Sep 25, 2014

REPUBLICANS SUFFER ORGASM! Right wing DRUDGE REPORT misquotes NPR Story on Holder Stepping down... and the right slams NPR with negative comments

NPR headlines their story, "Holder to Step Down'.
MATT DRUDGE headlines his page today linking to NPR's balanced story with "HOLDER LOSES GRIP"...CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS CASE WILL PROCEED."
The only problem with that was that the NPR story didn't allege Holder was losing grip.. and didn't mention any Contempt of Congress case.

And here's' the link to NPR's STORY....
Compare for YOURSELF, Drudge's Headline to the NPR story and enjoy the comments!

Drudge's phony HEADLINE was enough to send hundreds of right wingers over to create accounts on NPR's site to comment their hate. This is how Drudge, Rush and Fox keep their nutcases wound up tight---with misquotes!

As of this writing at midafternoon 2100 comments already, a great many trashing Obama and Holder.
Here are two recent comments of readers noticing the onslaught.
Alex Glidden • 16 minutes ago
Well this has been fun but I feel a blitzkrieg coming from npr's message board shock troopers. Get ready for a lot of, "This Comment Has Been Deleted."
Jimbo Squad • 17 minutes agoYou know someone is doing a good job when all the neocons and FOX-ites come out vilifying someone and screaming like banshees - it's my own personal litmus test.. He was a champion for the civil rights and the right wing Republicans are not to keen on civil rights for non-whites and non-Christians.

Matt Drudge

The Drudge Report is a popular right wing aggregator site that links to news and right wing comment from all over the country, and even world.   He has a definate point of view and expresses it in what he chooses or avoids linking... and how he headlines those links.

Sep 24, 2014

Comedy Central shows us How to Make a War FUNNY!!

If you don't have Facebook, just to see the good stuff, then you're missing out.  If nothing else, just create an account to see stuff like this!

Click HERE to go to Alternet's web page to see these two videos.

I do have one question, though.   Why would conservatives ever want us to engage in war to save someone ELSE?    They don't seem to want us to spend tax money on anything but THEMSELVES!   Not even our OWN poor!

Sep 20, 2014

Russian Head Narcissist Gameplayer Putin Buzzes Western Airspace with His Nuke Bombers

Russian strategic nuclear bombers carried out air defense zone incursions near Alaska and across Northern Europe this week in the latest nuclear saber rattling by Moscow.

Six Russian aircraft, including two Bear H nuclear bombers, two MiG-31 fighter jets and two IL-78 refueling tankers were intercepted by F-22 fighters on Wednesday west and north of Alaska in air defense identification zones, said Navy Capt. Jeff A. Davis, a spokesman for the U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command. Two other Bears were intercepted by Canadian jets on Thursday.

“The group of Russian aircraft flew a loop south, returning westward toward Russia,” Davis told the Free Beacon.

A day later two more Bear bombers were intercepted by Canadian CF-18 jets in the western area of the Canadian air defense identification zone near the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, he said.

The Russian bombers did not enter U.S. airspace but flew within 63 miles of the Alaskan coast and 46 miles of the Canadian coastline, Davis said.

In both instances, the Russian bombers did not enter sovereign airspace, he added, noting the Russian aircraft flew within about 55 nautical miles of the Alaskan coastline, and within about 40 nautical miles of the Canadian coastline.

One defense official said the Russian bomber activity appeared timed to the visit to the United States and Canada by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. The Ukrainian leader was in Ottawa for meetings with Canadian leaders on Wednesday. He met with President Obama on Thursday.

Ukraine is locked in a battle with Moscow over the Russian military annexation of Crimea and continuing backing of pro-Russian Ukrainian militias in eastern Ukraine.

Over Europe on Tuesday, two Bear H bombers conducted practice strategic bombing runs on Tuesday and were met by interceptor jets from Norway, Denmark, Britain, and Netherlands, defense officials told the Free Beacon.

“NATO jets … were scrambled to visually identify unknown aircraft approaching allied airspace,” said a NATO military officer who confirmed details of the incident.

“The approaching aircraft were identified as two Tu-95 Russian Bear H bombers,” he said. “The Russian flights originated in the Barents Sea and went through international airspace down to the North Sea off the Dutch coast.”

The Russian aircraft flew in international airspace “close to NATO territory” but did not violate allied airspace, the officer said.

The NATO jets were scrambled as a response to the approach of unidentified aircraft, the officer said.

The type of NATO jets involved in the intercepts was not provided. The Telegraph reported that British Royal Air Force Typhoon jets took part.

