Obama Goes A-Courting

Two stories today on how Obama goes a-courting.

On the day Justice Souter announced his resignation from the Supreme Court we wrotewe think the replacement, even with opposition, will likely be Latina Judge Sonia Sotomayo of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals“.

The appointment of Sotomayor will likely be confirmed by the Senate with a few bumps only. The appointment of Sotomayor is entirely predictable and not surprising in the least. Sotomayor will likely vote along the lines of Justice Souter. For all the hoopla publicity surrounding any Supreme Court appointment, for all the breathless hyperventilation on other web sites and “news” outlets, this one will likely not change much in the field of jurisprudence nor the direction of the court.

For Obama the Sotomayor appointment was close to a “must do” for the Latino and Women communities. This was not a high-minded, requires deep thought decision. It was a check the boxes decision. It is entirely consistent with Obama’s lack of everything except concern for his personal advancement.

* * * * *

The treacheries of Barack Obama came to full flower today in California.

Don’t expect too much analysis of how very responsible and how very treacherous Obama has been from other websites and “news” outlets. Others will concentrate on what the Sotomayor appointment says about Obama but few will dare write about the much more illuminating events today in California and what they say about Obama the treacherous.

The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.

Demonstrators outside the court yelled “shame on you!”

The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California Constitution’s equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature’s approval.

The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

Let us make clear – this was a foolish lawsuit whose real intent was to hide the complicity of gay community “leaders” in the passage of Proposition 8.

This was a foolish lawsuit because the issues presented to the court had already been litigated before the vote when gay marriage proponents made the same arguments before the same court. [The argument essentially was whether Proposition 8 was an amendment or merely a revision to the California constitution.]

Again, this was a foolish lawsuit intended to protect gay community “leaders” who sought to protect themselves, from a righteously angry gay community, by attempting to relitigate the already litigated issues.

These gay community “leaders” are complicit in this ugly episode because when it was time to stand up for their community and against Barack Obama these “leaders” remained silent.

We wrote about the complicity of gay community “leaders” in The Shame Of The Democratic Left, Part III:

The Democratic Left, and yes, Gay-American leaders, threw Gay-Americans under the bus this past year in order to worship at the unworthy Barack Obama’s altar. Now the Democratic Left and Gay-American leaders are whining that Obama has stabbed them in the back.

Not once during the primaries nor during the general election did these leaders hold Obama to account. Not once did these leaders threaten to withhold votes the only language political thugs like Obama understand. Now they are whining.

Barack Obama has indeed stabbed Gay-Americans in the back. Barack Obama can’t be trusted… by friend nor foe… Obama simply can’t be trusted. But the very late protests by the Democratic Left are whines from hypocrites.

One of the issues on which we prominently opposed Obama was the issue of gay rights. We prophetically wrote:

Gay-Americans must realize that Obama has gay-bashed in the past. If it comes down to getting votes from evangelical voters, socially conservative African-Americans or any constitutency group – Obama will betray Gay-Americans:

Now gay leaders and the Democratic Left are whining that Obama is not being nice. Where were these leaders when it counted? Hypocrites. Gay-Americans – Black Gay Americans too – will be the ones hurt because the so-called gay leadership and the Democratic Left sold them out.

More to the point, we wrote:

These same hypocrite/fools also knew that the Proposition 8 (Gay Marriage Ban) proponents were using Obama’s anti gay-marriage words in their literature and using Obama’s anti gay-marriage words in their automatic phone calls – particularly targeting African-Americans. Yet these hypocrite/fools did not demand that Obama personally campaign prominently against Proposition 8. On election day most California African-American voters celebrated by denying Gay-Americans a basic civil right and applauding ugly prejudice.

Obama went a-courting today. We expect Americans will get screwed.


59 thoughts on “Obama Goes A-Courting

  1. You NAILED it about the Sotomayer nomination, Admin.
    “It was a check the boxes decision. It is entirely consistent with Obama’s lack of everything except concern for his personal advancement.”

    But I didn’t realize the extent to which gay community leaders were complicit in the passage of Proposition 8. 😯

    Is that comparable to the way female democrats were complicit in defeating HRC? 😡
    Also, what’s your take on the nomination coming today and overshadowing the NK nuclear tests and the Israel-Iran tension? Another deliberate distraction?

  2. The decision initially sounded like don’t ask, don’t tell.

    The “Bus” has made room for the Gay community, under the tires like the rest of us. Shame on them…

  3. In response to Basil’s post on the last blog…

    “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.”


    What makes me think that these FBI agents are sick and tired of being used like political bullies?

    I think this guy should sue the pants off this poor excuse of a politician!

  4. “It is entirely consistent with Obama’s lack of everything except concern for his personal advancement.”

    Yes & Yes!!!

    And at the very same time, this last week, the Honorable Secretary of State Hillary Clinton advanced gay rights for her diplomatic personnel.

    This obama hypocrites got what they voted for…..Less than NOTHING!

  5. Exactly, admin. Obama went a countin’ and we Americans get screwed. I am so sick of that narcisitic pathetic fool and I hate his wife, too. Sorry for being so rude but I am fuming today.

  6. Basil9, gay “leaders” should have demanded Obama speak out forcefully against Proposition 8 before the November elections. But these gay “leaders” did not want to fight Obama to defend their own community. Obama was more important to them than their own community. Now they are whining about a legal case that never had a chance.

    Hopefully, now these gay “leaders” will try to place their own proposition before the voters next year and force Obama to take a position on the measure. No doubt Dimocratic “leaders” will demand that any new proposition not be placed on an election year like 2010 or 2012 even though those would be the best years for such a proposition to pass.

    As to your question about this failure of gay “leadership” as comparable to “leadership” of womens groups, we think not. The failure of gay “leadership” to protect their own community was a lack of courage. With Hillary the womens groups were treacherous.

