opposed to same-sex marriage, he told church members he will no longer support the president and now predicts Obama will lose the election because of it...

From your lips to God's ears, Pastor...

Mister, We Could Use A Man Like Johnny Carson Again...

2012-05-14T06:01:00.000-07:00

Talk shows were a bit different back in the day. And not that far back, as I wonder if we can detect a sea change occurring sometime around, oh, say...1992. That was the year Johnny Carson left the desk at the Tonight Show. Since then, the late-night vacuum has been filled by pretenders to the throne, filling their couches with B-list celebrities, and every nut and slut milking their fifteen minutes of fame.

Andrea Peyser at the New York Post reminds us that it wasn't always this way, as she writes about a Carson documentary currently airing on PBS:

Back then, 20 million viewers nightly came to expect not just comedians and singers but the greatest authors, intellectuals, politicians, satirists, columnists and you-name-it of the 20th century. Somehow, every one of them kept every one of those millions of viewers enthralled, occasionally appalled and always amused.

The clips, though, are the thing that will make you sad. They are so funny and so smart that you will be cowed by the fact that now idiotic starlets pushing the merch are the standard “get” and back then, the only “get” worth getting were the smartest, funniest and fastest thinkers on two (and sometimes four) feet.

As Jerry Seinfeld says, “There never was a ‘Tonight Show.’ It was Carson. “When he left, that show never existed again.”

And nothing ever adequately replaced it. Instead, we are buffeted by the winds of the clown princes of late night TV, all of whom lack any real intellectual curiosity while sharing an identical ideology.

Things we've seen since Carson left...note a pattern, perhaps?

Carson was a liberal too, but he never fawned over the Left wing:

He avoided explicitly mentioning his views on Tonight, however, saying "I hate to be pinned down", as that would "hurt me as an entertainer, which is what I am". As he explained in 1970, "In my living room I would argue for liberalization of abortion laws, divorce laws, and there are times when I would like to express a view on the air. I would love to have taken on Billy Graham. But I'm on TV five nights a week; I have nothing to gain by it and everything to lose."

Today's talk-show hosts, ensconced in the Hollywood bubble and separate from the masses of America in a way Carson never was, likely believe they don't have anything to lose (and perhaps much to gain) by openly mocking Republicans and lavish sycophantic praise on Democrats.

They should think twice. Just ask Oprah Winfrey...

Metaphorically Apt: Obama To Decree The Slaughter Of the Bald Eagle

2012-05-13T07:05:00.000-07:00

Only in an administration headed by a Democrat:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a division of the Interior Department, is considering loosening regulations on the killing of bald eagles, the national bird of the United States, to accommodate the development of wind energy sources.

A draft regulation first filed in April would allow businesses to apply for 30-year permits allowing them to kill bald eagles in the course of other legal activities. The length of those permits would be a six-fold increase over the five-year window allowed under current law

Obama is about to declare open game on the fearless, proud, independent hunter that was thought to burn in the heart of every American.

Well, he's done that already, of course. But like all radicals, he understands that power of symbolism. And he understands the message it sends when he slaughters these symbols, after once protecting them. And by making the bald eagle, and all it represents, expendable so that windmills - the pet project, ironically, of the so-called "environmentalists" - may survive, well....

That's a message sent loud and clear as well. It is a message he does not expect us to openly acknowledge, but to implicitly understand and absorb, with our heads held that much lower. So much easier to dictate to the beaten, after all.

Let's surprise him...

Obama "Fops" On Gay Marriage: Follow The Money , Bitches!

2012-05-12T09:30:00.000-07:00

Great piece in the Telegraph (and how sad is it that in order to get unbiased news on American politics, you need to go to the foreign press? At least in the old Soviet Union, the media printed propaganda at gunpoint...) on Obama's decision to endorse gay marriage. The title says it all:

The gay marriage endorsement was all about Hollywood's money and Obama's ego

What was the gay marriage endorsement really all about? Ignore the timelines about Joe Biden being a loudmouth and follow the money instead. On Monday, the day before the North Carolina vote, the Hollywood Reporter reported that the marriage question was hurting Obama among west coast donors. “It's safe to say that the longer Obama waits on the issue, the more frustrated the [movie] community will grow with him. Perhaps it won't cost him their votes, but it might slow the flow of cash and public rally appearances. That concern doesn't end with Hollywood … One in six of Obama's so-called bundlers – people who raise money in great stacks for the president's campaign – is gay, giving the issue great importance in his fiscal game.”

