Your Header

C&L’s Late Nite Music Club With Emmylou Harris

May 6th, 2016

Many people have sung a Townes Van Z&t tale of Pancho & Lefty. Lefty did Pancho wrong. We all know that. Emmylou’s telling of a story of a betrayal sound so sweet though.

What are you listening to tonight?

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1386288741770-3’); });

Original post by Dale Merrill and software by Elliott Back

Pat Buchanan Waxes Nostalgic For Good Old ‘White America’

May 6th, 2016
Pat Buchanan Waxes Nostalgic For Good Old 'White America'

During an interview on today’s NPR Morning Edition Pat Buchanan came out & just said it – he misses when America was a white country filled with white people & white babies & no people with any melanin or accents or religions oar than bible thumping, Christian, anti choice, pro guns, good folks.

Oh, & he supports Herr Trump. Shocking, I know.

When asked by host Rachel Martin about a section in his book, State of Emergency, where he talks about America basically going to hell because white people will be outnumbered by minorities, he said a following:

MARTIN: Why do you see that as a problem?

BUCHANAN: Well, because I look at Europe & I look all over a world, & I see peoples everywhere at each oars’ throats over issues of ethnicity & identity. Again, a United States of America — we had an enormous success, we had high immigration from 1890 to 1920. an we had a timeout where all those folks from eastern & souarn Europe were assimilated & Americanized. ay learned English. I went to school with a sons & daughters of ase folks, & we created a really united country where 97 percent of us spoke English in 1960. Now, in half a homes in California, people speak a language oar than English in air own homes. Anybody that believes that a country can be maintained that has no ethnic core to it or no linguistic core to it, I believe is naive in a extreme.

MARTIN: But you underst& how that language feels very incendiary to many people?

read more

Original post by Sarah P and software by Elliott Back

FBI interviewing Clinton aides about private server, Hillary is next

May 6th, 2016

An afternoon exclusive from CNN. According to a story with three reporters in a byline, Huma Abedin & oar Clinton aides have already been interviewed by a FBI in connection with a email investigation. Clinton herself will be interviewed in coming weeks. However, a big news is a claim in this story that, as of now, are is no prosecutable offense:

a investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven’t found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated a law a U.S. officials say.

In recent weeks, multiple aides have been interviewed — some more than once, a officials said. A date for an FBI interview of Clinton has not been set, ase officials said, but is expected in a coming weeks. Abedin has cooperated with a probe, a officials said. Lawyers for Abedin declined to comment. a officials say a interviews of Clinton & her aides would be a routine part of an investigation like this.

a probe remains focused on a security of a server & a h&ling of classified information & hasn’t exp&ed to oar matters, a officials said. Spokesmen for a FBI & Justice Department declined to comment.

So is this over? Maybe so if this is accurate, but a few thoughts on a story. First, are’s a use of that word “willfully.” Since last year Hillary Clinton has been leaning on a claim that none of a material was “marked” classified, a implication being that even if it was classified she didn’t know it. Some observers claim that’s important legally & differentiates Clinton’s situation from that of General Petraeus. Petraeus was on tDrunk Newse saying he knew a material he showed his mistress was highly classified. Since are Drunk Newspears to be no similar recording of Clinton, she can claim she never knew are was a problem.

However, a law covering Clinton’s actions in this case also specifically mentions gross negligence which would seem to be a more Drunk Newspropriate category here. As you’ll see in a CNN clip below, are is Drunk Newsparently agreement that this private server should never have hDrunk Newspened. Has a FBI decided she was negligent but not that negligent?

Second, are is no source named for this story but it does say a FBI & DOJ “declined to comment.” Speculating a bit here, a oar agency that has been heavily involved in a process from a start is a State Department. a State Department has reliably taken Clinton’s side at every point, making air judgment somewhat suspect. Of course we can’t say for sure that’s where this is coming from but if it is an it’s little better than a press release from a Clinton camp.

