Days Of Memory

On the day North Korea explodes an atomic bomb and threatens more such tests, as well as launches three short range missiles, we recall The Great War, The War To End All Wars – that was World War I. The lessons of that war still shape our world today. It appears nation states do not learn their lessons, but instead will foolishly repeat those mistakes.

It is a dangerous time we live in. There is an inexperienced, unqualified boob at the helm.

The nuclear test was a major diplomatic challenge to Obama at a time when he is facing a global economic crisis and working to curb Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, which the West fears is aimed at producing nuclear arms but Tehran says is for energy.

It is a dangerous time for inexperienced boobery.

* * * * *

Verdun, should be a pilgrimage site for Americans on a first trip ever to the European continent. There, a great battle took place. From February until December, on a small piece of terrain, the battle chewed upon 700,000 casualties. It was the most vicous battle ever.



There is no monument in the nation’s capital dedicated to the Americans who fought in World War I. Many Americans and Europeans, if not most, have forgotten the Lost Generation and the lessons for us today.

The primary fact of this world – and the first thing that young people noticed about it – was that it was being rapidly transformed by technology. Europeans were being freed increasingly from the traditional constraints imposed on mankind by nature. Life was becoming safer, cleaner, more comfortable, and longer for most sectors of the population. Death had not been vanquished but its arrival was now more predictable, and the physician, along with the engineer, had been elevated to the priesthood of the new civilization.

The arrogance then, the arrogance now, “predictable” but not vanquished death somehow has made a triumphal return to unpredicability. The foolish leaders which led to the charnel house of 1916 have different names today, but the same pedigree of arrogance.



* * * * *

Many Americans went “over there” to fight the great fight. Before the reality overtook the ideas of glory many Americans marched off to war.

There is only 1 veteran of the “great war” alive today.



Frank Buckles still fights at 108 years of age.

“Right from the start I was very conscious of the war being a very serious situation,” says Frank Buckles of Chalres Town, W. Va. The war he’s referring to is the First World War.

Buckles is the only known living American veteran of that war.

Though Buckles is now 108 years old, in 1917 at age 16 he was too young to enlist. So he said he lied to the army recruiter. “I didn’t lie, I just misrepresented,” he says with a laugh.

Buckles’ misrepresentation worked and he became an U.S. Army corporal.

“I went overseas in December 1917 on the Carpathia the ship that came to the rescue of the Titanic,” he said. The RMS Carpathia was bound for England but that wasn’t where the action was.

“I was all gung ho to get to France,” Buckles says. “A regular army sergeant said to get into France in a hurry, you go into the ambulance corp.” Buckles had learned to drive on his family farm so he joined the motor pool and then escorted Germans back to Germany after the armistice.

The First World War was a global military conflict which involved almost all of the world’s great powers. Over 70 million military personnel were mobilized in one of the largest wars in history. Over 15 million people were killed during the conflict, making it one of the deadliest conflicts in human history.

The war didn’t diminish Buckles’ wanderlust. Soon after the war he got a job with an international shipping company. He was working in Manila when the Japanese attacked the American fleet at Pearl Harbor Dec. 7, 1941. As the Japanese swept across the Pacific, Buckles was captured and spent three years in a prison camp.

Even with only a few years between the world wars the lessons of weakness had not been learned by the time of Pearl Harbor. Frank Buckles witnessed that foolish forgetfullness.

Frank Buckles fight is for memory, to not be forgotten, for the lessons to be learned.

Though he is many decades removed from harm’s way, Buckles says he has one more battle to fight. There is no World War One memorial in Washington, DC, only a dilapidated monument honoring area residents who died in the war. Buckles says he is fighting for his fellow veterans to be remembered on the National Mall.

“I hope they’ll have something of national importance,” says Buckles, who is honorary chairman of the World War 1 Memorial Foundation.



Frank Buckles is fighting his last fight for memory. Buckles does not want events he witnessed to fade away from history.

We respect Frank Buckles’ fight for memory. We won’t forget the events we witnessed either and will continue to fight not to have them fade from history.

Share

87 thoughts on “Days Of Memory

  1. 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

  2. OT but interesting…

    Watergate under the bridge: how the New York Times missed the scoop of the centuryThirty-seven years on, paper owns up to fumbling the story that brought down Richard Nixon

    By Ed Pilkington
    Monday 25 May 2009

    It is widely viewed as being the greatest scoop in newspaper history. But 37 years after the Watergate scandal, which turned the Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein into household names, it has emerged they could have been replaced in the pantheon of investigative journalism by Robert Smith and Robert Phelps.

    Smith and Phelps, two New York Times journalists in 1972, have finally come forward to admit that they were given key information about the cover-up that led to the ignominious fall of Richard Nixon. But they dropped the ball. The tip-off was made to Smith, a reporter on the newspaper, at a private lunch with Patrick Gray, acting director of the FBI, on 16 August 1972. That was two months after a group was caught breaking into a room at the Watergate hotel, in Washington, in an attempt to bug the headquarters of the Democratic party in election year. Gray told Smith that the former attorney general John Mitchell, who was running Nixon’s re-election campaign, was involved in a cover-up. Smith asked how far it went up – all the way to the president? “He sat there and looked at me and he didn’t answer. His answer was in the look,” Smith said.

    Smith rushed back to the New York Times’ Washington office, marched Phelps, an editor on the paper, into his office and blurted out what he had discovered. Phelps took notes and recorded the conversation. But then nothing happened. If it had, political and journalistic history would read differently. The paper’s inaction allowed the Washington Post duo, Woodward and Bernstein, to steal the show, working with their source, Deep Throat, who was identified in 2005 as Gray’s number two at the FBI, Mark Felt.

    The story of how the Times missed the chance to own one of the legendary stories of investigative journalism has been told for the first time, fittingly, by the New York Times. It based its report on a memoir published, largely unnoticed, last month by Phelps, and on interviews with both men. The cause of the extraordinary fumble are unknown as Phelps, now aged 89, has lost the tapes and cannot remember what happened. But two factors stand out: the day Smith received the news of the cover-up was his last on the paper, as he was about to start a law course at Yale; and Phelps was shortly to take a break from the office for a month in Alaska, presumably to rest after a busy election season. “We never developed Gray’s tips into publishable stories,” Phelps writes in his book. “Why we failed is a mystery to me.”

    He concludes that the lack of pursuit “was probably my fault”.

    guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/25/watergate-washington-post-times/print

  3. My grandfather was a private in the American Expeditionary Force and ended up in the Battle Fields of France. That was after the carnage of Verdun. I belive Wilfred Owen was there. I am sure no poem ever did a better job of expessing the horror of war, not the chivalrous war of the 19th century but the mechanized war of the 20th century. It was Shermans doctrine of total annihalation of your enemy–total war, not limited war, Napoleonic War of the people as opposed to war of the armies, which was to find its grand climeractic in World War II. The problem in this war was the armies were pinned down in trenches and mobility needed to be restored. To that end, the tank, the maxim gun (machine gun) and gas were deployed. The result is what Owen describes below:

    WILFRED OWEN
    Dulce et Decorum Est
    – best known poem of the First World War
    (with explanatory notes)

    DULCE ET DECORUM EST

    Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
    Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
    Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
    And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
    Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
    But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
    Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
    Of tired, outstripped5 Five-Nines that dropped behind.

    Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
    Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
    But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
    And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
    Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
    As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
    In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
    He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

    If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
    Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
    And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
    His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
    If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
    Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
    Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
    Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
    My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
    To children ardent for some desperate glory,
    The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
    Pro patria mori.

    8 October 1917 – March, 1918

    1 DULCE ET DECORUM EST – the first words of a Latin saying (taken from an ode by Horace). The words were widely understood and often quoted at the start of the First World War. They mean “It is sweet and right.” The full saying ends the poem: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori – it is sweet and right to die for your country. In other words, it is a wonderful and great honour to fight and die for your country

  4. And then you have the romantic view of war which Justice Holmes, a captain in the Massachusetts Volunteers left for dead at Antitem recounted thirty years later, in a speech on the subject which so much appealed to the sensibilities of TR that it he was appointed to the Supreme Court in part because of it:

    I do not know the meaning of the universe. But in the midst of doubt, in the collapse of creeds, there is one thing I do not doubt, that no man who lives in the same world with most of us can doubt, and that is that the faith is true and adorable which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty, in a cause which he little understands, in a plan of campaign of which he has little notion, under tactics of which he does not see the use.

    Most men who know battle know the cynic force with which the thoughts of common sense will assail them in times of stress; but they know that in their greatest moments faith has trampled those thoughts under foot.

    If you wait in line, suppose on Tremont Street Mall, ordered simply to wait and do nothing, and have watched the enemy bring their guns to bear upon you down a gentle slope like that of Beacon Street, have seen the puff of the firing, have felt the burst of the spherical case-shot as it came toward you, have heard and seen the shrieking fragments go tearing through your company, and have known that the next or the next shot carries your fate; if you have advanced in line and have seen ahead of you the spot you must pass where the rifle bullets are striking; if you have ridden at night at a walk toward the blue line of fire at the dead angle of Spottsylvania, where for twenty-four hours the soldiers were fighting on the two sides of an earthwork, and in the morning the dead and dying lay piled in a row six deep, and as you rode you heard the bullets splashing in the mud and earth about you; if you have been in the picket-line at night in a black and unknown wood, have heard the splat of the bullets upon the trees, and as you moved have felt your foot slip upon a dead man’s body; if you have had a blind fierce gallop against the enemy, with your blood up and a pace that left no time for fear –if, in short, as some, I hope many, who hear me, have known, you have known the vicissitudes of terror and triumph in war; you know that there is such a thing as the faith I spoke of.

    You know your own weakness and are modest; but you know that man has in him that unspeakable somewhat which makes him capable of miracle, able to lift himself by the might of his own soul, unaided, able to face anniliation for a blind belief

  5. Jaye Estrada is a third-year biological sciences and political science double-major. He can be reached at estradaj@uci.edu.
    —————————————————-
    Jan–I decided to write back to her–for all the good it does. Here is what I said:

    I have read your posting and have a few comments that may interest you.

    I too was a Hillary supporter and campaigned for her on the ground in four states–all of which we won.

    I did not make the transition to Mr. Obama however. Why not? Because he was in pare delicto with the media in promoting sexism as well as racism. (Note: see Race Man by Professor Sean Wilentz).

    If you examine the facts, it becomes obvious that Mr. Obama is a big business shill, and Bush III. A lot of people got suckered. (Note: see Christopher Hurst on Brand Obama).

    Here is an indictment of Big Media which is part of a paper I wrote, exposing the gross abuses in the primary.
    —————————————-
    ——————————————————————————

    VI. COMPLAINT AGAINST BIG MEDIA

    1. Nature of Proceeding: This is a pro-forma civil complaint filed in the Court of American Public Opinion against Big Media as hereinafter defined for i) breach of fiduciary duty, ii) fraud on the American people, iii) discrimination on the basis of gender, and iv) conspiracy to hijack an election. The parties have waived their objections under the First Amendment and mutually agree that this action will proceed in the Court of American Public Opinion with all deliberate speed and without precedent.

    2. The Parties: The charging party is the American People (past, present and future). The defendant is the major television networks, newspapers and blogs hereinafter referred to as Big Media. The major newspapers are the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune. The major television networks are ABC (Disney), NBC (GE), CBS (Westinghouse) and the cable networks CNN (Time Warner), MSNBC (GE), FOX (Murdock). The blogs are Politico and Huffington Report. (Note: the television network coverage of the primary can be rated in terms of fairness from best to worst as follows: FOX, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC/MSNBC).

    3. Stipulation: The following facts are not in dispute: a free society cannot endure without an honest press. Citizen journalists lack the professionalism, training and resources to fill that vital role. At one time, the small town newspaper did so. Thousands of them existed across the United States. Some were primitive, others were sophisticated but the one thing they had in common was a commitment to the well being of the community they served and a dedication to the truth. If now and then they fell short of that standard they would hear about it directly from their friends and neighbors. Thus, they were accountable to their audience.

    Today the small town newspaper is gone. We have a different kind of institution in its stead and place, i.e. Big Media. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of multi-national corporations. Big Media is in the entertainment business, it survives by ratings, and it has no direct contact with its audience. The modern reporter is under severe pressure to meet deadlines. When the subject matter is complex Big Media cannot deal with it. Solid investigative journalism is a thing of the past. Thus, Big Media is unable to provide voters with the information they need to make wise decisions.

