Friday, June 29, 2012


This man is the best extemporaneous speaker in politics today because he always speaks the truth from his heart.


“I hope people back home fully understand what this means, and here’s what this means: It is now unlawful for you NOT to buy health insurance, and if you do not buy it, you have an IRS problem,” the Florida Republican said on Fox News. “If you do not buy health insurance, the IRS is going to be on your back and chasing you. They’re going to take away your refund, they’re going to increase your fees, they’re going to come after you.”
“This is now turning the IRS into an enforcement mechanism for Obamacare,” he added.

Rubio argued that millions of Americans will face being “out of compliance” with the IRS for not having health insurance coverage.

“Somehow the Obama administration thinks that’s a victory,” he said. “That’s everything you need to know about that administration.”

[Ed. note:  I had to smile at 'the IRS will take away your refund'.  This assumes you have a JOB and are having TAXES withheld from your paycheck.  47% of American HOUSEHOLDS - NOT INDIVIDUALS -  need not worry about that since they do not PAY ANY federal income tax.]

Tuesday, June 26, 2012


This is rather lengthy but, as a conservative, I can't help but smile as I read it.  It's a total summation of Operation Fast and Furious since Congress began investigating.  Anyone curious about this debacle should read this letter.  Issa also 'instructs' this constitutional 'lecturer' [he was NOT a law professor] in the use of Executive Privilege. 

June 25, 2012
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.  20500

Dear Mr. President:
On June 19, 2012, shortly after leaving a meeting in the U.S. Capitol, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote to request that you assert executive privilege with respect to Operation Fast and Furious documents he is withholding from this Committee.  The next day, Deputy Attorney General James Cole notified me in a letter that you had invoked executive privilege.  The Committee received both letters minutes before the scheduled start of a vote to recommend that the full House hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with its subpoena.

Courts have consistently held that the assertion of the constitutionally-based executive privilege — the only privilege that ever can justify the withholding of documents from congressional committee by the Executive Branch — is only applicable with respect to documents and communications that implicate the confidentiality of the President’s decision-making process, defined as those documents and communications to and from the President and his most senior advisors.  Even then, it is a qualified privilege that is overcome by a showing of the committee’s need for the documents.  The letters from Messrs. Holder and Cole cited no case law to the contrary.

Accordingly, your privilege assertion means one of two things.  Either you or your most senior advisors were involved in managing Operation Fast & Furious and the fallout from it, including the false February 4, 2011 letter provided by the Attorney General to the Committee, or, you are asserting a Presidential power that you know to be unjustified solely for the purpose of further obstructing a congressional investigation.  To date, the White House has steadfastly maintained that it has not had any role in advising the Department with respect to the congressional investigation.  The surprising assertion of executive privilege raised the question of whether that is still the case.

As you know, the Committee voted to recommend that the full House hold Attorney General Holder in contempt of Congress for his continued refusal to produce relevant documents in the investigation of Operation Fast and Furious.  Last week’s proceeding would not have occurred had the Attorney General actually produced the subpoenaed documents he said he could provide.  The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the contempt resolution this week.  I remain hopeful that the Attorney General will produce the specified documents so that we can work towards resolving this matter short of a contempt citation.  

Furthermore, I am hopeful that, consistent with assertions of executive privilege by previous Administrations, you will define the universe of documents over which you asserted executive privilege and provide the Committee with the legal justification from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).


U.S.  Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in a firefight with a group of armed Mexican bandits who preyed on illegal immigrants in a canyon west of Rio Rico, Arizona on December 14, 2010.  Two guns traced to Operation Fast and Furious were found at the murder scene.  The Terry family appeared before the Committee on June 15, 2011, to ask for answers about the program that put guns in the hands of the men who killed their son and brother.  Having been stonewalled for months by the Attorney General and his senior staff, the Committee issued a subpoena for documents that would provide the Terry family the answers they seek.  The subpoena was served on October 12, 2011.

Internally, over the course of the next eight months, the Justice Department identified 140, 000 pages of documents and communications responsive to the Committee’s subpoena.  Yet, the Department handed over only 7,600 of these pages.  Through a series of accommodations and in recognition of certain Executive Branch and law enforcement prerogatives, the Committee prioritized key documents the Department needed to produce to avoid contempt proceedings.  

