Volcanic Bill Clinton And The Tea Party Movement, Part II

Why all the “racist” smears against the Tea Party movement? Easy to answer – as in the primary elections in 2008, it’s a way to pump up the Obama Dimocratic vote – in a year with all the energy and enthusiasm coming from the NObama Coalition. It’s a Chicago Thug way to pump up the Dimocratic vote and (as we wrote a year ago) bring down the Tea Party – and if that means race-baiting, then race-baiting it is.

Barack Obama does not have much going for him other than a near monolithic but unenthused and drifting African-American vote along with the comfortable White Liberal vote represented by unthinking, screaming Big Blog boys. So the strategy is demonize the Tea Party activists as “racist” and scare off potential supporters while at the same time race-baiting to pump up the black vote and the liberal white vote. It’s race-baiting for fun and profit just like we had during the Democratic primaries in 2008.

And where there is Barack Obama race-baiting, gay-bashing is sure to follow. Recently, protests by a group of Gay activists (remember when we Democrats loved protests and booing establishment liars?) who care more for the Gay community than Barack Obama, were announced. Soon thereafter, the usual Obama tricks came to the fore. Obama quietly (so only Gay activists -and no one else – would know) signed a memorandum which tried to head off the protests – but as usual the memorandum was meaningless.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.”

The protests, despite the flowery worded memorandum, proceeded and Obama was rightly heckled in California as he campaigned for the drowning Senator Boxer. It’s what we have advised Women, Gays and Jews to do because the mainline organizations for these groups are more interested in protecting Obama than in protecting their constituents.





Obama, as can be seen by the video did not like being heckled.
Obama was clearly angered at the challenge from the Left and not the easier to demonize Right. The Hopium guzzlers in the California audience, the ones who gave farm animals more respect than gay people on election day 2008, instead of defending the Gay activists, defended Barack Obama. Retaliation from Obama followed against the boo happy Gay people.

In a report from Politico sarcastically called “Most transparent White House ever…” Gay activists in the military chained themselves to the White House fence and the White House tried to erase them from history. From the hypocrites on the Left – silence. Silence as in Silence = Death. Gay-bashing is back on the Obama menu and the hypocrites of the Big Blog Left are sitting at his table.



This story is far from over because these genuine Gay activists will not protect Barack Obama in the same way the mainline and useless “Gay” organizations and the hypocrite Left and the Big Blog boys protect their object of adulation. Do not be surprised if these Gay activists are branded as “racists”, even if they are black, brown, yellow, red, or green. They will soon become “Teabaggers” and not in a way they will like. Which brings us, as we promised, to a discussion of the Tea Party movement, so we can finish tomorrow with a final discussion about Bill Clinton’s recent comments on the Tea Party movement.

* * * * * *

To understand the Tea Party movement we will quote from Leftist Noam Chomsky and borrow liberally from a thoughtful article at the Left oriented Third Estate Sunday Review.

What did Noam Chomsky, lion hero of the Left have to say about the Tea Party movement? The Progressive on a recent Chomsky speech:

The level of anger and fear is like nothing I can compare in my lifetime,” he said.

He cited a statistic from a recent poll showing that half the unaffiliated voters say the average tea party member is closer to them than anyone else.

“Ridiculing the tea party shenanigans is a serious error,” Chomsky said.

Their attitudes “are understandable,” he said. “For over 30 years, real incomes have stagnated or declined. This is in large part the consequence of the decision in the 1970s to financialize the economy.”

There is class resentment, he noted. “The bankers, who are primarily responsible for the crisis, are now reveling in record bonuses while official unemployment is around 10 percent and unemployment in the manufacturing sector is at Depression-era levels,” he said.

And Obama is linked to the bankers, Chomsky explained.

“The financial industry preferred Obama to McCain,” he said. “They expected to be rewarded and they were. Then Obama began to criticize greedy bankers and proposed measures to regulate them. And the punishment for this was very swift: They were going to shift their money to the Republicans. So Obama said bankers are “fine guys” and assured the business world: ‘I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.’

People see that and are not happy about it.”

He said “the colossal toll of the institutional crimes of state capitalism” is what is fueling “the indignation and rage of those cast aside.”

“People want some answers,” Chomsky said. “They are hearing answers from only one place: Fox, talk radio, and Sarah Palin.

We don’t know what “shenanigans” Chomsky refers to and the use of that word clearly violates Chomsky’s own advice. But where Chomsky is correct is in lucidly cataloging the rational response from the electorate to what they are witnessing – with their own eyes – while Big Media describes an ‘all is right in Barack World’ fakeness.

We wrote repeatedly on the “financilization” of the American economy and the consequences of that hijacking of the American economy. [See The Rise Of The Obama Crimelords and Celestial Dirge] We quoted Kevin Phillips in the former article saying:

Asked if he was at the point of “despairing”, Phillips replied “my sense of histories previous goes to the one or two percent leading world economic power is you don’t get back on the right track.”

It is that rational anxiety that drives the Tea Party movement. In that Obama Crimelords article we also quoted Simon Johnson from his article The Quiet Coup:

But there’s a deeper and more disturbing similarity: elite business interests—financiers, in the case of the U.S.—played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them. [snip]

The invention of securitization, interest-rate swaps, and credit-default swaps greatly increased the volume of transactions that bankers could make money on. And an aging and increasingly wealthy population invested more and more money in securities, helped by the invention of the IRA and the 401(k) plan. Together, these developments vastly increased the profit opportunities in financial services.

Not surprisingly, Wall Street ran with these opportunities. From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent. Pay rose just as dramatically. From 1948 to 1982, average compensation in the financial sector ranged between 99 percent and 108 percent of the average for all domestic private industries. From 1983, it shot upward, reaching 181 percent in 2007.

The great wealth that the financial sector created and concentrated gave bankers enormous political weight—a weight not seen in the U.S. since the era of J.P. Morgan (the man). In that period, the banking panic of 1907 could be stopped only by coordination among private-sector bankers: no government entity was able to offer an effective response. But that first age of banking oligarchs came to an end with the passage of significant banking regulation in response to the Great Depression; the reemergence of an American financial oligarchy is quite recent.


Third Estate Sunday Review
sums up the “Tea Party racism” fakery quite nicely:

It wasn’t racism when Democrats tapped into for victories and it’s not racism now that it’s turned against the Democrats.

