Obama Lies On Torture And State Secrets

Obama lied last night repeatedly and often. Obama’s biggest lies regarded his answers to the torture and state secrets questions. If Obama did not lie then he is missing a great deal of information from his education.

Why Obama lied is a mystery because Big Media was content to ask “difficult” questions which bordered on ‘This is a very difficult question because you risk being immodest, but why, oh why, are you so wonderful?’

* * * * *

On torture Obama wrapped himself around a non-existent Winston Churchill [Hint: Winston Churchill tortured]. After misrepresenting Churchill, Obama begged the question of whether torture should be used. Obama wants Americans to believe there is an easy way out on torture. We stated why the torture question is not an easy one in HELP! We’re Being Tortured! We wrote:

Torture works. The current debate on torture has to start off from that simple premise. If torture does not work then we merely have a simple argument about governments and their “intelligence” agencies doing something stupid which they can stop doing without harm to the national interests. But the reason “torture” is torture to figure out is because it does work.

Did our British cousins torture? You betcha!

Kensington Palace Gardens is one of the most exclusive, and expensive, addresses in the world: its stately row of 160-year-old mansions, built on land owned by the crown, is home to ambassadors, billionaires and princes. [snip]

Between July 1940 and September 1948, however, these three magnificent houses were home to one of the country’s most secret military establishments: the London office of the Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre, known colloquially as the London Cage.

The London Cage was run by MI19, the section of the War Office responsible for gleaning information from enemy prisoners of war, and few outside this organisation knew exactly what went on beyond the single barbed-wire fence that separated the three houses from the busy streets and grand parks of west London.[snip]

The London Cage was used partly as a torture centre, inside which large numbers of German officers and soldiers were subjected to systematic ill-treatment. In total 3,573 men passed through the Cage, and more than 1,000 were persuaded to give statements about war crimes. The brutality did not end with the war, moreover: a number of German civilians joined the servicemen who were interrogated there up to 1948.[snip]

Among the documents stored at the National Archives at Kew is the manuscript of Scotland’s memoirs. In his first draft he recalled how he would muse, on arriving at the Cage each morning: “‘Abandon all hope ye who enter here.’ For if any German had any information we wanted, it was invariably extracted from him in the long run.” [snip]

An assessment by MI5 pointed out that Scotland had detailed repeated breaches of the Geneva convention, with his admissions that prisoners had been forced to kneel while being beaten about the head; forced to stand to attention for up to 26 hours; threatened with execution; or threatened with “an unnecessary operation”.[snip]

Within the National Archives are documents from two official inquiries into the methods employed at the Cage, one which heard evidence that guards were under orders to knock on some prisoners’ cell doors every 15 minutes, depriving them of sleep, and another which concluded with “the possibility that violence was used” during interrogations.

There is also a long and detailed letter of complaint from one SS captain, Fritz Knoechlein, who describes his treatment after being taken to the Cage in October 1946. Knoechlein alleges that because he was “unable to make the desired confession” he was stripped, given only a pair of pyjama trousers, deprived of sleep for four days and nights, and starved.

The guards kicked him each time he passed, he alleges, while his interrogators boasted that they were “much better” than the “Gestapo in Alexanderplatz”. After being forced to perform rigorous exercises until he collapsed, he says he was compelled to walk in a tight circle for four hours. On complaining to Scotland that he was being kicked even “by ordinary soldiers without a rank”, Knoechlein alleges that he was doused in cold water, pushed down stairs, and beaten with a cudgel. Later, he says, he was forced to stand beside a large gas stove with all its rings lit before being confined in a shower which sprayed extremely cold water from the sides as well as from above. Finally, the SS man says, he and another prisoner were taken into the gardens behind the mansions, where they were forced to run in circles while carrying heavy logs.

The Red Cross knew of “The Cage” but was not allowed to inspect as required by the Geneva Conventions. The wardens of “The Cage” had “secret gear” they did not want the Red Cross to see. The interrogations in other camps was “far worse”. There is testimony that treatment at “The Cage” was worse there than at similar guest facilities run by the Gestapo.

Obama however ran for cover with ahistorical answers on torture which appear to admit that torture works. Here is an extended excerpt from last night’s press conference (the first question is from ABC’s Jake Tapper, the second question is from CBS’ Mark Knoller):

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve said in the past that waterboarding, in your opinion, is torture. Torture is a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. Do you believe that the previous administration sanctioned torture?

OBAMA: What I’ve said — and I will repeat — is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don’t think that’s just my opinion; that’s the opinion of many who’ve examined the topic. And that’s why I put an end to these practices.

I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do, not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, “We don’t torture,” when the entire British — all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.

And then the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what’s — what’s best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

And — and so I strongly believed that the steps that we’ve taken to prevent these kinds of enhanced interrogation techniques will make us stronger over the long term and make us safer over the long term because it will put us in a — in a position where we can still get information.

In some cases, it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy.

At the same time, it takes away a critical recruitment tool that Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians.

And it makes us — it puts us in a much stronger position to work with our allies in the kind of international, coordinated intelligence activity that can shut down these networks.

So this is a decision that I’m very comfortable with. And I think the American people over time will recognize that it is better for us to stick to who we are, even when we’re taking on an unscrupulous enemy.



OBAMA: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) sanctioned torture?

OBAMA: I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that the — whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake.

OBAMA: Mark Knoller?

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Let me follow up, if I may, on Jake’s question. Did you read the documents recently referred to by former Vice President Cheney and others saying that the use of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” not only protected the nation but saved lives?

And if part of the United States were under imminent threat, could you envision yourself ever authorizing the use of those enhanced interrogation techniques?

OBAMA: I have read the documents. Now they have not been officially declassified and released. And so I don’t want to go to the details of them. But here’s what I can tell you, that the public reports and the public justifications for these techniques, which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques, doesn’t answer the core question.

Which is, could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn’t answer the broader question, are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?

So when I made the decision to release these memos and when I made the decision to bar these practices, this was based on consultation with my entire national security team, and based on my understanding that ultimately I will be judged as commander-in-chief on how safe I’m keeping the American people.

That’s the responsibility I wake up with and it’s the responsibility I go to sleep with. And so I will do whatever is required to keep the American people safe. But I am absolutely convinced that the best way I can do that is to make sure that we are not taking short cuts that undermine who we are.

And there have been no circumstances during the course of this first 100 days in which I have seen information that would make me second guess the decision that I have made. OK?

Mark Knoller’s question was excellent. Obama responded with the naive ponder “could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques?” Obama would not answer the original Knoller question: what if the only way to get the information, which will save many lives, is by using torture “techniques”. That’s the rub.

Would Khalid Shaikh Mohammed have “cooperated” without the “good cop, bad cop” beatings alternated with sweet talk? Doubtful. He is a tough man undoubtedly trained to withstand less harsh interrogation. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, according to the 9/11 Commission Report was “the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks”. He is also thought to have had, or has confessed to, a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, the Operation Bojinka plot, an aborted 2002 attack on Los Angeles’ U.S. Bank Tower, the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, the Millennium Plot, and the murder of Daniel Pearl.

* * * * *

Michael Scherer, a journalist we increasingly respect for his non-fawning appearances regarding Obama, asked a good question too:

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. During the campaign, you criticized President Bush’s use of the state secrets privilege, but U.S. attorneys have continued to argue the Bush position in three cases in court. How exactly does your view of state secrets differ from President Bush’s? And do you believe presidents should be able to derail entire lawsuits about warrantless wiretapping or rendition if classified information is involved?

OBAMA: I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right now it’s overbroad.

But keep in mind what happens, is we come in to office. We’re in for a week, and suddenly we’ve got a court filing that’s coming up. And so we don’t have the time to effectively think through, what exactly should an overarching reform of that doctrine take? We’ve got to respond to the immediate case in front of us.

There — I think it is appropriate to say that there are going to be cases in which national security interests are genuinely at stake and that you can’t litigate without revealing covert activities or classified information that would genuinely compromise our safety.

But searching for ways to redact, to carve out certain cases, to see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court, you know, there should be some additional tools so that it’s not such a blunt instrument.

And we’re interested in pursuing that. I know that Eric Holder and Greg Craig, my White House counsel, and others are working on that as we speak.

Obama was surprised and did not think things through – that is his defense. We here at Big Pink were not surprised, nor should anyone with access to the court docket (meaning everybody with internet access) be surprised this issue would require a court filing early in the year. We wrote about this issue on February 10 and cited the remarkable quote from an U.S. Courthouse. Judge: “The change in administration has no bearing?” Obama lawyer: “No, your honor.”

The Obama campaign website addressed the issue which later surprised Obama. Obama says the issue was a surprise and he was unprepared and therefore invoked the state secrets priviledge as sort of a quickie response. A problem with that Obama rubbish is that the lawyers for the plaintiffs’ had agreed to extend the time for the Obama lawyers to respond. It was the Obama lawyers who stated they did not need an extension of time because they wanted to brief their ugly position in court. According to the Obama worshipping Huffington Post, Obama was asked whether he agreed with his own lawyers and whether Obama knew what his lawyers were briefing in these cases and the answer was “Absolutely, absolutely he does“.

Scherer’s question was a good one and Obama’s answer was a series of lies and rubbish. The New York Times editorialized regarding the Obama/Bush garbage:

Of the many ways that the Bush administration sought to evade accountability for its violations of the law and the Constitution under the cover of battling terrorism, one of the most appalling was its attempt to use inflated claims of state secrecy to slam shut the doors of the nation’s courthouses.

Sadly, the Obama administration also embraced this tactic, even though President Obama criticized the cult of secrecy while running for office, leaving it to the courts to stand up for transparency and accountability.

And that is just what a panel of the federal appeals court in San Francisco did on Tuesday by firmly rejecting the claim that the government can prevent a judge from even hearing those who say they were hurt by federal polices and actions.

Barack Obama and his supporters are the mirror image of George W. Bush and his supporters. If George W. Bush had said in a press conference what Obama said last night Democrats would be outraged and Big Media would be outraged.

Instead, Big Media and Dimocrats applaud as Obama Lies On Torture And State Secrets.


Another Obama Publicity Stunt Press Conference

The Fox network will air Lie To Me tonight while the other networks broadcast their version of the program – the third Obama press conference. It’s at 8:00 p.m. tonight.

We predict more promises and more excuses as to why the celestial choirs have not sung.

* * * * *

Some numbers: In 1976 on his 100 days in office Jimmy Carter had a 69 percent approval rating.

Jimmy Carter in 1977-1978 was also the last time there was a filibuster-proof congress.

Obama’s publicity stunt plane trip which scared New Yorkers cost $329,000.

Billions in excuses:

“That wasn’t me,” President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

It actually was him – and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years – who shaped a budget so out of balance.

