The Next President of the United States Will Be...

Get  ready for the first president from the Big Sky State, Brian Schweitzer. Huh?  Who's Brian Schweitzer?  

Keep reading...

He's the wildly-popular, Democratic former governor of Montana.  Learn more about Brian Schweitzer. Learn what Brian Schweitzer is thinking. 

But what about Hillary, I hear you cry? 

Why, have you forgotten that she voted for George W. Bush's illegal, $3 trillion bombardement, invasion and occupation of Iraq. [By the way, then Senator Barack Obama voted against the Iraq War, along with 20 other Democrats in the Senate.]

I'm sure Hillary would like to purge that item from her résumé, but Brian Schweitzer, for one, will never let her--or the American people--forget it. As he put it in Iowa [yes, Iowa...already Iowa] on December 18, 2013:

“When we were attacked at 9/11 by 17 Saudis and two Egyptians who called themselves Al-Qaeda, who weren’t welcome in Iraq, and George Bush got a bunch of Democrats to go to that war, I was just shaking my head in Montana.”

Furthermore, sharing a bed with a president and having the stamps from 112 countries in your passport cannot be considered serious qualifications for the presidency of United States of America.

It's likely that Hillary herself knows she's totally incompetent and unfit to be president and that's why she's so hesitant about tossing her hat in the ring.  Every time somebody asks her about running, she pussyfoots.

But the media pressure on Hillary Clinton to run is perhaps overwhelming and she may succumb to the adulation of the incestuous Washington insider crowd and the media, who decided she would be president the day she took the oath of office as the junior senator from New York on January 3, 2001. 

If the Democrats are bedazzled enough to nominate Hillary, the Republicans can run a yellow dog for president and win by a landslide. 

So, here is the Jagor prediction for the presidential election of 2016: it will be a race between two governors.

• The Democrats will reject their media darling Hillary Clinton and pick Brian Schweitzer;
• The Republicans will nominate Susana Martinez, the wildly popular [formerly Democratic] governor of New Mexico and reject their weight-challenged media darling Chris Christie and offer him a lifetime membership in WeightWatchers as a consolation prize.

Learn more about Susana Martinez.

Coincidentally, both Schweitzer and Martinez are Catholics, but Schweitzer's name means that a lot of Jews might mistake him for one of their own and vote for him by mistake. But that's OK, too.  Every vote counts.

Brian Schweitzer will win the election. You heard it here first..

Revised Dec. 24, 2013

US Mainstream Media silences dissent on Syria WMD claim

Just as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Colin Power and the rest of the rogue's gallery of war criminals lied about Saddam Hussain's nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction," in order to bombard, invade and occupy Iraq in 2003, Obama and his surrogates cherry-picked the data and lied about the Syrian sarin gas attack in order to bombard Syria, just a decade later, in 2013.

 

Just as in 2003, the mainstream media in 2013 drank the poisonous Kool-Aid and diffused Obama's lie without ever bothering to question it for a second.

And, as he has done so many times in the past, investigative journalist and historian Seymour Hersh found out the truth and wanted to tell it, but the American mainstream media were too scared to publish it:  both the Washington Post and The New Yorker turned Hersh down, so the article, Whose Sarin?, was finally published by the London Review of Books in its issue of December 19, 2013.

Unlike the warmongers' networks, however, RT-America, never fell for the lie and consistently reported that there was no proof that the Assad regime was responsible, reporting–correctly–that a Syrian opposition group, Al-Nusra, was capable of producing and delivering the gas. Watch the video Seymour Hersh: Mainstream Media Scared To Publish Syria Story [3:52].

 

Of course, we can understand the Post's reluctance, since the Washington Post ran an unsigned editorial on page A36 entitled "Irrefutable" on February 6, 2003, the day after Colin Powell's Iraq presentation to the U. N. Security Council.

But don't bother to look for it on the archives of the Washington Post website: the cowardly hyprocrites deleted it!

Read the censored Washington Post editorial, "Irrefutable" here and keep it in mind the next time a president lies to the nation and to the world in order to launch another war.

Nathan Myhrvold, Using his Billions to Help Humanity

I just saw  Nathan Myhrvold interviewed by Charlie Rose. He is super-intelligent and super-rich. He's one of the few super-rich guys I can think of who's also super-intelligent. 

