Archives:

Categories:

Presidential Seal

Get a Hillary Is 44 button! Here's How:

Please Send a Donation to us at Hillary Is 44 So We Can Continue Our Work. Donate $10.00 or more and we will send you a pink Hillary Is 44 button.

Get a Hillary Is 44 T-Shirt! Here's How:

Donate $100.00 or more and we will send you a pink Hillary Is 44 T-shirt as well as a button.

Donate To Hillary Is 44 below:





Suscribe To Our RSS Feed

The Funnies

See Our Funnies Archive.

February 17, 2009 - David Letterman - Top Ten Things Hillary Clinton Wants To Accomplish On Her Trip Overseas

10 Exchange U.S. dollars for currency that's worth something

9 Win respect defeating Japan's top-ranked sumo wrestler

8 Shift world's perception of America from "hated" to "extremely disliked"

7 Personally thank all of her illegal campaign donors

6 Three words: stylish Indonesian pantsuits

5 Visit burial site of revered Chinese military leader, General Tso

4 Get drunk with that Japanese finance minister guy

3 Convince China to switch from lead-tainted products to mercury-tainted products

2 Catch Chinese screening of Benjamin Button entitled "The Strange Adventures of Freaky Grandpa Baby"

1 Pick up carton of duty-free smokes for Obama

February 16, 2009 - David Letterman - Top Ten Things Abraham lincoln Would Say If He Were Alive Today

10 "Sup?"

9 "I see Madonna's still a slut"

8 "Who's that handsome sumbitch on the five?"

7 "Is that free Grand Slam deal still going on at Denny's?"

6 "I just changed my Facebook status update to, Tthe 'ol rail splitter is chillaxing'"

5 "How do I get on 'Dancing with the Stars'?"

4 "Okay, Obama, you're from Illinois, too. We get it!"

3 "Hey Phelps, don't Bogart the weed!"

2 "What's the deal with Joaquin Phoenix?"

1 "A Broadway play? Uhhh, no thanks. I'm good."

January 28, 2009 - David Letterman - Top Ten Things Overheard at the Meeting Between Barack Obama and the Republicans

10 "I miss the Clinton administration when we'd meet at Hooters"

9 "Can we wrap this up? I've got tickets to the 4:30 'Paul Blart: Mall Cop"

8 "Smoke break!"

7 "You fellas really need to take it easy on the Old Spice"

6 "Mr. President: don't misunderestimate the Republicans"

5 "Another smoke break!"

4 "What was the deal with Aretha Franklin's hat?"

3 "About that tax the rich stuff -- you were joking, right?"

2 "Sir, it's refreshing to have a Chief Executive who speaks in complete sentences"

1 "Senator Craig's offering his stimulus package in the men's room"

January 27, 2009 - David Letterman - Top Ten Ways Rod Blagojevich Can Improve His Image

10 Star in new television series, "America's Funniest Haircuts"

9 Quit politics and become a fat, lovable mall cop

8 Start pronouncing last name with Jerry Lewis-like "BLAGOOOYYYJEVICH"

7 Offer a senate seat with no money down, zero percent interest

6 Team up with John Malkovich and Erin Brockovich for hot Malkovich-Brockovich-Blagojevich sex tape

5 Change his name to Barod Obamavich

4 Safely land an Airbus on the Hudson River

3 I don't know...how about showing up for his impeachment trial?

2 Wear sexy dresses, high heels and say, "You Betcha!"

1 Uhhh...resign?

January 16, 2000 - David Letterman - Top Ten Signs Obama's Getting Nervious

10 New slogan: "Yes we can... or maybe not, it's hard to say"

9 In moment of confusion, requested a $300 billion bailout from the bailout industry

8 He's up to not smoking three packs a day

7 Friends say he's looking frail, shaky and...no, that's McCain

6 He's so stressed, doctors say he's developing a Sanjay in his Gupta

5 Been walking around muttering, "What the hell have I gotten myself into?"

4 Offered Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, $100,000 to buy his old Senate seat back

3 Standing on White House roof screaming, "Save us, Superman!"

2 Sweating like Bill Clinton when Hillary comes home early

1 He demanded a recount

January 8, 2000 - David Letterman - Top Ten Barack Obama Plans To Fix The Economy

10 Encourage tourists to throw spare change in the Grand Canyon

9 End our dependence on foreign owls

8 Sell New Mexico to Mexico

7 Put a little of that bailout money on the Ravens plus 3 at Tennessee. Come on! It's a mortal lock!

6 Rent out the moon for weddings and Bar Mitzvahs

5 Lotto our way out of this son-of-a-bitch

4 Appear on "Deal or No Deal" and hope to choose the right briefcase

3 Bail out the adult film industry -- not sure how it helps, but it can't hurt

2 Release O.J. from prison, have him steal America's money from China

1 Stop talkin' and start Obama-natin'!

January 7, 2000 - David Letterman - Top Ten Things Overheard At The Presidents' Lunch

10 "Sorry, you're not on the list, Mr. Gore"

9 "If Hillary calls, I've been here since Monday"

8 "Laura! More Mountain Dew!"

7 "You guys wanna see, 'Paul Blart: Mall Cop'?"

6 "Call the nurse -- George swallowed a napkin ring!"

5 "Hey Barack, wanna go with us to Cabo in March? Oh that's right, you have to work!"

4 "Kissey kissey"

3 "Obama? I think he's downstairs smoking a butt"

2 "Did you ever see a monkey sneezing?"

1 "I hope Clinton's unbuckling his belt because he's full"

Recent Articles Calendar

April 2010
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Networked Blogs

Follow me on Twitter

Hidden Stories – Health Care, Economics, Gay Supreme Court Candidates

One would think that a newspaper called the NEW YORK Times would have thought this bit of “news” was important to publish before Obama’s health scam was perpetuated on the nation. We heard a lot of disjointed information about Massachusetts health care but never about New York health care.

Only now, as the scam is still rejected by a majority of Americans does the New York Times decide to publish a story that is relevant to the health care debate. The allegedly New York Times writes today:

“When her small executive search firm in New York City canceled its health insurance policy last year because of the recession and rising premiums, April Welles was able to buy her own plan and still be covered for her cancer and multiple sclerosis.

She was lucky to live in New York, one of the first states to require insurance companies to offer comprehensive coverage to all people regardless of pre-existing conditions. But Ms. Welles, 58, also pays dearly: Her premium is $17,876 a year.

“That’s a lot of groceries,” she said.”

Only now, in April of 2010 does the New York Times decide to inform readers that New York State is a “laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law”.

New York’s insurance system has been a working laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law — insurance even for those who are already sick and facing huge medical bills — and an expensive lesson in unplanned consequences. Premiums for individual and small group policies have risen so high that state officials and patients’ advocates say that New York’s extensive insurance safety net for people like Ms. Welles is falling apart.”

Is that not a rather relevant series of revelations that should have been put before the public months, if not years ago? Where was the New York Times? The New York Times was, and still is, shilling for Obama. The publication of “news” so late in the day as to render it “not news” is a key reason why Big Media is losing its grip on the American public – although it still has a great hold on those that bow to its power. Here’s more:

“The problem stems in part from the state’s high medical costs and in part from its stringent requirements for insurance companies in the individual and small group market. In 1993, motivated by stories of suffering AIDS patients, the state became one of the first to require insurers to extend individual or small group coverage to anyone with pre-existing illnesses.

New York also became one of the few states that require insurers within each region of the state to charge the same rates for the same benefits, regardless of whether people are old or young, male or female, smokers or nonsmokers, high risk or low risk.

Healthy people, in effect, began to subsidize people who needed more health care. The healthier customers soon discovered that the high premiums were not worth it and dropped out of the plans. The pool of insured people shrank to the point where most of them had high health care needs. Without healthier people to spread the risk, their premiums skyrocketed, a phenomenon known in the trade as the “adverse selection death spiral.”

Where was the New York Times with this relevant information when it mattered? Here at Big Pink and anywhere where the concern was about action, not words, it was clear that the Obama plan was nothing but a scam. Now the New York Times finally does what should have been done a long time ago – write about the facts. Here’s more which encapsulates in the first sentence what we wrote about from the very beginning (because we actually care about the issues not the glorification of Mess-iah Obama):

You have a mandate that’s accessible in theory, but not in practice, because it’s too expensive,” said Mark P. Scherzer, a consumer lawyer and counsel to New Yorkers for Accessible Health Coverage, an advocacy group. “What you get left clinging to the life raft is the population that tends to have pretty high health needs.”

Since 2001, the number of people who bought comprehensive individual policies through HMOs in New York has plummeted to about 31,000 from about 128,000, according to the State Insurance Department.

At the same time, New York has the highest average annual premiums for individual policies: $6,630 for single people and $13,296 for families in mid-2009, more than double the nationwide average, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry group.”

Should not the New York Times have examined the New York State insurance system before all Americans became laboratory rats in the Obama health scam? And the Obama claims that “regulators” will solve the problems? Not quite if the New York Times is accurate about “regulators” in New York State.

“The new federal health care law tries to avoid the death spiral by requiring everyone to have insurance and penalizing those who do not, as well as offering subsidies to low-income customers. But analysts say that provision could prove meaningless if the government does not vigorously enforce the penalties, as insurance companies fear, or if too many people decide it is cheaper to pay the penalty and opt out.

Under the federal law, those who refuse coverage will have to pay an annual penalty of $695 per person, up to $2,085 per family, or 2.5 percent of their household income, whichever is greater. The penalty will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.

“In this new marketplace that we envision, this requirement that everybody be covered, that should draw better, healthier people into the insurance pool, which should bring down rates,” said Mark Hall, a professor of law and public health at Wake Forest University. But he added, “You have to sort of take a leap of faith that that’s going to happen.

As part of the political bargain to get insurance companies to support insurance for all regardless of risk, called community rating, New York State deregulated the market, allowing insurers to charge as much as they wanted within certain profit margins. The state can require companies to retroactively refund overcharges to consumers, but it seldom does.[snip]

Mark L. Wagar, the president of Empire BlueCross BlueShield, said New York’s problem was not deregulation of rates, but the lack of an effective mandate for everyone to buy insurance. To illustrate, he offered a statistic on how many people in the 18-to-26 age group, who are largely healthy, have bought individual insurance coverage through his company: 88 people out of 6 million insured by his company statewide.

New York is “the bellwether,” Mr. Wagar said. “We have the federal health reform on steroids in terms of richness and strictness.”

Where was the New York Times with this information before the Obama health scam vote? Why didn’t the New York Times note that Big Insurance wants more laboratory rats which is what Obama gave them? Troy Oechsner, the deputy superintendent for health at the State Insurance Department, is one of the regulators the laboratory rats are supposed to rely on to keep premiums down.

“To a large extent, insurance companies police themselves, according to Mr. Oechsner. From 2000 to 2007, insurance plans reported that they exceeded state profit allowances just 3 percent of the time, resulting in about $48 million in refunds to policyholders, Mr. Oechsner said. Yet subsequent Insurance Department investigations found that insurers should have refunded three times as much.”

So much for the “regulators” on health care. What about financial reform, the latest pet project of the Obama bamboozlement squad? We heard cheers yesterday because of regulator action against Goldman Sachs. But what is the real story? Maybe its more collusion:

“In his self-styled war against Wall Street, President Obama appears to have a powerful ally: Goldman Sachs.

The nation’s largest investment bank, famously cozy with top government officials in both parties, has tipped its hand to its shareholders, indicating that major financial “reform” proposals will help Goldman’s bottom line.”

Watch the actions, not the words.

“These are the very “fat cats” to whom Obama directed his trash talk in January: “If they want a fight, that’s a fight I’m willing to have.” Well, it looks like they don’t really want a fight. It looks like they want more regulation. The question is: What’s in it for Goldman?

If you take Blankfein and Cohn’s word, stricter federal liquidity and capital requirements would amount to regulators doing Goldman’s work for Goldman. They want Uncle Sam to mitigate “uncertainty about counterparties’ balance sheets.” That is, they want the government to reduce the risk that Goldman’s debtors or insurers will run into trouble.”

Actual regulation is needed, but we need to be careful of yet another scam perpetuated with flowery words. If there is not real regulation that protects ordinary Americans but rather scams Americans into once again becoming Wall Street laboratory rats then count us out.

As impossible as it is to say, Republicans are winning the battle on the economic front as well as the health front. That’s not us talking, that’s Ron Brownstein. Brownstein writes in the National Journal:

“The ferocity of this week’s Senate Republican attack on Democratic financial reform legislation was the surest sign yet that the GOP believes it is winning the argument over the economy.

Last year, amid the aftershocks of the most catastrophic financial meltdown since the Depression, opposing tougher financial regulation might have seemed a suicide mission to all but the most safely entrenched conservatives. And enough Senate Republicans might still recoil at being portrayed as defenders of Wall Street to eventually allow Democrats to pass a strong bill. But the fact that so many Republican senators feel comfortable starting with “Hell, no!” resistance to the Democratic plan demonstrates the GOP’s confidence that it has convinced voters that Big Government poses a greater threat to prosperity than Big Business, especially when they can portray the former as the servant of the latter.

More than a few Democrats worry that such Republican confidence is eminently justified. When Democracy, a center-left journal, recently asked leading liberal thinkers to assess President Obama’s performance, a recurrent theme was fear that he had lost control of the economic debate. Robert Reich, President Clinton’s Labor secretary, lamented that Obama’s failure to provide “a larger narrative” to explain the causes of the crash and his response to it had left the public “susceptible to [conservative] arguments that its problems were founded in ‘Big Government.’ ”

The Republicans’ “narrative” about Obama’s economic agenda — articulated again in Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s attack on financial reform — has been straightforward and unrelenting. In their telling, Obama is transforming the United States into a sclerotic European social-welfare state; forcing the strained middle class to fund both a “crony capitalism” of bailouts for the powerful (the charge McConnell leveled against the financial bill) and handouts for the poor (through health care reform); and impeding recovery by smothering the economy beneath stultifying federal spending, taxes, and regulation.”

Brownstein’s lament is that Obama is not emitting words fast enough. Brownstein calls it a “narrative gap”. Brownstein parenthetically notes about Bill Clinton “During Bush’s two terms, the economy created only one-fourth as many jobs as it did under Clinton; poverty rose sharply; and the median family income declined, after rising 14 percent under Clinton.” We repeat that information to amuse ourselves as we watch the current bumbler in chief. Brownstein, wants more campaign words from Obama to allow himself to forget the Obama record:

“When Obama first arrived, he often arraigned his predecessor’s record. The first chapter of Obama’s initial budget document was “Inheriting a Legacy of Misplaced Priorities.” Obama still delivers some similar jabs. But more often, he diffuses blame for the downturn across “a perfect storm of irresponsibility… that stretched from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street.” Obama, at other points, has emphasized his continuity with Bush’s approach, particularly on financial bailouts. (Liberal critics such as Reich believe that link extends beyond rhetoric to policy.) The result is that Obama has mostly shelved what political scientist Stephen Skowronek of Yale University calls “the authority to repudiate.” That’s the effort, employed by consequential presidents, such as Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, to build support by portraying their agenda as the remedy for their predecessors’ failures.

Absent such a framework, public opinion about the economy is clearly shifting toward the GOP as the downturn persists. Obama’s economic approval rating has sagged to around 40 percent, and his lead over congressional Republicans on managing the economy has virtually evaporated.

These trends are compounding Democratic anxiety about the November election and fueling the Republican confidence apparent in the financial debate.”

The American voter too has the power to repudiate – a power which will be exercised in November.

What Obama says and what Obama does are always two different things.

* * * * * *

A few brief comments on Elena Kagan one of several potential Gay Supreme Court nominees. When we wrote our tongue-in-cheek call for Zac Efron to be nominated to the Supreme Court (if not Zac, we’ll take Cate Blanchett for the same reasons) we were going to mention the gay angle to the Elena Kagan candidacy. We choose not to because we wanted to take a more humorous look at the nomination to come. But we knew, about the rock solid rumors about Kagan. Most everyone did.

At the time we researched Kagan the “gay” stories were all over the place. The stories were posted at mostly “gay” websites but could be found just about anywhere for many years (this one dating back to May 2009 from a Left gay website). This was almost uninteresting news that we would write about if Kagan was nominated. Then the White House decided to denounce the gay rumors about Kagan and has now turned this non story into a story.

CBS news, which had reported that Elena Kagan is gay did the White House bidding and scrubbed the story – making the news “hidden”. It reminded us of the outrage from Lynne Cheney (who had written some Lesbian scenes in her earlier books) when the story of her daughter Mary Cheney being a Lesbian became public fodder years ago. Mary Cheney promoted gay events when she worked at Coors Beer and her long term relationship with a woman was well known. Alan Keyes also has a gay daughter who helped him in his campaigns even as he denounced gay people. Keyes eventually disowned his daughter but not much was said about that hideous display of “family values”. Instead it was all hush-hush hidden news. It was odd then, and it’s odd now.

These are sensitive issues but it’s the White House that has now made this a story. The many articles on Kagan being Gay were well handled. There was no right wing attack on Kagon on this issue. Now there will be because the White House has tried to kill a story which is in all likelihood true. Ben Smith writes:

“The flap began with a conservative blogger on CBS’s website mentioned in a rumor that she was a lesbian (something that has been hashed out at some length on gay blogs), saying it made her more likely to be nominated. When the chatter hit CBS, the White House decided to kill it, going hard at CBS and calling the claim “inaccurate” and even “a false charge,” as though she’d been accused of something bad.

Now Human Rights Campaign is piling on, calling the flotation of the rumor a trick “straight out the right-wing playbook.”

That’s ridiculous. The gay blog Towleroad, not typically an arm of the right-wing conspiracy, has been cheerfully speculating for months. Republicans on the Hill decided last year, when two open lesbians were considered for the court, that they wouldn’t make an issue of it. And that’s a good political decision: Most Americans don’t think sexual orientation should be a factor in hiring.”

We were denounced in our comments section once for noting the many hypocrisies of Arianna Huffinton, including her attacks on the validity of Hillary Clinton’s marriage, while Arianna used her openly “gay husband’s money and reputation to advance herself”. We thought the openly gay husband was public news and worthy of discussion and necessary to put the Arianna years of lies into context. We’ll continue to discuss hidden news whether it brings us catcalls or cheers.

Hidden news is the order of the day in the Age Of Fake but not here.

[No Hidden news for us here. We'll discuss Bill Clinton's comments on the Tea Party movement in our next article.]

Be Sociable, Share!

196 comments to Hidden Stories – Health Care, Economics, Gay Supreme Court Candidates

  • confloyd

    wbboei,

    However, you cannot have open borders on the one hand and entitlements on the other, particularly in an era of high unemployment. But that is the icefield through which this ignorant, arrogant Obama is piloting the Titanic. One or the other must yield. I saw yes to entitlements for American citizens only, and no to amnesty.

    ————————————————————

    I agree with you and turndown!

  • admin

    Not Your Sweetie does a typically good job with a hidden story on Al Sharpton.

    http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/al-sharpton-white-house-ally/

  • Mrs. Smith

    Hillary supporters remember her campaign slogan:

    “I’m IN IT to WIN IT”

    Obama’s ( secret ) campaign slogan resonated as:

    “FAKE IT UNTIL YOU MAKE IT” (no truer words..)

  • ShortTermer

    So true Mrs. Smith. Admin, I can not wait until your post on Bill and the Tea Party. I saw snipets of his speech and I am not sure that I liked what I heard; perhaps you will provide the whole story as always.

  • wbboei

    Admin: I hope and pray that having the winning argument on health care reform, the economy and the other issues so great issues which will determine our future and whether we have will lead to massive electoral losses for the Dims, and the destruction of Obama.

    The real question is whether an electorate which is a mile wide and 6 inches deep understands all this. My great fear is they will be manipulated again by the globalists.

    On the front page of the Sunday Seattle Times is a huge article entitled The Rise of Obama. I did not need to read it to known that it was yet another puff piece for this clown by the elites who put him in. The owner of that paper Frank Blethen is a shining example of how the first generation creates the business, the second generation manages it and the third generation blows it. He of course is the third generation and per force an aging bot.

    Jose Ortega was a Spanish aristocrat who saw his fortunes decline and his world crumble in the 1936 Civil War when the Communists took over and began slaughtering priests and turning their society upside down. In describing the bots of that day he coined the term “mass men”. Then as now, when the mass men are starving they protest by burning down a bread factory.

    Today of course, people are more educated and well off. But it was never a question of intellect, education or party politics. It was and is a question of mature judgment. And in this society, mature judgement is conspicuous by its absence. Let us hope for once in their life the fools who voted for Obama finally get it.

  • wbboei

    The New York Times is like the man who is an eye witness to a murder. He then watches, the police apprehend the wrong man, the prosecutor convicts him, the judge pronounces a death sentence and the hangman carries it out. Thereafter he decides to come forward and tell everyone what he saw, but it is too damned late.

    When something like this happens, it is usually due to a belated fit of conscience. It is easy to understand why the New York Times suppressed this evidence until after the health care deform was passed–their goal is to save Obama. What is less clear is why they chose to disclose this information now and open themselves up to the very argument you make which is that they should have told us before this bill was passed. You could chalk it up to journalistic integrity. The problem with that explanation is they have none.

  • mj

    I agree with Reich. It’s the lack of TR or FDR style policies, not merely the lack of substantial rhetoric that is the issue with Obama. But he doesn’t want to have a real fight on policy. He is seemingly so afraid of the liberal label, or simply of failing, that he is endorsed half-measures that nobody believes will really help, but for which their is no major corporate resistance, so while he scores legislatively, he’s made it easy for his opponents, and those who instinctively oppose liberalism, to label him as of course a flaming liberal.

    Still, the Republicans are so out to lunch, their policy proposals are so repugnant, I don’t think they make a forceful opposition. I just don’t think people buy what Mitch McConnell and Newt Gingrich are selling. I think it’s actually a problem for our democracy that at a time when we absolutely need to take on the corporate interests in this county is a serious and meaning ful way, there is no Party proposing to do that.

  • ecoast

    I think Big Dawg is wrong in what he said.
    At a minimum, what he should have said clearly is this:

    American have a right to express their opinions and to demonstrate. They are exercising their first amendment rights. As long as these demonstrations are peaceful, they are okay.

  • wbboei

    Obama has mostly shelved what political scientist Stephen Skowronek of Yale University calls “the authority to repudiate.” That’s the effort, employed by consequential presidents, such as Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, to build support by portraying their agenda as the remedy for their predecessors’ failures.
    ———————————————————————-
    Amen. And that is because he and W serve the same masters. What he sold to the fools who voted for him was the appearance of change without the substance. Or, as they used to say on the burlesque circuit: sell the sizzle not the steak, and the rubes will fall for it every time. Well, he did, and they did, all those suckers who voted for Obama because they hated Bush and wanted a different set of policies. The only thing he has changed is our policy toward Israel.

  • wbboei

    American have a right to express their opinions and to demonstrate. They are exercising their first amendment rights. As long as these demonstrations are peaceful, they are okay.
    ————————————————
    Very true. I think what Bill was saying is they have got people’s attention. They have their Contract with America. Now they are talking about which candidates and what policies they will support. And as they do that it will be harder for the left wing media to attack them. I hope that is what he meant.

  • wbboei

    Very true. I think what Bill was saying is they have got people’s attention. They have their Contract with America. Now they are talking about which candidates and what policies they will support. And as they do that it will be harder for the left wing media to attack them. I hope that is what he meant.
    ————————————————–
    My second thought would be to ask Bill what he thought about the Black Panther Party members who brandished weapons at the voting booth in Philadelphia, only to be exonerated by the ridiculous Attorney General we have now. Or the seiu thugs who beat up the black conservative at a Town Hall meeting in St. Louis etc. Or the efforts by Pelosi and the Black Caucus to provoke a racial incident outside the capital. Or Obama’s policies which have precipitated these reactions.

    When he opens the door by criticizing these law abiding citizens, he should not be surprised if someone asks him if he is equally prepared to criticze those who break the law. The reason I would do that is because it would give him a platform to say some things I think he wants to say, and the dimocrats need to hear.

  • wbboei

    I was discussing the following excerpt from Admin’s article with one of our friends on this blog, and we agree that this is an important point:

    “Obama is transforming the United States into a sclerotic European social-welfare state; forcing the strained middle class to fund both a “crony capitalism” of bailouts for the powerful and handouts for the poor (through health care reform); and impeding recovery by smothering the economy beneath stultifying federal spending, taxes, and regulation.”