“This is a standard procedure because these flights also pose a potential risk to civil aviation given that the Russian military often do not file flight plans, or use their on-board transponders,” he added. “This means civilian air traffic control cannot identify these aircraft nor ensure there is no interference with civilian air traffic.”

The officer said similar intercepts have taken place in the past. “NATO jets routinely identify, intercept, and escort Russian military planes that fly unannounced in international airspace but close to allied borders,” he said, noting the missions are “entirely defensive.”

“The event that occurred on 16 September shows NATO aircraft from several allies cooperating and coordinated by national and allied air command and control centers in a mission that reflects NATO’s readiness and determination to ensure collective security,” he said.

In a related development, Sweden’s military on Friday confirmed that two Russian Su-24 fighter-bombers violated the country’s airspace on Wednesday. A Gripen jet fighter was scrambled to intercept the jets.

Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt called the Russian jet incident “the most serious aerial incursion by the Russians during my years as foreign minister,” Sweden’s news outlet The Local reported Friday.

Russia’s strategic aviation forces have sharply increased flights in recent months in Asia, near Alaska, Canada, and the United States and Europe.

The flights were carried out amid growing tensions with Russia over its military annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea and continuing covert military destabilization of eastern Ukraine.

The NATO alliance announced earlier this month that it is creating a rapid response military force in Eastern Europe to counter the growing threat of Russian intervention.

“Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine have fundamentally challenged our vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace,” NATO said in a concluding statement Sept. 5.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a former Alaskan Air Command commander with experience in Russian strategic flight incursions, said the increased bomber activity appears related to nuclear activities.

“They are having a very aggressive nuclear readiness exercise now as a show of force,” McInerney said. “Whereas the U.S. has been on a path of nuclear zero which they think is ridiculous.”

McInerney added: “The Russians sense weakness in American leadership and they are trying to intimidate us and show us that our nuclear deterrent forces are vulnerable to Russian nuclear forces.”

Other recent Bear bomber incidents included a practice cruise missile attack by two bombers off the coast of Canada earlier this month. That incident appeared timed to the NATO summit meeting in Wales.

The U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command in August stated that Russian strategic nuclear bombers sharply increased incursions into U.S. air defense zone.

More than 16 bomber flights were tracked and intercepted by U.S. and Canadian jets during a 10-day period that month.

The new aggressive military posture appears to be an element of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s policy of seeking to return Russia to its Soviet empire status.

Russia, under Putin, is engaged in a large-scale nuclear buildup that includes new missiles, submarines, and a new bomber.

On Sept. 10, the Russian navy conducted a test firing of a new submarine-launched ballistic missile.

State-run Interfax-AVN news service reported earlier this week that nuclear cruise missile firing Russian Tu-95 Bear Bombers and Tu-22 Backfire C bombers completed missions that involved “snap readiness checks” in the Pacific.

Russian military forces also are bolstering forces in the arctic as part of Moscow’s efforts to secure resources in the region.

Two military bases are being built at Wrangel Island, on the arctic Chukchi Sea north of the Russian Far East, and on Cape Schmidt, also on the Chukchi Sea, the Moscow Times reported Sept. 8.

The report said the bases were part of Moscow’s efforts to restore the Soviet military presence in the resource-rich arctic.

Sep 14, 2014

U.S. intelligence agencies remain uncertain about danger posed by Islamic State

Full Obama speech, if you missed it:

Washington Post Sunday...

Hours before President Obama announced a new U.S. military offensive against the Islamic State, one of his top counter­terrorism officials testified to Congress that the al-Qaeda offshoot had an estimated 10,000 fighters.

The next day a new assessment arrived from the CIA: The terrorist organization’s ranks had more than doubled in recent months, surging to somewhere between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria.

The enormous discrepancy reflects, in part, significant uncertainty among U.S. intelligence agencies over the dimensions of and danger posed by America’s latest Islamist adversary.

But the trajectory of those numbers — and the anxiety that they have induced among U.S. counter­terrorism and military officials — also helps to explain Obama’s decision to go to war against an Islamist group that has yet to be linked to any plot against the United States.

In his speech, Obama laid out a rationale that leaned heavily on what-ifs. The United States has “not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland,” Obama said. But Islamic State leaders “have threatened America and our allies,” he said, and are on a path to deliver on those threats “if left unchecked.”

The emphasis on hypotheticals was notable for a commander in chief who presided over the creation of a counter­terrorism doctrine in which U.S. strikes are supposed to be contemplated only in cases­ of imminent threat of violent attack. Faced with a terrorist group that is expanding faster than U.S. spy agencies can chart it, the “imminent” threshold appears to have been set aside.

