Treachery Tales, Part I

Those darn Bush W. supporters kept coming up with excuses for Bush W. no matter what Katrina disaster Bush W. bungled – and now those darn Obama supporters, the mirror image of Bush W. supporters, make excuses for Obama no matter what disasters and treacheries Obama authors. But some Obama supporters are indeed waking up.

No, we don’t mean and you should not believe the hypocrites on PINO Big Blogs and Big Media and in the Hopium dens of Bush W. Obama now when they defend Sonia Sotomayor on the basis of opposition to misogyny. These hypocrites are only pretending they care about misogyny and sexism but these treacherous swine are only wielding the “sexist!” charge to make up for their own misogyny and sexism against Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin and a long list of women they have battered.

The misogyny on PINO Big Blogs and Big Media which we have repeatedly written about is one of the reasons many of these boys want pink websites to disappear and no longer remind them of their shame. But we are not the only ones aware of the shame of the Democratic Left and their PINO Big Blogs and their Big Media wingnuts.

It would be a stupid mistake for conservatives to take the road most traveled by the left in its decimation of Sarah Palin. Republicans or Democrats who resort to suggesting that smart women aren’t should be sent to the political dunce’s auditorium, the wilderness dutifully staked out by the Republican Party. Why? I’d like to say because respecting women’s intelligence is the right thing to do. But I’ll be more practical. Question the intelligence of a woman who has worked hard and achieved much against odds, and you will really irritate women. Really. Ask those Hillary Clinton supporters and those Sarah Palin supporters. They didn’t agree on much, but neither group liked watching male politicians diss women.

Dimocratic misogynists and sexists like Howard Dean, PINO writer Hendrik Hertzberg who denigrated sexism while pretending not to, in order to elevate “RACISM!”, and the typical frat boy Big Blogs as well as the women lawyer run misogynist websites, will all now thunder against sexism and misogyny but they are hypocrites. When it counted, they proved themselves misogynists by trashing women candidates like Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin with the tried and true sexist methods they will now denounce conservatives for employing.

* * * * *

We wrote in The Shame Of The Democratic Left, Part I:

The misogyny, sexism and gay-bashing by Democrats that occurred in the 2008 election cycle is an open sore that will not heal. The leadership of the Democratic Left increasingly proved itself to be a misogynistic and anti-gay coalition. The words are “progressive”. The actions contradict the words. We know actions speak louder than words.

As bad as women have been and will continue to be battered by Obama and his supporters, Gay-Americans will be even worse off.

Gay-Americans are hearing from Obama supporters the usual excuses of ‘shut up, Obama is busy and wonderful, your problems are nothing compared to the sufferings of wonderful Obama, so just shut up and get in line and Obama will get to your problems when he deigns to so shut up because you don’t understand the master plan of wonderful Obama and anyway you threaten the new Obama coalition of socially conservative African-Americans and eventually Evangelicals so shut up and stop complaining about your stupid rights, it’s only sex anyway and racism is much worse, so what if Gays have been tortured and tormented for centuries and centuries and millennia upon millennia – that is nothing compared to RACISM which Obama has suffered and besides he has a funny name he had to overcome so shut up and praise Obama’. Perhaps that is why Gay-Americans are among the first of Obama supporters to be waking up.


Fraud

But just wait, it will get much worse for Gay-Americans under Obama and his Dimocrats.

Just wait until the Dimocratic Party and Barack Obama and his gang of thugs at Alcoholics Obama Anonymous (OA) tell Gay-Americans in California and elsewhere not to place any Gay marriage or civil rights ballot initiatives in 2010 or 2012 because it could hurt Dimocrats at the polls in election years. That outrage is sure to come.

Gay citizens of California (and yes that includes African-Americans) were betrayed by Obama voters in 2008. Gay citizens of California were betrayed by their own leaders, and the “Hollywood community“, and Gay “writers”, who whoreshipped Obama.

Now with the Proposition 8 victory on election day and recently in the courts, Gay Americans in California, led into a trap by their “leaders”, are wandering around like lost sheep. Some are “clinging” with “hope” on the courts even though the Supreme Court is controlled by the right wing.

To be absolutely fair, that right wing court has actually produced some very good rulings on gay rights (but you won’t hear that from Dimocrats who fear monger about the Supreme Court every presidential election cycle). These wandering Gay-American sheep who cling to hopey-dopey-changey from Obama should ask themselves why Obama chose Sonia Sotomayor without asking her position on Gay-rights or Gay-marriage. [Hint: he’s just not that into your concerns about civil rights.]

The remote possibility of a right wing Supreme Court upholding Gay marriage and overturning the Proposition 8 ban on Gay marriage at the ballot (with Obama supporters providing the crucial votes needed to discriminate against Gay-Americans) aside, there are some efforts underway in the courts:

Eight and a half years after their epic partisan battle over the fate of the 2000 presidential election, the lawyers David Boies and Theodore B. Olson appeared on the same team on Wednesday as co-counsel in a federal lawsuit that has nothing to do with hanging chads, butterfly ballots or Electoral College votes.

Their mutual goal: overturning Proposition 8, California’s freshly affirmed ban on same-sex marriage. It is a fight that jolted many gay rights advocates — and irritated more than a few — but that Mr. Boies and Mr. Olson said was important enough to, temporarily at least, set aside their political differences. [snip]

The duo’s complaint, filed last week in Federal District Court in San Francisco on behalf of two gay couples and formally announced Wednesday at a news conference in Los Angeles, argues against Proposition 8 on the basis of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

In the end, the two lawyers suggested, the case might take them, again, to the United States Supreme Court. [snip]

On Wednesday, veterans of the legal battles over same-sex marriage questioned the suit’s timing, particularly when a conservative majority holds sway in the Supreme Court.

Whatever happens with the lawsuit, it is clear that the Proposition 8 Gay marriage ban will not be resolved by election day 2010. Dimocrats will not be happy:

If gay rights groups get their way, the nominees to succeed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will share the November 2010 ballot with a measure to repeal Proposition 8, turning an emotionally charged cultural issue into a central focus of the campaign.

Gay-Americans in California and their “leaders” better be prepared to be told to ‘shut up, this election is too important to imperil it with your problems’.

Already Gay “leaders” in California who are beholden to Dimocrats are stomping on the possibility of a ballot initiative in 2010. The public reason will be ‘not ready’. The real reason is Dimocrats do not care about this issue, they want to win elections first and foremost and with ease.

Gay-Americans and other Obama supporters better prepare themselves for more Treachery from Dimocrats, Obama and Obama’s Hopium addled supporters.

Share

70 thoughts on “Treachery Tales, Part I

  1. Obama learns about a Government Security Agency he knew nothing about…. at Burger Joint

    The National Geospacial Intelligence Agency from an agency employee also at a Burger Restaurant.

    My confidence in Obama was boosted 100% from any former doubts I had in his competency. He truly is an incompetent imbecile unfit for the office of the presidency.

    Link to article. h…and w’s..

    politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/In_which_the_president_discovers_an_American_intelligence_agency_at_Five_Guys.html

  2. Admin,

    After reading your post I’m glad I listened to Boyle again. PLease EMBED HER VIDEO!

    This thread is brilliant, admin. The past few days I have found myself wondering if American politics has always been this corrupt but the absence of the internet made information easier to suppress. What I mean, is, we know BM doesn’t cover the truth, not with BO, not with Katrina, not with WMD, the Iraq war, the list is endless. But I’m grateful that info-junkies like me have a place like 44 to come to for the truth.

  3. Mrs. Smith this is from Youtube and Breitbart:

    http://www.breitbart.tv/html/350053.html

    Politico: “So explain to me exactly what this National Geospatial…” Obama said, after the worker mentioned his employer, according to a video of the event.
    “We work with, uh, satellite imagery,” the worker, Walter replied.
    A POLITICO reader caught the exchange, which starts around 5:45 on this C-SPAN video.
    The transcript:
    Obama: What do you do Walter?
    Walter: I work at, uh, NGA, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
    Obama: Outstanding, how long you been doing that?
    Walter: About six years
    Obama: Yea?
    Walter: Yes.
    Obama: You like it?
    Walter: I do, keeps me…
    Obama: So explain to me exactly what this National Geospatial…uh…
    Walter: Uh, we work with, uh, satellite imagery..
    Obama: Right
    Walter: [unintelligible] …support systems, so…
    Obama: Sounds like good work.
    Walter: Enjoy the weekend.
    Obama: Appreciate it.

  4. Thanks admin!

    She came in SECOND to a dance group but she’s gonna sell millions of albums and she deserves to.

    😀

    Mrs. Smith – I saw that BO-ordering-burgers clip. What a friggin embarrassment he is.

  5. Admin,
    Is this excerpt from one of your thread? It hits the nail on the head.

    “Gay-Americans are hearing from Obama supporters the usual excuses of ’shut up, Obama is busy and wonderful, your problems are nothing compared to the sufferings of wonderful Obama, so just shut up and get in line and Obama will get to your problems when he deigns to so shut up because you don’t understand the master plan of wonderful Obama and anyway you threaten the new Obama coalition of socially conservative African-Americans and eventually Evangelicals so shut up and stop complaining about your stupid rights, it’s only sex anyway and racism is much worse, so what if Gays have been tortured and tormented for centuries and centuries and millennia upon millennia – that is nothing compared to RACISM which Obama has suffered and besides he has a funny name he had to overcome so shut up and praise Obama’. Perhaps that is why Gay-Americans are among the first of Obama supporters to be waking up.’

    Are these you

  6. And THIS expresses PERFECTLY what I’ve been feeling the past few days!

    ‘Those darn Bush W. supporters kept coming up with excuses for Bush W. no matter what Katrina disaster Bush W. bungled – and now those darn Obama supporters, the mirror image of Bush W. supporters, make excuses for Obama no matter what disasters and treacheries Obama authors.’

  7. Basil9, that is a compilation we authored of excuses we hear from Obama Hopium addled supporters.

  8. This made me LOL!

    ”that is nothing compared to RACISM which Obama has suffered and besides he has a funny name he had to overcome so shut up and praise Obama’’

  9. “Gay-Americans in California and their “leaders” better be prepared to be told to ’shut up, this election is too important to imperil it with your problems’.”

    —————————-

    Admin,

    I’m getting the impression that you could substitute just about any group for “Gay-Americans” and it would still hold true. The dims want to muzzle anyone who dares to hold them accountable.

    I am waiting for the day when a country-wide massive uproar builds up against this tyranny.

  10. basil9 Says:

    May 30th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
    Thanks admin!

    She came in SECOND to a dance group but she’s gonna sell millions of albums and she deserves to.
    *******************************

    What BS, they did a hit job on her as they do ANY woman that tries to be the BEST that she can be. I am sick, just sick

  11. gonzo,

    I think Susan’s gonna do great and in a weird way i think it’s almost better for her that she didn’t win – just a gut feeling – I’ll bet she signs with cowell’s label.

    i saw the diversity clip – looked like chherleader competition to me. oh well – guess diversity is the universal buzz word. like simon said – susan silenced her critics by showing up, not melting down and surpassing her original performance.

    her video has gotten 280 million hits. paul potts has made over 5 million pounds. i expect boyle will top that. now the pressure’s off and she can concentrate on singing.

