Almost nothing Obama is doing meets with the approval of the American people. Let him grant Amnesty. They already disapprove of his immigration policies by a 62 to 35 percent margin, Many of us believe he is destroying the Progressive Democrat Party.

28 share
strong interrest

The House GOP puts pressure on the Senate and Obama to do something about immigration rather than play the blame game.

29 share
strong interes
<<<  Obama's legislative policy for the past 5 years.  

Billy Crystal opposes the House Immigration bill.  Here is a partial explanation - read the full report at the Weekly Standard, here:  

The House Republican leadership is having trouble getting 218 votes for its immigration bill. The policy objections to the bill seem convincing to me—among them that it seems to appropriate more money, on a pro-rated monthly basis, than the president's proposal; that it might well make it harder, not easier, to send some or all of the illegal migrants back; that it changes the asylum laws in ways that might well backfire; and that it doesn't deal in any way the core cause of the problem, the president's 2012 executive amnesty for minors or his pending huge expansion of that amnesty. These objections haven't been convincingly addressed by leadership. And of course there's been no markup of the leadership bill, no hearings about it, and no amendments permitted to it. All of this is grounds for not rushing to pass dubious legislation. The House Republican leadership should pull the bill.But the overwhelming reason to kill the bill is that it's not going to become law anyway. The president and the Senate leadership have made clear they'll never accept it. So what's the point of passing it? 

Editor’s notes:  On the other hand,  sending a bill to the Senate confirms the claim that the GOP is concerned about border issues.  If the Senate  refuses to consider the bill,  it does so at its own peril.  They don’t like what the GOP proposes?  Rewrite the bill and send it back to the House.  That is the way things are designed to work. 

In brief review,  the House bill would revise the 2008 law,  making adjudication of the  illegal immigrant population a matter of days,  rather than a process  involving 3 to 5 years. 

Secondly,  it would put the National Guard on the border.

Third,  it would allow the Border Patrol to pursue illegals onto Federal Lands.  They are prohibited from such pursuit,  under the current Regime. 

Fourth,  it gives Obama $659 million,  not 3.7 billion,  a number pulled out of thin air by the financial geniuses in the Administration.  

And,  this bill would end “catch and release.” 

Its not perfect, but it is a start. 

I say,  make the Dems own up to their own complaints.  Just before the summer break,  will the Dems want to return home to face local constituencies demanding Congress do something besides play the blame game? 

Update:  Understand that Obama does not want an immigration bill,  pure and simple,  or he would have passed an immigration bill back in 2009,  as he promised.  

You should know that Obama's 2009 Immigration Bill,  could have given citizenship  (not just amnesty) to 10, 15, 20 million immigrants and ordered all sector employers receiving federal supplimental funding to hire these people.  He could have given these 20 million citizens,  a new car and 10 year's worth of income for payment on new homes.  The GOP could not have stopped him.  So why didn't he do this?  There is only one reason:  he didn't want to.  

This is all about politics.  Obama could not care less and time has proven this to be true,  without doubt.  

DNC Chariman tells us that Obama has been less productive as a president, than any president in the past 120 years. She said it. We believe it.

28 share
solid interest
All you need to know this:  Grover Cleveland served his term as president,  from 1893 to 1897 !!!  Wasserman-Shultzs admits this but blames the Republicans.   

Understand that Obama just spent more time,  in productive conference with three Central American presidents,  than he has spent time with the GOP leadership in five stinking years.     In fact,  in the first two years,  he met with GOP leadership twice for no more than a total of 40 minutes, cut the GOP out of any significant legislation,  and, now,  wants to complain about the Republicans.   Do we need to be constantly reminded that the Dems,  under Obama,  had two full years of super-majority rule and did next to nothing  (by Wasserman-Shultz’s own admission)?  

In summery, then,  we have the 6th slowest House in history,  a record setting do-nothing Senate,  the slowest of all Senate assemblies in our 236 year history,  and a president who is the worst production manager in over 120 years.  Time for a change  . . . .  you think?!

How poorly run is the ObamaCare system? After 10 months, there [still] is no operational accounting and as to "wildly popular," 87% of enrollees are paid to sign up (it is called "sbusidies").

23 share
good intererst
Understand that the "back end" of the ObamaCare website is where all enrollment information is collected and transferred to the several insurance companies.  It is, also,  where enrollment information is used to give an accounting for such things as enrollment numbers, profitability (libs would prefer the term "sustainability'), insured demographics,  and the like.  Sadly,  this "back half" is not, yet,  "up and running."  

