Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Welcome to “This Week In Crazy,” The National Memo’s weekly update on the wildest attacks, conspiracy theories, and other loony behavior from the increasingly unhinged right wing. Starting with number five:

5. Steve Stockman

Genuinely crazy Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) returns to the list at number five, for suggesting (again) that President Obama is a secret Muslim, and a terrorist sympathizer.

“This guy, the president, apparently has a grudge against the military and the American people,” Stockman said during an appearance on the Steve Malzberg show.

Obama has a “propensity to fall again and again on the side of terrorists,” Stockman later added. His explanation? “A lot of people say he’s not something…we can’t say it on the radio, but if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, I think it might be a duck.”

This duck, presumably.

Earlier in the interview, Stockman also took a moment to suggest that Obama should trade Susan Rice to the Mexican government in exchange for Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, who is being held in prison in Tecate on a gun charge. It’s understandable that Stockman may have jail on the brain; this week the House Ethics Committee reported that it has “substantial reason to believe” that Stockman violated federal laws and ethics rules.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 The National Memo
  • Grannysmovin

    Steve Stockman: Perhaps we could exchange Rand Paul, Steve Stockman, and Ted Cruz for Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, unfortunately I think Mexico would decline, they don’t want our crazy.

    Joni Ernst: I think while Ernst was castrating hogs, she slipped and gave herself a Lobotomy.

    Gordon Klingenschmitt: Me thinks this man has rape on his mind (if
    there is anything left to his mind) way too much.

    Kevin Crow: People on the right who keep say what our founding fathers meant, wanted or thought – do they talk directly to the spirits or do they have a spirit guide who acts as mediator?

    Scott Esk: He is as barbaric as the book he quotes from.

    • dtgraham

      Hey hey hey! As Mr. Esk pointed out, biblical instructions clearly say that the stone has to be smaller than your fist. He’s not a freakin’ barbarian you know.

      • Annemb

        Your post is a good one!

        BTW, in the story of the woman caught in adultery, Jesus wrote in the ground, “You without sin cast the first stone.” And they walked away one by one.

        • johninPCFL

          Yeah, but He wasn’t God then, so it was more of a suggestion than a law?

          • Mark Forsyth

            Perhaps you failed to understand the part that says that Christ was born the son of God and is part of the divine Trinity.

          • Allan Richardson

            You”re getting close to Arianism, brother! The Nicene Creed says Jesus was God before He was born, not “promoted” to God after His death! Heresy!

        • dtgraham

          Yes the King James version had a solemn, heartfelt, spiritual ending for that story. I’m glad they decided not to go with the full dead sea scrolls version. You know, where that stone comes flying out of the sky after everyone begins to walk away and knocks the adulteress woman out cold…whereupon Jesus looks up and says, “Aww come on father!” “I’m trying to make a point here.”

          Would have taken some of the beauty out of it.

    • LotusJoan

      The GOP still has not learned that they should never, ever, mention rape. If we paid for a blow job for the GOP crazies in Congress do you think they could get some legislation passed?

      • dtgraham

        I think you may have something here.

      • neceeeoooo

        We already pay for their blow jobs

        • bikejedi

          why not we paid for Billy’s Blo Jobs and Reggie Body Man Love

    • plc97477

      Thank you for the chuckle. Joni’s lobotomy is going to keep me giggling all evening.

  • dtgraham

    Yeah, the stoning thing kind of got my attention too. Maybe we’re being a little harsh on candidate Esk though. After all, he’s just trying to bring old fashioned traditional biblical values back to America.

    Like gang rape (Genesis 19:1-11), burning women to death for witchcraft (Exodus 22:18–Deuteronomy 18:10–Galatians 5:19), and hitting gay people with stones until they die.

    • latebloomingrandma

      I think the evidence is strong that he wants to instill Sharia law in OK. I’m sure Fox will be doing a big story on this.

      • Allan Richardson

        Except for the name of the sponsor, it is Sharia law. They say Allah, we say Yahweh or Elohim; what’s the difference?

      • dtgraham

        It’s funny lateblooming that so many Republicans advocate for things that they claim to hate elsewhere. They just change the name and then say that “we would be totally in the right to do it.”

    • Chris Peck

      I know right! That crazy Jewish god was nuts but Jesus god was a good guy, always trying to help poor people. Republicans love to tell everyone how Christian they are until it comes to helping the less fortunate among us. What? raise the minimum wage that would hurt the super duper rich people who are storing all their tons of money in off shore accounts until they get the Black guy out of the White house.

      • dtgraham

        Well you gotta get your gods right. No doubt about that.

  • bestofandy

    Strange, the name Scott Esk is not Muslim, nor does he look like a Muslim. So maybe he is one of those converts.

    • Allan Richardson

      The difference between Old Testament justice and what the most extreme Muslims (not all Muslims by any means, but that is what right wingers claim) consider justice is only in the brand name of the product.

      Funny how they don’t want to enforce OTHER Old Testament laws, such as tearing down houses infected with mildew (leprosy of the stones of a house); not mixing fabrics (cotton-orlon? abomination!), prohibiting shellfish (burn down Red Lobster?); LEAVING food for the POOR TO GLEAN; or the fiftieth year JUBILEE ERASING ALL DEBTS and RESTORING LAND TO FAMILIES.

      • stcroixcarp

        Add charging or paying interest, eating pork and shellfish, and sleeping with your mother-in-law to the list.

      • Chris Peck

        Amen brothers and sisters. I will personally kill all masterbators as soon as I finish masterbating;)

  • LaQuita Wierima

    I really am tired of hearing about these low lives in the GOP. Where do they come from? How can they really proclaim to be American and Christian?

  • Mark Forsyth

    If Ernst is so concerned about the family farms in Iowa,then why does she not come out and openly condemn the proliferation of corporate factory farms.Maybe someone should check to see where her money is coming from.

    • Guest

      See you’re missing the Republican point here. If Corporations are people then it follows that Conglomerates are Families. So the she’s really just talking about the Farming Conglomerates when she talks about “Family Farms.”

      • Mark Forsyth

        Yeah Right! And cows fly over the moon.I haven’t “missed” anything.I think that I,and certainly family farmers,have had enough of the goddamn fucking convoluted bullshit they are pushing.Those assholes don’t give us a chance to miss it.

  • idamag

    When Reagan closed the mental hospitals, that put people like stockton out on the streets among us.

  • Mark Forsyth

    Esk has ruined his brain with constant masturbation over anal sex fantasies.I wonder if he would mind if we use him for practicing our stone throwing aim.

  • Allan Richardson

    Another reference to the moon landing hoax. The Russians and everyone else were watching the SKY with optical and radio telescopes and radar IN REAL TIME while they were watching the “film.” If one reading or signal were out of sync it would have been the next day’s front page of Pravda! Or were they in on it also?


    There have always been, and will always be, crazy people making crazy statements. The thing that has changed in twenty-first century America, is that we now have people who actively encourage them, and give them lots of money to run for public office on.

    • Sand_Cat

      More frightening is that we have people who VOTE FOR THEM.

  • adler56

    Someday soon someone will out Esk. If he’s not gay it will really surprise me-
    not that there’s anything wrong with that- it’s just that you should be who you are.

  • howa4x

    WE all laugh and think these people are unfortunate at best. People who are at least religiously crazy or out and out crazy. but there are millions that follow these people and the house is made up of people who think like this. Do you think we as a country are in trouble ? Well the patients are running the asylum.