And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still. [snip]

A look at some of his claims Wednesday:

OBAMA: “Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit…. That wasn’t me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you’ve got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they’re big, and they’ll make our deficits go up over the next two years.” – in Missouri.


Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama’s last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush’s final months – a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.


Swine Flew

Two videos and one report sum up the Obama boobery on this 99th day of torture and torment. We’ll discuss these two illuminating videos and the not startling report below. But first the big news from Pennsylvania.

* * * * *

Arlen Specter, the single bullet theory man, today announced he will return to being a Democrat (in 1965 Specter ran for office as a Democrat). Specter, no doubt is attracted to Obama’s history of betrayals and therefore will feel very comfortable in the melange which is the contemporary Dimocratic Party. Specter’s defection stabs in the back every Republican who supported Specter in earlier elections at their own electoral expense. The problem with backstabbers, as Dimocrats will soon discover with Specter, is they never stop backstabbing.

On November 11, 2008 we suggested (our 9th suggestion) that Republicans dump their failed leadership and rejoice as some of those leaders resign and leave. Today, as Specter betrayed the fools at the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, the necessary job of dumping failed leadership just became easier for Republicans.

In The Jar Jar Binks of American Politics we wrote:

We truly regret the Dimocrats did not get a 60 vote majority in the U.S. Senate on November 4. Our regret is genuine.

Our regret stems not only from the re-election of the utterly distasteful Republican Saxby Chambliss. [snip]

No, our regret stems largely from our sense that now the cowardly Dimocratic leadership will avail themselves of the very remote possibility of a Republican filibuster in the Senate as an excuse to not do what they promised to do but don’t want to do in the first place.

And of course the national Dimocratics have as their leader the Chicago master of excuses.

Specter’s defection along with the likely results in Minnesota will provide Senate Dimocrats with a 60 vote filibuster proof majority. The Dimocrats now have no excuse, not that they did before, to do whatever it is they want. Labor unions will soon learn that Obama cannot be trusted and would rather have union money and manpower by dangling carrots than by actually doing what labor wants. Other groups beside labor will also learn that what Obama and his Dimocrats say and what they do are two different things.

Specter switched parties because he knew he would lose the Republican primary. Specter followed in Joe Lieberman’s steps and sidestepped the judgement of party members who supported him throughout the years.

For the Republicans, Specter has been as reliable and trustworthy as Swiss weather.

News of Sen. Arlen Specter’s party switch today comes after months of strong statements to the contrary by the Pennsylvania Senator.

In a March 17th interview with The Hill, Specter said he absolutely would not switch parties:

[Democrats] are trying very hard for the 60th vote. Got to give them credit for trying. But the answer is no.

I’m not going to discuss private talks I had with other people who may or may not be considered influential. But since those three people are in the public domain, I think it is appropriative to respond to those questions.

I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That’s the basis of politics in America. I’m afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That’s a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers.

Specter’s defection was a surprise to hapless Republicans. Michael Steele, the Republican chairman was surprised too. It is yet to be determined whether Specter’s rejection of the card check legislation as well as words of opposition to the “reconciliation” process in the Senate, which would let the Dimocratic leadership to pass bills without big majorities, is a surprise to Dimocrats who are gleeful to have Specter in the fox hole next to them.

* * * * *

On this 99th day of torture, a nonpartisan report betrays the Big Media protection of stooge Barack Obama.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs along with Chapman University released a study which should clue Americans about the alleged Obama “popularity”. The study found that Obama got the best television news coverage since the studies began in 1988.

TV news election coverage of Barack Obama was twice as favorable as John McCain’s and Sarah Palin’s coverage, according to the a new report from the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) Election 2008 NewsWatch. Obama’s coverage was more favorable than any other presidential nominee’s coverage since CMPA began tracking TV election news in 1988. The study also found that Fox News Channel’s coverage was heavily negative toward Obama, but their coverage of McCain and Palin was also negative.

Among the major findings:

President-elect Barack Obama received 68% positive evaluations on the network evening news shows during the general election. His treatment was twice as favorable as John McCain’s 33% positive and Sarah Palin’s 34% positive evaluations. [snip]

Obama’s 68% positive press is the strongest showing CMPA has ever recorded for a presidential candidate, since we began monitoring election news in 1988. He easily eclipsed previous leader John Kerry’s 59% positive evaluations on network news in 2004. Conversely, McCain’s tally of 33% positive evaluations was the worst showing since George H.W. Bush received only 29% positive press in 1988. [snip]

Obama’s 2 to 1 lead in good press also held true for the candidates’ issue coverage, which includes evaluations of their policies and proposals. A slight majority (53%) of statements about Obama’s policies and proposals were favorable, compared to one out of four (24%) favorable comments about McCain and one out of six (16%) favorable toward Palin. The combined totals were 52% positive issue coverage of the Democrats and 24% positive toward the GOP. [snip]

The three broadcast networks were very similar in the tone of their coverage. ABC and CBS had 68% positive coverage of Obama. NBC gave Obama 73% positive coverage. The networks were similar in the negative coverage of McCain. McCain received only 31% positive coverage on NBC, 33% positive coverage on CBS, and 36% positive coverage on ABC. [snip]

…the more positive evaluations that his policies received, suggest that Obama’s more favorable coverage on the network broadcasts did not simply reflect the “good news” of his lead in the polls.)

On the network newscasts, the Democratic ticket received 91% positive comments about their standing and prospects in the horse race, compared to only 31% positive comments about the Republicans – a margin of 60 percentage points. On FOX the Democratic margin was smaller – 73% positive horse race evaluations compared to 49% positive evaluations of the Republican ticket – a 24 percentage point margin.

The study should put to an end any question, even among the Hopium addled, that Obama is a Big Media stooge and creation.

The nonpartisan research group Center for Media and Public Affairs along with California’s Chapman University released a study that found the nightly newscasts devoted 27 hours, 44 minutes to Pres. Obama’s presidency in his first 50 days. That compares to 7 hours, 42 minutes for Pres. George W. Bush and 15 hours, 2 minutes for Pres. Bill Clinton during the first 50 days of their first terms.

Not only has Obama gotten more coverage, but that coverage has been more positive than his predecessors.

On the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts, 58% of all evaluations of the president and his policies have been favorable, while 42% were unfavorable. That compares with 33% positive in the comparable period of Bush’s tenure and 44% positive for Pres. Clinton.

It does not matter what the vote count is if you are the one counting the votes. It does not matter how good or bad a contestant is when the judges will give a “10” no matter how bad the performance. Obama is a boob, but his Big Media masters approve and applaud of every boobery.

* * * * *

While Americans are scrimping and saving Obama is living high on the hog.

Obama feasts on Arugula and $100 imported steaks. On Earth Day Obama wastes tons of jet fuel in order to “stand before windmills” and emit hot air.

Two videos betray what Obama is all about.

Yesterday Obama decided to burn expensive fuel required to fly a 747 and F-16 fighter jets – for a photograph.

An administration official says a presidential Boeing 747 and a fighter jet flew low near ground zero in New York City Monday because the White House Military Office wanted to update its file photo of the president’s plane near the Statue of Liberty.

No doubt that file photo will be worshipped and published by Big Media without discusson of cost.

There was a emotional cost as well to New Yorkers as the plane tortured and tormented them.

Mayor Bloomberg was not happy with Obama’s boobery but not so unhappy as to denounce spend, spend, spend, Obama. Bloomberg wants an Obama endorsement in the 2010 mayoral race.

Sources said the chief reason for the panic-inducing flight was to create souvenir pictures of Air Force One flying over the Statue of Liberty to be given out – like a presidential tie clip – to family, friends or supporters.

If Bloomberg does not get an Obama endorsement, perhaps he will get one of those expensive Obama photographs paid for by American taxpayers.

The planes appeared on the horizon around 10 a.m. and sent a chill through the city.

Flying in as low as 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet above New York City, they circled the Statue of Liberty before flying over Manhattan, Staten Island and New Jersey.

Before they vanished, hundreds of frightened people had jammed emergency phone lines, and thousands of terrified people evacuated from buildings in the city and across the river in New Jersey.

“I was crying and praying to God to forgive me my sins because I thought I was going to get killed,” said Kathleen Filandro, who fled from 1New York Plaza when she spotted the planes.

“It’s like someone coming up to you, sticking a gun to your head for 15 seconds, walking away and hearing 20 minutes later it was an undercover cop posing for a photo,” said Wall Street worker Bill Privett.

“I am still shaking,” he said.

Those left shaking will not get an expensive, taxpayer paid photograph, from Obama unless they contribute big bucks to Obama, or maybe get him a house in Chicago or Washington.

It was just another Obama photo op. It’s a photo op B.O. administration. It was an expensive and secret photo op because the waste of money had to be kept secret from sensitive tax payers who don’t want their money wasted.

Yesterday, insensitive photo op Swine flew.

* * * * *

We confess. When George W. Bush was president we, along with our friends, fellow Democrats, enjoyed mocking the boob. There was almost a joy watching George W. Bush stumble and mumble. We Democrats felt so superior. We particularly got angry and mocking when we witnessed George W. Bush on September 11, 2001 reading My Pet Goat while planes hit.

We Democrats agreed: George W. Bush was a hapless boob. My Pet Goat was only a confirmation of what we knew to be true.

Yesterday we saw the same pathetic mindless boobery on Barack Obama’s face. The same lost look. The same hapless deer-in-the-headlights fear.

Someday, Dimocrats will wake up from their Hopium addled narcolepsy.

When will that day be?

When pigs fly.

Yesterday, Swine flew.


Drag Queen Obama

Increasingly, Barack Obama is a drag queen impersonator of Condolezza Rice.

Remember Condolezza Rice? “Kind-of-sleezy” Rice, as she was unaffectionately known, hid from the obvious and made amazing excuses for why she did not see what was staring her right in the face.

Those of us who attended the hearings held to investigate events surrounding the August 6, 2001 intelligence briefing called “Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States” will always recall Rice enumerate the many reasons why she and George W. Bush were surprised when Bin Laden attacked inside the United States. The fact that a document called “Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States” existed, was prepared for George and Condi, and they actually were given the document, still did not prepare them for the “surprise” attack.

Drag Queen Rice impersonator Obama is also getting clear signals of the economic disaster the United States faces but Obama remains oblivious.

Well, not exactly oblivious. Obama is lying and misrepresenting what the critics of his “plans” are saying. Obama supporters are engaged in the same misrepresentations.

Jay Cost today calls Obama a “Sophist” – a polite, roundabout way of saying “liar” in modern day America. Jay Cost quotes Obama and eventually get’s quite angry:

This is from the President’s remarks at the National Academy of Science:

At such a difficult moment, there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science. That support for research is somehow a luxury at a moment defined by necessities. I fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been.

Who the hell is saying we cannot afford to invest in science? Isn’t the real argument about whether we can spend so much more (fully 3% of GDP) on science, and revitalize the economy, and save the banks, and save the Big Three, and spend more on education, and reform health care, and revolutionize the energy sector all at the same time?

