Hillary Clinton And The Sanity Bubble

SkyNews trys to understand the charms of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin today. Therefore there is a big patch of Big Pink in their discussion.

The Big Pink article reproduced at SkyNews explains enough of our attitude about Sarah Palin so we won’t focus on Sarah today.

Today, we want to end the year on a Cloud 9 of Pink fluffiness. We want to discuss Hillary Clinton at the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010.

* * * * *

One of the most intriguing observations about the Japanese and the causes of World War II is that the Japanese act collectively. The analysis concludes that, because of their collective mindset, in the 1930s and 40s, the Japanese people went collectively insane. While we think the battle over natural resources leads to a better understanding of the causes of World War II, this interesting observation of 1930s Japanese society skews our view of what is happening in the United States. It’s almost as if the United States has gone collectively insane.

In 2000, the country was saddled with George W. Bush – a man even his family was surprised could possibly want or win the presidency. Yes, the election was a selection by the Supreme Court, but still a lot of people, about half the country, voted for Bush. In 2004 Bush was reelected despite a massive intelligence failure which was exposed with two demolished towers in New York City.

In 2008, after eight years of disaster, the Democratic Party finally organized itself – in order to defeat and destroy the most qualified candidate and gift the nomination to a self-interested boob. The Democratic Party in 2008 dumped the winning FDR coalition in order to embrace a losing “situation comedy” demographic as its base coalition. The Democratic Party in 2008 committed suicide and an ugly monstrosity put on the old Democratic clothes and became the Dimocratic Party of Barack Obama.

This was insanity. A whole decade of insanity. Trade one Republican boob for one Dimocratic boob. Insanity.

Into the American madness, like a pocket of air in a sunken Chappaquiddick car, there is a bubble of sanity.

“At the end of the 21st century’s first decade,” the sanity bubble is Hillary Clinton and her growing army of supporters.

One is a woman who once lived in the White House — Hillary Rodham Clinton. And the other is a woman suspected of harboring ambitions of living there someday — Sarah Palin.

A Democrat and a Republican. A former senator and a former governor. Two polarizing politicians, both moms, both bestselling authors, both who lost their bids for one of the nation’s top elected offices last year.

Are American voters dropping a hint here?

Two women, both savaged and termed “polarizing”, from opposite sides of the political spectrum, find themselves oddly united in a cause. The cause is the fight against sexism and misogyny.

We used to think that it was the Republicans who were mouth-breathers and Neanderthals but now that best describes Obama’s Dimocratic Party. Republicans who are Palin supporters are now champions in the fight against sexism and misogyny. Let’s hope they stay that way and the conversion into opposition of sexism and misogyny is a permanent, eyes opened, new state of being.

The Hillary Clinton Sanity Bubble gives us HOPE. Perhaps the decade of decline and insanity is truly over. As we enter 2010 Hillary Clinton is the most admired woman in the United States, again. A Hillary Clinton versus Sarah Palin 2012 election would forever blast and destroy the glass ceiling of sexism and misogyny that Barack Obama and his Dimocratic Party exploit.

Not that public admiration necessarily translates to votes. But the results have to set off any political spectator’s eager imagination about a future presidential ballot match-up between the pair who, though politically polar opposites, are both outspoken, both often underestimated and both beloved by their respective bases.

The Hillary Clinton Sanity Bubble gives us all HOPE for CHANGE. Not false hope and cheap change, but a successful battle plan for future changes for the better. The Hillary Clinton Sanity Bubble comes from the hearts and minds of Americans. The Sanity Bubble persists even with Obama attempts to pin prick it. The Sanity Bubble persists and grows. The Hillary Clinton Sanity Bubble is a survivor.

Clinton’s 17 straight years as most- or second-most-admired woman is unprecedented since Gallup began asking the question in 1948 (when presidential daughter Margaret Truman and then-Princess, now Queen Elizabeth II were in the top 10.)

Clinton first headed the list in 1993 as the new first lady in the White House.

And she remained highly admired as first lady throughout the public and private turmoils of her husband’s two terms, then as a senator from New York and now as the nation’s 67th secretary of State, only the third woman to hold the post.

Michelle Obama, known for her work in hospital patient dumping schemes found herself in the discount bin of a Science Fiction convention.

The latest new first lady, Michelle Obama, trailed on this year’s most-admired-women list.

She ended up back at No. 4. As The Ticket reported here Monday, in a separate poll, Mrs. Obama is also mirroring her husband’s plunge in approval ratings. From November to December, her approval numbers dropped seven points, down to 55, still higher than the president’s.

The Hillary Clinton Sanity Bubble is not a Wall Street financial Bubble. The Hillary Clinton Sanity Bubble is an antidote to insanity. The Hillary Clinton Sanity Bubble is long term and growing. Have we said “unprecedented”?

Among women, Clinton continues an unprecedented 17-year run as the first or second most-admired woman. She first led the list in 1993 as first lady and has held the top spot for the past eight years as a New York senator and, now, the nation’s top diplomat. [snip]

Over the years, the list has reflected women’s changing roles. In 1948, the top-10 list included presidential daughter Margaret Truman and Princess Elizabeth of England as well as their mothers. Only one, former House member Clare Boothe Luce, had held elective office.

Now, it includes three current or former heads of state, two U.S. secretaries of State, a former governor and a writer, Maya Angelou.

There is not much good news other than the Hillary Clinton Sanity Bubble as we enter the second year of the Barack Obama Age Of Fake swamp. When you elect a boob, expect boobery. We expect a lot more boobery.

The boobery of the New Year will begin at midnight tonight with the Iran drama and the expired deadline. The boobery will continue with the Obama health scam. The boobery will continue. The insanity will not stop. The insanity will have to be stopped.

The insanity will be stopped with sanity. It will begin with massive Dimocratic defeats in November 2010. The insanity will end with Hillary 2012.


92 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton And The Sanity Bubble

  1. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/day_of_reckoning_hHNtbO7IbHnphV3rxxYZ8N

    It’s showtime, folks! Today’s the deadline President Obama imposed on Iran’s leaders to give up their nuclear ambitions and be nice.

    Not sure if the deadline expires at midnight in Tehran or on Washington time, but the mullahs and President Mahmoud “Mighty Mouse” Ahmadinejad aren’t scrambling to give Obama a New Year’s Eve smooch.

    Rather than cave in to our president’s mighty rhetoric, the Tehran tyrants took a break from killing protesters in the streets to attempt to import more than 1,300 tons of make-a-nuke uranium ore from Kazakhstan.

    They’ve also increased their nuke-cooker centrifuge count, tested new long-range missiles and lied like Persian rugs about hidden nuke sites. In response, our president threatened to huff and puff and blow their house down.

    Iran’s retort? “Love the cool breeze, Barack.”

    This is another debacle of Obama’s own making. It’s a fundamental rule of playgrounds and security policy that you shouldn’t make threats you can’t or won’t back up. But Obama’s in love with the sound of his own voice. The fanatics in Tehran are more interested in the sound of a nuclear blast.

  2. Last poll of the year:


    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 24% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18 (see trends). Twenty-nine percent (29%) now say the country is heading in the right direction.

    Fifty-two percent (52%) of those with health insurance say it’s at least somewhat likely that passage of health care reform could force them to change their insurance coverage. That figure is essentially unchanged since June when the public debate over the legislation began. Seventy-eight percent (78%) say it’s at least somewhat likely that the proposed health care reform legislation will cost more than projected.

    At midnight on New Year’s Eve, 62% of American adults say they’ll be awake to welcome in the new year. Half expect to kiss someone at midnight and more people will pray than drink.

  3. 2012…so much to endure till then. But that bubble is getting pretty big. I talk with very few people now who are not cursing the Boob. Members of my own family who voted for him are finally waking up, saying, “Oh, God, we could have had Hillary!” and “You were right. I should have paid more attention to what was going on.” and “What was the name of that website you wanted me to read? – is that still running?” to which cousin ‘grape’ replies, “HILLARYIS44.ORG, DAMNIT!”
    We were all Democrats – the whole family – for generations. It’s hard to say we must now vote most of the Dems (Dims) out of office. But there really is no other choice.
    Eleonora Duse used to say: “For the theatre to survive, the theatre must die.”
    Let go of all the dead clichés, the claques and the elites, throw the money changers out of the temple. Begin again with honest hearts and dedicated souls wherever you can find them.
    UK Times
    December 31, 2009
    Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    The article ends with this:
    “Dick Cheney, the former Vice-President, added his weight to the Republican critique of Mr Obama’s response to the aircraft plot. “It is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war,” he said. “But we are at war and when [he] pretends we aren’t it makes us less safe.”
    The travelling White House said that it was telling that Mr Cheney had condemned the President but not Mr Abdulmutallab. However, aides to Mr Obama are acutely aware that his attempt to mix crisis management with golf, tennis and body surfing has been a public relations disaster.”
    ADMIN and all Big Pinkers, we wish you a HAPPY, HEALTHY and PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR – in spite of everything. And thank you so much, so much, so much for all the work you do here!

