Hillary-Hate Is Woman-Hate

Nancy Pelousy who did everything she could to drive Hillary Clinton from the presidential race is endorsing the opponent of Big Pink endorsed, strong Hillary supporter, Martha Coakley in the Senate Massachusetts race. Coakley is a woman and further angered Pelousy when she stated “she would have voted against the landmark health care bill approved by the House over the weekend because it includes a provision restricting federal funding for providers of abortion services.”

Coakley’s male opponent attacked Coakley. Said Representative Capuano (the one Pelousy is endorsing), “I find it interesting and amazing and she would have stood alone among all the pro-choice members of Congress, all the members of the Massachusetts delegation,” Capuano said in an interview. “She claims she wants to honor Ted Kennedy’s legacy on health care. It’s pretty clear that a major portion of this was his bill.”

That exchanged occured on November 9, 2009. By November 10, 2009, Capuano flip-flopped.

U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano said Tuesday he would vote against a final health care bill that banned federal funds from paying for abortions despite backing a House proposal that does so last week. Capuano had ridiculed Senate campaign rival Attorney General Martha Coakley for saying she would not have voted for the House measure, calling it impractical.

The flip-flop by Capuano does not stop Pelousy from trying to kill another winning woman candidate. The excuse by Pelousy defenders is that Capuano is a member of the House of Representatives and therefore a pal. If the health scam bill vote comes after the Senate election and Capuano wins the Senate race (not likely) Pelousy would lose another absolutely needed vote. But Pelousy’s hate of Hillary supporter, and woman, Coakley does not stop this silly endorsement.

Kennedy/Kerry/Patrick could not stop Hillary from winning by double digits the Massachusetts primary and we doubt the Pelousy endorsement will hurt strong woman candidate Coakley. But the endorsement does say a great deal about Pelousy.

* * * * *

As silly and hateful as Pelousy is, NARAL takes the cake. Yesterday, Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL, took the hypocrite prize. We have written about Michelman before:

The first fake boob: Kate Michelman.

This fake boob pretends to be a feminist leader who cares about issues important to women.

Kate Michelman is a former president of the pro-choice group NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League). Michelman endorsed John Edwards early on then endorsed Obama when John Edwards quit. NARAL too ignored Hillary Clinton’s long history of championing women’s rights and in a Oprahesque moment endorsed Obama. No self-respecting woman should ever again support NARAL or Michelman. They pretend to care about women’s issues but they are faking it.

Michelman, writing about the Stupak abortion provision in the House health scam bill wrote an article called “Trading Women’s Rights For Political Power.” Isn’t that exactly what Michelman did when she endorsed Edwards, then “present” voting Obama?

Michelman wrote:

A GRIM reality sits behind the joyful press statements from Washington Democrats. To secure passage of health care legislation in the House, the party chose a course that risks the well-being of millions of women for generations to come.

House Democrats voted to expand the current ban on public financing for abortion and to effectively prohibit women who participate in the proposed health system from obtaining private insurance that covers the full range of reproductive health options. Political calculation aside, the House Democrats reinforced the principle that a minority view on the morality of abortion can determine reproductive health policy for American women.

Many House members who support abortion rights decided reluctantly to accept this ban, which is embodied in the Stupak-Pitts amendment. They say the tradeoff was necessary to advance the right to guaranteed health care. They say they will fight another day for a woman’s right to choose.

Perhaps. But they can’t ignore the underlying shift that has taken place in recent years. The Democratic majority has abandoned its platform and subordinated women’s health to short-term political success. In doing so, these so-called friends of women’s rights have arguably done more to undermine reproductive rights than some of abortion’s staunchest foes. That Senate Democrats are poised to allow similar anti-abortion language in their bill simply underscores the degree of the damage that has been done.

Many women — ourselves included — warned the Democratic Party in 2004 that it was a mistake to build a Congressional majority by recruiting and electing candidates opposed to the party’s commitment to legal abortion and to public financing for the procedure.

Michelman had a chance to endorse a fighter for women’s rights but chose instead to endorse woman-hating Barack Obama who voted “present” on abortion rights. Abort Michelman and NARAL.

Only now does the OAF Michelman understand the Frankenstein monster she empowered:

Democrats were told to stop talking about abortion as a moral and legal right and to focus instead on comforting language about reducing the number of abortions. In this regard, President Obama was right on message when he declared in his health care speech to Congress in September that “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” — as if this happened to be a good and moral thing. (The tone of his statement made the point even more sharply than his words.)

The party has distanced itself from the abortion-rights movement in other ways. It has taken to calling Democrats who oppose a woman’s right to choose “pro-life” (and not “anti-choice”). The group Democrats for Life of America, whose Congressional members ultimately led the battle to exclude private insurance companies that cover abortions from health insurance exchanges, was invited to hold a press conference in Democratic Party offices. The party has promoted “pro-life progressives” like Sojourners, Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, organizations whose leaders have stated that abortions should be made “more difficult to get.”

This, then, is where we stand as party leaders celebrate passage of the House bill. When it comes to abortion, they seem to think all positions are of equal value so long as the party maintains a majority. But the party will eventually reap what it has sown.

Michelman and NARAL reap what they have sown.

* * * * *

At Crooks and Liars, Susie Madrak still does not understand that it is Obama and his Dimocrats that are responsible. Madrak blames “God-loving conservative politicians” instead of laying the blame on Obama’s crotch.

Madrak does get around to Dimocrats after blaming Republicans who have been honest and forthright, and true to their principles in opposition to abortion rights:

Thanks, Democrats, for standing up for women – again! So far this week, I’ve turned down two fund-raising calls for the state and national Democratic party. At first, I was just angry over the Stupak amendment, but now I know I’m going to have to save that money in case I need a gynecologist.

Madrak quotes from The Nation, those institutional enablers of the Frankenstein monster:

None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological “well visit,” leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from “cost sharing,” which means that, depending on what’s in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets. So far, mammograms and Pap tests are covered in every version of the legislation.

Got that? The Pap test itself will be covered – but not the visit to the gynecologist to get it.

Madrak notes the singular contribution of that great liberal Al Franken (one day we will publish our Al Franken expose, which has been written long ago):

Still, some Democrats involved in the health reform sausage-making process counsel patience. Noting that both Pap smears and mammograms should be covered by a reform bill, Senator Al Franken said, “There’s more we need to do for women’s health, but this is a huge step forward for American women, many of whom don’t get these recommended screenings right now. What we pass may not be perfect, but it will make progress in improving the lives and health of women.”

Oh, Al. What would Frannie say? More to the point, what would your daughter Thomasin say?

Madrak finally gets to the point we have made about the Obama Dimocratic Party and the Democratic Left:

As I said, I’ve already turned down two Democratic fundraising calls this week. I don’t know about you, but I’m just not feeling it these days. Why, if I didn’t know better, I’d swear the Democratic party just doesn’t care about women.

Read Big Pink Susie and get a clue.

* * * * *

Another Obama supporting, Hillary hating big time liberal shows his true colors – E.J. Dionne:

From the outraged comments of the abortion rights movement, you’d think that Rep. Bart Stupak’s amendment to the House version of the health care bill would all but overturn Roe v. Wade.

No, it wouldn’t. [snip]

What happens now? Democratic supporters of abortion rights need to accept that their House majority depends on a large cadre of anti-abortion colleagues. They can denounce that reality, or they can learn to live with it. [snip]

The truth is that even with the Stupak restrictions, health care reform would leave millions of Americans far better off than they are now — including millions of women. This skirmish over abortion cannot be allowed to destroy the opportunity to extend coverage to 35 million Americans. Killing health care reform would be bad for choice, and very bad for the right to life.

Get to the back of the bus” is what Dionne is actually saying, “I know better than you women.”

* * * * *

We noticed more and more the use of “so-called” attached to “progressives”. Might we suggest our own apt phrase – PINOs (Progressives In Name Only). In an article which states what we have been saying since the presidential primaries Kate Harding writes “Face it: The Democratic Party is not for women.”

Since the healthcare reform bill passed the House with the Stupak-Pitts amendment intact on Saturday night, feminists have been up in arms about the latest assault on access to abortion, and so-called progressive men have been telling us to calm down and look at the big picture. In other words: same old, same old. In an e-mail, our own Rebecca Traister summed up the ongoing conflict between those who prioritize women’s rights and those who see them as a bargaining chip to be traded away as necessary:

This is the argument made over and over again: If the repro rights activists would just stop agitating about the pro-life Dems, we could get majorities, and things would improve for women and men everywhere. I get that argument. Most days, I believe it. And then I wake up to a Democratic majority that will only pass progressive healthcare legislation if it includes antiabortion provisions.

These trade-offs build on each other. Stupak did not happen in a vacuum. It’s part of a larger cycle. Is this the moment to stand up and say “no”? How could I say it is, especially when I am all too aware that if pro-choice Democrats were to revolt over this issue, they would be vilified and further alienated from a party that already allows the erosion of reproductive rights? We choose to play nice, our party trades on our freedoms. We choose to object, our party resents and blames us for failure. It’s not exactly a bright set of options for anyone who has gotten into this quandary simply because they fervently believe that the rights of half the population to control its own reproduction are fundamental to full and equal participation in our democracy.

Harding to her credit and credibility is/was a Hillary supporter. Those that supported Obama should get lost and shut up.

Harding continues:

The problem is, there is never a good time to stand up and say “no,” because the fear is always that we’ll lose whatever ground we’ve gained. As I wrote recently (shortly before Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the NY-23 race), “That’s what’s really at the heart of this dust-up: Whether it’s more important to stand for something and lose or compromise and win — when ‘winning’ means installing someone who [as Kos put it] ‘would strengthen the part of the Democratic caucus that is actually the problem, rather than the solution.'” In that case, the candidate with a 100 percent pro-choice voting record dropped out, and the Democrat with a much weaker record of supporting reproductive rights won. I’m supposed to see this as a victory, because a Democrat now holds the seat — just as I’m supposed to see it as a victory that the healthcare reform bill passed the house, and never mind that little part that restricts access to abortion in unprecedented ways.

