Hillary Is 44
- Spirit :
- New User Registration :
- Archives :
- Links :
- About :
- Webmaster :
- Confidential Tips :
Thursday, July 2nd, 2009
Tomorrow’s Anti-Obama Ads Today
The future anti-Obama advertisements are already written. The ads will begin to air as soon as the 2010 election cycle begins in earnest. The ads will be deadly.
For those wishing to actually see what anti-Obama ads will look and sound like we already have samples. The samples are advertisements already airing in the New Jersey election for governor which will take place this November 2009.
The ads running against Jon Corzine are what we have been saying about Obama since 2007: “Watch what he does, not what he says.”
The ad targets Corzine broken promises on jobs which, if only the name and picture changed, describes Obama to an “O”. Obama assured the nation with words that if his “stimulus” scam passed the unemployment rate would be kept under 8 percent. The unemployment rate is now 9.4 percent.
Obama can’t be trusted. Watch what he does, not what he says.
Another advertisement targets Obama Corzine for breaking a “read my lips, no new taxes”. Corzine considered a tax hike but abandoned abandoning the no tax hike pledge.
Obama is considering tax hikes on those earning less than $250,000 a year (taxes on those making over $250,000 are not part of the pledge Obama made). Indeed, Obama has already broken his pledge if the taxes raised on cigarette smokers is part of the equation. Honest reporting would conclude that raising that “sin tax” should fall under that now broken “no tax” pledge umbrella.
Obama is running away from the “no new taxes” honor pledge for those earning $250,000 and no doubt the Obama TelePrompter is already loaded with flowery words to justify the broken pledge as worthy of dishonor.
Jon Corzine faces a tough reelection fight. The self-financed campaign for reelection is sure to be generously funded by Corzine but right now the situation is so bad that Corzine is will bring Obama to New Jersey to campaign for him on July 16.
A new poll raises the question of Obama’s value at campaign events because his own poll numbers show his own poll numbers drifting down.
PPP finds Barack Obama’s approval rating at 53% in New Jersey, a level below that found in any other public polling since he took office, and a result fitting the trend of his slowly declining numbers nationally.
As is the case in most places Obama’s numbers are highly polarized on party lines, with 88% of Democrats but only 13% of Republicans giving him good reviews. Independents are pretty much split down the middle with 46% viewing his performance unfavorably and 43% giving him positive marks.
Obama continues to be very popular with the minority groups who gave him large majorities at the polls in the state last year- 85% of African Americans and 68% of Hispanics say they like the job he’s doing. But among whites he’s dropped into slightly negative territory with 47% disapproving to 46% approval.
It will be interesting to see if Big Media “journalists” will ask Obama about Corzine’s now strong support for Gay-marriage. We suspect that with Big Media it will continue to be a case of “don’t ask, don’t tell”.
Perhaps Jon Corzine will ask Obama why he has NEVER marched in a Gay Pride march. Perhaps Jon Corzine will show Obama the tax advertisement. We doubt Big Media will ask Obama about the waffle on the “no-middle-class-tax-kike vow”.
The White House seems to be retreating from President Barack Obama’s campaign promise that he would not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000.
Under persistent questioning from ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Sunday, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod declined to restate the vow and left open the possibility that the president might sign health care reform legislation that taxes high-cost, employer-provided insurance plans which some middle-class families currently receive tax free.
With Obama it’s always Waffle time.
ED HENRY: Robert, I just wanted to ask about health care. Yesterday on ABC, David Axelrod was asked repeatedly about whether the President would veto any health reform bill that has a tax on people making — a tax increase on anybody making under $250,000 per year. So I want to give you a chance, as well. (Laughter.) Will the President veto — will the President veto any health bill that has a tax –
ROBERT GIBBS: We should get David down here. You know, here’s what — I think we get this question once a week, in some form or another. I think in many ways, Ed, what marks the difference between this health care effort and other health care efforts in the past is exactly what the President described — a very large table with people sitting at it, trying to solve a problem that we’ve been working on for 40 years.
The good news is we’re making significant progress, and all those people are still sitting at the table. We haven’t drawn a lot of bright lines. We understand there’s some flexibility on the part of Congress to work through some of these policy issues. And we’re going to allow that process to continue to make — that process to continue in order to make progress.
HENRY: That may be true, but the President on the campaign said that — he made a flat pledge that he would not raise taxes on anybody making under $250,000. So is that pledge still operable?
GIBBS: Well, again, I think in some ways your question is hypothetical because there are any number of different bills, different proposals. I think the President has outlined what he believes is the very best way to pay for health care.
HENRY: It doesn’t have to be hypothetical. He made a pledge –
GIBBS: I understand.
HENRY: — he said, I am not going to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000. Is that pledge still active?
GIBBS: We are going to let the process work its way through.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: So it’s not.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: So it’s not.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: So it’s not. (Laughter.)
GIBBS: We’re going to let the process work its way through. All right?
You have that awfully perplexed look on your face, Mr. Garrett.
MAJOR GARRETT: Well, what would be the reason for reversing among the most conspicuous, if not the most conspicuous, campaign promise that this candidate Obama repeated everywhere across the country?
The Laborers Union is not eating waffles. The Air Line Pilots Association, Amalgamated Transit Union, American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, American Federation of Teachers, American Postal Workers Union, Association of Flight Attendants, Association of Professional Flight Attendants, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way, Communications Workers of America, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Association of Fire Fighters, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, InternationalBrotherhood of Electrical Workers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Longshore and Warehouse Union, International Longshoremen’s Association, International Union of Police Associations, Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO National Air Traffic Controllers Association, National Association of Letter Carriers, Professional Aviation Safety Specialists International Union, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Transport Workers Union of America, International Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, United Auto Workers, United Mine Workers of America, United Steel Workers, and the United Transportation Union - are not eating waffles. These unions are all opposed to their health benefits getting taxed because in many instances they gave up other compensation in order to get good health care coverage.
Read Obama’s lips, “no new middle class taxes”:
90 Comments » - Posted in Economy, Gay Rights, Healthcare, Obama, Polls, Scum by Staff
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009
Mainline Treachery
Women, like Gay-Americans and Jewish-Americans have been betrayed by their “leaders” and by their supposed mainline organizations.
The essential fact that must be remembered is that the mainline Women groups, the mainline Gay groups, and to a much lesser extent some mainline Jewish groups (Jewish Americans are betrayed more often by fake “leaders” like Robert Wexler. See HERE and HERE.) have stopped fighting for their constituencies in order to shill for Obama’s Dimocratic Party.
In fairness, or rather sad recognition of historical facts, these mainline groups have abandoned their constituencies long before Obama began to teach treachery on a national scale.
These mainline groups and their treacheries to their constituencies are easily understood by considering last Thursday’s Gay Fundraiser for Obama Dimocrats which raised more money for Obama Dimocrats that the previous year when Obama Dimocrats were at least serving worthless soon-to-be abandoned promises, not unfulfilled ones. Hillary supporters recall Kate Michelman and NARAL and their various treacheries: they abandoned a long time strong champion of their issues in order to support a “present” voting Obama.
African-Americans too have been abandoned by their mainline groups but strangely enough they have benefited by greed. By this we mean that African-Americans at the grass roots level have the same problem of abandonment by their mainline organizations, which are mostly moribund shills for Dimocrats (think NAACP), but because prominent black “leaders” (yes, very much like Al Sharpton) profit personally by shouting “racism” at the first signs of TV cameras the black grassroots get some benefit.
This “profit motive” does at least get African-Americans at the grassroots level to at least feel like their issues and voices are being heard. No matter how minor the alleged infraction the profit motive by profit motivated black leaders means that issues great and small will be addressed with ferocity (and at a profit to the “leaders” who can live sumptuously at the Carlyle Hotel.) The profit motive “leaders” profit from their advocacy and the grassroots have a go-to advocate to air grievances.
