#NCDems de facto leader: “GOP doesn’t like little black girls .. in the WH” (VIDEO)

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
NC NAACP President / Rev. William Barber

NC NAACP President / Rev. William Barber, NC’s version of Al Sharpton.

The far left Daily Kos-led Netroots Nation conference was held this past weekend and, not to be outdone by the other extremist speakers who would get their chance at the mic after him, NC NAACP’s Rev. William “Moral Monday” Barber made sure to remind the Democrat party faithful in his opening keynote of what he (and they) perceive are the ‘real’ reasons why Republicans pass laws like Voter ID and refuse to budge on President Obama’s agenda:

At the Netroots Nation conference over the weekend, Barber, who is director of the North Carolina NAACP said Republicans are blocking Obama because ‘they don’t like little black girls having pajama parties in the WH’ [source]

Not shocking at all that Barber’s deliberately hateful, racially-charged rhetoric was welcomed with open arms and wild applause at the conference considering how he’s captivated activist liberals here in North Carolina who are sick over their party losing power in 2010 and 2012 at the state level after over a century of Democrat domination. It’s still a bit of a surprise, however, to see how Democrats who normally scream about the separation of church and state so openly embrace Barber’s pathetic attempts at essentially saying Jesus was a liberal by way of continuing to promote socialism through spiritualism. Via a Daily Kos report on his speech:

Rev. Barber had a rather funny moment in a very serious speech. He told his liberal friends that he does not understand why many of them do not like the Bible. He stated that the core of liberal values are codified in the text of the Bible.

“It is extreme and immoral to suppress the right to vote,” Reverend Barber said. “It is extreme and immoral to deny Medicaid for millions of poor people especially people who have been elected to office and then insurance simply because they’ve been elected. It is extreme and immoral to raise taxes on the working poor and cutting earned income taxes, and to raise taxes on the poor and the middle class in order to cut taxes for the wealthy. It is extreme and immoral to use power to cut off people’s water in Detroit. … It is extreme and immoral to end unemployment for those who have lost jobs for no fault of their own. It is extreme and immoral to re-segregate our schools and underfund our public schools. It is extreme and immoral for people who came from immigrants to now to have a mean amnesia and cry out against immigrants and the rights of children. It is mean, it is immoral, it is extreme to kick hardworking people when they are down. That’s not just bad policy. It’s against the common good and a disregard for human rights. … In fact, this kind of philosophy rooted in the policies of immoral deconstruction, if you look at them carefully, they are historically inaccurate, they are constitutionally inconsistent, they are morally indefensible, and they are economically insane.”

Rev. Barber ended his speech as if we were in church. He asked the Netroots attendees to allow him three minutes of church. And church was to be had for those three to five minutes that ended with a completely engaged and electrified audience.

Evidently, the Democrats at NN 14 were no different than the ones here in North Carolina. On one hand saying “no!!!!!!” to “religion in government” but on the other hand becoming completely comfortable using a controversial left-wing pastor to justify his/their calls for ‘social justice through the power of government’ by suggesting belief in big government not only is the answer, but that it also makes you a ‘real Christian.’ This duplicitous behavior is not unlike the left’s national calls for a kinder, gentler “New Tone” and “NO HATE” while simultaneously characterizing your political opposition “racists/misogynists.” I wish these dum dums would make up their bleeping minds.

Moral Monday

At left, a Moral Monday protester. At right, Moral Monday ”spiritual leader” William Barber. Um, huh? (Photo via Don Carrington/Carolina Journal)

(Hat tip: Carolina Plott Hound)

Diane Ravitch launches sexist attack on Campbell Brown over teacher tenure

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Liberal academic bias

(Image via the Washington Times)

Why? Oh, because Brown just happens to be a proponent of teacher tenure reform. And for that, Ravitch suggests the former CNN host is – essentially – just another pretty face:

Brown, 46, has become an articulate voice and recognizable face opposing tenure, the century-old system of laws and contractual guarantees giving public-school teachers due-process rights in layoffs and terminations. Brown argues that tenure makes it difficult and expensive for school systems to remove underperforming teachers, and it protects their jobs at the expense of their students.