    4. Breach of Fiduciary Duty: The First Amendment prohibits government from abridging freedom of the press. In return, the press has a fiduciary duty to provide the public with a fair sense of the pros and cons of each candidate so the American People can make an informed decision at the ballot box. No function is more critical to our democracy.

    a. the standard: Big Media has a fiduciary duty to the American People to conduct a due diligence investigation into all candidates seeking high public office, to treat them with a decent respect, to provide fair and balanced coverage, and to act as an honest broker in the process. It must hold that duty inviolate from the personal opinions of pundits, editors and producers, and the business interests of its owners if it wishes to be taken seriously.

    b. the breach: Big Media breached its fiduciary duty when it failed to investigate: i) Obama’s toxic association with political fixer Rezko until Hillary mentioned it in a debate, ii) Obama’s 20 year association with his racist spiritual advisor Reverend Wright until FOX News broke the story, iii) allegations that Obama does not eligibility requirements to be president, iv) allegations that Obama has a illegitimate child by a white woman who he lived with for a year when he was attending Columbia University who he has failed to provide for, v) allegations that John Edwards had a love child until National Enquirer broke the story, vi) massive fraud in the caucuses which they refused to acknowledge and report on. (Note: if Big Media had done its job, investigated the Edwards story a year ago, and uncovered the massive fraud in the caucuses then Hillary Clinton would be the nominee.) Moreover, Big Media breached its fiduciary duty when it failed to act as an honest broker. Instead, it managed to present all the pros of Obama and all the cons of Hillary. Fortunately, many voters had a chance to meet the candidates as they traversed the country and make up their minds on that basis. Others had access to the internet where the truth could be learned if you found the right blogs. But at some point it became obvious to everyone that that Big Media is a dishonest broker. For many the moment of truth arrived when Saturday Night Live presented a skit showing how the late Tim Russert would attack Hillary and lob soft balls to Obama in the debates.

    c. damages: A democracy is most vulnerable at election time when there is a transfer of power. That is particularly true today. Big Media knows that Hillary is qualified for the job but they have demonized her to ensure she is not elected. Meanwhile Big Media knows that Obama is unqualified for the job but has deified him to the point that if he elected the country will have poor leadership whereas if he is rejected then there may be riots. This is not what Jefferson had in mind when he drafted the First Amendment. But how could he have ever known that the free press he believed in so earnestly would one day become Big Media– the wholly owned subsidiary and indentured servant of multi-national corporations?

    5. Fraud On The American People: During the 2008 Democratic Primary Big Media set out to destroy Hillary Clinton both as a candidate and as a person. The first step in their strategy was to perpetrate a fraud on the American People by playing the race card against her, swiftboating her and engaging in character assassination against Hillary and her supporters. They conspired with the Obama campaign and the DNC every step of the way.

    a. race card: To paraphrase Baltimore Sun writer H.L. Mencken, false claims of racism are the last bastion of scoundrels. Clearly, at MSNBC there is no shortage of scoundrels. When Hillary scored an upset victory in New Hampshire pundit Chuck Todd of Politico presented the Obama campaign spin that this was due to the “Bradley Effect” which is to say latent racism of white voters. Of course he had no hard evidence to support this destructive accusation. And post election analysis has has attributed this to polling error).

    Never one to miss a hand-off pundit Eugene Robinson echoed the same sentiment, then backed off and then wrote a column affirming it. Meanwhile, CNN pundit and DNC member Donna Brazille twisted Bill Clinton’s comparison of the Jesse Jackson Sr. candidacy and his characterization of Obama’s Iraq position into a racial slur. In effect, she accused the most pro-African American President in history of being a racist. And they provided a forum for Jesse Jackson Jr. and Doug Wilder to make racist allegations and predict violence in Denver if Obama is not the nominee. This is the moral equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater.

    b. swift boating: Is defined as an ad hominem attack or smear campaign which is untrue and is intended to destroy the political credibility of a candidate. That is precisely what Big Media did to Hillary Clinton when she met with the editorial board of the Argus Leader in South Dakota, and cited the date of the assassination of Robert Kennedy in response to a question on why Big Media was trying to drive her out of the race. Whereupon MSNBC pundit Keith Olberman pounced on the statement, accused Hillary of wanting Obama assassinated and thereby swift boated her. Obama people then circulated the Olberman tape to journalists across the country. Michael Goodwin of the New York Daily News accused Hillary of evil reasons for staying in the race and wrote articles with hysterical headlines which screamed “Killer Gaff” and “Get Out!” Hillary issued an immediate apology for any misinterpretation, Robert Kennedy’s son stated no one should take offense and the Argus Leader editorial board defended it as well. Nevertheless, MSNBC and CNN harped on it for three days. This was a staged media event designed to force Hillary out of the race. The further motive was to prove she is a bad person—which she most certainly is not. On the morning of the South Dakota primary Hillary was swift boated again. In this case, the culprit was Associated Press reporter Beth Fouhey, who published a false report that Hillary would drop out that evening. The transparent motive was to suppress voter turn-out since the polls in South Dakota were moving in Hillary’s favor. The final irony is that after Hillary suspended her candidacy Fouhey wrote a piece claiming that the presidential race had grown dull and she wished Hillary were back in it.

    c. character assassination: Big Media parsed every word that Hillary spoke for some obscure negative connotation. When she made a speech about Bosnia and stated that she landed in a war zone (which was true), there was small arms fire (which was true in the surrounding Hills), and they had to run for cover (which was not accurate). So she embellished on a story to make a point. Political speeches are full of this kind of thing. It is done to make the stories interesting. It is only a lie when it relates to a material issue in the campaign and here it did not. By contrast, Obama changed his story nine times on whether he heard his spiritual advisor utter racist statements. That statement related directly to a material issue in the campaign, it was not true, therefore it was a lie, or rather nine of them.

    How did Big Media respond? They called Hillary a liar for three solid days, whereas they ignored his multiple deceptions. Previously, they demanded that Hillary apologize for voting in favor of the Iraq Resolution even though many of them had supported it themselves at the time. When Hillary finally suspended her campaign an MSNBC cartoonist produced a cartoon of Hillary as an ugly dragon eyes closed tongue hanging out slain by Obama who is depicted as a smiling St. Christopher. Another media outlet produced a cartoon of Hillary kneeling before Obama with both arms cut off and him standing over her with a sword at parade rest again smiling with caption just a flesh wound. Big Media is pathological.

    6. Discrimination Based On Gender: During the 2008 Democratic Primary Big Media set out to destroy Hillary Clinton both as a candidate and as a person. The second step in their strategy was to dismiss the historic nature of her candidacy and engage in a pattern and practice of sexism against her. They conspired with the Obama campaign and DNC to do so.

    a. sexist attacks: From 2007 to early 2008 MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews launched a steady barrage of sexist attacks against presidential candidate and US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. The record is replete with examples, but in one series of tirades he called her a witch, a castrator, and a she-devil. When he finally got the vaudeville hook they assigned the role of attacking Hillary to another pundit Keith Olberman, a known degenerate. Thus, it wasn’t long before Olberman was saying naughty things like someone should take Hillary into a room and only one come out, i.e. physically beat her into quitting the race. Not to be outdone, the village idiot David Shuster accused Hillary and Bill of pimping out Chelsie. When Hillary wrote a letter to MSNBC protesting this attack on her daughter, he received a two week suspension and network staffers expressed sympathy for him. What this shows is that MSNBC has a culture of misogyny.

    b. ratification: there is no question that this pattern of sexism was known, condoned and promoted by MSNBC as a business strategy. They cannot deny knowledge of the problem because thousands of protest letters were sent to their designated flack catchers Steve Capus (Sr. Vice President, MSNBC) and Phil Griffin (Senior Vice President, NBC). I myself wrote 5 letters on the subject, one of them to the General Counsel. The National Organization for Women organized a protest against MSNBC to no particular avail. Nor can they deny this was a business strategy, because it is their job to know what is being said on their network, yet pundits continued to attack Hillary despite the public outcry. Thus, it is amazing that Griffin would deny that there was a problem with sexism at MSNBC as he did recently. Like Adolph Eichman he was merely following orders.

    c. evidence: Chris Matthews has a bad memory and so do others. As he prepares to launch a run for the Senate he seeks to rewrite history by claiming that the charges of sexism against him are overblown. Also of late, actress Susan Sarandon (idiot wind) has taken to criticizing Hillary for speaking out on the issue of sexism and how it affected the campaign. Lest we forget here is a short summary of some of Matthews’ sexist comments:

     I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for.“ “She Devil“  “Nurse Ratched“  “Madame Defarge“  “Witchy“  “Anti-male“  “[U]ppity“  “She’s going to tell us what to do.“  “Her scolding manner in terms of her public speaking“  “[L]et’s talk about the troops …Will they take the orders?“  [D]oesn’t she know she looks like a fraud?“ Look at those eyes. Look at the cold eyes that she’s giving him. Look at that cold look.“  [L]ike a strip-teaser saying she’s flattered by the all the attention“ On Sen. Clinton’s endorsers: “castratos in the eunuch chorus“  “Let me tell you how short Hillary’s leash is.“  “Is she a convincing mom?“  On Sen. Clinton’s laugh: “What do you make of the cackle?“  [S]he’s clapping, like she’s Chinese. I know the Chinese clap at each other, but what is she clapping at? I mean, it’s like one of these wind-up things.“  “[S]he was giving a campaign barn-burner speech, which is harder to give for a woman; it can grate on some men when they listen to it — fingernails on a blackboard, perhaps.“  “Is there, out there in the country or out in the Atlantic Ocean, some gigantic monster — big, green, horny-headed, all kinds of horns coming out, big, aggressive monster of anti-Hillaryism that hasn’t shown itself: it’s based upon gender …“  “[B]eing surrounded by women, does that make a case for commander in chief — or does it make a case against it?“ “Is she hemmed in by the fact that she’s a woman and can’t admit a mistake, or else the Republicans will say, ‘Oh, that’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind,’ or ‘another fickle woman’? Is her gender a problem in her ability to change her mind?“  “[T]he reason she’s a U.S. senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around.“  “She may have gotten The Des Moines Register’s endorsement the other day, thanks to her husband’s lobbying with its female editors

    7. Conspiracy To Hijack An Election: During the 2008 Democratic Primary Big Media set out to destroy Hillary Clinton both as a candidate and as a person. The third step in their strategy was to hijack the process by stamping Hillary with a negative brand, applying a double standard, depriving her of equal time and applying intense pressure to terminate her campaign. Once again, they conspired with the Obama campaign and the DNC every step of the way to do so.

    a. negative branding: on the eve of the primary season, CNN retained strategists developed a marketing strategy to brand Hillary Clinton as someone who is “divisive”, “polarizing”, “dishonest”, “untrustworthy”, “calculating”. Then they proceeded to repeat those adjectives again and again in the same manner that “biological warfare” and “weapons of mass destruction” were pounded across the air waves in the lead-up to the Iraq War. ABC resident lightweight Jake Tapper (aka Snark) compared Hillary to “Tanya Harding” implying that she would break Obama’s knees to steal his crown. And another pundit compared her to the deranged villainess in “Fatal Attraction” who continued to pursue the hero. Terry McAuliffe observed no candidate in history has received so much disrespect from Big Media.

    b. double standard: Big Media treated Obama with great respect and deference compared to Hillary. According to the Wall Street Journal they provided generous explanations for Obama and put the best possible gloss on his serial gaffs. For example, they characterized his dramatic reversals on issues like campaign finance reform, government surveillance, withdrawal timetable as a “shift his position”, “moving to the center as every candidate does in the general election” or “expanding his horizons”. When constituents criticized him for selling them out on an issue involving radioactive leakage NBC pundit Brian Williams sought to minimize its significance by calling it as “something of a political lesson”. And when he gave us nine different stories on whether he was present at Trinity Church on those days when Reverend Wright delivered his unpatriotic and racist sermons Big Media minimized the topic (with the obvious exception of FOX). In the debates Hillary showed an encyclopedic knowledge of the issues and her answers were clear, cogent and convincing. His were not. Yet Big MSNBC and CNN pundits called the debates a draw. Since his performance was poor they sought to dilute hers.

    c. unequal time: Big Media gave far more time to Obama than they did to Hillary during the latter half of the race. This was strange because her margins of victory were far greater in important states, i.e. West Virginia (41%) and Kentucky (35%). CNN would present a brief clip on her and then break away for extensive coverage of an Obama event or speech. They would cover his speech in its entirety without interruption. When it was concluded they would never come back and finish the piece on her. MSNBC would not allow pro-Clinton pundits on their panels, whereas CNN allowed pro-Clinton pundits Carville and Begala to appear but would not permit them to advocate whereas they did allow pro-Obama pundit Donna Brazille to advocate on his behalf without limitation. The Rassmussen polling service which was believed to be for Obama stopped tracking her numbers.

    d. terminate campaign: What Mark Twain said about himself could just a easily be said about Hillary: “rumors of my untimely (campaign) death have been greatly exaggerated”. From the night she lost Iowa, Big Media began predicting the imminent demise of her campaign. By February the New York Times publishing headlines like “With Skies Darkening Hillary Soldiers On”. Meanwhile the blogs were howling at the moon that her prospects were “fading fast”. When she debated Obama in Texas, MSNBC interpreted her closing remarks about party unity as a veiled concession speech. They used phony delegate math to convince the public that it was impossible for her to win the nomination and misrepresented the role of superdelegates. When Hillary suspended her candidacy Associated Press misrepresented her status by calling her the “defeated” candidate, the “vanquished” candidate and the “losing” candidate. They failed to report that she won the popular vote, the electoral math and was therefore the most electable candidate.