These key documents would help the Committee understand how and why the Justice Department moved from denying whistleblower allegations to understanding they were true; the identities of officials who attempted to retaliate against whistleblowers; the reactions of senior Department officials when confronted with evidence of gun walking during Fast and Furious, including whether they were surprised or already aware of the use of this reckless tactic, and; whether senior Department officials are being held to the same standard as lower-level employees who have been blamed for Fast and Furious by their politically-appointed bosses in Washington.

I met with Attorney General Holder on June 19, 2012, to attempt to resolve this matter in advance of the Committee’s scheduled contempt vote.  We were joined by Ranking Member Elijah Cummings and Senators Patrick Leahy and Charles Grassley, respectively the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.  The Department had previously identified a small subset of documents created after February 4, 2011 — the date of its letter containing the false claim that no gun walking had occurred — that it would make available tithe Committee.  The Justice Department described this small subset as a “fair compilation” of the full universe of post-February 4th documents responsive to the subpoena.

During the June 19th meeting, the Attorney General stated he wanted to “buy peace.” He indicated a willingness to produce the “fair compilation” of post-February 4th documents.  He told me that he would provide the “fair compilation” of documents on three conditions: (1) that I permanently cancel the contempt vote; (2) that I agree the Department was in full compliance with the Committee’s subpoenas, and; (3) that I accept the “fair compilation,” sight unseen.

As Chairman of the primary investigative Committee of the U.S.  House of Representatives, I considered the Attorney General’s conditions unacceptable, as would have my predecessors from both sides of the aisle.  I simply requested that the Department produce the “fair compilation” in advance of the contempt vote, with the understanding that I would postpone the vote to allow the Committee to review the documents.

The short meeting in the Capitol lasted about twenty minutes.  The Attorney General left the meeting and, shortly thereafter, sent an eight-page letter containing more than forty citations requesting that you assert executive privilege.  The following morning, the Deputy Attorney General informed me that you had taken the extraordinary step of asserting the privilege that is designed to protect presidential decision making.  In his letter, the Attorney General stated that releasing the documents covered by the subpoena, some of which he offered to the Committee hours earlier, would have “significant, damaging consequences.”

It remains unclear how — in a matter of hours — the Attorney General moved from offering those documents in exchange for canceling the contempt vote and ending the congressional investigation to claiming that they are covered by executive privilege and that releasing them — which the Attorney General was prepared to do hours earlier — would now result in “significant, damaging consequences.”

The Scope of Executive Privilege

Deputy Attorney General Cole’s representation that “the President has asserted executive privilege over the relevant post-February 4, 2011, documents” raised concerns that there was greater White House involvement in Operation Fast and Furious than previously thought.  The courts have never considered executive privilege to extend to internal Executive Branch deliberative documents.  Absent from the Attorney General’s eight-page letter were the controlling authorities from the U.S.  Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  As the court held in the seminal case of In re Sealed Case (Espy):

The privilege should not extend to staff outside the White House in executive branch agencies.  Instead, the privilege should apply only to communications authored or solicited and received by those members of an immediate White House adviser’s staff who have broad and significant responsibility for investigating and formulating the advice to be given the President on the particular matter to which the communications relate.

The D.C. Circuit established the “operational proximity test” to determine which communications are subject to privilege.  Espy made clear that it is “operational proximity to the President that matters in determining whether the president’s confidentiality interest is implicated.”

In addition, even if the presidential communications privilege did apply to some of these subpoenaed documents, Espy made clear that “the presidential communications privilege is, at all times, a qualified one,” and that a showing of need could overcome it.  Such a need — indeed a compelling one — plainly exists in this case.

The Justice Department has steadfastly maintained that the documents sought by the Committee do not implicate the White House whatsoever.  If true, they are at best deliberative documents between and among Department personnel who lack the requisite “operational proximity” to the President.  As such, they cannot be withheld pursuant to the constitutionally- based executive privilege.  Courts distinguish between the presidential communications privilege and the deliberative process privilege.  Both, the Espy court observed, are executive privileges designed to protect the confidentiality of Executive Branch decision-making.  The deliberative- process privilege, however, which applies to executive branch officials generally, is a common-law privilege that requires a lower threshold of need to be overcome, and “disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct has occurred.”