“I’m a mom, and my view of public education begins and ends with the fundamental question: Is this good for children?” Brown says by phone from New York, where she lives. “In a situation where it’s the child or the adult, I’m going with the child. .?.?. Tenure is permanent lifetime employment. There’s no reason why anyone’s job should become untouchable for the rest of their life.”

Campbell the journalist might interrupt an interview subject to take exception to that kind of generalization. Teachers unions and their advocates say tenure — instituted to prevent widespread abuses of a female-dominated workforce — doesn’t guarantee much beyond a fair hearing. Tenured teachers deemed ineffective or negligent, after hearings and evaluations, are fired, they point out.

[…]

“I have trouble with this issue because it’s so totally illogical,” says Diane Ravitch, an education historian. “It’s hard to understand why anyone thinks taking away teachers’ due-process rights will lead to great teachers in every classroom.”

As for Brown, Ravitch is dismissive: “She is a good media figure because of her looks, but she doesn’t seem to know or understand anything about teaching and why tenure matters. .?.?. I know it sounds sexist to say that she is pretty, but that makes her telegenic, even if what she has to say is total nonsense.”

Far be it from me to stoop to the level this so-called “education historian” did by snidely boiling down Brown’s popularity and smarts to her looks, but I have no idea – none at all – why the woman would come across as jealous of another woman’s looks. None whatsoever.

Diane Ravitch

Diane Ravitch

Continuing on, I don’t know her political leanings but Ravitch displays the typical behavior of a left wing feminist educrat know it all who thinks not only do they know best how to educate children and young adults, but that anyone who disagrees with them must be dismissed as “extreme” or “all hat no substance” — as a person whose opinions are not worthy of serious consideration.   By doing that, self-important elitists like Ravitch can therefore summarily without a second thought dismiss a person’s arguments without taking the time to read and/or hear them and later provide a reasonable analysis after careful consideration.  

Jon Chait, no friend to conservative education reformers by any stretch nevertheless slammed Ravitch here on a multitude of levels:

Why, yes, that does sound rather sexist. Now, Ravitch suggests here that Brown’s analysis is so transparently illogical that perhaps only her looks can account for her views. Why, Ravitch wonders, would the elimination of a job protection help attract better teachers? Let me reveal, via the power of logic, how this can work.

The basic problem is that some proportion of American teachers is terrible at their job and immune to improvement, yet removing them is a practical impossibility. (A good overview of the research on chronically ineffective teachers can be found here. Standard caveat: The author is my wife.) Under some conditions, loosening tenure laws can lead directly to more effective teachers in the classroom. For instance, when the Great Recession drove states to lay off teachers in order to balance their budgets, last-in, first-out hiring rules led them to fire teachers regardless of quality, thus removing highly effective (yet unprotected) teachers from classrooms.

[…]

In most fields, your pay is based on your perceived value rather than on the number of years you have spent on the job. Value-based pay does not work perfectly in any field. It certainly doesn’t work perfectly in my field, which explains, for instance, Howard Kurtz’s rumored extravagant wealth. Yet if we stopped paying journalists on the basis of their perceived value and started paying them on the basis of time served, I’d argue it would reduce the quality of journalism.

Opponents of reform relentlessly pick apart the various performance pay measures that are being implemented by reformers, and it’s true that none of those measures is perfect, either. But nearly all of them work better than paying people on the basis of how long they’ve held a job and making it functionally impossible to fire them for being terrible at their job. In places like Washington, D.C., education reformers have given teachers a chance to forfeit their tenure in return for the possibility of much higher pay.

Whatever side of this issue a person is on is irrelevant to how the debate over it is conducted.  Ravitch’s sneers and condescending attitude towards disagreement in any form are beneath contempt and, frankly, are not worthy of the children for who she claims to be fighting. Time to grow up, ma’am. As many in your circle have often said in the past, this is not about you. It’s about the children.  So stop acting like one.

WH @PressSec stands by “most transparent admin in history” claim

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
I wonder if even they laugh over some of the ridiculous claims they make?

I wonder if even they laugh over some of the ridiculous claims they make?