    8. Quid Pro Quo: MSNBC led the attack on Hillary. They did this because they wanted Obama to be President and she stood in his way. What did they expect to get in return? The obvious answer would be access to the pinnacle of government like FOX has had with the Bush Administration these past eight years. Also, they saw him as an exciting new product that would increase their viewing audience and drive ratings. For better or worse, they tied their credibility to his. In the case of MSNBC it may well be the latter.

    But the real reason may go deeper. The parent company of MSNBC and NBC is General Electric. They are a large contributor to Obama and so are their individual employees. Why? Barack is a big supporter of nuclear energy. In fact, Illinois has more nuclear plants than any other state. Those nuclear plants use cores produced by GE. But the biggest reason why GE supports Obama, is because General Electric along with Westinghouse and three consortiums plans to build 29 nuclear plants in the near term. A company that wants to build 29 nuclear plants needs a federal loan guarantee in order to proceed because private banks regard it as too speculative and indeed the Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default as higher than 50 percent. Nevertheless, Obama voted in favor of it. GE stands to get a lot of money if Obama becomes President.

    If this is the ultimate explanation then it points to a serious threat to our democracy. If business interests can take over the media and the government, then they can control our thinking much as a dictatorship would. This is not a case of first impression. When my dad was at University of Southern California Law School in the late 1930s there was talk about this. The Dean of Harvard Roscoe Pound published an article entitled “Corporations: The New Serfdom”. During the 1950’s President Eisenhower warned us of the perils of the so-called military-industrial complex. Today, the business interests are global and the concern is real and palpable. Ideally, there would be a wall of separation between business and government as there is with religion.

    9. An Equitable Remedy: The Court of American Public Opinion is a figment of our imagination. It is an equitable court therefore its mandate is “to do justice and that not by halves”. To that end, the moving party beseeches this Court to do the following:

    a. declaratory judgment: that Big Media as it exists today is neither an accurate source of relevant information nor a credible one relative to the political process. Sadly, time and again it has failed to tell the American People the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Therefore the American people are advised to ignore its edicts and to accept nothing it says as true unless supported by testimony of 2 sworn witnesses.

    b. divestiture: there is an inherent conflict of interest between the role of a news organization which is to provide objective reporting for the public good, and the countervailing role of a multi-national corporation to promote its business interests regardless of anything else. This conflict is exposed by the comments of former Chairman of General Electric Jack Welch in his acclaimed book Winning. He describes how after GE acquired NBC a hostage situation developed at NBC’s News Division where the leaders “openly and brazenly questioned GE’s ability to manage a journalistic enterprise . . . and put together a budget which made money.” As you can see from these comments, when a multi-national company owns a news organization and the firewalls are removed it will ultimately reflect the business interests of the parent company. When that happens it is no longer a legitimate news organization. Therefore, we pray that General Electric be ordered to divest itself of its holdings in NBC and MSNBC in their entirety within a period not to exceed 180 days, and that this Court retain jurisdiction until such time as that order has been fully and effectively complied with.

    c. just compensation: we pray that the Big Media whores and headliners who participated in this psychodrama be awarded the compensation they rightfully deserve for their contributions to human misunderstanding, to wit: a padded cell for Olberman; a year supply of time release Prozac for Matthews; a dunce cap for Schuster; a week in the wooden stocks for MSNBC and NBC executives who denied there was a problem when they knew there was one; a copy of story of Faust for Brazille; a rat suit for Todd; a clown suit for Robinson; a broomstick for Modo; a Dudley Do Right RCMP uniform for Brian Williams. And because Russert is now before St. Peter we ask this Court to defer to his judgment– which should not take long to decide.

    Just so you know there were 2000 complaints for voter fraud and intimidation filed by Hillary supporters in the caucus states. The DNC controlled by Dean, Brazille and Pontius Pilot Pelosi investigated not one of them in deference to Obam.

    If you were a Hillary supporter, you need to know that

  6. Hillary gets surprise honorary degree from Yale today.

    news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090525/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_yale_graduation

  7. Clinton calls counterparts of Japan, S. Korea on DPRK’s nuclear test

    WASHINGTON, May 25 (Xinhua) — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday called her counterparts of Japan and South Korea to discuss a response to the nuclear test conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

    The DPRK announced earlier in the day that it has successfully conducted “one more” underground nuclear test earlier in the day.

    During talks with Japan’s Hirofumi Nakasone and South Korea’s Yu Myung-Hwan, Clinton stressed the importance of a “strong, unified approach to this threat to international peace and security,” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said. “Secretary Clinton is engaged in intensive diplomacy concerning the DPRK’s claims of a nuclear test,” said Kelly, adding that the top U.S. diplomat will also speak with her Chinese and Russian counterparts late on Monday.

    President Barack Obama on Monday accused the DPRK of “recklessly challenging the international community” with its new underground nuclear test.

    The DPRK “conducted a nuclear test in violation of international law,” Obama said in the statement. “North Korea’s attempts to develop nuclear weapons, as well as its ballistic missile program, constitute a threat to international peace and security.” The president said that the United States will hold consultations with its allies and members of the UN Security Council on the DPRK test and a subsequent series of test-firings of short-range ground-to-air missiles. The DPRK conducted its first nuclear test in 2006.

    The latest nuclear test by Pyongyang came after the United Nations Security Council adopted a presidential statement in late April, condemning the April 5 rocket launch by the DPRK and demanding the country “not conduct any further launch.”

    news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/26/content_11434443.htm

  8. admin,

    What a touching, educational and informative article. Thank you.

    Today I heard about an organization called Buglers across America which plays live taps for military funerals. It is an all-volunteer organization and has presided at over 200,000 funerals. I would like to volunteer but I play woodwinds, not brass instruments. I may try to learn taps, though, on a trumpet.

    Wbboei,
    fascianting piece! I haven’t had time to do more than skim it but I noticed the bit about Sarandon. Do you have any more info about what she’s saying regarding HRC and campaign sexism?

  9. Thanks, Admin for posting the info about the wonderful Frank Buckles. Amazing how his recollection of WWI history is as fresh in his mind a century later as if it just happened a day or two ago.

    Here is a little tidbit of info picked up along the way in my cyber travels:

    The FINAL results of the 2008 Democratic Primaries and Caucuses:

    Hillary Rodham Clinton: 17,857,446 votes (48.04%)
    Barack Hussein Obama: 17,584,649 (47.31%)

    Hillary won the Democratic Primaries. And she would have knocked the socks of McCain in the general. And she would have been a truly great president.

    h…w….thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Ballot.phtml

  10. Mrs. Smith,

    I can’t tell you how sad it makes me that the dimwits stole the presidency from her.

  11. I haven’t had time to do more than skim it but I noticed the bit about Sarandon. Do you have any more info about what she’s saying regarding HRC and campaign sexism?
    ———————————-
    Basil: Sarandon is a loser. Below is was what she told some breathless star struck Holllywood Reporter a few months back. It is nothing short of delusional. Hillary may be many things to us, and many other things to her detractors, but a whiner she is not. Hillary has done far more to advance the cause of womens rights than a 100 Sarandons ever could. Sarandon diminishes herself by these comments.
    ———————————————-

    Susan Sarandon Criticizes Hillary Clinton
    Susan Sarandon won’t be playing Hillary Clinton anytime soon in a movie. She’s just publicly attacked the Senator, calling her a “whiner.”

    When Sarandon was asked if she’d ever play Hillary, she replied, “No…At this point, to say after what’s happened to her campaign and how they squandered all that money and all the different reasons her campaign fell apart, to blame it on sexism, I find so destructive to every young girl who dreams about making a difference through government.

    Instead of saying, ‘Look how far I’ve gotten and you can do it too,’ and all the positive things she could have done, she’s turned into such a blamer and whiner, as if that was the reason, when clearly she wouldn’t have been in the position she was in if she hadn’t been a woman.

    To now turn around and say it was sexism I find so dishonorable and really destructive to women all over, young women all over. So I don’t really respect her enough to want to play her, and I find it sad and disappointing.”

    We wonder what Susan thinks about Sarah Palin?

  12. JanH Says:
    May 25th, 2009 at 11:03 pm

    Riding atop the dimwits is Nancy Pelosi. The primary reason I do not care what it takes to remove her from office.

    “Pelosi used a Friday news conference to offer up other members of the House Democratic leadership as “human shields” to deflect questions from the press about the CIA controversy. They droned on about the liberal legislative agenda.

    At the very end of the news conference, as Pelosi was trying to leave the podium and had already issued an edict that she didn’t have anything more to say about the CIA matter, a reporter tried to ask a question about Rep. Steve King’s intention to introduce a resolution asking the House to suspend Pelosi’s security clearance until the controversy is resolved. The reporter asked, “And were you aware that Steve King is asking for your security clearance to be revoked?” But Pelosi walked away without commenting.

    With the help of the mainstream media, Pelosi is obviously hoping that she can stonewall further inquiry. On Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” Washington Post liberal columnist Eugene Robinson, a follower of the Democratic Party line, declared that he wasn’t sure that she was “in such terrible political danger” and that “People underestimate Nancy Pelosi sometimes as a politician.”

    Pelosi the politician is clearly depending on the press to stop asking questions.

    However, since Pelosi and other elected officials don’t have to go through background investigations, it is the job of the media to perform this function. In the case of Pelosi, it is long overdue.”

    h….w….aim.org/aim-column/speaker-pelosis-controversial-marxist-connections/

  13. wbboei Says:
    May 25th, 2009 at 11:29 pm

    Susan Sarandon is such a joke. I doubt her own children can stand her pompous ‘know it all’ dictatorial lectures. Teaching a dog string theory would be more interesting than listening to Sarandon’s total disconnect from the facts justifying a position.

    I can only hope in the not too distant future, Hillary writes a book (under another pen name) detailing the facts, naming names, of her sabotaged campaign. It would be a most revealing blockbuster best seller.

  14. Eugene Robinson, a follower of the Democratic Party line, declared that he wasn’t sure that she was “in such terrible political danger” and that “People underestimate Nancy Pelosi sometimes as a politician.”
    ——————————–
    Robinson is a laughing hyenea with as much mental give and take as a scottish terrier watching a rathole.

  15. Mrs. Smith said:
    Hillary Rodham Clinton: 17,857,446 votes (48.04%)
    Barack Hussein Obama: 17,584,649 (47.31%)

    Hillary won the Democratic Primaries. And she would have knocked the socks of McCain in the general. And she would have been a truly great president.

    h…w….thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Ballot.phtml

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

    Yes, she would have won the GE by a higher margin than Obama did. His was 7%, hers would have been at least 12% — plus the votes of her supporters who stayed home and thus were not counted in the exit polls.

    See h../w
    cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/11/12/politics/horserace/entry4596620.shtml?source=search_story

  16. Follow-up on Hillary receiving honorary degree (very nice picture on site)…

    Cheers and honors for Clinton at Yale
    By Hartford Courant | May 26, 2009

    NEW HAVEN – US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got a standing ovation as well as an honorary degree at Yale University’s 308th graduation ceremony yesterday.

    Nine others received honorary degrees at Yale, Clinton’s alma mater, including an artist, choreographer, writer, economist, and scientist. Student marshals received symbolic diplomas on behalf of almost 3,000 of their peers.

    Clinton, all smiles, was given the ovation when called to receive her Doctor of Laws honorary degree. Clinton, who earned her Yale law degree in 1973, was first lady during her husband’s presidency, was elected to the US Senate from New York in 2000, reelected in 2006, and sought the Democratic party’s presidential nomination in 2008. She became a diplomat in President Obama’s Cabinet in January.

