Where I Dissent

It’s not only Lynn Forester – a lot of people are just beginning to discover we are right when we say:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

Democrat Brent Budowsky (an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and Bill Alexander, then chief deputy majority whip of the House) once again is calling it as he sees it:

Recently The Jerusalem Post ran a brilliant and troubling piece by Amir Mizroch titled “Why everyone is saying no to Obama.”

Last Friday the president was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing. [snip]

The Nobel Prize gets to the heart of the matter of the Obama presidency. The prize was not awarded to President Obama, but to the idea of Obama.

Voters may vote for an idea. Prizes may be awarded for an idea. But war and peace, prosperity and joblessness, legislation and treaties, illness and health, are not decided by the idea of the candidate but the actions of the president who is elected.

What made Roosevelt Roosevelt, Kennedy Kennedy and Reagan Reagan was that the idea of their persona during the campaign was followed by their actions during their presidencies.

NObama is what Obama backslapping-in-public smart leaders, not necessarily good leaders, say to a boob who is the Third Bush Term.

The Jerusalem Post piece was troubling because it is true. There is a pattern that others repeatedly say no to the president. Passing weak legislation and calling it a “W” does not change the pattern of his presidency or satisfy the powerful yearning for change that is not realized by promises, public relations or the cult of personality.

“Cult of personality” – that is a Big Pink term from 2007 when Dimocrats craved to get on board the Titanic with the boob. Big Pink also called Obama a “boob” in 2007 and we predicted the mess the boob would cause.

Virtually every player in the Middle East has said no to the president. Banks and Wall Street say no to the president. The Europe that said yes to the Nobel Prize says no to giving more support for Afghanistan. The president even snubbed the Dalai Lama in anticipation the Chinese would say no. The list is long of those who say no and short of those who say yes.

It is time to worry when “Saturday Night Live” makes fun of the president for achieving so little. It is time for alarm when so many power players believe this president can be rolled. Even a Senate where Democrats have 60 votes shows an almost daily disrespect for the president.

Boobs, like doughnuts, can be rolled:

The reason so many power centers, at home and internationally, say no to the president is that they do not know his bottom line. They believe he may shift with the winds. They know he accepts a tiny loaf while claiming a big victory. They believe he can be rolled.

Budowsky says pretty much the same as Lynn Forester about that “blank screen” which is Obama to his Hopium addled boobettes:

The president has described himself as a Rorschach in which others with divergent views project their views onto him. This is brilliant politics in a campaign but a disastrous approach to governing. [snip]

The centrifugal forces from inside Washington to combat theaters abroad revert to form in a divided nation and troubled world. Nothing of historical importance gets done.

The history of successful presidents is clear: They fight for major change. They battle complacency and resistance. They risk losing tactical battles for greater victories. They challenge and inspire supporters to fight great battles for great deeds and inspire fear in opponents who resist.

Remember how Big Media and Barack Obama mocked Hillary when she said she had “the scars to prove it” in regards to her ceaseless leadership to make the world a better place? Read that last paragraph and it describes Hillary Clinton, not the boob.

Rorschach presidents do not change anything. I pray the president will learn the lessons of history and his own experience, but when he does not, I must dissent.

Budowsky will not be accused of being “bitter” and “clingy” for his dissent.

Byron York cataloged the mounting “dissent”:

“Whiner in Chief,” reads the headline at The Nation, referring to President Obama.

Self-styled progressives across the country are angry, not just at Obama, but at the rest of the Democratic power structure, as well. That anger is causing an ugly split inside the Washington Democratic world. [snip]

NBC’s John Harwood recently reported that Team Obama views the complainers as part of the “Internet Left fringe,” and that one White House adviser said, “Those bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.” [snip]

Recent Gallup polling shows that Congress’ job approval among Democrats plunged in September, from 54 percent to 36 percent — an 18-point drop in the course of a single month.

There simply can’t be that many people in pajamas. [snip]

There are no precise polling numbers to measure the division, but for months now, Gallup surveys have shown that Obama’s job approval rating among people who call themselves conservative Democrats is 15 to 20 points below his rating among those who call themselves liberal Democrats. And now the liberal Democrats are becoming increasingly unhappy.

Even Obama blowhard and blower, Charles Blow, at the New York Times is in “dissent”:

When, Mr. President? When will your deeds catch up to your words? The people who worked tirelessly to get you elected are getting tired of waiting. [snip]

The fierce urgency of now has melted into the maddening wait for whenever.

Blow is upset at the Boob-in-Chief for weakness on health care “reform”. Blow, after fluffing Obama has other “dissents”:

On the same weekend that gay rights protesters marched past the White House, the president again said that his administration was “moving ahead on don’t ask don’t tell.” But when? This month? This year? This term?

As we prepare to draw down troops from the disaster that was the war in Iraq, we may commit more troops to the quagmire that is the war in Afghanistan and the government may miss its deadline for closing the blight that is the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Obama pledged to stem the tide of job losses and foreclosures and to reform the culture of the financial sector. Well, the Dow just hit 10,000 again while the national unemployment rate is about to hit 10 percent. And the firms we propped up are set to dole out record bonuses while home foreclosures have hit record highs. Main Street is still drowning in crisis while Wall Street is awash in Champagne. When will this imbalance be corrected?

Candidate Obama pledged to make the rebuilding of New Orleans a priority, but President Obama whisked into the city on Thursday for a visit so brief that one Louisiana congressman dubbed it a “drive-through daiquiri summit.” The president spent more time on the failed Olympic bid in Copenhagen than he did in the Crescent City.

Big Pink was the first to call Obama the Third Bush Term. Now Charles Blow says the same thing:

At the town hall in New Orleans, Obama appealed for patience. He said, “Change is hard, and big change is harder.” Is that the excuse? Now where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah. From George Bush.

Big Labor is having labor pains too:

The president of one of America’s largest labor unions, Gerry McEntee, has emerged as a major obstacle to the White House’s efforts to maintain a unified front in the health care debate.

The veteran president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has crossed lines that few labor leaders – even those who quietly agree with him – would go near.

McEntee led workers in chanting a barnyard epithet to describe Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus’s health care bill, which would levy a new tax on expensive health care plans. He published an op-ed in U.S.A. Today warning, in terms that could be used against Democrats in the midterms, that the plan could tax the middle class and cost workers their health care. And he blew off a plea from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and published an open letter promising to “oppose” legislation that contained the tax – published over the objections, several labor officials said, of other union presidents whose names appeared on the letter.

Obama’s thugs responded to McEntee with insults.

But a spokesman for AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka stood by McEntee.

“We work closely with the White House and count ourselves among their strongest supporters,” said the spokesman, Eddie Vale. “Sometimes being supportive means staking out a tough position, and nobody understands that better than President McEntee.”

McEntee’s posture – and the fierce response from a White House determined to keep allies in line – reflects a broader dilemma on the left of the Democratic Party, which is feeling both lingering satisfaction at Obama’s victory and frustration at his caution.

Many Dimocrats are angry with Obama but are afraid of “losing the access and power” if they challenge Obama and his thugs.

McEntee knows a boob when he sees a boob. McEntee knew Hillary was a leader and ready on Day 1.

McEntee first angered the Obama camp during the 2008 campaign with his support for Clinton, especially in the early, demure days of the primary season, when his union mailed a harsh attack on Obama to New Hampshire voters, which asked: “How can we be sure the new President is ready?”

Randi Weingarten of the teachers union thought the McEntee language was too strident. That did not stop Weingarten from sounding like Big Pink when it came to “No Child Left Behind”:

A skirmish between powerful teachers’ unions and President Barack Obama over nearly $5 billion in education spending is shaping up as a preview of the battle to come over No Child Left Behind in Congress early next year. [snip]

The dispute adds teachers’ unions to a growing list of key Democratic constituencies that have been frustrated by Obama’s lunges toward the political middle, along with gay-rights activists upset Obama won’t lift the ban on gays in the military, and Latino officials who say Obama is slow-walking immigration reform. [snip]

One of the little-noticed aspects of Obama’s presidency is how much his approach to education mirrors Bush’s – heavy on testing and data-collection, with support for charter schools, teacher evaluations and merit pay. [snip]

“This administration doesn’t want to be ‘Bush Three,’ but some of the things that are coming out…simply charter schools and measurement… that’s what the previous administrations pushed,” Weingarten said, referring to Bush and his father, the president.

Watch the skid marks on teachers who drank Hopium:

“What we have now is a Democratic president who is using the words ‘fire teachers’ so the labor movement is starting to say they want to get on the bus and help steer, rather than get run over by it,” said Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust, a non-partisan think tank.

Hypocrite Dimocrats, like Representative Earl Blumenauer are lying to their constituents and continue to protect Obama while publicly decrying what they see.

The liberal Democrat from Portland, Ore. — known for his bowties, his Trek bicycle and a pragmatic brand of progressivism — embraced Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy early in 2008 and campaigned hard alongside him, steadily gaining confidence that the young senator from Illinois was the ideal liberal remedy to eight years of conservative dominance.

Now political reality has set in, testing Mr. Blumenauer’s faith that Mr. Obama’s election and big Democratic majorities in Congress would yield quick advances in the progressive agenda.

Even the garbage scow, Maureen Dowd, is sobering up from a deep Hopium drunk:

One singular leader who wrote elegantly about his ideals, was swept into the presidency and then collided with harsh reality had some advice for another.

In an interview with Alison Smale in The Times last week, Vaclav Havel sipped Champagne in the middle of the afternoon and pricked Barack Obama’s conscience.