Continuing in the predictably dishonest fashion of Obama press secretaries before him, Josh Earnest went on CNN’s Reliable Sources yesterday and said he “absolutely” stood by the White House’s continued claims of being “the most transparent administration in history”: 

The White House on Sunday stood by President Obama’s position that he continues to be the most transparent president in U.S. history, despite widespread complaints from journalists and other Americans about a lack of information or apparent misinformation.

“I have a responsibility in this job to try to help the president live up to his commitment to be the most transparent president in history,” new White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said on CNN’s “Reliable Sources.”

Earnest said he “absolutely, absolutely” sticks by Obama’s line about having the most transparent administration, after continued criticism about apparent attempts to not make full disclosures.

Among the criticisms are that the president and his administration misled Americans by telling them they could keep their existing health insurance plans under ObamaCare, intentionally tried to conceal what sparked the 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya in which four Americans were killed and prosecuted federal employees who should have been protected under the whistleblower protection act.

Last week, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Poynter Institute and others sent a letter to Obama complaining about the lack of access to information from federal agencies, citing several recent examples.

Hmm. Well, I would agree this has been the “most transparent administration in history”, except it’s a sure bet that Earnest and the rest of ObamaCo have a vastly different definition of “transparent” than mine.  You see, “transparent” in this particular situation to me equates to “seeing right through your misrepresentations and lies to your true intentions.” Earnest’s, I suspect, is something else entirely ….

Fearmongering Pelosi: We should “be afraid” of “five guys” on #SCOTUS

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Pelosi and Assad

”We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace.” – Pelosi on Assad, April 2007. But ‘five guys’ on the Supreme Court are frightening … SMH.

Considering the depth of ignorance on display here, it’s astonishing  how high this woman has risen in power in Congress over the last couple of decades. Then again, maybe not, considering how Democrats think and operate:

Americans should live in fear of the Supreme Court, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday.

Hammering a pair of recent rulings related to birth control access, the House minority leader suggested the conservative-leaning court is stealing women’s freedoms when it comes to making healthcare choices.

“We should be afraid of this court. That five guys should start determining what contraceptions are legal or not. … It is so stunning,” Pelosi said during a press briefing in the Capitol.

Pelosi said last week’s Supreme Court ruling that the birth control mandate under President Obama’s healthcare reform law is a violation of religious freedom was particularly egregious.

“That court decision was a frightening one,” she said. “That five men should get down to the specifics of whether a woman should use a diaphragm and she should pay for it herself or her boss. It’s not her boss’s business. His business is whatever his business is. But it’s not what contraception she uses.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again in hopes it will sink in with the clueless: By forcing your boss to pay for healthcare options that go against his or her religious conscience, you ARE putting them in the middle of your healthcare decisions.  Furthermore, you’ve told them that their religious rights should be laid at the feet of the state simply because you want something that you think shouldn’t have to pay for.  Not only that, but in the case of Hobby Lobby, it already offers – and continues to offer – healthcare coverage for sixteen types pf birth control.  It wanted nothing to do, however, with abortifacients, which was the issue at the heart of their case against the Obama administration.

But we’ve rehashed that again and again. What I want to address is the sexism, yes, outright sexism Pelosi – and other female Democrat politicos and so-called “woman’s rights activists” on the left who’ve uttered similar remarks – has blatantly exhibited here, and how this disturbing double standard has unfortunately become “acceptable” over the years because too few have dared to question it and/or call it out.  Her implication here is that if we’d just had a Supreme Court full of women, they’ve have never ruled this way.  To Pelosi, there’s no way the five (male) justices who ruled the way they did in the Hobby Lobby case could have done so for any other reason other than they hate women or, at the very least, want to see them relegated back to being barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.    Keep in mind that Pelosi has offered no legal basis for her disagreement with the high court’s decision, so we’re left to assume that not only does she believe the “five guys” are misogynists, but also that she’s in favor of women on the court ruling based on feelings rather than the law.  And here you thought, by the standards that Democrats themselves have set, that it was wrong to believe women make judgment calls based purely on their emotions.