  4. right on, Admin…

    a toast to Hillary and her confidant sanity and a Happy 2010…may she remain untouched by the boob and his self imposed undoing…may Hillary continue to keep us from the quicksand that O and the dims are hellbent on dragging us all into…

  5. Lil Ole Grape, it’s not just the Democratic rank and file that are heading for the hills.


    Democrats have lost yet another touted recruit, this time in Kansas.

    State Sen. Laura Kelly (D) just announced her withdrawal from the race to face Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.). She becomes the fifth formidable recruit to bow out in recent weeks. [snip]

    Kelly joins several recent dropouts, including businessman Jack McDonald, a well-funded challenger to Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) who announced last week that he wouldn’t run. The others are Ohio state Rep. Todd Book, who was running against Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio); former Tennessee Commerce and Insurance Commissioner Paula Flowers, who was running for Rep. Zach Wamp’s (R-Tenn.) seat; and Solana Beach City Councilman Dave Roberts, who was running against Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.).

    Both McDonald and Kelly were cited in a late October memo from DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) that touted the committee’s recruiting successes.

    On top of that, Democrats have lost four incumbents in vulnerable districts to retirement recently. It has been a distinct shift, taking five seats off the map on offense and adding four on defense.

  6. At midnight on New Year’s Eve, 62% of American adults say they’ll be awake to welcome in the new year. Half expect to kiss someone at midnight and more people will pray than drink.

    i suggest we both pray AND drink.

    admin – thanks for keeping the sanity bubble alive the past year. 2010 will no doubt be one hell-of-a-year. let’s focus on kicking some serious dim-ocrat butt.


  7. …and, ah, we could have had Hillary. The article that included Hillary and Sarah brought back the memory of standing in the middle of one of the busiest four lane highways locally with my homemade sign that pointed out the sexism and misogyny that Hillary endured and my support for McPalin. The entourage that included the Biden bus on his way the short distance down the road, on Millionaire Row, to speak. Traffic was lined up bumper to bumper, partly due to the Biden speech and partly because it is also busy. The stalled traffic had ample opportunity to read my sign; one African American woman read my sign, looked at me and said, “Fool’s Gold.” I wonder if the woman is still intoxicated with Obama.

    Happy New Year to all.

  8. techpresident.com/blog-entry/the-obama-disconnect

    The Obama Disconnect: What Happens when Myth Meets Reality


    After all, the image of Barack Obama as the candidate of “change”, community organizer, and “hope-monger” (his word), was sold intensively during the campaign. Even after the fact, we were told that his victory represented the empowerment of a bottom-up movement, powered by millions of small donors, grassroots volunteers, local field organizers and the internet. A few examples…bla, bla, bla


    The truth is that Obama was never nearly as free of dependence on big money donors as the reporting suggested, nor was his movement as bottom-up or people-centric as his marketing implied. And this is the big story of 2009, if you ask me, the meta-story of what did, and didn’t happen, in the first year of Obama’s administration. The people who voted for him weren’t organized in any kind of new or powerful way, and the special interests–banks, energy companies, health interests, car-makers, the military-industrial complex–sat first at the table and wrote the menu. Myth met reality, and came up wanting.


    Nor, it is clear, was Obama’s campaign ever really about giving control to the grassroots. As Zephyr Teachout wrote here a while back, the campaign shared tasks with its supporters but didn’t share power. In some notable cases, volunteers were given substantial responsibilities in the field, and access to more data than would typically be shared by most top-down organizations. But in terms of empowering anyone, Obama’s campaign structure empowered its managers more than anyone else. It’s just silly for Mitch Stewart, the head of Organizing for America, the successor organization to the Obama campaign, to email his list yesterday saying,

    “Early this year, millions of you chose to keep working together and create Organizing for America” [and] “you built a massive organization, driven by local leadership”

    when the local base of the Obama campaign had no meaningful say in the creation and structure of Organizing for America, and there is no evidence that OFA is actually driven by anything but what its DNC-paid staff and White House advisers want. If Stewart, or Jeremy Bird or Natalie Foster or any of the other good people working for OFA want to refute this by sharing details of OFA’s governance structure and how the local leadership actually drives the organization, I’m happy to be proven wrong.

    The Useful Myth of the Obama Campaign

    I’ve always thought that the idea of Obama as grassroots champion was more myth than reality, especially after reporting on how his campaign treated one genuine grassroots activist, Joe Anthony, who had spent more than two years of his life nurturing a page on MySpace dedicated to Obama, well before there was any campaign, only to have it stripped out of his control when it became a valuable campaign asset.


    read the rest at the site…moral of the story: a new sucker born every day…and O created a whole swarm of them…

  9. Dow wound up down 120.
    Despite all the hoopla of jobs data being ‘unexpectedly brighter.’
    Thanks for nothing, barack.

  10. We refer to countries as Evil Empires.

    Our congressmen and senators are becoming The Den of Iniquity.

    Happy New Year All and fight for Hillary as our next POTUS.It must happen soon.

    BY ABM90

  11. Admin: As a non-commenting regular reader since the primary, I feel an obligation at this time to state that it is astounding how your columns keep getting better and better (and they were great to start with). Since the beginning, you have always distinguished yourself from the other Clinton-supporting sites by daring to challenge Mrs. Clinton when you thought that she or her campaign could have been more effective. Now, each column out-performs the last and, of course, you are continually being proven right on every prediction that you have made.

    It is truly a tragedy that a blog such as this is necessary; but since it IS necessary, it might as well be accurate, well-sourced, and entertaining. You accomplish this with every column.

    On behalf of other non-commenting but loyal readers, I send a sincere thank you for all of your hard work and wish you and all of the regular commenters the best for the new year.

  12. I’ve wondered if it was just my imagination, seeing such resemblence between Hillary and Palin.

    I’ve felt all along that … well, anyone who is honest and wonkish and bucks the system gets attacked. (Even men, eg Gore.) Women get attacked, unless they are very useful to some men.

    So maybe a woman who is getting attacked anyway for being a woman, has nothing more to lose by being wonkish and honest too? 😉 Or maybe wonkish honest performance is the only card she can play.

    Anyway — they both seem no nonsense, feet on the ground, head in good fresh air….

  13. Wonderful article, admin.

    Mo must be sleeve-yanking like crazy after learning she’s not even in the money for the top 3 most admired women


    Happy New year to everyone at Bigpink and let’s hope the sanity bubble is puncture-proof in 2010.

  14. Thanks Admin and Big Pink. Thanks posters. Thanks readers.

    Ready to roll up my sleeves next year and work hard for hot dogs, baseball, apple pie, and Chevrolet – nope not for Chevrolet as they are now Government Motors – replace that with a return to the founding father’s principles and the Constituion.

  15. Interesting how the year ended with the positive jobs report…..it will all come down to the economy and how health care is viewed both in 2010 and 2012….I think we still have an uphill battle to defeat Obama and the dems, but hopefully a new year will bring real change for our country.
    Happy and healthy New Year to all !!!

  16. What a wonderful way to ring in the new year. Thank you for another stellar article, Admin.

    And on another note, I don’t know if this has been posted yet, but I was in a local bookstore today and noticed a new title…lol…I got a huge smile on my face. 🙂

    “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media

    By Bernard Goldberg”

  17. I rented the movie El Cid, and it opens with a scene where a charasmatic berber leader from North Africa in black robe with face covered so you can only see the eyes–flashing black eyes, and hateful words. He walks among his assembled generals and speaks in apocalyptic tones. He condemns them for their weakness and commands them in the name of Allah to kill all heretics and non believers. The target is the Christian kingdoms in Spain, but his stated intention is to conquer all of Christendom and kill all infidels.