We are not recommending the profit motive model to be followed by Women, Gay, and Jewish, groups we are simply noting the odd arrangement. Women, Gay, and Jewish, group leaders are sufficiently satisfied with a slap in the back and invitations to donate money whereas the most prominent black leaders (certainly not all African-American leaders) want to see the green, the cash.
Gay-Americans are the first big bloc of Obama voters to begin, en masse, awakening to Obama’s treacheries but the Gay-American “leadership” is mostly content to be invited to events and be puffed and fluffed.
Women voters, slowly waking up at the grassroots level to Obama Dimocrat treacheries, are however the first big bloc of Obama voters to begin to organizationally regroup.
Amy Siskind of The New Agenda [note to Amy: it would help enormously if you had nothing to do with Huffington Post instead of cross posting your article in that swamp of Hillary hatred and it was not a coup d'etat by definition nor intent.] wrote of the latest happy developments at the moribund National Organization of Women:
Last weekend, a major coup d’etat occurred at NOW’s election conference in Indianapolis. [snip] When all was said and done, after 417 delegate votes had been cast and counted, the underdog slate headed by Terry O’Neill had taken over the reigns of NOW by a mere eight votes. This despite NOW’s established leadership endorsing, actively supporting, and utilizing hardball tactics (including the disqualification of LA Chapter delegates) in support of their hand-picked slate of candidates.
What went down in Indy? Ahead of the election conference itself, a group of long-time feminists who were upset with the direction that NOW had taken decided to organize a resistance. One such feminist, Dr. Lynette Long, pulled NOW’s old tax returns. Dr. Long’s research revealed that NOW’s membership, which reached 500,000 at its zenith, is currently closer to 60,000. Yet, the conference and election itself were mostly a symbolic gesture and the turning of a page. The damage to NOW has been done over decades.
Much praise is due to Hillary supporter Dr. Lynette Long. Dr. Long recognizes that this is not about silly labels (such as first, second, third wave, next wave, of feminism) but rather about getting back to basics and into fighting shape ready to fight for women without the need to be back-slapped at “special” events hosted by Obama Dimocrats.
During the primary campaign women and women groups were on the lookout for the “racism” which only appeared when utilized by Obama and his supporters, but women and women groups did NOTHING about the blatant sexism and misogyny which blared in full ugliness every day and every hour.
Women’s groups need to get back to basics and begin to represent women and forget about invitations to fancy events. Women’s groups need to get back to educating and fighting. Women’s groups must get back to business and make their case to women that the sexism and misogyny is so embedded in the culture that women instead of fighting together fight each other:
And the polls show the same — just 20% of those surveyed consider themselves “feminists,” and only 17% want their daughters to be.
A whole lot of folks will look back and try to decipher what has caused the downturn at NOW. Yet, the answer is quite simple: the organization stopped representing its constituents. Management became insular and lost touch with the folks, so the folks moved on with their busy lives. Management became like a clique with strict rites of passage including being liberal and pro-choice. As management increasingly focused on issues that divided their members, they didn’t hear the decades-long patter of 440,000 footsteps slowly walking away.
This is not dissimilar to what occurred on Wall Street. There too, management lost track of the basic tenets of customer focus and service. Management instead relied on excessive financial risk through esoteric financial tools which took management further and further away from their customer base. It was only a matter of time.
And just as Wall Street lifts itself from the ashes of ruin, now, so is the women’s movement. While Wall Street rises with the help of TARP, the Next Wave gets underway courtesy of the sexism in the 2008 election. Wall Street got aid from Henry Paulson — the Next Wave got invigoration from David Letterman. The CEO ranks of Wall Street were merged and reshuffled; a new slate of leadership has taken over NOW and a new national women’s group has been formed. Wall Street will be forever changed, as will the women’s movement.
And thank goodness — it’s about time. Because we’ve come a long way, baby, yes, but the 2008 election showed us that sexism is alive and thriving in this country. Women have made great strides, but just beneath the surface, where eyes cannot discern, the roots of sexism and misogyny have been left to grow unabated. The roots flourish in our media, our schools, our workplaces, even our political parties.
Too often we have seen women as their own worst enemies. The “divide and conquer” strategy has worked for the sexists and misogynists who repeatedly saw success when women attacked Hillary Clinton using the language of the most neanderthal of men (do you hear us, Elizabeth Edwards, and Kate Michelman, and Donna Brazile, and Nancy Pelosi?)
And in 2008 we reached a nadir. For Wall Street it was the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. For the women’s movement, it was the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.
Governor Sarah Palin, like Senator Hillary Clinton, was savagely attacked with sexist and misogynistic language and tactics by both men and women. Obama supporters and women stated the attacks were justified because they did not like the views of Governor Palin nor the views of Senator Clinton. But those were weak excuses which did not hide the sexism and misogyny.
The National Organization of Women is the first women’s organization to begin to reform and get back to fighting trim. Other organizations need to overthrow the comfortable bureaucrats which are happy to go along in order to get along at fancy parties.
It’s time for a change.
154 Comments » - Posted in Fundraising, Gay Rights, Hillary, McCain, Obama, Republicans, Scum by Staff
Monday, June 29th, 2009
Happy Stonewall Jackson Day, Gay-Americans
Today is the 40th anniversary of the “birth of the gay liberation movement” at the Stonewall Inn in New York.
Instead of celebrating, Gay Americans must contend with the fact that Gay-bashing Barack Obama is the Confederate Stonewall Jackson they must fight. To borrow from Confederate General Bernard E. Bee “There is Obama, standing like a stone wall” against gay rights.
Even the Obama-loving PINO New York Times has been forced to editorialize against Obama’s Stonewall Jackson insults to Gay-Americans:
The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration needs a new direction on gay rights. [snip]
The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.
Obama loving Andrew Sullivan, who thought Americans should vote for Obama because of his skin color agrees with us that Gay-Americans and supporters should not give money to the Obama Dimocrats:
One way to get the Obama administration’s attention on civil rights is for gay people to stop funding the Democrats. That’s all these people care about anyway when it comes to gays: our money. If the Democrats refuse to support us, refuse to support them. This is a start. But we need to get more creative. We need actions to highlight the administration’s betrayals, postponements and boilerplate. We need to start confronting the president at his events. We need civil disobedience. We need to tell him we do not want another fricking speech where he tells us he is a fierce advocate for our rights, when that is quite plainly at this point not true. We will not tolerate another Clinton. No invites to these people for dinners or fundraisers. No cheering him at events while he does nothing to follow up on his explicit promises. Of course these things can be done. If anyone high up in the Obama administration or the Pelosi-Reid Congress gave a damn, much would have been done.
We need to swamp Pelosi with phone-calls.
We need to target Reid for his inaction. We have to pressure Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin not to excuse the disdain that the Obama administration is showing toward gay equality, and their cynical use of our votes, money and passion to enforce real and potent discrimination against us and our families. And we have to refuse to attend White House signing ceremonies like yesterday’s farce. Really: until they are serious, we should not be coopted and placated with pathetic sops. I am not a Clintonite. I worked my ass off to get this man to power. On many issues, I support him and will continue to do so.
Andrew Sullivan is a Clinton hating Republican who many Democrats listened to when he advised voting for the black man on the basis of skin color. Andrew Sullivan hates Bill Clinton for trying to make life better for Gay-Americans and defeating Republicans when doing such perilous work. Andrew Sullivan will not acknowledge that it was Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton who supported Gay-Americans when it was difficult to do so. Andrew Sullivan will not acknowledge that it was Obama supporters like Colin Powell and Sam Nunn who attacked Bill Clinton’s enlightened policies regarding Gay-Americans. Andrew Sullivan will not accept the fact that Obama, who has NEVER marched in a Gay Pride parade, has made a fool of Gay-Americans for their votes.