  • ExRadioGuy15

    The only reason the GOP still has the power it does is that GOP Progressives and Moderates, who make up two-thirds of the voters of the party, are suffering from fear, ignorance and cognitive dissonance brought on by the Fascist GOP’s nearly century-long Fascist “gaslighting” propaganda campaign…if GOP “Progs” and “Mods” awaken from their slumber, these Fascist psychopaths/sociopaths would not be in office and would have been committed to a mental health institution…

  • Tman000

    When it comes to political leadership, Rep. Steve Stockman is as useless as tits on a bore hog…

  • Tman000

    Gordon your as GOOFY as it gets…

  • Tman000

    Candidate Scott Esk, of Oklahoma is for stoning people to death, he claims thats Gods rule? This guy is really “out to lunch” Oh well, his thinking will be judged one day by that same God that Mr. Esk “spins truth and understanding” to sheep that follows him…

  • Charles Winter

    How did George F. Will and Fred Hiatt, the editor of the Wash Post who defended Will, not both make this week’s list?

  • charleo1

    I like the This Week’s in Crazy column. It sure debunks the theory, both parties are the same crazy. While one guy on the Right thinks, scratch that. While one Right Wing idiot, believes that the stoning Gay people issue, is like banning texting while driving. Should be left up to the States, or even better, the local town council. I’m guessing, if the Federal Gov. made it a law, he’s going to fight it then? Meanwhile the Liberals are crazily trying to get the interest rates on student loans lowered. Will you Liberals ever stop the lunacy?

  • exdemo55

    Obama’s Foreign Policy Fails His Own Test

    U.S. influence is on the wane thanks to a series of unwise decisions.

    ‘Don’t do stupid sh—.” That is the description of President Obama’s foreign policy, as crafted by White House message mavens and articulated by the president himself during a recent off-the-record press briefing aboard Air Force One in route to Asia. Mr. Obama reportedly exhorted reporters to chant it back to him.
    A crude, meaningless phrase cannot substitute for statecraft, and the administration’s actions—or often enough, its inaction—fail to meet his own test.
    It was unwise (we’ll avoid using “stupid”) for Mr. Obama to say in August 2011 that Syrian President Bashar Assad should go—without having a plan to force him out. A year later in August, Mr. Obama declared that Mr. Assad would cross a “red line” if he used chemical weapons. When Mr. Assad did just that, Mr. Obama didn’t take immediate action. Today Mr. Assad is more entrenched than he was.
    It was also unwise when Mr. Obama refused to arm the moderate Syrian opposition in 2011. Now that the opposition is weak and radicalized, he has suggested that he is considering arming them.
    Then there was the Iranian “Green Revolution” of 2009-10, when Mr. Obama gave comfort to the mullahs, not those seeking freedom. It was not smart to later weaken sanctions on Iran in return for vague promises to rein in its nuclear program.
    Setting a deadline for ending the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan that was dictated by the American election calendar and not conditions on the ground was not smart. Nor was it smart for Mr. Obama to sabotage his own plan for a U.S. stay-behind force in Iraq by insisting that the Iraqi Parliament approve the agreement. The result has been the decline of U.S. influence and an increase for Iran’s. Now al Qaeda is on the rise: Would it be taking over Mosul and Tikrit if there was such a U.S. force?
    It was unwise to insult Israel’s prime minister and to believe that pressuring Israel would increase the chances of a peace accord with the Palestinians, who were the real obstacles to an agreement.
    During the 2011 Egyptian revolution, Mr. Obama managed to alienate all sides—from Hosni Mubarak to those who overthrew him. He supported a military campaign to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi and then walked away, allowing Libya to slide into chaos.
    The president did not hold anyone in the State Department leadership responsible for failing to provide adequate security for the U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi in 2012. And it was not smart to blame the terrorist attack on an obscure Internet video that hardly anyone saw.
    Mr. Obama sought a “reset” of America’s relationship with Russia without a strategic framework, naïvely believing that giving Vladimir Putin what he wanted would make him friendlier. Not the brightest move. It was not smart to unilaterally cancel planned missile-defense facilities in the Czech Republic and Poland in 2009, thereby alienating allies. The U.S. got nothing from Mr. Putin in return, while he became convinced that Mr. Obama could be rolled.
    When Mr. Putin rolled into Crimea, Mr. Obama was not smart to refuse Ukraine’s request for weapons—and an insult to instead offer the beleaguered country Meals-Ready-to-Eat.
    Declaring a “pivot to Asia” without providing the expressions of American power needed to make the pivot real was unwise. So too was insulting Canada by delaying approval of the Keystone XL pipeline and neglecting our own hemisphere, allowing adversaries like Castro and Chávez to fill the vacuum.
    It was debatable whether to trade five top Taliban military commanders for a captured U.S. soldier even though the president’s own commission had said the Taliban members should never be released. But it was not smart to herald the exchange in a Rose Garden ceremony when the White House knew that there were serious questions about whether the soldier deserted.
    It is ironic that the president and his people don’t seem to understand that the phrase he chose to describe his foreign policy is an indictment of his foreign policy. As the great philosopher Forrest Gump once said, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

    • Sand_Cat

      Maybe they should add a special comments section to this particular column: one for comments crazier than those made by the people in the article.

      • Russell Byrd

        Now that is an original idea. I do think that the regular posters of a group should have at least a minimal regulatory power. Unfortunately, Disgust took the down vote away, which though weak, was the only practical method of showing the disagreement of the majority of posters. Instead of curtailing the down votes it should be given some real teeth. After so many negative votes, a poster should lose their privileges for at least a day or so. Repeated gross offenders should be banned, for good. Tragically, Disgust LOVES trolls like bikejerk, anal ward, and angelstench. They drive conversation and consume massive quantities of bandwidth. Bandwidth equals profit, which is all Disgust really wants. Then, as I have read a number of times, Memo, MJ, etc. are downgraded which reduces their audience, their markets, and their earnings because of too much “low” quality posting.

    • Sand_Cat

      It was unwise of Obama to declare a “red line” he didn’t intend to cross, but thankfully, he didn’t cross it. Is that more unwise than making an unprovoked invasion of a large country based on a pack of lies, using inadequate force to boot? And using inadequate force after firing at least one (I seem to remember two, but not the second name) general who accurately predicted the result?
      Your arguments don’t meet your alleged standards, either. You voted for Bush (tell me if I’m wrong here), whose policy wasn’t just not up to snuff; it was stupid, ham-handed, amateurish, and incompetent. With most other administrations, that description could be accused of containing redundancies, but not in this case.
      You’re just desperate to make Obama look even close to as bad as Bush and Cheney, but you’re all ready to vote in another dynamic duo even dumber than they were, if given the opportunity.

  • exdemo55

    As Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski has written, prosecutorial misconduct has become “an epidemic.” And evidence has come to light that our president, the nation’s chief law enforcement official, seeks his counsel from the worst.

    If ever a picture was worth a thousand words, it is a recently released White House photo of President Obama and his muses—if one only knew the truth behind those muses whispering in the President’s ear as they strategized in the aftermath of the Benghazi tragedy. To understand the (politely-put) “lack of transparency” from the White House, the enormous politicization of the Department of Justice, the release of Taliban leaders from Guantanamo, refusal to cooperate with congressional investigations, the IRS’s harassment of political opponents, and the cover-up of Benghazi, read on.

    President Obama’s right-hand woman Kathryn Ruemmler, conveniently seated to his right, was his longest serving White House Counsel and remains one of his closest and most trusted advisors. When Mr. Obama selected Ms. Ruemmler to advise him on the most important legal matters, including the selection of federal judges, responses—actually oppositions—to congressional investigations, assertions of executive privilege and expansive executive orders, Mr. Obama said she “was an outstanding lawyer with impeccable judgment.” The press reported that Jamie Gorelick said Ms. Ruemmler knew “the traditions and values of the administration.”

    Upon her recent departure, the President said he “deeply valued her smarts, her wit, her impeccable judgment — but most importantly her uncanny ability to see around the corners that nobody else in the room anticipates.” More aptly put, she had an uncanny and nefarious ability to circumvent the rule of law by cutting those aforementioned corners.