    That should indeed be a winning argument.

  • mj

    You know, Bill Clinton was responding to something very specific, which was that Bachmann woman calling this a “gangster administration”, which I’m sorry is a very bizarre thing to say. And, talk like that could insight violence. And, this is a man who governed at a time when Tim McVeigh did attack. He has always, always abhored the politics of personal destruction. here he said very clearly, say what you will about the policies, but these people were elected, they are not gangsters. Keep it to the policies because while you may mean something someone listening to you could hear it to the extreme and act on it, which of course has happened. I think he made the correct point.

  • mj

    It should be a winning argument, yes, but often critique alone is not enough. How do conservatives plan to go after these corporistas? So far, crickets.

  • wbboei

    Mrs. Smith
    April 17th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
    Hillary supporters remember her campaign slogan:

    “I’m IN IT to WIN IT”

    Obama’s ( secret ) campaign slogan resonated as:

    “FAKE IT UNTIL YOU MAKE IT” (no truer words..)
    —————————————
    Or it could be this:

    Hillary: I am in it to win

    Obama: I am in it to skim–
    for me and my cronies

  • basement angel

    Bill isn’t talking about demonstrating. He’s talking about the dehumanizing rhetoric the right engages in that all to often leads to murder. In the 90s, during Clinton’s presidency, twice as many Americans were killed by rightwing terrorists as by foreign terrorists.

    The right is dangerous and violent in a way that the left is not. Between 1993 and 2000, the right killed over 170 Americans. Add in the anthrax attacks, and George Tillman’s death and we’re getting close to 200 Americans killed by the right since 1992. Think about that.

    Here’s a link to a blog post where I enumerate the deaths from right wing terrorism during the 1990s. Click on the year, and it will take you to the substantiating article. For the deaths from foreign terrorism, I use the State Departments annual Patterns In Global Terrorism, which lists all American deaths from foreign terrorism.

    http://www.correntewire.com/domestic_and_foreign_terrorism_during_last_democratic_admin

  • wbboei

    How do conservatives plan to go after these corporistas?
    —————————————————-
    By opposing the dimocratic policies that cater to the corportists–like health care deform. And by opposing those policies when the Republican party does them. By supporting the Constitution, by opposing the Michael Steele, by talking up the fraud that is going on, by instituting legal challenges, by turning Obama into a laughing matter, by communicating their position via multi media, by coming up with a litmus test, and by supporting candidates who meet that test, as they are doing.

  • basement angel

    Wbboei,

    He isn’t transferring it into a welfare state in the least. He’s cranking up to take away Medicare and Social Security. His actions are the opposite of someone creating a welfare state. He’s simply engaging in crony capitalism on the largest scale possible – just as Reagan and Bush did. He’s no more creating a welfare state than they did. The point of health care reform was not to provide healthcare because the bill does not provide healthcare. The point of the bill was to hand over a portion of everyone’s paycheck to the insurance companies. If it was a social welfare bill, which it clearly isn’t, it would make demands for treatment upon the insurance companies – but it doesn’t do that. The demands are made on people. Not corporations.

  • wbboei

    The right is dangerous and violent in a way that the left is not
    —————————————————————
    Tell that to the people who lost their homes or businesses in Watts. Tell it to the widow of the police officer who was murdered by Ayers organization. Tell that to the Rosenbergs who tried to sell the atom bomb to the Soviets. The left is not dangerous but the right is? Where do you get these bromides?

  • wbboei

    He isn’t transferring it into a welfare state in the least. He’s cranking up to take away Medicare and Social Security. His actions are the opposite of someone creating a welfare state. He’s simply engaging in crony capitalism on the largest scale possible
    ————————–
    Now that is a pretty good argument! In fact, it is a damned good one.

  • confloyd

    I think basement angel is saying the right is dangerous and violent in a way that the left is not…maybe she’s talking about the right on a global level and your talking on an individual level.

    Just listening to the history channel and they are talking about the Hopey Indians who is waiting on their Blue Star….could that be the bots and their blue star Obama??? LOL!!

  • basement angel

    Wbboei,

    The left simply doesn’t kill as many people as the right. Beginning, middle and end. The right, since the rise of talk radio, in particular, has killed a lot of Americans. Since 1992, well over 180.

    Now, I’m not defending the left killing people when they do, but they simply don’t do it very often. That’s it.

    That’s why Bill issued the warning that he did. The right engages in rhetoric that encourages the vulnerable amongst them to kill their fellow Americans. The left doesn’t do that.

  • wbboei

    But you do find this same thing in Europe. I once worked for a $60 billion dollar company. The company was domiciled in Germany where half the economy is under government control and thereby qualifies as socialist by the Morris definition. The CEO was part of the German elite, did an interview with NYT in which he claimed to be the Bismark of the World Postal system, lived in a castle, and was arrested at his home for tax fraud. He is now on probation. My point is this. You can have crony capitalism and a welfare state policy at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. Under such a system the middle class gets robbed by the rich and poor alike–until there is no middle class left. That is why I say Obama is the destroyer of worlds, but half the country does not get it. They have occasional moments of lucidity and they go back to their normal comatose state. Therefore, let us at least hope that one of those moments of lucidity coincides with the upcoming election.

  • wbboei

    That’s why Bill issued the warning that he did. The right engages in rhetoric that encourages the vulnerable amongst them to kill their fellow Americans. The left doesn’t do that.
    —————————————————–
    You need to tune in to Bill Maher. He will disabuse you of that notion. Then take a listen to gangsta rap.

  • confloyd

    basement, I dunno, but those NOI guys intimidating little old ladies during the caucas’s was pretty scary although no on died yet, we still have another election to go thru with this fraudulent usurper.

  • basement angel

    wbboei,

    Great – draw up a list of Americans killed by lefties for political reasons since, say, 1970. There are a few. The point is that there are a lot more Americans killed by the right. it simply isn’t comparable.

    I’m not saying that you can’t have crony capitalism and a leader seeking to create some kind of welfare state. I’m simply pointing out that Obama isn’t interested in creating a welfare state. He’s only interested in the crony capitalism part. In the end, lower income Americans will have fewer options for healthcare under this bill than before. The point is to get them to make their portion of the insurance premium but price them out when it comes to actual care. You’ll see. That’s what’s going on here.

  • basement angel

    Confloyd,

    I made one of the documentaries about the primary – The Audacity of Democracy. I spent hours interviewing people who witnessed the caucus fraud. I also had all of my equipment stolen on the way to Chicago (literally) and had my house broken into and my project notebook, with all the phone numbers and notes, stolen.

    I know a lot about Obama.

  • wbboei

    The Audacity of Democracy.
    —————————-
    Editorial suggestion: The Audacity of THUGOCRACY.

  • confloyd

    basement angel…OMG! Thats horrible. Has anyone ever helped you try and get them back or did you file a police report?

  • confloyd

    Where was he born?? LOL! That’s my question?

  • wbboei

    I made one of the documentaries about the primary – The Audacity of Democracy. I spent hours interviewing people who witnessed the caucus fraud. I also had all of my equipment stolen on the way to Chicago (literally) and had my house broken into and my project notebook, with all the phone numbers and notes, stolen.
    ————————————————————–
    I am sorry to hear that. Any suspects?

  • basement angel

    Yes, police reports were filed. No, there are no suspects and I never got my stuff back. I was talking to FBI agents, secret service agents, journalists – all sorts of people.

    Brad was flying from the PUMA conference in DC to Chicago, and we had a series of fairly high profile interviews planned. I spent the day at home working the phones. Around 3pm, I locked up and walked to the corner to pick up a sandwich. When I got home, 15 or so minutes later, i couldn’t unlock my front door. It took quite a bit of WD-40 to get it open. I didn’t think too much about it. Meantime, Brad had a 1 hour layover, turn into a 4 hour lay over in NYC. When he got to Chicago finally, the camera cases felt light. He got to the hotel opened them, and they were stripped bare. He immediately called Chicago PD and filed a report. I went to bed around midnight. The phone rang around 6am and I hopped out of bed. It turned out to be a Texan that I was hoping to talk to. I went to grab my notebook and it was missing. I never found it. So, my notebook goes missing the same day the camera equipment is all stolen – what are the odds of that?

    And yes, he was born in Hawaii. I actually had to work a birth certificate case with a pair of young women whose parents hadn’t bothered to get birth certificates when they were born so that’s territory I know well. In the 60s, public announcement section was there for the purpose of creating an official, public record. The fact of the two birth announcements, in the section of paper that they were in, is all the proof you need that he was born in Hawaii. The only way those announcements appear on the day that they do is if he is born in Hawaii and in a hospital. Also, if you file a Freedom of Information Act request, you can get info on his move to Indonesia that documents his birth in Hawaii.

  • basement angel

    My favorite story that illuminates just how batshit the obots were comes from Kansas. A woman lived in an urban precinct that everyone knew was going heavy for Obama. The night of the caucus rolls around and she and her fellow Hillary supporters show up early and grab seats. The Obama supporters are pouring in by the dozens. No one has every seen anywhere near this number of people at the caucuses before. The seats are filling up and still, the Obama supporters are pouring in. Finally, it’s standing room only. There are 15 or so Hillary supporters sitting tight, waiting for events to begin. So what do the Obama supporters do? The hold a vote to force the Hillary supporters to give up their seats so that all the Obama supporters can sit. Seriously.

    Obama supporters are the most deranged fucking Democrats ever. Talk about bringing out the ugly.

    That theme – not letting Clinton supporters sit at caucuses – rears it’s head again and again. I heard variations on that tale over and over again, although the caucus voting to force the Clinton supporters to give up their seat only happened once that I know of. What a bunch of babies.

  • basement angel

    Oh, and the Clinton supporters in Kansas refused to give their seats up. It’s the fact of the vote that blows my mind.

  • confloyd

    Good for them! Glad you clarified that birth certificate thing for me! I figured he was, but you hear so many lies that your never sure!

  • confloyd

    basement angel, They must of been watching your house, so when you went to the store, they broke in and were probably there when you came back…scary! I fully believe the black racist thing was delibertly put together to beat Hillary…I imagine that Rove told them how to do it. I imagine that is what the republicans were going to do if they’d had to run against Hillary.

  • turndownobama

    wbboei
    April 18th, 2010 at 1:34 am

    He isn’t transferring it into a welfare state in the least. He’s cranking up to take away Medicare and Social Security. His actions are the opposite of someone creating a welfare state. He’s simply engaging in crony capitalism on the largest scale possible
    ————————–
    Now that is a pretty good argument! In fact, it is a damned good one.

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

    Yes, good thinking and well put as usual!

  • turndownobama

    However, you cannot have open borders on the one hand and entitlements on the other, particularly in an era of high unemployment. [....] I saw yes to entitlements for American citizens only, and no to amnesty.

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

    This sounds like using the word ‘entitlements’ in Obama’s non-sense meaning. In the real meaning, recent immigrants AREN’T entitled to Soc Sec because they have not been paying into it.

    In fact, some new young immigrants paying in now but not collecting for several decades, could be just what we need to keep the SS cash flow in the black during the Boomers’ retirement years.

  • turndownobama

    someone said:
    That’s why Bill issued the warning that he did. The right engages in rhetoric that encourages the vulnerable amongst them to kill their fellow Americans. The left doesn’t do that.
    —————————————————–
    wbboei said:
    You need to tune in to Bill Maher. He will disabuse you of that notion. Then take a listen to gangsta rap.

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

    I don’t listen to Maher, but what occurs to me is this:

    When a rightwinger does something, his bomb or his gun works and he’s left a clear note saying it’s a political gesture.

    When a leftwinger does something, either the bomb doesn’t work (Ayers in the Pentagon bathroom) or it just looks like ordinary crime (gangsta) or the media doesn’t take it seriously as political (Watts and Rodney King riots etc) because it looks like ordinary looting.

  • tim

    (don’t know if there will a seperate thread for this topic, if there is I will repost this, and apologize in advance for posting on the wrong thread.)

    admin:

    another superb article. thank you.

    I had to add a comment about what Bill Clinton said recently. I used to a very staunch supporter of Bill and Hillary’s, in fact I was a lifelong democrat up until 2008. Now, honestly, I am not.

    I listened to the whole clip of Bill Clinton speaking, first I am glad he condemned the teacher’s union praying for Chris Chritie’s demise, this should be condemned by everyone.
    But, I am very disappointed that Bill Clinton charaterized Tea Party patriots as breeding grounds for Tim McVeigh type terrorists.
    This was an absolutely disgusting statement by Bill Clinton.

    If Clinton had condemned extremism on both sides, I would have appauled him, but he suggested it was extremist from Tea Party like citizens that caused a Tim McVeigh to act.

    Bill Clinton obviously does not even remember what Tim M was about and what led to that whole terrorist OK bombing act. That was an anti-govt act, there were several other events that preceded it, like the Waco event, in fact Tim McVeigh did the OK event on waco’s anniversary.

    The Tea Party movement is against BIG govt, and BAD govt, it is not against a govt, it is NOT a seperatist movement.

    Personally, I was very very insulted by Bill Clinton on 3 fronts, first that he was ignorant enough to equivate a smaller-govt (and yes peaceful) movement like the Tea Party to that of a terrorist like Tim McVeigh, I suppose this is a good way of keeping people quiet.

    Second, (and I listened to the entire clip), not once did he condemn the actual disgusting acts from the violent radical left, like the biting off a finger, the beating up of the 2 GOPs people in LA. And this stuns me considering all the crap he and Hillary were subjected to in 2008, he doesn’t even condemn the race-baiting that continues today, considering that he and Hillary were victims of it in 2008 (the fairytale line, then the RFK line, and then the LBJ line).

    Extremes from both ends need to be condemned, and yet Bill only chose one side, and without any proof, when there is so much evidence of violence from the radical lunatic left.
    I suppose this is a very good way to have a chilling effect to keep people quiet.

    and third, Bill does not even seem to realise the Obama (as well as Reid and Puke-o-si and other dems) himself is causing part of this, with Obama’s latest taunting of the American citizens, in all my years of watching the news, I have never seen a president essentially literally spit in american’s peple’s faces and taunt them.

    I really have never seen anything like this.
    During Bush’s years, when he was asked about those Iraq war protest, Bush gave a very classy answer, it was not taunting citizens, but praising them for exercising their right to protest (even against him).

    Have I been to Tea Party events? oh yes, and I have been open that I am a lifelong dem disgusted enough to leave the party after being a loyal democrat for decades. I have seen moms, iraq/ afgan veterans, senior citizens, small biz ownners, have they been vocal, oh yes. violent, never. many many of them independents, or ex-democrats, or even registered dems.

    I truly wonder if Bill even has a clue. He encourages dems to vote for a DeathCare bill that will hurt the middle class, he equates Tea Partiers as a breeding grd for the next Tim Mcveigh. My respect for Bill Clinton is diminishing more and more and faster and faster everyday. And as for Hillary, while I understand she has to follow whatever the fraud says, I thought she was made of stronger convictions. All the Israel bashing, and not a peep from her.

    I am now coming to the point, that should Hillary run again, even though in the past I had voted for her, campaigned for her, fundraised for her, I don’t think I will be able to do so again.

    This latest statement by Bill Clinton is making me turn away from both Clintons. While I still have a lot respect for them, I more and more question who they are more loyal to? Wrong is wrong no matter which side of the aisle does it. And this is no longer 1992, people are waking up to being played by both sides, and it appears Bill and Hillary are playing that game as well.
    My respect for both of them have gone down tremendously.

    And frankly I still do think Bill was a good president and while I continue to think Hillary would have made a wonderful president compared to the immature jerk currently in the White House, I will not support Hillary should she ever decide to run again.
    I consider myself an American first, not a democrat.

  • Southern Born

    Was Bill Clinton speaking on the anniversary of the OK bombing?

    He is on THIS WEEK this morning. Perhaps he will shed some light on his comments.

  • wbboei

    Tim your comments are very insightful and troubling. Up thread I offered a benign explanation. However, after listening to your argument, certain questions need to be considered, in my opinion:

    1. does Bill believe in the First Amendment in general, and specifically the right to engage in peaceful protest?

    2. does Bill believe that that to criticize Obama forcefully is equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater?

    3. does Bill believe that it is racist to criticize Obama’s policies when they are wrong?

    4. does Bill understand that he is condemning ordinary Americans, not just Republicans or FOX in re. Tea Parties?

    5. has Bill read Cass Sunstein’s book The Law of Fear which says that public officials ought not to play the fear card?

    6. does Bill understand the legitimate anger of people who stand to lose everything in Obama’s game of crony capitalism?

    7. does Bill remember a time when the same vile people he defends with the false charge of inciting violence through strong words and peaceful protest falsely accused him of being a racist?

    8. can Bill put his own ego aside and consider how this affects the political future of his wife who worked hard to build bridges to the people he now condemns.

    9. does Bill understand that by saying stuff like this he plays into the Republican’s hands?

    I am sure he has satisfactory answers to all these questions. But I would still like to hear them.

  • wbboei

    10. Is Bill on the side of the American People or the globalists?

  • tim

    wobboei — you have made some excellent points! I agree with you.

  • pm317

    I think Bill Clinton is echoing the concern most of the Dems have, that is fear of the consequences of their ill-conceived policies. The part about ill-conceived policies is what Bill can’t be explicit about. And that is what is reflected in the anti-govt protests in tea parties and he acknowledges that — he says go after policies and not institutions like the IRS. He is actually warning the Dems about it as much as the Repubs not to misuse it to the point of extremism, to the point of generating another Tim McVeigh kind of character. I think that is fair. Tone deaf Obama and the Dems and their inadequate articulation of what their policies mean are all part of this thing. Govt failure on many levels (analogous to Waco if I may add) on the one hand and legitimate discontent, abuse and misinformation by extremist repubs on the other.

  • tim

    pm317 —

    I would have given Bill Clinton tremendous credit if he had given a warning to dems as well, but he did not.
    With Obama openly taunting his opponents “Tea Party amuses me. They should be THANKING ME!”
    seriosuly? with such an immature twit literally spitting in American’s citizen’s faces, and then calling them racists, telling people they are too stupid to understand what is good for them i.e. the DeathCare bill, they are pushing people.

    After defending Bill Clinton against my repub friends over and over again all these years, I am now wondering does Bill clinton consider himself a democrat first?

    If Bill had gone equally after the dems for their nonsense, I would have continued to respect him. But now that he has essentially equated Tea Party supporters as the breeding grd for the next Tim Mcveigh, I have much lesser opinion or respect for Bill Clinton.

    If he had condemned the extermists on both sides, I would have continues to respect him, but he did not, he only warned against one side, the other side, and as a former staunch supporter of his, I cannot express how disappointed I am.

  • pm317

    “But now that he has essentially equated Tea Party supporters as the breeding grd for the next Tim Mcveigh, I have much lesser opinion or respect for Bill Clinton.”

    OK, let us not get melodramatic here (and I have no reason to defend BC and I won’t) — He is not doing that. But one can’t disagree with that it is a academic/sociological inference that these protests if pushed to the extreme may generate unhinged characters like a McVeigh in the future. With Limbaugh and other nutcases using these protests for their own ill-conceived goals, one may fear what happens when all the good people who participate in tea parties go away disenchanted and the problem is still unresolved and the discontent is still simmering. It is an academic/hypothetical issue but we can learn from history. I think that was the warning BC was giving for both sides.

  • tim

    pm317 — we will have to just agree to disagree.
    And I am no fan of Rush’s, don’t listen to him, but I imagine he is doing his usual ranting thing.

    But Bill is clueless on what is going on in this country, as I said before this is not 1992, and the Tea Party movement is not a seperatist movement which Bill seems to allude it is by saying it can lead to the next Tim Mcv. And I say this as a former staunch support of Bill.
    It was a disgusting statement to say.

    And Bill did not warn the dems against their disgusting “health”care bill, he was promoting it. I know for a fact that bill will hurt my small biz, and I know several others who will not be hiring anytime soon because they have no clue how it will harm their bottom line.

    Bill could have done a lot of good by explicitly warning the dems as well but he did not, he choose not to. I no longer know if Bill has changed, or I have. Either way, I will no longer be defending Bill as staunchly as I used to against by repub friends who cannot stand him.

    And the stunning thing to me is Bill and Hillary were subjected to this nonsense in 2008, all those aweful DU posts calling Bill and Hillary all sorts of crap, then Huffpost, I remember anytime I would write a comment defending Bill and Hillary, it was immediately erased. The “fairytale” line used as race-bating against the clintons. Apparently, Bill has forgotten all of this. As a newly registered independent, I am just stunned at all this.

  • JanH

    ‘This Week’ Transcript: Former President Bill Clinton
    Transcript: “This Week” with Former President Bill Clinton
    April 18, 2010 —

    TAPPER: You’ve made some news over this weekend. You gave a speech on Friday talking about — on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing which is coming up. How public officials have a responsibility to be careful with their words. This prompted a response from — from Rush Limbaugh

    Rush Limbaugh: “With this comment you have just set the stage for violence in this country. Any future acts of violence are on your shoulders, Mr. Clinton.”

    TAPPER: Do you have any response?

    CLINTON: Doesn’t make any sense. The only point I tried to make is that when I went back and started preparing for the 15th anniversary of Oklahoma City, I realized that there were a lot of parallels between the early ’90s and now, both in the feeling of economic dislocation, and the level of uncertainty people felt. The rise of kind of identity politics. The rise of the militia movements and the right wing talk radio with a lot of what’s going on in the blogosphere now.

    And in the right wing media, and with Oath Keepers, the 3 percenters, the — all these people, you know, who are saying things like, “If Idaho wants to succeed from the union,” the militia group out there says, you know, “We’ll back them.” One leader of one of these groups said that all politics was just a prelude to civil war. And then the politicians of course have not been that serious, but a lot of the things that have been said, they — they create a climate in which people who are vulnerable to violence because they are disoriented like Timothy McVeigh was are more likely to act.

    And the only point I tried to make was that we ought to have a lot of political dissent — a lot of political argument. Nobody is right all the time. But we also have to take responsibility for the possible consequences of what we say. And we shouldn’t demonize the government or its public employees or its elected officials. We can disagree with them. We can harshly criticize them. But when we turn them into an object of demonization, you know, you — you increase the number of threats.

    But I worry about these threats against the president and the Congress. And I worry about more careless language even against — some of which we’ve seen against the Republican governor in New Jersey, Governor Christie.

    I just think we all have to be careful. We ought to remember after Oklahoma City. We learned something about the difference in disagreement and demonization.

    TAPPER: You said that this time reminds you of — of that time. Politically does this year remind you of 1994?

    CLINTON: A little bit. We passed the bill which reversed trickledown economics by one vote. Close like the healthcare bill. And it led to an enormous flowering of the economy in America. And that bill was responsible for, take is more than 90 percent of the weight of the balanced budget. But people didn’t realize its benefits.

    I think the same thing is happening now with the healthcare bill. Where people are still reading into it all manner of dark things. And they haven’t felt the benefits of it yet. But America is a different country now. We are culturally a different country. We are more diverse. We’re more communitarian. That is, we understand we have to solve a lot of these problems together.

    So I think that the dissent is just as intense, if not more intense. But I think the outcome of the election is likely to be far less dramatic than it was in ’94.

    TAPPER: So no Republican revolution — no take over?

    CLINTON: I don’t think they will win either house. No. I think they’ll — you know, if history is any guide they should make a few gains. But I — I don’t expect them to win in either house. No.

    TAPPER: Let’s talk a little bit about why you’re here. CGIU — Clinton Global Initiative University — what is different about it that changes on the previous models for national service for young people that — that already exist?

    CLINTON: Well what we did is to try to construct a college version of the Clinton Global Initiative that happens at the opening of the U.N. every year. Where we’ve brought in the college presidents and the student group leaders, and philanthropists and celebrities with college students. And try to create a network where these students could learn from each other and all make very specific commitments to make changes.

    So we’re trying to increase the number of people engaged in service. We’re trying to increase the sophistication of their projects. And we’re trying to create a — a forum in which what they do will influence every campus in America so that more and more young people will be involved.

    TAPPER: You have more than 950 commitments for projects for young people. Explain what a commitment is?

    CLINTON: Well a — a commitment is the very specific pledge to undertake and implement a project either on the campus, in the community, in the country, or half way around the world.