  7. I am totally with you, admin. The gay leaders failed just as NOW, NARAL and Ms. Magazine failed. I’m sick to death of these people.

  8. May 26th, 2009

    Will Democrats Become a Permanent Majority Thanks to Internet Voting?

    The election news from Hawaii seems both interesting and unobjectionable: Honolulu has became the first jurisdiction to run an “all digital” election–that is, all the ballots were cast on the Internet, or by telephone. After the voting was finished on Friday, the Associated Press headline painted the Aloha State as e-pioneers: “Honolulu’s Internet vote considered 1st in nation.”

    For its part, The Honolulu Advertiser praised the digital balloting, calling it “a worthwhile experiment that can help Hawai’i move toward a more efficient, electronic polling system for all of its political contests.”


    For Republicans, a Democrat-dominated e-vote system would be a swift road to political extinction.


    The Honolulu elections were for neighborhood councils; they had no effect on any state or federal offices. Yet it’s easy to see a precedent in the making here: If 115,000 people voted from the comfort of their own homes, saving the city $100,000, then how much hassle and money would be saved if the city deployed more “digital democracy” in the future? For city elections? For statewide elections? And, most consequentially, for federal elections?

    The San Diego-based firm that oversaw the Honolulu balloting, Everyone Counts, proclaims, “Multi-channel elections provide accessible, transparent and verifiably secured choice–no matter where in the world your voters are on election day. Everyone Counts brings a whole new world of accessibility and integrity to elections.” In fact, Everyone Counts has been running digital elections since the 1990s. Just last year it oversaw the vote-counting for Democrats Abroad, the arm of the Democratic Party that represents overseas Democrats.

    And of course, proponents of online voting argue that it is merely a logical extension of postal voting. Oregon mandated mail-in balloting in 1998, and Washington State soon followed suit. And across the country, the surge in absentee voting–tens of millions in 2008–has created a de facto mail-in election process.

    So if voters can mail their ballots in, why can’t they call them in, or e-mail them in? Such digital demands will become louder in the wake of a recent report from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which found that less than half of all absentee ballots from overseas military personnel were counted in the 2006 elections. “One thing is clear: At every level of government, we need to do a better job,” declared Commission Chair Donetta Davidson to the Stars and Stripes newspaper. “We must make sure all eligible voters are getting their opportunities.” Nobody is going to argue the merits of military voting, of course, but after this report, it’s going to be nigh impossible to argue the merits of the current system of balloting-by-mail.

    Indeed, those who oppose telephone and internet voting are at risk of being overwhelmed by the tide of technology, as happened to buggywhip makers, typewriter manufacturers–and newspapers. In a culture that celebrates the participatory energy of “American Idol,” a “cool” kind of voting is inevitable for politics, too. As Honolulu city official Bryan Mick told the AP in the wake of his city’s digital democratizing: “It is kind of the wave of the future, so we’re kind of glad in a way that we got to be the ones who initiated it.”

    Today, in this information age, the conditions for digital voting are ripe. The telephone population of America is more than 500 million units, fixed-line and mobile, in a country of about 305 million. And some 223 million Americans enjoy Internet access, the majority of which is broadband. So if the technology is there, what’s the hangup? The big question, of course, is who is at the other end of the machine–be it telephone or computer. Who verifies the voters?

    Long before the Internet, the two political parties routinely accused each other of vote fraud. Democrats point to the Florida recount after the 2000 presidential election as a leading indicator of Republican malfeasance; they turned then-secretary of state Katherine Harris into a devil figure. And they hurled similar accusations against Republicans in Ohio in 2004, focused mostly on then-secretary of state Kenneth Blackwell. The mantric word for Democrats is “voter suppression”; it’s an article of faith among Democrats that Republicans, nearly half a century after the Voting Rights Act, are still figuring out ways to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning poor people and minorities.

    For their part, Republicans point the finger right back at Democrats, and their left-wing allies, such as ACORN. The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund wrote a whole book on vote fraud, entitled bluntly, Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy, dwelling on the activities of ACORN in particular. ACORN, along with law professors and the mainstream media, is at the spearhead of a broad coalition advocating full voting privileges for felons, the mentally incompetent, and those who come to the polls without any sort of valid identification.

    And of course, the 2008 victory of Barack Obama, who rose from community organizer to the presidency, would seem to support the argument that Democrats gain the most from the full mobilization of those not otherwise well connected to society. Maybe that’s why almost all of the numerous allegations of vote fraud in 2008–in Missouri, California, Washington, and Nevada, just for starters–involved Democrats.

    So if vote fraud is already a problem, what will happen when the “vote” is simply an electronic pulse, that could have come, potentially, from anywhere in the US–or around the world? Who will oversee the e-voting process? And who will oversee the overseers? In 39 states, the chief elections officer is the state’s secretary of state. In the wake of the 2004 elections, smart Democrats launched the Secretary of State Project; a look at the Web site today shows that it flashes pictures of devil-figures Katherine Harris and Kenneth Blackwell, both of whom have been out of office for more than two years. The site tells visitors–and, more to the point, potential donors–that “a modest political investment in electing clean Secretaries of State is an efficient way to stop voter suppression.” Then the site adds, “In 2006, the SoS Project won five of seven races, helping reformers beat GOP operatives in Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico.” Perhaps the most visible of these new secretaries of state is Minnesota’s Mark Ritchie, who has been a reliable ally to the senatorial ambitions of fellow Democrat Al Franken.

    But of course, the high-tech nature of digital democracy adds a new layer of complexity, as well as mystery, to the voting process. In theory, the technology is completely neutral. But theoretical technology and practical politics are two different things. Diebold, a leading manufacturer of traditional voting machines, has come under repeated fire for alleged pro-Republican bias. But the complexity of a voting machine is nothing compared to the complexity of computers and the Internet.