If feminists are upset that such “victories” keep coming at the expense of reproductive rights, well, that’s because we just don’t understand politics beyond our silly single issue! We need to listen to the reasonable, objective pragmatists who don’t get all hysterical and fluttery over negotiable details like healthcare for half the population. Jill at Feministe, Ann at Feministing, and Pilgrim Soul at The Pursuit of Harpyness, among others, all reported in their respective Stupak rants that they’ve been harangued by men about how this isn’t such a big deal, it won’t screw women over any differently than the Hyde Amendment has been screwing us over since 1976, it will be stripped out before the final bill anyway, and even if it’s not, the stakes are just too high to risk taking a stand for women’s rights! Don’t you want poor people to have insurance, you selfish bitches? Such men assume that somehow, we just don’t get it, because if we did, we’d shut our big mouths already. As Jill put it on Sunday, “What’s really chapping my hide today — almost as much as the amendment itself — is the number of ‘progressive’ dudes who have lectured me in the past 24 hours on How This All Works, and the number of progressive dudes who have just stayed silent.

Harding must start to understand that quoting the head Kook, Kos, does her no credit. It was Kooks at DailyKooks that helped unleash the Frankenstein monster called Barack Obama. She does understand why we thought that the conservative Republicans who acted to oppose an essentially liberal Republican in the New York 23rd district acted wisely (that’s why we opposed Obama post nomination and continue to oppose the flim-flam man from Chicago).

Harding finally gets to what we have been writing for a long time about gay-bashing, woman-hating Barack Obama and his party of Dimocrats:

Really, when those are the options, there’s only one logical conclusion: This is not our party. We’ve known that for too long, and yet the Democrats have known too well that they could bank on our money and our votes as long as the GOP remained even more not our party. But something’s changed. Sixty-four Democrats voted to block women’s access to legal medical services. That may not be quite as repulsive as some Republican shenanigans, but the difference is only one of degree. If the point of women voting for “moderate” Democrats is to avoid a majority that’s actively hostile to women, then those who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment just proved that there’s no point at all. And progressive women have finally had enough. We are ready to go there. Are Democrats ready to try getting elected without us?

Yes, Kate, the Obama situation comedy coalition does not include women. One day you will get it.

The very people who attacked Hillary are the ones that continue to defend assaults on women. Next week Sarah Palin will be the target. But the targets will always be women because the PINOs and women like Nancy Pelousy and the Big Blog Boys have a deeply embedded misogyny that they do not even see.

We’ll continue to smash their faces into their misogyny and women hating. Every day more and more Democrats begin to see the truth.

Hillary-hate was and is woman-hate.

Share

92 thoughts on “Hillary-Hate Is Woman-Hate

  1. For those wishing to donate to Coakley, a message from some of her supporters:

    As many of you know Attorney General Martha Coakley is running in Massachusetts for Ted
    Kennedy’s seat. Martha is ahead in the polls but the press and her three opponents are
    and will be training their fire at her until the primary on December 8th. For those of
    you out of state, there is still an active old boys club in Massachusetts and they are
    preparing for battle. Combating this assault requires money for ads and mailings.
    Towards that end I believe there are still many of us who will not forget the unfairness
    of this type of all out assault on a truly qualified woman. Knowledge is power and we
    hold it. It’s all about money.

    Martha has already been painted with a gender-tinged brush by both her opponents and the
    press. She has been called “inexperienced” and “timid.” She has been called a “mean
    girl” and an “Ice Queen.”

    This last month is when the major targeting began. We know from Hillary’s campaign that
    sexism is a powerful tool and we must fight it with everything we have. And we have a
    lot.

    Keep in mind- Martha Coakley defied Governor Deval Patrick, Senator John Kerry, and
    Senator Kennedy to vote for Hillary Clinton at the DNC convention last year even after
    the super delegates were released from their commitment- now we can show our
    appreciation.

    If every one of us who have been changed forever by our common experience donates money
    to Martha we will make a difference for her and every woman in our country. Whether
    it’s $10, $25 or a double max ($2,400 for primary; $2,400 for general -a hallelujah
    choir will sing for you) it helps Martha Coakley.

    Please, after you donate, take a few minutes to pass this on to others who are still
    connected by the notion of fairness and leveling the playing field- we can move
    mountains and certainly elections.

    Please donate: http://www.actblue.com/page/hillarysarmy

    And feel free to change this to fit your personal message or just forward it as is. Be
    creative: Facebook, twitter, whatever it takes.

    Together, women nationwide can help other women win. And with more equal representation
    in Congress, we’ll all win.

    Let’s get this one for Hillary. Like Hillary, Martha will make us proud!

    Thank you for your consideration and your commitment- Now let’s go make some history
    together!

  2. I’m not finished reading your post but I had to interrupt myself to give you props for this very funny line:

    Those that supported Obama should get lost and shut up.

  3. Anyone who wants to win one for Hillary should go to http://www.marthacoakley.com or the grassroots site;
    http://www.womenforcoakley.com

    We won’t let it happen again. The voters of Massachusetts supported Hillary by 15%. Martha Coakley defied the guys, Kerry, Kennedy, Gov. Patrick, Capuano, and most of the other men that voted for the cool guy-Martha stayed loyal and gave her super delegate to Hillary even at the convention after she was released. Putting her into Kennedy’s seat is just poetic justice.

    Win this for Hillary!

    Donate-even small amounts count!: Hillary’s Army: http://www.actblue.com/page/hillarysarmy

  4. Admin: Thank you for your commitment to continue to “smash their faces in it”. This is not our party any longer. I will definitely contribute money to Martha Coakley.

  5. Bravo, Admin, Bravo.

    The line about the crotch really woke me up. I read it twice. LOL!

    Wonderful, wonderful article. I am so angry about this Stupak-Pitts amendment, that I could spit and scream. I admire the women who are being vocal about this ie Coakley, Gillebrand, and some of the others. The Joanna’s come-lately’s can bite me.

    The so-called “liberal male” has turned out to be a full-fledged misogynistic conservative. What is happening to our country? The dimocratic party has pro-life Kaine as its head, and a president who has sold women’s rights down the river. As far as Pelousy, there is a special place in hell reserved for her. What a ruthless poisonous b*tch. When I read that article yesterday, about her supporting Coakley’s opponent, I wasn’t too surprised. After all, her forte is selling women out; especially powerful leaders.

    Pelousy=Poison

    Off to donate to Coakley.

  6. We usually loosen up a bit with song on Friday evenings. We’ve been remiss lately. Here’s one from a group that shares a name with one of our new commenters:

    Celestial Choirs sing out:

  7. Admin: There are so many to choose from in this post. I also love “Read Big Pink Susie and get a clue”. Thanks for calling out EJ Dionne. This insipid fool needs to get lost and shut up as well.

  8. Another fantastic article, admin.

    Question: I clicked on the link to S. Madrak’s piece at C&L. She also writes:

    “it’s hard to understand why all the services provided in a basic well-woman visit to the gynecologist isn’t on them along with maternity care, newborn care,”

    So what does maternity care mean? Does that include the care a woman receives while pregnant, the delivery of the baby, and then the cost of caring for the baby in the first few months of life?

    I mean, I can’t imagine that the Dims would be so stupid (although with them, anything’s possible) as to not include such procedures as basic health care services that should be covered in a health insurance exchange plan…..but shouldn’t such coverage be written into law, just so there is no “if’s, and’s, and but’s” about it?

    Why aren’t such things simply covered, at parity, in the health care bill? To not have it in the bill would leave the door open for the health insurance companies to charge additionally for things like having a baby and caring for that baby. Or am I understanding something incorrectly here?

  9. Here’s one for traitor Greg Craig who joins a long list of traitors who have met bad Kharma (soon to be joined by Pelousy’s male candidate in Massachusetts who will be beaten by Coakley):

  10. admin wrote:
    November 13th, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    We usually loosen up a bit with song on Friday evenings. We’ve been remiss lately. Here’s one from a group that shares a name with one of our new commenters:

    Celestial Choirs sing out:

    ———

    Great song, Admin, and Fifth Dimension is good stuff. 🙂

  11. NARAL can bite my ass !!!

    I have never commented here before – I just wanted to say – GREAT work, I am always reading your post – PUMA-SF makes me.

  12. Admin,

    You continue to fight the fight for Hillary and and the rest of us. Thank you.

    —————

    On a side note, isn’t anyone worried that by holding the 911 terrorist trials in New York, Holder is just asking for Bin Laden’s warriors to attack again? To make a new statement?

    This scares me to death.

  13. November 14, 2009

    Sentence of 13 Years for Ex-Louisiana Congressman

    By DAVID STOUT

    WASHINGTON — Former Representative William J. Jefferson, a New Orleans Democrat whose political career once seemed to hold high promise, was sentenced on Friday to 13 years in prison for using his office to try to enrich himself and his relatives.

    The sentence was far less than recommended by prosecutors, who had sought a sentence of at least 27 years. Mr. Jefferson, 62, who was convicted on Aug. 5 of bribery, racketeering and money laundering involving business ventures in Africa, might have had to spend the rest of his life behind bars with such a sentence, since there is no parole in the federal prison system, and the only leniency an inmate can count on is 15 percent off for good behavior.

    Judge T. S. Ellis III sentenced Mr. Jefferson in United States District Court in Alexandria, Va., where a jury had found him guilty of 11 of 16 counts.

    Mr. Jefferson said nothing before sentencing. His chief lawyer, Robert P. Trout, has said he will appeal the conviction.

    The jury concluded, after a six-week trial, that from 2000 to 2005 Mr. Jefferson sought hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from companies involved in oil, sugar, communications and other businesses, often for projects in Africa. In return, prosecutors said, he used his post on the House Ways and Means trade subcommittee to promote the companies’ ventures without disclosing his own financial interests in the deals.

    Mr. Trout tried to persuade jurors that, while the business-promotion activities may have been unwise, they were not criminal because they did not qualify as “official acts” under public corruption laws.

    Mr. Jefferson graduated from Harvard Law School. In 1990, after 11 years in the Louisiana State Senate, he became the first black person from Louisiana elected to Congress since Reconstruction, according to The Almanac of American Politics. From time to time, he showed interest in running for senator or governor. But mired in scandal, he lost his House seat in the 2008 election.

    Prosecutors said that while he may have sought millions of dollars in bribes, Mr. Jefferson may have actually received less than $400,000. In any event, his case gave rise to episodes of near-comedy, and to an intra-government battle with constitutional implications.