    It is a frightening scene in an otherwise lackluster movie, which is never quite redeemed by the acting skills of Charleton Heston or the beauty of Sophia Loren. In the next scene, Heston spares the life of Muslim soldiers, and they swear fealty to the King of Castille. I have not seen the second part yet, but I fully expect to see that Muslim friend of El Cid make good on his promise.

    A thousand years ago and it is so much like the time in which we live. Nunc pro tunc. Then as now. Happy New Year, and Hillary as President in 2012.

    and he condemns them as weak in their faith and they listen to him with blank stares. He commands them and commands them in the name of Allah to kill all

  18. Mike Marks
    December 31st, 2009 at 4:58 pm

    Admin: As a non-commenting regular reader since the primary, I feel an obligation at this time to state that it is astounding how your columns keep getting better and better (and they were great to start with).

    Welcome, Mike.

    To all “long time listeners, first time caller” folks, feel free to chime in. Anyone with the interest to read this political blog is bound to have valid points.

    Even if it’s just to chine in, “hear hear”.

    And don’t forget, sometimes there are gaps. Long gaps. Four hours with nary a peep.

    We’ll squeeze ya in. 8*)

  19. Admin: Yet another great article!
    Mike, welcome to big pink, its been like a family to me since I found it. Lots of good folks here supporting Hillary and the good ole USA.

    Wbboei, Its only fitting that you would be watching El Cid, LOL!!

    The Dow closed at a loss, Hmmm, hmmm, well its not taking long for Soros and Zbig to finish wrecking the place. This scenario has been forcasted months ago. Only the hapless, busy, unimformed folks will be caught off guard.

    Mrs. Smith, I hope your getting better, as we have lots to research and report, a brand new year of corruption, scoundrels, and the infamous Harry and Nancy to watch.

    Happy New Year to all, fortunately here in Texas its raining and the red necks, new years and rain don’t mix, so I am sure I will be busy tonight as I am working.

  20. This article rang a lot of bells for me personally. I think the US is going thru a collective insanity, as is my work.

    I have always felt a connection between Sarah and Hillary. Gore, sorry turndown, not so much, but you do try, I give that up to you.

    I wish all a safe New Year, and we will go onward thru the Fog in a new year…We will win…we have to…

  21. Anxious Democrats divide over path forward


    Mary B // December 31, 2009 at 7:01 am

    White House takes four days to respond to terror attack, but responds to Cheney criticism in matter of hours?

    By: Mark Hemingway


    David’s post below on the White House’s decision to accuse of all people, Dick Cheney, of being insufficiently critical of al Qaeda beggars belief. As Jim Geraghty quipped, “He’s beyond condemning [bomber Abdulmutallab]; he wants to waterboard him until his lungs qualify for a federal wetlands status.” We all agree al Qaeda’s attempts to blow up airplanes are bad — the question is what is the current occupant of the White House going to do about it?

    But what I can’t wrap my head around is that it took the President four days to acknowledge what he termed a “catastrophic” national security failure, but Cheney criticizes the administration’s handling of the war on terror and they have a rapid response on the White House blog in a matter of hours? Priorities!

    Then again, it took six days to respond to the riots in the streets of Tehran during their election, so four days seems about right for a barely averted domestic catastrophe.

    Also, is the White House aware of how small they look when they are so obviously spooked by Cheney’s every utterance? Remember when the President rescheduled a press conference earlier this year to deliberately conflict with a pre-planned Cheney speech?

    We could really use a steady hand on the tiller while dealing with national security matters, but the White House is still in campaign mode, worried about what a private citizen — who left office remarkably unpopular! — thinks of them.

    Suffice to say, this is not reassuring.

  22. my my my. I thought Brown looked a little “off” when I first saw him in a video with his daughters. I don’t feel good about this guy…

    Conservative Republican & “America’s Sexiest Man” Contest Winner Gains Momentum in Massachusetts Senate Race
    Thursday, December 31, 2009, 12:03 AM
    Jim Hoft
    Scott Brown, a former Cosmo Centerfold contest winner and conservative Republican from Massachusetts, is gaining momentum in the US Senate race to replace liberal Senator Ted Kennedy.

    Scott Brown won Cosmo’s “America’s Sexiest Man” contest and appeared in the June 1982 issue.
    Legal Insurrection has the latest:

    There is Scott Brown the Senate candidate in Massachusetts, and there is Scott Brown, the musician in New Zealand. They each have Twitter accounts, but the Scott Brown from Down Under laid claim to @ScottBrown first, and the Senate candidate had to resort to @ScottBrownMA.

    As the Boston Globe reports, in the past few days, as @ScottBrownMA has gained momentum through bloggers and twitterers and other social media, @ScottBrown has been inundated with people seeking @ScottBrownMA.

    Despite, or maybe because of, Martha Coakley’s high profile as Massachusetts Attorney General, there doesn’t seem to be any grassroots enthusiasm for her campaign. Coakley has a sense of entitlement, but Brown is experiencing a groundswell of support.

    Coakley’s Twitter account (@MarthaCoakley) has 1915 followers compared to 2322 for @ScottBrownMA.

    Brown’s Facebook page has 8689 fans versus 6255 at Coakley’s Facebook page. The BrownBrigade online network has 2517 members; I could find nothing similar for Coakley.

    Clearly, despite lower name recognition, less money, and without the powerful union and entrenched political interests behind him, Scott Brown is gaining momentum the new-fashioned way. Will there be enough time to translate this momentum into votes?

    Spread the word, by voice, e-mail, Tweet, Facebook, whatever.

    By the way, Scott Brown’s daughter was a finalist on American Idol a few years back. He’s a good guy, and an attractive conservative candidate.

    Here’s a great ad put out by the Scott Brown Campaign:

    Republican U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown and President Kennedy are two different people, from different parties and different eras, but they agree that broad-based tax cuts will create jobs and stimulate the economy. In this creative campaign ad, Brown and Kennedy take turns reading from the same 1962 Kennedy speech calling for tax cuts.

    Scott Brown’s New Year’s ad is pretty good, too.

    Jules Crittenden has more on Scott Brown’s campaign.

    The Latest Community, Education, Crime & Government News
    Flight 253 passenger Kurt Haskell: ‘I was visited by the FBI’
    By Aaron Foley | MLive.com
    December 31, 2009, 9:41AM
    Courtesy photoLori and Kurt Haskell
    Following up on a visit from FBI officials about an eyewitness account first described to MLive.com, Michigan attorney Kurt Haskell described the visit in comment sections across MLive on Wednesday.

    Haskell and his wife, Lori, were aboard Flight 253 when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab allegedly tried to destroy the plane. They say another man tried to help Abdulmutallab board the plane in Amsterdam.

    Haskell had two detailed posts in two different stories. Here is Part One, originally posted here:

    “Today is the second worst day of my life after 12-25-09. Today is the day that I realized that my own country is lying to me and all of my fellow Americans. Let me explain.

    Ever since I got off of Flight 253 I have been repeating what I saw in US Customs. Specifically, 1 hour after we left the plane, bomb sniffing dogs arrived. Up to this point, all of the passengers on Flight 253 stood in a small area in an evacuated luggage claim area of an airport terminal. During this time period, all of the passengers had their carry on bags with them. When the bomb sniffing dogs arrived, 1 dog found something in a carry on bag of a 30 ish Indian man. This is not the so called “Sharp Dressed” man. I will refer to this man as “The man in orange”. The man in orange, who stood some 20ft away from me the entire time until he was taken away, was immediately taken away to be searched and interrogated in a nearby room. At this time he was not handcuffed. When he emerged from the room, he was then handcuffed and taken away. At this time an FBI agent came up to the rest of the passengers and said the following (approximate quote) “You all are being moved to another area because this area is not safe. I am sure many of you saw what just happened (Referring to the man in orange) and are smart enough to read between the lines and figure it out.” We were then marched out of the baggage claim area and into a long hallway. This entire time period and until we left customs, no person that wasn’t a law enforcement personnel or a passenger on our flight was allowed anywhere on our floor of the terminal (or possibly the entire terminal) The FBI was so concerned during this time, that we were not allowed to use the bathroom unless we went alone with an FBI agent, we were not allowed to eat or drink, or text or call anyone. I have been repeating this same story over the last 5 days. The FBI has, since we landed, insisted that only one man was arrested for the airliner attack (contradicting my account). However, several of my fellow passengers have come over the past few days, backed up my claim, and put pressure on FBI/Customs to tell the truth. Early today, I heard from two different reporters that a federal agency (FBI or Customs) was now admitting that another man has been held (and will be held indefinitely) since our flight landed for “immigration reasons.” Notice that this man was “being held” and not “arrested”, which was a cute semantic ploy by the FBI to stretch the truth and not lie.