I have heard “there are those who say…” from this President quite a bit in the last three months. I think it’s time he start naming names. Who are these people who hold such backward-looking, unacceptable positions? If they are elected members of the government, shouldn’t the President tell us who they are so we can vote them out? If they are unelected, how is it they have such power?

Or maybe there are no such people, at least not of such relevance they deserve specific mention by the President. Maybe this is just a rhetorical trick designed to make Mr. Obama’s position seem like the only one allowed by common sense.

Cost invokes the word “demagogic” to describe Obama’s exploitation of the current swine flu fad.

The swine flu outbreak is a reason to amp up funding for the sciences? This is playing on public fears to advance a political agenda that’s only tangentially related to said fears.

And, of course, no presidential address would be complete without a gratuitous shot at his predecessor. Even a speech on science.

Cost rightly slams Obama for mischaracterizing the position of opponents on issues such as stem cell research as well as on Obama’s attempt to divorce science from ideology (Cost lampoons politicians who make “science” decisions to further political objectives). Those of us who support stem cell research still recognize Obama’s lazy habits and cheap rationalizations for positions which require actual thought not demagogic posturing.

Cost, an Obama admirer if not a supporter, is now aware Obama is not who he thought.

One reason that I was so interested in candidate Obama in 2007 was that he seemed to have the same broad orientation to politics as I do. [snip]

Yet I am sick and tired of the President’s rhetorical sophistry – and if Frank Newport called me up today, I would say that I disapprove of the job he is doing. If Scott Rasmussen’s computer called me, I’d say that I strongly disapprove. A President should not be mischaracterizing, and working actively to alienate, as much as 40% of his consistency – especially after he promised he wouldn’t.

* * * * *

Obama and his supporters, especially the unthinking think they know-it-all Hopium addled addicts, think they know it all, and like Condi and George before them, will one day express surprise at the economic mess Obama contributes to the economic mess we are in.

Obama Big Media supporter Albert Hunt, a Tim Russert entitlement fraudster, is the latest to warn Americans of the Obama mess and warn Obama he is making a mess:

The context is a looming policy and fiscal clash: Obama’s economic, energy, health-care and education initiatives are expensive, and the U.S. faces trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

The president can make a compelling case that these priorities are urgent and can help revive the economy. Still, those initiatives, and a strong economy, may be unattainable without fiscal discipline elsewhere. [snip]

The small stuff, such as Obama’s directive to his agencies to cut a total of $100 million from their budgets, may score political points for the president. He’s talked a good game on some of the bigger-ticket items, while showing no inclination to fight for them. His apologists say he has higher priorities.

If it persists, this will produce one of two train wrecks: decimating his health-care and energy initiatives or imperiling a long term, fiscally sound economy.

Our British cousins are delivering the same memo to Obama about the economy and the mess that Obama is contributing:

There are three levers the federal government can pull in the face of this crisis: monetary easing, fiscal stimulus and bank recapitalisation. Obama has used all three but so far ineffectively. In each case, he has run into obstacles rooted deep in the US institutional set-up, indeed deep in the country’s psyche.

On monetary policy, Obama has remained a bystander to the efforts of Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve. Having reached close to zero interest rates in December, Bernanke announced the Fed would print money in an attempt to bring down real interest rates. [snip]

Obama is surrounded by decision-makers who had “drunk the Kool Aid” during the subprime bubble and were profoundly committed to the neoliberal ideology of self-regulation that has now fallen apart. Only the fiscal stimulus truly bears Obama’s chosen brand values of audacity and untaintedness. But this, too, is proving heavily problematic. [snip]

The stimulus would achieve the administration’s social objectives as well as a raw macroeconomic boost. But this has now run up against reality.

In the first place, the mechanisms for turning public money into private-sector jobs are as crumbly as the concrete that holds up America’s freeways. [snip]

But opposition to the stimulus goes much wider than this. It is visceral, widespread and real. Elkhart’s Republican congressman Mark Souder sums up the objection: “Historically, our model has a bit more of a boom-bust element to it, but every time we’ve had these busts we came roaring out. If we change to become more like Europe, sure we’ll stabilise. But we’ll never be the growth engine and the protector of the world again.”

As Obama’s 100th day approaches, the dangers looming on the economic front are clear: neither on monetary, fiscal nor banking policy is there a tangibly successful programme in place. Meanwhile, the economic pain is getting worse, encouraging his opponents to chip away at his credibility.

The bank bail-out will transfer large amounts of taxpayers’ money to the bankers, while at least some of the fiscal stimulus money will be redistributed to the poor and to the welfare system. Middle America, already mad at both policies at the gut level of economic principles, will get even madder if they don’t work.

The warning documents even come from Obama Big Media supporters at Newsweek:

The trajectory of Obama’s presidency might have been determined by what he did in his first 100 days. His budget calls for doubling the national debt in five years and almost tripling it in 10. If the necessary government borrowing soon causes a surge in long-term interest rates, the result will be the 1970s redux—inflation and stagnation.

Americans are increasingly angry with the Obama spend, spend, spend. The torrential waste of money on economic deserts will increase the anger.

Born in 1915 and still working, monetarist Anna Schwartz is also issuing a strong warning:

Inflation seems to her “unavoidable”: the Federal Reserve is creating money with little restraint, while Treasury expenditures remain far in excess of revenue. The inflation spigot is thus wide open.

Obama and his unthinking think they know-it-all Hopium addled supporters ignore the economic warnings in the same way Condi and George ignored the Bin Laden will attack inside the United States memorandum.

Obama continues to channel his inner Condi Rice.

It won’t be long before Barack borrows the fashion designer to drag queens from Michelle and dons a sleeveless frock for a night on the town.


Obama Plants Seeds Of Destruction

Marc Antony Ambinder of The Atlantic set out to praise Obama and instead buried him. Ambinder set out to answer the fake and loaded question Why Is Obama So Frackin Popular?  [The New York Post also has an assessment of Obama’s first 100 mistakes days.]

In his article Ambinder does not mention Obama’s penchant to distract and bamboozle – just like any ordinary con man three-card monte flim-flam man. For instance n this day 97 of the first 100 days of torment and torture Obama is busy golfing to distract Big Media boys while swine flu is declared a national emergency.

To his credit Ambinder does note “old guard” caveats that Big Media does not hold Obama to the same standards as Republicans (imagine if Bush went golfing while swine flu spread) and that Obama is basically as popular as most presidents in the first 100 days. The “old guard” also explains that the media and the political culture are treating the new president with too much respect…

Ambinder’s 5 reasons for why Obama is so frackin popular include the sensible notion that Democrats are providing most of the uplift (95%) with overwhelming support, just like Republicans did for George W. Bush. Ambinder is wrong when he expresses that Obama’s policy and personality are “perfect for moderate Democrats”. Ambinder is fluffing when he states that Obama is loved and trusted by independents. That is utter nonsense as polls show independents slipping away and worried about deficits and Obama’s spend, spend, spend philosophy.

Ambinder is on safer ground by saying that Republicans have not “begun to recover” from the past three to four years. But do Republicans really need to recover that much or do they simply have to wait for reality to set in with the American electorate? Ambinder fluffs again when he writes Obama’s figured out a way to appear bipartisan without getting Republican votes.

Ambinder eventually stumbles into Obama’s fresh dug grave and why spend, spend, spend makes for temporary popularity:

The first 100 days, the government created trillions of dollars out of thin air, has cut taxes, has given billions and billions to client groups, state governments and corporations. Give, give, give. Not much has been asked in return. Obama’s toughest call — whether to send troops to Afghanistan — is going to cost him politically when there’s a spike in violence — or when Pakistan explodes — but this hasn’t happened yet.

All grifting big spenders are popular, until they stop spending and leave unpaid bills and broken hearts. The drifter uncle with the “hot tip” on the race horse that will make everyone rich fools the kids as he spends, spends, spends… but wise parents know the money will dry up and they and the kids will wind up paying for the flashy, fast-talkin’, relative who will soon move on to scam others out of their money and pride.

And Obama is not that frakin popular. Obama ain’t all that. Obama ain’t that special. Obama should be kicked to the curb.

Obama isn’t that special. As Thomas Mann notes, the doubling of the the rate of disapproval among Republicans and the resulting pattern in the numbers suggests that Obama isn’t all that different from other, ideologically polarizing presidents. But, as Mann notes, it is one thing to remain popular when crisis aren’t pervasive; it is quite another to keep the numbers up when you’re forced to sell unpopular economic policies (TARP, bailouts) as a means towards keeping those numbers up.

Obama ain’t all that. Ambinder cites Thomas Mann of the Brookings institute and concludes:

He’s not terribly confident that this state of affairs will last forever, and he thinks that Obama will someone have to force the Republicans to cooperate with him at some point in the near future. And he thinks that, at some point, a receipt for the public’s veneration of Obama and the institution of the presidency will come due.

Conservative Reihan Salam thinks Republicans might not have to do anything to defeat Obama. Sure, he’s got 65 percent approval ratings now, but there are already signs of an economic calamity that could hand the next election to the GOP. Whether he is right or wrong about a sit and watch posture for Republicans, Salam thinks Obama will run out of luck by the next presidential election because of the seeds Obama is planting now .

At 65 percent, the president’s approval rating is nowhere near the bizarrely high 83 percent Ronald Reagan reached after his first 100 days. Granted, Obama has the added advantage of facing a self-immolating opposition party. It’s extremely hard to imagine the Republicans getting their act together in the near future, and by the near future I mean “the next decade.” Yet Republicans don’t actually need to get their act together to defeat Obama in 2012. The coming economic apocalypse will do the job for them.

Salam thinks the Establishment is so invested in Obama that when Obama fails a whole system will go down with him. Additionally Salem believes the economic crisis “is actually accelerating”.

When FDR took office in 1933, the economy had already been in a spiral of decline for years, and his first term saw a fairly dramatic fall in the unemployment rate. [snip]

Chances are that the sharp increase in unemployment has just begun. [snip]

Few observers doubt that the unemployment rate will soon reach double digits, and there’s reason to believe that it won’t stop there. FDR could honestly tell his battered and bruised Republican rivals that the unemployment rate was never as high as it was when he took office. Obama, in contrast, might be placed in the awkward position of acknowledging that the unemployment rate has never been as low as it was when he first took office.

Obama is planting his own Seeds Of Destruction and will take down the newly minted Dimocratic Party:

If the nation’s biggest banks face the prospect of going under, they’ll be bailed out. The same goes for the Big Three automakers, and the list will go on. There may well be good reasons for Obama’s itchy intervention finger, but there’s a real danger that we’ll be left with zombie banks, zombie industries, and a zombie economy that limps along, bleeding jobs and growth for years. Think of this as removing a Band-Aid really, really, really slowly.