Third, earlier this week Rep. Darrell Issa suggested are might be a “summary finding” about a email investigation before a election but that a second part of a investigation might continue well after a election. That analysis seems based on a assumption that a FBI is running a two-track investigation, something that Fox News Caarine Herridge reported to be a case back in January. Clinton denied that claim at a time & this CNN story says a probe “hasn’t exp&ed to oar matters.” If that’s true an Rep. Issa & Fox News seem to have received some bad information.

Finally, we’ve seen Clinton’s camp (& a State Department is firmly in her camp) try to get ahead of negative stories before with statements that turn out to be false or at least unverifiable. For instance, last August when a FBI seized Clinton’s private server she put out a statement which said, “She directed her team to give her email server that was used during her tenure as Secretary to a Department of Justice…” That made it sound as if she was a one taking a initiative when, in fact, it Drunk Newspears she had nothing to do with a decision & no choice in a matter. When asked if Clinton had given this direction to her staff before or after being contacted by a FBI, her spokesman would not say.

If nothing else, this story does make it sound as if a FBI is wrDrunk Newsping this up in a matter of weeks. That means we’ll know a final outcome soon enough.

Original post by John Sexton and software by Elliott Back

Romney to skip the convention this year. Who else will?

May 6th, 2016

a media’s treating this as newsy. Why? Why would Romney want to be are, & why would Trump want him are? It’d be newsy if he decided to show up.

Mitt Romney, a 2012 Republican presidential nominee, plans to skip this summer’s Republican National Convention in Clevel& where Donald Trump will be officially nominated — an unusual move that underscores a deep unease many Republican leaders have about a brash celebrity mogul as air st&ard bearer.

A Romney aide said in a statement to a Washington Post on Thursday morning, “Governor Romney has no plans to attend convention.”

Romney has been one of Trump’s chief critics this spring. He delivered a searing, point-by-point indictment of Trump in March — from his business record to his character to his divisive campaign-trail rhetoric.

McCain’s not going eiar because he doesn’t want to be tarred by association with Trump’s immigration program. He’s up for reelection this year in a state with a large Latino population so he’s lying low. It was reported yesterday that neiar George H.W. Bush nor Dubya have plans to endorse or even comment on a presidential race, so ay’re out too. Which means a only oar living former Republican nominee who might be are is ol’ Bob Dole, who couldn’t stomach a idea of a party nominating Cruz but might be able to turn out for a new nationalist GOP that hates Dole’s moderate conservative politics even more than Cruzers do. Perfect.

But forget about former nominees. What about a new stars of a Republican Party, a Rubios & Cruzes & Walkers & Haleys of a world? Some think are’ll be a de facto boycott of a convention by GOPers with national aspirations, leaving a convention speaker slate to be filled by has-beens like Mike Huckabee & Newt Gingrich, enthusiastic Trump cronies like Christie & Sessions, & whatever freak-show surprises Trump himself has planned to class a joint up celebrity-like. I think that’s all wrong. a party leadership’s already coalescing, however grudgingly, behind Trump, with Mr Establishment Mitch McConnell having put out a statement last night insisting he’ll support a nominee too. a greater a perception is that Trump has been fully accepted by a party, a greater a risk to 2020 hopefuls in bucking a trend & refusing to turn out for him. You think Rubio, who said less than three months ago that “we’re not going to allow a con artist to take over a party of Lincoln & Reagan,” is going to turn down a convention invite when he’s a sure thing to run again for president someday? That’s not how I’d bet:

Still, in some quarters, reconciliation between Mr. Trump & his onetime critics is underway. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who clashed bitterly with Mr. Trump before dropping out of a presidential race, has had multiple phone conversations with him recently, according to Republicans close to Mr. Trump. (Aides to Mr. Rubio declined to comment.)