    In a raid on Mr. Jefferson’s Washington-area home in August 2005, federal agents found $90,000 neatly wrapped in aluminum foil in a freezer. Prosecutors said the money was from Kentucky business interests and was supposed to be a bribe for a high Nigerian official, who later denied being part of any scheme.

    In May 2006, agents raided Mr. Jefferson’s Congressional office. The raid marked the first time the Federal Bureau of Investigation had ever searched a Congressional office, and it was denounced by lawmakers in both parties as an unconstitutional intrusion on Congressional independence by the Justice Department.

    A federal judge upheld the raid, but an appeals court ruled that it was constitutionally flawed and ordered some seized documents returned to Mr. Jefferson. The Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/us/politics/14jefferson.html

  14. I checked the Knox Keene Act here in California — the Knox Keene act is the law in CA that basically sets the minimum standard for what services health insurers have to cover here in CA, if they want to do business here.

    Sections 1373.4, 1367.69, 1367.62, 1367.54 all deal with Maternity benefits — ranging from the cost of delivery to how long a woman is permitted to stay in the hospital after giving birth. These are all provisions that, at least here in CA, spell out what benefits women are entitled to when it comes to carrying and delivering a child.

    Also of interest, Section 1367.25 of the Knox Keene Act — forces insurers to cover birth control.

    Now, if California can mandate that such things be covered in any basic (non specialized) health insurance plan offered in the state, then why can the US Senate and House do the same?

    It’d be one thing if they hadn’t yet gotten to the process of delineating which services should be covered.

    But as was pointed out in the link to the S. Madrak piece — Congress has already taken up the question of outlining minimum benefit floors.

    Assuming Madrak’s piece is accurate….why then, aren’t these issues so relevant to women’s health, included as minimum benefits in any health plan offered through the health insurance exchange?

  15. JanH
    On a side note, isn’t anyone worried that by holding the 911 terrorist trials in New York, Holder is just asking for Bin Laden’s warriors to attack again? To make a new statement?

    This scares me to death.

    ***************
    Among other things, this will be a standard criminal case. The judge can throw it out on any grounds such as his water boarding, no Miranda, etc. Liberal NY judges do this all the time.

    Then the Judge. Their name will be know to all.They can sequester the jury, but not the Judge I believe. Can you imagine the threats to their family. The CIA will be on trail along with this monster. This is the Fraud/Holder defense law firm in action.

  16. Fifth Dimension
    November 13th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
    *****************

    Your answer is that the Dem party can not be trusted.

    A little herstory here, the 2008 Dem nomination would sum it all up nicely… IMHO

  17. Fifth Dimension, do we know for sure, which women’s issues are excluded r not mandated by the proposed legislation?On another board, I posted some of the basic services for women which were not included, and someone told me that I was wrong. Is this information listed anywhere? If those services are not covered by the proposed legislation, it is because the insurance companies do not want the services covered. They have written this bill.

  18. Birdgal, this is what I’m looking into as well. Currently, I am working off of S. Madrak’s statement in that article that was linked —

    And since both the House and Senate bills include lists of specific services that must be covered by health insurance companies and be provided without asking patients for additional money, it’s hard to understand why all the services provided in a basic well-woman visit to the gynecologist isn’t on them along with [emphasis mine] maternity care, newborn care, [/emphasis]

    but this information needs to be corroborated in the bill, in terms of what is or isn’t covered for women.

    I will try and wade through that 2,000 page monstrosity to confirm….but as you can imagine, it will require holding my breath for a very long time to get through all that garbage.

    Which services were you told were wrong in not being covered? I can check them as well when I look at the bill…

  19. Fifth Dimension, I started to look through the bill, but 1990 pages is very daunting. From what I have read on other boards, PAPS and Mammograms are covered, but not the cost of the office visit, std and domestic violence screening, and pelvic exams ( which is crazy, if true). I was told that everything was covered, but other articles and boards have contraindicted this information. I’ll have to try to wade through the bill this weekend.

  20. Well, checking the bill now, it does seem maternity services are covered. S. Madrak’s comment about “why isn’t basic well-woman visit….along with maternity care, newborn care” may have been misleading/misinterpreted.

    I will give credit where credit is due then — the issue of maternity care is one health care activists have dealt with for a while.

    As to questions of parity for that coverage, as in whether insurers can only charge the same as they would for any other in-patient visit, that remains unanswered.

  21. November 14, 2009

    White House to Begin Push on Immigration Overhaul in 2010

    By JULIA PRESTON

    The Obama administration will insist on measures to give legal status to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants as it pushes early next year for legislation to overhaul the immigration system, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday.

    In an address at the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy group in Washington, Ms. Napolitano sought to dispel any notion that the administration — with health care, energy and other major issues crowding its agenda — might postpone the most contentious piece of an immigration overhaul until after midterm elections next November.

    Laying out the administration’s bottom line, she said it will argue for a “three-legged stool” that includes enacting tougher enforcement laws against illegal immigrants and the people who hire them, and streamlining the system for legal immigration, but also what she called a “tough and fair pathway to earned legal status.”

    With unemployment surging over 10 percent and Congress wrestling with health care, advocates on all sides of the immigration debate had started to doubt that President Obama would keep to his pledge to take on the divisive issue of illegal immigration in the first months of 2010.

    Congress should be ready to move forward on immigration, Ms. Napolitano said, because the administration had made a “fundamental change” in security at the border and in cracking down on employers hiring illegal immigrants. She said that the Border Patrol had increased its forces by more than 20,000 officers, and that more than 600 miles of border fence had been completed, both milestones set by Congress.

    “Let me emphasize this,” she said. “We will never have fully effective law enforcement or national security as long as so many millions remain in the shadows.”

    Under the administration’s plan, illegal immigrants would have to register, pay fines and all taxes they owe, pass a criminal background check and learn English.

    Ms. Napolitano has been leading the administration’s efforts to gather support for the immigration overhaul, meeting in recent weeks with business leaders, faith groups, law-enforcement officials and other groups to gauge their support for the effort.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/us/politics/14immig.html

  22. Fifth Dimension
    November 13th, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    I do not believe it till I see the specifics. These people would not be sounding alarms if the coverage was complete as in a group insurance

    And CA, they are going bankrupt under their Cal Care.
    *****************

    Immigration when we have 17% unemployment…good luck. Oh they will try to ram these ultra liberal bills thru as they have because the clock is ticking and they know it. Hard to undo what has been done and ignite the Latino contingent. But who will stand up for America? Try to walk into Cuba and demand the rights these illegals demand and drain our system. You will be fed to the sharks!

  23. ADMIN…one of your best! too much…you know how to nail them…

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

    btw…I remember hearing that insurance co. covered Viagra…pray tell, is viagra covered for the boys…

  24. Not so fast: NY-23 vote margin narrows
    The Hill
    Bill Owens (D) was sworn into Congress last week after Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman conceded in New York’s special election, but a report today …
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/67513-not-so-fast-ny-23-vote-margin-narrows

    The Counting In NY 23 Is (Gasp!) Not Over
    NPR
    Owens led Hoffman by 300 votes on the final election night tally. But after recanvassing, Hoffman now leads by 424 votes, 10884 to 10460. “For Doug to win, …
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2009/11/the_counting_in_ny_23_is_gasp.html

    Owens May Have to Be Removed
    from BP…

    The Gouverneur Times
    … won the NY-23 Congressional Special Election. Several errors were made during the initial vote counts. Over 2000 votes for contender Doug Hoffman were …
    http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7824:ny-23-election-not-over-yet&catid=60:st-lawrence-news&Itemid=175

  25. Admin:

    Thanks for Fifth Dimension’s Aquarius……precious memories how they linger… Junior-Senior Prom 1969 – Theme: Age of Aquarius

    Ahhhh….Summer of ’69……FORTY YEARS AGO…….arghhhh

  26. “Several errors were made during the initial vote counts”

    —————-

    Really? As in it was good enough for obama so it’s good enough to owens and his handlers to do cheat as well?

    How convenient.

  27. Upthread someone said that SOros was putting in his own SOS in each state. So I guess they are planning again to cheat their asses off. Soros should know how to do this since he has done it so well in other countries. Now Obama wants to get immigration straightened out, my guess for more votes. 1+1 = immigration reform/paid SoS’s in each state means more fraud.
    This is so disgusting.

    My grandson is doing better, the tamiflu seems to be working and his fever is down.

  28. Here is another award that Obama has gotten since he has been in office and GWB got this too!

    RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – If you worried U.S. President Barack Obama might not handle diplomacy with the energy-rich Saudi rulers as deftly as Texas oilman George W. Bush, fear no longer.

    No sooner had Obama landed in Riyadh for a day of meetings with King Abdullah than he was sporting a big gold medal around his neck — the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit.

    It’s the country’s highest honor — named for the founder of the modern Saudi state.

    Bush, too, was awarded one on his first visit to the kingdom. It just took the former president seven years — till January 2008 — to visit Saudi Arabia.

    Obama managed to get his in under five months, at only his second meeting with the king.

    During the first meeting — in London — the U.S. leader famously greeted the Saudi monarch with something that looked suspiciously like a bow but was hard to tell exactly because a guy was standing in the way.

    Protocol-wise, heads of state do not generally bow by way of greeting. But then Michelle Obama was busy patting Queen Elizabeth on the back, so protocol was kind of out the window anyway.

    There were other signs on Wednesday that the U.S. and Saudi leaders were getting along well.

    The White House says Obama has been consulting with Abdullah regularly by phone about the speech to the Islamic world that he will give from Cairo on Thursday.

    Their meeting at King Abdullah’s sprawling farm outside Riyadh was scheduled to go for about two hours. Instead it lasted about three

  29. No sooner had Obama landed in Riyadh for a day of meetings with King Abdullah than he was sporting a big gold medal around his neck — the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit.
    *******************

    King Abdullah (where is Ali Baba and the 40 Thief’s when you need them)just put another dog collar on another president….

