Donald Trump Twitter rants and also retweets image which both praises him and attacks President Obama.

pic.twitter.com/6XJxEg1gSs

— Jerry Travone 🎦 (@JerryTravone) August 24, 2017

This was Trump's retweet this morning.

As you can see his vision of his presidency is one that eclipses Obama's and replaces it completely, as if it never happened.

Trump also took time to bitch about media coverage of his Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde back to back speeches.

The Fake News is now complaining about my different types of back to back speeches. Well, there was Afghanistan (somber), the big Rally.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 24, 2017

I should point out that Trump originally misspelled "There" in his original tweet (Their.) and it was only corrected many minutes later.

..(enthusiastic, dynamic and fun) and the American Legion - V.A. (respectful and strong). Too bad the Dems have no one who can change tones!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 24, 2017

Interesting how he confuses a change of tones with evidence of a bipolar personality.

Trump then turned his attention to other targets.

James Clapper, who famously got caught lying to Congress, is now an authority on Donald Trump. Will he show you his beautiful letter to me?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 24, 2017

The only problem I have with Mitch McConnell is that, after hearing Repeal & Replace for 7 years, he failed!That should NEVER have happened!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 24, 2017

Trump is either constantly exalting himself or attacking others it seems.

And with every tweet he just isolates himself a little further.

It should do the trick.

So thanks to Wikileaks everybody has finally had a chance to see those scandalous Wall Street speeches of Hillary Clinton's. Prepare to be underwhelmed.

Wikileaks continues this slow dribble of hacked information that they once claimed would destroy the Clinton campaign.

However all it seems to be doing is reinforcing that Hillary Clinton is essentially a very knowledgeable, experienced, and capable politician.

Here are some excerpts courtesy of NBC News.

On the Syrian no fly zone:

She also discussed a no-fly zone, and said putting one in place could draw the U.S. and NATO further into the conflict, according to the documents. 

"To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk — you're going to kill a lot of Syrians," Clinton said, according to the documents. "So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians."

What? She doesn't think killing innocent civilians is a good way to end a conflict in Syria?

And she wants to be leader of the free world, please!

On working with Russia: 

Although Clinton has been making that case that she would be far tougher on the Putin regime in Russia than her opponent, she did tell audiences in 2013 that should would "love it it we could continue to build a more positive relationship with Russia." She described her efforts as Secretary of State to improve relations with Russia and expresses hope that President Vladimir Putin would be "less defensive" towards working with the U.S. on issues where the two nations have mutual agreement. 

Oh sure, be reasonable. Too bad half of the country seems willing to embrace the unreasonable.

On Wall Street (Okay now we're getting somewhere.): 

Clinton spoke in great detail about what she saw as the root causes of the Great Recession and its fallout in subsequent years. In part, she said there should have been "greater transparency" on what went wrong from not just bankers but regulators and lawmakers, too. She also argued that an effort to prevent another crisis will require a buy-in from Wall Street itself, which she calls 'the nerves, the spinal column" of the economy. 

"If you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing," Clinton conceded. "But what you do is really important."

That, that was what the Sanders' supporters were convinced would cost her the nomination?

There are a few more examples that you can find on various news sites, but unless they are prone to wild exaggerations or outright deception there is really nothing revealed that hurts Hillary even a little bit.

Here is how CNN summed it up:

Clinton collected at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks, according to figures released by Clinton's campaign and tax documents she released earlier this year. 

And while the transcripts show a more blunt, less reserved Clinton, much of what the former secretary of state said to Goldman Sachs and other groups appear generally in line with some of what she has said publicly.

So essentially Clinton made almost two million dollars to say in private speeches essentially the same thing that most of us could hear for free, only with a little more candor.

Well that's a hell of a gig if you can get it.

Let's face it all that we have learned by reading these hacks from Wikileaks is that Hillary is an actual person who tries to keep at least some of her life from the prying eyes of the media, and who is essentially a more approachable and human person behind closed doors than she is in public.

However there is literally NOTHING scandalous and certainly nothing that is going to negatively impact her candidacy.

And yes I know that Wikileaks is going to continue to release more information up until the election, but since early voting has already started in a few states, do we honestly think that they are holding onto some bombshell for release right before election day?

I don't.

You know I thought this tweet perfectly summed up my feelings about Hillary Clinton's supposed "criminal" behaviors.

