More Obama Disasters: California Screaming, Guantanamo Scheming

Update: Paul Krugman this Monday, May 25, follows our lead and asks if the nation will follow California and become ungovernable.
————————————————–

Elect a funny named celebrity with zero to little experience, who loves adoring crowds and self-promoting publicity stunts instead of preparation and hard work, who has Kennedy connections, who promises to be a uniter not a divider, who promises change and a “new” way of doing things, who promises to be fiscally responsible even as spend, spend, spend is the order of the day and you will get a disaster.

As California goes, so goes the nation. California elected Arnold Schwarzenegger, with zero experience and a Kennedy wife, along with all the above “qualifications” and now California is a disaster. California is the future of the United States. California gave us Schwarzenegger and then Obama. When will they learn? When will Americans learn? Elect a boob, expect boobery.

In defense of California, Democrats there voted by large margins for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries over the Schwarzenegger wannabee. California has also started on the way to sanity by beating all the Schwarzenegger machinations this past Tuesday. Dimocrats who think a realignment has occurred should look to California to see the electoral and financial future, as all five of the Schwarzenegger ballot gimmicks went down to defeat.

Schwarzenegger and California Dimocrats will soon expect Obama to bail the state out of self created financial hell. Already the propaganda has started that California, like GM and assorted others, is “too big to fail”. Californians this past Tuesday made it clear they expect more than words and fakery to solve the current crisis. But in the Age of Fake, words are what the men with funny names offer.

Obama has been busy though. On Tuesday he hosted Schwarzenegger who was too busy enjoying a joint publicity stunt with Obama in Washington to campaign for his measures in California on election day. Yesterday, Obama was busy again. Yesterday Obama bamboozled on Guantanamo.

Frankly, there is not much to say about the Obama speech of yesterday. We said it all before, months ago. On January 12 of this year, in Obama Is The Third Bush Term, Part II – Guantanamo we wrote:

The New York Times and the Nutroots and the Big Blog PINOs will cover for Obama, we won’t. We will trumpet loudly when Obama breaks a promise. [snip]

Obama on Sunday “lowered expectations” on the close of Guantanamo prisons. Previously Obama had said, with flowery words, he would shut down Guantanamo prisons. That Obama promise is no longer, as Richard Nixon would say, “operative”.

The latest Obama flim-flam took place on ABC’s This Week. The campaign promise to close Guantanamo within 100 days is now a broken promise. Obama says he has just now discovered that closing Guantanamo is “complex”. The truth of course is that nothing has changed on the issue of Guantanamo, there are no new facts on Guantanamo. [snip]

Obama is simply lying, again. The Guantanamo prison and the issues surrounding it have been well known and yes, complex. But there is nothing new on the Guantanamo issue. What is new is Obama is flim-flamming again and Big Media is protecting Obama, again.

When Obama made his campaign promise to close Guantanamo the situation was just as complex as it is today. If anything the actual issue itself should be less complex because there has been so much more time to think about Guantanamo. Obama is simply hedging his bets and flim-flamming Americans with flowery words. Obama can’t be trusted.

We’ve heard that bamboozle speech before as well as the Big Media cheers:

In some 6,000 words Thursday, Obama used a characteristic tactic: He sought to reclaim the issue of Guantanamo detainees by broadening it into a larger discussion of American values and national security. It was same tactic he used when, just over a year ago, political foes and critics put his back against the wall with video of racially charged speeches by his former pastor, and the Illinois senator responded with a broad and effective thematic speech on his personal narrative, race and America.

Back when every Dimocrat had his or her ear angled towards the heavens in order to hear the first bleats of the celestial choirs we called Obama what he is: The Third Bush Term. So many are now calling Obama the Third Bush Term that Obama is miffed and pouting and assigning blame (another broken promise).

Fending off criticism from human-rights and civil-rights groups at a private White House meeting Wednesday, a frustrated President Obama complained about the “mess” he’d been left by his predecessor.

The exchange came during an hour-and-15-minute “off the record” session in the White House cabinet room that highlighted growing tensions between the president and his liberal base. While the White House session was billed as an effort by the president to listen to his critics on the left, some of them left disappointed.

According to three sources who attended the meeting, Obama reiterated his intention to retain a version of the military-tribunal system established to try terror detainees and said his administration will likely end up adopting some form of “indefinite detention” policy to justify holding some selected suspects without trial. Still, Obama brusquely rejected suggestions by some of those present that, in doing so, he was adopting key tenets of Bush-era policies considered unacceptable by his liberal supporters.

“It doesn’t help to equate me to Bush,” Obama said, arguing that such comparisons overlook important differences between the two administrations’ policies, according to several sources attending the meeting.

Obama does not like the truth to be known. He is a flim-flam man and flim-flam men run from the truth like vampires from crucifixes. The truth is Obama is the Third Bush Term and more and more people are recognizing that fact.

On Guantanamo, more and more “progressives” are aware of Obama’s Bush grade bamboozlements. On the economy more and more realities are setting in. California’s elected Dimocrats might think the other 49 states will come to the rescue. But who will come to the rescue of the United States?

Reality is hitting on the economic front like a dropped barbell given to Obama by Schwarzenegger:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner committed to cutting the budget deficit as concern about deteriorating U.S. creditworthiness deepened, and ascribed a sell-off in Treasuries to prospects for an economic recovery. [snip]

The dollar extended declines today after Treasuries and American stocks slumped on concern the U.S. government’s debt rating may at some point be lowered. Bill Gross, the co-chief investment officer of Pacific Investment Management Co., said the U.S. “eventually” will lose its AAA grade.

The typical end runs Obama has employed are beginning to run out and will impact states in fiscal chaos like California:

Also yesterday, Geithner said the U.S.’s $700 billion financial rescue package can’t be used to aid cities and states facing budget crises.

The law “does not appear to us to provide a viable way of responding to that challenge,” Geithner told a House Appropriations subcommittee in Washington. Among the hurdles: money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program was designed for financial companies, he said.

Californians voted for an inexperienced celebrity boob hoping for change and salvation. California was dreaming if they expected good results.

Americans voted for an inexperienced celebrity boob hoping for change and salvation (after Dimocratic “leaders” gifted Obama the nomination). Americans were dreaming (or on some very strong narcotic Hopium).

America better wake up. The quakes are coming.

112 thoughts on “More Obama Disasters: California Screaming, Guantanamo Scheming

  1. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22833.html

    You would think it would be hard to argue that President Barack Obama’s Notre Dame speech and his speech at the National Archives on combating terrorism were the same speech.

    But it’s not. Both, the more you examine them, really said nothing. And both were given for the same reason — to patch holes in the president’s seemingly impenetrable force field of popularity.

    Let’s start with what Obama actually said in both speeches. In neither one, both on highly controversial subjects, did he move his administration’s policies forward. Nothing truly new came out of either speech.

    That’s particularly true for the counterterrorism one. Truth is, the detention policies of George W. Bush and Obama are more alike than not. Indeed, Bush came within a weekend of announcing the closure of the Guatanamo prison. Somewhere between Saturday and Sunday, he realized he would never get congressional support without a concrete plan on what to do with the detainees. He was right. Obama has discovered he faces the same problem.

    Neither speech was really about addressing substantive policy issues. Both were designed primarily to make Americans appreciate the challenges of being president. “Sympathize with me, people!” he was essentially saying. “This governing stuff is hard!

  2. Yes, obama repeatedly relies on this rhetorical tactic. There are real problems, but instead of addressing them specifically and stating what he would do about topic X, Y or Z, he frames it in some broader context, and then describes the problem, and says it will all go away if we just put aside our differences.

    I bring my car to the mechanic at Barack’s Garage. “it makes this xkjlskjsdfj noise when I accelerate, and it stops when I take my foot off the pedal”. I leave the car over night. I call the next morning. “What you got is a car. It makes a noise. Noises tend not to be very good. It could indicate some specific problem, or more generaly, a larger problem. Perhpas your car is over four years old, in which case, you should replace it. That will be $78.00 for the diagnostics charge. Thank you, and come again.”

  3. The next day, unsatisfied, I called my lawyer to discuss suing Barack’s Garage for fraud.

    Then I went across the street, to where I should have gone in the first place, to Hillary Motors. The head mechanic emerged from under the hood of another car, with some grease on her uniform. “We’ll take it for a test drive, and put it up on the lift”. An hour later, I got a call that it would take $50.00 for the loose part to be replaced, and $25.00 for half hour’s labor. Should have gone there first.

  4. Ben Smith at politico has this regarding HRC:

    State, defense, move on gay rights

    The Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld reports two shifts over the last two days: Yesterday, the Pentagon’s Geoff Morrell reversed himself, saying that — contrary to an earlier statement — Defense Department brass are “working to address the challenges” associated with dropping “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

    Today, Eleveld obtains a draft letter from Hillary Clinton announcing the expansion of benefits to same-sex partners serving abroad:

    “Historically, domestic partners of Foreign Service members have not been provided the same training, benefits, allowances, and protections that other family members receive. These inequities are unfair and must end. Providing training, medical care and other benefits to domestic partners promote the cohesiveness, safety and effectiveness of our Posts abroad,” says the letter.

    The letter explains that the department will be “exercising its inherent authority to change its regulations in the Foreign Affairs Manual and Department of State Standardized Regulations” in order to allow domestic partners of foreign service personnel to qualify as family members. “Where appropriate, this extension of benefits and allowances will apply to the children of domestic partners as well.”

    Providing these benefits to all employees, notes the letter, will help the department “attract and retain personnel in a competitive environment where domestic partner benefits and allowances are increasingly the norm for world-class employers. At bottom, the Department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex domestic partners because it is the right thing to do.”

  5. the politico story points to this link:

    advocate.com/news_detail_ektid85471.asp

    May 22, 2009

    Clinton Ready For Equal Treatment at State?
    Click the byline to view more stories by this author.
    By Kerry Eleveld

    The Advocate has obtained a draft of a letter from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to employees of the State Department that details her intentions to extend certain benefits to same-sex partners of foreign service officers posted abroad.

    “Historically, domestic partners of Foreign Service members have not been provided the same training, benefits, allowances, and protections that other family members receive. These inequities are unfair and must end. Providing training, medical care and other benefits to domestic partners promote the cohesiveness, safety and effectiveness of our Posts abroad,” says the letter.

    The letter explains that the department will be “exercising its inherent authority to change its regulations in the Foreign Affairs Manual and Department of State Standardized Regulations” in order to allow domestic partners of foreign service personnel to qualify as family members. “Where appropriate, this extension of benefits and allowances will apply to the children of domestic partners as well.”

    Providing these benefits to all employees, notes the letter, will help the department “attract and retain personnel in a competitive environment where domestic partner benefits and allowances are increasingly the norm for world-class employers. At bottom, the Department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex domestic partners because it is the right thing to do.”

    The letter appears to be the culmination of Secretary Clinton’s work with LGBT employee groups at the State Department. A source familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the letter was drafted by senior officials at the department and represents the Secretary’s thinking on the issue. The letter currently awaits final approval from senior government lawyers.


    The draft is consistent with statements made this week by California Congressman Howard Berman that Secretary Clinton is committed to equalizing the treatment of gay employees of the State Department and that he anticipated an announcement on the matter soon.

    Full text of the letter is below:

    DRAFT INTERNAL RELEASE

    For Review


    Today, I am pleased to announce that the Department of State will be extending a number of benefits and allowances to domestic partners of members of the Foreign Service assigned abroad. 



    While a career in the Foreign Service is rewarding, the demands to serve our country both at home and abroad also require great sacrifice by our Foreign Service personnel and their families as well. Family members often must uproot their lives, endure hardship conditions, and put their own careers on hold. Like all families, our Foreign Service families come in different configurations; all are part of the common fabric of our Post communities abroad. 



    Historically, domestic partners of Foreign Service members have not been provided the same training, benefits, allowances, and protections that other family members receive. These inequities are unfair and must end. Providing training, medical care and other benefits to domestic partners promote the cohesiveness, safety and effectiveness of our Posts abroad. It will also help the Department attract and retain personnel in a competitive environment where domestic partner benefits and allowances are increasingly the norm for world-class employers. At bottom, the Department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex domestic partners because it is the right thing to do. 


    The Department will be exercising its inherent authority to change its regulations in the Foreign Affairs Manual and Department of State Standardized Regulations to allow the domestic partners of Department Foreign Service personnel to qualify as family members for a variety of benefits and allowances. Where appropriate, this extension of benefits and allowances will apply to the children of domestic partners as well. To qualify for these benefits and allowances, an employee must file an affidavit identifying his or her domestic partner and certifying to certain eligibility requirements that will be set forth in the FAM.



    The Department of State intends to provide the following additional benefits and allowances for declared domestic partners of eligible employees serving overseas:


    · Diplomatic passports,


    · Inclusion on employee travel orders to and from posts abroad,


    · Shipment of household effects,


    · Inclusion in family size calculations for the purpose of making housing allocations,


    · Family member preference for employment at posts abroad,


    · Use of medical facilities at posts abroad,


    · Medical evacuation from posts abroad,


    · Emergency travel for the partners to visit gravely ill or injured employees,


    · Inclusion as family members for emergency evacuation from posts abroad,


    · Subsistence payments related to emergency evacuation from posts abroad,


    · Inclusion in calculations of payments of overseas differentials and allowances (e.g., payment for quarters, cost of living, and other allowances),
    · Representation expenses, and


    · Training at the Foreign Service Institute.



    The Department also will work with our inter-agency partners and host country governments to provide domestic partners with diplomatic visas, appropriate diplomatic and consular privileges and immunities, and authorization to work in the local economy abroad. 



    We look forward to implementing these changes.

  6. Comments section from admin’s politico reference contains this good one:

    Just another empty speech given by the teleprompter Pres. Sooner or later he is actually going to have to say something with substance or risk losing his “magnificent speaker” billing. Of course that will mean he has to take a firm stand on his ever shifting beliefs.
    Obama – the reason the brain dead should not be allowed to vote

  7. nytimes.com/2009/05/22/us/22assess.html?_r=1&hp

    Obama Faces Pitfalls With ‘Surgical’ Tack on Detainees
    ========================================

    By PETER BAKER
    Published: May 21, 2009

    As President Obama defends his national security strategy, he faces a daunting challenge. He must convince the country that it is in safe hands despite warnings to the contrary from the right, and at the same time persuade the skeptical left that it is enough to amend his predecessor’s approach rather than abandon it.

