► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Special Report’ Category

Rumsfeld: Democracy in Iraq was a mistake

by Husky Lover ( 7 Comments › )
Filed under George W. Bush, Iraq, Progressives, Special Report, Tranzis at June 10th, 2015 - 8:47 am

Although the Iraq War was justified as is any war against any Islamic entity is, the aftermath was just plain stupid. In a bout of Naivete the Bush administration led by Wilsonian Progressives actually believed that Iraqis wanted Democracy. As it turned out, the Shias wanted an Iranian puppet regime and the Sunnis eventually threw in with the Islamic State. Donald Rumsfeld admits trying to install democracy in Iraq was a mistake.

Washington (CNN)Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insisted in an interview with CNN Tuesday that his recent comments about being skeptical about creating a democracy in Iraq did not contradict his previous positions about the Iraq War.

Rumsfeld also called the Times of London’s report over the weekend — which suggested his views were critical of his old boss, President George W. Bush — “ridiculous.”

“When we went in (to Iraq), my view — and I thought it was a broadly held view — was that the goal was to have Saddam Hussein not be there, and to have what replaced Saddam Hussein be a government that would not have weapons of mass destruction, that would not invade its neighbors, and that would be reasonably respectful of diverse ethnic groups — meaning the Sunni, the Shia, the Kurds,” Rumsfeld told CNN in a phone interview Tuesday afternoon. “And that was kind of the understanding I had and I thought everyone had.”

In a story titled “Bush was wrong on Iraq, says Rumsfeld,” Rumsfeld told The Times that “the idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic. I was concerned about it when I first heard those words … I’m not one who thinks that our particular template of democracy is appropriate for other countries at every moment of their histories.”


Rumsfeld, who served as Bush’s defense secretary from 2001 to 2006, also told The Times that removing former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi was a mistake because it destabilized the region.

Sadly many in both parties particularly the GOP think imposing Democracy should be done at all costs.

Mandy Nagy: “She misses the way it used to be.” [Updates]

by Bunk X ( 5 Comments › )
Filed under blog talk radio, Media, Special Report at April 8th, 2015 - 10:28 pm

Mandy Nagy

Mandy Nagy is recovering from a massive stroke she suffered 6 September 2014. [See previous posts here and here.]

Mandy’s personal friend Bill Jacobson has been posting updates periodically on Legal-Insurrection. Here are recent entries in sequential order:

Update 8:30 a.m. 12-30-2014 — Mandy’s mom conveys that Mandy can walk very short distances with help, a left walker and a leg brace. She needs help with everything else. Improvement in her speech has been slow. She understands much of what is said to her but not everything. She has lost some of her memory and she does not recognize some simple tasks, words, objects and people she once knew. She is starting to get interested in current events and watches the news.

(added) Mandy’s mother has posted an update tonight at the fundraising page:

This New Year’s Eve Mandy is home. Different therapists come to the home to provide rehab. She can walk short distances with my help and a left handed walker. She still has no use of her right arm but can feel some sensation. In addition to her IPad that has Apps on it, she is now using a speech recognition device which will help her to communicate. She understands most of what is said to her but cannot respond verbally. Surgery to re-attach her skull is scheduled for Jan. 8th. She is deeply touched and so very grateful to everyone who has donated, sent notes and gifts, prayers and good wishes. I believe 2015 is going to be a good year. Happy and healthy New Year to everyone.

Folks, this will be a long road for Mandy. Please consider donating to her fundraiser if you have not already, or a second donation if you have already donated. PLEASE CONTRIBUTE.

You can pay by credit card at the GoFundMe page:

You also can pay by check, payable to the “Mandy Nagy Supplemental Needs Trust” at the following address:

Mandy Nagy Supplemental Needs Trust
P.O. Box 33
Liberty Corner, NJ 07938

Update 9:25 a.m. 2-13-2015

Mandy’s Mom writes at the Fundraising Page:

Mandy’s surgery on Jan. 8, 2015 was good with no complications. Her skull is back and now she can grow her hair back. She was slower and weaker than usual after it, but now she is back on track.

For weeks, several different therapists came to our home for rehab. But now that has ended and she begins outpatient rehab next week.

She still cannot speak except for a few words, i.e., Yes, no, and Oh my God. She understands most of what is said to her, however, she cannot respond verbally. She has a speech generating device that helps somewhat with some of her needs. But back and forth conversation is frustrating for her.

