Saturday, April 26, 2014

Saturday, April 26, 2014

ANYONE WHO CARES ABOUT DEMOGRAPHY SHOULD BE CONCERNED:  There is a movement abroad in the land to create awareness of the very real significance of the effect of the 1965 Immigration Law passed by the Congress under the leadership of Teddy Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.  Whether they understood the consequences of their legislation is debatable; what is not debatable is the rapidly changing demographics in the country.  Whites, as descendants of Europeans, are rapidly approaching minority status in the US a fact that will result in a permanent change in the culture and future prospect for whites.



NO WONDER OUR LITTLE INVESTMENT IN PISTACHIOS MANY YEARS AGO IS DOING SO WELL:

5 Things You Didn't Know About Pistachios

by Kerry Acker
on 05/09/13 at 11:00 AM
Pistachios-430
Move over, almonds and walnuts, there's a new superstar nut in town! With the California pistachio industry making a big push to turn more Americans on to the wonders of the creamy, buttery, heart-healthy nut (even Snoop Lion is on board, as well as Psy); worldwide consumption of pistachios skyrocketing (with China now the leading importer); and chefsusing pistachios in ever more ambitious ways, it seems this humble tree nut is enjoying its moment in the sun. Here, five things you should know about the pistachio, plus loads of sweet and savory recipes:
--The United States is currently the world leader in pistachio production, having surpassed Iran in 2010. And sales are booming, with exports doubling over the past six years from 100 million pounds to almost 270 million pounds. 
--Clocking in at about 3 to 4 calories per nut, pistachios--a.k.a. "skinny nuts"--have fewer calories than just about any other nut. (Plus, studieshave shown that if you eat pistachios in their shells, you will eat less overall; the act of shelling slows consumption, and the leftover shells serve as a visual cue to the eater to limit intake.)

--Pistachios contain more potassium, which can lower levels of the stress hormone cortisol, than any other nut.
--Eating pistachios may help lower cholesterol and reduce the risk ofcancer. Pistachios are an excellent source of phytosterols, plant compounds that have been found to decrease levels of LDL (bad) cholesterol, and they are packed with cancer-fighting antioxidants (including the carotenoids beta-carotene and lutein, which gives the pistachio kernel its distinct green color).
--Red pistachios don't exist in nature! Pistachio importers used to dye the nuts red--and sometimes green--to hide blemishes resulting from traditional harvesting methods.
Fascinating stuff, right? But, let's face it, the thing we love most about pistachios is, well, their deliciousness. And we've got loads of inventive sweet (beyond baklava) and savory (pestos! salsas! crusts!) recipes that make excellent use of one of our favorite nuts. Here are just a few:
How do you like to eat or cook with pistachios?

deepsouthosiris 
02:31:51 AM on
03/30/14
Oh wow this is an old article and im just now seeing it thanks to a link on mens health. I had a recent scare with my blood pressure and I have been working on incorporating more nuts into my diet. This book has helped a lot with the info it has available. Not great on recipes though lolhttp://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00E716BII/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1396160628&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40

KerryandTom 
05:28:50 PM on
05/14/13
Hi, Kat15: Candied pistachios over hot cereal sounds delicious. I will give it a go, and thanks for the inspiration!

Kat15 
10:39:45 AM on
05/10/13
Make candied salted pistachios to put over hot cereal, put over your favorite salad, ice cream, or use for just snacking. Candying them makes them crispy which makes a fun texture change. I also love salted pistachios as an addition to my rye bread recipe, just before I make the dough into loaves or rolls.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Thursday, April 24, 2014

LIKE IT OR NOT THERE IS A MOVEMENT CALLED "WHITE NATIONALISM:  This movement is much more advanced in Europe than here in the US, however it does appear to be gaining ground in this country.  What it is is a reaction against the stifling weld of PC and the demogoguery on race matters going on in many schools and in the political world.  Think of the recent Dartmouth uprising by minorities and think of the Black Caucus in the Congress and think of Jesse Jackson andAl Sharpton and their ability to hold hostage corporations and individuals whom they label "racists".