    Arguably on the defensive over policy for the first time since taking office, Mr. Obama is gambling that his oratorical powers can reassure the public that bringing terrorism suspects to prisons on American soil will not put the public in danger.

    At the same time, he must explain and win support for a nuanced set of positions that fall somewhere between George W. Bush and the American Civil Liberties Union.

    Rather than an easily labeled program, Mr. Obama is picking seemingly disparate elements from across the policy continuum — banning torture and other harsh interrogation techniques but embracing the endless detention of certain terror suspects without trial, closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, but retaining the military commissions held there.

    “A surgical approach,” the president called it in his address on Thursday at the National Archives.

    But surgical approaches are rarely satisfying to those on either end of the political spectrum who tend to dominate political dialogue in Washington, particularly when it comes to an issue as fraught with emotional resonance and moral implications as the struggle against terrorists.
    [snip]

  8. Obama The Clarifier:

    “We need to close Guantanamo; but keep it open for military trials”

    “We have to ban torture. It does not work. But water boarding may work. We’ll have to see”.

    “I never bought into the trickle down theory. But if we prop up the biggest banks and the auto industry, some of that might just find its way into the pockets of the little guy”.

  9. Rgb44hrc, if you take your car to the Obama garage, he’ll charge you more than the car is worth, return it in worse condition no matter how bad off the car was when you brought it in, and when you complain about the huge bill for making things worse, Obama will give you a history of transportation as he knows it – flawed, dishonest, and skewed to somehow make him look good and blame everyone else (while implying you are a racist for asking to see the bill).

  10. He made so many empty promises while campaigning. How consistent of him to continue in this fashion.

  11. More Obama Disasters: California Screaming, Guantanamo Scheming and Black Farmers Screwed:
    ********************
    Washington (AP) — As a senator, Barack Obama led the charge last year to pass a bill allowing black farmers to seek new discrimination claims against the Agriculture Department. Now he is president, and his administration so far is acting like it wants the potentially budget-busting lawsuits to go away.
    The change isn’t sitting well with black farmers who thought they’d get a friendlier reception from Obama after years of resistance from President George W. Bush.
    “You can’t blame it on the Bush administration anymore,” said John Boyd, head of the National Black Farmers Association, which has organized the lawsuits. “I can’t figure out for the life of me why the president wouldn’t want to implement a bill that he fought for as a U.S. senator.”
    ************
    “I can’t figure out for the life of me why the president”…..maybe you should talk to the AAs that froze in the Rezko appartments.

  12. Clinton announces trip to Greece at end of June

    WASHINGTON (AFP) — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday she will visit Greece next month for a meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which deals with the Russia-Georgia dispute.

    “I’m greatly looking forward to my next visit to Greece at the end of next month where Greece will be hosting an important gathering of the OSCE countries to talk about stability in Europe and many of the other regional matters that we are working on together,” Clinton said without elaborating.

    Greece, which holds the OSCE chairmanship this year, is scheduled to host an informal meeting of OSCE foreign ministers on June 27-28 on the Greek island of Corfu. “The meeting will provide an informal framework … to consider matters related to security in Europe and the OSCE’s role,” the OSCE website said.

    Among the main issues to be discussed are likely to be the extension o fthe OSCE mission in Georgia, whose term expires December 31 and is opposed by Russia. The OSCE also deployed 20 unarmed military observers after the war between Russia and Georgia in August last year. Their term ends June 30. The OSCE’s chairmanship recently suspended discussions on these missions in the hope Russia would change its stance.

    google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jtA7XU5V6piqmSLGdtMEB1IH1uhg

  13. Sobbing five-year-olds snubbed at White House because they were late to see Obama

    By Mail Foreign Service
    22nd May 2009

    A group of American parents are outraged after their children were snubbed by the White House for turning up late to meet President Barack Obama. More than 100 five-year-olds woke up early yesterday morning to travel from Stafford County in Virginia to travel on chartered buses to meet the president.

    But they reached 1600 Pensylvania Avenue late – and were firmly turned away.

    Instead of waiting for the kindergarteners, Barack Obama rushed off to attend a luncheon with the Pittsburgh Steelers – where he received a jersey from team president Art Rooney

    ‘We were going to the White House, but we couldn’t get in so I felt sad,’ said five-year-old Cameron Stine. ‘The person who headed this White House trip up came out and said, ‘I’m sorry, the White House tour’s off.’ There were a lot of crying kids,’ parent Barbara Stine said.

    The furious parents insisted they were just ten minutes late to meet the president. They had thought they were supposed to arrive by 10.15am, and claim they showed at 10.25am – only to meet with disappointment.

    But the White House took a different stance. A spokesperson said the group had actually been told to arrive at 9.30am. They promised the parents they would hold the gates open until 10.15am – but when they still had not arrived at 10.30am, an executive decision was made.

    The president had to rush to prepare for a luncheon with Superbowl champions the Pittsburgh Steelers, the White House explained. It should be noted that the luncheon with the Steelers was not merely a social call, but to stuff care packages for troops overseas. That did not halt the tide of parental ire, however.

    ‘Here we have President Obama and his administration saying, ‘Here we are for the common, middle class people,’ and here he is not letting 150 five- and six-year-olds into the White House because he’s throwing a lunch for a bunch of grown millionaires,’ one parent and chaperone said.

    The White House released a statement last night: ‘The President and First Lady are dedicated to opening the doors of the White House to the public, and it is unfortunate to see young people miss a tour. ‘The visitor’s office is already working to reschedule the group.’

    But American media reported that the sulking parents claim it may be too late. The school year is ending within weeks.

    Satirical blog Gawker promptly commented: ‘Because a trip to the White House during the summer can be so inconvenient, what with soccer practice and camp and stuff. And next year they’re in first grade, so obviously they’ll be too busy.’

    dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1186699/Sobbing-year-olds-snubbed-White-House-late-Obama.html#

  14. White House urges top court to reject spy damages case

    WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US administration has urged the Supreme Court to throw out a case brought by ex-CIA spy Valerie Plame who is suing former officials after her cover was blown to the media in 2003.

    Solicitor general Elena Kagan said in a written admission to the nation’s top court that a federal court’s rejection of the claim by Plame and her husband Joe Wilson should stand. “Further review is unwarranted,” Kagan wrote in the documents seen Friday by AFP, adding “the petition should be denied.”

    Plame and her husband have alleged that former vice president Dick Cheney and aides deliberately outed Plame as a CIA agent. They say the move was aimed at punishing the couple after Wilson, a former US ambassador, publicly refuted the previous administration’s claims in the build up to the Iraq war that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had tried to buy material for nuclear weapons from Africa.

    Revealing the identity of a secret agent to the media is a federal crime in the United States, and the affair stoked a huge scandal. Former Cheney aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby is the only person to have been charged in the affair and he was sentenced in June 2007 to more than two years in jail for obstruction of justice in the subsequent investigation.
    He was pardoned the following month by then president George W. Bush and avoided jail.

    Plame’s case has twice been knocked back in the federal courts, and the couple have appealed to the top tribunal to award them fair damages for the violation of their constitutional rights and their private lives. Their lawsuit targeted Cheney, Libby, former top Bush aide Karl Rove, and former assistant secretary of state Richard Armitage.

    Kagan argued in her submission to the court, that the case should be denied because under US privacy laws federal agencies can be pursued for damages claims but not individuals. “In any event, the court (of appeals) was correct to recognize that the litigation of the allegations in the amended complaint would inevitably require judicial intrusion into matters of national security and sensitive intelligence information,” she added.

    google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5geCisdChqIZd3f0iJ38_2WrzYZBA

  15. I apologize for the length of this article, but it is a good one…

    Obama’s Two-State Fantasy

    Mark Silverberg
    22 May 2009

    According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, National Security Advisor General Jim Jones was quoted in a classified foreign ministry cable as having told a European foreign minister that unlike the Bush administration, Obama will be ‘forceful’ with Israel. Jones is quoted as saying: “The new administration will convince Israel to compromise on the Palestinian question” – meaning Israel will be forced into an expedited agreement on a Palestinian state.

    This was not a simple off-the-cuff remark. At the recent AIPAC Policy Conference on May 5, Vice President Joe Biden also advised Israel to commit to a two-state solution in order to broker a “peace” with the Palestinians, and in Britain, Foreign Secretary David Miliband declared that “Palestinian statelessness is the biggest recruiting sergeant for Islamic extremism around the world” while Tony Blair announced that by mid-June, the US, EU, UN and Russia would unveil a new framework for establishing a Palestinian state.

    The problem with all this insistence on a “two-state solution” is that a Palestinian peace partner doesn’t exist and has never existed and no amount of rhetoric, Israeli concessions or Arab pandering can make it so. The Palestinians have consistently rejected the concept of a Jewish state in the Middle East and until that changes, all talk of a two-state solution is not only irrelevant but dangerous.

    On March 31, 1977, PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein told the Dutch newspaper Trouw: “The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel. In reality, there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak about the existence of a Palestinian people since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”

    In effect, the argument that the Arabs seek the restoration of “stolen Palestinian lands” is sheer fabrication. A national Palestinian Arab state never existed there and it was only after Jewish pioneers drained the swamps and made the desert bloom, did the Arabs start identifying themselves as Palestinians. Nevertheless, while the Arabs claim a right to statehood on lands to which they have little or no historical attachment, they have never been prepared to accept the right of Jews to statehood on lands to which they have been bound since biblical times.

    The Arab world has consistently rejected the concept of a Jewish state in the Middle East. From the Arab rejection of the 1936-1937 Peel Commission Report on partition, to the Arab rejection of the 1947 partition into an Arab and Jewish state; to the 1967 Six-Day War when Israel offered to exchange land in return for a permanent peace with its neighbors leading to the Arab response of three No’s in the 1967 Khartoum Declaration – no negotiation, no recognition, no peace; to the Israeli withdrawals from southern Lebanon (2000) and Gaza (2005) that left genocidal terrorists on Israel’s northern and southern borders; to former Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s offer in 2000 of virtually everything the Arabs claimed they sought – a sovereign state with its capital in East Jerusalem, 97% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and tens of billions of dollars in “compensation” for the plight of Palestinian refugees – all of which was rejected by Arafat who then brought on the Second Intifada and the murder of over a thousand Israelis; to the covenant of Hamas declaring endless war not only against “the Zionist entity” but against Jews everywhere; to polls conducted recently by a reputable Norwegian polling institute showing conclusively that a majority of Palestinians are not only against a two-state solution but desire a single Arab state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean; to the Palestinian media and Palestinian textbooks that continue to promote a culture of martyrdom and hatred of Israel and Jews; to Palestinian “moderates” like Mahmoud Abbas who recently rejected any possibility that the Jews could or should be considered one of the “two peoples” in any proposed two-state solution………all of which leads to the question of how anyone can conceivably think that peace will be easily attained simply by creating another failed Arab state in the Middle East in the face of such hatred?

    One would think after all this, that the European Union and the US would have concluded that the concept of a two-state solution is, was and always has been an Arab ploy designed to destroy Israel incrementally rather than a panacea for an over-all Middle East “peace.” Yet, pressure for a two-state “solution” is precisely what Prime Minister Netanyahu encountered in his May 18th meeting with the President and precisely what Pope Benedict XVI called for during his recent visit to the Middle East.

    The problem is, the charters of Hamas and Fatah, the two main Palestinian factions, both call for the liquidation of Israel. That’s because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arab objective. Time and again, a two-state solution has been proposed and time and again, the Arabs have rejected it. It is not simply that the Arabs have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity (which, by the way, they have) but that they remain more intent on annihilating the Jewish presence in Israel than on fulfilling the responsibilities of statehood for their people. Even if Israel removed its security fence, opened its West Bank checkpoints and roads, agreed to return to the pre-1967 borders, and acceded to Palestinian demands that sections of Jerusalem be internationalized, does any sentient person actually believe that this would signal the end the conflict? Of course not. Then why pressure Israel into what can only be described as a suicide pact with its enemies?

    Joseph Puder said as much in a recent article in FrontPageMagazine: “A widening majority of Israelis have come to realize that a paper agreement with the Palestinians is worthless, and that once Israel has withdrawn from the West Bank and the attacks against Israel renew, the world – including the US – will find excuses for Palestinian bad behavior. The Palestinians are certain to renege on key provisions of any agreement as they did under the Oslo Accords, and the Obama administration, intent on keeping the Arab and Muslim world happy, is unlikely to give Israel a green light to reoccupy the West Bank. One has to be a fool to believe that Mahmoud Abbas or any other Palestinian-Arab chieftain would settle for a demilitarized West Bank, or would seriously consider uprooting the terrorist infrastructure.”

    More to the point, the European Union’s 1993 Copenhagen Criteria for new members states: “Membership criteria require that the candidate country must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities”?

    Clearly a Palestinian state will not even remotely meet such criteria. Furthermore, the linkage between the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza and “progress” on the Iranian nuclear threat as suggested by Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual and re-affirmed by both Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry at the recent AIPAC Policy Conference is preposterous.

    In a recent article in the Spectator, Melanie Phillips, tongue-in-cheek, wrote:
    “Palestinian statelessness was obviously uppermost in the minds of the Islamists who blew up Mumbai; it was obviously the reason they bombed Spain to help the restoration of the caliphate. It’s obviously the driving passion of the Chechen Islamist separatists; it’s obviously the rallying cry of the Islamists in Indonesia who intend to Islamize southern Asia. It’s obviously the reason Islamists are persecuting, murdering and driving out Christians across the Third World from Sudan and Nigeria to Bethlehem.”

    Does the Obama administration actually believe that the moment a Palestinian state is created in Gaza and the West Bank, Syria will cease transferring terrorists to Iraq, cease its concealed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, reduce its ties with Iran and cease meddling in Lebanese affairs? Does the Obama administration actually believe that after years of deception and billions spent on developing a covert nuclear weapons program, the Iranian mullahs will suddenly become less apocalyptic, less messianic, less inclined to establish their caliphate throughout the Middle East, and more prepared to turn their swords into plowshares once a Palestinian state has been established?