    University president Richard Levin praised Clinton for bringing attention to healthcare, education, and women’s and children’s rights throughout her career.

    Clinton raised the degree in her hand, waved, and mouthed “thank you” to the cheering crowd.

    Robert Nelb, 23, appreciated Clinton’s presence. “She’s a true public servant,” said Nelb, who graduated with a master’s in public health. He will begin a two-year fellowship working for the Obama administration’s health initiatives. “It’s tough to find a job, so it’s nice to have gotten a good one,” Nelb said.

    Other honorary degree recipients were sculptor Richard Serra, writer John McPhee, priest and creator of liberation theology Gustavo Gutierrez, composer Sofia Gubaidulina, scientist Leroy Hood, Nobel Prize winner Thomas Schelling, and choreographer Bill T. Jones.

    boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/05/26/cheers_and_honors_for_clinton_at_yale?mode=PF

  17. oops…this is the right link…

    boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/05/26/cheers_and_honors_for_clinton_at_yale/

  18. Mrs. Smith, I posted extensively about the Greene Paper results and was reprimanded on many blogs for not ‘getting over it.’

    Well, I wasn’t over it then and I’m not over it now.

    The DNC robbed her, especially Pooplosi, Bradzilla, Dean, Kryeey, Teddie and crew.

    HRC earned the nomination. BO’s selection prompted me to change party affiliation to Independent.

    Hillary Rodham Clinton: 17,857,446 votes (48.04%)
    Barack Hussein Obama: 17,584,649 (47.31%)

  19. Obama ‘makes Supreme Court pick’

    US President Barack Obama intends to nominate Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the Supreme Court, officials say. Ms Sotomayor, 54, an appeal court judge from New York, would be the first Hispanic to take the position. She would replace Justice David Souter, who announced his retirement from the top US court earlier this month.

    Mr Obama is expected to officially announce his choice later. Any nominee must be vetted by a Senate committee and confirmed in a Senate vote. The Democrats dominate the Senate and observers say any nomination Mr Obama makes is likely to be approved.

    If selected, Ms Sotomayor would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the current Supreme Court.

    Bronx background

    White House officials told the Associated Press that Ms Sotomayor would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any other justice confirmed in the past 70 years. Mr Obama had said he wanted a justice who combined intellect and empathy – the ability to understand the troubles of everyday Americans.

    Ms Sotomayor was raised on a housing estate in the Bronx – in one of New York City’s most deprived areas. She is said to have been inspired by the Perry Mason TV series to become a judge, and was educated at both Princeton and Yale. She has been nominated to serve as a judge by both Republican and Democrat presidents. In 1991, George H W Bush named her a district judge and his successor in the White House, Bill Clinton, nominated her to the circuit court in 1997.

    The Supreme Court is the highest court in the US, and has the authority to strike down any state or federal law it deems unconstitutional. Each of the nine Supreme Court justices is nominated to the post for life. Of the incumbents, four are regarded as liberal, four as conservative and one is seen as unaligned. If appointed, Ms Sotomayor is expected to be on the liberal wing – leaving the political balance unchanged as Mr Souter is also a liberal.

    news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8068467.stm

  20. Nev. Gov. rejects offer to greet Obama at airport

    The Associated Press
    05/25/2009

    CARSON CITY, Nev.—Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons says he rejected a White House offer of a handshake meeting with President Barack Obama when he arrives in Las Vegas.
    The Republican governor released a statement Monday saying he’s not interested in a “momentary” greeting with the Democratic president.

    Gibbons says he wants an apology and a promise to undo damage he says Obama caused with a February comment that corporations shouldn’t use bailout funds for trips to Las Vegas. Gibbons calls that comment an insult to Las Vegas and a message to companies to cancel corporate meetings and conventions in the tourism-dependent city.

    Obama plans to visit Tuesday for a Las Vegas Strip campaign fundraiser for Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

    mercurynews.com/news/ci_12446612

  21. Iran’s Ahmadinejad reaches out to Obama

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says if he is re-elected next month he wants to have a face-to-face meeting with US President Barack Obama. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he wanted to debate global issues with Barack Obama at the new UN session in September. But he added that Iran would not discuss its nuclear programme outside the framework of the UN nuclear agency’s regulations.

    In March, Mr Obama said he was seeking engagement with Iran.

    Global issues

    Speaking to foreign journalists, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would never abandon its advances in uranium enrichment in exchange for Western offers to ease sanctions or other economic incentives. The nuclear issue “is closed”, he told a press conference in the Iranian capital, Tehran.

    So Mr Obama’s hopes for a new and constructive dialogue with Iran on the nuclear issue look as far away as ever, says the BBC’s Jon Leyne in Tehran. However, Mr Ahmadinejad did confirm that he would be presenting to the powers negotiating with Iran over its nuclear programme a package of proposals on managing global issues.
    They are likely to include proposals for global nuclear disarmament, our correspondent says.

    Last week Iran announced it had successfully launched a new medium-range rocket
    capable of reaching Israel and southern Europe. Iran says its nuclear programme is purely for peaceful purposes, while the US has accused it of trying to develop nuclear weapons. On the campaign stump for the presidential election on 12 June, Mr Ahmadinejad has compared Iran’s enemies to “dogs”, saying: “If you retreat, they attack; if you attack they retreat.” Reformist candidates former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi and ex-parliament speaker Mehdi Karoubi are also contesting the race for the Iranian presidency.

    The former Revolutionary Guards chief, Mohsen Rezai, is the fourth main candidate.
    Analysts say the lower the turn-out, the more likely Mr Ahmadinejad is to remain in power.

    news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8067338.stm

  22. ‘The Republican governor released a statement Monday saying he’s not interested in a “momentary” greeting with the Democratic president.’

    Good for him!!!!!

    BTW, I read this nick for ahmadinejad on another site.

    Ach-my-teeny-rod

    hehehehehe

  23. Netanyahu: Outposts in exchange for Iran

    May 26, 2009

    JERUSALEM (JTA) — Israel will give up settlement outposts in exchange for U.S. support in dealing with the threat from Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu said. The prime minister told his Likud Party faction Monday that Israel will have to accede to the demands of the United States to remove the West Bank outposts in order to focus its attention on the Iranian nuclear threat, according to Israeli news reports.

    “I identify the danger, and that’s why I am willing to take unpopular steps such as evacuating outposts. The Iranian threat is above everything,” Netanyahu reportedly said. “There are things on which you have to compromise.” Later, he added, “There are reasons to preserve our good relationship with the United States.”

    Netanyahu also repeated his promise that construction would be allowed in established legal settlements to accommodate natural population growth. Meanwhile, Defense Minister Ehud Barak will tell U.S. officials during his visit to Washington next week that Israel will dismantle 26 West Bank outposts in the next few weeks, as long as natural growth construction is allowed to resume in existing settlements, Ynet reported.

    The Israeli position came out of a late-night meeting Sunday between Barak and Netanyahu. Barak is scheduled to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Adviser James Jones.

    jta.org/news/article/2009/05/26/1005413/netanyahu-outposts-in-exchange-for-iran

  24. I skimmed Krugmans article on the demise of California. He attributes the collapse of their economy to Republican inspired Proposition 13, and their similar obstructionism in the face of the current crisis. These statements betray Krugmans socialist leanings, because like everthing else they are a reaction to other things–specifically the prolifigate spending policies of the Tom Hayden California Assemby then, and the Emperor Gluetus Maximus bailout stimulus and got know what else give aways of taxpayer money now. That is the problem with ideologues. They tell us only what they want us to hear. He does not mention that today in California Public jobs in Los Angeles County are held by illegals. When we pay taxes and those dollars are not used constructively, it is only natural that people would move to protect what they have earned–which means passing legislation if they have the clout, or hiding income if they do not. The Soviet Union was a workers paradise according to their propaganda. Yet some were more equal than others (the Pelosi limosene liberals had the dauchus) and there was a thriving black market economy because the people who had money did not want to participate. The same will happen here, under Gleuteus. If a tax revolt does not work, revenue earned may become invisible. We are dealing here with human nature.

    (the taxpayer revolt inspired by real estate man Howard Jarvis) in reaction to prolifigate spending policies of a Tom Hayden assembly,

    their inability to cope with the immigration problem (40 percent of the public jobs in LA county are held by illegals),

  25. Jan–new construction is a sleeves off the vest concession. Natural growth is the important one and Bibi is hanging on to that one. Bibi 10-Obama 0. And now Bambi is in a double bind, because he must now deal with Iran–whether he wants to or not. Of course he is too much of a moral coward to do so himself.

  26. wbboei,

    I totally agree with your assessment.

    And as Iran has stated it won’t talk to Bambi about the nuclear issue, it should get interesting.

  27. Taipan Daily: North Korea, Iran and Israel – The Return of Geopolitical Risk
    by Justice Litle, Editorial Director, Taipan Publishing Group

    Suddenly, and with little warning, geopolitical risk is back.

    Not that it ever really left, of course. Preoccupied with a sea of financial troubles, the world had simply put it out of sight and out of mind for a while.

    Now, with all the thundering force of an underground nuclear explosion, our heads are turned to the globe’s unstable flashpoints once again…

    North Korea: “Look at Me”

    In North Korea, the Kim Jong Il Regime has just conducted a fresh nuclear test (and fired three short-range missiles). “World leaders reacted with outrage,” according to CNN, in response to the unlawful test. The U.N. Security Council held a special emergency session to “condemn” the move.

    “North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community,” U.S. President Barack Obama said. The president added that “It [North Korea] will not find international acceptance unless it abandons its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.”

    Make 130 Times Your Money With New $1 Government-regulated “Silver Shots!”

    Imagine transferring $10,000 from your bank savings account directly into new “silver shots” today… only to wake up at Christmas to find them worth a staggering $1.3 million! That is the exact potential of the opportunity I’m going to share with you today. Follow this link for all the details…

    Therein lies the rub. In reality, North Korea doesn’t give a damn about international acceptance. What Western leaders do not say, but quietly recognize, is that all their peaceful plans and prescriptions for North Korea are viewed as poison pills by the Kim Jong Il regime.

    To understand the situation, put yourself in Kim’s shoes for a moment. Were North Korea to act logically and responsibly in the eyes of the international community, gushers of aid would come flooding in. Treaties would be signed… borders would open… the country would begin to heal… and the totalitarian machine that has crushed North Korea beneath its fist for decades would be swept away in a sea of populist uprising, its leaders thrown in jail to rot for war crimes against humanity.

    That is to say, thrown in jail or shot like dogs. Or perhaps hung like common thieves. North Korea’s leaders have CNN too – they saw what happened to Saddam Hussein. Does anyone imagine they really intend to let the same thing happen to them?

    The Kim Jong Il regime is crazy, but not suicidal. Their tendency towards self-preservation explains why they hang on to the nuclear option with a death grip. It’s their only form of insurance against getting turfed out like Saddam. That further explains why North Korea is unlikely to actually unleash a nuclear attack on a rival power.

    But North Korea is a huge headache for the rest of the world nonetheless. While the regime is unlikely to use weapons of mass destruction, it can certainly sell blueprints and materials to the highest bidder. If some aspiring terrorist leader – a sort of Bin Laden 2.0 – had the cash and contacts to make something happen, Kim Jong Il & Co. would be high on his list of folks to see.

    Some hope that if we only wait long enough, North Korea will eventually collapse of its own accord. But that isn’t a very attractive option either. For one thing, a true collapse would again mean the bloody end of the regime – and there’s no telling what a nasty dictator at the end of his rope might do.

    What’s more, China lives in quiet fear of a mass influx of North Korean refugees (as does South Korea). Such a flood of terrified, impoverished North Koreans could be economically and politically devastating for the border country forced to receive such an influx on short notice.

    Iran: “Us Too”

    Somewhat overshadowed by the North Korea news, Iran has made moves of its own that would have surely dominated headlines in any other news cycle.

    Earlier this month, Iran test-fired a surface-to-surface missile with a 2,000 km (1,200 mile) range, according to Reuters – far enough to reach U.S. and Israeli military bases in the region.

    In further escalation, Admiral Habibollah Sayyari announced this week that “Iran has dispatched six… warships to international waters and the Gulf of Aden region in an historically unprecedented move by the Iranian Navy.”

    As you can see, North Korea isn’t the only country that wants attention…

    “Iranian waters stretch along the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman,” Reuters goes on to add. “Iran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 40 percent of the world’s oil is shipped, if it were attacked over its nuclear program.”

