Double Talk Barack Obama Lies And Lies Again

Update: Added Video of Obama (below) which makes clear the hypocrite and double talk flim-flam scam artist Obama is, using Obama’s own words.

———————————————————————————-

Obama lied again repeatedly yesterday (no surprise) and Big Media is busy downplaying his lies (no surprise) or ignoring them.

There was some watered down, extremely mild, criticism about the earmarks lie. Very little attention has been paid to the other many lies. We’ll start with earmarks.

Hours after calling for reforms to the earmark process, President Obama yesterday signed a spending bill that contains some 9,000 earmarked projects — described by critics as pork-barrel spending. The move sparked criticism from Republicans and some Democrats, and generated starkly negative media reviews — including reports in all three networks that suggested that the President’s action ran contrary to his own campaign rhetoric. ABC World News, for example, reported that “away from cameras,” Obama “signed a massive spending bill containing roughly 9,000 earmarks, despite his past campaign rhetoric.” NBC Nightly News noted “critics said the President should have put up more of a fight when it came to those pet projects.” The CBS Evening News similarly reported there was “no photo-op for this signing.”

McClatchy reports Obama “criticized pork barrel spending in the form of ‘earmarks,’” and “then he signed a spending bill that contains nearly 9,000 of them, some that members of his own staff shoved in last year when they were still members of Congress.” The AP reports Obama “raised the issue of earmarks in public remarks playing down their scope and possible harm in the measure.”

Fox News noted that Obama now, unlike when he needed votes, likes some earmarks In fact, he said some earmarks should continue.” The Washington Post woke up sufficiently to write “Obama’s call to rein in the use of earmarks was met with derision yesterday even from some of his past reformer allies, dealing an early blow to his attempt to change how business is done in Washington.” Another Obama endorsing newspaper quoted Republican Jeff Flake as saying about Obama ‘Give me sobriety, but not yet.’ The New York Times spent more time quoting hypocrite Obama calling Republicans hypocrites.

Politico’s leader Jim VandeHei shamed himself by saying “To be blunt, this is such a sideshow.” Shameful Politico sweet talked the Obama double talk as loyalty to Dimocrats. Politico’s Jonathan Martin somewhat ignored VandeHei’s sideshowism and noted Obama’s earlier words, words, words:

Obama tried to send a message down Pennsylvania Avenue that individual members must do more to rein in the practice – even as at times he sounded more like a defender of the old ways than a critic.

“I recognize that Congress has the power of the purse,” he said in brief remarks in the Old Executive Office Building. “As a former senator, I believe that individual members of Congress understand their districts best. And they should have the ability to respond to the needs of their communities.”

He said, “Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that’s why I’ve opposed their outright elimination,” Obams said. “There are times where earmarks may be good on their own, but in the context of a tight budget might not be our highest priority.” [snip]

Gone from the president’s remarks was his campaign pledge to go through the budget “line-by-line” and a promise, still on the White House website, to “slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels.”

Double Talk Obama promised to eliminate earmarks during the campaign. Yesterday Obama signed an irresponsible “omnibus” bill which throws a pot of money to fund the government instead of Department by Department funding, and it was jammed full of earmarks.

Hypocrite Obama signed the “omnibus” mess and emitted more words of promise that now things would really, for real, truly change. But we note the weasel words:

…he vowed that it will be the last one and proposed ways to curb lawmakers from abusing the process in the future.

Mr. Obama, trying to regain the high ground after withering criticism that he was betraying campaign promises by signing the $410 billion package, said that from now on he would seek to eliminate projects with “no legitimate public purpose.” He proposed that all projects be open to scrutiny at public hearings and those aimed at for-profit firms be subject to competitive bidding.

“The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “So let there be no doubt — this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.”

You don’t need a pink crystal ball to know that in the future there will be plenty of porky earmarks. The difference, the Obama change, will be that now pork will be “legitimate public purpose“. PINOs will cheer the old wine in new bottles, the same old same old, with the Obama “change” label on the bottle.

Hypocrites. Republicans like John McCain have admitted that when in power they operated contrary to their alleged principles. Republicans allowed every abuse George W. Bush perpetrated and Republicans were profligate in their spending. Republicans are hypocrites when they criticize spending and pork by Obama Dimocrats but they are correct to do so. Republicans should return to their alleged principles.

Several Republicans, mostly allied with John McCain, also Bobby Jindal in his hapless response to Obama, have confessed to hypocrisy. But PINO Dimocrats, Hopium addled addicts, and other automatons are big hypocrites too:

Democrats often criticized the Bush White House for its use of the presidential signing statement, a means by which the president can reject provisions of a bill he deems unconstitutional without vetoing the entire legislation. Now the approach is back.

President Barack Obama, after signing into law a $410 billion budget bill on Wednesday, declared five provisions in the bill to be unconstitutional and non-binding, including one that would effectively restrict U.S. troop deployments under U.N. command and another aimed at preventing punishment of whistleblowers.

The move came two days after Mr. Obama ordered a review of his predecessor’s signing statements and said he would rein in the use of such declarations.

Hypocrite Democrats, Dimocrats, and the hapless Hopium addled addicts moaned for years about the “unitary executive” and Bush signing statements. That was then. Obama is a hypocrite preaching to a den of Hopium addled hypocrites:

Democrats, and some Republicans, complained that former President George W. Bush abused the signing statement by declaring that he would ignore congressional intent on more than 1,200 sections of bills, easily a record. Critics at the time said that if the president had constitutional questions, he should veto the bill and demand a correction.

Mr. Bush’s successor showed Wednesday that he isn’t averse to using the same methods.

“We’re having a repeat of what Democrats bitterly complained about under President Bush,” said Sen. Arlen Specter (R, Pa.), who drafted legislation to nullify Mr. Bush’s signing statements. He added that if Mr. Obama “wants to pick a fight, Congress has plenty of authority to retaliate.”




One of the Obama power grabs declared that a certain provision would not prevent his administration from supervising, controlling or correcting “employees’ communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.” Republican Senator Grassley correctly noted that “This is alarming. The words ‘privileged’ and ‘confidential’ could cover just about anything the White House doesn’t want released. It looks like the new era of transparency is over before it began.”

Hypocrite Dimocrats attacked Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush and anyone who was not Barack Obama over issues of earmarks, signing statements, and cronyism. Now these hypocrite Dimocrats prove themselves to be the fakes we have always known them to be.

As to cronyism which we have not dealt with in depth:

More than one out of every five dollars of the $126 million Massachusetts is receiving in earmarks from a $410 billion federal spending package is going to help preserve the legacy of the Kennedys.

The bill includes $5.8 million for the planning and design of a building to house a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate. The funding may also help support an endowment for the institute.

The bill also includes $22 million to expand facilities at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum and $5 million more for a new gateway to the Boston Harbor Islands on the Rose Kennedy Greenway, a park system in downtown Boston named after Kennedy’s mother and built on land opened up by the Big Dig highway project.

Obama is not alone in his hypocrisy. Future Maury Povich guest, John “Are You My Daddy?” Edwards, is again giving speeches about poverty and emitting words about moral standards.

Howard Dean is also back in the news limelight with his own powerful brand of hypocrisy:

Speaking of doctors, former Democratic National Committee chairman and six-term Vermont governor Howard Dean is the latest star to join the government affairs practice of law and lobbying mega-firm McKenna Long & Aldridge. He’s not only a physician but also a “thought leader” on politics and policy, a man whose “network of relationships will benefit clients who are working in states and municipalities across the U.S.,” the firm announced last week. Ah, yes, we knew that 50-state strategy made sense.

Sounds as though he’s going to be doing some lobbying and strategizing for those clients. During last year’s presidential campaign, you may recall, Dean spoke most unkindly of lobbyists.

“John McCain — and this has been well documented — is talking all the time about being a reformer and a maverick, and in fact he has taken thousands of dollars from corporations, ridden on their corporate jets, and then turned around and tried to do favors for them and get projects approved,” Dean told the National Journal. “He has tons of lobbyists on his staff. This is a guy who is very close to the lobbyist community, a guy who has been documented again and again by taking contributions and then doing favors for it. This is not a guy who is a reformer. This is a guy who has been in Washington for 25 years and wants to give us four more years of the same, and I don’t think we need that.”

Barack Obama and his enabler Howard Dean hated lobbyists during the primary and general election campaign. Obama and John “Are You My Daddy?” Edwards looked pained at a primary election kookfest in Chicago then both trashed Hillary for telling the truth.

At the YearlyKooks drum circle in Chicago, Hillary was booed on the issue of lobbyists. The YearlyKooks did not like Hillary telling the truth to them. The Hopium addicts say they want truth but then don’t like it when the truth is delivered. They wanted to hear lobbyist bashing and no amount of logic would persuade them. Now Hoard Dean is a lobbyist and Obama employs lobbyists and they remain silent. They were not silent in Chicago at their kookfest.




Around Big Pink we know actions speak louder than words. Dean trashed lobbyists before he became a lobbyist. Obama trashed lobbyists before he hired lobbyists:

President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House.”

So far, though, at least a dozen former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration, according to an analysis done by Republican sources and corroborated by Politico.

Eric Holder, Tom Vilsack, William Lynn, William Corr, David Hayes, Mark Patterson, Ron Klain, Mona Sutphen, Melody Barnes, Cecilia Munoz, Patrick Gaspard, and Michael Strautmanis are some of the lobbyist Obama admits to hiring.

Obama promised during the campaigns to get rid of earmarks. Obama now approves 8-9,000 earmarks and speaks with approval about earmarks. Obama attacked signing statements during the campaigns. Obama now issues his own much worse signing statements one of which orders the Treasury Secretary to disobey the law. Obama promised during the campaigns to ban lobbyists. Obama now hires lobbyists.

The Obama double talk and lies, lies, lies continue.

Share

133 thoughts on “Double Talk Barack Obama Lies And Lies Again

  1. Politico: Some women wanted more from W.H.
    W.H. Council on Women and Girls: “No Full-Time Staff, No Cabinet-Level Leader And No Set Meeting Schedule”

    One group – made up primarily of women who supported Hillary Clinton over Obama in the Democratic primary – said it will go to Congress seeking a presidential commission on women. The group sent out a blast email to rally its members around the idea just hours after Obama spoke.

    http://www
    politico.com/news/stories/0309/19936.html

    [ Maybe we should let the writer know the name and url of what groupS that might have been. ]

  2. Politico: Some women wanted more from W.H.
    W.H. Council on Women and Girls: “No Full-Time Staff, No Cabinet-Level Leader And No Set Meeting Schedule”

    One group – made up primarily of women who supported Hillary Clinton over Obama in the Democratic primary – said it will go to Congress seeking a presidential commission on women. The group sent out a blast email to rally its members around the idea just hours after Obama spoke.

    h …. w’s
    politico.com/news/stories/0309/19936.html

    [ Maybe we should let the writer know the name and url of what groupS that might have been. ]

  3. Jan,

    Imo it’s a stupid idea to ask Obama to create any more fig leaves with bigger names. Look what he’s done with this one: put a crony backstabber of his own in charge of it.

  4. turndownobama-com Says:

    March 12th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
    Thank Admin and everyone for an oasis of sanity!!!!!

    At TNA, deep nonsense being talked about Jarrett.
    ————————————————————————————————

    TD, what is TNA? I am blocking at the moment.

  5. birdgal Says:
    March 12th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

    turndownobama-com Says:

    March 12th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
    Thank Admin and everyone for an oasis of sanity!!!!!

    At TNA, deep nonsense being talked about Jarrett.
    ————————————————————————————————

    TD, what is TNA? I am blocking at the moment.

    ===============

    h…../ no w’s
    thenewagenda.net/2009/03/11/the-daily-beast-is-valerie-jarrett-anti-woman/comment-page-1/#comment-12555

    Same take at

    h … w’s
    thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-11/is-valerie-jarrett-anti-woman/

  6. “Hypocrite Dimocrats attacked Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush and anyone who was not Barack Obama over issues of earmarks, signing statements, and cronyism. Now these hypocrite Dimocrats prove themselves to be the fakes we have always known them to be.”

    ——————————
    Admin,

    I’m so glad you included this issue in your wonderful commentary. Hillary never made wholesale promises she knew she couldn’t keep. She knew that it would come back to bite her if she did. obama, idiot that he is, promised many unachievable things and his enslaved followers bought it hook, line, and sinker.

    If that isn’t the job description for an “antichrist”, I don’t know what is.

  7. turndownobama-com Says:

    March 12th, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    ———————————-

    I totally agree! LOL…I was being sarcastic before. Sorry about that.

  8. turndownobama-com Says:
    March 12th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    Politico: Some women wanted more from W.H.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Excellent, tdo! I hope the PUMAs go after that one. BO is under the impression we’ve all given up and follow him, NOT Hillary!

  9. Maybe Oprah will have a special on MO’s “powerful arms” and how all woman will benefit from this.

  10. Jan,

    Sorry, I thought you were being sarcastic about them getting a bigger name thing, not about it’s lack of value if they did get it.

  11. Today’s article was going to mention race-baiting hypocrites but we really hate to go there. But sure enough, here comes the race-baiting:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/

    House Minority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) told me he thinks S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford’s quip comparing President Obama’s stimulus package to Zimbabwe’s economic policies are “beyond the pale” — and suggested they might carry a racial subtext.

    “For him to compare the president of this country to Mugabe. … It’s just beyond the pale,” said Clyburn, who has sparred with Sanford over the Republican’s refusal to accept all the state’s stimulus funding.

    Asked if his “beyond the pale” comment implied a racial overtone to Sanford’s remarks, Clyburn replied:

    “I’m sure he would not say that, but how did he get to Zimbabwe? What took the man to Zimbabwe? Someone should ask him if that’s really the best comparison. … How can he compare this country’s situation to Zimbabwe?”

    Sanford didn’t explicitly mention Mugabe -— among the most despotic and incompetent leader in Africa — when speaking with reporters in the Palmetto State on Wednesday. But he likened the stimulus, pushed by Obama administration and congressional Democrats, to the disastrous hyper-inflationary policies of Mugabe’s regime.

    “What you’re doing is buying into the notion that if we just print some more money that we don’t have, send it to different states — we’ll create jobs,” Sanford said. “If that’s the case, why isn’t Zimbabwe a rich place?… Why isn’t Zimbabwe just an incredibly prosperous place. ‘Cause they’re printing money they don’t have and sending it around to their different — I don’t know the towns in Zimbabwe but that same logic is being applied there with little effect.”

    This isn’t the first time Clyburn, the third highest-ranking Democrat in the House has referred to race in his battle with Sanford. In late February, Clyburn said the governor’s stance on the stimulus was a “slap in the face” to blacks in the state, who are suffering disproportionately from the downturn.

    UPDATE: “Rep. Clyburn always plays the race card,” shot back Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer, who said his boss has also compared the stimulus to failed government policies in Germany and Argentina. “This policy will result in hyper-infaltion. … [Clyburn] is ripping off the people he purports to represent.”

  12. With all respect to Jim Clyburn, he really needs to shut his mouth once and for all on this one trick pony. As soon as his poor baby obama is picked on, this once-respected, now unfortunately past his due date of effectiveness, starts crying “race.”

    Enough already!

  13. wwoebi,

    This one is for you…

    Hillary Clinton Supporters Try to Stay Sharp for 2016

    3/11/09
    Senator Gillibrand’s transition into office and preparation for her reelection campaign has been greatly helped by the well-oiled machine Hillary Clinton left behind. Nearly all of Clinton’s New York staff has stayed on to work for Gillibrand, her powerful network of fund-raising connections is still churning out the cash, and her other contacts are showing the upstater how to humor all of New York’s various ethnic constituencies. But today the Times briefly hits on what may be motivating some of Clinton’s most loyal hands to work so hard for Gillibrand, and it’s not necessarily the kindness of their own hearts.