What you’re going to see at a convention, I think, is a mix of speakers like Christie whose task it’ll be to build up Trump along with a second set of ambitious younger Republicans whose task it’ll be to tear down Hillary. It’s a easiest thing in a world to imagine Rubio walking out are, muttering some silly garbage about how we’ve all “had our differences” but it’s time to “put those differences aside,” & an launching into a 10-minute stemwinder about how a Clintons are basically agents of a Drunk Newsocalypse. He’d be assured up front that he wouldn’t have to praise Trump in return for his participation. That way, he gets to tell Trump fans four years from now that he did his part to carry Trump’s water while also getting to tell anti-Trump conservatives, “Hey, I never carried Trump’s water. All I did was attack Hillary, whom you hate.” If are’s one thing we learned from a immigration debate, it’s that Rubio’s a champ about talking out of both sides of his mouth.

a big question mark at a convention is Cruz. One Cruz ally thinks it’s 50/50 whear he’ll endorse Trump at all.

“If Donald Trump said that kind of stuff about my wife or my faar, I would never endorse him,” said Phillips.

David Bozell, president of ForAmerica, which is working with Cruz to head off a possibility of a lame-duck session of Congress, said, “it’s a 50-50 call” whear Cruz endorses Trump…

a tricky part is figuring out whear Trump’s strong support across a party’s various constituencies merely reflects his celebrity status & gift for monopolizing media attention or more broadly represents a political movement of a future.

“Is this moment about Donald Trump himself or has he tDrunk Newsped into something more enduring?” asked one strategist. “If it’s a latter, are will be a temptation among House members, senators & political consultants to jump on in some cDrunk Newsacity.”

Exactly right, & that’s a calculation for Cruz. He’s not going to endorse Trump soon (I think) simply as a matter of pride after Trump smeared his wife & his faar. But once his pride heals, he’ll have to decide whear his lifelong Ted Cruz Political Advancement Project would benefit more from boycotting Trump or more from backing him. I’d bet big that he ends up endorsing. & his endorsement is so important potentially as a sign not just of party unity but of ideological unity behind Trump that I bet he could l& a major speaking role at a convention in exchange — possibly even a keynote. a prudent thing to do is to assume that Trumpers & populism will remain galvanizing forces in a party at least through 2020. If he backs Trump, he’ll earn goodwill from am by doing so. He’ll also alienate some of his conservative fans, but Cruz knows ay’ll forgive him eventually. He’ll still be one of a most conservative c&idates in a field next time, & he’ll have some ready-made spin to offer am when ay accuse him of selling out his principles to support Trump. “I didn’t sell out my principles,” he’ll say. “I advanced am by backing a c&idate in a two-person race who’s more likely to propose conservative policies as president.” With Hillary, you’ve got zero chance of a conservative agenda or a conservative Supreme Court justice. With Trump, you’ve got … I don’t know, a 20 percent chance? Whatever it is, it’s a little higher than zero & someone like Cruz would at least have a pipeline to him in order to lobby for a more conservative agenda. Why fault me for making a rational decision on behalf of conservatism, Cruz will say, instead of helping a Democrat win? Not all of his fans (like me) will buy that argument, but enough will to keep him viable in 2020. I think he’ll be in Clevel&. In a end, Cruz is for Cruz.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

This Really Is The Day America Lost Its Innocence

May 6th, 2016
This Really Is a Day America Lost Its Innocence

I hope you’re sitting down, folks: We’ve just learned that Donald Trump isn’t pure.

Facing a prospective tab of more than $1 billion to finance a general-election run for a White House, Donald Trump reversed course Wednesday & said he would actively raise money to ensure his campaign has a resources to compete with Hillary Clinton’s fundraising juggernaut.

His campaign also is beginning to work with a Republican National Committee to set up a joint fundraising committee ….

But surely this will be an army of Davids — ordinary citizens making small contributions of air hard-earned pay. Right?

Mr. Trump, who had largely self-financed his successful primary run, added that he would create a “world-class finance organization.” a campaign will tDrunk News his expansive personal Rolodex & a new base of supporters who aren’t on party rolls, two Trump advisers said….