    We’ve had commitments, to give you some examples, as diverse as a pledge by students at Brown to set up a micro credit program in Providence Rhode Island, because Rhode Island has the second highest unemployment rate in the country. That is going to help people to start again. A commitment in Syracuse to help promote nutrition and — and learning. In inner city Syracuse because they have problems with childhood obesity.

    We’ve had commitments to help empower Native American tribes — still the poorest Americans — to pull themselves out of poverty. And we’ve had commitments around the world. The commitments in West Africa to use the unique software to help the West Africans at very low cost keep out adulterated drugs. Sometimes as many as 30 percent of the drugs that are shipped in to very poor countries have been contaminated or diluted and they’re not worth anything.

    And this software will allow people without contracting with some big expensive group to preserve the purity of their drugs. In Haiti we’ve had commitments that help people start the chicken operations to feed themselves. Start urban gardens to feed themselves. Reconstruct the universities. We’ve had all kinds of commitments like that. And in a raft of commitments in America and around the world to help on the environment. Everything from improving recycling and improving the efficiency of buildings on American college campuses, to installing solar lanterns and getting rid of kerosene in Indian villages.

    TAPPER: You’ve had success getting corporate America to do some remarkable things — Pfizer for instance gave your global health initiative sixty percent discount on the super Tuberculosis drug that can be taken by people with HIV.

    But it’s got to be a challenge to convince corporate America and businesses just to give. What do you — what advice do you give these young people on how they can get for instance the money to provide micro credits to poor people in Rhode Island?

    CLINTON: I think they should go to people who would benefit if grass roots people in Providence were more prosperous. Local banks should support this. Local businesses that need those folks to be able to come in and buy their products would be more successful. And the more we understand that you have to keep widening the circle of opportunity, the more this becomes a business strategy as well as just compassion.

    If you look at Pfizer, it’s a good example. People who have Tuberculosis and AIDS are very ill. The traditional Tuberculosis treatment combined with the AIDS drugs makes them so sick they can’t function. Pfizer is the only company in the world with a drug that allows them to function normally. So I said to them, “Why are you becoming our first big pharmaceutical partner? Why are you giving me this 60 percent reduction?”

    And the president said, “Because I realize that by fighting the generic trend to lower drug cost, we were trying to get a huge percentage of only 15 percent of the population of the world. I decided we should go to the other 85 percent.”

    When all these generic drug companies changed their strategy, they were still charging a lot of money because their payment was uncertain, and they were — had a few customers, so they had to have a big profit margin. I just asked them to change their business model. Now they have a low profit margin, but they have many, many more customers in certain payments. When Wal-Mart convinced its supply chain to cut the packaging by 5 percent, they changed the business model. It had the global warming effect of taking 211,000 trucks off the road but it also cut the supply chain cost $3 billion a year. So you’ve got to — you have to find ways to argue that in the end, being philanthropic, being large-minded, being compassionate is also, in an interdependent world, good economics.

    TAPPER: One of the challenges for philanthropies is that when you’re dealing in impoverished areas, there’s often a lot of corruption. I know it’s a situation and I know the Global Health Initiative has a no corruption rule. You’ve talked in the past about one country you had to pull out for the Global Health Initiative because they were not going to uphold the no corruption rule.

    CLINTON: That’s correct.

    TAPPER: Of course, that I’m sure to a degree upset you because you wanted to be in that country —

    CLINTON: I desperately wanted to do it.

    TAPPER: What advice will you give them to help negotiate that terrain? To do good, but at the same time, avoid some of these bad actors that are almost inevitably in impoverished areas.

    CLINTON: Rampant corruption normally accompanies incapacity. That is, in poor countries where a few people have a lot of money and money changes hands, it’s because nobody expects there to be a good universal health care system. Nobody expects there to be a good universal banking system. Nobody expects there to be a good universal education system.

    So what I would advise them to do is just to say that in their projects, whatever their project is, there can be no corruption. You change the world a step at a time. And when I go into countries, you know, I don’t examine the whole banking system or look at how the energy contracts are done, I just say, if you want us to operate here in economic development, in energy, in health and education, we have a no corruption policy. That I think is what they should do. Now when you take responsibility, as I did when I worked with the U.N. in the tsunami areas, in Indonesia and Aceh for example, or as I’m doing now, the Haitian parliament yesterday authorized the establishment of the commission that Prime Minister Bellerive and I will co-chair in Haiti. We have a higher responsibility. We have a responsibility to make sure all the donors money goes from their pockets to the intended object without corruption.

    TAPPER: Switching to some of the political issues going on, President Obama now has a Supreme Court vacancy to deal with. It’s almost impossible to believe, looking back on it, but your first justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who will be likely, the most liberal member of the court once Stevens resigns, she was confirmed 96 to 3. Senator Orrin Hatch, who is the leading Republican in the Senate Judiciary Committee, has credited you with really bringing him into the consultation process. What advice would you give President Obama? Because Republicans are saying he’s not including them in this.

    CLINTON: Well, I think for one thing, I had to do a little more of that because I never had a filibuster-proof Senate. And now there are 41 of them, although I think that a lot of those who come from more progressive states, the two Maine senators, the new senator from Massachusetts, a lot of them may think they already gave it the store on the health care deal or whatever they’re doing on financial reform. I think it will be very difficult to just outright block a Supreme Court nominee that’s otherwise qualified. Especially after the Democrats confirm, allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas, and Justice Scalia and a lot of other people who were — Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts.

    My advice to him would be to first of all see what the court is missing. Does it matter if he puts a Catholic or a Jewish person or someone of another faith on a court, there mightthere would be no Protestants on the Supreme Court. Does that matter? Does there need to be another woman on the court? Should there be some other group represented? Because Justice Stevens was part of the four-person progressive block, he will of course nominate someone who will be part of that. We’ve seen the hard way in the Citizens United case and campaign finance and in Bush v. Gore, during the most bizarre rulings in the history of the Supreme Court and I think one of the five worst, what the consequences of that are.

    But I would also not — I don’t expect him to intentionally pick a fight with the Senate, but he can’t avoid it. If he finds somebody that he thinks is just the best person, but the most important thing is he needs to be really proud of the people he puts on the court. The two people I put on the court have made me proud. I haven’t agreed with every decision they’ve made. That’s not the important thing. The important thing is that you think they’re smart and they’re competent and they understand the lives of ordinary people. Now one thing I think he should think about is have we gotten — have we gone too far in this process that assuming only judges can be elected? That somehow you’re not qualified if you weren’t a judge.

    Some of the best justices in the Supreme Court in history have been non-judges, people that  as Hugo Black once famously said, had been sheriffs and county judges, people that have seen how the lofty decisions of the Supreme Court affect the ordinary lives of Americans. You know, I tried to persuade both Senator Mitchell and Governor Cuomo to accept appointments to the court and for different reasons, neither one wanted to do it. I think they would have been fabulous justices. And — George Mitchell had been a judge, but he was also a senator. I think that — I hope he’ll take a look at somebody who hasn’t been a judge.

    TAPPER: William Howard Taft, eight years after his presidency, went to the Supreme Court. I’ve heard some Democrats say why isn’t Bill Clinton on any of these short lists? Would you enjoy doing that?

    CLINTON: I think I would enjoy it, but I don’t think it would be a good idea.

    TAPPER: Why?

    CLINTON: Because I’m already 63-years-old, I hope I live to be 90. I hope I’m just as healthy as Justice Stevens is. But it’s not predictable. I’d like to see him put someone in there, late 40s, early 50s, on the court and someone with a lot of energy for the job. And I don’t think that’d be a good choice. I also — I love what I’m doing now and what I’m doing now is something that I’m uniquely qualified to do, whereas there are many people who could be good on the court.

    TAPPER: Senator Hatch raised the subject of a different justice Clinton, your wife, do you think she’d be good at that?

    CLINTON: Oh, she would be great at it, but  and I think at one point in her life she have might been interested in it. But she’s like me, you know, we’re kind of doers. We like being out there and doing things, rowing our own boat and making changes we could see happen, and again, I think if she were asked, she would advise the president to appoint someone 10, 15 years younger.

    TAPPER: You mentioned financial regulatory reform. One of the things that President Obama is pushing for is regulation of derivatives, and also with a thing called the Volcker rule, he’s trying to separate commercial banking interests from investment banking interests. These were things that were the opposite policies of Treasury Secretary Rubin and Summers at that time, do you think in retrospect they gave you bad advice on these issues?

    CLINTON: Well, I think on the derivatives  before the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed, it had been breached. There was already a total merger practically of commercial and investment banking, and really the main thing that the Glass-Steagall Act did was to give us some power to regulate it  the repeal.

    And also to give old fashion traditional banks in all over America the right to take an investment interest if they wanted to forestall bankruptcy. Sadly none of them did that. Mostly it was just the continued blurring of the lines, but only about a third of all the money loaned today is loaned through traditional banking channels and that was well underway before that legislation was signed. So I don’t feel the same way about that.

    I think what happened was the SEC and the whole regulatory apparatus after I left office was just let go. I think if Arthur Levitt had been on the job at the SEC, my last SEC commissioner, an enormous percentage of what we’ve been through in the last eight or nine years would not have happened.

    I feel very strongly about it. I think it’s important to have vigorous oversight. Now, on derivatives, yeah I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take it, because the argument on derivatives was that these things are expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of investors will buy them.

    And they don’t need any extra protection, and any extra transparency. The money they’re putting up guarantees them transparency. And the flaw in that argument was that first of all sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it without transparency.

    And secondly, the most important flaw was even if less than 1 percent of the total investment community is involved in derivative exchanges. So much money was involved that if they went bad, they could affect a 100 percent of the investments, and indeed a 100 percent of the citizens in countries not investors, and I was wrong about that. I’ve said that all along. Now, I think if I had tried to regulate them because the Republicans were the majority in the Congress, they would have stopped it. But I wish I should have been caught trying. I mean, that was a mistake I made.

    TAPPER: You’ve come closer than any president in recent history in brokering a mid-east peace plan. President Obama is in a situation right now where he is getting a lot of conflicting advice. Do you think it’s time for President Obama to put a peace plan on the table?

    CLINTON: Well, first of all, I’m reluctant to give him public advice. I talk to the president and the secretary of state and Mr. Emanuel and others privately. But let me answer you this way because I don’t want to do anything to foreclose their options. The argument against doing that is that the current Israeli government with its current coalition almost certainly would reject it.

    And the argument is that that makes us look weak. I think it’s the — it may be — they may decide it’s more important to have clarity. And to do something that will be an action forcing event to put them back to the table.

    And if he decides to do it, I will support it. And I think if he decides to do it, he should acknowledge that they may come up with a deal that’s slightly different than the one he proposes. But we need to do something to deprive both sides of any excuse not to engage in serious negotiations.

    Look at the ramifications of this. Half of the energy coming out of all this organization and money-raising for terror comes out of the allegations around the unresolved Palestinian issue. If there were a Palestinian state working in partnership, with the policies Mr. Fayyad’s following on the West Bank, it would be a whole different world.

    All the Arabs would identify with Israel. They’d have a political and economic partnership. The whole economic basis in the Middle East would shift from oil to ideas. Look at what the Saudi Arabians are doing — building six new towns. The — the UAE wins the international competition for the clean energy agency. And they’re going to build a carbon neutral city in the UAE. And nobody thinks about this.

    Dubai is the only country with huge amounts of imported workers that’s actually passed legislation to give these immigrant workers a better deal in the Middle East. And they’ve got women in the government. They have a joint public-private decision making process. Nobody knows anything about it. Why? Because of the Palestinian-Israeli thing.

    How could the Syrians stay out there alone cooperating with the Iranians and letting Hezbollah people travel through Syria and doing all the things they do. If they were at peace with the Palestinians, they would have to come along with the rest of the Arab states. There would be a peace between Israel and Syria. This is a huge deal.

    So the fact that the president is putting new energy into this, taking personal responsibility for it, and trying to get them back to the table, that’s the most important thing. If this is the tactic he decides to adopt, I will strongly support it.

    TAPPER: When you were watching healthcare reform finally pass after having tried it yourself, did you — did you see it as something like, “I’m glad we stormed the castle in ’93-’94, because that paved the way for this?”

    CLINTON: Absolutely. You know, before I did it President Nixon had tried, President Truman had tried. President Johnson who had the biggest congressional majority didn’t even try for universal healthcare. He did two important things — Medicare and Medicaid. But he thought even with that Congress he couldn’t get it.

    We were the first administration that ever got a bill out of committee. We got two or three bills out of committee. And once I saw William Kristol’s memo to Bob Dole, I realized we never had a chance. Because we couldn’t pass it without five or six Republicans. They — they — I had an obstacle President Obama didn’t have. They had an absolute, clear filibuster number. That is, they had 45 Republican senators. They could have lost four and still defeated me.

    I felt like the — Teddy Roosevelt would have felt if he’d still been alive in the 1930s seeing his cousin Franklin being able to sign legislation in areas that he had advocated. And you know that took two decades. And this took less time. So I actually — I was thrilled by it. And worked hard. Hillary and I lobbied people all over the weekend before the vote. And she and I were ecstatic.

    It’s — it’s — sometimes takes a long time to change a country. And you — and I think frankly now they will keep changing this bill. They’ll have to keep working on it and putting more cost drivers in it to take the cost down. But it’s a big, big step. And it’s a wonderful thing for the country.

    TAPPER: President Clinton, thanks so much for joining us. Congratulations on the third anniversary of CGIU.

    CLINTON: Thank you.

    http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-president-bill-clinton/story?id=10405692

  • wbboei

    pm 317: go back and read the text of what Bill said. Was his statement directed at the Tea Parties themselves or was it merely directed at the talking heads? Your comment blurs the distinction, but it is an important one. It seems to me that is the core issue. If he was merely talking about the talking heads, that is obviously fair game. But if it was the Tea Parties themselves, then the questions set forth above are relevant. Also, the invocation of history can be a slippery slope. As Tim suggests, it is materially misleading to equate lawful protests with separatist movements. And then there is the nature of the threat itself. Can you point to an instance where the Tea Party as an organization advocated the death of someone, like the Teachers Union did whether or not in jest? These are false equivalences, reminiscent of the Obama campaign, and they tend to suggest a partisan motive as opposed to an even handed one. And the moment he makes this statement he is invited to elaborate upon it on ABC who is interested in vilifying the Tea Parties in order to protect Obama. Finally, there is the doctrine of proximate cause. When something happens the law recognizes that it would not have happened but for a chain of events. But if we proscribe every act in that chain then there would be a high cost in terms of personal freedom. Therefore, the law asks not whether X caused the bad event, but whether X was the proximate cause of it. Also, in the area of proscribed speech there is the doctrine of stray comments which do not reflect an ungoing pattern. Typically, those random statements do not become the basis for liability. Nor should they in this instance.

  • mj

    wbboei
    April 18th, 2010 at 1:25 am

    Oh please. Yeah by opposing yet not proposing. That’s because they won’t do anything to disrupt the money flow to the exact same hands. It’s pathetic. They can’t even be a successful opposition because they don’t want to upset their corporate donors. Their biggest beef with Obama is that he’s become the golden boy of the wall street donor set, a position they have staked everything on reclaiming.

    Bill Clinton didn’t set Left or Right. He said these sorts of movements can unhinge already unglued people. Duh. That can be left, right or otherwise. He said stay away from the politics of personal destruction, something he has always believed in. Grow a thicker skin if your reaction to what BC said is to suddenly denounce him.

  • mj

    Further, he didn’t say, hey, protesters, go home. He said, yeah, go out and fight for whatever it is you are for, just don’t make it personal, keep it to policy.

  • wbboei

    There has been such an organized effort by the forces supporting Obama to silence dissent in this country, first in the primary, then in the party and finally in the nation, so they can disenfranchise the people that any politician of any stripe who presumes to criticize ordinary citizens in the peaceful exercise of first amendment rights under the pretext of warning them that their efforts could be misconstrued by nut cases as a pretext for violence carries a very heavy burden of proof that their comments were not politically inspired.

  • wbboei

    mj: if you have the original text of the original speech, please post it. That will answer the questions some of us are wondering about. There is no sense in arguing based on faulty assumptions–yours or mine.

  • pm317

    Rush Limbaugh: “With this comment you have just set the stage for violence in this country. Any future acts of violence are on your shoulders, Mr. Clinton.” (from Tapper’s interview)

    This makes my case. Putting words into BC’s mouth and amplifying their own agenda which is more about creating chaos than thoughtful response. Let us not analyze BC’s thoughts in the fog that is created by his opponents.

  • wbboei

    don’t make it personal, keep it to policy.
    ——————————————
    That is an impossible thing to do. No successful advocate fails to get personal every chance he gets. Aristotle called the game on this. The key to successful advocacy is ethos, pathos, logos. Ethos means I am someone worth listening to, and my opponent is not. Obama’s ethos is a fairy tale. He has never come clean on it. How then can we not make it personal? And when we look at the dirty tricks he has pulled and the people he has thrown under the bus, how can we not make it personal? And when the stakes are as high as they are here, how can anyone expect those who are adversely affected to not make it personal? Policy is dull as mud, personalities are where the action is, and when the elites spend billions to promote this fraud named Obama we have every right to make it personal and show it is all a lie. Rule 1: whether you are Obama or whoever, do not attack the American People? Notice the reward for attacking the Tea Parties–a nice puff piece interview.

  • pm317

    admin, you should come out with your article on BC’s comments soon.. looks like the energy of the group is tending that way! But I am off to lunch now.

  • ShortTermer

    tim
    April 18th, 2010 at 8:07 am
    Well written, Tim. I am leaning more toward the thought that Bill is licking the boots of Obummer. It is forever stamped into my mind what the head of the Repub party headquarters during the general election said, and she is AA, that Bill wore Obummer’s tie, that meant that Obummer had conquered Bill. With people like, Hill, Bill, Ed Rendell, Lanny Davis, James Carville and others for whom I had great respect for in the Dem primaries the bell is about to toll. I can hardly stand to hear Ed Rendell and it breaks my heart to hear mild mannered Lanny Davis speak the Dim talking points as if they have changed their principles just to stay faithful to what used to be the Democratic party.
    Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with Michelle Bachmann stating the phrase “gangster administration.” I personally have used the terms goons, thugs, criminals, Chicago way/style, etc. to accurately describe Obummer’s administration along with liar, corrupt, evil, etc. You just can not polish a turd. PUMAS witnessed up close and personal the brunt of the gangster tactics used by SEIU and ACORN and documented them well; even better than the lamestream media. When you look at Ayers, Dohrn and others, what else would you call them?
    Are the Dims the kettle calling the pot black [btw not a racist reference]?

  • wbboei

    Rush Limbaugh: “With this comment you have just set the stage for violence in this country. Any future acts of violence are on your shoulders, Mr. Clinton.” (from Tapper’s interview)
    —————————
    He is wrong about that. The issue is not the threat of violence. Bill’s statement was a repudiation of violence as an answer. The problem I see is equating the possibility of violence with robust constitutional protest, and pinning it on an entire organization because that is part of the overall Obama pattern of suppressing dissent.

  • turndownobama

    Has Bill Clinton himself directly released a written version of his speech? If so, I’d trust it to be accurate.

    However after what was done to Palin with some big media interviews, I wouldn’t necessarily trust either the version aired on tv or a transcript released by the media.

  • turndownobama

    It is forever stamped into my mind what the head of the Repub party headquarters during the general election said, and she is AA, that Bill wore Obummer’s tie, that meant that Obummer had conquered Bill.

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

    Doubtless both ties had little radio receivers in them, and they had to be red because the thought waves were going on a wavelength owned by Murdoch who is a secret agent of the Communist Party.

  • wbboei

    I hope you see my point. It has nothing to do with Rush. I do not listen to him, and do not see him as relevant to my concerns. This is about far more important issues. Issues that will determine the future of democracy, and the economic survival of the middle class.

  • tim

    wbboei
    April 18th, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    I agree with you.

    and yep, what Rush said, completely disagree with him.
    But what Bill Clinton doesn’t realise is what JFK once said:
    “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” John F. Kennedy

    People are mad and counting the days until nov. 2, 2010 to vote these crony capitilist, race-baiters out! They are not violent, but passionate vocal people, of all political stripes.
    And so, opposing views have to be respected, not jeered at, and not taunted like Obama is now doing.

    What Bill doesn’t realise, or perhaps he does and hasn’t said it, is HIS side, the dems are equally contributing to this. This is the 2008 primaries all over again (“they bring a knife, we bring a gun”, “there will be blood on the streets if Hillary is the nominee”), calling people racists, telling them they are stupid/racists for not agreeing with this policy nonsense.

    This taunting by Obama is towards the American people, not his political opponents, but just average citizens.

    Are Americans who oppose this nonsense by Obama now considered political opponents? Under Bush, we were called unpatriotic, now under Obama we are called unpatriotic, racists, astroturf, un-american, monsters, and who knows what else.

    If both extremes are contributing then both should be condemned. And from the Tea Party events I have been to, they are passionate people, vocal, but they are peaceful. Are there fringes trying to act like they are part of it? of course, that happens in any big setting of people, and of course that is what the idiotic MSM focuses on.

    If Bill wants to go after Rush, then go after Rush, don’t paint the entire Tea Party movement as a bunch of right wingers, there are millions who aren’t even repubs! including people like me, recent ex-dems, now independents.

    It seems to me this is now the dems talking point for the 2010 elections, oppose them, you get called a racist and inciting violence at Tea Party events. Pretty sad what has now become of the party of JFK.

  • JanH

    pm317
    April 18th, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    —————-

    Well said.

  • basement angel

    Good lord people, Timothy McVeigh killed 160 government workers including their children staying in a daycare center. Eric Rudolf killed several more and was hidden from capture for years, by people who agreed with his murders. Whoever sent the anthrax letters to Democratic leaders killed several more Americans. They didn’t send it to Republicans – they sent to Democrats and to the media.

    The right’s rhetoric wasn’t any hotter in those situations than it is now. You’re missing the fucking point. The right kills people. NOW. Not 30 years ago but last year, when they killed George Tillman.

    What Bill is saying is tone your rhetoric down. he’s no fan of Obama’s. But who the fuck wants to see another wingnut like McVeigh drive a truck into a building and kill 160 people again? Are you guys okay with that? Because you need to get real about that fact that that kind of action is limited to the American right, right now. The left isn’t doing that. Killing 160 people is extreme and no one on the left is that extreme. The left didn’t do that while Bush was in office.

    I don’t get any of this conversation. There is no historical equivalent between the right and the left on this. The right kills a lot of Americans. The left doesn’t. End of fucking story. And until that changes, until lefties are driving trucks filled with explosives into buildings, the right has to take responsibility for this.

    And yes, when Palin put the bull’s eye on the states with Democrats she wanted to see defeated, and ran the ad with the phrase “Don’t Retreat, Reload”, she stepped way over the boundaries. That’s part of the shit we’re talking about here.

  • jbstonesfan

    Looks like he is also going to support Obama’s further squeeze on Israel which is awful news.

  • tim

    well, I am going to go gardening, this is all giving me an awful headache. To me, this is just the 2008 primaries all over again. Good afternoon everyone.

  • wbboei

    Bio: Sunstein is Obama’s Regulatory Czar. He is working to get around the Constitution through executive orders. He is married to Power who is one of the prime architects of Obama’s anti-Israel policies.
    ———————————————————————————–
    Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
    Sunday, April 18th at 11:08AM EDT
    3 Comments

    “Cass Sunstein has favored the government using outside parties as government propaganda agents to paint their opposition as fringe and undermine their credibility.”

    Astroturf is the act of professional interest groups designing campaigns that appear to be grassroots efforts, but are not. It is what the left has accused the tea parties of being. Only more and more it looks like the anti-tea party movement is truly astroturfing.

    Writing on January 15, 2010, Glenn Greenwald at Salon noted Barack Obama’s new head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, had championed creating fake websites and using outside 501(c)(3) interest groups to act as alleged independent champions of government policy and to “cognitively infiltrate” opposition websites, etc.

    In other words, Cass Sunstein has favored the government using outside parties as government propaganda agents to paint their opposition as fringe and undermine their credibility. Kind of like what has been happening with the tea party movement – lots of SEIU members pretending to be tea party activists causing violence in front of TV cameras.

    Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging

    Considering Sustein’s recommendations, it is not far removed to speculate the Obama administration is behind a new anti-tea party website called The Other 95, which defends the government from tea party criticisms and attacks the tea party movement as fringe.