Lisa Monaco, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, said in an interview Saturday that the speed at which the Islamic State has grown and amassed re­sources and its efforts to recruit Western fighters have prompted officials to respond differently than they did to terrorist groups elsewhere. “At least at this stage, it’s a really different type of threat that it poses,” she said.

When asked about the revised estimates of Islamic State fighters Friday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said it indicates “that the group has had some recruitment success after the battlefield ad­vances that they demonstrated back in June, and it reflects some better insight that the intelligence community has been able to gain into the activities” of the Islamic State.

Several factors have fed U.S. anxiety. The Islamic State’s seizure of large chunks of territory in Iraq and Syria has been particularly unnerving to U.S. officials and agencies still haunted by the extent to which a haven in Afghanistan served as an incubator for al-Qaeda and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

U.S. officials have also cited the danger posed by the massive flow of foreign fighters into Syria — including at least 2,000 holding Western passports, enabling them to emerge from the Syrian civil war with Islamist contacts, lethal training and the potential ability to travel throughout Europe and North America unimpeded.

There may also be a significant emotional component. The expanded U.S. strikes were ordered just weeks after most Americans were introduced to the Islamic State on the most brutal terms: through the release of videos in which two U.S. journalists were beheaded by a masked militant speaking with a British accent.

Late Saturday, a new video was posted online showing the beheading by Islamic State of British aid worker David Haines, who was abducted in Syria near the Turkish border in March 2013.

Some terrorism experts have questioned Obama’s decision to open a multi­year campaign against the Islamic State — also known as ISIS or ISIL — citing concern that it is being driven more by psychological factors and fear than by evidence that it can significantly harm the United States.

“The American public has come to equate ad­vances in the Middle East by this one group, ISIS, with the danger of another 9/11,” said PaulPillar said that the Islamic State is following a playbook that is in many ways the opposite of al-Qaeda’s and that making the group the target of a U.S.-led campaign risks turning its focus toward the United States.

“For them to seize and maintain territory is a major digression from terrorist operations in the West, rather than a facilitation of such operations,” Pillar said.
U.S. strikes can certainly degrade the organization, but “there will be a revenge factor,” he said. “The killing of the two captive journalists was depicted by the group explicitly as retaliation for strikes that had already occurred.”

Attention to that issue and others has been scarce in the limited Washington debate so far over the Islamic State, a debate that has often been dominated by more dire projections.

“There is no contain policy for ISIL,” Secretary of State John F. Kerry said this month. “They’re an ambitious, avowed genocidal, territorial-grabbing, Caliphate-desiring, quasi-state within a regular army. And leaving them in some capacity intact anywhere would leave a cancer in place that will ultimately come back to haunt us.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote in a recent op-ed that “the threat ISIS poses cannot be overstated.” She went on to describe the group as “the most vicious, well-funded and militant terrorist organization we have ever seen.”

Although aspects of Kerry’s and Feinstein’s characterizations are accurate, confusion about the group stems to a large degree from the difficulty in extrapolating its danger to the United States from such adjectives.

The Islamic State emerged from the remnants of an al-Qaeda affiliate in Iraq that was largely dismantled before U.S. forces left the country in 2011. But the organization has taken advantage of the chaos in Syria’s civil war and sectarian tensions in Iraq to regroup.

Beyond its swelling ranks of fighters, the organization has amassed resources at a rapid rate. Its seizure of cities in Iraq this year has enabled it to build an arsenal that includes U.S.-provided weaponry. It also generates an estimated $1 million a day in revenue from black-market oil sales, kidnappings and other criminal enterprises. Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said recently that the Islamic State has vastly eclipsed al-Qaeda in its use of the Internet to spread propaganda and entice recruits.

The White House considered that targeting the Islamic State directly could intensify its motivation to strike the United States, Monaco said, which is part of why the president and others have made a point of questioning its religious credentials and overall legitimacy. But she noted that the group has already made clear its intent to target the country.

“We conduct that analysis, but they’ve already shown their brutality,” she said.
The threat the Islamic State poses to the region is in some ways more insidious than direct. Its fighters have swept through Sunni areas of Iraq and Syria where local security forces­ were already weak or disinclined to fight. It would be harder to take on the loyal armies of other countries in the region.

Of greater concern is the flow of foreign fighters, including thousands of Saudis, Jordanians and Tunisians who have probably learned lethal skills in Syria and been drilled in extremist ideology. There have already been demonstrations in support of the Islamic State in Jordan; its flag flutters over some Sunni communities in Lebanon; and Saudi Arabia has conducted sweeps to detain dozens of suspected supporters.