You don't have to be super-intelligent to be super-rich. Many, if not most super-rich people, like the six Walton heirs [net worth estimated by Forbes in 2013: $144.7 billion] or 91-year old Liliane Betancourt, the world's richest woman and the sixth richest person in the world [estimated 2013 net worth: $30 billion], just got their billions by inheriting it, without performing a single day's worth of honest labor in their entire frivolous and pathetic lives. 

And even super-rich billionaires like Carlos Slim Helu, CEO of Mexico's  América Móvil [the world's second richest man, 2013 estimated net worth $69 billion] or Warren Buffett [2013 estimated net worth $53.5 billion] are not remarkably intelligent, but have one idea and just relentlessly focus on that idea to the exclusion of all others. 

You don't need lots of books or even a high-school or college diploma to explain how Warren Buffet became a super-billionaire.  [By the way, it's interesting to note all the super-billionaires who were college drop outs: here's a list of 34 of them.]  

Warren Buffet's entire investment philosophy can be summed up in one sentence: "Be greedy when others are fearful and be fearful when others are greedy." Now anybody, even my archetypal third-grader, can understand that, but maybe only one person in 10 million or 100 million can actually apply it relentlessly and ruthlessly.  

In Carlos Slim's case, he just ruthlessly obtained a virtual monopoly--70%--of the mobile telephony market in Mexico and charged rates that were so exorbitant that the Mexican government eventually slapped him with an unprecedented $1 billion fine in 2011 for unfair trade practices, a fine he avoided by reluctantly agreeing to slash his rates by 20%!  Slim has applied the same formula in other countries, particularly in Latin America. You don't have to be very intelligent to do this, you just have to be extremely focused and extremely ruthless.

Anyway, on the other hand, Nathan Myhrvold [2013 net worth $650 million], being not only super-rich, but super-intelligent, actually spends the millions he made as Chief Technology Officer at Microsoft for 13 years for useful purposes that can benefit the entire human race, most particularly the two or 3 billion people who eke out a precarious living and survive on less than two dollars a day.

So I went to his website and read Descended From Apes, Acting Like Slime Molds, an article he posted on Bloomberg, in which he articulates some of his ideas. What a brilliant metaphor to compare human societies to slime molds--I told you the guy was intelligent! 

Shocking! Walmart Arrests Santa Claus!

By now, everybody should know that the Walmart plutocrat billionaires pay their employees slave wages, terminate them or shut the store if they attempt to exercise their inalienable right to form a union and sign new hires up for food stamps so the American taxpayers can subsidize their grocery bills.

But if you ever wondered about how bad Walmart really is, now you know: the Walmart plutocrats had Santa Claus busted in Ontario, California!

See the shocking photo posted on Twitter of the goons handcuffing Santa Claus and read the the full sordid story on NBC News.

 

I think that after seeing this picture, all the kids in America will tell Mom and Dad to boycott Walmart and buy their toys at Costco or Target.

What dastardly act will Walmart commit next – slaughter all of Santa's reindeer and grind the venison into hamburger?

The Worst News for Democrats in 2016

The following quotation by House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy [R-CA] is from an article in the November 20, 2013,  Washington Post entitled, "Republican elders increasingly view members of Congress as too tainted."

"I don’t think anyone should become president if they haven’t been a governor first..." 

Read the full text of the article.

This is the worst possible news for the Democrats the the 2016 presidential election and the best possible news for Republicans.  Republicans have figured out history, they've read history, and they've finally come to understand that the most qualified people to be president of United States are governors, not senators. 

If the Democrats can't find a governor who's capable of winning the presidential election, they can say goodbye to the White House in 2016, because there's no better proof of how bad senators can be  as presidents than the current ocupant of the Oval Office who, to quote a golf metaphor by the immortal Pearl Bailey, "does a whole lot of swinging, but ain't got no follow-through."

The truth is that the Republicans already had the right idea in the 2012 election. Mitt Romney was a carpetbagger Republican from Michigan who succeeded in getting elected governor in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the most Democratic state in the Union, whereupon he successfully implemented socialized medicine for all its citizens. 

Romney lost the presidential election not because he had been a bad governor but because he flaunted his elitism, didn't pay his taxes, betrayed his country by stashing millions of dollars in the Cayman Islands and--most important of all--although he wanted to be president, he didn't really believe he could win the election.