    The website purports to be authentically grassroots, though one must wonder when the last time was any grassroots activist too the time to defend the government.

    The designer is affilated with MoveOn.org and other leftwing sites and causes.

    But most notable, the donations page makes donations out to Democracy in Action. Democracy in Action is not for individual activists to use. It is for small and medium sized 501(c)(3) organizations and others on the left. Among its clients? ACORN, True Majority, NAACP, and others.

    Hmmmm. . . .

    Let’s also remember that Center for American Progress, led by Obama’s transition team director John Podesta, has regular 8 a.m. phone calls to coordinate activity on the left.

    It’s a play right out of Lenin’s handbook, forget Alinsky, to call the authentic “inauthentic” and then create something inauthentic demanding it be called “authentic.”

  • wbboei

    Good lord people, Timothy McVeigh killed 160 government workers including their children staying in a daycare cente
    —————————————-
    Then if the left killed 161 they would be worse? Is that your point? My point is they are in pare delicto. You cannot make moral distinctions between the two extremes. They deserve equal condemnation.

  • JanH

    jbstonesfan
    April 18th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
    Looks like he is also going to support Obama’s further squeeze on Israel which is awful news.

    ——————-
    Not too worried. How is the idiot going to force either side to the table when he can’t even get Iran, North Korea, Japan, and Russia to do what he wants?

    He can “squeeze” all he wants but that doesn’t mean bibi will listen.

    Bibi gave a speech earlier today to honor Theodor Herzl. He used a quote from Herzl:

    “Don’t rely on help from strangers, don’t trust even the charitable and don’t wish for stones to grow soft, for the charitable give degrading charity at most, and stones do not soften. A nation that wishes to stand tall must place all its trust in itself only.”

  • wbboei

    well, I am going to go gardening, this is all giving me an awful headache
    ——————————
    I am heading off the the nursing home to see my mother. Hope you have good weather Tim, and don’t forget to smell the roses. There is always the possibility that we could be wrong. I want to see the text of Bill’s speech on Friday. I want to see how close it comes to a condemnation or even a warning to the tea parties. I hope he realizes that the tea parties were started by Hillary supporters. It is never a good idea to bite the hand that feeds you.

  • tim

    JanH
    April 18th, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    Do you by chance have the link to that Bibi speech? my sister-in-law who is jewish has been looking for it and cannot find it so far.

    Thank you.

  • tim

    wbboie:

    Thank you for your kind words.
    you as well. Have fun with your mom. :)

  • wbboei

    “Don’t rely on help from strangers, don’t trust even the charitable and don’t wish for stones to grow soft, for the charitable give degrading charity at most, and stones do not soften. A nation that wishes to stand tall must place all its trust in itself only.”
    —————————-
    And never let history repeat itself.

    History is something Obama has no feel for.

  • basement angel

    Wbboei,

    Bullshit – there is no equivalence. The left has never done anything even remotely similar. Quit letting the people who are murdering your fellow Americans off the hook.

    The right has been singularly murderous in this country and that’s what drove Bill’s rhetoric.

  • confloyd

    Just off Fox and John McCain lips, Syria has moved Scud missiles to Lebanon…escalating the threat tremendously. These Scuds have the ability to hit Tel Aviv and Jerusalem…I wonder how long BeBe will wait? They are still talking sanctions…gimme a break!

  • wbboei

    “We live in a real world, not a virtual one”. So said the French President to Mr. Obama. I can think of no better example of this than his nuclear summit. In this video Krauthammer–the last honest journalist– pins the tail on the donkey.


    The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.


    !

  • wbboei

    Just off Fox and John McCain lips, Syria has moved Scud missiles to Lebanon…escalating the threat tremendously. These Scuds have the ability to hit Tel Aviv and Jerusalem
    ————————
    This while Obama talks about keeping the door open to Iran. His weakness invites every predator on the planet to push partisan advantage to its bitter extreme.

    And by the way, do note in that video how China has made its position clear, that it favors negotiations and discussions but not sanctions relative to Iran. China needs the oil, Iran needs the time, and neither country listens to Obama, except for comedic relief–which is hard to come by when you ban Comedy Clubs within your borders.

  • ShortTermer

    RE:turndownobama
    April 18th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
    It is forever stamped into my mind what the head of the Repub party headquarters during the general election said, and she is AA, that Bill wore Obummer’s tie, that meant that Obummer had conquered Bill.

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

    Doubtless both ties had little radio receivers in them, and they had to be red because the thought waves were going on a wavelength owned by Murdoch who is a secret agent of the Communist Party.
    _______________________________________________________________________

    My response to this is that when someone starts pissing on me and telling me it is rain, that is where I draw the line on those who are so fanatical that they would bring a 2×4 to force those who do not see things in terms of ‘party’ to submit to their thought processes. A reminder that the one who said that about the 2×4 was/is a democrat and a leftie.

  • turndownobama

    Thanks for good info! Sorry I can’t keep up with someone said Greenwald said someone said someone said, but at least it has numbers and website names in it.

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

    wbboei
    April 18th, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    Writing on January 15, 2010, Glenn Greenwald at Salon noted Barack Obama’s new head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, had championed creating fake websites and using outside 501(c)(3) interest groups to act as alleged independent champions of government policy and to “cognitively infiltrate” opposition websites, etc.

    In other words, Cass Sunstein has favored the government using outside parties as government propaganda agents to paint their opposition as fringe and undermine their credibility. Kind of like what has been happening with the tea party movement – lots of SEIU members pretending to be tea party activists causing violence in front of TV cameras.

    Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging

    Considering Sustein’s recommendations, it is not far removed to speculate the Obama administration is behind a new anti-tea party website called The Other 95, which defends the government from tea party criticisms and attacks the tea party movement as fringe.

    The website purports to be authentically grassroots, though one must wonder when the last time was any grassroots activist too the time to defend the government.

    The designer is affilated with MoveOn.org and other leftwing sites and causes.

    But most notable, the donations page makes donations out to Democracy in Action. Democracy in Action is not for individual activists to use. It is for small and medium sized 501(c)(3) organizations and others on the left. Among its clients? ACORN, True Majority, NAACP, and others.

  • JanH

    tim,

    Here is a video


    The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

  • JanH

    Sunday, April 18, 2010

    PM Netanyahu at cabinet quotes Herzl: “Don’t rely on the help of foreigners”
    (Ynet).

    On the eve of Israel’s 62nd Independence Day, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opened the weekly cabinet meeting with a quote from State visionary, Theodor Herzl: “Don’t rely on the help of foreigners”.

    As the cabinet marked 150 years since Herzl’s birth, Netanyahu said, “On June 11, 1901, Herzl said something that captured me: ‘Do not rely on the help of foreigners, nor on benefactors. And do not expect stones to become soft because benefactors give humiliating donations. A nation that wants to stand upright must rely on itself alone.’,I was not familiar with this quote, but you learn something interesting and important every day.”

    Netanyahu’s comments were not in reference to Israel’s ties with the United States, but at a time when the Obama administration continues to pressure the Israeli government, the connection is hard to overlook.

    “The 62nd Independence Day marks the State’s achievements on the 150th anniversary of the birth of Herzl, the man who began his activity at age 36 and ended it at age 44. In eight years he changed the history of the Jewish people and the history of mankind.

    “He took a scattered people and gathered it. He foresaw the deterioration in Europe. It is incorrect that he did not write about the Holocaust – he wrote about it dozens of times.”

    He added, “It is important for every boy and girl to know who the State’s visionary is. This rare personality that is, in my eyes, comparable to one of Israel’s ancient prophets. Without him, there would be no State, and we would not be sitting around this table.”

    http://bibireport.blogspot.com/2010/04/pm-netanyahu-at-cabinet-quotes-herzl.html

  • turndownobama

    Basement Angel said:
    And yes, when Palin put the bull’s eye on the states with Democrats she wanted to see defeated, and ran the ad with the phrase “Don’t Retreat, Reload”, she stepped way over the boundaries.

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

    Palin is a darn smart lady. She knows her base. She knows how the Left is trying to paint them. She knows that if some McVeigh type DID kill some people and leave a note quoting her, SHE would be dead politically.

    She’s taking a chance, walking a line.

    If that happened to Limbaugh or Beck, it would just be more publicity for them, increase their ratings and their speech fees. They’ve got nothing to lose. But Palin has everything to lose.

    I don’t see that she has much to gain by provoking the Left this way. So on risk/benefit, with little benefit, there must not be much risk either.

  • HillaryforTexas

    What has happened with insurance in NY is just another example of why you have to RESEARCH these things before you institute some govt program with grand or even laudable intent.

    The biggest problem I see with many on the left is that they DO live in lala land, in that they seem to have zero clue about human nature. Human nature is what it is. People will ALWAYS act in their own self interest. You are not going to scold or legislate away human nature. Any fool could have told you that the healthy would eventually opt out of that system.

    I had a discussion the other day with a friend who was all for this idea of outcome-based pay for doctors rather than procedure or time-based pay. And it sounds good on the surface: reward docs who keep their patients healthier, right? What could be bad about that? Great idea, right?

    WRONG. Because human nature is human nature. What populations are more likely to have bad health outcomes, regardless of the skill of the doctor?. I’ll tell you who. The poor. Those who have difficulty staying on their medicines due to cost or ignorance. Those with bad diets. Those who don’t have the luxury of gym memberships. The elderly.

    If you make doctor pay outcome-based, I can tell you EXACTLY what will happen. Docs will start sizing up their patient population, and try to fill their practice with folks who are more likely to have good outcomes.. They will not build offices in poor areas. They will limit the number of elderly, or clueless, or not-so-bright, or those with multiple illnesses, or poor patients they have. You will end up with doctors skimming off the easy-to-treat patients: the educated, diet-conscious suburbanites who are good at following instructions and keeping appointments and being compliant with a treatment plan. There will be less and less medical care available for those who most need it, if you start penalizing docs for having difficult, complicated, or non-compliant patients. Your pain-in-the-ass Aunt Mabel who has serious health problems, but tends to be obstructive and difficult over her own treatment? Good luck finding a doc who will put up with her when Mabel’s contrariness starts coming out of the doc’s own pocket.

    People make these grand plans that sound good, until you start looking at unintended consequences which will ALWAYS happen, because you CANNOT change human nature.

  • firelight2012

    JanH
    April 18th, 2010 at 11:35 am

    “..But America is a different country now. We are culturally a different country. We are more diverse. We’re more communitarian. That is, we understand we have to solve a lot of these problems together.

    So I think that the dissent is just as intense, if not more intense. But I think the outcome of the election is likely to be far less dramatic than it was in ‘94.”
    __________________________________________________________________

    Well, the repubs need to win 38 dem seats to take over the house. I believe the other night on Fox News, Rove had them winning 35. Dick Morris thinks repubs will win Seante and House. I don’t know. I guess this November election will tell us a lot about where America is heading. Even if the Repubs only win +30 seats, that’s still a big gain and they could get even more in 2012 if the economy keep going downhill.

    Or is America, inevitably as it becomes more “diverse,” becoming more communitarian? That’s what the dems want everyone to think. Which cultural groups are more “communitarian” than others? Is that a strange question to pose?

  • wbboei

    Obama’s Bumbling Iran Policy Springs A Leak
    by Larry Johnson @ No Quarter

    Ready for some fun on watching more hypocrisy about leaks? Anyone want to bet that Republicans will be demanding an immediate investigation of who leaked the Top Secret memo written by SecDef Robert Gates to NSC Advisor Jones warning that:

    The United States does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability, according to government officials familiar with the document. . . .In an interview on Friday, General Jones declined to speak about the memorandum. But he said: “On Iran, we are doing what we said we were going to do. The fact that we don’t announce publicly our entire strategy for the world to see doesn’t mean we don’t have a strategy that anticipates the full range of contingencies — we do.”

    But in his memo, Mr. Gates wrote of a variety of concerns, including the absence of an effective strategy should Iran choose the course that many government and outside analysts consider likely: Iran could assemble all the major parts it needs for a nuclear weapon — fuel, designs and detonators — but stop just short of assembling a fully operational weapon. (snip)

  • Mrs. Smith

    The Sunday Times
    April 18, 2010

    Why the Icelandic volcano eruption could herald more disruption.

    h/t Pumas Unleashed

    The unprecedented no-fly zone currently in force across much of Europe has already caused the greatest chaos to air travel since the Second World War. Thousands of flights have been canceled or postponed with millions of travel plans affected. It has been estimated that shutting down the UK’s airspace alone over the weekend could cost airlines over 100 million pounds, with the share price of some leading airlines already taking a hit.

    The wider economic consequence to our ‘just-in-time’ society is incalculable at this stage given the disruption to holidays, business plans and indeed the wider business supply chain. However, the global cost of the disruption will surely ultimately result in a cost of billions rather than hundreds of millions of pounds.

    It is exceptionally hard to gauge how long the current grounding of flights will remain in force, although Eyjafjallajökull, the Icelandic volcano which has erupted, could potentially sputter on for months or even more than a year. Much could depend upon weather patterns, especially wind direction, over the next few days.

    The worst-case scenario in terms of precedent here is the 1783-1784 eruption at Laki (a very large eruption of 14km3 compared to the one in Mount St. Helens in 1980 of 1 km3) that had a huge impact on the northern hemisphere, reducing temperatures by up to 3 degrees. This led to catastrophe far beyond the shores of Iceland (where 25% of population died), with thousands of recorded deaths in Britain due to poisoning and extreme cold, and record low rainfall in North Africa.

    * Volcanic ash grounds Britain for days to come

    By contrast, the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull in 1821-1823 (when only about 0.1km3 was erupted) had little impact beyond the shores of Iceland, where livestock were killed by flourine poisoning. Like 1821-1823, this current eruption is likely to remain small in terms of volume, but in an age of mass aviation, a relatively small amount of erupted ash is having huge consequences.

    One volcanic eruption in Alaska in 1989 necessitated the postponement and cancellation of flights in North America for days. It is likely that the fallout from the volcanic eruption yesterday will be worse because European airspace is more congested than in North America for global airline traffic.

    How much material will be erupted? Observations of surface deformation can throw light on this. These come principally from two sources — the first being a handful of GPS receivers dotted around the volcano by the University of Iceland and the Iceland Met Office, and the second being imaging radar on board satellites.

    Differencing of subsequent radar images can give surprisingly accurate maps of the movement of the ground. I and others at Delft University of Technology have been developing algorithms to push the limits of the technique, to extract measurements from radar data in regions where it is more difficult, and with greater accuracy.

    The usual pattern with Icelandic eruptions is for rising and stretching of the surface as magma moves up to shallow depths of a few kilometres, followed by contraction and sinking of the surface as magma exits the shallow magma chamber and erupts at the surface.

    However, in this case, Delft University working in collaboration with the University of Iceland has detected magma moving upwards until the onset of the initial eruption on March 20th, but very little deformation since then. This implies that the volume of erupted magma is balanced by new magma coming from deep within the crust, perhaps even the crust mantle boundary, and it is impossible to know how much magma may be stored at these depths. Thus, it remains a very real possibility that the volcano will continue to erupt on-and-off for months to come, as occurred during the last eruptive period in 1821-1823.

    Measurements of the surface deformation, together with detected earthquakes, have indicated magma rising to shallow depths since the beginning of this year. Questions have been raised why an eruption was not predicted beyond the time scale of a couple of hours prior to initiation.

    From analysis of radar data we know of two events at Eyjafjallajökull in 1994 and 1999, that started in a similar way with magma moving to shallow depths (5-6 kilometres). However, in both cases the magma then spread out laterally and remained in the crust. Apparently something differed this time in that stress conditions favoured continued migration of the magma upwards. We have some way to go before we can answer what seems like a simple question, whether magma moving upwards to shallow depths is likely to erupt, or stall within the crust.

    At the end of the last ice age, the rate of eruption in Iceland was some 30 times higher than historic rates. This is because the reduction in the ice load reduced the pressure in the mantle, leading to decompression melting there. Since the late 19th Century the ice caps in Iceland have been shrinking yet further, due to changing climate. This will lead to additional magma generation, so we should expect more frequent and/or more voluminous eruptions in the future.

    Eyjafjallajökull is a relatively small volcano and unlikely to erupt the volumes of material that will have a significant impact on climate. However, eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull in 1821-1823 and 1612 were followed in short shrift by eruptions of its much larger neighbour, Katla.

    Katla thus has shown the potential for large eruptions in the past — the last catastrophic Icelandic eruption prior to Laki was from Katla in 934 when an even greater volume of lava was erupted. If Katla were to erupt in a significant way, the potential for travel chaos and economic damage would thus be much greater than has occurred in the last 24 hours.

    Dr Andrew Hooper is an Assistant Professor at Delft University of Technology and is an expert on monitoring deformation of Icelandic volcanoes

  • Mrs. Smith

    This has been a busy afternoon– (sigh)

  • Mrs. Smith

    Why the Icelandic volcano eruption could herald more disruption.

    The unprecedented no-fly zone currently in force across much of Europe has already caused the greatest chaos to air travel since the Second World War. Thousands of flights have been canceled or postponed with millions of travel plans affected. It has been estimated that shutting down the UK’s airspace alone over the weekend could cost airlines over 100 million pounds, with the share price of some leading airlines already taking a hit.

    The wider economic consequence to our ‘just-in-time’ society is incalculable at this stage given the disruption to holidays, business plans and indeed the wider business supply chain. However, the global cost of the disruption will surely ultimately result in a cost of billions rather than hundreds of millions of pounds.

    It is exceptionally hard to gauge how long the current grounding of flights will remain in force, although Eyjafjallajökull, the Icelandic volcano which has erupted, could potentially sputter on for months or even more than a year. Much could depend upon weather patterns, especially wind direction, over the next few days.

    The worst-case scenario in terms of precedent here is the 1783-1784 eruption at Laki (a very large eruption of 14km3 compared to the one in Mount St. Helens in 1980 of 1 km3) that had a huge impact on the northern hemisphere, reducing temperatures by up to 3 degrees. This led to catastrophe far beyond the shores of Iceland (where 25% of population died), with thousands of recorded deaths in Britain due to poisoning and extreme cold, and record low rainfall in North Africa.

    * Volcanic ash grounds Britain for days to come

    By contrast, the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull in 1821-1823 (when only about 0.1km3 was erupted) had little impact beyond the shores of Iceland, where livestock were killed by flourine poisoning. Like 1821-1823, this current eruption is likely to remain small in terms of volume, but in an age of mass aviation, a relatively small amount of erupted ash is having huge consequences.

    One volcanic eruption in Alaska in 1989 necessitated the postponement and cancellation of flights in North America for days. It is likely that the fallout from the volcanic eruption yesterday will be worse because European airspace is more congested than in North America for global airline traffic.

    How much material will be erupted? Observations of surface deformation can throw light on this. These come principally from two sources — the first being a handful of GPS receivers dotted around the volcano by the University of Iceland and the Iceland Met Office, and the second being imaging radar on board satellites.

    Differencing of subsequent radar images can give surprisingly accurate maps of the movement of the ground. I and others at Delft University of Technology have been developing algorithms to push the limits of the technique, to extract measurements from radar data in regions where it is more difficult, and with greater accuracy.

    The usual pattern with Icelandic eruptions is for rising and stretching of the surface as magma moves up to shallow depths of a few kilometres, followed by contraction and sinking of the surface as magma exits the shallow magma chamber and erupts at the surface.

    However, in this case, Delft University working in collaboration with the University of Iceland has detected magma moving upwards until the onset of the initial eruption on March 20th, but very little deformation since then. This implies that the volume of erupted magma is balanced by new magma coming from deep within the crust, perhaps even the crust mantle boundary, and it is impossible to know how much magma may be stored at these depths. Thus, it remains a very real possibility that the volcano will continue to erupt on-and-off for months to come, as occurred during the last eruptive period in 1821-1823.

    Measurements of the surface deformation, together with detected earthquakes, have indicated magma rising to shallow depths since the beginning of this year. Questions have been raised why an eruption was not predicted beyond the time scale of a couple of hours prior to initiation.

    From analysis of radar data we know of two events at Eyjafjallajökull in 1994 and 1999, that started in a similar way with magma moving to shallow depths (5-6 kilometres). However, in both cases the magma then spread out laterally and remained in the crust. Apparently something differed this time in that stress conditions favoured continued migration of the magma upwards. We have some way to go before we can answer what seems like a simple question, whether magma moving upwards to shallow depths is likely to erupt, or stall within the crust.

    At the end of the last ice age, the rate of eruption in Iceland was some 30 times higher than historic rates. This is because the reduction in the ice load reduced the pressure in the mantle, leading to decompression melting there. Since the late 19th Century the ice caps in Iceland have been shrinking yet further, due to changing climate. This will lead to additional magma generation, so we should expect more frequent and/or more voluminous eruptions in the future.

    Eyjafjallajökull is a relatively small volcano and unlikely to erupt the volumes of material that will have a significant impact on climate. However, eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull in 1821-1823 and 1612 were followed in short shrift by eruptions of its much larger neighbour, Katla.

    Katla thus has shown the potential for large eruptions in the past — the last catastrophic Icelandic eruption prior to Laki was from Katla in 934 when an even greater volume of lava was erupted. If Katla were to erupt in a significant way, the potential for travel chaos and economic damage would thus be much greater than has occurred in the last 24 hours.

    Dr Andrew Hooper is an Assistant Professor at Delft University of Technology and is an expert on monitoring deformation of Icelandic volcanoes

  • wbboei

    An excellent article in some respects. However, it gives too little blame to the dims for what is occurring now. It was madness push this health care bill now in the way they did. It was double madness to ignore the issue of jobs as they have. And it was triple madness to dismiss valid criticisms as racism and try to provoke a racial incident. As for Obama mot being responsible for the current financial mess, his deficit is four times that of his predecessor’s and he has mismanaged the economy during his tenure. Let us therefore say that he and Bush are jointly and severally liable, and for the moment at least he has the con and the boat is turning in circles. That being the case, it is understandable that ignorant people would draw the wrong conclusions about what is occurring and that others would react vicerally to the loss of their economic future. The bottom line is clear: an abject failure of leadership.
    —————————————————–
    NAME THAT TUNE! Voters deserve to hear the full truth about that catchy new song: // link // print // previous // next //
    FRIDAY, APRIL 16, 2010
    Coulter, eight years later: In 2002, when Slander appeared, we spent about a month detailing its lunacies and its dissembling. At one point, we rolled our eyes at Ann Coulter’s description of the typical New York Times letters page (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/25/02).

    In those days, Coulter’s account of the Times letters page struck us as facially ludicrous. That said, we’ll make an admission: In recent months, the Times letters page has occasionally made us think of Coulter’s book.

    Today was one of those days. We refer to the five letters the Times chose to run about its poll of Tea Party supporters.

    The letters quickly turn to familiar insults about racial motivation and hypocrisy. The weakness of the reasoning made us think of Coulter’s description from so long ago. That said, the letter from Shaker Heights was the most cerebral—it presents the current Standard Liberal Complaint about Tea Party folk, absent the racial assertions. In our view, if this is the best we liberals can do, progressive interests will likely remain in their current world of hurt:

    LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (4/16/10): I’d be curious to know why Tea Party activists showed no anger when President George W. Bush started two wars, passed tax cuts that went primarily to the wealthiest and then closed out his term by bailing out financial giants like American International Group and leading investment banks.

    For eight long years, Republican policies converted a federal surplus into a record deficit and sent America’s economy into a tailspin. Democratic policies to transform health care and stimulate the economy, while adding to the deficit in the short term, are at least showing signs of improving the economy.

    Why show anger now?

    Why did activists show no anger when Bush started two wars? Could it be because the first of these wars—the one Obama has expanded—was hugely supported by public opinion at the time it began?

    This is the most cerebral of the letters, yet we think it’s enormously weak on the merits. Whatever one thinks of Bush’s budget policies (we opposed them all), the nation’s economy entered a whole new realm at the time of the financial collapse in the fall of 2008. Obama is presiding over an historic disaster—a disaster not of his making. But it’s silly to be surprised when major disasters of this type produce upheavals of the Tea Party kind. Tinny accounts may make us liberals feel good, but they’re likely to convince few others.

    Two other letters go straight to race. It’s the one thing we liberals know to say. Conservative elements hated Bill Clinton too. Since he was white, we had nothing to say about their war on him and his murderin’ wife, or about their later war against Gore. Instead, we rolled over and died.