Havel, the 73-year-old former Czech president, who didn’t win a Nobel Peace Prize despite leading the Czechs and the Slovaks from communism to democracy, turned the tables and asked Smale a question about Obama, the latest winner of the peace prize.

Was it true that the president had refused to meet the Dalai Lama on his visit to Washington?

He was told that Obama had indeed tried to curry favor with China by declining to see the Dalai Lama until after the president’s visit to China next month. [snip]

“It is only a minor compromise,” he said. “But exactly with these minor compromises start the big and dangerous ones, the real problems.”

Maybe Dowd is reading Big Pink because she referenced Obama’s treacheries in Illinois on health care, (while ignoring the Exelon treacheries on radioactive leaks to benefit his Big Donors) which we have written repeatedly about.

Yet Obama’s legislative career offers cautionary tales about the toll of constant consensus building.

In Springfield, he compromised so much on a health care reform bill that in the end, it merely led to a study. In Washington, he compromised so much with Senate Republicans on a bill to require all nuclear plant owners to notify state and local authorities about radioactive leaks that it simply devolved into a bill offering guidance to regulators, and even that ultimately died.

Now the air is full of complaints that Obama has been too cautious on health care, Afghanistan, filling judgeships, ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and rebuilding New Orleans; that he has conceded too much to China, Iran, Russia, the Muslim world and the banks.

Dowd has always been “bitter” and “clingy”. Now Dowd is approaching “dissent”.

Obama’s treacheries in Illinois have been well documented on Big Pink. Someday Big Media blowhards and blowers will decide to write about the dirty, not clean” screen – which is Barack Obama.

Share

75 thoughts on “Where I Dissent

  1. I just wanted to comment on something on the other thread. I have muckety.com Hillary’s office in the state dept. there appears to be more Obama people than Hillary’s. So I don’t know who is telling the truth about her power in the state dept.

  2. Hi, your blog is not updating on DailyPUMA.com It is stuck on a blog article from Oct. 7th, 2009.

    When I tried to relist your blog I received en error message that said “no feed”. Just thought you should know.

  3. “They know he accepts a tiny loaf while claiming a big victory. They believe he can be rolled.”

    ————————–

    Which he has proven over and over again.

    Admin,

    This is one of your finest pieces ever. It really says something when there is so much evidence already in place on this issue.

  4. confloyd,

    Everytime I see a trash piece on Hillary’s so-called “non-relevance,” it is usually after she has gotten rave reviews for something she has accomplished. I firmly believe that obama’s henchmen are behind this message that reappears at the most devious moments.

    Now that her polling is higher that his is, I expect the trash to start up again. Nobody but nobody gets to outshine the idiot in the oval chair.

  5. I think its Breast Cancer Awareness month??

    I was going to the store (Walmart), I was out of DIet Pepsi which we consume by the case. Usually there is a big stack in the back part of the grocery store, but today the stack of Pepsi and Diet Pepsi was center front and the first thing you see when you walk thru front door. As I walked in I notice the Pepsi and all across the front of the case box was the word “HOPE” in pink, I suppose to support breast ca. There is NO reference on the box for breast ca., it just has that “Hope” sign on one side, and bless their heart the stockers had all those little hope signs facing the front door. I was SHOCKED and before I realized what and how loud I managed to exclaim “that freaking Obama has now taken over my diet pepsi”!! Well to say the least I caused a small scene there, as people turned to see who it was that was bashing the KIng. Several of them died laughing and caught up with me at various places in the store to grip about him, some even asked if I had voted for him. I am glad there were NO huge supporters of Obama near me because I might of wound up in the hospital. All I could think of was all the people who go to the store and turn all the magazine covers with the fraud’s picture on them over. WE MUST BE MORE CAREFULL!

  6. Thanks Alessandro. We’re working on the back end on some surprises and should have everything up and running for Hillary’s birthday (Monday, October 26).

  7. birdgal, Can you believe his stupid brand is on everything?? It like living in China with Mao’s pic on every corner. All I can say I better not see that hope sign on my BUd Light or I am personally calling John McCain to complain. LOL!!

  8. I bet the CEO of PEPSI must be getting something!!!!! I know that one of the VPs of Pepsico in NY was a BIG BO hoper!!!!!

  9. It was always pretty clear he was connected to Pepsi. His logo was almost identical and Pepsi never siad a word

  10. confloyd Says:

    October 19th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
    ——————————————————–

    Well, Confloyd, I live in an area where BO is very popular. Nothing like looking out my office window or walking into the building, seeing multiple cars with the bumper sticker “Got Hope?” I cringe everyday.

  11. Interesting and informative per usual…I cannot add anything as the Yankees just choked big time and have ruined my evening.

  12. birdgal, yuk, his only supporters here in East Texas are black. So I was pretty safe, but I am not in to hurting anyone feelings, especially blacks. They have been taken to the cleaners. I feel sorry for them, but I am mad for them too. They needed a real leader and for this imposter to take over their cause falsely is criminal.

  13. As per the Realist on the last thread. This comment was the crux of Glenn Beck’s show today. It seems Thursday is D day for free speech on the internet.

    Wbboei, if you are reading, don’t miss the one that the realist posted yesterday. It goes along with our conversations on controlling the media/internet. I beginning to believe he is a terrorist plant trying to get us more like the European Union where it is a crime to say anything offensive about another’s religion. Our constitution is being torn to shreds and there is no one or nothing stopping it.

  14. What better way to take over one’s government, cause a crisis, cause unrest/chaos, control the press, control free speech, then sign over our soveignty, without a shot being fired?? It goes along with what the “chicago boys” did in Brazile, Argentina, Chile and Bolivia. The question IS, “what is their motive” since we are already a democracy using free capitalism?? Communisium, Socialism or Marxism, just a One World Government with a new currency?? You all tell me!

  15. Oh dear. obama’s foot soldiers aren’t going to like this….

    ———————–

    Gates: Afghanistan war strategy should come first
    By LARA JAKES (AP) – 32 minutes ago

    ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY JET — The Obama administration needs to decide on a war strategy for Afghanistan without waiting for a government there to be widely accepted as legitimate, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday.

    Gates’ comments put him at odds with top White House and NATO officials who are balking at ordering more troops and other resources to Afghanistan until the disputed election crisis there is resolved.

    The Pentagon chief called the Afghan elections — and the larger issues of curbing corruption in its government — “an evolving process.”

    “We’re not just going to sit on our hands, waiting for the outcome of this election and for the emergence of a government in Kabul,” he told reporters en route to Tokyo. “The outcome of the elections and the problems with the elections have complicated the situation for us. But the reality is, it’s not going to be complicated one day and simple the next,” he said. “We’re going to have to work with this going forward, and I believe the president will have to make his decisions in the context of that evolutionary process.”

    Gates did not say whether he believed that a runoff between Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and main challenger Abdullah Abdullah was inevitable. U.N.-backed fraud investigators have thrown out nearly a third of Karzai’s ballots from the August election, setting the stage for a runoff. A runoff likely would prompt political unrest and further delay assured help by the Afghan government to battle the Taliban.

    Gates also raised the possibility that Abdullah would not demand a runoff, saying the issue ultimately may be settled by internal political deals. “They basically have to sort it through themselves,” he said.

    Karzai was expected to outline his future plans on Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Washington.

    For weeks, the Obama administration has grappled with whether to send as many as 80,000 additional U.S. troops to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan or use missile-carrying spy planes and covert military missions to focus more narrowly on al-Qaida leaders who are believed to be hiding in Pakistan.

    In separate comments over the last two days, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen each said no decision on the future of the war strategy should be made until the legitimacy of the Afghanistan government is assured.

    Gates said Obama was nearing a decision on the strategy. The Pentagon chief was headed to Japan and South Korea where he planned discuss support for the war in Afghanistan with leaders there. He was to attend a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Bratislava, Slovakia, later in the week where Afghanistan would be a top topic.

    “This is an alliance issue,” he said. “It should not be looked upon as exclusively the responsibility of the United States to respond.”

    google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jzA0Whh_1id_XIqXstD76TAO4qbwD9BEH88G0

  16. Rift between Obama and Chamber of Commerce widening

    Health-care reform and economy are points of contention

    By Michael D. Shear
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, October 20, 2009

    The White House is moving aggressively to remove the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from its traditional Washington role as the chief representative for big business, the latest sign of a public feud ignited by disagreement over the administration’s effort to overhaul the health-care system.

    Instead of working through the chamber, President Obama has reached out to business executives, meeting repeatedly with small groups of CEOs in his private White House dining room. He also has dispatched top aides Valerie Jarrett and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to corporate boardrooms. Since the summer, the three have met with some of the biggest names in the business community, including the heads of IBM, Wal-Mart Stores, Time Warner, Eastman Kodak, Starbucks, Amazon.com and Coca-Cola.

    In the process, Obama is attempting to rewrite the rules of the game in Washington, where the chamber and other business lobbying groups have long held a highly visible, and powerful, place at the intersection of policy and politics.
    “The question we have is: Does the chamber really represent the business community the way they used to?” said Jarrett, the president’s chief business liaison. “It seems as though their members are disengaging.”

    Meanwhile, the chamber is fighting back with its own public relations agenda, launching multimillion-dollar ad campaigns to resist several of Obama’s top priorities. Passage of the president’s plan could depend in part on how this battle plays out. R. Bruce Josten, the chamber’s longtime lobbyist, said he has less real access to Obama’s chief aides than he had during any previous administration. He said the business events Obama holds at the White House are just for show.

    “Going to the Reagan center with 150 people, where the president gives prepared remarks — I’m sorry, I don’t consider that a consultative outreach,” Josten said. “That’s an event, designed by the White House, for the White House.”