  12. No, we don’t mean and you should not believe the hypocrites on PINO Big Blogs and Big Media and in the Hopium dens of Bush W. Obama now when they defend Sonia Sotomayor on the basis of opposition to misogyny. These hypocrites are only pretending they care about misogyny and sexism but these treacherous swine are only wielding the “sexist!” charge to make up for their own misogyny and sexism against Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin and a long list of women they have battered.
    ————————–
    THE MAXIMS OF EQUITY

    4. Unclean Hands: he who seeks equity must do equity.

  13. Morris is so full of shit. The first article on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal gives high praise to Hillary for the position she has taken of North Korea. Does not sound like a shrinking role to me. Sounds much more like a shrinking Dick (Morris).

  14. Geithner wields little leverage in China talks

    By MARTIN CRUTSINGER – 3 hours ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Timothy Geithner’s first trip to China as treasury secretary comes at a vulnerable time for the Obama administration.

    Mired in a brutal recession, the United States needs Beijing to buy more American goods, allow its currency rise and make other moves to narrow an enormous trade gap. The U.S. also needs China’s help to confront any military threat from North Korea. Yet Washington’s leverage has waned just as China’s power over the U.S. has grown.

    China is now America’s biggest creditor. As of March, it held $768 billion of Treasury securities — about 10 percent of publicly traded debt. The U.S. needs China’s money to finance U.S. budget deficits, which are soaring as Washington tries to end the recession and bolster the banking system. The administration estimates the budget deficit will hit $1.84 trillion this year. That’s four times last year’s deficit.

    Geithner, who left Saturday for meetings Monday and Tuesday with Chinese leaders, carried an ambitious U.S. goal of persuading the Chinese government to adopt policies that would transform its nation of savers into spenders.
    Geithner spent the long flight to Beijing working on a speech he planned to give at Peking University that was expected to lay out the administration’s recovery program and its current progress. He was also expected to talk about the administration’s determination to deal with the government’s soaring expenditures once the U.S. economy is recovering.

    The current U.S. administration, just like the Clinton and Bush administrations, is convinced that the key to a prosperous global economy rests heavily with China. The U.S. wants Beijing to rely more on domestic spending and less on its exports to power its own economy — and the world’s. That shift would uncork enormous buying power and help rebalance world trade. It could hasten an end to the global recession and narrow America’s huge trade gap because the Chinese would buy more American products.

    China would benefit, too. “Beijing really wants Washington to be successful in bringing the U.S. economy out of this recession as fast as it can because it is critical to Beijing’s own economic growth,” said Kenneth Lieberthal, a China expert at the Brookings Institution.

    For the Chinese, there is growing nervousness about the explosion of U.S. borrowing. Like any bank worried about its loans, the Chinese have fretted over America’s budget gap. In March, Premier Wen Jiabao said, “We’ve lent a huge amount of money to the U.S. Of course, we are concerned about the safety of our assets.” Those comments, plus remarks by the head of China’s central bank about whether the world needs a new top reserve currency to replace the U.S. dollar, jolted financial markets.

    The administration insists it isn’t worried that the mound of debt it’s creating will jeopardize America’s sterling AAA bond rating. But treasury officials said Geithner still intends to reassure the Chinese. Geithner plans to stress that the administration sees the $1 trillion-plus deficits for this and next year as temporary. The deficits are necessary to fund a stimulus plan to help lift America out of recession and invigorate a wobbly U.S. banking system, officials say. Once those needs are met, the administration says it will make deficit reduction a priority.

    Security tensions in Asia have flared since North Korea’s recent nuclear weapons tests and missile firings. Because China is viewed as a critical player in any successful resolution of a North Korea standoff, Geithner is expected to address the topic with Chinese leaders. In addition to talks with President Hu Jintao and other leaders, Geithner plans a speech Monday at Peking University, where he studied Mandarin Chinese during two summers when he was in college.

    Geithner will hold an event at a Ford Foundation program in Beijing to support the study of economics in the U.S. The program was started by his father when the elder Geithner was based in Asia as a foundation official.
    That the chief U.S. economic policymaker is going hat-in-hand to the Chinese to explain the soaring deficits shows how much has changed since President George W. Bush’s treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, met with the Chinese in 2006.

    Paulson managed to arm-twist China into agreeing to a new round of economic talks aimed at prodding Beijing to move faster to let its currency, the yuan, rise in value against the dollar. Doing so would make U.S. exports cheaper for the Chinese to buy.

    But this time, Geithner is expected to adopt a softer tone even though some U.S. lawmakers want tough penalties on China and other countries deemed to manipulate currencies to gain trade advantages. American manufacturers see the undervalued yuan as the major culprit in the trade deficit with the Chinese, which last year hit $266 billion, the highest recorded with one country.

    The Chinese agreed in 2005 to begin letting their currency rise against the dollar, and it has risen about 20 percent. But those gains stopped last summer. China had begun to fear that a stronger yuan was reducing its export sales, already hurt by the global downturn.

    Though the crisis has given Geithner a weak hand, treasury officials said he will seek to push this bargain: The U.S. will work to reduce its budget deficits once the crisis ends, urge Americans to save more and shrink the trade deficits. To replace diminished U.S. spending, the Chinese will be asked to step up spending and stop saving so much. The administration says this can be done if Beijing improves pensions and health insurance so Chinese households don’t feel pressured to save so much.

    Geithner is expected to point out that U.S. consumers already are rebuilding their retirement savings. The Chinese have pledged to redirect their economy to boost domestic growth. But many private economists question how serious China is about it. Analysts said they expect Geithner and the Chinese to pledge to do all it takes to end the recession. Both sides know any hint of discord between the world’s largest and third-largest economies probably will unsettled financial markets.

    That’s one reason analysts aren’t expecting the new administration to press hard on the currency issue. As a candidate, President Barack Obama pledged to crack down on countries seen as cheating on global trade rules and hurting U.S. companies and workers.
    Last month, though, the administration chose not to cite China as a currency manipulator. That disappointed U.S. manufacturers and labor unions.

    But Frank Vargo, vice president for international affairs at the National Association of Manufacturers, said he understood the change in tone. “They talked a tougher line during the campaign, but the world changed,” Vargo said. “It is a much more delicate time now.”

    google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jgAl-Rf6H-EfHJPnDtUR3NL35E-AD98GPNIO0

  15. Israel to U.S.: ‘Stop favoring Palestinians’

    By Barak Ravid

    Tensions between Washington and Jerusalem are growing after the U.S. administration’s demand that Israel completely freeze construction in all West Bank settlements. Israeli political officials expressed disappointment after Tuesday’s round of meetings in London with George Mitchell, U.S. President Barack Obama’s envoy to the Middle East.

    “We’re disappointed,” said one senior official. “All of the understandings reached during the [George W.] Bush administration are worth nothing.” Another official said the U.S. administration is refusing every Israeli attempt to reach new agreements on settlement construction. “The United States is taking a line of granting concessions to the Palestinians that is not fair toward Israel,” he said.

    The Israeli officials attributed the unyielding U.S. stance to the speech Obama will make in Cairo this Thursday, in which he is expected to deliver a message of reconciliation to the Arab and Muslim worlds.

    Mitchell was joined at the London talks by his deputy David Hale, Daniel B. Shapiro (the head of the National Security Council’s Middle East desk), and State Department deputy legal adviser Jonathan Schwartz.

    The Israeli delegation consisted of National Security Adviser Uzi Arad, Netanyahu diplomatic envoy Yitzhak Molcho, Defense Ministry chief of staff Mike Herzog and deputy prime minister Dan Meridor.

    Herzog spoke to Mitchell and his staff about understandings reached by former prime ministers Ehud Olmert and Ariel Sharon with the Bush administration on allowing continued building in the large West Bank settlement blocs. He asked that a similar agreement be reached with the Obama government.

    Meridor spoke of the complexities characterizing the coalition headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and said Washington’s demands of a complete construction freeze would lead to the dissolution of the Netanyahu government.

    The Israeli delegates were stunned by the uncompromising U.S. stance, and by statements from Mitchell and his staff that agreements reached with the Bush administration were unacceptable. An Israeli official privy to the talks said that “the Americans took something that had been agreed on for many years and just stopped everything.”

    “What about the Tenet Report, which demanded that the Palestinians dismantle the terror infrastructure?” said the official, referring to former CIA director George Tenet. “It’s unfair, and there is no reciprocity shown toward the Palestinians.”

    The Israeli envoys said the demand for a total settlement freeze was not only unworkable, but would not receive High Court sanction. Tensions reportedly reached a peak when, speaking of the Gaza disengagement, the Israelis told their interlocutors, “We evacuated 8,000 settlers on our own initiative,” to which Mitchell responded simply, “We’ve noted that here.”

    Defense Minister Ehud Barak will travel to Washington today in an attempt to put further pressure on the Obama administration. “We want to reach an agreement with the United States on ways to advance the peace process,” said a senior Jerusalem official. The U.S. stance, he said, “will stall the process and bring about tension and stagnation, which will hurt both Israel and the United States.”

    haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1089205.html

  16. basil9:

    Thanks for posting the Final appearance for Susan Boyle. The poor thing’s been hounded to death the last 7 wks. I hope Simon takes her on and guides her through a new career she truly deserves.

    Obama is so in over his head in his new job. The ‘wing it till you make it’ euphemism doesn’t work for him because he’s lazy and doesn’t give a damn about what he’s doing.

    Barry is still taking his orders from white men and doesn’t care a wit about doing his own thinking. He is a national disgrace to the better AA men that have gone before him.

  17. While on my Eastern vacation, I saw a few papers talking about Obama being Bush II. As usual, Admin has nailed this right in the beginning.

    I also had a chance to talk to the writer that came in second on the Pulitzer Prize this year, his family are old friends. We discussed what was going on in the newspaper arena. He used to work for the Chicago paper, and it is in a shambles. His current employment is having problems also. We talked about blogging, and I shared that, that was where I get my fair and balanced news. I got the impression that many now writing for the newspaper were thinking about what they would do next.

    It will be interesting to see how this affects this countries future politically.

  18. Admin

    I loved those poster of O with fail and fraud on them. He always belittles the people that oppose him, or says he knows nothing about them. I wonder how many small groups banding together it will take to change us back to a democracy.

  19. Discussion while I was visiting with friends about blogging was very interesting. They would say, you have to be careful of the information you get on a blog. I just looked at them, and said you mean you believe what they print in a paper or in a book? You have to be very careful about the information you are getting from all news media, and even printed from in books.

    I think I caused a few people to think about that. I still see people saying, well I read that in so and so. It is like you should salute. Democracy dies when you don’t question any and all information, and satisfy yourself that you have the facts and have heard all sides.