Gay-Americans have been betrayed by Gay “leaders” too. The latest treachery came at last week’s Thursday night “Gay Fundraiser”.
While the grass-roots demand accountability and action from gay-bashing Barack Obama, Gay “leaders” provide Obama with money and more money. Last week’s hated gay fundraiser actually raised more money ($1 million) for Obama’s Dimocrats than last year’s gay fundraiser for Obama’s Dimocrats ($750,000). Gay “leaders” and fundraisers betray Gay-Americans.
The Advocate on Gay Uncle Toms:
“Attendees of the 10th annual LGBT Leadership Council fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee Thursday were greeted by protesters carrying signs that read ‘Gay Uncle Toms’ and ‘265 Discharged Since January 20, 2009.’ When Wisconsin Rep. Tammy Baldwin arrived, she chatted with the spirited flock of about 25 and then pivoted to enter the Mandarin Oriental Hotel as cries of ‘Don’t go in, Tammy!’ and ‘Shame on you!’ followed her. ‘I think it’s so important that as gay and lesbian people who are denied equal rights, we do feel an impatience and a frustration and it’s really important that that be expressed both outside and inside,’ she said.”
Gay-Americans at the grassroots level, but not Gay “leaders” are awake to Obama’s treacheries.
“He’s a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar,” Pietrangelo said in an interview with TIME shortly after the high court declined to hear his appeal. “This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people,”
Today gay-bashing Barack Obama will meet with quisling Gay “leaders” at the White House for more speeches and high-fives. After the Gay “leaders” leave Obama will laugh at those fools. George W. Bush treated his Gay Male prostitute with much more respect.
Gay-Americans are learning that Obama cannot be trusted.
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.
Big Pink readers will recall we have always recoiled at any ugly suggestion that Barack Obama is in any way one-millionth of the man Dr. Martin Luther King was.
To those of us with a knowledge of history Barack Obama is a pretentious flim-flam man and graffiti “artist”, who scratches and defaces the memorials built to honor truly great men. Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King (today is Martin Luther King day) were not pretenders, they were great men worthy of the honors and respect paid to them.
Gay-American can take heart, even with the betrayals by Gay “leaders”, even with the gay-bashing Barack Obama stonewalling freedom and equality, that the day of respect and equality will arrive.
Here is a real civil rights leader from another time, answering the question ‘How long will it take to end the prejudice?’:
61 Comments » - Posted in Gay Rights, Obama by Staff
Saturday, June 27th, 2009
Obama’s Iran Cowardice
(1) Why is anyone surprised at the latest Obama hypocrisy regarding Guantanamo?
(2) Why is anyone surprised at the Obama cowardice on Iran? Did everyone but Big Pink forget Barack Obama’s vote on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard? Actually that is a trick question because Obama was not present when the vote on declaring Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization was taken and Obama lied about it all.
(3) The New York Times and Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post are stating that the Iranian revolution of 2009 is over. The Mullahs have won. Throughout the fight Obama was missing in action. Coward-in-chief Obama was either a deer in the headlights or a co-conspirator with the Iranian Mullahs.
(4) Obama Hopium addled apologists cry for Neda but continue to defend Obama’s protection of the Iranian Mullahs. These Hopium addled whine about Neda but then they quote Henry Kissinger who excused the Chinese government of the slaughter at Tiananmen.
* * * * *
(1) Yesterday was another Friday night, so another Friday night ugly Obama news dump. This latest “Obama Is The Third Bush Term” (as we called it on January 12, 2009) Friday horror was again about Guantanamo.
Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.
Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.
After months of internal debate over how to close the military facility in Cuba, White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the prison by the president’s January deadline.
Prepare for the Hopium addled to defend Obama with foolish excuses. We are not surprised by any of this and gutted the soon to come Obama defenses before any of this officially occurred. Obama is the Third Bush Term and Obama and the Hopium eaters owe George W. Bush an apology:
Three months into the Justice Department’s reviews, several officials involved said they have found themselves agreeing with conclusions reached years earlier by the Bush administration: As many as 90 detainees cannot be charged or released.
* * * * *
(2) Why is anyone surprised at Obama’s continued cowardice on Iran? History is a teacher. Remember when we discussed this:
This week Senator Obama criticized Senator Clinton’s vote to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.
Senator Obama was silent on the measure when it was considered on the floor. Despite serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, he wasn’t involved in Senate negotiations or discussions over the bill’s language. He didn’t speak out against it before it was voted on – he didn’t even return from the campaign trail to vote. He didn’t speak out against it at a nationally televised debate that night or defend himself from an attack during the debate on his missed vote. In fact, he waited more than nine hours after the vote was over to issue a statement about it.
If Senator Obama believed the measure was as dangerous as he says, wouldn’t he have had some obligation to stand up, speak out, and fight against it?
Obama falsely accused Hillary Clinton of helping then President George W. Bush in alleged plans to attack Iran. Even Obama enabler Illinois’ Senator Dick Durbin came to Hillary’s defense: “If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no.”
In our discussions we quoted the Chicago Tribune as it noted that Obama, falling dramatically behind Hillary in the polls, decided to simply lie and lie about Hillary:
An area where Obama plans to further challenge Clinton is on a recent Senate “Sense of the Senate” vote that the United States should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. She and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, a close Obama ally, voted as part of a strong majority to pass the measure, while Obama skipped the vote to campaign in New Hampshire.
“This is one of the problems with running for president,” Obama said. “You can’t always anticipate which votes are which, but I put out a statement at the time stating that this was a bad idea and that I would have voted against it.”
Obama blamed scheduling for the missed vote.
“If you’re in New Hampshire, then it’s hard to get back,” he said.
Obama protected Iran’s Revolutionary Guard which is now attacking Iranians. Obama had many excuses for his protection of Iran’s terrorist Revolutionary Guard.
Hillary Clinton was right. Obama was wrong. So Obama lied about Hillary.
Now Americans see Hillary Clinton was right and Obama was wrong about Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Obama had many excuses for pretending to want to vote “no” and even more excuses for not bothering to vote at all. Joe Biden killed Obama’s excuses.
Joe Biden killed Obama’s excuses for not voting but Big Media ignored this big story. Obama protected Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and Big Media protected Obama.
Senator Biden said “I wonder why he wasn’t there to vote,” Biden said. “We all knew that this vote was coming up.” Senator Biden said that because Obama has blamed scheduling for his, once again, missed vote. Readers of Big Pink know Obama has a long dodgy history of missed votes, of being in the room but not voting, of being in the room and instead of voting “yea” or “nay” voting with a schoolchild’s “present”.
Obama has been lying. Obama has been lying continuously.
YELLIN: While Hillary Clinton was voicing her support for it, Senator Obama was campaigning in New Hampshire. Obama’s campaign says he didn’t get enough notice to make it back to the Senate in time, though Clinton, Biden and Dodd voted.
In fact, since returning from the August recess, Senator Obama has missed the most votes of any of the Democratic presidential candidates, nearly 80 percent since September. The others don’t have great voting records either.[snip]
And I have an important point to make about that Iran amendment, which Obama has made such as important part of his campaign. Now, again, his campaign contends that Obama did not get enough notice to return to D.C. to make that vote, but two Democratic Senate sources tells CNN that all senators were advised the night before that the vote would come up the next day, and Senator Obama should have known that vote was coming.
It was a clear cut Obama lie, but Big Media ignored this big story. CNN asked the question once with Jessical Yellin’s excellent work but then decided to protect Obama instead of pursue this story. Big Media protected Barack Obama when Barack Obama protected Iran’s terrorist Revolutionary Guard.
* * * * *
(3) Why is anyone surprised about Obama’s Iran silence this year when he protected Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and smeared Hillary Clinton?