If the Republicans nominate a successful governor for president in 2016, their candidate wipe the floor with Hillary Clinton, who's been the media darling since she was first elected junior senator from the state of New York and who is notoriously unqualified for the job of president of United States.

It is astonishing that so many people believe that just because Hillary Clinton flew all over the world and has the stamps of 112 countries in her passport she is therefore qualified to be President of the United States. Rather it makes her qualified for elite status in a  frequent-flier club.  Or, as an John Cassidy put it somewhat more kindly in the pages of The New Yorker, "Hillary Clinton was a great ambassador, not a great Secretary of State."

But it doesn't have to be as bad as the Democrats might think. Governors, whether Republicans or Democrats, have to be realists. That means that unlike the ignorant and fanatic teabagger ideologues strangling the Congress,  they have to know how to compromise. 

So a good, successful Republican governor--and I'm excluding the current media darling Chris Christie of New Jersey who, in addition to his record making him vulnerabe to attacks by the Democrats, should be staggering to the nearest WeightWatchers instead of running for the White House--could easily become a very successful president.  

I'd suggest someone like Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico who, if elected, would not only be the first woman president, but the first Hispanic/Latina president as well.  With her, the Republicans could capture two birds at once.

After all, there have been a few good Republican presidents, among them Abraham Lincoln,who freed the slaves and saved the nation, and Theodore Roosevelt, who busted the trusts and punished the plutocrats, to name just two. 

The Filibuster is Dead!

Below is an excerpt from an article dated November 21, 2013, in the Washington Post by Ezra Klein entitled "Nine reasons the filibuster change is a huge deal."

"The filibuster now exists in what you might call an unstable equilibrium. It theoretically forces a 60-vote threshold on important legislation. But it can — and now, in part, has —been undone with 51 votes. Its only protection was the perceived norm against using the 51-vote option. Democrats just blew that norm apart. The moment one party or the other filibusters a consequential and popular bill, that's likely the end of the filibuster, permanently."

Read the full text of the article.

Comment:

According to the Constitution, there are only five instances where a supermajority is unambiguously required:

1.  Approval of an amendment to the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both House and Senate plus the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures.  
2. A two-thirds vote of both houses is required to override a presidential veto of a bill.  
3. A two-thirds majority of the Senate is required to convict a president, vice-president of "officer of the United States" impeached by a majority vote of the House.
4. A two-thirds vote in either body is required to expel a disorderly member of that body.
5. Treaties must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate to enter into force.

The Senate filibuster, which was never in the Constitution but was simply a rule of the Senate, is, for all intents and purposes, dead.

The only people who'll be weeping are Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell [R-KY], alias Mister Filibuster--who holds the record of over 400 filibusters--and his plutocrat paymasters, whose generous bribes have made him a multi-millionaire.

But now, Senator Filibuster's chances of losing his reelection bid to Allison Grimes in 2014 in the Commonwealth of Kentucky are greatly enhanced, because the plutocrats will now have less incentive to bribe him due to his diminished ability to do their bidding through his filibusters. 

 

In short, why should the plutocrats bribe Mitch, when he can't do what they want any more?  

So, the irony is that the plutocrats, his erstwhile allies and fairweather friends, will be just as eager to throw Senator Filibuster under the bus as the Democrats.

 

There IS a God!

Plutocrat Kills Gandmother, Faces $2,500 Fine

From Forbes, October 30, 2013

Billionaire Jacqueline Mars Charged With Reckless Driving In Fatal Car Crash

[Seventy-four year old] billionaire Jacqueline Mars, heiress to a $20.5 billion candy fortune that makes her the third-richest person in the United States, was driving her 2004 Porche SUV when it crossed the center line on Route 50 in Aldie, VA on the afternoon of October 4th.  Her car struck a a 2013 Chrysler minivan carrying six women, killing 86-year old grandmother Irene Ellisor...[T]he pregnant driver of the van suffered critical injuries and lost an eight-month-old unborn baby in the crash.

Mars escaped the fatal car crash she was involved in without any life-threatening injuries. However, she won’t avoid criminal charges. This week, a misdemeanor charge of reckless driving was levied against Mars, which comes with it a punishment of no higher than a $2,500 fine and jail time no longer than 12 months...Mars allegedly told a witness that she had fallen asleep at the wheel. Full text of article.

