Truest statement of the week

When Iraqis went to the polls in March 2010, they gave a narrow plurality to the Iraqiya List, an alliance of parties that enjoyed significant Sunni support but was led by Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite. Under pressure from Maliki, however, an Iraqi judge allowed the prime minister's Dawa Party—which had finished a close second—to form a government instead. According to Emma Sky, chief political adviser to General Raymond Odierno, who commanded U.S. forces in Iraq, American officials knew this violated Iraq’s constitution. But they never publicly challenged Maliki’s power grab, which was backed by Iran, perhaps because they believed his claim that Iraq’s Shiites would never accept a Sunni-aligned government. “The message” that America’s acquiescence “sent to Iraq’s people and politicians alike,” wrote the Brookings Institution’s Kenneth Pollack, “was that the United States under the new Obama administration was no longer going to enforce the rules of the democratic road…. [This] undermined the reform of Iraqi politics and resurrected the specter of the failed state and the civil war.” According to Filkins, one American diplomat in Iraq resigned in disgust.
By that fall, to its credit, the U.S. had helped craft an agreement in which Maliki remained prime minister but Iraqiya controlled key ministries. Yet as Ned Parker, the Reuters bureau chief in Baghdad, later detailed, “Washington quickly disengaged from actually ensuring that the provisions of the deal were implemented.” In his book, The Dispensable Nation, Vali Nasr, who worked at the State Department at the time, notes that the “fragile power-sharing arrangement … required close American management. But the Obama administration had no time or energy for that. Instead it anxiously eyed the exits, with its one thought to get out. It stopped protecting the political process just when talk of American withdrawal turned the heat back up under the long-simmering power struggle that pitted the Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds against one another.”




-- Peter Beinart,  "Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy" (The Atlantic).

Truest statement of the week II

On those first two elements, responsibility clearly rests with the war criminals of the Tony Blair and George W. Bush regimes. But on the last issue, the illegal arming and training of an insurgent force to undermine the sovereignty of an established state – that crime rests with President Barack Obama and his administration.
Democrats, including what is referred to as the “progressive” caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus and other caucus groups, along with the unprincipled and opportunist collection of Democratic party hacks at the Center for American Progress, the New American Foundation, Human Rights Watch and the other liberal and mainstream  institutions and publications who gave direct or tacit support to the foolish Bush era strategy to destroy Syria, all place the blame for the “debacle” in Iraq on al-Maliki. And while many of these elements opposed the Bush attack on Iraq, the moral basis for their opposition to direct war by the U.S. in Iraq under a Republican president failed them in response to the indirect war waged on Syria by a Democrat president. In both cases, it was war that was unleashed, and in both cases outside the parameters of international law and in opposition to the wishes and interests of the vast majorities of the peoples of those nations.

-- Ajamu Baraka, "The Human Rights Crisis in Iraq" (CounterPunch).

Truest statement of the week III

"But sooner or later, honest liberals will have to admit that Obama’s Iraq policy has been a disaster." 


-- Peter Beinart,  "Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy" (The Atlantic).

A note to our readers

Hey --

Another Sunday.  And look how early we are!  We've never been this early since our first year all those years ago.



First up, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:




The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.

And what did we come up with?

• Truest statement of the week

Peter Beinart wrote an important piece for The Atlantic and earned his first truest here ever.

• Truest statement of the week II

Ajamu Baraka also earned his first truest for some strong truth telling.

• Truest statement of the week III

And back to Peter Beinart.

• Editorial: Playing footsie with a tyrant

We had thought we would have a brief editorial.   The more we discussed it, the more we knew it had to be a longer one.  I (Jim) think this is our best editorial of the month.

• TV: The useless huffing and puffing of flaccid men...

Ava and C.I. offer another masterpiece.  After rejecting my request for something on Iraq.  They said there was nothing to cover that they hadn't already.  I pressed.  They came back with, 'Maybe an update using Young Turks?'  They went to work on that and ended up with what I think is the best piece that's run here all month.  I was stuck for a headline (I write most of the headlines) but Ava and C.I. were listening to music (not on the playlist) when they went off to write this.  It included Joni Mitchell's The Hissing of Summer Lawns and that title inspired the one I gave to their piece. 