And yet that’s what the left has repeatedly and wrongly insisted upon screaming. When not, of course, using homophobic terms to describe Tea Party activists (thereby implying that there is both something wrong with them and wrong with the LGBT community — the left scores a double on the insult playing field!). We’ve heard it from Lila Garrett (KPFK), we’ve heard it from Kris Welch (KPFA), we’ve heard it from alleged radical attorneys. Yeah, we’ve heard it from everyone and, guess what, so have other people.

That’s the Tea Party activists, that’s the middle. And when they want to look to someone to listen to, you really think that Lila Garrett’s going to be a go-to for them after all those insults? After all the hate she’s spewed?

We like this summation too:

“The left needs to take a moment to recall the way they recoiled in horror during 2001 and 2002 as Midge Decter, Jonah Goldberg and assorted others crawled on their bellies to worship at the feet of George W. Bush. That right wingers might be predisposed to like Bush, a Republican, wasn’t surprising. That they would disgrace themselves with the kind of political whoring for a leader that is rarely seen off mainland China was astounding. [snip]

When we on the left behave that way, we don’t just provide laughter for the right and the middle, we ensure that we will never reach them with anything we say because we have demonstrated we’re nothing but whores who will bash Bush with Guantanamo, for example, but rush to justify and excuse Barack breaking his promise (and his timeline) to close it.

You don’t come off as honest brokers when that’s how you present to the public.

Noam Chomsky is warning about the anger. The anger itself isn’t the problem. Even Chomsky notes that it’s justified. The problem is only one side is currently able to speak to the angry. The left has ensured that the angry have no reason to listen to them. They’ve done that by insisting they were just uneducated, they were racists and every other insult in the book. That’s not how you persuade anyone to listen to you.”

Bob Somersby at DailyHowler howled about the Tea Party denigraters (E.J. Dionne) too:

“During the reign of the last Democratic president, Dionne deferred to his colleagues in the mainstream press—to the Clinton/Gore-haters who gave us George Bush. In this era, he has made a switch—like Chris Matthews, he is now deferring to the views of the newly-emerged liberal world. But what follows is a peculiar analysis, however one might explain its provenance. This was the start of yesterday’s column, which we’d call “Death Wish Too:”

DIONNE (4/19/10): The Tea Party is nothing new. It represents a relatively small minority of Americans on the right end of politics, and it will not determine the outcome of the 2010 elections.”

Somersby notes Dionne’s contention that both parties will lose this November due to Tea Party anger. Somersby also mocks the notion of Tea Party activists as a “small minority”:

“In a two-party system, it’s odd to be told that both parties stand to lose if some notion gains purchase. But the basic assessment which opened this column strikes us as simply bizarre. The Tea Party is “a relatively small minority of Americans,” Dionne says, using a helpful weasel word. And not only that! This relatively small minority “will not determine the outcome” of November’s elections.

We have no idea why Dionne feels he can make that prediction. We were especially puzzled after he got more specific about the size of this group:[snip]

Uh-oh! This “relatively small minority” actually “accounts for about one-fifth of the country!” And not only that: Being disproportionately white, aged and affluent, this group is likely to vote at a disproportionate rate. Given the very low turn-out rates which characterize our off-year elections, we have no idea why Dionne would say that this group will not determine the outcome this fall.

(Turn-out rate in 2006: 36.8 percent.)

By the way, is it true? Is the Tea Party just the “old anti-government far right that has always been with us?” Surely, there’s a large overlap. But the last time this group got disproportionately motivated, it blew the doors off the Democratic Party in the 1994 off-year elections. (This was, of course, just two years after the last Democrat reached the White House.) And by the way: Are you happy the hear that the “far right” now comprises one-fifth of the nation? Good God! If that’s the size of just the far right, what makes us think that liberals and progressives have any chance at all?

As with Matthews, so with Dionne: If you thought it was bad when he pandered against you, it may be worse when he starts pandering to you. That said, we thought the unhelpful analysis only continued when Dionne stopped predicting November’s outcome and started telling us who these Tea Party supporters—this small minority—actually are.

Much of Dionne’s assessment of this question can be reduced to an absurdity: He marvels at the fact that supporters of a conservative (“far right”) movement adopt more conservative political positions than the population as a whole. In the following passage, for example, Dionne is shocked to learn that the “far right” is generally opposed to higher taxes and to increased federal spending! Incredibly, the far right oppose these approaches more than the rest of us do!”

More:

“Pandering to you and yours, Dionne presents these preferences as “a tendency of Tea Party enthusiasts to side with the better-off against the poor.” He fails to note that many other voters share these views—many voters who don’t (yet) say they support the Tea Party. But that is because Dionne’s whole column is designed to insult the motives of Tea Party folk. This strikes us as another Death Wish—a good route to election defeat.

Pandering to you and yours, Dionne spends a good chunk of his column discussing the racial motives of Tea Parry supporters. Unlike the more clownish Rich-and-Blow, he does offer the standard disclaimers.”

And the coup de grace:

“Dionne’s prediction seems absurd; his discussions of motive are pure pander-jobs. [snip]

According to Dionne, “white Americans are reluctant to discuss” the idea that “part of the anger at President Obama among Tea Partiers does appear to be driven by racial concerns.” Too funny! In fact, white “liberals” seem inclined to discuss nothing else; [snip]

When we say and imply that these people are racists, it makes us ratty white liberals feel good—but we’re playing with electoral fire. You see, based on that “19 percent” figure, about 30 million additional voters also think that too much has been made of black problems in recent years—30 million additional voters who don’t (currently) describe themselves as Tea Party supporters. When we keep assailing the motives of Tea Party supporters, we’re assailing these peoples’ motives as well. This means there are 30 million additional people we are inviting to vote against us, added to the 36 million Dionne says are already lost. At this point, even Dionne might see an electoral problem looming in November: Could 66 million voters possibly tip November’s election?

In 2006, only 81 million people voted in all.

Dionne has picked-and-chosen his way through the data, selecting responses he can use to play his race and privilege cards. These cards make us soft-headed liberals feel good, but they’re very dangerous. Just read through that survey’s questions! Tea Party folk are different (on balance) from everyone else, but tens of millions of people who aren’t Tea Party supporters believe the same damn-fool things that are driving numbers against Obama. [snip]

What do we tell these people instead? We tell them the Tea Party people are racist privilege-lovers. In the case of tens of millions of other voters, this means that we are assailing their basic instincts too. Or those of their relatives.