Charles Krauthammer declares the Mullahs have won because the revolutionaries don’t have a leader:
For all our sentimental belief in the ultimate triumph of those on the “right side of history,” nothing is inevitable. This second Iranian revolution is on the defensive, even in retreat. [snip]
As Mousavi hovers between Gorbachev and Yeltsin, between reformer and revolutionary, between figurehead and leader, the revolution hangs in the balance. The regime may neutralize him by arrest or even murder. It may buy him off with offers of safety and a sinecure. He may well prefer to let this cup pass from his lips.
But choose he must, and choose quickly. This is his moment and it is fading rapidly. Unless Mousavi rises to it, or another rises in his place, Iran’s democratic uprising will end not as Russia 1991, but as China 1989.
The New York Times ministers last rites to the revolution:
The direct confrontation over Iran’s presidential election was effectively silenced Friday when the main opposition leader said he would seek permits for any future protests, an influential cleric suggested that leaders of the demonstrations could be executed, and the council responsible for validating the election repeated its declaration that there were no major irregularities.
Obama protected the Mullahs. Big Media protected Obama.
* * * * *
Hopium addled addicts will continue to protect Obama on everything - even his shameless behavior on Iran. Hopium addled addicts will ignore history, particularly Obama’s history of voting “present” or not voting at all.
Hopium addled addicts secured their place in the annals of hypocrisy when they quoted Henry Kissinger and his support of Obama’s weakness on Iran. The Hopium addled will distort history due to their Clinton hate agenda and forget Kissinger’s support for the murders at Tiananmen Square.
Not surprisingly, Kissinger rushed to defend the Chinese regime after the Tiananmen Square massacre. Any government, he said, would have swept away such protestors from its square. Kissinger sees eye-to-eye with the Chinese. “I have generally questioned the wisdom of seeking by explicit pressures to compel societies with vastly different backgrounds to adopt, in a matter of years and at early stages of their political evolution, the same standards and procedures it took centuries to grow in the West,” concludes Kissinger. Well, yes. But is urging the Chinese government not to imprison dissidents tantamount to asking it to turn into a democracy overnight?
* * * * *
Big Media protected Barack Obama when he lied about his vote to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Big Media protected Obama when he protected the Mullahs in Iran.
Obama is a coward that cannot be trusted by friend nor foe. Big Media will protect Obama from that truth too.
116 Comments » - Posted in Hillary, Obama, Scum by Staff
Friday, June 26th, 2009
Obama’s Sentence
What should Obama’s sentence be? No, silly, we don’t mean how long should his prison term be, we mean his sentence, as in those things that make up a paragraph. This is a sentence.
What should Obama’s sentence be? What is his sentence now? Big Pink favorite (when she is not attacking us) Peggy Noonan explains the sentence story:
The Sentence comes from a story Clare Boothe Luce told about a conversation she had in 1962 in the White House with her old friend John F. Kennedy. She told him, she said, that “a great man is one sentence.” His leadership can be so well summed up in a single sentence that you don’t have to hear his name to know who’s being talked about. “He preserved the union and freed the slaves,” or, “He lifted us out of a great depression and helped to win a World War.” You didn’t have to be told “Lincoln” or “FDR.”
Peggy, the wordsmith, misses a key word from the Clare Boothe Luce story: “great”. Obama is not a great man so don’t expect much of a sentence. But let’s play with Noonan’s conceit - Let’s come up with a sentence for Obama.
Peg has a suggestion for Obama:
New White Houses are always ardent for change, for breakthroughs. They want the sentence even when they don’t know the sentence exists, even when they think it’s a paragraph. The Obama people want, “He was the president who gave all Americans health care,” and, “He lessened income inequality,” and, “He took over a failed company,” and other things. They wants a jumble of sentences and do a jumble of things. But an administration about everything is an administration about nothing.
Mr. Obama is not seeing his sentence. He’s missing it. This is the sentence history has given him: “He brought America back from economic collapse and kept us strong and secure in the age of terror.” That’s all anybody wants. It’s all that’s needed.
Peggy, get out of wherever you are immediately. You are in a Hopium den. The Hopium fumes are burning your brain cells if you think Obama, of the “stimulus” scam will keep America away from economic collapse instead of driving us over the brink. The Hopium fumes are burning your brain cells if you think Obama will keep us strong and secure - and you obviously are unaware that Obama does not even use the word “terror” let alone believe in it.
So Peg, please, understand that Obama is incapable of keeping “us strong and secure in the age of terror” because he does not believe there is terror or terrorists.
“Strong and Secure”? Obama? The “no preconditions” guy? The guy that waits to see which way the wind is blowing to say the Iranian government is being naughty when it kills and beats up on its own citizens? That guy?
Peg, you seriously think that guy will keep anyone but himself “secure”? The guy who gave up his own constituents to Chicago’s freezing cold for campaign contributions - that’s the guy you think will keep America secure? Ask the dolphins Peggy, they’ll tell you Obama’s not the one.
Peggy, take our advice, remember to always think twice.
So what is Obama’s Sentence? What about Obama “can be so well summed up in a single sentence that you don’t have to hear his name to know who’s being talked about”?
“Flim-flam man” is too short. “TelePrompter POTUS“, even that gives him too much credit. “Hope and Change” is now a punchline. How about “bitter and clingy“? That last one works but it doesn’t fully sum up the man.
Michelle Obama might be of some help here. Michelle called Obama “stinky” and later perfectly summed up the man she knows so well with chastisement of his “selfishness and careerism“.
“Selfishness and careerism” though are reasons, excuses for what Obama is and does. What Peggy wants and what Clare Booth Luce meant was a sentence that immediately recalls the man in his entirely, his actions especially.
Many will devise an Obama sentence, but for us, the conflation of our catechism seems just about right:
“[Obama -] Simply cannot be trusted by friend nor foe.
245 Comments » - Posted in Economy, Obama by Staff
Wednesday, June 24th, 2009
ABC, 123, Do, Re, Mi, Obama Lies To You And Me
Update II: L.A. Times confirms the death of Michael Jackson.
Update: The video below is from when Michael Jackson sang with his brothers as the Jackson 5. There are reports at the moment (approximately 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time) that Michael Jackson has died. We will keep the video up but we mean no disrespect in any way to Michael Jackson, his family or his friends and fans.
——————————————————————————————
Hillary supporters like us are, and have always been, the strongest supporters of universal health care. But do we trust Obama? NO. Obama can’t be trusted.
It appears that, according to a new poll, many Americans, most Americans, agree with us that the Obama “incessant”, grandiloquent”, lies on health care are not to be believed.
For all the Obama flowery words (which he will bore Americans with all day today and tonight on ABC) Americans do not believe that flim-flam man Obama will do what he says he will do.
A majority of Americans see government action as critical to controlling runaway health-care costs, but there is broad public anxiety about the potential impact of reform legislation and conflicting views about the types of fixes being proposed on Capitol Hill, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
It’s an ABC News poll so expect it to be the highlight of ABC kissy “questions” at tonight’s publicity stunt (the publicity stunt will be on ABC at 10:00 p.m. Eastern Time, opposite CSI: New York on CBS). We expect that all day today Obama’s TelePrompters have been cued with answers to the many questions the poll raises about trust in what Obama says.
Most respondents are “very concerned” that health-care reform would lead to higher costs, lower quality, fewer choices, a bigger deficit, diminished insurance coverage and more government bureaucracy. About six in 10 are at least somewhat worried about all of these factors, underscoring the challenges for lawmakers as they attempt to restructure the nation’s $2.3 trillion health-care system.
Such shocking poll results are difficult to find, almost buried, in the Washington Post today even though they are partners with ABC News and if it were a positive poll for Obama it would be front page, full page news.
The numbers are staggering:
Are you concerned that Health Care reform would reduce quality: 81% say yes (18% say no).
Are you concerned that Health Care reform would increase costs: 84% say yes (16% say no).
Are you concerned that Health Care reform would limit doctor choice: 79% say yes (20% say no).