    Once again, this isn’t a case where the West can just ask Iran to play nice. It’s a game of high stakes poker in which Iran is determined at all costs to reach its goal – full-scale nuclear capability – and is willing to openly threaten 40% of the world’s oil supply in order to achieve that goal.

    Israel: “We’ll Be Ready”

    And the country watching Iran with the wariest eye of all? That would be Israel.

    Next week Israel will be conducting a five-day drill, dubbed “Turning Point 3” by Home Front Command. The drill is meant to prepare Israel’s rapid-response capability in the event of simultaneous missile strikes and terrorist attacks, the Jerusalem Post reports.

    On the third day of “Turning Point 3,” a siren will go off “throughout the entire country,” at which point all citizens of Israel will head to the nearest bomb shelter (or makeshift equivalent). Suggested reaction times vary by region – from less than 30 seconds in the Golan Heights to a full three minutes in Jerusalem.

    “This isn’t an imaginary situation,” says Israel Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai. “This isn’t detached from reality and if there is a war, it’s very likely that this is what will happen.”

    According to a poll released by Tel Aviv University on Sunday, 51% of Israeli citizens back an immediate strike on Iran’s nuclear sites. The other 49% prefer awaiting the outcome of U.S. negotiations. That mix could change quickly, obviously, depending on how future events unfold.

    To further ensure readiness, in the past ten days the Israeli air force has held drills simulating “all-out war.” Again according to the Jerusalem Post: “Fighter jets, cargo planes and missile defense systems of the corps took part in the drill where defense from a simultaneous attack against Israel from the south and north was simulated.”

    Make no mistake – there are some real storms brewing here. And we haven’t even touched on other flashpoints like Pakistan, Venezuela and Nigeria… tomorrow we’ll take a closer look at what this all means.

    Warm Regards,

    JL

  28. And as Iran has stated it won’t talk to Bambi about the nuclear issue, it should get interesting.
    ———————–
    I think they should go ahead and have their little debate anyway. Bambi promised he would meet personally with our enemies within a year without preconditions so he is game. And Ahmadinejad is keen on the idea as well so long as nukes are off the table.

    This could be a grand media event. It could be broadcast thoroughout the Arab world. Imagine Bambi shadow boxing around the ring, and telling eveyone he is the greatest. Matthews meanwhile drools like the idiot he is, and Olberman reaches for the Viagra.

    Then Ahmadinejad walks right up to Bambi, smiles and delivers a sucker punch which puts bambi on the mat lights out. The entire world and half the US that dislikes Bambi more than Ahmadinejad cheers. Lightweight Tapper exclaims say oh my god that hurt.

    Saved by the bell, Bambi staggers to his corner. The fight doctor works on his right eye which is closing up so fast that they may have to declare a TKO and call the fight.

    Bambi rises from his stool, renounces violence and offers to negotiate a reduction in US arms with the Iranian President, but agrees not to push him on the Iranian nuclear devolpment issue.

    Ahmadinejad gladly agrees. Bambi negotiates deep cuts in the US nuclear arsenal, the Iranian president gives him nothing in return, a one sided settlement is reached favoring Iran, and Big Media calls Bambi a visionary leader for selling out his country.

  29. wbboei Says:

    May 26th, 2009 at 11:39 am,

    —————————————

    I think his analysis is accurate to the extreme. I look forward to reading his comments tomorrow on Pakistan et al.

  30. My question is this: If Bambi does go ahead with a meet & greet, will he bow down to Ahmadinejad, kiss his feet, kiss both cheeks? In other words, how humiliating will it get???

  31. WBBOEI

    their inability to cope with the immigration problem (40 percent of the public jobs in LA county are held by illegals),

    This is unbelievable. do you have documentation or a reference for this?

  32. Susan Sarandon’s comments about Hillary are among the stupidest I’ve ever read. Hillary has never said she lost because of sexism, even though it’s obvious that was a factor. And she’s sure as hell has never whined about losing – or about anything for that matter.

  33. Paula,

    I have never been a joiner, and that includes everything from all-woman bands to the feminist movement, from sororities to religions to civcs groups to sports groups, etc.

    But, as a woman, I confess I am more disappointed by women in public office than by the men,. I feel more betrayed by the McCaskills, Pooplosies, Bradzillas of the world than by their male counterparts. I guess that although I never JOINED feminist organizations I somehow thought they had a noble calling and I held them up to a higher standard. One of the only prominent women politicians I still respect is HRC.

  34. On another topic, I saw this on another blog and thought posters here would find it interesting.

    There is evidence that many of the GM dealerships closed donated to the GOP and NOT BO! There’s also talk that military deployed overseas are being siphoned from red states.
    directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/05/red-alert-did-campaign-contributions

    Between this news and hearing Sotomayer saying that ‘wise Latina women’ are better able to interpret and apply the law than ‘white males,’ I’m speechless. If this identity politics continues what’s going to happen in a couple of decades when non-ethnics are a minority in the US?

  35. basil9, Good point about holding women to a higher standing. I probably do that as well.

    What does everyone think about the Supreme Court pick? At first glance, I like it.

  36. Paula,

    I worked with a Latina woman like her, who thought she was ‘all that.’
    The NERVE to refer to herself as a ‘wise Latina woman!’ Give me a friggin break! That’s not the kind of thing one says about oneself if one is humble, gracious, and even-tempered. It’s similar to BO’s lofty opinion of himself. Sotomyer has had 4 decisions rejected by the Supreme Court. It’s said she doesn’t ‘play well with others.” I would believe it. She seems like an egotistical, arrogant “Latina” affirmative action choice intended to hamstring opposition through using identity politics, this time heritage and gender. But ya gotta hand it to BO, he’s a slick MFer. :evil:Lasay
    I haveand more.

  37. Here’s her exact quote.

    “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001

    She thinks the courts make policy!!!!!!

    Here’s another one.

    “Um, all of the legal defense funds out there, um, they’re looking for people out there with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. Um, um — [laughter] — I know. I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, and, I’m … you know.”

    This is just distraction from the Korean nuclear bomb tests and missile launches over the weekend.

    Notice Pooplosie’s been ferreted out of the country so she can’t shoot off her trap?

  38. Here’s another problem i have with her. She’s an Affirmative Action Advocate.
    from the NYT
    “Judge Sotomayor’s most high-profile case, Ricci v. DeStefano, concerns white firefighters in New Haven who were denied promotions after an examination yielded no black firefighters eligible for advancement. Joining an unsigned opinion of a three-”judge panel of the appeals court, Judge Sotomayor upheld the rejection of a lawsuit by white firefighters, one of them Hispanic, claiming race discrimination and, as part of the full appeals court, she declined to rehear the case. The Supreme Court is currently considering the case, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is the likely swing vote. Among the questions in the case is whether the law should treat diversity in the work force differently from diversity in the classroom. Judge Sotomayor dissented in part in an earlier case, Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, finding that race discrimination had occurred when a school demoted a black child from first grade to kindergarten.”

  39. basil9 Says:
    But, as a woman, I confess I am more disappointed by women in public office than by the men,. I feel more betrayed by the McCaskills, Pooplosies, Bradzillas of the world than by their male counterparts.

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

    I’m leery of the ‘any woman’ idea. The women high in the pipeline may have got there BY stabbing other women, being tools of the patriarchy.

    Exceptions Palin (who fought her own party) and Hillary, and their supporters.

  40. Turndownobama,

    “The women high in the pipeline may have got there BY stabbing other women, being tools of the patriarchy.”

    I agree totally except I would change the ‘may have’ to probably have. 👿

    BTW, how’s your health? I remember reading you were having some issues. Hope you’re well.

  41. BOB HERBERT NOT SURE WHO IS IN CHARGE

    Mr. Herbert has a history of fighting for the underprivileged and criticizing the monied power structure. But since Obama moved into the White House, poor Mr. Herbert is exhibiting Extreme Selective Memory Syndrome.

    He acknowledges the good that “Obama, The Symbol” is doing for America’s standing in the world community, especially in contrast with Bush.

    But when he needs to take up his real causes, he suddenly can’t quite put the finger on who is in charge. Last week, it was the war, “War’s Psychic Toll”:

    nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19herbert.html

    I used word search, and the word “obama” did not appear at all. This week, the country is falling to shit. But who is responsible? “The US”.

    Quoting from today’s piece:

    “If the U.S. is to have any hope of getting its economic act together over the next few years, there will have to be a much greater focus on putting people back to work. Rebuilding the infrastructure is the place to start. ”

    Hmmm, throughout the whole piece, the word “Obama” appears….not three times, not ten, but zero times”.

    nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=1

    Our Crumbling Foundation
    ==================

    By BOB HERBERT
    Published: May 25, 2009

    I’m not sure that the catastrophic job losses of this recession, the worst since the Great Depression, have really sunk into the public’s consciousness. And that would mean that the ground has not been prepared for the kind of high-powered remedies needed to get the economy back into some kind of reasonable shape.

    The Times ran a front-page story on Monday that said job losses are forcing ever larger numbers of homeowners who once had solid credit to fall seriously behind on their mortgages, thus amplifying the foreclosure crisis.

    And now the Center for Labor Market Studies has compiled data showing that the recession’s effects have been “disastrous beyond belief” for some groups, including young men, men without college degrees and black men. These job losses among young workers have ominous long-term implications for American families and the economy as a whole.

    At the same time, there was a development in Congress last week that should have been seen as significant but could not elbow its way into the media precincts obsessed with Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney and swine flu.

    Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, introduced a bill to establish a national infrastructure development bank that would use public and private capital to fund projects of regional and national significance. These are projects that are badly needed and would be a boon to employment.

    America has become self-destructively shortsighted in recent decades. That has kept us from acknowledging the awful long-term consequences of the tidal wave of joblessness that has swept over the nation since the start of the recession in December 2007. And it is keeping us from understanding how important the maintenance and development of the infrastructure is to the nation’s long-term social and economic prospects.

    It’s not just about roads and bridges, although they are important. It’s also about schools, and the electrical grid, and environmental and technological innovation. It’s about establishing a world-class industrial and economic platform for a nation that is speeding toward second-class status on a range of important fronts.

    It’s about whether we’re serious about remaining a great nation. We don’t act like it. Here’s a staggering statistic: According to the Education Trust, the U.S. is the only industrialized country in which young people are less likely than their parents to graduate from high school.

    We can’t put our people to work. We can’t educate the young. We can’t keep the infrastructure in good repair. It’s hard to believe that this nation could be so dysfunctional at the end of the first decade of the 21st century. It’s tragic.

    Ms. DeLauro’s bill has an unusual range of support, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the Service Employees International Union. One of her co- sponsors is Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat who noted that his hometown, Minneapolis, is where the I-35W bridge collapsed in 2007, hurling cars, trucks and vans into the Mississippi River and killing 13 people.

    The infrastructure bank would be authorized to issue bonds, provide loans and offer loan guarantees to finance large-scale projects. The idea would be to leverage substantial amounts of private capital in support of such projects, and to make more prudent decisions about which projects move ahead.

    For those who are concerned about whether the government can afford these major projects, I would note that one of the biggest supporters of the creation of an infrastructure bank is Felix Rohatyn, the financier who guided New York City through the harrowing fiscal crisis of the 1970s. He is hardly a radical when it comes to government finances.

    The link between the need to rebuild the nation’s crumbing infrastructure and the crucial need to find rich new sources of employment in this economic downturn should be obvious, a no-brainer. The Center for Labor Market Studies is at Northeastern University in Boston. A memo that I received a few days ago from the center’s director, Andrew Sum, notes that “no immediate recovery of jobs” is anticipated, even if the recession officially ends, as some have projected, by next fall.

    The memo said: “Since unemployment cannot begin to fall until payroll growth hits about one percent — and payroll growth will not hit one percent until [gross domestic product] growth hits at least 2.5 percent to 3 percent — we may not see any substantive payroll growth until late 2010 or 2011, and unemployment could rise until that time.”

    We’ve already lost nearly 5.7 million jobs in this recession. Those losses, the center says, “have been overwhelmingly concentrated among male workers, especially among men under 35.”

    If the U.S. is to have any hope of getting its economic act together over the next few years, there will have to be a much greater focus on putting people back to work. Rebuilding the infrastructure is the place to start.

  42. On yet ANOTHER topic,

    What does everyone think about the media blackout on coverage of the NYC terror plot?
    Not to mention the Starbucks explosion on the upper east side the other day and yet another raid on suspected terror sites in Chicago yesterday.
    And hardly a single friggin WORD about this!!!!!!!
    I admit i’m slightly whigged out coz the 4 nabbed in NYC are from Newburgh, not far from where I now live.