Our side loves to assail the other tribe, telling ourselves that they’re very bad people. We love to hear ourselves call them racists. We love to hear how selfish they are.

And so what! That “small minority” can’t beat us, we say, as our fantasy lives grow even greater.

Could we possibly get any dumber? Have a more flagrant death wish?

Somersby can be classified as a supporter of Obama policies but he sees the race-baiting for what it is – and it is coming from “our” side.

Is there any wonder then that the Republican Party is seen as “hero” in this disgusting saga? Republicans know their need is to co-opt the Tea Party movement. This is what Bill Clinton did in 1992 and beyond when he co-opted the aims and language of the Perot movement.

* * * * * *

After the astounding New York Times/CBS News poll on Tea Party supporters (“very angry, generally well-educated, financially secure and deeply pessimistic about the direction of the country“) the Times asked “political analysts and historians what they found most illuminating about the poll’s findings and whether the views of the Tea Party backers have commonly run through American politics.” Many of the responses were slaps at “angry white men”, but David Gergen had this to say:

“I actually witnessed Wednesday’s rally in Boston. And while there was some tough rhetoric from the platform, contrary to the notion that these rallies are filled with anger and bitterness, the mood was festive and friendly.

There were lots of homemade signs protesting taxes, health reform and big government — and notably, several proclaiming that being anti-Obama does not mean a white person is a racist. Clearly, many feel stung by what they see as misrepresentations in the press.

My overall impression was one that was fortified by The New York Times/CBS News survey: these Tea Partiers seem an awful lot like the Ross Perot voters of 1992. Those who supported Mr. Perot were mostly white, a little better educated than the general population and much more concerned about government deficits than government peeking into bedrooms. They were also more from the West and South but had pockets of support scattered around the country.

While there are differences, that is also the profile of the Tea Partiers. And get this: 18 percent of the public identify themselves as Tea Party supporters; Mr. Perot attracted 19 percent of the national vote.

There has always been a populist strain in American politics — in Massachusetts, stretching back to the Shays’ Rebellion in the 1780s. Harsh times deepen personal insecurity and frustration, and spirit of rebellion pushes to the surface. Many of these Tea Partiers are fearful of how the country is changing. Some circles look down upon them; it would be far wiser to listen, understand and find ways to heal.”

That’s what Bill Clinton did in the 1990s – listen, understand, heal.

Opposite Gergen, Rick Perlstein, was in the majority with his Glenn Beck obsession and preferred insult to clear-headed analysis and understanding. After noting his frustrations with a movement that “is ugly and seeks to traduce so many of the values I hold dear“, Perlstein drops this pearl of venom:

“…the Tea Partiers are overwhelming Republican or right-of-Republican — they are the same angry, ill-informed, overwhelmingly white, crypto-corporate paranoiacs that accompany every ascendancy of liberalism within U.S. government.” [snip]

There will be shrieking. It will be the shrieking of a small minority. Democrats stand nothing to gain by paying overmuch attention.”

Forget that they are voters, insults are so much more satisfying.

Other commenters chose derision and noted that well-off Tea Party activists support programs, like Social Security, which benefit them. That voters will approve of programs that genuinely benefit them, and are not looting schemes, is a shock to the intellectual “creative class” at the New York Times.

Steven Hayward preferred to look to the data in the poll, not his prejudices. Hayward noted:

“This populist movement is not your father’s culture war; in fact, 57 percent (question 67) favor gay marriage or civil unions, 65 percent favor access to abortion; an equal number (question 70) support some gun restrictions.” [snip]

Second, the poll offers only scant evidence that racism or racial animosity is a dominant factor of the Tea Partiers, though there is some evidence of polarization that is a problem for the Tea Party as a movement.[snip]

The fact that so many Tea Partiers are new to political participation suggests that, like the Perot voters of 1992 who were said to represent the “angry middle,” a plurality of Tea Partiers are moderates who are simply shocked by Obama’s great leap forward in the size of government.

The difference between 1992 and today is that the person — Perot — came first, and a weak movement followed for a time. This time the Tea Party came first, and it is unclear if it will coalesce into a clear movement or unite behind a political figure.”

Paul Butler, an African-American egghead, apparently unaware that the first Tea Party related violence was an attack on an African-American man called the “N” word by union thugs, has this contribution:

“If I were an old white Republican, and had money, and a young black man took over the government talking about change, I’d be scared too. My problem with Obama is that, so far, he hasn’t given wealthy white Republicans enough to be scared about.”

Eugene Robinson, not to be undone by the New York Times in unwarranted hysterics has his own contribution on “trust” in the Washington Post:

“The overhyped tea party phenomenon is more about symbolism and screaming than anything else. A “movement” that encompasses gun nuts, tax protesters, devotees of the gold standard, Sarah Palin, insurance company lobbyists, “constitutionalists” who have not read the Constitution, Medicare recipients who oppose government-run health care, crazy “birthers” who claim President Obama was born in another country, a contingent of outright racists (come on, people, let’s be real) and a bunch of fat-cat professional politicians pretending to be “outsiders” is not a coherent intellectual or political force.”

The race-baiting from Robinson is well known to Hillary Clinton supporters, even as Robinson bemoans the “lost trust in institutions”. And let’s not forget that it was African-American Hillary supporters who carried the heaviest burden for Hillary because Obama Dimocrats demanded support for Obama based on the color of his skin. Now, as Ani has taken note of, African-Americans who support the Tea Party are denounced in the vilest terms possible, because they dare speak their minds and call out the race-baiters. You don’t have to be a member of, or support, the Tea Party movement to feel the sting of the “racist” or “Oreo” charge, you just have to remember when it was done to us. [And for the record, the gentleman in the yellow T-shirt is right about the heartbreaking “Uncle Tom” in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s monumental abolitionist work Uncle Tom’s Cabin.]



What matters to the Tea Party people today is a problem Bill Clinton knows how to address:

“So why are the American people so angry and frustrated with their government?

It’s the economy, stupid.

Millions of Americans have lost their jobs and their homes, and millions more Americans are on the verge of losing their jobs and homes.

There are approximately 5.5 unemployed Americans for every job opening. RealtyTrac projects that there will be 4.5 million home foreclosures in 2010. The economic nightmare just keeps going from bad to worse.