She is in good spirits and still has her sense of humor. Our three King Charles Cavalier Spaniels are constant companions for her and she enjoys them very much. Good thing she likes animals.

Her walking has gotten better to the point I can let her walk on her own with a walker on her left side and without me holding on to her.

She has lost some of her memory. Hopefully someday she will get it back.

I show her the donations and good wishes everyone posts and sends. She is very grateful and touched by it.

Again, thank you everyone. Ginny Nagy

Mandy’s Mom further wrote to me: “Although I try often to get her interested in the internet, she still shows no interest.” At least she has her priorities straight!

Update 2:35 p.m. 4-4-2015

Mandy’s Mom writes at the Fundraising Page:

Thank you to everyone for all of your kind notes, prayers and donations. I apologize for not posting updates more often. Mandy sees each post and is very touched that there are so many people who care about her. I know she misses the way it used to be.

Mandy has gotten to the point where she can walk short distances around the house and outside with a walker or pronged cane without my holding on to her. She wears a brace on her right leg. She is very slowly doing more things on her own. She does not have use of her right arm.

Speaking is still very difficult for her because she knows what she wants to say but doesn’t know how to yet. She has a speech generating device that helps her to form words and learn language starting with the alphabet. Her neurologist has said that almost all of the cells on the left side of the brain have been destroyed. Those cells cannot come back, but the right side can compensate and learn to do some of the things the left side used to do. I see improvement but it can take months/years to come about. She goes to outpatient rehab almost every day for PT, OT and Speech Therapy. She is beginning to look like herself again since her hair is now growing back and she has started wearing her glasses. She can read a little but cannot write since she doesn’t know language yet.

At this point she still needs around the clock care. But slowly she will learn to do some of those things on her own. Our long term goal is to eventually get her in her own apartment with a live-in caregiver. I won’t always be here for her and I am not getting any younger.

I will need to find someone kind, capable and willing to replace me. She remains positive and in good spirits.

Ginny Nagy

Mandy, we miss you.

The Changing Electorate, A must read

by coldwarrior ( 2 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Politics, Special Report at February 20th, 2015 - 6:24 pm

Please read the entire article before posting. Thank you


The Great Party Switch

From 1968 through 1992, Republicans tended to control the White House. Since then, they’ve more frequently controlled Congress, which has moved them even more to the right.

An excerpt:

In truth, Gingrich’s and Reagan’s contributions to the modern Republican Party are hard to separate. By repositioning the GOP on cultural issues such as abortion so as to appeal to white evangelicals, Reagan started the ideological realignment that Gingrich and his allies reinforced. Without Reagan, it is doubtful that Gingrich could have achieved as much as he did. Schaller’s argument is that by helping to shift the Republican Party even more sharply to the right, Gingrich succeeded in making the GOP once and for all the dominant party in the South. What the Gingrichites did not foresee, however, was that the growing conservatism of their party would alienate large numbers of moderate-to-liberal Republicans and independents in the Northeast, the industrial Midwest, and the Pacific Coast, contributing to a gradual realignment of many states in those regions. As a result of this realignment, every state in the Northeast and every state on the Pacific Coast except Alaska voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, and today the large majority of House members and senators from those states are Democrats…

There was something else that the Gingrich Republicans did not anticipate—the demographic transformation of the American electorate. Between the election of Clinton in 1992 and of Obama in 2008, the non-white share of the electorate doubled, going from 13 percent to 26 percent. It rose again, to 28 percent in 2012, and is expected to continue growing by about two percentage points every four years for the foreseeable future. Without this demographic transformation, Obama could never have won the presidency: His performance among whites and nonwhites in 2008 would have made him a decisive popular-vote loser if the demographic makeup of the electorate had been the same in 2008 as it had been in 1992.

By far the most important factor contributing to this demographic transformation has been the growing voting power of Latinos. This is the remarkable story that Matt Barreto and Gary Segura document in Latino America. Many of the book’s individual chapters were co-authored with graduate students or research associates at Latino Decisions; some were published earlier as stand-alone articles in political science journals. But this book is clearly intended for non-academic readers as well as scholars. It provides readers with a clear road map to understanding America’s rising Latino electorate—its size and composition, social and political beliefs, and electoral participation.