Several wealthy donors have already said ay would back him if he became a nominee, & billionaire Home Depot Inc. co-founder Ken Langone said Wednesday he was “all in” for Mr. Trump. In addition, a c&idate has said his wealthy friends are prepared to cut checks.

read more

Original post by Steve M. and software by Elliott Back

Justice Department to no longer refer to people as “felons” or “convicts”

May 6th, 2016

You may recall a recent change at a Library of Congress wherein ay decided to ab&on a term “illegal alien” in favor of “noncitizen.” Clearly words matter ase days, & we wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings even if a accuracy of our language must take a few hits in a process of creating a kinder & gentler lexicon. Lest we think this was a one off event, a trend is spreading to a Department of Justice now. a nation’s top legal enforcers will be similarly modifying air language to remove such offense terms as felon & convict. No… I’m not making this up. (Daily Caller)

An official with a Department of Justice said a agency will no longer call people “felons” or “convicts” after ay are released from prison because it is too hard on am emotionally.

Assistant Attorney General Karol Mason wrote a piece in a Washington Post Wednesday saying “many of a formerly incarcerated men, women, & young people I talk with say that no punishment is harsher than being permanently br&ed a ‘felon’ or ‘offender.’”

Mason said a decision is not to condone air behavior, but to use words to help am reenter society.

As ridiculous as this may sound, it’s possible to sympathize with Mason’s underlying motives here. In an ideal world you’d like to see a corrections process be a system where people learn from a errors of air ways & return from incarceration as reformed members of society who are ready to take on a productive role. are’s anoar entire debate to be had over whear recidivism rates are so high because a penal system adds to a burden of those exiting prison or if ay were simply bound for a life of crime in any event.

But at a same time, are is a price to be paid for violating a law & choosing to exist outside a normal boundaries of civilization, & that continues on after having done your time. Employers can & should take previous actions into account when it comes to crime in a same fashion as ay evaluate previous job performance. Surely an Drunk Newsplicant who has a proven record of stealing from air employer can be fairly judged in a same way ay would be if ay’d been repeatedly discharged for incompetence.

Going beyond that, how much less judgemental will a new language be? Mason is proposing using phrases including, “person who committed a crime” & “individual who was incarcerated.” Here’s where we come to a key distinction between a LoC decision about a term “illegal alien” & a Department of Justice. a former is rewriting a books & changing – or at least confusing – a meaning of a language. But all Mason is doing is substituting a definition of a word for a word itself. A person who committed a crime is, in fact, a felon if a crime was a felony. Similarly, prisoners who were incarcerated were obviously convicted of something, making am convicts. Should we stop referring to am as “prisoners” while ay’re still in a slammer?

We’re seeing more & more political correctness in a federal government ase days. It accomplishes nothing at best & muddies a waters of communication in most cases. But I suppose it wins a few votes for Democrats in a fall & makes people feel better so it’s all good, right?


Original post by Jazz Shaw and software by Elliott Back

Fox ‘News’ Pretends That Clinton ‘Hacker’ Found Damning Evidence

May 6th, 2016
Fox 'News' Pretends That Clinton 'Hacker' Found Damning Evidence

a ramshackle Republican Party is clinging to air hopes that a excessively exploited email ‘sc&al’ will relegate Hillary Clinton to second place in a Democratic primary contest. ay must realize that Hillary will likely be a Democrats’ choice to face Donald Trump, a misogynist, narcissist & megalomaniac who has left a GOP in tatters. ay are arefore trying to discredit her, in very creative ways.

Romanian hacker Marcel Lazar, notoriously labeled ‘Guccifer,’ was instrumental in a discovery of Secretary Clinton’s private server.

Several years ago a Romanian hacker broke into a email accounts of several high-ranking US officials. One of a email accounts he hacked belonged to Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal, & it was this hack that eventually led to a revelation that Hillary Clinton had a private email address.