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

GOOD FOR HIM:

'WHY MY DAUGHTER DOESN'T RECYCLE': AN ECONOMICS PROFESSOR'S LETTER TO HIS CHILD'S TEACHER


A US economics professor has published the letter he wrote to his daughter's schoolteacher explaining why he doesn't want his girl indoctrinated in the green religion. Steven Landsburg, a professor at Rochester, NY, included it as part of a longer essay in which he calls environmentalism a "coercive ideology" targeted specifically at children. (H/T Bishop Hill)

His stance - such as his abhorrence of recycling: "We do not recycle. We teach our daughter not to recycle. We teach her that people who try to convince her to recycle, or who try to force her to recycle, are intruding on her rights." - may seem extreme, but his economic arguments are sound.
After my daughter progressed from preschool to kindergarten her teachers taught her to conserve resources by rinsing out her paper cup instead of discarding it. I explained to her that time is also a valuable resource and it might be worth sacrificing some cups to save time... 
Dear Rebecca:
When we lived in Colorado, Cayley was the only Jewish child in her class. There were also a few Moslems. Occasionally, and especially around Christmas time, the teachers forgot about this diversity and made remarks that were appropriate only for the Christian children. These remarks came rarely, and were easily counteracted at home with explanations that different people believe different things, so we chose not to say anything at first. We changed our minds when we overheard a teacher telling a group of children that if Santa didn't come to your house, it meant you were a very bad child; this was within earshot of an Islamic child who certainly was not going to get a visit from Santa. At that point, we decided to share our concerns with the teachers. They were genuinely apologetic and there were no more incidents. I have no doubt that the teachers were good and honest people who had no intent to indoctrinate, only a certain naïveté derived from a provincial upbringing.
Perhaps that same sort of honest naïveté is what underlies the problems we've had at the JCC this year. Just as Cayley's teachers in Colorado were honestly oblivious to the fact that there is diversity in religion, it may be that her teachers at the JCC have been honestly oblivious that there is diversity in politics.
Let me then make that diversity clear. We are not environmentalists. We ardently oppose environmentalists. We consider environmentalism a form of mass hysteria akin to Islamic fundamentalism or the War on Drugs. We do not recycle. We teach our daughter not to recycle. We teach her that people who try to convince her to recycle, or who try to force her to recycle, are intruding on her rights.
The preceding paragraph is intended to serve the same purpose as announcing to Cayley's Colorado teachers that we are not Christians. Some of them had never been aware of knowing anybody who was not a Christian, but they adjusted pretty quickly.
Once the Colorado teachers understood that we and a few other families did not subscribe to the beliefs that they were propagating, they instantly apologized and stopped. Nobody asked me what exactly it was about Christianity that I disagreed with; they simply recognized that they were unlikely to change our views on the subject, and certainly had no business inculcating our child with opposite views.
I contrast this with your reaction when I confronted you at the preschool graduation. You wanted to know my specific disagreements with what you had taught my child to say. I reject your right to ask that question. The entire program of environmentalism is as foreign to us as the doctrine of Christianity. I was not about to engage in detailed theological debate with Cayley's Colorado teachers and they would not have had the audacity to ask me to. I simply asked them to lay off the subject completely, they recognized the legitimacy of the request, and the subject was closed.
I view the current situation as far more serious than what we encountered in Colorado for several reasons. First, in Colorado we were dealing with a few isolated remarks here and there, whereas at the JCC we have been dealing with a systematic attempt to inculcate a doctrine and to quite literally put words in children's mouths. Second, I do not sense on your part any acknowledgment that there may be people in the world who do not share your views. Third, I am frankly a lot more worried about my daughter's becoming an environmentalist than about her becoming a Christian. Fourth, we face no current threat of having Christianity imposed on us by petty tyrants; the same can not be said of environmentalism. My county government never tried to send me a New Testament, but it did send me a recycling bin.
Although I have vowed not to get into a discussion on the issues, let me respond to the one question you seemed to think was very important in our discussion: Do I agree that with privilege comes responsibility? The answer is no. I believe that responsibilities arise when one undertakes them voluntarily. I also believe that in the absence of explicit contracts, people who lecture other people on their "responsibilities" are almost always up to no good. I tell my daughter to be wary of such people — even when they are preschool teachers who have otherwise earned a lot of love.
Sincerely,