What happens next? Honestly, what happens next is even scarier. The Establishment—the academic and policy elite, Wall Street, famous sexy people—are more invested in Obama than they’ve been in any president in decades. If Obama fails, a whole system will go down with him.

The Democratic Party will have to be rebuilt. The senseless Republicans will have learned nothing. The United States will continue to circle the drain.

The Republicans will win by default, and they’ll have learned nothing from over a decade of borderline-imbecilic unforced errors.

* * * * *

Hopium addled addicts will scoff. Things are not so bad they will say. But the view of America, Big Media Obama fawning, and Obama hypocrisy, from across the sea is bleak:

As the White House prepares to reach the 100 days milestone since President Obama’s inauguration, it is being true to the form shown over the preceding 99: to exploit ruthlessly American politics while simultaneously asking that the President be judged by a different standard. [snip]

His approval ratings, hovering in the low 60s, are almost identical to those of George Bush eight years ago. Aides say that Mr Obama’s popularity is neither unique nor permanent. One described how he no longer sits in meetings thinking: “Wow!, we’ve got this amazing black President!” Instead, Mr Obama is a politician grappling with enormous problems and making a slow descent to earth.

Even the Washington Post is waking up to the resistant, poignant, Hopium addled victims and addicts Going From ‘Fired Up’ to Tired Out:

Across the dark living room, one of Childs’s favorite pictures is displayed on a worn coffee table. It shows Childs with her arms wrapped around Barack Obama, his hand on her back, her eyes glowing. [snip]

But now, as Obama nears the 100-day milestone of his presidency, Childs suffers from constant exhaustion. In a conservative Southern state that bolstered Obama’s candidacy by supporting him early in the Democratic primaries, she awakens at 2:30 a.m. with stress headaches and remains awake mulling all that’s befallen Greenwood since Obama’s swearing-in.

On Day 4 of his presidency, the Solutia textile plant laid off 101 workers. On Day 23, the food bank set a record for meals served. On Day 50, the hospital fired 200 employees and warned of further job cuts. On Day 71, the school superintendent called a staff meeting and told his principals: “We’re losing 10 percent of our budget. That means some of us won’t have jobs next year, and the rest should expect job changes and pay cuts.” On Day 78, the town’s newly elected Democratic mayor, whose campaign was inspired partly by his admiration for Obama, summarized Greenwood’s accelerating fragility. “This is crippling us, and there’s no sign of it turning around,” Welborn Adams said.

On Day 88, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that South Carolina had set a record for its highest unemployment rate in state history, at 11.4 percent. Greenwood’s unemployment is 13 percent — more than twice what it was when Childs first started chanting.

“We have a lot of people who live in cold houses, with no jobs and no food,” Childs says.

Childs should have read our many articles on how Obama treated his constituents in Chicago in the freezing winter cold to understand that Obama can’t be trusted. Childs finds her enthusiasm has faded into a wary optimism.

“I never used to get tired, but I’m running out of energy,” she says. “It’s stressful. Maybe one problem gets fixed, but it’s not fixed for long, and while you’ve been doing that, four other people have called asking for help.”

Another Obama supporter, Hackett, lies to herself about Obama:

“There are no jobs in all of Greenwood,” she says. “I think we’re going to become a ghost town, or maybe some kind of town for rich, retired people.”

She voted for Obama and still holds out hope for the man she calls a “people’s president,” but she’s not interested in hearing his stories about flying to Europe or fighting pirates. “I guess he’s just working his way down the list, and he’ll get to us,” she says.

The Antoin “Tony” Rezko rich friends are first on the list but the Hopium is strong and Obama supporters will Hope themselves into oblivion and ignore the reality of Obama’s history.

During the final stages of the presidential campaign, Hackett obsessively tracked Obama on CNN and spent Election Day driving her neighbors to the polls so they could vote for him, but now she avoids watching the news. It puts her in “a dark mood,” she says. [snip]

“If I don’t distract myself, it starts getting depressing,” she says. “Every day is long, and I’m just looking for ways to pass them. It’s hard not to let my mind start thinking, ‘Am I ever going to get myself out of this?’ “

It is sad and painful to watch the Hopium addled.  At the end of the Post story the valiant and struggling, hopeful, Childs discovers Tea Parties, continues to defend Obama and regurgitates Dimocratic propaganda against those rotton Republicans and white people – but there is no denying the echo of the Tea Parties and the calls on her answering machine:

Just before 1 p.m., she pulls into Greenwood’s normally deserted downtown for a few more errands and notices a large crowd gathered in front of the courthouse. More than 200 people are dressed in red, white and blue and are waving miniature American flags. Childs asks a friend for details and learns that it is a “tea party” to protest Obama’s economic policies, one of about 1,000 similar events coordinated on Tax Day across the country.

“Of course it’s going to be a lot of white Republicans, and mostly men,” Childs says as she walks through the crowd and finds a spot alone at the rear of the plaza. “I want to see this, but I’m keeping my distance.”

In a state that voted 54 percent for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, Childs has heard plenty of anti-Obama rhetoric. “Most people around here know where I stand and let me be,” she says. “People are too polite to be nasty.” So she shakes her head in disbelief as she reads the angry messages scrawled on the poster boards in front of her.

“Say NO to Obama and Socialism!”


“Who cares what Obama says? America IS a Christian nation.”

Childs puckers her lips and listens as Greenwood residents take turns stepping to the podium and shouting through a megaphone. Their speeches revolve around the same themes Childs hears in her phone messages, except what she identified as the solution to Greenwood’s problems is what these speakers now disparage as the cause.

“We all know this president is the major problem,” David O. Davis III says. “I’ve got friends with families who are losing their jobs, getting laid off.”

We’re struggling to pay our bills and get by,” Cathy Heitzenrater says. “We’re feeling disenfranchised from our own country and disappointed about who’s running it.”

“Vote the bum out,” R.J. Fife says.

After each speaker finishes, Childs retreats a few steps farther from the crowd. A part of her would like to go grab the bullhorn and tell these people to “keep their mouths shut and give Obama a little time,” she says. But she woke up at 3 a.m. again this morning, and she can’t go home for a nap until she pays $100 on a constituent’s bill at the water company and stops by a city office to inquire about possible job openings for Hackett.

“Let them have their tea party,” Childs says. “They’re just looking for somebody to blame. My ears are full.”

She walks away from the courthouse as the crowd joins into chorus to sing the national anthem.


HELP! We’re Being Tortured!

Angels and ministers of grace defend us.

It’s almost 100 days of torture and we can’t take it anymore.

Any doubt that torture works has been removed. Torture works – and it hurts, it hurts.

* * * * *

It is torture to be subjected to so many supposedly intelligent people poring over so many words and events and miss the obvious.

Let’s solve one major mystery immediately before addressing the issue of torture and whether the United States should engage in it. Why did Obama reverse what he and his flacks have been saying for so long? Simple answer: no TelePrompter.

The New York Times could not divine that simple answer. They were stumped at the Grey Lady:

President Obama on Tuesday left open the door to creating a bipartisan commission that would investigate the Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects, and he did not rule out taking action against the lawyers who fashioned the legal guidelines for the interrogations.

Mr. Obama, who has been saying that the nation should look ahead rather than focusing on the past, said he is “not suggesting” that a commission be established.

But in response to questions from reporters in the Oval Office, he said, “if and when there needs to be a further accounting,” he hoped that Congress would examine ways to obtain one “in a bipartisan fashion,” from people who are independent and therefore can build credibility with the public.

Get it? The Obama flacks were stating policy but Obama himself is such a dimwit eager to please boob he made a mess of things. Answering questions without a TelePrompter and without preparation Obama bungled his answer.

Earlier in the week, Obama had ordered release of memoranda on the justifications for “harsh interrogations” prepared by the George W. Bush administration. That led to calls by former Vice President Dick Cheney for release of additional memos which supposedly would prove the “harsh interrogations” had extracted valuable information and had made the nation safe from more 9/11 style attacks. That increased the hubbub even more and all sorts of elected officials started saying all sorts of things.

Jane Harman became involved in a mess of what did she know and what did she promise to whom. Nancy Pelosi and Dimocrats all over the place denied they knew about the torture even as evidence increased that they indeed had been informed of the torture and even protested about whether the agency was doing enough.

Old stories resurfaced about Democrats Pelosi and Jane Harman and Bob Graham and Jay Rockefeller and their C.I.A. tours through detention sites and the “harsh techniques“. It became torture just to try to keep the stories straight. It was torture to try to figure out what was what. (It promises to get messier as the Justice Department, because of an ACLU lawsuit, will release lots more photographs of abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq.)

The mess forced Obama to visit the Central Intelligence Agency to assure them he was going to “protect” them. C.I.A. officials soon learned Obama can’t be trusted.

Mr. Obama tried to calm the situation on Monday with his first visit to C.I.A. headquarters since taking office. Concerned about alienating the agency, Mr. Obama went out of his way to lavish praise on intelligence officers, using words like “indispensable,” “courage” and “remarkable” and promising his “support and appreciation.”

Past Directors of the C.I.A. and Leon Panetta, had told Obama not to release the memoranda. Obama however released the memoranda in order to continue his “blame Bush” justifications.

Most importantly, Obama knows better than to mess with people who know the secrets. It wasn’t morale Obama was worried about when he visited the C.I.A. Aides said Mr. Obama worried about damaging morale at the C.I.A. and his own relationship with the agency. That’s right B.O. – don’t mess with the people who know the secrets and can expose your own dirty deeds.

The C.I.A. immediately fought back against Obama. The Agency stood by a May 30, 2005 memorandum which stated that “waterboarding” had extracted information from Al Qaeda leader and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad which helped thwart another hijacked airliner attack on Los Angeles. Waterboarding was employed on Sheik Mohammad and two others.

This was because the CIA imposed very tight restrictions on the use of waterboarding. “The ‘waterboard,’ which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits,” explained the May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo. “It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has ‘credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent’; ‘substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack’; and ‘[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.’”

And there are a lot of dirty deeds to expose. Dimocrats originally thought it would be Bush administration officials who would be burned by the memoranda and therefore yelled for investigations of the torture and the torturers. Bushies like John C. Yoo, Jay S. Bybee and Steven G. Bradbury, the lawyers who prepared the “torture” memoranda were the original targets of the proposed investigations. When it became apparent that Pelosi and her fellow Dimocrats were complicit in the torture, the idea of investigations became less tasty.

The torture will eventually be investigated but not with regard to what Dimocrats knew and when Dimocrats knew it. The Senate Armed Services Committee will release a report and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees think they want some sort of “Truth Commission”. If laws were broken, and there is sufficient evidence to suggest laws were broken, the executive branch of government must investigate. But Obama is not one to care about illegal activity nor its prosecution.

