What makes him mad?

Screen Shot 2015-11-19 at 1.03.01 PMIn her weekly media call on Thursday afternoon, Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer said President Obama was out of line for calling out Republicans on the ISIS debate.

She noted that she has been flooded with communications from Nebraskans to take a pause on letting in more Syrian refugees until the process can be reviewed. And she notes that U.S. safety is the #1 concern of the federal government.

As some have noted, President Obama showed some anger the other day after the Paris bombings.

Though not about the bombers.

Oh, he may have been made about them too.  But what he really showed his scorn for was Republicans who think that there should be a better review for potential terrorists that try to take advantage of the current Syrian refugee situation.

Now THAT got the President’s ire up.
That’s curious, eh?

(And btw, you can knock Trump, but HE’s the one who jumped on that point…)


…and taking names…

And speaking of angry Democrats, don’t miss the story about the Hillary Clinton campaign calling up Los Angeles’s Laugh Factory to order them to take down (from YouTube) the comic routines that made jokes at Hillary’s expense.

Oh, and they also demanded the names and phone numbers of all of the comics involved.

Now friends, THAT is who Hillary Clinton IS.
When she was working on the Watergate investigation, she was clearly taking notes.

(“Hmmm. ‘Enemies List’. Got it…“)


Rearranging deck chairs

Hearing about the positioning of state Senators in the Unicameral on the prison debate.

One onlooker noted that the ombudsman’s report on the Tecumseh riot was…bizarre. They noted that it was full of opinion, repeating stances and even and couple of pages on the group that investigated the Titanic.

I always wonder if creative writing majors type up these things — and I’m thinking back to that Franklin Committee report that quoted Shakespeare, among other things. These are supposed to be scholarly reference documents. The goal isn’t to see if the author can get their next novel published.


Jacqueline EideGive a smile in the comments if you get it…

I’m not even going to get into the latest Erniegram — that seemed to take pains to quote OWH humor writer Brad Dickenson.

Not clear if State Senator Chambers is aware of that.

And completely unrelated, but worth noting in this humor section, KMTV Tweeted that the Henry Doorly Zoo is preparing Thanksgiving Day treats for the animals.

That is all…


Hold on to your chairs!

Hey, go Bluejays vs Indiana tonight!!!
I’ll try to Tweet along with the game some.

And while you’re Following Leavenworth St. on the Twitter, haul on over to The Facebook and Like us there, and then subscribe up top on the right to make this all easier!

Please social-media it for Leavenworth St., because YOU make this site grow.



  1. Obama’s becoming increasingly petulant. He’s also more brash in his ignorance. I saw a press-conference snippet where he said, lecturing the press in defense of his capitulation to Bashar Assad, that ‘chlorine has not historically been regarded as a chemical warfare agent’.

    Chlorine was, in fact, the first war gas ever used. He couldn’t have been more wrong.

    • Sparkles says:

      The snippet of a press conference you’re referring to is being actively peddled by the toxic waste dump that is the Washington Free Beacon, a brazenly right wing outlet “noted for its aggressive, ideologically driven reporting.”

      The comments, which you’ve taken entirely out of context and implied to them wholly erroneous meaning, were made during a press conference on May 14, 2015. A press conference held at the conclusion of a Gulf Cooperation Council Summit at Camp David. A summit in which an array of Mideast leaders reaffirmed their commitment to a U.S.-GCC strategic partnership.

      Here’s the quote, in full context:
      “It is true, we have seen a report, about the use of chlorine in bombs that had the -effect- of chemical weapons. Chlorine itself has not historically been listed as a chemical weapon, but when it is used, in this fashion, can be considered a prohibited use of that particular chemical. So, we’re working with the international community to investigate that, and in fact if we have the kind of confirmation that we need, we will once again* work with the international community and the organization charged with monitoring compliance by the Syrian government, and we will reach out to patrons of Assad, like Russia, to put a stop to it.”

      *Obama notes, “once again”, in reference to the historic United Nations Security Council Resolution 2118, adopted unanimously on September 27, 2013.

      A resolution leading to this quote, one month later, Oct. 31, 2013, in the NYT:
      “BEIRUT, Lebanon — Syria’s ability to produce chemical weapons has been destroyed and its remaining toxic armaments secured, weapons inspectors said Thursday, as President Bashar al-Assad has offered unexpectedly robust cooperation, at least so far, with a Russian-United States accord to dismantle his arsenal.”

      • bynd says:

        Sparkles: Really 2013?

        “Analysis: Frank Gardner, BBC Security Correspondent

        Syria was supposed to be rid of all chemical weapons, following a Russian-brokered UN deal two years ago. But it is clear this is not the case. ”

        “Chlorine was first used as a weapon in the trenches of World War One. Denser than air, it was used to flush soldiers out of the trenches”

        BBC 10 Sept 2015

      • I love in particular that Sparkles’ main complaint is that The Washington Free Beacon drew attention to Obama’s stupidity. They didn’t make him say that shite, bozo. That was all Obama. The fact the WFB is talking about it doesn’t change its stupidity one iota.

  2. Of course, Sparkles’ quote simply corroborates what I said. “Chlorine itself has not historically been listed as a chemical weapon” Is completely stupid. Chlorine was the first mass-scale chemical warfare agent ever used, at the second battle of Ypres in 1915, and is universally acknowledged as such. Interestingly, well before that time, chlorine was proposed as a chemical warfare agent in the American Civil War; mercifully, it was never used.