    In reality, like athletes working out on their own during the off-season, some of Clinton’s die-hard supporters are just trying to stay sharp for when Clinton inevitably runs for president in eight years.

    “Hard-core Hillary supporters are fully expecting her to run again in 2016,” said one New York official with deep Clinton ties who demanded anonymity so as not to be seen as speaking for Mrs. Clinton. “That is one reality. Kirsten is a more local reality. But for folks in New York, she gives them a focus.”

    In other words, Gillibrand is just a means to avoid getting rusty. Clinton is only 61 years old, which means age shouldn’t disqualify her from running again. And, in fact, Steve Kornacki notes today that Clinton’s time as secretary of State is already paying dividends in the popularity department — a poll released last week put her favorable/unfavorable numbers at 59–22, an “all-time high.”

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/03/hillary_clinton_supporters_try.html

  14. White House Slaps UN Secretary-General on ‘Deadbeat’ Comments

    March 12, 2009

    The White House expressed disapproval Thursday with comments United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made to members of Congress that the U.S. is a “deadbeat” nation for being behind on its U.N. dues. “I would note for the Secretary-General that his word choice was unfortunate, given the fact that the American taxpayer is the largest contributor to the United Nations,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs at his daily briefing.

    On Wednesday, Ban pointed out to members of the House Foreign Relations Committee that although the United States pays 22 percent of the U.N.’s $4.86 billion operating budget, the country is always late with its dues. The U.S. is now is approximately $1 billion behind, a figure that will soon increase to $1.6 billion. In the private meeting, he referred to the U.S. as a “deadbeat” nation, angering members of the committee including ranking Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla. “Given the contribution that the American taxpayer makes,” Gibbs said, it “would be appropriate to acknowledge that role.”

    Moon on Wednesday evening issued a statement saying that the U.S. “generously supports the work of the U.N., both in assessed and voluntary contributions” and that he “enjoys an excellent working relationship with the United States and appreciates the many ways that it supports the United Nations.”

    blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/white-house-sla.html

  15. 7:54pm UK, Thursday March 12, 2009

    The White House says the US is not attending the G20 to negotiate a “specific commitment” on the economy.

    Brown is unlikely to get what he wants from Barack Obama. But President Obama will discuss a shared agenda to manage the economic crisis with leaders of the world’s biggest economies at the summit next month. “We’re not going to negotiate some specific economic percentage or commitment,” spokesman Robert Gibbs said. “We must manage and overcome the current economic crisis that the world finds itself in and then we must also take steps to prevent future crises from happening to the global economy.”

    His words will be a blow for the Prime Minister who has said he hopes a “global new deal” will be agreed at the April 2 meeting. This is further evidence that the White House are very much downplaying the upcoming G20 meeting.

    Among the issues Gordon Brown has said he wants addressed are measures to bring “shadow banks” and regulatory and tax havens within the scope of the global financial regulation system. And he has said he would like the G20 states to agree common principles on issues including remuneration in the financial sector. But Chancellor Alistair Darling has been trying to manage expectations ahead of next month’s summit and a meeting of G20 finance ministers which he is hosting this weekend. “We should not expect to achieve complete consensus overnight,” he said, “But we can start to build that consensus by recognising that our common interest need not contradict a country’s self-interest – in fact, it can complement it.”

    Sky’s political editor Adam Boulton said: “This is further evidence that the White House are very much downplaying the upcoming G20 meeting. “It is beginning to look remote that there are going to be any dramatic developments in London as far as the economic crisis is concerned for which Gordon Brown can claim credit, although obviously there will most likely be positive words expressed.”

    news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Barack-Obama-US-Not-Looking-To-Negotiate-Specific-Agreement-On-Economy-At-G20/Article/200903215240379?lpos=Politics_Top_Stories_Header_2&lid=ARTICLE_15240379_Barack_Obama%3A_US_Not_Looking_To_Negotiate_Specific_Agreement_On_Economy_At_G20

    ———————————-

    So how much money is being spent on this celebrities-only party?

  16. bstonesfan Says:
    March 12th, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    Maybe Oprah will have a special on MO’s “powerful arms” and how all woman will benefit from this.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I know, MO has NEVER done a ding-dang thing for anyone since BO’s held any office. I guess, that is why she’s been shown on the news serving soup to the homeless, because she is devoid of anything resembling public service, besides self-service, to anyone else but themselves.

  17. Release date scheduled for Ted Kennedy’s memoir

    By HILLEL ITALIE – 20 hours ago

    NEW YORK (AP) — Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s memoir is scheduled to come out sooner than originally planned — in the fall. The book’s editor, Jonathan Karp of the Twelve imprint at the Hachette Book Group USA, noted the earlier release Wednesday during the annual meeting of the Association of American Publishers.

    Twelve spokesman Cary Goldstein said the book, titled “True Compass,” would be listed in the publisher’s fall catalog, out next month. Kennedy, 77, was diagnosed with brain cancer last year, raising questions about the book’s completion. Goldstein declined to say how much of the manuscript has been completed.

    “True Compass,” for which the Massachusetts Democrat reportedly received at least $8 million, is expected to provide a rare high-level account of the Kennedy family. Kennedy’s slain brothers, President John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy, didn’t write memoirs.

    Kennedy’s book, first scheduled to come out in 2010, builds upon the oral history project that Kennedy has been working on through the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs. The project, which began in 2004, will include interviews with the senator, family members, colleagues, journalists, foreign leaders and others.

    Part of the proceeds from the memoir will be donated to charity, including the John F. Kennedy Library, where the senator’s public and private papers eventually will be stored.

    google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ibr8UYwnl-oXJ19IFaTTWNUT-m4QD96S5PFO0

  18. admin Says:

    March 12th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
    ————————————————————————

    May I just say, that I loathe Clyburn. His race-baiting tune is very old and not true.

  19. JanH: If I had a family farm ,I would bet it on Hillary being the front runner in 2012.No way Telebama will ever get a second term and there is a good chance that he may not finish the first four that he is presently leading this country to a point of no return.The rats are the first to leave a sinking ship and they are smarter than the bulk of his deaf,dumb and blind supporters that believe the checks are in the mail.

    BY ABM90 The first 50 days must be a bad dream.Abad movie could never be this bad. How Soon Oh Lord?

  20. I would love to know just how many postcards the British Embassy will end up getting. It would be nice if the media fuels this issue but I have my doubts.

  21. ABM90 Says:
    March 12th, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    ” If I had a family farm ,I would bet it on Hillary being the front runner in 2012.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    No doubt, what you say is true. However, Obama has his own plans with the people who put him in power in the first place. What we are up against “IS” larger than life.

    From the rumors I’ve heard, at the G20 Summit next month, Obama is going to sign on with the Global Union and in the process, give UP our Sovereignty as a Nation as part of the agreement.

    What the ramifications of that process means in the long haul, I don’t know.

    But there is a distinct possibility future elections may be a thing of the past.

  22. ABM90,

    I hope with all my heart that you are right. But I also hope that the media has learned their lesson by then as doubtful as that might be. I also hope the koolaid drinkers crawl back into their cracks. Finally, I honestly hope that by the time Hillary can run again, obama and the dims haven’t destroyed the party beyond redemption. Either that or Miss Hillary finds the courage to organize a new party with democratic principles on the dims burning ashes.

  23. Obama explains, better than we can, his hypocrisy and flim-flam scammery. We updated the article with this video:

  24. He sure loves to talk down to people.

    I just wish he would banish himself to some far off land and shut the “heck” up!

  25. I can’t wait 8 years. I hope Hillary can run in 2012.
    I would love to have a Hillary for President 2012 bumber sticker……something to show my opposition and not look like a repug. Has anyone thought about printing some?

  26. Admin:

    This is a strange retraction imo-

    “President Barack Obama, after signing into law a $410 billion budget bill on Wednesday, declared five provisions in the bill to be unconstitutional and non-binding, including one that would effectively restrict U.S. troop deployments under U.N. command and another aimed at preventing punishment of whistleblowers.”

    Strange it exists in the first place, for one… and it seems previous plans are undergoing changes.

  27. Mrs. Smith Says:

    March 12th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
    ————————————————————————————–

    Why is provision for preventing punishment of whistleblowers unconstitutional???

    seems like, he is picking and choosing what regulations he wants enforced, despite congressional legislation.

  28. Ruh Roh

    Congresswoman, Tied to Bank, Helped Seek Funds

    By ERIC LIPTON and JIM RUTENBERG
    Published: March 12, 2009

    WASHINGTON — Top banking regulators were taken aback late last year when a California congresswoman helped set up a meeting in which the chief executive of a bank with financial ties to her family asked them for up to $50 million in special bailout funds, Treasury officials said.

    Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, requested the September meeting on behalf of executives at OneUnited, one of the nation’s largest black-owned banks. Ms. Water’s husband, Sidney Williams, had served on the bank’s board of directors until early last year and has owned at least $250,000 in stock in the institution. Treasury officials said the session with nearly a dozen senior banking regulators had been intended to allow minority-owned banks and their trade association to discuss the losses they had incurred from the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But Kevin Cohee, OneUnited’s chief executive, instead seized the opportunity to plead for special assistance for his bank, federal officials said.

    “Here you had a tiny community bank that comes in and they are not proposing a broader policy — they were asking for help for themselves,” said Steve Lineberry, a former Treasury aide who attended the meeting. “I don’t remember that ever happening before.”

    Ms. Waters declined on Tuesday to comment on the meeting, or to say if her husband still owns OneUnited shares. Her staff released two letters that showed the meeting was initially called to discuss industry concerns broadly, not matters related just to OneUnited.

    The congresswoman, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, did not disclose her ties to OneUnited to Treasury officials, who said they learned of them only later.

    “It angers me,” said one former Treasury official, asking that his name not be used because he had not been authorized while at Treasury to speak about the gathering. “You got to know you have to be careful when you are dealing with people who you have personal relations with.”

    While OneUnited did not get the $50 million it requested, the bank did become among the first minority-owned institutions to receive a cash infusion — $12 million — in December through the Treasury’s bank bailout effort, called the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

    The aid surprised some bank analysts because the bailout was intended for healthy banks, and OneUnited was then considered to be in precarious condition. In addition, it had been harshly criticized by regulators in 2007 for failing to give a sufficient number of loans to lower income residents in Miami, while favoring wealthier customers there. And the F.D.I.C. sanctioned the institution in October 2008 for “unsafe or unsound banking practices,” including excessive compensation for Mr. Cohee. The bank had provided him with a 2008 Porsche SUV and maintained his $6.4 million beachfront compound in Santa Monica. Calif., with views of the Pacific and a spa and pool.

    Critics of OneUnited, which is based in Boston and has branches in poor neighborhoods of Los Angeles and Miami, say the episode shows how special access arranged through a lawmaker with financial ties to the bank had compromised the integrity of the federal bailout effort.

    “A member of Congress should not be helping out a family friend, especially one they share business ties with” said Kenneth H. Thomas, a Florida banking consultant who has filed complaints with federal regulators about OneUnited’s lending practices. “The folks who really need help here is the community served by OneUnited — a community that is starving for credit. ”

    Mr. Cohee and Treasury officials said the TARP money had nothing to do with the intervention by Ms. Waters. Mr. Cohee also suggested that criticism of his operations by federal banking regulators was racially motivated.

    “This is where the race issue comes in,” he said.

    Ms. Waters and Mr. Cohee have been outspoken advocates for fair treatment of African-Americans and other minorities by the nation’s banks — “silver rights,” Mr. Cohee called it during an interview in his Los Angeles office, where he prominently displays a photograph of him with the congresswoman. Indeed, in Los Angeles the bank has won praise for its record of helping minority businesses and lower-income residents.

    Their interests first intersected in 2002, when Mr. Cohee was involved in a bidding war for Family Savings, a small, black-owned bank in Ms. Waters’ South Los Angeles District.

    As a white-owned Illinois bank initially emerged as the winner, Ms. Waters made clear through the local news media that she opposed any deal in which Family would fall out of African-American hands. She was credited when the bank abruptly changed course and gave Mr. Cohee another chance to submit a winning bid.

    “It’s very helpful if you have a community-based transaction to have the real or implied support of Maxine,” said Wayne-Kent A. Bradshaw, the former president of Family Savings, who preferred the initial deal. “She’s a star in the community.”

    The acquisition nearly doubled the size of Mr. Cohee’s bank, making it among the nation’s largest African-American-owned banks.

    Less than two years later, Mr. Cohee named Mr. Williams, Ms. Waters’ husband, to the bank’s board. A former professional football player and ambassador to the Bahamas, Mr. Williams was working as a business consultant, pulling in hundreds of thousands of dollars over a several-year period working with some of Ms. Waters’s political allies, according to disclosure forms.

    Mr. Williams accepted no compensation from the bank, to avoid any appearance of a conflict, Mr. Cohee said. But as a director, Mr. Williams was required to hold stock. Accordingly, he acquired between $250,000 and $500,000 worth, records show. Mr. Cohee said that Mr. Williams paid for the stock himself, although Ms. Waters and Mr. Cohee would not say how much he paid for the stock. He would not say whether Mr. Williams sold the shares after leaving the board last April. Attempts to reach Mr. Williams through his wife’s office were unsuccessful. He did not return a call left at his Los Angeles office.

    The federal takeover of Fannie and Freddie last fall was a near-fatal blow to One United. The bank, like many others around the United States, had invested some of its capital in preferred stock of the two mortgage companies.

    After the federal intervention, the stock became nearly worthless and OneUnited lost almost $50 million. That left the bank dangerously under capitalized.

    Ms. Waters had been in regular contact with Henry M. Paulson Jr., then the Treasury secretary, urging him to hire minority contractors to advise the federal government on investments and to move more aggressively to head-off a rash of forced evictions of people defaulting on their mortgages, Treasury officials said.

    It was in one of those conversations that she asked Mr. Paulson to host a gathering at Treasury of representatives from minority-owned banks to discuss their losses related to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the officials said.

    OneUnited officials, including Mr. Cohee, had separately been pressing for such a meeting, requesting it on behalf of the National Bankers Association, a Washington-based group that represents minority-owned banks. Its incoming chairman was a OneUnited executive, Robert Cooper. But it was only after Ms. Waters intervened that the session was approved, Treasury officials said.

    At the meeting were representatives from the offices of Representative Barney Frank and Senator John Kerry, both Democrats of Massachusetts, the home state of OneUnited, along with Ms. Waters’s chief of staff. As the hour-long meeting got underway, Treasury officials were surprised as Mr. Cohee and Mr. Cooper focused the discussion on their bank, not broader industry problems, participants said. Mr. Cohee made it clear that he wanted the federal government to somehow make up for their $50 million loss.

    “They wanted money — cash,” said a former Treasury Department official who attended the meeting but asked not to be named, because he was not authorized to speak to reporters. “That is why they were there. It was very, very explicit.”

    No commitment was made at the meeting, federal officials said.

    But Ms. Waters intervened again, in early December, calling Treasury to request a second meeting to ensure that minority-owned banks received a chunk of the $700 billion worth of bailout funds recently approved by Congress, according to Michael Grant, president of the National Bankers Association. At a Dec. 4 meeting, he and Mr. Cooper of OneUnited urged Treasury to release some of the bailout funds to their members.

    Two weeks later, OneUnited received its $12 million TARP allocation. That money was approved by a five-member committee that included Anthony Ryan, then the Treasury department’s Undersecretary for Domestic Finance, who had been present at the September meeting.

    The Wall Street Journal has previously reported that Mr. Frank had urged Treasury to act on the application, although in an interview last week he noted that he had no financial connection to the institution. On Thursday, The Journal reported the financial connections between Ms. Waters’s husband and OneUnited, as well as her role in requesting the Treasury meeting.

    Treasury Department officials said neither political influence nor the appeals by OneUnited executives played a role in their decision to award the funds to the bank. They noted that the bank had met its requirement to raise roughly $20 million in private funds before receiving the aid. Officials from the F.D.I.C., which recommended that OneUnited get the money, said that based on the “entire spectrum of financial and other supervisory information,” about OneUnited, it felt that allocating the bailout funds to the bank was appropriate.