Obama will huff n’ puff about lost moral bearings. But the law? Pish-posh. For Chicago politicians like Obama, the law is something to be evaded not enforced.

Obama’s mistake was to answer questions without a TelePrompter nor an aide around to slap down his stupid answers. In Big Media world, that simple explanation never was suspected. Big Media scratched it’s collective head and wracked it’s collective “brain” to try and figure out why boob Obama had done such a stupid thing.

* * * * *

Torture works. What “works” means is open to a lot of questions. But torture “works”. Schoolyard bullies know torture works and that they can force their victims to denounce mothers as combat boot wearing horrors and themselves as whatever the bully wants.

Torture works. Torture anyone who denies that torture works and you will force them to say torture works.

The schoolyard bully who tortures and torments victims is a less developed practitioner of the grisly arts perfected by “intelligence” agencies around the world. But that schoolyard bully is an everyday manifestation of the hidden arts practiced by grown ups in secret agencies and for pay.

Torture works. The current debate on torture has to start off from that simple premise. If torture does not work then we merely have a simple argument about governments and their “intelligence” agencies doing something stupid which they can stop doing without harm to the national interests. But the reason “torture” is torture to figure out is because it does work. Here is a good explanation by Gary Kamiya who invokes the categorical imperative and explains the issue better than he answers it:

Torture is wrong. It is condemned by every civilized nation and by international law. There is, however, one situation in which torture might theoretically be morally justified. This is the so-called “ticking bomb” scenario, which in one form or another has been debated by philosophers and ethicists for hundreds of years. Suppose we know that a captive has planted a bomb in a school, which is due to explode in a few hours. The captive refuses to say in what school he planted the bomb. Are we justified in torturing one depraved individual to save the lives of hundreds of innocent children?

In their response, philosophers divide into two camps. The Kantians, those who believe that human beings have a categorical imperative to treat other humans as ends, not as means, say we are never justified in torturing, no matter how legitimate the goal. The Benthamites or utilitarians say that we are justified, because in this case torture is the lesser of two evils. [snip]

Obama’s intelligence director, Dennis Blair, echoed this argument in a memo, writing, “High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the Al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” Former Bush intelligence chief Michael Hayden said, “The use of these techniques against these terrorists really did make us safer, it really did work.”

The argument that torture works cannot simply be dismissed. During World War II, for example, the Gestapo used torture with considerable effectiveness on captured agents working for Britain’s Special Operations Executive, the top-secret organization dedicated to sabotage and subversion behind Axis lines. A number of agents, unable to withstand the pain or, in some cases, even the prospect of pain, told their captors everything they knew, including the identity of other agents, the arrival time of flights, and the location of safe houses. During France’s brutal war in Algeria, the colonial power used torture effectively. As historian Alistair Horne, the author of the classic analysis of the French-Algerian war, “A Savage War of Peace,” told me in a 2007 interview, “In Algeria, the French used torture — as opposed to abuse — very effectively as an instrument of war.

Torture works. We knew torture works as children, either by stories of schoolyard bullies, or after watching World War II Gestapo potboilers (such as the James Cagney film 13 Rue Madelaine in which secret agent Jimmy is a target of an air raid. Jimmy must be killed by his own friends because he knows important secret information and is being tortured by the Gestapo for that information. The good guys know it is only a matter of time before good ol’ Jimmy “breaks” and they sadly order his death by air raid. As the bombs fall Jimmy happily sneers that his secrets will be kept safe.)

Gary Kamiya explains the philosophical arguments well but wimps out by stating that the “ticking bomb scenario” is not a genuine one just a schoolroom discussion subject.

Readers of Big Pink will remember the “ticking bomb scenario” from our September 27, 2007 article Hillary Clinton and American Voters Lied To By Tim Russert. Remember that article?

Russert posed a question premised on a discussion with Bill Clinton on Meet The Press last September 25, 2006. Russert kept hidden that the discussion was with Bill Clinton. Hillary objected to the Russert hypothetical as “dangerous” because it opens “a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone”. Russert then, trap baited, went in for the “gotcha” kill.

Russert finally disclosed that “The guest who laid out this scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year. So he disagrees with you.”

Russert lied. Here is the “gotcha” question transcript which includes the “ticking bomb” scenario:

RUSSERT: I want to move to another subject, and this involves a comment that a guest on “Meet the Press” made, and I want to read it, as follows: “Imagine the following scenario. We get lucky. We get the number three guy in Al Qaida. We know there’s a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don’t we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him? You could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon.”

[snip – other candidate answers]

CLINTON: As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period.

I met with those same three- and four-star retired generals, and their principal point — in addition to the values that are so important for our country to exhibit — is that there is very little evidence that it works.

Now, there are a lot of other things that we need to be doing that I wish we were: better intelligence; making, you know, our country better respected around the world; working to have more allies.

But these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it’s dangerous to go down this path.

RUSSERT: The guest who laid out this scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year. So he disagrees with you.

Russert lied. Bill Clinton did not disagree with Hillary Clinton. Hillary did not have the transcript of the Bill Clinton interview to smack Russert with but she nevertheless slapped Russert down hard. Russert never recovered and NBC never stopped attacking Hillary. We posted then the transcript of the Bill Clinton appearance Russert had referenced and lied about – which is very relevant today:

MR. RUSSERT: What did you think when Colin Powell said, “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism”?

MR. CLINTON: I think he was referring to the, the questions that have been raised about the original evidence, which plagues him and in which he was, I think, unwittingly complicit. I don’t think—I think it’s pretty clear, based on what all the people that worked for him have said. I think he was most worried about the question of torture and the conduct of the prisons at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. And of course, he weighed in in this debate about the extent to which the CIA or others could engage in conduct which clearly violates the Geneva Convention.

Now, we—as you and I talk, and we hear that they’ve reached an agreement, the senators and the White House, and I hope they have. But Colin pointed out that, you know, we’ve got soldiers all over the world. If we get a reputation for torturing people, the following bad things are going to happen: We’re as likely going to get bad information is good, just for people to just quit getting beat on; two, we’re likely to create two or three or five enemies for every one we break; and three, we make our own soldiers much more vulnerable to conduct which violates the Geneva Convention. That is, we can’t expect our friends, much less our enemies, to accept the fact that because we’re the good guys, we get to have a different standard of conduct. And most people think the definition of a good guy is someone who voluntarily observes a different standard of conduct, not someone who claims the right to do things others can’t do.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you outlaw waterboarding and sleep deprivation, loud music, all those kinds of tactics?

MR. CLINTON: Well, I—here’s what I would do. I would figure out what the, what the generally accepted definitions of the Geneva Convention are, and I would honor them. I would also talk to people who do this kind of work about what is generally most effective, and they will—they’re almost always not advocate of torture, and I wouldn’t do anything that would put our own people at risk.

Now, the thing that drives—that, that gives the president’s position a little edge is that every one of us can imagine the following scenario: We get lucky, we get the number three guy in al-Qaeda, and we know there’s a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don’t we have the right and the responsibility to beat it out of him? But keep in mind, in 99 percent of the interrogations, you don’t know those things.

Now, it happens like even in the military regulations, in a case like that, they do have the power to use extreme force because there is an imminent threat to the United States, and then to live with the consequences. The president—they could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon or could guarantee the submission of that sort of thing ex post facto to the intelligence court, just like we do now with wire taps.

So I, I don’t think that hard case justifies the sweeping authority for waterboarding and all the other stuff that, that was sought in this legislation. And I think, you know, if that circumstance comes up—we all know what we’d do to keep our country from going through another 9/11 if we could. But to—but to claim in advance the right to do this whenever someone takes a notion to engage in conduct that plainly violates the Geneva Convention, that, I think, is a mistake.

We wrote at the time:

Bill Clinton on Meet The Press told Tim Russert that it “is a mistake” to have an advance policy of torture. Hillary said about torture “As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period.” There is no difference between Bill and Hillary Clinton on torture policy, contrary to Russert’s assertions. In fact, Hillary seemed to track closely Bill Clinton on the mistake that is torture. Hillary noted her conversations with various military generals (as did Obama), all of whom stated to her that regarding torture “there is very little evidence that it works”.

Are Hillary and Bill Clinton in disagreement with us? Does torture not work? Are Hillary and Bill Clinton wrong? Are we wrong?

NO to all the above.

Torture “works” if the definition is a limited one. Yes, torture does work, even friendly “good cop” persuasion “works”, to get false confessions – that is something even the drowsiest police department knows. The difficulty is not in forcing a statement out of a suspect or a schoolyard victim – the problem is getting the truth – and then figuring out whether the suspect knows the truth.

For instance, if you want a great outfit for opening night at the Metropolitan or Paris Opera, you can torture Michelle Obama in order to get the name of her “designer” and all her style tips. However, once you get that information it will do you no good because Michelle Obama’s clothing knowledge is not worth much.

Likewise, a terrorist suspect might provide information regarding bombings but it is possible that the terrorist suspect has been misinformed by his compatriots or does not have the information sought and therefore will either make it up or lie. The trick is to get the truth from someone that knows the truth in a timely manner.

What Hillary and Bill Clinton both understood is that torture as national policy is not a good idea. As a policy torture does generally not work. The extremely ugly truth that Bill and Hillary Clinton understand is that the United States should be absolutely against torture as a policy, but in case of that 1% emergency, all bets are off, and everything must be considered. Bill Clinton put it this way: And I think, you know, if that circumstance comes up—we all know what we’d do to keep our country from going through another 9/11 if we could.

Yes, it is a nod and a wink understanding that torture is to be rejected in 99% of cases, but that in a “ticking bomb” scenario, the options remain open to consideration. It is not an absolutist, egghead, philosophical answer. It is a real life scenario answer with all the real life complexities.

Hillary and Bill Clinton distinguish between the ugly garbage that occurred at Abu Ghraib prison and the “ticking bomb” scenario. At Abu Gharib, and in similar cases the “torture” was really just abuse. Obama politically conflates the disgusting Abu Gharib abuse with the genuine philosophical and practical problem of a modern democratic society which employs “torture” in the Jeremy Bentham Utilitarian lesser of two evils sense – at the risk of losing its “soul”.

After 9/11 we thought there should have been a massive investigation into the massive intelligence failure which resulted in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers and a hit on the Pentagon. George W. Bush however, opposed such an investigation.

After the Titanic disaster, while clothes were still moist there was investigation of the oceanic disaster. After Pearl Harbor while the alerts were fresh, there was an investigation of that disaster.

We like investigations. We want to know the truth. But we want the full truth, not a fake investigation which protects Dimocrats and is a political vendetta to harm Republicans and burnish boob Obama.

Paul Krugman and others today are calling for an investigation on torture. But any investigation cannot be a victory for hypocrites like Pelosi. An investigation cannot be a hding place for hypocrites like Obama who “want to be on both sides of every debate…”

Let’s have an investigation and let’s get everyone on the record.