• Can Hillary please stop fleecing the American taxp...

Elaine wrote about this topic in "Waste of our tax dollars"  and brought it to this edition.  We thank her for that and I love this piece.

• But who leads?

Short feature.

• The spanking of a president

A major Supreme Court decision.  (You should also see "Barry gets spanked" and "THIS JUST IN! BAD BARRY GETS SPANKED!" by Cedric and Wally.)

• Turntable Triumphs

As requested by many e-mails, we offer the second instalmment in this feature.  Betty and C.I. were adament that the choice by Diana Ross -- longterm readers will know why -- and we all agreed and then voted this album our top pick.  (Betty and C.I. voted for another album which we will include at a later date.)

• The selfie from across the universe

Curiosity.

• This edition's playlist

What we listened to while we worked on this edition.

• VETERANS: Murray Delivers Remarks at Veterans’ Aff...

From Senator Patty Murray's office. 

• No intervention in Iraq (Sara Flounders)

From Workers World.

• VFW CALLS FOR BOYCOTT UNTIL MEXICO RELEASES U.S. M...

From the VFW.

• Highlights

Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.



See you next week.

 Peace.




-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.

Editorial: Playing footsie with a tyrant

Earlier this month, US President Barack Obama announced 'preconditions' for tyrant Nouri al-Maliki receiving US forces in Iraq.  A political solution, Barack insisted, was needed.  For any US assistance to take place, Barack said, drawing a line in the sand with his big toe, Nouri would have to demonstrate he was able to embrace pluralism in Iraq and stop attacking every non-Shi'ite group.

A big gust of wind must have come along because the line in the sand quickly disappeared.

Nouri got what he wanted, US troops as 'advisors' -- to help advise him how to kill more Iraqis?

And he got that without making any serious moves towards political reconciliation.

There was one awkward press conference that Sunnis participated in.

That was it.

Nouri continues to maintain that he will not put forward a unity government -- he says it's unconstitutional.  And he continues to refuse calls to step down and not seek a third term.

But Barack still gave him what he wanted.

Well maybe this is part of negotiations.  Maybe the US is getting ready for some tough talk?

Last week, US Secretary of State John Kerry visited Iraq.


 Alsumaria featured this photo of John Kerry making nice with tyrant Nouri.







Does that look like tough talk is taking place?


No.

What is looks like is the infamous and shameful photo from the Reagan presidency of Donald Rumsfeld grinning and making nice with Saddam Hussein.


The White House issued the following last week:

             For Immediate Release

June 26, 2014

Letter from the President -- War Powers Resolution Letter regarding Iraq

TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT

TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE

June 26, 2014

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
As I reported on June 16, 2014, U.S. Armed Forces personnel have deployed to Iraq to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
I have since ordered further measures in response to the situation in Iraq. Specifically, as I announced publicly on June 19, I have ordered increased intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance that is focused on the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). I also ordered up to approximately 300 additional U.S. Armed Forces personnel in Iraq to assess how we can best train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces and to establish joint operations centers with Iraqi security forces to share intelligence and coordinate planning to confront the threat posed by ISIL. Some of these personnel were already in Iraq as part of the U.S. Embassy's Office of Security Cooperation, and others began deploying into Iraq on June 24. These forces will remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such that they are no longer needed.
This action is being undertaken in coordination with the Government of Iraq and has been directed consistent with my responsibility to protect U.S. citizens both at home and abroad, and in furtherance of U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.
I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148). I appreciate the support of the Congress in these actions.

Sincerely,

BARACK OBAMA

Actually, most experts are saying that backing Nouri is endangering American lives.  That taking sides in this civil war could lead to attacks on and in the US.

Actually, the only Americans in danger in Iraq were Embassy staff who could have been quickly evacuated -- out of the country or to the northern Kurdistan Regional Government.

