It has become a liberal tactic to release potentially damaging information late on Friday or Saturday when the MSM’s attention is elsewhere…or purposely redirected. This last weekend was no different.

On today’s Drudge Report is the headline: The Hilliary Papers: Ruthless First Lady. Diane Blair, a political science professor whom Hillary Clinton once described as her “closest friend”, died in 2000. She and others collected documents during the Clinton’s campaign before Bill Clinton’s run for the Presidency in 1992. More documents were added until Blair’s death.

Jim Blair, a former chief counsel at Tyson Foods Inc. who was at the center of “Cattlegate,” a 1994 controversy involving the unusually large returns Hillary Clinton made while trading cattle futures contracts in the 1970s, donated his wife’s papers to the University of Arkansas Special Collections library in Fayetteville after her death. — The Washington Free Beacon.

A memo from those archives, under the title of, “Research on Hillary Clinton,” noted that Bill, according to pollsters, was viewed as ‘slick,’ while Hillary was viewed as ruthless. The picture the documents paint of Bill and Hillary Clinton is not complementary. Bill comes across as bungling and stupid while Hillary is portrayed as one who’d cut a throat to maintain political power.

***

A bit of bad news for Obamacare came to light over the weekend. It is another ‘unintended consequence’ that the libs are now claiming to be a feature. (Systems Designers, development and project managers are very familiar with the tactic.)

Obamacare will induce people to drop out of the work force, a recent congressional study reported.

The Congressional Budget Office report, examining Obamacare’s effects on the economy, predicted that the U.S. workforce would shrink by 2.5 million people. The cause: Low-income people get subsidies when shopping on Obamacare’s health-insurance exchanges. This makes it easier for people to afford health care without a job or by working part-time. — The Washington Examiner.

The column may be a bit difficult to understand. The bottom line is the amount of subsidies granted to ‘qualified’ applicants may influence people to maintain low incomes or drop out of the work-force completely. An income difference of $1 can mean the loss of those subsidies and increased healthcare costs of thousands of dollars per year.  That—is a disincentive to work. Why work when more money means the loss of the subsidy and higher costs of the now-required healthcare coverage.

The ‘unintended consequence’ came to light in another venue, a discussion between the head of the Congressional Budget Office and Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney. The gist? Americans now have a choice whether or not to work!

My, oh, my, how times have changed. America now has a government that views work as a trap and celebrates those who escape it.

That is the upshot of last week’s remarkable exchange over ObamaCare. It began when the head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the interplay of taxes and subsidies in the law “creates a disincentive for people to work.” The report predicted the mix would lead to fewer hours worked, costing the equivalent of nearly 2.5 million jobs.

In response, President Obama’s spokesman pleaded guilty — with pride and pleasure.

“Opportunity created by affordable, quality health insurance allows families in America to make a decision about how they will work, or if they will work,” Jay Carney said. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi applauded the law for freeing people from “job-lock.”

They never mentioned the implications of this distinctly Obamaish New Deal. The subsidies that enable some Americans to decide “if they will work” mean higher taxes from those who must or want to work. — The New York Post.

Job-lock. The democrats have created a new term. When I looked at the definition of the term in Wiki, I noticed the page was last updated February 9, 2014. Yes, the libs must keep ‘job-lock’ up to date.

***

When I was in the Air Force, one of the first things I read as it became available was the Air Force Times. Like the Air Force, each branch of the military had its paper, the Army Times, the Navy Times, and the Marine Corps Times. There may have been a Coast Guard Times, too, although I never saw one.

One reason why the ‘Times was so popular was that it was published by an independent, semi-private company. The current ‘Times are now owned by Gannet.

By semi-private, I mean the military branches tried, often, to control the content of the ‘Times. They failed each time. Many retired and active military members were contributors to the ‘Times. Military retirees often held paid and advisory positions to the various ‘Times editions. They knew where the bodies were buried and used that knowledge…frequently to the embarrassment of the particular branch.

The success of the ‘Times is its support of the lowest members of the military, not its highest. Those supporters insure truth and accuracy in the stories and reporting. The various ‘Times papers have credibility—more credibility than the military hierarchy and that difference in credibility is leading to conflict again.

Once again, the military hierarchy is attempting to control the content of the ‘Times…the Marine Corps Times in this particular case. I predict this effort will eventually fail, too. The last time a service branch tried to control the ‘Times, the paper was smuggled onto military bases around the world. Like Prohibition, banning the ‘Times will fail.

Marine Corps Times first casualty in headquarters’ war to ‘professionalize’

Independent newspaper does not conform to new Marine Corps message, brass says

Feb. 9, 2014 – 05:05PM, By Lance M. Bacon Staff writer

Marines leaf through a copy of Marine Corps Times during some downtime at a patrol base in Afghanistan’s Helmand province. The newspaper, which throughout the last year has investigated allegations of wrongdoing involving the service’s top general, has been targeted by Marine Corps headquarters as part of a new initiative to ‘professionalize’ areas where the publication is sold. (Brennan Linsley / The Associated Press)

Marine Corps leaders have ordered the independent Marine Corps Times newspaper removed from its prominent newsstand location at base exchange stores worldwide and placed instead in areas away from checkout lines, where it is harder to find and fewer copies are available.

The move raises troubling questions about motive and closely follows a directive prohibiting commanders from using budget funds to buy Marine Corps Times and a number of other publications.

Marine Corps Times is widely recognized for its comprehensive coverage of the Corps, focusing on everything from career tracks, to pay and benefits, family and spouse issues, and employment after leaving the military.

Throughout much of the past year, the paper has published dozens of articles as part of an ongoing investigation into allegations the service’s commandant, Gen. Jim Amos, abused his authority to ensure Marines were punished for an embarrassing war-zone scandal. Numerous reports have captured the attention of mainstream media outlets, including NPR, CNN and Time magazine, among several others.

Spokesmen for the commandant’s office would not answer questions about whether Amos or his staff were aware of or involved in the decision to relocate the newspaper, but a source with knowledge of the new directive said it was approved with the commandant’s knowledge.

“It is no secret [in the Pentagon] that the commandant does not like Marine Corps Times,” the source said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The commandant’s office punted all questions, including whether Amos was involved in the decision to move Marine Corps Times from prominent display in the exchanges,to Manpower & Reserve Affairs, which has oversight of the exchange. A spokeswoman for Manpower & Reserve Affairs said the paper was moved as part of a plan to “professionalize” the front of the exchanges.

As every serviceman and veteran knows, weasels exist at all levels. In this case, it is the Commandant.

***

One last bit. The ‘conservative’ rankings of Congress was released this weekend. Claire McCaskill was ranked 50 out of the 100 Senators. It’s well known that McCaskill voted with the ‘Pubs on issues that had no chance to pass, hence her rating. Missouri’s other Senator, Roy Blunt, supposedly a ‘Pub, was ranked 42, not far above liberal McCaskill. The difference is that McCaskill manipulated her votes to appear more conservative. Blunt didn’t.

I understand that primary opponents to Blunt are forming all across Missouri. It couldn’t happen to be better Senator—and that’s a point. We don’t need two liberal voting Senators and that is exactly what we have had. Time for Blunt to go back to obscurity.