You may not know this,  but most,  if not all,  bonafide enrollment information is being transferred by hand because of the systemic issues involving the final stages of the website.   

In this video,  we have a spokesman for Aetna admitting that the company does not know the demographics of its newly insured population (whether young or old,  healthy or sick).  He does know that the 600,000+  enrollees are more old and sick,  than otherwise.  He also knows that 87% of those enrolled are subsidized.  And,  if you listen carefully,  you will realize that Aetna hopes for a 3 to 5 percent profit margin,  but,  currently,  it is not earning any money from ObamaCare.  

Medicare owes itself 47 trillion dollars and Social Security owes itself (they call it "unfunded liabilities") 17 trillion at last count  --  neither program would be viable in the private market or in a government circumstance that does not invent money.  But,  because we, the United States of  America and its "dollar,"   are the world's currency and can print money because of that fact,  we think we don't need our do-gooder, welfare programs to be sustainable.  The profit-hating Marxists among us,  see no need to balance budgets or protect profit margins at some level.    

Most Americans do not realize that Medicare is the heart and soul of ObamaCare and is broken beyond repair,  as a financial system.  There is no reason to believe that ObamaCare will not add another 50 trillion to Medicare debt,  in the coming four decades, just as Medicare has done in its first four decades.  The problem?  Too large a population demand on the system.  The fact of the matter is this:  Big Government does not work  . . . . .   period.  Such is not even debatable.  The evidence is "in,"  and the conclusions have been clear for a generation or more. 

Update:  A failure of management by the Obama administration led to the disastrous rollout of the ObamaCare website and caused the government to incur tens of millions in additional costs, according to a congressional watchdog report released Wednesday.

In a recent report,  the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has concluded after a months-long investigation into the rocky rollout of ObamaCare – the website, that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ failure to establish “effective planning or oversight practices” was to blame for website’s myriad problems after it was launched.  Mismanagement and stupidity has added “tens of millions in additional costs”  totally  $840 million and counting. 

The back end of the site remains broken,  and – perhaps – beyond repair. 

The “cost increases” include those for the glitchy computerized sign-up system for consumers, which ballooned from $56 million to more than $209 million from Sept. 2011 to Feb. 2014. The cost of the electronic backroom for verifying applicants' information jumped from $30 million to almost $85 million.  This is the “back end” of the web site,  and,  as mentioned above,  it remains broken in spite of a $175 million dollar bill for fixes to the website.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, one of the lawmakers who requested the investigation, said in a statement Wednesday that the report “confirms our worst fears.    Millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted to build a website that didn't work, all because of bureaucratic incompetence,” he said.

Over the months,  a reported 8 million American’s have signed up for coverage,  but as many as 4 million people may not have coverage,  at all,  due to lost application information and the a failure in the subsidies program. 

The Associated Press, Fox News and Midknight Review all  contributed to this report

Sometimes, this seems appropriate.

18 share
fair reader interest

Why are the Dems screaming "impeachment" when no one else, is? Simple. This is what losers do.

21 share 
fair reader interest
No one in GOP leadership is talking about impeaching Obama, not that he is not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors  . . . . .  no one.  For one thing,  there is not enough time to impeach,  nor is anyone interested in putting Joe Biden in the top job.  What a joke that would be.  But the left often makes an accusation,  and then continues the lie,  knowing that,  in time,  many will come to believe that lie.  That is what you are seeing.  Nothing more. 

Understand,  this bunch is so far behind public opinion that they have resorted to this lie,  in order to raise money.  And,  it really is not working as well as you might think.  Oh,  they have raised $4 million on the back of this lie,  but they are so far behind the GOP as to make this effort humorous.  The GOP Governors Conference has raised $23 million in the same time the Dems have raised 12 million,  for example.     

Just know,  money or the lack thereof,  is not their problem in this campaign.  Rather,  unfulfilled promises and the lack of genuine leadership are. And the disappointment is across the board,  including constituencies within the Democrat Party.  

Speaking as a conservative,  I believe this:  "Time is on our side."  The Marxists in our midst,  will have to pay the piper, sooner or later.   They seem to believe they can lie about their accomplishments and blame others for their failures,  and do so without fear of time limits to these strategies.  