For Saudi Arabia and other gulf nations, there is little incentive to join a military assault on the Islamic State, said Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent Saudi journalist who runs the Al-Arab News Channel. “Nobody wants to be in the middle of a bloody sectarian war,” he said. “And if we go into Syria, do we side with the rebels” or Syrian President Bashar al-Assad?

---Washington Post

3:05 PM CDT
It's good the intelligence community is more careful now than they were with BUSH, or is it that unlike with BUSH, Obama's not telling them what to conclude this time?

Hope Obama remains strong and we don't have another ground war. Let the ARABS put a little skin in the game against ISIS/ISIL. They like to hire foreigners to do heavy lifting because they don't like to work too hard. Not this time. Let them pay for our smartbombs, etc. Cash would be best.

While I have you on the horn here, someone needs to tell NY Post/Fox owner Rupert Murdoch to quit messing with our government and our foreign policy. If we truly are at war, maybe he needs to be tossed out of the US as he was with Britain where he misbehaved.

That guy and his media tools are ENEMIES of the STATE and we should treat him as such.

Sep 12, 2014

Just a little weekend ditty.

Click it and wait for it to load...

Post by 95.5 the ROCK.

Sep 11, 2014

Just who are the boogiemen trying to buy the Government: Kochs or Soros?

 If you spend any time on political sites on the Internet, you have no doubt run into Joe or Jane Conservative who believes that the Koch brothers are just good public citizens who get picked on because they contribute their money to conservative causes. If you have the patience or the inclination to try to educate them by presenting facts, there is also a low chance of acceptance of the truth.

About a New Republic article written by John Judis, “The Shutdown is One of the Worst Crises in American History, a commenter wrote:

“The hysteria over the Koch bros always reminds me of Soros, who spends FAR more money and has his fingers in more pies than the Koch bros could ever dream of. The man gives millions of dollars to over 30 “news” outfits. If you pull the strings at nearly every left-wing outfit, you find they lead to him and his money. So I have to laugh whenever a liberal whines about the Koch bros and the improper influence of money since they seem to find Soros just a harmless old philanthropist.”

Soros       Koch
This is classic right wing misinformation. Together, the Kochs have approximately $68 billion dollars combined wealth whereas George Soros has $20 billion. Right away, common sense should prevail upon a conservative afraid of a Soros boogeyman that he doesn’t have the resources of the megalomaniacal brothers. Where does this misguided commenter get such nonsense? Where else but the conservative media-sphere, so well-known for its distortion, it’s become cliché. Visit Fox So-Called News or right wing blogs, and soon you hear that George Soros has spent “$550 million” since 1979 in the United States on liberal causes and fail to note that he has disclosed every dollar, because he believes in a transparent and open society. Conversely, just try and find a record of the Koch brothers’ donations to conservative causes since 1979 without a full-time investigator.

They cry, his media influence is so great he “reaches 300 million people every month” (essentially the entire U.S.). Note: Most claims are made without references or citations. Even if it were true, all of Mr. Soros’s directly-owned media outlets are in Eastern Europe where he has advocated democracy, rather than communism, and an open society for decades. The money he donates to open journalism in the United States is all to organizations that promote news outside the mainstream, such as Think Progress, or Democracy Now.

The only media outlet he has given money to that has any far-reaching audience whatsoever is NPR, and I’m sure they’d be thrilled to hear that they were reaching several hundred million people. So what are the Soros alarmists referring to when they say he has a media empire? Well, apparently, having journalists from mainstream news outlets sit on the board of some of his think tanks is proof that he is influencing mainstream news. Of course, any ordinary person would note that the mainstream media is owned almost exclusively by right wing individuals and corporations, not the least of which is the infamous Rupert Murdoch. But these are the same people who believe there’s such a thing as the “liberal media.” According to Geoffrey Nunberg,

“In newspaper articles published since 1992, the word ‘media’ appears within seven words of ‘liberal bias’ 469 times and within seven words of ‘conservative bias’ just 17 times. If people are disposed to believe that the media have a liberal bias, it’s because the media have been telling them all along.”

It would be just like a conservative media to keep telling the American people that the media has a liberal bias, now wouldn’t it?

      It hasn’t been updated since the 2010 election, but did do a comparison of the relative influence of the Kochs and Mr. Soros. Bottom line, they are spending approximately:

Political Action Committee Spending (1989 to 2010)

Koch Industries: $12.1 million

Soros Fund Management: $0

 SuperPAC Spending (2011-2012)

Koch Brothers: unknown, but they even created their own SuperPAC

Soros:  $2.6 million*

*Alternative source from

Individual donations to federal candidates, parties and political action committees (1989 to 2010)

Koch Brothers: $2.58 million
George Soros: $1.74 million ($3.9 million)*

*Alternative source for 2011-2012, similar numbers for the Kochs through 2012 are not possible to calculate, because post-Citizen’s United, they give their money to their pet groups like Americans for Prosperity who would then donate millions for them. Laundered donations, if you will.