    Just a question, could that mean that the man in orange had no passport?

    However, a few hours later, Customs changed its story again. This time, Mr. Ron Smith of Customs, says the man that was detained “had been taken into custody, but today tells the news the person was a passenger on a different flight.” Mr. Ron Smith, you are playing the American public for a fool. Lets take a look at how plausible this story is (After you’ve already changed it twice). For the story to be true, you have to believe, that:

    1. FBI/Customs let passengers from another flight co-mingle with the passengers of flight 253 while the most important investigation in 8 years was pending. I have already stated that not one person who wasn’t a passenger or law enforcement personnal was in our area the entire time we were detained by Customs.
    2. FBI/Customs while detaining the flight 253 passengers in perhaps the most important investigation since the last terrorist attack, and despite not letting any flight 253 passenger drink, eat, make a call, or use the bathroom, let those of other flights trample through the area and possibly contaminate evidence.
    3. You have to believe the above (1 and 2) despite the fact that no flights during this time allowed passengers to exit off of the planes at all and were detained on the runway during at least the first hour of our detention period.
    4. You have to believe that the man that stood 20 feet from me since we entered customs came from a mysterious plane that never landed, let its passengers off the plane and let this man sneak into our passenger group despite having extremely tight security at this time (i.e. no drinking even).
    5. FBI/Customs was hauling mysterious passengers from other flights through the area we were being held to possibly comtaminate evidence and allow discussions with suspects on Flight 253 or to possibly allow the exchange of bombs, weapons or other devices between the mysterious passengers from other flights and those on flight 253.

    Seriously Mr. Ron Smith, how stupid do you think the American public is?

    Mr. Ron Smith’s third version of the story is an absolute inplausible joke. I encourage you, Mr. Ron Smith, to debate me anytime, anywhere, and anyplace in public to let the American people see who is credible and who is not.

    I ask, isn’t this the more plausible story:

    1. Customs/FBI realized that they screwed up and don’t want to admit that they left flight 253 passengers on a flight with a live bomb on the runway for 20 minutes.
    2. Customs/FBI realized that they screwed up and don’t want to admit that they left flight 253 passengers in customs for 1 hour with a live bomb in a carry on bag.
    3. Customs/FBI realize that the man in orange points to a greater involvement then the lone wolf theory that they have been promoting.

    Mr. Ron Smith I encourage you to come out of your cubicle and come up with a more plausible version number 4 of your story.”

    Haskell continued his comment in a different post on MLive.

    “For the last five days I have been reporting my story of the so called “sharp dressed man.” For those of you who haven’t read my account, it involves a sharp dressed “Indian man” attempting to talk a ticket agent into letting a supposed “Sudanese refugee” (The terrorist) onto flight 253 without a passport. I have never had any idea how it played out except to note that the so called “Sudanese reefugee” later boarded my flight and attempted to blow it up and kill me. At no time did my story involve, or even find important whether the terrorist actually had a passport. The importance of my story was and always will be, the attempt with an accomplice (apparently succesful) of a terrorist with all sorts of prior terrorist warning signs to skirt the normal passport boarding procedures in Amsterdam. By the way, Amsterdam security did come out the other day and admit that the terrorist did not have to “Go through normal passport checking procedures”.
    Amsterdam security, please define to the American public “Normal passport boarding procedures”.

    You see the FBI would have the American public believe that what was important was whether the terrorist in fact had a passport.

    Seriously think about this people. You have a suicide bomber who had recently been to Yemen to but a bomb, whose father had reported him as a terrorist, who supposedly was on some kind of U.S. terror watchlist, and most likely knew the U.S. was aware of these red flags. Yet, he didn’t go through “Normal passport checking procedures.” What does that mean? Maybe that he flashed a passport to some sort of sympathetic security manager in a backroom to avoid a closer look at the terrorist’s “red flags”? What is important is that the terrorist avoided using normal passport checking procedures (apparently successfully) in order to avoid a closer look into his red flags. Who cares if he had a passport. The important thing is that he didn’t want to show it and somehow avoided a closer inspection and “normal passport checking procedures.” Each passport comes with a bar code on it that can be scanned to provide a wealth of information about the individual. I would bet that the passport checking procedures for the terrorist did not include a bar code scan of his passport (which could have revealed damning information about the terrorist).

    Please note that there is a very easy way to verify the veracity of my prior “sharp dressed man” account. Dutch police have admitted that they have reviewed the video of the “sharp dressed man” that I referenced. Note that it has not been released anywhere, You see, if my eye witness account is false, it could easily be proven by releasing the video. However, the proof of my eyewitness account would also be verified if I am telling the truth and I am. There is a reason we have only heard of the video and not seen it. dutch authorities, “RELEASE THE VIDEO!” This is the most important video in 8 years and may be all of two minutes long. Show the entire video and “DO NOT EDIT IT”! The American public deserves its own chance to attempt to identify the “sharp dressed man”. I have no doubt that if the video indicated that my account was wrong, that the video would have already swept over the entire world wide web.

    Instead of the video, we get a statment that the video has been viewed and that the terrorist had a passport. Each of these statements made by the FBI is a self serving play on semantics and each misses the importance of my prior “sharp dressed man” account. The importance being that the man “Tried to board the plane with an accomplice and without a passort”. The other significance is that only the airport security video can verify my eyewitness account and that it is not being released.

    Who has the agenda here and who doesn’t? Think about that for a minute.”

  24. Gonzotex, My guess, this is a false flag flight. We have to reralize that our govt. has and does do these things in order to go into certain countries. I can tell they want to go into Africa and knock the Chinese out of there.

  25. gonzo,

    I too feel much more connection with Hillary and Palin than with Gore. I often mention him with them because (as well as being Bill’s VP) he too is a wonk who has been treated badly by the media etc. This is evidence that bad treatment may not be totally sexist but may also be directed at any effective reformer.

  26. Obama as ‘Avatar’?

    On a lighter note, I see a lot of reviews of Avatar that complain that an outsider is coming in as leader of the locals to solve their problems. And a sort of destined messiah at that.

    I wonder how many of the reviewers making that complaint voted for Obama? Who ran as an outsider, a different race, raised in Indonesia and Hawaii — thus UNIQUELY qualified to lead the US and solve its problems (and the world’s problems).

  27. Turndown, I have noticed more tv shows, and movies projecting that thought. Gee, I am sure they were in the making before he took office, I wonder what they think now that he has fallen flat on his face?

  28. Hmmm, I wonder if Sean, Glenn, Bill and Greta are vacationing in Hawaii, too? Rush is there, so is Obummer and MO, and Peloopsi. If so, I wonder who is in charge of the Summit.

  29. short termer, I was wonder the same thing. I bet all is watching to see if Obama has the hawaiian records people over for dinner.

    Sarah was there too, but the Papparrazzi drove them nuts and they left.

  30. Nancy Reagan is the first lady that Michelle reminds the most of. The stories from Beverly Hills that I used to hear at parties, are the same kind of stories I heard last year while making the documentary. Reagan never did well on those surveys either. I think she never made Most Admired Woman the entire time Ronnie held office.

    Two odious women, disconnected from reality by current privilege, without a touch of human warmth or dignity.

  31. Hey all, HAPPY NEW YEAR!! May it be a good one. I love that Admin has started to put focus on 2012 already, if my memory serves me right I seems to recall that you once just mentioned 2016…. But 2012 is much better, and actually believable. It would certainly be fun to watch the fall of O-bow-ma. As the saying goes, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

    Here’s a nice picture which, if your anything like me will bring a smile to your face. Of course, that’s after you get over your disbelief that this is actually Obummer. 🙂 It seems that pretending to be president is more tiresome than first thought.!!
    http://tinyurl.com/yhc3ns6 Can you say GRANDPA OBAMA???
    Drudge also have this up on top of his site.

  32. Gorto, Happy New Year! Haven’t seen you here in ages, welcome back.

    Can you believe those glasses, they are thick. Coke bottle glasses. LOL!! His image that Axelrove puts out there doesn’t allow coke bottle glasses. He must look like a stud all the time, not like Irkel.