  30. realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/13/can_the_clinton_coalition_survive_the_age_of_obama_99046.html

    good read…a bit long, but much food for thought…

  31. S- I was looking at that same article a moment ago. The author suggests that he and Jay cost coined the term Jacksonian Democrats, but if he was honest about it he would admit that it was Russell Meade. I posted a long dissertation on this at Taylor Marsh before she lost her brain. I predicted that Obama would never get the Jacksonian Democrats and it looks like that was right. I have been around Jacksonians throughout my life. They eye peacock lightweights like Obama with great suspicion and they do not fall in line behind. It is bred into them. These were the people who were put out on the frontier by the English settlers to fight off the Indians. They had to be careful about who their leaders because a bad leader could get you an arrow in the back. This is not racism. You have alot of blacks who are Jacksonians. What they detest more than anything is a two faced liar like BO. They believe in honor and a liar to them is a leper. All that said, I think the author is absolutely right. Obama is killing the democratic party. The Jacksonian divorce and the suburbanites dont are apopletic about his spending. They will tell him darlin I love you but I cannot afford you, or Barack we can have you or a middle class– but not both.

  32. wbboei…I agree

    even Bob Herbert is coming out of his trance

    nytimes.com/2009/11/14/opinion/14herbert.html?hp

    A Recovery for Some

    By BOB HERBERT
    Published: November 13, 2009

    President Obama’s strongest supporters during the presidential campaign were the young, the black and the poor — and they are among those who are being hammered unmercifully in this long and cruel economic downturn that the financial elites are telling us is over.

    If the elites are correct, if the Great Recession really is over, then these core supporters of the president are being left far, far behind — as are blue-collar workers of every ethnic and political persuasion. Nobody wants to talk seriously about class in America, but the elites are smiling and perusing their stock portfolios while the checklist of Americans locked in depressionlike circumstances just grows and grows: construction and manufacturing workers, young men without college degrees (especially young black and Hispanic men), teenagers, and those who were already poor when the recession began.

    The economic environment for all of these groups is an absolute and utter disaster.

    Now we’re learning that unmarried women are among those being crushed by the epidemic of joblessness. As the Center for American Progress has noted, “The high unemployment rate of unmarried women, and particularly the 1.3 million unemployed female heads of household who are primary breadwinners for their families, is devastating to their financial circumstances and standard of living.”

    Mr. Obama announced this week that he would convene a jobs summit at the White House next month to explore ways of putting Americans back to work. It remains to be seen whether the summit will yield anything substantial. But it’s fair to wonder why the president and his party have not been focused like fanatics on job creation from the first day he took office.

    It was the financial elites who took the economy down, and it was ordinary working people, the longtime natural constituents of the Democratic Party, who were buried in the rubble. Mr. Obama and the Democrats have been unconscionably slow in riding to the rescue of those millions of Americans struggling with the curse of joblessness.

    We’ve been hearing that there are six unemployed workers for every job opening in the U.S., but even that terrible figure is deceptive. There are 25 unemployed construction workers for every job opening in their field, and more than a dozen for every opening in the durable goods industries, according to the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston.

    This was not a normal recession, and we are not on the cusp of anything like a normal recovery. The unemployment rate for black Americans is 15.7 percent. The underemployment rate for blacks in September (the latest month for which figures are available) was a gut-wrenching 23.8 percent and for Hispanics an even worse 25.1 percent. The poverty rate for black children is almost 35 percent.

    Wall Street can boast about recovery all it wants, much of America remains trapped in economic hell.

    It will take a monumental leadership effort by the administration and Congress to spark the kind of changes necessary to transform this wretched employment landscape. Ross Eisenbrey of the Economic Policy Institute has written: “By itself, the private sector is unable to create jobs in the numbers the United States needs to obtain a robust, full economic recovery.”

    If that’s true, and I have long believed it to be the case, then we need to rethink our entire approach to employment. Conventional efforts to kick-start economic growth are dwarfed by the vast scale of the problem. Bold new efforts — creative efforts — are needed.

    A recent survey for the policy institute found that one in four families had been hit by a job loss during the past year and 44 percent had suffered either the loss of a job or a reduction in wages or hours worked. Economic insecurity has spread like a debilitating virus through scores of millions of American families.

    What kind of recovery are we talking about if blue-collar workers, and men and women without college degrees, and large percentages of ethnic minorities and the young and the poor are not part of it? And how can any recovery be sustained if economic insecurity is a permanent feature of even middle-class life?

    The financial elites have flourished in recent decades to a great extent because they have had government on their side, with the politicians working diligently to ensure that rules, regulations and tax policies established an environment in which the elites could thrive. For ordinary Americans, it has been a different story, with jobs shipped overseas by the millions and wages remaining stagnant, with labor unions under constant assault and labor standards weakened, with the safety net shredded and the message sent out to workers everywhere: You’re on your own.

    We’ll get a chance to see at President Obama’s employment summit whether anything much has changed.

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

    I have been singing the same tune for MONTHS…’It’s the Jobs, Stupid’ O and the dems have done everything but work on job creation for the last year…job creation, stopping home foreclosures and the economy should have been their main FOCUS from day one…instead they have created more bitter partisanship, wasted time on cap and tax and dithered the year away with this health care reform debacle scam…

    banks continue to raise interest rates and pull every gimmick they can get away with, jobs continue to be lost contrary to the fuzzy math O is using to deceive us into believing he is saving/creating jobs…homes are being lost at an increased rate and people are getting more frustrated, angry and desperate…

    …and all the while O goes globe trotting talking about himself…now he is the ‘first Pacific President’…this man is more out of touch with reality than Bush…Bush just fumbled his way…this guy really believes he is something great…

  33. latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-palin14-2009nov14,0,2508999,full.story

    this is a descent article about Sarah Palin (amazing and in the LA Times) – it is humanizing…and there is a great picture of Sarah, Piper, Bristol and Oprah all arm in arm…very warm…it is really going to drive the PINOS crazy…take a peek!

  34. Our real President is welcomed everywhere and IS the the most known Woman on the Globe.Slide BO Slide.

    ———————————————————————-Travel Diary: Secretary Clinton in the Philippines

    Posted: 13 Nov 2009 07:20 AM PST

    Trip Information Page | Interactive Travel Map | Text the Secretary

    About the Author: Kristie A. Kenney serves as U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines.

    Secretary Clinton’s first day in Manila ended with a lovely and gracious dinner hosted by Philippine President Arroyo. The thirty guests ate local fish and fruit specialties while talking about world issues, cultural trends and sharing stories and laughs.

    The next morning found her heading out super early for a live, televised “Townterview” with students from across the Philippines. Held at 400-year-old University of Santo Tomas, more than a thousand students from Manila universities packed the auditorium, all wearing school colors. Others participated via remote link from around the country and still others sent in questions via YouTube and text messages. Secretary Clinton was relaxed as she talked big global issues and Philippine issues. Her passion for the role of civil society in promoting peace, human rights and good governance was obvious. She also reflected with pride on serving her country and on being part of President Obama’s team. She laughed with the sports enthusiasts in the student crowd when describing her support for the not-so-victorious New York Knicks.

    After shaking more hands and posing for more pictures, she took time to talk to a local radio DJ about the importance of voting and getting young voters engaged in elections.

    The mood shifted more somber as she then headed to the Manila American Cemetery and Memorial. The cemetery, built and maintained by the American Battlefield Monument Commission, holds graves of more than 17,000 World War II dead while the walls list the names of thousands more missing-in-action from World War II. Secretary Clinton laid a wreath at the cemetery and took a few moments to talk with World War II veterans who had come to the cemetery to greet her.

    She then headed back across town, through the world famous Manila traffic, to the historic U.S. Embassy located on Manila Bay. There she swore in 68 new Peace Corps volunteers, telling them of the great service they provide to both the Philippines and the United States. She told them of the great tradition of the Peace Corps in the Philippines where more than 8,000 volunteers have served since the program began decades ago. She thanked the Filipino partners of the Peace Corps as well as the Filipino “host” families of the Peace Corps who were also in attendance.

    She ended her Manila visit with a short session with U.S. military temporarily deployed in the Philippines, hearing of their experiences and thanking them for serving our nation. And then she greeted her thousands of U.S. Embassy Filipino and American fans for whom she is the ultimate superstar!

  35. I have been singing the same tune for MONTHS…’It’s the Jobs, Stupid’ O and the dems have done everything but work on job creation for the last year…job creation, stopping home foreclosures and the economy should have been their main FOCUS from day one…instead they have created more bitter partisanship, wasted time on cap and tax and dithered the year away with this health care reform debacle scam…

    banks continue to raise interest rates and pull every gimmick they can get away with, jobs continue to be lost contrary to the fuzzy math O is using to deceive us into believing he is saving/creating jobs…homes are being lost at an increased rate and people are getting more frustrated, angry and desperate…

    …and all the while O goes globe trotting talking about himself…now he is the ‘first Pacific President’…this man is more out of touch with reality than Bush…Bush just fumbled his way…this guy really believes he is something great

    ————————————————————–This was what as known as shock doctrine. I am not sure if it is suppose the herald in the north american union or the establish the UN as the new head of govt. What ever the reason is we are not going to like it. That is why they are driving us to full scale unemployment so we will succumb to their will.
    I think things are going to get alot worse. He is merely convening a groups to study how to get jobs while he is giving 165,000 to Brazil (the favorite place of Soros).
    This man and his predecessor Bush have been in this together. I do want to remind everyone that cap and trade is the next on the agenda, when that goes thru it will be the end for our soveignty.

  36. Chinese, U.S. foreign ministers meet in Singapore

    2009-11-14

    SINGAPORE, Nov. 14 (Xinhua) — Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi met here on Saturday with his U.S. counterpart Hillary Clinton, and the two exchanged views on bilateral ties, President Barack Obama’s planned visit to China and the regional and international issues of common concern.

    During the meeting, Yang said that Sino-U.S. ties have enjoyed a good start, and both countries have made it clear that joint efforts should be made to build positive and all-round cooperative ties in the 21 century.

    The two sides have established a strategic and economic dialogue system with the first such dialogue having been held successfully, laying a sound foundation for a long-term, healthy and stable development of Sino-U.S. relations, Yang said, adding that the relations between the two countries will face new opportunities for further development in the coming years, and both countries should continue to implement the decisions taken by the two countries and consolidate the foundation for the development of such ties.

    Describing Obama’s forthcoming first visit to China as being of great significance for further growth of Sino-U.S. ties in the new era, Yang said that Chinese President Hu Jintao is expected to exchange views with his U.S. counterpart Obama on key issues of common concern, and discuss the ways of how to further develop China-U.S. ties.