Steven Landsburg

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

MARXISM, CLASS ENVY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ARE ALIVE AND WELL, WILL PROBABLY ALWAYS BE WITH US UNTIL ACADEMICS here MAKE AT LEAST AS MUCH AS CORPORATE EXECUTIVES:

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Saturday, April 19, 2014

AS ONE WHO HAS NEVER INDULGED IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND THE LIKE, IT'S STILL HARD TO REFUTE THE "COINCIDENCES" NOTED HEREIN: WHAT'S MORE, MOST NORMAL PEOPLE CONSIDER THIS KIND OF STUFF BEYOND THE PALE, SIMPLY COULD NOT HAPPEN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. BUT ONE HAS TO ASK, HAVE ANY OF THESE ASSERTIONS BEEN REBUTTED OR REFUTED ANYWHERE? NOTE: CLICK ON THE YOUTUBE LINK ON THE BLACK SQUARE TO SEE THIS VIDEO.
moonbattery logo


Apr192014

An Amazing Collection of Coincidences

Maybe the election of an ultra-radical, anti-American ideologue with no serious qualifications as President of the USA, and then his re-election after years of conspicuous failure to advance the national interest, aren’t the result of a conspiracy to destroy our country. Maybe it is all just a series of coincidences:
Other than a picture of Paul Ryan being used to represent Jack Ryan, nothing here jumps out as obviously wrong. It should keep the national media busy for years checking into all these inter-related cans of worms — except that the leftwing media establishment is part of the story. It has been instrumental in placing and keeping Obama in power by stampeding low-information herd voters in his direction. One day maybe we will learn what other coincidences link Obama to those in control of the MSM.
More info at The Obama Timeline.


HERE'S A GUY WHO'S SO HOOKED ON THE OBAMA/COMMUNIST KOOLAIDE THAT NOTHING WOULD SATISFY HIM BUT A REBIRTH AND RETURN OF THE GOOD OLD DAYS OF THE USSR.  FURTHERMORE, BLOW LOVES THE PLANTATION AND ITS SECURITY, TAKE HIM OFF IT AND HE CALLS AL SHARPTON AND JESSE JACKSON FOR HELP.  WELCOME T THE DIVERSE WORLD OF THE DEMOCRATS.




Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
Continue reading the main story
Thursday, President Obama delivered a compendium of positive news about the Affordable Care Act:
■ Eight million people have signed up for private health insurance.
■ Thirty-five percent of those signing up are under 35 years old.
■ The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that the cost of the law will be $100 billion lower than expected and will significantly shrink the deficit over the next 10 years.
“This thing is working,” the president said. But it rang more as a lamentation than a proclamation. The health care law is a staggering achievement by this president and the Democrats and is likely to be viewed by history as such, but Republican opposition to it has been so vociferous and unrelenting that the president has been hard pressed to find a message that can overcome it.
Republicans repeat the same complaints, regardless of their veracity: Obamacare is bad for the economy and bad for Americans; it’s an unwelcome expansion of government by an overreaching president; it’s failing and will never work.


Photo


As Obama said Thursday:
“I find it strange that the Republican position on this law is still stuck in the same place that it has always been.  They still can’t bring themselves to admit that the Affordable Care Act is working.  They said nobody would sign up; they were wrong about that.  They said it would be unaffordable for the country; they were wrong about that.”
He continued:
“I know every American isn’t going to agree with this law, but I think we can agree that it’s well past time to move on as a country. ...”
But the president knows well that Republicans have no interest whatsoever in moving on. They’ve hitched their wagons to stop-Obama stallions and their plan is to race forward to Election Day.
The president smartly articulated the frustration that much of the opposition to the law in public opinion polls is “attached to general opinions about me or about Democrats and partisanship in the country generally.”
The president’s poll numbers took a hit during the health care rollout and have never fully recovered. The law also caused Democrats in general to lose their advantage in voters’ preference for control of Congress, according to a CNN/ORC poll conducted in December. Furthermore, most Americans disapprove of the health care law.
The Republican plan is simply to hold tight to last year’s disapproval and drag it forward to this year’s election. And that just might work. Democrats have so fumbled the selling of the health care law’s advantages, both moral and economic — faltering and stammering when they should have been steadfast and resolute — that they have acquiesced the debate to Republican opposition.