By sending in (more) US troops while failing to evacuate diplomatic personnel, Barack's only increased the number of Americans potentially in danger.

And then there's that other 'minor' issue.


Nouri's committing War Crimes -- legally defined and internationally recognized War Crimes.


For six months, he's been bombing civilians and civilian sites in Falluja, in spite of Geneva and every other law.  Yesterday,  Arwa Damon, Chelsea J. Carter and Laura Smith-Spark (CNN) reported:



Iraq's air force carried out a series of airstrikes on Mosul, according to a senior Iraqi military official.

The airstrikes targeted four locations inside Iraq's second-largest city, including ISIS headquarters, said Mazen al-Safaar, a traffic director in Mosul.

But a doctor says the airstrikes also hit Mosul's administration building and the Old City's shopping district.

At least seven civilians were killed and two were wounded in the airstrikes, according to Dr. Salaheldin al-Naimi, the director of the health administration.


Now he's going after civilians in Mosul.

And this is who the US is playing footsie with?

Maybe Barack has some plan that will emerge in the next week and Nouri will be sent packing.

That would be great.

But right now, a tyrant and War Criminal rules Iraq and the same US government that twice-installed him now wants to make nice with him.

TV: The useless huffing and puffing of flaccid men

It was a week that saw Jack Bauer throw a woman to her death (24), Dr. Karen Kim appear  to take tips from her patient on how to be an escort (Mistresses), the us versus them divide  pushed hard (Big Brother), Cat and Vincent fail in suburbia (Beauty & the Beast), Tara suffer an attack (True Blood) and Tituba declare John Alden a witch (Salem).

Yet the most bizarre moment had to be the return of Cenk Uygur to The Young Turks.














There was Cenk huffing and puffing, railing in a rather weak mannered and ill informed way that some may have bought but only reminded us of our "TV: The Brave New World?" which took on the nonsense of a week's worth of The Young Turks without Cenk.

For those late to the party, The Young Turks ignored Iraq for the entire week we watched.  They were covering more pressing 'news.'  Like a high school prom.

Wait, it was weaker than that.

They were covering invitations to a high school prom.

See, Ellen DeGeneres' photo was featured on the first invitations and then pulled from the next round.  Ellen was never going to be at the prom, it was never insinuated that she would be.

But this sort of thing -- and a lot more fluff -- passed as 'news' on The Young Turks in May while Iraq was ignored.

Yet there was Cenk  railing about people not paying attention to Iraq?

He was calling out his co-workers?

Hell no.

Baby Huey was hopping a soapbox to wail and pretend he cared about Iraq.

But the more words he used, the more clear it was that he hadn't paid attention to Iraq at all in the last few years.  He had no idea what had been happening, he had no examples to offer post-Bully Boy Bush (which is five years and, yes, they have mattered in Iraq) and he really had nothing to offer.

Which is why Baby Huey quickly moved over to the pressing issue of "fashion photography."

It's not art, he railed.

Or maybe it was, he offered.

Clearly, he hadn't bothered to think through a thing.

But there were allegations -- his female partner did note they were allegations -- against a photographer.

There are presently no charges against the photographer.

But Cenk wanted to defend 'girls.'  He and his co-host referred to these young women as 'girls.'

We're not sure whether it made Cenk feel 'manly' to refer to women as 'girls' or if this was an attempt to ape the right-wing attack on Bill Clinton by shaving years off Monica Lewinsky's age back in the days of that scandal.

The photographer's alleged behavior was puzzling.

But if no one's filing charges and these remain nothing but allegations and whispers, there's not really a news story there -- no matter how many times Cenk repeats allegations as if they were fact.

Gossip?

Cenk was all brushed up on that.

And the 'fashion photography' 'story' allowed him to rage loudly and repeatedly.

It had a 'freshness' that Iraq apparently lacked -- to him anyway.

It's been funny to listen to Iraq 'coverage' offered on radio and TV by lefties and faux lefties.  The Rachel Maddow Show, FAIR (and it's TV and radio offshoots) and even Law &  Disorder Radio have all felt the need to whine that the voices who got it right about the Iraq War have been shut out of the conversation today.  They've made this argument while . . . they themselves shut out the voices who got it right about the Iraq War.