    That approach worked out quite poorly. The tinny approach laid out in these letters isn’t likely to help much either.

    Simple story: Current deficits dwarf those of the pre-meltdown Bush era. That isn’t Obama’s fault, and we generally support his various efforts to address the meltdown. But it’s silly to pretend that the world didn’t change in the fall of 2008. It’s silly to be surprised when people go into a tizzy—or to insist that it’s pure hypocrisy.

    It’s silly, and unlikely to help, and it has another noxious effect. It makes Coulter look like a bit of a prophet. And that can’t possibly help.

    For the record: Why didn’t Tea Party types complain about Bush’s tax cuts? Could it be because long-run surpluses were still predicted after his first, and largest, tax cut? Candidate Bush campaigned on that cut, and almost got himself elected. Candidate Gore ran on policies which would have used most of the projected surplus too.

    The situation which obtained after that first tax cut did not, in any imaginable way, resemble the mess we’re in now. The bomb went off in 08.

    We liberals are competing with experts. Major players like Norquist and Luntz are highly capable, and vastly funded. They know how to develop winning politics; they have an army of talk-show hosts who will spread the message around. Meanwhile, people like Gwen Ifill are too afraid to speak, even when directly confronted by the effects of their claims (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/15/10).

    Liberal interests can’t be served by the lazy efforts which tend to emerge from our ranks. These tinny claims send thrills up our legs. Do they work well on anyone else? Winning politics is about what the other folk think. Do we liberals know how to go there?

  • Mrs. Smith

    This is an interesting piece stating World travel may be stymied by the Islandia Volcano.

    Why the Icelandic volcano eruption could herald more disruption

    The unprecedented no-fly zone currently in force across much of Europe has already caused the greatest chaos to air travel since the Second World War. Thousands of flights have been cancelled or postponed with millions of travel plans affected. It has been estimated that shutting down the UK’s airspace alone over the weekend could cost airlines over 100 million pounds, with the share price of some leading airlines already taking a hit.

    The wider economic consequence to our ‘just-in-time’ society is incalculable at this stage given the disruption to holidays, business plans and indeed the wider business supply chain. However, the global cost of the disruption will surely ultimately result in a cost of billions rather than hundreds of millions of pounds.

    It is exceptionally hard to gauge how long the current grounding of flights will remain in force, although Eyjafjallajökull, the Icelandic volcano which has erupted, could potentially sputter on for months or even more than a year. Much could depend upon weather patterns, especially wind direction, over the next few days.

    The worst-case scenario in terms of precedent here is the 1783-1784 eruption at Laki (a very large eruption of 14km3 compared to the one in Mount St. Helens in 1980 of 1 km3) that had a huge impact on the northern hemisphere, reducing temperatures by up to 3 degrees. This led to catastrophe far beyond the shores of Iceland (where 25% of population died), with thousands of recorded deaths in Britain due to poisoning and extreme cold, and record low rainfall in North Africa.

    h… w… timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7101084.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084

  • wbboei

    The worst of it is Bill ends up giving that interview to Tapper who is the very guy who called Hillary Tonia Harding (the ice skater who tried to have the knees of her rival broken) in the primary, because she insisted on continuing her campaign until every state had its chance to vote. He should never have given an interview to that guy.

  • ShortTermer

    I got this email from a friend and was asked to forward it. I remember this incident with Jane Fonda (now I forget, was she a left winger or a right winger?)during the Viet Nam War. It was titled: Never Forgive a Traitor

    In Memory of LT. C.Thomsen Wieland who spent 100 days at the Hanoi Hilton
    *
    IF YOU NEVER FORWARDED*
    *ANYTHING IN** **YOUR LIFE FORWARD THIS SO THAT EVERYONE WILL KNOW!!!!!!*

    She really is a traitor

    A TRAITOR IS ABOUT TO BE HONORED KEEP THIS MOVING ACROSS AMERICA

    This is for all the kids born in the 70′s who do not remember, and didn’t have to bear the burden that our fathers, mothers and older brothers and sisters had to bear.

    Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the ’100 Women of the Century.’ BY BARBRA WALTERS

    *Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still countless others have never known how Ms. Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country, but specific men who served and sacrificed during Vietnam*

    The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot.

    The pilot’s name is Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat. In 1968, the former Commandant of the USAF Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison the ‘Hanoi Hilton.’

    Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell,cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ’s, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American ‘Peace Activist’ the ‘lenient and humane treatment’ he’d received.

    He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and was dragged away. During the subsequent beating, he fell forward on to the camp Commandant’s feet, which sent that officer berserk.

    In 1978, the Air Force Colonel still suffered from double vision (which permanently ended his flying career)from the Commandant’s frenzied application of a wooden baton.

    From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the 7FW/DO (F-4E’s). He spent 6 years in the ‘Hanoi Hilton’… the first three of which his family only knew he was ‘missing in action’. His wife lived on faith that he was still alive.
    His group, too, got the cleaned-up, fed and clothed routine in preparation for a
    ‘peace delegation’ visit.

    They,however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world that they were alive and still survived. Each man secreted a tiny piece of paper, with his Social Security Numberon it,in the palm of his hand.

    When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each
    man’s hand and asking little encouraging snippets like: ‘Aren’t you sorry you bombed
    babies?’ and ‘Are you grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?’ Believing this HAD to be an act,they each palmed her their sliver of paper.

    She took them all without missing a beat. At the end of the line and once the camera stopped rolling,to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and handed him all the little pieces of paper.

    Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Colonel Carrigan was almost number four but he survived, which isthe only reason we know of her actions that day.

    I was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam, and was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in 1968, and held prisoner for over 5 years.

    I spent 27 months in solitary confinement;one year in a cage in Cambodia; and one year in a ‘black box’ in Hanoi My North Vietnamese captors deliberately
    poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in a leprosarium in Ban me Thuot, South Vietnam , whom I buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border.
    At one time, I weighed only about 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs)

    We were Jane Fonda’s ‘war criminals..’

    When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with her..

    I said yes, for I wanted to tell her about the real
    treatment we POWs received… and how different it was from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese,and parroted by her as ‘humane and lenient.’

    Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees, with my arms outstretched with a large steel weights placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo ane.

    I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda soon after I was released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She never did answer me.

    These first-hand experiences do not exemplify someone who should be honored as part
    of ’100 Years of Great Women.’
    Lest we forget…’ 100 Years of Great Women’ should never include a traitor whose hands are covered with the blood of so many patriots.

    There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Hanoi Jane’s participation in blatant treason, is one of them.

    Please take the time to forward to as many people as you possibly can. It will eventually end up on her computer and she needs to know that
    we will never forget.

    RONALD D. SAMPSON
    _____________________________________________________________________
    It gave his phone numbers, but I chose not to post them here. A well known man back home who had served during Viet Nam relayed his story that when the veterans came homme from an unpopular war that they had sh!t thrown on them by Jane Fonda’s protestors of the war…literally. I knew they were spat upon, but his first hand account stunned me.

  • ani

    wbboei
    April 18th, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    I understand your point, wbboei, but in that case, neither Bill nor Hillary would speak with anyone in the press ever again, save maybe Greta Van Susteren or Lou Dobbs.

    It was disgraceful of Tapper to use the Tonya Harding reference but he was certainly not nearly the worst culprit when it came to the drive by media hit squad out to get her every day. In fact, I distinctly remember Political Punch being one of the only places that Obama was taken to task as a candidate about anything at all. Not a sterling recommendation, but Tapper was a little better than many.

  • Carol

    That interview with Bill is very distressing. The fact that he and Hillary were running around lobbying for the HRC and ecstatic about it really makes me think about taking my Hillary 2012 bumper sticker off my car.

    I had occasion to be with my family and many family friends this week and though politics was far from everyone’s mind….it did surface a bit.

    My brother (previously a Hillary supporter) who heads a department at Brandeis is just thrilled with Obama. Surprisingly the Brandeis community…who clearly view
    Carter as an anti semite….have no similar concerns about BO.
    Almost all were not only pro Obama but really like him. It seems that the more threatened his presidency, the more staunchly they defend him. They think that propping him up will prevent another turn to the political right like the one we just emerged from. They practically spit at the mention of Sarah Palin.

    I tried to explain that if they really want a democrat reelected, the first thing they need to do is dump O and hope for Hillary because O is NOT getting reelected. They say , well its just the first year, but I say that once a majority of people have formed a negative opinion, it is not likely to change.

  • Mrs. Smith

    ani
    April 18th, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    wbboei
    April 18th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
    __________________________

    Agree, ani- this begs the question:

    who advances quicker, the score keeper or the bridge-builder?

  • ani

    Mrs. Smith — in the Clintons’ case, they have no choice as to which one to pick. If it were just about holding grudges with the media, they both would have disappeared long ago.

    It is unfortunate, for them and for all of us, that the choices you list are the only ones possible. So many of these jerks lacking in any integrity should have been fired long ago, the press credentials revoked.

  • ani

    …sorry — that should read “THEIR press credentials revoked.”

  • JanH

    April 18, 2010

    Israel warns Syria over Hezbollah attacks

    Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv

    Israel has delivered a secret warning to Syrian President Bashar Assad that it will respond to missile attacks from Hezbollah, the militant Lebanese-based Islamist group, by launching immediate retaliation against Syria itself.

    In a message, sent earlier this month, Israel made it clear that it now regards Hezbollah as a division of the Syrian army and that reprisals against Syria will be fast and devastating.

    It follows the discovery by Israeli intelligence that Syria has recently supplied long-range ballistic missiles and advanced anti-aircraft systems to Hezbollah.

    “We’ll return Syria to the Stone Age by crippling its power stations, ports, fuel storage and every bit of strategic infrastructure if Hezbollah dare to launch ballistic missiles against us,” said an Israeli minister, who who was speaking off-the-record, last week.

    The warning, which was conveyed to Damascus by a third party, was sent to reinforce an earlier signal by Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister. “If a war breaks out the Assad dynasty will lose its power and will cease to reign in Syria,” he said earlier this year.

    The Israeli decision to hold Syria directly responsible for Hezbollah’s actions is believed to be the result of intelligence assessments that Beirut has lost control of the Shi’ite organisation, which has become an increasingly powerful force in Lebanon.

    Reports that Syria has supplied Hezbollah with Russian-made Scud ballistic missiles have alarmed Israeli ministers. The missiles have the potential to reach the entire country and could carry chemical warheads. New gas masks are being supplied to Israel’s entire population, with an intensive television advertising campaign underway to stress their importance.

    Hezbollah, which was set up in 1982 by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and fought a 34-day with Israel in 2006, has built-up an arsenal of 40,000 missiles and rockets, according to Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister.

    Uzi Rubin, an Israeli missiles expert, estimated that 13,000 are aimed at Israel at any one time. “Iran is financing Hezbollah and Syria, which has opened up its military supplies to them, is being repaid by Iran,” said an Israeli intelligence source.

    Over the past few months, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has threatened Israel with reprisals, promising that any attack on Beirut’s airport would be followed by a rocket attack on Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport.

    The supply of Scud missiles to Hezbollah is seen as a serious threat by the Israelis. “This is the first time that an internationally known terror organisation has been equipped with ballistic missiles,” said the minister.

    Washington and moderate Middle Eastern leaders, including King Abdullah of Jordan, are worried. “We are obviously increasingly concerned about the sophisticated weaponry that is allegedly being transferred,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman.

    Last week Syria’s Foreign Ministry denied that there had been any transfer of Scud missiles. It claimed the allegations were aimed at giving Israel a pretext to attack Syria and avoid making concessions for peace.

    But the Israelis remain defiant. “We’ll not hesitate to attack Syria if our national security is in jeopardy,” said the Israeli minister. “Assad knows that, and he’s playing with fire.”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7101106.ece

  • mj

    wbboie, it was from the interview, not the speech. I posted the article with the direct quote in the last thread.

  • jbstonesfan

    I an beginning to agree Carol. This has become much more than a Hillary/Bill thing for me. I don’t post as often because honestly both of them are upsetting me at the moment. I love ‘em , but am very distressed by their words…

  • JanH

    Clinton congratulates Israel: We’ll help shoulder your burdens

    In video message ahead of Israeli Independence Day, US secretary of state says, ‘Pursuing peace and recognized borders for Israel is one of our top priorities’

    Roni Sofer Published: 04.19.10, 01:02 / Israel News

    In a special video message relayed to Israel ahead of its 62nd Independence Day, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated the Obama Administration’s commitment to the Jewish state’s security.

    “Congratulations Israel on 62 years of independence! This is an opportunity to celebrate all that Israel has accomplished and to reaffirm the bonds that unite our two nations – our strategic partnership, our shared values, and our common aspirations,” said Clinton in the video, which was relayed on Sunday.

    “Since my first visit to Israel nearly thirty years ago, I have returned many times and made many friends. And I have shared your pride in seeing the desert bloom, the economy thrive and your country flourish. I have a deep personal commitment to Israel. And so does President Obama. Our nation will not waver in protecting Israel’s security and promoting Israel’s future,” she said.

    The secretary of state continued to say, “You know, in 1948, it took President Truman only 11 minutes to recognize your new nation. And ever since, the United States has stood with you in solidarity.

    “That is why pursuing peace and recognized borders for Israel is one of our top priorities. We believe it is possible – indeed necessary – to achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East that provides Israelis, Palestinians, and all the people of the region security, prosperity, and the opportunity to live up to their full God-given potential,” she said.

    According to Clinton, Israel is currently facing “some of the greatest challenges in its history, but its promise and potential have never been greater.

    “The United States will continue to stand with you, sharing your risks and helping shoulder your burdens, as we face the future together,” she said.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3877929,00.html

  • JanH

    It would appear that while both Hillary and Biden have gone to the Polish Embassy to sign the condolence book, Obama has not.

    And as he was unable to fly to Poland for the funeral, it was decided that he had absolutely nothing else of importance to do…so he went to play…GOLF.

  • confloyd

    Sorry for reopening the discussion above about which side actually has commited more violence, the right or the left. I have to say this argument is on of the more fruitless ones I have witnessed here since I have been on this blog.
    First of all wackos are wackos and they come in all political flavors, the common denominator is not the label but mindset.
    After Sept 11th, people argued that the muslim sects were more violent than the Christian sects. People forgot about David Koresh, Jim Jones the idiots Salt Lake City (mormons). The difference between the muslim sects and the Christians sects is not the label but the money each sect can generate to wreck havoc on the world. The muslims are flush with money so they can do a better job of killing than the Christians sects.
    People we should not be arguing who has the most violent wackos in the party, because that’s what the manipulators want us to do. We should be speaking as one to tone down the rhetoric so we can actually achieve something this country needs. If the folks who want to ruin this country can keep us divided, guess what, THEY WIN, WE LOSE!

  • confloyd

    Oh and I forgot this—I think this is what Bill was trying to get across, but the manipulators want us to fight about it!

  • confloyd

    JanH, That is the difference between Stateman and a fraud!

  • pm317

    I found this amusing..I think teaparty protests are good and essential in a democracy but you have to suffer fools like the one below.

    from http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/04/15/tea_party_rally_generates_plenty_of_criticism_opposing_views/?page=1

    Early yesterday morning, Valerie and Rob Shirk corralled their 10 home-schooled children into their van for the 2 1/2-hour drive from their home in Connecticut to Boston, arriving just in time to hear Sarah Palin denounce government-run health care at the tea party movement rally on Boston Common.

    They thought it would be a learning opportunity for their children, who range in age from 9 months to 15 years old and who held up signs criticizing the government for defying the “will of the people.’’

    “The problem in this country is that too many people are looking for handouts,’’ said Valerie Shirk, 43, of Prospect, Conn. “I agree with the signs that say, ‘Share my father’s work ethic — not his paycheck.’ We have to do something about the whole welfare mentality in this country.’’

    …The couple, who rely on Medicaid for their health care, were also upset about the nation’s new health reforms.

    When asked why her family used state-subsidized health care when she criticized people who take handouts, Valerie Shirk said she did not want to stop having children, and that her husband’s income was not enough to cover the family with private insurance.

    “I know there’s a dichotomy because of what we get from the state,’’ she said. “But I just look at each of my children as a blessing.’’

  • Paula

    Here’s the full text of Bill’s speech on Oklahoma City. I would advise everyone to read it. Frankly, I don’t get what the fuss is about.

    americanprogressaction.org/events/2010/04/inf/clinton.pdf

  • pm317

    repeating Paula’s link of BC’s speech:

    http://www.americanprogressaction.org/events/2010/04/inf/clinton.pdf

    12 pages pdf and that fucking Rush Limbaugh reduced it to a 2 sentence sound byte putting words in BC’s mouth. There is no mention of teaprtiers or Tim McVeigh that I saw in the speech.

  • confloyd

    pm317, OMG, there are lots of folks out there that are one brick short of a full load…and this lady is one of them.

  • confloyd

    Since the media is fully owned and in lock step with this administration…I think it must be time for Obama to rid himself of the Clintons and yes I am including Faux News. We knew Obama was waiting for the right time to stick the knife in the back of Hillary and Bill and he did it with Faux News. This will grow and that is what Axelrove and Co. want!

  • Paula

    confloyd, What will grow?

  • confloyd

    Paula, The dissatisfaction with Bill and even Hillary over this supposed comparison between McVeigh and the tea party. Its ridiculous.

    —————————

    What is this Afganistan?

    Teacher suffers facial burns with sulfuric acid
    Posted: Apr 16, 2010 1:59 PM CDT
    Updated: Apr 16, 2010 6:39 PM CDT
    Top 5 News StoriesTeacher suffers facial burns with sulfuric acidCrowd speaks up and speaks out at Tyler TEA PartyWoman barely survives pit bull attackMexican-born actress charged with marriage fraudRestaurant Report: 9 with perfect scores
    Only On 7 LinksBig Red Box
    If you saw it on TV, you’ll find it here. More>>
    News Tips
    Have a news tip or story idea? Let us know! More>>
    theLoop
    News can happen anytime, anywhere. If you see news happening, upload your video or photos here! More>>
    ALAMO, Texas (AP) – South Texas authorities say assailants attacked an elementary school teacher with sulfuric acid after staging a fender bender in a sparsely populated area.

    The woman and her 8-year-old daughter were leaving a school in the Rio Grande Valley town of Alamo on Tuesday when two men bumped the rear of her car. Police Chief Arturo Espinosa said that when the woman pulled over to inspect the damage, one of the men poured liquid on her face.

    She began screaming and neighbors tried to help, but Espinosa says the liquid was sulfuric acid.

    Doctors said Thursday the woman’s face might be permanently disfigured. Her daughter was not injured.

    Espinosa said investigators don’t have a motive for the attack

  • Paula

    pm317, Exactly. That’s why we should always be careful when we hear interpretations of what either Clinton says. Their words have been skewed, misrepresented and blown out of proportion for the last 18 years. So what else is new?

  • Paula

    confloyd, I wouldn’t worry about it. :-)

    BTW, the New York Daily News responded to Bill’s remark that Obama should appoint someone younger than he and Hillary to SCOTUS by saying in a headline, “Bill: Hillary’s too old for Supreme Court.”

    I kid you not. That’s how idiotic the MSM is.

  • confloyd

    I saw that too, the news is just so far out of line it not even funny…they are the ones inciting the wackos in this country, not its citizens.

    We should be going after them!

  • JanH

    Paula
    April 18th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
    pm317, Exactly. That’s why we should always be careful when we hear interpretations of what either Clinton says. Their words have been skewed, misrepresented and blown out of proportion for the last 18 years. So what else is new?

    —————-

    Amen!

  • JanH

    Paula,

    Thank you for posting Bill’s speech in it’s entirety.

    I made a promise to myself many years ago that I would never stab either Bill or Hillary in the without concrete proof of betrayal. There have been so many media betrayals/hack jobs on the Clintons that it only made sense.

    I did not offer my opinion earlier because of this.

  • JanH

    oops…

    should read: never stab Bill or HIllary in the back.

  • Paula

    You’re welcome, JanH. :-)

  • confloyd

    Admin: Something is up with yahoo and this site because its only bringing up old stuff and not your new article. It also when I finally get to your new article, it only shows part of it.

    Here’s a question: Is Sarah Palin a real conservative??? If you think so give the reason’s why?

  • Mrs. Smith

    ani
    April 18th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
    Mrs. Smith — in the Clintons’ case, they have no choice as to which one to pick. If it were just about holding grudges with the media, they both would have disappeared long ago.
    ========================
    And this is what we are used to- New Clinton supporters aren’t tuned into the strength of the seasoned warriors who stood firm during the Impeachment.

  • Mrs. Smith

    Admin- if you could post this video it would be appreciated:

    Here is a Utube of Maxine Waters with a slip of the tongue saying Congress is taking the country towards Socialism.

    Then of course comes the throaty back-peddle:

  • Jen the Michigander

    I don’t have a problem with Bill’s speech either. These past few weeks, I have grown increasingly concerned with some of the rhetoric that has been coming from the Tea Party movement– and I’m referring to the leaders who are speaking at these events, not the rank-and-file protesters. For starters, people like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann really do need to cool it with the gun and gangster references. In 2008, we held Obama responsible for the behavior of his obots and the same principle should hold true here. The Tea Party leaders need to denounce violence and they should at least try to rein in their weirdos, which is something Obama didn’t do in 2008.

  • Mrs. Smith

    JanH
    April 18th, 2010 at 7:06 pm

    Clinton congratulates Israel: We’ll help shoulder your burdens
    ======================
    What is amazing to me is- Jews in the US are still supporting Obama (read Carol’s testament today) After all Obama has said and done disrespecting Israel undeniably proving to them he is an anti-Semite.

    Bill makes a seemingly, harmless, ambiguous statement against violence and supposed Clinton supporters stamp their feet and run for the hills. (still scratching my head over this one-)

    Glad you are back JanH- hopefully for a while and family issues are improving daily.

  • wbboei

    Since the media is fully owned and in lock step with this administration…I think it must be time for Obama to rid himself of the Clintons and yes I am including Faux News. We knew Obama was waiting for the right time to stick the knife in the back of Hillary and Bill and he did it with Faux News. This will grow and that is what Axelrove and Co. want!
    ——————————————
    On the contrary. I think a deal has been made for her to be vice president in 2012. That rumor was all over Washington a few weeks ago, and at the time I dismissed it. But since then certain facts have come to light which lend some credence to that rumor. Here are the salient facts:

    1. first, the withering attacks against Hillary from Obama worshiping sources like NBC, CNN, AOL, NYT, WashPo continued after she joined the Administration. Whereas now they have subsided. If such a deal has been made then she would no longer be a threat to the golden boy and the left wing media would back off. That is not conclusive, but is one factor to consider.

    2. second, the withering attacks against Hillary from the Republican Media like FOX, WSJ, NY Post, NY Daily News, Rush et al. have continued unrelented. Since she is no longer in political life, this is unnecessary, apart from the fact that it does play to their base. That is another factor to consider.

    3. third, Bill has rushed to aid of Obama on more than one occasion. And he did so on issues that were divisive of Hillary’s blue collar base i.e. health care deform and the Tea Parties. Why would he do that if Hillary intended to seek the Presidency in 2012? But if there was an agreement that she would be vice president in 2012 it would make sense. That is another factor to consider.

    4. fourth, Hillary’s poll numbers are in the 60′s whereas Obama’s are in the 40′s. From Obama’s standpoint, it would be a big advantage if he could bring her on the ticket, and a potential challenge if he could not. From her standpoint, having watched people she trusted in the party lie to her face, she may be reluctant to venture out on the same limb, whereas there would be no opposition if she was vice president.

    5. fifth, Hillary has gone out of her way to cultivate a friendship with Obama’s wife, despite the terrible things that person said about her in the campaign. She has invited that creature to a number of events honoring women, and each time Mrs. Obama stumbles less clumsily than she did before. Mrs. Obama was opposed to Hillary getting the vice president job the last time around whereas now I think she might support it. That is another factor to consider.

    6. sixth, Hillary has made it clear that she will not serve another term as SOS if Obama is re-elected. Biden will not serve another term as Vice President so the position will be open. Biden has said on more than one occasion that Hillary should have been picked as Vice President in 2008. That is a final factor to consider.

    7. seventh, Hillary is so absorbed in her current position, lacks a coherent exit strategy and does not want to run against the incumbent. But if she was appointed vice president she could avoid those problems and if the Republicans blow 2012, she would still trump Pelosi as the highest ranking woman in the history of this country.