    Ms. Ruemmler returned as a Partner to the prominent international law firm Latham & Watkins, where she has sheltered intermittently between stints in the Department and the White House.

    If you were feeling some sense of relief that Ms. Ruemmler is no longer in the White House, let that be fleeting. Obama also said that he “will continue to seek her counsel, and most of all, I am proud to call her a close friend.”

    Disturbingly, evidence has surfaced that the President Obama’s close friend and senior advisor violated her oath “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” the rules of legal ethics, not to mention the law. As a senior member of the Enron Task Force, Ms. Ruemmler prosecuted four Merrill Lynch executives and sent them to prison on an indictment that was “fatally flawed.” The conduct the prosecutors alleged was not criminal. At the same time, she deliberately hid exculpatory evidence—that is, evidence she was constitutionally compelled to hand over to the defense. Indeed, the prosecutors not only acknowledge the evidence as exculpatory, they yellow-highlighted it as such—then buried it.

    Not only did Ms. Ruemmler hide the evidence she had identified as crucial to the defense, but she signed the false and misleading “disclosure letter” to defense counsel. Ms. Ruemmler then elicited hearsay testimony from witnesses that was directly contradicted by the first-hand evidence she and her Task Force hid. She capitalized on and compounded the injustice, repeatedly telling the court and jury “facts” that were directly refuted by the evidence she hid.

    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately reversed 12 out of 14 counts of conviction against the executives, acquitting one entirely. All the defendants were released, after having spent up to a year in prison on a sham indictment, while Ms. Ruemmler and her cronies continued both to hide the evidence that defeated the government’s case and to demand that the Merrill executives be prosecuted a second time on the same indictment.

    Mr. Obama’s second muse, directly to his left in the photo, is Lisa Monaco—probably just a coincidence that she’s a close, longtime friend of Ms. Ruemmler—who also served on the elite Enron Task Force. Ms. Monaco was implicated in the prosecutorial misconduct that infected the Enron Broadband case prosecution. Houston Judge Vanessa Gilmore was irate with the prosecutors. They elicited false testimony from a government witness, threatened witnesses for the defense with indictment if they testified, and used evidence already ruled inadmissible. The Broadband jury wised up. It hung on some counts and acquitted the defendants on others. Of course, the prosecutors demanded a second trial. Drunk on unlimited taxpayer resources, they continued fighting to keep the evidence hidden and protect the ascension of the cabal.

    Obama chose Ms. Monaco to be his Counter-Terrorism advisor. Was that because of Ms. Monaco’s experience with the “terror of a prosecutor” Leslie Caldwell, also from the Enron Task Force, who now heads the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice? Ms. Caldwell spearheaded the destruction of Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs only to be reversed 9-0 by the Supreme Court because of the flawed indictment and the absence of criminal intent.

    Or was Ms. Monaco chosen because of her illustrious rise in the Department of Justice following her Task Force stint? And there was also her close connection with the FBI, where she had served as Director Mueller’s chief of staff, apparently while Enron Task Force Director Andrew Weissmann (who helped Caldwell destroy Andersen) also served as special counsel to Mr. Mueller. Mr. Weissmann later became General Counsel for the FBI in 2011 while Ms. Monaco was heading the Department’s national security division.

    It leaves one to wonder why the former Enron Task Force cabal dominates the president’s inner circle? All of their trials were tainted with Supreme Court and appellate reversals, outrageous abuses of government power, a plethora of prosecutorial misconduct, and even guilty pleas had to be withdrawn because of their over-reaching.

    All the President’s muses could learn something from All the President’s Men: “Nothing’s riding on this except, uh, the first amendment to the Constitution, freedom of the press, and maybe the future of the country.”

    The picture is rounded out, shall we say, by the presence of yet another Obama muse: Susan Rice. She was not on the Enron Task Force, but is, as George F. Will politely described it in the Washington Post, “accident-prone.” Individually or combined, their disregard for truth, for individual rights and liberties, their willingness to hide evidence and intimidate witnesses, and their contempt of Congress and for the Rule of Law, is staggering. Bowe Bergdahl, the Taliban leader-release, and the Benghazi cover-up are but a mere sampling of the corruption. Perhaps the President would “rather laugh with the sinners than cry with saints,” perhaps his muses are much more fun, but where does that leave the rest of us?

    Attorney General Robert H. Jackson once said, “The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. . . .While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.” A prosecutor has almost unilateral, unchecked ability to destroy the lives of those he charges. It is beyond troubling that our top law enforcement officer chooses the company of those who repeatedly failed their duty.

    Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook

    • Sand_Cat

      Gee, you’ve really been hitting the lunatic sites lately. I’m impressed. It must be quite a challenge to wade through all the hypocrisy and bullshit, not to mention actually believing it.

      • Russell Byrd

        Like you earlier observed, the right-wackos “hit the roof” on a regular basis. It seems that is the sole purpose of their time on Earth. If they weren’t doing the lunatic circuit, what point would their puny little lives have?

  • exdemo55

    IRS claims it has LOST two years’ worth of emails from embattled former official Lois Lerner as tea party targeting scandal heats up again
    More than a year after receiving a subpoena, the IRS says there’s a 28-month period where Lerner’s emails to and from people outside the IRS no longer exist
    The agency blames a computer crash for the loss
    Lois Lerner, formerly the director of the IRS subagency that awards tax exemptions to nonprofit groups, is accused of playing political favorites
    She allegedly led a conspiracy to cripple conservative groups by slow-walking or denying their applications for tax-exempt status, which is crucial for fundraising
    Conservatives hit the roof on Friday, with one group drawing a comparison with the famous 18 minutes of missing audio on Watergate-era tapes of Richard Nixon’s daily Oval Office meetings

    • Robert Eckert

      Political groups, whether conservative or liberal or centrist, have NO right to tax-exempt status, ever. The only scandal here is that the IRS has ever allowed political groups to get away with bending the law.

      • exdemo55

        They are hiding suboenaed documerts. That is against the law.

        • Robert Eckert

          You do not know that. All we know for sure is that the Tea Party groups that are whining about not getting the tax exempt status they were never entitled to were breaking the law.

          • exdemo55

            Lois Lerner refuses to answer questions on May 22, 2013 during a House Oversight Committee hearing. Photo: AP

            Arresting Lois Lerner
            Our newly efficient IRS

            House votes to hold ex-IRS official in contempt

            The IRS said Friday it “lost” a trove of e-mails to and from the central figure in the agency’s targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups leading up to the 2012 presidential election.

            IRS officials told Congress it can’t get its hands on many of Lois Lerner’s e-mails prior to 2011 — because her computer crashed that summer, a claim that infuriated congressional investigators.

            “The fact that I am just learning about this, over a year into the investigation, is completely unacceptable and now calls into question the credibility of the IRS’s response to congressional inquiries,” said Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

            “There needs to be an immediate investigation and forensic ­audit by Department of Justice as well as the inspector general.”

            Lerner headed up the IRS division that processed applications for tax-exempt status from conservative and other groups.

            But the agency admitted last year that agents had improperly scrutinized conservative groups’ applications for tax-exempt status — a move that critics charge was a politically motivated plot to help re-elect President Obama.

            Congressional investigators have shown that IRS officials in Washington closely monitored the handling of Tea Party applications, many of which languished for more than a year without action.

            But so far, they have not publicly produced evidence that anyone outside the agency directed the targeting or even knew about it.

            Lerner’s e-mails were important to the probe because they could show if anyone outside the IRS was involved.

            Camp’s office said the missing ­e-mails are mainly ones to and from people outside the IRS, “such as the White House, Treasury, Department of Justice, FEC [Federal Election Commission] or Democrat offices.”