    Quitting in protest

    The quarrel obscures that the White House and the chamber had a relatively warm relationship when Obama took office. Disagreements about a broad swath of the president’s economic agenda soured relations, though.

    The Chamber of Commerce was already embroiled in controversy over its opposition to climate change legislation. In recent weeks, high-profile businesses have quit the chamber in protest of that position, most notably Apple Inc.
    Chamber officials hint that they think the White House has been encouraging the defections. Jarrett denied that vehemently, saying, “They have to be responsible for their own membership, not us.”

    On Monday, climate change activists orchestrated a hoax in which chamber officials appeared to reverse their opposition to energy legislation in Congress. The event, complete with fake handouts on chamber letterhead, at least a couple of phony reporters and a podium adorned with the chamber logo, broke up when a spokesman from the real chamber burst in.

    The pretend Chamber of Commerce official was a member of the activist-prankster group called the Yes Men, which has staged several hoaxes to draw attention to what it believes is slow progress in fighting climate change.

    “These irresponsible tactics are a foolish distraction” from the real work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, said Thomas J. Collamore, the chamber’s senior vice president for communications and strategy. He added that his group will ask authorities to investigate.

    Obama and CEOs

    Since taking office, Obama has held three private lunches with chief executives. On Oct. 8, he met with Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos. Lewis Hay III of Florida Power & Light, Antonio M. Perez of Eastman Kodak and Irene B. Rosenfeld of Kraft. The next day, before reporters in the East Room, Obama upbraided the Chamber of Commerce for its effort to defeat or water down new consumer protections.

    “They’re very good at this, because that’s how business has been done in Washington for a very long time,” he said. “In fact, over the last 10 years, the chamber alone spent nearly half a billion dollars on lobbying — half a billion dollars.”

    Josten said previous presidents sought to work with groups such as the chamber, even when they disagreed on policy matters, in an attempt to improve legislation or neutralize potential concerns. But he said Obama’s dislike of lobbyists has robbed the White House of the chance to craft legislative compromises that businesses can live with.

    “Does he get some probably good input from CEOs? I’m sure he does,” Josten said. “Are they going to actively go up to the Hill and lobby? I’m sure they’re not.” Josten and other chamber officials participated in more than two dozen “issue meetings” during Obama’s transition, and the group backed the president’s early efforts to fix the economy. They supported his economic stimulus plan and some of his first nominees for economic positions in the administration.

    That goodwill ended abruptly this past summer, when the chamber announced its opposition to a public insurance option as part of a broad health-care reform effort. The group ran ads in 20 states warning of higher taxes, inflated deficits and “government control over your health.”

    The chamber followed up with public statements against the president’s climate control legislation and his push for new regulation of the financial sector in the wake of the economic collapse. (Politico first reported Monday on the dispute.)
    Chamber officials describe their change in attitude as a result of the president’s ambitious agenda, which they said contrasts sharply with their long-standing belief in smaller government, lower taxes and less regulation. Jarrett and others in the White House say the chamber became an all-out adversary less interested in working to find solutions.

    White House officials say they remain open to meeting with the chamber and its officials, but Jarrett said that discussions so far have been contentious.

    washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902176.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR

    ————————-

    obama’s dislike of lobbyists???? Since when?

  17. Obama seems like my old boss, he like to say “Its my way or the highway”. In otherwards, do it my way or find another job. Seems Obama is telling everyone that, from the Chamber of Commerce to his own lefties. He definitely has an agenda, but do we really know what it is???

  18. God this job is hard. Of course OOs emblem from the election looks exactly like the Pepsi symbol. Wonder how that happened.

  19. Our constitution is being torn to shreds and there is no one or nothing stopping it.
    ————————————————–
    confloyd

    This is what i don’t understand. There is Hillary, Bill, etc. I know they are aware of what is going on. Are they going to let this world go to pot and not do anything about this. Everyone seems scared or under some sort of spell.

    This is a nightmare

    Has anyone read the series of books Left Behind.
    The end is very interesting. The Devil takes over.

    No one wants to challenge this man.
    This seems like a nightmare.

  20. neetabug,

    Yes, I have read the entire series and yes it eerily similiar. Many are convinced he is the “One”. Personally I think its Soros and Obama is the enabler.
    I was watching GlennBeckClips and the third one is being held back for some reason, it is apparently about what they have done to Limbaugh. Your right no one challenges the man. Admin own article about “where’s Lynn” apparently she and Hillary are not on the same boat anymore. It does make you wonder WHY there are helping this go down, unless they are working undercover, but they don’t seem like they are.
    Gates is kind of calling him out today by telling him to hurry up with the decision of Afganistan.

  21. Neetabug,
    It seems like everyone is under some sort of a spell. Oh boy does it, especially the media. All this with Israel getting lambasted constantly, it just doesn’t add up.

  22. confloyd something is going on. You are right nothing is adding up.

    It seems they want to take Israel out.

    Does everyone have an agenda. Including Hillary Bill, media etc.

    Just like i said the world in the mean time is going to pot

  23. The subtext of what I read about Obama vs The Chamber of Commerce and it is on the mind of every industry association when there is conflict.

    Sonny, we were here long before you got here and will be here long after you are gone. Life can be easy. or it can be difficult–its really up to you. . . . . . .

    Also, the fight he has picked with FOX is self defeating for him/

  24. The veteran president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has crossed lines that few labor leaders – even those who quietly agree with him – would go near.
    ————————————————–
    They were on Hillarys side in the campaign. The phone bank they ran in Indiana was the best I have ever seen. These are not the kind of people bambi should be fucking with, They will eat him for breakfast.

  25. They were on Hillarys side in the campaign. The phone bank they ran in Indiana was the best I have ever seen. These are not the kind of people bambi should be fucking with, They will eat him for breakfast.
    ————————————————–

    wbboei,

    i went to South Bend Ind. You are right they were great.

  26. Interesting coverage this AM: NBC NY Ch 4 is focusing on conflict of interest aspect of BO’s $15,000 a plate fundraiser tonight/some Wall Streeters (whom ch 4 says the DNC refused to name). Those paying top price will receive a ‘grip and grin’ with BO, and a picture. NBC NY will have more about possible conflict after the 7 AM hour. Interested as I am, I’ll not be watching that.

    FOX5 NY delayed coverage of O’s day in NYC until 2nd half of 6 o’clock hour, then spent most of its segment on his visit to FBI; played that very tired clip summarizing arrest of terror suspect Zazi. Barely mentioned the phrase ‘two fundraisers’.

  27. Reid offers doctors a deal

    By Alexander Bolton – 10/20/09

    The White House and Democratic leaders are offering doctors a deal: They’ll freeze cuts in Medicare payments to doctors in exchange for doctors’ support of healthcare reform.

    At a meeting on Capitol Hill last week with nearly a dozen doctors groups, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the Senate would take up separate legislation to halt scheduled Medicare cuts in doctor payments over the next 10 years. In return, Reid made it clear that he expected their support for the broader healthcare bill, according to four sources in the meeting.

    A spokesman for Reid declined to comment for this story.

    Also in the meeting were: Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.); Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.); White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel; Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag; and Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House healthcare office.

    “They said they’re going to need our help in getting healthcare reform over the goal line and they expect our support,” said a participant who represents doctors. “Reid, Baucus and Dodd. All three said the same thing: They want and expect our support.”

    At last week’s meeting, Emanuel and Orszag met with the doctors groups for only a few minutes at the start of the session before walking over to the House side of the Capitol. Doctors groups interpreted their short visit as a signal from the White House that it supported Reid and the Senate Democrats. A second participant said Emanuel and Orszag “were in for five minutes and then went to the House side to talk strategy.” “They were there because the White House wanted to show how serious they were and to give their stamp of approval,” said the source.

    Reid also asked that doctors ease up on demands for medical malpractice reform during the upcoming healthcare debate. Democrats have traditionally resisted calls for tort reform, which trial attorneys — a reliable base group — staunchly oppose. But the primary focus of the meeting was on Democratic plans to bring to the Senate floor a standalone bill costing nearly $250 billion that would freeze cuts in doctors’ payments mandated by a 1997 law. Without the freeze, doctors would see their Medicare payments drop by 21 percent next year and by 40 percent by 2016. The bill’s costs are not offset by tax increases or spending cuts at a time when the Obama administration estimates the federal deficit at $1.4 trillion.

    J. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association (AMA), said that it would be very difficult for doctors to support the broader Senate healthcare legislation if there were no effort to address long-term cuts to Medicare payments. The Finance Committee health reform bill would increase doctors’ payments by 0.5 percent in 2010 at a cost of $10 billion, but it would leave doctors facing a 25 percent cut in 2011. “It would be very challenging for physicians looking at a .5 percent increase next year and 25 percent cut the following year to say, ‘Yay, let’s support the reform bill’ or to say the health reform bill would be viable,” said Rohack.

    Rohack, who did not attend last week’s meeting, applauded Reid for moving a separate bill and “highlighting this program of broken physician payment formula that has to be solved.”

    Richard Deem, AMA’s representative at the meeting, spoke positively about Democrats’ efforts to pass both the doctor payment fix and healthcare reform after Reid made his presentation, according to sources in the room. The AMA has begun airing television advertisements in a dozen states in support of the bill freezing doctors’ payment cuts. A source with another doctors group said the AMA announced to allies last week that the campaign would cost $2 million.

    The AMA, considered one of the most influential healthcare trade groups, spent $8.1 million on lobbying through the first six months of this year.

    Reid and other Democratic leaders said they would rely on doctors groups to round up enough votes to pass the “doctors fix” legislation at a time of high anxiety over the deficit. But they also made clear that Democrats expect something in return for pushing a bill that Republicans will criticize as fiscally reckless.