The result is a massive horde of pissed off American voters.

As long as Americans are fat and happy and their wallets are full, most of them really could care less how involved the government is in their lives. But when things go bad economically, all of a sudden the government becomes a major annoyance.

And this is not a Republican v. Democrat thing either. The truth is that both parties have been radically expanding the size of the U.S. government for decades. Both parties have been spending taxpayer money like there is no tomorrow. Both parties have mortgaged the future of America to please their constituents. Now average Americans from both parties are alarmed at how large the government has become and how badly it is screwing things up. Just consider the following quote from USAToday.com….

“The government’s been lying to people for years. Politicians make promises to get elected, and when they get elected, they don’t follow through,” says Cindy Wanto, 57, a registered Democrat from Pennsylvania who joined several thousand for a rally in Washington on April 15 — the tax filing deadline. “There’s too much government in my business. It was a problem before Obama, but he’s certainly not helping fix it.”

We’ve written before in our continuing series “Mistake In ’08” about the historic mistake the Democratic Party made when the establishment gifted Barack Obama the nomination. There was a chance with Hillary Clinton as the nominee to heal the breach in the FDR coalition – and unite the White Working Class with African-Americans – a breach caused by the necessary passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But from what we read at the New York Times, the Hopium guzzler strategy is an intolerant attack on those that do not worship at the footstool of the Mess-iah.

A Bill Clinton pollster has sounded the warning already:

“To turn a corner, Democrats need to start embracing an agenda that speaks to the broad concerns of the American electorate. It should be somewhat familiar: It is the agenda that is driving the Tea Party movement and one that has the capacity to motivate a broadly based segment of the electorate.

To be sure, great efforts have been made recently to demonize the Tea Party movement. But polling suggests that the Tea Party movement has not been diminished but, in fact, has grown stronger. The Winston Group found, in three national surveys conducted from December through February and published April 1, that the Tea Party movement is composed of a broad cross-section of the American people — 40 to 50 percent of its supporters are non-Republicans. Indeed, one-third of self-identified Democrats say they support the Tea Party movement.

The electorate’s dissatisfaction with the established political order has led the Tea Party movement to become as potent a force as any U.S. political party.”

As Somersby, Chomsky and others have noted, the Tea Party is at least as popular as the Obama Dimocratic Party and garners broad public support “extending well beyond the movement”. And – it’s the swing voters, stupid:

“The swing voters, who are key to the fate of the Democratic Party, care most about three things: reigniting the economy, reducing the deficit and creating jobs.

These voters are outraged by the seeming indifference of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats, who they believe wasted a year on health-care reform. These voters will not tolerate more diversion from their pressing economic concerns. They view the Obama administration as working systematically to protect the interests of public-sector employees and organized labor — by offering specific benefits such as pension protection and tax reductions at the expense of all taxpayers.

Democrats must understand that voters will not accept seeing their tax dollars used to pay for higher wages and better benefits for public-sector employees when they themselves are getting higher taxes and lower wages.”

Instead of taking care of ordinary Americans and restoring the economy and bringing back jobs Barack Obama and his circus of Congressional Dimocrats are busy breaking their word on budget discipline.

Instead of taking care of ordinary Americans, not insulting them as bitter and clingy, Barack Obama is busy with all his many friends at Goldman Sachs. And by “busy” we mean Obama privately collecting cash from the ones he is denouncing in public – the typical Obama conflict between flowery words and dirty actions.

For all the flowery corporate bashing words, it is the Obama Dimocrats who are now the allies of Wall Street. Even Judas Greg Craig has announced he is at Goldman Sachs. The Republicans are allies of Wall Street too, but they are not hypocrites about it.

Flowery words but dirty actions from Obama? It’s why we repeatedly write “Obama can’t be trusted – he simply can’t be trusted”.

[Part III next]

Share

176 thoughts on “Volcanic Bill Clinton And The Tea Party Movement, Part II

  1. http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/04/21/quinnipiac-natl-poll-obama-44-approval/

    “President Obama’s approval rating is the lowest its been in the 15 months since he took office, a new Quinnnipiac national poll finds. Just 44% now approve of the job he’s doing as president, down from 45% last month; meanwhile, 46% disapprove.

    “President Barack Obama’s approval rating hovers at an all-time low,” said Quinnipiac assistant polling director Peter Brown. “The White House had predicted passage of the health care overhaul would boost his fortunes, but that has not been the case, and that legislation itself remains decidedly unpopular.”

    Congress remains astonishingly unpopular, with just 20% approving and 71% disapproving of the job its doing. On the health care reform bill that passed last month, 53% disapprove and just 39% approve of it.”

  2. JanH posted this earlier:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63K0KS20100421

    Obama backers show signs of disappointment

    (Reuters) – Gay rights activists heckled President Barack Obama this week at a Democratic event that exposed signs of disenchantment threatening the party in November’s congressional elections.

    Five million first-time voters turned out in 2008, many drawn by Obama’s promise of hope and overwhelmingly voting for Democrats. Now disappointed, or at least apathetic, they may not go to the polls this year.

    Obama’s support has dropped below 50 percent from nearly 70 percent after 15 months in office, Gallup opinion polls show.

    Gay rights supporters, anti-abortion activists, environmentalists and backers of immigration reform all have seen their agendas stalled, with watered-down healthcare the main accomplishment of Obama’s once-ambitious agenda.

    At Monday’s rally in Los Angeles, protesters shouted at Obama to repeal the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” military policy that allows gays to serve if they keep quiet about their sexual preference. Gays believe that makes them second-class citizens, and Obama has vowed to repeal the policy.

    “Hey hold on a second. We are going to do that,” he said. “I don’t know why you’re hollering,” he added.

    Supporters shouted “Yes we can,” his slogan from the 2008 election, and “Be quiet,” but the discontent lingers.

    Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan insisted that opinion polls showed more than 80 percent of liberals approved of Obama. By comparison, Republicans right and center are locked in a “bloody civil war,” he said.

    Obama himself acknowledged during the day that “some folks are impatient and some folks just didn’t realize how long this was going to take, how hard each battle was going to be. And so people get kind of worn down.”

    Many on the left who want more are fighting the president and one another. Others are abandoning politics. Both trends bode poorly for Democrats, who have controlled both houses of Congress in addition to the White House since January 2009.