  33. Thanks confloyd!

    Your right, there really are several pictures out there that shows a remarkable resemblance to steve urkle. They must be twins.

  34. Admin, there is some other Dim news at year’s end that is worthy of attention. From an article today:

    Technically, superdelegates can vote for whomever they want at the national convention, but in reality, there’s almost no scenario under which they would actually thwart the will of the popularly selected pledged delegates.

    Nonetheless, the mere possibility that they could thwart the popular will creates the illusion that contests that have been completely settled are still up for grabs, as happened in 2008 when then-candidate Obama was a virtual lock to win a majority of pledged delegates but theoretically could have lost if the supers ended up voting for Hillary Clinton en masse. Moreover, because the media included superdelegates in the delegate counts, the delegate scoreboard never really offered an accurate reflection of who was actually winning primaries and caucuses.

    The author of this article seems to conclude that o would have had his superdelegates and majority earlier if the superdelegates had been required to support the voters of their state. But is this true? Kennedy and Kerry, however grudgingly, would have had to support Hillary. Then, Hillary won all the big (Democratic) states with their superdelegates which, it seems to me (calculation I have not made) would have outnumbered the few supers that o would have won from all those Republican and caucus states.

  35. I should not have said returning HRC supporters. We know you have been here all the time. Just trying to recover from the 2008.

  36. There was so much crap and cheating that went down in the 08 election it’s just depressing. I do blame the big democratic heads, like Pelosi and harry, plus top dems(past candidates-kerry and dean) holding a grudge against the ever successful Clintons.

    Like Hillary has said, if she was at one point gonna choose to run, she would be alone like never before.
    But she still ran, and I thank her for that. She’s got courage!

    God, please give Hillary the courage she needs to run a second time-and win!

  37. NewMexicoFan, that’s right, trying to recover!!!

    Whenever I think back it nearly kills me, I am just so furious, still.
    And I keep hearing the same line over and over again in my head…”a thrill up my leg..” grrrrrrrr… nauseous.

    I try looking a head, we are closer to 2012 now then we were in november 08. *looking ahead*

    This new decade will be hers! (and ours)

  38. I agree, Gorto. I get upset everytime they say he won. It reminds me of people that invent history. Their memories of the past are the ones that support their position. I have a relative like that. Those of us on this blog that lived that history, know that it just was not true. In addition, as pointed out further up on this blog, he won a lot of Repubican states.

  39. A terrorist war Obama has denied

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, January 1, 2010

    Janet Napolitano — former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security — will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: “The system worked.” The attacker’s concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son’s jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.

    Heck of a job, Brownie.

    The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to play down and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism “man-caused disasters.” Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York — a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

    And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term “war on terror.” It’s over — that is, if it ever existed. Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term “asymmetric warfare.”

    And produces linguistic — and logical — oddities that littered Obama’s public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as “an isolated extremist.” This is the same president who, after the Fort Hood, Tex., shooting, warned us “against jumping to conclusions” — code for daring to associate the mass murder there with Nidal Hasan’s Islamist ideology. Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the would-be bomber acted alone.

    More jarring still were Obama’s references to the terrorist as a “suspect” who “allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device.” You can hear the echo of FDR: “Yesterday, December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor.” Obama reassured the nation that this “suspect” had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant — an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians — and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.

    Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point — surprise! — he stops talking. This absurdity renders hollow Obama’s declaration that “we will not rest until we find all who were involved.” Once we’ve given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.

    This is all quite mad even in Obama’s terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant. The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator — no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.

    The president said that this incident highlights “the nature of those who threaten our homeland.” But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as “extremist[s].”

    A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.

    Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy — jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon –turns laxity into a governing philosophy.


  40. Good catch JanH. Kraut telling it like it is. O’s days of silence (was it 3?) remind me of #43’s hiding after 9/11. The neophytes who confirm they are ready for anything … aren’t. Only thing is, #43 was a cheerleader in college. So when they got that megaphone in front of him at ground zero, #43 knew what to do. And he came out strong. The defining moment in his presidency. O didn’t have such good luck as the teleprompter signifies weakness. Hopefully this will be his defining moment, and his attacks on the republic will diminish.

    A side note. Pictures of O when they first dragged him out to speak are not complimentary. He looked very unkempt, scruffy, dazed?

  41. Last year was the year of hope. Not the kind of hope all of us feel for a better world, but wild delusional hope. Hope in a cynical Chicago politician who played a vulnerable, naive and desperate population like a fiddle. This would never have happened if we had a legitimate media in this country, but it is obvious to anyone paying attention that with rare exceptions we do not. Now that is hard cold reality. There is no room for honest debate. We can take judicial notice. It is as obvious as the report filed by AP and NYT on Copenhagen. They said Obama snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. The world press said Obama was defeated. The cover story of AP and NYT was shown to be a bold faced lie. The bet was they could lie to the American People about Obama, as they have been doing since the primary, and no one would notice. The problem is people do notice. They can run all the phony polls they want but in the end it comes down to something der spiegel said about him in his convoluted speech on Afghanistan: people may see politician through their soaring rhetoric. But when whose poiticians presume to govern people see them through the prism of their own lives, and the rest is just words. Therein lies the final verdict on Obama.

    invested in one man who was and is a fraud. In my opinion, this was one of the greatest frauds in modern times, a triumph

  42. Happy New Year to everyone! I am a new great aunt this morning.:)

    My niece, who I brought up in my home, had a baby boy last night. What a great way to start the year off.

  43. “The bet was they could lie to the American People about Obama, as they have been doing since the primary, and no one would notice. The problem is people do notice.”

    They didn’t have to lie. I honestly believe that obama’s rise had more to do with Hillary hate, reverse racism, movie star/guru status, and finally Soros obstruction. I don’t believe that anyone who voted for this idiot didn’t know up front that he wasn’t ready on day one. They voted for the new Elvis but their votes weren’t enough, so they rigged the process and the people who are supposed to know right from wrong/supposed to protect the country honestly, let them do it.

  44. To continue for a moment, if you are not a problemsolver, only a Cinderalla then you cannot produce results. And results, indeed favorable results, results that are so self evident and so much felt in the lives of ordinary Americans that they do not need legions of media hucksters to hype them to hell and back. Trust numbers over adjectives like “our most gifted politician, unless you are willing to say our most gifted politican who loves to party when millions of Americans are facing hard times, and who cannot pour piss out of a boot when it comes to governing.

  45. Yesterday, Michele Malkin was on FOX News discussion the abortive terrorist attack. She suggested that the fault lay with the State Department, since the father had warned them about his son on five separate occasions. That of course is a veiled attack upon Hillary and it is wrong. In fact, the State Department followed established procedures, and was could not by law do more. They were required to pass that information along to three intelligence agencies and in each case they did precisely that. Those agencies were the ones who fumbled the ball.

    But more important is what happened in the immediate aftermath of the incident. The world saw Obama go into a fetal position and issue no statement for three long days. How many other times has the same thing happened when there is no obvious way for the most intelligent man in history to spin it to his own advantage. That is cowardice–not leadership. It is crisis management gone bad.

    Compare and contrast how Hillary handled it. She knew from sound judgement and years of experience that you public confidence in its leaders is imperative, especially in times of crisis. You cannot hide from these things or attempt to downplay them. You must get out in front of them, and face the good the bad and the ugly sooner rather than later. Thus the minute she learned of this, I am certain that she was on the phone with the embassy sorting it all out, and addressing the question of how this bureaucratic snafu could be cured for the future.

    Hillary is a master of crisis management and if you study her career this point becomes obvious. For me, one example comes readily to mind. You may recall the confusion that occurred in one of the early states, either Iowa or New Hamshire when big media was trying to drive her out of the race, Penn had made a mess of things, and her own people were in a state of confusion. She stood up on a chair in the crowd and gave them clear directives. She went on to win New Hampshire against all odds, and the only thing big media could do at that point was play the race card–blaming it on white voters and the bradley effect. It was the Hillary effect, and it is a synonomous with leadership in circumstances of extremis.

    Once again. When a real crisis is at hand, Hillary marches to the front of the line and she leads. Barack curls up into a fetal position. That is the difference. And in 2012 or sooner that is all the difference the country needs.