    The Chinese government attaches great importance to Sino-U.S ties, and is willing to share the efforts with the United States to enhance dialogues, exchanges and cooperation, taking President Obama’s visit as a new starting point, Yang said, adding that the two countries should work together to push forward the all-round development of bilateral ties in the 21st century.

    For her part, U.S Secretary of State Hillary said that President Obama’s visit to China marks a milestone in the history of U.S.-China ties, and President Obama is expected to exchange views with his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao on U.S.-China ties, regional and global issues of common concern.

    The United States is willing to work together with China to expand cooperation in all fields and further deepen U.S.-China relations, she added.

    The two sides also discussed the issues such as the climate change, G20 cooperation and the nuclear problems in the Korean Peninsula and Iran.

    Yang invited Hillary Clinton to visit China next year, and the latter accepted the invitation.

    The meetings between China and U.S. foreign ministers took place on the sidelines of the on-going APEC Leaders’ Week, which kicked off on Nov. 8.

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-11/14/content_12456002.htm

  37. All this griping about the gitmo detainees coming to NewYork that Fox News is spinning I think is a cover for GWB and torture. I think its dangerous to bring them here, but think they should be brought here. I also think its purely political.Odumbo needs to bring back his base by the midterms. He needs to get the illegal aliens on the voting rolls so he can have their votes. This is nothing but politics pure and simple.

  38. Hillary and her arch enemy Rudolph Julianne will be on George Stephanoupulos show on Sunday. I imagine they will be talking about the trials of the 9/11 terrorists in New York. Rethugs don’t want it and the dems want it.

    Of coarse the fraud is sending Hillary to do his fighting for him.

  39. S, regarding the Obama lover Bob Herbert’s article. We predicted years ago that Obama would hurt black people and the young, the most. On March 24 of this year we wrote “The ‘Who Obama Hurts Most’ Press Conference”. Here is what we wrote (as usually fully documented with links) then – that Herbert writes only now:

    http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/03/24/the-who-obama-hurts-most-press-conference/

    We think Big Media should focus questions on who Obama hurts most – his supporters.

    No, we are not talking about losers like Daschle, Richardson, Kerry. Nor do we refer to the those writhing under the Obama bus like Chris Dodd or Jeremiah Wright.

    We are talking about young people and African-American supporters who were ever so fervent in their religious worship of Obama.

    Mind, some of Hillary Clinton’s strongest supporters were African-Americans who courageously withstood the race-baiting attempts to force them to support the Mess-iah. It was difficult for these brave African-Americans to stand firm by the obvious – that Hillary Clinton has a lifetime of experience and fight for their issues which superceded the pull of a vote for skin color over content of character.

    Many young people too cared about the content of character over color and supported Hillary Clinton. But many young people voted for the celebrity, do-nothing, flim-flam, unqualified, race-baiting, and gay-bashing, and woman hating, Barack Obama.

    Now, the chickens have come home to roost for African-Americans and young people:

  40. DrudgeReport has a big picture today with the headline “Obama Bows Before Japan’s Emperor”. When Bill Clinton was only seen to lower his head with a twitch before the emperor, Bill Clinton was attacked furiously. Obama’s bow is from the hips and very very deep. Just as deep as when he bowed to the Saudi king.

  41. The L.A. Times on the bow (called “How low will he go?):

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html

    How low will the new American president go for the world’s royalty?

    This photo will get Democrat President Obama a lot of approving nods in Japan this weekend, especially among the older generation of Japanese who still pay attention to the royal family living in its downtown castle. Very low bows like this are a sign of great respect and deference for a superior.

    To some in the United States, however, an upright handshake might have looked better. Remember Michelle Obama casually patting Britain’s Queen Elizabeth on the back during their Buckingham Palace visit? America’s royalty tends to make movies and get bad reviews and lots of money as a sign of respect.

    Obama could receive some frowns back home as he did for his not-quite-this-low-or-maybe-about-the-same-bow to the Saudi king not so long ago. (See photo here)

  42. admin, here is the “bow” video — notice the difference in his bow to the king and the queen. I hate cultures that don’t respect women equally if not more and Obama comes from that culture.

    youtube.com/watch?v=_J3y0TY7MlI

  43. Pins of US President Barack Obama dressed in a Maoist uniform. AP Beijing being sold in China…

    hmmm…very appropriate in his case.

  44. on drudge: ATTORNEY GENERAL PLANS TO SEEK DEATH PENALTY AGAINST 9/11 SUSPECTS…

    I can’t help but put my conspiracy hat on here and wonder if our obummer isn’t trying to incite another 911 attack as a presedence to something larger? Ie: another war, marshall law???????

  45. I received this in an email and thought others might enjoy it:

    They just need to wake up in November 2012.

    Sherry Hackett, wife of the late Buddy Hackett, is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. I would think that many other Democrats share her position.

    This was written by Sherry Hackett, Buddy Hackett’s widow……..

    “WE NOTICED”

    President Obama:

    Today I read of your administrations’ plan to re-define September 11 as a National Service Day. Sir, it’s time we had a talk………

    During your campaign, Americans watched as you made mockery of our tradition of standing and crossing your heart when the Pledge of Allegiance was spoken. You, out of four people on the stage, were the only one not honoring our tradition.

    YES, “We noticed.”

    During one of your many speeches, Americans heard you say that you intended to visit all 57 states.
    We all know that Islam, not America has 57 states.

    YES, “We noticed.”

    When President Bush leaned over at Ground Zero and gently placed a flower on the memorial, while you nonchalantly tossed your flower onto the pile without leaning over.

    YES, “We noticed.”

    Every time you apologized to other countries for America ‘s position on an issue we have wondered why you don’t share our pride in this great country. When you have heard foreign leaders berate our country and our beliefs, you have not defended us. In fact, you insulted the British Crown beyond belief.

    YES, “We noticed.”

    When your pastor of 20 years, “God-damned America ” and said that 9/11 was ” America ‘s chickens coming home to roost” and you denied having heard recriminations of that nature, we wondered how that could be. You later disassociated yourself from that church and Pastor Wright because it was politically expedient to do so.

    YES, “We noticed.”

    When you announced that you would transform America , we wondered why. With all her faults, America is the greatest country on earth. Sir, KEEP THIS IN MIND, “if not for America and the people who built her, you wouldn’t be sitting in the White House now.” Prior to your election to the highest office in this Country, you were a senator from Illinois and from what we can glean from the records available, not a very remarkable one.

    YES, “We noticed.”

    All through your campaign and even now, you have surrounded yourself with individuals who are basically unqualified for the positions for which you appointed them. Worse than that, the majority of them are people who, like you, bear no special allegiance, respect, or affection for this country and her traditions.

    YES, “We noticed.”

    You are 9 months into your term and every morning millions of Americans wake up to a new horror heaped on us by you. You seek to saddle working Americans with a health care/insurance reform package that, along with cap and trade, will bankrupt this nation.

    YES, “We noticed.”

    We seek, by protesting, to let our representatives know that we are not in favor of these crippling expenditures and we are labeled “un-American”,”racist”, “mob”. We wonder how we are supposed to let you know how frustrated we are. You have attempted to make our protests seem isolated and insignificant. Until your appointment, Americans had the right to speak out.

    YES, “We noticed.”

    On September 11, 2001 there were no Republicans or Democrats, only Americans. And we all grieved together and helped each other in whatever way we could. The attack on 9/11 was carried out because we are Americans.

    And YES, “We noticed.”

    There were many of us who prayed that as a black president you could help unite this nation. In six months you have done more to destroy this nation than the attack on 9/11. You have failed us.

    YES, “We noticed.”

    September 11 is a day of remembrance for all Americans. You propose to make 9/11 a “National Service Day”. While we know that you don’t share our reverence for 9/11, we pray that history will report your proposal as what it is…a disgrace.

    YES, “We noticed.”

    You have made a mockery of our Constitution and the office that you hold. You have embarrassed and slighted us in foreign visits and policy.

    YES, “We noticed..”

    We have noticed all these things. We will deal with you. When Americans come together again, it will be to remove you from office.

    Take notice.

  46. djia
    November 14th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
    on drudge: ATTORNEY GENERAL PLANS TO SEEK DEATH PENALTY AGAINST 9/11 SUSPECTS…

    I can’t help but put my conspiracy hat on here and wonder if our obummer isn’t trying to incite another 911 attack as a presedence to something larger? Ie: another war, marshall law???????

    ——————-

    Exactly!

  47. Nov 14, 2009 21:05

    US rejects Iran’s call to cut J’lem ties

    By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER

    The United States pushed back on Friday against Iranian efforts to cause a schism in US-Israel relations and stressed its commitment to continue pressing toward peace talks despite recent difficulties.

    “Israel is a very, very close friend of the US, and we don’t think we have to choose between Israel or any other country. We want to have productive, meaningful relations with all countries in the region,” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said in response to a question about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s call for such a reorientation last week.

    Also on Friday, the assistant secretary of state for public affairs, P.J. Crowley, emphasized that the US is continuing to push for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to resume as soon as possible, despite calls from some quarters for Washington to step back since its program of relaunching talks had yet to bear fruit.

    Crowley acknowledged that the US had “hit a bumpy road recently” in that effort, and the Obama administration was in the process of “assessing where we are” and potentially coming up with “some news ideas of how to close the gap that does exist.” But he rejected the idea of shifting away from holding talks. “We haven’t given up our objective, which is to get the parties back into negotiations as soon as possible, and to begin the earnest work of working on the very specific, complex and substantive details to arrive at a just resolution, a final agreement, and formation of a Palestinian state,” Crowley said at a briefing for foreign journalists. He also pointed to it being a delicate moment for
    the Palestinian Authority but didn’t indicate that
    would mean a shift in policy.

    PA President Mahmoud Abbas has lost much of his popular support in recent weeks, in part because he succumbed to US pressure to delay consideration of the UN’s Goldstone Report, which accused Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza last winter, though he ultimately reversed himself.

    Abbas has threatened not to run again in elections that he had slated for January unless the US pushed Israel for a total settlement freeze, though a Palestinian election body recently recommended against holding elections then since Hamas has refused to participate.

    Asked about the prospects for elections, Crowley said, “I’ll leave it to President Abbas to decide, based on that recommendation, whether an election can be held or whether it needs to be postponed.”