    Mr. Cohee said he resents any suggestion that Ms. Waters played a direct role in this aid — or that she did anything out of the ordinary for the bank simply because her husband had been on its board.

    “Ms. Waters is an important advocate for minorities and minority issues and an indispensable part of Los Angeles communities,” he said. “But we derived no benefit whatsoever from any activity related to her. And she did not really do anything. There is nothing that she did that impacted the process.”

    Barclay Walsh contributed research for this article.

  29. From admin’s article at the top:

    President Barack Obama, after signing into law a $410 billion budget bill on Wednesday, declared five provisions in the bill to be unconstitutional and non-binding, including one that would effectively restrict U.S. troop deployments under U.N. command and another aimed at preventing punishment of whistleblowers.
    &&&&&&&&&&&

    Make “shielding whistleblowers” unconstitutional / non-binding?

    Bots, we told you, Ofraud doesn’t care, he’s Bush-lite.

  30. If Kennedy has trouble finishing his book in time, he should talk to Bill Ayers.

    I feel the same as ABM90:

    ABM90 Says:
    March 12th, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    JanH: If I had a family farm ,I would it on Hillary being the front runner in 2012.No way Telebama will ever get a second term and there is a good chance that he may not finish the first four

  31. Carol,

    In Hillary is 44’s own way, we are all working towards, with the amazing assitance of Admin, to making obama accountable for each false step he takes, while at the same time showing just how much Hillary is making America a better place. Bumper stickers or not, we fight on!

  32. Companies are closing left and right here in Cleveland. A restaurant that has been in business for years is now closed. All HFC branches are going to close. There is a gas station closing also. I stopped in one store the guy was complaining that cigarettes are going up seventy cents a pack and seven dollars a carton. Thats one way to get people to stop smoking. Now who will be paying the sales tax. There are so many empty houses. I never thought i would see the day Beachwood Ohio would have so many empty houses, a very rizty neighborhood. In one neighborhood i counted ten empty houses.

    What is going on?

  33. That was an interesting article on the last thread by erstwhile right-wing Clinton hater R. Emmett Tyrell wanting to make up with Bill. Obama seems to be having that effect on conservatives, lol.

  34. # birdgal Says:
    March 12th, 2009 at 7:44 pm

    Mrs. Smith Says:
    March 12th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
    ————————————————————————————–

    Why is provision for preventing punishment of whistleblowers unconstitutional???
    seems like, he is picking and choosing what regulations he wants enforced, despite congressional legislation.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    OR, changing horses?

  35. Economists give O a failing grade.

    news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/obama-economy/380586?icid=200100397x1220439161x1201294244

  36. Analysis: Obama stands with his allies, of course

    By ANDREW TAYLOR – 5 hours ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) — In proposing only modest changes in how lawmakers finance their pet projects, President Barack Obama tossed aside a golden opportunity to work with Sen. John McCain. Instead, the president stood foursquare with his Democratic allies, the people he needs most to advance his ambitious agenda.

    McCain is the top sponsor of a proposal to give the president more power to cut spending from bills project by project, a kind of line-item veto lite called “expedited rescission” that’s been around since the early 1990s. But when it came to discussing how to deal with so-called earmarks on Wednesday, Obama had nothing to say about McCain’s idea.

    Little wonder. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid don’t like it. And a fleeting alliance with McCain isn’t as important as good relations with those who regulate the flow of legislation in Congress. Just Tuesday, Obama’s budget director said Obama would probably support legislation introduced by McCain, R-Ariz., Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to award Obama the beefed-up rescission powers.
    “The president during his campaign spoke about a line-item veto that would need to be done in a constitutionally valid way,” said White House budget chief Peter Orszag. “Enhanced rescission powers are also a possibility.”

    Asked about the idea last month, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama would “love to take that for a test drive.”

    Obama won’t get that chance. On Wednesday, during a meeting in which Obama’s earmark proposal was finalized, the president sided with the old-school Democrats. They view expedited rescissions — both the House and Senate would vote on whether to accept a recommended list of cuts shortly after receiving it — as an intrusion into the prerogatives of Congress. The White House has signaled that Obama will use the existing rescissions process to identify waste in the just-enacted omnibus bill and send it to Congress. But Democratic leaders could ignore the missive; under McCain’s legislation a vote would be guaranteed.

    McCain’s idea is a far weaker anti-spending tool than the line-item veto that congressional Republicans gave President Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s. That version required two-thirds votes in both the House and Senate to overturn vetoes. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1998. McCain’s bill was on an options list and was discussed, said a Democratic House leadership aide, who demanded anonymity to speak candidly about the private negotiations.

    House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., scoffed at the idea that Obama should have sided with McCain. “Stand in lockstep with all the (Republicans) who’ve been so supportive of him over the past month and a half,” Hoyer said. “That’s a heck of a strategy!”

    Indeed, McCain issued a statement Wednesday blasting Obama’s proposed reforms as thin gruel. “We will continue to do business as usual in Washington regarding earmarks,” McCain said. “The president could have resolved this issue in one statement — no more unauthorized pork-barrel projects — and pledged to use his veto pen to stop them. This is an opportunity missed.”

    White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama has asked the White House budget office to scrutinize the omnibus bill. “Staff will make a recommendation regarding whether a rescissions package should go forward or not,” Gibbs said.

    In his comments on earmarks Wednesday, Obama sounded more like a defender of earmarks than a critic. “Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that’s why I’ve opposed their outright elimination,” he said.

    google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jk-wb11v8HCHd9qc2PRXLaunWA-AD96SN2480

  37. Thanks for the link, Paula.

    So not only do major economists give obama an average rating of only 59% on the economy, but did you notice the polling results?

    What grade do you give Obama’s presidency overall so far?

    40% have given him an F so far…lol…

  38. # JanH Says:
    March 11th, 2009 at 11:03 pm

    Mrs. Smith,

    I can’t get the link to work.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    NBC used the section of the video clip I spoke about, on their 6pm news tonight.

    This link needs to be embedded, please, Admin. You need to hear the petty, jealous remark made by MO to Hillary at the International Women’s Awards Ceremony. After Hillary gave MO a most gracious introduction to the audience.

    Call me crazy but I took the words as a supercilious digg in the mode of double entendre.

    http //link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1705667530/bctid15389713001

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    JanH.. I always take out the two dots : before the slashes // to fool the spam filter. If you insert them in their usual place in the web address box, the video works fine…

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    # turndownobama-com Says:
    March 11th, 2009 at 11:33 pm

    Mrs. Smith,

    MO isn’t that smart. Do you think she had Favreau on a Blackberry?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    tdo- It’s one of the few things she’s good at! She despises Hillary’s popularity.

  39. BTW, I was thrilled to read that nugget about Hillary possibly running again in 2016. I’ve been saying for a while that her being 69 at that point hardly means she’s too old. 🙂

  40. Found this on NQ.I guess Telebama would not be able to have a prompter to rely on.Same old story to avoid the dangers of not having a clue about how to pretend that he has brain and wears a suit.What a sad sack of you know what.

    ———————————————————————
    One of the side stories today is that Obama will be the first president in over 150 years not to attend the annual Gridiron Club dinner.

    Since its members are all “well-known and respected” journalists, one would think BO would see this as friendly territory. I guess not. Now, I’ve not got much sympathy for disappointed Gridiron members. This kind of spat, after all, is so much like watching professional athletes fight team owners. No underdog to cheer for and it’s nauseating no matter who wins. Still, this story is interesting because the press loved them some Obama.

    Mediabistro had a blurb.

    A Gridiron Club member tells FBDC first that President Obama will not attend this year’s dinner next Saturday, March 21st. He will be the first president since Grover Cleveland not to attend the first Gridiron Club Dinner of his presidency.

    This year’s date coincides with the spring break of President Obama’s daughters’ school and club members have been informed the Obama family will be out of town, likely in Chicago.

    By ABM90 Who pulls his chain,Rezko or MO ?

  41. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Source-Obama-official-on-apf-14623083.html

    An aide to President Barack Obama is on leave from his White House job after the FBI raided his old District of Columbia government office Thursday, arresting a city employee and a technology consultant on corruption charges, a White House official said.

    The charges were lodged against the two men at a federal court hearing as the FBI finished searching the city’s technology office, which was led until recently by Obama’s new computer chief, Vivek Kundra.

    Kundra is on leave from his White House job until further details of the case become known, according to a White House official speaking on condition of anonymity because the official did not want to publicly discuss personnel matters. [snip]

    Acar worked under Kundra, Obama’s pick to coordinate federal computer systems. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs would not say whether the White House knew the investigation was under way when it named Kundra last week, but called the case “a serious matter.” [snip]

    Acar, a 40-year-old native of Turkey, had a $127,468-a-year position purchasing the city’s computer equipment and lining up contract workers for numerous city agencies, according to court documents.

    Authorities say Acar and Bansal, along with others, defrauded the government through a variety of schemes, including billing the city for items that were never delivered and “ghost” contract employees who did not work. The scheme involved Acar approving falsified bills and splitting the money with vendors including Bansal, who submitted them, court documents alleged.[snip]

    Even as the raid was taking place, Kundra was giving a speech at FOSE, an annual government technology expo. Kundra said part of his focus is to change the way the government buys technologies from vendors.

  42. By ABM90 Who pulls his chain,Rezko or MO ?

    ——————————————————-

    Or Jarrett?

  43. The transcript of Hillary’s speech and the keynote speaker MS. SREENEVASAN. MO looked so ill at ease and her face projected just how much she did not want to be there where our Hillary would show her up and she would seem so small and shallow in comparison:

    2009 International Women of Courage Awards
    Hillary Rodham Clinton
    Secretary of State
    Benjamin Franklin Room
    Washington, DC
    March 11, 2009

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is such an exciting occasion, and there were so many people who wanted to come today, but unfortunately, there is a limit to how many people we can let into this magnificent room. So there are people watching on closed-circuit TV all over this building, and beyond.

    And it is my pleasure to welcome you to the State Department to celebrate International Women’s Day with a very special event and a very special guest. The event is the International Women of Courage Awards, and in a minute, you will meet these remarkable women and learn more about their lives and their work. And I am especially delighted to thank one person in particular whose presence here means a great deal to all of us – our First Lady, Michelle Obama. (Applause.)

    Now, I know a little bit about the role that – (laughter) – Michelle Obama is filling now. And I have to say that in a very short time, she has, through her grace and her wisdom, become an inspiration to women and girls not only in the United States, but around the world. And it is so fitting that she would join us here at the State Department to celebrate the achievements of other extraordinary women, and to show her commitment to supporting women and girls around the globe.

    She understands, as we all do here at the State Department, that the status of women and girls is a key indicator of whether or not progress is possible in a society. And so I am very grateful to her and to President Obama, who earlier today announced the creation of the White House Interagency Council on Women and Girls. That will – (applause). That office will help us collaborate across every department and agency in our government.

    President Obama has also designated an ambassador-at-large to consolidate our work on women’s global issues here at the State Department. Now, this is a position that has never existed before, and I am very pleased that someone you all know, if you have ever worked on women’s issues – know and appreciate a longtime colleague and friend, Melanne Verveer, who’s been nominated to fill that post. (Applause.)

    And I also want to thank Ambassador Susan Rice and our excellent U.S. delegation to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, which is in the middle of its annual meetings now, for the work that they are doing and for the engagement that they demonstrate.

    Today, we’re focusing on the International Women of Courage Awards. It’s a fairly new tradition here at the State Department, but it’s already become a cherished institution. For the past three years, our embassies have sent us stories of extraordinary women who work every day, often against great odds to advance the rights of all human beings to fulfill their God-given potential. Today, we recognize eight of those women. Each is one of a kind, but together they represent countless women and men who strive daily for justice and opportunity in every country and on every continent, usually without recognition or reward.

    And I want to say a special word about someone who could not join us, who we honor today – Reem Al Numery, who was forced to marry her older cousin when she was just 12 years old. She is now fighting to obtain a divorce for herself and end child marriage in Yemen. She was not able to be here, but we honor her strength and we pledge our support to end child marriage everywhere, once and for all. (Applause.)

    We also express our solidarity with women whose governments have forbidden them from joining us, especially Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been kept under house arrest in Burma for most of the past two decades, but continues to be a beacon of hope and strength to people around the world. Her example has been especially important to other women in Burma who have been imprisoned for their political beliefs, driven into exile, or subjected to sexual violence by the military.

    Our honorees and the hundreds of millions of women they represent not only deserve our respect, they deserve our full support. When we talk about human rights, what I think of are faces like these. What I am committed to is doing everything in my power as Secretary of State to further the work on the ground in countries like those represented here to make changes in peoples’ lives. That doesn’t happen always in the halls of government. It happens day to day in the towns and cities, the villages and countryside where the work of human rights goes on.

    We simply cannot solve the global problems confronting us, from a worldwide financial crisis to the risks of climate change to chronic hunger, disease, and poverty that sap the energies and talents of hundreds of millions of people when half the world’s population is left behind. The rights of women – really, of all people – are at the core of these challenges, and human rights will always be central to our foreign policy.

    Earlier today I met with Foreign Minister Yang of China and conveyed to him, as I do in my meetings with all other leaders, that it is our view in the Obama Administration that every nation seeking to lead in the international community must not only live by, but help shape the global rules that will determine whether people do enjoy the rights to live freely and participate fully. The peace, prosperity and progress that we know are best served and best serve human beings come when there is freedom to speak out, to worship, to go to school, enjoy access to health care, live and work with dignity.

    The United States is grounded in these ideals, and our foreign policy must be guided by them. Indeed, our own country must continually strive to live up to these ideals ourselves. Not only does smart power require us to demand more of ourselves when it comes to human rights, but to express those views to others and to actually assist those who are on the frontlines of human rights struggles everywhere.

    It is important that we focus on human rights because I know what inspiration it has given to me over many years. The people I have met, they have constantly reminded me of how much work lies ahead if we are to be the world of peace, prosperity and progress that we all seek.

    I’ve met a lot of people, particularly women, who have risked their lives – from women being oppressed by the Taliban in Afghanistan, to mothers seeking to end the violence in Northern Ireland, to citizens working for freedom of religion in Uzbekistan, and NGOs struggling to build civil society in Slovakia, to grassroots advocates working to end human trafficking in Asia and Africa, and local women in India and Bangladesh, Chile, Nicaragua, Vietnam and many other places who are leading movements for economic independence and empowerment.

    These personal experiences have informed my work. And I will continue to fight for human rights as Secretary of State in traditional and especially non-traditional ways and venues.

    All of you gathered here represent the kind of broad coalition that we need – business leaders, NGO leaders, ambassadors, experts, people from every corner of our government, citizens who are moved and touched by the stories of courage that we will be hearing some more of today.

    And it is exciting that we have now in our own country someone who is standing up for the best of America, a woman who understands the multiple roles that women play during the course of our lives, and fulfills each one with grace. An example of leadership, service, and strength. It is my great pleasure and honor to introduce the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama. (Applause.)

    (The First Lady makes remarks.)

    (Applause.)

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much, Mrs. Obama, and it’s exciting to have your leadership and example for not only girls and women in our country, but those around the world.

    Now, we’re going to start with the extraordinary women who we honor today. The first woman, Wazhma Frogh, from Afghanistan, is being recognized for her courageous efforts to combat sexual and domestic violence and child and marital rape throughout Afghanistan, despite facing dangerous conditions. She has come a long way, and we stand in solidarity with her and the people of Afghanistan. (Applause.)

    Next, from Guatemala, Norma Cruz. We are recognizing her for her unyielding efforts to end the culture of impunity surrounding the murder and other forms of violence against women in Guatemala. At great risk to her personal safety, Norma Cruz has been outspoken and extraordinarily brave, and we are honored to have her with us today. Norma Cruz. (Applause.)