Let’s have a Truth Commission and let’s get to the bottom of all the rot.

Barack Obama opened the doors but now he wants to shut down an investigation for the “truth”.

The last thing Obama wants is an investigation into the truth. When the hunt for the “truth” commences it is Obama who fears the hounds the most.

For Obama and his Dimocrats, the truth is torture.


The Craigslist Killer And Barack Obama

The same Hopium addled addicts who demand we join the celestial choir and forget the race-baiting, and gay-bashing, and woman hating, primary and general election campaigns of Barack Obama now demand investigations digging into the tortured past.

It was ironic that as the calls for torture investigations mounted yesterday, in Boston the past was catching up with a very well educated and happily engaged collector of women’s panties.

The Craigslist Killer, alledgedly a Boston University medical school student with a wide Obama-esque grin, was arrested by police as he drove with his future wife.

Big Media and police mistakenly blame gambling as the motivator for the killer’s repeated attacks on women “lured to Boston hotels through ads they posted on Craigslist“. While the guilt or innocence of the Craigslist Killer will be determined by a jury of his peers we do know that the motivation is related to a hatred of women, however disguised.

We saw that hatred of women repeatedly expressed by Barack Obama and his supporters during the primary campaigns last year and we still see it every day on PINO Big Blogs.

* * * * *

By now most sentient beings acknowledge that rape in most cases is about power not about sex. Since the days of Jack The Ripper most sentient beings acknowledge that sexism and misogyny can be expressed in lurid ways. Yet there is a strange disconnect between this intellectual understanding of sexism and misogyny and everyday, commonsense understandings of sexism and misogyny.

If an African-American is attacked because they are African-Americans the Democratic left “intellectuals” quickly shout “hate crime”. But a woman who is attacked because she is a woman is viewed as a gambling debt casualty, “asking for it”, “corrective“, in the wrong place at the wrong time, “complicated”, or some other excuse to avoid the ugly truth – sexism and misogyny kill.

Hillary Clinton supporters were especially disgusted with the excuses constructed by those we once respected in the Democratic Left. Most disgusting of all was the New Yorker’s Hendrick Hertzberg.

Democratic Left male writers such as Hendrik Hertzberg at the New Yorker belittled the struggles of women (not to mention African-American women) in comparison to African-Americans and ignored the testimony of people, women, such as Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm. Hertzberg wrote Competitions among grievances do not ennoble, and both Clinton and Obama strove to avoid one; but it does not belittle the oppressions of gender to suggest that in America the oppressions of race have cut deeper.

Males like Hertzberg, once respected by us as deeper thinkers than they proved to be, “belittle the oppressions of gender” with their gimmick of ignoring rape and battered women, including the supposedly loved wives battered by their husbands (or girlfriend/boyfriend violence). Struggles for the still NOT ratified Equal Rights Amendment do not enter into the Hertzberg equation. The struggles to get the right to vote, the right to “male” jobs, the right to serve fully in the most prestigious levels of the military, the everyday indignities of losing jobs to less qualified males – all are ignored.

Hertzberg and his fratboy friends pose as sophisticated “intellectuals” and up-to-date-with-it liberals with ostentatious support for the black guy as they “belittle the oppressions of gender”.

We took our cue from the long dead trailblazer African-American Congresswomen (notice how many powerful black women supported and continue to support Hillary? Maybe Chisholm’s statement explains why) Shirley Chisholm:

Shirley Chisholm, who should know, said she was discriminated more on the basis of being a woman than on the basis of being black. Shirley Chisholm was a true Democrat. Shirley Chisholm would not fit in today’s Dimocratic Party.

“I ran because somebody had to do it first. I ran because most people thought the country was not ready for a Black candidate, not ready for a woman candidate. Someday–it was time in 1972 to make that someday come.”

She also knew the challenges of being a woman in politics.

I’ve always met more discrimination being a woman than being Black,” she said. “When I ran for the Congress, when I ran for president, I met more discrimination as a woman than for being Black. Men are men.”

African-American Congresswoman Chisholm and her eyewitness, first hand experiences were dismissed by the Democratic Left.

Hertzberg thinks that “in America the oppressions of race have cut deeper“. Shirley Chishold disagrees. Hillary Supporters disagree. Big Blog males agree because they too exclude from the equation every day violence against women, the everyday indignities and sufferings of oppression based on the shape of the skin.

* * * * *

PINO Big Blogs and the “intellectuals” who are nothing less than misogyny deniers will bask in the politically correct and very acceptable, as well as profitable, assaults on the ugliness of racism. However the PINO Big Blogs and Dimocrats only care about sexism and misogyny when it fills their pockets (for example NARAL and the abortion red flag wavers) or when it takes place in another country and it is safe for them to denounce.

The Taliban flogging a girl will be denounced with an air of superiority.

Blowing up a girls school in Pakistan will be denounced with an air of superiority

Hamid Karzi of Afghanistan and the rape law will be denounced with an air of superiority. Even Hillary Clinton is allowed to denounce sexism and misogyny, without being attacked as a shrill and bitter cackling woman, because the sexism and misogyny are taking place in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, came under intense western pressure yesterday to scrap a new law that the UN said legalised rape within marriage and severely limited the rights of women.

At a conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, Scandinavian foreign ministers publicly challenged the Afghan leader to respond to a report on the new law in yesterday’s Guardian, and the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, was reported to have confronted Karzai on the issue in a private meeting. [snip]

The Guardian reported that Karzai had signed the controversial law last month. The text has not yet been published but the UN, human rights activists and some Afghan MPs said it included clauses stipulating that women cannot refuse to have sex with their husbands, and can only seek work, education or visit the doctor with their husbands’ permission

The Democratic Left in America will pretend to be upset when men attack women who protest against discrimination – if it is in Afghanistan.

But if the sexism and misogyny takes place in America the Democratic Left will remain silent (unless the sexism and misogyny comes from Republicans – then there is profit to be made).

Crime statistics which tally the daily beatings and rapes and killings against women will not be considered by the Democratic Left and “intellectuals” like Hertzberg in their “grievance” competition. They are not interested in “gonadal politics“. These boys are safe when the woman bashing and the gay bashing take place.

John Lennon sang the words that Shirley Chisholm lived. In his song (which we can’t spell out because computer search engines will flag any use of racist language in a website and brand the website as “racist” – insults against women however are not flagged and the website is not categorized as sexist) Lennon wrote “Woman is the slave to the slave. The title of the song came from Lennon’s wife and partner.”

He was hoping to show how women were and still are being treated.

The song lambasts the perceived traditional role of woman’s subservience to man across all cultures. It was banned from radio airplay because of the word ‘n*gger’, though it was played on WHRW-FM, and many prominent blacks, including black comedian Dick Gregory, spoke out in defense of the song.

If Lennon would have written that song in 2008 he would have been branded a “rascist” by the Hopium addled. The Democratic Left would have denounced Lennon as a secret Hillary supporter filling the airwaves with coded messages.

* * * * *

The Craigslist Killer will get his day in court.

There will be an investigation of torture which will eventually devour Obama hires.

And we will never forget the sexism and misogyny exploited by the Democratic Left and Barack Obama.


Narrative Control: BOob Obama, Chavez, Preconditions, Ahmadinejad and Tea

The battle to control the narrative of our present history is waged with ferocity and mendacity by Obama Hopium addled addicts who are untethered to reality.

We see the battle for narrative control waged on several temporal battlefields.

The Future

The first battlefield is for the future and that is why Obama supporters are seeking to poison the Tea Parties with their hemlock narratives. Obama supporters fear that the Tea Parties are a genuine expression of American anger at the looting of the economy by Obama to help his Wall Street donors. In order to prevent that anger from manifesting itself in the 2010 elections Obama supporters say the Tea Parties are a Republican astroturf operation and a Fox News production.

The Tea Parties are about Taxation Without Representation and they threaten to topple Dimocrats and Republicans who loot the economy. Still Obama supporters try to fool Americans that Tea Parties are a rear guard action by Republicans and some less discerning minds believe this narrative.

The Tea Parties are NOT a Republican production even if Republicans want to tie themselves to such a popular movement. Here is visual proof of our assertion: a Republican candidate for governor in South Carolina ferociously booed by Tea Party protestors:

We noted earlier that PINO Big Blogs tried to subvert the middle of the week Tea Parties with an earlier Saturday event which presumably should have attracted more attendance. As we noted, those fake weekend outings were a dud. Those fake events were promoted on TV and in the usual PINO websites. In this video all the main leaders of the fake event can be seen but very few followers surround them.

The Tea Party battle is increasingly being lost by the Obama supporters which will increase their cries of “racism” as the 2010 elections rapidly approach:

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans have a favorable view of the “tea parties” held nationwide last week, including 32% who say their view of the events is Very favorable. [snip]

While half the nation has a favorable opinion of last Wednesday’s events, the nation’s Political Class has a much dimmer view—just 13% of the political elite offered even a somewhat favorable assessment while 81% said the opposite. Among the Political Class, not a single survey respondent said they had a Very Favorable opinion of the events while 60% shared a Very Unfavorable assessment.

One-in-four adults (25%) say they personally know someone who attended a tea party protest. That figure includes just one percent (1%) of those in the Political Class.

David Axelrod, a top adviser to President Obama, on Sunday characterized the protests in dozens of cities on the day federal income taxes are due as potentially “unhealthy.”

The survey results show the big disconnect between mainstream Americans and the “political class”. Mainstream Republicans and mainstream Democrats viewed the Tea Parties favorably, but the “political class” understands the threat to Obama and sulks at Tea Party news. On many issues, there is a bigger gap between the Political Class and Mainstream Americans than between Mainstream Republicans and Mainstream Democrats.

The Obama mustache is fighting already to prevent the future electoral disaster that awaits foolish Obama led Dimocrats.

The Present

The same survey states that While Americans are slightly more optimistic about the economy’s improvement in the short term, they are growing more concerned that the government may do too much to try to help things along.

Obama Hopium addled supporters are also busy trying to control the present narrative on the economy. Knowing Americans are protesting at Tea Parties Obama and his Hopium addled supporters are in full bamboozlement about the economy:

Cut a latte or two out of your annual budget and you’ve just done as much belt-tightening as President Barack Obama asked of his Cabinet on Monday.

The thrifty measures Obama ordered for federal agencies are the equivalent of asking a family that spends $60,000 in a year to save $6.

Obama supporters are busy denigrating the Tea Parties but they are worried that Americans are catching on to Obama’s spend, spend, spend:

Obama made his push for frugality the subject of his first Cabinet meeting, ensuring it would command the capital’s attention. It also set off outbursts of mental math and scribbled calculations as political friend and foe tried to figure out its impact.

The bottom line: Not much.

The president gave his Cabinet 90 days to find $100 million in savings to achieve over time.