    Leaders stressed the importance of supporting healthcare reform, but Reid also urged doctors to go easy on their longstanding demands for tort reform. “It was a brief remark that was said like, ‘Oh yeah, one more thing.’ He said, ‘I would appreciate it if you don’ t push for medical liability reform amendments. We know how things stand in the Senate and we can get some good things done for doctors on other issues. Let’s work together,’ ” according to a source who described Reid’s remarks.

    Three other sources confirmed Reid made the remarks. The representative of one doctors group, however, characterized Reid’s comments on medical malpractice reform as less explicit. This source said Reid merely argued that medical malpractice reform would save little money and that it would not have close to enough votes to pass the Senate.

    Addressing a joint session of Congress in September, President Barack Obama raised the possibility of including some measure of tort reform in the healthcare overhaul as a way to entice Republicans to sign on. For years Republicans have said that excessive malpractice lawsuits contribute greatly to the rising cost of healthcare.

    A White House aide who was briefed on the meeting said that it should not be viewed as a deal because doctors groups have yet to agree to any concessions. That contrasts with the pharmaceutical industry, which struck a deal with the White House under which it would support healthcare reform and provide $80 billion in savings to seniors on brand-name prescription drugs.

    White House officials and Baucus also struck a deal with hospitals to lure their support. The Senate Finance Committee’s bill would exempt hospitals from federal payment cuts mandated by a new Medicare Payment Advisory commission it would create.

    At last week’s meeting with Democratic leaders were representatives from the AMA, the American College of Surgeons, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Alliance of Specialty Medicine, the American Osteopathic Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

    Several of these groups have raised strong objections to provisions in the Senate Finance Committee’s legislation, such as the proposed creation of the Medicare commission and a 5 percent cut in payments to doctors who rank in the top 10 percent for amount of Medicare resources used. Healthcare policy experts say that organized opposition from doctors, whom Americans consistently rank as highly trustworthy in public opinion polls, could derail efforts to overhaul the nation’s health system.

    “What’s really important is that doctors are not vocally in opposition,” said Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes in healthcare financing. “If they mobilize strongly in opposition and ran ads and talked to their patients, it hurts. It would be a serious obstacle. As long as they’re not out fighting, I think the administration has achieved most of the gain.”

    http://offers-docs-a-deal

  28. Over Half of Americans Are Not Confident in White House on Economy

    Tue Oct 20, 2009
    NEW YORK–(Business Wire)–

    Seven in ten Americans continue to rate job market as bad

    As the White House continues to have a very split focus on issues ranging from health care to Afghanistan to education, one area where Americans are losing confidence is in the economy. Over half of U.S. adults (56%) are now not confident that the White House and the Administration will produce policies to help fix the economic crisis, while the remaining 44% are confident. This is down from September when feelings were more divided – 52% of Americans were not confident and 48% were confident.

    These are some of the results of The Harris Poll® of 2,293 adults surveyed online between October 5 and 12, 2009 by Harris Interactive®.

    The economy in the future

    Looking ahead, there is also a continuing sense of pessimism in where the economy will be going in the coming year. Now, one-third of Americans (34%) believe the economy will improve while 29% say it will get worse in the coming year and 37% believe it will stay the same. In September, people were more hopeful; 40% believed the economy would improve in the coming year and
    one-quarter (24%) said it would get worse.

    When it comes to the financial situation a little closer to home, things have not changed much from last month. In September, when asked about their household`s financial condition in the next six months, 23% of Americans said it
    would be better, almost half (48%) said it would remain the same and 29% believed their household`s financial condition would get worse. This month, 23% still believe it will get better, while 45% say it will remain the same and 31%
    believe it will get worse in the next six months.

    There is a regional difference on household financial condition. Those in the West are more optimistic about the future with over one-quarter (27%) saying things will get better and the same number (27%) believing it will get worse in
    the next six months. Those in the Midwest are the most pessimistic, however. One in five Midwesterners (20%) say it will get better while one-third (33%) believe their household`s financial condition will get worse in the next six months.

    The job market

    One area where the negativity continues to be strong is the job market. Just one in ten Americans (10%) say the current job market of their region of the country is good with seven in ten (70%) saying it is bad and 20% saying it is neither good nor bad. This is almost unchanged from last month when 10% believed the job
    market was good and 68% believed it was bad. The Midwest again is the most negative as only 6% feel the job market in their region is good and almost four in five (78%) say it is bad. Easterners are more positive with 13% believing the job market is good and 65% saying it is bad.

    So what?

    Unemployment is moving ever closer to the 10% mark nationwide and, as it does, Americans are continuing to be anxious about this major part of the economy. Other economic indicators such as the stock market and corporate profits have
    improved, but what matters to most people are the tangibles – and employment is definitely a tangible in the minds of Americans. If they haven`t been laid off themselves, they most likely know someone who has. And even if they don`t, the odds are quite good that the fear of the possibility of being laid off is never
    too far from their thoughts. Until this feeling leaves, they will not change their overall feelings on the economy, which is undermining confidence in the Obama administration`s ability to do much about the current economic situation.

    reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS84826+20-Oct-2009+BW20091020

  29. Maria Shriver is pushing the Soros agenda for the Center for American Progress by promoting social change for women shifting their matriarchal role as the family caregiver and career mom to the breadwinner of the family while their (?unemployed?) husbands take on the role of Mr. Mom/househusband.

    I’d rather see Shriver more concerned about the rising unemployment in the country for men and women and asking why the president isn’t doing something about it; than substituting dialog promoting “shifting” social change as the solution for nationwide unemployment.

  30. Maria Shriver is pushing the Soros agenda for the Center for American Progress by promoting social change for women shifting their matriarchal role as the family caregiver and career mom to the breadwinner of the family while their (?unemployed?) husbands take on the role of Mr. Mom/househusband.
    **************************

    Disgusting, but does this mean Ca is finally done with “Arnold” and Maria will get off her Way too skinny butt and do some real work?

    When you say Lynn is not in the same boat as Hillary, where is the proof of that besides her not being @ the conference?

  31. confloyd at 8:00 AM So what was/s BO doing at the FBI ? I would be more interested in the FBI visit!
    ——————————-
    Praising them for their investigative work and subsequent arrest of alleged terrorist Zazi, thus preventing the bombing of NYC transporatation as was accomplisehd overseas [England or Spain maybe?]. Zazi is the one we’ve seen ad nauseum pushing a shopping cart in a drug store for the alleged purpose of buying large quantities of hydrogen peroxide. Think the story is now several weeks old but ObamaNews loves to keep it alive.

    BTW – logged on just to peak at Rasmussen Pres Track: minus 12 today. Even the stock market is not helping him.

  32. Yes. bambi at the FBI is for thanking them for their anti-terrorism efforts. Another kodak moment. He is also in N.Y. for 2010 election support and will be in Florida for the same reason next week to add to the coffers.

    I guess nothing is pressing back at the WH right now that he has to be present.

  33. Monday, October 19, 2009

    The White House vs. Fox News: It’s About Control [Guy Benson]

    The president of the United States — a man who successfully campaigned as a post-partisan healer who abjured the partisan backbiting that he said characterized Washington’s politics — has either ordered or permitted a hyper-political PR blitz against a major news outlet, Fox News.

    First, the official (taxpayer funded and supposedly apolitical) White House website started devoting a page to chronicling the network’s “lies.” Within the past week, three members of President Obama’s inner circle have appeared on “real” news programs to lob rhetorical grenades at their new nemisis, dismissing Fox as a mere vehicle for Republican propaganda. They’ve also intentionally hampered the network’s access to newsmakers, freezing out their target by denying Fox interviews with administration officials. As Karl Rove notes, Fox now sits atop this spiteful administration’s growing enemies list.

    Why might this be? The administration seems to have moved on from its previous, cynical campaign to discredit Rush Limbaugh. Why bother hammering Rush from the ultimate bully pulpit when the rest of the lefty echo chamber is promulgating that meme quite nicely—reporting fabricated quotes as facts, and wondering aloud whether Limbaugh is a genuine bigot, or just plays one on the radio. (Shame on Michael Wilbon, of whom I’m usually an admirer).

    Meanwhile, Fox News’ reporting has created a number of headaches for the president recently. His “green jobs” czar, Van Jones, was forced to resign after Fox revealed his communist ties, 9/11 trutherism, and other toxic alliances. Another official, “safe schools” czar Kevin Jennings, is also on the ropes. Fox correspondent Major Garrett dogged the White House with tough questions about its controversial “misinformation” snitch line and the mysterious unsoliticted political spam email scandal. These important queries each exposed inappropriate Obama policies, both of which were changed due to public pressure.

    By reporting on these controversies—all deemed “distractions” of some sort by the White House — Fox committed the journalistic sin of complicating Obama’s domestic agenda, including health care reform, cap and trade, etc. Apparently, the news media’s unofficial mission statement of “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable” has become a quaint anachronism of a bygone era. At least when an ideologically enlightened administration is in power.

    Fox’s trangressions, the Obama braintrust has concluded, require a White House retaliatory response. The administration’s director of communications, Anita Dunn, got things rolling last weekend with this nine-minute denunciation of Fox News:

    youtube.com/watch?v=1AEt180Wnls&feature=player_embedded

    This whining is especially rich coming from a woman who is on videotape lavishing praise on a Communist dictator responsible for ~70 million deaths over the course of a merciless reign. (The stunning Mao story, broken by Fox commentator Glenn Beck, has been met with shrugs and silence from the “real” media).

