Things that make you go hmm …
A coroner has ruled that the death of James Baker, former White House Press Secretary under President Ronald Reagan, was a homicide. Hmm, I must admit like at Hot Air, I was a bit surprised to read the headline when it came across. I thought to myself, was he poisoned. How could 73 year old James Baker’s death have been a homicide? I did not remember reading anything of the sort when he died August 4, 2014 in in Obit. And now for something a little different. Brady’s death has been ruled a homicide 33 years after he was wounded in an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan at the hands of John W. Hinckley Jr.
The death this week of James S. Brady, the former White House press secretary, has been ruled a homicide 33 years after he was wounded in an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, police department officials here said Friday.
Officials said the ruling was made by the medical examiner in Northern Virginia, where Mr. Brady died Monday at 73. The medical examiner’s office would not comment on the cause and manner of Mr. Brady’s death.
“We did do an autopsy on Mr. Brady, and that autopsy is complete,” a spokeswoman said.
Gail Hoffman, a spokeswoman for the Brady family, said the ruling should really “be no surprise to anybody.”
“Jim had been long suffering severe health consequences since the shooting,” she said, adding that the family had not received official word of the ruling from either the medical examiner’s office or the police.
The question that arises is whether f John W. Hinckley Jr. can be tried for the murder of James Brady. Sorry to say, the answer is most probably no. However, hopefully this will allow for the nut job John W. Hinckley Jr. to forever stay in a mental institution until the day he dies.
As Eugene Volokh writes in the WAPO, “Could the shooter, John Hinckley Jr., be tried for murdering Brady, even though he has already been tried for attempting to kill Brady, and found not guilty by reason of insanity? The answer is no, likely for two different reasons.” He brings up the year-and-a-day rule, Double jeopardy and collateral estoppel. Please read Volokh’s reasoning and the many cited examples of case law.
Bill Clinton Tells Sky News on 9/10/01: “I Could Have Killed Osama bin Laden but Didn’t” … Guess What Took Place the Very Next Day?
WHAT DID BILL CLINTON SAY JUST ONE DAY BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 …
The day before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, former President Bill Clinton spoke in Australia to about 30 business leaders during a lunch and stated on having passed on a chance to kill Osama bin Laden. A tape of Clinton’s comments were presented to Australia’s “Sky News” channel.
“And I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden — he’s very smart guy, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him — and I nearly got him once,” the former president reportedly says on the tape, to laughs. “I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.”
Just a reminder to Bill Clinton, you were the President of the United States and supposed to protect the lives of Americans, not worry about how the world would feel about you had you taken out Bin Laden with possible collateral damage.
Hmm, He would have had to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan? You mean the one with a population of 1,151,100? So what would you have had to do again Mr. President? BTW, Clinton did not just have one chance to kill Osama Bin Laden, he had many.
NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.
In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.
Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.
Obamanomics is Crushing America … Typical US Household Getting Poorer, Worth One-Third Less Than GWB
Thank you Barack Obama and Obamanomics, sarcasm intended …
President Barack Obama likes to play class warfare and talk about the income divide. However, under Barack Obama the income divide has got worse and American households are getting poorer. According to a recent study by the Russell Sage Foundation, the NY Times reports that the inflation-adjusted net worth for the typical household was $87,992 in 2003, but ten years later, it was only $56,335, or a 36% decline.
Economic inequality in the United States has been receiving a lot of attention. But it’s not merely an issue of the rich getting richer. The typical American household has been getting poorer, too.
The inflation-adjusted net worth for the typical household was $87,992 in 2003. Ten years later, it was only $56,335, or a 36 percent decline, according to a study financed by the Russell Sage Foundation. Those are the figures for a household at the median point in the wealth distribution — the level at which there are an equal number of households whose worth is higher and lower. But during the same period, the net worth of wealthy households increased substantially.