    Truth is, Iran will not react to the establishment of a Palestinian state by recognizing Israel any more than will Hamas or Hezbollah. Quite the opposite will occur. The creation of a new Palestinian state will embolden Iran, undermine US interests in the Middle East, diminish American influence in the Persian Gulf, and endanger Israel and the entire Sunni Arab world. The Arabs know it, the Israelis know it, and, I suspect, many realists in the Obama administration know it as well.

    Unfortunately, Obama’s Middle East foreign policy appears to be based more on ideology than reality. Consequently, it is immune to rational argument and appears unmoved by objective facts that expose as folly its single-minded devotion to the idea that Israel is responsible for the absence of peace in the Middle East. By forcing Israel to accept another terrorist state on its borders, President Obama will not only fail to build his Arab coalition against Iran, but he will be fulfilling Iran’s mission in the Middle East. History has already told us that making nice with genocidal fanatics will not convert them into apostles of peace. The unfortunate reality he refuses to accept is that peace has never been up to the Israelis. It has always been up to its enemies. The 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project found that 77% of Palestinians do not believe they can live side-by-side with Israel. That being the case, so long as fewer than two in ten Palestinians believe in Israel’s right to exist as a nation with a Jewish majority, there can be no successful peace based on a two-state solution. That is reality……… which raises an even more disturbing question. How can those who direct US foreign policy in the Middle East be so incredibly stupid?

    It’s time for a reality check.

    analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=2940

  16. Admin., I had dinner with my friend the Cuban Banker last night and then we stood outside after the restauraunt closed in the chilly night air for two hours talking further while he went through a half pack of cigarettes. Same ritual and always and same result. I am coming down with a cold this morning on the eve of Memorial Day which makes perfect sense–for mad dogs and Englishmen, etc.

    My friend is an interesting guy. His family was well connected in the old Baptita Government, and his uncle who was something of a folk hero once rode his horse into the legislative chamber. It was all beer and skittles until Casto took over. Apres le deluge they fled to the United States. He attended best of the Ivy League colleges (clue: not Harvard or Yale, and whose only demerit is Charle Gibson of ABC New went there. That was before he savaged Palin.) He entered college as a left winger and emerged as a conservative. He once told his classmates that the reason they were fashionable marixists (limosene liberals) was because they did not have the chops to become statesmen and business leaders their fathers were.

    There he became an accomplished badgammon player. The saying in those days was to be good at badgammon is the sign of a gentleman and to be an excellent one is the sign of a misspent youth. It is like billiards in that respect. One night he ended up at a gambing house in Manhattan called The Mayfair. He played against a number of well known people including the great great great grandson of a former president, and of all people the actor Omar Shariff–an excellent player and a charming guy. He developed friendships in this venue which allowed him to rent a seat on the American Stock Exchange and he later became special assistant to the Chairman of one of the investment banks which is now in the news.

    His view of the current political situation is apocolyptic. He believes the hard left has captured the Democratic Party and will turn this country into a totalitarian state. The precedent for him in Cuba. He showed me a print out from Scottrade depicting the long tail of the mortgage mess. He says when the middle class lose their homes and their jobs they will be out on the street. At that point they will be wholly dependent on government for their survival, and that is where the hard left wants them.

    He claims that the left wing who controls the party (i.e. the people we refer to as the dimocrats) will take over the society through a process which he calls “boiling the frog”. The idea is if you throw the frog in water that is boiling he will jump out. But if you put the frog in water at room temperature and gradually turn up the heat, he will stay in the water and eventually die. In this case, Obama has a gang of four (Stepanopolis, Carvelle, et al) who meet with his people every morning to discuss how and when to introduce key elements of his agenda.

    At the moment, they are focused on the 2010 election. Their goal is to achieve 63 seats or more in the senate. They need that because even though they have 60 now, a number of southern democrats will not support the more radical aspects of his agenda. The tactical ploy will be to introduce a number of progressive initiatives in the next year, to get people nodding and saying he is okay. Then, when the time is right and they have effective control of the Congress, they will slip by a fast succession of statist, totalitarian policies. He says Wall Street is broke and will offer only token resistance. He says the New York Times will be given a bailout (per Drudge) and will be more like Pravda than Pravda.

    As for Obama himself, he sees the messiah as nothing more than a puppet. One that the forces behind him can easily control since he craves adulation, is inclined to gluttony. Finally, while he does not profess to be a doctor, he says that Obama is clearly a sociopath.
    I asked him how loyal Americans can deal with this emerging threat to liberty and economic security. He says the key is to catch Obama stealilng. Lying is not enough.

    Concerning the crisis itself, it was the result of a bubble. But the timing of the collapse was triggered as he put it. As in the Great Depression, when the market collapsed the big investors were out. He claims it is easy to trigger a market top if you get a sizeable chunk of big money players to pull out concertedly. It is impossible however to trigger a market bottom because there are too many factors in play. The fortunes which were lost in the Great Depression were not lost in 1929 but in 1932 by investors who re-entered the market too early. He cited Astor who reentered when the market has declined to 25% of its top and thereafter it dropped further to 11% before it hit bottom.

    Concerning the Notre Dame fiasco, as a devout Catholic he deplores the increasing secularization of his faith. He said it began with the Jesuits and has spread from there. In the case of Notre Dame the pressure came from the board of trustees some of who have political ties to the corrupt Obama Administration. He is a devote of David Horowitz (Radical Son)–an old acquaintance, on education.

  17. It’s time for a reality check.
    ************
    No kidding…80% of the people polled in the area don’t think a two state solution is possible if Israel is a Jewish State and “Right of Return” is in the non-negotiable category for Palestinians; so what is there to negotiate???

  18. so what is there to negotiate???
    ——————————
    Obamas misbegotten legacy perhaps.

  19. Kagan argued in her submission to the court, that the case should be denied because under US privacy laws federal agencies can be pursued for damages claims but not individuals. “In any event, the court (of appeals) was correct to recognize that the litigation of the allegations in the amended complaint would inevitably require judicial intrusion into matters of national security and sensitive intelligence information,” she added.
    ———————————-
    Plame’s case should go forward. Kagan’s submission to the contrary is mendacious.

  20. La Rouche once commented that if Barack Obama Sr. was in fact Bambi’s father then it was “merely a coincidence”.

    Thus, the great secret behind Obama’s birth certificate may not be the place of birth after all but rather whom his real father was.

    IF his real father was his grandfathers buddy communist child molestor Franklin Marshall, then that would be something to cover up.

    His physical appearance I am told is closer to Marshall than Obama Sr.

  21. Kagan’s submission to the contrary is mendacious.
    **********
    Her argument in the Plame’s case makes as much sense as her argument for over turning Michigan v Jackson, I don’t know if she thinks this stuff up or if she is a stenographer for the White House political office. The true evil of the Obama administration is in the details and fine print that the MSM ignores.

    ““Although the Sixth Amendment affords criminal defendants a right to counsel at certain critical pre-trial stages, the Amendment should not prevent a criminal defendant from waiving that right and answering questions from police following assertion of that right at arraignment. Jackson serves no real purpose and fits poorly with this Court’s recent precedent; although the decision only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions, even that cost outweighs the decision’s meager benefits.”
    w.scotusblog.com/wp/us-challenges-michigan-v-jackson/

    WTF??? If Michigan v Jackson has so little consequence, why is the Obama wasting time trying to have it over-turned.

  22. The first signs of the Obama inflation we all predicted. Cost of eggs up 40% and rising.
    —————————————–

    You Are Being Robbed! | Print | E-mail
    Written by Adam Lass, Senior Editor, WaveStrength Options Weekly

    Washington’s latest bailout scheme will rob you blind for years to come.

    I object!

    Sometimes the stuff we talk about here is pretty academic. This country is up… that sector is down. Sometimes it’s all about a specific stock idea that you might care to invest in.

    But today, I am writing to you about something that affects me on the most personal level (I’ll just bet it affects you the same way too), and I’m really ticked off about it.

    ————————————————-

    Bandits in Academic Robes

    I’ve got a statement in front of me right now by Gregory Mankiw and Kenneth Rogoff, baldly stating that they wish to take away a major portion of my hard-earned money (and yours) for years to come – and give it to idiots.

    Rogoff and Mankiw are your classic ivory tower types who spend their adult lives hiding out in the nooks and crannies of our shadow government, pontificating on how the little people ought to live.

    Mankiw has degrees from Harvard, Princeton and MIT, and did a stint as the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. When he wasn’t busy demonstrating his skills as a chess prodigy, Rogoff managed to collect sheepskins from Harvard, MIT and Yale. Both get their schemes and rants published regularly in the top economic policy journals.

    In Too Deep

    Some say these are real smart guys. Certainly their word is trusted as cant in the highest circles of the land. They are exactly the kind of clowns who got us into the mess we’re in these days. So when they propose to rob us blind, I get worried – and I get mad.

    These wise guys have looked around at all those poor folks who are drowning in debt: garden-variety rubes with insane mortgages no one could service… crooked corporations with loans they can’t pay off… banks that are (STILL!) sitting on toxic bonds – even Washington itself, which is now borrowing a dollar for every two dollars it spends.

    The conclusion they have come to? None of these fools can possibly pay off this debt the way things are currently structured. Just can’t be done. The capital alone is mind blowing, and the daily accrual of interest is staggering.

    Washington’s Secret Tax

    So they have come up with a way to force you, me, and everyone we know to pay it off for them – in essence, by way of a massive secret tax that will never get voted on by Congress or be signed by any president.

    Here’s how their scheme will work: They propose that Washington deliberately jack up the inflation rate three-fold. That way, all those folks who borrowed dollars of a certain size – that is to say, dollars that could purchase a certain amount of goods – could pay off those debts in dramatically smaller dollars that could buy a heck of a lot fewer goods.

    Let me try and demonstrate in the simplest of terms why this is great for idiots and terrible news for regular, normal, virtuous folks like you and me.

    The Wages of Sin

    Let’s say you lent your ne’er-do-well nephew a hundred bucks when a strong dollar could buy a dozen eggs. Instead of investing that money in, oh I don’t know, chickens and feed, he spends that money on what he usually spends money on – horses and beer – with the usual results: a hangover and not much else.

    Now his current paycheck is $10 a week, and he’s got to cover room and board with most all of it. (Yeah, I know, my wage figures are a century out of date, your nephew would never settle for a loan that small, and nobody buys chickens anymore. But they are nice round figures that are easy to understand, so let’s just go with them for now.)

    It would take him a hundred years just to pay back the principal. As for interest? As they say in Jersey, “fergeddaboudit.” But what if he could earn $20 a week, without working any harder (which is good, because we all know that his allergy to working hard is what got him in trouble in the first place).

    Now he can pay you back much faster, right?

    Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

    Yes and no. But mostly no.

    That is to say, yes, your nephew could pay you back, but the only way to make double the paycheck without double the work is to halve the purchasing power of each dollar.

    So while he suddenly can pay you back, each dollar he pays you can only buy six eggs. Oh and by the way, each dollar you work for at your decent job can only buy six eggs too. Also, all the money you have worked so hard to save? It just got cut in half too.

    This is what Rogoff and Mankiw (and Bernanke, Geithner and Obama too, for that matter) are proposing. The only way we can avoid a massive tsunami of defaults that would make the current round of Wall Street failures and house foreclosures look like a frog hiccupping in a small pond, is to deliberately induce inflation rates between 6% and 12% for years to come.

    That way, all those folks who are up to their neck in it can pay off in cheap, watered-down dollars. And all those folks like you and me, who work their rears off, save against the future, and pay off debt whenever possible? Our savings and paychecks, even our stock market gains – all denominated in dollars – get watered down too.

    This Is Really Happening, and It’s Happening Right Now

    Think this is just theoretical? That I am just another one of those cranky ivory tower types too?

    I used eggs in my example on purpose. This week, the Labor Department announced that they have climbed 40% in the past month. Nor are eggs isolated in their increase. Also setting new multi-month highs this month are beef, cotton, coffee, vegetables, crude oil and gasoline.

    View Larger Image Here

    This is no theory. No sour griping. Anyone involved in dollar trading knows it’s happening already. Just take a look at the dollar index chart above and you can see that the wise guys are already bailing out.

    They know the truth: Washington is looking to rob us blind. And this time, I am taking it personally.

  23. Thus, the great secret behind Obama’s birth certificate may not be the place of birth after all but rather whom his real father was.
    ***********
    I think La Rouche has gone far out in the weeds on this one. The birth announcements from the two HI newspapers list Obama Sr as the father. I have a hard time trying to figure out why she would lie on the Hospital admissions forms. IMO, if there is a problem with the BC, it is that the re-issued BC has his name as Barry Soetoro.

  24. Says:

    May 22nd, 2009 at 11:56 am
    The next day, unsatisfied, I called my lawyer to discuss suing Barack’s Garage for fraud.

    Then I went across the street, to where I should have gone in the first place, to Hillary Motors. The head mechanic emerged from under the hood of another car, with some grease on her uniform. “We’ll take it for a test drive, and put it up on the lift”. An hour later, I got a call that it would take $50.00 for the loose part to be replaced, and $25.00 for half hour’s labor. Should have gone there first.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    rgb44hrc

    I took my car in to the Honda Dealer for an oil change. While waiting for the oil change the guy came back and said i needed to have the timer changed, also a motor bearing was lose on my car. Mind you the car has only 60,000 miles. Honda cars timers need to be changed at 90,000 miles.

    I told them no thank you. I then took my car to another car repair shop. There was nothing wrong with the timer or the bearing. Be careful out there they are trying to rip people off.

  25. I think La Rouche has gone far out in the weeds on this one. The birth announcements from the two HI newspapers list Obama Sr as the father. I have a hard time trying to figure out why she would lie on the Hospital admissions forms. IMO, if there is a problem with the BC, it is that the re-issued BC has his name as Barry Soetoro.
    —————————————————
    The statement was his but the speculation was mine. Nevertheless, I think your point is well taken. It is unlikely that the announcement would say Barack Obama but the real birth certificate would say Franklin Marshall. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that Marshall was the real father, and the intention was to cover it up. But that is and remains speculative.