  46. They didn’t have to lie. I honestly believe that obama’s rise had more to do with Hillary hate, reverse racism, movie star/guru status, and finally Soros obstruction. I don’t believe that anyone who voted for this idiot didn’t know up front that he wasn’t ready on day one. They voted for the new Elvis but their votes weren’t enough, so they rigged the process and the people who are supposed to know right from wrong/supposed to protect the country honestly, let them do it.
    Jan–I think an honest vetting by the media would have had a dramatic effect, and made it far more difficult to rig the process the way they did. I think the media painted a false picture and millions of voters who do not look below the surface took them at their word. I think the power of the media is nearly absolute in a population that does not read and is too preoccupied with their own lives to pay attention, much less apply critical thinking. Imagine where we would be today if we did not have FOX and not because they are fair and balanced (I would never accuse O’Reilly of that) but because they are willing to tell the American People 80% of the truth which the other media outlets routinely censor. I keep coming back to the press because they are the problem from alpha to omega. We need a free press and what we have instead is a press controlled by multi national corporations and soros who owns hundreds of newspapers around the world and a big part of ABC. As with everything else, the piper calls the tune.

  47. My niece, who I brought up in my home, had a baby boy last night. What a great way to start the year off.
    Congratulations Jan. That is wonderful.

  48. I beleive had it not been for John Edwards running Hillary would be president.

    John Edwards was stupid to think that no one would find out about his affair.

    With all that was going on with him he would never have become president.
    I beleive Elizabeth was not blind. She had to have known what was going on.

    I think he was put in to take votes away from Hillary.

    Hillary probably knew about the affair also. She didn’t want to rock the boat.

    He is paying for it now. I hope the woman he had the affair with take him to the cleaners.

    Mr. Cool is not Cool anymore

  49. Congratulation Jan!

    Happy New Year to all…..and may the forces for good overcome evil…..that is my wish for this year.

    That said…..I have become somewhat of a pariah at holiday parties and gatherings as I continue to speak out aginst the Obama dimocrat party. Sadly, most of these people are not giving an inch in their support of O and many are still trashing Hillary.

    We must all keep up the pressure. I am also interested in what some of you think about the tea party mmovement in that some press refers to them as conservative and libertarian. How much of the group do you think are democrats and Hillary supporter?

  50. Carol, I believe it is hard for people to admit they were wrong. In many cases, Dims think that a bad Dim is better than no Dim. The republicans felt the same way about GWB. Unfortunately, both are dead wrong, and the country and voters will pay the price.

    I is amazing to me that both of the parties of this democracy would want a poor leader, rather than the best leader that we can find to lead this country. Governing by committee (which is what a poor leader results in) has always proven to be a mistake.

  51. Carol,
    From some of what I read, the tea party movement started out pure, then was hijacked by some Republicans, thereby tainting it. However I also see Democrats calling any who criticize their goings on as Republicans, making it easier to justify their takeover of the republic. However, they’ve got to have a bit of a clue as to our lifelong allegiance since they’ve recognized that the SuperDelegate system needed to be changed.

    Early on in the tea party movement I bought a large box of Lipton teabags and I chose Lipton because the tea bag was sealed in an envelope, therefore easier to mail. I’ve had fun over the months mailing these teabags to every Carville, Gore, Kerry, etc. request for money for the DSCC or DCCC. If I’m on their mailing list, and they implore me to give like I’ve given in the past, how hard is it to figure out who I am?????

    But you know, they still play dumb.
    In another matter, I just came across this which is also covered in WaPo:
    …DeMint had a hold on Erroll Southers, Obama’s nominee to be TSA head adminsistrator. Of course, the Obama administration waited nine months to nominate anyone to fill the position — so blaming DeMint for holding up Southers nominee an additional three months seems a bit disingenuous, especially since the delay wasn’t entirely DeMint’s fault as the Senate Democrats were busy with health care. Further, DeMint had some pretty legitimate national security concerns with regard to Southers.

    And now on the heels of a massive TSA failure it’s revealed that Obama’s nominee to head up that agency wasn’t truthful with Congress and may have broken laws. It sure looks as if DeMint is vindicated for holding up Southers’ nomination, and this is yet another major national security embarassment for the White House in the wake of what the President admitted was a “catastophic” national security failure on Christmas.


  52. That said…..I have become somewhat of a pariah at holiday parties and gatherings as I continue to speak out aginst the Obama dimocrat party. Sadly, most of these people are not giving an inch in their support of O and many are still trashing Hillary.

    We must all keep up the pressure. I am also interested in what some of you think about the tea party mmovement in that some press refers to them as conservative and libertarian. How much of the group do you think are democrats and Hillary supporter?
    I think the tea party thing grew out of PUMA. As Horowitz has said it is not in the nature of Republicans to take to the streets. The tea party groups poll higher than Republicans. They are dominated now by conservatives and libertarians now. Hillary supporters need to play a more visible role, after 2010.

    As far as the other group it sounds like you are fighting the same battle as jbstonesfan is in florida. My battles are easier. I ask them to forget about bush, remind them that he has control of Congress and ask them how the hope and change is working for them. Then I take it from the top issue by issue. If your audience is democrats, I take them through his reversals on FISA, election reform and the health care monster all of which are contrary to traditional democratic values.

    Many Obama supporters have a tendency to deny contrary evidence and dig in. But it is like so many other things in life, better to abandon a sinking ship before it sinks. In time I suspect many Obama supporters will weigh the damage to their reputation from having voted for this guy against the damage he will do the country that directly affects THEM personally, and then say he is not the brilliant inspirational man we saw in the primary.

    What I tell myself is these people do not matter in terms of their politics. They are unreachable. I am not in a position to sort out their complexes. The people who matter are the independents. Those are the ones who are turning away from Obama and toward Hillary. There are many democrats who feel the same way who either voted for her or wished they had. There are republican women who would vote for her too, I met some of them on the campaign trail so I know for a fact they are out there. That is where the Hillary coalition will be.

  53. The president said that this incident highlights “the nature of those who threaten our homeland.” But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as “extremist[s].”

    A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.

    Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy — jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon –turns laxity into a governing philosophy
    Language is not only descriptive, it is prescriptive. When Obam calls them architects of man made disasters rather than terrorists, when he refers to them as extremists rather than jihadists with cells throughout the world, he downgrades the perception of a threat, and the legitimacy of an appropriate response. In sum, he leaves the nation unprotected and reduces its will to fight.

  54. Barack received more contributions from Wall Street than any candidate in history. And manishevitts did he deliver–not for us but for them. Rezko redux. Ditto with the insurance industry. Nice work Barack.
    Posted by Francis Cianfrocca (Profile)
    Friday, January 1st at 2:59PM EST

    2009 was one of the very best years in history for the financial industry, with over $50 billion in profits for the top half-dozen firms alone. Forget for a moment about the fact that this industry was literally saved from death with taxpayer dollars. The real question is, what are they there to do?

    The short answer to that question is that the financial industry exists to make capital available, and to allocate it efficiently to productive uses in the real economy.

    Instead, what did the financial industry do to make its money? The Wall St. firms ran proprietary trading programs as never before, and they raked in huge fees underwriting issues of debt by the largest corporations, who used the money to improve their balance sheets but not to invest in new productivity.

    The old-fashioned banks spent the year lending Fed funds to the Treasury, profiting risk-free from the steep yield curve.

    In short, the provision of capital and sound allocation decisions delivered to the real economy fell far short of justifying the financial sector’s huge profits. As it has been for some time (at least two decades), this industry, in significant measure, is a parasite.

    When will that change? As soon as the industry stops being so good at manipulating the political process and the regulators, and as soon as Washington stops needing Wall St and large banks to finance its headlong plunge into control over more and more of the economy.

  55. Thanks everyone for your best wishes. I look at my new great-nephew and really hope that all the newborns grow up in a better world than what we have today.

  56. Millions given to Clinton charity

    Foreign countries, including Saudi Arabia, have given millions to former president Bill Clinton’s charity at a time when his wife Hillary was serving her first year as secretary of state, records have shown. Other donors ranged from entertainer Barbra Streisand’s foundation to bailout beneficiary American International Group.

    A donor list released by the William J. Clinton Foundation shows that Saudi Arabia and Norway each donated 10 million dollars to 25 million dollars to the former president’s charity in 2009. The biggest donors included the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gave more than 25 million dollars.