The Russell Sage study also examined net worth at the 95th percentile. (For households at that level, 94 percent of the population had less wealth and 4 percent had more.) It found that for this well-do-do slice of the population, household net worth increased 14 percent over the same 10 years. Other research, by economists like Edward Wolff at New York University, has shown even greater gains in wealth for the richest 1 percent of households..
The Gateway Pundit reminds us of the following, “It should come as no surprise then that Republicans overwhelmingly represent the middle class districts by almost a two-to-one ratio.”
UPDATE I: Sadly the delusional LEFT holds Barack Obama accountable for nothing and it is all George W. Bush’s fault. But then again, what has changed. The Obama blame everybody else crowd but Obama arguments are old and tired. Six years into the Obama presidency and some how the median net worth in 2013 is W’s fault, not Obama’s. Some how the LEFT can justify it was Bush’s fault but not Obama’s as well. Real consistent folks. Rather than worrying whether others read an article you might might to pay more attention to using common logic.
The lame LEFT seem to discount the following, but of course this is all W’s fault as well:
- Obamanomics: People in Poverty Up 6,667,000 … Record 46,496,000 Now Poor … Median Income Down Nearly 5% to $2,627.
- Welfare Spending = $168 Per Day for Every Household in Poverty … $137 Median Income Per Day
- Obama’s Hope & Change Economy … The Nation’s Official Poverty Rate in 2009 was 14.3%.
- The Obama Economy Welcome to Obamaville: The Number of People on Poverty to Post Record Gain Under Obama’s Watch.
- The United States of Poverty: Thanks to Barack Obama & Obamanomics, US Poverty on Track to Rise to Highest Since 1960?s
Chicago Blacks Call Barack Obama: “Worst President Ever” and Epic Rant Rant on Illegals From Houston Black Woman Bernadette Lancelin, “Why Can’t They Go Back?”
The death of “Hope & Change” for Black America … Have Black finally turned on Barack Obama and figured out that they’ve been played?
After six disastrous years of the Barack Obama Presidency, the only individuals that truly still back “the worst president” since WWII have been Blacks and liberals. Black Americans may finally be getting a clue and come to the understand that Obama cares little about their plight. Blacks voted for Obama 95% – 4% in 2008 and 93% – 6% in 2012; however, conditions for blacks under the Obama administration have become worse, not better. In 2008, black unemployment was at 10.1%. In July 2014, the BLS had black unemployment at 10.7%. This is more than double that of Whites. So what happened to that “Hope and Change” that Obama promised? It is even worse for teenage blacks and college graduates. Then there are the “killing fields” of Chicago that Obama has simply ignored.
In the wake of the illegal immigration humanitarian crisis on the US-Mexican border and the so called help that Barack Obama wants to do by throwing billions of dollars at, it would appear that Black America is finally pissed at this president for all of his double speak and failed promises. Has black America figured out that Obama and Democrats care more about Hispanics that they do blacks? What did they expect when they vote as one for one candidate and one party? Their vote is expected, not valued. Legal Insurrection refers to it as, Clash of the Titan special interest groups. Are Hispanics the new black?
BELOW ARE MUST SEE VIDEOS:
It is about time some one in the Black community ripped Obama a new one for his actions. As reported at the Western Journal, Bernadette Lancelin, a Houston resident, is furious that while her kids have gone without any help from anyone and have had nothing for years, illegals pouring into the country on a daily basis have their every need attended to. She does not mince words.
It’s not right,” Lancelin said. “Now billions of dollars want to be borrowed from the White House to help feed and house them. What about the [expletive deleted] kids here? In our neighborhood, in our country? Not just in this neighborhood but in our country!”
“All these kids: really? Why can’t they go back? I’m sorry that their parents are in poor living conditions or surroundings or whatever’s going on,” she continued. “I don’t care. I care about what’s going on right here, in my own back yard, my neighborhood.”
“Am I the only one in this community that’s out here that watches the news every [expletive deleted] morning? Oh my God! I feel alone right now in this, and I’m very saddened by it.”