  43. And what about this?
    The Sotomayer nomination is a way to distract us from north Korea, israel, resurgence of terrorists in the usa ….
    What’s being done to Israel is a CRIME!
    o From USA Today
    By Mark Lavie, Associated Press
    JERUSALEM — Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying Iran with uranium for its nuclear program, according to a secret Israeli government report obtained Monday by the Associated Press.

    snip
    The two South American countries are known to have close ties with Iran, but this is the first allegation that they are involved in the development of Iran’s nuclear program, considered a strategic threat by Israel.
    snip
    “There are reports that Venezuela supplies Iran with uranium for its nuclear program,” the Foreign Ministry document states, referring to previous Israeli intelligence conclusions. It added, “Bolivia also supplies uranium to Iran.”
    snip
    The report concludes that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is trying to undermine the United States by supporting Iran.
    snip
    The Israeli government report also charges that the Iran-backed Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon have set up cells in Latin America.
    It says Venezuela has issued permits that allow Iranian residents to travel freely in South America.
    snip
    The report concludes, “Since Ahmadinejad’s rise to power, Tehran has been promoting an aggressive policy aimed at bolstering its ties with Latin American countries with the declared goal of ‘bringing America to its knees.”‘

  44. basil,

    I was shocked and yet not shocked by the lack of media coverage on the NYC terror plot. I hate to spout conspiracy theories, obama terror leanings, media corruption/censorship…but what else could it be???

  45. basil9 Says:

    May 26th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
    *********************************

    That’s because we have no terrorist’s. When they come up with a name, they will report it.

    today the stock market is soaring because consumer confidence is up. Really/ And I have a bridge to sell if you need one, but i think it has become a bridge too far.

    As far as the new SCOTUS nominating? I think she would and will be a disaster. Reverse discrimination, affirmative action decisions, all the signs are there.
    She is a MEzilla in Latina clothing. Can take the girl out of the Barrio, but you apparently can’t take the Barrio out of the girl. This is coming from a person both female and in the Latino community.

  46. JanH Says:

    May 26th, 2009 at 3:08 pm

    Not on any web headlines…it never happened. What are they going to do when the next one is even bigger? And it will be….these terrorist’s want the headlines and panic, ignoring them is just putting the public in harms way. Since I don’t get the paper anymore, watch the news, if it weren’t for bloggs like this I might not even know anything happened.

  47. their inability to cope with the immigration problem (40 percent of the public jobs in LA county are held by illegals),

    This is unbelievable. do you have documentation or a reference for this?
    ————————————————————-
    I HAD documentation for this once upon a time. I do not have it anymore.

    Almost thirty years ago I was flying across the country with my boss and we were making small talk. I was complaining about the Reagan Amnesty Deal in 1986 and he said dont worry just look out the window this country is full of open space. It will work out. Two decades later he forgot about that conversation told me about the 40% situation. He sent me a document so stating. I did not keep it. My attitude softened somewhat when I saw the great outpouring of love for Hillary from the Hispanic community. But even though this country is full of open space it is no longer full of jobs–and that is the problem.

    If this is important to you, I will see if I can find out. There is an outfit called Numbers USA that keeps track of this kind of information, in its efforts to protect our borders, from drug gangs, and maruading politicians like Barney Fife Reid and Lindsey Garahm.

  48. From BP
    *******************

    Hillary Clinton Rising as Obama, Pelosi Falter

    usliberals.about.com/b/2009/05/25/hillary-clinton-rising-as-obama-pelosi-falter.htm

    It’s hard not to notice that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s leadership is in respected ascendancy just as President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are stumbling over the largest public pitfalls of their respective political careers.

    It’s hard not to notice that, today, Yale University proudly awarded to alumnus Secretary Clinton an honorary doctorate of Laws, elegantly referring to her simply as “Hillary Rodham Clinton, public servant.” Over a standing ovation, Yale President Levin enthused about Clinton that “we admire your bravery in confronting ancient enmities, and your boldness in seeking peace.”

    In contrast, it’s hard not to notice that Arizona State University refused to award an honorary degree to commencement speaker Obama, or that Notre Dame University was embroiled in painful controversy over ceding a speech or awarding honors to President Obama.

    It’s also hard not to notice that as Obama wavers in fulfiling his campaign promise to get rid of the humiliatingly discriminatory “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy toward gays, the State Department under Hillary Clinton “will begin offering gay diplomats the same benefits as their straight counterparts.” Writes one gay news site:

    “In what can only be described as a stunning development inside an administration that’s shown almost no concern for the well-being of gay Americans,… announcement is expected from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who will say discriminating against same-sex loving officials is ‘unfair and must end,’ not just because it’s morally wrong, but that ‘providing training, medical care and other benefits to domestic partners promote the cohesiveness, safety and effectiveness of our posts abroad.’ ”
    It’s hard not to notice, once again, the heartfelt pledges and innumerable fleshed-out policies and plans presented by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, which she so brilliantly summarized in her uplifting 2008 Democratic Convention speech.

    And, as President Obama breaks progressive hearts by callously ignoring campaign pledge after campaign pledge, it’s especially hard not to imagine what might have been if Hillary Clinton had won the nomination instead of Barack Obama…

    (As a progressive Democrat, I find it VERY hard to read “Barack Obama has betrayed everything he ever stood for” by liberal pundit Alexander Cockburn.)

    As Speaker Nancy Pelosi gets battered and bruised over her inarticulate, unpoised defense of the truth and of progressive priorities, and as President Barack Obama takes deserved hard lumps for lack of planning and slyly constant political maneuvering…

    … it’s hard not to notice that survivor Hillary Clinton is once again shining and surviving while others falter.

    And as I look back at Hillary’s eloquent, feminist-tinged August 26, 2008 Democratic Convention Speech, I can’t help but wonder if Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report was right when he observed last summer:

    “Hillary Clinton’s Speech was a good start on her 2012 run… So much for those Obamaites who kept urging her to get out of the race.”
    It’s hard not to wonder, if Obama continues to trample on progressive goals and the Democratic agenda, will liberals start to push for Hillary Clinton to challenge Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012?

  49. jan, gonzo,

    I sometimes can’t believe the way the country has swept all memories of 911 out of the collective consciousness. It’s like it never happened. Admin’s Verdun clip above from WW! just shows how history repeats itself when people refuse to learn from the past. I’m afraid another WTC disaster is an inevitability.
    Gonzo, I worked in an area where a third of the staff was Hispanic, a third black and a third white. The Hispanic teachers and assistants, all of whom were bi-lingual, deliberately spoke Spanish in the Teacher’s room effectively and deliberately shutting out those who couldn’t understand the language. There was NO love lost between AA and hispanci staff but the Hispanics were equally nasty to their white counterparts, in spanish, of course. (they didn’t know i understood 80-90% of what they said). Anyway, Sotomayor reminds me of the Hispanic principal at a school i resigned from because she was so friggin dictarial. And I couldn’t afford to be out of a job, at the time. 😡

  50. Gonzo,

    So I guess the byline will be: “there are no homegrown terrorists in the U.S.A. and never will be as long as the false messiah/dictator is in power.

  51. Reposted, hope this went thru, from BP
    ************************************

    Hillary Clinton Rising as Obama, Pelosi Falter

    2009/05/25/hillary-clinton-rising-as-obama-pelosi-falter

    It’s hard not to notice that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s leadership is in respected ascendancy just as President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are stumbling over the largest public pitfalls of their respective political careers.

    It’s hard not to notice that, today, Yale University proudly awarded to alumnus Secretary Clinton an honorary doctorate of Laws, elegantly referring to her simply as “Hillary Rodham Clinton, public servant.” Over a standing ovation, Yale President Levin enthused about Clinton that “we admire your bravery in confronting ancient enmities, and your boldness in seeking peace.”

    In contrast, it’s hard not to notice that Arizona State University refused to award an honorary degree to commencement speaker Obama, or that Notre Dame University was embroiled in painful controversy over ceding a speech or awarding honors to President Obama.

    It’s also hard not to notice that as Obama wavers in fulfiling his campaign promise to get rid of the humiliatingly discriminatory “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy toward gays, the State Department under Hillary Clinton “will begin offering gay diplomats the same benefits as their straight counterparts.” Writes one gay news site:

    “In what can only be described as a stunning development inside an administration that’s shown almost no concern for the well-being of gay Americans,… announcement is expected from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who will say discriminating against same-sex loving officials is ‘unfair and must end,’ not just because it’s morally wrong, but that ‘providing training, medical care and other benefits to domestic partners promote the cohesiveness, safety and effectiveness of our posts abroad.’ ”
    It’s hard not to notice, once again, the heartfelt pledges and innumerable fleshed-out policies and plans presented by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, which she so brilliantly summarized in her uplifting 2008 Democratic Convention speech.

    And, as President Obama breaks progressive hearts by callously ignoring campaign pledge after campaign pledge, it’s especially hard not to imagine what might have been if Hillary Clinton had won the nomination instead of Barack Obama…

    (As a progressive Democrat, I find it VERY hard to read “Barack Obama has betrayed everything he ever stood for” by liberal pundit Alexander Cockburn.)

    As Speaker Nancy Pelosi gets battered and bruised over her inarticulate, unpoised defense of the truth and of progressive priorities, and as President Barack Obama takes deserved hard lumps for lack of planning and slyly constant political maneuvering…

    … it’s hard not to notice that survivor Hillary Clinton is once again shining and surviving while others falter.

    And as I look back at Hillary’s eloquent, feminist-tinged August 26, 2008 Democratic Convention Speech, I can’t help but wonder if Michael

    Barone of U.S. News & World Report was right when he observed last summer:

    “Hillary Clinton’s Speech was a good start on her 2012 run… So much for those Obamaites who kept urging her to get out of the race.”
    It’s hard not to wonder, if Obama continues to trample on progressive goals and the Democratic agenda, will liberals start to push for Hillary Clinton to challenge Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012?

  52. ‘That’s because we have no terrorist’s.’

    I guess they’re now called ‘Oversees Contingency Operators’ or something.

    :twisted;

  53. Bambi’s choice for the Supreme Court nomination made me see red right away. It coincided with wwoebi’s reminder earlier about the immigration problem. The connection is there if we look for it. Bambi is going to whitewash the immigration problem and Americans will pay the price.

  54. ‘I hate to spout conspiracy theories, obama terror leanings, media corruption/censorship…but what else could it be???”

    IMHO, it’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s the conclusion of a logical rational person!!!!!

  55. basil9 Says:

    May 26th, 2009 at 3:21 pm

    Oh yes, they will speak Spanish to put you down and try to intimidate. There are small towns in Texas where NO English is spoken and you are looked down upon if you are Latino and don’t speak the “language”.

    I have put up 2 posts and they have not appeared?

  56. basil9 Says:

    May 26th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
    On yet ANOTHER topic,

    What does everyone think about the media blackout on coverage of the NYC terror plot?
    Not to mention the Starbucks explosion on the upper east side the other day and yet another raid on suspected terror sites in Chicago yesterday.
    And hardly a single friggin WORD about this!!!!!!!
    I admit i’m slightly whigged out coz the 4 nabbed in NYC are from Newburgh, not far from where I now live.
    &&&&&&&&&

    Basil,
    What NYC terror plot?
    Where did you hear about these stories?
    Any links to share?

  57. basil9 Says:
    May 26th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    ‘That’s because we have no terrorist’s.’

    I guess they’re now called ‘Oversees Contingency Operators’ or something.

    :twisted;

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

    Well, since what we’re doing to them isn’t really torture anyway….

    Un-birthday party, anyone?

  58. rgb44hrc Says:

    What NYC terror plot?
    Where did you hear about these stories?
    Any links to share?

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

    See dailypuma.com
    Search for ‘sting’ or ‘FBI’ and a different event with ‘Starbucks’.

  59. Carol: I remember now the 40% figure was quoted from the Los Angeles Times. I did a quick google search and discovered it is disputed by some. Their analysis is not particularly scientific or conclusive. But, when they undertake to debunk the proffered information, the critics end up proving the larger point–which is that it is that the problem is of illegal immigration out of control in Los Angeles–not only on employment (maybe 20%?), but murder warrants (95%), felonies (maybe only 50%?) and live births (50%). And of course this comes at taxpayers expense. Here is what one critic claims:

    1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10.2 million people) Fiction! Economic Roundtable in Los Angeles issued a report in 2005 on what it called “L.A’s Off-The-Books labor force.” Its research was about the city of Los Angeles, not the entire county, and concluded that there were 3,908,000 wage earners in the city and about 972,000 “informal workers,” meaning they were getting paid under the table. (snip).

