State Of The Union: IPad Versus IPoo

Last night Barack Obama waterboarded the nation with another baroque flood of words. We immediately thought of the abused citizens of Indonesia who want to rid themselves of the very recently (only a month) placed statue of the “One” (termer). Those Indonesians sound very like Americans:

Members of the “Take Down the Barack Obama Statue in Menteng Park” group on Facebook say Obama has done nothing for Indonesia.

“Barack Obama has yet to make a significant contribution to the Indonesian nation. We could say Obama only ate and s (expletive) in Menteng.

People of Menteng, we Americans sympathize. To us Barack Obama has only poo’ed on the American nation too.

* * * * *

Last night Obama delivered a degenerate campaign speech. Consider the idiot Gay-Americans who voted for Obama and continue to give the boob and his Dimocrats money. When it is to squeeze money from Gay-Americans Obama employs direct, declarative language:I will end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’.”

Last night however, Gay-Americans got this campaign promise kinda, sorta: “This year I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

That was it. Gay-Americans who foolishly trust Obama to actually repeal the law they hate, better get to parsing Obama’s words. Obama is not going to do anything you Gay fools. Obama, one year in, will possibly “work” with Congress/military to, in a thousand years, repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law. “Work” to Obama means the speech he gave last night. His efforts are already over. Keep giving him money you fools.

Gay people who trust Obama are fools deserving of all the misery he delivers. Straight people who trust Obama are fools deserving of all the misery he delivers. Ditto, black people, ditto white people, ditto all colors of people and all mixtures of people. All genders, all ages, all religions, all political affiliations, all geographies – you are fools deserving of all the misery delivered to you by Obama if you trust Obama.

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

All Obama promises last night – none of them are going to get done. All that lobbyist talk? Right after the flood of Obama flowery words – private briefings for lobbyists. If you believe Obama will actually accomplish something (health scam, employment, tax and trade, immigration, financial reform, education initiatives, student loans, schools, ice cream delivery….) then you are a fool.

All the Obama campaign promises of retreating oceans and breakout of world peace hives are now shown to be all talk. After all the campaign promises of transformation and realignment and a thousand year reich and celestial choirs and rose petal scented rain, now Obama says “I never suggested that change would be easy….”; ‘I never promised you a rose garden, change will be hard hard work y’all.’

The Associated Press and others today published “fact checks” on Obama’s speechifying. AP mocks the toothless gimmick which is the supposed bipartisan deficit commission as well as Obama’s claims in regard to the “freeze” in spending, the health scam, the lobbyist scam, employment scams, transparency scams, arms control foolishness, and terrorist bumbling.

The facts are against Obama. After last night’s spending freeze TALK, today, every single Dimocratic senator voted to raise the debt limit to $14.3 trillion.

Last night there were plenty of distractions. “Tingle” Matthews proved again he is a bigot and a Big Media boob. Justice Alito mouthed words against Barack Obama. John McCain also mouthed quietly (“Blame it on Bush”). Howard Fineman on MSNBC talked Mouth Mount Rushmore for Obama. We ignore these distractions what matters is jobs, good paying long-term employment private sector career jobs.

* * * * *

Yesterday a much more important event occurred than Obama’s word flood. No, we are not talking about Hillary Clinton presidential talk or her appearance on the premiere of Tavis Smiley’s new show. We are talking about Steve Jobs and the iPad.

Steve Jobs (wanna bet Barack Obama would love to have that as his name?), the technology god to many, yesterday introduced a new product called the iPad.

Whatever the merits of the new gizmo, there is no doubt that Steve Jobs has actually accomplished a great many worthwhile works in his life. The new iPad will create jobs, “jobs” as in employment, not just a name, not just a word. Income will be generated. Tech geeks and others will be happy. The oceans won’t recede, but many of our techno geek friends will be happy with their new toy.

Steve Jobs does not just talk. Steve Jobs creates gizmos and jobs.

Barack Obama talks. Barack Obama does not create gizmos or jobs. Barack Obama only talks. and talks. and talks.

There is another thing that Obama does though. Obama did that last night. It’s what he did in Menteng.

Obama yesterday introduced the iPoo on the State of the Union.

Steve Jobs – “I Pad”.

Barack Obama – “I Poo”.


136 thoughts on “State Of The Union: IPad Versus IPoo

  1. iPoo, indeed!! Nothing in that whole speech that even faintly resembled any hope for the private sector and the jobs only they can create.

    On another topic, ROTFLMAOAPMIP!!!! Okay, you guys have to go read this. Conservative Chris Buckley (son of William F.) has been even worse than Tweety in his Obama-love. He wrote a veritable love sonnet to Obama last night, where he swooned and got tingly and claimed he was moved to tears by the speech.

    Ace of Spades pulls him apart, snarkily, cruelly, and hilariously. He’s like, like, like a MAESTRO of mockery of Buckley:

  2. The comments are funny too (warning, they are also very coarse at times)

    “Obama could deliver a speech solely dedicated to insulting Chris Buckley, and Chris Buckley would still swoon like a smitten teenaged girl.

    The only reason Buckley couldn’t attend in person was that the Secret Service got tired of his attempts to throw his panties on the podium.”

  3. Doesn’t Obama traditionally do the exact opposite of what he says he’s going to do? I’m guessing this speech can be seen as a reverse barometer of the year ahead.

    It’s like he’s built his presidency on the knowledge that nature abhors a vacuum. He declares that he is going to do something good for people, and then steps out of the way allowing the worst possible entities to fill the void. From there, it heads down the exact opposite path he promised.

  4. Best line of the Ace piece posted above, IMO:

    Gee, when you came up with “symphony” (nice on that, by the way), how long did it take you to come up with the metaphor-extending notion of a “maestro”? Did you, like, sweat that one, Chris? When it finally came to you, after 0.22 seconds, were you like, “Zut alors! Le bon mot!”

  5. says, Obummer makes Madoff look good.

    His part about…with all due respect to the separation of powers….respect????? He has no respect for anything or anybody.

  6. His whole life is a kodak/campaign moment. The sotu was no different.


    I think Hillary said that she couldn’t see her going past 4 years because of the extreme hardness of the job.

  7. Thanks JanH……..that will give her time to test the 2016 election waters and distance herself from BO. Presumably if BO wins in 2012, the pompous Kerry will get SOS position imo.
    Biden is not a viable Prez. candidate as Hillary trounced him, and although I do not dislike him per se, he looked very stupid last night.

  8. admin, iPad the name may become the butt of jokes, if not already — look at the video (MAD TV). Looks like Jobs didn’t consult any woman on naming it. I don’t care because I am not much of a gizmo, gadget kind of gal.

    H4T, I thought Buckley was being sarcastic.

    BTW, GE is the lone manufacturer of locomotives in the USA (and Obama is proposing high speed rail to make Americans travel more on the roads least traveled).

  9. Clinton in ‘open, candid’ Google talks with China

    LONDON — The United States and China agreed on Thursday to keep talking about their spat over Google, following “a very open and candid conversation” on the sidelines of an international conference on Afghanistan.

    Speaking to reporters, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she raised “the issue of Google” and its threat to quit China over cyberattacks and censorship with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi in London.

    “It was a very open and candid conversation,” Clinton said, adding: “We agreed we would continue this conversation in the context of our ongoing dialogue.”

    “We had a very positive exchange,” she continued, stressing however that it was still US policy to ensure “that no-one uses the Internet for purposes of censorship or repression.”

    Her remarks echoed a statement from Beijing earlier in the day, in which China stressed it wanted to keep up cooperation with the United States despite bilateral tensions over Google, US arms sales to Taiwan and trade.

    “China is willing to cooperate with the US in a wide range of bilateral areas,” foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu told reporters, in response to a question about US President Barack Obama’s debut State of the Union address.

    In his speech Wednesday, Obama expressed fears that other nations — including China — would outpace the United States unless it took action on its economy. “Both China and the US are responsible countries in the world,” Ma said. “Cooperation between the two is in the fundamental interest of both countries, and good for world peace, stability and prosperity.”

    The relatively positive comments came after high tensions over Google’s threat to leave China due to cyberattacks and censorship, which led to the United States questioning Beijing’s vast system of web censorship.

    Just last week, Ma described US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments on Internet freedom as “harmful to China-US relations.”

  10. Obama Seemed Small in State of the Union Address

    January 28, 2010
    By Peter Roff

    If President Barack Obama had a hard time with the State of the Union Wednesday night–if it made him seem small or did not come across well in every place–it is because his predecessor is such a hard act to follow. By predecessor I don’t mean George W. Bush–who famously remarked that his lips were the place that words went to die–but Barack Obama the candidate, whose masterful delivery of soaring rhetoric propelled him past Hillary Clinton and John McCain and into the White House.

    Obama was weakest at those points during the speech in which he was forced to defend his own actions and to talk about specifics. Or, if you prefer, when he had to talk like a president and not a candidate for office. In several places he appeared bogged down in the details of the policies he was announcing, when it was not so easy to draw contrasts or to present things as a choice between competing visions.

    He also overpersonalized. Presidents–with the possible exception of Richard Nixon in the dying days of Watergate–do not talk about not being a quitter. It is a given they will pursue their aims until forced by political realities to move on to something else; in practical terms, they are not quite the same. Obama’s raising of the idea–“I will not quit”–made him seem small, as did his continued references to the problems he inherited and the magnitude of the challenges met thus far.

    Now, the problems facing the nation when Obama entered office certainly were serious. But it is dubious that he has led us through them–especially with unemployment at 10 percent. By continually invoking Bush and the Bush era, Obama seems as though he is trying to pass the buck for the bad and inflate the accomplishments that are good. It’s not presidential either.

    Where Obama was strongest was in those sections of the speech where he could most easily fall back on campaign-style rhetoric, as when he challenged Senate Republicans on the use of the filibuster. If they continue to push for a 60-vote threshold to pass legislation out of the Senate, he told them powerfully, “then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well.” Of course that may simply have been a way to set the Republicans up to take the blame for the Democrats’ failure to get their act together.

    There were some ideas in the speech that both parties should embrace, such as the idea of reducing capital gains taxes on small business investments, offshore energy exploration, and the construction of more nuclear power plants–which will be a neat trick to pull off since Obama seems intent on killing the long-term nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain. On the whole, however, the speech was not even nearly equal to the elegance of his remarks on the campaign trail–and the president suffered by comparison.

  11. How is it that on the one hand obama and the dims want to tighten their belts and on the other hand they just unanimously raised their debt limit?

  12. HillaryforTexas
    January 28th, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    I read that Buckley piece also — the one he wrote just before this he ripped Obie a new one. I truly think this one he wrote on Obie’s speech about weeping was meant to be sarcastic — he does not get a pass for all his unforgiveable koolaid drinking, but I think the worm has turned. What say you?


    Last night, CNN did a focus group during the State of the Union Address, and it provided further evidence of the skepticism toward President Obama among independents. As always with focus groups, this needs to be taken with a grain of salt. But a few things worth noting in the video below. First, whenever Obama mentioned “hope,” independents reacted negatively, and during the health care portion of the speech, while the reaction meter for Democrats turned up, the reaction among independents dropped like a rock.


    A Self-Reverential State of the Union Address

    President Obama’s State of the Union address should unnerve Democrats in Congress and throughout the country. It was one of the worst State of the Union addresses in modern times – a stunning thing for a man who won the presidency in large measure based on the power and uplift of his rhetoric.

    For those who hoped the president would use this speech as a pivot to the center, a la Bill Clinton in the aftermath of the 1994 mid-term elections, the speech was a major letdown. Much of what he offered up last night was symbolic. His budget freeze on a subset of domestic discretionary spending – which might amount to $15 billion – will hardly put a dent into our $1.35 trillion deficit. His budget commission, which will have no real power or authority, is worthless. His proposal to cut the capital gains tax for small business investment is a step in the right direction – but it will fall far short of what is needed to generate jobs and economic growth. One sensed there was no urgency or passion behind his effort to help small businesses and the private sector.

    At the same time, Obama did not back away from his commitment to pass health care legislation that is incoherent, wildly expensive, unpopular, and which would do enormous damage to our economy. Obama also stuck to his guns on cap-and-trade legislation, which would be a job killer.

    And even as he castigated Washington for being “unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems,” he continued to champion an agenda that would concentrate unprecedented power there.

    If substance was the main take-away of this address, it would have been merely mediocre. But what made it downright harmful for Obama and Democrats was its tone. The speech was defensive and petulant, backward-looking and condescending, petty and graceless. He didn’t persuade people; he lectured them. What was on display last night was a man of unsurpassed self-righteousness engaged in constant self-justification. His first year in office has been, by almost every measure, a failure – and it is perceived as a failure by much of the public. Mr. Obama cannot stand this fact; it is clearly eating away at him. So he decided to use his first State of the Union to press his case. What he did was to set back his cause.

    What made the speech a bit bizarre, and somewhat alarming, is how detached from reality the president is. After having spent much of his time blaming his predecessor for his own failures, he said he was “not interested in re-litigating the past.” Barack Obama lamented waging a “perpetual campaign” – even though that is what the president, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs and others in his employ do on a daily basis. He said, “Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game” – yet his White House has played that very game with zest and delight.

    Having gone on a spending spree that is unprecedented in American history, the president castigated the political class for “leaving a mountain of debt” to future generations. Having helped to create the worst fiscal situation in our lifetime, he says he will “refuse to pass the problems on to another generation of Americans.” He says, “If we do not take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery” – despite the fact that future generations will have to work to undo the deficit and debt he had done so much to increase.

    It was as if we were being lectured on marital fidelity by John Edwards or Mark Sanford.

    The president criticized the “outsized influence of lobbyists in Washington” – as though he had no memory of the squalid backroom deals that were cut in order to try to secure passage of health care legislation but that helped lead to its demise. He spoke of the need to “do our work openly,” even though Obama broke his promise to allow health care negotiations to appear on C-SPAN and he worked with the House and Senate leadership behind closed doors. He called on Congress to “continue down the path of earmark reform” – even though he eagerly signed legislation that contained around 8,500 earmarks. He claimed he is ending American involvement in the Iraq war – even though the Status of Forces Agreement that will end American involvement in the Iraq war was signed by President Bush. He said the United States must “always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity” – even as he and his secretary of state have consciously downplayed our commitment to both, whether in our dealings with Iran or China or any of a number of other nations.

    On and on this game went, late into the night.

    Perhaps the most striking aspect of last night’s speech, though, was that Obama spoke as if the last year hadn’t happened; as if he had not been president; and as if Congress had not been controlled by Democrats. He sought to portray himself as an outsider and a reformer, an antidote to cynicism, and a post-partisan, unifying force. He wanted to cast himself as an idealist, an inspirational figure, Mr. Hope & Change.

    Barack Obama was, in short, trying to recapture the magic from his presidential campaign.

    But that moment is gone with the wind. The charm and aesthetic appeal have all but disappeared. And so his words came across as not only stale but surreal. It is as if Obama was speaking in a parallel universe.

    What we are seeing play out on a very large stage, it seems, is a man of extraordinary self-regard having to deal with punishing political set-backs, with the fact that his high hopes have come crashing down around him. The nation has turned against his agenda. They are turning against his party. And they are tiring of him as well. This is something he cannot seem to process. So the president marches ahead, pretending up is down and east is west, embracing an agenda the country has rejected and that is doing terrible damage to his own party.

    It was quite a thing to witness.

  15. rgb44hrc
    Wow that article really hit the nail on the head. I have watched a number of SOTUs over the years, I do not remember any President lecturing other branches of government in that way. I was in shock. I am familiar with the give and take of parliamentary question times but to display such narcissistic self-regard to a trapped audience was mind-blowing. I can only assume that those he castigated will take their revenge.

    I posted an article yesterday from a psychologist that likened him to an abuser – last night he certainly lashed out

  16. He said the United States must “always stand on the side of freedom and human
    – even as he and his secretary of state have consciously downplayed our commitment to both, whether in our dealings with Iran or China or any of a number of other nations.



  17. I just read that Kirk (D-MA) voted today… i thought he was no longer leagal to vote as a senator now that the MA election elected Scott Brown??? or am i wrong??