  20. Obama and lantern jaw having a date on tax payers money on Broadway as N. Korea tests nukes, Iran rushing to get nukes, Pakistan trying to protect it’s nukes, and Israel trying not to get nuked….must be fun being Obama where seemigly everything you do is beloved by the masses who are brainwashed/dead from the constant drum beat going on for almost 2 yrs by the MSM who hate everything about our country in the first place. Obama is, however, being extremly tough on the Jewish State, because , after all, it’s always been popular to blame those Jews for all of the world’s woes. Thank God we have a strong President who will give N. Korea, Iran, Syria, etc., as pass, but stick to our only true ally in the middle east. It’s even tougher to watch as he uses Hillary and his Jewsh karpos to deliver the punches while he sits back and embraces his Muslim brothers and sisters in Cairo….

  21. The Israeli officials attributed the unyielding U.S. stance to the speech Obama will make in Cairo this Thursday, in which he is expected to deliver a message of reconciliation to the Arab and Muslim worlds.
    *******************************

    Yes, it is acceptable to MURDER AMERICANS, BOMB THEM, BEHEAD THEM…Do what you will FOR YOU ARE MY TRUE BROTHERS….

  22. That’s one reason analysts aren’t expecting the new administration to press hard on the currency issue. As a candidate, President Barack Obama pledged to crack down on countries seen as cheating on global trade rules and hurting U.S. companies and workers.
    Last month, though, the administration chose not to cite China as a currency manipulator. That disappointed U.S. manufacturers and labor unions.
    ********************************

    Ah…new members for the bus…

  23. China is now America’s biggest creditor. As of March, it held $768 billion of Treasury securities — about 10 percent of publicly traded debt
    ***********************************

    We are now Chinese-lite

  24. basil9 Says:

    May 30th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
    **********************************

    I do believe it’s about being a woman, an over aged, over weight woman on top of it, a death sentence in this society.

  25. It’s increasingly evident that Obama should resign
    ——————————————————————————–

    THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
    Posted May 29, 2009 @ 12:02 AM

    ——————————————————————————–
    MIAMI — We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama’s inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.

    From health care to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn’t have the nerve to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?

    Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now — before he drags us further into the abyss.

    I refer here to Obama’s plan for “preventive detentions.” If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in “prolonged detention.” Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama’s shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it OK.

    In practice, Obama wants to let government goons snatch you, me and anyone else they deem annoying off the street.

    Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a military dictatorship. Because dictatorial regimes rely on fear rather than consensus, their priority is self-preservation rather than improving their people’s lives. They worry obsessively over the one thing they can’t control, what George Orwell called “thoughtcrime” — contempt for rulers that might someday translate to direct action.

    Locking up people who haven’t done anything wrong is worse than un-American and a violent attack on the most basic principles of Western jurisprudence. It is contrary to the most essential notion of human decency. That anyone has ever been subjected to “preventive detention” is an outrage. That the president of the United States, a man who won an election because he promised to elevate our moral and political discourse, would even entertain such a revolting idea offends the idea of civilization itself.

    Obama is cute. He is charming. But there is something rotten inside him. Unlike the Republicans who backed George W. Bush, I won’t follow a terrible leader just because I voted for him. Obama has revealed himself. He is a monster, and he should remove himself from power.

    “Prolonged detention,” reported The New York Times, would be inflicted upon “terrorism suspects who cannot be tried.”

    “Cannot be tried.” Interesting choice of words.

    Any “terrorism suspect” (can you be a suspect if you haven’t been charged with a crime?) can be tried. Anyone can be tried for anything. At this writing, a Somali child is sitting in a prison in New York, charged with piracy in the Indian Ocean, where the U.S. has no jurisdiction. Anyone can be tried.

    What they mean, of course, is that the hundreds of men and boys languishing at Guantánamo and the thousands of “detainees” the Obama administration anticipates kidnapping in the future cannot be convicted. As in the old Soviet Union, putting enemies of the state on trial isn’t enough. The game has to be fixed. Conviction has to be a foregone conclusion.

    Why is it, exactly, that some prisoners “cannot be tried”?

    The Old Grey Lady explains why Obama wants this “entirely new chapter in American law” in a boring little sentence buried a couple of paragraphs past the jump and a couple of hundred words down page A16: “Yet another question is what to do with the most problematic group of Guantánamo detainees: those who pose a national security threat but cannot be prosecuted, either for lack of evidence or because evidence is tainted.”

    In democracies with functioning legal systems, it is assumed that people against whom there is a “lack of evidence” are innocent. They walk free. In countries where the rule of law prevails, in places blessedly free of fearful leaders whose only concern is staying in power, “tainted evidence” is no evidence at all. If you can’t prove that a defendant committed a crime — an actual crime, not a thoughtcrime — in a fair trial, you release him and apologize to the judge and jury for wasting their time.

    It is amazing and incredible, after eight years of Bush’s lawless behavior, to have to still have to explain these things. For that reason alone, Obama should resign.

    Ted Rall is a columnist for Universal Press Syndicate.

  26. From BP
    ***********************

    search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Luiz+Inacio+Lula+da+Silva&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1

    China and Brazil are no longer using the US dollar as the reserve currency.. god help us.. these bozos in DC are going to collapse the US dollar and our economy.. and they haven’t done the 1.2 Trillion healthcare nationalization crappy plan!

    “Brazil and China are working towards bypassing the US-dollar in bi-lateral trade transactions, challenging the status of the greenback as the world’s leading international currency. “We don’t need dollars,” said Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. “It’s crazy that the dollar is the reference, and that you give a single country the power to print that currency.”

  27. pm317 Says:

    May 30th, 2009 at 11:39 am
    Hillary goes to India in July! S. M. Krishna, her newly appointed Indian counterpart is a fashionable modern man with egalitarian outlook, according to my brother in India.
    &&&&&&&

    Greece, India…

    I’m starting to suspect that our beloved SoS is touring the world, but prefering countries with reputations for their fine cuisine.

    I volunteer to be her taster.

    Hill, where we goin’ next??

  28. rgb, haha.. you’re right. Never doubt Hillary’s excellent taste. You must know that she can eat raw hot chili peppers, even very few Indians can do that.

    Greek islands, the scenery — I still beat myself up for not going to Santorini last year when I had a chance.

  29. GOP ad: “Pelosi’s Crowd”

    The National Republican Congressional Committee is taking its first stab at saddling endangered Democratic House members to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her waterboarding woes.

    The committee is taking out radio ads in the following districts: Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24); Glenn Nye (VA-02); Tom Perriello (VA-05); Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL); Vic Snyder (AR-02); and Harry Teague (NM-02).

    The text includes “Mission Impossible”-ish music, quotes from Pelosi claiming the CIA misled her and the accusation that “Pelosi’s crowd” blocked a probe into her claims — a reference to the GOP procedural motion Democrats killed earlier this month that would have established a select subcommittee to investigate the speaker’s allegations.

    The NRCC also launch robocalls in the following districts:

    John Boccierri (OH-16); Bobby Bright (AL-02); John Hall (NY-19); Steny Hoyer (MD-05); Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01); Harry Mitchell (AZ-05); Walt Minnick (ID-01); Mark Schauer (MI-07); Steve Kagen (WI-08); and Larry Kissell (NC-08).

    politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/GOP_ad_Pelosis_Crowd.html

  30. Cuba accepts US migration talks
    Havana has agreed to resume talks with Washington on immigration by Cubans to the US, the state department says.

    A top US official said Cuba had sent a diplomatic note accepting a recent US invitation to restart the talks. The official said Cuba was also ready to cooperate with the US on direct mail services, as well as fighting terrorism and drug trafficking, reports said.

    The talks were halted in 2003 after Havana refused to give exit permits to people who had been granted US visas.

    The news comes ahead of a visit by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Honduras for a meeting of the Organization of American States, where Cuba’s possible readmission is expected to be discussed. The unnamed state department official described the latest development as “a very positive step forward”, but said no timescale had been agreed for the talks.

    ‘No preconditions’

    In March, President Barack Obama eased restrictions on visits to the Communist island by Cuban-Americans and allowed them to send money home more easily. Curbs on sending medicines and food were also eased. The legislation overturned rules imposed by the Bush administration which had limited travel to just two weeks every three years and had confined visits to immediate family members.

    Mr Obama had recently indicated he would be open to dialogue with Cuba’s leaders. But he has said that, like previous American presidents, he will only consider a full lifting of the embargo – in place since 1962 – once Cuba makes significant moves such as the holding of democratic elections.

    Cuba’s President Raul Castro has said he is prepared to negotiate with the new US administration, providing there are no preconditions.

    newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8076007.stm?ad=1

  31. MAY 30, 2009

    Lawmakers Bill Taxpayers For TVs, Cameras, Lexus

    By LOUISE RADNOFSKY and T.W. FARNAM
    Bloomberg News

    WASHINGTON — Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings spent $24,730 in taxpayer money last year to lease a 2008 luxury Lexus hybrid sedan. Ohio Rep. Michael Turner expensed a $1,435 digital camera. Eni Faleomavaega, the House delegate from American Samoa, bought two 46-inch Sony TVs. The expenditures were legal, properly accounted for and drawn from allowances the U.S. government grants to lawmakers. Equipment purchased with office expense accounts must be returned to the House or the federal General Services Administration when a lawmaker leaves office.

    But as British politicians come under widening scorn for spending public money on everything from candy bars to moat-dredging, an examination of U.S. lawmakers’ expense claims shows Washington’s elected officials have also used public funds for eye-catching purchases.

    U.S. politicians, unlike their counterparts in Great Britain, can’t bill taxpayers for personal living expenses. The U.S. Treasury gives them an allowance to cover “official and representational expenses,” according to congressional rules, and the lawmakers enjoy a fair amount of discretion in how they use the funds. The Senate and House release volumes of the reimbursement requests for these allowances, but do not make them available electronically. A Wall Street Journal review of thousands of pages of these records for 2008 expenses showed most lawmaker spending flowed to areas such as staff salaries, travel, office rent and supplies, and printing and mailing.

    But it also turned up spending on an array of products, from the car leases and electronics to a high-end laptop computer and $22 cellphone holder. Rep. Howard Berman expensed $84,000 worth of personalized calendars, printed by the U.S. Capitol Historical Society, for his constituents. A spokeswoman for Mr. Berman, a California Democrat, didn’t return requests for comment.

    The records show that some lawmakers spent heavily in the final months of the year to draw down allowances before the end of December — a time when U.S. households were paring their budgets and lawmakers were criticizing Detroit auto executives for taking private aircraft to Washington to plead their case for taxpayer funding.

    Rep. Hastings, a Democrat, and Rep. Turner, a Republican, made their purchases in the third quarter. Rep. Faleomavaega, a Democrat, bought the TVs for $1,473 apiece in mid-November. Spokespeople for the three didn’t return requests for comment.

    House members get a government expense allowance of $1.3 million to $1.9 million a year. Senators get $2.9 million to $4.5 million. The disparity is based on several factors, with lawmakers whose home states are far from Washington, for example, typically receiving more to cover their higher travel expenses.