    8. eighth, Hillary still has the No Limits organization, and this could provide further financial support to the ticket.

    If any of this is true, then what are the ramifications. Personally, I would have no interest in supporting such a ticket. I would support if vigorously every way I could if she was on top of the ticket. But if Obama is on top NFW. If you believe as I do that Obama is destroying the country then you would not consider it. But I am just one individual, and there is that 20% spread between her numbers and his. But how much of that 20% would evaporate if she was on the ticket with him.

    If this is all wrong, then I am at a loss to explain why Bill would go out of his way to help Obama, after the way Obama has maligned him during the campaign, and all the dirty tricks he pulled on the country.

    why would Bill would rush in to save a teetering Obama on the health care deform bill and now the Tea Parties. My initial thought was to grab the spotlight, but I am not sure that is correct. It could well be to make sure he does survive so that she is on the ticket. That is not conclusive either, but is another factor to consider.

  • gonzotx

    I am also upset with the fact that Bill and Hillary, in Bill’s own words, pushed so hard for this disastrous health bill. Health bill? Really Bill? How about corporate welfare?

    I did read Bill’s speech in OK. He did not mention one time the lunatics on the left present (only the lunatics of the left in the 60′s and 70′s). Only the hatred, lies, threats, etc, by the “right” fringe. Tea party people, really Bill? How many “parties” have you attended Bill? None? Clearly his speech was aimed at the right. I can understand the dismay by many by this. I am one. Ex Dem, Ex Hillary Dem. Indie. Tea Party member and damn proud of it Bill!

    His interview by Tapper…Jones, you are correct. It was a sad referendum on his views of the Israel gov. One has to wonder how far he and the Fraud are willing to go?

  • gonzotx

    But how much of that 20% would evaporate if she was on the ticket with him.
    ****************************

    About 18%. One for each million cracks in the ceiling…

  • confloyd

    Wbboei, #7 It would ALMOST be worth it to screw Poolosi!

    There are two other reason I can think of:

    1) Its Bill they have something on!

    2) Bill and Hillary are democrats and believe fully in the democratic party!

    All I have to say isn’t it funny after his screw he will need Hillary to pull him over the top in 2012′, ROTLMAO!!!

  • confloyd

    gonzotx, If Bill has said something ugly about the right, can you really blame him after what they put him thru…???

    He is about the only human being on this earth that would have the right to say it…just ask Newt, Ken Starr how remorseful they are about Bill Clinton!!

  • confloyd

    screw=screwups

  • gonzotx

    Just a reminder on how the left wing crazies work. Kind of reminds me of the movie __12 Monkey’s
    *****************

    http://biggovernment.com/mvadum/2010/04/13/exclusive-radical-awakening-from-america-hater-to-hero/#more-104670

    EXCLUSIVE: Radical Awakening: From America Hater to Heroby Matthew Vadum

    From the April 2010 issue of Townhall
    magazine:

    Brandon Darby learned something from Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. Once a hard-core radical who sided with progressive revolutionaries, Darby prevented a left-wing terrorist attack on the 2008 GOP convention. Now, this America-loving patriot is the target of the domestic extremists he once called “friends.”

    Did you know that a courageous former radical helped to avert a planned left-wing terrorist attack at the 2008 Republican National Convention that might have killed who knows how many Americans?

    Neither did I until recently.

    That’s because if you disrupt a terrorist attack on Americans by Islamic fundamentalists as Northwest Flight 253 passenger Jasper Schuringa did on Christmas Day, you’re a hero; however, if you take the initiative to undermine a terrorist attack on Americans by supposedly well intentioned left-wing fundamentalists, you might as well be a terrorist yourself.

    Brandon Darby, who in recent years also refused leftists’ invitations to get involved in Venezuelan communist subversion here in America and in anti-Israeli terrorism in Palestine, learned this unpalatable truth the hard way.

    The Left-Wing Plot to Kill Republicans

    After years of in-your-face protests, confrontational tactics and working with America-haters, Darby eventually experienced a political epiphany. He rejected the radical Left and its culture of political violence. He came to realize that America, for all its faults, wasn’t such a bad place after all.

    “I felt I had a duty to atone after badmouthing my country for so many years,” Darby told me in an interview. “I love my country.”

    But Darby didn’t always love his country.

    Darby previously considered himself a revolutionary. His charisma and militant anti-Americanism made the intense Texan a larger-than-life figure among leftist activists in the South.

    He openly called for the overthrow of the U.S. government, which he considered too corrupt and oppressive to be reformed. He expressed his hatred of police as guardians of the status quo. He consorted with eco-terrorist tree-spikers, radical feminists and black nationalists.

    He was approached to rob an armored car and asked to commit arson to fight gentrification. He mouthed politically correct slogans and platitudes about the Bush administration. Government didn’t care about people, and in his eyes, the much-maligned response to Hurricane Katrina proved it.

    But around the same time, the former radical community organizer was turning away from radicalism, and at tremendous personal risk, he undermined a leftwing terrorist plot to attack the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn. If he hadn’t taken action, Americans exercising their free speech rights and police officers might have been killed.

    Without informing his fellow anarchists, Darby offered his assistance to the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force and, at the FBI’s request, infiltrated a leftwing group known as the Austin Affinity Group. The outfit had joined with a larger coalition of progressive organizations that facetiously called itself the “RNC Welcoming Committee.” The committee hoped to lay siege to the GOP convention that nominated the presidential ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin.

    The FBI sent Darby to meet with anarchists who were developing their plan at a bookstore in Austin.

    “It was a group of people whose explicit purpose was to organize a group of ‘black bloc’ anarchists to shut the Republican convention down by any means necessary,” he explained. “They showed videos of people throwing Molotov cocktails, and they were giving people ideas.”

    The two 20-something plotters on whom Darby informed, David Guy McKay and Bradley Neil Crowder, had made homemade riot shields and were ready to use them in St. Paul to help demonstrators block streets near the Xcel Energy Center in order to prevent GOP delegates from participating in the convention. The shields were discovered and confiscated.

    But McKay and Crowder were undeterred by this setback. Together they manufactured instruments of death calculated to inflict maximum pain and bodily harm on people whose political views they disagreed with.

    During a search of a residence, police found gas masks, slingshots, helmets, knee pads and eight Molotov cocktails consisting of bottles filled with gasoline with attached wicks made from tampons.

    “They mixed gasoline with oil so it would stick to clothing and skin and burn longer,” Darby told me.

    Thanks to Darby’s cooperation with the FBI, the two anarchist would-be bomb throwers are now languishing in prison. McKay entered a “guilty” plea and was sentenced in May 2009 to 48 months in prison plus three years of supervised release for possession of an unregistered “firearm,” illegal manufacture of a firearm and possession of a firearm with no serial number. A week before, Crowder cut a deal with prosecutors and was sentenced to 24 months in prison for possession of an unregistered firearm.

    McKay received the stiffer sentence in part because he fabricated a tall tale about Darby’s involvement in the plot.

    During sentencing, U.S. District Judge Michael Davis went out of his way to make a specific legal finding that McKay obstructed justice by falsely accusing Darby of inducing him to manufacture the incendiary devices.

    Davis told McKay he crossed the line between peaceful dissent and violent protest. “You were leading the charge. You and Crowder were coming up here [to Minnesota] to do anarchy against the system.”

    But now the story takes a strange turn.

    After Darby, who until the end of 2008 had been a confidential FBI informant, revealed that he had worked with authorities to pre-empt the violent conspiracy, he became the subject of a campaign of vilification by the Left.

    Google Darby’s name and the words “snitch” and “rat” appear. Cyber-squatters appropriated his name and created a hateful Web site to defame him.

    The floodgates of abuse burst open after Darby acknowledged in an open letter posted at an alternative news Web site that not only had he worked with the FBI, but he also “strongly” stood behind his decision to do so.

    The irretrievably liberal New York Times ignored his heroism. A Jan. 5, 2009, article focused not on Darby’s lifesaving intervention but on the feelings of “betrayal” his former allies in left-wing anarchist circles were experiencing.

    The paper showed how shocked and appalled Scott Crow, who with Darby co-founded the Common Ground Relief agency in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, was after learning about Darby’s cooperation with the FBI.

    “I put it all on the line to defend him when accusations first came out,” Crow said. “Brandon Darby is somebody I had entrusted with my life in New Orleans, and now I feel endangered by him.” Why someone who presumably hadn’t committed a crime would feel “endangered” by knowing an FBI informant is unclear.

    ACORN founder Wade Rathke (shown at left in above photo), who worked as a professional agitator for the violent Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s, would have preferred that Republican delegates be incinerated.

    He denounced Darby for working with the authorities to disrupt the domestic terrorists. “It seemed so, how should I say it, ’60s?”

    It’s “one thing to disagree, but it’s a whole different thing to rat on folks,” Rathke wrote on his blog.

    This response to ideological apostasy is not altogether surprising. Leftists who abandon their faith are demonized by their former co-religionists. Relentless attacks on Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore and former radical David Horowitz continue to the present day, decades after they moved rightward.

    Right-Wing Violence Bad, Left-Wing Violence Good?

    Compare the treatment of Darby at the hands of the Left to the respectful— often groveling—treatment afforded ObamaCare architect Robert Creamer.

    A HuffingtonPost.com contributor and husband of shrill socialist Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., Creamer served prison time for kiting checks and failing to pay withholding taxes for his leftist nonprofit, Illinois Public Action Fund. Just like his liberal friends in Congress and the Obama administration, he refused to roll back spending and instead created a modified Ponzi scheme in order to continue drawing his full $100,000 salary.

    This crusader for social justice and political consultant to Democratic Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and impeached Democratic Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich even whined at his 2006 sentencing that he received a five-month period of incarceration, well below the 30 to 37 months called for in federal sentencing guidelines. The media failed to call him on it.

    Convicted cop-killing activists Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal are legends on the Left. Black Panther Abu-Jamal in particular enjoys a cult following among radicals even though no serious person—including Abu-Jamal himself, who failed to claim to be innocent at his trial—contests that in 1981 he shot and killed Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in cold blood.

    Creamer, Peltier and Abu-Jamal are all heroes to the Left no matter what they did, and to some precisely because of what they did.

    This is because on the Left there is a presumption of good intentions even by fellow-traveling terrorists. As left-wing talk radio host Thom Hartmann told me last year: “My left-wing crazies are better than your right-wing crazies.”

    Hartmann explained:

    “Your right-wing crazies are incited to violence based on fear and hate of people because of whom they are, because they’re gay, because they’re Catholic, because they’re Jewish, because they’re black, because they’re Hispanic. And our left-wing crazies are incited to violence because they’re trying to create a better world. They’re trying to save the environment in the case of the eco-terrorists. They’re trying to end the Vietnam War in the case of the Weather Underground. They’re trying to bring about civil rights in the case of the Symbionese Liberation Army and some of the other black terrorist groups that were operating in the 1970s” (emphasis added).

    To the Left, violent acts aimed at desirable ends are worthy of praise, especially if aimed at the other side.

    Internationally known Marxist author Naomi Klein has praised the riots that took place during the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle and openly called for violence at the 2004 Republican convention, urging protesters to bring the Iraq War to the streets of New York City. The Canadian writer wasn’t ostracized by the Left after her outrageous statement; if anything, her public stature has only grown since 2004.

    If right-wing terrorists plotted to attack a Democratic National Convention, whoever foiled the conspiracy would be immortalized in film, literature and song as a savior of democracy.

    “If you flip the equation around and it had been a group of conservatives threatening to use force to prevent those on the Left from meeting, everyone would expect the government to infiltrate them and they would also expect the FBI to stop them and charge them with crimes,” Darby said.

    “But when it’s leftists that organize to prevent Republicans from being able to meet, then all of a sudden it’s considered government oppression. There’s something wrong with that, and no one points that out, and it’s really offensive and damaging to our system.”

    Social justice-oriented terrorism isn’t ugly and anti-American, according to the nation’s entertainment-media complex; it’s downright praiseworthy and hip. So it should come as no surprise that Crowder and McKay are in the process of being rehabilitated by the Left.

    Early on, the duo became a cause célèbre for the Left, dubbed the Texas 2. Now documentary filmmakers are currently making a movie about them called—you guessed it—“Better This World.” The documentary, which is reportedly in the post-production phase, received an HBO Documentary Films Fellowship.

    No doubt there will be more praise heaped on them as they ascend to the Left’s pantheon of social justice champions, joining Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and the Unabomber.

    The Journal Away From Radicalism

    But no one is singing the praises of Darby, a genuine American hero.

    Born in Pasadena, Texas, in 1976, Darby’s efforts in post-Katrina New Orleans were highlighted favorably in the media, most notably in a Jonathan Demme documentary that was shown on the “Tavis Smiley Show” on PBS.

    When Darby learned people were suffering in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, he moved there, defying police orders not to enter the stricken city. With $50, he co-founded Common Ground in the home of Malik Rahim, a veteran community organizer and former Black Panther who did prison time for armed robbery.

    “When we started, everyone in the city was armed, everyone was scared, and there was a complete lack of law enforcement,” said Darby. “The few roving bands of law enforcement that were present didn’t like us very much because of the fact that we were involved with people like Malik Rahim, who to this day continues to advocate for those who have attacked law enforcement personnel.”

    “We were young, we were caught up in the fervor of helping others and fighting injustice, and at that time, we couldn’t see why people like law enforcement didn’t like Malik,” Darby said.

    Common Ground was no mere relief agency. It was a group of far-Left revolutionaries who viewed their work as an extension of their politics.

    In a promotional video, Rahim thunders to volunteers: “You are showing this government that the people, that the people in this country do care for peace and justice and that we will stand for peace and justice and that we will do what it takes to restore peace and justice back to America.”

    When Common Ground was threatened, the radical Left mobilized to defend it. Police were “freaked out because there were all these Black Panthers who’d had shootouts with the police years ago, and they’re in this house and they refused to leave, so it turned into this really stressful ordeal,” Darby explained.

    Despite many obstacles, Common Ground quickly became a successful nonprofit group that helped alleviate the suffering of poor people in the devastated city, especially in the hard-hit 9th Ward.

    Supported by donations that flowed in from across the country, in its first three years 22,000 volunteers worked for Common Ground. A magnet for outraged radicals ranging from garden variety collectivists to militant vegans to pagan lesbians, the group gutted flood damaged houses without bothering to obtain permits and provided free health care and meals.

    The group was profiled by ABC’s “Nightline,” and the media treated Darby as a savior. With its contributions to the city, the group began to wield political influence, Darby said. Even its initial detractors begrudgingly admitted Common Ground’s positive impact on the Crescent City.

    Over time, a lot of the things Darby experienced with Common Ground led him to question his political beliefs, and these experiences offer a window into what happens when the radical Left takes over an area.

    In bed with real-estate developers, New Orleans wanted to use eminent domain to condemn many vacant flood damaged houses. According to Darby, many anarchists refused to join his fight to protect the property rights of homeowners, because they didn’t believe in private property.

    “I just started putting the call out, and all these libertarians, Republicans and Democrats, started showing up. And what we would do was any time there were bulldozers we would just get in front of them and wouldn’t let them work,” he said.

    “We had our lawyers file lawsuits, and so next thing you know, they backed away from it. And they started to work with us to identify where the residents were, and we’d ask the residents if they wanted their place demolished or not.”

    Darby defied the politically correct “consensus” method of group decision making and riled feathers by daring to tell aimless volunteers what to do. After vegan volunteers took over the Common Ground kitchen and tried to inflict their dietary preferences on the poor, it occurred to Darby that the leftist-anarchist approach with its aversion to hierarchy would never work in the real world.

    “Like most people driven by a strong dogma, the majority of the people who took over were from Berkeley, and they came in under the guise of helping,” he said.

    “They tried to use the experience to ‘correct’ the culture and lifestyle of the working-class poor. They tried to use the black residents of New Orleans as lab rats and guinea pigs, and I didn’t like that at all—and the residents didn’t like it either.”

    For example, some of the activists tried to organize the residents into “collectives,” and another group of gay activists took over part of a church that had donated its space to help relief efforts. “We were helping to rebuild the church, but then some radicals took over and started using over half the space and designated it as a ‘queer safe place,’” Darby said.

    This infuriated the church leadership who were already uncomfortable with being associated with so many radical activists.

    “It’s not about you coming here and creating your utopia,” Darby explained.

    “It’s about helping these residents and making them feel comfortable. The radicals wanted to make residents sit through political orientations in order to get fed. I objected and that got me called a dictator.”

    Common Ground leaders continued to insist on indoctrinating young volunteers and on continuing with in-your-face protest tactics, which lost their usefulness after the group became well established and had connections with people in the city, Darby said.

    “The people making decisions for the city about how aid was distributed and about where FEMA work crews and search-and-rescue crews operated, developed relationships with us,” he explained. “They were completely open to hear our perspective and wanted us to participate in what decisions were made, but unfortunately many of the other community organizers were stuck in a fight-the-power dogma, which ultimately hindered their ability to serve those in need. There was no official of local government there that we couldn’t call on their cell phone and set up a dinner meeting with or enjoy a cup of coffee with.”

    After initially having rocky relations with the New Orleans Police and other local authority figures, Darby came to realize that, in the hurricane-ravaged city, relief volunteers and the authorities were on the same side—both sides wanted to help people.

    Darby’s “eureka” moment came as he began to accept the idea that not everyone in government was a villain.

    He credits Maj. John Bryson of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) with helping him to stop viewing everyone in government as the enemy.

    Bryson (pictured above), who, in the wake of Katrina, was the NOPD’s 5th District commander, an area that encompassed the especially hard-hit Lower 9th Ward, observed Darby’s transformation over time.

    When Bryson first met Darby, he was “so up in my face it was unbelievable,” Bryson told me. “Radical” was too weak a word to describe Darby, Bryson said.

    When the two first met, Darby promised that his fellow activists would be videotaping police and that they wouldn’t hesitate to report anything they didn’t like to the media. Bryson helped to improve the relationship by giving Darby his cell phone number and told him to contact him directly if police officers misbehaved.

    Bryson offered to help Darby but cautioned him that “if we find that you are not here to help our citizens, then we’re going to have a problem,” Bryson explained, “and that was our agreement.”

    Over time, the two, who had been filled with mutual distrust and hostility, began to get along, even to like each other as friends.

    Bryson watched Common Ground—which, in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, he said, had more people on the ground than the federal government—begin to flourish. The group opened shelters for women, families and children, offering services to locals that governments at the time were unable to provide.

    As relations with the police improved dramatically, Darby confessed to Bryson that he had never had this kind of positive relationship with any kind of law enforcement personnel. The feeling was mutual.

    Bryson praised Darby for cooperating with the FBI:

    “Everybody [on the Left] hates Brandon because he did the right thing for the right reasons. Anytime anyone in this country, in this state, in this city, or even in this world is going to do some horrible things to innocent people, if a good man does not stand up, or a good woman for that matter, then we’re in trouble. And Brandon stood up and did the right thing. He stole my heart as he said, ‘I thought about you and how well you worked with us, and I couldn’t see innocent people getting hurt.’”

    Plots Abroad

    Although Darby’s positive experiences with New Orleans police had forced him to begin questioning his anarchist beliefs, a trip to Marxist Venezuela helped to kill off his remaining radical impulses.

    The trip came as the U.S. government was taking a beating in the media for its post-Katrina relief efforts. At the time, Venezuela’s communist strongman, Hugo Chavez, began trying to embarrass the Bush administration by offering aid to the Katrina-hit Gulf Coast.

    Chavez had already been running what political scientists call a “public diplomacy” campaign in the U.S. to help bolster American support for his regime. The propaganda effort consisted of funneling discounted home heating oil to former U.S. Rep. Joe Kennedy’s, D-Mass., nonprofit group, Citizens Energy Corp. The nonprofit then distributed the oil to poor people, and Kennedy (pictured above behind lectern) went on TV to berate the Bush administration, which he said “cut fuel assistance.” Kennedy boosted his benefactor, boasting in a commercial that “CITGO, owned by the Venezuelan people,” had helped poor Americans while their own government stood idly by.

    Darby traveled to Caracas in 2006 as part of a Common Ground delegation to the Chavez government to seek funding to keep Common Ground afloat.

    “I had this idea of having ‘Chavez trailers’ for displaced residents to live in. This would embarrass FEMA into supplying trailers,” he said.

    Darby said he didn’t realize when he came up with the concept that using money from abroad to influence the U.S. government might be illegal, but Chavez government officials he met with insisted it would violate U.S. law.

    “They told me I would get in trouble, and they wanted to work out a way to make the project happen,” he said.

    In the month he was there, Venezuelan officials introduced him to executives of PDVSA, the government-owned oil company that owns CITGO, which operates a chain of gas stations in the U.S. They pressured Darby to journey to neighboring Colombia to meet with a group aligned with the narco-terror organization FARC and to visit another revolutionary group in Maracaibo, Venezuela.

    According to Darby, Chavez wanted to create a terrorist network in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. This is the same Chavez who blamed the recent earthquake in Haiti on the United States and who called President George W. Bush “the Devil” during a United Nations speech, so some might find his efforts at subversive activities in the United States hard to take seriously. However, it’s important to remember that Chavez has close ties to Iran and Cuba and allows terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah to operate offices in Caracas.

    (Long before he learned of the RNC plot, Darby reached out to the FBI to undermine terrorism. A longtime Texas friend, the late Riad Hamad [pictured above], had tried to hijack Darby’s plan to provide medical assistance in war-torn parts of the world. Darby wanted to create a group called Critical Response that would have sent medics into war zones to help civilians caught in the crossfire in places such as Lebanon and Darfur. Hamad, founder of the much-investigated Palestinian Children’s Welfare Fund, told him he wanted to send medics to Israel and put explosives on motorcycles and boobytrap ambulances in order to kill Jews. Hamad also hatched an elaborate plan to funnel money to Hamas and Hezbollah. Around the same time, Darby viewed a very graphic Israeli first responders’ training video. “At the time I was conflicted about what to do, but seeing the dead bodies of Israeli children in that tape made the so-called Palestinian activists’ chant ‘no justice, no peace,’ take on a whole new meaning. I decided the only ethical thing to do was to tell law enforcement what I knew.”)

    To Darby’s astonishment, during his stay in Caracas, senior officials in the Chavez government and in PDVSA told him they wanted him to create a revolutionary army of guerrillas in the swamps of Louisiana.

    “At the very last meeting they ramped up the pressure,” Darby said. They taunted him, saying, “What? You’re not a revolutionary?”

    Despite intense pressure from his Venezuelan hosts, he refused. This was the last straw for him.

    “I realized I didn’t like Venezuela, the authoritarianism of it, and I started to realize how brilliant and miraculous the American system of checks and balances was,” Darby said. “There was still something brilliant about the fact that this nation had institutionalized a system of checks and balances that has been working since this nation was founded. I realized just how hard a task that is.”

    Common Ground, divided by radical factions with harebrained ideas constantly warring with each other, was a living example of left-wing radicalism in action.

    “When I would leave Common Ground for a few days I would be worried that a power vacuum could develop and factions could displace me while I was away, and that’s just the way things are in places like Venezuela,” he said. “It is actually absurd to want the United States government to go away, and that’s when it really hit me that my ideas were wrong.”

    Darby said he’s still proud of his Common Ground experience on the whole. “I’m proud of helping people, but I’m ashamed of what I used to believe,” Darby admitted.

    “Thankfully, I had the honor of serving my country by working undercover with the FBI and participating in efforts to protect the safety and civil rights of others.”

    (This article appears in the current issue of Townhall magazine and is posted here with the magazine’s permission.)

  • confloyd

    I figured that they were going to put Hillary on the ticket, you’d have to be blind, deaf and dumb to realize after Hillary left the scene in 08′ the election got real freaking boring!!!

    That’s why they will put a Newt or Mittens/Palin to go against Hillary!

  • confloyd

    Think about this though, how is the fraud going to allow Hillary to take his place in the debates, ROTFLMAO!!! He is no good a debating, hell I could beat him! Hillary is going to have to be on the teleprompter!

    I SAY BRING IT ONE, I’ll get the popcorn!

  • wbboei

    Tapper is an instrument of the ABC organization. He operates off a controlled script. The Supreme Court question was diversionary. The answer was obvious. No. He did not ask the pertinent question about the vice presidency. The one that has been floating around Washington for some time now. Was she interested in being vice president. Sometimes, the most significant thing is the dog that did not bark.