Lastly, I want you to imagine for a second that we did have a majority female Supreme Court, and how high the level of outrage would be nationwide if anyone on the right condemned a case ruling based solely on the sex of the justices who ruled for or against it.   We’d be at Code Red on the outrage meter, and understandably so.  That we’re not when it comes to “reverse sexism” just shows how successful feminists on the left have been over the years at demonizing men and demagoguing and dumbing down the debate over women’s rights issues – and issues that go beyond women’s rights but are nevertheless hijacked by “feminists” for their own warped agendas.  That needs to change.

Sore #guncontrol loser Mike Bloomberg sneers at “rural” Colorado recall cities

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Mike Bloomberg

Nanny state proponent/movement
leader Michael Bloomberg.

The ugly face of liberal elitism rears its ugly head. Via the Colorado Observer (hat tip):

DENVER — In what may come as a surprise to residents of Colorado Springs and Pueblo, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg doesn’t think those cities have roads.

Bloomberg told Rolling Stone that he was “sorry” about the recalls of two state senators last year over the Democratic state legislature’s gun-control laws, but added that their districts were so “rural” that, “I don’t think there’s roads.”

“In Colorado, we got a law passed. The NRA went after two or three state senators in a part of Colorado where I don’t think there’s roads,” said Bloomberg in the interview published online Wednesday.

“It’s as far rural as you can get,” said Bloomberg. “And, yes, they lost recall elections. I’m sorry for that. We tried to help ‘em. But the bottom line is, the law is on the books, and being enforced. You can get depressed about the progress, but on the other hand, you’re saving a lot of lives.”

That interview is no longer available on the Rolling Stone website, but the Colorado Republican Party discovered the quote about Colorado before it was taken down. [Note from ST: Wonder why it was taken down? Hmm.]

Colorado Republicans were floored by the comments.

“Michael Bloomberg is absolutely out of touch with the values of Pueblo,” said state Sen. George Rivera (R-Pueblo). “In Pueblo, we value our Second Amendment rights and we don’t appreciate East Coast elites stereotyping us as some area so remote that we don’t even have roads.”

Rivera was elected to the state Senate in the Sept. 10 recall election that resulted in the ouster of state Sen. Angela Giron (D-Pueblo).

“Pueblo is a proud city composed of proud people from all different walks of life, and, while it might be hard for a New York billionaire to comprehend, we do in fact have roads and running water,” said Rivera in a statement. “I promise the people of Pueblo I will never sit idly by as outsiders insult our outstanding community.”

Denver’s KDVR has more:

The successful recalls last September occurred in Colorado Springs, the state’s second largest city, and Pueblo, its seventh largest.

The gun laws did trigger a secession movement by 11 rural northeastern Colorado counties as well, something Bloomberg may have conflated with the recall efforts.

But for Colorado Republicans eager for any chance to remind voters of Bloomberg’s influence on their Democratic governor , the comments are an election year gift.

“Just for the record, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, and Jefferson County all have roads. I just traveled them,” said Bob Beauprez, Hickenlooper’s GOP challenger. “Michael Bloomberg’s infuriatingly ignorant remarks show how far removed he is from Colorado, and how wrong John Hickenlooper was to let Bloomberg force his radical agenda on Colorado.

“It’s pathetic a New York City Mayor had more influence in our governor’s office than our state’s sheriffs.”

Colorado GOP Chairman Ryan Call added: “This is what one of Sen. Udall and Gov. Hickenlooper’s top supporters thinks of Colorado.

“It’s astonishing that Gov. Hickenlooper would discuss important legislation with Mayor Bloomberg, who obviously doesn’t respect or understand the people of our great state, but refused to speak to Colorado sheriffs.  No wonder the governor lied to our state’s sheriffs, instead of admitting that he spoke to Mayor Bloomberg on multiple occasions.”

Ouch!  Sounds like the former NYC mayor and leader of the nanny state movement has gotten on the bad side of Colorado Republicans, to say the least. Talk about am election-year gift!

Sidenote: Let’s just imagine for five seconds the nationwide purple-faced outrage that would have ensued from this had it been, say, Mitt Romney who made the condescending comments. As  usual with Democrats, the double standard is alive and well …

Pres. Obama on border crisis: I’m “not interested in photo ops”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
The joke is on you, Mr. President.

The joke is on you, Mr. President.