    If lawmakers don’t seek reimbursement for all of their allowance money for the year, the remainder doesn’t roll over to the next year, but stays with the Treasury. The review showed that the increased year-end spending went not only toward equipment but also to fund year-end “bonuses” to aides. The average House aide earned 17% more in the fourth quarter of the year, when the bonuses were paid, than in previous quarters, according to an earlier Journal analysis. Payments ranged from a few hundred dollars to $14,000.

    The current system of governing lawmaker expenses was designed to bring the system greater transparency and public accountability. Scandals over congressional mismanagement — including penalty-free overdrafts at the House bank and spending abuses at the Congressional post office — led to new House rules in 1996 that consolidated lawmakers’ various expense accounts into a single allowance. Even so, the accounts aren’t easy to view or parse. House lawmakers submit receipts and records to the chief administrative officer, who publishes a statement each quarter that runs more than 3,000 pages. Each member’s expense ledger takes up about six pages and includes a short description of each expense, its amount and the date incurred. The Senate publishes two volumes every six months, with descriptions that are less detailed than those published by the House.

    Members of the public can request specific receipts, but lawmakers aren’t required to provide them. Officials said they are exploring the possibility of publishing the information electronically but have no immediate plans to do so.
    “This information is not widely available to the public,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense. “This is stuff that every constituent should be able to know.”

    The House and Senate administrators can deny reimbursement if they deem an expense request to be inappropriate. Jeff Ventura, spokesman for House chief administrative officer Daniel Beard, said no formal records are kept on the number of claims deemed inappropriate, but that such instances are rare. The Senate operates similarly.

    Staff salaries are the largest cost in most members’ budgets, according to published details. Travel is another big cost center, with many lawmakers claiming funds for commercial air or train travel to and from their district, and for mileage on their cars or personal planes while they are there. Around 100 lawmakers lease cars using their official allowances. The majority lease American cars. Sport-utility vehicles, such as Ford Escapes and Chevy Tahoes, are among the most popular choices.

    The fourth-quarter congressional expense records, bound in three thick beige-colored volumes, show that Rep. Rodney Alexander of Louisiana paid $20,000 for a 2009 lease on a Toyota Highlander, a hybrid SUV. Mr. Alexander said in an interview that the vehicle was for his state director’s official business. The Highlander was appropriate, he said, given the size of his district and House rules setting fuel-efficiency standards for leased vehicles. “We have a large district, the largest in Louisiana,” he said. “We didn’t want to lease a bicycle for him to ride on.”

    Other expenses included five-figure printing bills. Rahm Emanuel, who resigned from his Illinois congressional seat in January to become President Barack Obama’s chief of staff, recorded a $33,000 printing expense in the fourth quarter. An aide to Mr. Emanuel said it was for an official mailing sent to every household in his district.

    The records show several examples of spending on high-end electronics. Rep. William Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat, spent $2,793 on a Panasonic Toughbook laptop, which is marketed to the military, in September, about three months before he lost his re-election bid in a December runoff. A lawyer for Mr. Jefferson, who is facing an unrelated federal bribery trial, declined to comment.

    Some members detail small expenses. The office of Rep. Chaka Fattah, a Pennsylvania Democrat, described a $22 expenditure on a Liz Claiborne cellphone pouch. A spokeswoman for Mr. Fattah said it is standard for staff members to get a holder with their phone and that the pouch was “nothing fancy.” Other members itemized spending on everything from bottled water to pest control and office plants. The accounts of former Rep. Darlene Hooley, an Oregon Democrat, listed an $81 payment to the Plant Tender. Ms. Hooley, who retired at the end of the last Congress, said her office had “tried to be as transparent as possible and report every little thing.” Her expenses “would look a whole lot better if other people had done the same thing,” she added.

    Other expense explanations bore few details. The accounts for Rep. Tim Mahoney, a Florida Democrat, include an $11,000 payment on his House-issued credit card to cover airfare for him and an aide incurred in September, with the line “A/F Mahoney/Mitchell.” Mr. Mahoney, who lost his re-election bid, said in an interview that the line represented 13 trips over a two-month period. He is required to submit receipts for the card to the House, which decides how much information to publish. “As Congressman, I took every precaution to make sure that my office was fully in compliance with all ethics rules and financial reporting regulations,” Mr. Mahoney added.

    Many lawmakers don’t spend their full allocation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) had about $57,000 remaining in her budget at the end of 2008. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) had $228,000.

    online.wsj.com/article/SB124364352135868189.html

  32. # gonzotx Says:
    May 30th, 2009 at 10:08 pm

    China and Brazil are no longer using the US dollar as the reserve currency.. god help us.. these bozos in DC are going to collapse the US dollar and our economy.. and they haven’t done the 1.2 Trillion healthcare nationalization crappy plan!

    “Brazil and China are working towards bypassing the US-dollar in bi-lateral trade transactions, challenging the status of the greenback as the world’s leading international currency. “We don’t need dollars,” said Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. “It’s crazy that the dollar is the reference, and that you give a single country the power to print that currency.”

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

    I believe you are on to something, gonzotx! Good reason why the FDIC raised the insured deposit amount to $250,000. Anyone having large amounts of CA$H in savings deposited, if they are not aware of what is going on, will have their savings wiped out (stolen by the bankers weeks before the announcement becomes official) before they realize they must withdraw their money converting it to say, Euros- Their money will have either evaporated from their Bank accounts or their request for withdrawal will be stonewalled by the banks until it is too late to do anything about it. Then the chase will be on to collect from the FDIC who suddenly has become defunct because of all the runs on the banks. Either way, a change of currency is another opportunity for another Grand Theft scheme by US Banks.

  33. “It’s crazy that the dollar is the reference, and that you give a single country the power to print that currency.”
    ——————————————
    How can you argue with that logic, when the country in question is so financially irresponsible as to: i) double its money supply in one year, ii) quadruple its deficit in that year, iii) while its economy is contracting two and one half times faster than the budget director predicted, iv) while the recovery plan is destined to be an L as opposed to a V, v) thereby setting the stage for runaway inflation? If you had the choice, which Americans on fixed income do not, would you want to be invested in dollars?

    This trumps the ignorant logic of big media who says China is at our mercy because they are our largest creditor. But there is far more to the plan with China than meets the eye and that is why I worry–worry that Geithner is going to China alone. He is the architect of this looting of the middle class, and as the song says we have only just begun.

    You can absolutely count on this administration to boil the frog. Dont kid yourself we are looking at an L shaped recovery–which means they will use a series of crises to generate a series of radical changes to our political and economic system. Expect it. And in the process, they will
    usher in a scenario which is as unthinkable to us as the prospect of the federal government owning the banks and the auto industry would have been a year ago. Never let a crisis go to waste.

    The inside game is to destroy whoever stands in their way. The outside game is to promote idolatry to make the mass man feel good while everything around him is going bad and exploiting the fault lines in society.

    Thus, you see of the front page of the New York Times a series of images of Obama at various stages in his life each designed to evoke an emotional response, and arranged like the stained glass windows at Chartes Cathedral near Paris. Also, there are the fascinating diversions like the msnbc guessing game of guess who is the most eligible bachelor in the administation and what Hollywood starlet is romantically inclined towards him. Mindless drivel.

    This of course is merely the latest version of the game of bread and circuses offered by the demogogues of that time and lamented by the Roman poet Julien in 100 A.D. Why? Because he could clearly see how they were being controlled and manipulated into a state of helpless subservience.

    I look at the nature of the Republican response and I shake my head. I read the condescending Politico article and marvel at what useful idiots they are in the grand scheme. They need a bona fide leader. On that point I agree with O’Reilley. Someone with the force and charisma to call the game on Obama, GE, Geithner and the whole miserable lot of traitors who surround him.

    It is important to remember, come what may, that we did not have to bail out the banks with taxpayer dollars–and some did not want the TARP monies but were forced to accept it. We could have provided guarantees, and put them through an orderly liquidation to divest themselves of the bad assets but that was the path not taken.

    Think about that one and you will tap your way through to what the real game is here–and we, the middle class, are the cashcow for it.

    Consider the possibility that this is a permanent move away from free market capitalism and toward state controlled capitalism–which
    transfers the locus of financial power from New York to Washington thereby guaranteeing the perpetuation of the dims.

    Think about what we have that China wants–the answer is there.

    And never, ever forget that Mr. Obama is a sociopath–who will sell us out if it helps him. He has done it many times before.

    More the deponent sayeth naught.

  34. ADMIN!!!!!!!

    This is terribly, tragically graphic, but it takes your theme of the status of gay rights status under BO to what his new BFF’s in Iran would do.

    Shocking 😯

    atlasshrugs2000 dot typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/05/state-department-hosts-gay-party-what-follows-public-hanging-party.html

  35. wbboie:

    “You can absolutely count on this administration to boil the frog. Dont kid yourself we are looking at an L shaped recovery–which means they will use a series of crises to generate a series of radical changes to our political and economic system. Expect it. And in the process, they will usher in a scenario which is as unthinkable to us as the prospect of the federal government owning the banks and the auto industry would have been a year ago. Never let a crisis go to waste.

    The inside game is to destroy whoever stands in their way. The outside game is to promote idolatry to make the mass man feel good while everything around him is going bad and exploiting the fault lines in society.”

    “Think about what we have that China wants–the answer is there.”

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

    wbboie, you just put the whole ball of wax on the head of a pin. Obama has already given his signal for allegiance and surrender to the Arabs with his waist high deep bow. He will keep the Mid-East spinning just enough, keeping it off balance, having every eye on Israel, Pakistan, A-Stan and Iran.

    What China wants? Easy, they want to OWN and CONTROL the US. And he will give it to them in payment for debt forgiveness.

    Obama will be seated as the 1st New World Order president indefinitely, deriving his authority to rule the Global Economy from the UN. He will reside with his family between DC and Hawaii- and will, in conjunction with China, remain untouchable by the US Supreme Court, The Constitution and most importantly the Right of the People to vote Democratically ever again.

    (I hope no-one can hear the descriptive words I’m using aimed at the SCOTUS- They had better listen up- Obama will dump them too- because where Obama is going, he doesn’t need them anymore!)

  36. May 31, 2009

    Obama offers olive branch of ‘respect’ to Middle East

    Sarah Baxter and Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv

    PRESIDENT Barack Obama will offer his personal commitment to “change the conversation” with the Muslim world in a long-awaited speech in Cairo this week.

    White House advisers vowed that Obama would “take on the tough issues”, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and offer to bridge differences with Muslims based on “mutual interests and mutual respect” – the same words used in his address to the Turkish parliament last month. Administration officials say privately that Obama has given himself two years for a diplomatic breakthough on a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, despite the opposition of Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, to America’s minimum demand for a freeze on all settlement building in disputed territory.

    Expectations are high for Obama’s Middle East visit, which begins with a meeting with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh on Wednesday to discuss the Arab peace initiative and relations with Iran before he arrives in Egypt the next day.

    The goal of two states living side by side, with the holy sites in Jerusalem under international jurisdiction, is to receive a new push by Obama. “Some of the things that you will hear in the speech are returning to proven and effective policies and initiatives that have . . . served the national interest well in the past,” said Denis McDonough, Obama’s foreign policy adviser.