    The threat not to run again – which wouldn’t take effect if elections are not held – has been seen as an Abbas gambit to regain momentum and legitimacy, after the Arab and Palestinian anger at his Goldstone stance was intensified by the US seeming to withdraw earlier demands it had made of Israel for a total settlement freeze.

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu recently for making “unprecedented” steps to restrain settlement activity under a partial freeze worked out between the two countries. The comments boosted Netanyahu but unleashed fury in the Arab world.

    Israeli officials credit sensitivity in that climate to the decision not to hold a public photo opportunity or press conference following Netanyahu’s meeting with US President Barack Obama on Monday. An official photograph was belatedly released on Friday, but it showed the two men sitting at a table enjoying a meal rather than shaking hands or standing side-by-side smiling, as is traditional.

    Crowley said on Friday he had no further developments to announce, but did say that “we’re not going to impose a US solution on the parties” despite increasing call from some sectors of the Arab world to do so. He added, however, that “there may come a point in the future where we will offer our ideas on the best way forward.”

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258027287473&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

  48. Obama bows again — how will White House explain?

    By: Byron York
    11/14/09

    Remember when Barack Obama bowed before the King of Saudi Arabia at the G-20 summit in London last April? Even though the bow was captured by still and video photographers, the White House denied that it had taken place. “It wasn’t a bow,” an unnamed White House official told the Politico’s Ben Smith. “He grasped his hand with two hands, and he’s taller than King Abdullah.”

    The controversy raged in the blogosphere, but most of the old press ignored the question — especially after the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee injected a bit of partisanship when it said Obama had “paid fealty” to Abdullah with the bow. Obama’s defenders, while not conceding that the president had bowed to the king, said George W. Bush had done the same thing earlier. The issue festered for a few days until a CNN reporter asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about it:

    QUESTION: When the President met with King Abdullah, there was something that took place which I believe the White House explained was just the president being taller than the king. We took a look at the video, and it does appear that the president actually bowed to King Abdullah. Did he bow or didn’t he?

    GIBBS: No, I think he bent over with both, to shake — with both hands to shake his hand, so I don’t–

    QUESTION: Did he bow or didn’t he?

    GIBBS: No.

    So the official word was: Obama didn’t bow. Now, we have a new photo of the president bowing to the emperor of Japan. It’s the kind of image that just doesn’t sit well with many Americans. The president, as the elected representative of the United States, should not be in the habit of bowing to foreign leaders, royal or not. Obama’s deep, subservient bow makes it even worse; this was no little nod.

    What will the White House explanation be? Emperor Akihito is certainly shorter than Obama, so perhaps the White House will roll out the old “he’s taller than King Abdullah” story. Perhaps Gibbs will deny that it happened at all. Neither will fly. This is something the president should explain.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-bows-again—-how-will-White-House-explain-70102617.html

  49. Bill Clinton urges Mideast foes to end conflict

    By MICHAEL BARAJAS (AP)

    TEL AVIV, Israel — Former President Bill Clinton, whose energetic efforts to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal collapsed, urged both sides Saturday to end their decades-old conflict, saying they cannot escape their common future.

    “We are either going to hurt each other or we are going to help each other,” he said of the two foes. “Divorce is not an option.”

    While president, Clinton had a close personal involvement in Mideast peacemaking. He presided over the signing of the historic first agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in 1993, and seven years later, he brought the two sides closer than ever before to a final deal.

    But talks broke down in late 2000, and soon after, tensions ignited into years of deadly fighting.

    The former U.S. president remains extremely popular in Israel, however, because he is perceived as being a genuine friend.

    Clinton spoke Saturday to a VIP gathering at the Yitzhak Rabin Center, a memorial to the Israeli leader who was gunned down in November 1995 by a Jewish assassin opposed to his peace moves.

    “In the last 14 years, not a single week has gone by that I did not think of Yitzhak Rabin and miss him terribly,” he said. “Nor has a single week gone by in which I have not reaffirmed my conviction that had he not lost his life on that terrible November night, within three years we would have had a comprehensive agreement for peace in the Middle East.”

    Clinton’s own emotional last words to Rabin at his funeral — “Shalom haver,” Hebrew for “Goodbye, friend” — have been seared into the Israeli collective consciousness.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g-IQw51ru0J8f8lKEa2ZYlshjQqAD9BVFN3O0

  50. I would love to see Bill Clinton, instead of Mitchell who has accomplished very little and at a snail’s pace, take a hand again at negotiating Middle East peace.

  51. I just showed my dad (yellow dog democrat)(WWII veteran) the video of Obama bowing. I wish I could have filmed the look on his face. That is a direct slap in the face of the WWII veterans. Even though now our nations are alies, I doubt many WWII veterans will ever forget what the japanese did at Pearl Harbor which would NEVER allow a deep bow like that. I think the S.O.B. is just so ignorant of American culture, he constantly does stupid shit like that.

  52. Cable TV operator Comcast Corp. is expected to buy a controlling stake in NBC Universal, perhaps as early as this week, bringing the network of Johnny Carson, Jerry Seinfeld, Bob Hope, Milton Berle and Tom Brokaw under the corporate control of the company that owns the Golf Channel and E! Entertainment Television.

    “This is highly symbolic,” said Tim Brooks, who had worked at NBC for 20 years and now writes books on television history.

    Starting Sunday, Vivendi SA has an option to sell its 20 percent stake in NBC Universal. Majority owner General Electric Co. is expected to buy it and then sell a 51 percent stake of the entire NBC Universal unit to Comcast, which serves about a quarter of the nation’s subscription TV households.

    ——————————–

    Let us hope MESSNBC goes into obscurity after this deal…

  53. admin says:
    November 14th, 2009 at 10:14 am

    S, regarding the Obama lover Bob Herbert’s article. We predicted years ago that Obama would hurt black people and the young, the most

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

    yes ADMIN, I remember…I once asked if you were clairvoyant…or just so darn intuitive and smart…
    **************************************

    btw…here is another you and many of us have been noticing and saying way back when…

    boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/11/14/obamas_swelling_ego/

    Obama’s swelling ego
    By Jeff Jacoby

    Globe Columnist / November 14, 2009

    PRESIDENT OBAMA was too busy to attend the celebrations in Germany this week marking the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago. But he did appear by video, delivering a few brief and bloodless remarks about how the wall was “a painful barrier between family and friends’’ that symbolized “a system that denied people the freedoms that should be the right of every human being.’’ He referred to “tyranny,’’ but never identified the tyrants – he never uttered the words “Soviet Union’’ or “communism,’’ for example. He said nothing about the men and women who died trying to cross the wall. Nor did he mention Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan – or even Mikhail Gorbachev.

    He did, however, talk about Barack Obama.

    “Few would have foreseen,’’ declared the president, “that a united Germany would be led by a woman from [the former East German state of] Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it.’’

    As presidential rhetoric goes, this was hardly a match for “Ich bin ein Berliner,’’ still less another “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.’’ But as a specimen of presidential narcissism, it is hard to beat. Obama couldn’t be troubled to visit Berlin to commemorate a momentous milestone in the history of human liberty. But he was glad to explain to those who were there why reflections on that milestone should inspire appreciation for the self-made “destiny’’ of his own rise to power.

    Was there ever a president as deeply enamored of himself as Barack Obama?

    The first President Bush, taught from childhood to shun what his mother called “The Great I Am,’’ regularly instructed his speechwriters not to include too many “I’s’’ in his prepared remarks. Reagan maintained that there was no limit to what someone could achieve if he didn’t mind who got the credit. George Washington, one of the most accomplished men of his day, said with characteristic modesty on becoming president that he was “peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies.’’

    Obama, on the other hand, positively revels in The Great I Am.

    “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,’’ he told campaign aides when he was running for the White House. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that . . . I’m a better political director than my political director.’’

    At the start of his presidency, Obama seemed to content himself with the royal “we’’ – “We will build the roads and bridges. . . . We will restore science to its rightful place. . . . We will harness the sun and winds,’’ he declaimed at his inauguration.

    But as the literary theorist Stanley Fish points out, “By the time of the address to the Congress on Feb. 24, the royal we [had] flowered into the naked ‘I’: ‘As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress.’ ‘I called for action.’ ‘I pushed for quick action.’ ‘I have told each of my Cabinet.’ ‘I’ve appointed a proven and aggressive inspector general.’ ’I refuse to let that happen.’ ’’ In his speech on the federal takeover of General Motors, Obama likewise found it necessary to use the first-person singular pronoun 34 times. (“Congress’’ he mentioned just once.)

    At this rate, it won’t be long before the president’s ego is so inflated that it will require a ZIP code of its own.

    Then again, how modest would any of us be if we were as magnificent as Obama? “I am well aware,’’ he told the UN General Assembly in September, “of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world.’’

    In 1860, writes Doris Kearns Goodwin in her celebrated biography “Team of Rivals,’’ an author wishing to dedicate his forthcoming work to Abraham Lincoln received this answer: “I give the leave, begging only that the inscription may be in modest terms, not representing me as a man of great learning, or a very extraordinary one in any respect.’’

    Obama has often claimed Lincoln as a role model, but it only goes so far.

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

    doesn’t he ever get tired of hearing himself…how can someone be so incredibly vain…not a humble or gracious bone in that body…

  54. Obama did’nt bow, he was just adopting his usual position in front of a man he is ready to service. If you get my drift….

  55. November 13, 2009
    Explaining Away Mass Murder
    By Charles Krauthammer

    WASHINGTON — What a surprise — that someone who shouts “Allahu Akbar” (the “God is great” jihadist battle cry) as he is shooting up a room of American soldiers might have Islamist motives. It certainly was a surprise to the mainstream media, which spent the weekend after the Fort Hood massacre downplaying Nidal Hasan’s religious beliefs.

    “I cringe that he’s a Muslim. … I think he’s probably just a nut case,” said Newsweek’s Evan Thomas. Some were more adamant. Time’s Joe Klein decried “odious attempts by Jewish extremists … to argue that the massacre perpetrated by Nidal Hasan was somehow a direct consequence of his Islamic beliefs.” While none could match Klein’s peculiar cherchez-le-juif motif, the popular story line was of an Army psychiatrist driven over the edge by terrible stories he had heard from soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Receive news alerts

    Sign Up

    Charles Krauthammer RealClearPolitics
    media islamic radicalism

    Joe Klein Evan Thomas
    Fort Hood

    [+] More

    They suffered. He listened. He snapped.