Once again, our celebrity President opens his mouth and inserts his foot. From the Washington Post:

DALLAS — President Obama on Wednesday forcefully defended his decision not to visit the Texas border with Mexico to view a burgeoning humanitarian crisis, saying he’s “not interested in photo ops” and challenging Congress to give him new authority to respond to the situation.

“Nothing has taken place down there that I’m not intimately aware of,” Obama said during a hastily arranged news conference here, where he began a two-day visit to the state for Democratic fundraising and an economic event. “This is not theater.”

His remarks came after a meeting with Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) and local leaders to discuss his administration’s response to an influx of tens of thousands of foreign children, mostly from Central America, who have entered the state illegally.

Obama, under mounting pressure from members of both parties to view the border situation firsthand, said he has been well briefed by his Cabinet aides and called on Congress to quickly approve $3.7 billion in emergency funding to help manage the influx.

“This is not theater”? He’s “not interested in photo ops”? Hmm, that’s never stopped him before:


See more Obama photo op reminders via Twitchy Team.

What he darned well knows is that visiting the border wouldn’t be a “photo op” because photo ops are designed by nature to make politicians look good, and this would have exactly the opposite effect on his image by making him look exactly like what he is: weak and ineffective – especially considering the current crisis at the border has his name written all over it. Really unbelievable the stuff this guy tries pass off as ‘fact’! These days, though, there are many even in the reliably left wing media not willing to give him a free pass anymore. Thank goodness.

Memo to Senator Reid: Justice Clarence Thomas is black, not white

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Senator Harry Reid

Um….

Losing it in more ways than one. Via ABC News:

Senate Democrats said they plan to unveil legislation in the coming weeks in response to the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in the Hobby Lobby contraception case.

“This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous, and we’re going to do something about it,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters on Capitol Hill today. “People are going to have to walk down here and vote, and if they vote with the five men on the Supreme Court, I think it’s — they’re going to have — be treated unfavorably come November with the elections.”

Reid said the Senate needed to do something to “ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men.”

Look, I know liberals view Justice Thomas as “black in color only” – meaning they think he’s only black on the surface (meaning he’s a “sellout to his people” or whatever) but the least the despicable Majority Leader of the United States Senate could do as a show of basic, common decency is to pretend in public that’s not what he thinks. Sheesh.

The Left’s obsession with the Redskins

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Everything is political

Everything is political

Amidst all the other outrageous outrages that outrage the outraged Left these days, you may have noticed a controversy (well, controversial to the Left) over the team name of the Washington Redskins, a name the team has used for over 80 years with no one complaining (1).

Well, no one until Harry Reid, the national Democrats, and the Left (but I repeat myself) decided they needed something, anything, to distract people from the failures of Obamacare and the lousy economy (and the crashing foreign policy and… Well, you get the idea.). Hence, in the last year or so, the professional Left has turned on the Redskins, decrying their name as offensive, hateful, and …brace yourselves… “racist” against American Indians. (2) The way they carry on, you’d think they were fighting the civil rights battles of the 50s and 60s all over again.

And, in fact, according to Dennis Prager, that is indeed one of the reasons the Left has gone bonkers over the team name: it makes them feel good, as if they’re reliving the battles of their fathers and grandfathers. Call it a self-esteem booster shot. Writing at Real Clear Politics, he give four additional reasons for the Left’s mania. It’s a good article, so click through for the rest, but I want to highlight one that I think cuts to the root of the matter:

Fifth, and finally, the left is totalitarian at heart. Whenever possible, they seek control of others; and they love to throw their considerable weight around. The left-wing president does it so often that the Supreme Court has unanimously shot down his attempts on a dozen occasions. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, under huge pressure from leftists, just dropped conservative Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist George Will. Under pressure from left-wing professors and students, Brandeis and other universities dropped the few conservative speakers they had invited to this year’s commencement exercises. Forcing the Redskins to do their will is just the left’s latest attempt to force its views on the vast majority of its fellow citizens. That’s why it’s worth fighting for the Redskins. Today it’s the Redskins, tomorrow it’s you.