    The Clintons agreed to annually disclose the names of donors to the former president’s foundation to address concerns about potential conflicts of interest between his fundraising abroad and his wife’s role in helping to direct the Obama administration’s foreign policy.

    “I am deeply grateful to the many generous contributors who made it possible for my foundation to accomplish so much in 2009, including increasing the number of people on lifesaving HIV/Aids treatment, helping cities reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and inspiring millions of children to lead healthier lives,” Mr Clinton said.

    The William J. Clinton Foundation works in the United States and around the world on such issues as health care, particularly HIV/Aids; climate change and economic development. It also runs the Clinton Presidential Centre in Little Rock, Arkansas, which includes Mr Clinton’s presidential library. In releasing the 2009 list, the foundation only gave ranges rather than precise donations, and did not provide a fundraising total. But it did say that more than 90% of the gifts it received last year were in donations of 250 dollars or less.

    The list shows that those giving the biggest money included many long-time Clinton friends and political supporters: prominent Democratic fundraisers, overseas businessmen and foreign governments including Saudi Arabia. Many of the 2009 donors also appeared on the foundation donor list released in late 2008.

    In addition to Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates’ foundation, Canadian mining tycoon and Radcliffe Foundation chief executive Frank Giustra, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation and UNITAID each gave more than 25 million dollars.

    Besides Norway and Saudi Arabia, those giving up to 25 million dollars included AUSAID, the Australian government’s overseas aid programme; long-time Democratic Party donors and fundraisers Stephen Bing and Fred Eychaner; and COPRESIDA, a Dominican Republic government agency formed to fight Aids, whose donation passed through the foundation for commodity procurement.


  57. From reverend amy at no quarter.

    UPDATE: There are now 13 States Attorneys General questioning the legality of the Health “Care” Bill. You may recall that just a couple of days ago it was 10, including SC AG McMaster, who used the term, “corruption” in his description. This could get mighty interesting!

  58. ary 2, 2010

    Gordon Brown calls summit over terrorism threat from Yemen

    Gordon Brown is to host an emergency summit this month on the terrorism threat posed by Yemen after the attempt to blow up a transatlantic airliner on Christmas Day.

    The Prime Minister and Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, will seek agreement on an international fund to help the Yemeni government to drive al-Qaeda out of the Arab nation.

    The meeting — which will be held in parallel with a conference on Afghanistan in London on January 28 — comes after it emerged that the would-be bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, trained in Yemen before attempting to blow up the flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.



  59. Human rights champions of 2009

    Justina Uram
    December 31, 2009

    As we prepare to bid farewell to 2009, it seems an appropriate time to consider some of the most notable human rights champions of this past year.

    United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

    While the Obama Administration’s stance concerning human rights might be described as shaky at best, one leader has stood alone as a constant and committed voice against international human rights violations.

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has proved to be a tough yet thoughtful advocate of international human rights; single-handedly saving the Obama Administration from what would otherwise be characterized as a failed year in the arena of human rights. From leading the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution condemning sexual violence in war zones in immediate response to Guinea’s mass rapes to speaking openly and meaningfully about a host of human rights abuses, Secretary of State Clinton stands as a model world leader and politician who is blessed with brains, courage, and a heart.

    Esther Chavez, Mexican Human Rights Activist

    This year, the human rights international community bid farewell to Esther Chavez, who lost her battle with cancer on December 25, 2009 at age 76. Ms. Chavez’s work for women’s rights became widely recognized in the 1990’s when she vociferously pressured Mexican politicians to publicize and take action against the rapes, beatings and murders of hundreds of women in Juarez, Mexico, targeted as a result of a machismo-fueled backlash against female migrant workers who were perceived to be threats against the male-dominated workforce.

    Among her many accolades and projects, Ms. Chavez founded Casa Amiga, a shelter and rape treatment center for women in Chihuahua, Mexico, her hometown. Ms. Chavez’s work towards the elimination of violence against women also led to her receipt of the Mexican Human Rights Award in 2008.

    Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople

    His All Holiness Bartholomew, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, is best known for his role of spiritual leader of the world’s most ancient Christian religion, Eastern Orthodoxy. But Patriarch Bartholomew also goes by another title, as he has been affectionately dubbed, “The Green Patriarch,” for his unwavering commitment to environmentalism.

    This past fall, Patriarch Bartholomew was welcomed to the White House for a substantive discussion of environmental and human rights issues with President Barack Obama. As a result of this meeting, the President confirmed the United States’ pledge to confronting global climate change and expressed his admiration for Patriarch Bartholomew’s long-standing commitment environmentalism. During that same visit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosted His All Holiness at the State Department, calling him ”a living embodiment of the positive role that faith can play in healing and humanizing our world.”

    Despite Patriarch Bartholomew’s commitment to the environment and our global community, His All Holiness himself has fallen prey to human rights abuses and religious intolerance in his native land of Turkey. The Green Patriarch was featured on CBS’ 60 Minutes earlier this month to talk about these struggles.

    Dr. Maria Khoury, First Lady of Taybeh, Palestine

    For her tireless efforts in the protection of oppressed Palestinian Christians, author and activist Dr. Maria Khoury makes 2009’s list of notable human rights champions. Born in Greece and raised and educated in the United States, Dr. Khoury moved to Palestine with her husband, David Khoury, Mayor of Taybeh, shortly after the Oslo Peace Accords of 1993.

    Taybeh, which is completely surrounded by the Israeli West Bank Barrier Wall, is Palestine’s last Christian city. As a result of the West Bank Barrier Wall’s confinement compounded by Israel’s occupation over Palestine, most of Taybeh’s residents have emigrated to escape. Over fifty percent of Taybeh’s remaining residents are unemployed and all face restricted freedoms of movement and religious worship. (You can learn more about the plight of Palestine’s Christians here.)

    Through her role as First Lady of Taybeh, Dr. Khoury has been instrumental in creating projects to sustain Taybeh’s infrastructure, essentially saving the small city. From establishing Taybeh’s Educational Fund to promoting the One Dollar Campaign for Holy Land Housing to writing children’s books about the Holy Lands, Dr. Khoury remains an active figure and powerful voice for Palestine’s Christians.


  60. Making progress
    Women lost ground on some fronts and gained on many others

    By Bonnie Erbe
    Friday, January 1, 2010

    Now we launch the beginning of a new decade and close the book on the ’00s — the first 10 years of the second millennium. As a full-time cultural critic, my first thought was that women did not make much progress this decade.

    Sexism was clearly more acceptable than racism in the ’08 campaign. I’m saddened by the fact that sexism is still alive and well in American media and culture. There was ample evidence in the presidential campaign when then-Sen. Hillary Clinton was called all manner of sexist insults without fellow partisans protesting the abuse. There was the chorus of Democrats calling on her to give up her campaign before she was ready to do so. Nonetheless, she became the first woman to win 20 state primaries.

    On the GOP ticket, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin became the first woman to run for vice president on the Republican side. She, too, has suffered sexist treatment in the media.

    A report by Catalyst last month found five years of stagnation in terms of women being appointed to Fortune 500 corporate boards. The percentage has remained at just above 13 percent since 2003. And so on.

    On the national front, the brouhaha in Congress over the death of Terri Schiavo prompted conservatives to push through the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This was the first time federal law recognized personhood for fetuses and a major blow to women’s rights.

    But there are areas in which we’ve made real progress. One is the military, which is often first to break down barriers. The decade began with the closest presidential race in history, resulting in a win for George W. Bush. Less than a year later the country witnessed the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil. As a result, the country launched two wars, with thousands of women joining the services.

    Hurricane Katrina had the indirect effect of helping to elect the first female speaker of the U.S. House. The Bush administration’s delayed reaction caused Republicans to lose control of both the House and the Senate. Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House.

    This year President Barack Obama took office filling his Cabinet with a number of women, most notably his former rival, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    The first bill signed into law by Obama was the Lilly Ledbetter Act, adding strength to equality laws.

    As the ’00s draw to a close with some major ups and major downs for women’s advancement, let us hope we make up some lost ground in the second decade of the new millennium.


  61. wbboei, Well of coarse, Maulkin and her republican friends are going to blame the State dept. and Hillary, her likability numbers are high. They are afraid of Hillary, they know she really, really did win and her stint at the state dept. proves she has been and will be ready on day one. So of coarse they will try to demoralize her. THe lefties will help them because in their minds Hillary is a republican. The is what the Bush Cartel wants and this is what the Zbig cartel wants because the Clinton’s are dangerous they actually believe in American and its people.