            The IRS said its techies went to great lengths trying to recover data from Lerner’s computer in 2011 — but came up empty.

            The agency was able to retrieve 24,000 Lerner e-mails from 2009 to 2011 because she forwarded those to other IRS employees. But an ­unknown number remain missing.

            Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, called Friday’s disclosure “an outrageous impediment” to the probe.

          • Robert Eckert

            The laptop I bought in 2011 crashed last week because the hard drive gave out. I asked the techies to try to retrieve the data on it but they were unsuccessful. I do not find anything unusual about this case, and I am sick and tired of the fake outrage from the Republicans that has been going on for years. The one thing that does make very angry in this entire affair is that those “Tea Party” groups had the goddamned nerve to claim tax-exempt status as if they were charitable rather than nakedly political.

          • exdemo55

            There is no way those e-mails are gone. There’s no way a hard drive crash at the IRS or DOJ, a single crash has resulted in those e-mails being lost. There are backups every which way from Sunday. This is a document dump late Friday afternoon, and it’s a stalling technique. It’s embarrassing.

          • Robert Eckert

            Government agencies often have very antiquated systems. They hunted down a bunch of the e-mails by asking the recipients but it will take some more hunting to find the rest. And you know what is going to be in those e-mails when they have pieced it all together? Doodly, squat, and nada, because there is nothing going on here except Tea Partiers stretching and breaking the law and Republicans in faux outrage that they were called on it.

          • exdemo55

            PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – Dom Giordano spoke with reporter Sharyl Attkisson about an announcement from the House Ways and Means Committee that the IRS reported losing all of Lois Lerner’s emails from 2009 to 2011.

            Lerner was formerly the head of the IRS division on tax-exempt organizations, and Republicans charge she oversaw the targeting of conservative political groups for excess scrutiny in their application for tax-exempt status.

            Attkisson On Missing IRS Documents

            Attkisson said there should be procedures in place to prevent something like this from happening.

            “These emails are not stored on a signal server or a single computer, so if there were a crash of a hard drive or some sort of system failure, they would still be retrievable. According to [John] Koskinen, the IRS Commissioner at the time, he told Congress that emails were stored offsite. That jives with people who said emails were backed up daily. There is a responsibility on the part of government officials to retain the data, make sure that is and can’t be lost in the system. If it’s true that the emails are lost, that’s quite a story in itself,” she said.

            She thinks Congress should act fast to investigate if anyone inside the IRS is attempting to hide or destroy the emails.

            “I would call in certain officials. Let’s assume there could have been some mischief committed — before they have time to get their stories straight and fix things up, I would get them in there under oath and start digging down and getting the timeline and getting people on the record about this. The only people that I see than can do this are members of Congress. The question is, do they have the will to do that?” Attkisson stated.

            Attkisson said that regardless of whether the emails were lost accidentally or improperly, the individuals responsible should be held accountable.

            “One official wrote me…to say this is entirely implausible, and he said there are criminal penalties for destroying federal records, which makes sense, including liability for negligence for not taking the necessary steps to protect files, including a federal requirement to backup data. This doesn’t happen. He said … all email servers are backed up with something called ‘RAID’ (Redundant Array Of Independent Disks), and it’s nearly impossible for something to delete the files, and that even if that were to happen they would not be gone forever,” she said.

            “One final comment that this particular guy made, he said if there was a cover-up here — let’s just assume for the sake of argument that maybe something went wrong — he said laws have been broken during an alleged coverup that are much easier to prove than the original act, some poor IT schmuck, if you get him under oath, he will fold like a cheap suit, and I do feel like there is some truth to that. So if you call in the IT professionals who supposedly reported the crash and went after the irretrievable material and found they couldn’t be found I think you’d probably get the truth; and maybe the truth is nothing more than what the IRS says, but it’s just strange that they kept the subpoena and official request from Congress for 7-10 months without mentioning it that the emails don’t exist or are that they were gone. And it also then would be exposing a huge vulnerability in our federal computers if indeed data has been irretrievably lost by this. Remember, but the IRS is part of, if the IRS system can indeed be so vulnerable that some sort of crash can lose all kind of important data like this, what does t say about the federal system?”

          • Sand_Cat

            Well boohoohoo

          • Sand_Cat

            No GOP administration EVER EVER used a stalling technique, right, because if they did, you’d be all over them.
            I have no reason to agree to the truth of much of anything you say, but even if you have some small point, one party’s utter contempt for the law and Constitution, and even common decency and courtesy over a prolonged period (every GOP administration since Eisenhower’s – and it was his that deliberately misconstrued the law this whole tempest in a teapot is about – and Congress during at least the last six years of Clinton’s and ten times moreso during Obama’s) does tend to encourage the other party to do the same, if for no other reason than legitimate defense. Those who oppose that kind of thing do tend to have their sense of outrage at minor abuses of power by their own side – assuming there were any worth mentioning – anesthetized a bit. In short, sometimes what goes around does come around.
            If you don’t like it, maybe you should re-think your silence and active or tacit support for GOP abuses costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars before shooting your mouth off at the fact that a bunch of grotesquely dishonest and often extremely nasty people never got what was coming to them, but instead got what they wanted with a slight delay.

          • Sand_Cat

            Remember when Congress held Bush admin people in contempt of Congress for real reasons, and the Bush AG refused to prosecute? What goes around sometimes really does come around.

          • Sand_Cat

            A number of Bush’s people refused to even appear, and as I mentioned before, the Bush attorney general ignored their being declared in contempt of Congress. And what reasonable person doesn’t hold Daryl Issa in total contempt, anyway?

          • Sand_Cat

            But they DID get the tax exempt status. It was a couple of liberal groups that didn’t.

          • Robert Eckert

            Yeah, THAT is the scandal. It is nothing new, though: although the statute says that 501c must be “exclusively” for charitable, educational etc. purposes, the IRS adopted regs saying some political activity was allowable back in the 50’s, when there were challenges to the tax exempt status of some Catholic archdioceses that were deep into politics, and the IRS wanted nothing to do with any fight against churches.

        • Sand_Cat

          Conservative hit the roof EVERY DAY about some made-up BS, Maybe if they actually reserved their anger for real things rather than things that pale beside what they approved when they ran the executive branch, sane people might actually pay attention.
          I’m sure that’s why Obama was re-elected – that and lots of those, you know, dusky people voting 10 times in Chicago – because we all know that the Mittwit was the perfect, unbeatable candidate, right?
          Tax exemptions are not “awarded.” They’re claimed on returns. Those groups wouldn’t have needed to “apply” but for the fact that they all knew they shouldn’t qualify and didn’t want to chance getting hit with a big tax bill as they should have been. And still, only the Liberal groups got denied.

  • bikejedi

    As I read this I realize he got it wrong . Obama isn’t a secret Muslim he is a Muslim . He doesn’t wear his wedding ring during Ramadan and he recognized every Muslim Holiday while he usually doesnt even give an Easter or Christmas address . He constantly states that he will stand with Islam and has backed that up with the most destructive foreign policy ever . And as for stoning gays ..what the heck how can you be such hypocrites … I mean the Muslim that Liberals love will solve that problem ..They will behead them and then defile their corpses or is that corps’s

    • BillP

      As usual your comment is total bs. The Obama’s celebrated the Christmas holiday last year and every year they have been in the White House. If you ever spent a little researching an item before posting your inaccurate comments you could easily find pictures of the Obama family in front of the White House Christmas tree. You have constantly made inaccurate statements about President Obama and his family on this site. Go ride your little bicycle and stop with your juvenile rants.