  26. Her argument in the Plame’s case makes as much sense as her argument for over turning Michigan v Jackson, I don’t know if she thinks this stuff up or if she is a stenographer for the White House political office. The true evil of the Obama administration is in the details and fine print that the MSM ignores.
    ——————————
    I think it may be a case of Judge Gonzales redux or to paraphrase Bogie in Casablanca play it again Alfredo–Kagen. The law may be limited, and precedent may be constrained, but political skulduggery masquerading as law is limited only by the imagination and the Machiavellian desire to score political points by twisting things a bit. I understand Gonzales is now the lifeguard at a Houston pool. The part he likes best is the drowning. It simulates waterboarding.

  27. The part he likes best is the drowning.
    ************
    Gonzo misses writing up the death warrants for 130+ people that Bush rubber stamped.

  28. Whay a blessing for our troubled country to have Hillary out there in the world doing her utmost to save us from Telebama and his worldwide foreign money men and the evil that they have created in putting him in the WH and pulling his strings any time they choose to.I say it over and over.He is the enemy within and his race card is his salvation. Truly a :Gummie Puppen”.The tea parties that are rising and spreading may well become hunger marches.Too bad many of you were not around to see Coxies Army of the great depression.Just remember when things get much worse and you have no place to go.Hillary is out there everyday working and fighting to save this country from the disaster that you have chosen to sit in the oval office of his white house.

    Oh what fools you mortals be By ABM90

  29. admin,

    you always have the best music clips.

    That is such a classic and Cass is rocking in her knee-high white boots!

    :

  30. wbboei,

    Re; your 5:18 post – It almost explained inflation to me! I’ve been trying to figure it out for the longest time. (have i mentioned i’m mathematically challenged?)

    so this gnawing sensation in the pit of my stomach about how long my savings will last is well-founded.

    bummer.

    i just found out i have to do another round of chemo. 😡

  31. Jeezus, ABM!

    I think you’ve nailed it!

    “tea parties that are rising and spreading may well become hunger marches!”

  32. SHV Says:
    Thus, the great secret behind Obama’s birth certificate may not be the place of birth after all but rather whom his real father was.
    ***********
    I think La Rouche has gone far out in the weeds on this one.

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

    And is taking aim at his own foot. Marshall was a US citizen (sfaik). That would make Obama a citizen also (sfaik). (Even if someone wants to say Ms Durham went to Kenya to have Marshall’s baby.)

    I like the theory where he was born in a home for unwed mothers in Canada.

  33. SHV Says:

    May 22nd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
    The part he likes best is the drowning.
    ************
    Gonzo misses writing up the death warrants for 130+ people that Bush rubber stamped.
    **************************************
    The glee is yours. To think torture does not have it’s place is simplistic.

  34. basil9 Says:

    May 22nd, 2009 at 7:35 pm
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I am sorry to hear that

  35. take a look at this ht t p://w w w. washingtontimes .com/news /2008/apr /19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/

  36. The glee is yours. To think torture does not have it’s place is simplistic.
    ***********
    I have no personal experience with the the effectiveness of torture; I am relying on the expert testimony of FBI agents involved who said it was counterproductive. But that is beside the point, there has to be some standards of human conduct, even if that involves some risk so be it. The Chinese use prisoners for organ donors, it works and helps a lot of people but it is not morally acceptable, IMHO.

  37. SHV Says:

    May 22nd, 2009 at 11:45 pm
    *************************************************
    Gee, and to think it has been in use since the beginning of time. What fools we mortals be.

    When you lose your family to terrorist’s who are plotting the next 9/11 write me a post as the clock is ticking…IMHO of course….

  38. h…./
    mountainsageblog.com/2009/05/22/conservative-radio-host-mancow-waterboarded-admits-its-torture/

  39. NYT admits error on Netanyahu

    Leo Rennert

    The New York Times now admits that in reporting the Obama-Netnayahu summit, it misquoted the Israeli prime minister when it falsely asserted that he conditioned resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians on recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

    As I previously pointed out to the Times, Netanyahu offered immediate resumption of peace talks “without pre-conditions” of any kind.

    Thus, it helps that the Times restored a bit of credibility by running an appropriate correction that it “paraphrased incorrectly” Netanyahu’s position on this matter (page 2, Corrections column, May 21 edtion) and by acknowledging that “he did not say that Israel was prepared to resume negotiations only if the Palestinians recognized Israel as a Jewish state.”

    So, bully for the Times.

    But unfortunately, a single correction of a single error still leaves readers of the Times’ May 21 edition astray on two other issues — Netanyahu’s exact position on settlements and proper use of “terrorism” when it’s clearly warranted.

    In “Keeping Score on Obama vs. Netanyahu,” a childish exercise on whether the president got “suckered” by Bibi, the Times reports that while the prime minister “got his timetable” for tougher U.S. action against Iran, “Mr. Obama did not get his settlement freeze” and that Bibi told him it would be politically difficult “to halt the construction of settlements.”

    At best, this is sloppy reporting; at worst, it leaves a very distorted impression of Netanyahu’s real position on settlements.

    For starters, it apparently escaped the Times’ Washington bureau reporters that Netanyahu already has decided, and said so publicly, that there will be no further construction of settlements on his watch. The bureau could have, should have, alerted the Times to Bibi’s position to “freeze” settlements at their current number and definitely not to start any new ones.

    Netanyahu also is on record as supporting further construction within existing settlements to keep pace with normal growth. But in toto, when it comes to “freezing settlements” or halting “construction of settlements,” Bibi’s position is identical with that of his centrist predecessor, Ehud Olmert.

    So, why use tendentious and misleading formulations about Bibi’s real position on settlements, presumably to reinforce the wild notion that he “suckered” Obama, instead of providing straight reporting of the prime minister’s real policy with regard to settlements and letting readers judge whether it’s all that much at variance with the president’s call on Israel to “stop settlements”?

    As for the Times’ problematic use or lack of use of the “T” word — terrorist or terrorism — that also tarnishes the paper’s credibility by continuing a semantic double standard –terrorism, according to the Times, happens in lots of places, but not when Israeli civilians are targeted.

    In the May 21 edition, the Times leads on the front page with a scoop about a Pentagon report that one in seven prisoners already released from Guantanamo has returned to terrorism. In fact, the “T” word is used no fewer than 10 times in the article, including identification of particular detainees who, after leaving Gitmo, committed “verifiable terrorist acts.”

    Yet, in the same edition, Jerusalem bureau chief, Ethan Bronner, in a piece about internal Fatah wrangling (Palestinians Try to Prune Branches of Core Party” page A11,) describes Marwan Barghouti as a favorite successor to Mahmoud Abbas who happens to be “in an Israeli prison.” No mention by Bronner that Barghouti was a prime instigator of the second intifada and, after a rigorously proper trial, is serving five life terms for his role in five different lethal attacks on Israeli civilians.

    In other words, Barghouti has at least as much blood on his hands — and proably much more — as the terrorist recidivists from Gitmo, yet Bronner won’t describe him with the “T” word.

    And this is by no means the first time that the Times at most describes members of such outfits as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, as PC “militants.”

    When Israeli civilians are harmed or killed, that’s the work of “militants” or people who just happen to be in an Israel prison, according to the New York Times. But when civilians in the U.S., Britain, Spain, Morocco and in various other countries other than Israel are harmed or killed, that’s the work of terrorists?

    Why the double standard?

  40. A jolly good sport, he was the perfect man to behead the Prime minister
    ********************************************
    Wouldn’t want to question him too hard
    ***************************************************

    First man convicted in ‘Toronto 18’ terror plot to be released

    Posted: May 22, 2009, 1:56 PM by Shane Dingman
    Crime, Canada

    News reports say the first person convicted in a plot to detonate bombs in downtown Toronto has been sentenced to two and a half years in prison.

    The 21-year-old man in question was a youth at the time of the offense and so cannot be named under youth criminal guidelines, though he was sentenced as an adult. Nor can any other details which may identify him be released due to a publication ban which the judge has upheld for approximately 30 days to allow defence lawyers to file an appeal.

    With time served in custody, since his 2006 arrest, the sentencing judge declared that the man had served his sentence, which means the man is immediately eligible for probation. He could be released as early as Friday.

    The terms agreed to include that he submit a DNA sample to police; that he cannot travel outside of Canada; and that he live with his parents. He also is prohibited from owning a firearm for 10 years, the report said.

    As Melissa Leong reported at the time of his conviction in September, 2008, Justice John Sproat said the evidence that a terrorist group existed was “overwhelming.”

    All of its members were “motivated by an interpretation of Islam which required an attack upon the near enemy, including the Canadian military and Parliament,” Judge Sproat said.

    Charged with attending a terrorist training camp and stealing supplies for the group, he was the first of the “Toronto 18” to face trial and his hearing was also considered the first test of the prosecution’s case.

    The youth played a minor role in the sleeper cell, although the court heard that his co-accused considered him to be the ideal candidate to behead the prime minister in a raid on Parliament. Judge Sproat said he could not accept this — or suggestions that the youth was being groomed as a suicide bomber — as evidence.

    But the youth was the “eager acolyte” of the alleged leader in charge of the camps; this “extremely unsavoury character” acted as a “fatherly figure” to the recruits, the judge said while rejecting the argument that the alleged leader was a “hapless fanatic who posed no risk.”

    Below, more background on the story by Megan O’Toole, National Post

    The Toronto 18 terrorism case began to unfold in November of 2005, when Canadian Security and Intelligence Service agents sent Mubin Shaikh to befriend the suspects at a fundraising banquet for people detained under security certificates.

    In December, the accused participated in an alleged terrorist training camp near Washago, Ont., where they simulated warfare with paint-ball guns, ran obstacle courses in the woods and fired semi-automatic handguns.

    Several apparently attended a second training camp near Guelph.

    In June of 2006, police arrested 14 adults and three youths from across the GTA in a massive sweep, during which officers reported seizing bomb-making materials.

    All of the suspects were charged with terrorism-related offences.

    Two months later, an 18th suspect was arrested.

    In early 2007, charges against the youngest suspect, a 16-year-old, were stayed, and the Crown later stayed charges against six others.

    In May of 2008, Justice John Sproat began hearing evidence at the trial of the only remaining youth charged in the alleged plot, and in September, the 20-year-old was found guilty of participating in a homegrown terror cell that was plotting to kill civilians with guns and explosives.

    Judge Sproat said the evidence that a terrorist group existed was “overwhelming,” noting the youth was aware of the “political, religious and ideological motivations of the group and its terrorist intentions.”

    Charged with attending a terrorist training camp and stealing supplies for the group, the youth was the first of the so-called Toronto 18 to face trial, and his hearing was considered the first test of the prosecution’s case.

    His case was also the first terrorism trial to conclude in Canada since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York, and was viewed by some as a test of the country’s ability to ferret out and prosecute terrorists.

  41. If torture is counterproductive in all cases, if it violates the Geneva convention, if it violates the 8th Amendment sanction against cruel and unusual punishment as Tribe would probably say if Obama told him to, etc etc etc, then why does Obama reserve the right to do it under apropriate circumstances, and why do most civilized nations do it when all else fails?

    Could it be that we are against torture as a matter of policy, but we also recognize situations of extremis where it should be available to extract critical, time sensitive information needed to save lives which could not be obtained any other way?

    I do not think an absolute prohibition is realitic. I think a policy of prohibition, which begins: ” The practice of waterboarding state or non state actors shall be deemed torture for purposes of US Code etc, and shall be punishable as such, except where a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a warrant permitting such practice on a given individual based on a consideration of all relevant factors. Said ruling shall be final and binding.”

    One of the primary goals of the criminal law is retribution. I do not think the goal of retribution is necessarily offended by the water boarding of a man who brags about beheading an American jornalist. There is an exeption to that rule as well: Olberman, Matthews, Huffington, Malignant Dwarf, Modo and a few others repulsives.

  42. Gee, and to think it has been in use since the beginning of time. What fools we mortals be.
    ***********
    So has rape and abuse of women been a part of warfare since the beginning of time. In the Bible: “But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31: 18). God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Numbers 31: 25-27).” For me, that is the uniqueness of being human, we aren’t trapped by our evolutionary biology to be and act as we have “since the beginning of time”; human beings can strive forsome thing better. I am in the minority opinion, however, since the majority of Americans and a majority of “Church” attending and evangelical Christians agree that torture should not be prohibited. This has cause problems in the Southern Baptist convention.

  43. If torture is counterproductive in all cases, if it violates the Geneva convention, if it violates the 8th Amendment
    **************
    It also violates US law..the War Crimes Act of 1996 which enables the Geneva conventions and other “Rules of War” into US law. When this law was introduced for unanimous consent in the Senate, the two Senators who spoke strongly for passage where James Inholf and Jesse Helms..not exactly hankie twisting, bleeding heart liberals. If a prisoner dies as a result of torture or harsh treatment, the people who were involved, including people such as Nancy Pelosi, can receive the death penalty. The Republican Congress of 1996 took War Crime and torture seriously.

  44. wbboei Says:
    May 23rd, 2009 at 12:53 am

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

    In a way it makes sense, but I dont’ like the feel of it. If there’s time to go through red tape, there’s time to do something more humane (such as truth serum). Having any kind of official sanction in law, however difficult, feels to me like being on the wrong side of a question that should be absolute. PR-wise it would be an admission that the US officially practices torture.

  45. SHV said:
    The Republican Congress of 1996 took War Crime and torture seriously.

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

    Why have they changed their mind?

  46. SHV

    I would like this world to be a perfect idealistic paradise, but it isn’t, and evil walks upon the land, as it always has.

    We will always disagree on the use of torture. There are special instances where I will always believe it it necessary. Kind of like Hillary’s statement on abortion…Safe, legal and rare. Rare having the emphasis here.

    I

  47. such as truth serum…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Doesn’t really work that well would be my guess

  48. Wbb

    I do not think an absolute prohibition is realitic.

    One of the primary goals of the criminal law is retribution. I do not think the goal of retribution is necessarily offended by the water boarding of a man who brags about beheading an American jornalist. There is an exeption to that rule as well: Olberman, Matthews, Huffington, Malignant Dwarf, Modo and a few others repulsives.
    ************************************

    Couldn’t agree more but it is now time for bed. Night all.