    The font of today’s Net-based computer technology, of course, is California’s Silicon Valley. And should those high-techsters be trusted to make neutral technological decisions? Maybe, but their obvious partisan bias might cause some to wonder. Barack Obama out-fundraised John McCain by a 5:1 margin from top computer executives, and the popular vote in Santa Clara County–the heart of Silicon Valley–was 69:28 last year; the voting in other high-tech enclaves, including San Francisco, Manhattan, and Boston, was even more lopsided.

    But to repeat, Internet voting is coming. If Democratic techies dominate the research and development of new processes, that will be fine with Democrats. If Democratic secretaries of state adjudicate the implementation process, and the vote-counting, that, too, will be fine with Democrats. And if Net voting comes quicker to Democrat-leaning places than Republican-leaning places, well, that will likely be A-OK with Democrats.

    But for Republicans, a Democrat-dominated e-vote system would be a swift road to political extinction. So what’s needed immediately is a completely fair and transparent process to examine all facets of the transition to Internet voting. And the only way to achieve that fairness and transparency is to create a rigorously bipartisan outfit to oversee the implementation of such technology, modeled after either the Federal Election Commission, or the private Commission on Presidential Debates.

    But in the long run, conservatives and libertarians are going to have to come to grips with the issue of foolproof personal identification. Whether it’s called a National I.D. Card, or something else, America needs some sure way of knowing who’s who. Plenty of folks on the right will oppose such a measure as an invasion of privacy, or worse, but it’s a plain fact that vote fraud cannot be squelched if vote-frauders cannot be identified.

    And yet, if Republicans were ever to unite around a fraud-proof system, it would be instructive for them to watch the opposition Democrats. If Democrats, for their part, continued to oppose an I.D. system, that would be a strong indicator that Democrats think that they gain from the current I.D. anarchy.

    Today, in 2009, e-voting is just a cloud on the Hawaii horizon. But a storm of disruptive technology is coming fast, and Republicans had better get ready.


  9. The court does not change at all…still 5-4 in favor of the Scalia branch…plus, any future nominees are most likely going to be replacing the two (2) older liberal justices, so it really just prevents the court from going completely right…..You have 2 relatively young right wing zealots in Alito and Roberts, as well as Scalia and Thomas ….Edwards is the only one who on rare occasions will be the swing vote ….This was a smart, no lose pick for Obama…a woman, hispanic, and very likely to substitute her own far left opinions rather than follow the law…….the left will love this.

  10. Jbstonesfan, the left might not be too happy with her in five years. She is after all a former prosecutor and that indicator bodes well for a “prosecutor’s judge” as her future.

    Kennedy (you must have mistaken womanizer John Edwards with Ted) will be the swing vote as you wrote. The right wing justices will not retire as they are relatively young and healthy. Obama’s picks are not going to be particularly important unless the right wing justices retire and they will not reture but rather wait Obama out.

  11. LOL!!!! Yes, I meant Kennedy!!!! And I agree with your analysis. After all, Souter was a “Bushie” 1 pick and turned out to be a very thoughtful, left leaning justice.

  12. Good evening all…

    Admin…awesome articles!!

    yes i have been reading them, when i can that is

    I’ve been busy with caring for my mom.

    i did come across a interesting article tonight that i will post next…

    I won’t be online much longer, i am so tired…..yawnnnnn!

  13. Kim Jong II Has Bombs for Barack

    By Andreas Lorenz in Beijing

    Is Pyongyang’s bomb test on Monday an attempt at political extortion? North Korea is looking for diplomatic recognition through its atomic weapons program, especially from Obama’s government. Kim Jong Il just wants a little respect — and a meeting with Hillary Clinton.


  14. Admin said:

    “Again, this was a foolish lawsuit intended to protect gay community “leaders” who sought to protect themselves, from a righteously angry gay community, by attempting to relitigate the already litigated issues.

    These gay community “leaders” are complicit in this ugly episode because when it was time to stand up for their community and against Barack Obama these “leaders” remained silent.

    We wrote about the complicity of gay community “leaders” in The Shame Of The Democratic Left, Part III:

    The Democratic Left, and yes, Gay-American leaders, threw Gay-Americans under the bus this past year in order to worship at the unworthy Barack Obama’s altar. Now the Democratic Left and Gay-American leaders are whining that Obama has stabbed them in the back.

    Not once during the primaries nor during the general election did these leaders hold Obama to account. Not once did these leaders threaten to withhold votes – the only language political thugs like Obama understand. Now they are whining.

    Barack Obama has indeed stabbed Gay-Americans in the back. Barack Obama can’t be trusted… by friend nor foe… Obama simply can’t be trusted. But the very late protests by the Democratic Left are whines from hypocrites.

    One of the issues on which we prominently opposed Obama was the issue of gay rights. We prophetically wrote:

    Gay-Americans must realize that Obama has gay-bashed in the past. If it comes down to getting votes from evangelical voters, socially conservative African-Americans or any constituency group – Obama will betray Gay-Americans.

    It’s surprising how many blogs “DO NOT GET IT!” They haven’t a clue as to what has happened to the Gay Community and who is responsible. When the set of facts you mentioned above in your brilliant post are filtered through the minds of the skimmers, who rely totally on google and other blogs for an “angle” to entertain their readership. They come up way short with cockamamie analogies looking like foolish inept failures pretending to lead their group- where?

    No-where, but deeper into the ether…keeping them anesthetized is the best way to divest them of a few loose shekels when they truly believe.

    False hope is worse than NO hope at all!

    yetch- (forgive me) my thoughts in print on the way to the local vomitorium.

  15. trying to catch up with comments from yesterday’s post:

    # basil9 Says:
    May 26th, 2009 at 9:39 am

    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%)


    Basil9, wouldn’t you just Love to show Obama the final figures and ask him what he intends on doing about it?