Individual donations to 527 organizations (2001 to 2010)
George Soros: $34.2 million

Koch Brothers: $4.06 million

Lobbying Expenditures (1998 to 2012)

Koch Industries: $79.9 million

Soros Fund Management/Open Society Policy Center (Soros-Funded): $12.8 million

Think Tanks (1979-2013)

Koch Brothers: Multi-untold millions

(funds Freedom Partners, Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Bill of Rights Institute, Institute for Humane Studies, Heartland Institute, Reason Foundation, FreedomWorks,  Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University Foundation, Mercatus Center, Institute for Justice, Institute for Energy Research, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Center to Protect Patient Rights, Generation Opportunity, American Enterprise Institute, Manhattan Institute, Ayn Rand Institute, The Federalist Society, Competitive Enterprise Institute, etc.)**

**Many of these are dark money groups that also fund elections without disclosing donors

George Soros: $550 million in the U.S., 8 billion worldwide in 70 countries

(Funds Open Society Institute, Center for American Progress, Institute for New Economic Thinking, Center for Public Integrity, Brookings Institute, the Democracy Alliance, Tides Foundation, etc.. These in turn fund numerous liberal causes like National Organization for Women, the Free Press, or

Dark Money Groups (2011-2012)

Koch Brothers: No one knows, but they pledged to spend $60 million on the 2012 election

Soros:  $1 million, given his openness about how he spends his money, likely not more

      George Soros has tried to influence American politics by making a great deal of individual donations to 527 groups. These are groups that advocate for candidates like and those that get out the vote like America Votes. His actual direct donations to candidates and lobbying of Congress members are far overshadowed by the Koch brothers. In other words, he doesn’t try to buy the U.S. government. The place where George Soros primarily puts his money is into liberal non-profits that advocate for liberal positions. For example, he gives the bulk of his money to the Open Society Institute, which then gives grants to liberal causes ranging from marijuana legalization and reproductive rights to environmental protection and criminal justice reform. For example, he gave $100 million to Human Rights Watch. This is the mission statement for Human Rights Watch from their website:

 Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world. We stand with victims and activists to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice. We investigate and expose human rights violations and hold abusers accountable. We challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law. We enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all.

      He is particularly focused on using his wealth to uphold principles of democracy and an “open society.” An open society includes principles such as “regular, free, and fair elections”; “a free and pluralistic media”; “the rule of law upheld by an independent judiciary”; and “a market economy.” In addition, he is very open about how he donates his money, and discloses his contributions on the website of the Center for Public Integrity. It’s easy to see why he is the boogeyman of the right. How scary.

       In contrast, the Koch brothers put a huge portion of their cash directly into buying Congress members through lobbying, direct donations to candidates, SuperPACS, dark money groups, and astro-turfing (creating false grassroots movements). They want to play puppeteer to our legislature, and our governors, manipulating their votes on laws, and writing the bills they bring to the floor or those they squash. When they invest their money in non-profits advocating their positions, it’s organizations like Generation Opportunity. They don’t provide a mission statement on their website, but it goes something like this:

Prevent as many young people as possible from signing up for low-cost health insurance that would cover them in the event of a tragic accident or unforeseen illness that would devastate them or their families financially, possibly causing bankruptcy or taxpayer dollars. If necessary, we will ply impressionable college students with free beer to do it.

  The Kochs are particularly focused on taking government assistance away from people living in poverty, denying access to health insurance, spreading polluting energy practices like fracking, not only advocating/promoting the continuing dependence on dirty fossil fuels, but demanding corporate welfare to do it, voter suppression, and union-busting to name a few.

      Whether it is how they spend their money, aiming it all at pulling the strings of Congress or sending out armies of pundits to drone on and on with conservative talking points to the corporate media, how they hide where they spend their money, or the inhumane causes they support, the Koch brothers are menacing. On the other hand, George Soros is a man of personal failings, but when he gives back to society, he spreads democracy, a free press, human rights, a clean & sustainable environment, and he does it all with full disclosure of every dime he donates. All in all, it’s easy to see which are the real boogeymen.


Sep 8, 2014

Winning the Country back depends on the YOUTH VOTE! Tell em!

The future of the country is getting YOUNG PEOPLE TO VOTE...since most don't.   Reach them where THEY read.  Popular facebook sites like MTV, university sites, pop culture pages.