Bernadette Lancelin, Houston Black Woman EPIC Rant on Illegals – “Why Can’t They Go Back?”
Chicago Resident: Obama Will Go Down as Worst President Ever
Check out the Chicago – South-side residents ripping Barack Obama a new one in that he cares more about illegals coming into the United States than legal residents in the inner city of Chicago. From the Rebel Pundit, one resident states, “He will probably go down as the worst president ever!”
“With the president setting aside all these funds for immigrants and forsaken African-American community and African-American families, I think that’s a disgrace. And Barack is from the heart of 55th in the City of Chicago… He will probably go down as the worst president ever elected. Bill Clinton was the African-American president.”
Another compared the current state of Black-American life to that during slavery, saying, “Today, if you look at the time that we were brought here as slaves 400 years ago, we got the same results today.”
The disgrace of the Obama years. All those promises, all those votes and the black plight has been made worse.
File this one under, tell me something we do not already know … OBAMA IS THE WORST PRESIDENT!
According to a new Quinnipiac University poll, Americans say that Obama is the worst post-WWII president of them all. It would appear that Barack Obama is not the one that “we’ve been waiting for”, actually far from it. Just think, Obama is already at the bottom of the list and his presidency is not even over, sadly. Look for this poll number to go down even further as the US economy continues to struggle, the Middle East continues in turmoil and the scandals mount. Ronald Reagan is far and away considered the best president. What does it say when a current sitting US president is considered worse than Richard Nixon, who had to resign and leave office in disgrace because of “Watergate” before he was impeached? Had it not been for a liberal media refusing to dig deeper in to the all too numerous Obama administration scandals like a Woodward and Bernstein, Obama would have a 20% approval rating and been impeached.
Not only do Americans say that Obama is the worst post-WWII president, they also have “buyer’s remorse” as 45% of voters say that America would be better off had Mitt Romney been elected president in 2012, while 38% believe the country would be worse off. This includes independent voters 47 – 33, who wish they could get a Mulligan and have a do-over to elect Romney. Hot Air opines, “If independents have double-digit buyer’s remorse from 2012, that suggests a strong desire to make up for their earlier mistake.”
President Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, 33 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. Another 28 percent pick President George W. Bush.
Ronald Reagan is the best president since WWII, 35 percent of voters say, with 18 percent for Bill Clinton, 15 percent for John F. Kennedy and 8 percent for Obama, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Among Democrats, 34 percent say Clinton is the best president, with 18 percent each for Obama and Kennedy.
Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, 39 percent of voters say, while 40 percent say he is worse. Men say 43 – 36 percent that Obama is worse than Bush while women say 42 – 38 percent he is better. Obama is worse, Republicans say 79 – 7 percent and independent voters say 41 – 31 percent. Democrats say 78 – 4 percent that he is better.
My list of worst post WWII presidents would be as follows: 1) Barack Obama, 2) Jimmy Carter, 3) Gerald Ford, although not sure if he should even count, 4) Richard Nixon, 5) LBJ 6) Bill Clinton, 7) GWB, 8) GHWB, 9) JFK, 10) Eisenhower. Ronald Reagan and Harry S Truman would not even get a vote to be on this list.
I would actually go one further, Obama may just be the worst president since WWI. Hell, for that fact Obama is the worst president since The Revolutionary War of American Independence.
Hypocrisy Hillary … Wow, if Hillary Clinton can’t keep composed on liberal NPR, how is she going to handle questions as a presidential candidate or will the MSM just give her a pass like Obama?
Get ready for Hillary Clinton’s favorable ratings to drop even more as America listens to Hillary Clinton and suddenly remembers that the Clinton era gave us the words, parsing and “Clintonesque”. Neither an endearing quality. In what can only be described as another disastrous interview, Hillary Clinton snaps at the radio host Terry Gross on NPR for pressing her on her gay marriage record. Note to Hillary, an NPR interview is supposed to be a liberal softball. More at Hot Air.