  • gonzotx

    confloyd
    April 19th, 2010 at 12:09 am
    *************

    Actually, I would think the oppostite… because I always thought of him as “THE” president of the PEOPLE. I always THOUGHT of HIM as someone who would fight for our rights above all else. Not anymore.
    …Belief in the Democratic party…you jest…

  • wbboei

    Wbboei, #7 It would ALMOST be worth it to screw Poolosi!
    ————————————–
    Connie–you really know how to twist my arm. It is a damned close question.

  • confloyd

    gonzotex, The only thing I am saying is Bill was much alligned by the right and he and he alone can say what he wants about them. He is older, greyer, and in worse health because of their lies about him, so whatever.

    I don’t think he meant what people are saying he meant anyway.

    Yes, Bill Clinton was the President of all people and always will be in my book, I don’t think he has changed on that account. I too wish they had not chose to assist Obama, but they have and I don’t know why, but I won’t malign him. He was our greatest President yet because of the right he will never be recognized for his accomplishments, it takes a foreign country to erect a statue of Bill, they know a real leader when they see one, too bad people in America don’t.

  • gonzotx

    CBS poll on the fraud!

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6116297-503544.html?tag

    The Economy
    ——————————————————————————–

    A:
    4.72%
    B:
    4.54%
    C:
    5.27%
    D:
    17.81%
    F:
    67.66%
    Foreign Policy
    ——————————————————————————–

    A:
    6.74%
    B:
    4.18%
    C:
    7.68%
    D:
    21.68%
    F:
    59.72%
    Health Care
    ——————————————————————————–

    A:
    7.08%
    B:
    3.01%
    C:
    2.87%
    D:
    8.31%
    F:
    78.73%
    Afghanistan
    ——————————————————————————–

    A:
    5.63%
    B:
    13.59%
    C:
    25.98%
    D:
    22.86%
    F:
    31.94%
    Iraq
    ——————————————————————————–

    A:
    5.75%
    B:
    10.07%
    C:
    24.41%
    D:
    23.79%
    F:
    35.98%
    Threat of Terrorism
    ——————————————————————————–

    A:
    6.58%
    B:
    4.91%
    C:
    9.75%
    D:
    21.20%
    F:
    57.56%
    Energy and the Environment
    ——————————————————————————–

    A:
    5.61%
    B:
    5.55%
    C:
    12.70%
    D:
    21.05%
    F:
    55.08%
    Social Issues
    ——————————————————————————–

    A:
    6.65%
    B:
    4.68%
    C:
    10.82%
    D:
    18.96%
    F:
    58.88%
    Bipartisanship
    ——————————————————————————–

    A:
    6.54%
    B:
    3.11%
    C:
    4.00%
    D:
    8.09%
    F:
    78.26%
    Obama’s Overall Job as President
    ——————————————————————————–

    A:
    6.22%
    B:
    4.02%
    C:
    3.69%
    D:
    22.27%
    F:
    63.80%

  • gonzotx

    confloyd
    April 19th, 2010 at 12:23 am

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

    Whatever to you too

    I know what I read

  • wbboei

    1) Its Bill they have something on!

    2) Bill and Hillary are democrats and believe fully in the democratic party!
    ———————————–
    Yes, I thought about both of those things.

    As to the first issue, whether they did or not, that was during the campaign. Assuming they did, the power of a threat fades with the passage of time. To me, this thing smells like a carrot not a threat.

    As to the second issue, I am quite sure they believe in the Party. But they also believe in their ability to lead the party and the country. And that means they will always seek power within the party.

    Of course, the other possibility is that I am completely wrong, but in case I am at a loss to understand what is happening.

  • confloyd

    Gonzotex, LOL! he got F’s all the way thru!

    I did mean “whatever” in a ugly way…I just have kids that have gotten me to using that word..sorry if I offended you.

  • gonzotx

    Republican Officials Attacked and Injured in New Orleans

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/republican_officials_attacked.html

    Friday night a week ago in New Orleans a petite female political operative and her boyfriend were attacked and seriously injured by a vicious group of crazed cowards who shrieked political insults while pouncing. After the pummeling, the petite female and her boyfriend were left, collectively, with a compound leg fracture, a concussion, a broken nose and broken jaw. No robbery occurred.

    More @ link with pic

  • confloyd

    I asked that vp question on one of the Hillary groups, NO ONE ever responded…it just makes sense that that is what was going to happen all along…but what makes me mad about it is that maybe it was as if she had to prove her loyality or ability in some way possibly…it makes me sick…the little jackass needs to be impeached!

    She has outshined him so much its not even funny, just like she did in the debates…which makes me wonder how they will handle that since its Hillary
    will all the right answers, LOL! Maybe he’ll wear a wire and she’ll sit in the back and answer for him, maybe a voice modulator…LOL!

  • gonzotx

    ‘For Jerusalem’
    Leo Rennert

    The Washington Post, in its April 16 edition, features a full-page ad by Elie Wiesel, titled: “For Jerusalem.” While phrased in Wiesel’s usual poetic utterances, it is a cry from the heart to Obama to forego a final peace deal that would re-divide Jerusalem and instead take a step-by-step approach of confidence-building measures until Israelis and Palestinians eventually may be ready to conclude a permanent peace agreement.

    More @ link

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/for_jerusalem.html

  • gonzotx

    BP
    **********

    Some great pictures @ this link

    Crashing the Crashers: Tea Party Infiltrators Outmaneuvered in S.F.

    http://tinyurl.com/y4j8ucl

  • wbboei

    I think they are in a major damage control effort toward Israel. I expect the letter from Congress and the World Jewish Federation scared the bijesus out of them. Obama over stepped and he overreached. His treatment of Bibi was stupid and deplorable. It plays out horribly to the world. It is really telling when your closest ally in the world tells you they feel they must go it alone. And when the Administration says we want to help you, the response should be prove it.

  • gonzotx

    BP
    *********

    Illinois Mayor Expresses Doubts About Obama’s Citizenship

    “I don’t think he’s American, personally.”

    http://www.breitbart.tv/illinois-mayor-expresses-doubts-about-obamas-citizenship

  • gonzotx

    Ace
    *****

    Sunday Morning Inspiration
    —Dave In Texas
    Col. Allen West opens his campaign in Broward County by encouraging his supporters to hold the line.



  • confloyd

    I have never seen this video about the Oklahoma bombing—weird!



  • Shadowfax

    I see the Big Dawgs comments have come up on the blog here too and I tend to agree with those that don’t believe that he was trying to shut up Tea Party people but more worried that the ratcheting up of anger by the right wing may unleash some of the nutcases out there that want to take it to the next level.

    I also agree that those on the left have often done the same thing, and that the race card is worn out.

  • wbboei

    Joe Klein we all know. He is with Newsweek. He is the one who wrote a book, I think it was Primary Colors under an alias. When he was asked if he was the author he denied it. It was later proven that he did write it. He is sometimes thought of as a plagerist as well. Heilman is the Whore of Babalyon. He is with the New Yorker magazine and co-authored Game Change with Mark Halpren. John and Mark have a $5 million dollar deal to write a book on the Obama White House, so he can be counted upon to attack the opponents of Obama as we see here. Here he and Klein accuse those opponents of sedition. If they knew the history of that term, it is doubtful that they would be using it, i.e.:

    “The Alien and Sedition Acts were four bills passed in 1798 by the Federalists in the 5th United States Congress during an undeclared naval war with France, later known as the Quasi-War. They were signed into law by President John Adams. Proponents claimed the acts were designed to protect the United States from alien citizens of enemy powers and to prevent seditious attacks from weakening the government. The Democratic-Republicans led by Jefferson and Madison, like later historians, denominated them as being both unconstitutional and DESIGNED TO STIFLE CRITICISM OF THE ADMINISTRATION, and as infringing on the right of the states to act in these areas.” Wiki (emphasis added).
    ——————————————————————-
    In Praise of Being Seditious
    Dan Poff

    “I did a little bit of research just before this show – it’s on this little napkin here. I looked up the definition of sedition which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious.”

    As Klein pointed out, the legal definition of sedition is “a revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority.” And, sedition has been declared a felony in Supreme Court opinions, thus making Klein’s national television accusation a fairly serious one, one of which New York magazine’s John Heilemann agreed with. However, Heilemann added conservative talker Rush Limbaugh to that list.

    How can I mock this, let me count the ways…and don’t even get me started on the New York Times, the LA Times, and a host of other seditious co-conspirators during the Bush years. Nevermind what our dear misguided friends did to undermine our war efforts and level the playing field for our enemies.

    Recall, if you will, the First amendment which conveys to us the right to openly disagree with our Government. No where in there does it describe how nice we have to be about it… Remember also the Declaration of Independence and that whole “long train of abuses and usurpations” bit or the part where we throw off such Government that reduces us under under absolute Despotism.”

    The only “throw off such Government” talk I’ve heard in recent years was when it was the left wanting to do it to President Bush – “arrest Bush for war crimes” anyone?

    I have yet to hear Palin or Limbaugh or Beck or anyone else for that matter call for “inciting rebellion against the authority of the state.” What I have heard is their voices, and millions of other American voices, speaking out against the Government for how dramatically they have abused that so-called “authority of the state.”

    Still, I might have otherwise passed this drivel…but this bit stopped me in my tracks:

    Heilemann also suggested that the alleged up tick in militia activity is a result of the Obama presidency. Klein said it was not only the Obama presidency, but that he was “African-American,” and had “Hussein” as a middle name, along with the “scary” economic crisis.

    “Two are two things going on here and one thing is certainly that,” Klein said. “One thing is he is African-American, but that his name is Barack Hussein Obama. The other we’ve had a very scary economic crisis. And when people get scared, they get defensive and they get a little crazy.”

    Really guys? REALLY? We “seditious” right wing nutjobs might routinely bring to light specific examples of the varied and sundry “abuses and usurpations” by our President and our Government, but the only ones that keep bringing up Obama’s color and name and policy positions are the ones most threatened by them-the whack jobs on the left that keep having to apologize for a President by making it OUR fault he’s failed at his job.

    If speaking out about what’s going on in this country…and not being happy about it…is seditious, then count me in.

  • wbboei

    New York magazine–not the New Yorker.

  • turndownobama

    Oh, funny, thank you! Interesting to hear that the Obama-moustache-Hitler signs are from LaRouche people, who show up at leftist rallies too. Hope they’re photographed there.

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

    gonzotx
    April 19th, 2010 at 12:44 am

    Some great pictures @ this link

    Crashing the Crashers: Tea Party Infiltrators Outmaneuvered in S.F.

    http://tinyurl.com/y4j8ucl

  • turndownobama

    Crashing the Crashers: Tea Party Infiltrators Outmaneuvered in S.F.
    http://tinyurl.com/y4j8ucl

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

    But if the wannabe infiltrators are this obviously unreal, then how to explain the more believable trashy looking people and signs that the media have found at previous Tea Party rallies?
    (This SF article accounts for the LaRouches only — weren’t there other bad signs?)

  • The Elena Kagan embarrassment is what led to the phony “gay visitation memorandum” – a non-binding piece of propaganda meant to make up for the “false charges from GOP against a good,honest straight, we tell you, Kagan”
    http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/hospital-visitation-for-gay-couples-good-thing/

  • [...] with all the bad surprises that keep coming at us. See for instance The Big Pink on drawbacks which were well known, but Obama Times refrained from reporting Only now, in April of 2010 does the New York Times decide to inform readers that New York State is [...]

  • pm317

    the visitation memo is him voting present — his supporters who want it could say his heart is in the right place and his supporters who don’t want it could say it is toothless, no harm no foul.

  • pm317

    and his media lapdogs will give him a fine headline until you read the fine print.

  • rgb44hrc

    basement angel
    April 18th, 2010 at 3:11 am

    And yes, he was born in Hawaii. I actually had to work a birth certificate case with a pair of young women whose parents hadn’t bothered to get birth certificates when they were born so that’s territory I know well. In the 60s, public announcement section was there for the purpose of creating an official, public record. The fact of the two birth announcements, in the section of paper that they were in, is all the proof you need that he was born in Hawaii. The only way those announcements appear on the day that they do is if he is born in Hawaii and in a hospital. Also, if you file a Freedom of Information Act request, you can get info on his move to Indonesia that documents his birth in Hawaii.
    &&&&&&

    We’ve rehashed this before. You personally might be satisfied with all this curcumstantial evidence of his birth in Hawaii.

    But for those who are not satisfied, we’d appreciate if the Constitution was not ignored.

    Maybe you don’t mind that someone like Schwarzenegger would be sworn in as president, that “it’s a silly law”. But many people find merit in that Constitutional requirement.

    So if some kid today called Barry Soetoro walks into McDonald’s looking for a job, here’s how the interview might go:

    Interviewee: “Have you filled out the job application?”

    Barry: “Yes. But for ‘driver’s license’ or ‘birth certificate’, I do not have an actual physical copy. What I do have is a couple of listings in local newspapers announcing my birth, and later, announcing that I received my driver’s license.”

    Int.: “This is not sufficient proof.”

    Barry: “Then go to my websit, myspace.com/barrysoetoro, it has pictures of both documents”.

    Int.: “I’m sorry, you are not qualified to work at McDonald’s. Have you tried running for President, I hear that they really don’t check that kind of thing.”

  • rgb44hrc

    As for the two women who were born without birth certificates in Hawaii, perhaps they should be barred from running for President; or, they’d go through the whole motions of documenting their birth to obtain an official stamped birth certificate, and then they could run for president.

  • wbboei

    According to the most trusted name in news, CNN (which is owned by AOL Time Warner) the Tea Parties are racists who cannot stand the idea of a black man in the White House. Obviously, according to the most trusted name in news, they would have no objection if a white president:

    1. promised not to raise taxes, and then announced that he was referring only to income taxes,

    2. privatized social security (read between the lined what he is saying now in the double negative, i.e. those nearing retirement, etc.) and–

    3. created a whopping 5% value added tax to avoid a corporate tax because the Republicans want to protect corporation. He on the other hand would never protect corporations at the expense of the people–except when the opportunity arises ala Rezko)

    The only question that remains is do you like being robbed and lied to day in and day out? If so vote for Bambi and he will never disappoint you. He will tell any lie he needs to in order to advance his mission of crony capitalism. The people who created the financial mess–the people who put him in there (like Jamie Dimon) walk away scott free and the middle class bears the entire burden. And this tyrantlives the good life at their expense.
    ——————————————————————————
    You Lie
    Posted by Moe Lane (Profile)
    Monday, April 19th at 10:00AM EDT

    2008:

    “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

    2010 (bolding mine):

    …since any Social Security plan would probably preserve benefits for those nearing retirement, it would not help the administration achieve its goal of reducing the deficit to 3 percent of gross domestic product, from 10 percent, within a decade.

    One way to reach that 3 percent goal, by the calculations of Mr. Obama’s economic team: a 5 percent value-added tax, which would generate enough revenue to simultaneously permit the reduction in corporate tax rates Republicans favor.

    More on the VAT here. As ATR notes, the President has been trying to turn this read-my-lips into a pledge against raising income taxes. They want “President Obama to either immediately release the reported VAT calculations or deny such calculations exist,” although I don’t know why. Anything that we get from the man will just be another lie.

    Moe Lane

  • JanH

    Happy Yom Ha’atzmaut!

    Today,Israel celebrates it’s 62nd anniversary of the creation/independence of the State of Israel.

    Of course for the UN and terrorist buddies, it is just another Israel-bashing day.

  • JanH

    Yes this was drafted by the State Department, but obama is at the heart of it.

    —————–

    April 19, 2010

    Hillary Clinton Drops ‘Secure’ Borders For Israel From Independence Day Message To Jewish State

    Leo Rennert

    U .N. Security Council Resolution 242, adopted after the 1967 Six-Day War called on Israel to withdraw from some — but not all — captured territories in exchange for “secure and recognized” borders for the Jewish state. Ever since, UN Res. 242 has been the international template for a permanent peace agreement.

    However, Secretary of State Clinton, in her Independence Day message to Israel, speaks only of Israel settling for internationally “recognized” borders, but pointedly dropped any mention that Israel also was entitled to “secure” borders. The omission is telling. Henry Kissinger called the pre-1967 armistice line the “Auschwitz line” because it would leave Israel totally defenseless with only a 9-mile waist between a Palestinian state and the Mediterranean Sea.

    “Secure and recognized” in Res. 242 made it clear that there would have to be major modifications of the pre-1967 lines. Israel has relied on this 242 terminology in its determination to keep Jerusalem united and to retain major nearby Jewish population blocs in the West Bank.

    Previous administrations always echoed “secure and recognized” when discussing their approach to Israel’s permanent borders. Clinton’s message signals that the Obama administration no longer does. To accord Israel only “recognized” borders would leave the door wide open for such borders to turn out to be “insecure.” Since her message obviously was drafted by the State Department, this is clearly not an oversight.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/hillary_clinton_drops_secure_b.html

  • rgb44hrc

    MORE POLLS…GUESS WHAT??

    Heh heh. Okay, maybe the poll refers to the “Federal Government”, and since Barack Obama is railing against “Washington”, “Congress”, and “government”, maybe the Pew Polls DON’T refer to Obama.

    online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575187941408991442.html

    Americans Are More Skeptical of Washington Than Ever
    ==============

    A desire for smaller government is especially evident since Barack Obama took office.

    By ANDREW KOHUT
    By almost every conceivable measure, Americans are less positive and more critical of their government these days. There is a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government—a dismal economy, an unhappy public, and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials.

    These are among the principal findings from a new series of Pew Research Center surveys. Rather than an activist government to deal with the nation’s top problems, these surveys show that the general public now wants government reformed and a growing number want its power curtailed. With the exception of greater regulation of Wall Street, there is less of an appetite for government solutions to the nation’s problems—including greater government control over the economy—than there was when Barack Obama first took office.

    The public’s hostility toward government seems likely to be an important election issue favoring the Republicans this fall. But the Democrats can take some solace in the fact that neither party can be confident it has the advantage among such a disillusioned electorate. Favorable ratings for both major parties, as well as for Congress, have reached record lows. Opposition to congressional incumbents, already approaching an all-time high, continues to climb.

    The tea party movement, which has a small but fervent antigovernment constituency, could be a wild card in this election. On the one hand, its sympathizers are highly energized and inclined to vote Republican. On the other, many Republicans (28%), and Independents who lean Republican (30%), say the “tea party” represents their point of view better than the GOP.

    Over the course of the past decade we’ve seen a spike in intense antigovernment attitudes amongst a small segment of the public. The proportion saying they are angry with the federal government has doubled since 2000, increasing to 21% from 10%. And a larger minority of the public has come to view the federal government as a major threat to their personal freedom: 30% feel this way, up from 18% in a 2003 ABC News/Washington Post survey.

    The Pew Research Center surveys provide a detailed picture of the public’s opinions about government and how it differs from the climate of opinion in the late 1990s, when criticism of government had declined from earlier in the decade. At that time, the public’s desire for government services and activism was holding steady.

    This is not the case today. Just 22% say they can trust the government in Washington almost always or most of the time, among the lowest measures in half a century.

    Opinions about elected officials are particularly poor. Just 25% have a favorable opinion of Congress while 65% have an unfavorable view—the lowest favorable ratings for Congress in more than two decades of Pew Research center surveys.

    Favorable ratings for federal agencies and institutions have fallen since 1997-98 for seven of 13 federal agencies included in the survey. The declines have been particularly large for the Department of Education, the Food and Drug Administration, the Social Security Administration, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    As in the past, poor performance is the most persistent criticism of the federal government. But increasingly Americans say that government has the wrong priorities and that has a negative effect on their day-to-day lives. Sixty-two percent say that government policies unfairly benefit some groups, while nearly as many (56%) say that government does not do enough to help average Americans.

    There is also growing concern about the size and power of the federal government. The public is now evenly divided over whether federal government programs should be maintained to deal with important problems or cut back greatly to reduce the power of government.

    A desire for smaller government is particularly evident since Barack Obama took office. In four surveys over the past year, about half have consistently said they would rather have a smaller government with fewer services, while about 40% have consistently preferred a bigger government providing more services. In October 2008, shortly before the presidential election, the public was evenly split on this question.

    The public is now divided over whether it is a good idea for the government to exert more control over the economy than it has in recent years. Just 40% say this is a good idea, while a 51% majority says it is not. Last March, by 54% to 37%, more people said it was a good idea for the government to exert more control over the economy. The exception here is the undiminished support for the government to more strictly regulate the way major financial companies do business. This is favored by a 61% to 31% margin.

    Record discontent with Congress and dim views of elected officials generally have poisoned the well for trust in the federal government. Public opinion about elected officials in Washington is relentlessly negative. Favorable ratings for the Democratic Party have fallen by 21 points—to 38% from 59%—over the past year and now stand at their lowest point in Pew Research surveys. The Republican Party’s ratings, which increased to 46% in February from 40% last August, have fallen back to 37%.

    Nonetheless, antigovernment sentiment appears to be a more significant driver of possible turnout among Republicans and independents than among Democrats. Perhaps most troubling for Democrats, independent voters who are highly frustrated with government are also highly committed to casting a ballot this year, and they favor the Republican candidates in their districts by an overwhelming 66% to 13% margin.

  • turndownobama

    I’m sure the odds favor Obama being born in Hawaii. So why doesn’t he just give the documents to the judge, instead of spending money on lawyers to get the lawsuits thrown out?

    Perhaps because the lawsuits want other documents as well, such as his school records. Or perhaps he just wants to keep the ‘birther’ issue alive as a smokescreen for current issues.

  • JanH

    One third of Americans say own govt a threat: Poll
    (AFP) – 55 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON — Nearly one out of three Americans view the US government as a “major threat” to their freedoms, and four out of five say they don’t trust Washington to solve their problems, according to a new poll out Monday.

    Just 19 percent say they are “basically content” with the federal government, against 56 percent who say they are “frustrated” and 21 percent who describe themselves as “angry,” the Pew Research Center survey found.

    Only 22 percent say they trust Washington to do what is right4 almost always or most of the time, according to the survey, which had an error margin of plus or minus four percentage points.

    The first time Pew asked the question, in 1958, 73 percent of Americans said they trusted the government. In mid-1994, just 17 percent said the same.

    The US public has historically expressed distrust in Washington, but a sour economy, epic frustration with the US Congress, and an increasingly polarized electorate have fanned the flames, Pew said.

    The findings could spell trouble for President Barack Obama’s Democrats in November mid-term elections, with 53 percent saying the federal government needs “very major reform,” though Republicans do not get high marks either.

    When Obama took office in January 2009, 62 percent of Americans said they viewed Democrats favorably, against just 40 percent for Republicans — and the president’s party now only has a 38 percent-37 percent edge over his critics.

    Just 25 percent said they had a favorable view of the Congress, just half of what it was one year ago and the lowest in a quarter century of Pew surveys.

    But while 58 percent say the government has gone too far in regulating the economy, 61 percent say they want tougher government rules for Wall Street — a boon to Obama and Democrats who have made that their top domestic goal now that the president has signed his historic health care overhaul into law.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jUB2NX_5u3A9ZhXFsHOpMZbImzXw

  • rgb44hrc

    OBAMA’ QUESTIONABLE 2012 STRATEGY

    nytimes.com/2010/04/19/us/politics/19muslim.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

    White House Quietly Courts Muslims in U.S.
    ====================

    By ANDREA ELLIOTT
    Published: April 18, 2010

    When President Obama took the stage in Cairo last June, promising a new relationship with the Islamic world, Muslims in America wondered only half-jokingly whether the overture included them. After all, Mr. Obama had kept his distance during the campaign, never visiting an American mosque and describing the false claim that he was Muslim as a “smear” on his Web site.

    Nearly a year later, Mr. Obama has yet to set foot in an American mosque. And he still has not met with Muslim and Arab-American leaders. But less publicly, his administration has reached out to this politically isolated constituency in a sustained and widening effort that has left even skeptics surprised.

    Muslim and Arab-American advocates have participated in policy discussions and received briefings from top White House aides and other officials on health care legislation, foreign policy, the economy, immigration and national security. They have met privately with a senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to discuss civil liberties concerns and counterterrorism strategy.