Share this where Americas young people go...Remind them:

Rich Republicans keep the minimum wage down, and they voted against lowering interest rates on student loans. VOTE FOR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES. The YOUTH VOTE will change the country in November! Tell your friends

Facebook link:

Here's a little BONUS for Reading!
Wanna stay up to date on a TRENDY SITE?   

Sep 7, 2014

Meet the Press is BACK. Too bad The Drudge Report can't just play it without distortion!

Chuck Todd did a nice job with his debut show of Meet the Press, replacing the lackluster and stilted David Gregory.   The interviews were better.  Gone the 'Gotcha Game" that both Gregory and Tim Russert served up every Sunday, playing back old tape to catch guests changing their positions on issues.

And rather than just play beltway talking point politics, MTP aired a useful piece about cities investing in themselves to bring their economies back.  Even a lesson there for capitalists who horde their money instead of putting it to work.

Todd debuted with a relaxed and rounded interview with President Obama... but not how Matt Drudge portrayed it--since he has his right leaning agenda.

Nother case of Matt writing a misleading headline to a legit news story.   I watched it... Obama was very comfortable with Todd.  No squirming.

Same with Obama and immigration.  Nowhere in the story Drudge linked to was the word "Amnesty."    Seems to just be a right wing word because they don't want to authorize non-citizen work permits for people already here with their families.

Moreover, if they have to work for their eventual citizenship, 'amnesty' is a misleading word.  Drudge is good at distortion, sadly.   So unnecessary because his readers aren't Cheap Shot TeaPartiers who think "obummer", and "libtard"  are clever words... Drudge's readers are more educated than that.

Lift yourself up, Matt.   Your readers see through partisan hype.   You don't need to distort the news...or omit big stories that make the right look bad.

Sep 5, 2014

Weekend update: Roberts shakes up troubled campaign!!! Gets HELP. KS Republican Kobach puts kabosh on Democrat strategy to drop out in the Kansas Senate Race.

Taylor        Orman        Roberts
Latest in the squirrely Kansas Senate race between Democrat Chad Taylor, Independent Independent Greg Orman and incumbent senator Pat Roberts (R-VA).

Taylor bails out to give more popular Independent Orman of Olathe a head to head shot to unseat Pat Roberts... making Roberts' win in doubt.

Now come the Republican Secretary of State, acting just a little bit like Florida Secretary of State Kathryn Harris back during the narrow contest in 2000 between Pres Bush and Al Gore...trying to use her job to slip Bush the win on a technicality.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R) threw another curveball in the wild U.S. Senate contest in Kansas on Thursday, saying that Democrat Chad Taylor must remain on the ballot even though he said he announced his intentions to withdraw from the contest a day earlier.

Kobach said that Taylor failed to provide notice that he is incapable of serving in the Senate, which the law requires. In his brief letter to the secretary of state sent Wednesday, the last day for changes to the ballot, Taylor only said that he was dropping out.

"We now have no choice but to keep his name on the ballot," Kobach told reporters.

In a statement, Taylor argued that he fulfilled the requirements as they were explained to him.

"Yesterday afternoon, I contacted Brad Bryant, Director of Elections and Legislative Matters for the Kansas Secretary of State’s Office, to inquire about the requisite steps needed to terminate my candidacy for United State Senate and to withdraw my name from the ballot," explained Taylor. "Mr. Bryant provided explicit instructions as to the information required in the letter to remove my name. I proceeded to draft and deliver a letter to the Kansas Secretary of State’s Office of Elections, giving notice of my withdrawal from the United States Senate race. I specifically asked Mr. Bryant if the letter contained all the information necessary to remove my name from the ballot. Mr. Bryant said, 'Yes.'"

The events in Kansas are being watched closely by strategists in both Washington and Kansas. If Taylor stays on the ballot, as Kobach says he will, it will be a boon to Sen. Pat Roberts (R), who is facing a challenge from a surging independent candidate, Greg Orman. Without Taylor in the picture, Orman stands a better chance of winning more anti-Roberts votes.

If the race is competitive this fall, it could change the map in the battle for the Senate majority. Republicans need to gain six seats to seize control.

The story:

Roberts Revamps, gets Reinforcements to save his campaign

Breaking from SanFrancisco Chronicle, of AP Friday night.

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Republican Sen. Pat Roberts has shaken up his struggling re-election team in Kansas, replacing a longtime confidante as campaign manager and getting help from national operatives in a race that's suddenly a battleground in the fight for Senate control.

The campaign overhaul comes after Roberts' bruising primary fight and the stunning attempt by his Democratic challenger this week to cancel his candidacy in the face of a strong bid by an independent candidate.