  18. I just got back from the bookstore in Lufkin. There bunches of pro Obama books, very few antiObama books. I let those little college know it too. It was a Walden bookstore. WHen I go to the grocery store I always complain about the ProObama books on the shelves and No Sarah Palin or Shadow Party. I don’t know who does the ordering for these stores but they are definitely biased.
    I have to travel 60 miles to go to a real bookstore and once I get there I might as well be trying to buy a book at the Whitehouse gift shop.

  19. I was able to buy the “Muslim Mafia”. I have decided that I need to read more than Clinton stuff because our country is about to be taken away, so I am expanding my book collection. I could have bought GlennBeck, but he spews his stuff free on TV, so theres no use in buying his books. They also did not have Gamechanger, it was a wasted trip.

  20. Gonzotex, Of coarse they want to link to Hillary because she is the only one with high poll numbers. She’s their lifeboat.

  21. Now we know why John Edwards is in Haiti. The climate back home is getting hotter and hotter. I feel sorry for the children, they will be the ones who will pay. I wonder if Edwards will actually have to go to trial??

    RALEIGH, N.C. – Dealing with a pregnant mistress and a suspicious wife, John Edwards and a close aide agreed by the middle of 2007 to solicit funds from a wealthy widow who had promised to “do whatever it takes” to make him president, according to the former confidant’s new book.

    Bunny Mellon, the widow of banking heir Paul Mellon, began sending checks “for many hundreds of thousands of dollars” hidden in boxes of chocolates, according to “The Politician” by former Edwards aide Andrew Young. The tell-all account describes how Young took the money and used it to keep mistress Rielle Hunter happy, hiding her from the media and a cancer-stricken Elizabeth Edwards.

    Young claims the former vice-presidential nominee later said he didn’t know anything about the cash even though the two discussed the matter and the cash began arriving soon after Edwards made a call to Mellon.

    “The Politician” is due in bookstores Saturday. An advance copy was given to The Associated Press by publisher St. Martin’s Press.

    The book has received a lot of attention because of its racy details about the affair, the crumbling Edwards marriage and the candidate’s efforts to keep the paternity of his child with the mistress hidden. John Edwards finally admitted last week that he was the father of the girl, who is now almost 2 years old.

    But Young’s reckoning also contains some of the most detailed information about a hanging question for John Edwards’ future: an ongoing federal grand jury probe into his campaign’s finances.

    Prosecutors have refused to comment about the investigation, but Young says he spent hours testifying to the grand jury about the “huge sums of money that had quietly changed hands” during the campaign. Hunter has also made an appearance at the federal courthouse in Raleigh where the grand jury is meeting.

    Edwards has said in a previous statement that he is “confident that no funds from my campaign were used improperly.” A spokeswoman did not immediately return a call seeking comment Thursday.

    Mellon, now 99, had promised to give money to Edwards’ political groups even before the affair began and eventually gave a total of $6 million for Edwards’ causes, according to Young’s book.

    Edwards’ political action committee paid Hunter’s production company $100,000 in 2006 for her to work as a videographer to follow around the candidate as he prepared for his second quest for the White House. Months afterward, in April 2007, the PAC received $14,000 from Edwards’ presidential campaign and then paid a similar amount to Hunter’s production company.

    Later cash destined for Hunter originated directly from Mellon checks that were sent to Young, with notes discussing her contributions to “the confederacy.” Other distributions came directly from Edwards’ former campaign finance chairman Fred Baron, including a FedEx envelope of $1,000 and a note that read: “Old Chinese proverb: Use cash, not credit cards.”

    Young said federal prosecutors pressed him last year for details on the names, dates, amounts of the disbursements, “and just who knew what, when.”

    The longtime aide contends in the book that Mellon did not know what the money was being used for, and he argues that the funds “were gifts, entirely proper, and not subject to campaign finance laws.”

    Joe Sinsheimer, a Democratic government watchdog in Raleigh who is following the case, disagrees. He believes the private exchanges of money described in the book and used to shuttle Young and Hunter around the country should have been classified as campaign donations.

    “Baron and Mellon gave the money because they wanted to protect the candidacy of John Edwards for president,” Sinsheimer said. “Therefore, the money should be classified as campaign moneys.”

    Mellon’s attorney, Alexander Forger, said he has also testified before the grand jury while Mellon has been interviewed by prosecutors. He said Young repeatedly pursued Mellon for money, at one point suggesting she mortgage her farm to get cash, but that she didn’t know where the money was going.

    “She made a personal gift to the senator,” Forger said. “She filed a gift tax return. She intended it for his personal use and had no understanding of what his need was and where the money would go.”

    Baron, who died in October 2008, had said that he paid to help Hunter and Young to protect them from public scrutiny.

    The money seemed to have political implications for Edwards: According to Young, Edwards asked him before the presidential primaries to take public responsibility for Hunter’s pregnancy and to take his family and the mistress and disappear.

    Baron would let him use his private jet and pay for expenses, Edwards told Young. To convince Young to take the fall, Edwards appealed to their friendship, Elizabeth’s failing health and a cause that is “bigger than any one of us,” Young quoted Edwards as saying.

    And later, with Young growing restless because Edwards hadn’t come forward to set the record straight, Baron asked the aide to “hold on until August” — when the Democratic National Convention would be — and expected that Edwards would be a big player in the next administration. Soon after, Baron wired “several hundred thousand dollars” to the builder of Young’s home to help with the expenses.

    As for Edwards, Young described the candidate as someone who wanted his hands clean from the money. He claimed that Edwards wanted the arrangement with Mellon to remain private so that the former trial lawyer would have “plausible deniability.”

    After Edwards admitted to the affair in August 2008, an estranged Young and Edwards met briefly to discuss the future. Edwards talked with a baffled Young about the checks Mellon had written to cover Hunter’s expenses.

    “I didn’t know anything about this,” Young quoted Edwards as saying. “Did you

  22. Jan and JB;

    There is NO chance that Obama will be reelected …nada…not going to happen…so don’t worry about a second term SOS.

  23. confloyd
    January 28th, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    Amazon or Barnes and Noble are great websites to order books, often times for free shipping.

  24. WASHINGTON — The most revealing congressional reaction following President Obama’s State of the Union address came from Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina: “He sort of took us to the principal’s office, didn’t he?”

    And not just Congress, but all of us. The nation’s principal was calm but firm. Democrats were scolded for their resemblance to frightened rabbits. Republicans were reprimanded for obstructionism and betraying their responsibility to govern. Washington was rebuked for its partisanship and pettiness. The Supreme Court was taken to task for favoring special interests. The American people were praised for their resilience, and gently chided for their cynicism and misunderstanding of policy. Everyone was left with a pat on the head, a lesson or a detention.


    There was only one theme that united all these various arguments and attitudes — the president’s unshakable self-regard. He admits miscalculations, but he is never wrong. He changes his strategy, but not his mind. On health reform: “I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people.” If only Obama had made a few more speeches, Americans would have been delivered from their misconceptions. Even Obama’s apologies are unapologetic. He is like the job candidate discussing his flaws during an interview: “I have to admit, I work too hard. I’m too detail-oriented.”


    But the State of the Union raises serious concerns about Obama’s economic approach. From either a conservative or liberal economic perspective, his proposals seem timid — insufficient in scale to encourage a swift return to job creation.

    The speech should raise questions among elected Democrats about the quality of Obama’s party leadership. Obama used the Democratic majority as a foil. On the uninsured, he said, “I will not walk away from these Americans,” implying that less-virtuous Democrats might be tempted. And he offered no path for congressional Democrats out of their health reform maze — a maze that seems to have no exit. On health care, Obama preened at the expense of his party.

    And the speech raises concerns about Obama’s capacity to be a unifying national leader. An effective leader usually shares the passions and purposes of his countrymen. Rhetorically, Obama attempts to stand above the political process, above his own party, even above the country. He seems isolated in the tower of his own wisdom and purity. He judges. He lectures. We must strive to be worthy of him, not he of us.

    Full article here, and it’s good:

  25. wow…this post really has me laughing…from Admin’s opening to the Mad TV clip
    …better to be laughing than despair…

    what is not funny is O saying:

    Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going – what keeps me fighting – is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism – that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people – lives on.”


    oh give me a break…first off that line about “nothing compared to the setbacks of families and waking up every morning is what keeps him going” bla, bla, bla…

    …for those of us that worked on Clinton/Gore 92 – Putting People First…that is actually a line stolen from Bill Clinton…right out of his playbook…

    …fast forward fifteen years later to Hillary’s campaign…and Hillary brought it out of the family chest and back to life (it would not surprise me if Hillary came up with it in 1992)…and Hillary made it her own in her own Presidential campaign…all O did was wait for Hill to be off the trail to start stealing her best lines…

    …the only thing transparent about O is what a serial liar and fraud he is…guess he thinks we have no memory…or clips and recordings do not exist to prove he has no original thoughts…

    …well, the fact that he has gotten this far and fooled so many people is an indicator that a lot of people are really stupid and/or out of it…and that part is not funny at all…

  26. HFT – in regards to your article above…heard a clip of Senator Landrieu saying that she felt O was putting a lot of blame on the Senate…like he was throwing the senate under the bus…


    btw…saw somewhere that Scott Brown is supposed to be on Jay Leno tonight??

  27. I hope we can get these lefties out of office. My son is reading up on CHe Quavara. I almost had a heart attack. OMG, they put that fool on t-shirts, shorts and everything else.

    Much to my relief upon questioning him thoroughly, he wants more information about him so he can rip some of his friends for wearing shirts with a pic of someone they really know nothing about.

    I was finally able to breathe when he told me that.


    h and ws

    Boyce Watkins is not taking the remarks made by Matthews well. Yes, he is being called racial for it. Matthews is trying to explain his words now. Interesting.

  29. “Breck Girl” term was coined by the Cheney team in 2004… very perceptive of them…

    To think I actually spent time/mobey trying to get that Kerry/Edwards bullshit team then!!!

  30. I read that Buckley piece also — the one he wrote just before this he ripped Obie a new one. I truly think this one he wrote on Obie’s speech about weeping was meant to be sarcastic — he does not get a pass for all his unforgiveable koolaid drinking, but I think the worm has turned. What say you?
    He is bi polar.

  31. I just got back from the bookstore in Lufkin. There bunches of pro Obama books,
    Which nobody is buying so they just sit there until they get tossed or remanindered.

  32. Have you noticed, there are very few magazines to be turned around lately. I think magazine covers are much more a barometer than books, as there is a longer lead time with books.

  33. I am still wondering why Hillary would state that she only will serve 4 yrs as SOS? What did she have to gain by saying that? If he wins, he can force her out by using her won words against her…strategically, not sure why she had to say anything other than she will evaluate at that time and if the Pres wants her, will consider, blah, blah, blah….Is she really going to retire in 2012?

  34. It is difficult for the American Public to evaluate the performance of a Secretary of State. The diplomatic process is slow and subtle. Seldom does it produce conspicuous wins, and when it does typically the President claims the credit. The work done to build the department and improve its efficiencies are valued only by insiders. The Congressional appearances tend to be uninspiring, and proceed mainly along party lines. The relationship building and contacts established with foreign leaders are not often a matter of public record, except for photo ops. And the nature of the work is such that the most critical issues must be discussed only obliquely, in terms most people do not understand.

    As a result, the only criterion the public can rely on to evaluate performance of a Secretary of State is the policies he or she pursues. If they are good policies, the Secretary of State gets part of the credit. Conversely, if they are viewed as bad policies the Secretary of State will be blamed. And therein lies the problem because the policies Hillary is pursuing are Obama’s policies which are undermining the power and prestige of the United States in the world. Many of these policies were ones she opposed in the debates but now supports and is pursuing. These policies will not succeed and she will be blamed for them.

    That is why I believe she must get out soon. To stay where she is could imperil not only her re election prospect if any, and her legacy. That is what is at stake here.

    The problem is the policies by which the Secrearty The one criterion the public is most likely to latch on to is the policies the Secretary of State is implemneting

  35. I’m starting to wonder if some of these opinion writers who normally would have opposed FObama were actually paid off to write in his favor.

  36. I get the feeling that Hillary had her chance at the presidency, and that was the one and only run for her. I believe her when she states that she will not run again for the presidency of the US.

  37. I am still wondering why Hillary would state that she only will serve 4 yrs as SOS? What did she have to gain by saying that? If he wins, he can force her out by using her won words against her…strategically, not sure why she had to say anything other than she will evaluate at that time and if the Pres wants her, will consider, blah, blah, blah….Is she really going to retire in 2012?
    Because she is exhausted and has aged 10 years in the last 12 months. That is what I have been told. The ONLY thing she is getting out of this job which is beneficial to her legacy is the ability to help emancipate and empower women in third world countries around the world. But big media and many in the party are so consumed with pathological hatred for Hillary so much that recognition for this will have to wait twenty years. Heaven can wait. The downside is more immediate, and that is the perception of being First Mate on the Titanic when his policies start to implode. The thing that holds her in there now I suspect is her friendship with people like Gates and some of her deputies and some foreign leaders but the job itself is a gueling one.

  38. I get the feeling that Hillary had her chance at the presidency, and that was the one and only run for her. I believe her when she states that she will not run again for the presidency of the US.
    The way big media and party insiders stacked the deck I am not sure she ever had a chance. As for the future, if Obama implodes and she does not go down with him as sos, and the current leadership is thrown out as well then perhaps there is a chance. She would still have to decide whether it was worth it, when you do not know for sure who in your own party you can trust. If Obama runs again, and we still have a country then we will have a Republican President in 2012 and I will do my best to see he or she is elected.

  39. Why Is Senator Kirk Still Voting on Legislation?
    by SusanAnne Hiller

    The Senate has voted on three pieces of legislation today that required 60 votes–to raise the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion, to reduce the deficit by establishing five-year discretionary spending caps, and Ben Bernanke’s confirmation–all of which interim Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA) has voted on. In addition, there have been other Senate votes since Scott Brown was elected as Massachusetts senator that Kirk cast a vote.

    The main question here is: why is former Senator Kirk still voting on these legislative pieces? According to Senate rules and precedent, Kirk’s term expired last Tuesday upon the election of Scott Brown. Furthermore, Massachusetts law can be interpreted, according to GOP lawyers, as:

    Based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period. Brown meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in the Constitution to qualify for the Senate. “Qualification” does not require state “certification,” the lawyers said.

    Additionally, as reported in the Weekly Standard and investigated and confirmed by GOP lawyers:

    Appointed Senator Paul Kirk will lose his vote in the Senate after Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts of a new senator and cannot be the 60th vote for Democratic health care legislation, according to Republican attorneys.

    Using this interpretation, Kirk cannot vote on any other legislation. Moreover, further analysis by Michael Stern concludes:

    The Senate subcommittee and committee concluded, based on its hearing and review, that “the term of service of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy in an unexpired term ends on the day when his successor is elected by the people.” 1939 Congressional Record, p. 998. There was evidently no controversy among either the subcommittee or full committee regarding this legal conclusion, and the committee then presented a resolution to the Senate for adoption, expressing the view that Berry’s term of service expired on November 8, 1938, the date of the special election. As Senator Connally, a member of the subcommittee, explained to the Senate, the fact that the Tennessee statute purported to extend Berry’s term until the qualification of his successor was of no force because the statute was “plainly in conflict with the provisions of the seventeenth amendment.” Accordingly, the Senate adopted the proposed resolution without dissent. 1939 Congressional Record, p. 1058.

    Based on this authority, it would appear that a valid point of order could be raised as to Senator Kirk’s participation in Senate proceedings after January 19, 2010.

    Why is the GOP allowing the Democrats to blatantly violate Senate and election rules and laws? Where is the GOP leadership? Will Kirk’s votes stand? Massachusetts voters deserve an explanation as does the rest of the country for this blatant abuse of power.

  40. I agree with Noobama, she isn’t going to run again. I did however notice she has other ambitions which is good. I would love to see her as a pundit, oh could she give Chris Mathews hell. If she were to do that, I think the republicans better give her the job first because she is astute, no one, can out do her. Imagine her like an O’Reilly. Now that would be a show to watch. Those Olbermans’, O’Reilly’s and rest of the ignorant pundits better watch out, she would have the number one show, plus she has a great sense of humor.