  49. Why have they changed their mind?
    ************
    Because they were driven by their biases and hate rather than logic. The reason the law was written and supported by the Republican Congress was that they wanted the “rules of warfare” to be part of US law. It was pointed out to congressman Jones of NC-R that, if a Vietnamese prison guard that had abused American Prisoners, was discovered or brought to the US, he couldn’t be prosecuted under US laws. Also if a US citizen was accused of War Crimes, the Republicans wanted the trial to fall under US rules of law rather than international law.

  50. As Rod Serling said “we are entering a world of shadow and forms, of things and ideas, we have just cossed over into The Twilight Zone.

    The Twilight Zone is where Mr. GE himself Jack Welch says Obama is full of shit, and the current buthead of GE Imelt is part of Obamas inner circle where he is angling to screw the American People to benefit GE.
    ————————————————————-

    By Larry DoylecloseAuthor: Larry Doyle Name: L D
    Email: susanunpc@gmail.com
    Site:
    About: 23yr Wall St. career. Currently a private investor and work for a few not for profits. Happily married with 4 children.See Authors Posts (210) on May 20, 2009 at 11:00 PM in Economy, Sense on Cents (Larry Doyle blog)

    “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice . . . ”

    Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric scorched Barack Obama’s plans in a presentation yesterday in Boston. Welch, author of Jack, Straight From the Gut, pulled absolutely no punches. Bloomberg reports:

    Jack Welch, former chief executive officer of General Electric Co., criticized the government- backed bankruptcy of Chrysler LLC for favoring unions at the expense of creditors and said President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus programs will cause budget deficits.

    “I don’t particularly like where he’s taking us,” Welch said, referring to Obama, during an interview yesterday at the Boston Convention Center. Welch, 73, who led GE from 1981 to 2001, was a guest speaker at the New England Business Xpo.

    “To get the money he needs, he has to have a fake budget,” Welch said. “He’s fooling people about how we’re going to have the top line support the programs in the middle without enormous taxes and some programs not going.”

    Who in Washington and our mainstream media are calling Obama and team on the carpet for this charade? In order for capitalism, free markets, and ultimately democracy to thrive there needs to be accountability and transparency in the process.

    We will not achieve the necessary accountability and transparency without serious questioning and rigorous debate on the issues. Given the current makeup of our legislative bodies, the risks to our country are significant. Without a legislative check, the pressure on the media to expose the massive costs – financial and otherwise – of the Obama agenda are paramount. Aside from Bloomberg and typically the Wall Street Journal, what other outlets are holding Obama accountable?

    Who will challenge Obama on his anemic cuts to his MASSIVE budget? When an administration is only able to cut one half of one per cent from a $3.5 trillion budget, you know we have problems.

    I will admit I am no fan of Welch. However, he is retired and not making policy. Welch does offer faint praise to Obama. Bloomberg offers:

    Welch praised Obama’s communication skills, particularly his speech at the University of Notre Dame on Sunday.

    Smooth talking ’salespeople’ can sell ice to the Eskimos, but ultimately our country needs substance over style!!

  51. I have read Jack Welch’s book Winning. You come away from it convinced he is no humanist, but a captalist he most definitiely is. And I mean a very very sharp one. What he says above is heresy now, but just give it a year and it will become othodoxy. A 40% rise in the cost of eggs in a single month is the shadow of things to come. O’Reilly worries that the other party has no defined leader right now except for McCain who is the dims favorite because he is the man that never was. Morris and Miller say just sit back be patient and watch Obama self destruct. Easy for him to say, but for those of us who are not multi millonaires like him, we worry about the collateral damage.

  52. ‘We will always disagree on the use of torture. There are special instances where I will always believe it it necessary.’

    As usual, Gonzo, we are in agreement. And, frankly, i don’t give much of a d@mn about what is done to jihadist types who want to blow up our buildings. After seeing first hand the aftermath of the WTC, and knowing 3000 of our citizens were killed, I’m of the opinion do whatever it takes.

    And it’s not like these SOB’s would grant us any leeway. Remember the Daniel Perlstein beheading, honor killings, acid attacks, FGM?
    I have an idea. instead of water boarding let’s do male genital mutilation on suspected terrorists. After all, it’s legal in many Islamic countries and therefore doesn’t constitute torture, right?

    BTW, thanks gonzo and jan. That just slipped out. I found out this week but it’s gonna be ok.

  53. gonzotx Says:
    May 23rd, 2009 at 1:46 am

    such as truth serum…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Doesn’t really work that well would be my guess

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

    Maybe, but I suspect there’s also a mindset among the interrogators. Here we had disagreement between FBI and CIA as to whether torture works well. Some said it was counter productive; others insisted on using it anyway.

    Here’s a shocking example in a related field of law enforcement:

    When a tiger escapes from the zoo, they send out men with nets and tranquilzer darts to captuer it unharmed. They don’t even taser it. But Rodney King was beaten by clubs while helpless. There’s some mindset that says police cars don’t carry nets.

  54. I do not think the goal of retribution is necessarily offended by the water boarding of a man who brags about beheading an American jornalist.

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

    If they know the man really did it and he brags about it very openly, then that makes moral sense. You could even present it as “This is your punishment for the beheading, but if you give us good information now, we’ll let up on the punishment.”

    Still imo it should not be officially admitted or permitted. You shouldn’t make an industry of it.

  55. Hillary Clinton Ranks as Greatest First Lady

    Hillary Clinton is ranked as the Greatest First Lady of all time to the surprise of many as the author of the top 10 list is a well know conservative republican presidential advisor and historian, Doug Wead.

    Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV (1888PressRelease) May 23, 2009 –

    Hillary Clinton is the Greatest First Lady in American history declares Doug Wead, a conservative historian and former advisor to two Republican presidents. The Siena Research Institute ranks her number five.

    Citing her near loss in the recent presidential race, her success in the U. S. Senate and now her pivotal role in world affairs as the Secretary of State, Wead says the delays of historians and institutions to state the obvious reveals much about the cumbersome and pompous process of historical rankings. “History rewards doers,” says Wead “And it ranks First Ladies that way too. There is no way that she ranks anywhere but number one.”

    The list, entitled “Doug Wead’s ranking of the top ten first ladies in American history,” surprised many coming from a Republican activist with more than a quarter of a century involvement in conservative politics. “None of this has anything to do with politics,” says Wead, “Nor is this about popularity.” Wead points out that if it were the latter Laura Bush would steal the show. A January, 2005 poll gave Laura Bush the highest approval rating of any first lady since such surveys were taken.

    Ranking of the top ten First Ladies

    1. Hillary Rodham Clinton
    2. Eleanor Roosevelt
    3. Abigail Adams
    4. Edith Bolling Wilson
    5. Rosalynn Carter
    6. Dolley Madison
    7. Sarah Childress Polk
    8. Barbara Bush
    9. Betty Ford
    10. Nancy Reagan

    Wead said he travailed over where to place Jacqueline Kennedy and Nancy Reagan. He cited Kennedy as our modern first lady, a transition to a new age, saying that in many ways she “owned” the White House and still does. But Wead said that Nancy Reagan, in taking on the most critical issue of her time, drugs, and in playing an influential role in the staffing of the White House, and in her close relationship with her husband, influencing policy and doing all of this for eight years, allowed her to barely squeeze out Jacqueline, the trend setting, first lady curator and historian.

    Wead said it was way too early to compare Michelle Obama to other first ladies but as the first African America to rule from the East Wing she is surely headed for the history books.

    1888pressrelease.com/hillary-clinton-ranks-as-greatest-first-lady-pr-121545.html

    Doug Weeds original article can be found here:

    dougwead.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/hillary-clinton-ranks-as-greatest-first-lady/

  56. What did Jackie Kennedy set a trend OF, other than that First Lady means fashionplate, jet setter, keeping herself and her children out of politics, etc?

  57. If they know the man really did it and he brags about it very openly, then that makes moral sense. You could even present it as “This is your punishment for the beheading, but if you give us good information now, we’ll let up on the punishment.”

    Still imo it should not be officially admitted or permitted. You shouldn’t make an industry of it.
    ———————
    Lord knows I would be happier in a world where we never did it, and happier still in a world where we did not feel we had to do it, but unforunately we live in a world where genocidal acts can happen in a split second thanks to technology. And in such a world information can make all the difference in the world. In such a world there are conflicting moral absolutes: we never waterboard vs we never allow genocide. Thus, if you do not like the formulation that waterboarding is is a crime except where . . . perhaps we should declare it is illegal per se then recognize certain defenses, as we do in other areas of the law. In some respects that is a distinction without a differene, but in others it states the moral principle we want unequivocally, but bends the principle in response to real world exigency. As I have said before, to me at least, the relevant question is not whether it always provides or seldom provides relevant information, but whether it could provide such information in exigent circumstance. Thus for me the question is, has always been, who makes that decision, by what criteria and under what scope of review. During World War I, the British Secret Service took the paradoxical view that yes we are the secret service, but we are also gentlement and gentlemen do not open other people’s mail. When the stakes are as high as they can be here, such posturing can come at an unacceptable price.

  58. As for ME-chelle Obama’s future ranking as First Lady…in the short time she has held that position she has certainly been a “sleevless in winter” fashion plate and don’t forget her good deeds…remember that Victory Garden. Surely she is out there daily weeding and tending to it in her fashion plate finest…wonder why the media does not report on that?

  59. When the write Obamas legacy, this will be a big part of it. His ill fated bailout of banks, auto industry, consumer credit, corrupt newspapers– at the expense of the economic security of American citizens, coupled with his prolifigate spending and 3.5 trillion dollar budget have exacerbated the problem he inherited exponentially. The economic decline of this country rests squarely on Obamas shoulders, and that will be his enduring legacy. See Welch comments above as well.
    ————————————————

    On the heels of Thursday’s comments by Bill Gross of Pimco that the implied AAA credit rating of the United States will eventually be downgraded, our dollar was hit hard again yesterday. Let’s address some questions about a weaker dollar:

    1. What are the implications of a weaker dollar?

    – more expensive to travel overseas

    – higher inflation here at home

    – perceived greater risk of holding the currency and dollar denominated assets

    – given the greater perceived risk, investors will demand a higher rate of return. In other words, interest rates will head up (and are currently, especially longer maturities).

    2. What are the risks?

    – significant exit of foreign capital from our market. Can you imagine the conversations going on around the world, but especially in China and Japan the two largest foreign holders of our debt?

    – as our economy is forced to pay higher rates to attract capital, the economy slows as the cost of debt service increases.

    3. Are there benefits?

    – in a perverse way, I think our political leaders actually want a somewhat weaker dollar. Why?

    – A weakened dollar will help domestic production of goods relative to our continued reliance on imports.

    – generating some inflation is a de facto means of devaluing our outstandng massive amount of debt. Whomever is in debt currently can actually pay back those debts in future dollars that are worth less.

    – however, having the dollar decline in value marginally is akin to getting a little bit pregnant.

    4. How do you stem the decline in the value of the dollar?

    – increase short term interest rates, that is, the Federal Funds Rate (currently sitting at 0-.25%) will have to go higher. What does that mean? Higher rates lead to a slowing economy. Although given the current economic turmoil, the Fed may have to increase the Fed Funds rate even sooner than they desire and we could suffer through a nasty bout of STAGFLATION.

    Playing with the valuation of the currency and not defending it is a VERY dangerous game.

    LD

  60. So has rape and abuse of women been a part of warfare since the beginning of time. In the Bible: “But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31: 18). God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Numbers 31: 25-27).” For me, that is the uniqueness of being human, we aren’t trapped by our evolutionary biology to be and act as we have “since the beginning of time”; human beings can strive forsome thing better. I am in the minority opinion, however, since the majority of Americans and a majority of “Church” attending and evangelical Christians agree that torture should not be prohibited. This has cause problems in the Southern Baptist convention.
    —————————–
    SHV: beautifully written. Here is a distant mirror of what you are saying from someone who was a Civil War veteran, a deep thinking jurist (which you seldom see), who part of that generation that grew up in the sea of faith and was hard hit by Origin of the Species:

    “If I am right it will be a slow business for our people to reach rational views, assuming we are allowed to work peacefully toward that end. But as I grow older I grow calm. If I feel what are perhaps an old man’s apprehensions, that competition from new races will cut deeper than working mens disputes (the nascent labor movement) and will test whether we can hang together and fight; if I fear that we are running through the worlds resources at a pace we cannot keep, I do not lose my hopes. I do not pin my dreams for the future to my country or to my race. I think it probable that civilization somehow will last as long as I care to look ahead–perhaps with smaller numbers, but perhaps also bred to splendor and greatness by science. I think it not improbable that man, like the grub that prepares the chamber for the winged thing it has never seen but is to be–that man may have cosmic destinies he does not understand. And so, beyond the vision of battling races and an impoverished planet I catch the dreaming glimpse of peace.

    The other day the dream was pictured to my mind. It was evening. I was walking homeward on Pennsylvania Avenue near the Treasury, and as I looked beyond Sherman’s statue to the west the sky was aflame with scarlet and crimson from the setting sun. But, like the note of downfall in Wagners opera, below the skyline there came from little globes the palid discord of electric lights. And I thought to myself the Gotterdamerung will end and from those globes clustered like evil eggs will come the new masters of the sky. It is like the time in which we live. But then I remembered the faith I have expressed (in evolutionar advance), faith in a universe not measured by our fears, a universe that has thought and more than thought inside it, and as I gazed, and above the electric lights there shown the stars.” — Justice Holmes, 1913 (Quoted by Leaned Hand in his essay At Fourscore.

  61. This is far better than anything the corrupt AP (UPI’s competitor) would ever write). Let us hope that what emerges here is a consensus view take charge secretary of state who presses for results, rather than one more pussyfooter hiding behind the cover of hear no evil see no evil speak no evil custom and protocol which does not move the ball.
    ————————

    Hillary Praised By Some Scorned By Others

    WASHINGTON, May 23 (UPI) — Critics say U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is too blunt in her foreign policy, while others contend it “makes sense to show some muscle.”

    Clinton recently compared China unfavorably to Iran and accused the U.S.-backed government in Pakistan of “abdicating” to the Taliban.

    She also seemed to say the Obama administration has given up hope of restarting nuclear disarmament talks with North Korea, the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday. Clinton recently called North Korea’s participation in such talks “implausible, if not impossible.”

    Clinton may not distinguish between her job as chief diplomat and her former post of senator, where “you express your opinion all the time,” said John Bolton, a U.N. ambassador under the Bush administration known for blunt talk.