Jagor’s comment:

I personally would recommend raising the fine to $20,000,000,000.00--twenty billion dollars. That's "Jacquie's" entire estimated net worth.

That twenty billion bucks could be used, for example, to provide cradle-to-grave heath care for every citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia for the rest of their lives. 

The punishment would be particularly appropriate because Mars, Inc, the 3^rd largest privately-owned company in America, makes most of its money peddling sugar-loaded junk foods in over 150 countries thereby destroying the health of tens or hundreds of millions of people all over the world.

But that makes far too much sense to actually occur, doesn't?  Talking away a social parasite plutocrat's ill-gotten gains as punishment for killing an innocent victim and an unborn child to use the money to heal the sick just isn't done, is it? 

  

Flying White Elephant Succeeds in Knocking out a Tank

From Reuters, October 31, 2013:
 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet dropped a 500-pound bomb this week, hitting a tank at Edwards Air Force Base in California and marking the first time the new warplane has fired a laser-guided weapon, the Pentagon said Wednesday.  

Full text of article.

Each F-35 costs between $153 million and $199 million, depending on the model--that's between one hundred fifty three and one hundred ninety-nine million dollars.  That's for ONE of them.   And it managed to drop a 500-lb bomb to knock out a tank.  And they've already rolled out 63 of them.  (You do the math.)  And the whole fleet has been grounded twice so far in 2013. And it only has one engine, as opposed to a twin-engine configuration, which provides a backup in case of an engine failure.
 
And...well...Lots more here.

Here, friends, are your taxpayer dollars [and the $1.8 trillion the U.S. Government has borrowed from the Chinese] at work, hundreds of billions of dollars being squandered on the most expensive white elephant in the entire history of humanity.

Just in case you ever wondered why the Republicans are trying so desperately to slash food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid and aid to education and do defund health care for all Americans, now you know where the money is really going.

Ain't America great?

For more about the Flying White Elephant see the Jagoriade post from March 8, 2013.

Flash! Nine Justices on Supreme Court Not Constitutional!

According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate the structure, administration and jurisdiction of the federal courts.  These powers are limited by precepts of due process, equal protection and separation of powers

Having nine justices on the Supreme Court is not in the Constitution, but a simple custom, determined by Congressional vote.  The Constitution allows Congress to change the number of Supreme Court justices if it so deems.  The Judiciary Act of 1789 provided for a six-member Supreme Court with one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. 

Since the act of 1789, there have been eight more changes to the number of Supreme Court justices, which have varied from a low of five to a high of ten. 

I wonder how many Americans know that!

Consequently, if President Obama wanted to name one or two more justices so that the right-wing activist Gang of Five [Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas]--AKA The Impeachables--could be outvoted or at least stymied, who could stop him, as long as he had enough votes in the Congress? 

Certainly it would be entirely constitutional to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court. It's already been done eight times!

Murdering Afghan and Pakistani Kids is OK; Murdering Syrian Kids Isn't

I couldn't bear to listen to Barry's trio of bellicose liars [the identical clones of George W. Bush's gang of bellicose liars, all of whom should be hauled before the International Criminal Court to be judged for crimes against humanity] delivering their prepared remarks on September 3, 2013. I either would have vomited my guts out or smashed my TV set.

So I hit the mute button and waited until the distinguished members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee asked their questions.

I identified four of them, three Republicans and one Democrat, who appeared not have guzzled Barry's poisonous Kool-Aid--so far--and tried to ask real, thoughtful questions.  They were:

Jim Risch [R-ID]
Tom Udall [D-NM]
John Barrasso [R-WY]
Rand Paul [R-KY]

As Kerry, Hagel and Dempsey--Barry's Three Stooges--and most of the Democrat senators, were slobbering crocodile tears over the dead Syrian kids, I could only think of the scores or hundreds of Afghan and Pakistani kids [not to mention their mothers and fathers, uncles and aunts, grandparents, siblings and  playmates] murdered in cold blood by Barry's assassination drones on a weekly basis.