So on Monday, Obama was losing dollars on the Hollywood fundraising circuit. On Wednesday, he endorsed gay marriage. On Thursday, he flew to Hollywood for a fundraiser, where 150 donors paid $40,000 each to meet the Prez at the home of George Clooney. Coincidence?

Wait, there’s more! Within minutes of the ABC interview that broke the endorsement, the Pres Tweeted “Same-sex couples should be able to get married.” Later, he issued a photo of himself making the statement with the word (you guessed it) “history” flashed everywhere. Within 90 minutes, Obama’s re-election campaign had pulled in $1 million in donations, while it quickly rolled out a new attack ad calling Romney “backwards” on gay rights. The Hollywood Reporter again: “On June 6, the president will be at the SLS hotel in Beverly Hills for an LGBT fundraiser featuring a performance by Pink. (A sellout now is virtually guaranteed.) Obama will be at another LBGT fundraiser Monday in New York, featuring a performance by Ricky Martin.”

That’s what Barack Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage was all about – not history, not equality, but prising open George Clooney’s wallet. Note that Obama still insists that this issue should be decided at a state level and he has refused to sign a “nondiscrimination executive order.” Given the impotence of his endorsement, it really comes down to one man sharing his personal opinion about a moral matter with the rest of nation. And then making a lot of money out of it.

Of course, Obama has a very high opinion of his personal opinion and probably regards it as “priceless” in every sense....

But so do his dupes in Hollywood, and in our mainstream media. Let's hear a little about Obama's date with George from the Washington Post, which seems a bit weak in the knees at the celebrity overload:

What would you do if you got to spend three hours at George Clooney’s house? With George Clooney?

That’s how long President Obama spent at the Hollywood star’s luxurious hillside house in Studio City Thursday evening for a $40,000-a-head fundraiser that was expected to collect anywhere from $6 million to $15 million for the president’s reelection campaign.

The setting was actually a party tent on Clooney’s basketball court. Guests included actor Tobey Maguire, who sat to the right of Clooney and his girlfriend, Stacy Kiebler. Nearby was Diane Von Furstenberg. Also spotted: actors and entertainers Jack Black, Robert Downey Jr., Salma Hayek, Barbra Streisand (at a rear table and looking serious throughout, in black beret) and husband James Brolin.

The tent had black walls and a clear roof through which the sky and trees of the wooded property could be seen. White paper lanterns of different sizes hung from the roof, celadon-green wallboards with mirrors were at the front and rear, centerpieces of blue hydrangeas graced each table and two slender, tall white urns flanked the short stage with branches of white blossoms.

DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg said the fundraiser had raised “a record nearly $15 million,” a figure that includes both the $40,000-a-person seats in the tent, and the proceeds from the online sweepstakes for two people to join the Hollywood event.

Epilogue:

Obama flew to the fundraiser at the Clooney estate on taxpayer-financed Air Force One...

Obama landing in LA yesterday...

(first two photos via TNR, third from Can I Just Finish My Waffle?)

Atlas Shrugged - Facebook Edition

2012-05-11T11:50:00.000-07:00

What else needs be said? This was once a nation were people would fight to get citizenship. A nation where success was respected, and worn as a badge of honor.

This is where Hope and Change has brought us:

Eduardo Saverin, the billionaire co- founder of Facebook Inc. (FB), renounced his U.S. citizenship before an initial public offering that values the social network at as much as $96 billion, a move that may reduce his tax bill....

Saverin, 30, joins a growing number of people giving up U.S. citizenship, a move that can trim their tax liabilities in that country. The Brazilian-born resident of Singapore is one of several people who helped Mark Zuckerberg start Facebook in a Harvard University dorm and stand to reap billions of dollars after the world’s largest social network holds its IPO...