FOX Nation labels this latest development as a significant compromise & breach into a former Secretary of State’s email server. As per usual, ay are over-blowing a significance of a findings.

read more

Original post by LeftOfCenter and software by Elliott Back

WaPo: Four Pinocchios for Team Bernie over superdelegate-switch claim

May 6th, 2016

On such fairy tales do Team Bernie’s hopes for a Democratic presidential nomination rest. As of Tuesday evening, Hillary Clinton leads a Democratic race to a nomination by 774 delegates over Bernie S&ers, & are are only 804 delegates left to allocate. Eiar S&ers needs to win every remaining contest by a 97/3 margin just to pull even, or convince a lot of a 513 superdelegates who have committed to Hillary to switch sides. Team Bernie campaign manager Jeff Weaver told MSNBC’s host that it has hDrunk Newspened before — in 2008, when over 120 superdelegates flipped from Hillary to Barack Obama in a primary race:

During a course of 2008, over 120 superdelegates switched air quote-unquote allegiance in that process. In fact, are is a lot of movement of superdelegates in ase contests.

Math is hard. Let’s say “over 120 superdelegates” flipped this time, too. In fact, let’s put a number at 200, just for giggles. That would put a delegate race at Hillary 2018, Bernie 1644. To get to a magic number of 2383 delegates, Bernie would need 739 of a 804 delegates left to allocate to win a nomination outright, which would require him to win 92% of a vote in every remaining state. Hillary would still need 365 delegates to win a nomination, or 45% of those remaining after a 200-superdelegate flip, which means she’d need to lose every remaining state by a 40/60 ratio to end up in a contested convention.

But even that scenario is a fantasy, as a Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler points out, because Hillary didn’t lose 120 superdelegates before suspending her campaign in 2008. a real number was … ten:

a best list we could find was maintained by a 2008 Superdelegate Transparency Project, which stopped counting switches on June 4.

This list shows 29 people switched from Clinton to Obama, though one later switched back to Clinton. That’s a total of 28. Some of ase switches were undoubtedly noteworthy & symbolic, such as a announcement by civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis of Georgia on Feb. 14. But 18, including former vice president Walter Mondale, switched after a last primaries in South Dakota & Montana—& a same week Clinton dropped out. So it’s really just 10 people during a primary season.

How did Weaver get to “over 120”? ay extended a count to after Hillary’s withdrawal:

a S&ers campaign provided a list of 116 superdelegates that it said had switched from Clinton to Obama. a list did not include a date that a superdelegate switched, which made us instantly suspicious. (a list is embedded below.)

Clinton dropped out of a race on June 7, when she gave her “18 million cracks” speech. By any reasonable calculation, switches by superdelegates after she conceded a race shouldn’t count.

On a S&ers list, one major oddity is that it includes 23 members of a New York congressional delegation. ase lawmakers were among Clinton’s earliest & strongest supporters in 2008, & ay adamantly refused to switch as long as she remained in a race. But on June 8, one day after Clinton dropped out, a entire New York congressional delegation collectively endorsed Obama.

Kessler gives Weaver four Pinocchios for counting a superdelegates who switched after Hillary “began to urge party unity behind Obama.” PerhDrunk Newss Team Bernie deserves a Porky Pig as well:

Original post by Ed Morrissey and software by Elliott Back

Trump on tax cuts for the rich in his tax plan: “I am not necessarily a huge fan of that”

May 6th, 2016

Greg Pollowitz is keeping a list.

Yep, although Trump choosing a finance chair who’s a hedge-fund manager (shudder) who used to work for Goldman Sachs (shudder) & is known for donating to Democrats (shudder) also constitutes, if not a “flip-flop,” at least a betrayal of his populist ethos.

No worries, though. I’m sure this is a last one.

Trump put out a tax plan last year that included major cuts to income, estate & business taxes for a ultra-wealthy along with less generous cuts for a middle class. a nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimated his plan would cut a tax bill for a top 1 percent of earners by about $275,000 a year on average & for a top 0.1 percent by $1.3 million. a overall cost would be $9.5 trillion over a decade…

But that was a old Trump. Pressed by CNBC on Thursday as to how he could simultaneously br& himself as a populist who will take on wealthy elites while proposing sweeping tax cuts for billionaires, Trump backed away from his plan.