    But Ms. Dunn’s ‘nine-minutes-hate’ session wasn’t enough. While shutting out Fox network’s respected anchor Chris Wallace, top Obama advisors Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod were all over the other Sunday morning programs this week, reiterating the party line. Basically, they say, the White House doesn’t view Fox News as a true news outlet. No—they have a “perspective,” you see. By castigating Fox, they’re discouraging Obama-approved outlets from following Fox’s lead on news judgement, story selection, etc. That’s not my theory. That’s Axelrod/Emanuel’s stated goal:

    youtube.com/watch?v=O-w7-G8PLyc&feature=player_embedded

    “[Fox is] not really a news station…and the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way.”

    youtube.com/watch?v=BzKc-kxEP1A&feature=player_embedded

    “The way the president looks at it is…it’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. And that’s a different take. And more importantly, is not have the CNN’s and the others in the world basically be led and following Fox as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization in the sense of both sides and a sense of valued/valid opinion.”

    Oh yes, because everyone knows that, say, MSNBC — with its primetime lineup of Chris “Leg Thrill” Matthews, Ed “They-want-you-dead” Schultz, Keith “Mashed-up-Bag-of-Meat” Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow — doesn’t harbor any sort of verboten “perspective.”

    Both Axelrod and Emanuel not only brand Fox with a legitimacy scarlet letter, they also implore the rest of the media to actively ignore Fox’s newsgathering decisions. In other words, they’re reminding their friends in the press corps to play patty-cake with the White House and ignore Fox’s “distractions” from “progress,” or risk their own access to power. I’m sure Journalism professors from coast to coast are penning op-eds denouncing this blatant political bullying as we speak. Also note Emanuel’s gripe that Fox doesn’t engage in reporting “both sides” of a story (demonstrably false), and that it doesn’t promote a “sense of valued/valid” opinions. He rushes his delivery of that sentence, so it’s difficult to discern which word he actually uses, but the message is unchanged: The prevailing opinion programming slant of Fox News is either (a) entirely unwelcome to this White House, or (b) just as “illegitimate” as the news coverage. A follow-up question from CNN’s John King to explore this assertion would have been nice.

    Again, Fox News’ real offense is its outrageous refusal to be controlled by a political operation that has grown dangerously accustomed to playing puppetmaster. This upsets them. As Anita Dunn (she’s back!) explains in a recent interview, the Obama campaign drove home its messaging in 2008 by tightly controlling the media and forcing the press to stick to preferred storylines (not that most journalists needed much convincing). Notice the number of times Dunn boasts about “control” in this clip:

    youtube.com/watch?v=1rBp7L4WACk&feature=player_embedded

    Very rarely did we communicate anything through the press that we didn’t absolutely control.”

    There’s a term for people like this, isn’t there? Oh, right: Control freaks.

    Message discipline is a crucial element of any political campaign (although generally the media tries to knock camps off their pre-determined messages, rather than universally celebrating the messenger), but Team Obama has taken the idea to a new level. They’re proud of it, and they expect their ability to “absolutely control” any given narrative to continue, largely unchallenged. Those deemed most responsible for afflicting Obama’s comfort must be mocked, belittled, and ultimately punished.

    Fox News is being made into an example by a vengeful, deeply ideological White House. Gone is the “bringing people together” blather of the campaign trail. Here to stay is Obama the Aliskyite. This adminstration has learned well from the Godfather of community organizing.

    Saul Alinsky’s Rule for Radicals #13:

    Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.

    In its escalating hostility toward the network, the Obama White House is checking all of those boxes, and doing so with the smug assumption that no one will call them on it.

    media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDhkNzk1ZmQ4MTM1ZDA2NDYzZTY3MWVkYjBjNTEyMzI=#

  34. Mrs. Smith,

    Maria Shriver is pushing the Soros agenda for the Center for American Progress by promoting social change for women shifting their matriarchal role as the family caregiver and career mom to the breadwinner of the family while their (?unemployed?) husbands take on the role of Mr. Mom/househusband.
    —————————————————————————————————————————

    Isn’t this what has happened to the AA community?? The black women works while the man sits idley by and merely fathers children?? Is this the Soros agenda, imasculate the men (unemployment) while giving the women (employment) the job of being wife, mother, caregiver, breadwinner. Isn’t this what is causing the downfall of the black population in America?? The only thing left for Soros agenda to be complete is the legalization of drugs (all drugs). What better way to bring down white america, is to put them in the same position as black america. I think Soros’s overall plan is to have all of america a ghetto! I read an article on Soros that said he was for legalization of all drugs and to make them cheap, real cheap, then raise the prices.

    HIS OVERALL PLAN IS TO DESTROY AMERICA AND HIS PUPPET IS GOING ALONG WITH IT.

  35. gonzotx Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 10:07 am “Disgusting, but does this mean Ca is finally done with “Arnold” and Maria will get off her Way too skinny butt and do some real work?”

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    Shriver is another political operative for the Soros agenda. She uses the words “social shift” every five minutes in her group talks. Attempting to refocus their attention to the benefits of alternative role changes for men and women instead of focusing on job creation as should be the topic promoting a “healthy” society attaining gainful employment and a sense of accomplishment in the workplace, especially for men.

    When asked a question, she invariably gives the wrong answer back-peddling once again into the social change paradigm. She is very authoritative and aggressive with the folks listening to her propaganda, speaking to them, as if she knows firsthand, her model for social change, will enhance the culture and life style of Americans.

    What a pantload-

  36. confloyd Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

    Yes, confloyd exactly right! Turn America into a Third World country, a failed Democracy, leaving it’s people worse off then it ever was in it’s entire history. Because Mr Soros believes in his warped mind only the wealthy elites deserve to have the all the comforts and privileges money can buy.

  37. # confloyd Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 12:40 pm

    As I said before, Shriver will run for POTUS in the near future.

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

    Shriver speaks from a position of entitlement- all talk, no action. She may have the gift of speaking but she doesn’t have the depth of knowledge of our candidate- Hillary.

    I think of her as the loudmouth alter ego of her dumb-ass cousin Caroline.

  38. Mrs. Smith, check this out! Obama’s ” I will stand with the muslims” ring true with this scary video!! This is his ultimate plan!

    h t t p :/ /w w w. youtube. com/ watch?v=gc64oQD59_g

  39. WOW!! Watch this!

    h t t p ://www. yo utube .com/watch?v= 9MHbta2FRf0

    Wbboei, you are right, civil war is at hand!

  40. Michelle Obama set for Leno show

    Michelle Obama appeared on Jay Leno’s previous show last year
    Michelle Obama is to appear on The Jay Leno Show this Friday as part of a brief comedy sketch.

    news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8316982.stm

    ————————–

    Puhleeeeeeeeeze! meme doesn’t have an ounce of humor in her body.

  41. Congress, Pelosi, not popular in Cali, says survey
    By: Susan Ferrechio
    Chief Congressional Correspondent
    10/19/09

    A Field Research poll finds that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not very popular in California, but that her Democratic senate counterparts are faring a little better in the eyes of voters.

    The survey found that 44 percent of registered voters in the state do not approve of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s job performance, up from 35 percent in March. Pelosi is a Democrat who represents the San Francisco area. It’s the most negative score the Field Research poll has given her since she took the leadership post.

    Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, on the other hand, got a disapproval rating of just 35 percent from California voters, a slight increase from 32 percent she earned in March. Sen. Barbara Boxer, also a Democrat, did not fare quite as well and earned a disapproval rating of 37 percent, a six percent increase from March.

    The worst score of all, however, was earned by Congress. Of the more than 1,000 registered surveyed, 66 percent said they disapprove of the job lawmakers are doing, a whopping 13 percent increase from seven months ago. Just 23 percent of those surveyed in October said they approve of the job Congress is doing, while 11 percent said they had no opinion.

    washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Congress-Pelosi-not-popular-in-Cali-says-survey-64816082.html

  42. neetabug Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 5:56 am

    Our constitution is being torn to shreds and there is no one or nothing stopping it.
    ————————————————–

    This is what i don’t understand. There is Hillary, Bill, etc. I know they are aware of what is going on. Are they going to let this world go to pot and not do anything about this.

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

    In 1998 I was saying things like this about the Impeachment. We’d have President of the Month from then on. Didn’t happen; the WH has become more powerful, not less.

    In 2000 people were saying things like that about the Bush Supreme Court putting in Bush Jr on the recouns. People thought Bush would stop any further elections happening. The GOP was going to consolidate their power and be a permanent majority.
    Instead, excess led to a backlash, such that any Dem could have won in 2008.

    The Constitution can’t be shredded, becuase the next decade will just ignore the last decade’s shredding and shred some other part instead.

    The SAME SC that Selected Bush Jr (well, maybe plus a couple of Bush Jr appointees), now is giving Obama a pass on his birth certificate.

  43. From an interesting longer article.

    h…/..w

    foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/19/howard_roark_in_new_delhi?page=0

    Howard Roark in New Delhi
    The surprising popularity of a libertarian hero in India.
    BY JENNIFER BURNS | NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009

    Consumer spending in the United States may be down, but an interest in Ayn Rand certainly is not. Sales of Rand’s last novel, the vigorously pro-capitalism fable Atlas Shrugged, have seen a huge leap in 2009, briefly outperforming even President Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope on Amazon’s best-seller list. Few 1,000-page, half-century-old tomes can claim so much.
    At tea parties and town halls nationwide, amid outrage over government bailouts of Wall Street banks and Detroit carmakers and the supposed socialization of health care, protesters speak of “going Galt,” refusing to work in what they see as a socialist economy, just as Rand’s hero John Galt did. Even the mea culpa of Rand’s most famous fan and follower, former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, has done little to dent the appeal of her radical individualism and libertarianism, which Rand shaped into a philosophy she called Objectivism. But all this makes a certain amount of sense. Perhaps more surprising is the Ayn Rand boom that is building in another mass democracy: India.