“Eduardo recently found it more practical to become a resident of Singapore since he plans to live there for an indefinite period of time,” said Tom Goodman, a spokesman for Saverin, in an e-mailed statement...

“It’s a loss for the U.S. to have many well-educated people who actually have a great deal of affection for America make that choice,” said Richard Weisman, an attorney at Baker & McKenzie in Hong Kong. “The tax cost, complexity and the traps for the unwary are among the considerations.”

The name is Galt. John Galt...

Of course, with a lower tax rate, Saverin would remain a US citizen, and pay some portion of his windfall to the federal government. Now he'll pay virtually nothing. Nor will he be paying for the rest of his productive life. Instead, he's off to his own virtual Galt's Gulch, while the rest of us are impoverished even further.

Francisco d'Anconia:

"Then you will see the rise of the double standard – the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money – the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law – men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims – then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot....

WaPo Hit Piece On Romney: 5,500 Words, None Of Them True

2012-05-11T06:10:00.000-07:00

5,500 words, more or less. That's not a story you are writing overnight, or even over a weekend. You are presenting sourced evidencing, you are telling a tale, you are building a case, you are presenting a narrative.

5,5500 words. The approximate length of the piece claiming Mitt Romney was involved in a nasty piece of bullying in high school. After that amount of time, that amount of work, the piece should be virtually unassailable.

Turns out in this case, it isn't even true:

Ashley Parker of the New York Times has a statement from the family of John Lauber, the man the Washington Post claimed Mitt Romney bullied in high school. She tweets:

From John Lauber’s family, the bullied victim in WaPo story: “We are aggrieved that John would be used to further a political agenda.”

Also from John Lauber’s family: “The portrayal of John is factually incorrect,” but they would not elaborate on how it was inaccurate.

This comes after one source for the story, a man the Washington Post says has “long been bothered” by the incident, said he wasn’t even present and had no idea it had happened until the Post contacted him.

Unfortunately - or fortunately for the Washington Post - Mr. Lauber is dead, and unable to tell us what really happened that day - if anything. Via Breitbart, it seems as if the most damaging quotes were taken - intentionally - out of context:

The original Washington Post piece stated the following:

“I always enjoyed his pranks,” said Stu White, a popular friend of Romney’s who went on to a career as a public school teacher and has long been bothered by the Lauber incident.

Yet in an interview with ABC News today, White disowned that characterization:

While the Post reports White as having “long been bothered” by the haircutting incident,” he told ABC News he was not present for the prank, in which Romney is said to have forcefully cut a student’s long hair and was not aware of it until this year when he was contacted by the Washington Post.

Read it all, apparently, once busted, the WaPo re-wrote this portion of their fairy tale without mentioning it had made a key correction to the piece.

To paraphrase Mary McCarthy's famous line about Lillian Hellman, every word they write is a lie, including and and the...

What's the worst part about this for the Washington Post? Well, they've created sympathy for Mitt Romney with such a blatantly false hit-piece. Bad enough, I suppose. But their ham-fisted stupidity has opened the doors for Republicans to go back to Barack Obama's early years to see how he treated his mates.

Turns out, by his own admission, the president is even more a bully than the WaPo claims Romney was. You see, Obama confesses to pushing around...little girls. From the autobiography that everyone loved but nobody read:

Who knows, maybe the puppy he just ate for lunch upset his stomach a bit, and he took it out on poor little Coretta...

Conspiracy Theory: Obama & DHS Plotting Civil Unrest?

2012-05-10T11:06:00.000-07:00

Doug Hagmann claims to have a contact inside the Department of Homeland Security that has spilled the beans about how Obama is going to win in 2012: By using the DHS as jackboots, #Occupy as brownshirts, and dousing a whole can of lighter fluid on race relations.

OK, so we get a lot of these, but the fact that the charges are in character for those involved makes it worth repeating. And yes, it may make me guilty of pushing a "false-but-true" meme: The story I am telling is false, but the facts are true, because I hate the guy involved and I want it to be true (see Rathergate for the classic example).