    Suaad Allami, from Iraq. I told Suaad when we were waiting to come out how pleased I was to see her, and how grateful we are for the progress that we’ve seen, but we know how much more needs to be done in her country. And we honor her for bravely promoting the legal rights, the health, the social well-being and the economic and political empowerment of women in Iraq, despite threats to her own safety. Thank you so much, Suaad. (Applause.)

    Veronika Marchenko, from Russia. We honor her for her stalwart leadership in seeking justice for the families of bereaved service members, young men conscripted into the Russian Army. For her commitment to seeking the truth and in promoting improved human rights conditions for those who serve in the Russian army, and being a networking presence to bring together those who served and their families to find answers to so many of the questions that no one had ever, ever bothered to answer before. Thank you so much. (Applause.)

    Our next honoree is from Uzbekistan, Mutabar Tadjibayeva, for her courage, her conviction, her perseverance in promoting human rights, the rule of law, and good governance in Uzbekistan, and for standing up for justice at great personal risk. Mutabar is someone who has been in prison for quite some time, and she still has a big smile on her face, and I salute her courage and her persistence. (Applause.)

    From Niger, Hadizatou Mani. Hadizatou is such an inspiring person. Enslaved by being sold at a very young age, she never gave up on herself or on her deep reservoir of human dignity. When she finally escaped from slavery, she didn’t forget those who were still enslaved. For her inspiring courage in successfully challenging an entrenched system of caste-based slavery, and securing a legal precedent that will help countless others seek freedom and justice, we honor and salute her. (Applause.)

    You know, before I introduce our final honoree, who will respond on behalf of all of the honorees, I just want to say that over the course of many years of doing human rights work, and particularly on behalf of girls and women, I’m sometimes asked, well, do ceremonies like this really matter; is that just not something, you know, that you do and it’s a nice feeling, and then you go back to wherever you came from?

    I know that these kinds of recognitions and moments of honor by both governments and NGOs and other institutions and individuals are extremely important. They provide a recognition of an individual’s struggle and courage that stands for so much more. They provide a degree of awareness about the problems that the individual is fighting to remedy. They serve notice on governments that the first and highest duty is for every government to protect the human rights of every individual within that jurisdiction. And they provide a degree of protection.

    And so I salute those in the State Department who have recognized the importance of this and kept it going, and we are proud to continue that tradition.

    Our final speaker, Ambiga Sreenevasan, has a remarkable record of accomplishment in Malaysia. She has pursued judicial reform and good governance, she has stood up for religious tolerance, and she has been a resolute advocate of women’s equality and their full political participation. She is someone who is not only working in her own country, but whose influence is felt beyond the borders of Malaysia. And it is a great honor to recognize her and invite her to the podium. (Applause.)

    MS. SREENEVASAN: The First Lady Mrs. Obama, Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton, ladies and gentlemen, I am humbled to be in the company of seven extraordinary women receiving this award for courage, and I am deeply honored to now speak on their behalf and on mine.

    We accept this award in all humility, remembering that we have been fortunate in being singled out from among countless courageous women in our countries who are dedicated to the cause of equality and justice.

    It is also timely for us to remember all the women in other conflict-ridden territories, like Palestine and other countries, who have to show courage every single day in their struggle to survive and to keep their families together.

    Each of us fights causes that promote equality and justice, and by presenting us with this award you honor those causes and all the people who work tirelessly for them with unflinching dedication.

    This award will help to bring to the international stage our voices and our advocacy on these important issues. This occasion gives us an opportunity to reflect on the importance of the rule of law in promoting the rights of women around the world. When the rule of law is upheld, equality is upheld, the cause of justice is upheld, and human rights are upheld.

    Today, we are witnessing a struggle for the souls of our nations, taking place between the forces of the old and the forces of change. We see our commitment to the rule of law, fundamental liberties, and the independence of our institutions being tested. The strength of our nations will depend on how well they withstand this test.

    There are those who claim that democracy is a Western concept and is unsuitable elsewhere. There are yet others who perpetrate injustices behind a veneer of democracy. We say that democracy is universal, and a true democracy and the rule of law will prevail when the collective voices of the people are raised in its support.

    On my part, I have for the past two years had the privilege to lead and serve the Malaysian Bar, a professional organization consisting of approximately 13,000 lawyers. History will bear testament to the fact that the Malaysian Bar has always been true to its first article of faith, to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members uninfluenced by fear or favor. In a sense, I was merely stepping into the shoes of the many other brave leaders of the bar who came before me, whereas many of the awardees today are pioneers in their struggle for justice.

    This award has given us the opportunity which we would not otherwise have had, to share our stories, our successes, our failures, to reach out across our borders and to establish a base upon which we can build a meaningful network of support. These stories must be told in all our countries. By this experience, we are both enriched and enraged; enriched by what we have shared, and enraged that so many of our sisters endure intimidation and suffering in their countries. Nevertheless, ours is a message of hope that something has been achieved, despite the odds.

    Martin Luther King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This means that although we may come from different walks of life, our struggle is common. And each success is a success for all, just as each failure is a failure for all. When we unite on a human rights platform, whether domestically or internationally, above politics and political alliances, we create more enduring partnerships and relationships. When we pursue freedom and empowerment for others, we reaffirm and protect our own.

    In my interaction with the other awardees present here today, it was evident that the passion we feel for our causes is driven by the love of our homelands and our people. That, in turn, drives our passion for what is right and what is just. Our people deserve nothing less. We all believe in striving for ideals that are– if I may borrow the words – self-evident; namely, the ideals of truth, justice, goodness, and universal love and understanding. Our stories are a testament to the universality of these ideals.

    We are truly and deeply honored by this award, more so, when it comes from you, Madame Secretary, yourself a woman of courage, who has inspired women around the world to reach great heights. Your untiring efforts in championing women’s rights worldwide are well known. Your immortal words that, “Human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights,” resonate with all of us here.

    We would also like to express our deep admiration for the First Lady Mrs. Obama, and we would also like to express our appreciation for your sharing this moment with us. Madame Secretary, on behalf of all the awardees, I thank you. And we accept the honor with humility and pride. Thank you. (Applause.)

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. These women of courage will serve to remind us every day as we do our work in this venerable building – here we are in the Benjamin Franklin Room, and I’m about to invite you to join our reception in the Thomas Jefferson Room – that our own country has a lot to live up to. But we derive inspiration from those who are struggling so hard just to realize the basic rights that we sometimes take for granted. And it is our responsibility not only to continue to do what we must here at home to realize the dream that America represents, but to use our talents and our abilities and resources to help others as well.

    It is such a great privilege to be here with all of you, to be the Secretary of State at this moment of history in an administration represented by Mrs. Obama today, led by President Obama, who means so much already to so many around the world. Now, it’s our job to realize the promise that that represents. Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

  44. I just submitted the transcript of Hillary at the International Women of Courage Awards and the BP button seemed to in the process of posting it, but somehow it never showed up. How do I prevent this?

  45. Here is the transcript:
    2009 International Women of Courage Awards
    Hillary Rodham Clinton

    Secretary of State

    Benjamin Franklin Room

    Washington, DC

    March 11, 2009

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is such an exciting occasion, and there were so many people who wanted to come today, but unfortunately, there is a limit to how many people we can let into this magnificent room. So there are people watching on closed-circuit TV all over this building, and beyond.

    And it is my pleasure to welcome you to the State Department to celebrate International Women’s Day with a very special event and a very special guest. The event is the International Women of Courage Awards, and in a minute, you will meet these remarkable women and learn more about their lives and their work. And I am especially delighted to thank one person in particular whose presence here means a great deal to all of us – our First Lady, Michelle Obama. (Applause.)

    Now, I know a little bit about the role that – (laughter) – Michelle Obama is filling now. And I have to say that in a very short time, she has, through her grace and her wisdom, become an inspiration to women and girls not only in the United States, but around the world. And it is so fitting that she would join us here at the State Department to celebrate the achievements of other extraordinary women, and to show her commitment to supporting women and girls around the globe.

    She understands, as we all do here at the State Department, that the status of women and girls is a key indicator of whether or not progress is possible in a society. And so I am very grateful to her and to President Obama, who earlier today announced the creation of the White House Interagency Council on Women and Girls. That will – (applause). That office will help us collaborate across every department and agency in our government.

    President Obama has also designated an ambassador-at-large to consolidate our work on women’s global issues here at the State Department. Now, this is a position that has never existed before, and I am very pleased that someone you all know, if you have ever worked on women’s issues – know and appreciate a longtime colleague and friend, Melanne Verveer, who’s been nominated to fill that post. (Applause.)

    And I also want to thank Ambassador Susan Rice and our excellent U.S. delegation to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, which is in the middle of its annual meetings now, for the work that they are doing and for the engagement that they demonstrate.

    Today, we’re focusing on the International Women of Courage Awards. It’s a fairly new tradition here at the State Department, but it’s already become a cherished institution. For the past three years, our embassies have sent us stories of extraordinary women who work every day, often against great odds to advance the rights of all human beings to fulfill their God-given potential. Today, we recognize eight of those women. Each is one of a kind, but together they represent countless women and men who strive daily for justice and opportunity in every country and on every continent, usually without recognition or reward.

    And I want to say a special word about someone who could not join us, who we honor today – Reem Al Numery, who was forced to marry her older cousin when she was just 12 years old. She is now fighting to obtain a divorce for herself and end child marriage in Yemen. She was not able to be here, but we honor her strength and we pledge our support to end child marriage everywhere, once and for all. (Applause.)

    We also express our solidarity with women whose governments have forbidden them from joining us, especially Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been kept under house arrest in Burma for most of the past two decades, but continues to be a beacon of hope and strength to people around the world. Her example has been especially important to other women in Burma who have been imprisoned for their political beliefs, driven into exile, or subjected to sexual violence by the military.

    Our honorees and the hundreds of millions of women they represent not only deserve our respect, they deserve our full support. When we talk about human rights, what I think of are faces like these. What I am committed to is doing everything in my power as Secretary of State to further the work on the ground in countries like those represented here to make changes in peoples’ lives. That doesn’t happen always in the halls of government. It happens day to day in the towns and cities, the villages and countryside where the work of human rights goes on.

    We simply cannot solve the global problems confronting us, from a worldwide financial crisis to the risks of climate change to chronic hunger, disease, and poverty that sap the energies and talents of hundreds of millions of people when half the world’s population is left behind. The rights of women – really, of all people – are at the core of these challenges, and human rights will always be central to our foreign policy.

    Earlier today I met with Foreign Minister Yang of China and conveyed to him, as I do in my meetings with all other leaders, that it is our view in the Obama Administration that every nation seeking to lead in the international community must not only live by, but help shape the global rules that will determine whether people do enjoy the rights to live freely and participate fully. The peace, prosperity and progress that we know are best served and best serve human beings come when there is freedom to speak out, to worship, to go to school, enjoy access to health care, live and work with dignity.

    The United States is grounded in these ideals, and our foreign policy must be guided by them. Indeed, our own country must continually strive to live up to these ideals ourselves. Not only does smart power require us to demand more of ourselves when it comes to human rights, but to express those views to others and to actually assist those who are on the frontlines of human rights struggles everywhere.

    It is important that we focus on human rights because I know what inspiration it has given to me over many years. The people I have met, they have constantly reminded me of how much work lies ahead if we are to be the world of peace, prosperity and progress that we all seek.

    I’ve met a lot of people, particularly women, who have risked their lives – from women being oppressed by the Taliban in Afghanistan, to mothers seeking to end the violence in Northern Ireland, to citizens working for freedom of religion in Uzbekistan, and NGOs struggling to build civil society in Slovakia, to grassroots advocates working to end human trafficking in Asia and Africa, and local women in India and Bangladesh, Chile, Nicaragua, Vietnam and many other places who are leading movements for economic independence and empowerment.

    These personal experiences have informed my work. And I will continue to fight for human rights as Secretary of State in traditional and especially non-traditional ways and venues.

    All of you gathered here represent the kind of broad coalition that we need – business leaders, NGO leaders, ambassadors, experts, people from every corner of our government, citizens who are moved and touched by the stories of courage that we will be hearing some more of today.

    And it is exciting that we have now in our own country someone who is standing up for the best of America, a woman who understands the multiple roles that women play during the course of our lives, and fulfills each one with grace. An example of leadership, service, and strength. It is my great pleasure and honor to introduce the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama. (Applause.)

    (The First Lady makes remarks.)

    (Applause.)

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much, Mrs. Obama, and it’s exciting to have your leadership and example for not only girls and women in our country, but those around the world.

    Now, we’re going to start with the extraordinary women who we honor today. The first woman, Wazhma Frogh, from Afghanistan, is being recognized for her courageous efforts to combat sexual and domestic violence and child and marital rape throughout Afghanistan, despite facing dangerous conditions. She has come a long way, and we stand in solidarity with her and the people of Afghanistan. (Applause.)

    Next, from Guatemala, Norma Cruz. We are recognizing her for her unyielding efforts to end the culture of impunity surrounding the murder and other forms of violence against women in Guatemala. At great risk to her personal safety, Norma Cruz has been outspoken and extraordinarily brave, and we are honored to have her with us today. Norma Cruz. (Applause.)

    Suaad Allami, from Iraq. I told Suaad when we were waiting to come out how pleased I was to see her, and how grateful we are for the progress that we’ve seen, but we know how much more needs to be done in her country. And we honor her for bravely promoting the legal rights, the health, the social well-being and the economic and political empowerment of women in Iraq, despite threats to her own safety. Thank you so much, Suaad. (Applause.)

    Veronika Marchenko, from Russia. We honor her for her stalwart leadership in seeking justice for the families of bereaved service members, young men conscripted into the Russian Army. For her commitment to seeking the truth and in promoting improved human rights conditions for those who serve in the Russian army, and being a networking presence to bring together those who served and their families to find answers to so many of the questions that no one had ever, ever bothered to answer before. Thank you so much. (Applause.)

    Our next honoree is from Uzbekistan, Mutabar Tadjibayeva, for her courage, her conviction, her perseverance in promoting human rights, the rule of law, and good governance in Uzbekistan, and for standing up for justice at great personal risk. Mutabar is someone who has been in prison for quite some time, and she still has a big smile on her face, and I salute her courage and her persistence. (Applause.)

    From Niger, Hadizatou Mani. Hadizatou is such an inspiring person. Enslaved by being sold at a very young age, she never gave up on herself or on her deep reservoir of human dignity. When she finally escaped from slavery, she didn’t forget those who were still enslaved. For her inspiring courage in successfully challenging an entrenched system of caste-based slavery, and securing a legal precedent that will help countless others seek freedom and justice, we honor and salute her. (Applause.)

    You know, before I introduce our final honoree, who will respond on behalf of all of the honorees, I just want to say that over the course of many years of doing human rights work, and particularly on behalf of girls and women, I’m sometimes asked, well, do ceremonies like this really matter; is that just not something, you know, that you do and it’s a nice feeling, and then you go back to wherever you came from?

    I know that these kinds of recognitions and moments of honor by both governments and NGOs and other institutions and individuals are extremely important. They provide a recognition of an individual’s struggle and courage that stands for so much more. They provide a degree of awareness about the problems that the individual is fighting to remedy. They serve notice on governments that the first and highest duty is for every government to protect the human rights of every individual within that jurisdiction. And they provide a degree of protection.

    And so I salute those in the State Department who have recognized the importance of this and kept it going, and we are proud to continue that tradition.

    Our final speaker, Ambiga Sreenevasan, has a remarkable record of accomplishment in Malaysia. She has pursued judicial reform and good governance, she has stood up for religious tolerance, and she has been a resolute advocate of women’s equality and their full political participation. She is someone who is not only working in her own country, but whose influence is felt beyond the borders of Malaysia. And it is a great honor to recognize her and invite her to the podium. (Applause.)