  44. Now MoDo sees Obama’s championship caliber compromising as a hindrance, that he’ll never really accomplish anything. Indeed, what we’ve said here for a long time.

    But before the election, she did not vet the newbie, and urged us to vote him into office precisely because he’d be such a good listener, a healer of the nation, the Best Damned Compriser There Ever Was. He’d be smart, informed. A uniter, not a divid… Aha, BUSH III indeed!!!!

  45. neetabug, confloyd – 6:25am

    Something’s happening here
    What it is ain’t exactly clear.

    I’ve had the intuition instinct thingie for a couple of days and it’s never been wrong – don’t know what it is – don’t think it’s going to bad be for us (the non-obamanites) – but something’s about to break – it may start with a hairline fracture – When you’ve got biden saying the US in a depression – timings off – something’s going down.

    There’s something happening here
    What it is ain’t exactly clear
    There’s a man with a gun over there
    Telling me I got to beware

    I think it’s time we stop, children, what’s that sound
    Everybody look what’s going down

    There’s battle lines being drawn
    Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong

    Paranoia strikes deep
    Into your life it will creep
    It starts when you’re always afraid
    You step out of line, the man come and take you away

  46. And we are allowing them to visit our nukes without reciprical agreements as of this point. This has been the most shameful period I have eve ecxperienced as an American in my 47 yrs. A Chicago huckster, backed by a conglomerate of evil people/organizations withunlimited wealth, whose goal is to change the very nature of our democracy…..and sadly, it is happening slowly but surely.

  47. This language is slanted. It makes too much of a difference of 9 points: Pelosi 44, Feinstein 35.

    A Field Research poll finds that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not very popular in California [….] 44 percent of registered voters in the state do not approve of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s job performance [….]
    Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, on the other hand, got a disapproval rating of just 35 percent from California voters

  48. Cyber squatters drive false Twitter-Google rumours
    Micro-blogging site accused of favouring Google

    Rosalie Marshall
    20 Oct 2009

    Twitter was accused yesterday of giving Google access to private user accounts, apparently including high-profile micro-bloggers such as former US president Bill Clinton.

    Google has been able to crawl through Clinton’s tweets and display them in search results, even though Clinton protected his accounts so that only chosen contacts could see his updates, according to a Los Angeles Times blog post.

    However, it now appears that the Clinton tweets that Google displayed, which ranged from his thoughts on Hillary Clinton to John Edwards, have come from a fake Clinton account, appropriately named ‘notbillclinton’. Commentators have also said that the other protected accounts to which Google apparently had access were probably not protected when they were first cached by Google.

    If Twitter had an agreement in place with Google that allows it to search through all of its tweets, the news would be significant because it would have shown favouritism to Google over its major search rival Microsoft.

    Earlier this month it was reported that Twitter was in talks with Google and Microsoft about allowing the search companies to license feeds from the micro-blogging service.

    Twitter could not be reached for comment at the time of writing.

    v3.co.uk/v3/news/2251643/cyber-squatters-drive-twitter#

  49. Clinton Plans “Major” Nonproliferation Speech
    Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2009

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled tomorrow to give what her agency is calling a “major nonproliferation policy address” in Washington, Politico reported (see GSN, Oct. 9).

    The Obama administration’s top diplomat “will discuss the urgency and priority of the nonproliferation and arms control agenda,” according to one adviser. “She will outline a diplomatic blueprint for implementing the vision the president set forth in Prague (see GSN, April 6). She will describe the specific steps the United States intends to take and call on other states to do their part as well. Among other things, she will set forth an approach to: thwarting the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea; creating a stronger IAEA with more tools to go after violators; impeding sensitive nuclear trade; and securing loose nuclear materials.”

    Clinton also intends to press for ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and a replacement for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the source said (see related GSN story, today; Laura Rozen, Politico, Oct. 19).

    globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20091020_9114.php

  50. Not even for Sarah Palin will I watch Winfrey ever again. Still for those of you who are braver than me, here is the following information.

    Oprah Winfrey to interview Sarah Palin

    CHICAGO — Sarah Palin is going to sit down with Oprah Winfrey.

    Harpo Productions announced Tuesday that the former governor of Alaska and Republican vice presidential candidate will appear on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” on Monday, Nov. 16.

    According to Harpo, the interview will be Palin’s first about her new book, “Going Rogue: An American Life,” and it will be the first time Palin and Winfrey will meet.

    Palin’s book was No. 4 on Amazon.com’s best-seller list on Tuesday. It’s slated to be released Tuesday, Nov. 17, the day after Palin’s interview with Winfrey.

    google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hp5n6zoE8E-zEsmP4dl4d8LnzpPgD9BF07382

  51. Don’t know if this was posted earlier.. sorry if it’s a repeat..in addition to the article check out the poll in the middle of the page..

    Chicago Sun Times

    “Excuses Wearing Thin for Obama, Media Pals”

    h t t p://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/1834209,CST-EDT-HUNT20.article#

  52. Clinton Plans “Major” Nonproliferation Speech
    Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2009
    ******************

    Since when did they let Hillary have a MAJOR speech?

    Somethings not right

  53. Hague to meet Clinton in Washington
    (UKPA) – 1 hour ago

    Shadow foreign secretary William Hague is due to meet US secretary of state Hillary Clinton for talks during a visit to Washington.

    Conservative aides said they expected the discussions to cover a wide range of international topics, including Afghanistan, the Middle East peace process, Iran’s nuclear programme and political developments in the Balkans.

    Mr Hague is also due to meet national security adviser general Jim Jones and attend a briefing on strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan at the Pentagon.

    He is scheduled to meet chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee Senator John Kerry, former presidential candidate Senator John McCain and the president of the World Bank Robert Zoellick.

    Speaking ahead of his visit, Mr Hague said: “Few of the pressing foreign policy challenges we face today can be addressed without US leadership and without strong and effective co-operation between the United States and Great Britain.

    “With this in mind, I am visiting the US to reaffirm our historic alliance and underline the Conservative Party’s firm commitment to addressing the common global challenges which confront us and to working with the Obama administration to that end.”

    google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5g-dfj14gchbuyDgN-vnGAkrqwCaw

  54. Please embed Admin…I think you will like it
    found @ BP
    ****************************

    Zo Responds To ‘Go Back To The Porch’ Comment Aimed At Juan Williams: ‘We’re Not Sell-Outs. We’re Just Out-Out Of The Shackles That You’re Still In’…

    youtube.com/watch?v=aU47yhAHO94&feature=player_embedded#

  55. Gonzo,

    More specifics…

    ———————
    Clinton to outline steps for Obama’s nuke-free world

    By Lachlan Carmichael, Agence France-Presse
    October 20, 2009

    WASHINGTON – US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is set Wednesday to outline key steps Washington will take to fulfill President Barack Obama’s vision of a world free of nuclear weapons.

    In a speech in Washington, Clinton will show how the world will be safer through a new US-Russia nuclear arms reduction treaty as well as broader ratification of a treaty banning nuclear weapons tests, officials said. “It’s going to be an important opportunity for the secretary to lay out our priorities to implement the president’s vision at Prague,” Clinton’s spokesman Ian Kelly said Tuesday.

    In a speech in the Czech capital on April 5, Obama pledged to lead a quest for a world purged of atomic weapons when he unveiled a plan to cut stockpiles, curtail testing, choke fissile production and secure loose nuclear material.

    “I think she’ll touch on some of the steps that we’re working hard on to get to that point, including a successor regime to the START treaty and also the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), which is coming up,” he said.

    A new review conference for the NPT is scheduled for next year.

    Washington and Moscow are pursuing negotiations for a successor to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which strictly limits US and Russian arsenals and is seen as a cornerstone of Cold War-era strategic arms control.

    The talks made little progress under former US president George W. Bush. But Clinton said during talks in Moscow last week that US and Russian negotiators were on schedule to complete an agreement by the time the treaty expires on December 5.

    A new negotiating session, set to last two weeks, opened Monday in Geneva, with the US side headed by Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, Kelly said.

    With the deadline drawing closer, “both sides are negotiating intensively and seriously,” Kelly said Monday. “I think that both sides exchanged drafts of an agreement… There’s a lot of overlap in the agreement, so there’s progress in that respect,” the spokesman said.

    A senior State Department official told AFP that Clinton “will describe how taking steps,” including those to secure a new START agreement, “will make our country safer and more secure and enhance international stability.”

    The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said these also include ratification of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the start of work on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

    Six countries — the United States, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, China and Egypt — have signed but not ratified the pact. North Korea, India and Pakistan have not signed it and all three have carried out nuclear tests since 1996.

    montrealgazette.com/news/world/Clinton+outline+steps+Obama+nuke+free+world/2125714/story.html

  56. October 20, 2009
    Did Obama swing his own Nobel?
    By James Lewis

    Napoleon famously crowned himself Emperor of France and its conquered European empire, which he was trying to spread to Russia, Britain and Egypt, in its brief moment of grandeur. I’m wondering if Obama also crowned himself Nobel Laureate right after the US election. That would fit his vainglorious persona and his famished ego, always hungry for more and more applause. Just wait till we see his Nobel PC Address being televised around the world. America is too little for Zero.

    Obama obviously thinks of himself as a Man of Destiny, like Napoleon and quite a few other Saviors on Horseback. Men of Destiny don’t wait for the world to recognize their superhuman virtues. They know it from the start, and by gum, the rest of the world better catch up quick. As Nicolas Sarkozy has said, Obama is “utterly immature… arrogant … empty of all content.” This is the Prez of France, who lives in a Heavenly Palace near the Avenue of the Heavenly Fields — the Champs-Élysées. He’s an expert on the swelled head, since every president of France is required to have one.