    Regardless, Clinton is getting her message out, said Brian Katulis, a foreign policy specialist at the liberal Center for American Progress.

    “A lot of this is tied to the fact that she’s an assertive personality and she wants to lay down what’s her territory,” Katulis said. “If she wants her department to be able to get things done, it makes sense to show some muscle.”

  62. wwoebi,

    And therein lies the difference between Hillary and Pelosi. Hillary knows when and where to show “muscle.” And she doesn’t lie or throw anyone under the bus to get ahead. Pelosi on the other hand gets all blustery, lies over and over again, and bullies wherever she can. Her recent attack on the CIA, just to save her skin, is a prime example of a woman playing as dirty as possible.

  63. Basil9:

    First and foremost- Our hope and prayers go with you into your next round of treatment that this next treatment defeats the invading toxic saboteurs. Bless you!

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

    Admin:

    The comparisons of CA and the disaster created by it’s governor,”The Terminator” is a dead on analogy of our present circumstance, a prequel of the fall of the US empire.

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

    wbboei Says:
    May 22nd, 2009 at 4:12 pmI

    had dinner with my friend the Cuban Banker. Fascinating, wbb.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I’d love to hear more of what he said pertaining to how the middle class’, and their dependence on solutions coming from the government, will fare as the homelessness and joblessness worsens in the future. (if it’s not too great of an imposition to share)

    I have the feeling he did leave you with his conclusions of the outcome.

  64. Thanks Mrs. Smith and neetabug.

    I’m so 😡 about this that I’m sure it will help kill off the varmints!

    I’ll find out this week when treatment starts and for how long but after having done 18 months the recommended retreatment, usually 4-6 months, is gonna be a cakewalk.

    Sorry for going off topic, everyone.

  65. wbboei said:
    Thus, if you do not like the formulation that waterboarding is is a crime except where . . . perhaps we should declare it is illegal per se then recognize certain defenses, as we do in other areas of the law. In some respects that is a distinction without a differene, but in others it states the moral principle we want unequivocally, but bends the principle in response to real world exigency.

    [[[ Imo it depends on where the bending happens: in the lawbooks or in the jury room — or rather in the court of opinion of their peers to cover it up or have a quick military acquittal to dispose of the evidence. ]]]

    As I have said before, to me at least, the relevant question is not whether it always provides or seldom provides relevant information, but whether it could provide such information in exigent circumstance. Thus for me the question is, has always been, who makes that decision, by what criteria and under what scope of review.

    [[[ No matter what the law says, the agent on the spot will always make the decision whether to abide by the law. If there is really a good reason, the agent will break the law. If the agents care more for their own resume than for the crisis, then the crisis cannot be real, or the agents are incompetent. ]]]

  66. [Pelosi’s] recent attack on the CIA, just to save her skin, is a prime example of a woman playing as dirty as possible.

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

    Aw, poor little innocent helpless CIA.

    And how sure are we that Pelosi is ‘lying’? Or is this an invented the internet thing? The same rightwingers and Obama may be using the same techniques that were used against Gore and the Clintons: misquote to confuse the issue and make it seem their target (in this case Pelosi) has said something terrible.

    By this one charge against Pelosi, they take attention away from those who certainly did or commanded torture, and focus it on an opponent of torture [Pelosi], and damage an advocate for SS, family planning etc [Pelosi] — and humiliate a woman [Pelosi].


    h…../
    swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/05/20/pelosis-probably-right/
    Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 3:40 pm

    Pelosi’s Probably Right

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has had a tough week — much of it her own making. But in looking at the substance of the accusations, it increasingly looks like she was right.
    [….]
    Bob Graham, who was theoretically in the room with Shelby, says he has no recollection of the meeting at all – this from a man who famously details his every waking minute. Perhaps the most astonishing response has been from the CIA Director Leon Panetta, who basically said: Don’t trust our records. Which begs the question: what other issues have they kept questionable records on?

    But all of this has been lost in the GOP sturm und drang, led, by – of all people – Pete Hoekstra and Newt Gingrich. Yes, Pelosi needs a serious lesson in public relations but it increasing looks like there’s nothing wrong with her memory.

    This site is thick with links to sources.

  67. In the name of fairness, our problem in California is not Schwarzenegger but our Democrat majority congress who keeps voting to perpetuate many social programs that require “spending, spending, spending”. Every year, the passing of the budget is delayed for weeks on end because the Democrats won’t yield on the excessive, bloated social programs. We were in trouble even before Arnold came along, it’s just that the downturn of the national and global economy has made it more apparent now. Everybody is in trouble so there is nobody to borrow from anymore. We have voted ourselves into bankruptcy over the years. Arnold may not have headed an elected office before but he is a self made businessman and knows the value of saving a dollar and spending a dollar, and of hard work, unlike the fraud we now have in the White House who hardly knows the value of work.

    I’m a registered Democrat who votes for whom I think is the best qualified candidate for the job. I
    voted for Arnold, for Hillary and for Sara Palin.

    So, if we, Californians. want to get out of the hole, we’ll have to throw our Democrat majority out of congress. Blaming “Ahnold”
    won’t help.

    In closing, I’ll say that I have enjoyed reading your posts and the comments for several months already.

    Thanks.

  68. No matter what the law says, the agent on the spot will always make the decision whether to abide by the law. If there is really a good reason, the agent will break the law. If the agents care more for their own resume than for the crisis, then the crisis cannot be real, or the agents are incompetent. ]]]
    ————————————————
    Under the scenario I propose, the agent on the spot would not make the decision. It would be made by a judge with special expertise in such matters. That judge would weigh i) the strong policy against torture, ii) the gravity of the threat, iii) the immediacy of the threat, iv) the potential relevance of the information, v) the inability to obtain that information through conventional means. A warrant to proceed would be issued or denied based on the conclusion reached.

  69. And therein lies the difference between Hillary and Pelosi. Hillary knows when and where to show “muscle.” And she doesn’t lie or throw anyone under the bus to get ahead. Pelosi on the other hand gets all blustery, lies over and over again, and bullies wherever she can. Her recent attack on the CIA, just to save her skin, is a prime example of a woman playing as dirty as possible.
    ————————–
    Correct. Hillary is a connoseuir of power and a patriot. Pelosi on the other hand is an amateur who puts personal welfare above country. If I were a CIA agent I would be hardpressed to tell Pelosi anything confidential, secret or top secret. She cannot be trusted. By taking this fight public she has destroyed any possibility of a working relationship in the future. For the good of the country she should step down. For the good of the Republican Party she should stay. The country is more important than either political party.

  70. wbboei Says:
    No matter what the law says, the agent on the spot will always make the decision whether to abide by the law. [….]
    ————————————————
    Under the scenario I propose, the agent on the spot would not make the decision. It would be made by a judge with special expertise in such matters.

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

    We’re looking at different levels of the situation. If the judge says ‘no’, in reality it is still the agent’s choice whether to obey the judge.

  71. basil9 Says:
    May 23rd, 2009 at 7:03 pm

    Thanks Mrs. Smith and neetabug.

    I’m so (mad) about this that I’m sure it will help kill off the varmints!

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

    You are a brave one, basil9. You have the right attitude for success. Where is the tumor located so we can focus on shrinking it and cutting off it’s feed supply.

  72. We’re looking at different levels of the situation. If the judge says ‘no’, in reality it is still the agent’s choice whether to obey the judge.
    ————————————————————-
    The law is merely a statement of policy. The question goes to its application in this particular situation. I think if there is no judical finding then it is then the agent has wider latitude because the agent can say the draftmen never had these facts in front of them when they made the drafted the statute, nor did the legislature when it passed it into law. But if a judge with specific expertise in this field has those facts in front of him (because the government has put them before him in support of its request for a warrant), weighs them against the language of the statute and concludes that torture should not be used, then I think it is a much stickier wicket for the agent to proceed with torture. On the other hand, if the judge agrees with the government then that would insulate the agent for criminal liability.

  73. Bob Graham, who was theoretically in the room with Shelby
    ——————————————————
    What? Graham was “theoretically” in the room, heard nothing and remembers everything everyone has ever said ergo Pelosi is right.

    What kind of logic is that? Was-he-in-the- room—or wasn’t he. This is hardly the time to be “theoretical” about a material fact and then draw your conclusion from it. Was he present at the CIA briefing that Porter Goss was at: yes or no????

  74. wbboei Says:
    May 22nd, 2009 at 4:12 pmI

    I had dinner with my friend the Cuban Banker. Fascinating, wbb.

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

    I’d love to hear more of what he said pertaining to how the middle class’, and their dependence on solutions coming from the government, will fare as the homelessness and joblessness worsens in the future. (if it’s not too great of an imposition to share)
    I have the feeling he did leave you with his conclusions of the outcome.

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

    wbboei maybe I should clarify my earlier request somewhat… I’m not inferring that I am above the middle class. At the moment, I am “lucky” enough to be neither jobless or homeless is all. Howsever, I’m curious as to the predictions relating to the future of the middle class made by your Cuban Banker fiend.

    That is all.. Just a question nothing more. If you choose not to respond… I’m fine with that.

  75. Mrs. Smith, as I said before his view is apocolyptic. He does not see how you can maintain a middle class when you raise taxes, produce nothing and hyperinflate the money supply. In a prior conversation, he compared the middle class to the yeoman class in Rome which was destroyed by those same forces. It began as a republic and eventually it became a dictatorship. Obama is a paradimatic example of the following by an observer from that era:

    “Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the people have abdicated their duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out high civic office, military command, Roman legions-everything, now restrains itself and hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.” (Satire X by the Roman Poet Juvenal, 1st Century A.D.).

    I asked him what could be done about this. He told me twice that it is too late. That is his view not mine. But he is someone who thinks several moves ahead.

    happened in Rome as well, and he draws What he sees emerging is a have and have not society. The money will be worthless, the taxes will be oppressive and the end result will be the demise of the middle class. I have mentioned before his comparison to the demise of the yeoman class and the fact that eventually they left the farms and headed into the tenaments He sees a precedent for this in ancient Rome, when the yeoman class He marvels at the stupidity of the upper class for engineering the demise of the middle class through the kinds of artifices and devices we are seeing now. Once the middle class is gone, here is no buffer between the upper class and the destitute. . If you saw the movie gladiator, you may recall the scene

  76. According to the article I read the Bilderburgs want a one monetary system and they want to the dollar to fail, this article was written by someone in the uk, since noone here reports anything of any value anymore!

  77. I aint so sure bob graham is credible. He looks like he could tell a whopper if he had to. That schmarmy little grin of his is the dead give away. Interesting factoid: He signed over 150 death warrants while governor. Bloodthirsty son of a bitch. They should call him Old Sparkie. I bet he had that schmary trust me if you are an idiot grin on his puss when he attached the electrodes. I bet he was a real bon vivante in ACLU circles.

  78. This is too funny NOT to post.

    Pelosi v. the CIA ala James Bond over the Goldfinger Theme music. LOL.

    youtube dot com/watch?v=UcNQuHsrxXY&eurl

  79. The New York Times is not too big to fail, it is too corrupt to save. Consentley, there is no justification for Bambi to loot the American People to save these cronies. Their business model and bona fides are unsalvagable.

    They are a bastion of neo lib fascism, and the Renner article posted by Gonzo above calls the game on them. They have decided that now is the time for peace in the Holly Land. Consequently, they shape their reporting and blantantly lie to achieve that result–whether the people of the region want a settlement of not, which is typical of the neo-lib mindset. This is the hallmark of a fascist. It is what they are.

    Just look at his article which gonzo posted above. They say Bibi conditioned negotiations on recognition when he did not. They say he said in effect that settlements could not be halted, when in fact he said and did the exact opposite. And in their politically correct lexicon, arab terrorists who attack Israel are militants, but when they attack other countries they are terrorists.

    It is a mistake to dismiss these tactical lies on critical matters as innocent mistakes. They are agenda driven. It even comes across in their childish suggestion that Bibi suckered Bambi. Bambi is a sucker but Bibi did not do that to him. The truth is they want to be a power player on the world scene and the domestic scene and to shake things up. The end result will be liberal facism, and they will assume the goebbles role that they always coveted.

    To repeat, they are politically corrupt, their business model is obsolete and they are not too big to fail. If they want to survive it is incumbent uporn them to scale down their operations, practice cost control and fire schlockmerachants like Dodd, Rich and Herbert. If we bail them out we will be forced to follow suit with all other major newspapers. In these depressed economic times, that is untenable.

  80. h…./w
    noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/05/24/the-cias-history-of-bamboozling-the-congress/

  81. Larry has got a hardon for the CIA. It would be interesting to see his performance reviews, and the circumstances under which he retired. I just posted a response to this over there. The question here is not whether the CIA deceived Congress thirty years ago, but whether they are lying about briefing Pelosi on Waterboarding. In a court of law, the crap that she and her media supporters are throwing against the wall now about prior bad acts, would be excluded from evidence. Furthermore, the attack on the CIA by this fool will have a chilling efect on the gathering of intelligence information vital to the protection of this nation. That is unforgiveable.

  82. Exactly- When referring to CiA issues, one must refer to them on a case by case basis. Generalities based in absolutes are a fools errand and a waste of time defending hypotheticals backed by semantic arguments and irrelevant comparisons.

    Pelosi on the other and is an individual charged with the responsibility of Speaking for Congressional representatives in her leadership position. She has to be more informed on the issues than her Congressional peers. She prove it in Denver, when it came to who was to be the Democratic Nominee (forced down their throats) last August.

    Pelosi used every bit of muscle and clout forcing Reps from all states to cast their electoral votes for Obama. If she could have gotten away with it, Hillary’s name wouldn’t even have been on the ballot as a nominee.

    Pelosi’s gone over to the dark side. She is as much of a sociopath as the president she lied cheated and stole-for to elect.

    She is a festering “dry rot” on the seat of government and is of no use anymore to the constituency she pretends to support.

  83. May 19, 2009
    Letter from a Dodge dealer
    letter to the editor
    My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.

    We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.

    I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.

    On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as “new,” nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.

    Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler’s insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.

    HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?

    THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY

    This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.

    This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.

    HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

    I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.