Are you concerned that Health Care reform would increase federal deficit: 84% say yes (14% say no).
Shocking numbers which mean that unlike trustworthy Hillary Clinton on health care Americans know:
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.
These shocking numbers demonstrate that Obama’s flowery words are not trusted by Americans. The more assurances from Obama, the less belief in the thus far nonexistent health care “plan” (which we will critique as soon as there is a “plan”):
Part of the reason so many are nervous about future changes is a fear they may lose what they currently have. More than eight in 10 said they are satisfied with the quality of care they now receive and relatively content with their own current expenses, and worry about future rising costs cuts across party lines and is amplified in the weak economy.
The poll results were buried in the Washington Post. We expect ABC News will discuss these polls results with Obama at tonight’s publicity stunt but we won’t be surprised if they refuse to disturb the pillow comforted Obama.
Obama on fluffed Big Media pillows is no longer a shock to anyone. Yesterday, at the press conference publicity stunt, the merger of Big Media and the Obama publicity flacks was apparent to all and applauded by the hypocrite Dimocrat Left:
But yesterday’s daytime drama belonged primarily to Pitney, of the Huffington Post Web site. During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner — from the Huffington Post.
Pitney said the White House, though not aware of the question’s wording, asked him to come up with a question about Iran proposed by an Iranian. And, as it turned out, he was not the only prearranged questioner at yesterday’s show. Later, Obama passed over the usual suspects to call on Macarena Vidal of the Spanish-language EFE news agency. The White House called Vidal in advance to see whether she was coming and arranged for her to sit in a seat usually assigned to a financial trade publication. She asked about Chile and Colombia.
A couple of more questions and Obama called it a day. “Mr. President!” yelled Mike Allen of Politico. “May I ask about Afghanistan? No questions about Iraq or Afghanistan?”
Sorry: Those weren’t prearranged.
A few Americans will bother to tune in to the ABC News Obama show tonight. Will ABC ask the 1, 2, 3, questions? Will ABC ask anything but prearranged, easy to deflect, questions?
Or, will the ABC News operation become yet another Oprah Obama lovefest sale of lies?
240 Comments » - Posted in Healthcare, Hillary, Obama, Polls, Scum by Staff
Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009
After The Obama Press Conference: Are We Wrong About Barack Obama?
Barack Obama held a press conference today. Obama answered questions today and so we ask a question of ourselves: Are We Wrong About Barack Obama? Are our criticisms fair or unfair?
Our criticisms since April 2007 are that Obama cannot be trusted by friend nor foe, that Obama is a race-baiter and a gay-basher and a sexist and misogynist, and that Obama does not have the worldview necessary nor the experience nor the qualifications to be president. We said from the beginning that Obama’s friends are of low character just like Obama is of low character. We said from the beginning that Obama was all fake talk, no action, no history of action - just a lot of words which lie. Obama is the Third Bush term.
Are We Wrong About Barack Obama?
* * * * *
It is disgusting to watch those that attacked Hillary and Hillary supporters, because we will fight for democracy and not let the (continuing) race-baiting and gay-bashing and sexism and misogyny by Obama be forgotten, as they now moan and groan about events in Iran.
“Get over it” these hypocrites said when it came to American democracy. But when it comes to other countries, these hypocrites do the Bush thing - criticize other countries instead of addressing the problems in our own democracy.
These hypocrites mourn the murdered Neda, but slash at Hillary. These hypocrites attacked Hillary when she was a candidate and in Iranian Mullah fashion screamed for her to get out of the race - but then these hypocrites demanded her wishes be respected when Hillary decided to back the candidate gifted the nomination by party bosses.
These hypocrites, both male and female, cry for Neda and the stolen election in Iran, but not a tear for the disenfranchised voters of America. Like Hillary we want democracy and the genuine public will in Iran and America.
We wish the Obama Hopium addled hypocrites would engage in some self-reflection -either on their websites or in their lives. But these hypocrites will never self-reflect. These hypocrites refuse to assess their behavior and the damage they have done.
Which brings us to the necessity that we too have to reflect and ponder the question: Are We Wrong About Obama? Are our criticisms just? Are we attacking Obama because we are “bitter” and clingy? Or our criticisms just and fair and necessary.
For instance, unlike Obama supporters and Hopium eaters, we are not hypocrites when we align ourselves with the women of Iran and those who fight at risk to their lives (not just Changy Wish and Hope) for democracy. We fight for justice and democracy and fair elections in the United States and in Iran. The Obama hypocrites whine for democracy in other countries, but do not denounce their own behavior in gifting a nomination by threats and thuggery and misogyny and race-baiting and gay-bashing.
Iranians have an ugly “nomination” process which “filters” out candidates not acceptable to the rulers - but at least everyone knows about the skewed nomination filter. In the United States the nomination process is supposed to be fair and determined by the voters - but in 2008 the nomination was gifted - delegates and votes were stolen by the Rules and Bylaws Committee from the candidate that won votes and gifted to a candidate that was, in one instance, not even on the ballot.
Iranians, like Americans in 2000 and possibly 2004 experienced a stolen general election. Americans, thanks to Big Media Mullahs witnessed a gifted nomination in 2008. Unlike Iranians, Americans were cowed and remained silent at the blatant attack on the genuine public will. Both the travesties in Iran and America were wrong and we condemn both. We are not hypocrites on this issue as are Obama supporters and the American Basij Hopium addicts.
We are not hypocrites, like the Obama Hopium eaters, but yet we reflect. “The unexamined life is not worth living“. Are We Wrong About Obama?
Are We Wrong About Barack Obama?
* * * * *
Let’s look at recent history. Let’s not look at what we have written, let’s look at what others are saying. Let’s look at what Obama enablers and worshipers are now saying.
One of the biggest Obama Hopium addicts and Hopium pushers was Bob Herbert of the New York Times. What is good ol’ Bob saying now:
Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House.
One of the most disappointing aspects of the early months of the Obama administration has been its unwillingness to end many of the mind-numbing abuses linked to the so-called war on terror and to establish a legal and moral framework designed to prevent those abuses from ever occurring again.
Now Bob Herbert sounds like us when we say Obama is the Third Bush Term. Herbert “recoils” against Obama policies on “preventive detention, imprisoning people indefinitely, for years and perhaps for life, without charge and without giving them an opportunity to demonstrate their innocence.”
Says Obama worshiper Bob:
Human rights? Ha-ha. That’s a good one.
Also distressing is the curtain of secrecy the Obama administration has kept drawn over shameful abuses that should be brought into the light of day. [snip]
The president’s argument for trying to block the court-ordered release of the photos is a demoralizing echo of the embarrassingly empty rhetoric of the Bush years: [snip]
The Obama administration is also continuing the Bush administration’s abuse of the state-secrets privilege. [snip]
…as did lawyers from the Bush administration before them…
“Obama is the Third Bush Term” Bob seems to say:
It was thought by many that a President Obama would put a stop to the madness, put an end to the Bush administration’s nightmarish approach to national security. But Mr. Obama has shown no inclination to bring even the worst offenders of the Bush years to account, and seems perfectly willing to move ahead in lockstep with the excessive secrecy and some of the most egregious activities of the Bush era.
John R. MacArthur of Harpers Magazine, like us, calls Obama A LIAR - an eloquent LIAR:
And yet, broadly speaking, Obama has been lying on a pretty impressive scale. You just have to get past his grandiloquent rhetoric — usually empty of substance — to get a handle on it. I offer a short, incomplete list, which I’m sure others could easily enlarge.
• Obama portrayed himself as the peace candidate, or at least the anti-war candidate. He is not a peace president, nor is he stopping any wars. [snip] The way things are going, Pakistan could become the new Cambodia and Obama the new Nixon.