    # turndownobama-com Says:
    May 26th, 2009 at 12:52 am

    Mrs. Smith said:

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


    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.


    And we would be well on the way to a recovered economy. I’ve always preferred Soros with a frown on his face rather than the glee and glint of someone who just swallowed the canary!


    # Paula Says:
    May 26th, 2009 at 12:58 pm

    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.

    Exactly, Paula. Sarandon is still Hi on Obama Kool-Aid. I hope she was a heavy donor to his campaign. She’ll soon realize she would have gotten more for her money had she used it for fuel in her fireplace.

  16. I was in Barnes and Nobel today and judging by the covers of the magazines which I read seldom if ever–ones like Harpers, The New Yorker and even The Economist, I found nothing but dire economic predictions. Cole Porter wrote a play once entitled 50 Million Frenchmen Can’t Be Wrong. Let us hope this is not true for pundits on the Economy if this was any indication.

    So I turned to a more uplifting publication called Foreign Affairs. There I found an article entitled The Demons of US Foreign Policy by Leslie Gelb who is one of the luminaries an article by Leslie Gelb who is one of the luminaries at The Council on Foreign Relations.

    1. He says the United States is declining as a nation and as a world power. It is declining in terms of leadership, institutions and infrastructure. No longer to be feared or followed.

    2. The base of our international power are economic competitiveness and political cohesion both of which are in decline.

    3. Foreign policy is common sense. But common sense keeps getting overwhelmed by extravagant principles, nasty politics and arrogance. (Note: traits which Obama and Bush have in common).

    4. Common sense does no tell policymakers what to think about but how to think about them systematically. It is what rescued America in critical times in its history.

    5. The signals of decline have not caused politicans to put problemsolving above partisan interests and scoring points.

    6. Dimocrats lack the decisiveness, clarity of vision and toughness necessary to govern. Republicans attack and discount facts.

    7. Emperor Gluteus Maximus will pursue the war in Afghanistan and it will be yet another sink hole. The Afghans will determine their fate.

    8. The chorus is we must win, but the reality is the government we support is corrupt and cannot fight a war. The Taliban can.

    9. Dimocrats are torn between their belief in negotiation and their desire to look tough. They convey uncertainty, the public senses this and lose confidence in their ability to manage national security.

    10. Repugs paint the world in simple black and white terms and proclaim that they will not allow America to be pushed around.

    11. Most foreign policy experts are pushing for a new grand strategy to replace the old strategy of containment, but the effort is proving to be rather elusive.

    12. The core elements of that strategy must be:

    a. making America economically strong again. This requires energy independence, physical and human infrastructure and homeland security.

    b. recognize that America remains the indispensible leader, but must have indispensible partners.

    c. we must forge power coalitions to address the greatest threats–terrorism, economic crisis, nuclear proliferation, climate change, global pandemics.

    d. early intervention of international problems

    e. recognize that traditional power does not work well against todays problems. The strong cannot expect to command the weak. We must focus on economics and diplomacy more than military power.

    13. The United States is the only nation that can provide the leadership required to solve the problems that threaten to engulf the world, and right now it is declining.

    14. My comment: if we are able to rise to that daunting challenge it will because of Secretary Hilllary Rodham Clinton. Emperor Gluetus Maximus Obama is not up to it.

  17. Admin: I suspect you are right. This nominee does not impress me as a jurist. But neither did Souter. The Republican base will object to her, but the answer of the party will be out with one left wing jurist and in with another. It will not affect the balance on the court. It is hard to argue with that. She may be outside the mainstream but her views will not be outcome determinative. I would not get distracted either.

  18. Some perspective — the gay leadership did demand that Hillary publicly support gay marriage. Empire State Pride Agenda told us not to donate to her Senate campaign. Hillary was too smart to publicly endorse gay marriage. With her long history of bashing the Radical Right, the combination of Hillary plus gay marriage was too explosive to help anyone except Karl Rove. Obama has no such history of fighting the Far Right, so he deserves no slack.

    What did Hillary do instead of playing into Rove’s hands? Unlike Obama’s do-nothing to stop Prop 8, Hillary went on full scale attack to bury the Federal Constitutional Amendment to ban Gay Marriage. As First Lady, leading woman Senator and Bill’s better half, no one on the Senate Floor could lecture her on the meaning of marriage. Thanks to Hil, that wretched bill didn’t even get 50 votes, let alone the 66 it needed.

    What thanks did she get? Many gay leaders continued to demand that Hillary help elect Republicans by publicly endorsing gay marriage. They screamed ‘Hillary has done nothing for gays’ — ignoring the fact that she killed the Marriage Amendment. I sent ESPA an e-mail that Hillary had done more to protect me than they had, if I had to choose between Hillary and ESPA, I’m with Hillary.

    Admin, you’re right, this was a foolish lawsuit. If the California court had over-ruled the voters of California, it would have triggered a constitutional crisis. We’d end up with a U.S. Supreme Court decision re-instating Proposition 8.

  19. basil9 Says:
    May 26th, 2009 at 5:31 pm

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


    I haen’t looked at the source, but it seems that ‘somewhat approve’ should be balanced against ‘somewhat disapprove.’ The current phrasing suggests that an unmodified, therefore strong, disapproval is being compared with ‘somewhat approve’ which would include weak approval.

  20. A MUST-READ (or at least skim) from Atlas Shrugs.

    Admin – can you embed any of these pics?

    The Media Loved Hitler, Too.

    atlasshrugs2000 dot typepad dot com/atlas_shrugs/2009/05/the-media-loved-hitler-too

  21. basil,

    Yes the media loved Hitler. They loved him so much that newspapers like the NYT would hide news of gas chambers and news of the murders of millions of Jews and other groups, i.e. gypsies, homosexuals, etc. on the back pages where no one would see them. I guess the holocaust wasn’t that newsworthy, but Hitler apparently was, just as obama is.