The chart, below,  is not about Obama,  but about the Marxist Progressive Wing of the Democrat Party,  trying to hedge against another wave election debacle.  While the presidency is not on the table in 2014,  important matters are.  There is the matter of continued investigations into the runaway corruption of this party,  investigations that will be made stronger with ownership of the Senate.  More than this,  and,  perhaps more importantly,  there is the matter of legislation.  If the GOP wins the Senate,  Obama can expect to see a mountain of passed legislation,  arrive on his desk,  forcing Obama and those who plan to run for the presidency in 2016,  to explain to the public why they are stonewalling the Congressional process.  

Will "we" take back the Senate?  It looks 50/50 on that.  Could be.  For certain,  we will not lose the House.  So we all have to wait and see.  Just know in absolute terms, time is running out for the Marxists among us.  In politics,  nothing is forever  -  including Obamanites and their scheme to tear down this country.  

Fox is not reporting on "impeachment" because there is no such story.  

Midknight Review announces abbreviated news/commentary coverage through the end of the summer, when Congress comes back from summer break.

61 share
strangely, very 
strong readership
I will be posting commentary,  but most of Congress is running for re-election and will not be back to business until September,  and, even then,  what takes place between September and the first of November,  will be all about positioning.

It is riding season.  Although I ride year around,  midAugust through midOctober is the safest time to be on the road,  outside the state of California.  Tornadoes, significant hail storms,  monsoon rain storms in the midStates are all less problematic during this time.

Keep me on your blogrolls.  Who knows,  maybe something important will happen.

So, who is the national/domestic threat, Right Wing nuts or liberal do-gooders? The truth will set you free.

32 share
strong reader interest
Sensible Gun Control
I'm Beginning to Really Like This Guy!
Sensible Gun Control
This explains why there has been no attempt on Mr. Obama! 

Gun Control that makes sense.  Great Idea!  Why didn't I think of this?
In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States  who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.
As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.
One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.
Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.  Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives were involved in these shootings and murders.
SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.
Best idea I've heard to date.

You thought Hillary was a poor Secretary of State? You have not been paying attention Ogar Kerry.

41 share
very strong interest
<<< Understand that this oger of a man,  just recognized a terror organization as the Principle in Gaza and sided with Jihad (in Gaza,  Turkey and Qatar) as he attempted to negotiate a full blown Israeli surrender under the guise of a temporary peace treaty.  You think he and Obama would represent America differently?  News flash:  they haven't.  

From The Federaist:  Let’s concede for a moment that most of us don’t believe the United States should be taking sides in conflicts abroad. Even so, most Americans would probably agree that at a minimum our diplomatic efforts should not cause unnecessary harm. Which brings me to Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent misadventure in the Middle East.

It seems like a rather big deal that Egypt, Israel, Fatah, Jordan, Saudi Arabia—ostensibly, all allies of ours—agree on anything. This development, one imagines, might be something the United States would be interested in fostering rather than destroying. Certainly, the idea that Hamas’ power should be neutralized and the influence of the “moderate” Palestinian authority expanded, sounds like a plan worth pursuing.

Or so you would think. But instead, it looks like Kerry ignored an Egyptian-led ceasefire effort and handed Israelis a document that offered them this:
Rather than empowering Fatah, it recognizes Hamas as the legitimate authority in the Gaza Strip, although it’s considered a terrorist organization by the Justice Department and an entity that’s founding principle and driving purpose is to eliminate Israel and replace it with an Islamic state.

Rather than choking off this organization’s lifeline, the agreement would have allowed them to collect billions in ‘charity’ that would be been able to use to rearm, retrench, and re-engage in hostilities.

And all the while, it would have made no demands on Hamas to purge itself of rockets, or tunnels, or other weaponry that destabilizes the area—while at the same, the ceasefire would have limited Israel’s ability to take them out. (Update: This final point is disputed by U.S. officials.)

Hamas would have conceded nothing. No nation would have accepted such terms, not after what’s transpired, and naturally it was rejected unanimously by an Israeli cabinet that includes the ideological left, center, and right. Not only did the proposal irritate Israel—a nation often accused of warmongering for kicks—but it also upset Egypt and the Palestinian Authority  . . . . .   Read the full article at The Federalist,  here.  

Impeachment Preceedings? Replace Obama with Joe Biden? Seriously? Boehner says no - this is all about the Dems raising money.

26 share
good reader interest

This how hard up the Democrats are.  They are so far behind the "eight ball" that they have to make up stuff,  to lie about what is going.  

Why is everything he thinks to do, such a surprise, so out of touch with our accepted history? Here is the beginning of an answer to that question.