The Committee must assume that the White House Counsel’s Office is fully aware of the prevailing authorities of Espy discussed above, and Judicial Watch v.  Dep’t of Justice.  If the invocation of executive privilege was proper, it calls into question a number of public statements about the involvement of the White House made by you, your staff, and the Attorney General.

Finally, the Attorney General’s letter to you cited numerous authorities from prior Administrations of both parties.  It is important to note that the OLC opinions provided as authorities to justify expansive views of executive privilege are inconsistent with existing case law.   

 Remarks about White House Involvement in Fast and Furious

For the past sixteen months, Senator Grassley and I have been investigating Operation Fast and Furious.  In response to a question about the operation during an interview with Univision on March 22, 2011, you stated that, “Well first of all, I did not authorize it.  Eric Holder, the Attorney General, did not authorize it.”  You also stated that you were “absolutely not” informed about Operation Fast and Furious.  Later in the interview, you said that “there may be a situation here in which a serious mistake was made and if that’s the case then we’ll find out and we’ll hold somebody accountable.” 

From the early stages of the investigation, the White House has maintained that no Whitehouse personnel knew anything about Operation Fast and Furious.  Your assertion of executive privilege, however, renews questions about White House involvement.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney emphasized your denial that you knew about Fast and Furious.  Mr. Carney stated, “I can tell you that, as the president have already said, he did not know about or authorize this operation.  A few weeks later, Mr. Carney reiterated the point, stating, “I think he made clear .  .  .  during the Mexican state visit and the press conference he had then that he found out about this through news reports.  And he takes it very seriously.”

In an October 6, 2011 news conference, you maintained that Attorney General Holder “indicated that he was not aware of what was happening in Fast and Furious.”   Regarding your own awareness, you went on to state, “Certainly I was not.  And I think both he and I would have been very unhappy if somebody had suggested that guns were allowed to pass through that could have been prevented by the United States of America.” 

On March 28, 2012, Senator Grassley and I wrote to Kathryn Ruemmler, who serves as your Counsel, to request that she grant our numerous requests to interview Kevin O’Reilly, member of the White House National Security Staff.  We needed Mr. O’Reilly’s testimony to ascertain the extent of White House involvement in Operation Fast and Furious.  In her response, Ms. Ruemmler advised us that the e-mail communications between  Mr. O’Reilly and William Newell, the Special Agent in Charge of ATF’s Phoenix Field Division, did not reveal “the existence of any of the inappropriate investigative tactics at issue in your inquiry, let alone any decision to allow guns to ‘walk.’”  She further emphasized “the absence of any evidence that suggests that Mr. O’Reilly had any involvement in ‘Operation Fast and Furious’ or was aware of the existence of any inappropriate investigative tactics.”  Your assertion of executive privilege renews concerns about these denials.

Earlier this month, when House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith asked the Attorney General when the Justice Department first informed the White House about the questionable tactics used in Fast and Furious, he responded, “I don’t know.”  He informed Chairman Smith that his focus was on “dealing with the problems associated with Fast and Furious,” and that he was “not awfully concerned about what the knowledge was in the White House.” 

Attorney General Holder has assured the public that he takes this matter very seriously, stating that “to the extent we find that mistakes occurred, people will be held accountable.”  Yet, he has described the Committee’s vote as “an election-year tactic.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.  This statement not only betrays a total lack of understanding of our investigation, it exemplifies the stonewalling we have consistently faced in attempting to work with the Justice Department.  If the Attorney General had produced the responsive documents more than eight months ago when they were due, or at any time since then, we would not be where we are today.

 Moving Forward

At the heart of the congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious are disastrous consequences: a murdered Border Patrol Agent, his grieving family, countless deaths in Mexico, and the souring effect on our relationship with Mexico.  Members of the Committee from both sides of the aisle agree that the Terry family deserves answers.  So, too, do Agent Terry’s brothers-in-arms in the border patrol, the Mexican government, and the American people.  Unfortunately, your assertion of executive privilege raises more questions than it answers.  The Attorney General’s conditional offer of a “fair compilation” of a subset of documents covered by the subpoena, and your assertion of executive privilege, in no way substitute for the fact that the Justice Department is still grossly deficient in its compliance with the Committee’s subpoena.  By the Department’s own admission, it has withheld more than130,000 pages of responsive documents.