    Israel was beginning war rehearsals today by launching its largest emergency drill involving 7m people. The cabinet will head to a nuclear shelter to test its performance under hypothetical missile and rocket attacks by Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas.
    On Tuesday morning sirens will sound all over Israel and citizens will be told to find shelter within 30 seconds in Gallilee and within two minutes in Tel Aviv.

    Obama has put President George W Bush’s democracy agenda on the back burner in an attempt to strengthen the alliance between America and moderate Arab states against Iran and radical Islamic groups and to revive the Middle East peace process. A “range of political actors” have been invited to Cairo University for Obama’s speech, but White House officials emphasised the strategic importance of America’s alliance with Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak.

    The Obama administration believes Bush’s democracy drive was counter-productive and came at the expense of economic programmes which might have done more to foster moderation.

    timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6395821.ece

    ———————————

    “Obama offers olive branch of ‘respect’ to Middle East”

    I guess Israel is no longer considered a part of the Middle East.

  37. 100,000 jobs may go as GM falls

    Monday Jun 01, 2009

    US President Barack Obama stands accused of failing the millions of workers whose jobs he pledged to protect, as General Motors slides into history’s biggest corporate bankruptcy.

    The carmaker’s board of directors met for a second day yesterday to make the final decision on whether it would complete its restructuring by filing for bankruptcy protection tomorrow.

    Although the White House provided aid to the Detroit-based carmaker, GM is expected to emerge from bankruptcy in a radically slimmed-down form.

    Dean Baker, director of US think-tank the Centre for Economic Policy Research, said this would mean up to 25,000 job losses at the firm and many more in its supply and distribution network. “You could be looking at 90,000 to 100,000 jobs,” he said. It will have repercussions around the world. In the UK, for instance, there are particular fears about the future of Vauxhall’s van plant at Luton, where 1500 are employed by GM’s European arm. Baker warned the dismantling of GM and other carmakers would exacerbate the hollowing-out of America’s manufacturing sector.

    Analysts at the Michigan-based Centre for Automotive Research have estimated as much as 1 per cent of the US economy depends directly or indirectly on the firm.

    During his election campaign President Obama addressed audiences of frustrated manufacturing workers in states such as Michigan and Ohio, who felt globalisation was threatening their livelihoods. But Rob Scott, an economist at Washington-based thinktank the Economic Policy Institute, said by insisting on a radical downsizing of GM, and imposing strict new emissions targets without giving consumers incentives to buy the cleaner cars, the White House was safeguarding the “shell” of the company, but abandoning many of its workers. “I think in this case, the Obama Administration seems to have put its personal preferences for fixing the climate change problem above all else,” he said. “It’s going to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.”

    In recession-hit Detroit, city officials have offered to waive nearly all property, income and business taxes to ensure GM keeps its headquarters in a landmark downtown skyscraper. Tax breaks saving it between US$10 million ($15.6 million) and US$25 million could be enough to persuade GM to stay.

    GM’s chief executive, Fritz Henderson, has been studying the possibility of shifting the 4500 head office staff to its technology centre in Warren, north of Detroit.

    nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10575694

  38. With this wonderful new world of government transparency upon us, I would like to know, to the last penny, how much bambi’s NYC date cost the taxpayers.

  39. JanH Says:
    May 31st, 2009 at 7:38 pm

    “With this wonderful new world of government transparency upon us, I would like to know, to the last penny, how much bambi’s NYC date cost the taxpayers.”

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

    ha-ha… that has been the question of the day- Some estimates I’ve seen today are up as high as $40,000. The number arrived by comparing the use of the Gulfstream Jet, Obama used for transport to Bankers using the same model airplane for their meetings in NY.

  40. Obama Takes Hard Line—Against Jewish Babies

    The notion that so-called settlements in the land of Israel are the obstacle to peace in the Middle East, is one of many big lies perpetrated by the Arab Muslim world, subsequently taken up with uncritical acceptance by Western liberals.

    Seraphic Secret believes that Jews have the right to live anywhere.

    Especially in the Jewish homeland.

    Once the world accepts and becomes comfortable with the notion that there are geographical zones that are legitimately free of Jews, well, you are creating a world-view whereby Jews become something less than human, a religion to be confined to ghettos and forbidden normal geographical patterns.

    In short, Jew-hatred is institutionalized.

    This is not surprising coming from a man who sat at the feet of Jeremiah Wright for over 20-years.

    And so, as Iran races towards nuclear capabilities, as the Taliban march to Kabul in Afghanistan, as Pakistan devolves into savage tribal warfare, as North Korea threatens Japan and South Korea, President Obama decides that Israel is the real danger.

    Israel, more than ever, stands alone.

    Most of the Arab world is already Judenrein, the Arab Jews expelled and their property stolen by brutal, Jew-hating regimes.

    The world accepts this as normal.

    But this racism, this Jew-hatred is not enough.

    Now, the Arab Muslim world and the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama demands that Jews living in the land of Israel stop having children.

    Yes, that’s what it means when Hillary Clinton demands an end to “natural growth” of the so-called settlements.

    Natural growth = children.

    This is social engineering on a scale only imagined by the likes of Mao.

    from Seraphic Press
    Always lots of great unapologetic blogging
    seraphicpress.com

  41. NAtive Americans against Obama-from BP

    youtube.com/watch?v=yjcOtUj6_XI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcamille424%2Ewordpress%2Ecom%2F2009%2F05%2F30%2F5988%2F&feature=player_embedded

  42. “Israel, more than ever, stands alone.”

    ——————————–

    Truer words were never spoken.

  43. Mrs. Smith Says:

    May 31st, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    ——————————-

    I wonder how many hungry children could have been fed, clothed and given roofs over their heads with that money.

    I also wonder if that cost figure includes his bodyguards/police excorts.

  44. From MAryB @ BP

    The Unpersuasive Orator

    Obama may sound good, but he doesn’t close the sale.

    weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/562dndmk.asp

    Let’s stipulate that President Obama is a wonderful speaker, vigorous in promoting his policies and even eloquent at times. But there’s a problem: He’s not persuasive. Obama is effective at marketing himself. His 64 percent job approval (Gallup poll) is a reflection of this. But in building public support for his policies, Obama has been largely unsuccessful.

    You’d never guess this from the laudatory press coverage of Obama. With every major speech or press conference, the media and a sizable chunk of the political community–including many Republicans–assume Obama has carried the day. Actually, he rarely has.

    The most striking example is Obama’s strenuous defense of his decision to close Guantánamo pris-on by next January 22 and to bar “enhanced interrogation techniques” such as waterboarding in questioning captured terrorists. He gave a highly publicized address on this policy last month. After the speech, support for closing Guantánamo fell.

    And this occurred despite Obama’s supposedly powerful argument that Guantánamo has “set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world,” become “a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists,” and “weakened American national security.” As usual, the media praised the speech.

    The president’s remarks were followed (same day, different location) by a speech by former Vice President Dick Cheney in which he criticized the president on Guantánamo and interrogation tactics. “Clearly the president is a more popular figure,” says pollster Scott Rasmussen. “The numbers still shifted a little away from Obama.”

    Obama first announced his intention to close Guantánamo as a candidate last year. Public support for keeping the prison open dropped, in Rasmussen’s polling, from 59 percent last summer to 42 percent in January. Two days after taking office, Obama announced his decision to shut the facility. Since then, the public balked. Support for leaving it open has increased to 49 percent.

    Nor has the president been able to increase support for other terrorist-related policies. Public approval for Obama’s policy of not using “torture” to interrogate terrorists dipped from 58 percent in January to 49 percent in April in ABC News/Washington Post polling. Rasmussen found overwhelming opposition, 57-to-28 percent, to Obama’s plan to bring Guantánamo prisoners to the United States.

    The negative drift in public opinion isn’t entirely due to Obama. “It’s not so much the rhetoric,” Rasmussen says. Rather, “it’s the reality” of dealing with the problem of what to do with the terrorists jailed at Guantánamo. “The more people hear about it,” the less they support Obama’s policy.

    There may be an institutional reason as well for Obama’s inability to stir approval of his policies, including a surge in domestic spending. George C. Edwards III, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University, argued in his book On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit that presidential speechmaking almost never alters public opinion.

    Both scholars and journalists, Edwards wrote, “refer to the White House as a ‘bully pulpit’ and assume that a skilled president can employ it to move the public and create political capital for himself. The fact that such efforts almost always fail seems to have no effect on the belief in the power of public leadership.”

    Edwards cited the example of President George W. Bush in 2001. He traveled to 29 states in “a massive public relations campaign” to generate approval for his tax cuts and education reform. But the poll numbers didn’t move. “It is one thing to go public,” Edwards wrote. “It is something quite different to succeed in moving public opinion.”

    That Bush didn’t succeed is less surprising than Obama’s failure. Bush is a prosaic speaker. Obama is a skilled orator. While Bush didn’t gain ground when he promoted his tax and education policy, at least public support didn’t decrease.

    Obama’s most heralded initiative, one he’s promoted repeatedly in speeches and town hall meetings, is the $787 billion economic stimulus. He touted it in his opening statement at a prime time press conference on his 100th day in office, insisting it has “saved or created 150,000 jobs.” (He offered no verification.)

    At a town meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, in May, he called it “the most ambitious economic recovery plan in our nation’s history.” He said it is “rebuilding our infrastructure all across the country” and “will save or create 22,000 jobs just in New Mexico.”

    The stimulus lost 10 points in public approval after it was enacted last winter. Only 34 percent of Americans in a Rasmussen survey last March felt it would help the economy. That sentiment is roughly unchanged today.

    And there’s a stimulus-related problem: fear of excessive government spending. Obama says he’s pursuing “fiscal responsibility.” But in a Gallup poll, 55 percent said his proposals call for “too much spending.” And 53 percent now believe spending hikes are hurting the economy, up from 48 percent in February, according to a Rasmussen poll last week.

    Two other findings by Rasmussen underscore the concern over Obama’s spending plans. Seventy-four percent now prefer fewer government services and lower taxes. And 77 percent believe the unwillingness of politicians to control spending is a bigger problem than the public’s unwillingness to pay higher taxes.

    Obama shouldn’t be blamed for the unpopularity of policies he inherited on bank bailouts and financial aid to General Motors and Chrysler. But it’s noteworthy that while continuing the bailouts, he’s been singularly unsuccessful in softening public opposition. In a Rasmussen survey, 60 percent disapproved of aid to auto companies and 59 percent to bailing out banks.

    There’s an inescapable conclusion in all this: Obama’s reputation as a convincing speaker is overrated. He may sound like an effective salesman, but the only product Americans are buying is Obama himself. And that sale isn’t yet final.

  45. SHV: if you are on line, I have been doing some background research into the health care system in our country and ran across a book called Redefining Health Care in the United States. It is the latest contribution by an author named Michael Porter who I am familiar with based on his earlier work Competitive Strategy. He is brilliant.