      • bikejedi

        You mean ” Holiday Tree ” right ???? careful or they will opull your Liberal card .., I mean isnt that what Obama and all the Liberals call them ? Holiday trees … and doesn’t Obama and the left wish everyone Happy Holidays because they dont want to acknowledge or recognize Christ ??? Doesn’t Obama spend Christian Holidays on vacay and when was the last time he gave a Christmas or Easter address like all other Presidents have done ? He does however acknowledge Muslim Holidays … so you do the math before you accuse others of misrepresnting something

        • BillP

          As usual you make a ridiculously juvenile comment, I see you haven’t changed at all. It was and is a Christmas Tree. There is a Holiday season during December that includes Christmas, Chanukah and Kwanzaa unless you don’t want to recognize different holidays only Christian ones.
          I guess you have some memory issues, didn’t W take numerous trips to Crawford Texas during the holidays? You may want to look at an address on 4/19/2014 that President Obama made but then that would require you to do some research.
          You seem to always want to write inaccurate comments about President Obama but you tend to just make up some lies. You are nothing but a cowardly lying little punk, you don’t ever put your name to your comments.

          • bikejedi

            Truth hurt ? Look it is only the left Liberals Sheeple Democrats Socialists who are being taught to deny Christ . It isn’t and NEVER was called a Holiday tree until Obama . Why ???? oh yeah … we have to have sensitivity to Islam … F that K .. It isnt one Nation under Allah . Poll after Poll done by the left has shown that Americans of all stripes besides hard core obamabots and sheeple prefer the words One Nation Under God in the pledge and In God We Trust on our Currency yet Obama and the sheep keep trying to deny that this is a Christian Nation founded under Christian principles . We dont call the Chanukah candles Holiday candles do we ??? Bush always gave Easter addresses and Christmas addresses as have all Presidents before Obama the Muslim … So people who arent indoctrinated brainwashed slave and cowards like yourself aknowledge that . Why do you even have to drag Bush into this discussion anyway ? Oh thats right spin and deflect right ? … Getting back to the topic that you tried to spin and deflect from why cant you or Obama just say Merry Christmas ??? Why do you feel the need to capitulate and genuflect to Islam ? Cowards indeed . I dont deny them their right to worship the way they want dont deny Christians the same please …

          • BillP

            As usual you right wing trolls make the unfounded and ridiculous statements ” Look it is only the left Liberals Sheeple Democrats Socialists who are being taught to deny Christ . It isn’t and NEVER was called a Holiday tree until Obama” You can call me a Liberal sheeple but I get a Christmas tree. I love how you trolls make these generalized statements that all Liberals are exactly the same and think as one. I guess Conservatives aren’t that way too, they are just free thinkers, yeah right.
            You seem to be a bit confused about the early years of this country. Most settlers especially the English came here to escape religious persecution in England. The Puritans in New England, Quakers in the Mid-Atlantic area and the Catholics in Maryland. They were escaping from the Christian Anglican church. If the Founding Fathers

          • bikejedi

            Bill you are right about one thing . People on both sides can over generalize … so I am sorry to include you in that but lets just say it has been the PC agenda of most of the left and it is definitely part of Obama’s rhetoric and policy to use Holiday instead of Christmas .. He doesnt do that during Muslim Holidays and in that he reveals himself . To illustrate further the way they are driving people mad … this past Christmas the Chicago Cubs in a move to be Liberal PC labelled their Christmas tree a ” Holiday Tree ” here in the Liberal Utopia of Chicago … I wrote them a nasty letter and did not donate to their drive .. Instead I donated to the Salvation Army … They sent me a Thank You that said Thanks and Merry Christmas

          • BillP

            I don’t care whether people wish me a Merry Christmas or a Happy Holiday. There are number of religious sects that don’t celebrate Christmas but do have a holiday near the Christmas season – Chanukah or Kwanzaa so someone wishes me a Happy Holiday I accept that, why not it’s cheerful wish.
            I will respectfully disagree with you about President Obama. He most certainly gave a Christmas message last year, he and his wife gave a Christmas message on Christmas day. Why don’t you google that and see the actual message. Also he gave an Easter message on 4/21/2014. You can easily find either one these messages on-line unless you don’t believe the Religious News Service that reported his message.
            What the Cubs do is their business, the Cubs organization is a for profit business so my guess is they are trying to be inclusive not exclusive. You expressed your opinion to them, that’s your right.

    • Sand_Cat

      Come on, man! You’re not an idiot! It’s fine if you disagree with Obama, but you don’t have to believe all this made-up shit! If that’s all you’ve got, maybe you should think about changing your mind.

      • bikejedi

        Sand poll after poll done by Liberals show that Americans of all stripes prefer the words Under God in the pledge and In God We Trust on our Currency …While it is a fact that it is ONLY since Obama that you on the left are trying to discourage ANY mention of God in America . This is being done to show ” sensitivity to Islam and so you people can capitulate and genuflect to Islam . Guess what ? I’m Christian and we call it a Christmas tree . We dont call chanukah candles Holiday candles do we… So why does Obama call a Christmas Tree a Holiday tree ? Look by his own deeds and words Obama proves who he is. Dont be mad at the people who see right through his Lies . Obama is a noted pathological Liar and he should just stop living a liue and come out on several fronts

        • Sand_Cat

          What on earth does this have to do with the conversation (I thought) we were having? I never mentioned the pledge – though it wouldn’t need “under god” if it were true – and “holiday tree” and “holiday party” have been in common use for years; Obama had nothing to do with that. Speaking of God, Jesus said don’t swear (or pledge) by anything in heaven and earth, don’t advertise your faith, etc.
          For the most part, those who have “noted” Obama to be a pathological liar were describing themselves more than him, at least those I’ve heard. Who besides people blinded by partisanship have made such a claim? We’re all atheists in the family, and we call it a Christmas tree, though the custom is a pagan one from the largest pagan holiday, the winter solstice, whatever it was called.
          I was responding to the crap about his being a Muslim, not wearing his wedding ring during Ramadan, etc. Just what is your source for these absurd charges? Sounds to me like a “noted pathological liar.” Many on the right talked about how we insulted Bush, and rightly so: he desrved it. But did you hear anything about how he was a foreigner, how he had some secret, satanic agenda? Was his every move interpreted as a sign that he was conspiring with the forces of Hell to destroy America? If you feel like saying “yes,” maybe you’d better go back and review, not what the right-wing accused us of saying, but what we actually said: he was an incompetent who “won” the election by the grace of his brother’s voter suppression and his father’s appointees on the Supreme Court, who avoided personal risk in the Vietnam war while sending thousands to their deaths as president, who flagrantly failed to enforce the laws he didn’t like (what laws did Obama not enforce?) appointed people to head agencies whose intent was to destroy them (something every GOP president has done since Reagan, if not before). In short, we criticized his policies, his intellectual laziness and dishonesty which led to those policies and the unscrupulous means by which he promoted them. Did anyone demand his birth certificate, or his college transcript? Is the best you’ve got REALLY that Obama calls his Christmas tree a “holiday tree”? Do you even know that’s true? Even if he does while speaking in public out of respect for the feelings of those treated as if we didn’t exist or as unworthy of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution because we don’t worship a “criminal” executed by the Romans, what do you know about his private acts? There are a LOT of other groups besides Muslims in this country. On what basis do you claim it’s wholly or mainly for their sake?
          If you think we should talk more about god in the country, fine: why does Obama have to be Satan?
          I’ve said before I’m unhappy with many of his actions or lack thereof, but he’s still a HUGE improvement on his predecessor. And did you really want Sarah Palin in a position to become president?
          Criticize his policies if you want, and proclaim the bad results you think will result all you like (hopefully with some kind of evidence and rational argument), but don’t sit and tell us what he’s “really” trying to do unless you have an unequivocal statement from him, or from a more reliable witness than Daryl Issa, a convicted thief, among other things.