“Not much”. Not much change, not much substance, not much truth.

The Past

Obama supporters are working the hardest in a cover up of the massive “policy” flaw we fought to expose during the primary elections last year. The fight was over preconditions and meetings with world leaders. We quoted the Daily News:

Hillary Clinton has a more sophisticated and tougher perspective than Barack Obama does when it comes to the exercise of presidential power on the global stage. Obama was downright naive in promising that in his first year in office he would meet personally with antagonists like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il and Hugo Chavez. And Clinton was spot on in ruling out talks unless they had a goal, saying, “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes.”

Obama proved himself a boob and not qualified to be president when he staked out his foolish “no preconditions” boobery. Obama tried to bamboozle the American public, with the cooperation of Big Media, by lying about what he had actually said. Obama accused those telling the truth of lying about his own lies and foolishness. Big Media was complicit in the Obama lies.

Now Obama is indeed, as predicted, being suckered and used for “propaganda purposes” by world leaders.

An American President is supposed to represent the American people and this mighty nation, which exerts great authority world-wide. It is not a matter of being nice and “talking”.

An American President talking to dictators sends a message to those ruled by dictators that their dictator is playing on a big stage. An American President talking to nuts fortifies the nuts hold on power. An American President talking to leaders like Chavez, Castro, and Ahmadinejad has to be weighed carefully because such contact can be used for evil purpose. It is not about being hip or new or doing something “cool” – it is about doing something foolish which can hurt American interests.

Obama does not think it is a problem to empower and embolden Hamas by talking to them. Obama does not think it is a problem to talk to “moderate” Taliban in Afghanistan. Obama does not think it is a problem to talk with Hugo Chavez. Obama does not think it is a problem to talk with Ahmadinejad.

Obama can talk all he wants but he is not going to change the national interests of nations like Iran and organizations such as Hamas, nor leaders such as Chavez. But each and every one of these malignant forces appreciates Boob Obama giving them prestige time and the lime light. Obama will once again come out empty handed and looking like a used fool and the malignant forces will continue to be strengthened.

Giving malignant forces respect and prestige only emboldens – it does not deter – as we witnessed today when the willing to listen world community was forced again to walk out on a hatefilled leader.

British delegates joined a dramatic diplomatic walkout today when President Ahmadinejad of Iran told a major UN conference against racism that the state of Israel had been founded “on the pretext of Jewish suffering” during the Second World War.

Around 20 delegates, including envoys from the UK, France, and Finland stood up and left the room at what was considered an anti-Semitic remark by the Iranian leader, who has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Obama the BOob emboldens malignant forces. It was Holocaust Remembrance Day, but not for those Obama wants to meet without preconditions.

Obama has tried to walk back his foolish “without preconditions” boobery but Obama has already met “without preconditions” with the wily Hugo Chavez who treated Obama to a lesson in how to take advantage of a boob.

Hugo Chavez met with Obama without preconditions, humiliated Obama repeatedly, and Obama exposed himself as a BOob, over and over and over again.

Obama supporters and Obama will try to control the narrative and assure Americans that the rude sounds they hear are celestial choirs. But the rude sounds are the rudes sounds that will wake Americans up to the fact that there is a BOob in the White House that is humiliating the United States on a daily basis.


Hillary Clinton – I Dreamed A Dream

Two years ago today, HillaryIs44 was born.

We have been right about the worthiness (not infallibility or perfection) of Hillary Clinton. We have been right about the con artist Chicago flim-flam man Barack Obama.

This past week the subject of much attention has been a British woman by the name of Susan Boyle. On a television show Susan Boyle sang a song that electrified the world. “I’ve never been given a chance before” said Susan Boyle.

Already Susan Boyle has been attacked by a “reporter” woman.

As a response to the article attacking Susan Boyle a reader asked a question Hillary Clinton supporters have asked themselves many times:

It is obvious Susan Boyle is the genuine article, a spinster who cared lovingly for her mother until her death at 91. What is it about such self sacrificing women that makes Mz. Callahan so uncomfortable she has to turn Susan into a suspected phony? That questions answers itself. My husband was at first worried that Susan could only sing that one song…so I played her version of ‘Cry Me a River’ for him. His eyes popped, and he is a jazz bassist. Susan is so gifted that she can outdo American jazz singers in their own accents and styles. The fact that she can perfectly interpret a ‘you dun me wrong’ blues song having never been kissed just shows how tremendously gifted she is. Yet women like Callahan have to despise the genuine article. A self sacrificing caregiver is now being given the chance her dying mother urged her to seek….Callahan has to say something cynical. That says far more about Callahan than it does Susan Boyle.

The lyrics to the song I Dreamed A Dream are about “lost innocence and broken dreams”. The heroine of the song is Fantine, a woman abandoned by her lover, gives birth to a daughter, Cosette, out of wedlock, is wrongly dismissed from a desperately-needed job, and forced into prostitution to survive and to support her daughter.

Fantine’s story is not particularly unusual. Her circumstances repeat throughout history. The names change but the story remains the same. The abusers’ names change but the shame remains.

* * * * *

We have been writing the truth that neither Republicans nor Dimocrats want to hear for two years now. When we started to publish we were completely alone. Now many websites are “Hillary supporter” websites. But even among the Hopium eaters our message now echoes.

The latest HillaryIs44 style article comes from Naomi Klein via Obama Hopium central The Nation and the vile cesspool which is The Huffington Post:

I was a bit concerned about posting my latest column on Huffington Post, for obvious reasons. But I have decided to do it anyway, in the hopes that HuffPo readers will submit additions and modifications to the Lexicon of Disappointment. Or, alternatively, just yell about how wrong I am.

The entire HillaryIs44 oeuvre is the foundation of the “Lexicon”. Klein, with whom we do not totally or even mostly agree, adds to our work as she explains the stench of B.O. from the viewpoint of the dupes and fools she knows from firsthand experience:

All is not well in Obamafanland. It’s not clear exactly what accounts for the change of mood. Maybe it was the rancid smell emanating from Treasury’s latest bank bailout. [snip]

Whatever the last straw, a growing number of Obama enthusiasts are starting to entertain the possibility that their man is not, in fact, going to save the world if we all just hope really hard.

This is a good thing. If the superfan culture that brought Obama to power is going to transform itself into an independent political movement, one fierce enough to produce programs capable of meeting the current crises, we are all going to have to stop hoping and start demanding.

The first stage, however, is to understand fully the awkward in-between space in which many US progressive movements find themselves. To do that, we need a new language, one specific to the Obama moment. Here is a start.

Klein, still does not get that the “superfan” culture will never become “an independent political movement”. Hopium addicts can at best end and then recover from their addictions and finally apologize to those who knew more than them but whom they belittled. Klein then lists words Hopium addicts should add to their Obama Lexicon:

Hopeover. Like a hangover, a hopeover comes from having overindulged in something that felt good at the time but wasn’t really all that healthy, leading to feelings of remorse, even shame. It’s the political equivalent of the crash after a sugar high. Sample sentence: “When I listened to Obama’s economic speech my heart soared. But then, when I tried to tell a friend about his plans for the millions of layoffs and foreclosures, I found myself saying nothing at all. I’ve got a serious hopeover.”

Hoper coaster. Like a roller coaster, the hoper coaster describes the intense emotional peaks and valleys of the Obama era, the veering between joy at having a president who supports safe-sex education and despondency that single-payer healthcare is off the table at the very moment when it could actually become a reality. Sample sentence: “I was so psyched when Obama said he is closing Guantánamo. But now they are fighting like mad to make sure the prisoners in Bagram have no legal rights at all. Stop this hoper coaster — I want to get off!”

Hopesick. Like the homesick, hopesick individuals are intensely nostalgic. They miss the rush of optimism from the campaign trail and are forever trying to recapture that warm, hopey feeling–usually by exaggerating the significance of relatively minor acts of Obama decency. Sample sentences: “I was feeling really hopesick about the escalation in Afghanistan, but then I watched a YouTube video of Michelle in her organic garden and it felt like inauguration day all over again. A few hours later, when I heard that the Obama administration was boycotting a major UN racism conference, the hopesickness came back hard. So I watched slideshows of Michelle wearing clothes made by ethnically diverse independent fashion designers, and that sort of helped.”

Hope fiend. With hope receding, the hope fiend, like the dope fiend, goes into serious withdrawal, willing to do anything to chase the buzz. (Closely related to hopesickness but more severe, usually affecting middle-aged males.) Sample sentence: “Joe told me he actually believes Obama deliberately brought in Summers so that he would blow the bailout, and then Obama would have the excuse he needs to do what he really wants: nationalize the banks and turn them into credit unions. What a hope fiend!”

Hopebreak. Like the heartbroken lover, the hopebroken Obama-ite is not mad but terribly sad. She projected messianic powers onto Obama and is now inconsolable in her disappointment. Sample sentence: “I really believed Obama would finally force us to confront the legacy of slavery in this country and start a serious national conversation about race. But now he never seems to mention race, and he’s using twisted legal arguments to keep us from even confronting the crimes of the Bush years. Every time I hear him say ‘move forward,’ I’m hopebroken all over again.”

Hopelash. Like a backlash, hopelash is a 180-degree reversal of everything Obama-related. Sufferers were once Obama’s most passionate evangelists. Now they are his angriest critics. Sample sentence: “At least with Bush everyone knew he was an asshole. Now we’ve got the same wars, the same lawless prisons, the same Washington corruption, but everyone is cheering like Stepford wives. It’s time for a full-on hopelash.”

Klein is not really over the Hopium addiction (or in her case, exploitation). Klein, like many Hopium addled addicts (or exploiters), is on the half step of Methadone. There is still not a sufficient understanding of what idiots they have been nor how damaging and warped their worldview is. The best that can be said of these recovering Hopium addicts is that they know the Hopium is not something they wish to continue to consume. But there is a long way to go before full recovery and full understanding of the damage they have caused and the foolishness of their world-view.

In trying to name these various hope-related ailments, I found myself wondering what the late Studs Terkel would have said about our collective hopeover. He surely would have urged us not to give in to despair. I reached for one of his last books, Hope Dies Last. I didn’t have to read long. The book opens with the words: “Hope has never trickled down. It has always sprung up.”

And that pretty much says it all. Hope was a fine slogan when rooting for a long-shot presidential candidate. But as a posture toward the president of the most powerful nation on earth, it is dangerously deferential. [snip]

Which brings me to the final entry in the lexicon.

Hoperoots. Sample sentence: “It’s time to stop waiting for hope to be handed down, and start pushing it up, from the hoperoots.”

It takes time for the detox to take full effect. The “hoperoots” are just another drug. Klein and others who believed in Obama or pretended to believe in Obama, in order to implement their foolish agendas, have a long way to go before full recovery.

We’ll be around to continue the detox.