  22. “It was a check the boxes decision. ”

    That about sums it up. A politically courageous move for the Democratic party would have been to elect a woman president when they had a chance. They did everything to destroy that possibility. Anything 0bama and his minions do now is pure crumbs and consolation prize, which reinforces the cycle of second class citizenry for women.

  23. it looks like the dims still have a pack of race cards up their sleeve.

    I expect at a time in the not-too-distant future they WILL get solidly behind a woman candidate (not HRC) and then pull out the gender card with both barrels blasting and DARE the elctorate not to select the woman of their choosing.


  24. “It was a check the boxes decision. ”

    That about sums it up. A politically courageous move for the Democratic party would have been to elect a woman president when they had a chance. They did everything to destroy that possibility. Anything 0bama and his minions do now is pure crumbs and consolation prize, which reinforces the cycle of second class citizenry for women.
    It is not even a consolation prize. It is strictly pro forma. The constituency they are hoping to appeal to is not women, but Hispanics. They have had a woman on the court since the Republicans appointed O’Connor. They want to coodinate this with one of their next moves which will be amnesty, covered up by glib phrases such as an earned path to citizenship. The elites want to lock in that cheap source of unskilled labor. As it was with Bush, so also will it be with Gleuteus Maximus Obama. I sure it is part of their plans for a Thousand Year Reich, as outlined in Carvelle’s new book for the destruction of our political system, and the certain path to national decline. Gelb’s comments above are merely part of a larger story.

  25. I expect at a time in the not-too-distant future they WILL get solidly behind a woman candidate (not HRC) and then pull out the gender card with both barrels blasting and DARE the elctorate not to select the woman of their choose.
    That effort will fail in the general election. The public will not vote for a woman president if it is not Hillary. We saw the barriers to it–and they were as much with women as men. No I do not think that is in the cards. I am afraid that after the failure of our economy under this joker it will be back to white males. Besides, they have no one. The closest they have is this Selebius, and she is too dull and lackluster to sell in an American Idol economy. They will go toward an Hispanic if things do not fall apart as the smart money the L recovery types are predicting–as opposed to the callow wet behind the ears dreamers with a calculator like Gleuteus’ budget director who says massive recovery tomorrow.

  26. Overall, 55% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance so far while 44% disapprove
    Is this a deft change in labels to cover up a much steeper decline in his popularity. It is an apples vs organges comparison. Of the 55% how many approve, as opposed to the somewhat approve category. Is ther a slightly disapprove category that they are not reporting on. I do not think you can maintain political cohesion over the long term under Emperor Gleuteus Maximus, and the make believe media culture that tries desperately to hide it. We need to do a more honest job of tracking. The elites want Gleuteus because he locks in their social advantage. The young and the blacks identify with him because they mistakenly believe he is one of them and will bring social change beneficial to their interests, plus peer group influence is a powerful factor. He is hoping to bribe the Hispanics. The key is for people to recognize that he is merely a brand designed to make us feel good while his cronies loot the country. The far left is starting to figure this out.

  27. May 27, 2009

    Bill on Hillary: ‘We’ve reversed roles’

    New York Times White House correspondent Peter Baker writes this weekend’s magazine cover story on Bill Clinton’s changing role, yet still hectic globe-trotting lifestyle, according to an advance copy of the piece.

    Following Clinton around the world — whether stopping at a crafts store in Lima or a conference in Davos — Baker notices similarities to his past travels with then first lady Hillary Clinton as a White House correspondent for the Washington Post.

    She typically would make a courtesy stop at a palace for a brief meeting with the head of state, but the trips were built around roundtable discussions or visits to far-off villages to explore how people confronted the challenges of their world. That’s what Bill Clinton was doing now. The next day he would wake up in Lima, fly to Barranquilla on Colombia’s northern coast and then to Medellín before settling into a hotel in Cartagena. When I later made the observation to him, he said with a laugh, ‘‘We’ve reversed roles.’’

    Baker’s 8,000-plus-word piece isn’t yet online, but is expected to go up ahead of the weekend print date, perhaps later today or tomorrow.



    There is a great picture of Bill Clinton on the magazine cover on the site.

  28. There they go again . . . Public Citizen . . . telling the truth. But the real problem here is not just Congress, but Emperor Glueteus Maximus, the best friend the insurance companies ever had. Just one part of the den of thieves in Chicago and elsewhere whom he fronts for. The test will be whether Gletueus Maximus demands single payer. I have no doubt he will not. But in his typical craven fashion, he will blame others.

    Dear wbboei,

    Health care is a right, not a privilege. Yet, tens of millions of Americans don’t have access to it because our patchwork system of private insurance places profits over health and causes the waste of $400 billion a year in excess administrative costs – money that should go to provide health insurance for everyone. The result is unnecessary suffering and tens of thousands of deaths every year because people lack health insurance.

    There is a solution to this crisis: a single-payer, national health insurance program -without the private health insurance industry.

    On PBS’ “Bill Moyers Journal” last Friday, I discussed why only a single-payer program would work and why Congress has wrongly excluded it from the debate on health care reform. (You can see the video and read the transcript here.)

    Now, I am asking you to support Public Citizen as we campaign to give everyone access to health care.

    Congress has been figuring out how to keep private insurers in business, rather than how to provide health care to all Americans. Single-payer is the only way we can provide comprehensive health care to every American without breaking the bank, but it will be an uphill battle to have our voices heard.

    We’re up against the powerful health insurance industry, which is always at the table to stymie meaningful health reform. Key lawmakers are afraid to stand up for the creation of a single-payer system of national health insurance, when they know it’s the solution to our health care crisis.

    It’s time to put an end to this injustice. Please donate today.