          • bikejedi

            You asked me a question and I answered . The examples I cited is what has happened since Obama took power . It is ONLY since he became President that people on the left have been taught to deny God and call it a Holiday tree etc .. Same for the pledge .. If you dont know that Obama follows Ramadan protocals do some google searches . What I stated was the truth About Obama and his policy and rhetoric towards Christianity . It is clear to any but the brainwashed he is a Muslim and he should just come out of the closet . HE IS A NOTED PATHOLOGICAL LIAR .. the examples are far too many to list . If you had been paying attention with an open mind you would know this . I am not interested in your biased opinions of Bush or that you chose to spin and deflect to that when trying to defend Obama . I never said he is Satan or any of that other crap . I stated the obvious conclusions that any objective person who uses logic would deduce . Obama wants to diminish Christianity and he should just admit he is a Muslim … You do realize he was raised a Muslim right ?????

          • Sand_Cat

            So your opinions on Obama are completely unbiased and pure as the driven snow? If my opinions are biased, where are the weapons of mass destruction? Where are the flowers and candy our soldiers were going to receive in Iraq? I must have imagined all of the other lies I heard Bush say, lies that cost thousands of lives and the respect of the civilized nations of the world. He didn’t actually say the “jury is still out” on evolution? I think you need to check facts, not the fevered imaginations of the likes of Glenn Beck and some of the lunatics you can find on the net in profusion. What are Obama’s big lies? That you can keep your doctor and you old, substandard health plan if you want to? The fact is, the ACA provides for both of those things. And even if it were a flat-out lie, who died? And of course, you’re sure that the president did something sinister at Benghazi. Tell me – you failed to answer this before – why does Bush get a free pass for 9/11 plus twelve attacks on US embassies in which dozens were killed?
            I know for a fact that your statements about “holiday trees” and objection to under god in the pledge of allegiance are completely false. I can distinctly remember my wife complaining my daughter’s classmates’ mothers calling about “holiday parties” and “winter parties.” This was when she was in grammar school. She’ll be 32 this year. I also remember complaints about how Congress added “under God” to the pledge going back years.
            You cited no source for the claims about Ramadan or Obama’s other alleged Muslim beliefs. As for the internet, I’m sure I could search and find tons of scurrilous lies about just about any well-known person, and I’m sure you know that.
            Again, You don’t strike me as a bonehead Fox parrot like some of our other visitors. If you hate Obama’s policies, by all means, say why. If you hate Obama, stick to real, documented actions that justify it, not something the people running against him made up. Maybe you forgot how John McCain was victimized by Bush supporters calling voters in South Carolina and leading them to believe McCain fathered a black child out of wedlock. That’s a documented fact, not something someone on the internet imagined.

          • bikejedi

            You always know when you’ve won a debate with the left when they cant defend what Obama has done and then chose to spin and deflect to Bush . Bush has nothing to do with this and he calls a Christmas tree a Christmas tree … What’s next the race card ? Get you head out of the Sand cat it isnt my job to keep you informed but if you arent aware that Obama doesnt wear jewelery during Ramadan then you arent paying attention or you need to read something else besides the memo … It has been widely reported

          • Sand_Cat

            Again, “widely reported” by whom? You know you’ve won a debate with the right when you ask where something came from and they won’t tell you.
            Since you won’t acknowledge Bush’s real faults, why should I acknowledge those you allege about Obama when for all I can tell they’re imaginary? You have no idea what he calls the damned thing among his family.
            And what if he were a Muslim? Is that against the law? Who could blame him for hiding it with the prejudice you and others show against it? Not that there’s any credible evidence that he is a Muslim, but doesn’t the First Amendment protect Muslims, too?
            Does Bush’s calling a “Christmas tree” a Christmas tree exonerate him completely for all the unnecessary death and suffering he caused so he could be “the decider”? Don’t flagrant dishonsty and indifference to the suffering of others make Bush’s claim to be a “Christian” a lie? It seems to me that he and many other GOP “Christians” more closely approximate Anton LaVey’s definition of a Satanist than someone dedicated to imitating Yeshua.

          • bikejedi

            Look I dont care that he is a Muslim only that he must be ashamed of it or knows he couldnt have gotten elected if he came out … So now he doesnt have to worry about that so he should stop LYING . And you are just as free as anyone to do a google search I shouldnt have to do that for you . There are several Liberal sites which try to schlep it off as just speculation but ask yourself why he doesnt wear jewelry during Ramadan and if you are a fair person you will admit that it must be because he is Muslim… Obama schlepped off the question when he was asked and said his ring was off getting repeaired … Yeah and so was his watch I guess … I mean he always knows when his tee time is right … the bigger issue is his and the left’s view rhetoric and policy towards Christians and their holidays and how he and the left want people to refer to Christmas Trees as Hokiday Trees . You weak knee’d people on the left may feel the need to genuflect to Islam but I dont … Once again this has nothing to do with Bush so stop impersonating Jay Carney

          • Sand_Cat

            Once again, how do you know he doesn’t wear jewelry during Ramadan? And how come you know so much about Ramadan? Are you a secret Muslim?
            Are you obsessively taping and re-watch Obama’s public appearances and checking him for jewelry? That single pile of crap is more than sufficient to destroy whatever credibility you might have with sane people.
            I’m certain a simple google search would reveal thousands, if not tens of thousands, of sites run by mentally-disturbed people making up crazy shit to try to make Obama look one tenth as bad as the last GOP president. I’ve been told I haven’t “gotten over” Bush; I think it’s rather the other way around. All of you haven’t gotten over Nixon, or Bush and are still desperately trying to “prove” that some Democrat – any Democrat – is even close to as bad as they were. You had the gall to blame Bush’s economic crash on Jimmy Carter, for god’s sake. Don’t try to tell me I’m avoiding issues by blaming Bush.

          • bikejedi

            Sand I think it was ABC or NBC that originally asked Obama where his ring was and I think that was 2 years ago at the beginning of Ramadan .So it wasnt some blogger bringing this up it was a Liberal network … Obama flippantly laughed it off and said his ring was getting repaired and they all had a great laugh but to sane observers it was obvious that he was observing Ramadan .. As I said I dont care if he is a Muslim only that he LIED once again and hid that … Now that he doesnt have to worry about getting elected he should have the balls to come out of the closet on two issues . I am not hung up on Bush or Nixon and yes even the NY Times ( Uber Liberal )detailed the coming sub prime crash back on 9 /30 /99 … They predicted the bill would come due for the Sub Prime housing debt crisis and that was created by the CRA of 1977 … who do you want me to blame for the CRA of 1977 ????? It was Carter ok … If Bush had been smart he wouldve just had done what Bawnee Fwank did for years … he would of stabalized the banks for a few months and then handed the mess off to Obama and he would’ve been blamed …Bush was more worried about the Country then his own legacy so like a man he addressed the issues and let both McCain and Obama know what was up