    If not that maybe President of the UN, or Scotus.

  41. EE showered the love child with gifts…

    Something is just not right in her head. 🙁

  42. wbboei, Cannonfire has a great article on Obama’s lie about getting the economy going again. He really hits the nail on the head. He said we don’t make anything and that we need to start making things in this country again.

  43. Our take on the Hillary speculation. We’re not sure if we have ever posted this, but here it is. First of all (as we have written), we think Hillary should stay in her present job until after November. Our reasoning is that while she is SOS she will be precluded from campaigning for Dimocrats.

    For us, the clue, what we are waiting for, is the moment that Hillary returns to states like West Virginia or Kentucky to give a speech or attend some event. Until that occurs, we will not believe that Hillary has made a decision on her future.

    This week’s meeting with Virginia’s Webb is very interesting. We wonder what that was all about. Maybe it was a courtesy, or a briefing on foreign affairs, but we do view that meeting as having some political significance.

    What is clear is that Hillary is viewed as the natural successor to the boob. The Obama thugs know that as well.

    For Hillary personally, we don’t want her to be the savior of the Dimocratic Party until it recognizes it’s depravities – and we wish her a long life filled with happiness. For the country, we hope Hillary comes to the rescue. It will be a great sacrifice by a woman who has already done a great deal and sacrificed a great deal.

  44. Schumer is at least recognizing the threat to himself:

    The White House ordered the Justice Department Thursday night to consider other places to try the 9/11 terror suspects after a wave of opposition to holding the trial in lower Manhattan.

    The dramatic turnabout came hours after Mayor Bloomberg said he would “prefer that they did it elsewhere” and then spoke to Attorney General Eric Holder.

    “It would be an inconvenience at the least, and probably that’s too mild a word for people that live in the neighborhood and businesses in the neighborhood,” Bloomberg told reporters.

    “There are places that would be less expensive for the taxpayers and less disruptive for New York City.”

    State and city leaders have increasingly railed against a plan to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Manhattan federal court since Holder proposed it last month.

    Sen. Chuck Schumer said he was “pleased” that the administration is reconsidering the location of the trial.

    Earlier in the day, Schumer spoke “with high-level members of the administration and urged them to find alternatives,” said the senator’s spokesman, Josh Vlasto.

    The order to consider new venues does not change the White House’s position that Mohammed should be tried in civilian court.

    “President Obama is still committed to trying Mohammed and four other terrorist detainees in federal court,” spokesman Bill Burton said yesterday.

    “He agrees with the attorney general’s opinion that . . . he and others can be litigated successfully and securely in the United States of America, just like others have,” Burton said.

    Burton referred questions about the location debate to the Justice Department. While not commenting publicly, a department official disputed the characterization that the White House ordered the possible move.

    But another insider told The News that Justice officials have been caught off guard by the fiery opposition in New York.

    “They’re in a tizzy at Justice over Bloomberg,” a federal law enforcement official said. “It’s like a half-baked souffle – the plan is collapsing.”

    Julie Menin, the chairwoman of Community Board 1 who helped rally opposition to the plan, called the shift “a step in the right direction.”

    “I’m thrilled the White House is reconsidering,” Menin said. “The trial has to be moved out of New York City.”

    Meanwhile, a source told The News that Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly was the driving force behind the push by Manhattan business leaders to change the mayor’s mind on the trial.

    Kelly made an “extremely powerful” speech to a roomful of 150 prominent business leaders about how disruptive and costly the trial would be for lower Manhattan at an annual police charity event on Jan. 13, the source said.

    “What turned this around was when Ray made a presentation to the Police Foundation,” the source said. “Everyone went from thinking, ‘Justice will be served’ to thinking ‘We are screwed.’ ”

    What followed was a barrage of complaints to the mayor from some of New York’s most powerful tycoons – part of a tide of pressure that led Bloomberg to turn against hosting the trial.

    Estimates put the cost of a multiyear terror trial in lower Manhattan at about $200 million a year. Leaders have suggested other venues for the trial, such as the Military Academy at West Point or Stewart Air National Guard Base in upstate Newburgh.

    The federal government has said they would reimburse the city for the costs, most of which cover overtime for increased security, but they won’t reimburse business owners for lost revenue during the chaos, said Steven Spinola, president of the heavyweight business group Real Estate Board of New York.

    “Is the federal government going to give the city $1 billion plus the cost of propping up businesses? I don’t think so,” Spinola said.

    “The mayor clearly has been thinking about this. The tide is turning,” He said.

  45. the democrat party will be destroyed after the 2010 mid-terms. should the party survive in some form, it will only be identified with the tainted orange fringe-nuts, deservedly so. quite frankly, i could care less. the independents have spoken and shall determine the conversation and direction of our government for many years to come. thank god for that.
    as for hillary, she will survive and continue to contribute to this world in whatever venue she chooses. always a winner and survivor. do i think she will make another run? no. but that doesn’t mean she won’t put her forces behind those who warrant it.

  46. I’ve just seen the transcript of Rush Limbaugh’s radio broadcast yesterday and find it a worthwhile read … constructive criticism for the (cough, cough) potus. Network TV continues to have little criticism of SOTU. Diane Sawyer did cover Alito’s silent statement, mentioned that O chided SC publicly, then ended the piece (an allusion to the many Dem congresspeople jumping ship) with this: I wonder if the justices will return? Terribly irresponsible terminal thought.

    I’m realizing that potus is the only one allowed free speech.

  47. I agree with admin. Asking HRC if she is going to run for President any time in the future is hot air. She knows the position she is in, and she knows what the answer must be at this time. She chose the absolutely right place to hang out at this point, even though many of us found it a hard pill to Swallow. To me this was another indication that she knows far more politically how to survive in this political environment than I would. The Nov 2010 elections are the key to what will happen next.

    What ever the future for HRC, I am proud of her as a women and a human being. I don’t think she is superhuman, but she is one kick Axx person, who always works very hard. I personnel prefer hard workers to geniuses, because hard workers are always there. HRC has always been there and I really think she is alson a genius, a really knockout combination that should have been recognized.

  48. Hillary will run.She has no other choice but to deny and do her job that has turned out to be a huge high mark in her career.I have noticed that there is little or no criticism of her but an increase in coverage of her activities and results.After that disgraceful SOTUS by the self-anointed Jesus of the black world all she has to do is work hard deny rumors and watch her rise to new heights as the one and only sensible choice as POTUS if we want to save the world from the Hell-hole of destruction that this Black Novice has inflicted on its peoples.Hillary knows the time the place and the political situation when she makes her move.Every interview that she does contains very important data for her resume and a reminder of her travels friends and names of world leaders and their families.She is needed and she knows it but her plans are hers and not fodder for FOX and Enemies.For those that missed her address on saving the internet to keep the world informed here is the site and video


    Real-Time Reactions to Secretary Clinton’s Internet Freedom Speech

    Posted: 28 Jan 2010 07:02 AM PST

    About the Author: Mark J. Davidson serves as Director of the Policy and Planning Staff for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.

    Last week, I became a regular on the last bus home, just before midnight. I didn’t mind the long hours, though, because I was spending my time with a fun and talented group of people working on what we like to call 21st century diplomacy. I was part a diverse team that came together to ensure that people around the world could hear what Secretary Clinton had to say on Internet freedom.

    In her major policy address last Thursday, Secretary Clinton said, “We need to work toward a world in which access to networks and information brings people closer together and expands the definition of the global community.” She reminded us of the increasing interconnectedness of the global community of which we are all a part” and the stake we all have in ensuring everyone can use the Internet freely.

    Our team was a multi-generational mix of tech gurus, political campaign veterans, civil service professionals, and Foreign Service officers (that is to say, diplomats) like me. It embraced both digital natives and more, shall we say, “traditional” types (that would also be me). We partnered with colleagues at U.S. embassies and consulates around the world to make the Secretary’s speech accessible and meaningful to people in just about every country on earth. Here are just some of the ways we shared Secretary Clinton’s message and encouraged debate and discussion.

    We invited pioneers in Internet freedom from countries such as Moldova, Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, Colombia, and China to come to Washington to attend the speech in person and meet U.S. counterparts afterward. Most of them live-blogged and tweeted the speech and their other meetings to hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.

    We live-streamed the speech and a follow-on panel discussion at the Newseum onto,, Facebook, and U.S. embassy websites in every region of the globe.

    Our Facebook pages hosted lively discussions with overseas audiences, and we blogged and tweeted on Internet freedom in multiple languages.

    We set up real-time webchats to allow anyone anywhere with an Internet connection the chance to participate by commenting, interacting with others, and posing questions. Over 40,000 people joined in the largest such “virtual” event the State Department has ever done.

    We translated and disseminated the speech in seven languages, including Arabic, Chinese, French, Persian, Russian, Spanish, and Urdu.

    In addition, U.S. embassies overseas from Moscow to Manama to Montevideo merged the high-tech with the high-touch by hosting speech-watching parties with bloggers, entrepreneurs, students, and other cutting-edge host-country leaders

    At one of our embassies in the Middle East, 40 prominent guests listened to the Secretary’s speech and engaged in a lively discussion of such topics as government control of the Internet and freedom of expression — issues on which little public debate is permitted in their own society. At another embassy, a large group of bloggers and activists loudly cheered when the Secretary mentioned the plight of bloggers imprisoned for their activities. Positive tweets and blog entries from the Chinese “netizens” we invited to the embassy in Beijing and consulates in Shanghai and Guangzhou reached millions of their countrymen and women.

    People heard what she had to say. We’ve already seen a tremendous amount of global commentary on the speech, overwhelmingly positive, but with some critical official voices from places where freedom of expression remains an aspiration. To quote the Secretary, “On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress, but the United States does. We stand for a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas.”

    In this global debate, I think that’s a pretty good place for our nation to stand. Helping get the word out was worth those late-night bus rides home.

    Related entry: Internet Freedom

  49. The handling of the Christmas Day bombing suspect: the scandal grows

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, January 29, 2010

    The real scandal surrounding the failed Christmas Day airline bombing was not the fact that a terrorist got on a plane — that can happen to any administration, as it surely did to the Bush administration — but what happened afterward when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was captured and came under the full control of the U.S. government.

    After 50 minutes of questioning him, the Obama administration chose, reflexively and mindlessly, to give the chatty terrorist the right to remain silent. Which he immediately did, undoubtedly denying us crucial information about al-Qaeda in Yemen, which had trained, armed and dispatched him.

    We have since learned that the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab had been made without the knowledge of or consultation with (1) the secretary of defense, (2) the secretary of homeland security, (3) the director of the FBI, (4) the director of the National Counterterrorism Center or (5) the director of national intelligence (DNI).

    The Justice Department acted not just unilaterally but unaccountably. Obama’s own DNI said that Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated by the HIG, the administration’s new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.

    Perhaps you hadn’t heard the term. Well, in the very first week of his presidency, Obama abolished by executive order the Bush-Cheney interrogation procedures and pledged to study a substitute mechanism. In August, the administration announced the establishment of the HIG, housed in the FBI but overseen by the National Security Council.

    Where was it during the Abdulmutallab case? Not available, admitted National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, because it had been conceived for use only abroad. Had not one person in this vast administration of highly nuanced sophisticates considered the possibility of a terror attack on American soil?

    It gets worse. Blair later had to explain that the HIG was not deployed because it does not yet exist. After a year! I suppose this administration was so busy deploying scores of the country’s best lawyerly minds on finding the most rapid way to release Gitmo miscreants that it could not be bothered to establish a single operational HIG team to interrogate at-large miscreants with actionable intelligence that might save American lives.

    Travesties of this magnitude are not lost on the American people. One of the reasons Scott Brown won in Massachusetts was his focus on the Mirandizing of Abdulmutallab.

    Of course, this case is just a reflection of a larger problem: an administration that insists on treating Islamist terrorism as a law-enforcement issue. Which is why the Justice Department’s other egregious terror decision, granting Khalid Sheik Mohammed a civilian trial in New York, is now the subject of a letter from six senators — three Republicans, two Democrats and Joe Lieberman — asking Attorney General Eric Holder to reverse the decision.

    Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins had written an earlier letter asking for Abdulmutallab to be turned over to the military for renewed interrogation. The problem is, it’s hard to see how that decision gets reversed. Once you’ve read a man Miranda rights, what do you say? We are idiots? On second thought . . .

    Hence the agitation over the KSM trial. This one can be reversed, and it’s a good surrogate for this administration’s insistence upon criminalizing — and therefore trivializing — a war on terror that has now struck three times in one year within the United States, twice with effect (the Arkansas killer and the Fort Hood shooter) and once with a shockingly near miss (Abdulmutallab).

    On the KSM civilian trial, sentiment is widespread that it is quite insane to spend $200 million a year to give the killer of 3,000 innocents the largest propaganda platform on earth, while at the same time granting civilian rights of cross-examination and discovery that risk betraying U.S. intelligence sources and methods.

    Accordingly, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Frank Wolf have gone beyond appeals to the administration and are planning to introduce a bill to block funding for the trial. It’s an important measure. It makes flesh an otherwise abstract issue — should terrorists be treated as enemy combatants or criminal defendants? The vote will force members of Congress to declare themselves. There will be no hiding from the question.

    Congress may not be able to roll back the Abdulmutallab travesty. But there will be future Abdulmutallabs. By cutting off funding for the KSM trial, Congress can send Obama a clear message: The Constitution is neither a safety net for illegal enemy combatants nor a suicide pact for us.

  50. Clinton in Paris for European Security Speech

    VOA News 29 January 201

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Paris Friday to meet with the French officials and give a speech on European security.

    Clinton met with French President Nicolas Sarkozy before delivering her speech at France’s military academy.

    Clinton told reporters her speech will address the ever-expanding definition of “European security,” as NATO reviews its goals and strategies.

    She said the traditional definition of security as deterrence is obsolete and is broadening to include threats from terrorism, cyber-security and disaster mitigation and response.

    Clinton said these concepts were not part of the original NATO platform.

  51. Clinton Rejects Russia’s Call for New Europe Security Treaties

    By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan

    Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rejected Russia’s calls for new European security treaties and said American forces will remain on the continent to “deter attacks and to respond quickly if any occur.”

    “European security is an anchor of U.S. foreign policy,” Clinton said, according to a prepared text of a speech today in Paris, adding that “some questions” had been raised in recent months about the depth of the Obama administration’s commitment to Europe.

    Clinton dismissed two Russian initiatives seen as a bid to boost Russian influence over countries once part of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact and to halt the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s expansion. A plan put forward last month would have effectively given Russia a veto over allied military planning, especially in eastern Europe, said four allied officials who declined to be named.

    “The Russian government has put forth proposals for new security treaties for Europe,” Clinton said. “However, we believe that these common goals are best pursued in the context of existing institutions, such as the OSCE and the NATO-Russia Council, rather than by negotiating new treaties, as Russia has suggested.”

    The OSCE is the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

    Clinton said that a “cornerstone” of European security is the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states.” She repeated U.S. calls on Russia to honor the terms of a cease-fire agreement that ended the August 2008 Russia-Georgia war and the administration’s refusal to recognize Russia’s claims of independence for the breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

    Spheres of Influence

    “More broadly, we object to any spheres of influence in Europe in which one country seeks to control another’s future,” Clinton said, adding that even amid Russian opposition, “NATO must and will remain open to any country that aspires to become a member and can meet the requirements of membership.”

    Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has accused NATO of violating a 1998 pledge not to permanently station “substantial combat forces” on former Warsaw Pact territory.

    NATO absorbed former Soviet allies starting in 1999 — including three former Soviet republics, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — at a time when a Russia shorn of its Cold War satellites was struggling to regain its economic footing after defaulting on $40 billion of debt.

    Under Putin since 2000, energy-rich Russia has seized on an oil price that peaked at $147 per barrel in July 2008 to revive its economy and gain leverage over oil- and gas-importing states in Europe.

    Russia Pushes Back

    Russia pushed back against further NATO enlargement with its 2008 invasion of western-leaning Georgia and attempts to reassert control over Ukraine.

    The U.S. will maintain its “unwavering commitment” to Article 5 of the NATO treaty “that an attack on one is an attack on all,” said Clinton.