Roberts confirmed Friday that Leroy Towns — whom the three-term senator once described as his "alter ego" — has stepped down as executive campaign manager, though he will remain as a consultant. The National Republican Senatorial Committee sent in a seasoned consultant, Chris LaCivita, and he will work with Corry Bliss, who's managed GOP campaigns in Connecticut, Georgia and Vermont.

The campaign also has a new director for its grass-roots operations, Alan Cobb, previously a senior campaign adviser to Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas. Cobb is a former state director and national official with Americans for Prosperity, the anti-tax, small government group backed by conservative billionaire-donors Charles and David Koch.

"We are going to be very aggressive now that it has become a national campaign," Roberts said before a political forum sponsored by the Kansas Chamber of Commerce in Wichita.

Roberts confirmed the changes only a day before the first debate of the fall campaign, at the Kansas State Fair in Hutchinson.

Independent candidate Greg Orman's campaign declined to comment. Orman is a 45-year-old businessman from the Kansas City suburb of Olathe, and he's running as a nonpartisan centrist. He promises to caucus with whichever party has the Senate majority and hopes to be a kingmaker if the chamber is divided.

Roberts already has labeled Orman a liberal Democrat, hoping GOP voters and Republican-leaning unaffiliated voters will identify him with Democratic President Barack Obama, who received only 38 percent of the vote in Kansas in 2012.

The 78-year-old Roberts looked vulnerable after winning only 48 percent of the vote in the August primary against a tea party opponent. The race also was roiled by Democrat Chad Taylor's attempt to withdraw, a move that appeared to be aimed at giving Orman a better shot at defeating Roberts.

Roberts also has been dogged by questions about owning a Washington, D.C.-area home while claiming rented space in the Dodge City home of two supporters as his official residence. The senator kept the issue alive with a July gaffe during a radio interview, saying, "Every time I get an opponent — uh, I mean, every time I get a chance — I'm home."

But LaCivita said, "Some things being said about Senator Roberts' demise are premature."

"Things generally are never as bad as they're portrayed," he added.

Republicans need a net gain of six seats in the midterm election to take the majority in the chamber, and they've always counted on holding Roberts' seat. The chairman of the national GOP committee helping Roberts is fellow Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran.

"If we don't do what we need to do in Kansas, that is just stupid," Moran said of the renewed efforts to re-elect Roberts. He was speaking after a Kansas Chamber of Commerce forum in Wichita.

What the Boss says GOES! Rupert Murdoch Reportedly Made The New York Post Cut Its Joan Rivers Tribute Down

The man who owns Faux News, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post can't keep his hands off his newsrooms and news decisions.

While papers like the New York Daily News and Newsday dedicated the entire front page to the famed comedian, the Post gave only a small box in the lower left-hand corner.(via Newseum)

In contrast, when Robin Williams died in August, another one of Hollywood's most beloved and legendary comedians, the Post dedicated their entire front page to the news.

But apparently there was a reason for the Post's minimal coverage-- and, surprise surprise, it had to do with Rupert Murdoch, who has always been extremely open about the influence he wields over his news properties.

A source told Capital New York's Joe Pompeo Friday that the front page was originally designed to give much more room to Rivers until Murdoch, the paper's owner, made a rare appearance in the newsroom that day and instructed otherwise. Out went the big tribute, and in went something rather more demure.

As Capital noted, Murdoch and Rivers have a messy history, stemming from Rivers'sshort-lived late night show on Fox. Murdoch brought Rivers on in 1986 to host “The Late Show Starring Joan Rivers," but she was later let go, or "dethroned," as the headlines put it, only one year later after poor ratings.

Of course, such blatant interference in his news outlets is nothing new for Murdoch. In fact, it's pretty typical. He has a long history of calling up editors and suggesting stories, asking for shorter pieces, firing editors he doesn't like, and using his papers to push his own political stances. The New Yorker's Ken Auletta said in 2007 that when asked what gives him the "most pleasure," Murdoch responded, "being involved with the editor of a paper in a day-to-day campaign...trying to influence people.”

It seems like he was definitely continuing that legacy with his Rivers decision.

Sep 3, 2014

KS Democrat bows out of SENATE race so Independent Greg Orman of OLATHE can knock off Incumbent Senator Pat Roberts R-(fossil of Virginia) MSNBC sez McCaskill helped out!!

Here's Orman's facebook page...lets give him a good look.     Chad Taylor has terminated his campaign to let Orman go after Roberts.... which could tip the balance in the senate to keep it in Democrat hands.