CLINTON: “No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify. I think you are trying to say that I used to be opposed and now I am in favor and I did it for political reasons. And that’s just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like I think you are implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record. I have a great commitment to this issue and I am proud of what I’ve done and the progress were making.”
Defensive, Testy Gay Marriage Interview
In an interview this afternoon on NPR, Hillary Clinton gets testy and defensive about her and her husband’s gay marriage record.
After 6 minutes of questioning, Clinton attacks host Terry Gross for pressing her on whether she changed her mind on gay marriage or she publicly stated something she had always believed.
GROSS: “So that’s one for you changed your mind?”
CLINTON: You know I really, I have to say, I think you being very persistent, but you are playing with my words and playing with what is such an important issue.”
GROSS: “I’m just trying to clarify so I can understand-”
CLINTON: “No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify.
During the interview, Clinton also attacks gay marriage opponents who “believe they have a direct line to the divine” and claims that “not that many” people supported gay marriage when her husband signed DOMA into law.
Guess what, Barack Obama was not “The One” that we had been waiting for …
In a recent CNN poll, Barack Obama is now as unpopular as former president George W. Bush. Both Obama and Bush now have a 51% unfavorable rating. Obama’s approval rating has dropped to 47%. However, that most likely is not the low that this president will see before he leaves office, and none too soon. With scandals abound like IRS-gate, Fast & Furious, Benghazi-gate and most recently the VA scandal and the release of 5 Taliban, GITMO detainees for an alleged deserter. Not to mention a continued poor economy, a jobless recovery, a disastrous foreign policy and last but certainly not least, Obamacare. As commented on by Hot Air, a Fox News poll out this week shows continued sharp disapproval of President Obama’s signature domestic “accomplishment,” with a sizable majority expressing the opinion that they wish the 2010 healthcare law had never passed.
Who is laughing now Barack?
In January 2009, as President George W. Bush was days away from leaving the White House, the unpopular President’s favorable rating stood at 35% in a CNN/ORC International survey. The man who was succeeding him, Barack Obama, was fresh from his historic 2008 presidential election victory and had a 78% favorable rating among Americans.
But a new CNN/ORC International poll released Thursday indicates a milestone of sorts: Obama is now as unpopular as Bush. Fifty-one percent have an unfavorable view of Bush; 51% feel the same way about Obama. Obama’s favorable rating is now at 47% – a new low for him, and virtually identical to Bush’s 46% favorable rating, a significant improvement over his 2009 numbers.
Obama started out strong, but as many predicted, the public’s love affair with Obama faded as reality set in. Obama dealt with the severe recession plaguing the nation and pushed for controversial proposals such as the federal stimulus and health care reform. By 2010, the President’s favorable rating had dropped by double digits, although his numbers generally remained in the mid-50s throughout the 2012 presidential campaign.
EXIT QUESTION: Will Barack Obama’s favorable and unfavorable ratings be worse than GWB’s by the end of his presidency … Magic 8-Ball says, “Signs point to Yes”.
Sunday, May 25 is National Missing Children’s Day.
National Missing Children’s Day is an annual observation in the United States designed to highlight the problem of child kidnapping and abduction. It is observed on May 25 because that is the date in 1979 that 6 year old Ethan Patz disappeared on his way to school in New York City, NY. National Missing Children’s Day was first observed in 1983 when it was first proclaimed by President Ronald Reagan.
National Missing Children’s Day is commemorated this Sunday, May 25 and aims to remind the public of the numerous cases of America’s missing children.
The most recent study conducted by The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children states, that approximately 800,000 children younger than 18 were reported missing in one year.
National Missing Children’s Day has been commemorated in the United States on May 25, since 1983, when it was first proclaimed by President Ronald Reagan.
It falls on the same day as the International Missing Children’s Day.