Rather than fight back with facts, too many Democratic politicians tucked their tails and ran away from the law, or, worse yet, joined the attack.
In addition to the effectiveness of Republican attacks and the anemia of Democratic support for the law, the demographics of midterm voters also bode well for Republicans.
Midterm elections generally skew older and whiter, and Republicans are counting on this skew to give them an electoral advantage. According to a Washington Post/ABC poll released at the end of last month, whites and elderly people are the least likely to support federal changes to the health care system, yet most elderly people are beneficiaries of another, quite successful government health care program: Medicare. And 77 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are white.
Even if Obamacare were not a factor, history suggests that this midterm election would still be a tough one for Democrats. As The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza pointed out in February:
“The party of a re-elected president tends to get walloped in the following midterm election. Since 1912 (that’s when the House expanded to 435 seats), the president’s party has lost an average of 29 House seats in the following midterm election.”
The health care law is working, insuring millions of Americans at far less a cost than what was previously estimated. But this civic victory may well contribute to a political defeat in November, unless Democrats can upend historical precedent and change the profile of the people who vote in off-year elections.




Our elections have been severely altered by a corporatist Supreme Court, maleficent voter ID laws and gerrymandering run amok. In the face of it all, can Democrats gather the gumption to say, “Enough”?


REJOINDER TO O'S CLAIM THE DEBATE OVER ACA IS OVER:

At the Weekly Standard, Jeffrey Anderson provides a useful reminder of what is important in this context:
[I]n truth, all of this talk about enrollment numbers is beside the point. Back when the Democrats defied public opinion and rammed Obamacare into law using the Cornhusker Kickback, Gator Aid, the Louisiana Purchase, and all the rest of the unseemly gimmicks they employed, opponents of Obamacare didn’t claim that the reason why the health-care overhaul would be bad was because it wouldn’t hit the coverage numbers the CBO projected. (If anything, opponents argued that Obamacare would surpass those numbers, as employers would dump people into the exchanges against their will, thereby costing American taxpayers even more than the CBO was projecting.)
No, Obamacare isn’t bad because it didn’t hit 9 million in Obamacare-compliant exchange purchases, nor because it didn’t include 39 percent young adults among its purchasers. It’s bad—horrible, actually—because it requires private citizens to buy a product of the federal government’s choosing for the first time in our nation’s entire history; because it funnels unprecedented amounts of power and money to Washington, D.C. and away from everyday Americans; because it incentivizes employers not to hire people and to cut hours for millions of people they’ve already employed; because it bans millions of people’s health insurance policies (except when Obama lawlessly un-bans them); because it causes people who like their doctors not to be able to keep their doctors; because it raises health costs; because it requires young people to subsidize maternity coverage and pediatric dental care for 60-year-olds who have no need or desire for such coverage; because it effectively bans doctors from expanding existing doctor-owned hospitals or building new ones, makes it difficult for doctors to stay in private practice, and tries to corral them into hospitals where they can more easily be controlled; because it will raise federal spending by a projected $2 trillion over its real first decade; because it will cut projected Medicare funding by a whopping 10 percent over that same decade, siphoning that money out of Medicare to (partially) pay for Obamacare; because it particularly goes after Medicare Advantage funding; because it stifles medical innovation; because it disrespects religious freedom; and because it mandates communal funding of abortion.
In short, it’s bad because it raises health costs, undermines liberty, costs jobs, and seeks to put American medicine under the control of the same folks who brought you healthcare.gov.
And then there is this:
It might seem surprising, therefore, that Obama would have chosen to declare victory yesterday, imperiously proclaiming that “the repeal debate is and should be over.” In reality, however, his words might actually be true—just not in the way he intended. The American people hated Obamacare even before the Democrats willfully passed it, they hate it now, and they never stopped hating it in between. There’s strong evidence that the debate is, indeed, over—and that Obama and his allies have lost.
According to Real Clear Politics, since July 4, 2009, 458 polls have been taken on Obamacare. Twenty have shown Americans liking it, five have shown ties, and 433 (95 percent) have shown them disliking it. Perhaps even more strikingly, 299 (65 percent)—including the five most recent polls—have shown Americans opposing Obamacare by double-digits.
Anderson invites the customary thought experiment: “Imagine if Republicans were so stubbornly pushing something that was so evidently unpopular—and then had the gall to declare the debate over (in their favor).” My imagination isn’t that good, and I doubt yours is either.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Thursday, April 17, 2014