I still believe that a settlement, rendering further contempt of Congress proceedings unnecessary, is in the best interests of the Justice Department, Congress, and those most directly affected by Operation Fast and Furious.  In light of the settled law that confines the constitutionally-based executive privilege to high-level White House communications, I urge you to reconsider the decision to withhold documents that would allow Congress to complete its investigation.

In the meantime, so that the Committee and the public can better understand your role, and the role of your most senior advisors, in connection with Operation Fast and Furious, please clarify the question raised by your assertion of executive privilege: To what extent were you or your most senior advisors involved in Operation Fast and Furious and the fallout from it, including the false February 4, 2011 letter provided by the Attorney General to the Committee? Please also identify any communications, meetings, and teleconferences between the White House and the Justice Department between February 4, 2011 and June 18, 2012, the day before the Attorney General requested that you assert executive privilege.  I appreciate your prompt attention to this important matter.


Darrell Issa

cc: The Honorable Elijah E.  Cummings, Ranking Member Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S.  House of Representatives

Senator Charles E.  Grassley, Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S.  Senate

Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S.  Senate

The Honorable Kathryn Ruemmler, Counsel to the President

I copied the letter from the above link and I did NOT include but footnoting Rep. Issa provided to the president

Sunday, June 24, 2012


Obama Asks People Getting Married To Forgo Gifts, Ask Their Guests To Donate To His Campaign Instead…

You can even register your wedding on his campaign website. Could he be any more pompous?

http://www.snopes.cPublish Postom/politics/obama/registry.asp

Monday, June 18, 2012


Following in his father’s footsteps, Beau Biden stepped on his ding-dong when speaking at the North Carolina State Democrat Convention/fundraising dinner in Raleigh this weekend. 

In railing against Mitt Romney – and trying to rally the troops – old Beau mentioned that
...Romney didn’t seek a second term as Massachusetts governor, suggesting his failed economic policies hurt him. “I’ve never met a successful politician who didn’t run again,” said Biden, the Delaware attorney general.
Groans from the crowd – and NOT funny groans.

HELLO, BEAU! North Carolina’s current (Democratic) governor Bev Perdue is not running for re-election, and not by her own choice. [It’s suspected that the choice for her NOT to run for another term came from Obama.]


Friday, June 15, 2012



The policy change, described to The Associated Press by two senior administration officials, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act.

So there you have it!  800,000 NEW DEMOCRATS!  YAAAAAAAA!

Saturday, June 9, 2012


“The notion that my White House would purposely release classified national security information is offensive,”… Barack Hussein Obama

This is truly a gathering storm.  

The egomaniacal pussy wimp shitass in the White House, in an effort to be portrayed as STRONG ON NATIONAL DEFENSE, has apparently been part and parcel of a host of leaks aimed at portraying him as a bad ass toughie on terror.  In speaking of the leaks yesterday, he said assertions that the leaks came from his people was ‘offensive. ‘ Note that he did NOT deny the White House was the source of the leaks.

It is also a joke that HOLDER has appointed a pair of DOJ people to investigate the leaks.  Yeah – that oughtta work out great for everyone.  This is the very reason Holder still has a job – to cover Obama’s ass!


We have essentially ADMITTED that we were behind the computer worms (Stuxnet and Flame) that were used to delay/disrupt Iran’s nuclear ambitions.  Is there anyone out that that thinks Iran will not respond in kind to the United States? 

In David Sanger’s new book about Obama, entitled Confront and Conceal, the author writes:  In one of the most impressive steps in the cyber campaign, the inserted software recorded the operation of the centrifuges. Then, as the computer worm took control of the machines and began destroying them, the software played back the signals of the normal operation of the centrifuges. “The plant operators were clueless,”  [1]

Are you frigging KIDDING ME‼!  Who told him this?  Hadda be someone high up.