    Sincerely,

    George C. Joseph
    President & Owner
    Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu

  84. weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/05/chutzpa-obama-lectures-america-on-honoring-our-soldiers.htm

    YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS TO REALLY BELIEVE THIS…LOOK CLOSELY @ THE SALUTE

    WELL WE KNOW HE HAS THE BOWING DOWN TO SAUDI PRINCE’S….

  85. From BP via Hillbuz……

    =========================
    ARE WE ARROGANT?

    Just so we remember this Memorial Day…
    Just so we never forget our President appologized for us…
    In alphabetical order. Just Europe:
    1. The American Cemetery at Aisne-Marne , France . A total of 2289 of our military dead.
    We Apologize.
    2. The American Cemetery at Ardennes , Belgium . A total of 5329 of our dead.
    We are arrogant..
    3. The American Cemetery at Brittany, France . A total of 4410 of our military dead.
    Excuse us.
    4. Brookwood , England American Cemetery. A total of 468 of our dead.
    5. Cambridge , England . 3812 of our military dead.
    6. Epinal , France American Cemetery. A total of 5525 of our Military dead
    7. Flanders Field , Belgium . A total of 368 of our milita
    8. Florence , Italy . A total of 4402 of our military dead.
    9. Henri-Chapelle , Belgium . A total of 7992 of our military dead.
    10. Lorraine , France . A total of 10,489 of our military dead.
    11. Luxembourg , Luxembourg . A total of 5076 of our military dead
    12. Meuse-Argonne. A total of 14246 of our military dead.
    13. Netherlands , Netherlands . A total of 8301 of our military dead.
    14. Normandy , France . A total of 9387 of our military dead.
    15. Oise-Aisne , France . A total of 6012 of our military dead.
    16. Rhone , France . A total of 861 of our military dead.
    17. Sicily , Italy . A total of 7861 of our military dead.
    18. Somme , France . A total of 1844 of our military dead.
    19. St. Mihiel , France . A total of 4153 of our military dead.
    20. Suresnes , France . a total of 1541 of our military dead.
    Apologize to no one. Remind those of our sacrifice and don’t confuse arrogance with leadership.
    As Americans, let’s all look forward – like to the next elections.
    IF I ADDED CORRECTLY
    THE COUNT IS 104,366

    THEN ALL THE PICTURES WERE SHOWN OF THE CEMETARIES.

  86. Found this @ BP don’t know the source
    *****************************************

    WAM (Wake Up America Movement)

    Tracing the trail of TARP money’s uses has led to some revealing new information about the true intentions of Obama’s Bail-Out plans. The shocking recent experience of a typical middle-class homeowner bodes badly for all American property owners. Last week this party received a vague letter from Countrywide, which rambled on about the mortgage holder’s need to protect their interest in the property. The letter stated no action being taken and presented no facts or figures.

    When the property owner, who had never missed nor been late on a mortgage payment at any time contacted Countrywide for an explanation of the letter, they were told they’d receive a more specific correspondence on this before the month was out. Not being satisfied with this non-answer, the mortgagee insisted on more specific information while on the call. Eventually, after long delays, they were transferred without explanation to the Escrow Department of Bank of America.

    The homeowner was informed that Bank of America was now their mortgage holder. They were further informed that this bank has made a full payment of all property taxes to their county the prior month. This had been done with no notice of any kind to the homeowner before or since. After more than an hour of specific questions with the bank’s representative, here’s what they learned to their shock and dismay:

    1. Their new mortgage holder had investigated the tax records and found the owner was 3 installments behind in their property taxes. They had issued a check to the county in the full amount without any contact with the homeowner about their intent or actions. (The bank representative acknowledged that there was no jeopardy as the taxes were not in default – which would require six missed tax installments on the homeowners part.)

    2. The bank gave no explanation for taking this precipitous action nor for their total lack of contact with the owner about this matter. They told the owner they would have to repay the bank for taking this unrequested, unnecessary action on the following terms:

    – Repay Bank of America the full amount (all three installments) within two weeks time or be subject to fees, penalties and further increases in their monthly payments as well. When the homeowner asked how they were even supposed to know all this was transacted they were told that their June statement from Countrywide no longer applied and that Bank of America was preparing to send them o new statement – due immediately – or they would be in default on their loan!

    3. The banker did not offer specifics on the amount of thee new payments and attempted to defer details until the owner received this new statement – knowing this new, revised statement would only reach the owner within days of the full amount being due! After the owner again insisted on specific facts right now, they were informed of the following:

    – Bank of America intended to demand immediate repayment – without notice – of the full paid tax amount plus 25% additional dollars – for what the banker called “just in case” money. What did that mean? Just in case the property taxes went up. How could they go up if they were already paid?! No explanation was given.

    – Bank of America would also immediately require an escrow account be paid for all future taxes, although these were not the terms of the original Countrywide mortgage 2) the owner had a perfect mortgage payment record with Countrywide and 3) the property taxes were nowhere near in a state of default with the county.

    4. After exhaustive inquiries the owner was finally given a figure: their mortgage payments were about to go about from $650 per month to a whopping $1,800 per month – within 2 weeks and with no advance notice. HERE IS THE PUNCH LINE: They were given these alternatives:

    – Pay an ongoing mortgage payment increase to 3 times the amount of their prior payments with no advance notice for the entire next year

    OR

    – Pay Bank of America an immediate full check for the 3 paid installments to be posted before the revised mortgage statements were issued

    OR

    – ACCEPT AN IMMEDIATE IRREVERSIBLE TARP LOAN FROM THE BANK on the following terms: Pay the tax check back with 25% “just in case’ costs built in (non-refundable) plus a signing fee of $45 plus 5% compounded interest on the loan until paid in full. Due over 60 months in equal installment payments. All payments to accompany the monthly mortgage payment plus the new Escrow reserve (of several hundred dollars per month) plus another $55 per month in extra “just in case” money. These figures increased the bank’s return on their unrequested tax payment to nearly double the amount of the bank’s April check to the county!

    WHAT DOES THE ABOVE TELL US ALL ABOUT THE PURPOSE & USE OF T.A.R.P:

    BANK OF AMERICA has been one of the largest recipients of T.A.R.P $$$

    Many other bankers have already exposed the fact that they did not ask for a bail-out. Some have reported they tried to reject the Fed funds. Several incidents of the Fed’s use of intimidation and threats to those who attempted to refuse or return funds have also been reported.

    The above incident indicates the Fed has plans for the T.A.R.P. dollars all along – that have less to do with helping a bail-out than in precipitating one! It appears that T.A.R.P. $$$ to banks have been used to research property tax records; find vulnerable property owners who are behind on their taxes (but not in default); use the bank’s T.A.R.P. influx of cash to make unsolicited, unrequested payments of any outstanding property taxes and evade making this fact known to the property’s owners until the last minute – when no negotiations are offered except for the homeowners to also take T.A.R.P. loans (with extravagant rates, interests and fees) OR LOSE THEIR PROPERTY TO THE BANK!

    COUNTRYWIDE IS AMERICA’S LARGEST MORTGAGE LENDER & HOLDER

    It seems strange that a bank that was in desperate need of Fed funds would be in a position – or have any desire – to purchase this company, considering the precarious state of many current loans. But it also appears that Bank of America’s ability to buy Countrywide has given them access to the nation’s largest # of property owners on whom to work the above scheme!

    CALCULATE A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY OWNERS ARE HAVING THE RUG PULLED OUT FROM UNDER THEM BY BANK OF AMERICA’S COUNTRYWIDE TAKE-OVER – with its concurrent scheme searching tax records, paying all back taxes without notice, demanding owners repay instantly – OR become victims of the T.A.R.P. scheme themselves.

    In brighter days of our nation’s history a scam like this would put a loan shark in jail fast. But Bank of America’s scam – which logically appears to be CHANGE Administration directed – has the invulnerability of being protected by the new major shareholder owners of the bank, which is: the U.S. GOVERNMENT under the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!

    And WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE PROPERTIES SUDDENLY LOST by OWNERS
    who CANNOT MEET THE BANK’S T.A.R.P. Terms:

    A.C.O.R.N. is now set to RECEIVE BILLIONS TO CLAIM FORECLOSED PROPERTIES!
    The combined elements of the above scheme seems to demonstrate that Obama’s close Chicago contacts with slum-lords and big-time realty players has moved into the nation’s capital to the detriment of US all. It also explains why the current Congress has raced ahead with other matters but dragged their feet totally on taking any practical action to impede property foreclosures!

    SAVE A PROPERTY! SAVE A HOME! SAVE A MIDDLE CLASS FAMILY!

    Spread this information far and wide as quickly as possible. Tell your relatives, friends, realtors and property investors of all kinds;

    IF YOU OWN A PROPERTY WITH ANY OUTSTANDING TAXES PAY THEM IMMEDIATELY -WITHOUT DELAY – before a T.A.R.P. funded and Fed directed bank does so and DEMANDS your repayment at USURY RATES! If you don’t have the cash available to pay the county now – take out a personal loan, draw cash on a credit card, sell your 2nd car – but DO SOMETHING NOW before you fall prey to T.A.R.P./ A.C.O.R.N. Scheme.

    it’s now self-evident why the banks were pressed to take FED funds and how they are being directed to use them – to decimate the already overburdened American middle class.

  87. watching-tv.ew.com/2009/05/susan-boyle-bri.html

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

    Just like our Hillary, she falters a little in the beginning, but soon thereafter finds her voice…..

  88. wbboei Says:

    May 24th, 2009 at 11:32 am

    &Mrs. Smith Says:

    May 24th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

    —————————

    Well said!

  89. Yale Daily News
    Published: Sunday, May 24, 2009

    Hillary Clinton LAW ’73 to receive honorary degree

    By Zeke Miller and Victor Zapana

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton LAW ’73 will be in New Haven on Monday to receive an honorary degree, the News has learned. A spokeswoman for the Clinton Foundation confirmed Sunday that Clinton would receive the degree. University officials neither confirmed nor denied that the former first lady would receive the award or be on campus. Honorary degree recipients will be announced formally Monday.

    A person familiar with Commencement proceedings said Clinton would not arrive on campus the day before Commencement exercises, as is customary for honorary degree recipients. Instead, she will arrive Monday morning.

    State Department spokeswoman Julie Reside could not confirm or deny whether Clinton would attend the Commencement ceremony, adding that Clinton’s public schedule for Monday is open all day. Still, she said, a trip to New Haven could be deemed a personal event and thus be left off the schedule.

    This year’s Commencement budget for security has remained the same as last year’s, when former British Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke at Class Day. University administrators declined in recent weeks to reveal why the budget for event security remained so high, though one University official hinted earlier this month that a prominent individual could receive an honorary degree.

    University Deputy Secretary Martha Highsmith, who heads Yale security, would not confirm Clinton’s appearance, but added that if Clinton were to come to campus, security would be tightened for Commencement.

    When asked about Clinton’s honorary degree on Sunday, University spokeswoman Helaine Klasky simply said: “We never discuss such things.”

    University President Richard Levin made a note of Clinton during his Baccalaureate Address, calling her a Yale graduate who is contributing to “greater international cooperation and understanding.” In his speech, Levin encouraged the class of 2009 to follow her example.

    Hardly a stranger to the graduation proceedings, Clinton delivered the Class Day address in 2001. The last time she came to Yale was in February 2008, when the then-Democratic Presidential contender met with a group of women at a roundtable discussion at the Yale Child Study Center.

    Her husband, former U.S. President Bill Clinton LAW ’73, came to campus last October and spoke at his 35th Yale Law School reunion.

    yaledailynews.com/articles/printarticle/29073

  90. Netanyahu clashes with White House on West Bank construction

    May 24, 2009
    By Aaron Klein
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    TEL AVIV – The Obama administration wants to abrogate a secret deal that President Bush made to allow Israel to construct homes in previously existing West Bank Jewish communities, WND has learned. “The matter is ongoing and is subject to current talks with the U.S. administration,” said a source in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office.

    The source was referring to a 2005 deal Bush made with then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that Israel can continue “natural growth” of West Bank settlements, meaning adding housing to current communities in that territory to account for growth in population. The deal was forged just prior to Israel’s 2005 retreat from the Gaza Strip. It was confirmed by Sharon aide Dov Weissglas in 2005, and again last week in statements to the Washington Post by Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national security adviser to Bush who reportedly negotiated the arrangement. The deal was in line with an official letter from Bush the year before stating Israel cannot be expected to withdraw from the entire West Bank and that the Jewish state would retain major settlement blocs there.

    The Obama administration, however, has made clear it wants to see Israel stop all construction in the West Bank, including natural growth. Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Al Jazeera: “We want to see a stop to settlement construction, additions, natural growth – any kind of settlement activity. That is what the president has called for.”

    But Netanyahu has rejected that position. “We won’t build new settlements, but people who live in settlements should be allowed to live normally, including natural growth,” Netanyahu’s spokesman, Mark Regev, told WND today.

    In a Knesset meeting today, Netanyahu was quoted stating: “We do not intend to build any new settlements, but it wouldn’t be fair to ban construction to meet the needs of natural growth or for there to be an outright construction ban.”

    ‘We won’t let U.S. threaten us’

    Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon, Israel’s vice premier, lashed out at the U.S. position against natural growth, saying the Palestinian and greater Arab rejection of Israel is not due to settlements but because of Israel’s existence. “Settlements are not the reason that the peace process is failing; they were never an obstacle, not at any stage,” said Ya’alon. “Even when Israel pulled out of [Palestinian] territory, the terror continued. Even when we uprooted [Jewish] communities, we got ‘Hamastan.’ That is why I propose that we think about it – not in slogans and not with decrees.”

    Ya’alon stated, “We will not halt the construction in the settlements within the framework of natural growth. There are people here who are living their lives, raising children. Housing is required. It wasn’t housing that has prevented peace.” Ya’alon also had harsh words for the White House:

    “[U.S. envoy to the Middle East George] Mitchell will come, and we’ll talk to him. I suggest that Israel and not the U.S. set a timetable. We won’t let them threaten us,” Ya’alon said. “From the banks of the Potomac in Washington it is not always clear what the real situation here is,” Ya’alon concluded. “This is where Israel must step in and help her ally understand the situation.”