          • Sand_Cat

            Thank you for the reference. I’ll see what I can find.
            ABC is NOT a “liberal network,” by the way, and the liberalism of the other mainstream media outlets is thin to non-existent except in political affiliates like MSNBC. I don’t include Fox as a mainstream media.
            So let’s see, Reagan had 8 years to repeal the pernicious law, Bush Sr had 4, and Bush Jr had 8, but Jimmy, one of the most despised and ineffectual presidents by the reckoning of many on both sides of the aisle even to this day, beat them all.
            And after that it was all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank and (someone added) Chris Dodd who – though they and their party were a thoroughly marginalized and intimidated minority during during almost all that time plus the last 6 years of Clinton’s term – managed to utterly crush the GOP’s machine, which was valiantly trying to save the world. And it was nice of Bush – the real man who had to start wars and fake landing on aircraft carriers to prove that, but cared nothing for his legacy – to warn McCain and Obama as the crash was going on.
            I think it’s time for a little reality: the crash was not caused by bad loans, but by wealthy bankers – bankers tend to be Republican – and ratings agencies that packaged them, fraudulently labelled them as triple A assets, and sold them for huge profits, all while brave Bush was appointing “regulators” whose chief qualification was that they hated the agencies they headed and opposed everything those agencies were tasked with doing, and he himself was distracted being “the decider” was deciding what lie he’d tell next to get even more people killed in his vanity wars. And his presidential “library” – do they have a copy of “The Pet Goat” – continues and expands on his lies while he paints his feet and twiddles his thumbs and enjoys all the money he made off insider trading and playing on his father’s presidency to get sweetheart deals for himself, and his DUI arrest records are hidden neatly away in his father’s library.
            And is there any clear evidence that the bad loans – or most of them – were actually made under the auspices of the law you blame? I remember hearing on the news about people being given 7 million dollar loans to buy huge houses despite the fact that they had no jobs or other assets with which to pay the loans. Doesn’t sound like the poor people everyone on the right wants to blame for everything.
            Look, I don’t want to disrespect you, but you sometimes write like none of us have any legitimate reason to be frustrated. No president is completely honest, but from my point of you, if you piled up everything Obama said in his presidency that wasn’t completely true and compared it for flagrancy, delusional or magical thinking, and malicious motivation, it wouldn’t even be noticeable when compared to what any one of his current GOP opponents or GOP predecessors did and does in a month if subjected to a truly objective analysis.

          • bikejedi

            That stretches the bounds of imagination . Look Carter passed the CRA in 1977 as a means to do Social Engineering and put poor people into homes that they wouldnt ordinarily qualify for . No bank in their right mind would originate loans to people who were bad risks unless they were forced to do so … This was the Dems using the Banks and their investors monewy to put people who wouldnt be able to get loans to do so and in return these people would be forever in the debt of the Dems and support them . At first the Banks tried to go along because they wer able to off load the bad mortgages to bigger banks and make a point … The Bigger banks were off loading to Fannie and Freddie so it was somewhat feasible for a while … The whole thing was a house of cards and during the Clinton years the Banks realized they were holding too much bad debt and that the whole thing was a house of cards . They told Congress and Clinton they did not want to originate any more of these loans … That is when the second worst Attorney General in our History threatened them with Fed Discrimination Law suits if they didn’t continue to do it .. In essense they were being black mailed and forced to write the loans that they warned about … The fiinal piece of the puzzle was Clinton repealing the Glass Steagal act and this allowed Commercial Banks to merge their products and services with Investment Banks … The derrivitive market was born and soon EVERYONE was holding worthless paper … Bush went to Congress 26 times and warned of the coming collapse … It is a matter of Public record and the Dem Congress ignored him and Bawnee Fwank told the word that Fanny and Freddie were doing fine …. right up until he decided he needed money from Bush to bail them out and the whole thing finally cane to light …That is how it all happened and it is mostly part of the Congressional record … including Bush warning the Dem Congress the whole thing was going to collapse … Yes I agree every President after Carter should of stopped it but none of them did mostly because the housing market was selling houses and it wasnt a problem until it was …

          • Sand_Cat

            I think no bank in its right mind was going to give a loan to any black man who couldn’t prove he didn’t need it was the problem. And I see that somehow all the banks, despite the terrible suffering inflicted on them, did pretty damned well petty much up to the crash, and they’re doing even better now.
            Clinton “repealed” Glass Seagull? You mean he signed a repeal that probably every Republican in both houses voted for, and all the GOP lobbyists agitated for, etc. I never was that much of a fan of Clinton, either, though he was better than the alternatives, and he at least had the guts to take on Bush Sr when the rest of his party was cowering in the corner.
            And for most of Bush’s term, Congress went his way, and my memory may fail me, but I believe he had both houses part of the time, if not most.
            Ah, yes, the derivative market. And yes, I believe you are right that Larry Summers and friends made an outstanding contribution to that and the rest, which is why many of us experienced our first big disappointment when Obama chose him and others like him to run the financial part of his administration. But again, Bush had 8 years to do something, and he acted without Congress on things that were important to him, even claiming he could start the war with Iraq whether they liked it or not.. All the GOP is still whining now about “regulations,” but you want to absolve Bush from failing to regulate the markets? (from failing to regulate much of anything) Do you really think you’d be willing to give blaming it all on Obama a second thought if it were his administration? After all, haven’t you blamed him for pretty much everything anywhere in the world that you didn’t like the last six years? Not to mention that any bill proposed by the GOP was sure to have “poison pill” provisions guaranteeing Dem rejection

            So who’s the worst Attorney General: John Mitchell, Ed Meese, or Alberto Gonzalez?;>), with John Ashcroft and Mukasi or whatever his name was getting dishonorable mentions, of course.

          • dtgraham

            I’ve argued the preposterous notion that Jimmy Carter’s CRA was somehow responsible for the world financial implosion 31 years later, a number of times on this website. I just didn’t feel like it anymore. It’s a perverse tribute to the right wing media that they’re able to sell this insane B.S. to so many people.

          • bikejedi

            So the Banks are racist and they were supposed to give out loans simply because people wanted them , and it doesnt matter whether they could pay them back or even have a job right ???? I mean does it matter if they can read balance a check book have the necessary credit history that shows they can responsibly pay back a debt or even the necessary income ?????… Just because the guy is black they are supposed to write hims a loan ???? I dont think this was ever a matter of race as much as credit worthiness . Were there a lot of poor people who dont qualify ??? Yes there always are and those people shouldnt be given loans … would you borrow them money for a house knowing full well they could never pay you back ??? Would that be a good way to stay in business or a recipe for disaster Does that have anything to do with race or common sense ???

            Clinton did repeal it and some Republicans supported it and a lot of Dems supported it … He could’ve showed some common sense as well and vetoe’d it

            As for the worst A G … come on now … Fast and Furious … targeting Rosen and the Media .. Not prosecuting the Black Panthers .. Being a total racist douche Not investigating or prosecuting the IRS … the record is clear the Dems view the AG position as a position where they can pick and chose justice and Eric witHolder should be in Jail .. after that Janet Reno black mailing the banks comes in second

          • dtgraham

            The CRA emphasized that banking institutions fulfill their CRA obligations within the framework of safe and sound operation. The CRA did not stipulate minimum targets or even goals for the volume of loans, services or investments that banking institutions provide to low and moderate income areas.

            It was found that the crisis of 2008 was primarily rooted in the poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007, but the CRA rules and enforcement process hadn’t been altered at all since 1995 and that was only a minor change. What did change after that point was complete financial services sector deregulation with the lifting of what was left of Glass-Steagal.

            You also have to remember the point of originating entity. Non bank lenders originated a substantial share of subprime mortgages, but they weren’t subject to CRA regulations or obligations. Also, 60% of higher priced loans from all lenders went to middle or higher income neighborhoods—not targeted by the CRA. In addition, non bank institutions made half of the higher priced loans to borrowers in lower income areas.

            Only 6% of the higher priced loans were extended by CRA regulated lenders to neighborhoods in CRA assessment areas. That very small share of subprime lending in the last decade that can be linked to the CRA suggests that it is highly unlikely that the CRA played any kind of significant role at all in the subprime crisis. Lastly, foreclosure filings increased at a much faster pace in non CRA areas than CRA assessment areas.

            To sum this up, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations were even related to the CRA. Second, CRA related loans actually out performed other types of subprime loans. All of the available evidence that the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commision found ran counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantial way to the mortgage crisis.

            The recklessness started when financial institutions were allowed to bundle up bad loans with other toxic assets in complex derivative packages that investors couldn’t properly evaluate. There was suddenly an incentive to make questionable loans and they did just that, particularly when their newly merged investment trading desks had access to depositor’s money from the banking side.