    “As proof of that commitment, we will continue to station American troops in Europe, both to deter attacks and to respond quickly if any occur,” she said.

    To be sure, Clinton underlined that even when Russia and the U.S. don’t agree “we will seek constructive ways to discuss and manage our differences.” She noted that “Russia is no longer our adversary” and pointed to Russian-U.S. cooperation on Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea.

    She also highlighted progress in discussions on a new START treaty to reduce the size of the Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals.

    Cooperate With Russia

    Clinton said the U.S. is serious about exploring ways to cooperate with Russia to develop a missile defense system that would provide security for both Europe and Russia.

    “Missile defense will make this continent a safer place,” said Clinton. “That safety could extend to Russia, if Russia decides to cooperate with us.”

    Clinton called on Russia to back the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and urged the Russian leadership to lift its two- year-old suspension of the implementation of the CFE Treaty. She said an updated treaty should take into account developments since the original treaty was signed in 1990 and include “the right of host countries to consent to stationing foreign troops in their territory.”

    The OSCE’s ability to defend and promote human rights needs to be strengthened and it needs a “Crisis Prevention Mechanism” that would allow it to send rapid humanitarian aid and provide impartial monitoring, Clinton said.

    NATO has pointed to the 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, an East-West forum created in 1975, as the best arena for discussing Russia’s security concerns.

  52. Oh the smell of Hypocrisy in the morning. Hilariously it make the Nobel thing even more stupid.

    ‘Nobel Peace Prize-winner Barack Obama ups spending on nuclear weapons to even more than George Bush’

    Barack Obama has allocated £4.3billion to spend on maintaining the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile – £370million more than what was budgeted by George Bush.

    The budget will also be increased by more than £3.1billion over the next five years.

    The announcement comes despite the American President declaring nuclear weapons were the ‘greatest danger’ to U.S. people during in his State of the Union address on Wednesday.

    And it flies in the face of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to him in October for ‘his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples’.

    The Nobel committee was attacked at the time for bestowing the accolade on a new president whose initiatives are yet to bear fruit – which included reducing the world stock of nuclear arms.

  53. JanH

    You know how you can have extremes in the family. HRC is one extreme and Stephanopoulous is the other. I will leave it up to you to guess which is the better extreme.

  54. I have a friend who is a Chinese doctor. His parents left China shortly before the Japanese Army invaded Manchuria. They spend World War II in French Viet Nam, and one of his childhood memories was of his father playing marjon with a Japanese soldier. After the War he saw the rise of Ho Chi Min and the eventual overthrow of the French in 1954. His father was a retail merchant in Saigon and he prospered for a period of time. He was still there when the Americans came in the early 1960s and saw the guerilla infiltration from the north.

    When that happened his father could see the handwriting on the wall. He told his son the communists are evil people. They make these wonderful promises to you of how things will change for the better after the revolution and they ask you to join their struggle. But then when they get into power they do not deliver on those promises. Instead, they use government to take over everything, and they leave you with nothing. If you try to speak your mind they silence you, ostracize you and if necessary they dispose of you. That is what it means to be a communist.

    With that admonition, he sent his son to Laos where he would be safer. Unfortunately, it wasn’t long before the Pathet Lao were operating there. So my friend emigrated to Hong Kong where he studied painting and Chinese medicine. Back home in Viet Nam, his father’s business got into trouble. As conditions in South Viet Nam deteriorated, the people who owed his father money fled the country and his father paid off his own vendors which left him broke. As a result, he committed suicide. By 1973, Viet Nam fell to the communists and two years later my friend emigrated to the United States.

    He and his wife voted for Hillary in the 2008 primary. He never liked Obama. He told me that as he looks at Obama throught the prism of his own life, he believes that Obama has much in common with the communist oppressors who tormented his life. He pointed to such things as the big empty promises, the creation of a revolutionary movement with young people (useful idiots as Lenin called them), the failure to deliver, the creation of scapegoats, the consolidation of absolute power, the suppression of dissent. I told him that is always the temptation of power–to overreach, and he said yes but these people are more like the communist variant and therefore more dangerous.

    He told me I am over seventy now. I thought America would be my final home but I do not like what I am seeing now. He told me he was very heartened by what he saw in Massachusetts, and asked me if it would grow. I told him I sincerely hoped so, I am encouraged by the polls however I wonder when I see people who describe themselves as independents appear on a Frank Luntz and say stupid things like I want to give him more time. More time? For what? To destroy the country? He asked why the people like that cannot see where this path leads. I told him because they have not lived through the things you have in your life and because they are naive and manipulable. That is what Obama is counting on, as he destroys this country.

  55. Admin, NMF: I agree with your analysis on what Hillary should do. Our job is to do what we can to support the anti Obama movement and take down politically the politicans who support his destructive policies, whether they are Democratic activists like Schumer, Reid et al. or Republican Quisilings like Charlie Crist.

  56. #
    January 29th, 2010 at 1:56 am

    Our take on the Hillary speculation. We’re not sure if we have ever posted this, but here it is. First of all (as we have written), we think Hillary should stay in her present job until after November. Our reasoning is that while she is SOS she will be precluded from campaigning for Dimocrats.

    For us, the clue, what we are waiting for, is the moment that Hillary returns to states like West Virginia or Kentucky to give a speech or attend some event. Until that occurs, we will not believe that Hillary has made a decision on her future.

    This week’s meeting with Virginia’s Webb is very interesting. We wonder what that was all about. Maybe it was a courtesy, or a briefing on foreign affairs, but we do view that meeting as having some political significance.

    What is clear is that Hillary is viewed as the natural successor to the boob. The Obama thugs know that as well.

    For Hillary personally, we don’t want her to be the savior of the Dimocratic Party until it recognizes it’s depravities – and we wish her a long life filled with happiness. For the country, we hope Hillary comes to the rescue. It will be a great sacrifice by a woman who has already done a great deal and sacrificed a great deal.


    “What is clear is that Hillary is viewed as the natural successor to the boob. The Obama thugs know that as well.”


    Successor and/or his replacement. After wading into the second year of his presidency and the promised “change” is still treated as a rhetorical comment. Well then, I imagine, by then more creative solutions will be entertained by the elites who handed him the presidency. Something subtle like a movie entitled- “Strippers or Burlesque Dancers” “Elite-Toes or Alito’s”
    I suspect Obie, after his State of the Union address has if nothing else accelerated the process.

    Henry Kissenger asked, “what do I say after saying these three words?” “I like Hillary !”- after handing her the Freedom Award in Berlin in Nov/09.


    “Regular” people are hurting for jobs and are angry with Obama. Multiple-degreed folks are supposedly a) “smarter”, b) better off and less likely to be wondering where their next pay check is coming from.

    How much of this is their “smarts”, and how much of it is their unwillingness to admit that they weren’t SO SMART last year when they got suckered in by the Obama Charm Machine?

    Obama Still Loved By The Over-Educated

    Sam Stein Sam Stein – Thu Jan 28, 5:29 pm ET
    President Obama’s popularity has slipped among a wide swath of the population. Among the nation’s over-educated, however, he continues to do just fine.

    Gallup surveyed more than 25,000 voters over the past calendar year and found that the president remains well-liked among those with multiple degrees.

    Fifty-eight percent of respondents with a postgraduate degree approve of the job Obama is doing, according to the study, compared to 49 percent of college graduates, 46 percent of those with some college education and 50 percent with high school education or less.

    Indeed, while Obama’s standing has fallen among each of these four groups since taking office, it is the postgraduate bunch who has stayed most closely committed, even giving the president a slight uptick in approval ratings over the last month.

    The findings feed into the stereotypical political narrative that those with an advanced education are decidedly liberal and that those who are decidedly liberal are committed to Democratic politicians. Gallup, in fact, makes such a conclusion itself.

    Since he has become president, postgraduates have been among his more reliable supporters, backing him at higher levels than do those in other educational groups.

    But the relationship between “educational attainment and support for Obama” is nuanced. For instance, black voters, regardless of their educational achievements, back Obama at roughly a 90 percent clip. But with non-Hispanic white voters, the gap is quite large when delineating by education level.

    Fifty-four percent of non-Hispanic whites with a postgraduate degree favor the job Obama is doing. Just 38 percent of non-Hispanic whites with a high school education or less say the same thing.

  58. BTW, 58% approval among this one sliver of the populace is what many other presidents poll at among the overall population. Even Bush was hanging in the 50’s until Katrina laid bare his claim to competency and compassion, yadda yadda.

    This means 42% of eggheads don’t think he’s all that.

    What was the egghead approval one year ago? Then we could see what the drop off is.

  59. I don’t think she is viewed as his successor by Soros and the thugs. Unless she miraculously decides to play crooked politics alongside them then she is still their nemisis. I think they will cheat their way in to another bambi show or lose it altogether by smarter voters finally coming together.

    I also don’t see Hillary ever trusting the party again not to throw her under the bus. I see her going on to bigger and better things than the now permanently diminished dignity of the potus position.

  60. “Obama Still Loved By The Over-Educated”

    Must be a typo. Should read “By the Under-Educated.

  61. This week’s meeting with Virginia’s Webb is very interesting. We wonder what that was all about. Maybe it was a courtesy, or a briefing on foreign affairs, but we do view that meeting as having some political significance.


    I will not give Jim Webb too much credit – even though I like him. I think he went to the State Dept. on its take on the closing of Guantanomo and possible discussions on the “correct” way to punish/try terrorists.

    Jim Webb is apparently one of the DEMS who does not want to have federal trials for the terrorists.

  62. It is the Over-Educated group who would have the hardest time admitting publically that they are wrong. After all, with their education, they should have known better.

  63. JanH
    January 29th, 2010 at 10:51 am


    JanH- The question is not are their plans crooked. The fact is their plans won’t work. Their plans failed on paper never mind sign sealed and delivered by Treaty and implemented in RL.

    Hillary and Bill’s talent is creating Win-Win situations for ALL involved just like Bill did during his presidency. The elites are finally realizing what is the gem before them, Hillary.

    Soros is an agent of the elites. The genuine elites are the Rothschilds who bought into his proposal of creating a Global Economy which is falling apart faster than they can call meetings to keep gluing it back together. The dream sold by Soros to the Rothschilds was actually a dream of his father’s…

  64. nomobama
    January 28th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
    I get the feeling that Hillary had her chance at the presidency, and that was the one and only run for her. I believe her when she states that she will not run again for the presidency of the US.

    That was her first run. Most presidential winners have dipped their toes in the water more than once: Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, the list is long.

    Also, if you notice, all candidates are extremely coy and deceptive about their intentions to run. Obama in 2007 said, “It’s too early for me, I am first term Junior Senator”. A few months later, he was feeling “historical”.

  65. I know JanH, but being somewhat a member of that group, I am always amazed how they thing they are smarter than everyone else. I know I am no smarter than when I left High School, but when I whip out the degrees, for some reason people think I am.

    The smartest over educated, are really humble people, because they know they are no smarter than anyone else.

  66. “The smartest over educated, are really humble people, because they know they are no smarter than anyone else.”

    Yes. I always think that the older I get the less I know. There is so much out there to learn still.

  67. admin
    January 29th, 2010 at 1:56 am

    This week’s meeting with Virginia’s Webb is very interesting. We wonder what that was all about. Maybe it was a courtesy, or a briefing on foreign affairs, but we do view that meeting as having some political significance.

    Here’s what the fly on the wall heard:

    HRC: “Jim, the only way there will be a Democrat sworn into office on Jan. 20th, 2013, is if it is not Obama. I believe I have the best shot at unseating him. In order to give a good shot across the bow would be for me to have a Jim Webb-type as veep…”

    JW: “Hillary, I agree, the Dems need to be rescued from this guy and his inner circle. You are extremely qualified, and just about the only untainted member of the administration. I am extremely interested.”

    HRC: “I’m glad we had this little chat.”

    JW: “Me too”.

  68. NMF, Jan…
    I think what you are saying is true. So-called over-educated people do tend to be arrogant: to become lazy thinkers in most areas beyond their specific fields and to assume they know better than anyone else about almost everything. They also tend to be so focused on their own work as to have little contact with those who are not so well educated, moving in small circles no matter where they live or travel. By the age of 40, often before that, they are withdrawn from the real world and live almost entirely in a world of ideas and ideals. Elite? No, effete, is the word. And because they tend to act out of preconceived theory rather than searching for practical life solutions though empathy and participation, they are dangerous where they have authority over full-blooded human beings who struggle through life.

    (Evidently, this is why Chairman Mao sent the over-educated to work on the farms and in the factories… not that I think Mao is a model for us in our time.)

    Formal education usually is a matter of memorization and recitation on more or less complex levels. But the wisest people I have met in my lifetime left all that behind when they went out into the world away from institutionalized educational environments and let life have its way with them.

  69. “poor Hillary”….lol JanH… Stephanopolis was another guy who Bill and Hill made, and he too through them under the bus after his tenure at the WH..

  70. lil ole grape
    January 29th, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    Excellent analysis and summary. Couldn’t have said it any better.

    “But the wisest people I have met in my lifetime left all that behind when they went out into the world away from institutionalized educational environments and let life have its way with them.”


    Yes, where only the truly strong survive and they are not bashful about showing you their scars to prove it!

  71. Mrs. Smith, this tension between theory and practice is a touchy point in diplomacy. It comes close to Hillary’s statement re her life-long interest in realpolitik … if I understand that concept. And I thought her mentioning it as a continuing interest after she retires from State, (Smiley interview) is an intriguing clue to her view of her future. What do you think?

  72. Jeebus, I am watching Obama on TV try to talk to the House Republicans on HCR.

    He is ummming and ahhhiing and stammering. His affect keeps changing. When he speaks to the actual representatives, attempting to talk real policy, he appears off-balance and muddled. Then he looks into the camera and launches into his speechifying mode and he’s suddenly faux-confident and smooth.

    Now he’s scolding them, and telling them that his plan is actually a Republican plan. Now he;s scolding everyone except himself for being partisan.


    Obama in State of the Onion pointed his finger at Congress, and Landrieu holds up a mirror:

    January 28, 2010
    Landrieu takes swipe at Obama over health care

    (CNN) – President Obama is taking heat from a Senate Democrat over how he dealt with the issue of health care in his first State of the Union speech.

    “I think the president should have been more clear about a way forward on health care last night,” Sen. Mary Landrieu told reporters on Capitol Hill Thursday. “I’m hoping in the next week or two he will be, because that’s what it’s going to take if it’s at all possible to get this done.”

    “Mailing in general suggestions, sending them over the transom is not necessarily going to work,” the Louisiana Democrat added.

    Obama didn’t address the signature issue of his first year in office until about halfway through the 71-minute speech, and then only discussed it for about five minutes. But he urged Congress not to abandon the effort that now appears in limbo following the Democratic Party’s recent loss of its supermajority in the Senate.

    “Do not walk away from reform. Not now,” Obama said. “Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.”

    Landrieu, one of the last members of her party to agree to the final Senate health care bill, also suggested the president erred in allowing three separate Senate and House committees to pass various versions of the bill.

    “As far as I know, the president thought it was a good idea to have three different bills debated,” she said.

    “No wonder people got confused. So it’s not completely our fault that that was the plan.”
    Landrieu also said she felt the president unfairly blamed the Senate during his speech for holding up a series of initiatives that had already cleared the House.

    “I thought he was pointing his finger at the Senate a lot throughout the speech last night … no I do not think its fair,” she said. “Moderate Senate Democrats, who give the Senate the 60 votes, come from states that have to appreciate a broad range of ideas and since the president ran on a bipartisan, change, working with Republicans, [he] doesn’t do a great service to then say everything the House passes without any Republican votes is something the Senate should just take.”

  74. watched the boob and it’s so obvious he is disenchanted with his fantasy job. He never answered a question but simply danced the dance. He’s still going down the health care reform bill/ObamaCare. He still jsut doesn’t get it.

  75. djia
    January 29th, 2010 at 12:06 am
    Why Is Senator Kirk Still Voting on Legislation?
    by SusanAnne Hiller

    Apparently the Senate now has 101 seats, and the Dems hold a 60 – 41 majority.