    2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens-Mostly Truth! The most commonly quoted source for this is a report by Heather McDonald and published by the Center for Immigration Studies. She repeated her research on April 13, 2005 in testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on “Immigration, Border Security, and Claims” saying that 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide in Los Angeles targeted illegal aliens.

    3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens-Unproven! We could not find anything to substantiate this. If you browse through the Most Wanted list for the Los Angeles Police Department there are ALOT OF FOREIGN BORN LISTED listed, but not how many of them may be illegal aliens.

    4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers-Inaccurate! According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, about HALF the births in Los Angeles County in 2004 were to UNDOCUMENTED women. In 1989 California required by law that the state Medi-Cal program be available to pregnant women living in poverty.

  60. rgb,

    I just checked dailypuma.com
    The Starbucks story is still there but I can’t find the FBI sting story.

    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

    turndownobama-com Says:
    May 26th, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    rgb44hrc Says:

    What NYC terror plot?
    Where did you hear about these stories?
    Any links to share?

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

    See dailypuma.com
    Search for ’sting’ or ‘FBI’ and a different event with ‘Starbucks’.

  61. Basil: I am posting this article again because it answers your question about conspiracies. Big Media is not reacting to the true facts, they are promoting a brand because the elites do not trust the American People with the truth. Bambi is supposed to make us feel good while the corporations who control him run our country and steal us blind. Everyone who has a Obama bumper sticker on their vehicles announces to the world that he or she is the perfect rube in this scheme. It is all here. And it is why they could not allow Hillary to become President–she wanted to protect the people not corporations. (Note: I sent this to the young man who was trying to decide whether there was sexism in the campaign–the one Jan posted yesterday.) This article is worth a second read (and saving to hard drive) because it calls the game on them and is perfect rebuttal to bots.
    —————————————————-
    BRAND OBAMA

    By Chris Hedges

    Barack Obama is a brand. And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, our elected officials continue to have their palms greased by armies of corporate lobbyists, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East. Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, we are being duped into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest.

    What, for all our faith and hope, has the Obama brand given us? His administration has spent, lent or guaranteed $12.8 trillion in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street and insolvent banks in a doomed effort to reinflate the bubble economy, a tactic that at best forestalls catastrophe and will leave us broke in a time of profound crisis. Brand Obama has allocated nearly $1 trillion in defense-related spending and the continuation of our doomed imperial projects in Iraq, where military planners now estimate that 70,000 troops will remain for the next 15 to 20 years. Brand Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan, including the use of drones sent on cross-border bombing runs into Pakistan that have doubled the number of civilians killed over the past three months. Brand Obama has refused to ease restrictions so workers can organize and will not consider single-payer, not-for-profit health care for all Americans. And Brand Obama will not prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes, including the use of torture, and has refused to dismantle Bush’s secrecy laws or restore habeas corpus.

    Brand Obama offers us an image that appears radically individualistic and new. It inoculates us from seeing that the old engines of corporate power and the vast military-industrial complex continue to plunder the country. Corporations, which control our politics, no longer produce products that are essentially different, but brands that are different. Brand Obama does not threaten the core of the corporate state any more than did Brand George W. Bush. The Bush brand collapsed. We became immune to its studied folksiness. We saw through its artifice. This is a common deflation in the world of advertising. So we have been given a new Obama brand with an exciting and faintly erotic appeal. Benetton and Calvin Klein were the precursors to the Obama brand, using ads to associate themselves with risqué art and progressive politics. It gave their products an edge. But the goal, as with all brands, was to make passive consumers mistake a brand with an experience.

    “The abandonment of the radical economic foundations of the women’s and civil-rights movements by the conflation of causes that came to be called political correctness successfully trained a generation of activists in the politics of image, not action,” Naomi Klein wrote in “No Logo.”

    Obama, who has become a global celebrity, was molded easily into a brand. He had almost no experience, other than two years in the Senate, lacked any moral core and could be painted as all things to all people. His brief Senate voting record was a miserable surrender to corporate interests. He was happy to promote nuclear power as “green” energy. He voted to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He reauthorized the Patriot Act. He would not back a bill designed to cap predatory credit card interest rates. He opposed a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. He refused to support the single-payer health care bill HR676, sponsored by Reps. Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers. He supported the death penalty. And he backed a class-action “reform” bill that was part of a large lobbying effort by financial firms. The law, known as the Class Action Fairness Act, would effectively shut down state courts as a venue to hear most class-action lawsuits and deny redress in many of the courts where these cases have a chance of defying powerful corporate challenges.

    While Gaza was being bombarded and hit with airstrikes in the weeks before Obama took office, “the Obama team let it be known that it would not object to the planned resupply of ‘smart bombs’ and other hi-tech ordnance that was already flowing to Israel,” according to Seymour Hersh. Even his one vaunted anti-war speech as a state senator, perhaps his single real act of defiance, was swiftly reversed. He told the Chicago Tribune on July 27, 2004, that “there’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” And unlike anti-war stalwarts like Kucinich, who gave hundreds of speeches against the war, Obama then dutifully stood silent until the Iraq war became unpopular.

    Obama’s campaign won the vote of hundreds of marketers, agency heads and marketing-services vendors gathered at the Association of National Advertisers’ annual conference in October. The Obama campaign was named Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008 and edged out runners-up Apple and Zappos.com. Take it from the professionals. Brand Obama is a marketer’s dream. President Obama does one thing and Brand Obama gets you to believe another. This is the essence of successful advertising. You buy or do what the advertiser wants because of how they can make you feel.

    Celebrity culture has leeched into every aspect of our culture, including politics, to bequeath to us what Benjamin DeMott called “junk politics.” Junk politics does not demand justice or the reparation of rights. Junk politics personalizes and moralizes issues rather than clarifying them. “It’s impatient with articulated conflict, enthusiastic about America’s optimism and moral character, and heavily dependent on feel-your-pain language and gesture,” DeMott noted. The result of junk politics is that nothing changes – “meaning zero interruption in the processes and practices that strengthen existing, interlocking systems of socioeconomic advantage.” It redefines traditional values, tilting “courage toward braggadocio, sympathy toward mawkishness, humility toward self-disrespect, identification with ordinary citizens toward distrust of brains.” Junk politics “miniaturizes large, complex problems at home while maximizing threats from abroad. It’s also given to abrupt unexplained reversals of its own public stances, often spectacularly bloating problems previously miniaturized.” And finally, it “seeks at every turn to obliterate voters’ consciousness of socioeconomic and other differences in their midst.”

    An image-based culture, one dominated by junk politics, communicates through narratives, pictures and carefully orchestrated spectacle and manufactured pseudo-drama. Scandalous affairs, hurricanes, earthquakes, untimely deaths, lethal new viruses, train wrecks-these events play well on computer screens and television. International diplomacy, labor union negotiations and convoluted bailout packages do not yield exciting personal narratives or stimulating images. A governor who patronizes call girls becomes a huge news story. A politician who proposes serious regulatory reform, universal health care or advocates curbing wasteful spending is boring. Kings, queens and emperors once used their court conspiracies to divert their subjects. Today cinematic, political and journalistic celebrities distract us with their personal foibles and scandals. They create our public mythology. Acting, politics and sports have become, as they were during the reign of Nero, interchangeable.

    In an age of images and entertainment, in an age of instant emotional gratification, we do not seek reality. Reality is complicated. Reality is boring. We are incapable or unwilling to handle its confusion. We ask to be indulged and comforted by clichés, stereotypes and inspirational messages that tell us we can be whoever we seek to be, that we live in the greatest country on Earth, that we are endowed with superior moral and physical qualities, and that our future will always be glorious and prosperous, either because of our own attributes, or our national character, or because we are blessed by God. Reality is not accepted as an impediment to our desires. Reality does not make us feel good.

    In his book “Public Opinion,” Walter Lippmann distinguished between “the world outside and the pictures in our heads.” He defined a “stereotype” as an oversimplified pattern that helps us find meaning in the world. Lippmann cited examples of the crude “stereotypes we carry about in our heads” of whole groups of people such as “Germans,” “South Europeans,” “Negroes,” “Harvard men,” “agitators” and others. These stereotypes, Lippmann noted, give a reassuring and false consistency to the chaos of existence. They offer easily grasped explanations of reality and are closer to propaganda because they simplify rather than complicate.

    Pseudo-events-dramatic productions orchestrated by publicists, political machines, television, Hollywood or advertisers-however, are very different. They have, as Daniel Boorstin wrote in “The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America,” the capacity to appear real even though we know they are staged. They are capable, because they can evoke a powerful emotional response, of overwhelming reality and replacing reality with a fictional narrative that often becomes accepted truth. The unmasking of a stereotype damages and often destroys its credibility. But pseudo-events, whether they show the president in an auto plant or a soup kitchen or addressing troops in Iraq, are immune to this deflation. The exposure of the elaborate mechanisms behind the pseudo-event only adds to its fascination and its power. This is the basis of the convoluted television reporting on how effectively political campaigns and politicians have been stage-managed. Reporters, especially those on television, no longer ask if the message is true but if the pseudo-event worked or did not work as political theater. Pseudo-events are judged on how effectively we have been manipulated by illusion. Those events that appear real are relished and lauded. Those that fail to create a believable illusion are deemed failures. Truth is irrelevant. Those who succeed in politics, as in most of the culture, are those who create the brands and pseudo-events that offer the most convincing fantasies. And this is the art Obama has mastered.

    A public that can no longer distinguish between truth and fiction is left to interpret reality through illusion. Random facts or obscure bits of data and trivia are used to bolster illusion and give it credibility or are discarded if they interfere with the message. The worse reality becomes-the more, for example, foreclosures and unemployment skyrocket-the more people seek refuge and comfort in illusions. When opinions cannot be distinguished from facts, when there is no universal standard to determine truth in law, in science, in scholarship, or in reporting the events of the day, when the most valued skill is the ability to entertain, the world becomes a place where lies become true, where people can believe what they want to believe. This is the real danger of pseudo-events and why pseudo-events are far more pernicious than stereotypes. They do not explain reality, as stereotypes attempt to, but replace reality. Pseudo-events redefine reality by the parameters set by their creators. These creators, who make massive profits peddling these illusions, have a vested interest in maintaining the power structures they control.

    The old production-oriented culture demanded what the historian Warren Susman termed character. The new consumption-oriented culture demands what he called personality. The shift in values is a shift from a fixed morality to the artifice of presentation. The old cultural values of thrift and moderation honored hard work, integrity and courage. The consumption-oriented culture honors charm, fascination and likability. “The social role demanded of all in the new culture of personality was that of a performer,” Susman wrote. “Every American was to become a performing self.”

    The junk politics practiced by Obama is a consumer fraud. It is about performance. It is about lies. It is about keeping us in a perpetual state of childishness. But the longer we live in illusion, the worse reality will be when it finally shatters our fantasies. Those who do not understand what is happening around them and who are overwhelmed by a brutal reality they did not expect or foresee search desperately for saviors. They beg demagogues to come to their rescue. This is the ultimate danger of the Obama Brand. It effectively masks the wanton internal destruction and theft being carried out by our corporate state. These corporations, once they have stolen trillions in taxpayer wealth, will leave tens of millions of Americans bereft, bewildered and yearning for even more potent and deadly illusions, ones that could swiftly snuff out what is left of our diminished open society.

  62. wbboei Says:

    May 26th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
    **********************************

    Thanks, terrifying, I think those on this site and a ‘few’ others are in argreement and like minded. Myself, not so articulate. I will send this around. His koolaid drinkers are still needing detox and I don’t think there is a protocol out there yet for them

  63. Everytime i try to post this with the link, although all the usual stuff is removed on the link it will not post- from BP
    ******************************************

    Hillary Clinton Rising as Obama, Pelosi Falter

    It’s hard not to notice that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s leadership is in respected ascendancy just as President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are stumbling over the largest public pitfalls of their respective political careers.

    It’s hard not to notice that, today, Yale University proudly awarded to alumnus Secretary Clinton an honorary doctorate of Laws, elegantly referring to her simply as “Hillary Rodham Clinton, public servant.” Over a standing ovation, Yale President Levin enthused about Clinton that “we admire your bravery in confronting ancient enmities, and your boldness in seeking peace.”

    In contrast, it’s hard not to notice that Arizona State University refused to award an honorary degree to commencement speaker Obama, or that Notre Dame University was embroiled in painful controversy over ceding a speech or awarding honors to President Obama.