    All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for grabs along with a third of the 100 seats in the Senate.

    APATHY SAPS SUPPORT

    Many gay activists would not show up to heckle Obama. They have stopped paying attention altogether.

    “Obama was a vessel that everybody poured their hopes into. The gay community was no different,” said John Henning, director of the Los Angeles-based grass-roots group Love Honor Cherish, before the president’s California visit.

    “What is really happening in the gay community is we are going into a hibernation phase,” Henning added.

    The sentiment is widespread.

    “Even in the best of conditions, the Democrats would have a slight retrenchment of voters,” said Stanford University professor Gary Segura, who is also a researcher at pollster Latino Decisions.

    “But we’re not in the best of conditions. We have a lot of disappointed Democrats and so I would expect more significant retrenchment, a lot of disappearing voters.”

    Blacks, Latinos and young people made up the bulk of the new voters who secured comfortable congressional majorities for the Democrats in 2008. Each could be a problem this year.

    Obama is the first black U.S. president and more than 90 percent of black voters still approve of his record, Gallup says. But African-American members of Congress say job creation is critical and unemployment is roughly twice the national average among black males over the age of 20.

    San Francisco videographer Joe Razo, a 24-year-old black man, backs Obama but needs to be convinced that congressional races matter. “I kind of just do the presidential elections,” he said.

    For many Latinos, including nearly 11 million illegal immigrants, the lack of an immigration bill and heavy use of deportation are a double slap in the face.

    A lot of people are not going to vote,” said Salvador Reza, operator of a day-laborer center in Arizona. “(Obama) would have to actually come through with … a serious immigration reform effort, or people are going to abandon him,” he said.

    Keeping Latinos happy should be a no-brainer for the Democrats, the party of choice for the fastest growing minority largely because of a pro-immigrant stance that contrasts with the anti-immigrant rhetoric of many Republicans.

    Obama campaigned on making immigration reform a priority, but the way forward for illegal immigrants and the employers who say they need them is no more clear than it was before Obama took office.

    FIGHTS WITHIN THE LEFT

    The “everyone’s in it together” feeling of the 2008 election has been replaced with “me first” on many fronts.

    Obama’s biggest accomplishment, the healthcare overhaul, opened old wounds. A fight over whether federal funds could be used to pay for abortion tied up the bill and split the party, which has been a strong supporter of abortion rights but now has a significant wing opposed to abortion.

    Michigan anti-abortion rights congressman Bart Stupak, who voted for the healthcare bill after getting a pledge from Obama not to use federal funds for abortion, became the number one target for abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America.

    Stupak has dropped out in the face of what was expected to be a bitter primary race against an opponent backed by NARAL and other abortion rights groups. This could open the district for Republicans in November as Democratic success in such rural heartland areas has been based on the party fielding candidates with conservative views on issues such as abortion.

    Similar fights will be played out elsewhere.

    “Pro-life Democrats generally win in the more conservative states in the Midwest, if you think of Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio. A pro-choice candidate would have a more difficult time,” said Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

    Other issues are causing rifts in the ranks — among them climate change legislation, now stuck in Congress.

    Former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental group is trying to push aside rival left-wing groups vying to be the next issue in line for congressional attention. “Tell our Senators: We got next!” Gore’s Repower America, urged on March 26.

    POTENTIAL LOSSES

    Politicians are counting the races at risk.

    Four of the 10 Senate races where Democrats may lose, including Majority Leader Harry Reid’s re-election bid in Nevada, are in states that had above-average increases in turnout between 2006 and 2008, Professor Tom Schaller of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, calculated on political blog fivethirtyeight.com.

    Battles for governor that could be affected by the new 2008 voters include California, Texas, Florida, Nevada, Georgia and Illinois, he calculated, noting that new governors will oversee redrawing federal voting districts after the 2010 census.

    The voters could affect the outcome of the majority of 23 highly contested House of Representatives races. Democrats’ key to winning is not persuading moderates but mobilizing the newer voters, Schaller said.

  3. re-posting

    RUH-ROH: LIMBO OBAMA GOES EVEN LOWER

    quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1447

    April 21, 2010 – Obama’s Bounce Goes Flat, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; But Voters Confident He Will Pick Good Judge

    President Barack Obama’s job approval, which bounced slightly to a 45 – 46 percent split March 25 in the wake of his health care victory, has flattened out at 44 – 46 percent, his lowest approval rating since his inauguration, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

    A total of 53 percent of American voters are “very confident” or “somewhat confident” President Obama will make the right decision in nominating a U.S. Supreme Court justice, while 46 percent are “not too confident” or “not confident at all,” the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN- uh-pe-ack) University survey finds.

    Voters trust the President rather than Senate Republicans 46 – 43 percent to make the right choice for the Supreme Court, but say 48 – 41 percent that Senators who do not agree with the nominee on key issues should filibuster the choice.

    American voters approve 49 – 21 percent of the job John Roberts is doing as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and approve 52 – 32 percent of Obama’s nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Court.

    The court is too liberal, 29 percent say, while 19 percent say it is too conservative and 40 percent say it is about right. Saying “about right” are 36 percent of self-described liberals, 44 percent of moderates, 38 percent of conservatives and 30 percent of those who consider themselves part of the Tea Party. Voters say 78 – 16 percent that Supreme Court justices allow political views to enter into their decisions.

    “President Barack Obama’s approval rating hovers at an all-time low. The White House had predicted passage of the health care overhaul would boost his fortunes, but that has not been the case, and that legislation itself remains decidedly unpopular,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

  4. Great piece, admin. I get really sick of the meme that tea-partiers “side against the poor”. Yes, there may be a fringe of the far right amongst them who have a “who cares about the poor” attitude. But most of the ones I’ve met simply believe that the concentration of all power in govt hands, and the federalizing of the economy, will not help the poor in the long run.

    There is a big difference between not caring about the poor, and having a differing view on what policies will actually help them. I love the AA lady in that video admin posted, who plainly says that 40 years of Democratic policies in the black community has done nothing to help her people, and they are following the Democratic party off a cliff. The plantation mentality that fosters and encourages govt dependence in the black community HAS NOT HELPED THEM. But to now oppose or question those policies is “siding against the poor?” Bull.