    MS. SREENEVASAN: The First Lady Mrs. Obama, Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton, ladies and gentlemen, I am humbled to be in the company of seven extraordinary women receiving this award for courage, and I am deeply honored to now speak on their behalf and on mine.

    We accept this award in all humility, remembering that we have been fortunate in being singled out from among countless courageous women in our countries who are dedicated to the cause of equality and justice.

    It is also timely for us to remember all the women in other conflict-ridden territories, like Palestine and other countries, who have to show courage every single day in their struggle to survive and to keep their families together.

    Each of us fights causes that promote equality and justice, and by presenting us with this award you honor those causes and all the people who work tirelessly for them with unflinching dedication.

    This award will help to bring to the international stage our voices and our advocacy on these important issues. This occasion gives us an opportunity to reflect on the importance of the rule of law in promoting the rights of women around the world. When the rule of law is upheld, equality is upheld, the cause of justice is upheld, and human rights are upheld.

    Today, we are witnessing a struggle for the souls of our nations, taking place between the forces of the old and the forces of change. We see our commitment to the rule of law, fundamental liberties, and the independence of our institutions being tested. The strength of our nations will depend on how well they withstand this test.

    There are those who claim that democracy is a Western concept and is unsuitable elsewhere. There are yet others who perpetrate injustices behind a veneer of democracy. We say that democracy is universal, and a true democracy and the rule of law will prevail when the collective voices of the people are raised in its support.

    On my part, I have for the past two years had the privilege to lead and serve the Malaysian Bar, a professional organization consisting of approximately 13,000 lawyers. History will bear testament to the fact that the Malaysian Bar has always been true to its first article of faith, to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members uninfluenced by fear or favor. In a sense, I was merely stepping into the shoes of the many other brave leaders of the bar who came before me, whereas many of the awardees today are pioneers in their struggle for justice.

    This award has given us the opportunity which we would not otherwise have had, to share our stories, our successes, our failures, to reach out across our borders and to establish a base upon which we can build a meaningful network of support. These stories must be told in all our countries. By this experience, we are both enriched and enraged; enriched by what we have shared, and enraged that so many of our sisters endure intimidation and suffering in their countries. Nevertheless, ours is a message of hope that something has been achieved, despite the odds.

    Martin Luther King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This means that although we may come from different walks of life, our struggle is common. And each success is a success for all, just as each failure is a failure for all. When we unite on a human rights platform, whether domestically or internationally, above politics and political alliances, we create more enduring partnerships and relationships. When we pursue freedom and empowerment for others, we reaffirm and protect our own.

    In my interaction with the other awardees present here today, it was evident that the passion we feel for our causes is driven by the love of our homelands and our people. That, in turn, drives our passion for what is right and what is just. Our people deserve nothing less. We all believe in striving for ideals that are– if I may borrow the words – self-evident; namely, the ideals of truth, justice, goodness, and universal love and understanding. Our stories are a testament to the universality of these ideals.

    We are truly and deeply honored by this award, more so, when it comes from you, Madame Secretary, yourself a woman of courage, who has inspired women around the world to reach great heights. Your untiring efforts in championing women’s rights worldwide are well known. Your immortal words that, “Human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights,” resonate with all of us here.

    We would also like to express our deep admiration for the First Lady Mrs. Obama, and we would also like to express our appreciation for your sharing this moment with us. Madame Secretary, on behalf of all the awardees, I thank you. And we accept the honor with humility and pride. Thank you. (Applause.)

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. These women of courage will serve to remind us every day as we do our work in this venerable building – here we are in the Benjamin Franklin Room, and I’m about to invite you to join our reception in the Thomas Jefferson Room – that our own country has a lot to live up to. But we derive inspiration from those who are struggling so hard just to realize the basic rights that we sometimes take for granted. And it is our responsibility not only to continue to do what we must here at home to realize the dream that America represents, but to use our talents and our abilities and resources to help others as well.

    It is such a great privilege to be here with all of you, to be the Secretary of State at this moment of history in an administration represented by Mrs. Obama today, led by President Obama, who means so much already to so many around the world. Now, it’s our job to realize the promise that that represents. Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

  46. My opinion of the ceremony was that MO looked so ill at ease and the question begs to be asked, why? With this remark….”Secretary Clinton, I love to say that, Secretary Clinton”[as opposed loving to say President Clinton] …she embarrassed herself. She looked small [even though she was twice the size of most of the women there] and came off looking petty.

  47. Source for the speech at the International Women’s Awards Ceremony was:
    http//www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/03/120285.htm

    There was a link to the video there, but I wish I could get a copy to highlight each woman in a separate video, anyone know where or how?

  48. Emjay Says:
    March 12th, 2009 at 7:50 pm

    Ruh Roh

    Congresswoman, Tied to Bank, Helped Seek Funds

    By ERIC LIPTON and JIM RUTENBERG
    Published: March 12, 2009

    =============

    Ya, she’s a good guy, or was.

  49. ABM said:
    One of the side stories today is that Obama will be the first president in over 150 years not to attend the annual Gridiron Club dinner.

    Since its members are all “well-known and respected” journalists, one would think BO would see this as friendly territory.

    =======================

    No teleprompters allowed.

  50. birdgal Says:
    March 12th, 2009 at 11:51 pm

    By ABM90 Who pulls his chain,Rezko or MO ?

    ——————————————————-

    Or Jarrett?

    ==================

    Hm. That would suggest that Jarrett (or her backers) WANTED the title of head of Obama’s ‘Council on women’ (among her several other empty titles).

    Or maybe she sees women as Obama’s greatest threat, and wants to make sure she’s in the middle so he can hide behind her skirts.

  51. ADMIN…here comes another lie…

    washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103827.html

    …So far, administration officials have been careful not to endorse the idea, which Obama blasted as a major tax increase last year after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) made it the centerpiece of his presidential campaign’s health plan. But the president hasn’t slammed the door on it, either.

    This week, White House budget director Peter Orszag said taxing employer benefits was among several ideas that “most firmly should remain on the table.” White House economic adviser Jason Furman called for an end to the so-called “employer exclusion” before he joined the administration. Meanwhile, some congressional Democrats say the White House has signaled that Obama would accept a tax on employer benefits as long as he didn’t have to propose it himself.

  52. My opinion of the ceremony was that MO looked so ill at ease and the question begs to be asked, why? With this remark….”Secretary Clinton, I love to say that, Secretary Clinton”[as opposed loving to say President Clinton] …she embarrassed herself. She looked small [even though she was twice the size of most of the women there] and came off looking petty.
    ——————————-
    Two possibilities here:

    1. the comment was intentional. In that case, MO is plagued by an anger management problem that is so ungovernable that she cannot control herself through a short and simple public ceremony. If that is the explanation then she is not First Lady of the United States material. Instead, she is in fact the First Lady of Hate.

    2. the comment was unintentional. In that case, she is a gaff prone fool who cannot maintain her composure through a brief public ceremony. She tried to deliver a compliment, ended up levelling an insult, realized it too late and felt ill at ease for good reason. If that is the explanation, then she is a disaster as First Lady.

    Which is it? I am not sure.

  53. ShortTermer Says:

    My opinion of the ceremony was that MO looked so ill at ease and the question begs to be asked, why? With this remark….”Secretary Clinton, I love to say that, Secretary Clinton”[as opposed loving to say President Clinton] …she embarrassed herself. She looked small [even though she was twice the size of most of the women there] and came off looking petty.

    ================

    So how did HIllary react?

    With testicular fortitude I’m sure.

  54. Bill Clinton [and others] on health care reform
    Excellent long interview by Gupta with Bill Clinton, Frist, others.

    GUPTA: I have to ask you, how are you feeling? I was there outside the hospital when you had your heart surgery. Are you back 100 percent?

    CLINTON: I think so. It’s interesting, in some ways, I’m stronger than I was before my surgery. And by conventional measures, I’m healthier. I’ve still got about ten pounds to lose that I gained in the campaign last year, working for Hillary. But otherwise I think I’m fine. The one thing I notice — and my balance is better, when I’m doing balance drills. But the one thing I notice and what a friend of mine referred to as raw country strength, I don’t know if I’ve recovered. Like, I can’t hit a golf ball as far, even though I can lift more weight.

    GUPTA: How far are you hitting a golf ball?

    CLINTON: Not as far as I want to. I rarely hit 300 yards. I used to do it all the time. It could just be aging, but I think the surgery kind of discombobulated my internal coordination a bit. And I’ve just got to keep working on it. I’ve been working too hard for the last year and a half or so to do more than just maintain my weight and maintain my level of fitness. I think if I did a few different things, I could maybe get it back.

    http://

    transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0903/11/lkl.01.html

  55. S, your karma story is a treat. Obama followed the the old Al Capone rule, don’t trust traitors who stab friends in the back in order to help you – they might do to you what they did to the other guy. Here are the 2 opening paragraph for all to enjoy (short version: Obama can’t be trusted):

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-12/the-man-obama-double-crossed

    The president’s staffing nightmares began with Bill Richardson, the erstwhile Commerce nominee, who has told confidants that he was promised the secretary of State job. Now, with looming investigations and sinking polls, Richardson may be lucky to hang on as governor of New Mexico.

    Just over a year ago, Bill Richardson was a credible, if dark horse, Democratic presidential candidate and possible Barack Obama vice-presidential running mate. Five months ago, he was stunned when he did not become Obama’s secretary of State; several people close to him say he thought he had been promised it. Then, in a humiliating and historically ironic slight to the man who had helped Obama win the Iowa caucuses and then the primary election, Obama passed over Richardson for State in favor of their mutual nemesis, Hillary Clinton. Still reeling from what he considered a double cross—Richardson told confidants he had been promised secretary of State—he gamely accepted the consolation prize, secretary of Commerce. But even that was to elude him. In early January, amid revelations that a federal grand jury was investigating a pay-to-play scheme involving a California-based financial company and Richardson’s political action committee, Richardson withdrew his nomination.

  56. From a comment at Dissenting Justice:

    Newest Obama appointee’s office raided by FBI. Left finally comes to terms that Obama is not Jesus. Jesus could actually build a cabinet.

  57. Michelle looked like she had Homer Simpson’s five o’clock shadow in that picture
    —————————-
    Admin: we have had a full moon these past few days. Perhaps that is the explanation.

  58. CJ

    just found out about a tea party in sioux falls on april 15th
    thought you might be interested in the info.

    facebook.com/event.php?eid=84533318624

  59. Was the telebama cop out a fear of the jokes and veiled criticisims of all presidents for the last 150 yrs or was it a show of force for his heel lickers.I t would have been a milestone in history for this first black president.Telebama is not a brave man and his skin is thin.His blame others game would not play at this historic and entertaining event but Telebama has another agenda for this country so he is being careful about any event that would reveal his weaknesses and perhaps even his hidden goals for his own power drive to become the leader of the black world that has begun to unfold if we carefully analyze his words and actions,supporters and bankrollers.There are a lot of forces at work in these first days of his administration to propel him out of this wounded country into the global black leadreship role that he has sought since coming out of Africa and seeking a base in Chicago.The center of political coruption in this country.Mark my word,Telebama will not fill his first term but will follow the path that his forces of greed and evil will lay out before him.
    Hillary must be very aware,and i have no doubt she is,that this power driven stranger will turn on her at any time as her popularity soars around the world of peace seeking leaders.Her appoinment was the worst misjudgement so far on his road to bigger things and he has made many.He has placed her at the head of the line for the 2012 campaign and there is no way in this world that he and his MSM hoots can undo that reality.
    To see her daily schedule and the text of her press releases,go to State.gov and sign up for Dipnotes.A perfect source of unadulterated information that compliments this great home of ours Big Pink.
    Telebama is on a trip to the tank,so let keep up the big push.

    BY ABM90 We have Hillary.The Wahington forces of greed,stupidity,dishonesty have TELEBAMA.

  60. HEY EVERYONE……. WANTED TO SHARE THIS WITH YOU ALL

    I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE FUN TO SHARE A PIC’S OF OURSELVES WITH EACH OTHER
    NO NEED TO KNOW YOUR REAL NAME, BUT WOULD LOVE TO PUT FACES TO OUR POSTS!

    THIS IS A PHOTO BUCKET GROUP ALBUM THAT ANYONE CAN UPLOAD TO AT ANY TIME

    SHARE YOUR PHOTO, A PHOTO OF HILLARY OR ??? WHAT EVER!

    MINE IS ALREADY THERE!!
    photobucket.com/bigpink

  61. Best transition ever!!!!
    “D.C. – Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent a letter today to Attorney General Eric Holder asking the Department of Justice (DOJ) to initiate an immediate investigation into pay-to-play allegations involving Director of the White House Office on Urban Policy Adolfo Carrión, Jr.
    It has been reported that while serving as Bronx Borough President, Mr. Carrión received a number of campaign contributions from developers in close temporal proximity to when he approved zoning changes or committed money to projects sponsored by those developers.
    According to the New York Daily News, the Atlantic Development Group and Boricua College needed Mr. Carrión and the planning commission to approve zoning changes and height restrictions to permit the building of a 14-story tower and the creation of 679 units of housing at Boricua Village. Less than a month after an application for the project was filed in March 2006, Mr. Carrión received eight donations in one day from Boricua administrators totaling $8,750. Since then, individuals associated with the college ultimately contributed $17,512 while those associated with Atlantic donated $52,400, making Atlantic the largest single source of Mr. Carrión’s campaign contributions. Mr. Carrión approved the project in March 2007 and in July sponsored $3 million in taxpayer funds for the project, later sponsoring an additional $7.5 million. (snip)
    http: / / citizensforethics.org/node/38093

  62. Did Supreme Court clerk torpedo eligibility cases?
    Taitz submits motion for rehearing in case challenging Obama’s citizenship
    Posted: March 12, 2009
    11:30 pm Eastern

    By Bob Unruh
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    A California attorney whose emergency submission to the U.S. Supreme Court on President Obama’s eligibility was turned back without a hearing or comment now is submitting a motion for re-hearing, alleging some of her documentation may have been withheld from the justices by a court clerk.

    The motion for reconsideration alleges a court clerk “of his own volition and on his own authority refused to file of record, docket, and forward to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices petitioners’ supplemental brief presented on January 15, 2009.”

    Orly Taitz, who is working on the case Lightfoot vs. Bowen through her foundation, Defend Our Freedoms, told WND that she started checking back through her paperwork after asking Justice Antonin Scalia this week about the case.

    His response was that a petitioner needed four affirmative votes among the nine justices for a hearing to be held. Taitz interpreted to mean that among the four justices generally considered conservative, at least one had been voting against hearing the Obama eligibility issue.

    Antonin Scalia

    The issue of Obama’s eligibility has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times already but has yet to be given a hearing. Cases have been brought by Taitz, Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio.

    While the requests have been heard “in conference” by the justices, no hearings have resulted on the evidence. WND previously has reported that cases brought to individual justices on an emergency basis can be discussed in such conferences, but they need the affirmative vote from four justices before a hearing on the merits can be scheduled.

    The Supreme Court today is considered to have mainly a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally are Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently includes Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

    Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 325,000 others and sign up now!

    Taitz explained in the motion that she submitted a brief Jan. 15 that reflected new developments in the case. She noted such filings “are allowed, when there is a new law or changed circumstance in the case.”

    The change was the approval by Congress of the Electoral College vote in the presidential race.

    However, the clerk “refused to file this brief in the docket, stating that he will send it back with [an] explanation,” the motion states. “Nothing was sent back and no explanation [was] provided.”

    WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

    Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

    Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

    Taitz’ latest challenge to Obama’s eligibility is a Quo Warranto case submitted to the U.S. attorney general, a legal standard that essentially allows citizens to demand on what grounds someone in authority exercises that power.

    She has 10 state representatives and about 130 members of the U.S. military signed on as plaintiffs in the action.

    But now Taitz is raising concerns about manipulation of her case at the Supreme Court. She asserts docketing information about her case “was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on January 21st, one day after the inauguration and two days before [the case was to be heard].”