Yeah, I get it: it's just fine for a Nobel Peace Prize winner to blast Afghan and Pakistani kids to smithereens with his assassination drones but--somehow--it's a crime against humanity for Bashar Al-Assad [or, maybe even the Syrian "democratic" opposition] to gas Syrian kids.

Can somebody please explain the difference?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Military Missteps: Bomb-first diplomacy becomes habitual to US

Fantastic!  Film clips on the RT television network show "bomb first" warmongers spouting the very same lies about Syria that they screamed before bombing Serbia, Iraq and Libya. It's as if Barry & Co. just dusted off the old speeches and filled in the blanks with "Syria."  

And, since the "enemy" must always be personified as one amoral monster who "murders his own people," Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi are replaced with a new face to hate, the face of Bashar Al-Assad who, like the others, is "murdering his own people" and therefore must "step aside."   

We all know, however, what followed when Milošević and Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi "stepped aside."  Their countries became anarchies where murderous factions continue massacring each other to this day.

Does anyone with half a brain actually think that "this time it's different" in Syria?

Why do so many Americans--particularly the ruling class in Washington--allow themselves to be bamboozled and brainwashed over and over?  Why do  they keep believing the same lies and guzzling the same poisonous Kool-aid?

By the way, wasn't Einstein's definition of "insanity" doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?  If that's the case, then Washington, DC, has turned into a gigantic loony bin!

Abolish Private Prisons

Prison privatization in the United States means that the for-profit companies such as Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group [formerly Wackenhut] want as many people jailed as possible for as long as possible in order to continue maximizing their income and, thereby, their profits. 

Private prisons should be abolished by law, but their lobby is one of the most powerful on Capitol Hill and in state capitals. In 2011  the private prison lobby spent $45 million on lobbying, while collecting $5.1 billion for immigrant detention alone.

There is, however, some movement against them:three states, Idaho, Texas and Colorado closed CCA prisons in the month of June 2013.

Mass incarceration in privatized prisons is in reality nothing more than a modern versin of  feudalism and slavery because the detainees, the modern equivalent of slaves or serfs, are put to work, manufacturing goods or performing services such as computer programming, for which they are paid far below the legal minimum wage--often just pennies per hour.

The U.S. is not only the country with the most people incarcated, 2,266,800, it's also the country with the most people incarcerated per capita. 

Here's a chart that shows prisoners per 100,000 population, country by country: the U.S. heads the list with 716.people incarcerated for every 100,000 people.

Abolish private prisons now!

House of Representatives Should Have 10,000 Members

The United States Constitution does not require states to be sliced up into congressional districts, which are by their very nature undemocratic.  Consequently, most states are divided into gerrymandered districts every ten years, following each census.

Fat chance, though, of getting rid of gerrymandering!  Both parties benefit from gerrymandering and are afraid to abolish congressional districts because the "ins" benefit from gerrymandering and the "outs" know that they will benefit when they take power.

Nor does the Constitution mandate 435 members of the House--that is also unconstitutional.

Article I Section 2 states: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative."  

In 1911, Congress passed Public Law 62-5, which limited the size of the House of Representatives to 435 members.  Congress can change the number of members of the House at any time.

With a 2010 population of 308 million, that comes to one Member of the House of Representatives for every 710,767 people! 

That is outrageously unconstitutional!  

I propose to abolish all congressional districts and elect all the Members of the House at large, from each state.  Furthermore, I propose returning to the Founding Fathers' formula for the House.

If we applied the constitutional formula, after the 2010 census the House of Representatives would now have around 10,000 members today. 

What's wrong with that?  

Congress could simply construct a new building for the House of Representaties the way the Chinese did.  Their Great Hall of the People [see below], opened in 1959, can simultaneously seat 10,000 representatives.  If the Chinese can do it, so can we.

Egypt's Next 30-year Military Dictator?

From the Washington Post, August 7, 2013: 

Source: Khaled Desouki/AFP/Getty Images

CAIRO — He is a savvy operator, people who have worked with him say, a career military officer who methodically campaigned a year ago to become Egypt’s defense minister under its first democratically elected president.

Now Gen. Abdel Fatah al-Sissi is faced with a society even more bitterly divided than it was a year ago, when Mohamed Morsi took office as president.

Egyptian officials say that Sissi’s commitment to returning the country to civilian-led democracy is genuine and that they do not think that he will run in elections, expected to be held next year.