They refuse to book these voices on their own shows -- Diane Rehm can and did book Phyllis Bennis (a voice who got it right) on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show -- but these supposed left programs aren't able to do the same for some reason.

Maybe it's because they don't know what a voice calling out the illegal war before the war started -- that would be the people who were right -- sounds like?

Take serial liars Sam Stein and Michael Calderone at The Huffington Post.

The two confused gas bags offered "If You Were An Iraq War Critic, You're Probably Not Being Asked To Go On TV."

It succeeded as sexism, revisionary 'history' and non-stop lies.

It just failed on the factual meter.

They started with former US Senator Kent Conrad.  He, they informed you, was one of 21 senators to vote against the Iraq War.

They then thunder over the refusal of networks to book Kent!

Oh, the horror.

Poor Kent Conrad!

Not booked for TV because he took a stand against the Iraq War.

Or maybe not booked because he's off putting on TV?

His voice irritates.

But the Huff Post never wants to offer facts, mind you.

So they pretend that Kent's being overlooked because he was right.

Was he right about Countrywide Financial?

Because that is why he left the Senate, didn't run for re-election, remember?

Yes, a Democratically controlled ethics panel did say he hadn't broken the law.

But the financial scandal touched him since he was pro-Countrywide and they'd been so very generous to him with loans.

It's called corruption and most hosts would be leery booking someone like Kent Conrad as an 'expert.' That'd be like booking pedophile Scott Ritter.


And then there's that other detail: "former" senator.


Today, on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and CNN, Iraq will be addressed by the following officials:  US President Barack Obama, former President Bill Clinton, former US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey, Senator Joe Manchin, Senator John Barrasso, US House Rep. Peter King, U.S. House Rep. Mike Rogers, and former NSA director and CIA director Michael Hayden.

Please note, all members of Congress?

They're currently serving.

No Congressional member invited on is a 'former' member of Congress except maybe Barack who is, after all, a sitting president.


So Kent Conrad, who left the Senate in disgrace, who chose not to run for re-election because of the Countrywide scandal?

He's really not the ingredients for a solid argument.

Senator Patty Murray?  She is.  She's still in the Senate and she used to chair the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee -- a very important committee.  She is now the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee -- also seen as an important post.

Stein and Calderone could have made an argument with Murray.

They didn't though.

In fact, their rank sexism resulted in their using no women to make an argument and not only did they not spend paragraphs pontificating on Murray (or any other woman), they didn't even mention Patty Murray.

Sexists drown in their own stupidity.

Stupidity is whining that Jonathan S. Landay (they leave out the "S.") was only invited on CNN's Reliable Sources.

What program should he have been on?

Because he didn't 'get it right.'

As a reporter for Knight Ridder, he filed many important pieces (usually with co-writers).  But these pieces? They were reports.  These were not opinion pieces or columns.

Landay was a reporter, he took no public position on Iraq.

If he had, Knight Ridder would have pulled him from covering Iraq.

Landay is not someone who called for no war on Iraq.

He's a reporter who had a beat and covered it well.  Applause for him on that, but let's not pretend he was publicly saying, "No war on Iraq!" -- because he wasn't.

They want you to know that former US Senator Gary Hart hasn't been invited on to speak about the Iraq War.  Gary voted against it?

No.

Gary's political career ended in the 80s on a boat called Monkey Business as he was photographed with Donna Rice sitting in his lap and Mrs. Hart not present.  He spent the night on the boat with Rice.  His 1988 run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination ended the next day.  As did his political career.

He's being kept out of the broadcast discussion because he was a critic of the impending war on Iraq?

Or because he made himself a media joke some time ago?

Huff Post's Twits then want to bring up Andrew Bacevich.

The military historian (they forget "military" in their description) was a critic of the impending war on Iraq?

Publicly?

No, he wasn't.

And only untruthful liars would suggest otherwise.

After the war started, long after, Bacevich had some criticisms.