    It’s also hard not to notice that as Obama wavers in fulfiling his campaign promise to get rid of the humiliatingly discriminatory “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy toward gays, the State Department under Hillary Clinton “will begin offering gay diplomats the same benefits as their straight counterparts.” Writes one gay news site:

    “In what can only be described as a stunning development inside an administration that’s shown almost no concern for the well-being of gay Americans,… announcement is expected from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who will say discriminating against same-sex loving officials is ‘unfair and must end,’ not just because it’s morally wrong, but that ‘providing training, medical care and other benefits to domestic partners promote the cohesiveness, safety and effectiveness of our posts abroad.’ ”
    It’s hard not to notice, once again, the heartfelt pledges and innumerable fleshed-out policies and plans presented by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, which she so brilliantly summarized in her uplifting 2008 Democratic Convention speech.

    And, as President Obama breaks progressive hearts by callously ignoring campaign pledge after campaign pledge, it’s especially hard not to imagine what might have been if Hillary Clinton had won the nomination instead of Barack Obama…

    (As a progressive Democrat, I find it VERY hard to read “Barack Obama has betrayed everything he ever stood for” by liberal pundit Alexander Cockburn.)

    As Speaker Nancy Pelosi gets battered and bruised over her inarticulate, unpoised defense of the truth and of progressive priorities, and as President Barack Obama takes deserved hard lumps for lack of planning and slyly constant political maneuvering…

    … it’s hard not to notice that survivor Hillary Clinton is once again shining and surviving while others falter.

    And as I look back at Hillary’s eloquent, feminist-tinged August 26, 2008 Democratic Convention Speech, I can’t help but wonder if Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report was right when he observed last summer:

    “Hillary Clinton’s Speech was a good start on her 2012 run… So much for those Obamaites who kept urging her to get out of the race.”
    It’s hard not to wonder, if Obama continues to trample on progressive goals and the Democratic agenda, will liberals start to push for Hillary Clinton to challenge Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012?

  64. 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.

  65. gonzo,
    Just to let you Know, the third of the staff that was white were no saints. As a matter of fact, my special name for them was the “Fat italian Wives Club.” They were interested in 3 things, getting their yearly increase, having as little kid-contact as possible and inventing positions and names-of-positions for jobs that would enable them to do the minimum possible besides sign in at 8:15 every day.
    😈

    rgb – you have proven my point! I was referring to the 4 Newburgh NY prison-converted Muslims who plotted to bomb a couple of NYC synagogues and attack Stewart Airport in upstate NY. There was also a bombing at an upper eastside Starbucks over the weekend and an FBI investigation into suspected terrorists in Chicago. The first 2 stories should be archived in the New York post, which is practically the only paper that covered it. The Chicago incident was reported on a couple of blogs I read. I’ll try to find the link.

  66. That is wonderful news about Hillary’s honor at Yale. She deserves that kind of respect unlike the false accolades Obama receives seemingly daily.
    Now that N. Korea is testing nuclear weapons like we crash test dummies, what is Bambi going to do? And how can he(and Hillary-god bless her) tell Israel that negotiating with Iran will work??? I would much rather see Iran disabled militarily than have them in the position N. Korea has us in now.

  67. Gonzo: make sure hey understand that Hedges is the former Mid East Bureau Chief for the New York Times, and it is reasonable to assume that his commitment to truth as reflected in this article is the main reason why he is no longer there.

  68. “… it’s hard not to notice that survivor Hillary Clinton is once again shining and surviving while others falter.”

    —————————

    Gonzo,

    Thank you so much for posting that article. It really made my day! 🙂

  69. “President Obama has nominated a radically anti-Second Amendment judge to be our newest Supreme Court justice.”

    ———————————-

    Another shameful moment in this fraud’s already tainted history.

  70. That is wonderful news about Hillary’s honor at Yale. She deserves that kind of respect unlike the false accolades Obama receives seemingly daily
    ———————————–
    If I am right then there will come a time when Obama is widely seen as a failure. The media report that things are improving is inaccurate. But it is good in this sense. An uniterrupted downward trajectory would have made it far easier for him to blame Bush. The passage of time and the levelling off means that the next downturn is his–and his alone. When that happens, we want Hillary’s star to burn brightly and events like this one ensure that the flame stays lit. By contrast, when Bambi forces the issue as he did at Notre Dame it reminds people why they did not vote for him, or counsels them never to do so again if they did.

  71. It is a remake of Hitler’s media stranglehold only even worse!
    ————————
    Yup.

  72. His koolaid drinkers are still needing detox and I don’t think there is a protocol out there yet for them
    —————————
    I recommend Hemlock. It was good enough for Socrates.

  73. wbboei,

    Yes, the BO Brand is an advertiser’s dream come true.
    But is this for real?

    “The Obama campaign was named Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008 and edged out runners-up Apple and Zappos.com.”

    BTW, I have been a stubborn contrarian since I was a kid. I still remember my mom sending me to church on Sunday when i was old enough to walk by myslef but instead of going there I’d go hang out in the woords and climb a couple of trees coz even then i didn’t believe the fairy tales the priest told the congregation. And I never was much of a ‘brand’-buyer – i usually go for the generic, or the cheapest brand, except when it comes to things like musical instruments or computer equipment.

    And, BTW2 – the affirmative action agenda really rubs me the wrong way coz of what I think is the adverse consequences on the skill-set, craft, knowledge-base that is watered down through over-simplification. For example, when i was a real musician, there was no way you could ‘fudge’ knowing ALL 24 major and minor scales. It wasn’t a matter of, well, if you learn 20 that’s good enough. It’s NOT! And it’s not like a real pianist (I was a woodwind player) could learn only 60 of the 88 keys. i mean, it’s ABSURD!!!!!! And just imagine that being applied to pilots (which is now happening)- remember the upstate NYcrash), not to mention politicians (BO)

  74. gonzo,

    I LOVE that article and I’m so glad HRC got the honorary Yale degree.

    But about 2012, I really don’t see her running against BO.

    It’s more of a gut feeling than anything else although there are plenty of reasons I could cite of WHY I don’t think she would challenge him . . . . . . .

  75. rgb,
    Here’s an interesting article on the Newburgh 4.
    Also, here’s a link to the Chicago incident.
    www dot myfoxchicago dot com/dpp/news/Police_raid_apartment_bomb

    US media reluctant to call Newburgh terrorists “Muslim”
    by US media reluctant to call Newburgh terrorist Sunday, May. 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM

    US media reluctant to call Newburgh terrorists “Muslim”

    US media reluctant to call terrorists “Muslim” It is a top story across many US news sites this morning:

    Four men arrested for an alleged plot to bomb a New York synagogue and Jewish community center are expected to appear in federal court Thursday, the U.S. Attorney’s office said.

    The men also wanted to use surface-to-air missiles to fire at U.S. military planes, according to a criminal complaint filed in White Plains, New York.

    James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen are accused of plotting to detonate explosives near a synagogue in the Riverdale section of Bronx, New York.

    Each man had at least one alias, according to the office. Three of them are U.S. citizens and one is a Haitian, a statement from the New York governor’s office said, citing the U.S. Attorney’s office.

    The statement said the informant met with Cromitie in June 2008 in Newburgh, New York. During that meeting, Cromitie said his parents live in Afghanistan, that he was angry over the U.S. war there and that he expressed interest in “doing something to America.”

    They also conducted surveillance, including photographs, of an Air National Guard base where they wanted to blow up planes, the statement said. The informant provided the men with a surface-to-air guided missile and C-4 plastic explosives, none of which could actually be used.
    From stories like this one it is very hard to understand motive. At first it sounds vaguely like some sort of skinhead-type group wanting to kill Jews, but why would they also want to blow up military planes? CNN’s article only gives a slight hint when it said that the ringleader’s parents live in Afghanistan.

    Nothing adds up…unless you look for other sources of news. The London Evening Standard puts things in perspective from the first paragraph:
    Four Muslims have been arrested over a plot to shoot down US military aircraft and simultaneously blow up two synagogues in New York.
    The Daily Mail even puts the dreaded “M” word in its headline:
    Four Muslim extremists arrested over plot to bomb synagogue and shoot down planes
    One can understand why US media would be reluctant to identify someone’s religion for, say, a random murder or a robbery, but in a case like this, their religion is a critical part of understanding the story.

    The Evening Standard continues, adding details about the men’s aliases and statements that CNN and AP deemed irrelevant:
    The alleged plotters were named today as James Cromitie (also known as Abdul Rahman), David Williams (aka Daoud and DL), Onta Williams (aka Hamza) and Laguerre Payen (aka Amin and Almondo). They are all thought to have been born in the US. Cromitie, the apparent ringleader, told an FBI informant he was upset by the war in Afghanistan, where his parents were born, and wanted to “do something to America”.

    He was caught on tape complaining that the “best target [the World Trade Center] was hit already”. In the same conversation Cromitie, who has been arrested 27 times, said: “I hate those motherf***ers, those f***ing Jewish bastards … I would like to get a synagogue.”

    At one stage he told the informant as they watched Jews in the street that if he had a gun he “would shoot each one in the head”. He also said that if he died a martyr he would go to paradise.

    The plotters allegedly planted one fake bomb in the boot of a car outside the Riverdale Temple and two on the seat of another car outside the nearby Riverdale Jewish Center in the Bronx last night. The gang then planned to drive 60 miles north of New York to Newburgh to collect mobile phone detonating devices.

    The next stage was to go to Stewart International Airport, also in Newburgh, where they would shoot down a military jet while simultaneously exploding the synagogue bombs. The airport is used by the New York Air National Guard and the US Air Force. But the weapons were supplied by an FBI informant and the gang’s movements had been monitored since June last year.
    And the Daily Mail adds:
    One, of Afghan descent, was Muslim-born while the other three converted in prison, officials said, adding that some were of Arabic descent and one is of Haitian descent.
    All of the relevant facts in the London papers were clearly available to the US news outlets – and they were consciously suppressed by the editors as not being an important part of the story.

    The American media has spent lots of time in the effort to paint Islam as being just another religion, a highly personal aspect of people’s lives that has only a tiny influence on their activities (except when the activities are wholesome and charitable.) News editors so not want to be accused of incitement and Islamophobia, so they play it safe. In this case, it is clear that their refusal to highlight the obvious makes the news suffer.

    Once religion becomes part of the story, other uncomfortable questions naturally come up: why would people who choose to be Muslim also choose to bomb Jewish targets in America? Is their anti-semitism a result of their religion, or did they choose the religion because of their existing Jew-hatred? The usual implied reason, anti-Zionism (which for some reason is deemed an understandable and acceptable reason for terror attacks in other cases) does not fit into this story at all. The American press mentions a vague motive about US involvement in Afghanistan, but targeting US synagogues doesn’t fit in.

    These people hated Jews and America. The most relevant fact about the case is being suppressed. The all important question – motive – is therefore being ignored. And the secondary question of how to connect the dots between their religion and their motive cannot even be asked without this information.

    UPDATE: The New York police commissioner, when asked about motive at a press conference a few minutes ago, said, simply, “jihad.”

  76. Today, From Rasmussen

    31% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President.

    Thirty percent (30%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of +1.

    That’s the lowest positive rating yet received by the new President (see trends).

    Overall, 55% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance so far while 44% disapprove.

  77. YIKES! Am I alone today?

    Anyway, Jan, here’s some verification that what you’re observing is REAL and not just a conspiracy theory!
    Read and shudder!

    A letter from a blogger targeted by the FBI for critisizing a Senator.

    Yesterday, as a result of one of my letters, I was paid a visit by the Joint Terrorism Task Force of the FBI. One Senator, Sheldon Whitehouse, reported to the FBI that he felt I was endangering the government and should be investigated as a suspected terrorist. This after every single one my letters was sent through the official website of the government, and contained all of my personally identifying information and was specifically stated as advising each U. S. Senator that I was offering political opinion about pending legislation, or governmental policy.

    Apparently, as this left leaning Congress assaults our rights on a daily basis, they are now resorting to reporting dissenters to their policies to the FBI, under the guise of terrorist threats. Since when did expressing a p0litical opinion, or disagreeing with the passage of Socialist bills in the legislature become terrorist in nature? I have specifically objected vehemently to the TARP, TALC, Economic Recovery Act, Omnibus Spending Bill, President Obama’s 3.6 trillion dollar budget, cap and trade, and every other anti capitalist bill put forth in the 111th Congress.

    The FBI agent was very polite and respectful. He explained why I had been targeted and by whom, Senator Whitehouse, and assured me that this would be the end of it. I explained to him in answer to his questions what and why I had written. He agreed that I have the constitutional right to express my dissatisfaction with government policy. The last thing he said to me was to advise that I keep expressing my opinions.

Comments are closed.