  5. Tuesday, March 2, 2010

    Coffee Party Parasites

    The New York Times and Washington Post are promoting a group called the “Coffee Party” organized by filmmaker Annabel Park.

    The Coffee Party is a political parasite which presents itself as something it is not. As reported in the NY Times Park presents herself as not hostile to the Tea Party movement, and in fact, hopes to bring some Tea Partiers into her group:

    “We’re not the opposite of the Tea Party,” Ms. Park, 41, said. “We’re a different model of civic participation, but in the end we may want some of the same things.” ….

    Ms. Park and chapter organizers said they would invite Tea Party members to join their Coffee counterparts in discussions. “We need to roll up our sleeves, put our heads together and work it out,” she said. “That’s, to me, an American way of doing this.”
    In fact, a simple internet search (which the NY Times apparently is not capable of doing) reveals that Park organized the Coffee Party for the specific purpose of undermining the Tea Party movement.

    Park is a former Strategy Analyst at the NY Times who was one of organizers and operators of the United for Obama video channel at YouTube.

    (A Korean-American filmmaker is in charge of creating video clips that are playing a role in increasing support for Senator Barack Obama, the frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.)

    “I found that people have little understanding of the change that Senator Barack Obama is advocating. I thought from my experience in using videos for civil movements that videos would be the best way to promote the need for change and for Obama. That’s why I decided to work for the Obama campaign,” Annabel Park said.

    Joining the contest in December last year as chief of a promotional video team, Park has produced some 20 five-minute video clips which have generated a positive response. A clip interviewing actress Kelly Hu in support of the senator was viewed some 10,000 times, and a music video called “Oh Bama” [embed below, Park appears at 1:35]] drew wide attention. She has also produced Spanish-language videos to draw support from Hispanics.

    The 40-year-old Park is leading an Obama promotional section on video-sharing site YouTube (www.youtube.com/unitedforobama) with around 10 other volunteers.

    http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/03/coffee-party-parasite.html

  6. Couple of things to shed light on Eugene Robinson’s piece that admin had up top, with my $$$ comments interspersed.

    The overhyped tea party phenomenon is more about symbolism and screaming than anything else.

    $$$ So any criticism of Obama is “screaming”? And it’s about “symbolism”, not that people aren’t worried about being taxed into foreclosure or losing their actual jobs?

    A “movement” that encompasses gun nuts, tax protesters, devotees of the gold standard, Sarah Palin, insurance company lobbyists, “constitutionalists” who have not read the Constitution, Medicare recipients who oppose government-run health care, crazy “birthers” who claim President Obama was born in another country, a contingent of outright racists (come on, people, let’s be real) and a bunch of fat-cat professional politicians pretending to be “outsiders” is not a coherent intellectual or political force.

    $$$ If it is not a coherent political force, why is so much bandwith given to this “small fringe”?
    $$$ As for not reading the constitution, what about law makers who passed the health xxxx bill (not “health care bill”) but didn’t read it, and only now is the media reporting on the bill’s major flaws?

    &&&&&&&
    $$$ Then, Robinson lets the cat out of the bag. That there really are major problems in this country, and that Big Finance is getting a free ride on the tax payers back, so that legitimate gripes exist. But maybe you just shouldn’t be able to voice the…lest it seem racist.

    Robinson:

    “But even people who wouldn’t be caught dead at a tea party rally have lost trust in powerful institutions that are supposed to be working in the public’s interest — with considerable reason. Just look at the headlines.

    There’s obviously no reason to trust Wall Street. Theoretically, the only reason for the financial system to exist is to service the economy — and the American people — by channeling capital to its highest and best use. The charges filed last week against Goldman Sachs illustrate the extent to which capitalism’s precepts have been turned on their head by financiers who believe the economy exists to service them.”

  7. A very needed commentary at this point and time, Admin. During the 2008 primary when the bots were yelling bad bitchy names toward her and us that escalated when they got frustrated into, “…well, you must be racist then.” And when that had little to no effect the rant was “…then you must be REPUBLICAN!!!!” Now the Republican name calling made me laugh out loud as it was so sophomoric, especially since I am a registered Independent voter. I was roflmao about that. And I stated calmly and with emphasis, “I am not against him because he is black; I am against him because he is GREEN.” Now, bots, just tell me that I am and was wrong about that.He could not possibly have been, and still is, any more GREEN!!! I fail to understand what the racist rant is about from the very beginning; after all he is also white, so are THEY racist against him because he is white????????
    That video personifies all the Alinsky methods that this corrupt regime runs on.

  8. JanH
    April 21st, 2010 at 11:48 am
    Tuesday, March 2, 2010

    The Coffee Party is a political parasite which presents itself as something it is not. As reported in the NY Times Park presents herself as not hostile to the Tea Party movement, and in fact, hopes to bring some Tea Partiers into her group:

    “We’re not the opposite of the Tea Party,” Ms. Park, 41, said. “We just like different beverages”.

  9. jeswezey said
    April 21st, 2010 at 8:57 am

    turndownobama said:
    “Oppose whatever you like, on its own demerits. Maybe it is impractical, maybe it is too harsh. But that’s no reason to say the whole global warming theory is untrue, or a ’scam’.”

    jeswezy said:
    Your argument is good, as are the examples you give to support it. But the point is, in the Clintons’ line of reasoning, that the global warming theory itself is irrelevant to the fact that the proposed solutions for global warming are in themselves technically and environmentally sound and make good business and economic sense. [….]

    GOOD POINT ALSO. GLOBAL WARMING, (LIKE EVOLUTION 😉 ) IS A THEORY SO WE SHOULD BASE OUR ACTIONS MORE ON FACTS THAN ON ANY THEORY.

    the Clintons have been bringing the Chinese, the Indians, many small African countries and all of Latin America to understand that the fight against global warming is an opportunity not to be missed. While all this is going on in the world, we in the US are stuck on the question of whether or not global warming is for real? are the scientists honest or not? how are we going to finance all these solutions? are they really necessary? and so forth. We must realize that all these questions are beside the point. Just get on the bandwagon and start acting!

    RIGHT.

    [….]
    the same UN WHO ranks France as having the world’s best health care system, and the facts certainly back that up:

    BEGIN SARCASM
    Ah, but the UN’s facts are just as suspect as the Weather Bureau’s climate records! Both of them are part of Hoover’s Globalist Conspiracy!
    END SARCASM

  10. Heh. This should be a sub-step in Gandhi’s “First they ignore you; then they ridicule you; then they fight you; then you win.”