UPDATE:  MSNBC reporting tonight MissouriSenator Claire McCaskill was involved in talking Taylor into withdrawing so the race becomes a 2 person, not 3 person race against Pat Roberts.

From Orman's FB page...


I’m Greg Orman, and I’m running as an Independent for U.S. Senate because Washington is broken and we need a new approach.


Hard work is a big part of the Orman family—Greg’s mother, Darlene Gates, raised Greg and his five siblings while working full time as a registered nurse. As her youngest children entered elementary school, Greg’s mother set an example for her children by going back to college to earn a bachelor’s degree, and despite the long work hours, she always made time to attend (and cheer) her children’s sporting events.

If the name ‘Orman’ is familiar, it’s because Greg’s father, Tim, opened a furniture store in Stanley, KS in 1971. Greg spent his teenage years working in the warehouse at the store, earning his first paycheck at 13. It was working at his father’s store when Greg learned that successful businesses take care of their employees, develop efficient, practical solutions to problems, and know when to take new directions. Those are the values—Kansas values—that Greg will bring to the U.S. Senate.

Now, Greg lives in Olathe with his wife, Sybil, and their two dogs, Lucy and Mala. Greg is involved with several businesses throughout the country, including Combat Brands in Lenexa, Kansas, and Sybil is earning her Ph.D in Education Leadership and Policy Studies program at the University of Kansas after spending 4 years teaching at the Turner School District in Kansas City, Kansas.

Education and Business Background:

Greg graduated from Princeton University in 1991 with a degree in economics joined the McKinsey & Company consulting firm shortly thereafter. In 1992, while at McKinsey, Greg started Environmental Lighting Concepts (ELC). ELC designed and installed energy efficient lighting systems for commercial and industrial companies. Orman left McKinsey in 1994 to run ELC full time.

As ELC’s CEO, Greg opened a second office in Kansas in 1995 before opening additional offices across the country. In November 1996, Greg sold 70% of ELC to Kansas City Power & Light. He then assumed management of KCP&L’s energy services operations and eventually the company’s entire portfolio of competitive businesses . He grew the business more than tenfold, from less than $100 million dollars to almost a billion dollars in annual revenue.

In 2004, Greg co-founded Denali Partners, LLC, and has been working to provide capital and management services to help small businesses grow since then.


Greg is active in the American Legion’s Boys’ State program—after being selected to attend the American Legion’s Boys’ Nation program in Washington, DC in 1986, Greg had the privilege of meeting President Ronald Reagan in the White House Rose Garden.

Greg credits much of his personal success to his participation in the American Legion’s program and has returned to Minnesota for over 25 years to deliver the annual commencement address to the Minnesota’s Boys’ State program.

Greg has served on the boards of the Kansas City Zoo and the Gala at the Glen for Cystic Fibrosis, and led the capital campaign for the YMCA’s Youth in Government program. And Greg also co-founded Common Sense Coalition to give a voice to independent and sensible middle of the road voters who are unrepresented in the current broken system. By helping people come together and find common-ground solutions to the nation's problems, Greg has worked to address that the partisans have been unable or unwilling to tackle

Sep 2, 2014

Lets get practical about illegals and citizens alike....with FOOLPROOF PHOTO ID. Now's the time.

I don't think illegal aliens should be allowed to do ANYTHING in the US without valid, TAMPER-PROOF positive photo-fingerprint ID and the Social Security database to back it up. With annotations whether undocumented people's birth dates and places are "claimed" or validated with actual documents.

But whichever, that will forever be who they are in the eyes of the United States.

We need this level of IMMIGRATION REFORM IMMEDIATELY...and for ALL US CITIZENS. Stating whether citizen or non citizen visitor or non citizen resident student or worker. For use in getting a job, paying taxes, voting, drivers licenses, health care, education, government benefits, law enforcement, and passing through the borders, public transportation, getting bank accounts, etc. Positive ID. The days of anonymity are over, so sad.

Children under 18 should have a new photo every year, and adults every 5 years. Employers need to validate the fingerprint with the database record on file... our technology should be able to do this.

And no entry without getting in line for the ID, no matter how long the wait.

This is REFORM but certainly not AMNESTY...

Congress should fund a national positive ID system immediately...and worry about permanent policy later.  Provide for a 5 year implementation for citizens...and no more than 2 years for foreign nationals.

 I would further suggest that alien workers pay into social security when they work, but can't collect it unless they become citizens... and the clock to START the citizenship process for at least 7 years doesn't start until this registration goes into the database.

Other citizenship tests normally required, including English proficiency applies

WHY NOT??  Congress should fund this ID system immediately...and worry about permanent policy later when Republicans finally wake up.