The US State Department says it is ‘still awaiting a clarification’ [the State Department does that a lot] from Pakistan on Shakeel Afridi, the doctor held by Islamabad for helping the CIA track down and take out Osama bin Laden.  Afridi was outed after bin Laden was killed.  Wonder who did THAT…… We should have snatched him and his family and secreted them to safety.  Please raise your hand if you think any OTHER foreigners will be eager to help our CIA after being hung out to dry by Obama and Hillary.

Leaks to two New York Times national security reporters about operational details of the bin Laden raid actually came from the White House, one of the reporters explained at the opening of the Counter Terror Expo in Washington, as the national security reporters also explained how sensitive they were to government and military requests to sit on stories that could harm ongoing operations. [2]  [Ed. Note:  Notice that they did NOT sit on the stories.]

Sen. John McCain set off a frenzy on Tuesday when he accused the White House of selectively leaking high-level, classified information about President Obama's so-called "kill list,"  [3]

This last leak contained a supposed conversation that took place in the Oval Office.  Now – how could this possibly have escaped those round walls?  Could it be SAAAAAAAAAA-TANNNNNNNN?  More likely, it came from someone IN THE FRIGGING ROOM!

"This stuff is pouring out," said Rep. Peter King (R, NY). "There's always some leaks either accidentally or intentionally and usually one item or two items. But this is coming -- I mean, these are verbatim quotes from the Oval Office!  Both stories contained direct quotes from either Obama or Vice President Joe Biden. The "kill list" story was compiled from interviews with three dozen current or former government officials. [3]

I used to think Joe Biden was a threat to our security, but he's just a jabbering idiot in search of a village.

I guarantee you – I could do a better, more thorough and faster investigation of this than Holder and the two lackeys he’s appointed.  Don’t sit around waiting for conclusions of this investigation.

Friday, June 8, 2012


The 10th Amendment means nothing to Comrade Obama!

July 19, 2010
Executive Order 13547 signed by Barack Hussein Obama – The National Ocean Policy (NOP) – replaces management of our waters by science and replaces this with management by politics.

Here is the breakdown of the top-down management as it will occur, as explained by the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Don Hastings.  
To quote him:

The increased bureaucracy created by this E.O. is astonishing.
  • A new 27-member National Ocean Council (NOC 
  • An 18-member Governance Coordinating Committee
  • 10 National policies
  •  9 Regional Planning Bodies (each involving as many as 27 Federal agencies as well as states and tribes;
  •  9 National Priority Objectives
  •  9 Strategic Action Plans
  •  7 National Goals for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning
  • 12 Guiding Principles for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning.
In addition, the draft National Ocean Plan Implementation Plan lists more than 100 outcomes, actions and milestones for federal agencies to comply with, beginning in 2011 and 2012.  

This executive order has set into motion a system for ‘marine spatial planning’ or the oceans, coastal areas, and the Great lakes – A MASSIVE BUREAUCRACY TO TELL SPORTSMEN THERE THEY CAN AND CANNOT FISH AND WILL REGULATE OTHER ACTIVITIES SUCH AS DRILLING AND AQUACULTURE.  This order will likely do nationwide what implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act has done in California:  take away public fisheries – a little at the time.

If you live within 1000 miles of the coast or Great Lakes, this power grab will affect you.  The language of the NOP allows federal bureaucrats to move as far inland as they ‘deem necessary’ to better protect the oceans and Great Lakes.

South Carolina is working on a resolution that will ‘oppose and refuse to recognize or enforce the coastal and marine spatial plans’ created by the NOC.  Other states should follow suit.

This is a federal power grad SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED by the 10th Amendment.  I suggest ANYONE who enjoys water sports contact your Congressmen and Congresswomen and your Senators and tell them to oppose any funding of the contents of Executive Order 13547.  Rep. John Fleming (R, LA) is one member who says he will continue to oppose funding because existing laws manage fisheries quite well, and ‘we do not need a costly, massive, new, job-destroying layer of bureaucracy to centralize more power in Washington.’  Rep. Doc Hastings (R, WA) is chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, and has sent a letter to the House Appropriations Committee, asking that they include in EVERY bill, specific language to PROHIBIT the use of funds to implement the National Ocean Policy.