    This Eugene Robinson is at the stage where he ridicules the Tea Party for most of an article — then admits they’re right.

    Robinson:
    “But even people who wouldn’t be caught dead at a tea party rally have lost trust in powerful institutions that are supposed to be working in the public’s interest — with considerable reason.

  11. James Capretta re Romneycare:

    When Massachusetts rolled out its coverage program in 2007, many more people signed up for the new heavily subsidized insurance than was originally predicted by budget officials. Almost immediately, costs far exceeded what had been budgeted, forcing state officials to scramble to find cuts elsewhere in government and other sources of revenue.

    After three years, no real progress has been made on rising costs. The program remains well over budget, with no end in sight. Further, state residents who now must buy state-sanctioned coverage are bristling at their rising premiums and the inability to find coverage which covers less and thus costs less.

    State politicians are responding to the cost crisis the only way they know how: by promising to impose arbitrary caps on premiums and price controls for medical services. The governor and state regulators have disallowed 90 percent of the premium increases insurers — all of whom are not-for-profit — submitted for their enrollees for the upcoming plan year. The state says premium increases above eight percent are too high and unacceptable, though they themselves don’t have a plan to make health care more efficient in Massachusetts. They just want lower premiums. The insurers have responded by refusing to sell any coverage at the rates the state wants to impose.

  12. GEICO voice actor fired after insulting tea parties

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/geico_voice_actor_fired_after.html

    Sometimes you have a headline that makes the rest of the story superfluous, but here’s the background. Actor Lance Baxter, otherwise known as “D.C. Douglas,” currently known as the man who informs you how much GEICO can save you on car insurance, left a message last month with FreedomWorks in which he asked the group how many “mentally retarded” people it had on staff and what it would do when a tea partyer “killed someone.” On April 14, FreedomWorks put his voicemail online.

    Today, Douglas reports he’s been dropped from GEICO’s campaign. His dramatic news release is here; he claims to have been motivated by “the recent gay and racial slurs slung by Tea Party members at Congressman Barney Frank and Representative John Lewis during the Health Care Reform Weekend,” and says he’s “open to any attorneys taking on this case pro bono.”

  13. I feel so sorry for those workers on the oil rig off the coast of Louisiana that blew up last night…the rig was built in South Korea…that is what my husband did, but built those rigs…until with globalization under the Reagun administration all the contracts went to South Korea and then floated to the Gulf of Mexico to be used there instead of building them off the coast of Texas or Louisiana. That time saw us and 25% of the town that was unemployed because of it stand in line for unemployment, cheese, rice and beans…it was a lovely time.

    I will always dislike Reagan because of it.

  14. I am still working my way though this AWESOME post by the Admin and wanted to post before I finish reading it.

    Talking about the groups of people that make up the Tea Party, many of the non-republican group are PUMAs. Most PUMAs are life long Democrats that were crammed under the bus when the Chicago machine ran over us. The split in the Democratic party that wasn’t healed by the great Fraud and DNC. The media has to count us Democrats as affiliated with some party, but how many of us now feel as though we are not represented by any party and have not turned in our Dem card for the cherry picking Independent card yet?
    I have attended tea parties, in full Hillary gear and was treated well by those caring the big yellow flag with the snake on it…for the first time.
    I have never, never been polled…nor were any reporters at our protest in N. Calif that day, didn’t show up in the papers either…so, my point is that this group of people that are against what the Fraud has done and is doing may be much larger than reported.

    Back to reading………

    (I’m really not that slow at reading, but am at work and hiding the big pink page isn’t easy.) 🙂

  15. Shadowfax,

    What I’ve been wondering lately is if the 2010 elections are going to be a repeat of the 2008 elections…media wise. Will there be a blackout of obama and dim anti-rhetoric? Will the bots arm up again and go after pumas, etc.?

  16. Shadowfax

    I don’t think it will matter what the Media does in 2010, as the people are now looking for their authentic news elsewhere.

  17. JanH

    I think the obots will always go after us, Hillary won more votes and she is outshining the Fraud on every level. Our only hope is that more of them see the forest through the Kool-aid before 2012.

    NewMexicoFan

    I hope you are right, but most of the Obots where I live still think the only ‘authentic’ news comes from the New York Times.
    I just hope they are wise enough to go outside their comfort zone to get the news and quit giving the fraud more time to ‘do what he promised’.

    I wish the reporters would as the tea party people that are not Repubs, who they voted for in the election. How many voted for the Fraud, how many voted for McPalin if they were not Republicans. And the cherry on the top, would be if they voted for Hillary in the primary……

  18. I love that video Admin, cheap entertainment with the popping facts while the narcissist reads his teleprompter and congratulates himself.

  19. 21/04/2010

    U.S. lawmaker: Obama should deal with Iran nukes, not criticize Israel

    By Natasha Mozgavaya, Haaretz Correspondent

    A prominent Republican member of Congress on Wednesday accused U.S. President Barack Obama of unfairly criticizing Israel for not signing on to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, rather than taking the time to deal with Iran’s contentious nuclear program.

    “The nuclear dam is giving way before our eyes in many aspects,” said Republican representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen during a hearing at the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

    “From North Korea’s increasing arsenal to the continuing attempts by Al-Qaida and other extremist groups to secure a radiological bomb or a dirty nuke, the greatest threat that we face, however, is Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability.

    From North Korea’s increasing arsenal to the continuing attempts by Al-Qaida and other extremist groups to secure a radiological bomb or a dirty nuke, the greatest threat that we face, however, is Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability.

    “Iran’s leaders are getting away with this stunning assault on U.S. and global security while we and our allies appear to be doing nothing but huffing and puffing. And the world is watching.

    Ros-Lehtinen lashed out at Obama for neglecting to deal with the “urgency” of Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons: “After months of generous offers and repeated rejections with one deadline after another passing without action, nothing of substance has been accomplished and Iran continues to relentlessly move forward.

    “The president did find time to go after our ally, Israel, lecturing it on the need to sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty, a demand which has been at the centerpiece of the long-standing strategy by Arab states to distract attention from their own nuclear plans.