If Hillary Clinton is a criminal, as you allege, she is Danny Ocean meets Keyser Soze. The greatest criminal mastermind of all-time.

— Will McAvoy (@WillMcAvoyACN) October 15, 2016

Well said.

Samantha Bee's take on the 2nd presidential debate is a "must see."

Courtesy of Raw Story:

Just hours before the debate, Bee describes Trump attempting to grab the media narrative by enlisting the help of four women who say that they’ve been victimized by the husband of his political opponent. Using the women as some sort of “rape victim human shield” was never going to work, however, and the answer for why can easily be found looking at Jennifer Aniston. 

“Rubbing a woman’s face in her husband’s infidelities is not the way to America’s heart,” Bee explained. “We love wronged wives. This is the same America that is still obsessed with Jennifer Aniston. Her ex-husband has split up with the woman he cheated on her with and we still want to know if she’s alright.” 

In the end, “none of it is Hillary’s fault and none if it erases what Donald did,” Bee said. 

I swear this show is getting better all of the time.

Now I would like to take a moment to delve into Trump mocking Hillary over her answer to the Wikileaks kerfuffle in which she referenced Spielberg's movie "Abraham Lincoln."

Trump went after her and essentially accused her of hiding behind Honest Abe and somehow smearing him at the same time.

However the thing is, she was not lying. And it was those hacked e-mails from Wikileaks which prove it.

Courtesy of Quartz:

Hillary Clinton invoked American luminaries Steven Spielberg and Abraham Lincoln to get out of a tight spot in tonight’s presidential debate. 

The moment came when she was asked about comments in paid speeches that have dogged her presidential campaign. 

Specifically, she was asked about an excerpt of a hacked e-mail containing potentially controversial excerpts from a $225,000 paid speech she delivered to the National Multi-Housing Council in 2013, after she left public office. 

In her speech to the nonprofit, she argued that politicians “need both a public and a private position” in order to accomplish anything. The debate moderators asked Clinton on behalf of a voter, “Is it ok for politicians to be two-faced?”

As you see in the video above Hillary responded to that question by saying that she was actually talking about the Spielberg movie and how brilliantly Lincoln held his cards to his chest while working to get the 13th Amendment approved.

Trump then made his derisive comments, and Hillary simply let them stand. And the fact that she let them stand should have been Trump's first clue.

Here is the entire excerpt from that e-mail in question:

*CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY* *Clinton: “But If Everybody’s Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.”* CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, “balance” — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think — I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it’s like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what’s going to work and what’s not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]

As you can see in context is says something completely different than what was reported by the media, and  certainly different from how Trump tried to characterize it.

Here is a helpful hint for Donald Trump to keep in mind for his next debate with Hillary.

If she says something definitive like this, with the full knowledge that fact checkers are going to scrutinize every word, you should know right up front that it is highly unlikely that she is telling a lie.

About those new hacked e-mails about Hillary Clinton's speeches released by Wikileaks. Ho and hum.

Courtesy of ABC News: 

The leaks were the result of another email hacking intended to influence the presidential election. 

Excerpts of the speeches given in the years before her 2016 presidential campaign included some blunt and unguarded remarks to her private audiences, which collectively had paid her at least $26.1 million in speaking fees. Clinton had refused to release transcripts of the speeches, despite repeated calls to do so by her primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders. 

The excerpts were included in emails exchanged among her political staff, including Campaign Chairman John Podesta, whose email account was hacked. The WikiLeaks organization posted what it said were thousands of Podesta's emails. It wasn't immediately clear who had hacked Podesta's emails, though the breach appeared to cover years of messages, some sent as recently as last month.

Some of the e-mails it seems dealt with concerns about how portions of Hillary's speeches might be received by the public if they were made public.

Here are some of the portions that concerned the campaing:

One excerpt put Clinton squarely in the free-trade camp, a position she has retreated on significantly during the 2016 election. In a talk to a Brazilian bank in 2013, she said her "dream" is "a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders" and asked her audience to think of what doubling American trade with Latin America "would mean for everybody in this room."

I don't think that anybody would be too surprised by this.

After all though Hillary is now opposing TPP, she does NOT oppose trade deals in general.

Courtesy of Politico: 

Jeffrey Schott, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, agreed that nothing in the excerpts “seems inconsistent with her positions on trade today.” 