Barreto and Segura, along with their co-authors, take pains to knock down some common stereotypes about Latino voters—especially the belief that Latinos’ partisan orientations and voting behavior are strongly influenced by their religiosity and social conservatism. The authors clearly demonstrate that Latinos’ party attachments and voting choices are based overwhelmingly on their economic concerns and views of the role of government. They also demonstrate that Latinos are keenly aware of the positions of presidential candidates and other party leaders on the issue of immigration reform, especially the treatment of the 11 million–plus undocumented immigrants, mostly of Latino origin, currently in the United States.

Based on their socioeconomic characteristics and liberal views of government, the large majority of Latinos have traditionally supported the Democratic Party and its candidates. But that support has varied considerably from election to election. According to Barreto and Segura, a majority of Latinos have voted for a Republican candidate at least once, and as recently as 2004, George W. Bush won about 40 percent of Latino votes. Since then, however, Republicans have seen their share of the Latino vote fall steadily; in 2012, only 23 percent of Latinos voted for Mitt Romney.

A number of factors contributed to Romney’s poor showing among Latinos. His positions on economic issues, which became markedly more conservative during the Republican primaries, were out of step with the preferences of the large majority of Latinos. Romney’s call for “self-deportation,” that is, making life for undocumented immigrants so miserable that they would go back to their home countries on their own, undoubtedly also cost him Latino support. Barreto and Segura estimate that Obama’s popular-vote margin among Latinos in 2012 was greater than his overall popular-vote margin in the nation—the first time Latinos have ever provided the margin of victory to a presidential candidate.

Romney’s weak showing among Latinos was a clear warning sign to Republican leaders and strategists. Immediately following the election, Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus created a task force to examine the causes of the GOP defeat and recommend changes in the party’s approach. One of the group’s key recommendations was that the GOP adopt a more moderate position on the issue of immigration reform, moving away from an emphasis on deportation to an acceptance of some form of legalization and perhaps eventual citizenship for a large portion of the undocumented population.

Again, as a courtesy, please read the entire article and then feel free to post.

Excellent, In Depth Article on ISIS

by coldwarrior ( 5 Comments › )
Filed under Islamic Supremacism, Islamic Terrorism, Koran, Special Report at February 16th, 2015 - 11:37 am

Please read it all here.


The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.


ISIS’ magazine DABIQ is available here

If the Lie is BIG Enough…

by coldwarrior ( 9 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Economy, Special Report, unemployment at January 26th, 2015 - 7:42 pm

I knew that this paper was in the works, it was just a matter of time before it hit.

Study: 2014’s Employment Boom Almost Entirely Due to the Expiration of Unemployment Benefits Obama Wanted to Renew

Those who’ve listened to President Obama’s speeches over the past couple months have heard him boast that 2014 has seen impressive improvements in the labor market — the best year in job creation since 1999, he points out, and he’s right. But there’s no obvious explanation for why 2014 has been, by a good margin, the best year of a weak jobs recovery. The president has naturally credited his policies (without any justification). But what if 2014’s jobs boom is mostly thanks to the expiration of a program that the Obama administration and Democrats fervently pushed to renew?

That’s the finding of a new NBER working paper from three economists — Marcus Hagedorn, Kurt Mitman, and Iourii Manovskii — who contend that the ending of federally extended unemployment benefits across the country at the end of 2013 explains much of the labor-market boom in 2014.

About 60 percent of the job creation in 2014, 1.8 million jobs, they find, can be attributed to the end of the extended-benefits program. That’s a huge amount, and suggests that long-term unemployment benefits, while there’s a good charitable case for them, could have played a big role in the ongoing lassitude of our labor market. (Indeed, an earlier working paper from a few of the same authors argued that extended benefits raised the unemployment rate during the Great Recession by three percentage points; see a summary of that paper here.)

So what was the program Democrats wanted to renew? States run their own unemployment-insurance programs, which provide around 26 weeks of benefits to people who’ve lost jobs and are looking for new ones. But during the recent recession, as they have in other downturns, Congress repeatedly authorized federal extensions that allowed people to draw benefits for much longer. At the end of 2013, the Senate narrowly passed a renewal of the program, but the House never took it up and the extensions, already much longer than any previous recession had seen, expired.