In Iraq, Obama has promised to withdraw all the troops . . . unless, which means that we’re not leaving. [snip]
• Obama said he wanted to reform Washington and “fix” its “broken” system of corrupt lobbying. But Obama is neither a reformer nor a skilled legislative mechanic. Hatched from the Daley Machine in one-party Chicago, Obama wouldn’t be president today if he rocked boats. Witness the appointment of Roland Burris by the corrupt former Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill Obama’s Senate seat: not a word of public protest from the new administration because Burris is a made man in the Chicago Democratic organization. [snip]
As for pork-barrel politics, Obama named one of its greatest champions, Chicago’s own Rahm Emanuel, as his chief of staff, and the new budget (as well as the “stimulus” package) is loaded with pork. Meanwhile, have you heard anything serious about campaign-finance reform from Obama? [snip] …Obama’s naming of former Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn III as deputy secretary of defense… the president’s alleged crusade against special interests and the “revolving door” between private business and government. He has also “sold” ambassadorships to campaign donors. [snip]
• Obama, with his Arabic middle name and his big Cairo speech, wants people to think that he is the Muslim world’s new best friend. [snip] The Saudi royal family hates the idea of representative government for ordinary Muslims and is cruelly indifferent to the fate of the Palestinians. [snip] Meanwhile, the Saudi elite continues to play its double game, paying protection money to extremist Islam and granting pensions to the relatives of suicide bombers. It’s just politics, say Barack and Rahm, grinning ear-to-ear with their sleazy new friends from Riyahd. Just keep the oil pumping around election time and all will be well.
• Obama makes like he’s a friend of organized labor, at least he did during the Ohio primary when he needed to beat Hillary Clinton. [snip] In a debate with Clinton on Feb. 26, 2008, he said, “I will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA] in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about” and “use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage” to get “labor and environmental standards that are enforced.”
But two months ago, U.S. Trade Rep. Ron Kirk said such a blunt instrument was no longer necessary and that the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico were now “of the mind that we should be looking for opportunities to strengthen [the North American Free Trade Agreement].” [snip]
Yes, of course it’s nice to have a president who speaks in complete sentences. But that they’re coherent doesn’t make them honest.
Those are not our words, though they sure sound like what we have written months and years ago.
Joseph Galloway, once beloved by Dimocrats, is a Big Pink echo too but does not understand that Obama is a Chicago flim-flam man who cannot be trusted by friend nor foe, and never meant what he said to his not-too-bright Hopium addled fanclub:
Who stole our change?
Who hijacked a popular uprising that was going to put a stop to business as usual in Washington, D.C.?
What happened to Barack Obama on his way to the White House? [snip]
What a difference a year can make. A year ago Barack Obama was on the campaign trail, promising an American electorate disheartened and disgusted by eight years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney that he was going to change everything if he was elected President.
He would be the new broom, sweeping out the dirt, collecting the trash, and fixing everything that was broken and tarnished and perverted in our government, in our nation’s capital, in our White House.
He swept into office on a high tide of good will and anticipation. He was going to fix Wall Street. He was going to end the war in Iraq. He was going to bring a new era of transparency to government. He was going to stimulate a faltering economy and give new hope to a shrinking, frightened middle class. He was going to close the prison at Guantanamo and end the torture policies of his predecessors. There was even a hope that we would investigate how we went wrong and who ordered it.
He came to town on a white horse, riding a staggering wave of popular approval in the polls, a golden leader in a golden moment with a golden opportunity, and then he did what? Nothing much. Nothing different.
Those were the Obama flowery word promises, now the Galloway action verdict:
Oh, he can still talk the talk and he does that incessantly. But he seemingly can’t walk the walk. He may still sound like a revolutionary but more and more he looks and acts like George W. Bush, albeit a George W. Bush who can speak a complete sentence in the English language.
Obama’s approval ratings are beginning to unwind and begin a long downward spiral among those who had believed in the promises of change. There was a golden moment when change was possible, but it is gone now.
The golden moment for change was Hillary Clinton. Obama, we wrote, was all talk, no action, a liar. Obama is the Third Bush Term.
There was one thing Obama absolutely had to do, even before tackling an economic meltdown and the Wall Street and big bank rip-offs:
He had to reassure Americans that we all live under the rule of law; that no one by virtue of holding the highest offices in the land, or having the biggest bank account, is above the law.
It was incumbent on new President Obama to step back and let justice be done. Let the investigators do their job, Not only to let justice be done but let justice be seen to be done.
But no. He said he wanted to focus on the future, not revisit the past. He needed to get moving on stimulating a floundering economy. And he screwed that up, too, reaching out to the very pirates who had looted their stockholders, their own companies, their own country to find someone to appoint as Treasury Secretary, thus reassuring Wall Street that he wasn’t going to turn over any apple carts.
Galloway adds to the “short” MacArthur list of Obama lies which merit reading in full. “His promises of transparency in government weren’t worth a pitcher of warm spit.”
Galloway bought the Obama flim-flam and now he is whining: “And bit-by-bit the possibility of change disappeared; bit-by-bit the hope of a renewed and reinvigorated American democracy and way of government faded away. Those who had held a dream in their hand closed their hand and crushed it.”
Are We Wrong About Obama? Creative class schoolboy Kevin Drum plays the roll:
President Barack Obama is morphing into George W. Bush, as administration attorneys repeatedly adopt the executive-authority and national-security rationales that their Republican predecessors preferred.
In courtroom battles and freedom-of-information fights from Washington, D.C., to California, Obama’s legal arguments repeatedly mirror Bush’s: White House turf is to be protected, secrets must be retained and dire warnings are wielded as weapons.
Gay rights groups expressed dismay with the Obama administration Friday over its championing of the Defense of Marriage Act, a law the president pledged to try to repeal while on the campaign trail.
The government filed a motion late Thursday to dismiss the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, who are challenging the 1996 federal act….It repeated several arguments made under Bush, including the argument that a union between a man and a woman is “the traditional, and universally recognized, version of marriage.”
As a candidate for president, Barack Obama wooed environmentalists with a promise to “support and defend” pristine national forest land from road building and other development that had been pushed by the George W. Bush administration.
But five months into Obama’s presidency, the new administration is actively opposing those protections on about 60 million acres of federal woodlands in a case being considered by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
….Whatever the strategy, the result has been a series of cases in which President Obama appears to be taking positions in court that run counter to his stated goals….The Interior Department this spring, for example, defended a Bush plan to lease western Colorado’s picturesque Roan Plateau for oil and gas drilling….Administration lawyers have also fought environmentalists in court over a coal mining technique known as mountaintop removal.
Hope and change, baby, hope and change.
Are We Wrong About Obama?
Increasingly, from others, the verdict is No. We have and are correct in our assessments of Obama.
Are We Wrong About Obama? No.
We were right on target:
Our criticisms since April 2007 are that Obama cannot be trusted by friend nor foe, that Obama is a race-baiter and a gay-basher and a sexist and misogynist, and that Obama does not have the worldview necessary nor the experience nor the qualifications to be president. We said from the beginning that Obama’s friends are of low character just like Obama is of low character. We said from the beginning that Obama was all fake talk, no action, no history of action - just a lot of words which lie. Obama is the Third Bush term.
We have been exactly correct about Obama? Obama simply can’t be trusted.
103 Comments » - Posted in Economy, Fundraising, Gay Rights, Hillary, Iraq, Obama, Scum by Staff
Monday, June 22nd, 2009
More Enormous Unprecedented Corruption
As we warned, the Obama Chicago Crimelords have moved to Washington and they seek to block any and all investigations and any and all transparency.
The corruption and hiding originates in the Oval Office.
The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn’t have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.
Despite President Barack Obama’s pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com’s request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies.[snip]
“We are deeply disappointed,” said CREW attorney Anne L. Weismann, “that the Obama administration is following the same anti-transparency policy as the Bush administration when it comes to White House visitor records. Refusing to let the public know who visits the White House is not the action of a pro-transparency, pro-accountability administration.”