  76. Jeebus, I am watching Obama on TV try to talk to the House Republicans on HCR.
    He is ummming and ahhhiing and stammering. His affect keeps changing. When he speaks to the actual representatives, attempting to talk real policy, he appears off-balance and muddled. Then he looks into the camera and launches into his speechifying mode and he’s suddenly faux-confident and smooth.
    Now he’s scolding them, and telling them that his plan is actually a Republican plan. Now he;s scolding everyone except himself for being partisan.

    Now a Repub is calling him out on his “multiple statements” that the R’s have offered no ideas whatsoever. Obama is lying through his teeth and LYING that he ever said anything like that.

  77. though i missed the SOTU, i managed to see the low lights on tv. i was dismayed to see the condition of ruth bader-ginsburg. she is someone i have always admired. she also happens to be a huge opera fan. i had the opportunity to hear her interviewed during a broadcast met performance a number of years ago. she not only discussed her knowledge of opera and music, but also displayed a down to earth persona and wry sense of humor. she mentioned she is a big fan of the beautiful mezzo-soprano denyce graves.
    i know this is a bit somber, but here’s to you, RBG..

  78. Here’s a little piece I found explaining just what the decision about campaign finance the Supremes handed down really means.

    January 29, 2010 Haiti: Is it a Humanitarian Operation or an Invasion?

    Cold Case Democracy and the Doctrine of “Corporate Personhood”
    Part II: Smash and Grab

    by Vi Ransel

    Global Research, January 28, 2010

    “There have been two principal aspects to the growth of democracy in this century (20th): the extension of the popular franchise (e.g. the right to vote) and the growth of the union movement. These developments have presented corporations with potential threats to their power…” Alex Carey & Andrew Lohrey, “Taking the Risk Out of Democracy”

    Corporations have been a successful means to minority rule because they are a stunningly efficient means of accumulating and concentrating wealth and property, which can then be translated into political power. As long as the ownership of property determined eligibility to vote, minority rule remained intact, but as more people got the right to vote the threat of real democracy hung over minority rule like the Sword of Damocles.

    Under the Constitution, corporations had no rights. They had only the privileges granted them by the people of their chartering states, because there are only two parties to the Constitution, the people, who are sovereign and have constitutional rights, and the government, which is accountable to the people, and has duties it must perform to their satisfaction.

    The word “corporation” appears nowhere in the Constitution. Corporations are a creation of government, and government must perform to the satisfaction of the people. This meant that property – corporations – would have to discontinue being a creation of government – which serves the people – and, in effect, become people, entitled to the rights of the sovereign under the Constitution, if wealthy corporate shareholders were to continue minority rule.

    Within 100 years of the ratification of the Constitution, corporate shareholders had animated a lifeless business arrangement into the legal equivalent of a living human being by using the Supreme Court as a scalpel to excise the protections and immunities of the Fourteenth Amendment from human beings and transplant them into their property – corporations. That operation allowed shareholder property to begin assuming control of the United States government by exercising the constitutional rights of United States citizens, and further, to assume the protections and immunities of the entire Bill of Rights under the mantle of “corporate personhood.”

    The doctrine of “corporate personhood” is based on a legally meaningless “obiter dictum,” or offhand remark, made by Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite before the decision was read in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886). It was not the decision. It was not part of the decision. But it subsequently found its way into the court reporter’s summary, of the case.

    Just three years later, in Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Beckwith (1889), Justice Stephen Field cited Santa Clara as precedent, giving it the force of law when the Court ruled that a corporation is a “person” for both due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. But Justice Field knew that he was lying as he cited the obiter dictum that corporations were “persons” for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, because he was there when Justice Waite made the offhand remark. Nevertheless, this fallacious precedent is still cited as if it were the law of the land.

    And as shareholders secured more constitutional “rights” for their property, they used their accumulated wealth to infiltrate the people’s legislatures, where they lobbied for, and often wrote, laws to strip citizens of their right to regulate the businesses they brought into being by granting corporate charters. States’ governments found their attempts to regulate corporations struck down by Supreme Court decisions based on a series of new legal doctrines and practices that protected the corporate “person,” such as “substantive due process” and “liberty of contract.”

    Under “substantive due process,” the Court recognizes rights that do not appear in the plain text of the Constitution. What these implicit rights are is often unclear, but once recognized, laws that infringe on them are either unenforceable or very limited. Substantive due process was often used to shield railroads and trusts from government regulation.

    Under the Fourteenth Amendment, no state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The Court deemed the purchase of labor a right, implicitly recognizing it as part of the liberty protected by this amendment. The Court then proceeded to use the implicit right of “liberty to contract” to justify invalidating hundreds of state and federal laws regulating wages, hours and working conditions. The use of “substantive due process” would peak in 1905 with Lochner v. New York, when the Court held that a law limiting bakers’ hours to ten a day violated the Fourteenth Amendment, calling it an “unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of an individual to contract.”

    Corporations avoided market insecurity by working together as cartels, forming trusts and buying out their competitors. Mergers were extolled as lowering costs while creating “efficiency” in both production and distribution. Corporate property and contract rights let them pursue profit as they saw fit – without government involvement. This often meant selling products below cost until they bankrupted their competitors or forced them into a merger. The idea was to eliminate competition and become a monopoly in order to charge whatever prices and pay whatever wages they pleased. “Competition is a sin.” – John D. Rockefeller

    By 1880, Rockefeller had merged 100 refineries and controlled 90% of the U.S. oil business. He set up a board of trustees to control the stock of his interconnected companies to hide the fact that Standard Oil was a monopoly. Railroads, steel, sugar, tobacco and other corporations formed their own trusts. And as the country’s wealth concentrated, hidden in these trusts, wages and prices were dictated by a few millionaires. Both newspapers and magazines followed the story. Progressives called for state laws to make trusts illegal. But though the states had created these corporations via charter, they operated across state lines, so only the federal government, not the states, could regulate them.

    In 1890, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act outlawed “every contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade.” But the Supreme Court ruled that while Sherman could regulate interstate sales and transactions, it could not regulate the merger of corporate assets, even those of interstate commerce that had established monopolies, reasoning that manufacturing wasn’t part of interstate commerce. In 1895 the Supreme Court upheld a 98% monopoly in sugar production on the grounds that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act applied only to commerce and not production (U.S. v. E.C. Knight Company). In 1918 the Court would strike down the Keating-Owen Child Labor Law which banned interstate commerce of goods produced with child labor on the same grounds.

    And while Sherman was barely enforced in regard to business, the Court decided that it barred union strikes that interfered with interstate commerce, finding them in restraint of trade. So while enacted to combat trusts, Sherman was used as a major weapon against union organizing.

    Prior to the turn of the century, campaign financing was done, in large part, by “assessing” a percentage of government employees’ salaries as contributions. The Pendleton Act (1883) had put an end to this at the federal level, and political parties began to rely heavily on corporations and wealthy individuals to fund candidates.

    Industrialist Mark Hanna, chairman of the Republican National Committee in 1896, raised $3.5 million to elect William McKinley by assessing the capital holdings and/or profitability of corporations, letting McKinley outspend his opponent 20 to 1. In the election of 1904, Theodore Roosevelt’s opponent accused him of being secretly backed by insurance corporations, the same corporations seeking laws to limit the ability of their policy holders to sue them. (A New York State investigation proved the allegations true.)

    In his 1905 State of the Union Address, Roosevelt acknowledged that corporations had accumulated such immense and powerful fortunes that it was “…a matter of necessity to give to…the people as a whole, some effective power of supervision over their corporate use.” Addressing Congress, he proposed that “contributions by corporations to any political campaign for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.” His proposal, however, placed no restrictions on contributions by the owners of those corporations.

    The anti-trust suits begun by McKinley, and continued by Roosevelt and Taft, were attempts to rein in corporations. Regulations to monitor health, safety, wages and hours were put in place, but they failed to address the corporate infrastructure being built into the government, and redirected efforts into disconnected movements dedicated to reforming specific corporate “abuses” rather than the system of corporate control itself.

    This quieted public protests by creating the illusion that something was being done, but each agency was dominated by the industry it was created to regulate. And since massive economic-cum-political power still needed justification, corporations actually welcomed the creation of “regulatory” agencies. Then they used their massive wealth to distort the political process, to limit agencies’ funding, nullify their rulings, buy them off and sabotage them by having them staffed with their own employees. Thus the status quo was maintained and the legal basis for minority rule via corporate dominance continued to grow. At the turn of the century, the U.S. Attorney General had assured corporate leaders that the regulatory system would serve as a “barrier between corporations and the people.” It still is.

    Corporate trusts were also busy employing the successive waves of immigrants enticed by Lady Liberty to come and toil in the “great dim sheds” of America’s Industrial Revolution. Upton Sinclair worked undercover in Chicago’s meat-packing plants and wrote “The Jungle,” exposing conditions so horrible that public outrage contributed to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act of 1906. Ida Tarbell exposed the workings of the Standard Oil trust in McClure’s Magazine (1902-1904), condemning the railroad rebates that had been an open secret for years.

    American corporate behavior was becoming an “international disgrace.” And as the American legal system continued to metamorphose into an arm of the corporate infrastructure, workers and farmers looked to unions, Farmers’ Alliances, and the Populist and the Progressive Movements for the justice denied them by their elected representatives and the judicial system itself, a fact the government found difficult to ignore.

    While Roosevelt preferred regulation to trustbusting, public opinion forced him to order a federal investigation of Standard Oil, which concluded that the trust controlled oil production from the well to the consumer. In 1911, Standard Oil was broken into 33 corporations. Roosevelt also brought suit against the American Tobacco Company and Northern Securities, a railroad holding company. Both were ordered dissolved under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. When Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate in 1912, though he believed monopolies were inevitable, he declared that “the enslavement of the people by the great corporations…can only be held in check by the expansion of governmental power.”

    The Supreme Court was still using Sherman against interstate labor strikes, in effect, using laws which were supposed to control monopolies to control the workers who were trying to protect themselves from the monopolies. In 1917, states began enacting “criminal syndicalism” laws meant to criminalize unionization. Aimed primarily at the Workers of the World (IWW), they also targeted the United Mine Workers, farmers’ alliances, socialists and communists.

    Syndicalism advocated a single union across all industries, since separate trade unions often worked at odds with each other. While laws against syndicalism stressed the need to protect public safety and state security, they were used to uphold minority rule. The threat to corporate economic and political supremacy from union organization was so great that “criminal syndicalism” laws explicitly criminalized both speech and association, guilt premised on membership in, or association with, the IWW, even conduct suggestive of such a relationship.

    Seattle’s shipyards were the setting for the first major strike after World War One. In 1919, ninety-five thousand workers went out in a general strike. The strike involved no violence – no one was even arrested – but workers were labeled “communists” and charged with trying to incite a revolution. That September, steel strikes shut down half the industry’s mills and the Boston police went out on strike.

    The Palmer Raids (1918-1921), initiated by Wilson’s Attorney General, Alexander Mitchell Palmer, cracked down on dissent that had built in intensity throughout the war. A series of well-publicized, warrantless raids on union offices, and communist and socialist organizations resulted in 10,000 arrests in 1919 and 6,000 more in 1920, targeting the IWW in particular, in a sweep that even Palmer’s assistant, J. Edgar Hoover, admitted was unconstitutional.

    This “Red Scare” decimated union organizing, but the social violence perpetrated by the “opulent minority” made it apparent that to them, democracy was just a public relations ploy as they went about crushing the workers in order to extract their labor for as close to free as possible.

    The “Coolidge Prosperity” of the Twenties was bypassing the majority of Americans. While the work force increased manufacturing output by 32%, wages rose only 8%, productivity gains showing up as corporate profit. Tax cuts throughout the Twenties widened the wealth gap further, and the Supreme Court weighed in by ruling that a minimum wage was unconstitutional in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital in 1923.

    The intermingling of commercial and investment banks, rampant consumer debt, massive credit and land speculation, abusive bank practices, conflicts of interests and outright fraud culminated in the Great Depression, which crushed what there was of a middle class, and the farmers and small businessmen who had made up the Populist and Progressive movements.

    By March 1932, two-thirds of Ford employees had been laid off. There was no unemployment. And when 80 chapters of the Detroit Unemployed Councils organized the Ford Hunger March on the River Rouge complex, the unarmed marchers were tear-gassed, the fire department turned their hoses on them in sub-zero weather, and the police fired into the crowd. As they began an orderly retreat, Ford’s own “Service Department,” armed with machine guns, opened fire.

    As the Depression deepened, strikes spread. In 1934, weekly newsreels in movie theaters all across America showed footage of the strikes as they unfolded. Audiences cheered. Thousands of workers went on strike, joined by thousands of the unemployed who protested in support of them. Unions voted to strike in solidarity with other unions. Up and down the East Coast, 400,000 textile workers were on strike. The National Guard occupied New England. The governor of Rhode Island called it a “communist uprising.”

    When FDR signed the Wagner Act in 1935, it was finally illegal for corporations to refuse to negotiate with their employees’ unions. It established minimum wages, maximum hours, Social Security and the National Labor Relations Board to investigate unfair labor practices. “The right to bargain collectively is at the bottom of social justice for workers… The denial or observance of this right means the difference between despotism and democracy…” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    The high watermark of unionization came in 1937. Almost 100,000 workers seized, shut down and occupied three key GM plants. Workers all across America began “sitting down.” By year’s end there had been 477 sit down strikes, and GM broke its vow never to “allow” its employees to be represented by the United Auto Workers. Rapid unionization of heavy industry followed, and spread quickly into other industries.

    New Deal regulation of the relationship between corporations and workers generated an instant backlash. Laissez-faire economists charged that unions had undercut capitalism, creating the Depression by lowering corporate profit margins. (Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has since accepted responsibility, in the Fed’s name, for the Great Depression and promised that “We won’t do it again.”) And though corporate shareholders were free to come together collectively, e.g. to incorporate, and promote their agenda, they sought to deny the same right, to bargain collectively, to workers. Hundreds of bills were introduced to amend or repeal the Wagner Act. The Supreme Court spearheaded this defense of economic privilege in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937), ruling that Congress could “protect interstate commerce from the paralyzing consequences of industrial war,” e.g. labor organizing.

    The Great Depression, followed closely by World War Two, made the institution of social democratic policies not only possible, but necessary, to quell powerful undercurrents for radical change. Before the vote had been extended to the entire adult population, the crushing costs to society to support this “opulent minority” had been easy to push off onto the people, but with the Great Depression and the war, that privilege was becoming a danger to itself.

    The New Deal, however, was never meant to be permanent. It was a political pressure valve designed to nip revolutionary change in the bud by putting millions back to work. And after more than five million American workers went on strike in the year after VJ-Day, 1946, the Taft-Hartley Act was passed to demobilize the labor movement. With that, shareholders resumed running their corporations in whatever they deemed the most “efficient” manner.

    Taft-Hartley inserted corporate “free speech” into the union certification process, invalidating workers’ right to “freedom of association” and cut the legs out from under their unions by depriving them of their most powerful negotiating tool, strikes. It prohibited jurisdictional, wildcat and solidarity strikes. It outlawed union donations to political campaigns and allowed states to pass “right-to-work laws,” making union shops illegal.

    Labor unions are “one of the few mechanisms by which ordinary people can get together and compensate for the concentration of capital and power. That’s why the United States has a very violent labor history, a repeated effort to destroy unions anytime they make any progress.” – Noam Chomsky

    Still, after World War Two, the United States was the only industrial democracy left standing, and the afterglow of the war’s cooperative effort gave rise to a so-called “social contract” between corporations and labor. As workers increased productivity and helped create the most prosperous period in America’s history, they received a share of that prosperity in the form of a living wage, health care benefits and pensions. Returning soldiers went to college under the G.I. Bill and bought homes with veterans’ mortgages.

    Japan, Germany and South Korea spent those years rebuilding and modernizing their manufacturing capacity with borrowed U.S. dollars. As they recovered, becoming America’s most serious economic competitors, the period of American corporations profiting from their misfortune was ending and the American middle class, whose ranks had swollen, had begun to assert itself both economically and politically.

    The Sixties saw the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Women’s Movement, the War on Poverty, enforcement of fair housing standards, gender, disability and employment regulations, the EPA, the Endangered Species Act, Medicare and Medicaid. But the Sixties also ushered in identity politics, encouraged, especially, by the Democrats, who wanted to shed their historical connection to labor.