To locate your representatives in Congress, click here:

To read the E.O., click here:

Thursday, June 7, 2012


On June 2, The Department of Justice DEMANDED that Florida stop purging illegal/deceased citizens from the state’s voter rolls.  Part of the DOJ complaint is that Floridians who are wrongly purged must show ID to be reinstated on the books to vote.

In a related story….

Tomorrow, June 8th, anyone wishing to attend the Michelle Obama book signing  must first purchase a copy of the First Lady’s book ‘American Grown’ at the Barnes & Noble store on 12th and E Streets and leave the book at the store.  At that time, the purchaser will get a receipt and a wristband. 

When these customer return on the 12th – the day of the actual signing, they will have to be screened by the Secret Service, and will have to show an official photo ID (driver’s license, passport) to an agent before being admitted.  They will also have to check any bags, cameras and cell phones for the 45 minute event.

HURRY!  Only 200 lucky people will make the cut!


Tom Barrett, mayor Milwaukee, ran on fiscal responsibility and his record of saving his city millions of dollars.  Here's the REST of the story....

Barrett is a hypocrite of the highest degree. And now his hypocrisy has made him the poster boy for the far-right PAC Club for Growth. This is the man who spent the first six months of 2011 decrying the governor and legislature for cuts in shared revenue and the collective bargaining changes which allowed governmental bodies to find savings through health insurance and pension contributions.

Barrett ranted and railed how it was unfair to the city, that it was unfair that public safety officers were excluded from the changes, that it would lead to horrific cuts in services.

Then, with very little fanfare he presented the city council with a 2012 budget that made full use of the contributions expected from public employees toward their health care and pensions. He changed work rules to make the budget work. He used the tools the governor gave him - and THEY WORKED!

Sunday, June 3, 2012


Writing for the New York Times, legendary lefty Maureen Dowd bemoans the fall of the golden child – oh, how the mighty have fallen.
The president who started off with such dazzle now seems incapable of stimulating either the economy or the voters. His campaign is offering Obama 2012 car magnets for a donation of $10; cat collars reading “I Meow for Michelle” for $12; an Obama grill spatula for $40, and discounted hoodies and T-shirts. How the mighty have fallen.
His New York girlfriend, Genevieve Cook, told [David]  Maraniss [author of “Barack Obama: The Story” ] that Obama confessed to her that “he felt like an impostor. Because he was so white. There was hardly a black bone in his body.” ….[Obama] said he ‘wanted to get out of the corporate world he found so distasteful — he described himself as “a spy behind enemy lines” — and reimagine himself as a politician.’
He was in the corporate world?  Barack OBAMA??? Girlfriend?  Barack OBAMA???  Maybe this means he’s going to run as a white candidate this go ‘round.

Friday, June 1, 2012


This is a prime example of ASS meeting CLASS....

Not only did Obama refer to PRESIDENT Bush as ‘George’ multiple times – he had to make a shitty and spiteful campaign jab at the former president.  I have never heard anything as disgusting as Obama’s opening remarks at the unveiling of W’s portrait.  He even had to mention the Bin Laden kill.

Minute:   3:13 – introduction of the bastard Kenyan

Minute:   6:00 – 6:49 – “A true test of patriotism is the willingness to freely and graciously pass the reins of power on to somebody else.  That’s certainly been true of President  Bush.  The months before I took the Oath of Office were a very chaotic time.  We knew our economy was in trouble, uhhhh our fellow Americans were in pain uhhh but we wouldn’t know until later just how BREATHTAKING UHHH the financial crisis had been uhhhh and still uhhh over those two and a half months in the midst of that crisis President Bush, his Cabinet, his staff, many of you who are here today went out of your ways – George, you went out of your way – uhhh to make sure that the transition to a new administration was as seamless as possible.”

And while I'm at it, what in the HELL is Michelle wearing?  Did someone tell her this dress looks good with the lining hanging out 2" in the front.  Oh wait - she's a 'trend-setter' - well here's a news flash - LADIES do not go sleeveless at a ceremony in the White House unless it's formal.  Here she is in the same dress a year ago - lining still hanging out.  (Someone should also mention to her that WHITE makes one's ass look large.)