    The impact of this continuing dialogue is difficult to measure, but White House officials cited several recent government actions that were influenced, in part, by the discussions. The meeting with Ms. Napolitano was among many factors that contributed to the government’s decision this month to end a policy subjecting passengers from 14 countries, most of them Muslim, to additional scrutiny at airports, the officials said.

    That emergency directive, enacted after a failed Dec. 25 bombing plot, has been replaced with a new set of intelligence-based protocols that law enforcement officials consider more effective.

    Also this month, Tariq Ramadan, a prominent Muslim academic, visited the United States for the first time in six years after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reversed a decision by the Bush administration, which had barred Mr. Ramadan from entering the country, initially citing the U.S.A. Patriot Act. Mrs. Clinton also cleared the way for another well-known Muslim professor, Adam Habib, who had been denied entry under similar circumstances.

    Arab-American and Muslim leaders said they had yet to see substantive changes on a variety of issues, including what they describe as excessive airport screening, policies that have chilled Muslim charitable giving and invasive F.B.I. surveillance guidelines. But they are encouraged by the extent of their consultation by the White House and governmental agencies.

    “For the first time in eight years, we have the opportunity to meet, engage, discuss, disagree, but have an impact on policy,” said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute in Washington. “We’re being made to feel a part of that process and that there is somebody listening.”

    In the post-9/11 era, Muslims and Arab-Americans have posed something of a conundrum for the government: they are seen as a political liability but also, increasingly, as an important partner in countering the threat of homegrown terrorism. Under President George W. Bush, leaders of these groups met with government representatives from time to time, but said they had limited interaction with senior officials. While Mr. Obama has yet to hold the kind of high-profile meeting that Muslims and Arab-Americans seek, there is a consensus among his policymakers that engagement is no longer optional.

    The administration’s approach has been understated. Many meetings have been private; others were publicized only after the fact. A visit to New York University in February by John O. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser, drew little news coverage, but caused a stir among Muslims around the country. Speaking to Muslim students, activists and others, Mr. Brennan acknowledged many of their grievances, including “surveillance that has been excessive,” “overinclusive no-fly lists” and “an unhelpful atmosphere around many Muslim charities.”

    “These are challenges we face together as Americans,” said Mr. Brennan, who momentarily showed off his Arabic to hearty applause. He and other officials have made a point of disassociating Islam from terrorism in public comments, using the phrase “violent extremism” in place of words like “jihad” and “Islamic terrorism.”

    While the administration’s solicitation of Muslims and Arab-Americans has drawn little fanfare, it has not escaped criticism. A small but vocal group of research analysts, bloggers and others complain that the government is reaching out to Muslim leaders and organizations with an Islamist agenda or ties to extremist groups abroad.

    They point out that Ms. Jarrett gave the keynote address at the annual convention for the Islamic Society of North America. The group was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Texas-based charity whose leaders were convicted in 2008 of funneling money to Hamas. The society denies any links to terrorism.

    “I think dialogue is good, but it has to be with genuine moderates,” said Steven Emerson, a terrorism analyst who advises government officials. “These are the wrong groups to legitimize.” Mr. Emerson and others have also objected to the political appointments of several American Muslims, including Rashad Hussain.

    In February, the president chose Mr. Hussain, a 31-year-old White House lawyer, to become the United States’ special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The position, a kind of ambassador at large to Muslim countries, was created by Mr. Bush. In a video address, Mr. Obama highlighted Mr. Hussain’s status as a “close and trusted member of my White House staff” and “a hafiz,” a person who has memorized the Koran.

    Within days of the announcement, news reports surfaced about comments Mr. Hussain had made on a panel in 2004, while he was a student at Yale Law School, in which he referred to several domestic terrorism prosecutions as “politically motivated.” Among the cases he criticized was that of Sami Al-Arian, a former computer-science professor in Florida who pleaded guilty to aiding members of a Palestinian terrorist group.

    At first, the White House said Mr. Hussain did not recall making the comments, which had been removed from the Web version of a 2004 article published by a small Washington magazine. When Politico obtained a recording of the panel, Mr. Hussain acknowledged criticizing the prosecutions but said he believed the magazine quoted him inaccurately, prompting him to ask its editor to remove the comments. On Feb. 22, The Washington Examiner ran an editorial with the headline “Obama Selects a Voice of Radical Islam.”

    Muslim leaders watched carefully as the story migrated to Fox News. They had grown accustomed to close scrutiny, many said in interviews, but were nonetheless surprised. In 2008, Mr. Hussain had co-authored a paper for the Brookings Institution arguing that the government should use the peaceful teachings of Islam to fight terrorism.

    “Rashad Hussain is about as squeaky clean as you get,” said Representative Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat who is Muslim. Mr. Ellison and others wondered whether the administration would buckle under the pressure and were relieved when the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, defended Mr. Hussain.

    “The fact that the president and the administration have appointed Muslims to positions and have stood by them when they’ve been attacked is the best we can hope for,” said Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America.

    It was notably different during Mr. Obama’s run for office. In June 2008, volunteers of his campaign barred two Muslim women in headscarves from appearing behind Mr. Obama at a rally in Detroit, eliciting widespread criticism. The campaign promptly recruited Mazen Asbahi, a 36-year-old corporate lawyer and popular Muslim activist from Chicago, to become its liaison to Muslims and Arab-Americans.

    Bloggers began researching Mr. Asbahi’s background. For a brief time in 2000, he had sat on the board of an Islamic investment fund, along with Sheikh Jamal Said, a Chicago imam who was later named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. Mr. Asbahi said in an interview that he had left the board after three weeks because he wanted no association with the imam.

    Shortly after his appointment to the Obama campaign, Mr. Asbahi said, a Wall Street Journal reporter began asking questions about his connection to the imam. Campaign officials became concerned that news coverage would give critics ammunition to link the imam to Mr. Obama, Mr. Asbahi recalled. On their recommendation, Mr. Asbahi agreed to resign from the campaign, he said.

    He is still unsettled by the power of his detractors. “To be in the midst of this campaign of change and hope and to have it stripped away over nothing,” he said. “It hurts.”

    From the moment Mr. Obama took office, he seemed eager to change the tenor of America’s relationship with Muslims worldwide. He gave his first interview to Al Arabiya, the Arabic-language television station based in Dubai. Muslims cautiously welcomed his ban on torture and his pledge to close Guantánamo within a year.

    In his Cairo address, he laid out his vision for “a new beginning” with Muslims: while America would continue to fight terrorism, he said, terrorism would no longer define America’s approach to Muslims.

    Back at home, Muslim and Arab-American leaders remained skeptical. But they took note when, a few weeks later, Mohamed Magid, a prominent imam from Sterling, Va., and Rami Nashashibi, a Muslim activist from Chicago, joined the president at a White-House meeting about fatherhood. Also that month, Dr. Faisal Qazi, a board member of American Muslim Health Professionals, began meeting with administration officials to discuss health care reform.

    The invitations were aimed at expanding the government’s relationship with Muslims and Arab-Americans to areas beyond security, said Mr. Hussain, the White House’s special envoy. Mr. Hussain began advising the president on issues related to Islam after joining the White House counsel’s office in January 2009. He helped draft Mr. Obama’s Cairo speech and accompanied him on the trip. “The president realizes that you cannot engage one-fourth of the world’s population based on the erroneous beliefs of a fringe few,” Mr. Hussain said.

    Other government offices followed the lead of the White House. In October, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke met with Arab-Americans and Muslims in Dearborn, Mich., to discuss challenges facing small-business owners. Also last fall, Farah Pandith was sworn in as the State Department’s first special representative to Muslim communities. While Ms. Pandith works mostly with Muslims abroad, she said she had also consulted with American Muslims because Mrs. Clinton believes “they can add value overseas.”

    Despite this, American actions abroad — including civilian deaths from drone strikes in Pakistan and the failure to close Guantánamo — have drawn the anger of Muslims and Arab-Americans.

    Even though their involvement with the administration has broadened, they remain most concerned about security-related policies. In January, when the Department of Homeland Security hosted a two-day meeting with Muslim, Arab-American, South Asian and Sikh leaders, the group expressed concern about the emergency directive subjecting passengers from a group of Muslim countries to additional screening.

    Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, pointed out that the policy would never have caught the attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid, who is British. “It almost sends the signal that the government is going to treat nationals of powerless countries differently from countries that are powerful,” Ms. Khera recalled saying as community leaders around the table nodded their heads.

    Ms. Napolitano, who sat with the group for more than an hour, committed to meeting with them more frequently. Ms. Khera said she left feeling somewhat hopeful.

    “I think our message is finally starting to get through,” she said.

  • rgb44hrc

    SWING BLOC: 29% of 2008 VOTERS WERE “INDEPENDENT”

    Not looking too good for Resident O.

    realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/04/19/gallup-50-say-obama-does-not-deserve-reelection/

    April 19th, 2010
    Gallup: 50% Say Obama Does Not Deserve Reelection
    Posted by Tom Bevan | Email This | Permalink | Email Author
    2012 is a long way off, of course, but according to a new poll from Gallup Barack Obama would have a very difficult time winning a second term if the election were held today. Overall, 46% of registered voters say President Obama deserves reelection while 50% say he does not.

    Partisans are predictably polarized on the question: 84% of Democrats believe Obama deserves to be reelected and 88% of Republicans believe he does not. Most troubling for the White House, however, is that a majority of Independents (54%) side against President Obama deserving a second term as well, while only 40% currently say he does deserve a second term.

    To put these numbers into context, in 2008 Obama won Independents by a margin of 52 to 44. They comprised 29% of the 2008 electorate.

  • rgb44hrc

    BTW, April 19th is not just the anniversary of bombing Oklahoma City, but also of the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World”, the battles at Lexington and Concord.

    Great book by historical novelist Howard Fast is called “April Morning”, one of my favorite books, re-read several times.

    I’m sure “those surly colonists” were viewed with the same derision by the English as the Tea Party activists are today by the Obama Administration.

  • rgb44hrc

    RUN, BARBARA, RUN…AWAY FROM BARACK

    Boxer may not want the same kind of “help” Obama offered Coakley in Massachussetts and Corzine in NJ.

    “Gee, Barack, I’m kinda busy then…”

    thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/92935-obama-swooping-into-la-to-boost-boxer-in-tough-re-election-fight

    Obama swooping into L.A. to boost Boxer in tough reelection fight
    By Sean J. Miller – 04/19/10 06:00 AM ET
    President Barack Obama returns to Southern California on Monday for his first fundraising swing in nearly a year to lend support to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

    The three-term Democrat has seen her reelection prospects diminish as the Golden State’s unemployment rate has climbed above 12 percent and the GOP prepares to field a well-funded challenger.

    Obama is scheduled to speak at an evening fundraising reception for Boxer and the Democratic National Committee at the California Science Center in Los Angeles. Tickets for the event are between $250-$2,500, according to Boxer’s office. Later in the evening, the president will address a more exclusive fundraising dinner at the Museum of Natural History. Tickets for the evening event are $35,200 for a couple, with $4,800 going to Boxer’s Senate campaign and the rest directed to the DNC, according to the Los Angeles Times.

    The venue seats up to 160 people and sold out last week, according to Boxer’s campaign.

    The evening event will likely boast a plethora of Hollywood’s most famous Democratic donors. Actors such as Tom Hanks and George Clooney have in the past donated to Boxer, the DNC and Obama, according to the Federal Election Commission. Singer India.Arie is scheduled to perform, according to Variety’s blog Wilshire and Washington.

    “We’re thrilled that President Obama will be campaigning for Senator Boxer to help her win reelection and keep fighting in the Senate to
    create jobs and turn the economy around,” said Boxer campaign manager Rose Kapolczynski.

    It will be Obama’s first visit to Los Angeles since last May, when he spoke at a fundraiser at the Beverly Hilton that reportedly brought in some $3 million for the DNC.

    Boxer could certainly use the financial boost. She raised $2.4 million in the first quarter and now has $8.7 million cash on hand. But in an anti-incumbent year when she’ll need to vigorously tout her accomplishments, Boxer will have to spend heavily on TV advertising.

    Meanwhile, Republican strategists were decidedly pleased by the first quarter fundraising numbers put up by former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina (R) and former Rep. Tom Campbell (R-Calif.). Each raised close to $1.7 million in the first quarter and Fiorina has the potential to inject some of her own fortune into her campaign.

    The most recent Real Clear Politics polling average shows Boxer and Campbell in a dead heat, and Boxer just a few points ahead of Fiorina.

    If the polls remain close, one Washington-based Republican strategist said on background, “we would absolutely spend money there.”

    Boxer expressed concern over the weekend that Democrats won’t be energized to vote in November.

    “At this point, I think the polls are showing that there is more enthusiasm with the Tea Party party,” Boxer told reporters before taking the stage at the California Democratic Party’s convention in Los Angeles on Saturday. “I think it is absolutely a fact that we have to match that enthusiasm.”

  • Carol

    I will not vote for any ticket in 2012 with O at the top….even if Hillary is VP. I would not have voted for BO in 2008 with Hillary as VP because I think he is unfit for the presidency. Nothing has changed. He is in fact worse than I thought he would be.

    I also think it would be a BIG mistake for Hillary to run as his VP. I think he will lose. This country never like losers. It will kill any future she might have.

    For me, running with BO would be like confessing to a crime you did not commit because you think ultimately you will get a better deal. I think being too closely in line wiht BO will prove to be the kiss of death for many careers as the party eventually purges. However, if she really does endorse his actions as president, then she is not the candidate that I thought she was. I don’t think I was wrong.

    I will continue to support her until proven otherwise.

  • wbboei

    Yes this was drafted by the State Department, but obama is at the heart of it.

    —————–

    April 19, 2010

    Hillary Clinton Drops ‘Secure’ Borders For Israel From Independence Day Message To Jewish State

    —————
    Now, finally, they are watching every-single-move Obama makes, and every public utterance of his administration–what he says, what he does not say, and how he says it closely, every nuance with well founded suspicion and, one can only hope, with a jaundiced eye. This glaring omission speaks volumes.

  • pm317

    OK, I am beginning to think BC is overplaying this idea of anti-govt sentiments leading to violence bit. He has an op-ed in the NYT today. Enough already, and shut up. I say that only because it gives his enemies more ammunition to distort his good message and second guess his motive.

  • wbboei

    I will always support Hillary. I will never support Obama.

    If by any chance she is on top of the ticket and he is on the bottom then I would vote for that ticket, because in that case, she would be in charge.

    On the other hand . . .

    If he was on top of the ticket and he was on th bottom, which is the more likely possibility, then I would vote against that ticket, because in that case, he would be in charge.

    I do not believe Obama has the best interests of this country at heart. Nor do I believe he is capable of solving its problems. I fear he is making them far worse. And obviously he is a pathological liar.

  • wbboei

    OK, I am beginning to think BC is overplaying this idea of anti-govt sentiments leading to violence bit. He has an op-ed in the NYT today. Enough already, and shut up. I say that only because it gives his enemies more ammunition to distort his good message and second guess his motive.
    ————————————
    The right will distort anything Bill says. I would not worry about that.

    Think about this instead, in terms of Occam’s Razor.

  • jbstonesfan

    I am sorry JanH, but Hillary’s omisiion of secured borders is a tremendous slap in Israel’s face..this ties into Obama’s plan to divide Jerusalem and require Israel to retreat to pre 67 borders(i.e see suicide). If Hillary is going along with this, then something seriously happened to her since her days as NY Senator, democrat candidate, and now SOS.

  • JanH

    jbstonesfan,

    I don’t know what to think but I my heart tells me that she is doing his bidding all the while knowing that it won’t work and will end up making him look like the inexperienced idiot he is. I still believe that she is trying, behind the scenes, to clean up his messes. And they are huge.

    If she were to go out on a limb and defy his desires, she would be out the door in 30 seconds. Maybe she feels she can do more by staying.

  • JanH

    And if she were out the door, the media would savage her all for the love of their savior.

  • rgb44hrc

    Where’s this Hillary Veep 2012 talk coming from? Just gossip, or something more substantial.

    If it was “substantive”, I would wonder if it was a ruse by Obama to keep his chances alive.

    And with him at the top of the ticket, I too would not be able to hold my nose and for that ticket.

    I didn’t vote for the Dem presidential candidate in 2008, the first time in my life. No sense changing my mind about him now; all the more reason because of what we have seen from him in office. He’s actually worse than we imagined.

  • Shadowfax

    The idea of Hillary wanting to be VP in 2012 just to prop up the Fraud doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.
    First, he already asked her before he picked Joe, and she said, “No”.

    Why in the world would a woman that knows she has paid her frickin’ dues to the party that stabbed her in the back, and has more support across all party lines, can kick his buns from here to kingdom come……take the VP position in 2012?

    The only reason she would do it is if she thinks her supporters would vote for him with her on the ticket.

    I admire Hillary more than any politician, but if she accepted a VP position under him, I would not vote for him. No how, no way.

  • Carol

    rgb44hrc said……”I didn’t vote for the Dem presidential candidate in 2008, the first time in my life. No sense changing my mind about him now; all the more reason because of what we have seen from him in office. He’s actually worse than we imagined.”

    Me too.

  • lil ole grape

    #
    JanH
    April 19th, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    jbstonesfan,

    I don’t know what to think but I my heart tells me that she is doing his bidding all the while knowing that it won’t work and will end up making him look like the inexperienced idiot he is. I still believe that she is trying, behind the scenes, to clean up his messes. And they are huge.

    If she were to go out on a limb and defy his desires, she would be out the door in 30 seconds. Maybe she feels she can do more by staying.
    ————————————————-
    YES!
    Absolutely! Absolutely! Absolutely!!!

  • lil ole grape

    We are living in a very difficult time for sane politicians.
    They have either got to bow to the current inept and corrupt who are controlling their parties or get out of the game and earn a living in some other field.
    Of these, Bill and Hill are our crème de la crème. They are extremely vulnerable in this present political climate, and it is important that we retain our faith in what they have always stood for in order to be on hand when they need us. Hillary’s time will come. She has not deserted her principles. If you think that of her you just don’t know her. Bill’s work around the world is of tremendous importance and his standing among other nations is very great, but recall that one of the first things the Fraud ordered, with the excuse of vetting Hill for SOS, was an auditing of The Clinton Foundation’s books. Is the Clinton Foundation vulnerable in view of what we know about this inept administration?

    Sometimes we have to compromise in order just to stay in place so that we can be useful when our time comes. Why should the Clintons squander all they have to offer the world for the sake of mouthing off against a bad government doomed to fail anyway? Why should they blatantly oppose the current powers and risk being permanently put out of the picture? Would you do that in your career? Or would you swallow your pride, do your job as ordered, so as to be able to keep laying the groundwork for your next chance to accomplish your dreams?

  • turndownobama

    Shadowfax
    The idea of Hillary wanting to be VP in 2012 just to prop up the Fraud doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.
    First, he already asked her before he picked Joe, and she said, “No”.

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

    No, he didn’t ask her. She had publicly said she would accept if asked. Many of Obama’s advisors later said she was never asked.

  • JanH

    lil ole grape
    April 19th, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    —————
    Bravo!!!

  • rgb44hrc

    Folks, as far as the Clintons go, I wonder how much of a balancing act is being done to keep within the good graces of Democrats.

    A high percentage of Democrats, both voters and office-holders, are still “in support” of the current administration, even if they grumble to themselves a lot. Bill and Hill might not want to be caught being anything but “supportive”, and let Obama shoot himself in both feet and alienate Republicans, Independents, centrist Dems, and even leftist Dems.

  • admin

    NEW ARTICLE IS UP.

  • rgb44hrc

    DEMS: “PLEASE SUPPORT BILLS WITH RIGHTEOUS SOUNDING NAMES, BUT PLEASE DON’T TAKE A PEEK AT THE DETAILS.”

    investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=530543

    Wall St. Bailouts Would Be Invited, Not Prevented, Under Dodd’s Bill
    ===================

    By NICOLE GELINAS
    Posted 04/16/2010 05:21 PM ET

    President Obama castigated Senate Republicans last week for opposing Sen. Chris Dodd’s Wall Street “reform bill.” Democrats say Republicans’ main argument — that the bill won’t prevent future bailouts — is false. The bill itself, though, is irrefutable evidence that the Republicans are dead on.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell started the fight earlier in the week when he said the bill “not only allows for taxpayer funded bailouts for Wall Street banks, it actually institutionalizes them.”

    The White House and congressional Democrats have hit back hard. “I am absolutely confident that the bill that emerges is going to be a bill that prevents bailouts,” Obama said.

    His Treasury chief, Tim Geithner, was even stronger. The bill will ensure that “if a major institution manages itself to the edge of the abyss, we’re able to … dismember them safely without taxpayers being exposed to a penny of loss,” he said.

    Dodd was the bluntest: “The bill as drafted ends bailouts. Nothing could be more clear.”

    In the 1,336-page text, though, Dodd left room for regulators to be generous with citizens’ money. For example, the bill would direct the FDIC, which would wind down too-big-to-fail financial firms, to operate under only “a strong presumption that creditors and shareholders will bear the losses.”

    As for whether the bill puts taxpayers at risk: failed firms must repay “any amounts owed to the United States, unless the United States agrees or consents otherwise” (italics mine).

    Why would the financial firm owe Uncle Sam money in the first place? Partly because of something else in the bill: an “orderly liquidation fund.” Big or complex financial firms would have to pay upfront into a Treasury-controlled $50 billion pot of money that would bear the cost of liquidating a future AIG.

    The FDIC would have the authority to use this money as it sees fit, including guaranteeing bondholders, uninsured lenders, counterparties and other creditors to a failed company just as the government did with AIG and Citigroup in 2008.

    The idea that the financial industry can pre-fund its next arbitrary bailout with $50 billion is a pleasant fiction. How much would an “orderly liquidation fund” have needed to stem investor panic starting in 2008? Try $20 trillion.

    The true tab is not the retroactive cost. Rather, it’s what investors demand at the time of an acute crisis so as not to flee the unknowable risks of a financial system in meltdown, precipitating depression.

    Think about everything that Washington has done in the past two years. TARP was $700 billion; that’s easy. Outside of TARP, the Treasury said it would guarantee $3.4 trillion worth of money-market funds in the fall of 2008. The Fed has purchased $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities over the past year or so — providing a floor to avoid deeper housing-price declines and bank losses. It also offered $1.8 trillion to commercial-paper markets.

    The FDIC guaranteed up to $940 billion in financial-firm bonds and committed another $700 billion in expanded deposit guarantees, which allowed banks to avoid selling off assets at crisis-level prices. Taking Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship and guaranteeing other housing agencies and their debt? Another $7 trillion. Other sundry programs add up quickly (see table).

    Democrats can’t really believe that a $50 billion fund could avert the kind of investor panic we saw in 2008 — and if they do believe that, we’re in real trouble.

    The answer is not to make the bailout fund bigger. Even if the financial industry could suck enough resources up from its customers and the economy to pay into a $2 trillion fund — a mere down payment — that fund itself would represent a systemic risk to the nation.

    The feds could not invest $2 trillion in any financial markets — Treasury bond markets, global stock markets, real estate or some combination — without distorting them. And in a crisis, global investors would expect the bailout fund to dump some assets to pay for its rescues. This expectation would exacerbate price declines.

    The only regulation that would better protect the economy from future financial failures is a set of predictable rules — including consistent borrowing limits and trading rules across financial firms and securities — like those we had before the 1980s.

    The Dodd bill doesn’t propose such rules — and Republicans should point out that the mere idea of those rules is what really annoys the too-big-to-fail financial firms.

    &&&&
    Gelinas, contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, is author of “After the Fall: Saving Capitalism From Wall Street — and Washington.”

  • turndownobama

    Re Obama’s supposed ‘mandate’ to hospitals to allow gay/lesbian visitation rights, here’s an abbreviated version of the info someone posted above.

    NY Times eventually discloses at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/us/politics/16webhosp.html?ref=todayspaper

    Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay rights issues, said that while the memorandum on its own did not grant any new rights, it did “draw attention to the very real and tragic situations many gays and lesbians face when a partner is hospitalized.”

    From the Memorandum:

    “This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

  • gonzotx

    fraud Tea Party disrutors..Seems the message is anti- SP
    *****************



    This one is for hillary and Bill…just in case they need a reminder…found @ BP
    **********************

  • [...] to discuss the latest from Chicago because you can be sure, the Big Blog boys want this story to be Hidden News and won't discuss it (if at all) with any intention other than to protect Barack [...]