    Obama works to tie Israel’s hands

    While Obama reportedly is looking to get out of a deal agreed to by his predecessor, the U.S. president seems to expect Netanyahu to stand by extreme concessions to the Palestinians under his predecessor, Ehud Olmert.

    According to sources in Netanyahu’s camp, President Obama communicated in his meeting with Netanyahu last week that he expects Israeli talks with the Palestinians to begin where negotiations were left off during talks led by Olmert. According to multiple reports, Olmert offered the Palestinians a state in much of the West Bank and peripheral sections of eastern Jerusalem.

    Following his meeting with Netanyahu, Obama said he had told the new Israeli leader during more than two-hours of talks that his government must move quickly to resume peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

    In an instructive announcement, Obama said he had insisted negotiations start from a previous point negotiated on the establishment of a Palestinian state. “We have seen progress stalled on this front, and I suggested to the prime minister that he has a historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure,” Obama said. “That means that all the parties involved have to take seriously obligations that they have previously agreed to,” he said.

    WND broke the story in November that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had collected notes and documents from Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams to ensure Obama’s incoming administration will not need to assist in negotiations from scratch. Rice’s State Department assembled the notes concerning issues on which both sides are close to an agreement, according to informed Israeli and Palestinian sources who spoke to WND in November. WND reported at the time Rice’s move could limit the incoming Israeli prime minister, since the Palestinian Authority can point to notes documenting points of agreement by Olmert.

    While Olmert’s non-finalized decisions during negotiations are not binding for the next prime minister, documents noting agreements during previous Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been used at times as starting points in subsequent talks.

    According to both Israeli and PA sources, American officials took detailed notes of talks at U.S.-brokered negotiations at Camp David in 2000 and then used points of agreement on key issues, such as borders, during the current round of intense Israeli-Palestinian talks, which continue this week. Informed Israeli and Palestinian sources told WND that under Olmert Israel and the PA were quietly working to conclude a major agreement seeking an eventual major West Bank withdrawal and the granting of permission to the PA to open official institutions in Jerusalem. The agreement would have postponed talks on the future status of the capital city until new Israeli and U.S. governments were installed in 2009.

    Just before he departed his post, Olmert gave a major interview to Israel’s Yediot Aharonot newspaper in which he revealed he had offered the Palestinians a state in about 94 percent of the West Bank and that he had been negotiating the handover or sections of Jerusalem.

    wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99056

  91. We must come up with a name for Mr Obama. It must penetrate the illusion connived by big media and portray him as he really is, And it must recognize the high station he has achieved by lying, cheating and breaking every promise he has made to supporters.

    The best name I have been able to come up with for Mr. Obama is EMPEROR GLUTEOUS MAXIMUS.

  92. The Death of Israel

    Sunday, May 24, 2009 5:31 PM

    By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size

    From Caroline Glick, deputy editor and op-ed writer for the Jerusalem Post, comes alarming news. An expert on Arab-Israeli relations with excellent sources deep inside Netanyahu’s government, she reports that CIA chief Leon Panetta recently took time out from his day job (feuding with Nancy Pelosi) to travel to Israel to “read the riot act” to the government warning against an attack on Iran.

    More ominously, Glick reports (likely from sources high up in the Israeli government) that the Obama administration has all but accepted as irreversible and unavoidable fact that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons. She writes, “…we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran’s nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the U.S. will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy.”

    She goes on to write that the Obama administration is desperate to stop Israel from attacking Iran writing that “as far as the [Obama] administration is concerned, if Israel could just leave Iran’s nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself.” She notes that American officials would regard any harm to American interests that flowed from an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities as Israel’s doing, not Iran’s.

    In classic Stockholm Syndrome fashion, the Obama administration is empathizing more with the Iranian leaders who are holding Israel hostage than with the nation that may be wiped off the map if Iran acquires the bomb.

    Obama’s end-of-the-year deadline for Iranian talks aimed at stopping its progress toward nuclear weapons is just window dressing without the threat of military action. As Metternich wrote, “diplomacy without force is like music without instruments.” By warning only of possible strengthening of economic sanctions if the talks do not progress, Obama is making an empty threat. The sanctions will likely have no effect because Russia and China will not let the United Nations act as it must if it is to deter Iranian nuclear weapons.

    All this means is that Israel’s life is in danger. If Iran gets the bomb, it will use it to kill six million Jews. No threat of retaliation will make the slightest difference. One cannot deter a suicide bomber with the threat of death. Nor can one deter a theocracy bent on meriting admission to heaven and its virgins by one glorious act of violence. Iran would probably not launch the bomb itself, anyway, but would give it to its puppet terrorists to send to Israel so it could deny responsibility. Obama, bent on appeasement, would likely not retaliate with nuclear weapons. And Israel will be dead and gone.

    Those sunshine Jewish patriots who voted for Obama must realize that we, as Jews, are witnessing the possible end of Israel. We are in the same moral position as our ancestors were as they watched Hitler’s rise but did nothing to pressure their favorite liberal Democratic president, FDR, to take any real action to save them or even to let Jewish refugees into the country. If we remain complacent, we will have the same anguish at watching the destruction of Israel that our forebears had in witnessing the Holocaust.

    Because one thing is increasingly clear: Barack Obama is not about to lift a finger to stop Iran from developing the bomb. (snip)

    Obama may have held the first White House seder, but he’s not planning to spend next year in Jerusalem.

  93. The above is what happens when you have a president who forsakes governing for the endless campaign. All the dirty son of a bitch wants out of the Middle East is an agreement–any agreement, even a bad one just so he can have a headline. That is no exaggeration. It is why bibi must use his negotiation skills and his friends in the United States and around the world to fend off emperor Gluteous Maximus and his hordes. A bad agreement is worse than no agreement at all.

  94. Pontius Pilot Pelosi.

    Re. torture: she was told about it, she failed to prevent it, she lied to cover up what she knew and failed to do, and now she wants to wash her hands of it. Such wrongdoing is not easily washed away however.

  95. We updated the article a bit and added today’s Paul Krugman column link. Krugman today writes about what we wrote about a few days ago – will the nation become as ungovernable as California? Krugman does not link Obama and Schwarzenegger as well as we do however.

  96. Obama’s European Apology Tour: Next stop – Dresden
    John Rosenthal writing at Pajamas Media informs us that President Obama will probably make a stop at Dresden while on his second European trip that will climax with a speech in Normandy on June 6 marking the 65th anniversary of D-Day.
    Rosenthal points out a little misdirection from the administration in that they will also probably schedule a stop at Buchenwald, the notorious concentration camp that Obama believes his uncle helped liberate in 1945.
    The message Obama intends to send by visiting both sites is clear; while the Germans did bad things during World War II, they were also victims of Allied atrocities:
    (snip)
    w.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/obamas_european_apology_tour_n.html

    Maybe Obama is trying to upstage Reagan’s visit to the Kolmeshöhe Cemetery near Bitburg.

  97. responding to wbboei at 3:24 am:

    I’ve been referring to him as Barack Baloney, having been taken in, I suppose, by the suggestion of alliteration. However, the pomposity of your suggestion is quite attractive and, most tragically, appropriate.

  98. Sexism in the Media: I am Woman, Hear Me Roar

    by Jaye Estrada
    Volume 42, Issue 30 | May 26 2009

    At around this time two years ago, the presidential elections were underway. I was rooting for my candidate Hillary Clinton, as I thought she would be the easy shoo-in for the job. Well, we all know what happened — “yes, we can.” It was quite the interesting experience to follow the campaign through its longevity, even though it was only on TV.

    One of the more disparaging aspects of the campaign was the sexism that threaded throughout the media’s coverage. Clinton had to be “man” enough to become president. However, after she seemed tough enough, there were qualms that she wasn’t “woman” enough. Then there was the crying incident where she choked up and showed some emotion. The barrage of comments ensued throughout the media that we couldn’t have a candidate who could cry. What would the terrorists think?
    I wondered whether this was actual sexism or if I was just becoming defensive about my team. When our team is losing in a game, we know it’s because we never get a foul called or because the referees are against us. So I tried to compartmentalize what I saw. I didn’t want to play the victim card in defense of my team. Plus, as a guy, I was supposed to want someone to be more like me. Thus, when it became apparent that Clinton was not going to win, the notion of sexism in the media vanished. It was now time to root for Barack Obama.

    Then there was Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Now I’m not 100 percent sure how much sexism was involved in this case. Definite cries of the sexism charge did come from her camp, likening them to Sen. Clinton. I thought about it as if it were happening and wondered if the similarities were there at all. While there were attacks on Palin, and some of them gross indeed, a lot of the non-family attacks against her were brought on because of her own mishandling. I suppose if one wanted to critique the media, it would have been more accurate to say that they chose elitism over colloquialism. And that, quite frankly, didn’t bother me, as my candidate was the elitist and hey, you need to be somewhat brilliant to be president. We’ve seen what happens when deliberation isn’t the first thing on a president’s mind. Case closed, there was no sexism leveled against Palin, and the Clinton incidents were a one-time thing. This was the first time a woman had a serious chance of becoming president and the media simply didn’t know how to cover it. The campaign ended, and “Change we can believe in” was ushered in. Watching TV psychoanalytically was over and done with. I didn’t need to read into every word. Life was back to normal. We won. It was now time to take off my political cap and put on my Lakers hat.

    However, there was something different. I wasn’t able to become fully immerged in cognitive dissonance. There was an underlying tic that had been planted. As I continued to watch political shows, I saw it. On an episode of “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” Republican Dick Armey made a sexist comment to Salon.com columnist Joan Walsh. After she continued to make the point of how Republicans messed up the economy, Armey said, “I’m so damn glad that you can never be my wife because I surely wouldn’t have to listen to that prattle from you every day.” What was more surprising was that Matthews didn’t automatically make it known what a sexist comment that was. After that segment was over, Bob Hebert of The New York Times stood up for Walsh, but that was well after Armey was gone.

    More incidents continued to ensue; Bill O’Reilly regularly made sexist comments, such as Ann Coulter sharing recipes with Joy Behar, and made issues of certain subjects just to show women half-naked as if in a beauty pageant.

    And then there was the one incident that stood out for me. After watching a playoff basketball game, the NBA on TNT post-game show came on. It was entertaining as usual with Ernie Johnson, Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith. Barkley was teasing a camerawoman that he could do more push-ups then her. On an earlier episode, they had an actual contest. After teasing her, Barkley turned to his co-host Smith and said the joke, “How do you fix a woman’s watch? You don’t. There is a clock on the stove.” I laughed, thinking that it was a joke said when I’m hanging out with the guys, but it was really interesting that they said it on TV.

    It finally dawned on me that sexism in the media was not about isolated incidents and that it was in fact acceptable. A group of males making fun of females was OK without any major repercussions. I can only imagine what the repercussions would be if it had been a bunch of white guys making jokes about black individuals. People would be outraged by it, as they should be. But jokes about women? Not so much.
    It’s hard to imagine that this type of behavior hasn’t been dealt with and done away with sooner, considering women make up a little more than half the population in the United States. I think it’s time to wake this sleeping majority up.

    Jaye Estrada is a third-year biological sciences and political science double-major. He can be reached at estradaj@uci.edu.

    newuniversity.org/main/article?slug=sexism_in_the_media%3A192

  99. JanH, your comment might be appropriate in the new article. Jaye Estrada will not forget the events witness and neither will we.

  100. KEN BLACKWELL: Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick
    By Ken Blackwell
    Senior Fellow, American Civil Rights Union/Family Research Council

    President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a declaration of war against America’s gun owners and the Second Amendment to our Constitution. If gun owners mobilize and unite, it’s possible (though unlikely) to stop this radical nominee.

    —————

    According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.

    —————

    Last year the Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individual citizens in their private lives. The ruling marked a turning point in gun rights in this country.

    In the past year, the biggest question courts now face is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That may sound crazy, but the reality is that the Bill of Rights only controls the federal government, it doesn’t apply directly to states or cities. Only the parts of the Bill of Rights that are “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the states.

    Since the Heller decision, only two federal appeals courts have written on the Second Amendment. That’s six judges out of about 170. Of those six, three said the Second Amendment does apply to the states. And those judges were out of the liberal Ninth Circuit in California, and included a judge appointed by Bill Clinton and another appointed by Jimmy Carter. — Even leftist judges can get this.

    But not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and it came down this past January.

    That means if Chicago, or even the state of Illinois or New York, wants to ban you from owning any guns at all, even in your own house, that’s okay with her. According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.

    This issue could not be more important. Today, on the very day President Obama has announced Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, the National Rifle Association is arguing Second Amendment incorporation in court before the Seventh Circuit in a case challenging the Chicago ban on handguns.

    If this case, or one like it, goes to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor would say that Chicago can ban all your guns. If she can persuade her liberal colleagues on the Court to join her, it could become the law of the land that states and cities can ban guns. Should that happen, then you can expect anti-gun liberals in state legislatures to rush to pass new state laws doing exactly that.

    The White House is telling us all about Judge Sotomayor’s compelling personal story — and it is an amazing story of what is possible “only in America.” But compelling personal stories are not the question. Miguel Estrada, whom President George W. Bush nominated to the D.C. Circuit appeals court and was planning on nominating to the Supreme Court, had a compelling story as a Hispanic immigrant who legally came to this country not even speaking English. Democrats filibustered Mr. Estrada.

    Supporters point out that Judge Sotomayor was first appointed by George H.W. Bush for the federal trial court — before Bill Clinton elevated her to the Second Circuit appeals court. That’s true, but George H.W. Bush also gave us Justice David Souter, so clearly he wasn’t too careful about putting liberals on the federal bench. We can’t allow the left to hide behind the Bushes.

    But when it comes to gun rights, we don’t need to guess. Judge Sotomayor has put in writing what she thinks. President Obama has nominated a radically anti-Second Amendment judge to be our newest Supreme Court justice.

    There are a number of pro-Second Amendment Democratic senators from deeply red states, including Mark Begich from Alaska, Jon Tester and Max Baucus from Montana, Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad from North Dakota, and Tim Johnson from South Dakota.

    These senators will jeopardize their seats if they vote to support an anti-gun radical for the Supreme Court. Second Amendment supporters will now be up in arms over this radical anti-Second Amendment nominee, and you should never underestimate the political power of American gun owners.

    Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow with the American Civil Rights Union and the Family Research Council.

Comments are closed.