Not only was he not an I-got-it-right voice, he's an uncomfortable voice for many in the media.

They either tiptoe around the elephant in the room out of respect for him or they try to get him to talk about the topic he attempts to make off limits (Amy Goodman tried to ask him about it and he shot her down -- as he's done with so many).

What are we talking about?

His son died in the Iraq War.

Whether or not that impacted his opinion on the illegal war (he says "no"), his refusal to explore it makes many interviewers uncomfortable.  Not because they're gossips, it makes them uncomfortable because not asking and exploring this angle leaves them open to charges that they didn't do their job.  Bacevish has every right to wall off any topic he wants.  But if it might be pertinent to the discussion and hosts can't broach the topic, then he's not a guest worth having because the audience response will include, "He's biased! And you didn't even ask him about it!"

The Huff Post idiots then want to get giddy because Lawrence Wilkerson (one of the "critics of the war") "has been on NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, ITV4, Al Jazeera, Russia Today, CTV in Canada" . . .

Has he been on QVC selling ornamental flag draped coffins?

He's not an Iraq War critic.

He's a Colin Powell apologist.

Wilkerson didn't speak out against the illegal war in 2002 before it started or during the lead up in 2003.  He only found the 'strength' to speak up after public sentiment had turned against the Iraq War and Cindy Sheehan had staged Camp Casey among other peace actions.

Wilkerson is a mouth piece for Colin Powell.  He acts like the devoted (and lovelorn) secretary of Colin Powell.

He has nothing to offer and the blood on his hands will never wash off.

He was part of the team that sold the Iraq War, he's lied repeatedly for Colin Powell -- we've called it out repeatedly -- and he never spoke out against the impending war.

He did not get it right.

And he had nothing to say until years into the illegal war, when the majority of the American public had turned against the Iraq War.

It must be hard to be a whore like Sam Stein.  It must be harder to be one like Michael Calderone because the physically ugly always have it more difficult in society.

But that doesn't excuse their lying.

Or their cobbled together nonsense where they insist the media's shutting out people who were right when in fact the people they offer as examples either didn't speak out before the start of the war or have one or more issues (often scandals) which discredit them to the media.

We get this is confusing for the stupid.

Unlike the rag tag band of the faux left, we were calling Scott Ritter out before the latest conviction that sent him away.  We were saying that a man twice busted for seeking out sex with underage females didn't deserve to be invited into the discussions.  We were slammed for that and told that Ritter was a victim.

Then he got busted under Barack.

And it became much harder to pretend it was a Bully Boy Bush plot against him.

Then he admitted to what he'd done in court and he got convicted and sentenced.

You may happily stand next to him but, if you do, we hope you at least have the good sense to do so without your daughter or your niece beside you.

Cenk never called out Scott Ritter.

To this day, he hasn't called out Scott Ritter.

A pedophile, but Cenk won't call him out.

But a fashion photographer who may or may not have licked an adult woman's ass during a photo session?

That has him outraged.

We don't know what happened and we don't know if that allegation's true or not.

We do know that often, in entertainment, things are done to get a reaction, an expression, a mood.

These things may or may not be right.

One of us (C.I.) once had a director pull her aside and break the news that her father had died.

He hadn't.

The director was trying to manipulate to get an emotion.

The world of art is not the world of retail.

The photographer may be a sleaze or pervert.

He may not be.

All of the charges against him may be true.

None of them may be.

Some of them may be but they may have taken place to get a reaction.

That's not an approach we favor.  One of us (C.I.) walked off the set over the earlier stunt a director pulled.  And, in the world of art, where you're expressing moods and emotions, someone will always try to manipulate.  If you're not comfortable with it, you make it known.  If you think something criminal happened, you file charges.

At present, the photographer is the victim of a whisper campaign.

The Iraqi people?

They're suffering real damage.

It's a shame Cenk couldn't address that.  It's a shame he couldn't do the work required for that.

It's a bigger shame that so many whiners want to make the Iraq War about Americans being denied media attention.