But in a country where the only leader in six decades not to have a military background was just deposed in a coup, many say they would not be surprised if the charismatic Sissi decided to throw his high-brimmed officer’s hat into the ring. Some supporters are hailing him as a new Gamal Abdel Nasser, the revered general who led the 1952 coup that overthrew Egypt’s monarchy.

“I think it’s hugely tempting for anyone,” said a high-ranking Western official, referring to the possibility that Sissi might take his popularity to the polls. Full text of article.

Jagor's comment:

You see?  After a momentary interruption--the "Arab Spring," Mubarak's resignation and the 51.7% election victory of Mohamed Morsi, whose Freedom and Justice [Muslim Brotherhood] party had repeatedly stated publicly that they would never run a candidate for the president--Egypt is finally going to get back to normal, i.e. a military dictatorship, as has been the case since King Farouk was overthrown by a similar military coup d'état on July 23, 1952.

Let's see if Sissi can beat Mubarak's record of 30 years in office before he gets kicked out!

As the French say, "Plus ça change plus c'est la même chose."

French parties call for Snowden political asylum

France 24 reported on July 1, 2013, in a news item headlined French parties call for Snowden political asylum, that the leaders of both the left-wing Parti de Gauche and the the right-wing National Front, as well as the leader of the Green Party, have all demanded that President François Hollande grant political asylum to whistleblower Edward Snowden without delay. 

This must be the first time in recorded history that both the left and right wing parties in France have agreed on anything: most of the time they're biting each others' heads off.  And the Greens are on board, too, for good measure.

As right-wing leader Marine Le Pen said, "If we don’t give this man political asylum, what use does political asylum serve?”  And left-wing leader Jean-Juc Melanchon said, "It is not acceptable that we allow a situation whereby he wanders uncertainly around the planet. He is a defender of all our freedoms.”  The Green Party issued a statement that, "France must give this whistle blower and defender of freedom political asylum without delay.”

Of course, if France did offer Snowden asylum, we'd probably go back to freedom fries and dumping cases of Beaujolais down the sewers the way it was when President Jacques Chirac stood up to George W. Bush and told him that France wouldn't join Bush's British lapdog Tony Blair and participate in the illegal Cheney-Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq. 

In sad retrospect, we know that, unlike Bush and Cheney's coterie of ignorant neocon ideologues [see Jagoriade post dated March 21, 2013, "War Criminals Still at Large," below], Chirac actually understood the Middle East and got things right.  

But it's doubtful that François Hollande has the guts that Chirac had.

Republican Smear Tactics Fail to Damage Obama

You can see how the Republicans smear artists are making the same mistake with President Obama they made with Bill Clinton. In Clinton's case, a handful of renegades and reprobates, spearheaded by Texas Congressman Tom De Lay, brought the United States government to a standstill as they impeached and attempted to convict the president because of a semen spot on a dress.  [Just in case you were wondering, on November 24, 2010, Tom DeLay was found guilty of conspiracy to commit money laundering and making an illegal contribution; he was sentenced to three years in prison and 10 years probation on January 10, 2011.]

This Gallup poll, reproduced above, shows that the more the Republicans attacked Clinton, the more popular he became with the American people!   The Republicans' smears totally backfired!   In fact, if the Constitution had allowed Clinton to run for a third term, he would have been reelected in a landslide.   And, even if he could run in 2016, he'd still most likely be elected.

It's the same thing now with Obama. You've got a handful of GOP reprobates and renegades smearing the president on a daily basis.  Some of them, like the hysterical Minnesota Republican Michelle Bachmann, following in the footsteps of Tom De Lay, are starting to demand the president's impeachment.

But, just as with Clinton, the Republicans' smears have had absolutely no effect on President Obama's approval rating.

The Republicans have learned nothing; that's why they're continuing to self-destruct. Even when billionaires like the nefarious Koch Brothers, masterminded by Karl Rove, squandered hundreds of millions of dollars trying to defeat Obama, he still won by a landslide in the Electoral College by a vote of 332 to 206.

The plain truth is that the American people are far more interested in Jodi Arias than they are in Benghazi [Where the heck's Benghazi?], the IRS [Everybody hates the IRS; what else is new?] or the AP. [What's the AP?]