    The latest rumor is that three of the five Norwegian political hacks on the PC Committee were against giving the golden bauble to Our Messiah (Peace Be Upon Him!) — until something made them change their minds. The two members of the ruling party apparently talked the other three into making it “unanimous.” Now they’re all getting big flak and scurrying for cover.

    According to Alexander Downer, former Foreign Minister of Australia, “Electing President Barack Obama for the Peace Prize was a political decision of gross stupidity.”

    Writes Mr. Downer,

    “There are five Norwegian MPs on the committee, three from the left and two from the right. There is a woman called Sissel Ronbeck, who is a Labour MP. In her earlier years she was the chairman of the Norwegian Workers Youth League. Then there is Ms. Agot Valle, of the Socialist Left Party. There is a Conservative and a member of the libertarian Progress Party. And then there’s the chairman, the most important of all the members of the committee. He is a man called Thorbjorn Jagland.

    … He is a member of the Norwegian Labour Party.”

    So three socialists, one Libertarian, and one Conservative (by Norwegian standards) were finally talked into giving the first International Prize for Trying Really Hard.

    Norway has only 4.5 million people — fewer than Cook County, IL — and it’s hard to keep a secret. This is an international embarrassment, and half of Norway must be asking questions behind the scenes. How the hell did this happen? It’s the biggest embarrassment since Vidkund Quisling.

    So my question is: How did Rahm Emanuel talk the Oslo Labour Party into arm-twisting the three No votes on the Committee? You can bet that Hillary wasn’t handling it. Hillary could never be trusted to swing a Nobel for the Big O. It had to be the White House, and they could promise favors or threaten punishment for the ruling party in Norway. That’s how Rahm usually gets it done, as he made clear during his infamous table-stabbing speech in the Clinton years.

    Remember, this sleazy award made the whole Nobel PC Prize look idiotic, even to the brainwashed masses. They sacrificed whatever credibility they had left after the Al Gore fiasco. But even the BBC just confessed that global warming doesn’t exist, and John Tierney, the Only Honest Man at the New York Times, is even beginning to bring a smidgen of sanity to that madhouse. The Nobel establishment must be wondering whether Algore is going down in flames — which he will very soon. When that becomes obvious, they can kiss their Nobel PC Prize goodbye. It’ll be a global farce, just like the UN “Human Rights” Commission, which gladly welcomes genociders to its ranks.

    So the three skeptical committee members might have realized that their credibility was on the line. After the Obama Preemptive PC Prize no sane person will ever believe that it has any integrity, that it hasn’t been utterly politicized — the way the Left politicizes everything.

    After all, the Feminist Left even politicized motherhood. All the traditional loyalties are just shotgun targets for Leftist takedown: Free speech, academic freedom, a genuinely free press, God, scientific integrity, the individual, the sanctity of life, private contracts, private property, the U.S. Constitution, the free web, hard work and sacrifice, love of country, family loyalty, marriage, babies, fatherhood, motherhood — and now with Obama’s “Safe Schools” Commissar Kevin Jennings, even childhood is no longer sacred.

    That’s why Jennings wrote his piece for Queering Elementary Education — Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling (Curriculum, Schooling, and (Homo) Sexualities. That must be why he is now the de facto Gay Commissar in Obama’s Education Department. He came to power in the LGBT world for Queering the Elementary School. It’s on the public record, and his heroic stance on expanding the sexuality of little kids obviously didn’t hurt his political career in LGBT — which is why he is now in charge of “safe schools” for Obama.

    Jennings built a political career out of his publicly stated ambition to meddle with the sexual development of elementary school kids, and ended up gracing Obama’s White House. Look it up on Amazon if you doubt it.

    I used to wonder why Dante needed so many circles in his Hell to punish evildoers. I thought he was some kind of madman. Now I think Dante was right. There really are degrees of more and more evil. Where do you think Dante would have put Kevin Jennings? Or all those who enable the Jenningses in politics? Beat poet Allen Ginsburg, another celebrated sexual predator of the Left, is quoted as yelling “We will get you through your children.” Well, Obama seems determined to fulfill that promise.

    We used to throw childhood predators in jail, but now we give them big jobs in the White House. On top of that Obama just promised to allow Gay politics to be publicly celebrated in the military. We have seen where that leads. This is not a matter of Gay rights but Gay aggression — unless somebody would like to put on an annual Heterosexual Parade in the military just for balance. But no, that would be persecution of a designated victim group. It’s heads I win, tails you lose.

    Compared to all those swamps of corruption the Nobel Peace Prize means nothing. The world can live without it. Saving just a single kid from the clutches of Kevin Jennings’ Brave New Elementary School is worth all the Nobels in the world. The Nobel PC Prizes have sometimes been pretty dubious, and over time they have become a mark of Cain. It’s like the Imperial Deutschmark. Or the dollar. Even the most valued symbols can turn sour.

    For the Left there is no integrity, no honesty, no truth and no morality outside of its lust for power. Three of the five Committee members apparently understood the big gamble they were taking. But they still gave in to the two pols from the Labour Party.

    Why?

    I don’t know the answer.

    But it’s important to pay attention, because this is another indication that we are slipping toward a corruptocracy to rival Chicago in the days of Al Capone’s Mob.

    It looks like Obama is Hizzoner Da Mare and da Dems are da Machine.

  57. Steve Huntley

    Excuses wearing thin for Obama, media pals

    October 20, 2009

    BY STEVE HUNTLEY
    Have you heard the news? President Obama inherited an economic mess from the Bush administration.

    You say that’s hardly news? But it’s been the message sounded over and over by the White House. Top Obama adviser David Axelrod said on one of the Sunday news shows, “He walked in the door, we had the worst economy since the Great Depression.” In San Francisco, Obama talked of being “busy with our mop.” White House heavy hitter Rahm Emanuel used the worst-economy-since-the-Depression line on a public TV news show.

    You’d think it’s October 2008, the final month in the Obama presidential candidacy, rather than October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency. Yet the Obama White House is in full campaign mode — maybe because it needs to mask the shortcomings of the Obama presidency.

    Take, for example, all the talk of inheriting the worst economy since the 1930s crisis. That came in response to the news that the federal deficit hit $1.4 trillion.

    Yet just a few months ago, the Obama camp was singing a little different tune. It was under criticism for the $787 billion stimulus package it bulldozed through Congress on grounds that massive spending was needed to keep the unemployment rate from breaching 8 percent. When joblessness hit 9.5 percent in June, Vice President Joe Biden said, “We misread how bad the economy was.”

    They inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, or the economy turned out to be worse than they thought. Which is it? It can’t be both — unless your brain is completely addled by the Obama charisma.

    Obama is still popular, but polls show the public losing faith in his policies. Another indicator was a ”Saturday Night Live” skit lampooning Obama for the major accomplishments of his administration — “jack and squat.” If the honeymoon is ending with the American voter, it isn’t for obsequious elements of the mainstream media. CNN prostrated itself by fact-checking the ”SNL” comedy skit.

    But that’s harmless compared to the virulent campaign against Obama critics carried out by the denizens of MSNBC. Its Obama acolytes seek to demonize opponents of Obama’s policies by focusing on most marginal corners of right-wing politics like, for example, the “birthers” who deny Obama is a natural born citizen. The larger scheme is to imply Obama critics are racists.

    That’s the backdrop to the story of Rush Limbaugh getting booted from a group bidding to buy the St. Louis Rams. He was smeared on CNN and MSNBC with false accusations of making two racist comments. He is an abrasive critic of Obama, so he must be racist, or so goes the left-wing story line. I wouldn’t defend everything Limbaugh has ever said, but lies were used to blacklist him from professional football for his political views.

    Recently an MSNBC personality accused the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of lobbying for policies that amount to being “treasonous to this country.” Remember how liberals roared in outrage at any hint of their patriotism being questioned for criticizing the Iraq War? Well, it’s the left that doesn’t shy from attacking the patriotism of those it dislikes. Recall the repulsive Moveon.org “General Betray-us” ad against Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus. Recent opposition to Chicago’s Olympic bid was cast as a sign of a lack of patriotism among Obama critics.

    The MSNBC blast against the chamber appears to dovetail with what the Politico newspaper reports is a White House and Democratic effort “to marginalize” the business organization. That echoes the administration assault on the Fox News Channel: It says Fox isn’t a news organization.

    The White House trying to dictate who’s a news organization. Democrats out to gut a business group. Obama media allies damning Americans as racist, unpatriotic and treasonous. Is this the America Obama promised when he campaigned to end the cynical and divisive politics of the past?

  58. I found this site when I was researching the Tides Foundation (Soros). It is the brain child of one of his directors. I thought you guys might be interested in seeing what these nutcases think about.

    h t t p :/ /w w w .thenewcapitalist.com/?_c=1

  59. realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/20/does_anyone_know_barack_obama_98780.html#

    October 20, 2009

    Does Anyone Know Barack Obama?
    By Richard Cohen

    If, as the saying goes, the perfect is the enemy of the good, then Barack Obama is his own worst enemy. That becomes clear in the upcoming HBO documentary “By the People: The Election of Barack Obama,” which is the product of many months of behind-the-scenes access to Obama during the presidential campaign. It reveals — you will be surprised to learn — that Barack Obama is pretty close to the most perfect person you will never get to know.