When Nouri al-Maliki bombs another Falluja residential neighborhood, as he's being doing for six months now in spite of international law which defines that as a War Crime, whether or not Gary Hart got booked on Crossfire really isn't an issue.

Can Hillary please stop fleecing the American taxpayer?

Former President Clinton has a new book to push.




Hard Choices --

What's that?

She's not a former president?

She was never elected by the nation?

Then why the f**k are we paying for her book tour?

Kit Daniels (Global Research) reported on Hillary's BookPeople appearance in Austin:


Clinton was at the BookPeople bookstore in Austin to sign copies of her latest book “Hard Choices” and the attendees of the event faced TSA-style security.
Visitors were not allowed to enter the bookstore with bags and before entering the top floor of the building, where Clinton was signing books, they were told to empty their pockets for a wand search.
Several secret service agents and Austin police officers were managing security, and one uniformed Austin SWAT officer was also present.
In addition to the security inside the building, at least one city street was closed off for three blocks.


Why are the US taxpayers footing the bill for Hillary's 'events'?

She's selling a product.

She got over a million dollars as an advance for this badly written (and ghost-written) book.

But the American people are supposed to foot the bill for her Secret Service detail?

When Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, he was a sitting president.

His widow Mary Todd Lincoln struggled.

Five years after the assassination, the Congress voted to award Mary Todd Lincoln a pension.

As for Secret Service protection?  Mary Todd Lincoln didn't get it.

As the Secret Service website notes:

1865	The Secret Service Division was created on July 5, 1865 in Washington, D.C., to suppress counterfeit currency. Chief William P. Wood was sworn in by Secretary of the Treasury Hugh McCulloch.
1867	Secret Service responsibilities were broadened to include "detecting persons perpetrating frauds against the government." This appropriation resulted in investigations into the Ku Klux Klan, non-conforming distillers, smugglers, mail robbers, land frauds, and a number of other infractions against the federal laws.
1870	Secret Service headquarters relocated to New York City.
1874	Secret Service headquarters returned to Washington, D.C.
1875	The first commission book and a new badge were issued to operatives.
1877	Congress passed an Act prohibiting the counterfeiting of any coin, gold or silver bar.
1883	Secret Service was officially acknowledged as a distinct organization within the Treasury Department.
1894	The Secret Service began informal part-time protection of President Cleveland.
1895	Congress passed corrective legislation for the counterfeiting or possession of counterfeit stamps.
1901	Congress informally requested Secret Service Presidential protection following the assassination of President William McKinley.
1902	The Secret Service assumed full-time responsibility for protection of the President. Two operatives were assigned full time to the White House Detail.
1906	Congress passed Sundry Civil Expenses Act for 1907 that provided funds for Presidential protection by the Secret Service. Secret Service operatives began to investigate the western land frauds. The Service's investigations returned millions of acres of land to the government.
1908	Secret Service began protecting the president-elect. Also, President Roosevelt transferred Secret Service agents to the Department of Justice. They formed the nucleus of what is now the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

We've come a long way, baby, down the wrong road.

If any president or first lady wants to take a vow of poverty, then maybe the taxpayer should provide them with Secret Service protection.

But when we're talking about cheap, money grubbers?

Oh, hell no.

Currently, Hillary's grubby fingers are hoping to snatch $225,000 for a speech (at a fundraiser!) and her security costs will be paid out of that fee?

No.

Greedy Pig wants to pocket that fee and all similar ones.  Why bother to pay for your own security detail when you can soak the American taxpayers.

It's past time to stop these perks.  They are being abused and they divert needed funds that should go for the general welfare instead to ensuring that greedy pigs like Hillary Clinton can get rich off the back of the American taxpayers.

But who leads?

Where the hell was Beyonce last Wednesday?

We know where she should have been.

At the White House.

Singing Etta James' signature song "At Last."



But because she couldn't get her ass where it belonged, Barack had to dance through the White House with Israeli President Shimon Peres but without music (as pictured above in the photo by Pete Souza).

Reached for comment, Peres praised Barack's dancing abilities noting, "He is a regular Ginger Rogers."