41 share
very strong support
<<<  Face it,  after nearly ten years of listening to this man,  we really do not know where we are going,  under his "leadership."  

Barack Obama, Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders,  July 26, 2014 .

“Regardless of the resources a country possesses, regardless of how talented the people are, if you do not have a basic system of rule of law, of respect for civil rights and human rights, if you do not give people a credible, legitimate way to work through the political process to express their aspirations, if you don't respect basic freedom of speech and freedom of assembly … it is very rare for a country to succeed.”

Note to readership:  I am out of the office, for a short while.  This article has not been proofed,  but I want it "out there."  

The case against Obama as to the matter of his demonstrated lawlessness,  is rather profound as one works to quantify his transgressions in this line of thought. 

Understand that “actions speak louder than words,”  but,  more acutely in regards to Obama,  “actions define our intentions and expose our true values.” 

Take the above quote as a prime example.  There will be few who read those words,  well stated,  by the way,  and come away not feeling betrayed and frustrated.  The man simply does not believe anything he said in that quote,  without qualifiers embedded after every phrase. 

Take “basic system of rule of law,”  for example.  That phrase is qualified by “respect for civil rights and human rights.”  He is not talking about “law,”  but a very specific  “rule of law” defined by a just accounting for the “civil rights and humans rights”  of those under that rule of law.”  He is talking about the rule of law that is defined by a Marxist inspired agenda embedded in the Militant Progressives’ Utopian dream of “social justice.”  He can postpone or violate Constitutional law,  even “established,  legislated law,”  if that law does not go to his understanding of social justice as defined by Marx and other anti-colonial Collectists.  Again,  such  (“social justice” from a Marxist point of view) is the bedrock of an agreeable “rule of law,”  per Obama.  If a comprehensive code for the advancement of “civil and human rights” as defined by Utopian beliefs is not the effective law of the land,  that “rule of law” should not command center stage and is to be torn down by any process necessary,  and replaced by that which is more properly defined.  In short,  Obama is consistent with his system of law and order,  not ours’. 

If the listener/reader thinks Obama’s “rule of law” is simply “established law,”  he will not understand Obama’s statement and,  in fact,  will view his words as highly contradictory,  in and of themselves. 

As you read the remainder of the quote,  above,  you should know, in Obama’s world,  a “legitimate . . . .  political process” is actually defined by the aspirations of those seeking its guidance.  If the law,  immigration law for an example,  does not line up with the aspirations of an immigrant population,  it is neither “credible”  nor “legitimate” from Obama’s perspective.  Such law,  as a rule of conduct, is not worthy of emulation,  and should be taken down or,  if nothing else,   ignored.   

Finally,  he is not talking about “freedom of speech,”  and “freedom of assembly.”  In fact,  he is not talking about “basic freedom of speech  . . . .   and assembly,”  but about a “respect” for basic free speech and assembly  --  both considerations of “the rule of law.”   In other words,  my respect for the basic free speech of others,  and their coming together  (i.e. assembly) is to be a matter of law,  or the rule of law. In the mind of Obama,  if my speech is critical of "their" speech,  I have violated the notion of "respect" and stand outside the law  . . . .  or that should be my situation.  

If my conservative speech dominates the air waves,  for example,  a “respect for basic free speech” would demand that others (Marxists,  atheists, One Worlders, etc.) have the same opportunities I have,  the same degree of “dominance” as myself;  in short,  it would demand equal time.  It is not enough,  for the likes of Obama,  that others have their own access (radio, print and televised media),  they much have equal time on the same air I have,  in the same papers,  on the same radio and televised networks.  

People listen to conservative talk,  [again] for example.  "Fairness" in talk "disribution,"  demands (according to Obama) that a conservative audience be forced to listen to the free speech of others.  Of course,  one simply cannot force another to listen,  but that is not the point.  Rather,  the size of the audience is the issue.  It is not "fair" that Hispanic radio or Black hip hop television do not have the larger audiences.  As a consequence,  Central Planning comes to the rescue,  and forces the networks 9per The Fairness Doctrine)  owned by the Conservative or Moderate Media to program the less popular points of view.  It is not enough to give the smaller populations equal opportunity as they develop media independence and owenrship,  they must share equal time in the same venues developed by Conservative alliances.  