CLEARS THE AIR SOMEWHAT:  A reasonable bureaucrat HERE makes a very good presentation on how to reform the existing system.  My caveat is the system is wrong to begin with because as long as its there, as long as it exists, people will figure out how to take advantage and game it.  Don't see why everyone wasn't better off when churches and civic organizations were the dominant players in welfare because at least then someone besides a bureaucrat or faceless official was involved with the players and could rally ordinary people to the effort of helping those in need. As it is now the bureaucrats et.al. have a stake in perpetuating the system (it is their livelihood!) and politicians obviously always want to buy and secure votes hence their is no real incentive to change.

Monday, April 14, 2014

Monday, April14, 20F

IT TAKES A STRONG STOMACH TO GET THROUGH THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT LOSING IT ALL.  IT'S A CONFIRMATION OF ALL WE SUSPECTED WAS HOW WASHINGTON AND THE DEMOCRATS OPERATE:



Divorce Beltway Style

Column: The Democratic breakup that exposes Washington’s rotten core

Tony and Heather Podesta
Tony, Heather Podesta / AP
BY: 
“I see lobbying,” Tony Podesta has said, “as getting information in the hands of people who are making decisions so they can make more informed decisions.” Last week the information Tony Podesta was giving was the divorce complaint he had filed in D.C. Court against his wife Heather. The hands receiving that information belonged to a gossip columnist for the Washington Postwho made the “informed decision” to report on it. Later in the day Heather, who is also a lobbyist, informed the Postthe text of her counter-suit. It published a follow-up.
The documents, which you can read below, did not become available to the rest of us until yesterday. They tell stories not only of a May-December romance gone sour, but of how obscene wealth can be amassed through rent-seeking and influence-peddling in Washington D.C., and of the hoary means by which the princelings of the capital and their consorts maintain and grow that wealth. They tell stories not only of an ugly divorce, but of the power of lobbying, of how one family maneuvered to the center of the nation’s dominant political party, of the transactional relationships, gargantuan self-regard, and empty posturing that insulates, asbestos-like, the D.C. bubble.
That the broken couple now uses the tools of their trade—the phone-call to a friend, the selective leaking of documents, the hiring of attorneys, the launch of a public-relations campaign—against one another is more than ironic. It is fitting. Tony and Heather Podesta reached the pinnacle of wealth and influence in Barack Obama’s Washington. Now they, like he, are in eclipse.
The stories begin in the fall of 2001. She was in her early thirties, working at a trade association, and on the rebound. Her second marriage had just ended. A friend, Dorothy Robyn, a Democratic policy wonk, suggested she meet Tony Podesta. Tony was decades older than she, and had been married once before, but he was young at heart. He took her to the opera for their first date. On the way, the story goes, they stopped by one of his homes to pick up a car. She noticed his art collection. “I don’t know why it is,” Tony said, “but I have artworks where the women have no heads.” The next day she sent him a note. It was signed, “Woman with a head.”
The woman with a head was Heather Miller, and soon she and Tony were in love. They moved in together. When they married, in April of 2003, Tony was 59, and Heather was 33. Nancy Pelosi witnessed their vows, as did Patrick Leahy, and Ed Markey, and Bill Richardson, and countless other Democratic bigwigs. According to the Post, which has chronicled the ups and downs of the Podestas’ relationships and careers, the noted D.C. chefs and restaurateurs Roberto Donna and Kaz Okuchi “personally cooked for the guests.” This was no ordinary wedding.
And Tony Podesta was no ordinary man. A longtime Democratic aide, a counselor to Teddy Kennedy, Tony had been one of the capital’s most powerful lobbyists for some time. As his lawyers would later put it, “‘Podesta’ was a widely recognized and well-respected name in the lobbying industry at the time of the marriage.” The lobbying firm he had established in 1987 was powerfully connected. His younger brother, John, was President Clinton’s chief of staff. Tony Podesta owned art and wine and real estate in Italy, in Australia, in northern Virginia, and in D.C. He was a major Democratic donor, a force to be reckoned with, and a cut-up, a character who wore loud neckties and red Prada shoes. “The Pope wears Prada,” he is known to say, “and so do I.”