This created something of a “natural experiment.” States had unemployment-insurance programs of widely varying length — they ranged from 40 weeks up to 73, roughly — but after the end of the federal extensions at the start of 2014, the duration of benefits in almost all states went back to around 26 weeks.

The paper uses that shift to examine how expiring benefits might have affected the labor market, and they find that the expiration of extended benefits produced a big boost to job creation, labor-force participation, and hiring. It’s a dramatically different result than what the White House and Democrats were predicting at the end of 2013: The Obama administration was predicting that the drop-off in stimulative spending from the expiration would cost 240,000 jobs, while the NBER paper finds that it created 1.8 million jobs.

The authors don’t think this happened the way you think it might: It’s not so much that the cut-off drove individuals on benefits back to work, but more that less-generous benefits actually spurred job creation on a macro level, getting employers to hire and drawing into the labor force people who hadn’t been looking for a job. They don’t lay out how that worked, but in their October 2013 paper, argue that extended unemployment benefits artificially boosts wages — when they expire, employers then boost job openings and start hiring people.

Of course, the usual caveats apply: This is not a perfect experiment at all, and the paper, while very rigorous, can’t get past the fact that it’s just crunching numbers about macro trends. And there are some concerns with the authors’ county-level data, though they try to make up for that.

The simplest form of the analysis was just looking at states that had long benefit terms versus short ones. In 2013, job creation was worse in more generous states than the national average; in 2014, after those states dropped their much more generous programs, it was much better than the national average:

There’s a lot more analysis they did, which I won’t get into — but to untangle related effects, they look at neighboring counties in states with different unemployment regimes, etc.

Now, this is just one paper and it involves some fancy econometrics, but it answers an unresolved question — why 2014 saw the labor market perk up (there’s also a possible end-of-austerity explanation, but it’s the labor market, not the economy overall, that’s really improved noticeably).

It should prompt passionate supporters of the extended unemployment-insurance program to consider whether it made as much sense as they thought. Even conservative economists, such as Michael Strain, pushed for the extension of long-term benefits. The length and scale of benefits during the Great Recession was unprecedented, but advocates for the program argued that this was necessary so long as unemployment, and especially long-term unemployment, remained historically elevated. Besides the moral case for supporting the unemployed, the market-friendly case for extending benefits is that one has to be searching for a job to get them. Cut the benefits, and you’ll see the long-term unemployed drop out of the labor force for good, the argument went. (It’s extremely hard to tell what did happen with these people when benefits expired, and the NBER paper here doesn’t comment on that.)

Advocates for extended benefits also argued that it was just an effective form of stimulus for the economy, because recipients spend their benefits immediately. That was always a pretty lame case, since the program’s value to the economy in spending terms — in the Obama White House’s generous estimation, 240,000 jobs in 2014 – would probably be outweighed if either side’s arguments about the labor-market effects proved mostly true. Indeed, if the new NBER paper is right, letting benefits expire produced 7.5 times as many jobs as the White House said it would cost.

The general economic consensus has always been that unemployment insurance slightly boosts the unemployment rate. Even liberal economists accept this, although they lampoon the idea that people might prefer benefits to working (that isn’t the point, Paul — people act at the margin). But we still have unemployment insurance, of course, because we want a safety net for people in the event of job loss. That just has to be balanced against the costs that the program imposes on the labor market. The new NBER paper doesn’t find that those costs in general are much higher than economists generally assume; rather, it suggests that the benefits of reining in long-term programs can be quite substantial.

There was always good reason to think this is the case: One of the many differences between American and European labor markets is that most of the latter have unemployment benefits systems of effectively unlimited duration — and much higher levels of structural unemployment.

All of that is very nice, except they don’t take this into consideration:


As you can see from the graph linked in the above paragraph, Real Unemployment is at almost 24%. Those who no longer have benefits no longer count for the NBER or the White House. Once your benefits are exhausted, you cease to be counted. That is why the real number of unemployed goes up in reality while for the government it goes down. There is a 20% spread between reality and what the government claims to be.

Required Reading: Crony GOP

by coldwarrior ( 8 Comments › )
Filed under Special Report at January 1st, 2015 - 2:28 pm

This is the kind of stuff that I am talking about: The GOP is not interested in smaller govt and more freedom, nor is it interested in competition and capitalism. It loves being crony tho:


The Crony Capitalism Litmus Test

The Ex-Im Bank won’t survive 2015—if the GOP is serious about free market principles.