Conclusion:  If the listener/reader does not approach Obama's speech with HIS definitions in mind,  he will be seen as contradictory and,  even,  inflammatory.  He and Michelle are radical members of our society,  and they cannot be understood apart from that radicalism.  Our problem, of course,  is found in the fact that few of us have any exposure when it comes to the message of the radical,  Marxist driven community.  We know next to nothing about "them,"  and,  as a result,  almost everything "they" do comes to us as a surprise.  One only has to look to the words of Michelle Obama,  as she frames Barack's (and her's) views as to the transformation of this nation.  

In May of 2008,  while in Puerto Rico,  bragged about the new traditions and history Barack was bringing to the nation.  

Her words include this statement:  "Barack knows . . . . . we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."   (Sources for this statement:  Fox News, here,  and,  here).  

Understand that absolutely no past president or First Lady have ever made such public statements.  No one  . . .   and that fact is the very definition of "radicalism."  

We want to believe he has the same values as "us."  All past presidents,  for the most part,  have shared in those values and have moderated the more extreme views of their party,  whether that be the GOP or the Democrats.  Obama IS the extreme Left of his party .  There are others more consistent in their ideology,  but no one is more to the Left.  And this includes Michelle.  She attached herself to the more radical populations while at Princeton and Harvard,  and views the world as an offended, black woman.  Apologies do not change the fact that,  with her husband's nomination and election,  she was,  "for the first time,"  proud of her country.  

I don't fault her for making that admission,  but,  I, also,  will not forget the statement or allow a politically correct "apology" change the impact of that comment.  These two are radicals,  when it comes to the historicity of this once great nation.  They know their time is short, and,  as a consequence,  they know that "now" is the time to drive their transformation, home.  They have been effectively cut off from the legislative process.  The question that remains,  however,  has to do with the lasting impact of his use of executive power and privilege.  

Immigration,  uncontrolled, pervasive and immediate,  has the power of changing a nation,  our nation,  simply because that immigrant population does not revere our founding principle and does not share in our history.  At least,  that is how the Obama's see the only remaining source of power they have  -  the opinions of foreigners who could not care less about our traditions.  
Will this strategy work?  Time holds our only answer.  

Many of my readers live on the East coast. This Scott Brown campaign ad should be of real interest to you.

24 share
good read interrest

There is not enough time to impeach the man, but if there was, this would be one of the reason for such action.

35 share
strong read interest
In a recent report in the  Business Insider:

<<<   Khaled Meshaal, the political leader of Hamas, said in a recent interview that he has no plans to “coexist” with Israel as it is structured right now.

“No. I do not want to live with a state of occupiers,” Mashaal said when directly asked if he wants to “coexist” with Israel or recognize the country “as a Jewish state.”

Editor's notes:  Understand that Hamas is a terrorist organization supported by Qatar and Turkey,  two of our our newest allies according to Barack Hussein Obama.  All three,  four if you add in Obama,  "five" if you add in Nancy Pelosi who thinks Hamas is a humanitarian organization,   accept the Muslim Brotherhood,  another terrorist organization.  

There is no doubt who is driving the Palestian/Israeli conflict - those who will not allow Israel to survive as a nation  . . . . .   and Obama is complicit in this,  intentionally or not makes little difference.  

I do not care if he is a Muslim.  All I know is this:  he sure as hell acts like one,  or,  at least,  an ally of the first order.  If one tracts his actions,  and turns off the volume,  you have Obama,  and as they say,  "The Emperor has no clothes."  

To make matters worse,  much worse,  we have the record of a dark-of-night betrayal of Israel before the United Nations.  

In a report found at Foreign Policy,  we have this betrayal of Israel by the Obama/Kerry Cabal:   

Despite a history of rocky relations between U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Obama administration could largely be counted on to watch Israel’s back in the U.N. Security Council, where it succeeded for more than five years in blocking successive efforts by the Palestinians to gain more of the trappings of an independent state and to get the world body to formally censure Israeli settlement policies.
That changed after the stroke of midnight Sunday when, in the early minutes of Monday, July 28, the U.N. Security Council, with the backing of the United States, issued a formal “presidential statement” demanding that Israel and Hamas implement an “immediate and unconditional” cease-fire to end fighting that has left more than 1,000 Palestinians and 43 Israelis dead. The Palestinians say they will continue to seek Security Council support for a legally enforceable resolution demanding that Israel halt its military offensive in Gaza

Understand that if we look at the actions taken,  and pay no attention to the duplicitous wording of the Administration,  we get a true picture of what happened in the early hours of Monday.  In the end and after 5 years of pure deception,  Barak Obama  has decided to join the enemies of Israel and make "now"  the time to begin his overt betrayal of  Israel

Even the NY Post is keeping count. Why can't he be a mobile fundraiser and a hands-on President instead of the reverse?