“As I understand her position, she is against TPP in its current form but is open to moving forward with TPP if it is restructured in some way,” Schott added. “The No. 1 issue that is cited as part of the fix for TPP is provisions that prohibit currency manipulation.” 

Like I said, nothing burger.

Moving on:

"Running for office in our country takes a lot of money, and candidates have to go out and raise it," Clinton said. "New York is probably the leading site for contributions for fundraising for candidates on both sides of the aisle, and it's also our economic center. And there are a lot of people here who should ask some tough questions before handing over campaign contributions to people who were really playing chicken with our whole economy." 

In the same speech, Clinton was also deferential to the New York finance industry, exhorting wealthy donors to use their political clout for patriotic rather than personal benefit. She also spoke of the need to include Wall Street perspectives in financial reform. 

"The people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry," Clinton said.

Now if this were coming from Bernie Sanders, who ran a fairly anti-Wall Street campaign, then I think people might be legitimately scandalized.

But Hillary Clinton was never anti-Wall Street, she was just in agreement that it needed serious reform, which thanks to President Obama and Elizabeth Warren is now being addressed aggressively.

Next?

In an April 2013 speech to the National Multifamily Housing Council, Clinton said politicians must balance "both a public and a private position" while making deals. Clinton gave an example from the movie "Lincoln," and the deal-making that went into passage of the 13th Amendment, a process she compared to sausage-making. 

"It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be," Clinton said. "But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position."

Okay if you are surprised, or upset by this admission then you REALLY don't understand how politics works in this country.

EVERY politician has a public persona they present when being interviewed by the press or interacting with their constituents.

In 2008 President Obama stated in interviews that he did not support same sex marriage, and yet has been one of the leading advocates for making it legal in America.

Was he really against is?

Probably not.

Could he have been elected if he had said he was for same sex marriage in 2008?

Absolutely not.

So yes we have to take things politicians say in public with a grain of salt.

No shit Sherlock.

In fact these revelations were so underwhelming that some folks decided to spice thing up a little with some creative editing.

WIKILEAKS BOMBSHELL: Hillary Clinton Smeared Poor Americans, Called Them "Bucket Of Losers" In Paid Goldman Sachs... https://t.co/KZwlS6FeUS

— Mark D. Ellis (@MarkDEllis1) October 8, 2016

Problem with that, as revealed by Snopes, is that nowhere on the actual documents does it say anything like that.

Which of course did not stop Fox News and other conservative outlets from running with it. 

In other words the hacked documents, which we believe came from Russia by the way, were so flaccid that disappointed Right Wing nutjobs decided to manufacture some real dirt in order to help their man Trump a little.

Nice try Wikileaks. What do you have for us next? Is Hillary secretly dying her hair? Or does she sometimes eat dessert before she has had her dinner?

Talk about a "bucket of losers."

Hillary Clinton's acceptance speech and a rundown of just how amazing this convention was this week.

It was a good speech, however in my opinion it ranked far below the speeches given by a number of the other Democratic heavy hitters like the President and Michelle Obama, Cory Booker, Joe Biden, and a handful of others.

But that is fine, Hillary is more of a doer than a speaker and we already know that about her.

Not that everybody agrees with me on that:

Instant Poll on CNN among those that watched the speech.
71% Very positive
15% Positive
60% More likely to vote Hillary#DemsInPhilly

— John (@linnyitssn) July 29, 2016

Besides if you compare it to almost every speech from the RNC last week she hit it out of the park.

Speaking of the Republicans from what I'm hearing they really wish that they could switch conventions with the Democrats.

How can it be that I am standing at my kitchen counter sobbing because of the messages being driven at the DNC? Where has the GOP gone?

— Rich Galen (@richgalen) July 29, 2016

That's from Dick Cheney's former press secretary.

This Democratic convention has been an unmitigated disaster for the GOP. Very well produced. Unifying. Patriotic. Bravo.#DNCinPHL

— Matt Mackowiak (@MattMackowiak) July 29, 2016

That is from a veteran of conservative operations.

Still stunned. Feel like I'm in the twilight zone. Obama just defended America & conservative values from attacks by the Republican nominee.

— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) July 28, 2016

Conservative blogger.