    Really? What about the doctors and nurses, the counselors and physical therapists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who every day hear and live with the pain and the suffering of returning soldiers? How many of them then picked up a gun and shot 51 innocents?

    And what about civilian psychiatrists — not the Upper West Side therapist treating Woody Allen neurotics, but the thousands of doctors working with hospitalized psychotics — who every day hear not just tales but cries of the most excruciating anguish, of the most unimaginable torment? How many of those doctors commit mass murder?

    It’s been decades since I practiced psychiatry. Perhaps I missed the epidemic.

    But, of course, if the shooter is named Nidal Hasan, whom National Public Radio reported had been trying to proselytize doctors and patients, then something must be found. Presto! Secondary post-traumatic stress disorder, a handy invention to allow one to ignore the obvious.

    And the perfect moral finesse. Medicalizing mass murder not only exonerates. It turns the murderer into a victim, indeed a sympathetic one. After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won’t find it in DSM-IV-TR, psychiatry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), is known as “compassion fatigue.” The poor man — pushed over the edge by an excess of sensitivity.

    Have we totally lost our moral bearings? Nidal Hasan (allegedly) cold-bloodedly killed 13 innocent people. In such cases, political correctness is not just an abomination. It’s a danger, clear and present.

    Consider the Army’s treatment of Hasan’s previous behavior. NPR’s Daniel Zwerdling interviewed a Hasan colleague at Walter Reed about a hair-raising Grand Rounds that Hasan had apparently given. Grand Rounds are the most serious academic event at a teaching hospital — attending physicians, residents and students gather for a lecture on an instructive case history or therapeutic finding.

    I’ve been to dozens of these. In fact, I gave one myself on post-traumatic retrograde amnesia — as you can see, these lectures are fairly technical. Not Hasan’s. His was an hour-long disquisition on what he called the Koranic view of military service, jihad and war. It included an allegedly authoritative elaboration of the punishments visited upon nonbelievers — consignment to hell, decapitation, having hot oil poured down your throat. This “really freaked a lot of doctors out,” reported NPR.

    Nor was this the only incident. “The psychiatrist,” reported Zwerdling, “said that he was the kind of guy who the staff actually stood around in the hallway saying: Do you think he’s a terrorist, or is he just weird?”

    Was anything done about this potential danger? Of course not. Who wants to be accused of Islamophobia and prejudice against a colleague’s religion?

    One must not speak of such things. Not even now. Not even after we know that Hasan was in communication with a notorious Yemen-based jihad propagandist. As late as Tuesday, The New York Times was running a story on how returning soldiers at Fort Hood had a high level of violence.

    What does such violence have to do with Hasan? He was not a returning soldier. And the soldiers who returned home and shot their wives or fellow soldiers didn’t cry “Allahu Akbar” as they squeezed the trigger.

    The delicacy about the religion in question — condescending, politically correct and deadly — is nothing new. A week after the first (1993) World Trade Center attack, the same New York Times ran the following front-page headline about the arrest of one Mohammed Salameh: “Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center.”

    Ah yes, those Jersey men — so resentful of New York, so prone to violence.

  56. sorry, neetabug- no offense meant 🙂

    Does ABC’s New ‘V’ Miniseries Have a Right-Wing Agenda?

    There’s a lot to love about ABC’s remake of “V,” from the re-emergence of everyone’s favorite “Firefly” companion (Morena Baccarin) to the amped-up special effects, but the show’s political underpinnings seem designed to appeal to a pretty specific crowd.

    Like its “Beastmaster”-aided predecessor, this “V” also contains heavy doses of political allegory, but in the original, the villains were analogous to the Nazis. Although ABC downplays the connections, in this update, the alien visitors share a lot in common with the Obama administration. Many town hall protesters might ask what the difference is.

    Check out the parallels between the new “V” series and a right-wing fever dream, and see an extended preview of the first episode.

    1. The aliens come to Earth using Obama-campaign watchwords hope and change, and offer the most literal form of universal health care. Aided by a complicit news media, they assuage rabid protesters through a sweet-talking figurehead. Skeptics try to warn everyone of the impending danger, but nobody listens.

    2. Of course, the most striking comparison is that, while many Obama opponents are sure he’s concealing an alien birth certificate, the seemingly benevolent V’s are pretending to be just like us, but (spoiler alert) are hiding lizardy evidence that they just aren’t.

    3. The whole thing could have been lifted from the minds of Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs.

    Of course, the flip side to this is the possibility that, in macro, this is actually a satire of the anti-Obama hysteria that’s filling Fox News’ coffers. Either way, the new “V” is a great way to start a good argument while watching some cool sci-fi action.

    h…w’s ….asylum.com/2009/11/06/new-v-miniseries-a-treat-for-obama-opponents/?icid=main|netscape|dl4|link2|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asylum.com%2F2009%2F11%2F06%2Fnew-v-miniseries-a-treat-for-obama-opponents%2F

  57. well all the Hillary hate is firmly directed at Sarah Palin now…

    has anyone see this yet?

    mediaite.com/print/newsweek-cover-races-to-the-bottom-with-old-photo-of-palin/

    check out the cover of Newsweek…I thought it was a joke…but evidently no…the MSM has gone too far…this is disgusting…they are out to humilate and destroy this woman…sexist, misogynist…and well, well beyond…so mean spirited…they are sick…and so hateful

  58. S
    November 14th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
    —————————————————————–

    The Palin hate is just getting started. She did pose for that picture and now the press is going to use it, to debase her further. Newsweek has really declined in its presentation and content. I wish some of the so-called feminist organizations would stick up for women, who are being treated in such a sexist and misogynistic manner. Most of them didn’t even stand up for Hillary, a liberal and pro-choice hardworking woman who has spent her entire fighting for the rights of women and children. We live in a very paternalistic and misogynistic society, where women, especially powerful women, are treated as second class citizens. Women don’t even have control over their reproductive rights, since the Stupid amendment was passed. Women are losing ground.

  59. I so agree with you Birdgal…it was the hateful way the PINOS, male and female, treated Hillary that so completely turned me off that I will never feel party loyalty again…what a disillusionment…these people have shown themselves to be really hateful…and I mean, full of hate and vengence…no objectivity, just agenda driven…nasty, mean spirited people with no sense of fairness…like a pack of vultures…

    I hope the women who have not yet realized that we are just tools to this ‘new democratic party’ will begin to wake up…this democratic party goes after women with a vengence…it is an insult to all women…I don’t even see the repubs acting out this badly…no manners at all…

    I am so completely disgusted with the whole so called left/progressives…progressives, my —!

  60. S, I wouldn’t give the Repubs a pass on this. Look at what they did to Hillary. Both parties are against powerful and popular women, and the powers to be, seem to be out to destroy them. Even a powerful leader such as Pelousy sold women’s rights down the river to be part of the old boys club. No morals, whatsoever.

  61. birdgal, I am not giving the repubs a pass on this, believe me…but they don’t go out of there way professing to be the party for women’s rights, bla, bla, bla…and then throw them under the bus like roadkill…

    …only a fool would continue to buy this BS…I will say one thing, I don’t agree with Bachmann and Marcia Blackburn philosophically but I respect them both for getting out there and speaking their mind and standing up for what they believe in…happened to catch Blackburn on c-span last night and frankly I do not know all of her positions but she communicated in a very measured and intelligent way…and made alot of common sense…she also opposed bush and the repubs out of control spending – and she made it clear that the people, the voters, she speaks with are sick and tired of BOTH PARTIES…that is why more and more people are trending independent…

  62. S, I’ve been decline to state” since May, 2008. I haven’t listened to Bachmann or Blackburn. Seem to be too extreme for me.

  63. Something I wrote today you might be interested in:

    A year has passed since Obama was elected. His poll numbers have fallen from the stratospheric heights they were at then. His approval rating is now below 50%. Pundits and pollsters alike are setting off warning flares. And they have found just the right nostrum: Mr. Obama must adopt a more conservative fiscal policy or else his party will suffer dire consequences in the 2010 election. That is the position of pollster Scott Rasmussen and political advisor Doug Schoen. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525543109875438.html. Newsweek writer Scott Trende makes essentially the same argument when he says the Jacksonians and the suburban voters are deserting Obama because they know they will pay dearly for Obama’s destructive spending spree. (Note: Scott also boasts that he and Jay Cost invented the term “Jacksonian” to describe the working class coalition that believes in traditional American values. Unless I am mistaken, that term was coined by the estimable Walter Russell Meade.) To complete the folly, Republicans are reading the tea leaves the exact same way. Suffice it to say, a good strategist could run circles around these tacticians.

    Soros is a strategist of the first order. He knew when he installed Obama that there would come a time when the hopium would wear off and in the morning after the American People would awaken to the inescapable fact that they are being robbed. Furthermore, he knew that when that happened a substantial anti-Obama coalition would form, and if that coalition could hang together then his man would be defeated in 2012. He will soon be 80 and might not live to see his plan for a New World Order come to fruition. Therefore, he needed an answer.

    The answer to this problem is as old as the Roman Empire: If the opposing army is superior in numbers then you create a crisis in its ranks, and then you divide and conquer. Obama does not need a majority to win in 2012. All he needs is to get more votes than the other candidate. And for Soros that is the trump card.

    The Soros strategy is in three (3) parts. The first part is to push for so-called Immigration Reform. This will be done in the name of national security, fighting terrorism, interdicting drug cartels and enhancing cross border economic activity. All of those are legitimate issues. Time will tell whether they are effectively addressed. But the political objective is to game the 2012 election. Amnesty will be the cutting edge issue. More than 12 million people are in this country today illegally, and the prospect of legalizing them while 17.5% of the American labor force is out of work is incendiary. That issue will ignite controversy and the word racist will be redeployed. It will galvanize Hispanic activists, antagonize unemployed Americans, and drive a wedge into the body politic including the anti-Obama coalition. Also, it facilitates the open borders position of Soros.

    Second, Soros can see the fissures within the Republican Party. Perhaps a better word would be schisms. Perhaps an ever better word would be great divide. Today, the Republican Party is a coalition of small government libertarians, religious conservatives and neo-con business interests. They agree on certain issues, disagree on others and if the candidate the party puts forward does not appeal to them they will either vote for a third party candidate as they did with Ross Perot in 1992, or else they will stay home as they did in 2008. We saw that as well in the 23d Congressional District of New York. As a result, the Democratic candidate won in 1992, and the Dimocratic candidate won in 2008. And in each case, those uncompromising Republican voters told themselves stood for principle and formed a circular firing squad.