But so be it. I reprint, you decide - from The Canadian Free Press:

According to my source, there is talk among the highest levels of the uppermost echelon of the Department of Homeland Security, which he describes as effectively under the control of Barack Hussein Obama. During this call, he said that the DHS is actively preparing for massive social unrest inside the United States. He then corrected himself, stating that “a civil war” is the more appropriate term. Certain elements of the government are not only expecting and preparing for it, they are actually facilitating it,” stated my source.

“The DHS takes their marching orders from the Obama administration, from Obama himself, but mostly from his un-appointed czars. And Jarrett, especially Valerie Jarrett. Don’t think for a minute that the administration is doing anything to stabilize events in the U.S. They are revolutionaries, and revolutionaries thrive on chaos,” he added.

"The Obama administration and many of the un-elected ‘czars,’ either directly or indirectly, are engaged in covert activities with the occupy movement, various labor protests, and other subversive activities inside the U.S.,” stated my source. Using untracked campaign funds, they are paying people to infiltrate the various movements to cause physical destruction of property and disrupt commerce. That began last year, but has increased ten-fold already this year,” stated this source. He added that they are using some lower level DHS agents to make the payments under the context of tracking subversives, but they are the unwitting subversives. “It’s like Fast & Furious” but in the social realm,” he added.

“Obama is using some high profile people as pawns to foment the revolution....Farrakhan is to coordinate the Blacks and the Muslims to prepare for riots this summer, using any means necessary.”

“Mentioned at the meeting Saturday were methods to use pawns to simulate the rioting in the Arab Spring countries, but to the benefit of this administration. A controlled chaos thing,” stated my source. They envision rioting starting in the urban areas first, such as New York and other major cities, followed by a disruption of business and commerce. This will allow the DHS to mobilize their various teams into the streets of America without objection of the people,” stated my source.

“They want to restrict travel, if not through high energy prices, then by checkpoints and curfews mandated by rioting and unrest. They understand we are the most well-armed nation in the world, yet they are aware of our vulnerabilities and intend to fully exploit them,” he added. The whole purpose is to keep Obama in office for another term, no matter how unpopular he is, as he is not finished changing our country from a Constitutional Republic. This is the run-up to the 2012 elections, or perhaps causing enough chaos to delay them - indefinitely.”

"Watch for a false flag event against Obama or his family, something that will outrage ‘black America.’ It will be carefully choreographed, but executed in a manner that will evoke the ugliest of reactions and create racial chaos in this country that will make the Watts riots, 1968 and the Rodney King riots pale in comparison. That’s the third leg in this.”

2011 Great Britain Riots...no racial overtones here, though....

The Obama administration, including his czars and along with his closets Progressive supporters, are planning a manufactured insurgency against America. He is using the media to his advantage to garner both sympathy and support for his unfinished goals. He is desperately seeking a way to remain in office, even if it means the surreal prospect of an indefinite postponement of elections - if it can be pulled off. So far, he’s got the support of the majority of the DHS “brass” behind him, according to my source.

“They’re power hungry, and they want to remain in charge,” stated this source.

The “surreal” aspect of suspended elections won’t look so surreal when you see any or all of the “trigger points” take place in the not-so-distant future.

“The end-game plan for America is its destruction as a Constitutional Republic, with the assistance of the agencies under the umbrella of the DHS.”

Remember the Great Britain Riots of 2011? "Showing the rich we can do what we want"? That's what Obama wants to emulate this Fall:

A certain caustic, corpulent commentator made this call in heyday of the #OWS unrest in the fall:

Jackie Calmes of the New York Times asked him [Obama], “Are you aware of this? Are you watching any of it?” And he expressed his solidarity, ’cause those are his foot soldiers...

This thing just didn’t bubble up out of nothing. We now find out George Soros money is behind this, and there’s no doubt in my mind that the White House is behind this. I wish I could tell you who, but a very prominent person asked me to never mention his name in this regard, but for months he has been telling me, “You watch, Rush, do not doubt me,” he said to me, “Obama is setting up riots. He is fanning the flames for riots and eventual violence. That’s all he’s got.”

Expect to see the big cities burning by autumn. And a certain brazen narcissist claiming only he can heal the nation he so skillfully tore apart...