    Your contribution will help Public Citizen support our staff members who are focused on advocating a single-payer solution, so that we have the strength to counter the health insurance industry. Your donations also will support our current activities, such as helping to coordinate lobby days, national call-ins and other calls to action, which raise awareness and support on Capitol Hill for single-payer.

    Thank you for all you do,
    Sidney Wolfe, M.D.
    Acting President, Public Citizen

    P.S. – Support Public Citizen today, and spread the word to your family and colleagues by forwarding this e-mail

  29. wbboei,

    “That effort will fail in the general election. The public will not vote for a woman president if it is not Hillary.”

    Ya know what? I once thought that the country would NEVER select BO but they did. Who knows what other stupidity they’re capable of?
    After prez BO, is Prez Oprah, or Prez Meesh far-behind? I mean, the bar is so low now. I’m just saying.

  30. May 27, 2009

    Sarkozy upsets British with Obama D-Day visit

    Trust the British to spoil Nicolas Sarkozy’s plan for a dream day with Barack Obama. The French president managed after much arm-twisting last month to persuade the US leader to drop in on the Normandy beaches on June 6 to commemorate the D-Day landings of 1944 and celebrate Franco-American ties.

    Sarkozy’s big moment began to sour when the British, then the Canadians, Poles and other wartime allies wondered why they had not been asked to join the two presidents at the US cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer, by Omaha beach. Sarkozy was annoyed at the idea of sharing his golden photo-opportunity but invitations went out. Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, agreed to attend along with other allied officials. But the Elysée Palace failed to factor in British emotion over the war, ancient suspicion of France and the skill of the British media at whipping the two together. So today the Daily Mail, a mass-market paper, reported “fury” in Buckingham palace over Sarkozy’s failure to invite the Queen.

    In reality, we are told that there is no anger and no perceived snub. The Royal family had not expected to be invited and had not put out feelers, a senior British official told me. The Queen attended ceremonies in Normandy for the 50th and 60th anniversaries, but the 65th was not planned as an international event.

    The French are annoyed by the snub story. Luc Chatel, the Minister who acts as government spokesman, said that Her Majesty was absolutely welcome if she wanted to come. It was not up to Paris to designate who represented Britain. “Our interlocutors are members of the British Government who wanted to associate themselves with a ceremony that was Franco-American at the outset,” said Chatel. This year’s event is about the US-French relationship and there will be other D-Days, he added. You can hear the irritation there. It’s also evident in the confusion over what Gordon Brown and the other allied officials will do on June 6. Sarkozy is still hoping to be alone at least part of the time as the guest of Obama at the Colleville cemetery (which is US territory in perpetuity). The French plan a Sarkozy-Obama tête-à-tête and and there will be a three-way meeting with Brown. The Elysée Palace and Downing Street have still not settled on a programme.

    In other words, this looks like a mess, another case of Sarkozy over-reaching and putting up backs with his self-promotion. Past US Presidents have attended purely bilateral ceremonies with French leaders at Omaha beach, but never on June 6 itself. Sarkozy should have known that D-Day, in which 73,000 British forces came ashore, is as sacred to the British as the Americans. Some might have told him that he would court trouble by trying to mark the 65th anniversary without them. That is especially the case as the dwindling British veterans’ organisations say that this will be their last Normandy commemoration.

    The criticism is not just British. It came with force today from Jean-Michel Aphatie, a commentator who is feared in the political world. Sarkozy’s attempt to stage an epic lone appearance with Obama was a huge mistake, Aphatie wrote on the internet. “It is impossible to honour the memory of the dead without associating the leaders of the countries which took part in the sacrifice…French diplomacy has landed itself in a glorious mess.”

    “This episode illustrates an obsession of French leaders: forever measuring themselves against American power. We live in the illusion of a tête-à-tête with America…”


  31. Basil– you are right in one sense. If the American People can be bamboozled once, then they can be bamboozled again. But in this case, much depended on the predecessor being Bush, and false hopes which were placed in the dims. Those conditions will not be repeated. Experience will see to that. Furthermore, if you consider the opinions of the liviliest intellects of our age as depicted in such venerable institutions as Harpers, et al then an economic collapse is imminent. Under those conditions, and knowing the ambiguous reaction to a brilliant woman candidate, do you really believe they can win with a female candidate who is not Hillary. I just dont see it at all.

    having been bamboozled once

    it is not the same–as we saw. The only one who can break through that glass ceiling is Hillary. The thing about these kind of branding schemes is their novelty. Once they have been tried the sequel is never the same.

  32. Israeli, US officials huddle in UK over settlements, Iran

    May. 27, 2009
    Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST

    Six days after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu returned from Washington, he dispatched a team of confidants to London on Tuesday for talks with US Middle East envoy George Mitchell that are expected to focus on Iran and a looming clash over settlement construction. The Israeli team is headed by Intelligence Services Minister Dan Meridor, National Security Adviser Uzi Arad, and Netanyahu aid Yitzhak Molcho, who is in charge of the Palestinian diplomatic file inside the Prime Minister’s Office.

    Both Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have made it clear since the PM’s return from the US last Wednesday that Israel is committed to removing 26 unauthorized West Bank outposts. However, there is still deep disagreement with Washington over whether a “settlement freeze” – which is what the US has called for – includes a cessation on building in existing settlements to accommodate natural growth.

    US President Barack Obama, in his meeting last week with Netanyahu, said, “Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward.” While US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said unequivocally last week, in an interview with Al-Jazeera, that a freeze did include “natural growth,” the Netanyahu government’s position – as expressed clearly at Sunday’s cabinet meeting – was that Israel would not stop such construction.

    One senior government official said Jerusalem felt that if it made clear to the Americans that it would remove outposts, not build new settlements, not expropriate any Palestinian land, and not give incentives to people to live in the settlements, then the Obama administration would not pressure Israel to stop any building beyond the Green Line, even for natural growth. This may, however, be “wishful thinking,” as the US is continuing to signal to Israel that its formulation of removing outposts won’t be sufficient to stave off calls for a complete settlement freeze.