In fact the convention was so good that it seemed to enrage Donald Trump:

"You know what I wanted to. I wanted to hit a couple of those speakers so hard," Trump said. "I would have hit them. No, no. I was going to hit them, I was all set and then I got a call from a highly respected governor." 

Trump didn't immediately clarify what he meant, but he said he was made particularly upset by an unspecified person he called a "little guy." 

"I was gonna hit one guy in particular, a very little guy," he said. "I was gonna hit this guy so hard his head would spin and he wouldn't know what the hell happened."

I think that "hit" is a euphemism for verbally attacking somebody.

After all if he hit somebody with those tiny little hands how would they even know?

Another person who did not seem to enjoy the final speech of the convention, was this guy:

That was the look on Sanders' face at the moment when Hillary was magnanimously thanking him for his contribution during the race for the nomination and for bringing so many young people into politics for the first time.

I don't know exactly what Bernie was thinking, but it did not seem that he was completely comfortable with how all of this turned out.

Well he might not have been, but for most of us this far exceeded what we could have hoped for, and it certainly left an impression on the conservatives.

And it did not appear that these two could have been any happier with the outcome.

Of course that pales in comparison to Hillary's reaction to the surprise pyrotechnics that went off at the end of the night.

OMG, Hillary's reaction to surprise pyrotechnics is incredible. #DemsInPhilly https://t.co/z6KNBaj1W9

— Josh Zembik (@jzembik) July 29, 2016

Now I am just waiting for the new polls to come out showing that Hillary is crushing Trump. Because we certainly know they are on the way.

Night Two of the Democratic Convention Open Thread. Update!

I thought I better post this thread earlier today and a whole lot of interesting stuff happened before last night's open thread.

Here are some of the featured speakers for tonight: 

President Bill Clinton headlines the convention Tuesday.. 

Other featured speakers include mothers who lost their children to gun violence such as Eric Garner's mother, Gwen Carr; Trayvon Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton; and Michael Brown's mother, Lezley McSpadden. 

Other speakers will include former Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who will speak about the Americans with Disabilities Act, which he helped craft and pass in Congress. 

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe will also address the convention. He served as chairman of President Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign and chairman of Hillary Clinton's first presidential campaign in 2008. 

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, will be speaking as well as Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, who served with Clinton in the Senate and who's expected to succeed Harry Reid as the Democrats' next leader in the Senate. 

Former Attorney General Eric Holder is scheduled to speak as well as Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Cecile Richards and actors Tony Goldwyn, America Ferrara, and Lena Dunham. 

Madeleine Albright, the first woman to serve as secretary of state, will speak and former President Jimmy Carter is expected to make an appearance in a video message to the convention.

Damn! So you see why we need to post this early.

As promised here is my second favorite speech from last night:

I love Al Franken as a Senator, but Al Franken the comedian is pretty damn awesome as well.

There is also a rumor that Bernie Sanders will officially nominate Hillary Clinton tonight, so I imagine we will see more of this:

Oh joy.

Update: Hillary Clinton, the first female presidential candidate to represent a major party, has just officially hit the magic number of delegates to become the nominee.  Another history making day for the Democratic party.

Update 2: Sanders just officially named Hillary Clinton the nominee by acclimation.

And THAT makes it really official.

Update 3: Apparently this happened earlier tonight as well.

Bernie delegates have stormed media row and it's now locked down by police https://t.co/1CkTq8sX8P #DNCWalkOut pic.twitter.com/e48v9KhfkJ

— Cassandra Fairbanks (@CassandraRules) July 27, 2016

Didn't Frankenstein have to chase his creation into the farthest reaches of the north to finally end its existence?

So apparently in the Trump family plagiarism is not a bug, it's a feature. Update!

👀 pic.twitter.com/QEftnTTwy3

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) July 20, 2016

Courtesy of NBC News: 

For the second night in a row, a speech given by a member of Donald Trump's family is raising eyebrows for lines previously used elsewhere. 

Donald Trump Jr. in his headline address at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland delivered a near-exact repetition of a small part of an American Conservative article written by F.H. Buckley, titled "Trump vs. the New Class." 

"Our schools used to be an elevator to the middle class. Now they're stalled on the ground floor. They're like Soviet-Era Department stores that are run for the benefit of the clerks and not the customers," Trump's son said in his speech Tuesday night. 

The line in Buckley's article reads, "Our schools and universities are like the old Soviet department stores whose mission was to serve the interests of the sales clerks and not the customers."