Obama is the Third Bush Term, this time with Chicago Crimelords, not Texas, in charge of the enormous unprecedented corruption. The Obama legal arguments have twice been rejected in federal court by a Republican judge when George W. Bush made them.
Remember the Obama flowery words on transparency? Well, there was a catch:
As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding “secret energy meetings” with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama’s “clean coal” policies. [snip]
The hard line appears to be no accident. After Obama’s much-publicized Jan. 21 “transparency” memo, administration lawyers crafted a key directive implementing the new policy that contained a major loophole, according to FOIA experts. The directive, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, instructed federal agencies to adopt a “presumption” of disclosure for FOIA requests. This reversal of Bush policy was intended to restore a standard set by President Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno. But in a little-noticed passage, the Holder memo also said the new standard applies “if practicable” for cases involving “pending litigation.” Dan Metcalfe, the former longtime chief of FOIA policy at Justice, says the passage and other “lawyerly hedges” means the Holder memo is now “astonishingly weaker” than the Reno policy.
No transparency (while emitting flowery words about the value of transparency) is the first step. The other need of flim-flam men is to block investigations. And investigations are blocked:
The Obama administration’s disputes with government watchdogs do not end with fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin. Behind the scenes, the Treasury Department is embroiled in a disagreement with Neil Barofsky, the watchdog for the $700 billion government bailout Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. [snip]
As part of his duties performing audits and keeping tracking TARP dollars, Barofsky asked the Treasury Department for some documents about a financial institution receiving tens of billions in taxpayer bailout dollars. The Treasury Department refused to hand them over, “on a specious claim of attorney-client privilege,” Grassley wrote. “It is my further understanding that this disagreement then escalated into broader questions about whether SIGTARP is subject to your direct supervision and direction, which may have been referred outside Treasury for an independent legal opinion.”
“The ability of Inspectors General to secure agency records subject to audit or investigation is essential to ensure the integrity and reliability of their work on behalf of Congress and the American People,” Grassley wrote. “The Inspectors General were created by Congress as a means to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and to be independent watchdogs ensuring that federal agencies are held accountable for their actions.”
“Nobody messes with Joe” Biden because Joe Biden will not mess with anyone. Joe Biden will accept, with a guffaw, that “Some people are being scammed already”. No kidding - they’re called Obama supporters who believed Obama.
Joe Biden won’t mess with scammers of billions of taxpayer dollars. The Special Inspector General For TARP will be blocked from messing with scammers by Obama and his Chicago Crimelords.
In a memo dated April 7, Barofsky – referring to his office under the name SIGTARP, Special Inspector General for TARP — clearly felt compelled to defend the independence of his office.
“SIGTARP believes that the Emergency Economic Stability Act of 2008…provides that SIGTARP is an independent entity within Treasury, that SIGTARP is not subject to the Secretary’s supervision, and that attorney-client privilege is not a bar to SIGTARP’s access to Treasury’s records or information,” Barofsky wrote to Geithner at the time.
In a statement, Grassley said, ”The grassroots is furious about the way TARP dollars have been used and what looks like a lack of accountability for this massive infusion of tax dollars. It’s added injury to hear about the Treasury Department putting up hurdles to slow down the work of the watchdog who’s supposed to track the money. One of the biggest lessons of the last year is that the public deserves more transparency and, in turn, accountability from New York and Washington.”
Iranians who think they have a government that steals elections and a corrupt political system and thieves and scoundrels running their government have nothing on Chicago Crimelords and Thugs currently in charge in the United States.
John Kass knows the Obama Chicago Crimelords playbook:
It’s amusing to watch the Washington political establishment feign shock, now that President Barack Obama’s reform administration has used a clay foot to vigorously kick one inspector general and boot another out the door.
One inspector general foolishly investigated a friend of the president. Another inspector general audited those juicy bonuses given to AIG executives as part of $700 billion federal bailout of the financial industry.[snip]
Barofsky now claims that his autonomy will be compromised if the Obama Justice Department rules that he is merely a functionary of the Department of Treasury.
“An adverse ruling … could potentially have a serious impact on the independence of our agency and our ability to carry out our mandate,” Barofsky wrote in a letter to ranking senators on Friday.
Just two weeks ago, inspector general Gerald Walpin, who watches over volunteer community programs, was fired. He investigated Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama pal and former NBA star. Walpin alleged Johnson misused $850,000 in federal youth grants.
The use of political muscle may be prohibited in the mythic transcendental fairyland where much of the Obama spin originates, sprouting green and lush, like the never-ending fields of primo Hopium.
The Obama Chicago Crimelords playbooK: Block transparency; Block investigations; Bolster other Crimelords.
But our president is from Chicago. Obama’s Media Merlin David Axelrod and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel come right from Chicago Democratic machine boss Mayor Richard Daley. They don’t believe in fairies.
Daley can’t wait to be rid of his own inspector general, David Hoffman, who had the audacity to question why Daley’s nephew received $68 million in city pension funds to invest. The mayor insists he didn’t know anything about it. Nobody with a functioning brain believes the mayor.
The second that Hoffman’s term expires, the mayor will change the locks on his office doors and move Hoffman’s house plants out into the cold. Daley might even send some of the same political tough guys who helped elect Emanuel to Congress years ago, all in the name of reform.
It’s the Chicago Way. Now, formally, it’s also the Chicago on the Potomac Way.
Meanwhile veteran crime-fighters are smeared:
“I am now the target of the most powerful man in this country with an army of aides whose major responsibility seems to be to attack me and get rid of me,” Walpin was quoted as saying.
In a letter to Congress explaining Walpin’s firing, the Obama White House complained that Walpin failed to disclose exculpatory evidence that would have helped the mayor of Sacramento, and exhibited “other troubling and inappropriate conduct.”
The letter, by White House counsel Norman Eisen, also left the impression that Walpin, 77, was a doddering old man just shy of dementia, describing him as “confused” and “disoriented” and all but incapacitated. I don’t know whether that’s true. But I do know this:
Walpin alleged that Obama’s ally, supporter and fundraiser, Sacramento Mayor Johnson, played games with the $850,000 in federal money targeted for the AmeriCorps student volunteer program. Johnson allegedly paid “volunteers” to work on Democratic political campaigns, run his personal errands and even wash his car.
In an April deal with prosecutors in the Obama Justice Department, Johnson was not charged with a crime. But his St. HOPE Academy charity agreed to pay back half of the $850,000, including $72,000 from Johnson himself.
Obama’s Chicago Crimelords slimed Prosecutor Walpin in the same way they smeared John McCain - as a confused old man. But Walpin appears to have his wits. If Walpin was ever confused at a meeting, so has Obama been confused and inarticulate - repeatedly. More importantly, any “confusion” at a single meeting does not warrant firing.
“Gerald Walpin led an aggressive investigation of a political ally of President Obama that successfully recovered taxpayer dollars,” Issa’s statement read. “IGs aren’t supposed to have warm fuzzy relationships with the people they’re charged with overseeing. Gerald Walpin has struck our investigators as fully competent and able to answer all questions posed to him. We see nothing that supports the Administration’s ‘crazy old man’ theory.”
John Kass asks simple questions to his simple-minded fellow “journalists”:
During the presidential campaign, the message expertly spun by Daley’s mouthpiece, Axelrod, was that Obama would bring hope and change and transform the cynical politics of the past.
The Washington Beltway media pack, exhausted after the cynicism of the Bush years, was eager for change. Many fired up their Hopium pipes and waited, glassy eyed, for the rapture, all but chanting “Yes We Can.” Now they’re coming down hard.
So here’s my question:
What’s the big surprise? What strange, exotic land do they think Obama comes from?
Do they think Obama learned his politics in Narnia, while cavorting with gentle forest creatures, some of which have hooves and serve tea and cakes to journalists and well-mannered English schoolgirls on snowy winter afternoons?