    Not only the Viet Nam War, but “Great Society” programs pitted Americans against each other – black v. white, men v. women, old v. young, employed v. jobless, college grads v. high school grads, gay v. straight, religious v. secular – splintering the solidarity of opposition to minority rule. Sold as empowerment, identity politics dis-united the American people, effectively stunting democracy, which requires the people’s commonality to function. It forced splinter groups of the population to compete not only with each other, but with massive corporate solidarity, in pursuit of their rights through the courts.

    LBJ’s “Great Society” and the Viet Nam War also created enormous deficits. And as corporations sought higher returns on their investments overseas, they neglected the upkeep of infrastructure and the modernization of manufacturing facilities, leaving America a decaying, “post-industrial society.”

    In 1971, Paul Volcker, Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Monetary Affairs, proposed a solution, and Richard Nixon announced it. The world’s reserve currency would henceforth be backed by nothing – but the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government. (The unspoken threat to withdraw the U.S. nuclear umbrella over Japan, Germany and South Korea made it easy to “persuade” them to invest their surplus dollars in U.S. government debt.

    Two manipulated oil “crises” in the Seventies provided a way to backpedal on social programs that worked against corporate economic interests. In order to compete successfully in a globalizing market, the US, e.g. corporations, needed a more “efficient” economy. Unions would have to settle for less. Corporations would have to be deregulated, public services privatized and free trade adopted. All of which served to lessen the bargaining power of workers.

    The 400% increase in oil prices also created a demand for dollars with which to buy oil. The oil-producing countries deposited theirs in New York banks, and hundreds of billions of these “petrodollars” were recycled as interest-generating loans to oil-importing countries and “developing” nations.

    This worked well until 1979, when Germany, Japan and even Saudi Arabia started dumping U.S. debt. But Paul Volcker, the new Chairman of the Federal Reserve, again provided the solution – shock therapy. “The standard of living of the average American has to decline.” – Paul Volcker. Therapy consisted of a 21.5% interest rate that plunged the country into recession and doubled unemployment. But the therapy did work – for corporations. Profits were restored and the stock market began to boom.

    The Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush Administrations oversaw saw wave after wave of deregulation, acquisitions and mergers, allowing the destruction of competition as long as it increased “efficiency.” The Reagan Administration deregulated railroads, trucking and banking, which led to the Savings and Loans crisis, during which banks were allowed to underwrite a wide range of securities, just as they’d done in the Twenties.

    The public’s airwaves were auctioned off to corporations at bargain basement prices, turning them into private property. This led to the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, which had required media to provide free airtime for debate, enforcing political “fairness” in radio and TV comment and coverage of campaigns and elections. This made buying millions of dollars worth of advertising time from media the only way to run for public office.

    The Clinton Administration gave away $70 billion dollars worth of digital TV licenses with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, initiating even more consolidation and a standardization of content and presentation into a one-size-fits-all point of view, that of the media’s corporate owners. And where there had once been laws limiting how many TV or radio stations one person or one corporation could own, there were now no regulations on ownership or use.

    At one time broadcasters would have lost their license if they “knowingly transmitted false or deceptive signals or communications,” but by 2003 a Florida Court would be able to find for Rupert Murdoch’s FOX News that “there is no rule against distorting or falsifying news in the United States.” And since the media is corporate property, corporations have the right not only to decide whose political speech is heard and whose is ignored, but to use their free speech “right” tobroadcast their interests as news, true or not, without having to present other points of view.

    Bill Clinton rammed NAFTA through Congress against the will of the people, creating Ross Perot’s “giant, sucking sound” as America’s industrial capacity and jobs were siphoned out of the United States and ensconced overseas on cheap labor platforms by corporate “persons” seeking “efficiency” by lowering their costs to raise shareholder profits.

    Wall Street banks took control of US finance when, in 1999, the Glass-Steagall Act, enacted in 1933 to prevent another Great Depression, was cancelled by the Financial Services Modernization Act. With that the fire wall between investment and commercial banks was breached and a new wave of consolidation swept through insurance companies, banks and stock brokerages, taking the financial system back to the pre-Depression Twenties.

    The George W. Bush Administration put all of these assaults on the people on behalf of the corporations on steroids, bringing the original intent of the “opulent minority” to the point of fruition.

    With Dartmouth v. Woodward (1819), corporations had begun acquiring, from both the legislative and judicial branches of our government, the precursors of constitutional rights: limited liability; perpetual life; virtual location; shapeshifting and protection from lawsuits via gradual revision of state laws; the change by states to general incorporation; judicial revision of tort law and; legal immunities for particular industries.

    But it was the U.S. Supreme Court, acting on its own, legislating from the bench, that bestowed constitutional rights on corporations: equal protection; due process; free speech; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure; jury trials in both civil and criminal cases; compensation for governmental takings; freedom from double jeopardy; freedom for both commercial and political speech and; the right to negative speech.

    The Court gave corporations Bill of Rights guarantees for the first time in 1893, granting them the Fifth Amendment right not to “…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” with the Noble v. Union River Logging decision. The Court ruled that the Department of the Interior had violated this right by attempting to revoke approval of a right-of-way over public lands.

    The Court granted corporations the Fourth Amendment right to protection from search and seizure in a tobacco anti-trust case, Hale v. Henckel (1906), by deciding that a federal subpoena amounted to unreasonable search and seizure. Government was forbidden to look at corporate books, records and papers in order to determine whether corporations were complying with, or defying, the law. The Court further enhanced this ruling in Marshall v. Barlow (1978) by deciding that federal inspectors needed a warrant, or corporate permission, to conduct a safety inspection of corporate property.

    In 1908 corporations received the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in criminal cases, the corporation being considered the “accused” in Armour Packing v. United States. And the Court gave its stamp of approval to “stockholder primacy” as the singular, driving purpose of corporations in Dodge v. Ford Motor Company (1919). “A business is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end.”

    The Court decreed that any imposition on that primacy was a “takings,” and in their 1922 decision of Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, ruled in accordance with corporations’ Fifth Amendment “right” that private property not be “taken for public use, without just compensation.” The private property was the profit of the Pennsylvania Coal Co. The Court decided that the company was entitled to “just compensation” because a law enacted to keep houses from collapsing while mining companies tunneled under them limited the amount of coal it could extract.

    Flash forward. “$2.5 billion in profits last year wasn’t enough…Wellpoint’s affiliate, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, is suing the state of Maine for refusing to guarantee it a profit margin…Wellpoint is intent on forcing” an 18.5% hike in their premiums. “While Wellpoint lobbies against granting Americans the right to affordable coverage, it’s claiming that it has the right to a guaranteed profit margin, paid for by struggling working families.” – Robert Greenwald (author’s emphasis)

    Flash back. All during the 20s and 30s there were widespread, organized protests against the imposition of corporate chain stores on local communities. In 1933 the Supreme Court forbade the citizens of Florida to impose a higher filing fee on chain stores than local businesses in Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee under the Fourteenth Amendment principle of equal protection. Large, out-of-state corporations – think Wal-Mart – were given the right to move into communities and drive out local businesses. While Blacks, for whom the Fourteenth Amendment was intended, were still suffering under Jim Crow discrimination, this amendment was being used to prevent “discrimination” against corporations in the act of destroying their local competitors.

    Ross v. Bernhard (1970) gave corporations the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases, when the Court suggested that because individual shareholders would have that right in a derivative suit, so should the corporation.

    In 1986 corporations got their “right” to remain silent with Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission. The Court protected the corporation’s “freedom of mind” from a consumer rights group that wanted to use space on PG&E’s billing envelope. This laid the groundwork for International Dairy Foods Association v. Amestoy in 1996, in which the Court overturned a Vermont law requiring the labeling of products containing bovine growth hormone (BGH), recognizing a corporation’s right to remain silent about dangers posed by potentially toxic products.

    All these rights were designed by the framers of the Constitution to protect American citizens from the re-imposition of tyranny, but the Supreme Court has succeeded in undermining the sovereignty of the people, turning the Constitution upside down, distorting common law and making the protection of corporate “persons” and their property the centerpiece of constitutional law, granting them civil rights without civil responsibilities. No other organization that represents a group of people has constitutional rights. Not unions. Not small, unincorporated businesses. Not partnerships. Not civic groups. Not local, state or federal government.

    Corporate shareholders, a minority, via their property, now exercise a set of money-based rights unavailable to the majority of citizens, and have harnessed over 300 million of us to work in their interest, often against our own. They speak/spend freely via political action committees (PACs), lobbyists, campaign contributions, advertising and public relations, a stable of corporate lawyers, corporate-friendly think tanks, their ownership of media, offshore incorporation and banking, and control over most remaining industrial production and millions of jobs, which they threaten to outsource if they don’t get their own way. They also dangle high-paying jobs in front of our representatives after they leave Congress. These former representatives-cum-corporate employees then return to Congress where they work not in the people’s, but their real constituents’ interests.

    Witness Goldman Sachs employees moving back and forth from Wall Street to government to Wall Street to government ad infinitum: Robert Rubin, Clinton’s Treasury Secretary; Henry Paulson, Bush II’s Treasury Secretary; and Lawrence Summers, Obama’s top economic advisor.

    Liz Fowler, who wrote Max Baucus’ healthcare bill was Wellpoint’s Vice President of Public Policy. Before that she’d worked for Baucus on the Senate Finance Committee. Now she’s back, on the committee that could give not only Wellpoint, but the entire insurance industry the profit they want -without public option competition. And before Fowler left Wellpoint to come back to work for Baucus, himself a recipient of $1.5 million from the healthcare industry, her job was held by Michelle Easton, who left to work as a lobbyist for – Wellpoint. The healthcare industry – all by itself – has six lobbyists for every one of our representatives. Over 500 of them used to be congressional staffers.

    Today approximately five massive corporations dominate every sector of the marketplace. Banking, credit cards and mortgage lending are controlled by Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citi, JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo. ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, General Electric and Valero “own” energy. The production and distribution of food is dominated by ADM, Nestle, Cargill, ConAgra, Monsanto and Tyson. Kaiser, Aetna, CIGNA, Humana and United Health Group control HMOs. Wellpoint, AIG and Berkshire-Hathaway dominate insurance. Lily, Merck, Pfizer and GSK “run” drugs. Pioneer, Sequoia, Diebold and E.S.&S. control our vote. And the information we receive is manufactured by NewsCorp (FOX), General Electric (NBC), Disney (ABC), Viacom (CBS) and Time Warner (CNN).

    A financial aristocracy has almost replaced the industrial aristocracy that replaced the feudal aristocracy. Individual corporations and shareholders are not a few bad apples abusing the system. They are the system, which is itself abusive. The rest of us are on our way back to serfdom as the “opulent minority” continues to accumulate and concentrate wealth and property, translating it into the power to control both economics and politics, e.g. who gets what and how much.

    The people are rarely in the presence of “their” representatives, which gives them little chance to actually talk to anyone who might be in a position to champion their interests. The people were not asked if they thought merging commercial and investment banks was a good idea when Glass-Steagall was gutted. No one asked the people if media concentration to the point where five large corporations control our access to information was the smart thing to do. NAFTA was enacted over the people’s protest, downsizing and outsourcing our industrial capacity. The people were not consulted when personal bankruptcy laws were made even more punitive, or when credit cards companies were given the right to raise their rates to the roof at will. And soon the people may be forced to buy the over-priced products of insurance corporations with the passage of the Obama Administration’s “healthcare” bill.

    But the corporations that benefit from this legislation, and their lobbyists, have unlimited access to the people’s “representatives.” They speak freely and loudly to them with money. When and if the people do hear anything about what’s going on in Congress, it’s from a media 80% owned by those same corporations, so just perhaps, the reportage is designed not to bite the hand that feeds it. The people now have no idea when Congress is in the act of selling them down the river for some cold, hard cash. “News is what powerful people don’t want you to know. Everything else is public relations.” – Bill Moyers

    As a direct result of the legal fiction of “corporate personhood,” corporations have usurped the people’s constitutional rights. With the powerful voice of money and day-to-day access to the members of Congress, they’re destroying both our government and our legal system. It’s no wonder the laws, often written by corporate lobbyists and rubber-stamped by Congress, treat the people as second class citizens. After all, the people are only the labor costs of corporations, commodities to be acquired or disposed of at will.

    Though voters agree across party lines, by a large margin, on legislation they’d like to see enacted, they’re summarily ignored by both the Republicans and Democrats they’ve elected. The sovereign has become persona non grata. This dispels any doubt about whom it is our “representatives” truly represent.

    The framers of the Constitution built a wall between corporations and the state for a reason, but we are fast approaching the legitimization of a system in which corporations openly play a role in, and even dominate, our government. The priorities of this new, corporate “democracy” will be exactly the same as those of its controllers, the single-minded pursuit of an increase in shareholder profit, the definition of which is best left to one of its most ardent proponents.

    “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism, because it is the merger of corporate and state power.” – Benito Mussolini

  79. This is a real cute comment I found over at CW. It’s funny and true.

    warning! New Disease — Protect Yourself NOW!!!

    Read and Take Necessary Corrective Action…

    The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of Transmitted Disease. The disease is contracted through ignorant, promiscuous, and irresponsible behavior. The disease is called GONORRHEA LECTEM and pronounced “gonna re-elect them.”

    Many victims contracted it in 2008, after having being “brainwashed”, promised change and then screwed. Naturalists and epidemiologists are amazed at how widespread this disease has become since it is so easily cured …
    by voting out all incumbents!

  80. confloyd, I don’t give credence to a screed by someone who quotes murdering despot Benito freaking Mussolini as inspiration, and refers to themselves as a revolutionary anti-capitalist whose writings openly call for the complete destruction of capitalism.

    No thanks – I’m not buying Vi Ransel’s version of history. She’s not into limiting or regulating corporations, she wants destruction.


    I would say Byron York is getting close to the truth with this one…

    Has Obama become bored with being president?

    By: Byron York
    Chief Political Correspondent
    January 29, 2010

    President Barack Obama speaks at a town hall style meeting at the University of Tampa’s Bob Martinez Sports Center in Tampa, Fla., the day after his State of the Union speech, Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
    This is about the time Barack Obama becomes bored with his job.

    He’s in his second year as president, and he’s discovered that even with all the powers of office, he can’t do everything he wants to do, like remake America. Doing stuff is hard. In the past, prosaic work has held little appeal for Obama, and it’s prompted him to think about moving on.

    Begin with his first serious job, as a community organizer in Chicago. Obama got a little done, but quickly became frustrated with small achievements. “He didn’t see organizing making any significant changes in things,” Jerry Kellman, the organizer who hired him, told me in 2008.

    What Obama wanted was political power, and that is what sent him to Harvard Law School. “He was constantly thinking about his path to significance and power,” another organizer, Mike Kruglik, told me. “He said, ‘I need to go there [Harvard] to find out more about power. How do powerful people think? What kind of networks do they have? How do they connect to each other?'”

    Out of law school, Obama did some civil rights work in Chicago before running successfully for the Illinois Senate in 1996. Almost immediately, Obama began “chafing … at the limitations of legislating in Springfield,” in the words of a Washington Post profile. Easily bored, and with a growing sense of dissatisfaction, he set his eyes on the House of Representatives, unsuccessfully challenging Rep. Bobby Rush in 2000. In 2002 he began his campaign for the U.S. Senate.

    He won in 2004, but the Senate proved unsatisfying, too. By mid-2006, Majority Leader Harry Reid “sensed his frustration and impatience, had heard rumblings that Obama was already angling to head back home and take a shot at the Illinois governorship,” write Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in the new book Game Change. Reid knew “Obama simply wasn’t cut out to be a Senate lifer.”

    According to the book, the majority leader invited Obama to his office for a talk. “You’re not going to go anyplace here,” Reid told Obama. “I know that you don’t like it, doing what you’re doing.” Reid suggested Obama run for president. Obama had been a senator for all of 18 months at the time. Soon after, he was off and running.

    What drove Obama was not just ambition, although he is certainly ambitious. As he became frustrated in each job, Obama concluded that the problem was not having the power to do the things he wanted to do. So he sought a more powerful position.