    But Soros most certainly can and that is why he is starting to fund groups within the Republican coalition who press divisive positions. For example, he is making a large contribution the Catholic Church which opposes abortion. Also, his man Obama courts anti-gay spiritual leaders. Obama has nothing to fear from his own party because they have been neutered and would sooner surrender their first borne child then utter one word critical of him. But this tactic has a potent effect on the Republicans because it divides their coalition. It entices Christian leaders like the Reverend Dobbs to push political leaders who are not palatable to the Party or to the electorate as a whole. At the same time, it causes Republicans in name only aka RINOS to conclude that Obama is sympathetic to their position.

    Third, Soros is a practitioner of shock doctrine. He knows that whenever there is a crisis the majority of people will rally around the nominal leader, and forget everything else. Hollywood did a movie on this called Wag the Dog. Soros also knows if that leader can seize control of food, energy and the money supply then his power will become absolute. That is why his man Obama tells us that everything is a crisis. It is also why he has moved aggressively to take over the economy. And it may also explain why Mr. Obama has decided to prosecute the mastermind of 9/11 in U.S. District Court as a civilian with the full protection of the U.S. Constitution, rather than a military tribunal as enemy combatant under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This serves the interests of both Soros and Obama because it will keep the issue of interrogation techniques in the forefront of the nation and world. It will energize the radical left wing base of the Democratic Party in preparation for 2010 and it will ingratiate Obama to the Muslim world but at the expense of America. If it leads to acquittal as well it could then mainstream media can blame Bush and Obama can profess disappointment. It could also lead to a bonus round for Soros if the Bush officials who authorized the extreme interrogation measures are charged. In that case there could be a follow up trial and a Second Judgment at Nuremberg. Soros has a pathological hatred for Bush and this would delight him to no end. If the Republicans have any heavy hitters left like Ted Olsen then now would be a good time to start rolling them out. This is a very provocative move by Soros.

    Good God! Enough! Be off with you Irving Berlin! Try the benign explanation first! Isn’t it true that Soros could fund the Catholic Church for perfectly legitimate reasons such as a detached and disinterested generosity? Isn’t it possible that Soros heard the flute music of the Gospel of Wealth? How can you be sure his motive is Machiavellian? You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, but that is not the worst of it. No siree. How dare you ascribe base motives to our beloved President Obama? He has given so much HOPE to everyone—especially the unemployed. Just you wait Henry Higgins. By the end of his third term everything will be perfect. Right now, he is showing the world what a great nation we are by holding the terrorist trial in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty. And he is teaching the world that he is an open minded president who is willing to accord enemy combatants the presumption of innocence and the full protection of our laws. Why just last week he told us not to jump to conclusions about the tragedy at Fort Hood. He even joked about it. He always knows the perfect thing to say. Like dumb white cop. Now that is grace under fire. A more tolerant man I have never met. He is always thinking of us. And he is there when you need him– on bus placards, street cameras, art posters, magazine covers, sweat shirts, bloomers and everywhere else you look just grinning away. You cannot get away from him, but who would want to. We are so lucky to have him. (Weeping). How can you criticize our beloved Messiah? (SOB) And now you say these mean things about his avuncular Godfather? (Fortissimo) I hate you. You are . . . . delusional!

    Thank you for sharing your point of view. As for your question, the answer is simple. But first let me ask you a question: does a cat bark? I have studied the record, and if you have paid any attention to what I have said then this should not come as a surprise. How do I know that these irreproachable men have an ulterior political motive which is not in the interests of the American People? I know because I know the nature of the beast, the devil’s coup d’ etat, and the brave new world of George Soros. Trust me. You do not need to be clairvoyant. And it does not require inside information. All you need to do is get on their wave length. Then, you can watch them closely and see for yourself what they are doing to our country. Trust your own eyes and ignore mainstream media. They are a dishonest broker. To know more you would need to be inside the Soros camp. And if perchance you are then you have my sympathies. There will be times when your conscience troubles you, and you wonder if the paycheck is really worth it. But there is more than one lawful way to defend our country.

  64. While Hillary has taken the brunt of Obama hate, others see hatred spewing from the man as well:
    Paul Mirengoff: Why does he hate us? Barack Obama’s America-effacing presidency | Washington Examiner

    …What will be the consequences of that presidency? Domestically, we can expect the president to continue trying to remodel the American economy along radical lines.And given his mistrust of his countrymen’s instincts, we can expect attempts to curb personal freedom. Fortunately, in the domestic realm, Obama cannot implement very much of this agenda without the “consent of the governed,” as expressed through their elected representatives. Thus, Obama can be constrained.If the electorate chooses not to constrain him, he will have earned the right to work his radical transformation.

    In the area of foreign and national security policy, however, Obama can operate largely unchecked.And a weak, guilt-ridden policy toward our foreign adversaries is almost certain to produce grave consequences….

    www dot washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Why-does-he-hate-us_-Barack-Obama_s-America-effacing-presidency-8527502-69992852.html

  65. Fort Hood tragedy exposes Obama’s strategic shortcomings

    By Jonah Goldberg
    Sunday, November 15, 2009

    Let me say up front, I don’t think President Obama is to blame for the Fort Hood shootings, and I don’t think it’s fair to say otherwise.

    But (you knew there had to be a “but”), that doesn’t mean Obama won’t pay a political price for Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s rampage.

    At first blush, it seems distasteful to take a political yardstick to the pain suffered at Fort Hood. But if we are to consider this incident part of the bloody tapestry of the larger war on terror, there’s no way to separate it from politics. After all, the war on terror has been driving politics in America for the better part of a decade.

    If this is just another incident where a deranged man went “postal” at his office, then there’s no reason to second-guess the Obama administration’s fairly relentless effort to dismantle the war on terror.

    That effort stems from what Obama believes to be a sweeping mandate to be Not George Bush. In pursuit of that mandate, the White House has already purged the phrase “war on terror” from its lexicon, preferring “overseas contingency operations.” Obama is hell-bent on closing Guantanamo Bay, is making progress on the White House project to treat terrorists as mere criminals, and has kowtowed to the United Nations as no president has. Meanwhile, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano says that Islamic terrorism like we saw on 9/11 should now be referred to as “man-caused disasters.”

    All of these moves seemed politically palatable for a war-weary country that felt, rightly or wrongly, as if we’d made it through the worst of it. It was time for a makeover of our political house. The problem is that, rather than merely throw on a fresh coat of paint and lay down some new carpeting, Obama is going after load-bearing walls and structural beams. And if the war on terror refuses to go away as easily as the phrase we use for it did, the whole edifice of the Obama administration could come crashing down.

    For instance, it seems likely that Obama has already suffered a rhetorical defeat. Whatever his faults, President George W. Bush got to say one thing that the American people always appreciated: After 9/11, he kept us safe from a terrorist attack on the homeland. If Hasan acted as a jihadist terrorist and not a disgruntled psychiatrist, Obama can’t even make the same claim about his first year in office.

    And if we see more of this sort of thing, the underpinnings of Obama’s national-security posture may well disintegrate. His reputation for flexibility notwithstanding, the record shows that he is, in fact, implacably ideological when it comes to his core beliefs. If terrorism drives the country rightward, he may well choose to stand his ground. That’s what he’s done with the domestic crisis. While the country has been screaming for Washington to concentrate on fixing the economy and the unemployment rate, Obama and his party have rigidly focused on their health-care schemes and cap-and-trade – which, even if they work, will do nothing to fix joblessness in the near future.

    Conversely, if the “Hasanity defense” prevails, and the left convinces the country – or even itself – that the shootings were a tragic byproduct of two unnecessary wars, the president will still be in a bind. Particularly among Obama’s core supporters, the notion that violence only begets more violence is as popular as it is untrue.

    If the majority of Americans had thought in 2008 that the war on terror was a top priority, they wouldn’t have voted for Obama. It only makes sense that if the war on terror once again becomes a top priority, they’ll most likely regret their vote.

    http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1211960&srvc=home&position=emailed

  66. Lou Dobbs’s first prime time television interview since leaving CNN will be on Fox News’s “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday.

    He’ll also make an appearance on
    The Daily Show with Jon on Wednesday.

  67. S, this place in Florida that Chris Mathews is talking about is a place where George Soros has a home and is home to many that belong to the Bilderberg group.

  68. For sure we know that the folks that picked Obama know he is fried and they have to find a new puppet, I personally don’t think it would be Palin, she has too much of Hillary’s personality in here.
    They know the American people aren’t falling for all that hopey, changey bullshit again.

  69. HRC is on now with Stefenopolis. She was asked to explain his position on Afganistan. She did that with a lot of words. The more words you have to use to explain some thing, then, the more muddy the position is.

    When I had to justify something at hearings, if my position was soft, I would use a lot of words so that people kind of forgot what they asked. I think they use the same techniques to explain OO. Just my opinion.

  70. NewMexicoFan, we made clear when the rumors first surfaced that Hillary would absolutely not run for NY Governor – it was always a silly rumor. Now Hillary shuts the door firmly on the Stephanopoulos show. Contrast that firm shutdown with the extremely mild presidential rumors:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1109/Clinton_wont_run_for_NY_governior.html

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says there’s no truth to rumors she’s been discussing a possible bid for New York governor in 2010.

    “That’s another one of those stories that never will die. I hope maybe we can put it to rest today,” Clinton told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.” “No, I am committed to the job that I have.”

    Clinton seemed more amused than irritated by the question, but she did urge Stephanopoulos to quash the talk once and for all.

    “That rumor is dead. If you could be please put it in a little box and send it off somewhere, I’d appreciate it,” she said in the interview, conducted via satellite from Singapore where she is on a presidential trip to Asia.

    Clinton was followed by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who had been primed for a much anticipated 2000 senate run against her before a prostate cancer prognosis on the heels of reports of adultery and a divorce pushed him from the race.

    Giuliani seemed more surprised by Clinton’s firmness than by her decision, telling Stephanopoulos, “It was interesting to see her be so definitive about it but I kind of thought that.”

Comments are closed.