    “The road map commits Israel to dismantling outposts erected since March 2001 and freezing all settlement activity, including natural growth,” noted one State Department official on Tuesday, adding that the US expected Israelis to “live up to their obligations.” In any case, Israel continued to signal to the US on Tuesday that it was serious about removing the 26 illegal outposts, which are home to a total of some 1,200 people. One senior official said that the removal of the outposts would begin in a matter of weeks and be done within months. It would not, he said, begin in a matter of months and be done in a matter of years.

    Barak said Netanyahu’s visit to Washington last week marked the beginning of the dialogue with the new US administration, and that this dialogue would take time and be marked by “peaks and valleys.” “We must remember, and find a way to make it clear to the Americans, that there is not a direct connection between the outposts and Iran,” Barak said at a briefing in his Tel Aviv office with reporters. “It is not as if the minute that the last outpost is removed – outposts that need to be removed because of issues relating to the rule of law and the authority of the state over its citizens – the Iranians will abandon their nuclear aspirations. These things do not have to be directly linked to one another.” The hope was that the outposts would be removed through dialogue with the settlers, Barak said. “But in the event that we cannot reach an understanding with the settlers, we will not be deterred from using reasonable force to implement the country’s authority over its citizens and enforce the law speedily and effectively.”

    Barak is scheduled to travel to the US next week for a meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other top officials. Reiterating what Netanyahu said a day earlier when talking about the need to remove the outposts to preserve close ties, Barak termed the strategic relationship with the US “an anchor.” “Coordination with the US, our strategic relationship with the US, and maturely coping with the challenges are all necessary conditions for Israel’s foreign policy,” the defense minister said. Barak said it was necessary to find a way to say “yes, but,” to the US once the new administration developed its Middle East policy, and not say “no,” or “no, but.” A policy built on the road map and that included a comprehensive regional agreement was something that Israel could accept, he said.

    Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Tuesday also came out in favor of the road map, even though its ultimate goal is a Palestinian state, and reiterated the need for a comprehensive Israeli stance on regional issues. “We need to have an inclusive outlook and to progress gradually and with caution,” he stressed. “What is important is the Israeli approach, not the American one. We must have a clear message for the Israeli public and the international community. There is currently no clear message as to where Israeli policy is headed.” Netanyahu, Lieberman went on, “doesn’t rule out the road map, which also has international validity, having been accepted by the US and the United Nations Security Council.”

    Turning to Iran, Barak said Israel was not in a position where it could tell the US whether or not to hold a dialogue with Teheran. “We can only express our position, which is that any dialogue should be limited in time, and that in parallel, widespread and effective sanctions should be prepared that would include financial sanctions and sanctions on refined oil products imported by Iran.” The chance of the US engagement with Iran succeeding was “very low,” Barak said. The Americans understand this, “but they think there is logic in this dialogue. If it doesn’t succeed, they will need to deal with the significance in the future.” He added that “as far as we are concerned, Israel is not taking any option off the table. We mean what we say, and we recommend to others to act as we do.”

    Regarding North Korea’s recent nuclear test, Barak said that “words, declarations and sanctions don’t stop rogue regimes from endangering world peace. This test was a warning sign and a message to the world to wake up.”



    Why is it okay for obama to back down on promises made by Bush to Israel but not okay for Israel to do the same? Was is the most recent roadmap the one being forced on them? What about the previous ones that went by the wayside? While I never agreed that East Jerusalem should be a part of the giveaway, there were some important decisions that did make sense?

    More and more it seems to me that obama is intent on destroying Israel once and for all.

  33. Freed journalist thanks Clinton


  34. I truly believe that the biggest ethical mistake obama can make is to throw Israel under the bus. To do so is to sponsor terrorism to the extreme and to expand antisemitism further than ever before.

  35. If I were asked in polite company what the essential difference is between Hillary and Obama I would say Hillary is a problemsolver whereas Obama is merely a brand.

    Jan–I agree with you. If we do that then our word means nothing. Without Hillary there he would do it in a New York minute. Just as fast as his spiritual adviser could say goddam america. If Hillary gets the sense this is happening she would fight it hard against it, and I believe she would resign in protest if necessary. There are staffies in the White House like Powers who are reputed to be anti-semitic, although I have not seen the evidence. Cutting the other way are people like Holbrooke who obviously are not. The biggest question mark however is Bambi himself and that is why Bibi needs to keep pressure on him.

  36. Thank you wbboei. It is terrifying what is happening and has happened since this monster got into power. Squeezing out the Israelis is part II of Hitler’s final solution.

  37. Feel good article. Some of may know my daughter played D1 baskerball.

    One-Armed Hoopster Gets Scholarship

    Posted May 26, 2009 4:05

    Kevin Laue knows what would happen if a college basketball team took a chance on him and he didn’t pan out. Fans would wonder what the coach was thinking in using a scholarship on a center missing his left hand.

    Tony Cenicola / The New York Times / Redux
    Kevin Laue, who played basketball for Fork Union Military Academy in Virginia this past year, has received a scholarship to play at Manhattan College.