    “Only after numerous phone calls from outraged citizens, members of the media and state representatives, the case was re-entered on the docket … shortly before the hearing. … No explanation was provided by the Supreme Court to this occurrence.”

    She noted the same clerk told another attorney it was a computer malfunction, but it affected none of the other cases on the docket.

    Taitz also renewed her questions about a closed door meeting between Obama, the subject of the pending case, and eight of the nine justices, before the hearing on the case.

    Taitz said when Scalia told her to get the four votes needed for the case to have it heard, he also reflected an absence of knowledge about some of the issues she would have expected him to know about.

    “He had no knowledge about any cases brought in front of the Supreme Court that challenged Obama’s eligibility for president,” Taitz wrote.

    “The only reasonable explanation is that the clerks of the court did not provide the case to the justices at all or summarized them in a light that is unfavorable to the petitioners, which is prejudicial to the plaintiffs,” Taitz said.

    She said when she was talking to Scalia, she specifically mentioned other cases on the same subject, brought by Berg, Wrotnowski and Donofrio.

    “He had a bewildered look on his face, he kept saying – ‘I don’t know, I don’t remember, I don’t know, I don’t remember,'” she said “Scalia seems to be one of the most decent judges on this court. I think he was telling the truth. Could it be that the cases were handled by … clerks?”

    Because of the indications of “sabotage” inside the court, she said she would try to hand-deliver the petition to Chief Justice John Roberts today when he speaks at the University of Idaho at Moscow.

    The petition also will be posted on her DefendOurFreedoms.us site, she said, and it is being mailed to other justices on the court.

    worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91548

  63. dija: I have to bow off on your well intentioned plan,mainly because it is dangerous in this troubled political climate.Remember the second goal of Telebama,s “legacy of Restitution” is RESTITUTION.A lot of people could be vulnerable recipients of PAYBACK actions.It would also would diminish my pleasant thoughts in imagining who we are,what do we look like and would we like to meet each other.Anonimity is best for now and besides it keeps us coming back for more of the wonderful and enlightening comments that are priceless and full of good humor. My obssevive need to see Hillary as our first woman President and my need to speak out on the subject has already a shirt tail relative to denounce my freedom of speech and tagged me as
    “A Persona non Grata”.I admire your blogs and interests in our crusade for Our Girl.

    BY ABM90 Telebama,I hope power outages follow you wherever you plug in.

  64. jbstonesfan and those of you who agree with him (her?), here is one for you:

    ————–

    Hillary Clinton’s troubling transformation
    By Morton Klein · March 12, 2009
    (Morton A. Klein is the national president of the Zionist Organization of America)

    PHILADELPHIA (JTA) — Hillary Rodham Clinton as New York’s U.S. senator from 2001 to 2009 was a reliable and vocal supporter of Israel. She was especially strong on Jerusalem, stating in a September 2007 position paper, “I believe that Israel’s right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, must never be questioned.”

    Her spokesman said the paper “is a reflection of her consistent policy” and “that hasn’t changed.”

    Clinton also repeatedly warned of the monumental dangers of Palestinian incitement to hatred and murder of Israeli Jews in their schools, media and mosques as having “dire consequences for peace for generations to come.” She even said, “It is clear that the Palestinian Authority, as we see on PATV, is complicit” in terrorist attacks and that we should condition U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority on a “cessation of Palestinian propaganda and hateful rhetoric.”

    It took only a matter of weeks to confirm that on Israel, Secretary of State Clinton bears little resemblance to Senator Clinton.

    Now she enthusiastically supports an unconditional increase in U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority and Gaza, to $900 million a year — a significant increase. This week, after criticizing Israel for not opening up border crossings to Hamas-controlled Gaza while Hamas rockets were still flying, she demanded Israel allow illegally built Palestinian Arab homes in eastern Jerusalem while demanding that Israel stop allowing legally built Israeli/Jewish homes in eastern Jerusalem. Such Jewish construction, she said, was “unhelpful.” (Even the very liberal Israeli Supreme Court has upheld Israel’s right to demolish these illegal structures.)

    Suddenly, parts of an “undivided Jerusalem” are places where Jews may not move or build, even though Jews were a majority in eastern Jerusalem from the mid-1800s until 1948 — when Jordan forced the Jewish residents to flee — and again are the majority. Jerusalem has always been the religious, historical and political capital of the Jewish people.

    Secretary Clinton justifies her criticism of Jewish building by reference to the 2003 “road map” peace plan, which she claims Israel is not fulfilling. Yet the road map, which Israel only accepted with 14 published reservations, calls for a freeze on Israeli settlement activity while simultaneously requiring various obligations to be fulfilled by the Arab states and the Palestinian Authority — obligations they have not fulfilled.

    These include ending incitement against Israel, confiscating illegal weapons, cutting off all funding to terror groups and an immediate call for an end to all violence against Israelis.

    Senator Clinton took these violations seriously, especially the incitement. As she said in an October 2003 Senate committee hearing at which I testified, “How can you think about building a better future, no matter what your political views, if you indoctrinate your children to a culture of death?”

    And again, in February 2007: “We must stop the propaganda … in idealizing for children a world without Israel,” adding that “children are taught never to accept the reality of the State of Israel.”

    Clinton went on to say, “We cannot build a peaceful, stable, safe future on such a hate-filled, violent and radical foundation” and that “there has still not been an adequate repudiation of this by the Palestinian Authority.”

    Yet since becoming secretary of state, Clinton has failed to utter a word on Palestinian incitement to hatred and murder. Thus, when interviewed this week on a P.A. teen television show and asked, “What would you do if your daughter was unfortunate enough to have been born under occupation, born deprived of freedom and liberty?” Secretary Clinton legitimized the question’s false premise and actually helped incite hatred against Israel by not refuting it and ignoring the fact that 98 percent of Palestinians actually live under the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, not Israeli control.

    Instead, Clinton responded, “Well, I would do what so many parents here in the West Bank and in Gaza do. I would love her … I would get the best education I could for her … I would never give up on the dream of a Palestinian state.”

    That an alarming number of Palestinian parents have encouraged their children to become suicide bombers was somehow lost from Secretary Clinton’s response.

    Why is Secretary Clinton publicly criticizing Israel’s alleged violations of the road map while ignoring the almost complete violation by the Palestinian Authority, not only of the road map but of every written commitment it has signed from Oslo to Wye to Annapolis?

    Secretary of State Clinton is deaf to the words that Senator Clinton once passionately uttered. It is notable that Secretary Clinton’s recent criticisms of Israel impelled Mortimer Zuckerman, publisher of the New York Daily News, to say that he was surprised by some of her recent statements.

    New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a Brooklyn Democrat, observed, “I liked her a lot more as a senator from New York.”

    Hikind also mused, “Now I wonder … who the real Hillary Clinton is.”

    —————

    I forward this to you because I deeply disagree with its content. The worst part is the statement that Arab home-building in east Jerusalem is “illegal” whereas Jewish home-building in east Jerusalem is “legal.” Can home-building be illegal, somehow? Well, in Israel it can be, because Israel is a race state like South Africa was; and since the Arabs have no representation in the Knesset, anything they do is considered inherently illegal. Eating pasta instead of rice is illegal…

    Klein also criticizes HRC’s answer to the very pointed question of how she would have raised her daughter if she had been born in an occupied country. He repudiates the validity of the question. But the Palestinians are in fact living under occupation. Arabs were there and were more numerous than Jews for well more than a millenium, and they have an inherent right to remain. There are still 2 million Arabs living in sub-citizen status in their own country, despite the million or more that have been expelled by the Israelis, and now the fact that they are building homes is illegal, while Israeli destruction of Palestinian homes and expulsion of their occupants is legal.

    When I visited Israel in 1979, 12 years after the 6-day war, the tour guide said repeatedly and forcefully that the term “Palestinian” was never used because Palestine was not a country and the “Palestinians” were stateless, had no business being there, and were all “terrorists” to be subjected to a modern diaspora of their own. He stretched out his arm over Lebanon, when we were at the border, and predicted that one day Israel would “go into Lebanon and clean out all those sub-human terrorists,” a prediction that was to come true some time later.

    When I visited again in 1983, I made a point of going to Ramallah. It was a one-day stay I was never to forget. I met a half-dozen young men who could not contain their hatred of the Jews and who told me hair-raising stories of how their families had been and still were treated.

    Since then, I have always been ashamed of American statesmen who give carte blanche to Israel and ignore the Palestinian experience. I have always felt that Israel took over Palestine the way the US took over the West from the Indians – by expropriation and brute force – and Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull and Geronimo, all viewed as terrorists in their time, are heroes to me now.

    So, HRC’s overtures to the Palestinians are welcome news to me, and people like Klein can go fuck themselves. In fact, I confess that at one point, between June 5 and 15, 2008, I was considering voting for obama because he had some kind words to say about Muslims in the Middle East, whereas HRC had always been a rabid Israel supporter. That was the only point I would give obama over HRC and McCain at the time. I’m very happy that she is now referring to the two-state solution as “inescapable.”

    There is still the question of the Israeli race state with its 2 million captive Arabs, and I don’t think that situation will ever be resolved. Israel will eventually expel them.

  65. Obama’s Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth

    online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html

    By DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN and SCOTT RASMUSSEN

    It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama’s high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.

    Polling data show that Mr. Obama’s approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama’s net presidential approval rating — which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve — is just six, his lowest rating to date.
    [Obama’s Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth] M.E. Cohen

    Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president’s performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.

    A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration’s policies and their impact on peoples’ lives.

    There is also a clear sense in the polling that taxes will increase for all Americans because of the stimulus, notwithstanding what the president has said about taxes going down for 95% of Americans. Close to three-quarters expect that government spending will grow under this administration.

    Recent Gallup data echo these concerns. That polling shows that there are deep-seeded, underlying economic concerns. Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse. Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.

    When Gallup asked whether we should be spending more or less in the economic stimulus, by close to 3-to-1 margin voters said it is better to have spent less than to have spent more. When asked whether we are adding too much to the deficit or spending too little to improve the economy, by close to a 3-to-2 margin voters said that we are adding too much to the deficit.

    Support for the stimulus package is dropping from narrow majority support to below that. There is no sense that the stimulus package itself will work quickly, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, close to 60% said it would make only a marginal difference in the next two to four years. Rasmussen data shows that people now actually oppose Mr. Obama’s budget, 46% to 41%. Three-quarters take this position because it will lead to too much spending. And by 2-to-1, voters reject House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s call for a second stimulus package.

    While over two-thirds support the plan to help homeowners refinance their mortgage, a 48%-36% plurality said that it will unfairly benefit those who have been irresponsible, echoing Rick Santelli’s call to arms on CNBC.

    And although a narrow majority remains confident in Mr. Obama’s goals and overall direction, 45% say they do not have confidence, a number that has been growing since the inauguration less than two months ago. With three-quarters saying that they expect the economy to get worse, it is hard to see these numbers improving substantially.

    There is no real appetite for increasing taxes to pay for an expanded health-insurance program. Less than half would support such an idea, which is 17% less than the percentage that supported government health insurance when Bill Clinton first considered it in March of 1993.

    While voters blame Republicans for the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, the fact is that they do not believe Mr. Obama has made any progress in improving the impulse towards cooperation between the two parties. Further, nearly half of voters say that politics in Washington will be more partisan over the next year.

    Fifty-six percent of Americans oppose giving bankers any additional government money or any guarantees backed by the government. Two-thirds say Wall Street will benefit more than the average taxpayer from the new bank bailout plan. This represents a jump in opposition to the first plan passed last October. At that time, 45% opposed the bailout and 30% supported it. Now a solid majority opposes the bank bailout, and 20% think it was a good idea. A majority believes that Mr. Obama will not be able to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term.

    Only less than a quarter of Americans believe that the federal government truly reflects the will of the people. Almost half disagree with the idea that no one can earn a living or live “an American life” without protection and empowerment by the government, while only one-third agree.

    Despite the economic stimulus that Congress just passed and the budget and financial and mortgage bailouts that Congress is now debating, just 19% of voters believe that Congress has passed any significant legislation to improve their lives. While Congress’s approval has increased, it still stands at only 18%. Over two-thirds of voters believe members of Congress are more interested in helping their own careers than in helping the American people. When it comes to the nation’s economic issues, two-thirds of voters have more confidence in their own judgment than they do in the average member of Congress.

    Finally, what probably accounts for a good measure of the confidence and support the Obama administration has enjoyed is the fact that they are not Republicans. Virtually all Americans, more than eight in 10, blame Republicans for the current economic woes, and the only two leaders with lower approval ratings than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

    All of this is not just a subject for pollsters and analysts to debate. It shows fundamentally that public confidence in government remains low and is slipping. We face the possibility of substantial gridlock along with an absolute absence of public confidence that could come to mirror the lack of confidence in the American economy that the Dow and the S&P are currently showing.

  66. March 13, 2009
    Morally Unserious in the Extreme
    By Charles Krauthammer

    WASHINGTON — Last week, the White House invited me to a signing ceremony overturning the Bush (43) executive order on stem cell research. I assume this was because I have long argued in these columns and during my five years on the President’s Council on Bioethics that, contrary to the Bush policy, federal funding should be extended to research on embryonic stem cell lines derived from discarded embryos in fertility clinics.

    I declined to attend. Once you show your face at these things you become a tacit endorser of whatever they spring. My caution was vindicated.

    Bush had restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to cells derived from embryos that had already been destroyed (as of his speech of Aug. 9, 2001). While I favor moving that moral line to additionally permit the use of spare fertility clinic embryos, Obama replaced it with no line at all. He pointedly left open the creation of cloned — and noncloned sperm-and-egg-derived — human embryos solely for the purpose of dismemberment and use for parts.

    I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science, and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn. I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research — a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.

    On this, Obama has nothing to say. He leaves it entirely to the scientists. This is more than moral abdication. It is acquiescence to the mystique of “science” and its inherent moral benevolence. How anyone as sophisticated as Obama can believe this within living memory of Mengele and Tuskegee and the fake (and coercive) South Korean stem cell research is hard to fathom.

    That part of the ceremony, watched from the safe distance of my office, made me uneasy. The other part — the ostentatious issuance of a memorandum on “restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making” — would have made me walk out.

    Restoring? The implication, of course, is that while Obama is guided solely by science, Bush was driven by dogma, ideology and politics.

    What an outrage. George Bush’s nationally televised stem cell speech was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the best case for both his view and the contrary view that until the last few minutes, the listener had no idea where Bush would come out.

    Obama’s address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the “false choice between sound science and moral values.” Yet, exactly 2 minutes and 12 seconds later he went on to declare that he would never open the door to the “use of cloning for human reproduction.”

    Does he not think that a cloned human would be of extraordinary scientific interest? And yet he banned it.

    Is he so obtuse not to see that he had just made a choice of ethics over science? Yet, unlike President Bush, who painstakingly explained the balance of ethical and scientific goods he was trying to achieve, Obama did not even pretend to make the case why some practices are morally permissible and others not.

    This is not just intellectual laziness. It is the moral arrogance of a man who continuously dismisses his critics as ideological while he is guided exclusively by pragmatism (in economics, social policy, foreign policy) and science in medical ethics.

    Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has nothing to say about what is permissible. Obama’s pretense that he will “restore science to its rightful place” and make science, not ideology, dispositive in moral debates is yet more rhetorical sleight of hand — this time to abdicate decision-making and color his own ideological preferences as authentically “scientific.”

    Dr. James Thomson, the discoverer of embryonic stem cells, said “if human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.” Obama clearly has not.
    letters@charleskrauthammer.com

    realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/using_embryoswithout_limit.html

  67. jeswezey Says:

    March 13th, 2009 at 9:20 am

    I am stunned by your comments and your ignorance on the subject of Israel. Unfortunately I am at work and can’t give a comprehensive and factual replynow…but I will later.
    You really need to check your mfacts and history before writing.