    Obviously, his findings and recommendations have political ramifications and touch on some of the topics we have discussed here from time to time. Hillary advocated universal mandatory coverage and Porter agrees (infra). Obama used phony republican arguments to attack her and subtley suggested to his bots that they had not obligation toward the older generation. On the other hand, Porter is not a devotee of the single payer system and I know you favor that system based on your prior comments you may want to hear him out. In any event, here is a small portion of what he says. The book itself is a tome.
    ———————————————————–

    1. WHY SHOULD HEALTH CARE SERVICE BE UNIVERSAL–AND MANDATORY?

    Health coverage must be mandatory, like car insurance, with subsidies for those with low incomes. Otherwise, risk is not shared and healthy people can opt out and not pay their fair share into the system to cover their cost if they later become sick. In a system of mandatory insurance, people who cannot afford to pay the full cost of their coverage should contribute what they can, with subsidies to close the gap.

    Health coverage must also be universal. This is necessary for an efficient and high value system, not just for reasons of fairness and compassion. The United States already has a form of de facto universal health coverage, because emergency care and hospital care are required to be provided to anyone who presents for care. However, this is the most expensive and the worst kind of universal coverage. People without health plans tend to present for care at later stages, making care less effective and more expensive. Such patients access care in unnecessarily expensive settings such as emergency rooms. The absence of primary and preventive care leads to worse outcomes and much higher costs. The lack of universal coverage also leads to cost-shifting and huge administrative costs, as health plans and other system participants try to shift the burden of uninsured and high risk patients to others.

    2. WHY HAVE PAST REFORMS NOT WORKED?

    Discussions of health care reform traditionally focus on health insurance access and coverage. But the central goal of reform must be to improve the value of health care (the quality of health outcomes per dollar expended). Not only is improving health the purpose of the health care system, but more access and more coverage become possible with dramatic improvements in the value of health care.

    Past reforms have assumed that the quality of health care was good enough, and seen the problem as cost. However, one of the paradoxes of health care is the more the focus is on driving down costs, the more costs tend to go up. This is because efforts to control costs often degenerate to cost shifting and eliminating discretionary but high value preventive and monitoring services, while introducing major inefficiencies in the system. Value is eroded in the long run. The best way to reduce cost is to drive improvements in quality, measured by results. There is ample evidence that better quality care enables improved efficiency.

    Ultimately, however, universal coverage will not solve health care crisis if the current dysfunctional competition continues. The system must be restructured to radically improve value. Otherwise, increasing amounts of rationing and administrative control of health care are inevitable. Dramatic improvements in value will enable better outcomes and more care for more people. Value-based competition on results, then, is the only way to truly reform the health care system.

    3. WHY IS A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM NOT THE ANSWER?

    Insurance coverage for everyone is critical, but that does not require a single payer. There are far better ways to achieve coverage for all and control costs, as are discussed extensively in the book. A single payer system would not fix the root problems in the health care system, which is the structure of care delivery. Unless competition is transformed so that providers must compete on results, a single-payer system will only make things worse by exacerbating the zero-sum competition present in the current system. Moreover, a single payer would create an inefficient monopoly with irresistible pressures to exert bargaining power, limit services, and attempt to micromanage care delivery. The experience of other countries is making it clear that a single payer is no solution. In fact, many other advanced nations are moving away from this model.

    4. HAVEN’T MEDICARE/MEDICADE BEEN BETTER AT CONTROLLING COSTS THAN PRIVATE HEALTH PLANS?

    Medicare and Medicaid have not offered better value, but simply shifted costs to the private sector in the form of discounted reimbursement relative to private charges. Medicare exercises tremendous bargaining leverage. By dictating lower prices for its patients, Medicare skews the
    incentives for doctors and hospitals and drives up list prices. This increases the costs of uncompensated care and, over time, drives up costs for everyone. Medicaid’s focus on discounts has curtailed its beneficiaries’ access to primary care physicians, resulting in the patients seeking care in expensive settings and thus further driving up the total costs in the system. Like other health plans, the activities of Medicare and Medicaid must shift to improving health care value for the people they serve.

    5. THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS BROKEN

    The system is broken, and the magnitude of the problem is staggering. They consume a growing portion of the budget. Competition does not reward innovation or drive weak players out of the market. Hillarys goal was to address it for the benefit of all Americans. Porter notes the following:

    • Per capita health care cost in the United States surpasses that of most other developed countries. Despite this, U.S. costs are rising at comparable rates… and U.S. consumers do not see the payoff. Quite the contrary: U.S. consumers report higher dissatisfaction with their health care system than do consumers in other developed nations.

    • Although U.S. costs are high, they have not enabled greater access to medical care in the United States than elsewhere. There were 45.8 million Americans without health care coverage in 2004, up from 39.8 million in 2000. Although hospitals provide free care for the uninsured, that approach to enabling access to care is far from ideal. Access to primary care, rather than just emergency treatment, is essential to providing care of good quality.

    • Higher expenditures on U.S. health care do not result in longer life expectancy for Americans than for citizens of other developed countries, or more years of good health. Moreover, in a thirteen-country study of health care indicators, the U.S. rank averaged twelfth, with the worst ranking on years of life lost from preventable medical conditions before age 70.

    • The Institute of Medicine’s extensive study of health care quality found that there is not a gap, but a chasm, between the quality of care that Americans should receive and the quality of care that most actually do receive. Undertreatment, not just overtreatment, is pervasive. The best American health care is world-class, but the average quality leaves much to be desired. A recent RAND study of thirty types of preventive, acute, and chronic care in twelve metropolitan areas found that Americans receive, on average, only about 55 percent of the care that is suggested by established medical standards.

    • Medical errors occur at an unacceptable rate and are a leading cause of death in the United States. The Institute of Medicine reported the annual number of deaths in hospitals from medical treatment errors to be between 44,000 and 98,000 in 1999. A 2004 study by HealthGrades estimated that 195,000 people die each year in U.S. hospitals because of preventable treatment errors. Other estimates range as high as 225,000 to 284,000 deaths per year.

    • Quality varies markedly across regions and among providers. Dartmouth research on Medicare found not only that there were very different practice standards in different regions, but also that there was no basis in medical theory or medical evidence for these variations. Substantial differences in per capita spending among states are present across the board—in Medicare, Medicaid, and private health care spending. But higher cost is not correlated with higher quality. Regions with higher spending do not have more access, better outcomes, higher satisfaction, reduced mortality, or improved access to care.

    • The diffusion of medical knowledge is slow. It takes, on average, seventeen years for the results of clinical trials to become standard clinical practice. That huge delay—much longer than in most industries—contributes to low and uneven quality.

    • The expense of malpractice premiums and lawsuits distorts care and costs. Professional liability premiums are growing at an unprecedented rate, with U.S. doctors spending more than $6 billion per year on malpractice premiums in addition to the billions of dollars spent each year by hospitals and nursing homes. More important than the cost of premiums may well be the threat of malpractice suits, which causes doctors to practice “defensive” medicine in the form of unnecessary tests, overdiagnosis, and redundant or unnecessary treatment.

    • Administrative costs are extraordinarily high and rising. The estimated health care expenditures spent on administration are a staggering 25 percent of hospital spending and are estimated to be over 30 percent of all health care spending.

  46. Jan–this is another part of the plan. Something Geithner may whisper to the Tianaman Square boys when he goes on his unchaperoned trip to China. He is using our money to guarantee not the jobs but the income and benefits of the UAW active and retired members. But the jobs themselves are going to China–and no one seems to care. The union leaders are selling out the union, and the unborne.

    The jobs he is sending to China are a further blow to our weakened economy. There is a whole vendor structure in this country which this will utterly demolish. Yet no one seems to care.

    The quid pro quo here is obscene. I have said it before–it is one thing to guarantee a pension. It is quite another to guarantee lifetime retiree health care. That is not only expensive, it is beyond the pale. The people paying for it–us receive no such guarantee.

    A year ago I met with a member of the Federal Reserve. He told me in five years we would not recognize the country. Well . . . how now brown cow.

  47. I sincerely hope Hillary , whom I do believe is a friend of Israel, steps back and uses whatever influence she has, to moderate the harsh tone taken by the administration, including SOS dept. I understand Bill and Bibi were not best of pals, but you can’t go from a “stalwart’ ally to a so-called impediment to peace because Obama’s desire to appease the Arab/Muslim world . Respect works both ways, and a simple statement by Israels enemies that they have the right to exist should be a condition precedent for all so called regional peace talks. We live comfortably here, yet, Israel on a daily basis has to [repare for the unthinkable…it happened once and history repeats itself when forgotten. No one should take as bravavodoIran’s clear statements that Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth. Moreover, why does Obama seek to appease dictators and leaders who have no desire for even the remote notion of a society with respect for all people, particulalry woman.

  48. SHV: if you are on line
    **********
    That is the best summary of the American health care system that I have seen.

    “• The Institute of Medicine’s extensive study of health care quality found that there is not a gap, but a chasm, between the quality of care that Americans should receive and the quality of care that most actually do receive”

    “That is the truth” and just simple “Practice Guidelines” for common conditions would make a huge difference. That is why, the accumulation of patient data in a organized fashion is critical for decision making in the future.

    The bottom line is that the wasn’t, isn’t and never will be enough money for unlimited medical care. Medical care has been, is and will be rationed; the only question is what is the best way to do that. Mr. Porter doesn’t offer any blueprint for addressing his accurate summary of American health care situation. The starting point, I think, is that there is no place for insurance companies, including the stupid Obama Govt insurance, in the delivery of health care.

  49. Mr. Porter doesn’t offer any blueprint for addressing his accurate summary of American health care situation.
    —————————————–
    Oh but he does. It is called “value based competition”. Here is what he says about that. (Note: the catch lines are mine, not his.)

    1. CURRENT STATE (PERVERSE INCENTIVES)

    Competition is too broad because much competition now takes place at the level of health plans, networks, hospital groups, physician groups, and clinics. It should occur in addressing particular medical conditions. Competition is too narrow because it now takes place at the level of discrete interventions or services. It should take place for addressing medical conditions over the full cycle of care, including monitoring and prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and the ongoing management of the condition.

    2. IDEAL STATE (VALUE-BASED COMPETITION )

    Health care competition must be transformed to a value-based competition on results. This is the best way, and the only way, to drive sustained improvements in quality and efficiency. The experience in numerous other industries tells us that this transformation is possible. It also tells us that there can be stunning progress when the right kind of competition is unleashed.

    Value-based competition on results is a positive-sum competition in which all system participants can benefit: When providers win by delivering superior care more efficiently, patients, employers, and health plans also win. When health plans help patients and referring physicians make better choices, assist in coordination, and reward excellent care, providers benefit. And competing on value goes beyond winning in a narrow sense. When providers and health plans compete to achieve the best medical outcomes for patients, they pursue the aims that led them to the profession in the first place.

    3. GUIDING PRINCIPLES (OF VALUE BASED COMPETITION)

    • The focus should be on value for patients, not just lowering costs.

    • Competition must be based on results.

    • Competition should center on medical conditions over the full cycle of care.

    • High-quality care should be less costly.