For Americans who wanted real and realistic change, the Dream was Hillary. Every day, even to the Hopium addicts and the Hopium exploiters, Obama proves he is the nightmare.


The Meaning Of The Tea Parties: No Taxation Without Representation

Much like the British in 1773 – Big Media, Big Blogs, Dimocrats, the unhip unoriginal boor wannabees who presume themselves to be the “creative class”, Obama supporters, and the not-very-smart “intellectuals”, flattered themselves and exercised their flabby wits with bon mots and sniffed at those who attended the April 15 Tea Parties.

These boors and boobs (many, like CNN, documented in yesterday’s comments) who preen themselves with pretensions laughed at the many Americans who turned out to protest Obama bailout policy and the printing press economy. These boors and boobs yelled primaryesque “racism” and “kooks” at something that escapes their closed Hopium addled “minds”.

That many real Democrats along with Republicans and Independents oppose Obama economic policy escapes the buffoons that mock “bitter” Americans.

The many who recalled the 1773 protests, that led to overthrow of the imperialist yoke in the “new world”, by attending rallies on April 15 2009 do not feel represented by those who tax us. The many who protested on April 15, 2009 know Wall Street and bankers and the financiers are well represented by Obama and the rest of the U.S. government. The many who protested on April 15, 2009 know we are not represented by the U.S. government of Obama and the new fangled Dimocrats and the Republicans.

We Democrats who saw the Democratic “leadership” gift Obama the nomination and award non-candidate Obama delegates won in an election by Hillary Clinton understand what it is not to be represented.

Have no doubt, “bitter” Americans are well in the majority even as they desperately “cling” to the desperate “hope” that Obama economic “plans” succeed. Americans want America to do well and to get out of the current economic horror. In order to get America to do better many Americans are putting aside their common sense and crossing their fingers and wishing against reality that Obama will do well. That is the explanation for why Obama is “popular” in polls – desperation and fear.

* * * * *

Americans do indeed oppose the flim-flam which is the Obama economic “plans”:

In a CNN poll taken this month by Opinion Research, more than three-quarters of Americans said that if GM and Chrysler need more government money, Washington should rebuff them. In other words, let ’em go bankrupt. That is the same thing most of the public is saying about banks and financial institutions: No more bailouts. [snip]

Do Americans think that if automobile companies went bankrupt it would cause a crisis or major problems for the economy? In December, two-thirds thought that it would. Now, not so many: 47 percent feel that it would cause a crisis or major problems, while 53 percent say it would cause minor problems or no problems at all. [snip]

Most people say if automakers need more money, Washington should say no.

Big Business has failed and Americans know government has been complicit in Big Business failures.

Actually, the people don’t trust either Big Government or Big Business. That’s why Americans don’t like the idea of bailouts: They are viewed as Big Government colluding with Big Business.

The April 15 Tea Parties were, contrary to Big Media’s narrative, a very sophisticated assessment of the current economic situation: Big Government is indeed colluding with Big Business and Americans want that to stop. Americans want the general good addressed not the desires of only Wall Street insiders and Big Business insiders. Americans know that the revolving door of insiders is taking care of other insiders.

Dimocrats, such as backstabbing Robert Reich, mock the orginal 1773 Boston Tea Party when they say “We have a patriotic duty to pay taxes.” We suppose that is better than Joe Biden’s claim that it is patriotic to pay more taxes, but not by much.

Mental midget Reich does not think “huge debts we’re wracking up” are a problem because the solution “is to get the economy growing again”. Reich does not see that the debts and deficits are growing at a faster rate than the economy is projected to grow (Obama unrealistic rosy scenarios and projections to the contrary – see Krugman, below).

Reich, like his fellow Obama Dimocrats, mocks “bitter” Americans who attended the Tea Parties. But if the Tea Parties continue to grow and repeat (let’s say on July 4) they forshadow an American revolt in the 2010 elections or even more:

They resemble nothing so much as the anti-war protests during Bush’s first term. The claim that they don’t have an organizing premise strikes me as obviously wrong: They’re anti-bailout, anti-stimulus, anti-deficit, and anti- the tax increases that will eventually be required to pay for the current spending spree, and complaining that they don’t also have a ten-point plan for reforming Medicare and Social Security reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of protest marches, I think. The claim that they’re hypocritical and partisan is a bit stronger – where were they when Bush was running up the deficit, etc. – but in fairness, many of the organizing figures were anti-TARP from the beginning, and there’s something slightly odd about saying that if you didn’t take to the streets to protests a $300 billion deficit you aren’t allowed to protest a $1 trillion deficit. The numbers matter, surely … [snip]

Still, here we are in the sixth year of the Iraq War, and all those anti-war protests, their excesses and stupidities notwithstanding, look a lot more prescient in hindsight than they did (to me, at least) when they were going on. So if you’re inclined to sneer and giggle at the Tea Parties, keep in mind that just because a group of protesters looks ragged, resentful, and naive, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong to be alarmed

Republicans who mocked anti-war protests as fringy now know better than to mock the “inchoate”. Karl Rove is already taking inventory.

This movement is significant.

In 1978, California voters enacted Prop. 13 in reaction to steep property taxes. [snip]

Derided by elitists as phony, the tea-party movement is spontaneous, decentralized, frequently amateurish and sometimes shrill. If it has a father it is CNBC’s Rick Santelli, who called for holding a tea party in Chicago on July 4. [snip]

If that anger persists, it may give Republicans a leg up in the 38 gubernatorial elections over the next two years, as well as in key state legislative races that will determine which party redraws congressional and state legislative districts after the 2010 census.

The open question is whether Republicans will be boosted by the nascent tea-party movement.

Rove’s optimism aside, Republicans are responsible too for the current economic situation and Americans will not turn to them unless Republicans begin to address their own looting of the economy as well as the current Obama looting of the economy. The Tea Parties in that respect were completely non-partisan:

Reporters didn’t have to work hard to find critics of President Barack Obama. But if they only asked, they’d have found that many in the audience were equally concerned with how the Republicans under President George W. Bush spent federal dollars like drunken sailors. Anger over the orgies of Democrat and Republican politicians feasting together has brought out the “tea party” protesters.

“What critics of this don’t understand is that we’re upset with President Obama, yes, but also upset with Bush administration bailouts, and how Obama has taken that and compounded it with all his spending,” said Mike Lennox, a real estate manager.

“Democrat, Republican, I don’t care about the excuses. What we’re tired of is all the lies and the corruption,” Lennox said.

The Tea Parties are about NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Even dullards like Margaret Carlson understand that:

If only he stood as firm against the rulers of Wall Street who’ve held America hostage for months. Since taking office, Obama has shown a stunning willingness to spend money and not call anyone to account for breaching the few strings he’s attached.

When the bankers complained about pay restrictions imposed by Congress, the Obama administration quietly worked out a mechanism by which the banks could avoid the rules and still receive bailout money, according to a report in the Washington Post. The Treasury denied that bankers were getting any such break. [snip]

Of course, the banks have little to worry about from the stress tests. They’ll be about as indicative of their health as an examination of a 300-pound patient walking 2 miles per hour on a flat treadmill at the cardiologist’s office.

Not only that, the proctors are grading on a curve since the Financial Accounting Standards Board relaxed mark-to-market accounting rules, which require banks to assess assets each quarter to reflect market prices. The Treasury knows that actually labeling toxic assets, recently renamed “legacy” assets, at their super-discounted value would give the system a heart attack.

Obama defended his actions in an April 14 speech, saying that while it makes sense morally to go hard on the bankers, it’s not practical “because it is more likely to undermine, than to create, confidence.”

That’s because the executives have convinced the president to reward the geniuses who got us into this mess as the only ones who can get us out. [snip]

In other words, if you want kidnapped taxpayers back alive, hand over the rest of the money in unmarked bills or we’ll really ruin the economy.

Margaret Carlson is a Big Media favorite so she will not be mocked even as she describes what the Americans who attended April 15 Tea Parties understand to be the economic fact of the day: taxation without representation. It is additionally insulting that some of Obama’s most powerful and influential appointees are tax cheats.

The Tea Parties inform Obama that Taxation Without Representation will be resisted.
Former Democratic favorite Paul Krugman is now detested by the Hopium addled because he will not go into the Obama temple and drink the mind altering Hopium, nor inject Hopium, nor sell Hopium. Krugman too describes the economic real world and the Chicago Obama Hopium addicts do not like it:

Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, sees “green shoots.” President Obama sees “glimmers of hope.” And the stock market has been on a tear.

So is it time to sound the all clear? Here are four reasons to be cautious about the economic outlook.

1. Things are still getting worse. Industrial production just hit a 10-year low. Housing starts remain incredibly weak. Foreclosures, which dipped as mortgage companies waited for details of the Obama administration’s housing plans, are surging again.

The most you can say is that there are scattered signs that things are getting worse more slowly — that the economy isn’t plunging quite as fast as it was. [snip]

2. Some of the good news isn’t convincing. The biggest positive news in recent days has come from banks, which have been announcing surprisingly good earnings. But some of those earnings reports look a little … funny. [snip]

3. There may be other shoes yet to drop. Even in the Great Depression, things didn’t head straight down. There was, in particular, a pause in the plunge about a year and a half in — roughly where we are now. But then came a series of bank failures on both sides of the Atlantic, combined with some disastrous policy moves as countries tried to defend the dying gold standard, and the world economy fell off another cliff.

Can this happen again? Well, commercial real estate is coming apart at the seams, credit card losses are surging and nobody knows yet just how bad things will get in Japan or Eastern Europe. We probably won’t repeat the disaster of 1931, but it’s far from certain that the worst is over.

4. Even when it’s over, it won’t be over. [snip]

Don’t be surprised if unemployment keeps rising right through 2010.

Those who attended the Tea Parties were diverse just as the economic catastrophe is diverse.

There were more left wing crazies protesting everyone there by calling their fellow Americans “rascist” for oppsosing massive multi-trillion dollar spending with little appearance of oversight or sense of where the money was going, other than bailing out a vast nebulous black hole of toxic assets at 100% to the dollar!

There were men, women, Democrats, Independents, Republican, Libertarians, gays, straights, Black and White, Latino and Asian, Young and Old, Urbanites and Suburbanites and Ruralites. It was a rainbow coalition of Americans who were fed up depending on who you were talking to.

Just as tea comes in many flavors and kinds, and from many countries – the demographics, politics, and the reasons for those attending the tea parties had many flavors and origins. But tea comes from one species of plant and the Tea Parties of April 15, 2009 came from a single, very American principle.

That very American principle is: Taxation Without Representation Is Tyranny.

Most Americans do not bow before tyrants nor the corrupt.

Many Americans are now beginning to resist taxation without representation – whether by Bush W. Republicans or B. Obama Dimocrats.

Big Media and Big Blogs may scoff at the Tea Parties, but the British scoffed too.