  68. Carol Says:

    “I am stunned by your comments and your ignorance on the subject of Israel. Unfortunately I am at work and can’t give a comprehensive and factual replynow…but I will later.
    You really need to check your mfacts and history before writing.”

    ***
    I await your reply. As for facts and history, I simply note that I am an historian and also, as I said, have the benefit of two lengthy visits to Israel and communication with both sides, including Arabs and Jews living in France and the US.

    When in Ramallah, I strenuously tried to convince the young Arabs of the difference between Jews and Israelis, that their differences were not religious but only a matter of basic human rights; but my arguments had no effect on them. They invited me to prayers, and I accepted.

  69. IF YOU THINK OBAMA’S POLL NUMBERS ARE FALLING RAPIDLY, THIS NEWEST YOUTUBE HAS A 12 PART CHRONOLOGY DETAILING “THE LIES” OF THE NEWLY ELECTED USURPER ALL OVER THE NET! @

    http……//pumasunleashed.wordpress.com

    don’t forget to add the : between the http and //

  70. IF YOU THINK OBAMA’S POLL NUMBERS ARE FALLING RAPIDLY, THIS NEWEST YOUTUBE HAS A 12 PART CHRONOLOGY DETAILING “THE LIES” OF THE NEWLY ELECTED USURPER ALL OVER THE NET!

    http……//pumasunleashed.wordpress.com

    don’t forget to add the : between the http and //

  71. Unfortunately, Hillary is mentioned in the You Tubes but she is not singled out as one of the perpetrators of Obama Crimes. How could she be? The Powers the Be and the DNC made damn sure she would never sit at the seat of government’s highest office because they know… she would never have let this financial crisis come about. And she would continue on, uncompromised in her effort to help the American People overcome this premeditated Financial Coup!

  72. dija: thanks for posting that article by Krauthammer. It is spot on as usual. The removal of constraints on embrionic research opens the door to precisely the kind of thing he is worried about. The suggestion that this represents somehow a restoration of science integrity ignores the fact that science per se is devoid of moral content, and quickly degerates from science for the sake of human beings into science for the sake of science. He shows us by three tragic examples where that path leads. If he bothered to do his homework he would know that our own CIA has a highly developed artificial intelligence program which is eighty years ahead of where commercial research is today, which suggests that the day may come when we are the ones they put in zoos as primitive examples of an inferior form of life.

    As with everything else Mr Obama is mile wide and six inches deep. Mindless rhetoric about restoring the integrity of science masks an abysmal failure to think this through. Not at all the brilliant man big media paints him out to be. On the contrary, a mediocre one with a penchant for slogans who is leading our country into the valley of the shadow of death, figuratively speaking.

  73. Giving The Fingerprint: Home Law Raises Concern (in Chicago)

    Sellers Will Be Required To Provide Thumbprint Before Deal Is Approved

    with vid ;

    add, h’s and slashes

    cbs2chicago.com/local/Mike.Puccinelli.fingerprint.2.957819.html

  74. Anyone who is watching this deteriorating scenario and has not concluded yet that it was a grave and irreversible mistake for the elites to force Mr Obama down the throats of the public through censorship, lies and a steady stream of favorable propaganda in the midst of a perfect storm needs a reality check. He is the same man he was when he practiced law in Illinois–a lover of the roar of the crowd and the smell of the grease paint. MIA when there was heavy lifting or detail work to be done. Lazy, unfocused, great backswing no follow through. Since his newfound passion is golf perhaps he can relate to that analogy.

  75. OH thanks dija ..i might depends on my schedule..
    yep admin he is still at it . obambi still hasnt got a brain he has no ideas of his own..his only ideas are uhhhs and uhhhs ..and passes out more lies and lies and lies. with uhhs uhhhs ..along with his sleevless wife.

  76. You know the skies are growing dark when the prevailing discussion in the country has nothing to do with objective reality. In such circumstances primitive people looked to shamen to point the path forward. Today we look to a huckster from Chicago and his wife who just does not like white people. And why that is I dont quite know because she has led a very privileged life for someone who is so full of scowls and insults. Go figure.

  77. Morally Unserious in the Extreme
    By Charles Krauthammer

    Charles observation on when you attend the signing you are drawn into being used as a pawn to me was right on. This is what women and women’s groups did not realize during this last election campaign.

    Women’s issue, are women’s issue, regardless of the party. In fact it is above party lines. Each party should be scolded or appauded based on how they treat the women’s issue. Women and women’s groups said that the only party that represents women is the Democrats, and therefore, any person they nominate we will embrace. The Democrats did not stand up for women’s issues during the primary, nor during the general election. Women and women’s groups by standing by this party indicated their approval, or as Charles Kruthammer would have said, they used you.

    Women’s issues are a bipartisen issue, and they forgot that. They felt that the Dims would take care of them regardless of how offensively they were treated in this election year (does that sound like an abused wife or what).

    OK WOMEN, WHAT HAS O DONE FOR YOU IN THE FIRST 50 DAYS. I don’t see very much. Oh he might have retracted some stuff that Bush did, but that is not much. However, if MO thinks it is an issue, you can bet it might get some attention.

    By endorsing him, you have lost your watchdog platform.

  78. Mrs. Smith Says:

    March 13th, 2009 at 10:38 am
    Giving The Fingerprint: Home Law Raises Concern (in Chicago)
    lotts are croooks lol..like madeoff lol..

  79. Unfortunately, Hillary is mentioned in the You Tubes but she is not singled out as one of the perpetrators of Obama Crimes. How could she be?
    ————————
    Frankly Mrs Smith, I worry about that too. When Obama takes this country over a cliff as I am beginning to believe he will, the public will not differentiate between those in the administration who were guilty and those who were innocent. Rather the tendency will be to ascribe guilt by association, unless things reach a point where they rise up to oppose what he is doing before he destroys the country. Every arrow I am looking at right now is pointing down, and the man in charge is nothing more than a huckster.

  80. CJ Says:
    March 13th, 2009 at 10:47 am

    Yes, and what this proves is Obama has no compunction for infringing on the Freedom, Liberty and Right to Free Choice of Americans. The Fascism creep is now on a daily basis.

  81. wbboei, not to question your judgment, but as a computer scientist, I can tell you that we are no where near this. But the government does spend a lot of funding on AI, thinking there is some magic bullet there and the AI research community does take them for a ride (since most of the AI researchers end up in govt. agencies because they can’t get jobs elsewhere.) There are no breakthroughs there.

    If he bothered to do his homework he would know that our own CIA has a highly developed artificial intelligence program which is eighty years ahead of where commercial research is today, which suggests that the day may come when we are the ones they put in zoos as primitive examples of an inferior form of life.

  82. pm 317: no problem questioning my judgment. I have been known to be wrong, and I think pushback on some things is important. So thank you for that. Lets drill down on this statement for just a moment. The individual who told me this is connected with the cia. What that exact connection is I do not know. I met him one time and have spoken to him once since on an unrelated manner. What he was alluding to was a top secret program which is beyond anything we have going on now in the private sector–which is where I assume you do your work. If you and I had been working in one of the defense industry contractors around 1944, we might well be focusing on weapons systems, and even bombs, and is someone had told us something about the Manhattan Project and the level of technology and innovation there we might have dismissed it then just as it is easy to dismiss the projections I related above, because they were part of the next generation of what we are working on and we could not see it from where we were standing. I credited what he said because I think it is probably true.

  83. pm: he owes me a phone call, so if I do hear from him I will inquire further. Is there any particular question you would like me to ask–something which in your judgment precludes this possibility. If you have a killer question, believe me I will ask it if as I say he calls.

    He is also affilitated with Stanford which is where the Hoover Insitute is.

  84. yes, Admin and Hillfriends, Richardson’s current state of affairs have certainly come back to smack him…

    bucknakedpolitics also had an observation:

    by Deb Cupples | Sometimes, we have to wait a long time to see comeuppance. Not so in the case of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. In a piece entitled The Man Obama Double-Crossed, The Daily Beast Reports:

    “…[I]n a humiliating and historically ironic slight to the man who had helped Obama win the Iowa caucuses and then the primary election, Obama passed over Richardson for State in favor of their mutual nemesis, Hillary Clinton. Still reeling from what he considered a double cross—Richardson told confidants he had been promised secretary of State—he gamely accepted the consolation prize, secretary of Commerce.”

    Mr. Richardson’s associates should stop whining and think back a year ago, when Mr. Richardson — himself — engaged in a bit of double-crossing.

    During the Democratic presidential primaries, both Hillary Clinton and now-President Obama sought Richardson’s endorsement. In March 2008, Mr. Richardson endorsed Obama.

    While the Clinton campaign graciously refrained from making a big deal about the endorsement, there was certainly cause for hurt feelings. Mr. Richardson had been a personal friend of Hillary and Bill Clinton — long before 2008, the year that Mr. Richardson chose to become the Clinton’s “nemisis” (as the Daily Beat put it).

    Beyond personal friendship, Mr. Richardson’s career received big boosts from President Clinton, who had made Mr. Richardson both an Energy Secretary and ambassador to the United Nations.

    The prominence that Mr. Richardson gained, courtesy of Bill Clinton, likely played a part in Mr. Richardson’s ultimately becoming governor of New Mexico.

    It wasn’t just the Clintons to whom Gov. Richardson showed disloyalty. Though Hillary Clinton won New Mexico’s primary, Mr. Richardson disloyally disregarded a plurality of his state’s Democratic voters by endorsing Obama.

    Back to the more recent past, the fact is that Mr. Richardson botched his own chances for playing any part in the Obama administration by doing (shady) things that rendered him a target in a federal corruption-investigation.

    Mr. Richardson certainly is in a position to recognize the rough-and-tumble political arena in which he’s been playing all these years. He should graciously (i.e., quietly) accept disloyalty as a natural and prevalent force.

    **************************

    and as we here at Big Pink observed, Richardson did not even have enough grace to shut up about his Judas behavior, no, he had to go all over TV making a joke about it and talking about Hill getting over it, but Bill still had issues, bla, bla…milking it and the media attention for all he could get…

    well, it is all catching up with Judas fast…

  85. Admin,

    I have a comment that says it is still in moderation from 3:03 this morning— 9 hours.

    It is for Shorttermer.

    Can you dive into the filter please?

    Thanks

  86. S Says:

    March 13th, 2009 at 12:48 am
    ADMIN…here comes another lie…

    washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103827.html

    …So far, administration officials have been careful not to endorse the idea, which Obama blasted as a major tax increase last year after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) made it the centerpiece of his presidential campaign’s health plan. But the president hasn’t slammed the door on it, either.

    This week, White House budget director Peter Orszag said taxing employer benefits was among several ideas that “most firmly should remain on the table.” White House economic adviser Jason Furman called for an end to the so-called “employer exclusion” before he joined the administration. Meanwhile, some congressional Democrats say the White House has signaled that Obama would accept a tax on employer benefits as long as he didn’t have to propose it himself.

    —————————————————————————————————

    If employer benefits start being taxed, I will be one unhappy camper. Bo is coward. He doesn’t want to say it himself, but will not oppose it. He is such slime and hypocritical, it is totally disgusting. Next thing, they’ll start attaching or doing away with the 401K income exemption benefit. Lot of good that has done for people, since our savings have been lost.

  87. In rereading my comments above on the interplay between science on the one hand and morality on the other, I do not wish to imply that it is an either or proposition. At the one end of the spectrum you have the medieval church torturing gallielo in the name of morality, and at the other end you have megele torturing people in the name of science. It is always a balancing act, and I hit bambi for opening the door for science for the sake of science, but it is equally clear that morality cannot be allowed to forclose scientific progress which can improve the lives of people. Finding that balance requires refined judment as opposed to political sloganeering.

  88. How many people here think O promised the SoS job to more than just Richardson? I wonder if he told Kerry that as well.

    Nevertheless, I’m still enjoying that Richardson got what he so richly deserved.

  89. Richardson . . it strains credulity for anyone to portray richardson as the victim of a double cross. He is the double crosser. The theme of the article should have been simply that every dog has his day, or what goes around comes around, or this is what happens when you fall on your own sword, or what did you expect when you trusted Obama. The Capone quote by Admin above is apt/

  90. jeswezey Says:

    March 13th, 2009 at 10:05 am

    ————————————-

    I too have been in Israel twice in my lifetime, worked on a kibbutz, talked with scholars and contemporaries.

    This so-called “unconditional” increase of funding to the Palestinians comes with very definite cornerstones. Hillary has not changed as far as her denounciation of terrorists, i.e. Hamas. She has not changed on her belief that Israel has the right to fight back, that she has the right to exist, and that negotiations with “terrorists” cannot occur unless these so-called terrorists change their ways. She continues to denounce any and all holocaust deniers. She has denounced Darfur II and the U.S. will not be attending or supporting this travesty of an antisemitic gathering.

    She gently chastised Israel on the decision to demolish illegally constructed houses in Jerusalem. Jerusalem Mayor Barkat later educated Clinton on this matter in their private meeting and told her that all Jerusalem’s citizens will be treated equally before the law. Something that did not happen when the Arabs physically ejected Jews from the Old City in 1948.

  91. Mr. Richardson certainly is in a position to recognize the rough-and-tumble political arena in which he’s been playing all these years. He should graciously (i.e., quietly) accept disloyalty as a natural and prevalent force.
    —————————————————-
    What? That statement is delusional. Not even Machiavelli counselled the Prince to accept disloyalty graciously. What this writer is describing is a Hobbsian war of all and against all. That is a formula for chaos.

  92. Mar 13, 2009

    US unhappy with UK’s Hizbullah outreach

    A senior US official on Thursday expressed strong disagreement with the British decision to begin contacts with Lebanese terror group Hizbullah, The Los Angeles Times reported Friday.

    A top US official said the administration of US President Barack Obama does not view Hizbullah as an entity with separate military, political and social wings. The British hold an opposing view of the terror group, and this is their basis for dealing with the political organization. Hizbullah is officially listed in the US as a terror organization despite Hizbullah now being part of the Lebanese government. “We don’t see the differences between the integrated leadership that they see,” the LA Times quoted the official as saying during a briefing to a group of reporters.

    Gordon Duguid, a State Department spokesman, said last week that the US was not ready to follow the British example, but did not criticize the British decision. The Obama administration’s readiness to reach out to adversary regimes, such as Syria and Iran, has been a hallmark of its new foreign policy, but this has so far not extended to groups on its official terrorist registry, such as Hizbullah and Hamas.
    A State Department official explained that the difference is that governments such as Syria and Iran, though they may support terrorism, can be productively engaged because as governments they can be swayed on the basis of their national interest. Unlike terrorist groups, “they have the interests of states and may respond to interaction,” this official said. The US official said he was appalled that Hizbullah has been hanging posters in Lebanon celebrating Imad Mughniyeh, an accused terrorist mastermind that the group has long insisted was not connected to their organization. Mughniyeh, assassinated in Damascus in February 2008, was held responsible for a long list of terrorist attacks and also had a US bounty on his head.

    David Schenker, who was a Pentagon specialist on the Mideast during the Bush years, was quoted by the LA Times as saying the British may be positioning themselves to deal with Hizbullah if the group wins the Lebanese election in June. But he said that the British move would be “unhelpful” to the Obama administration’s efforts to begin collaboration on Mideast issues, including Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Israeli-Palestinian issues.

    jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236764178111&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

  93. As far as Richardson goes, denial, denial, denial, finger-pointing, disloyalty, and trying to justify the unjustifiable seems to be his moral code.

  94. One further thought. The commercial world depends on the notion that promises of future performance will be kept. The law provides a remedy when that does not happen. The same is true in politics. People must be able to rely on people fulfilling their promises whether or not they are in writing–absent extraordinary circumstances and adequate notification. Otherwise the system fails. This foolish notion that politicians should graciusly accept disloyalty as a natural and prevalent force is so stupid that Johanathan Alter must have had a hand in it somewhere.