Rep. Eric Cantor didn’t just lose his Virginia Republican primary. He was demolished. Dave Brat-a mostly unknown economics professor from a local college-beat the powerful Republican incumbent by 11 percentage points.

Cantor on June 10, 2014, became the first sitting House majority leader in the history of the job to lose his own party’s primary. Nearly every pundit in America called Brat’s win a political earthquake, and it didn’t seem like much of an exaggeration.

One of the Cantorquake’s biggest aftershocks came on Wall Street, where the next morning shares of Boeing dropped 2.3 percent-the biggest decline of all companies on the Dow Jones Industrial average that day. The headline at Bloomberg News told the story: “Boeing Tumbles as Cantor Loss Clouds Ex-Im Bank’s Future.”

How could the loss of a single House seat so thoroughly rattle the stockholders of a giant, profitable, stable company like Boeing, let alone the supporters of an obscure Washington institution like the Export-Import Bank? Boeing, it turns out, is the largest beneficiary of the Ex-Im Bank’s loan guarantees, which are typically awarded to foreign companies and governments for the purposes of buying big-ticket items like U.S.-made jets.

And Cantor? He was the political point man tasked with holding down a grassroots insurrection against what many free market champions consider the embodiment of Beltway crony capitalism. His downfall signaled to activists on both sides of the Ex-Im fight that the Tea Party wave of 2010 might be on the verge of forcing the Republican Party to live up to its limited government principles.

In normal times, Congress re-authorizes the Ex-Im Bank every few years with minimal fuss, since both major parties share a broad enthusiasm for corporate welfare. But this time around, as the September 30 deadline for re-authorization approached, an epic battle erupted on the Republican side of the aisle, with free marketeers, libertarians, and Tea Partiers taking on the business lobby over a comparatively tiny but hugely symbolic federal agency.

As issues like war in Syria crowded out the September legislative calendar, the showdown was postponed when lawmakers agreed to a nine-month renewal of the agency, thus pushing the re-authorization battle to as late as June 2015 or as soon as December, should the lame-duck Congress decide to intervene on a longer-term deal. The bruised combatants on both sides are split over whether the postponement signals business as usual or the first real chance at lopping off this dispenser of political favors.

However it plays after the 2014 elections, the questions at stake remain the same: Do Republicans believe their free market talk? Or is it merely a cover for doing the bidding of business? And if Republicans can’t kill or seriously trim a New Deal program that subsidizes foreign governments-mostly to buy Boeing jets-will they ever get serious about fighting corporate welfare?

What Is Ex-Im?

Most people have never heard of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

Ex-Im exists outside of any cabinet department. Due to special accounting methods, it resides almost entirely outside the federal budget. Even its building is nondescript-the agency is housed in the least impressive structure in the neighborhood immediately around the White House, and that’s saying something.

Franklin Roosevelt created Ex-Im in part as a way to subsidize Joseph Stalin. “Since the Bolsheviks had seized power in Russia in 1917, the United States had refused to accept the legitimacy of the new Soviet regime,” Ex-Im’s official historians William Becker and William McClenahan explain in their 2003 history The Market, the State, and the Export-Import Bank of the United States. “Throughout the 1920s, Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover conditioned recognition on the USSR agreeing to accepted standards of international conduct. That is, they wanted the Soviet government to end its support of revolutionary activities in other countries, return confiscated property, and accept the international financial obligations of its predecessor government.”

But as Hitler’s threat grew, FDR’s foreign policy advisers and the business lobby pushed for normalized relations without conditions. To this end, FDR created the Export-Import Bank, initially capitalizing it with $10 million from the New Deal Reconstruction Finance Corporation. “Roosevelt’s executive order of February 2, 1934, authorized the new bank to finance American trade with the USSR,” Becker and McClenahan explain.

FDR steadily expanded the agency’s purpose beyond the initial goal of helping Stalin, as Cuba and then China became Ex-Im customers. In 1945, Congress passed the Export-Import Bank Act, codifying the agency. Soon, ironically, Eisenhower was sold on Ex-Im’s importance as a Cold War tool-the goal was to subsidize Third World countries to win them away from communism, as Becker and McClenahan tell it. Since then, the justification for it has constantly shifted: a foreign policy lever, an international development agency, a weapon in trade wars, and finally a job creator.