    • Value must be driven by provider experience, scale, and learning at the medical condition level.

    • Competition should be regional and national, not just local.

    • Results information to support value-based competition must be widely available. (N.B. THIS WAS YOUR POINT AS WELL)

    • Innovations that increase value must be strongly rewarded.

    4. ACTION STEPS (BLUEPRINT)

    A. PROVIDERS (e.g., hospitals, physician practices, clinics): are the core of the system. First and foremost, providers must adopt the overarching goal of patient value, which will be empowering for all health professionals. Today, most providers mis-define their businesses, the hospital business, the surgery business, or the radiology business. To achieve the goal of value, the providers must redefine their services around medical conditions. The relevant business is the integrated care for a medical condition over the cycle of care. Current provider strategies, organizational structures, and management practices are not well-aligned with delivering value for patients.

    For some providers, however, the move to value-based competition is already happening, as we discuss in the book. Institutes dedicated to particular medical conditions, centers of excellence, and clinics are opening around the country. The Cleveland Clinic is publishing reports on its outcomes in every service. M.D. Anderson organizes its care around medical conditions. Intermountain Health is using outcome data to drive improvement processes.

    B. HEALTH PLANS: need to fundamentally change their roles to become health organizations. In the past, the strategies and practices of health plans detracted from value through bureaucracy, administrative costs, restricting physicians’ and patients’ choices, limiting services, attempting to micromanage medical practice, and having adversarial relationships with both providers and members. In order to create value, health plans must shift away from this “culture of denial.” They must support both physicians and patients with information and unbiased counseling, assemble results information on providers and treatments, and organize information and patient support around the full cycle of care. Health plans should offer comprehensive disease management and prevention services for all members. And, health plans must measure themselves, by tracking and publishing their members’ health results.

    C. SUPPLIERS ( such as drug and device companies): can add far more value in health care delivery than they have yet realized. They must shift their thinking from volume to value. They must compete on delivering unique value over the full care cycle, based on careful study of long term costs and results versus alternative therapies. They must ensure that their products and services get only to the patients who benefit.

    D. CONSUMERS (patients, subscribers under HMOs): health care is a service in which physicians and patients are co-producers. Consumers need to participate actively in managing their health through lifestyle choices, obtaining routine care and testing, seeking excellent providers, complying with treatments, and active participation in disease management and prevention. Consumers need to be the front-line participants in their health and health care. Even in today’s flawed system, studies show that informed and involved patients tend to choose less invasive (and thus less expensive) treatments, have better results, and better compliance with medical instructions. These observations underscore the potential for all participants to benefit from a value-based positive sum competition.

    E. EMPLOYERS: must set the goal of increasing health value for their employees and their families, not minimizing the cost of health benefits. Lost productivity proves to be a far bigger cost than many employers have realized. The discount mindset has failed to control the rise in health care costs. Employers must set new expectations for health plans, including self-insured plans, and provide health plan continuity for employees rather than encouraging plan churning. Employers should expect that their employees are cared for by excellent providers, and support and motivate employees in making good health care choices and manage their own health. Employers should also find ways to expand insurance coverage and advocate reform of the insurance system to level the playing field and end today’s unfair cost shifting.
    How can government encourage value-based competition?

    F. GOVERNMENT: has an important role to play in enabling value-based competition at the right levels. First and foremost, government needs to require the universal collection and dissemination of the risk-adjusted outcome and price information at the medical condition level. Second, government should eliminate artificial impediments to value-based competition such as state level licensing, the Stark laws, specialty hospital restrictions, and corporate practice of medicine laws. Third, government also should modify pricing practices and lead the move to care cycle pricing to align prices with value. Finally, government can play an important role in developing information technology standards to ensure interoperability of systems and information sharing. Chapter 8 discusses these and other needed policy changes in detail, as well as new directions for Medicare.

  50. Obama shouldn’t be blamed for the unpopularity of policies he inherited on bank bailouts and financial aid to General Motors and Chrysler.
    ————————————————————-
    I guess someone needs to refresh my recollection.

    Most of the TARP monies had not been distributed by the time he took office. None of the banks had been blackmailed into taking them.

    There was no 3.6 trillion dollar budget, and 1.7 trillion dollar deficit before he took office.

    There was no 875 billion dollar stimulus plan plus 300 billion interest charges before he took office.

    The wages and benefits of UAW workers were not guaranteed and the jobs shipped to China before he took office.

    Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. The problem itself arose before he took office. But the misguided solutions were implemented during his watch. He has his finger prints all over them–much as he pretends to deny it. His and Soros’.

  51. Obama is a strong proponent of civil rights–who just happens to support warrantless wiretapping, military tribunals, renditions and suppression of relevant evidence in criminal cases. We know what he thinks of ordinary Americans by the way he disenfranchised them in the election, and some of his unscripted extemporaneous teleprompterless comments about them. Just as there were good Germans, so also there are good liberals, who shut their eyes to what he does and stay anesthesized by big media. Others cannot bear the cognitive dissonance between their values and his actions. He is a fascist, and the sooner they wake up the better for them. If they remain in a state of denial then pretty soon they wont know who they are.
    ———————————————————

    By Jim Abrams
    Associated Press
    Sunday, May 31, 2009

    The Obama administration has set up a showdown this week with a federal judge in San Francisco, insisting in a court filing that it has no obligation to provide access to top-secret documents in a wiretapping case.

    Justice Department lawyers further argued in their Friday filing that Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker had no cause to penalize the government over its refusal to make the documents available.

    The department cited national security concerns for its position. Its filing said that President Obama has authorized access to classified information on a “need-to-know” basis, and argued that the government “cannot be sanctioned for its determination that plaintiffs do not have a need-to-know classified information.”

    The now-defunct Oregon chapter of the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation is suing the government over its warrantless wiretapping program. Walker threatened on May 22 to punish government lawyers for not offering a plan for how the lawsuit can proceed without giving foundation lawyers access to the documents. He has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday on the matter.

    Treasury Department officials inadvertently turned over the top-secret documents to al-Haramain lawyers in 2004. The classified phone surveillance log suggested that the National Security Agency had wiretapped al-Haramain board members and some of the foundation’s attorneys without a warrant.

    Treasury in 2004 designated the foundation an organization that supports terrorism.

    FBI agents recovered the log months later. Al-Haramain’s lawyers have argued they need it back in their legal challenge of the wiretapping program.

    The case has been a focal point for civil liberties groups questioning the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program. It is also one of several instances in which the current administration has followed the Bush administration in citing national security as justification for keeping secrets.

    Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has ordered a review of all such “state secrets” assertions by the Bush administration in defense of lawsuits. But the Obama administration is also fighting the court-ordered release of prisoner-abuse photos and is reviving, in a revised form, military tribunals, where suspected terrorists have limited access to information.

  52. gonzotx Says:

    May 31st, 2009 at 8:34 pm
    From MAryB @ BP

    The Unpersuasive Orator

    Obama may sound good, but he doesn’t close the sale.

    That Bush didn’t succeed is less surprising than Obama’s failure. Bush is a prosaic speaker. Obama is a skilled orator. While Bush didn’t gain ground when he promoted his tax and education policy, at least public support didn’t decrease.
    &&&&

    First, which site is “BP”?

    Second, Obama’s reputation as a “master orator” is gaggingly overblown. As much as Bush stammered and said stupid things, Obama stammers and says stupid things too. It’s not a once in a while thing, either. That’s why he’s hooked on the teleprompter.

    Bush, for all his idiocy, was able to pull off the “aw-shucks” routine. That too “worked”, for a while. But like all schticks that are inherently devoid of substance (or worse, mask evil), they eventually stop working. Even the inspiring Fuhrer eventually was revealed to be a fraud leading his country to doom.

    Obama’s reckoning will come. Too much incompetence to cover up.

  53. Wolffe: Senate Dems wanted Clinton out

    In his new book on Obama, Newsweek/MSNBC contributor Richard Wolffe claims that many Senate Dems embraced the idea of appointing Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State as a way of getting her out of the Senate.

    In a HuffPo excerpt, Wolffe writes:

    Obama’s aides believed that many Senate Democrats thought Clinton had extended her presidential campaign far beyond the point where she had lost the election. Her negative advertising wasted Democratic money, threatened to undermine the party’s nominee, and suggested that she was disloyal to the party. They were unwilling to offer the junior New York senator a position ahead of her lowly rank, and she stood little chance of becoming majority leader. “There was a lot of encouragement from inside the Senate to get her into this job,” said one senior Obama aide. “They wanted her out of there.” …

    There’s some truth here — Obama’s die-hards in the Senate nursed a grudge and many of the president’s brain trust (especially David Plouffe) have taken eons to get over Clinton’s refusal to quit after her February-March debacle.

    It’s certainly true that very few Senators were willing to make any special accommodations for her when she came back in defeat — much less stick her at the front of the line to replace Harry Reid.

    But Wolffe may be overstating the case. According to my reporting at the time, some Senate Democrats admired Clinton’s grit and many others thought she’d earned the right to ride out the campaign to the end.

    It’s not as flashy a point, but taken as a group, I think their attitude was more indifferent than hostile.

    Senators, as a rule, are egocentrists far less less interested in their colleagues’ futures than their own. To them, Clinton was just one of 100 — and they couldn’t have care less about what she did with the rest of her career.

    politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0609/Wolffe_Senate_Dems_wanted_Clinton_out.html

  54. EXCLUSIVE EXCERPT FROM ‘RENEGADE’: Obama On Clinton Pick: “I’m Not Begging Her To Take This Job”

    05-31-09 11:21 PM; huffpost

    In an exclusive excerpt from Newsweek Senior White House correspondent Richard Wolffe’s new book, “Renegade: The Making of a President,” Wolffe details the internal debates within the Obama camp over whether to select Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.

    Wolffe will discuss his new book on NBC’s “Today” show on Monday morning.

    Of all his transition choices, none was easier to make, or more complex to execute, than Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Obama had long wanted his former rival on his team, no matter what his friends and aides said about her aggressive campaign… His staff opposed the idea for the most part, arguing that Clinton would never be truly loyal. But Obama was willing to leave the primaries behind, including his own strong feelings at the time. “I don’t hold grudges,” he told his aides. “I don’t worry about the past. I’m concerned about what happens now. If she can help me and Bill Clinton isn’t too much of a liability, we should seriously look at this.” …
    Obama was under no illusion about the legacy of the long primary season. During one transition meeting, Obama said he wanted to offer Clinton the diplomatic job. “I’m really interested in pursuing this, but I know she has some hard feelings coming out of this campaign.” Emanuel and John Podesta, the former Clinton official who ran the transition, assured Obama that she was over those hard feelings now. Obama smiled and said, “Believe me. She’s not over it yet.”

    His decision to offer her the job of secretary of state came surprisingly early. Well before the end of the primaries, when his staff and friends still felt hostile to her, Obama decided that Clinton possessed the qualities to carry his diplomacy to the rest of the world. “We actually thought during the primary, when we were pretty sure we were going to win, that she could end up being a very effective secretary of state,” he told me later. “I felt that she was disciplined, that she was precise, that she was smart as a whip, and that she would present a really strong image to the world…I had that mapped out.”