1. Share a poster.
2. Take the Pledge.
3. Like us on Facebook and Twitter.
4. Make sure your wireless AMBER Alerts are activated.
5. Get a free lapel pin and wear it.
6. Change your profile cover photo.
8. Bookmark the anniversaries page.
9. Make a Child ID.
10. Know what to do if you see a missing child.
Key facts from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children:
- The most recent, comprehensive national study for the number of missing children estimated in 1999:
- Approximately 800,000 children younger than 18 were reported missing.
- More than 200,000 children were abducted by family members.
- More than 58,000 children were abducted by nonfamily members.
- An estimated 115 children were the victims of “stereotypical” kidnapping. These “stereotypical” kidnappings involved someone the child did not know or was an acquaintance. The child was held overnight, transported 50 miles or more, killed, ransomed or held with the intent to keep the child permanently.
- To find the number of children missing from a specific state or territory contact the state’s Missing Child Clearinghouses.
- The first three hours are the most critical when trying to locate a missing child. The murder of an abducted child is rare, and an estimated 100 cases in which an abducted child is murdered occur in the U.S. each year. A 2006 study indicated that 76.2 percent of abducted children who are killed are dead within three hours of the abduction.
- The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children® has assisted law enforcement in the recovery of more than 193,705 missing children since it was founded in 1984. Our recovery rate for missing children has grown from 62 percent in 1990 to 97 percent today.
- The AMBER Alert program was created in 1996 and is operated by the U.S. Department of Justice. As of April 2, 2014, 688 children have been successfully recovered as a result of the program. 
- As of Dec. 2013, NCMEC’s toll free, 24 hour call center has received more than 3,899,964 calls since it was created in 1984. Information about missing or exploited children can be reported to the call center by calling 1-800-THE-LOST (1-800-843-5678).
- 93 percent of teens ages 12 to 17 go online.
- Of children five years old and younger who use the Internet, 80 percent use it at least once a week.
- One in 25 children ages 10 to 17 received an online sexual solicitation where the solicitor tried to make offline contact.
- Four percent of cell phone owning teens ages 12 to 17 say they have sent sexually suggestive nude/semi-nude messages to others via text message.
- 15 percent of cell phone owning teens ages 12 to 17 say they have received sexually suggestive nude/semi-nude images of someone they know via text.
Daily Commentary – Friday, May 23, 2014 – MIL to Chelsea Clinton Looses Her Congressional Primary Bid
- Marjorie Margolies lost to state Rep. Brendan Boyle even though the Clinton’s campaigned for her
VP Joe Biden Takes Shot at Clintons in SC … Unraveling of Middle Class Financial Security Began in “the Later Years of the Clinton Administration,” Not Under GWB
Is Biden going to run for Democrat nominee for president in 2016?
Vice President Joe Biden speaking at the VIP Capital City Club event in Columbia, SC took a swipe at the Clinton’s and did the unthinkable for a Democrat, did not blame George W. Bush. Biden said to the group in the key primary state of South Carolina, the unraveling of middle-class financial security began in “the later years of the Clinton administration,” not under George W. Bush.
Vice President Joe Biden gave a closed-door speech Friday to South Carolina Democrats that included a shot at the Clintons.
Biden, a potential 2016 candidate, said the unraveling of middle-class financial security began in “the later years of the Clinton administration,” not under George W. Bush, CNN reported Saturday.
Speaking for more than thirty minutes at the VIP Capital City Club event in Columbia, S.C., he addressed the prominant group of attendees in the key presidential primary state.
In recent months, the vice president has focused on revving up liberals on issues of income inequality, as he prepares for a possible run against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, though many Democrats don’t think he’d run against her.
“He said we have some of the most productive workers in the world, but corporations are more concerned about their stockholders than they are about their employees,” one attendee said. “He talked about how the fruits of labor go to stockholders, rather than to the people who are producing it. That the people making the money in this country are the corporations.”
Another attendee described it as “a stem-winding, almost revival-type speech.”