Ex-Im subsidizes U.S. exports through a few different financial products that all have one thing in common: they put the U.S. taxpayer on the hook if a foreign customer fails or refuses to pay back a loan. In Fiscal Year 2013, Ex-Im extended $27.3 billion in financing.

Ex-Im’s biggest product is the long-term loan guarantee. Over the past three fiscal years, such guarantees made up $52.6 billion of the agency’s $95.9 billion in financing. A fairly typical guarantee is the one that the Ex-Im’s board of directors approved on August 22: Virgin Australian International Airlines was buying a new batch of Boeing jets and Canadian TD Bank was providing the financing, in the form of a 20-year loan to the Aussie airline. This looks like a regular market transaction until the Ex-Im Bank steps in to guarantee the loan, meaning that if Virgin Australian fails to pay back the Canadian lender, U.S. taxpayers cover the bank’s loss.

The long-term loan guarantee program is mostly a subsidy program for Boeing. Of the agency’s $52.6 billion in loan guarantees over the past three years, more than half has covered Boeing sales. This isn’t a very diversified portfolio, but luckily for Ex-Im (and U.S. taxpayers), purchasers of jumbo jets have a tiny default rate so far.

Ex-Im also makes direct loans-$25 billion over the past three fiscal years. For instance, Ex-Im loaned $1.03 billion to Global Foundries, a semiconductor manufacturer owned by the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. The loan covered Global Foundries’ purchase of U.S.-made equipment to build a factory in Germany.


READ the rest before commenting please.

This is why I don’t buy the bullshit conservative words that come out of most GOPsters mouths. Wonder why the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) movement was destroyed so early by GOPsters and Dems? It was a threat to their wallets. Eric Cantor is just the tip of the iceberg.

Some Reading on Russia

by coldwarrior ( 1 Comment › )
Filed under Academia, Economy, History, Politics, Russia, Special Report at December 19th, 2014 - 8:21 pm

As this is a special report, Please take your time and read the following article here before commenting, it is worth you effort:


…I thought the economic problems of Russia would be foremost on people’s minds. The plunge of the ruble, the decline in oil prices, a general slowdown in the economy and the effect of Western sanctions all appear in the West to be hammering the Russian economy. Yet this was not the conversation I was having. The decline in the ruble has affected foreign travel plans, but the public has only recently begun feeling the real impact of these factors, particularly through inflation.

But there was another reason given for the relative calm over the financial situation, and it came not only from government officials but also from private individuals and should be considered very seriously. The Russians pointed out that economic shambles was the norm for Russia, and prosperity the exception. There is always the expectation that prosperity will end and the normal constrictions of Russian poverty return….

Happy Holidays PERIOD from Loretta Sanchez

by Bunk X ( 7 Comments › )
Filed under Baseball, Military, Politics, Satire, Special Report at December 18th, 2014 - 12:05 am

The Missus is a registered Democrat out of respect to her deceased parents, but she’s a DINO. She likes it that way because it allows her to view the liberal propaganda sent via the US Postal Service that floods our mailbox prior to every election.

Because the Missus is a DINO, one of the benefits we receive is a yearly “Holiday Card” from Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D) even though we don’t live in her District. Each year Ms. Sanchez’ cards become more bizarre, and this one is one of the strangest.

2014 Loretta Sanchez Christmas Card

It’s bizarre enough that Ms. Sanchez and her relatively new hubby are standing up to their knees in a bog in the infield of Angels Stadium some local high school’s outfield, but it gets even stranger.

Pheew. Stinky Stinky.

Pheew. Stinky Stinky.

I mean, look at that face. Really look. She’s a rabid gerbil ready to chew off your genitalia, no matter what sex you choose to be, sneering at you because you remind her of her ex-husband Stephen Brixey (who apparently divorced her once he found out she was screwing around with a retired military corporal who was also married at the time according to this account).

It also appears that she’s dropped some pounds (maybe 25?) since I saw her live at a Tet Parade where she pranced down the street in a gaudy silk fluorescent muumuu pretending to be Vietnamese. She was an embarrassing bouncy dough-ball to every person with even 1/16 latino heritage.