Two convention speeches, two charges of plagiarism.

I can hardly wait to see who Eric Trump plagiarizes tonight.

My money is on either Bill Clinton or Spongebob Squarepants. Or, perhaps both.

Speaking of plagiarized speeches, after revealing that the first draft of Melania's speech did not contain the portions "borrowed" from Michelle Obama, they have now decided that those were the fault of former ballet dancer and English Major Meredith McIver.

Personally I'm a little surprised, I always thought that former ballet dancers were the shit when it came to speech writing.

Update: Courtesy of Vox:  

"I was a principal speechwriter for the speech," Buckley told Vox. "So it's not an issue." 

So here's the difference, and it's big: Melania Trump's convention speech copied whole paragraphs from Michelle Obama's convention speech. That's not okay. Don Trump Jr.'s speech was written by a speechwriter who used some of his past material in the speech. You can argue whether that's the height of speechwriting, but there's nothing unethical about it — it would be a very weird standard to argue that writers couldn't take a line they were proud of writing in a small-circulation policy magazine and let a political figure they like use it in a major national speech.

Okay so here's the question that we have to ask ourselves.

DID F.H. Buckley help to write the speech, after all he was not given credit at the outset, or is this the Trump way of providing cover for yet another example of plagiarism.

I do not know the answer to that question for certain, but let's just say that I remain skeptical that things are ever the way that Donald Trump or his handlers say that they are.

Update 2: Donald Trump has now decided to see all of this controversy as a good thing.

Good news is Melania's speech got more publicity than any in the history of politics especially if you believe that all press is good press!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 20, 2016

The media is spending more time doing a forensic analysis of Melania's speech than the FBI spent on Hillary's emails.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 20, 2016

Well, I guess if you are a serial liar what else can you do but obfuscate? 

Jane Sanders refusing to release tax forms unless Hillary Clinton first releases speech transcripts.

Courtesy of CNN:  

Bernie and Jane Sanders won't release their back tax returns until Democratic rival Hillary Clinton releases the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches, Jane Sanders said Tuesday afternoon. 

Bernie Sanders has repeatedly called on the Clinton campaign to release her speeches in an effort to show she's aligned with powerful Wall Street interests. 

But he has been slow to answer Clinton's demand to release his tax returns, saying in a CNN debate earlier this month that his wife handles their financial affairs and has been too busy campaigning. The Sanders made public their 2014 return the next evening, showing they earned nearly $206,000 and paid about $28,000 in federal taxes that year. 

Asked Tuesday when the campaign plans to issue prior years' returns, Jane Sanders told CNN's Wolf Blitzer they will wait to see whether Clinton will disclose her transcripts.

Okay two things.

First the Sanders' campaign promised that they would release these tax returns to the media, so they lied.

And second ALL serious presidential candidates release their tax information, while NONE of them have ever been asked to provide transcripts for paid speeches.

This transcript thing seems like a new hurdle specifically invented for Hillary Clinton, and both the Sanders' campaign and Right Wing media outlets are mythologizing them like Donald Trump once mythologized President Obama's birth certificate.

In the opinion of Hillary's enemies once these transcripts are revealed to the public it will destroy her campaign. Just like they are convinced that the FBI is only seconds away from indicting her and the Benghazi committee is on the verge of revealing that she shot those four Americans herself.

On a similar note the Sander's campaign is now asking for an extension on Bernie's personal financial disclosure until after the California primaries.

The @BernieSanders campaign asks for 45-day extension in filing Sanders' latest personal financial disclosure pic.twitter.com/QgttdYhuKS

— Dave Levinthal (@davelevinthal) April 28, 2016

Okay you know the one thing about Bernie that I have always defended is his integrity.

But there is something going on here that is fairly bothersome.

After all there is no doubt that after California we will all know for an absolute fact that Bernie Sanders is dead in the water, so essentially he is putting this off until a time when nobody will be asking to see it anymore.

Jimmy Kimmel "mansplains" to Hillary Clinton what she is doing wrong as a candidate.

I'm not going to lie partway through this I was becoming irritated on Hillary's behalf, even though I knew  she must have agreed to it beforehand.

Then when I got to the end I realized what they were doing and it was brilliant.

One thing that can be said about Hillary Clinton, she is certainly a good sport.