          • bikejedi

            Who was it that said that Government programs shouldn’t be judged and evaluated by their intent but rather their results ? ( or something close ) … Oh that’s right it was Milton Friedman …and he was right and the results of the CRA and the Dem Liberal agenda were just as I described and also as the NY Times predicted in an article from 9 /30 /99 years before the whole thing came crashing down . The CRA may have contained some language telling the Banks to play nice and then they gave them the avenue to make a few short term points on loans they knew were garbage and encouraged the practice … Particularlly Bawnee Fwank with what he did with Fannie and Freddie … and look you cant put this on the Banks or ANYONE else after the Banks told Clinton and Congress this want going to work and it would all fall apart … When Janet Reno then threatened the Banks with Fed Discrimination lawsuits…. then there is NO ONE else to blame but her and the Dems for not only promoting bad banking practice( just so they could get the votes of those people grateful for a mortgage) but then blackmailing the banks and eventually blaming them and Bush when their plans doomed America

          • dtgraham

            That’s why government actions like financial services sector deregulation need to be evaluated by their results and not intent. Look at it this way: the idea that a lending crisis created largely from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is a stretch to say the least. It’s sillier yet when you consider that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which were not subject to routine supervision or examinations.

            CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans by design and therefore were far less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage backed securities that caused so many losses, and that’s the ticket (one of).

            Much better targets for blame might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated or the SEC’s 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital, and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years, as many gorged on subprime debt.

            Do a comparison to Canada if it helps. Although it’s never been an issue, Canadian banks aren’t allowed to redline entire neighbourhoods and areas either, and must be fair in their lending practices. Yet, there has never been a banking crisis in Canadian history, including the 1930’s. What was felt in Canada in 2009 was just a ripple effect from the U.S. due to the extensive nature of the trading relationship between the two countries. While everything was coming apart in America and some other nations, there was no crisis at all in Canada because of one of the most highly regulated banking and financial sectors in the world.

          • bikejedi

            It’s not a stretch at all when you remember that none of those Co.s would’ve existed were it not for the CRA the Sub Prime market and the practices of Fannie and Freddie . The Canadians never came up with a scheme to force their banks to lend money to bad credit risk’s in exchange for votes that is the big difference

          • dtgraham

            It’s taken a few days again to get back to you. Busy week. You’re not allowed to simply draw lines and refuse to do business with whole neighbourhoods in Canada because of the Bank of Canada bank act, similar to the community reinvestment act.

            I’m in the camp of monetary policy for the housing boom. Lowered interest rates over 2002-2005 pushed up housing demand, increasing residential investment and raising housing prices. I don’t think there was any question that it was a monetary policy induced housing boom. The thing is though that Canada had very similar monetary policies during that period, so what was the difference?

            There were several institutional details that played a role with one being key. The Canadian market lacks a counter
            part to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, both of which unfortunately played a role in the growth of securitization (selling subprime products as investments)

          • bikejedi

            I think there is some truth in what you say and also in what I say . I think we differ in what the root cause and genesis of it was and how far back that goes . I will say it is refreshing to have a conversation on here without being called names or labeled a racist . I am actually looking into a few things you brought up and what may have been the reasons for that . Still I think it all goes back to the CRA as the root cause and I think that when Janet Reno threatened the Banks with those Fed Discrimination law suits that proved it . They wanted these bad practices to continue for the votes and support it was bringing them . Anyway it’s time for me to go Bike Riding so I can live up to my Moniker … Have a great weekend

          • dtgraham

            bikejedi—-I’ve replied to you but disqus was acting up and my reply got posted before I was finished. I’ve edited it to get the rest and you’ll have to click on reply and go to the original article to read it. It won’t all show up on your e-mail inbox. Like I said , if you want to reply…you get the last word.

          • Sand_Cat

            From (I don’t always agree with them, but I haven’t heard accusations of outrageous bias):

            The notion that President Obama ceased sporting a wedding band and
            wristwatch in observance of a supposed proscription against wearing
            jewelry during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan is one that can be
            definitively debunked on many levels. To wit:

            Barack Obama is not a Muslim and therefore does not observe Ramadan.
            Islam has no general prohibition against Muslims’ wearing jewelry during the month of Ramadan.
            This item references President Obama’s alleged jewelry-free state during Ramadan (the ninth month of the Islamic calendar) in 2010, a period falling between 11 August and 9 September on the Gregorian calendar that year. But President Obama was only spotted without his wedding band
            (because, according to the White House, it had been sent out for
            repair) for a few days in mid-September 2010, at the very end of
            Ramadan. If President Obama had truly removed his wedding band as part
            of a Ramadan observance, he would had to have shed it in mid-August and refrained from wearing it for four full weeks afterwards.
            Pictures from the brief period when President Obama was without his wedding ring show that he was nonetheless still wearing a watch on his left wrist:

            Although President Obama is not a frequent public church-goer
            (due to his “concern that his presence and the exhaustive security
            precautions required before and during the worship could prove
            disruptive for other congregants”), the claim that he “hasn’t gone to a
            Christian church service since entering the White House” is false. The
            Obamas have attended public church services in Washington on several
            occasions (see, for example, “Obama Picks Episcopal Church for Easter,” “Obama and Family Attend Church Service”, and “The Obamas Attend D.C. Church Easter Sunday”).
            The suggestion that the Obamas spent their Christmas vacation in
            Hawaii so that President Obama could avoid scrutiny for not attending
            church is also false. In fact, the Obamas attended (and were photographed at) services on 26 December 2010 at a Hawaiian Marine Corps Base.

            Update: In August 2011 the claim
            that President Obama was not wearing his watch or wedding ring in
            observance of Ramadan was circulated anew. Ramadan in 2011 lasted from 1 August to 29 August, yet photographs from that period clearly show the President wearing both his wedding ring and his watch (e.g., the fifth photo in the six-photo CBS Boston spread of his vacation, which was taken on 19 August 2011):


          • dtgraham

            I’ve been reading the back and forth posted comments between you and Sand_Cat and wasn’t going to get involved, but I finally can’t help myself.

            We wouldn’t know anything about the jewelery thing because we don’t read the wacko right wing websites. They’d be the only ones to consider it germane and relevant even if it is true. Out of curiosity, why is this important to you? I thought there was no religious test for office, and that’s right from the constitution. I don’t care what religion, if any, he practices. Why do you?

          • bikejedi

            I dont care that he is a Muslim only that he is in the closet about it probably because he knew he couldnt get elected had he come out . Since he doesnt have to worry about that why is he still LYING about it . He would have more credibility if he stopped lying and just came out . as for your assertion of the wacko right … I think it was the Uber Liberal lap dogs at ABC that asked him where his ring was during a previous Ramadan and he joked that it was getting fixed and you all just giggled in adulation … At least if he came out his anti Christian campaign would make sense to people and maybe Christian Liberals would be able to stop worrying about being PC to appease a LIar … they then could start calling their tree’s Christmas trees again … got it …

          • Sand_Cat

            Did you actually SEE this exchange, and what other evidence have you to support your claims, which go way beyond what such a brief thing could credibly support?

          • bikejedi

            Yes I recall seeing it I think it was ABC and it also made the rounds on the Sunday show … It doesnt seem so funny to dismiss it as a joke now that the entire middle east is er ummm on the run with Al Qaeda and other radicals … they are on the run right … Oh yeah they are running through Mosul Tikrit and so on …If you want you can google it there are plenty of things on it … You have Liberals laughing about it in total denial and real people asking real questions about it and him

  • Pamby50

    I know there are so many more that could have been added to this week in crazy. I am ready to round them all up and send them over to Iraq. Therefore they can spread their christian values over there. They can take all their guns & ammo with them also.

  • Sandy99

    Does Scott Esk realize that he is publicly advocating murder? Shouldn’t the Oklahoma AG be looking into this?