    Recruiting and managing a team of rivals would not be easy, and Clinton came with her own set of issues. Chief among them was her campaign debt, which she wanted eliminated before she took the job of secretary of state. Would the president-elect go out and help her to do so? “I’m not begging her to take this job,” Obama told his senior aides. “If she wants it, I could help. But I’m not willing to go out in these difficult economic times to do a flashy fundraiser in California.” As it happened, plenty of people in the Senate were begging Obama to offer Clinton the job. Obama’s aides believed that many Senate Democrats thought Clinton had extended her presidential campaign far beyond the point where she had lost the election. Her negative advertising wasted Democratic money, threatened to undermine the party’s nominee, and suggested that she was disloyal to the party. They were unwilling to offer the junior New York senator a position ahead of her lowly rank, and she stood little chance of becoming majority leader. “There was a lot of encouragement from inside the Senate to get her into this job,” said one senior Obama aide. “They wanted her out of there.” …

    As for controlling the uncontrollable Bill Clinton, Obama’s aides drew up a series of checks on his fundraising for both Clinton Global Initiative and his work on HIV/AIDS across the world. But they really counted on Hillary to be the ultimate safeguard – against both her husband and her own ambition. “It’s in her interests to keep him in line,” warned one senior Obama aide. Others in Obama’s inner circle said the president-elect believed Clinton needed to demonstrate that she was a team player and to shape her own career and legacy. “There are plenty who don’t trust her and think she still harbors something,” said another senior adviser. “It’s still potentially problematic down the road. Barack’s thinking on this is that it’s not in her interests to mess with us. She can’t win that fight internally and she’s smart enough that she won’t want that fight publicly.”

    Several weeks into the administration, even Clinton’s internal critics believed the relationship was a success. “They have both worked really hard at it,” said one senior White House official. “There’s a natural affinity and respect that ironically grew out of being opponents. You get to know someone really well after all that.”

    huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/31/exclusive-excerpt-from-re_n_209576.html

  55. The often repeated assertion that Mr. Obama is a “master orator” is pure unadulterated bullshit.

    The oratory big media worships consists of reading someone elses words. This is similar to what a news reader does. It is not oratory.

    What they admire is his delivery style which is right out of the black church. Evidently, they had not seen it before.

    The test of an orator is his ability to speak extemporaneously using his own words. When Obama does that he is prone to gaffs, and verbal crutches.

    Again, he is an actor; not an orator. Anyone who contends otherwise does not understand the essential difference.

  56. Why A Two-State Israel-Palestinian Solution Is Insane
    The Advocate

    By Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin
    Monday, June 1, 2009

    This column will show you why President Barack Obama’s two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a solution, but a formula for disaster. It will also suggest two approaches that make sense and might resolve that conflict.

    Israel can’t make peace with the Palestinians when they refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist, when they are dedicated to the destruction of Israel and to genocide, when their mosques, schools, media and government officials promote hatred and violence directed against Jews and Israel. Anyone who thinks peace under those circumstances is possible isn’t dealing with a full deck and is frankly irrational if not insane. But enough said about the state of American foreign policy in the Middle East. Just remember that foreign policy is being made by Mr. Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and a platoon of anti-Israel Obama advisers.

    This whole matter is put in perfect perspective by two articles in Commentary Magazine (June 2009), which I happen to think is one of the best if not the very best magazine in the U.S. The two articles are by Caroline Glick, columnist and senior contributing editor of the Jerusalem Post, and Hillel Halkin, a longtime contributor to Commentary. Ms. Glick’s article, “The Stabilization Plan,” is based on the premise that peace now with unwilling Palestinians is impossible, so the best you can do is to create a strategy to stabilize the situation and lay the foundation for future reconciliation and peace.

    Ms. Glick identifies why peace has been so elusive despite endless peace plans: “The root cause of the Palestinian conflict is the same as the root cause of the larger Arab and Islamic world’s conflict with Israel: Simply put, they refuse to accept that Israel has a right to exist. Until they change their minds — the conflict cannot be solved, it can only be managed. It cannot be resolved. It can only be stabilized. Consequently, the stabilization plan does not foresee a solution of the Middle East conflict. Indeed, it argues that the quest for a solution has blinded policymakers to the true nature of the conflict in a manner that has expanded the frequency and likelihood of war and damned the region to a state of chronic instability.” Ms. Glick finds that the obsession with the failed two-state solution has caused Israel and America to ignore the factors that are the key to Middle East politics — the rise of jihadist forces throughout the Islamic world and Iran’s ascendancy as a regional power. Both of these factors have grown more threatening since 1993.

    The Glick stabilization plan is based on three pillars: “First, it would neutralize outside radicalizing elements that exacerbate the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Second, it would exact a significant price for the Palestinians for their continued belligerence. And third, it would prevent the Palestinian leadership from using the Palestinians as pawns in their war against Israel. Here are the details on those three pillars of the stabilization plan.

    Neutralizing External Factors

    Now the most important external factor is Iran using Palestinians as proxies to advance its regional power. As long as Iran can influence the Palestinians, it will exploit the conflict to expand its influence. But if Iran goes nuclear, that will end the hope of peaceful coexistence between Israel and its neighbors. Any Arab state that seeks peace with Israel will be subject to Iranian nuclear blackmail. I would suggest that there should be a military attack on Iran to stop it from going nuclear and curb its influence. Ms. Glick doesn’t offer details on her suggested approach, but this would seem to be obvious as a first step.

    She also recommends something be done about the institutions which were created to and have done nothing but exacerbate and perpetuate the Palestinian conflict with Israel. One such institution is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which maintains the refugee status of the descendants of Arabs who left Israel during the 1948-49 War of Independence. As long as this conflict is fired up by UNRWA, there is little hope of peace. It should be noted that Israel settled all the Jewish refugees who fled Arab nations during the War of Independence right away. But Arab nations failed to do so for their “refugees.” They were intent on maintaining the hatred and unrest created by unsettled refugees. They were more interested in perpetuating the conflict than the welfare of these refugees.

    Exacting A Price

    Now Gazans live under the terror regime of Hamas. Those on the West Bank live under the tyranny of the Fatah terrorist organization. Ms. Glick writes, “Because the two-state paradigm places all the blame for the absence of peace on Israel, and so places all the pressure for behavioral change on Israel, leaders of both Fatah and Hamas have felt free to deny their subjects basic freedoms as they pursue their war against Israel through terror, political warfare, incitement, extortion, and general thuggery — all in the name of the Palestinian people.” This should change. Israel, the U.S. and others involved should start adopting policies to make it clear that Hamas and Fatah cannot continue their belligerent policies toward Israel and their subjugation of their people to making war instead of peace.

    One of the matters most in need of addressing is the Palestinian Authority’s “systematic indoctrination of its public to wage jihad against Israel and seek the annihilation of the Jewish people.” Another matter that must be addressed is Palestinian laws, which work against peace. For example, the Palestinian land law requires the execution of those who sell land to Israel, and now any Palestinian who assists Israel in its war against terror is subject to execution.

    Ending The Use Of Palestinians As Pawns

    On Jordan’s King Abdullah II’s recent trip to Washington, he said, “Any Israeli effort to substitute Palestinian development for Palestinian independence cannot bring peace and stability to the region.” This view has had disastrous consequences as it devalues and sneers at Palestinian development. First, money sent to the Palestinian Authority for improving the welfare of the people has been diverted to terrorism. Second, this approach to impoverishing the Palestinians has destroyed the middle class, the group most likely to pressure for peace and freedom.

    Ms. Glick summarizes, “The stabilization plan and the policies it engenders cannot solve the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Today, the Palestinian conflict has no solution. What the stabilization plan can do, if wisely followed, is embark Israel and the Palestinians on a path to security, prosperity, and stability, which when you think about it, sounds a little like peace.”

    The Federation Plan: An Israeli-Palestinian Federation

    In another article in the same issue of Commentary, Hillel Halkin puts forth his ideas for resolving the conflict in an article, “The Federation Plan.” His analysis and solutions are as valuable and compelling as those of Ms. Glick’s. He makes a basic point about peace plans: You can’t beat something with nothing: “Yet when one party to a dispute has no coherent notion of what it wants while the other is perfectly clear about it, things rarely work out to the first party’s benefit. The history of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians since 1967 has been more one of seeking to thwart the strategies of others than of following a strategy of one’s own, with the result that Israel has been progressively pushed into a corner from which there is at present no way out.” Mr. Halkin says there will be no two-state solution, but he feels there has to be a solution. What he proposes is a federation with an Israeli state and a demilitarized Palestinian one. But he has one key provision: “If the two-state solution means expelling the Palestinian state’s Jewish inhabitants, it is a dead letter then, too. And yet why must it mean that? The state of Israel, within its 1967 borders, has over a million Arabs in it. Why should the state of Palestine not have hundreds of thousands of Jews? Why should not both the Jews of Palestine and the Arabs of Israel be allowed to choose which state they prefer to be citizens of.”

    Mr. Halkin adds other details to protect Israel’s security and make the federation work. But he feels this is perhaps the only remaining viable option: “A bi-national state that will not work and an Israeli-Palestinian federation that might work are the only two options left.”

    Lessons Of The Two-State Solution Dead End

    There’s another important lesson in all this. It’s best to let the parties to the conflict negotiate the peace and not try to do it in Washington, D.C., and certainly not doing it there with a band of anti-Israeli types. Another lesson is when a two-state solution has such a long record of failure, perhaps it is time to look for the fundamental reasons for its failure and for alternatives.

    One last note: If Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, the U.S. State Department, the United Nations, the international community and the media made as many calls for the Palestinians to stop their terrorism as they make for Israelis to stop their settlements, the Middle East would be closer to peace.

    *Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.

    thebulletin.us/articles/2009/06/01/herb_denenberg/doc4a23b9da003b8332567849.txt

  57. Wolffe will discuss his new book on NBC’s “Today” show on Monday morning.

    Of all his transition choices, none was easier to make, or more complex to execute, than Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Obama had long wanted his former rival on his team, no matter what his friends and aides said about her aggressive campaign…
    ——————————————
    This is a lie. I guarantee it.

    Wolffe is a propagandist in who appears on MSNBC which is controlled by GE which is controlled by Immelt–one of Obamas puppeteers.

    Either Wolffe does not know the real story, and is taking someone else’s word for it. Or more likely he does know and is attempting to bolster the Obama myth as he did so often during the campaign.

  58. Agreed..Wolfee was a total bot during the primary and election and regular appeared on MSNBC team Obama network. They have nothing to talk about so they are drumming up this crap about the Obama/Hillary pycho-drama to sell books. Woodwood is the worst of all of them.

  59. I can’t stand watching that individual (Huffington) appear on weekend talk shows like she is someone really important. What the hell has Arianna Huffington ever done to be held in such high esteem by serious journalists. She was a rightie for a long time and now os the “voice” of the extrem left. Also, another woman who worked hard to defeat Hillary.

Comments are closed.