    What is it about liberals, that gives them the arrogance to lecture chemistry professors who specialize in both chlorine chemistry and terrorist weapons, about their own area of expertise?

    • repentinglawyer says:

      ProfGH, Your snippet, given the full text that Sparkles quoted, was just wrong. Your mistake was not about chemistry and for you to try to cover a mistake with them is small. Cannot resist”there but for the grace of God goes God.” As an aside, while your credentials as a chemist are admirable, I would not brag about being an expert witness, all that proves is someone would pay your fee.

      • repentinglawyer says:

        Them was impressive credentials, though use of chlorine in WW I was hardly secret. “Gas boys gas.”

      • It means someone knew I met Federal Rules of Evidence 702. I would have thought a lawyer might have known that. Possibly with repentance has come forgetfulness?

        Please identify specifically what I said that was wrong.

      • Sparkles says:

        As Gerard relentlessly reminds us, he is a Professor of Chemistry.

        Ben Carson was a world renowned Pediatric Neurosurgeon. His career and body of work so remarkable to have merited the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008.

        Ted Kaczynski graduated from Harvard at the age of 20, soon to become the youngest Professor (Mathematics) ever hired by UC Berkeley.

      • The Grundle King says:

        When speaking of matters related to chemistry, I think it’s appropriate for a chemist to include his/her credentials.

        So, just for you Sparkles…the next time we speak of all matters scatological, you can include your credentials as ‘Engineer of Fecal Matter Removal’ if you so wish.

  3. I mean, heck, don’t take my word for it. If chlorine has not historically been listed as a chemical weapon, as Obama claimed, then google ‘List of chemical warfare agents’, and check the lists. The first five hits I found ALL include chlorine. In two cases there were only five listed agents; nonetheless chlorine is included among the five.

      • The Grundle King says:

        Well then, out of work lawyer, please regale us on all matters relevant to chemical weapons and international law. Surely you must have better sources than those located by the world’s top search engine.

  4. Nobody questions Carson’s neurosurgery, or Kaczynski’s knowledge of math. You can, as the anonymous cut-and-pasting troll you are, question my knowledge of chemistry, but it will only make you look stupid. I mean, even stupider.

  5. repentinglawyer says:

    ProfGH, what you said that was wrong was that in some manner Obama denied that chlorine was used as a chemical weapon.. What he said that while on standard list, presumably treatises on the law of land warfare it was not listed, it clearly had the appropriate characteristics of an improper chemical weapon. I sure that you have a handy text on the law of land warfare which proves him wrong, but that is what you should cite.
    702 requires that you know more than a lay juror, as you are found of saying not much of a hurtle. Some real clowns pass through that filter every day;In addition why did you not cite the NE Rule of Evidence that would have been showing off.

    • He didn’t even mention the Law of Land Warfare. He said it has not historically been listed. But it has historically been listed; in fact, every list of chemical weapons I’ve looked at includes it.

      The NE rule of evidence on expert witness qualifications follows the wording of the federal rule. It even uses the same number. Nebraska Revised Statute 27-702 (not showing off; any fool can use google).

      For what it’s worth, the Law of Land Warfare does not list chemical weapons agents, but does prohibit use of asphyxiating gases, which chlorine certainly is.

  6. repentinglawyer says:

    ProfGH. anxious to attend your course on Public International Law, when is it taught. Interestingly the blog that seems to have started this accused POTUS of hiding behind a technicality, might have been a better issue. Easy to understand why you gave up Catholicism, the Popes have only made two infallible statements. No competition for you.

  7. Macdaddy says:

    RWP, they just need to try to change the subject. Obama has been absolutely wrong in every aspect when it comes to the Middle East. Diane Feinstein and Chistianne Amanpour agree that he’s an idiot. He’s been wrong in his approach to ISIS, wrong in his judgment about ISIS, wrong in his attempts to keep us safe, wrong in his capitulation to Iran, wrong in his handling of Putin, wrong in his handling of Libya, Egypt, and Syria. He’s the guy in charge and yet Sparkles and repenting lawyer just can’t handle it that Obama can be wrong about anything so they try to change the subject.

    BTW, guys, have you been reading all the news reports about refugees who keep getting picked up for various felonies and terrorist attacks? Maybe you could admit you were wrong about that. Obama sure won’t admit it.

  8. WHAT technicality, RL? First you said the Law of Land Warfare. So I looked it up. It doesn’t list CW agents. How many tries do you get?

    What Obama is trying to do is hide how bad his agreement on removal of CW from Syria was. In the agreement, they used a list of substances whose manufacture or stockpiling international protocols prohibit (not a list of Chemical Warfare agents). But chlorine is not on that list, because it’s a common industrial chemical. And Assad had lots of it.

    So of course Obama’s not making excuses for Assad. He’s making excuses, once again, for a failure of his own crappy foreign policy.

    • repentinglawyer says:

      ProfGH, Thank you for making my point, technically the chemical chlorine is not usually on lists of chemical weapons, which is what POTUS said. Looked it up where, is the Google lawyer striking again? Law of Land Warfare is part of International Law of War and includes matters like customarily recognized chemical weapons, multiple sources are search. For the rest the argument that POTUS was using its technical absence to covers his failure may be valid, but he said it was just as bad, so I am not convinced.
      I hate to admit I am wrong, but I am a pale shadow of your unwillingness, but then I am married to a retire law prof. She notices my folly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.