On releasing the transcripts from her speeches, Hillary essentially says "You first."

I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours.

Courtesy of Politico:  

Hillary Clinton will release transcripts to her paid speeches — just as long as everyone else does too. 

“I am happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same,” Clinton said during Thursday's Democratic town hall in Nevada, before adding that all other candidates had made paid speeches — including her Democratic rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. 

Yet another Hillary non-scandal for the media to perseverate over.

I find this one even dumber than her e-mail "scandal."

Why, seriously, WHY would anybody release a bunch of transcripts that opposition researchers and right wing media outlets can pore through making mountains out of every molehill, and finding political opportunity in every word?

I would not even think this a legitimate request of say Donald Trump, who has flip flopped his entire career, or Jeb Bush, who I think we all know has said some damaging things behind closed doors, because he also says them in public.

No unless EVERYBODY on both sides volunteers to release transcripts of their speeches, there is NO legitimacy to asking Hillary to do so.

Majority of Pope's speeches while visiting America will be in Spanish. Cue the Right Wing outrage.

Pope Francis consorting with the Anti-Christ.

Courtesy of the Guardian:  

Pope Francis will deliver most of his speeches in his native Spanish when he arrives in the US next week for his three-city tour, with just four speeches expected in English. 

Federico Lombardi, the Vatican’s chief spokesman, said on Tuesday that the Argentinian pontiff will deliver 14 speeches in Spanish – including a high-profile speech before the United Nations. Lombardi said that the pope finds it easier to communicate in Spanish. 

Indeed, if the past offers any clues to his upcoming tour of Cuba and the US, the pope has tended to make some of his most newsworthy comments in Spanish, especially when he departs from prepared remarks and speaks off the cuff. 

The papal visit comes amid a caustic debate in the US about immigration and the widespread use of Spanish.

So not only is the Pope speaking out against conservative economic policies,  speaking in favor of accepting non-religious people as equals, and calling for the acceptance of evolution, but now he dares to come to America and speak in the same language as the people illegally crossing the borders?

Boy THAT is going to make whatever that is on Donald Trump's head stand straight up.

After all as we know American is the greatest, most bestest language there is. And if this fraud, who has probably NEVER even been inside of a real honest to goodness fire and brimstone revival meeting, cannot be bothered to talk good American, then perhaps we Americans are better served getting our religious direction from tried and true sources like Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, and Joel "Show me the money" Osteen.

Hmm I wonder how many GOP candidates are willing to get up close and personal with the Pope now?

According to his ex-wife Donald Trump kept a copy of Adolph Hitler's speeches by his bedside. Well THAT explains a lot.

Courtesy of a twenty five year old edition of Vanity Fair: 

When pressed on awkward topics—such as whether or not he regularly read Adolf Hitler’s speeches—he turns skittish and, perhaps, inventive. 

Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed. Kennedy now guards a copy of My New Order in a closet at his office, as if it were a grenade. Hitler’s speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist. 

“Did your cousin John give you the Hitler speeches?” I asked Trump. 

Trump hesitated. “Who told you that?” 

“I don’t remember,” I said. 

“Actually, it was my friend Marty Davis from Paramount who gave me a copy of Mein Kampf, and he’s a Jew.” (“I did give him a book about Hitler,” Marty Davis said. “But it was My New Order, Hitler’s speeches, not Mein Kampf. I thought he would find it interesting. I am his friend, but I’m not Jewish.”) 

Later, Trump returned to this subject. “If I had these speeches, and I am not saying that I do, I would never read them.”

Yeah, right.

You know typically we resist the comparison to Hitler or the Nazis when talking about candidates or their political parties. However in this case perhaps those allegations that Donald Trump is channeling Adolph with his talk of cleansing the country of illegal immigrants is not really so far off the mark.

And it certainly might help to explain why he did not bat and eye when this happened at a rally.

Remember:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist."

"Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist." 

"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew." 

"Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

 Only in this case, "First they came for the undocumented immigrants.......

Rachel Maddow reports on fact that Rand Paul blatantly plagiarizes Wikipedia for his speeches. No, I mean word for word.

Currently Rand Paul consistently polls in the top two  potential candidates for the GOP nomination in 2016, so the fact that he is this incredibly lazy. and disrespectful of intellectual property, is big news.

Is it wrong that I can hardly wait for 2016 to arrive?