Emphasis added. Ever hear the expression “the personal is the political?” It was a rallying cry of the student movement and leftist feminists in the 60s that argued there was no separation between daily life (work, play, family, sports, &c.) and what we think of as traditional politics (elections, legislation, and so on). Every aspect of your personal life, including your recreation, is as much open to politics as is your choice of party to support. Support a team the name of which some faction finds politically incorrect, and you’ll be subject to political action to make you change your ways and the way you think. Our Betters on the Left know what’s best for us all and they have a driving urge to make sure we all conform.

Even if all you want to do is watch your favorite team and forget about the world for a while.

Footnote:
(1) There’s a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center showing that less than ten percent of American Indians find the name “Redskins” offensive. It’s from 2004, however, so it might be interesting to resurvey that.
(2) No disrespect intended to members of the various tribal nations, but I’ve never liked the term “Native American” when referring to the descendants of the people who were here before the European colonization. I was born here, my parents were born here, my grandparents were born here, and so were most of my great-grandparents. I’m native to America, too, and I refuse to use a term that in any way slights my right to be here.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

The return of President Obama – the “Healer in Chief”?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Newsweek's Obama cover

‘Second Coming’? I don’t think so.

Not this garbage again:

Rep. Luis Gutierrez said Tuesday that President Barack Obama has the power to “heal” undocumented immigrants.

“If [Republicans] want to come back and discuss [reform], fine,” the Illinois Democrat said on MSNBC. “But in the interim period, I believe the president of the United States has already in statute, in the law, the ability to heal and put in a safe harbor millions of undocumented immigrants while the Congress of the United States finally decides it’s going to take action.”

[…]

Gutierrez said he does not have much optimism when it comes to comprehensive reform coming out of Congress. Instead, he said that he hopes the steps from Obama will start to get the ball rolling on immigration policies.

“Just as Republicans have said, ‘No, no, no,’ I expect the president to be broad, expansive and generous in the use of his prosecutorial discretion,” Gutierrez said.

Let’s clear up the confusion on this – again. Politicians are not “healers”, they are not “saviors”, they are not “the next coming of Jesus Christ” – nothing even remotely close.   They don’t “heal” anyone – they legislate, they govern.  They are human beings who were elected to serve at various levels of government by a majority of the people in their counties, cities, districts, states, etc.  They are all fallible, with some sincerely entering into the political arena to make a difference, while others in the same field often partake in activities that most would consider corrupt.  These people should not be viewed any differently than you or I should be – that is, they shouldn’t be put on pedestals to idolize and worship.  That goes double for the President of the United States, no matter who he or she may be.

Any questions?

Bubba Clinton: Hillary’s comments on money woes are “factually true”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Bill and Hillary Clinton

All about image.

Yeah. Ok. Via Reuters:

(Reuters) – Former U.S. President Bill Clinton jumped to his wife Hillary’s defense on Tuesday, saying that the potential presidential candidate is “not out of touch,” after criticism that she mishandled media questions about their personal wealth.

Hillary Clinton told ABC News earlier this month that the couple had been “dead broke” after leaving the White House in 2001 and then drew more fire after suggesting to The Guardian newspaper last weekend that the Clintons are not “truly well off.”

“It is factually true that we were several million dollars in debt,” Bill Clinton said Tuesday of the couple’s previous financial situation. He was speaking to NBC News’ David Gregory, in an interview that will air on Sunday.

Bill Clinton said his wife, a former secretary of state and likely Democratic contender for the White House in 2016, has been working to reduce poverty for as long as he has known her, and that this was reflected in her tenure in the U.S. Senate.

The Clintons’ finances have become a tricky subject for her possible White House ambitions.

Hillary Clinton, who did not grow up wealthy, has given a series of speeches that earn her up to $250,000 each since leaving the State Department in 2013. Bill Clinton also delivers lucrative speeches, and tax returns released in 2007 showed the two had earned $109 million jointly since 2001. The couple owns a pair of homes – one in Washington and one in Chappaqua, New York.

To sum up: What have we re-established from all this back and forth regarding La Clinton’s ridiculous – not to mention unbelievable – comments on the family’s wealth? That the infamous, willfully deceptive Clinton PR/spin machine is alive and well, and that both of them will still say and do anything they can for another chance at the White House. Some things never change … 8-|

Related: Daily Caller – Bill Clinton laughs about buying 14 fancy Swiss watches