    “It’s a business,” the 6-foot-10 Laue said. “Their jobs are all on the line. It’s much safer to take a two-handed guy my size that got beat by me.”
    But Manhattan College’s Barry Rohrssen figures coaches take chances all the time. He’d rather take one on Laue, whose left arm ends just past the elbow. So last week, the Division I school signed the center, and Rohrssen is confident his work ethic will rub off on other players.
    “We take chances on kids who have poor academic histories, who have disciplinary problems both on the court and off the court,” Rohrssen said Tuesday. “We give opportunities to players who don’t appreciate them, who take them for granted. For all the right reasons, Kevin deserves this chance, and he should make the most of this opportunity.”
    A native of Northern California, Laue played a postgraduate season for Fork Union Military Academy in Virginia this year, hoping to impress college recruiters. Coach Fletcher Arritt said Laue averaged about 10 points and five rebounds, competing against many Division I prospects.
    When Laue was born the circulation in his left arm was cut off by the umbilical cord. He uses his upper arm to help receive passes, and his large right hand allows him to easily palm the ball.
    “He can run as well as anybody,” Arritt said. “He can jump as well as anybody. You don’t need two hands to block shots around the basket.”
    As the weeks went by, Laue was starting to wonder whether he would ever realize his dream of playing Division I basketball. He said Wofford and Colgate expressed interest but neither had an available scholarship.
    “I still had faith,” Laue said. “But I was at the point of being like, ‘Man, when is this going to happen?”‘
    Rohrssen had been aware of Laue before he enrolled at Fork Union. The coach needed to recruit size with the graduation of the Jaspers’ starting center, but what really worried him after wrapping up offseason workouts this month was his returning players.
    “Some coaches may say, ‘We need a shooter,”‘ he said. “My feeling was our team needed a stronger work ethic.”
    Manhattan contacted Laue just over a week ago. He signed with the team Wednesday.
    “He possess certain skills as a basketball player that are very good,” Rohrssen said, “and he demonstrates qualities that will make him successful off the court in terms of in the locker room, on campus and in the classroom.”
    The Jaspers went 16-14 last season, 9-9 in the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference.
    “Playing hard is a skill,” Rohrssen said. “Doing it consistently is another skill.”
    Baseball’s Jim Abbott, born without a right hand, forged a successful major league pitching career. Basketball, though, demands far more actions requiring both hands than pitching.
    Laue’s story has already inspired many, and he knows that coming to New York will provide him with an even bigger stage. But he’s confident his impact will be felt on the court, too.
    “I’m a risk. Coach Rohrssen was willing to take it,” Laue said. “He has no reason to worry.”

  38. gonzotx Says:

    May 27th, 2009 at 6:55 pm


    What an uplifting story! Thanks for posting it.

  39. This is the awkward times that I feared should Hillary become SOS. I love her but her comments today in Egypt on ceasing even “natural growth” on so called settlements is quite upsetting . Sadly, she will be part of Obama’s grand plan to win over the Arabs/Muslims/Europeans by playing “tough” on Israel. I simply can’t understand why Israel is constantly asked to make sacrifices for countries that are led by dictators, have no respect for women, and quite frankly, no respect for even the very notion of democracy. It is avery perverted world. Obama’s weakness has already resulted in N. Korea on the verge of war, Iran rapidly enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons, and yet, Israel is the one being pressured-go figure?

  40. jbstonefan, I understand how you feel. I also dread the day when she may end up taking sides between India and Pakistan and on Pakistan’s side. So far, so good. India has managed to keep itself out of the Af-Pak situation even though Pakistan wanted to drag it through that muck.

  41. wbboei, your comment at NQ was right on the money. Don’t know what is going on with LJ (though you commented on Susan’s post).

  42. India has shown tremendous self-restraint given what is going on in Pakistan. We ought to align ourselves with India asap.

  43. jbstonesfan, Indian’s are terrified of what is going on in Pakistan. My friend and I were discussing my posts at NQ on Pakistan. She said I showed a lot of empathy towards Pakistan in my articles but they are angry and terrified of what may happen to them if Pakistan fell apart. She was mentioning how after Mumbai attack there was not a single newspaper in Pakistan that wrote about Pakistan’s complicity/responsibility in it. All that made me feel small for sitting here in my fairly comfortable perch while they are like sitting ducks over there. India is the first target for the militants (and Pakistan whatever will be left of it) but Israel and the US are not far behind.

  44. Thanks Admin for this story.
    I experienced the wrath of my own community when I refused to support teleprompter n’ chief. Now they are all regretting their votes for him in the general. We all supported Hillary out here in California she received upwards of 65% of the gay vote. However the community forgot how obama used us during the primary and used us again and again. Thank you for continuing to expose this in your stories.

  45. pm317,

    I have to believe that Israel and India will triumph despite the duplicity going on around them.

    The alternative is just too unmentionable.

  46. 100% correct pm317. By the way, Israel and India have very good relations and Israel has recently sold India their version of the AWAC plane. I read the Jerusalem Post daily and Israel wants to move much closer to India as the US ,under Obama, will be very unfriendly. India and Israel can share much in terns of military and technological cooperation/trade.

  47. “Pakistan with about 60 nuclear warheads; primarily targeted towards India, is continuing production of fissile material for weapons
    and adding to its weapons production facilities and delivery vehicles, a US Congressional report has said. ”

    from a Times of India story today.

  48. pm317 Says:
    May 27th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
    “Pakistan with about 60 nuclear warheads; primarily targeted towards India, is continuing production of fissile material for weapons
    and adding to its weapons production facilities and delivery vehicles, a US Congressional report has said. ”
    Probably more than that and I have seen # of up to 200, many of these may be nuclear cores that haven’t been installed into bombs. Pakistan is also bringing a third heavy water reactor on line for the production of Plutonium for their weapons program. When this reactor is in production, Bushes removal of sanctions on Pakistan and India in 2001 and again from Pakistan in 2003 was a disaster. The sanctions had little impact on an economy the size of India but for Pakistan it had a big impact and their weapons program really took off. IMO, any potential danger posed by Iran or North Korea is trivial compared to the potential disaster of a radicalized Pakistani Govt. As happened in Iran, this type of change can can happen very quickly.

  49. oops:

    “when this reactor is in production, it will produce enough Plutonium for an additional 40-50 bombs/year.”

  50. Just on Yahoo News, Iraq is going to arrest 1000 corrupt officials, any chance they would consider doing it over here, as we could really stand to put of few of ours in jail for some time!!!

Comments are closed.