    Today he is in the most powerful position in the world. Yet he has spent a year struggling, and failing, to enact far-reaching makeovers of the American economy. So now, even in the Oval Office, there are signs that the old dissatisfaction is creeping back in.

    At a Jan. 17 Martin Luther King Day event at Washington’s Vermont Avenue Baptist Church, Obama brought up the fact that many people see him as almost preternaturally calm. “I have a confession to make,” Obama said. “There are times I’m not so calm … when progress seems too slow … when it feels like all these efforts are for naught, and change is so painfully slow in coming, and I have to confront my own doubts.”

    Obama said it to be inspirational, but the fact is, in the past, that’s when he looked for a new job.

    A few days later, ABC’s Diane Sawyer asked whether Obama would sometimes “sit and confront your own doubts.”

    “Yes,” the president said.

    “Ever in the middle of all that’s coming did you think maybe one term is enough?” Sawyer asked.

    Obama answered haltingly. “You know, I — I would say that when I — the one thing I’m clear about is that I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.”

    Many observers have remarked that, even when dealing with the most momentous issues facing the country, Obama has seemed oddly removed from the hands-on work of making policy. Maybe they’re noticing the same thing Harry Reid did. The president’s dissatisfaction is shining through; perhaps he’s not really cut out for — or up to — the job.

    In the State of the Union address, Obama declared, “I don’t quit.” And of course, there’s no danger he would just up and quit the presidency. But throughout his life, his reaction to frustration has been to look for a bigger job. What does he do now?


    why doesn’t he ‘pivot’ and go set up some Barak Obama group where he can do what he wants with…help those he claims he wants to help…

    …oh, that would be too Clintonesque…to actually act on his words and unselfishly help people…O is the epitome of ‘talk the talk, and walk far away’…run away and deny you ever said you would do what you said you would do…that’s O…

  82. More embarrassment for the “ONE”.

    By CHRISTOPHER WILLS, Associated Press Writer Christopher Wills, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jan 29, 11:11 am ET
    CHICAGO – If the Massachusetts special election was a kick in the shins for President Barack Obama, the political turmoil in Illinois, his home state, is a pain in the neck that never seems to go away.

    His former Senate seat, already stained by an ethics scandal, is a major takeover target for Republicans. So is the governor’s office.

    Going into Tuesday’s Illinois primary, the first of the 2010 campaign season, Democrats are in disarray, with no political heavyweights in their lineup for the Senate seat that Obama gave up for the White House.

    Losing it would be a bigger personal embarrassment for the president than Republican Scott Brown’s upset victory in Massachusetts, which took away the late Edward M. Kennedy’s Senate seat.

    The front-runner for the Democratic Senate nomination in Illinois, state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, describes Obama as his mentor. He is only 33 and hasn’t served a full term in office, and his only previous experience was working for a family bank now in financial trouble.

    Mark Kirk, a five-term member of Congress who supports abortion rights and gun control, is by far the leading candidate for the GOP Senate nomination, but he has infuriated some conservative Tea Party activists.

    Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn is in danger of losing in the primary because of his association with disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was expelled from office.

    Quinn twice ran as lieutenant governor on the same ticket as Blagojevich. He has also taken heat for proposing a tax increase to clean up the state’s financial mess and for working with Obama to move terror suspects from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to an Illinois prison. His effort to cut costs by letting some nonviolent inmates out of prison turned out to include releasing violent offenders — some of whom have been accused of serious new crimes.

    Whether or not Quinn survives the primary, Republicans see a strong shot at winning back the governor’s office.

    “Massachusetts was more of a referendum on Obama. In Illinois, it’s going to be a referendum on Democratic incompetence,” said Pat Brady, chairman of the Illinois Republican Party.

    In Massachusetts, Brown made his opposition to Obama policies, particularly health care overhaul, a centerpiece of his campaign. Obama had little choice but appear there two days before the special election on behalf of Brown’s Democratic opponent, state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

    Since then, Illinois Republicans have mentioned the Massachusetts upset at every opportunity.

    “I believe Illinois is ready for a Scott Brown experience,” Adam Andrzejewski, one of six contenders for the GOP gubernatorial nomination, said in a recent debate.

    But the political situation in the two states are dissimilar. To start with, the Illinois primary will choose each party’s nominees, not decide who holds office. More importantly, there is little evidence that Illinois voters see the primary races as a referendum on Obama’s policies.

    “I don’t think you can send messages that way,” Daniela Silaides, a Chicago Democrat, said after casting an early vote this week. “At the end of the day, we all have to work together. I don’t think that’s the effective way to get it done.”

    Blagojevich, not Obama, has been the central figure in Illinois. The former governor was arrested and tossed out of office a year ago over a long list of corruption charges, including the allegation that he tried to sell Obama’s Senate seat to the highest bidder.

    Before he left office, Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris to fill Obama’s Senate seat, which led to a Senate ethics investigation and left Burris so politically crippled that he decided not to run for a full term.

    Republicans use Blagojevich, who left behind the biggest budget deficit in Illinois history, as a symbol of Democratic mismanagement. Whether talking about candidates for governor or Senate, they argue that any Democrat who supported Blagojevich or his policies — or simply criticized him too mildly — should not hold office.

    Republicans have reason to be optimistic. Officials from both parties say Illinois voters are frustrated by rising unemployment and are angry about gridlock in Washington and corruption in state government. Since Democrats control all major offices in Illinois, that anger seems likely to be directed at them.

    “I think you’re going to see a lot of people voting against incumbents,” said Bob Schillerstrom, who recently dropped out of the Republican primary for governor.

    The White House claims not to be worried. Presidential adviser David Axelrod noted recently that voters won’t decide until November, which he called “an eternity” in politics.

    John Penn, the Democratic chairman in McLean County, a heavily Republican section of central Illinois, acknowledges voters are worried and angry, but he thinks they want candidates who will be practical and work together, not just sit back and point fingers at the president.

    “If I was running for office,” Penn said, “I wouldn’t divorce myself from Obama, especially in Illinois

  83. says, there are many of us on Big Pink that have post graduate and/or multiple degrees, so please most of us are not part of what is destroying America. I, for one, am trying my darnest to save it, but I fear it is too late.

  84. H4T, I just really think that the Supreme Court has put the final nail in the coffin of the average person and their one vote. You can like what I post or not, the fact is is that we are becoming closer and closer to being owned by a corporation. There is no way my single vote or your single vote can do any damage to the many votes a corporation can buy or steal.
    I know it may sound as if I am a true leftie, but you what I don’t care, the fact is if we could really count on a corporation taking care of its workers thru thick and thin, the unemployment number would not be at 10.8 percent and really their at 17% if we were not being controlled by the media.

  85. If corporations were truly interested in its blue collar worker or a worker that has put 20 years of hard time making money for that corporation, how is it that it can just uproot itself and move to Mexico where the labor is cheaper and the profits are larger. I think not giving corporations a tax break for moving their operations to foreign countrys is a right thing to do. What administration started giving tax breaks to those who wanted to move their businesses to foreign soil???

    I don’t discredit the claims of the author just because I don’t like her use of a quote about Mussoleni, when its obvious there are NO manufacturing jobs left in this country. WHY IS THAT? I have even heard people blame its workers for asking for too much money, retirements, cadillac healthcare plans, 401k’s, vacations and such. The very same people who say this are the very ones who have all of the above perks where they work. I dare the uneducated manuel worker to ask for such perks as the white collar works gets without even asking, I dare they! Don’t they know there place.

  86. S, saw Byron York’s article earlier. It is not frustration or dissatisfaction that makes him run, it is incompetence on the one hand and laziness on the other. His whole being is enabled further by lack of scruples and good conscience, so he cons the people to give him the job but won’t stay with it because he is incompetent and lazy to learn and follow through. I wonder how he will get by the next three years — well, I know how. More bamboozle and blame everybody else and cloak his agenda in highly idealistic, unachievable goals. He is far from being pragmatic (he is plain lazy). We have to read the opposite of everything that comes from him and his minions.

  87. It Has Begun… CNN’s Cafferty Urges Hillary to Challenge Obama in 2012

    This bastard fairly changed his tune after all the crap he flung at her in 08.

  88. The state of the union speech wasn’t about the union. It was about Obama.

    Everything since he announced he was running for POTUS has been about him. Not policy. Not The People. Not our allies.

    Landrieu is right to an extent about him attacking the Senate. Yet, she misses the mark because she never quite says the obvious- POTUS should be a leader.

    “Change” does not magically happen. Protecting our nation does not magically happen. Just because he deigns it should be does not make it so.

    The GOP has been successful in attacking him, Dems and especially HCR because he has not led on any issue. It’s not communication (i.e. a PR campaign). It’s about a competent grasp of ths issues and a pronouncement about what WILL be done and HOW to do it.

    Obama has been used to the Chicago style of buying people off or bullying them into laying down on things. And those things are never his original ideas.

    His resume warned many of us against him. He has never actually worked. He has never led.

    In fact, the bastard reminds me of this little turd of an attorney here in my city who is fresh out of law school and continues to run for office even though he has never done anything. He has an associate or two because he is too incompetent to actually practice law and he is constantly trying to make deals toincrease his individual power on the backs of others. This little shit even had the temerity to approach my husband who is an attorney with 20 years experience and his own office building about putting his name on our building and the whole office being his associates even though we have 150X more years of experience than him combined.

    That is what Obama is. He’s the asshole who’s ego is just too big and whose competency and experience has prepared him for naught.

    The SOTU was no surprise. What has been surprising is the fact that no one in BM has stated the obvious- that it was less about the union (e.g. us) and more about him. It’s always about him. And until he stops being so self-centered and lacking in self actualization, this union will fail due a lack of leadership, to a lack of focus and discipline.

    He has to learn you can’t focus group these responsibilities away. You can’t stay on vacation as everyone else will too.


  89. Cafferty owes the American people his apology for pushing this idiot on us. He needs to be fired along with the rest of media for covering up the REAL BARACK OBAMA. Too bad we can’t sue them for misrepresenting this guy to us.

  90. Confloyd, looks like the bloom is most definitely of the turd rose, Obama is in the shithouse, never mind the doghouse.

  91. So now they are all fighting for where the terror trials will be held?? Newberg wants them in there republican city??? Why would anyone want them. Tribunal is how they need to be tried and hung.


    Yet another chance to bloviate, this time to an audience with pointed questions.

  93. Here’s the text of the above link:

    Obama rumbles with House GOP

    Patrick O’Connor, Tim Grieve Patrick O’connor, Tim Grieve – Fri Jan 29, 12:58 pm ET
    BALTIMORE — President Barack Obama on Friday accused Republicans of portraying health care reform as a “Bolshevik plot” and telling their constituents that he’s “doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.”

    Speaking to House Republicans at their annual policy retreat here, Obama said that over-the-top GOP attacks on him and his agenda have made it virtually impossible for Republicans to address the nation’s problems in a bipartisan way.

    “What happens is that you guys don’t have a lot of room to negotiate with me,” Obama said. “The fact of the matter is, many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable with your own base, with your own party because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, ‘This guy’s doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.’ ”

    Obama’s comments came in the midst of an extraordinary back-and-forth with Republican House members – a scene straight out of the House of Commons that played out live on cable TV.

    Republicans invited Obama to appear at their annual conference; the president accepted — and then surprised them by asking that cameras and reporters be allowed into the room.

    Republicans immediately agreed to the request, but they may be regretting it now.

    Again and again, Obama turned the Republicans questions against them – accusing them of obstructing legislation for political purposes and offering solutions that won’t work.

    “I’ve read your legislation. I take a look at this stuff. And the good ideas we take,” Obama said. “It can’t be all or nothing, one way or the other … If we put together a stimulus package in which a third of it is tax cuts that normally you guys would support, and support for states and the unemployed and helping people stay on COBRA, that certainly your governors would support … and maybe there are some things in there, with respect to infrastructure, that you don’t like … If there’s uniform opposition because the Republican caucus doesn’t get 100 percent or 80 percent of what you want, then it’s going to be difficult to get a deal done, because that’s not how democracy works.”

    House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), who introduced Obama to his colleagues and gave the president a stack of Republican policy proposals, said afterward that the event had been “a good first step in having more of a dialogue.”

    Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said the event had helped his party by showing that Republicans have offered alternatives to Obama’s plans.

    “The real effort here was to convince people out there that we have offered solutions, we’ve offered things,” Flake said. “For him to say, ‘Yes, I’ve read your proposal, it’s a substantive proposal,’ that’s good. That’s a huge thing for Republicans.”

    House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) began Friday’s question-and-answer session by asked Obama whether he’d embrace “across the board” tax cuts as a way to revive the economy, and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) asked him to support a line-item veto to help achieve a balanced budget.

    Obama pushed back backed hard, accusing Republicans of putting party before principle andvoting against his 2009 stimulus plan but then attending “ribbon cuttings” for stimulus projects in their own districts.

    If Republicans believe in both across-the-board tax cuts and a balanced budget, Obama said he’d like to see their math.

    The afternoon started on a more conciliatory tone, with Obama saying in opening remarks hat he expects Republicans to challenge his ideas – and that he understands that there are sometimes fundamental policy differences between the parties.

    “Having differences of opinion, having a real debate about matters of domestic policy and national security, that’s something that’s not only good for our country, it’s absolutely essential,” he said.

    But he also criticized the Republicans for reflexively opposing his policies – even when, he said, they were in line with GOP principles. And the encounter got progressively more raucous from there

    Obama urged Republicans to come to the table and work with him on policy compromises, saying Americans “didn’t send us to Washington to fight each other in some political steel cage match.”

    What voters don’t want, he said, is “for Washington to continue being so Washington-like.”

    The president asked the Republicans to support his proposal to provide small businesses with a $5000 tax credit for each new employee they add — an idea Republicans panned before he even made the offer. He also asked them to support his plan to freeze non-military discretionary spending for three years.

    “Join me,” Obama asked. “Nothing in this proposal that runs contrary to the ideological predisposition of this caucus.”

    “We have seen some party-line votes that have been disappointing,” he said, recalling the stimulus fight. “I didn’t understand then, and I still don’t understand, why we got opposition in this caucus for almost $300 billion in badly needed tax cuts for the American people” and other assistance and infrastructure projects.

    Obama jabbed: “Let’s face it, some of you have been at the ribbon-cuttings for some of these important projects in your communities.”

    Continuing on a confrontational tack, Obama defended key components of his agenda, including the proposed fee on bailed-out banks – telling Boehner: “If you listen to the American people, John, they’ll tell you they want their money back.”

    At the end of his remarks – before taking questions – Obama told Republicans it’s time to make a choice between aiming for “success at the polls” or “lasting success” for the country. “Just think about it for a while,” he said. “We don’t have to put it up for a vote today.”

    Freshman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) went after the president harder, accusing him of breaking promising about transparency, lobbyists and partisanship.

    “I can look you in the eye and tell you we have not been obstructionists,” he said.

    Obama acknowleged that Chaffetz had a “legitimate complaint” about not putting health care negotiations on C-SPAN – as the president had vowed they would be – but he also asked Obama what he was doing within his own caucus to make sure that Republicans were working with him in bipartisan way.

    Mid-way through the questions and answers, Pence said that there would be just a few more questions.

    Obama said he wasn’t in any hurry to leave.

    “I’m having fun,” Obama said. “This is great.”

    Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) seemed to enjoy the experience a little less.

    Price said he’s asked to meet with Obama ever week for a year but that his question-and-answer round — about health care proposals Republicans have offered — was the first time they’ve actually spoken.

    “He didn’t even address the question,” Price grumbled afterward. “He distorted the premise and refused to even answer the question.”

    Price said Republicans had proven that they have ideas, that Obama has received them, and that he wouldn’t answer their questions.

    “I don’t know that you could get any more out of that than we did,” he said.

  94. pm317
    January 29th, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    It really is a bunch of hot air. I watched it and he was arrogant, condescending and didn’t answer any questions. I thought the Repubs did a good job of asking poignant questions.

  95. Caaferty and the media who are speculating over Hillary are not doing it to help her. They have a different motive:

    They are trying to scare the disaffected Obots back onto the Obama train with visions of scary Hillary.

    “You’d better prop him up, or SHE might come back!!!”