Heather changed her name—something she had not done in her previous marriages—to Heather Miller Podesta. She emulated her spouse, developing, in the words of the Post, “a penchant for flamboyantly patterned dresses.” She joined the company, began lobbying. She picked up Tony’s art habit, and together they amassed a collection of more than 1,300 pieces. She set to work, renovating their six bedrooms, six-and-a-half bathroom home in Northwest D.C. off of Massachusetts Avenue, overlooking the Rock Creek Parkway.
She wanted, her lawyers would say later, “to create a uniquely beautiful architectural space for the dual purposes of having a wonderful home in which to live and promote their shared interests, both professional and personal.” The renovation took three years and cost millions of dollars. The “marital residence,” where they promoted their shared interests in holding parties and fundraisers for Democratic politicians, and housed immense wine and art collections, is estimated to be worth some $5.6 million. Concerned about income inequality? The Podestas are the One Percent.
They would visit their apartment in Venice, Italy, up to a dozen times a year, hosting Janet Napolitano, entertaining passersby such as Reps. Shelley Berkley and Eliot Engel, “even,” the Post once breathlessly intoned, “Teddy Kennedy.” They’d open their homes to tours, so people could enjoy the art, could witness the spectacle of their wealth. One story they liked to tell took place in 2004, when the guests at their northern Virginia home, near Lake Barcroft, walked into a bedroom festooned with the works of Katy Grannan, “a photographer known for documentary-style pictures of naked teenagers in their parents’ suburban homes.” The guests were shocked. But oh, how Tony and Heather laughed.
In 2007 Podesta Matoon became the Podesta Group. Heather formedHeather Podesta + Partners, establishing two prongs of the Podesta family empire. The third prong was the Center for American Progress, founded in 2003 by John Podesta, who would oversee President Obama’s transition team in 2009, and join the Obama administration as a senior adviser in 2014. The Podestas had become the most important non-elected family in the Democratic Party.
In 2009, with the inauguration of Obama and the dawn of unified Democratic control of Washington, business boomed. Revenues at Tony’s firm close to doubled, and revenues at Heather’s firm increased by 50 percent. The money has continued to roll in. The Podesta Group had some $13 million in lobbying income in 2013, sporting clients such as Lockheed Martin, Wells Fargo, U.S. Airways, Walmart, and the National Biodiesel Board. Heather Podesta + Partners made some $4 million, lobbying on behalf of health companies, the American Beverage Association, Brookfield Power, DeVry University, and others. A portion of that money was recycled, contributing to Democratic campaigns, opening up avenues of influence: Tony gave some $45,500 in 2013, all to Democrats; Heather some $95,798 to Democrats, Democratic committees, and liberal groups.
As government expands, extending its reach to every aspect of business, every sector of the economy, private citizens and corporations require sherpas to lead them through the mountains of regulations and tax provisions, to discover exemptions and special favors and other forms of relief or favoritism to improve the bottom line. And who better to act as sherpas than the relatives of the Democrats who impose the regulations and tax provisions in the first place, who better than the lively proprietors of a family business operating in the luxurious and morally uncomplicated world of the caste of limousine liberals who dominate politics, culture, news, and finance.
Corporations give to Democratic politicians, avoiding the scrutiny of liberal attack dogs in the media and nonprofit sectors, and enjoying the ego boost that comes with being on the “right side of history.” Then those corporations hire the Podestas to get them out of the Rube Goldberg traps the Democrats have enacted into law. John’s innovation was to establish a corporate-funded think tank where the burdensome policies would be concocted, and whose staff would go on to man the regulatory agencies that put their wool-headed ideas into practice. And to whom do the corporations turn when they find themselves on the receiving end of all this uplift, all this do-goodery, all this progress, hope, and change? Why, to the man in the red Prada loafers, and to his flamboyantly patterned wife.