28 share
strong interest
NY Post  While domestic crises simmer and international conflicts flare, President Obama can be counted on to pitch and putt.
The duffer in chief has played 81 rounds of golf and had attended 75 political fund-raisers in the 628 days since his 2012 re-election, a Post analysis of his schedule found.

My Challenge to the Washington Post ~ from the Governor's Facebook

34 share 
strong reader interest
My Challenge to the Washington Post
To reclaim your credibility (and the mainstream media’s, at large), I challenge you to engage in the same aggressive investigative journalism you courageously employed 42 years ago covering President Nixon. The public knows of our current president’s incompetence, denials, and cover-ups, but would be well served if we could count on your resources to dig deep for truth in all matters pertaining to Team Obama.
One example: your reporters kept tracking an obscure break-in story and that led to revealing a grave problem in the White House. The Washington Post’s reputation soared as the model of good journalism. Today, you’ve fallen like a lead balloon. Whereas you once doggedly covered the 18.5 minute gap in Nixon’s White House communications, you’ve virtually ignored the Obama Administration’s 1.2 million minutes of deleted communications by just one of the agencies under Obama’s executive branch. I’m speaking of the Lois Lerner IRS harassment-of-conservatives scandal wherein Lerner “lost” pertinent email communications. You’ve allowed Obama to skate with his proclamation that absolutely no wrongdoing occurred at the IRS, “not even a smidgen.”
The list of Obama abuses and impeachable offenses is long. I challenge you to lift a finger and help protect democracy, allow justice for all, and ensure domestic tranquility by doing your job reporting current corrupt events fairly. If not, you prove yourselves incompetent and in bed with Obama, not caring one iota about media integrity.
Those running the Washington Post’s show now, compared to those during the Nixon era, are too afraid of being uninvited to the permanent political class’ cocktail parties and petty gossip fests, making you all a bunch of wusses. I challenge you to get to work.

- Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin is doing more good for the Conservative Movement than had she ran for president. Her "five minutes of fame" was up 6 years ago. Two major books and two successful cable programs later, she is about to start her own cabal TV channel. Watch and listen to Sarah tell about this new project.

51 share 
very strong reader interest

<<<  So,  who do you think is the "flash in the pan,"  Sarah or Michelle Obama?  And,  if Hillary was to win the WH,  there is reason to believe that Palin just might have some influence on the woman.  

Sarah Palin Launches Her Own Channel Online

Sarah Palin – former governor of Alaska, erstwhile candidate for VP of the U.S. and polarizing public figure – has unveiled a new subscription-based Internet TV network that promises direct access to…

More “Sarah Palin Channel” on
11 hours ago ... The Sarah Palin Channel, which costs $9.95 per month or $99.95 for a one-year subscription, will feature her commentary on “important issues ... 1200496622/
Jun 13, 2013 ... Former Alaska Go. Sarah Palin is set to rejoin Fox News Channel as a contributor , the News Corp. cable-news outlet said Thursday.
Jul 7, 2014 ... “Sportsman Channel has experienced tremendous growth this year and SarahPalin's involvement has proved to be an exciting boon for our ...
The Sportsman Channel has renewed “Amazing America With Sarah Palin” for a second season. According to the the niche cable channel, the show's first ...
Jul 7, 2014 ... The Sportsman Channel has renewed “Amazing America With Sarah Palin” for a second season. According to the the niche cable channel, the ...
Mar 22, 2010 ... "Sarah Palin's Alaska" will center on interesting characters, traditions and ... as thechannel's hit "Deadliest Catch" is also shot in Palin Country.
Jun 9, 2011 ... A little too close to reality to be funny. Nah, it's still pretty funny. Besides, when serves up such a gift to the comedy gods, what's the mainstream ...
Feb 21, 2012 ... Reelz Channel has acquired TV rights to Stephen Bannon's Sarah Palin documentary “The Undefeated” and will premiere it on March 11, just a ...
Sarah Palin is set to rejoin Fox News Channel as a contributor, the News Corp. cable-news outlet said Thursday. Palin, a one-time Republican candidate for ...
Mar 18, 2010 ... It's coming down to the wire for former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, ... as the channel'shit "Deadliest Catch" is also shot in Palin Country.