  95. Gordon Duguid, a State Department spokesman, said last week that the US was not ready to follow the British example, but did not criticize the British decision. The Obama administration’s readiness to reach out to adversary regimes, such as Syria and Iran, has been a hallmark of its new foreign policy, but this has so far not extended to groups on its official terrorist registry, such as Hizbullah and Hamas
    ——————————————–
    But isnt that the danger when and if Obama deigns to meet with the good Taliban? Doesnt he blow that model? Doesnt he cross the Rubicon?

  96. wbboei,

    My question is this. Will there come a time, when obama shows his true colors and underminess too many of Hillary’s diplomatic beliefs, that she will say enough? That she will walk away from this position saying that she can no longer support a man like this?

    If that day ever comes, I pray that she does so.

  97. Morally Unserious in the Extreme
    By Charles Krauthammer
    George Bush’s nationally televised stem cell speech was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the best case for both his view and the contrary view that until the last few minutes, the listener had no idea where Bush would come out.

    =================

    So who was Bush’s Favreau?

  98. wbboei,

    My question is this. Will there come a time, when obama shows his true colors and underminess too many of Hillary’s diplomatic beliefs, that she will say enough? That she will walk away from this position saying that she can no longer support a man like this?

    If that day ever comes, I pray that she does so.
    ——————————————-

    Jan: see my comment at 10:55 above

  99. Heh. Someone should do an expose on how many power backups Obama has for those teleprompters.

  100. wbboei,

    Obama’s whole career has involved degrading or mocking or reversing whatever standards existed in politics.

    In 1996 he got all his opponents removed from the ballot, including his mentor, the beloved incumbepnt Alice Palmer — and boasted “Well, the people got a good State Senator.” Lizza iirc praised him for this, saying it showed he had the guts “to pull the trigger.”

    In the 2008 primary his people defended their cheating and bullying by trying to change the standard.

  101. MARCH 13, 2009 Wen Voices Concern Over China’s U.S. Treasurys

    By ANDREW BATSON and ANDREW BROWNE
    Associated Press

    BEIJING — Premier Wen Jiabao voiced confidence in China’s economy, saying his government’s finances give it room to spend even more to support growth if needed, but expressed concern about the outlook for the U.S. and the safety of its Treasury bonds. The forceful comments from Mr. Wen’s annual press conference — a rare opportunity for domestic and foreign reporters to ask a top Chinese official questions directly — helped depress the U.S. dollar and prices of U.S. Treasurys in Asian trading Friday.

    The public airing of his concerns reflect how the relationship between China and the U.S. has been evolving under the pressure of the financial crisis. For years the U.S. has pressed China to change the way it runs its economy, such as by opening up its financial system. But in the last year China’s government has been increasingly vocal about what it sees as U.S. economic mismanagement. And as the U.S. government’s largest creditor, it has become more assertive in trying to ensure its interests receive a hearing. “We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S., so of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. Frankly speaking, I do have some worries,” Mr. Wen said in response to a question. He did not offer specific suggestions on economic policy to the U.S. government, but called on it to “maintain its credibility, honor its commitments and guarantee the security of Chinese assets.” Mr. Wen did indicate that China would not be rash in making changes to its $1.946 trillion stockpile of foreign reserves, much of which is in U.S. dollars. While China is naturally looking out for its own interests, it will “at the same time also take international financial stability into consideration, because the two are inter-related,” he said.

    In that vein, Mr. Wen also pointed out that China hasn’t pushed down the value of the yuan, despite pressure on its exporters, and repeated his government’s commitment to currency stability. The yuan has hovered around 6.84 to the dollar since July 2008, but Mr. Wen noted that because the dollar has risen against other Asian and European currencies, the yuan has actually become stronger overall. He said China alone would decide where the yuan goes from here. “No country can pressure us to appreciate or depreciate” the currency, he said.

    Despite the rising external challenges, Mr. Wen reaffirmed his belief that China should be able meet its traditional target of economic growth of around 8% this year. He said market expectations last week of another stimulus package were based on “rumors and misunderstandings,” and that China’s announced program of four trillion yuan in investments over two years will help meet “both short-term and long-term needs.” China’s government is planning on an eightfold expansion of its budget deficit this year, to around 3% of gross domestic product, to fund the stimulus program. Mr. Wen said government debt remained at a manageable level and that conservative budgeting in previous years means China is well positioned to do more if necessary. “We have already prepared plans to deal with greater difficulties, and have reserved adequate ammunition. We can introduce new stimulus policies at any time,” he said.
    Mr. Wen said that China is also closely watching to see the effects of the policies taken by U.S. President Barack Obama aimed at returning the world’s largest economy to health. Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi was also in Washington this week to discuss how the two countries can cooperate on economic policy, among other issues.

    A test of that cooperation is quickly approaching. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner this week called on the Group of 20 – a gathering of the world’s largest developed and developing economies – to increase funding for the International Monetary Fund by up to $500 billion to help combat the financial crisis. Achieving that sum likely will depend on getting agreement from countries that hold large foreign exchange reserves, such as China and Saudi Arabia. Ahead of a preparatory meeting of G-20 financial officials this weekend near London, Mr. Wen said pointedly that “increased funding for the IMF is not a question for just one country” but for all member nations. He also repeated China’s desire to see reforms to the IMF that give more clout to developing nations.

    The Chinese premier’s annual press conference is held each March at the close of the country’s legislative session. Mr. Wen was asked about a broad range of subjects, from relations with France and Russia to the possibility of political reform in China and the sensitive issue of Tibet. Mr. Wen used harsh language against the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader, who accused the Chinese government this week of turning the Himalayan region into a “hell on earth.” He said talks between Beijing and the Dalai Lama, which took place last year without making any progress, could only resume if the Dalai Lama is “sincere.” Despite blanket security in Tibet around the 50th anniversary of the Dalai Lama’s flight from Tibet, Mr. Wen said that “the situation in Tibet on the whole is stable. The Tibetan people hope to live and work in peace and stability.”

    online.wsj.com/article/SB123692233477317069.html

  102. Friday, March 13, 2009

    Americans See 18% of Wealth Vanish

    By S. MITRA KALITA

    The wealth of American families plunged nearly 18% in 2008, erasing years of sharp gains on housing and stocks and marking the biggest loss since the Federal Reserve began keeping track after World War II.

    The Fed said Thursday that U.S. households’ net worth tumbled by $11 trillion — a decline in a single year that equals the combined annual output of Germany, Japan and the U.K. The data signal the end of an epoch defined by first and second homes, rising retirement funds and ever-fatter portfolios.

    rest of article can be found at:

    online.wsj.com/article/SB123687371369308675.html

  103. Turndown: you are right and he has gotten away with it–so far. Because big media has made it their business to cover for him and lie to the public.

    But just because he has gotten away with it before does not mean he will get away with it in perpetuity.

    Sooner or later his ego will lead him and the country down a path from which no one ever returns. And one third of the country will be clueless to the end.

    That said, I must also say that given a choice between getting rid of Obama and getting rid of msnbc and cnn, I would prefer the latter/

    If we had honest journalism, then it would provide a protective mechanism that would weed out the hucksters whereas now the proceed unfettered.

  104. Clinton Names Envoy to Expedite Guantanamo Closure

    By David Gollust
    State Department
    13 March 2009

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton named a senior U.S. diplomat Thursday to help expedite President Obama’s order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp within a year. Daniel Fried, now Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, will, among other things, work to persuade other countries to accept Guantanamo detainees.

    The decision to tap Assistant Secretary Fried, one of the State Department’s highest-profile diplomats, for the Guantanamo post underscores the priority the Obama administration puts on closing the controversial detention facility. Fried, a former U.S. Ambassador to Poland, worked at the White House National Security Council during the Clinton administration.

    As Assistant Secretary for Europe in the Bush administration, Fried was a key figure in executing U.S. policy on Kosovo, European missile defense, and last year’s Russia-Georgia conflict.

    Announcing the appointment at a news briefing, State Department Acting Spokesman Robert Wood said Fried’s European experience will be valuable as the administration turns to European countries, among others, to accept Guantanamo detainees who cannot be returned to their home countries. “I think if you look at Assistant Secretary Fried’s background, he’s got a great deal of experience in working with countries in Europe and other places around the globe,” he said. “The secretary [of state] felt that in order to help facilitate this process, we need somebody who’s got the skills and insight who can do this, and she and others felt that Dan [Fried] was the appropriate choice for this.”

    The Bush administration opened the Guantanamo camp in 2002 to house terrorism suspects, many of them detained in the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan. Most detainees have been held without formal charges and the camp has long been the target of criticism from human rights groups and other governments. Hundreds of the camp’s original detainees have been repatriated or otherwise re-settled, but it still houses about 250 inmates. Fried will work to find countries to accept the 60 or more detainees who will not face U.S. criminal charges, some of whom would risk persecution if returned to their nations of birth.

    Fried will remain in his European affairs post until the person nominated to succeed him, former Clinton White House foreign policy aide Philip Gordon, is confirmed by the Senate.

    The Guantanamo portfolio has been handled on an interim basis by the State Department’s ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, Clinton Williamson, who will return to that task full-time when Fried becomes available.

    voanews.com/english/2009-03-13-voa33.cfm

  105. “We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S., so of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. Frankly speaking, I do have some worries,” Mr. Wen said in response to a question. He did not offer specific suggestions on economic policy to the U.S. government, but called on it to “maintain its credibility, honor its commitments and guarantee the security of Chinese assets.” (snip)

    China is closely watching to see the effects of the policies taken by U.S. President Barack Obama aimed at returning the world’s largest economy to health.

    ———————————
    Sounds like Obama has got him right where he wants him. Worried about his 2 trillion dollar investment mainly in the United States. Have you noticed–Obama has that effect on people with money. He scares the bijesus out of them. And rightly so.

  106. The G-20 thing will be interesting. Sounds like our largest creditor may be giving our benighted president some ground rules for them to stay in the game. History has shown that he does not do will when there are groundrules.

  107. JanH Says:
    March 13th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    “This so-called “unconditional” increase of funding to the Palestinians comes with very definite cornerstones. ”

    *****

    Yes, and it is emergency humanitarian funding to help Gaza recover from the Israeli attacks. Yet Klein decries it just because it is money going to the Palestinians.

    ***********

    “Hillary has not changed as far as her denounciation of terrorists, i.e. Hamas. She has not changed on her belief that Israel has the right to fight back, that she has the right to exist, and that negotiations with “terrorists” cannot occur unless these so-called terrorists change their ways.”

    ****

    Yes, but there I disagree with her. While it is true that nothing can be negotiated while fighting is going on, it is still possible to talk with people, to sound them out and determine what they want, how far they are willing to go to get it, etc. Talking and listening is not negotiating. This is why I also feel it is quite possible to open up formal diplomatic channels with the Iranians.

    *********

    “She gently chastised Israel on the decision to demolish illegally constructed houses in Jerusalem. Jerusalem Mayor Barkat later educated Clinton on this matter in their private meeting and told her that all Jerusalem’s citizens will be treated equally before the law. Something that did not happen when the Arabs physically ejected Jews from the Old City in 1948.”

    ****

    First of all, we still don’t have a definition of “illegally constructed houses.” Why does Klein say that the Arabs have constructed houses illegally whereas Jews have constructed them legally?

    Then the Mayor said all Jerusalem’s citizens will be treated equally before the law – will be, but when? If we’re going to harp back to injustices of 1948, how about the injustices post-1967?

    Anyway, HRC has entered this dangerous arena of openness to or understanding of the Palestinians, while zionists like Klein will brook no such treachery. Israel is and has always been right by definition, because they are God’s Chosen People.

  108. China alone would decide where the yuan goes from here. “No country can pressure us to appreciate or depreciate” the currency, he said.
    ————————–
    Spoken like a man bargaining from a position of power, with a 8% gdp growth factor to back it up.

    And what does Our Gang Comedy, i.e. Barack, Greaseball, Scoopjaw, Groper and the White House Budget Director whose name is becoming a household word–Orsag or something like that, say in response?

    Same thing he said to Rezko. Screw my constituents, your wish is my command oh great one. Show me the money.

  109. wbboei, whatever work classified guys do is not that much more advanced than what we see out there in the field. So I find it hard to believe they have something now that is 80 years ahead of where the unclassified research community is. The building blocks are just not there. For the Manhattan project, we had all the building blocks in the real world. It was just a matter of who was going to put it together first. My own opinion for the trends in the AI field is kind of not so encouraging. Where is the equivalent of a Newton for the “mind” sciences? Whatever they have advanced so far is through the advancement of computing speed and power. Much of the deductive and inferential systems could on the one hand be viewed as purely enumerative which is not saying much. There is still much, much more to be done to mimic the workings of a human brain/mind. But then again, I don’t have the full knowledge or the context of what your friend was talking about.

  110. pm: thanks for the thoughtful response. I will present these facts to him when and if he calls. I will let you know how he responds. At a minimum, there are grounds for scepticism based on what you have told me here. I appreciate the insight.

  111. # wbboei Says:
    March 13th, 2009 at 10:55 am

    Unfortunately, Hillary is mentioned in the You Tubes but she is not singled out as one of the perpetrators of Obama Crimes. How could she be?
    ————————
    Frankly Mrs Smith, I worry about that too. When Obama takes this country over a cliff as I am beginning to believe he will, the public will not differentiate between those in the administration who were guilty and those who were innocent. Rather the tendency will be to ascribe guilt by association, unless things reach a point where they rise up to oppose what he is doing before he destroys the country. Every arrow I am looking at right now is pointing down, and the man in charge is nothing more than a huckster.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Yes, wbboei, I worry about that too- and whenever I hear her name associated with the Obama Cabal, I STOP them dead in their tracks and clarify. Repeating, IF she were part of it ALL they wouldn’t have needed Obama to shill for them. They had the option of putting him in 2nd position IF Hillary said she would go along and they didn’t TRUST her.

    And the best reason why she wasn’t the VP pick. They didn’t want her anywhere near the direct line of ascension.

    Hillary has done more in the way of networking and reaffirming old friendships as SOS than she ever could have, had she remained the Senator from NY. The Europeans, Asians, Middle Easterners and the Women, all those lives she touched personally during her visits are prepared to stand at her back. They have given her their Faith and Trust just as we have. One thing about Hillary, if plan A is unworkable, she sure as Hell has plan B standing at the ready.

    We have to speak up and speak louder when Hillary’s name is mentioned in the same sentence with Obama’s LIES- People have to understand SHE is there for US now, just as she would have been had she been elected President.

  112. During the primary, Hillarys theme was SOLUTIONS, whereas Mr Obama theme
    was CHANGE. Her campaign was based on proven EXPERIENCE, whereas his was based on the unfounded assertion of INTELLIGENCE. Her campaign was based on the world as it is, his on blind idealim which he has been repudiating ever since.

  113. Jeswezey……….I too, am at work and have had an incredibly sstressful day. I will be glad to discuss as well when online over the weekend. However, I will unequivocally state I am Jewish, a Zionist, have been to Israel about the same times you have, and believe Israel has no stronger allies than SOS Hillary and Former President Bill Clinton. The fact that Chaz Freeman “withdrew” his nomination from NIC should already give you some comfort in knowing that BO (whom I do not think is a friend of Israel) will not have the ability to radically change America’s pro-Israel stance. Off course, unlike Bush, there will be concessions made on BOTH sides, but underlying any Israeli concessions, will be the US’s guaranrtee of her safety. Moreover,with Bibi in power, either Iran will stop it’s nuclear ambitions or face a repeat of the “Begin Doctine”.

  114. Mathews sicken me..he tried to play “HardBall” with Ari Fliescher(not someone I particularly care for) and Fleischer called him out for the partisan he is…..Tweeties come back was “a was tough against the Clinton administration…”………Ya think???

Comments are closed.