Because I have a feeling that if you thought the GOP lineup in 2012 was ridiculous that you haven't seen ANYTHING yet.

HIllary Clinton to receive more than $200,000 per speech. Damn!

Courtesy of Buzzfeed:

Now that she's out as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton isn't going to be hurting for money, thanks to speaking fees of more $200,000 per speaking appearance, according to a source familiar with the situation. 

The fee puts Clinton in the upper echelons of the speaking industry. 

Those who make six figures per speech include Al Gore, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush; those who make more than $200,000 include Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bill Clinton. 

The fee will be more than Clinton's annual salary as Secretary of State, which was $186,000.

Wow!  That is pretty damn impressive!

You would think with this kind of money waiting for her she would have quit that Secretary of State job earlier, instead of sticking out for a full term.

I mean Sarah Palin could not WAIT to start bringing in the big buck on the speakers tour. How much did she make again?

• $75,000 
• First-Class airfare 
• "Deluxe" hotel accommodations 
• Chauffeur to and from event with SUV (or, in pinch, black Town Car) 
• Wooden lecturn 
• Two bottled waters 
• Bendy straws (for the waters)

 Hmm, I bet SOMEBODY'S pretty jealous right about now.

Not only that, but Hillary is also going to be doing a few of these "pro bono,"

Politico's Playbook reported on Monday that Clinton would hit the speaking circuit this spring, and that "Secretary Clinton will likely do some speeches for no fee for causes she champions, and expects to occasionally donate her fees for charitable purposes."

I know that we have heard unsubstantiated reports of Palin  giving speeches fro free, but there is not ONE scintilla of evidence to suggest that is accurate.

Let's face it when it comes to class, intelligence, and charity, Hillary is head and shoulders above a certain half term quitter governor from Alaska.

Kind of funny that the McCain campaign thought adding her to the ticket would attract disappointed Hillary supporters in 2008, don't you think?

Two of Sarah Palin's aides sign on for speaking tours. What do we think, getting second jobs due to lack of SarahPAC funds or jumping ship because Palin's political future is doomed?

Courtesy of ABC News:

Despite SarahPAC’s reputation for secrecy and discretion, ABC News has learned that two Sarah Palin staffers have signed on with a speaking agency. At this point, it’s unclear whether the aides have signed on to dish about their boss, who’ve they’ve had an on again/off again relationship with or if Palin even knows about their foray into the world of paid speeches.

Palin staffers Jason Recher and Doug McMarlin have signed on with the speaking agency, The American Program Bureau. According to the agency's website, they are available to be paid to speak on topics that include “From 9/11 to Katrina: Lessons for Leaders in the Face of Crisis” and “Designer Politics: A New Age of Political Power.”

Recher was one of Palin’s longest serving and trusted aides; he initially met her on the vice-presidential campaign in 2008 and became one of SarahPAC’s first staffers. He also worked on her “Going Rogue” book tour and a number of political and speaking events before parting ways around the midterm elections last year.

After the campaign, Recher and McMarlin founded NorthStar Strategies, which ran SarahPAC’s logistical operations as well as assisting with strategy and some limited press communications. Although Recher did do some political advising for her during the 2008 campaign and was her closest advisor when SarahPAC launched, by the time they left the organization both McMarlin and Recher’s roles had shifted and they were both relegated to strictly doing advance work.

Recher and McMarlin did re-join the SarahPAC organization when Palin launched her bus tour last May, but it’s not clear if the two were on board for only that one trip or if they will advance other legs of the tour if she does re-launch it. NorthStar Strategies was listed on Palin’s last FEC report released earlier this month, showing payments for logistical consulting in January and February and logistical trip consulting in May as well as reimbursements.

You know the return of Recher and McMartin to SarahPAC was cited as proof that Palin was serious about running, because, it was argued, why else would she need political staffers?

I assume the same logic could now be used to address this new turn of events.  If Palin were indeed about to launch a national campaign for President, how in the world would these two possibly have time to give speeches?

By the way I cannot imagine now many people would be interested in paying Jason Recher to speak about "Designer Politics" after the Sarah Palin bus tour fiasco. I would think he would expunge that from his resume just as fast as humanly possible.

Now if he is willing to dish on what was happening behind the scenes at SarahPAC, and with Palin and her Wasilla-billy family, THAT might be worth paying to hear!