Did Obama learn politics in Camelot, the magical kingdom where federal czars sit at a great round table, all for the good of the simple peasants? Or did he learn politics along that famous highway, you know, the one that’s always paved with good intentions?
No. Obama learned his politics in Chicago.
And now all of Washington can learn it, too.
In December 2008 we called for a Special Prosecutor to investigate Barack Obama We asked for the special prosecutor in order to stop the “Obama Chicago Culture of Corruption” from moving to Washington, D.C.
Too late, the Obama Chicago Crimelords are in charge. We need a series of Special Prosecutors to root them out.
147 Comments » - Posted in McCain, Obama by Staff
Friday, June 19th, 2009
More of Barack Obama’s Bizzaro World
In the following days we will provide a comprehensive review of the health care debate and proposals (hint: Obama will not be happy with our review), more on corruption (Walpin especially), and the latest events in, and mysteries of, Iran (Why would anyone seek, let alone listen, to Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski? Or Jimmy Carter?)
Two days into the celestial choirs we reviewed the “post-racial, change-tilted, nirvana” we mocked as “Barack’s World”. Two writers have lately weighed in with their version of “Barack’s World” in an attempt to “decode” Obama. We welcome them to the discussion, but really, we decoded Obama rather well and comprehensively starting in 2007 and with our Obama First Principles Catechism so perfectly captured in 5 sentences:
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.
As succinct and wonderfully on target as our analysis of Obama has been, a certain person has been even better at understanding and describing Obama - and much more brief: Michelle Obama. Michelle summed Obama as a ’selfish careerist’. Who can disagree? Certainly not us. Kudos to Michelle Obama.
Of course, Obama summed up Michelle rather well too when he labeled her as “cold and ungrateful“. Kudos to Barack Obama.
Aside from us and Michelle (aren’t we a lovely couple?) others are finally coming forward to describe the Bizzarro which is Obama’s World.
Are you confused by all that has changed since President Barack Obama took office in January? If so, you’re not alone. Perhaps, though, this handy guide to Age of Obama “logic” might be of some assistance.
1. The Budget. Wanting to cut $17 billion from the budget, as President Obama has promised, is proof of financial responsibility. Borrowing $1.84 trillion this year for new programs is “stimulus.” The old phrase “out-of-control spending” is inoperative.
2. Unemployment. The number of jobs theoretically saved, or created, by new government policies - not the actual percentage of Americans out of work, or the total number of jobs lost - is now the far better indicator of unemployment.
3. The Private Sector. Nationalizing much of the auto and financial industries, while regulating executive compensation, is an indication of our new government’s repeatedly stated reluctance to interfere in the private sector.
Obama’s business experience is working for Rezko front organizations and getting Rezko money while providing the freezing poor a shovel-full of flowery words. On the budget, Obama loves his trillion dollar slush fund, thinks a job is something to pretend to do while getting money from rich friends, and the private sector he has experienced is well connected political people who get money from the government.
4. Race and Gender. Not what is said but who says it and about whom reveals racism and sexism. For example, an Hispanic female judge isn’t being offensive if she states that Latinas are inherently better judges than white males.
5. Random violence. Some assassinations represent larger American pathologies, but others do not. When a crazed lone gunman murders someone outside the Holocaust Museum or shoots an abortion doctor, we should worry about growing right-wing and Christian extremism. But when an African-American Muslim convert brags about his murder of a military recruitment officer or an Islamic group plots to kill Jews and blow up a military jet, these are largely isolated incidents without larger relevance.
6. Terrorism. Acts of terror disappeared about six months ago. Thankfully, we live now in an age where there will be - in the new vocabulary of the Obama administration - only occasional “overseas contingency operations” in which we may be forced to hold a few “detainees.” At the same time, ongoing military tribunals, renditions, wiretaps, phone intercepts and predator-drone assassinations are no longer threats to the Constitution. And just saying you’re going to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay is proof that it is almost closed.
Obama is the best example of what Dr. King wanted to abolish. Skin color has become more important than content of character. There is no surprise then to see the skin color of criminals become more important than the crime committed. Terror in Obama’s Bizzaro World is just another crime so skin color is most important there too.
7. Iraq. The once-despised Iraq war thankfully ended around Jan. 20, 2009, and has now transformed into a noble experiment that is fanning winds of change throughout the Middle East. There will be no need for any more Hollywood cinema exposés of American wartime crimes in Iraq with titles like “Rendition,” “Redacted,” “Lions for Lambs” and “Stop-Loss.”
8. The West. Western values and history aren’t apparently that special or unique. As President Obama told the world during his recent speech in Cairo, the Renaissance and Enlightenment were, in fact, fueled by a brilliant Islamic culture, responsible for landmark discoveries in mathematics, science and medicine. Slavery in America ended without violence. Mistreatment of women and religious intolerance in the Middle East have comparable parallels in America.
We have been wondering what happened to protest demonstrations against the Iraq war and against wiretaps, renditions, and all the other evils of the Bush W. years? Where are the demonstrations against these horrors now that it is a Dimocrat in control? Were the protests a cynical attack on George W. not actual concern about the issues? Where are the demonstrations?
9. Media. The media are disinterested and professional observers of the present administration. When television anchormen and senior magazine editors bow to the president, proclaim him a god or feel tingling in the legs when he speaks, it is quite normal.
10. George W. Bush. Former President Bush did all sorts of bad things to the United States that only now we are learning will take at least eight years to sort out. “Bush did it” for the next decade will continue to explain the growing unemployment rate, the most recent deficit, the new round of tensions with Iran and North Korea, and the growing global unrest from the Middle East to South America.
Big Media is fortunately dying. Tim Russert’s death might be the symbol of the great Big Media corruption picking its last pocket. The continued worship of Obama speeds up the death of Big Media and if bowing to Obama and having to suffer through Chris Matthews’ tingly legs is the price we must pay to watch the great dinosaur thrash in the tar pit - it is a price worth paying.
Doubtless George W. Bush is sufficiently patriotic to take a beating by Big Media if it contributes to the death of Big Media. George W. will be blamed by Obama for everything and Big Media will protect Obama but in the end Americans will see the protection for what it is and the death of Big Media (warning: in its current form) will be hastened.
Peter Wehner of Commentary Magazine also weighed in on the Obama decoding:
I recently devoted a piece to trying to decode President Obama. In reading more of his comments, I’ve noticed a tendency that now almost qualifies as a reflex: the more strongly the president denies something — and especially, the more he mocks his critics and feigns amusement at what they say — the greater the odds are that he will do what he denies.
In an interview yesterday, the president said, “I think the irony … is that I actually would like to see a relatively light touch when it comes to the government.”
Of course; examples of his “light touch” abound during the first five months of his presidency.
During his press conference discussing his first 100 days in office, Obama said, “And that’s why I’m always amused when I hear these, you know, criticisms of, ‘Oh, you know, Obama wants to grow government.’ No. I would love a nice, lean portfolio to deal with, but that’s not the hand that’s been dealt us.”
Why would anyone think Obama wants to “grow government”? Isn’t it clear by now he wants to limit it?
It was Shakespeare who coined “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” “By “protest,” Gertrude doesn’t mean “object” or “deny”—these meanings postdate Hamlet. The principal meaning of “protest” in Shakespeare’s day was “vow” or “declare solemnly,” a meaning preserved in our use of “protestation.” When we smugly declare that “the lady doth protest too much,” we almost always mean that the lady objects so much as to lose credibility. Gertrude says that Player Queen affirms so much as to lose credibility. Her vows are too elaborate, too artful, too insistent.”
The lady in question is Barack Obama.
While speaking at a town hall forum in New Mexico last month, Obama insisted that the “long-term deficit and debt that we have accumulated is unsustainable.”
They are, and they certainly seem to