  96. HillaryforTexas
    January 29th, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    You are probably right and what a disgusting thought. I don’t trust these ass clowns for one minute.

  97. Clinton says no talking to ‘really bad guys’ in Taliban

    WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has ruled out talking to the “really bad guys” in Afghanistan, promising that a new drive to woo moderate Taliban would not set back women’s rights.

    Clinton doubted that Afghan leaders or the international community would reach out to hardliners like Mullah Omar, who headed the Taliban regime which imposed an austere brand of Islam from 1996 to 2001.

    “We’re not going to talk to the really bad guys because the really bad guys are not ever going to renounce Al-Qaeda and renounce violence and agree to re-enter society,” Clinton said in an interview with National Public Radio broadcast on Friday.

    “That is not going to happen with people like Mullah Omar and the like.”

    Clinton was speaking from London, where a global conference threw its backing behind a multimillion-dollar fund to support Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s plan to integrate militants who lay down their arms. The chief US diplomat, a longtime advocate of women’s rights, acknowledged that some Afghan women were concerned about dealing with the Taliban — whose regime forbade women from going to school, working or traveling on their own.

    However, she added: “I don’t think there is cause for alarm that the current government or any foreseeable government would turn the clock back like that.”

    She said it was crucial for women’s rights that “there is enough power in the state and through the new Afghan security forces to make sure that there’s never a resurgence of the Taliban that would come close to taking over large parts of the country.

    “That’s what we’re preventing,” said Clinton.

    She rejected suggestions the strategy would confuse people just as the United States and its allies pour another 40,000 troops into Afghanistan to battle Islamic extremists. “You can’t have one without the other,” said Clinton.

    “Only a surge of military forces alone without any effort on the political side is not likely to succeed; only an effort to make peace with your enemies without the strength to back it up is not going to succeed.”

  98. Clinton Warns China, Russia May Be Next Cybervictims

    Indira A.R. Lakshmanan and Peter S. Green

    Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) — China and Russia need to promote Internet security before their own companies become victims of cyberspace attacks, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said today, in the wake of accusations by Google Inc. that e-mail accounts on its site were broken into in China.

    “We today have a company that’s a U.S. company making these claims about what happened to them,” Clinton said in an interview with Bloomberg Radio today in Paris, where she met with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. “In five or 10 years, it could be a Chinese company or a Russian company or an Indian company.”

    Clinton’s remarks follow allegations earlier this month by Mountain View, California-based Google, maker of the world’s most-used Internet search engine, that its product and the electronic-mail accounts of Chinese human-rights activists hosted on its Gmail service had been hacked in China. Google said that, as a result, it would no longer censor its search results in China as required by the government there.

    “We cannot afford in today’s interconnected world to have too many instances where businesses are constrained, where information is not flowing freely, where companies’ accounts can be hacked into,” Clinton said. Businesses needed to decide if they want to operate and how they want to do it “in any setting where either censorship or interference with their businesses occur,” she said.

    Resisting Censorship

    In a speech in Washington Jan. 21, Clinton called on U.S. technology companies to resist censorship of the Internet and said perpetrators of cyberattacks such as those who targeted Google must face consequences. China said Clinton’s remarks were unjustified and damaged bilateral ties, and denied involvement in the cyberattacks.

    Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates said Jan. 25 that Internet censorship in China was “quite limited.”

    “Different countries have different rules about censorship,” Gates said in an interview with ABC News. In Germany “if you make certain statements about being in the Nazi Party, that’s censored.” Chinese media portrayed the comments as Gates coming to China’s defense.

    Clinton said in the interview today she didn’t want “to second guess” what Gates meant. “I do think it’s important to recognize that my speech and Google’s complaints were not restricted to what we think of as censorship,” she added.

    ‘Broader Concern’

    The U.S. has “a broader concern about the actual interference” with users of e-mail that raised “serious questions,” Clinton said. “What happens in cyberspace is going to be increasingly important to not only national security but commercial interests, personal privacy,” Clinton said, “and I don’t think we yet know how to handle this.”

    President Barack Obama’s appointment Dec. 22 of computer security executive Howard A. Schmidt as the nation’s top computer security official is part of a larger U.S. effort to “think through” the legal, regulatory, diplomatic and commercial aspects of computer and internet security, Clinton said.

    “It’s in everyone’s interest to begin to try to hammer out some rules of the road,” she said.

  99. LMAO! John over at Liberal Rapture managed to get a copy of the first draft of Obama’s SOTU:

    state of the union transcript- first draft.
    L.R has obtained Obama’s first draft of the SOTU speech. He wrote it on a White House mirror with Michelle’s lipstick.

    “We are a great nation lead by me. I won’t quit. Me so smart. I like to talk about me. Everyone does. I came to Washington to get a burger with Biden. I stayed to save you’re stupid asses. LOL.

    I am, I said. And no one else!!!! I, I, I, I, I, I. I think I’m a pretty cool dad. Let’s finish health care now! I want to go golfing! Me so smart. Let me repeat to MY fellow Americans: ME SO SMART.

    Islamic republic of Iran. I say Islamic because I respect the Koran. And they will listen to me. They love me in Iran. Everyone loves me. People voted for Scott Brown because they love me.

    My nipples look nice. People admire my nipples. Chris Mathews wants to touch them. He texted me.


    I can’t believe Conan was fired before I got to go on his show. Stupid NBC!

    I think I should play Tiger Woods in the Lifetime movie. Note to self: Tell Rahm to make some time for this to happen. We can shoot it on the south lawn. Nancy P. can play Tiger’s mother in law. Landreiu can chase me with a golf club. People will love it! They love me!

    I won a peace prize! This makes our country great! Let’s create jobs! Bush was stupid! I am smart! Green! etc! In Perpetuity! I’m went to Harvard law!

    Note to self: Make Hillary go away before the speech. She’s a buzz kill.

    Me me me. I I I.

    Jobs are cool! Let’s go jobs! I better be first to get an Ipad, dammit! Also war and green jobs! Recycle! Solar! Wind! Gas! Clean Coal! Jobs! Budget Freeze! Education! Just do it! I want my MTV! Got milk?!

    Note to self: don’t mention Denmark. Denmark sucks. Copenhagen sucks the most. I hate the Danish. Stupid breakfast food. It’s just flat cake with striped frosting! Why don’t they just call it cake?!!! Belgium is better. Belginians are nice. I like waffles. Just let me eat my waffles.

    Now, let us go forth and make history for I am unprecedented. America is not second best with me in charge! It’s time to cut the deficit which I made so big. For I am a big man!!! LOL. Let’s Freeze Spending! Except when we spend money! Let’s cut out everything except military. Those guys scare me….wait don’t say that out loud. I wonder if John Roberts has a secret crush on me. I think he does. He’s handsome enough. If I weren’t totally straight I’d do him. I need a smoke.

    I support the gays! Go gays! Gays take state!

    I I I I I. ME ME ME ME. Good night, America!

    Okay, I’m done. Bring the car around.”

  100. Saw the video. Even though I agree much of the diatribe, Rush Limbaugh is still a stinking, lying, self-serving idiot. He has been perverting and contaminating the air waves and public discourse for a couple of decades now. He is a political, right-wing entertainer, period, not a credible source for anything. Basically, he is just one delusional POS outing another delusional POS. Also, Obama’s incompetent actions are more corporatist or fascist, than left wing or socialist, which is closer to Limbaugh. Maybe, if he prefaced his remarks by conceding that George Bush and Dick Chaney are war criminals, did irreparable damage to our country, subverted the Constitution and should face prosecution, then I might, might give him some credibility.

  101. LOL! Still reading reviews of the SOTU, and collecting the best lines Gail Collins of the Times nails it:

    Looking out at the motley crew seated before him for the big speech, the president seemed at times to be pretending that he had never seen these people before in his life. “Washington has been telling us to wait for decades,” he complained at one point, as if he was a visitor from the heartland with a petition that he wanted to deliver if only he could get an appointment with someone on the appropriations committee.

  102. H4T,

    I have a niece with Down’s Syndrome and she sometimes writes me letters that read much the way your post does.

    She’d make a much better POTUS than Squat.

    She knows right from wrong, she knows how to play fair and she’s got a good heart.

  103. While we are at it, here’s an email I just received on Obama’s intelligence….enjoy!!!

    Live life each day so God will say to you, “Well done thou good and faithful servant.”

    Barack Obama meets with the Queen of England. He asks her, “Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficient government? Are there any tips you can give to me?”

    “Well,” says the Queen, “the most important thing is to surround yourself with intelligent people..”

    Obama frowns, then asked, “But how do I know the people around me are really intelligent?”

    The Queen takes a sip of tea. “Oh, that’s easy, you just ask them to answer an intelligent riddle.” The Queen pushes a button on her intercom.

    “Please send Tony Blair in here, would you?”

    Tony Blair walks into the room and says, “Yes, my Queen?”

    The Queen smiles and says, “Answer me this please, Tony ~ ~ ~ Your mother and father have a child. It is not your brother and it is not your sister . . . Who is it?”

    Without pausing for a moment, Tony Blair answers, “That would be me.”

    “Yes! Very good,” says the Queen.

    Obama goes back home to ask Joe Biden, his vice presidential choice the same question ~ ~ ~

    “Joe, answer this for me. Your mother and your father have a child. It’s not your brother and it’s not your sister. Who is it?”

    “I’m not sure,” says Biden. “Let me get back to you on that one.” He goes to his advisors and asks every one, but none can give him an answer. Finally, he ends up in the men’s room and recognizes Colin Powell’s shoes in the next stall.

    Biden asks Powell, “Colin, can you answer this for me? Your mother and father have a child and it’s not your brother or your sister. Who is it?”

    Colin Powell yells back, “That’s easy ~ It’s me!”

    Biden smiles, and says, “Thanks!”

    Then, he goes back to speak with Obama. “Say, I did some research and I have the answer to that riddle. It is Colin Powell!”

    Obama gets up, stomps over to Biden, and angrily yells into his face, “No!, you idiot! . . . It’s Tony Blair!”

  104. H4T, Thats exactly what Rush is doing.

    Thomas, I do agree, the drug addict has infested the airways long enough even if sometimes he does hit the nail on the head.

    He is part of the problem and is just as big a problem as the “ONE”. I think we need fewer pundits.

  105. OK, you have got to see this:

    Picture MO before Obama called on her. Althouse has a post to go with it here:

    I saw this as it happened and MO took a while to smile as if she was upset he called on her (which Althouse also recognized as it was happening). BTW, she said “sit down” gesturing to all the congresspeople. She did not get up or wave or say thank you or not even please sit down.


    If my husband had said “she gets embarrassed” like he did and everybody laughing at that, I would not have liked it.

  106. #
    lil ole grape
    January 29th, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    Mrs. Smith, this tension between theory and practice is a touchy point in diplomacy. It comes close to Hillary’s statement re her life-long interest in realpolitik … if I understand that concept. And I thought her mentioning it as a continuing interest after she retires from State, (Smiley interview) is an intriguing clue to her view of her future. What do you think?


    The presidency would be the perfect venue to expand the philosophy of realpolitick into inclusionary global politics. Somehow, she has got to get there-

  107. “Somehow, she has got to get there-”


    2 scenarios:

    *If she gets there and does an immensely better job than her predecessor, what will be the reactions from a media who refuses to let go of the idiot strings of their master and what will be the reactions of the koolaid drinkers who would jump off cliffs like lemmings rather than admit they are wrong?

    *Will the political climate be any different if she does run again?

  108. JanH-

    *If she gets there and does an immensely better job than her predecessor, what will be the reactions from a media who refuses to let go of the idiot strings of their master and what will be the reactions of the koolaid drinkers who would jump off cliffs like lemmings rather than admit they are wrong?


    * I know you agree with me, it’s a fools errand commenting on hypotheticals.


    *Will the political climate be any different if she does run again?

    I believe Hillary when she says, she has no intention of running again.

  109. The intermingling of commercial and investment banks, rampant consumer debt, massive credit and land speculation, abusive bank practices, conflicts of interests and outright fraud culminated in the Great Depression, which crushed what there was of a middle class, and the farmers and small businessmen who had made up the Populist and Progressive movements.


    I agree with most of that article. I grew up in the manufacturing belt in the Midwest.Hundreds of mammoth factories closed… leaving a rust belt. They (manufacturing) took their jobs to the cheapest bidder and dammed the American worker and the American way of life. My fathers factory, Allen Bradley once employed over 10,000 people, and it was just one of many…now all but gone. Lives destroyed still.

    That is how we got those wonderful pictures of 3 year old children sewing Nike soccer ball’s in the dirt over in Indonesia (in between being sexually abused by the foreigners for ten cents a day, after of course being sold into slavery by their beloved parents…second job for them…don’t American 3 year olds routinely hold two jobs, one being sexual?)) I fu*king hate Nike, but it unfortunately is only one of tens of thousands manufacturing pimpbasTards.


    1. By now we have heard the full range of opinions on the Obama second state of the union speech ranging from the loony left claims that we have a god, we have a father, he was so good we forgot he was black, etc. to the critiques which labelled it narcissistic, disjointed and condescending toward the American People. I would like to offer a third perspective. I think the speech succeed in its objective which was to reinforce the base and to bring back the independents, some of whom are now saying we need to give him more time. At the same time it gave those of us who are determined to defeat him a more effective way forward than pretending this is some kind of Oxford debate only to find out later that we were dealing with a dangerous thug who never read Roberts rules of parliamentary procedure.

    2. Let me give you my theory now in a nutshell. Obama is not a democratic leader. He is a dictator. His speech was i) a direct repudiation of the electorate, ii) a statement of intent to implement it over their objections and, iii) the opening salvo in a bid to manipulate the emotions of the electorate. Thus, he governs by celebrity status plus smoke and mirrors.

    3. Here is the governing formula that I see with Obama:

    step 1: determine the emotional hot buttons of independent voters are

    step 2: formulate big government solution proposals to the underlying problems–to win their support

    step 4: introduce these programs with the full support of sycophantic big media–cheering and rave reviews

    step 5: when these solutions fail, blame others, and swear you will never give up–more media cheers

    step 6: have big media portray you in a Kennedy-esq language and Newsweek photos–headlines it is a tough job

    4. Can a strategy such as this succeed when it fails to produce results, only excuses? The answer is yes. Why? Because we live in an age dominated by celebrity, which is governed by perception rather than reality, and does not want to face difficult decisions. If their own lives are okay most people do not think that far ahead. They are suckers for an emotional appeal and Plouffe like Goebbels is an expert on that.

    5. Then what can we do? Simple. Instead of arguing the merits of the issues which people will never understand, you show them the game that is being played on them. It is a charade which is not designed to solve problems but to create chaos and to keep Obama and his henchmen in power. This is not an Oxxford debating society, it is a game of power.

    6. To put a somewhat finer point on it you would begin with the following question: how could a president with a high approval rating, a super majority in congress, full media support and the political wind at his back fail to pass a single piece of legislation in his first year to help the American People? (Note: it is common wisdom the first year is when any Administration must pass its agenda–Reagan had most of his passed in the first ninety days, according to what one of his cabinet members told me a few months ago.) The answer to that question is that Obama has no grasp of the governing process. Rather, his entire approach to is smoke and mirrors–to wit: the six step formula above. I would end by saying that this process is calculated to keep him in power, but it cannot solve the dire problems confronting this nation.

    7. If you want a concrete example of this, consider the promise he made in his State of the Union to provide student loan guarantees. Many people have defaulted on those loans over the years due to circumstances beyond their control. Therefore the need is real, and there are many independent voters who have been in that situation. So good old Obama floats the idea that students would have 10 years to pay off those loans and any amount not repaid would be absorbed by the federal government. People applaud his high mindedness and call him the education president.

    8. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details. If you are going to a state school which costs $10,000 per year and you make $40,000 per year then the loan will be paid off at the end of that period and the federal government will have no obligation to guarantee. But suppose yo go to Harvard which costs over $50,000 per year and you make $40,000 per year then at the end of 10 years you will owe $200,000 and the government would have to absorb that amount. When Congress deliberates over that proposal and finds we do not have the funds, Obama can scapegoat them for the failure.

    9. That is why we must shine a light on the game he is playing. It is the game that ruins nations.

Comments are closed.