  62. Wbboei, I read an interesting article last night about the Carlysle Group, who started it, who’s in it and how powerful it is. I always heard you talk about Frank Carlucci, well apparently he is huge friends with old man Bush. It’s a small, small world we actually live in and their are two powerful groups vying for power it seems. I know that Soros is the power behind the dims, but its the Bush’s that is behind the rethugs.

  63. From what I read last night its the BUsh cartel and its co-gangsters that gave more money to Obama than anyone else.

  64. says thank HillaryforTexas, we MUST make this video go viral. It is a PERFECT description of the mess that the Proxie President has gotten us into.

  65. From what I read last night its the BUsh cartel and its co-gangsters that gave more money to Obama than anyone else.
    More than Soros? Do you recall the source? If that is accurate we can use that information at the appropriate time.

  66. The thing to remember about superdelegates is that it is now OBAMA who is trying to get rid of them.

    His spinners did an effective job of making it look like the supers really supported him, but now he is trying to weaken them.

    Because their function IS to keep his sort of tactic from succeeding: his gaming of caucuses etc. Supers were created to keep a McGovern sort of movement from nominating someone unelectable.

    They failed in their function this time, but he wants them out of the way in case they succeed in doing their job in future.

  67. The theft of democracy by the democratic party in 2008 can be easily solved by eliminating the caucuses. Anyone who looks at the 2000 complaints filed by democrats and neutral election observers which were never investigated and tries to tell you that the problem can be solved by eliminating super delegats is a liar. The people who reached that non-sequitur were Obama partisans like ly’n Cliburn. If you think that man is interested in the truth, the party or the country, I have got some swampland in florida I would like to sell you. You can buy him cheap.

  68. Clyburn reminds me of George Wallace in some ways. First, he is a died in the wool racist, as proven by what he did, and allowed to have done to the Clintons in South Carolina (see Professor Wilentz article Race Man). Second, within the Democratic Party he wants to supplant the New Deal coalition with a new demographic which has been discussed here at great length. Third, when the time comes he will be a reparationist and his target is the middle class. In sum, he is a polarizing figure who undermines not only the party but the nation. It is a travesty that he would end up third in house leadership.

  69. The thing to remember about superdelegates is that it is now OBAMA who is trying to get rid of them.

    His spinners did an effective job of making it look like the supers really supported him, but now he is trying to weaken them.

    Because their function IS to keep his sort of tactic from succeeding: his gaming of caucuses etc. Supers were created to keep a McGovern sort of movement from nominating someone unelectable.

    They failed in their function this time, but he wants them out of the way in case they succeed in doing their job in future

    This is the truth.

  70. They probably want to get rid of the supers, because they can still win by gaming the caucuses again and the proportional representation is in their favor. What creeps. The supers might not be won over so easily, if the president is weak and has low poll numbers.

  71. wbboei, Well of coarse, Maulkin and her republican friends are going to blame the State dept. and Hillary, her likability numbers are high. They are afraid of Hillary, they know she really, really did win and her stint at the state dept. proves she has been and will be ready on day one. So of coarse they will try to demoralize her. THe lefties will help them because in their minds Hillary is a republican. The is what the Bush Cartel wants and this is what the Zbig cartel wants because the Clinton’s are dangerous they actually believe in American and its people.
    Connie, I was asked to blog that information by our media expert who I have told you about. She called me yesterday morning with that information. She is concerned that the other side will capitalize on Obamas fall, and does not want that to happen. That is why I claified what Hillary did, as contrasted to what Obama did not do. Our expert told me to also say you cannot run the country in a time of crisis from the back of a golf cart. Even if there is nothing he could do with hourly updates, he should be seen as working not playing–or fiddling while Rome burns. It is symptomatic of his laziness and lack of serious purpose when it comes to defending this nation, and it reinforces the perception that he is pro Muslim, soft on terrorism and hates America as much as Reverend Wright does. There comes a point when perception becomes reality, and if there is a “man made disaster of some sort”, let us help there is not, but if there is he is toast given the perception about him that already exists. That was also what our media expert said.

  72. They probably want to get rid of the supers, because they can still win by gaming the caucuses again and the proportional representation is in their favor. What creeps. The supers might not be won over so easily, if the president is weak and has low poll numbers.
    That is their game and it is the only thing about Obama that is transparent/

  73. When someone complains about how bad the Palestinians are treated/live, they seem to always forget why. The reason is because their so called leaders refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist and a large majority (not small minority) of Arabs/Muslims want to destroy not only Israel and kill Jews, but as we saw this week, kill as many Americans as they can (including the innocent men, woman and children on that flight -where is the International condemnation and cries of war crimes?). They are treated as there are and live the way the do, because quite frankly, the world, and particularly Israel, will not be safe until they decide they want to live like human beings and stop acting like fanatics that seem intent to impose their perverse views on all of us.

  74. A friend of mine who used to be a supporter of Bayh was so incensed about his treachery toward voters that wrote him a letter calling him on his deceipt. She is a Hillary democrat, not a republican. Nevertheless, she would find much to agree with in the article below which emanates from a republican site.

    The Press Has Caught Obama Lying

    We all know the names of the Democratic Senators who face tough re-election runs in 2010: Lincoln, Reid, Specter, Bennet, Dodd, and maybe Gillibrand and Dorgan and a few others. One of the names that’s not usually on the list is Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. While Bayh represents a state that will probably turn reliably red again, he has carefully cultivated a reputation as a moderate. His surname is probably as popular as any in Indiana. And it’s not clear if his Republican opponent will be able to raise the money to make this a real race.

    But one thing that’s likely to make this race more competitive would be if the voters of Indiana realize that he’s been playing them for suckers when it comes to Obamacare:

    Bayh, the moderate former Indiana governor, has always enjoyed support among many of the state’s conservative residents, but his vote for the Senate Democratic health care bill last week may endanger that support.

    Obviously, he is aware of the challenge. Courier & Press staff writer Eric Bradner reported Sunday that Bayh had released a 700-plus word statement in which he attempted to explain what a tough decision it was to vote for the health bill.

    However, Bradner reported also that according to The New York Times and Roll Call, Bayh told fellow Senate Democrats behind closed doors that it was the kind of public policy decision he came to Washington to work on.

    Also, he was reported to have said that he did not want to see the satisfied looks on the faces of Republican legislators had the health reform bill failed.

    The question, now is how he will react to the angry looks on the faces of Indiana constituents who did not support the Senate health care bill.

    Bayh’s behind-the-scenes work in support of Obamacare was likely critical in winning the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. Instead of joining with Democrats like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln to put the brakes on the health care overhaul, Bayh was carrying water for Harry Reid. Instead of Reid facing a bloc of holdout moderates, he was able to buy off Lincoln and Nelson rather easily. And all the while Bayh was telling his constituents that he was conflicted about the bill, and might vote against.

    We also see that Bayh looks at the health care system not as one with challenges that need fixing, but as a chance to deliver Democrats a big political victory. Rather than being motivated by a desire to ensure his constituents get the best possible care, Bayh’s priority is to make sure that Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and the Senate Democrats get a political win.

    In a state like Indiana, and in a year like 2010, Bayh will have a lot to answer for.

  75. Correction: the title was the Press Has Caught BAYH Lying. Catching Obama lying would scarcely be newsworthy.

  76. It takes the combined genius of Obama Emanuel and Axelrod to get so many blue dog Democrats to fall on their swords over a health care program which is toxic on the merits, passed through a bribery process, and is probably unconstitutional. This bill will adversely affect and thereby wipe out a key part of their base. Granted, they will try to distract with other issues, this one will become a death of a thousand cuts for them in 2010. And because they did not read the bill, they do not know what a political minefield it will be for them.

  77. That lovechild from deliverance Claire McCaskill is now speculating on the possibility that she will not be re elected because of the health care program and other conspicuous lapses in judgment and a crude ways.

    Can you think of a time when a senator who is one year into a six year term is thinking she will not get re elected. That is remarkable. Then again, sometimes the damage that is done at the outset is not forgotten by her constituents. Also, five years from now, Obama will be a bad memory, and she will be facing an angry electorate. So maybe she is smarter than I think she is.

Comments are closed.