    This is what he does not do in the course of the primary and general election campaigns: He does not lose his temper. He does not curse. He does not follow a pretty woman with his eyes or sneak a smoke. He does not dress sloppily. He is always calm and always good-natured and gets emotional only once — the day his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, the woman who in effect raised him, died in Hawaii. At a campaign event in North Carolina he expressed his love and gratitude. He cried and, watching, I did, too.

    I cried also at the very end of the documentary when African-Americans at one of the final campaign events cried at the imminence or the reality of his victory. But election night in this documentary is anti-climactic — a contained, pallid fizz of emotion. Usually, a picture is worth a thousand words. These pictures, mainly of Obama’s closest aides, have nothing to say. If these aides have a sense of history, they were keeping it to themselves.

    What’s striking about this inside look at Obama is how being inside gets you nowhere. It is virtually the same as being outside. What’s also striking about this movie is its lack of arc. Obama is always golden, always going to win and always does. His issue, if it can be called that, is himself. He is something new, something young, something biracial and something black, but he is not something from a political or ideological constituency. He is adored by his fans — the directors, Amy Rice and Alicia Sams, included — not for something he’s done, but rather for something he is. So far, that has been a weakness in Obama’s presidency.

    Obama’s lack of a bonded — as opposed to an associative — constituency is costing him. The political left is carping because it cannot be sure he is one of them. The right carps also but it alone knows that Obama is not one of them. He doesn’t go way back with the unions — he doesn’t go way back with anything — and the Jews are having second thoughts.

    In a conventional movie, the hero has to change. Something has to happen — the moment when character is revealed. Maybe he loses the girl and has to get her back. In politics, something similar is supposed to happen. You’ve got to have your PT 109, your Sunrise at Campobello, your walk on the beach with Billy Graham, your combat epiphany in Vietnam, your impoverished childhood, your peanut-farming family, your mission work abroad, your haberdashery that goes bankrupt.

    Obama has those moments — abandoned by his father, biracial in a world that prefers things neat, raised in Indonesia — but they are not cited as life-changing events. None of them, at any rate, are given much importance in the documentary. Even the bitter primary fight with Hillary Clinton — all that ugly stuff about race and Bill Clinton, of all people, being accused of playing the race card — could have been happening to someone else. Obama observes his own life. He’s not a participant. He calls Hillary to congratulate her on some insignificant win. “Bye bye,” he says without bitterness as he snaps his phone shut. He could have been talking to anyone.

    Does any of this matter, or is it merely interesting — themes for a columnist ducking Afghanistan for yet another week? I am not sure. If Obama ends the deepest recession since the Great Depression, if he enacts health care reform, if he succeeds in Afghanistan, then his presidency will have been remarkable, maybe even great — the triumph of intellect. The man will be his own movement.

    But if he fails in all or most of that, it will be because it is not enough to be the smartest person in the room. Warmth and commitment matter, too — a driving sense of conviction, the fulsome embrace of causes and not just issues. That is not something Obama has yet shown. See the movie.

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

    now, the journalists begin to ask…and the answer coming to the surface is that this guy is one big zero…a blase narcissist continually reaping the benefits of other’s hard work while never really doing anything or standing for anything himself

    …guess what, Cohen…a lot of us cried too because we knew the damage that this big zero was going to set in motion…

  60. alternet.org/workplace/143292/hightower:_obama,_time_to_work_on_creating_jobs_for_hardworking_americans?obref=obnetwork

    (another one starts to wake up…slowly)

    Hightower: Obama, Time to Work on Creating Jobs for Hardworking Americans

    By Jim Hightower, AlterNet. Posted October 15, 2009.

    FDR, when he faced deep and spreading national insecurity, made jobs first — not last. And so should Obama.

    Five days before taking the oath of office, Barack Obama called on the millions of people who had actively campaigned for him to be the engine for real change in America: “I don’t want them to just sit around and wait for me to do something. I want them to be pushing their agendas.”

    He asked for it, so let’s shove this agenda into his line of vision: jobs. Middle-class jobs. Jobs with a future. Jobs doing useful work that contributes to American progress and the common good. Lots and lots of those jobs.

    Obama has talked often about the need for more jobs. But he’s put little presidential heft into creating them, instead focusing most on extending unemployment benefits to assuage some of the pain of being jobless.

    Incredibly, he tried for a while to rationalize his “banker-first” Wall Street bailout as a jobs stimulus! The argument went like this: rescuing failed bankers might induce them to make loans to corporations, which then might increase corporate production, which then might cause corporate executives to hire some Americans (unless, of course, they used the capital to expand operations in China). That’s a lot of “mights,” and, as we’ve seen, the money mostly remains in the tight clutches of the bailed-out bankers, producing little “trickle-down” benefit.

    Meanwhile, the nation’s official unemployment rate is soaring to 10 percent and beyond. That’s not a statistic — it’s 15 million struggling people. Plus their families. Their numbers nearly double when we add in part-time workers who need and want full-time jobs, as well as other underemployed and discouraged workers.

    Meet Debbie Kransky, a striver from America’s great middle class who’s now struggling. Living in Milwaukee, this intelligent and hard-working 51-year-old was offed by a medical firm in February and has been jobless ever since, despite being constantly on the hunt. Her unemployment benefits have run out, and her small life savings have been depleted. “I’ve got October rent,” she told a New York Times reporter. “After that, I don’t know. I’ve never lived month to month my entire life. I’m just so scared, I can’t even put it in words.”

    Not only are there millions of Debbies out here, but there are also many more millions who feel they’re next. They know that there are already six “officially unemployed” people (not counting those part-timers) for every job opening that becomes available in our country today.

    Yet, they now hear economists, pundits and politicians from both parties cheerfully chirping that the recession is “over.” Obama himself, when asked about the oxymoron of a “jobless recovery,” responded with this breezy insight: “As you know, jobs tend to be a lagging indicator; they come last.”

    Excuse me? Jobs are not an “indicator.” They are the substance of a healthy economy, the sustainer of families, the lifeblood of our middle-class society.

    FDR, when he faced deep and spreading national insecurity, made jobs first — not last. And so should Obama. America has plenty of work that needs doing, work that would strengthen our country for the long haul. It’s time for him to launch a long-term, nationwide revitalization effort to rebuild and expand our essential infrastructure (from bridges to water systems) and also to create the framework for a green economy — everything from rapid expansion of renewable energy systems to building high-speed networks that link our population corridors.

    As he began his campaign, Obama declared: “I am running because of what Dr. King called ‘the fierce urgency of now.’ I am running because I believe there’s such a thing as being too late.”

    Yes, there is. So get moving! Grab the urgency of this moment, and turn people’s rising anxiety into a new can-do sense of confidence by putting Americans to work. Instead of investing in Wall Street elites, invest in “percolate-up” economics based on ordinary people working to renew and reinvigorate our country at the grassroots level. Now would not be too soon to start.

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

    these journalists that are beginning to wake up just don’t get it…O is too busy playing basketball, going to over 22 fundraisers, having musicians over to party at the WH…doing alittle dancing…staying in hyperactive campaign mode every day flitting around talking trash like some guy hanging out on the street…

    O is way to busy doing “his thing” to have time worrying about how to create jobs for the American people or figure out what to do with the troops in Afghanastan…

    listen up pundits and journalists that are just waking up from their ‘trance” O is too busy to focus on accomplishing anything…he has to work on his image every day…that’s his job…and don’t you forget it!

  61. Prepare for a Michelle Obama sleeve yanking frenzy:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/20/cnn-poll-half-the-country-disagrees-with-obama-on-issues/

    For the first time since he took over in the White House, Americans don’t see eye to eye with President Barack Obama on the important issues, according to a new national poll. But the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey does indicate that a majority approve of how Obama’s handling his duties as president.

    According to the poll, which was released Tuesday, 48 percent of people questioned say that they agree with Obama on the issues that matter most to them, with 51 percent saying no. That’s a switch from April, when 57 percent said they agreed with the president on important issues, with 41 percent disagreeing.

    “Obama is facing crunch time on a number of controversial issues, from health care to financial regulation to cap and trade to Afghanistan,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “The fact that most Americans no longer agree with him on important issues makes his task harder.”

    Fifty-five percent of those questioned say they approve of how Obama’s handling his duties, with 43 percent disapproving. The 55 percent approval rating is down 3 points from September. Most recent national polls place the president’s approval rating in the low to mid 50’s.

    “Obama continues to do poorly among senior citizens,” says Holland. “Most Americans over the age of 65 disapprove of how he is handling his job as president.”

    and

    Sixty-five percent say they have a favorable opinion of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and 64 percent say they view first lady Michelle Obama favorably. Both women rate higher than the six in 10 questioned who view Obama in a favorable light. Forty-five percent say they have a favorable opinion of Vice President Joe Biden, 5 points higher than the four in 10 who view Biden unfavorably.

    “It’s not surprising that Clinton tops Barack Obama on the favorable ratings,” says Holland. “Secretaries of State don’t get blamed for economic problems or unpopular domestic policies, and they often don’t get the same share of the blame as the commander-in-Chief for international slip-ups either. But typically, the first lady gets even better favorable ratings than the Secretary of State, so the fact that Clinton’s numbers are slightly better than Michelle Obama’s is a bit surprising.”

  62. Here’s another little bit of info I found tonight. It this Clyde Prestowitz, he has apparently written a book on how the great shift of wealth is heading to the east. He is also a Jew who hates Israel. I found this new website and a new Institute that I haven’t heard of before that is associated with Obama administration. Its called the Economic Strategy Institute. I found these things surfing after thus New Capitalist Website. Its a strange website, very weird.

  63. OK, I am overjoyed, I have finally linked the New Capitalist to Soros. Please I beg all of you to go there and read and listen to the videos.

Comments are closed.