Corporal John “Jack” Einwechter is a lobbyist/activist/retired military lawyer, and never played for the Angels, let alone professional baseball as far as I can tell. But he, like Loretta Sanchez, apparently has a penchant for infidelity, and he gets to wake up to that unadorned face every morning.

2014 Loretta Sanchez Christmas Card 2

The background image on the left is screened, and it showa Ms. Sanchez in stilettos as if she’s just hit a home run in front of an empty stadium. She adds “Happy Holidays PERIOD.”  She likes her cat, too. There’s a pitcher/catcher joke somewhere in there, but I’m not gonna do it. I’m going for the back flap.

2014 Loretta Sanchez Christmas Card 3

It took a photographer, a hair dresser and two makeup artists just to produce that awesome face for a lame Christmas card about baseball.

Kudos, Loretta. You’ve proved yourself to be a complete ditz.

The Dems Are in More Hot Water

by coldwarrior ( 3 Comments › )
Filed under Open thread, Politics, Special Report at December 10th, 2014 - 8:00 pm

Yes, it’s from the New York Times…The paper no one in flyover country cares about, but still…

Please read it all

Have Democrats Failed the White Working Class?

Why don’t white working-class voters recognize where their economic interests lie? Somewhat self-righteously, Democrats keep asking themselves that question.

A better question would be: What has the Democratic Party done for these voters lately?

At work and at home, their lives are worse than they were a generation ago. Their real incomes have fallen, their employment opportunities have diminished, their families have crumbled and their ties to society are fraying.

This is how daily life feels, to many in the white working class. Unlike blacks and Hispanics, whites are not the beneficiaries of affirmative action programs designed to open doors to higher education and better jobs for underrepresented minorities; if anything, these programs serve only to limit their horizons.

Liberal victories in the sexual and women’s rights revolutions – victories that have made the lives of many upscale Democrats more productive and satisfying — appear, from the vantage point of the white working class, to have left many women to struggle as single parents, forced to cope with both male defection from paternal responsibility and the fragmentation of a family structure that was crucial to upward mobility in the postwar period.

This bleak view emerges from two recently published works, “Labor’s Love Lost,” by Andrew Cherlin, a professor of public policy at Johns Hopkins, and “Was Moynihan Right? What Happens to the Children of Unmarried Mothers,” a research report by Sara McLanahan and Christopher Jencks, sociologists at Princeton and Harvard, respectively.

Both works address broader subjects than the partisan allegiance of working-class whites, but each illuminates the interaction of economic and cultural forces driving these voters away from their New Deal home.

“The young adults without bachelor’s degrees who are the heirs of the industrial working class today are not a cultural vanguard confidently leading the way toward a postmodern family lifestyle,” Cherlin writes. “Rather, they are a group making constrained choices.”

PLEASE, read the rest.  .

It is obvious the the Democrat Party threw the working middle class family out of the Party quite on purpose. These middles are the bourgeoisie…the impediments to the revolution. The aging hippies who hated suburbia finally have their revenge on the oh so terrible middle class…the middle class who now are and by a large majority NOT voting for Democrats. I think the hippie proggie boomers have peaked in power and will now wain until they return in 40 years to try it again, the math is just not with them anymore.

Prayers for Mandy: Update 26 November 2014

by Bunk X ( 3 Comments › )
Filed under Special Report at November 26th, 2014 - 8:30 pm

Mandy Nagy

Mandy Nagy is recovering from a massive stroke she suffered on 6 September. [See previous post with links here.] Mandy’s personal friend Bill Jacobson has been posting updates periodically on Legal-Insurrection:

Update 2:00 p.m. 11-26-2014 — Mandy’s mom writes on the Fundraising Page:

Mandy continues with her rehab. She can walk with the help of one person and a cane/walker. She has some movement in her right leg but very little in her right arm. She understands most of what is being said to her but has trouble communicating back. She can read some. With her IPad she is working with several apps to teach her the English language again and to make it easier to communicate. Thank you all for your generosity. It is with these funds she is purchasing the equipment she needs to get better and make life easier. I have shown her the website and she can read the comments herself. Her response is “oh” “oh”. I can see how grateful she is.

She also followed up with me: Mandy will be home for Thanksgiving. She will then have in home care and rehab. After that she will go to outpatient rehab. Her spirits are high and she has a good attitude.

Mandy, you’ve got a long road, and we wish you complete recovery.

[Updates here.]

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David