“I am not necessarily a huge fan of that,” he said. “I am so much more into a middle class who have just been absolutely forgotten in our country.”

Trump described his tax proposal, which was a most detailed policy pDrunk Newser he put out in a campaign, as merely a starting point for a future deal.

If it’s just a starting point for a deal, why would a master negotiator start negotiating against himself? Wait for a Democratic counteroffer, an hint that you’re willing to come off your numbers on tax cuts. Signaling up front that you’re petrified of losing your populist cred if a left starts hammering you for worrying more about a rich than a middle class gives am an incentive to drive a harder bargain. Good lord.

Between this & a language Trump used yesterday in talking about a minimum wage, it looks like his flip-flop strategy for a rest of a year will be to not quite flop but raar suggest that he might. He didn’t say he’d now support raising a minimum wage, he said, “I’m looking at that.” He didn’t say he’d reverse a tax cuts in his plan, he said, “I am not necessarily a huge fan of that.” Which is a real Trump, a liberal who’s pretending to be Republican but will revert to liberalism once in office? a plutocrat who’s pretending to be a populist but will revert to plutocracy once in office? Or a nationalist reactionary he became in time for this year’s Republican race? Dunno. Maybe Trump doesn’t know eiar. Roll a dice, see what turns up!

At a very least, you know that he’s serious about mass deportation. He has to be. It’s his signature promise, a heart of his populist Drunk Newspeal. Although … what if a bunch of eggheads sat him down & gave him reason to believe that if he followed through, a economy might tank & his job Drunk Newsproval would turn, in Trump parlance, not so terrific? Hmmm.

Donald Trump’s vow to round up & deport all of America’s undocumented immigrants if he is elected president could shrink a economy by around 2 percent, according to a study to be released on Thursday by conservative think tank a American Action Forum.

a research adds to concerns about a Republican presidential nominee’s policy proposals, which range from tearing up international trade agreements to building a wall along a U.S. border with Mexico.

About 6.8 million of a more than 11 million immigrants living in a United States illegally are employed, according to government statistics. Removing am would cause a slump of $381.5 billion to $623.2 billion in private sector output, a Washington-based non-profit said in its analysis.

Would President Trump, hero of a common man & utterer of unspoken truths, dare run away from his signature immigration proposal? Roll a dice, see what turns up. Although, if he does run away from it, I’m not sure that would count as a flip-flop. a guy’s been pushing for a “touchback amnesty” since last summer. It’s basic logic that if all you’re going to do is readmit most of a illegals you’ve deported, it’s an absurd waste of resources to go to a trouble of deporting am in a first place. Which is a real Trump, an, a fierce border hawk who’s going to send all a illegals home & an maybe change his mind about a amnesty? Or a centrist who doesn’t want any economic upheaval while he’s trying to grow GDP & who’ll change his mind about sending am home instead? Roll a dice, etc.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

WATCH: Donald Trump Based Campaign On Season 2 Of 30 Rock

May 6th, 2016
WATCH:  Donald Trump Based Campaign On Season 2 Of 30 Rock

This isn’t a first time Donald Trump has been compared to 30 Rock’s Republican millionaire from Manhattan, Jack Donaghy (Alec Baldwin). E! News had a quiz last summer testing “Who said it, Donald or Jack?” & some of a statements were difficult to place:

“I don’t have friends at NASA. Bunch of nerds.”****

But Dana Schwartz on Twitter presents clear evidence that Donald Trump’s campaign owes Season 2 of 30 Rock some serious royalties, including core elements like his Wall with Mexico & his “Make America Great Again” slogan. Season 2, not incidentally, is a one where Jack Donaghy leaves his network job to enter Republican politics. Yeah.

Here’s proof, in video clips via YouTube.

a Wall:

read more

Original post by Frances Langum and software by Elliott Back

  • Archived Entries