It was in 2009 that the Washington Post dubbed Heather Podesta the “It Girl in a new generation of young, highly connected, built-for-the-Obama-era lobbyists.” The appellation was bestowed in a lengthy and fawning “Style” profile, which acted as a sort of advertisement for her lobbying firm. Heather Podesta lamented in the piece that the onrush of business, the peals from health insurance and green energy companies looking for special treatment under the new Democratic dispensation, had interfered with her and her husband’s international travel. Whereas they used to visit Venice up to a dozen times annually, Podesta said, “Now we only maybe get there six times a year.” The poor dears.
The next year, Washington gadfly Tammy Haddad reported on Heather’s fortieth birthday for Politico. “Attending a Tony Podesta party is a pretty good way to start a new year,” Haddad wrote, “but a party to celebrate his wife Heather’s 40th birthday at their new showcase home is a great way to start a new decade.” It was downhill from there. Like Elvis, with whom she shares a birthday, Heather Podesta, Haddad said, had “become a rock star in the Washington power scene as a top lobbyist.” There were red-velvet cupcakes. An Elvis impersonator gyrated for guests. Democratic Congressman John Larson and “Terry Lierman, chief of staff to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, took a tour of the provocative and sometimes whimsical artwork with Jane Oates, John O’Leary, Conrad Cafritz, and Hilary Rosen.” Also there was Jonathan Silver, “the Energy Department’s new money man,” who gave the American taxpayer Solyndra, and who coordinated strategy with John Podesta’s Center for American Progress.
Those winsome days have passed, however. The couple separated a month before Obama’s reelection. Their marriage’s denouement, as related in their divorce filings, is like a retelling of The War of the Roses. He says that in March 2013, months after they had separated, she asked for money to “purchase a multi-million dollar residence for herself,” and he agreed to pay half of the down payment. What he did not know at the time was that she was seeing another man. She says he’s prevented her from accessing the database that keeps track of the art collection. He says she changed the locks on the Venetian flat. She says he’s trying to get rid of the art before the court divides it between them. He says she forced the “cancelation of a scheduled exhibition at the Australian embassy.” She wants the Kalorama house, half the art, and “an equitable division of the parties’ other marital property, including the value of each party’s lobbying firm, retirement accounts, securities, business assets, tangible personal property, including jewelry, wine collection, and all other marital property.” He just wants to be rid of her.
If Heather Podesta has a flaw in the eyes of Washington it is that she is entirely too honest about the mechanics of lobbying. When she launched her independent company in 2007 it was with the slogan, “We know people.” Dianne Feinstein once canceled a fundraiser organized by the Podestas, thePost reported years ago, after she got wind that the invitation read as follows: “The prix fixe includes the Select Committee on Intelligence for the first course followed by your choice of Appropriations, Judiciary, or Rules Committees.”
Heather Podesta’s court filing is just as direct. “As a married couple who both lobbied,” it reads, “they strategically cultivated their public image, and worked to build the ‘Heather and Tony Podesta’ brand for the success of their shared enterprise.” Now that shared enterprise is no more, the Heather and Tony Podesta brand is damaged, and all the years of strategic cultivation is in danger of coming undone. This “married couple who both lobbied” is sundered, revealing a political culture of pettiness and greed, and reminding us that there are few things as revolting, intellectually, morally, and ethically, as the “Washington power scene.”

 Read both Podesta divorce filings below:

Tony Podesta Divorce Filing by WashingtonFreeBeacon

FOR  A LITTLE MORE INSIGHT IS KEVIN WILLIAMSON'S TAKE HERE..

A BRIEF HISTORY OF CAIR'S EVOLUTION AND ROLE IN THE JIHADISTS' EFFORTS ON BEHALF OF ISLAM.This sickening tale of deceit and perfidy should be required reading by all journalists, at least.