    “No mention was made, however, of Israel’s unwavering stand against Iran, nor of Israel’s support of the convention on the physical protection of nuclear materials, the international convention of the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, the Global Initiative To Combat Nuclear Terrorism, the U.S.-led megaport initiative, as well as Israel’s financial and technical assistance to and its active participation in the Illicit Trafficking Database reporting system of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” she said.

    Meanwhile, a top U.S. defense department official said earlier Wednesday that the U.S. has ruled out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program any time soon, hoping instead negotiations and United Nations sanctions will prevent the Middle East nation from developing nuclear weapons.

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164432.html

  20. Ace…
    **********

    Is Marco Rubio Jinxed…
    —Jack M.
    or did Kendrick Meek make a deal with the devil?

    How else do you explain this happening in this, of all, election cycles?

    . . Thanks to Libertarian Party candidate Alexander Snitker. At a press conference this morning the 34-year-old office supplies salesman announced he has met the ballot requirements to run for the U.S. Senate — the first Libertarian candidate in Florida’s history to do so.
    So in an election year when the Democratic nominee in Florida will be lucky to capture 35% of the vote, Marco Rubio, the GOP’s nominee-to-be, now faces the hurdle of winning a 4 man race against a “Republican turned Independent”, and a “Libertarian”.

    A four man race in which 3 of the men (well, 2 and Crist) will be splitting the center-right vote against an otherwise unelectable liberal.

    Sigh.

    Anyone else on the right want to jump into this race too? After all, if you don’t, Rubio just might win!

    And I guess we can’t have that. Probably would get laughed at by the media and stuff.

  21. American Thinker
    ************

    April 21, 2010
    Who Is Obstructing the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act?
    By John Appleton
    Iran is the number-one terror-sponsoring nation in the world; it has been killing Americans for years. The country is led to by mad mullahs who see nuclear weapons as a ticket to paradise. Why would one key congressman spend the last year and a half trying to derail plans to stop Iran’s nuclear program? Perhaps because he is doing so at the behest of Barack Obama.

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has messianic dreams that view nuclear Armageddon as a means to bring about the return of Shia Islam’s Hidden Imam and usher in a new age. For years, the Iranian regime has boasted of its plans to destroy the little Satan (Israel) and the big Satan (America).

    For the past few years, Congress has worked on bills to erect a sanctions regime designed to moderate that Iran’s behavior and slow, if not stop, its nuclear program. Over the years, various sanctions have been put in place and have not yet worked. Therefore, efforts have been made in both the Senate and the House to toughen the sanctions. A key focus has been efforts to shut off the export of refined petroleum products (gasoline, heating oil) into Iran. Despite having vast crude reserves, the nation cannot refine its own crude — leading in the past to riots.

    The Senate has a version of what is called the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act; the House has its own separate, somewhat weaker version.

    Before these bills are voted on separately by both Houses of Congress, they must first be voted out of the foreign affairs committees of each house. In the Senate, this would be the Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Democratic Senator John Kerry (D-MA). In the House, it would be the Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by Howard Berman (D-CA). Both have been accused of working with the White House to slow passage of these bills. Nevertheless, eventually and through the hard work of many advocates, both bills were voted out of the committee and then passed in both the Senate and the House.

    But for the bills to become law, the bills have to be “reconciled” in a conference composed of both congressmen and senators, usually chosen by the chairmen of the committees who oversee the area involved in the legislation.

    This type of reconciliation is not the controversial type of reconciliation used to pass ObamaCare, but refers to the process of melding the two separate bills into one single bill that can then be voted upon by both the House and the Senate. Then it would be passed on to the president for signing, becoming law.

    But there seems to be a roadblock: Chairman Howard Berman.

    John Kerry chose his conferees on March 11, 2010. Howard Berman has chosen to sit this one out — he has not yet chosen his conferees from the House. The obduracy became so bad that steps were taken to elevate the matter to House leadership. They seem to be exasperated enough with Berman’s delays to take the naming of the conferees upon themselves this week. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking and the centrifuges are spinning.

    This led me to suspect that something may be amiss with Congressman Berman, who professes to be, among other things, a strong supporter of the America-Israel relationship. There are reasons to question this view. Berman seems to be more devoted to doing the bidding of Barack Obama than to defending America and our allies from a nuclear Iran.

    As noted above, the progression of the bill through the House has been a slow one. Clearly, the White House did not want a bill to interfere with its outreach towards Iran. There have been reports that Howard Berman worked with the White House to “gum up the works.” His reward may very well have been help with fundraising.

    From Politico (December 8, 2009):

    Rahm Emanuel — who has done no fundraising events for House members, or even for the congressional committees, since he left the body to become White House chief of staff — will headline a Los Angeles fundraiser for Rep. Howard Berman tonight in Los Angeles, according to the invitation.

    The event may be, in part, a thank you to Berman — chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee — for staying so closely in step with the White House on crucial issues, notably sanctions against Iran, on which the committee moved more slowly than some of its members would have liked as the White House sought to negotiate.

    This was during the heat of the ObamaCare fight, yet the White House chief of staff — for the first time — takes a break to raise some funds for Berman. We shouldn’t be surprised. The boys from Chicago have routinely treated Democrats as dogs in need of training: They can get the stick, such as a threat that they are “keeping score” regarding who supports them in Congress, or the carrot: fundraising help. Threats and bribes are the Chicago way.

    But sadly, there are more grounds to be suspicious.

    Howard Berman seems to have adopted the President’s line of “reasoning”. Before Barack Obama became president, Howard Berman spoke in June 2008 of the need for quickly passing a very tough sanctions regime. However, after Obama became president, Howard Berman changed his views and downgraded the importance of sanctions. In October of last year, sanctions became just one of many options for dealing with Iran. Actually, they became the fourth-best option. The first option would be continued (fruitless) engagement by Barack Obama, then U.N. resolutions, then other multilateral efforts. The very last option became sanctions. Berman seems to have done an about-face, all the while saluting Barack Obama.

    An aversion to sanctions — especially those that with bite that would crimp the import of gasoline by Iran — is an Obama policy. Months ago, the administration made clear that it did not want sanctions that would affect the Iranian people, even though such sanctions would “heighten popular anger against the regime” (as a Washington Post editorial noted).

    The steady weakening of the resolve of the administration to confront Iran (deadlines ignored by the mullahs and by Barack Obama; the devolution of sanctions from being “crippling” to “biting to “smart” to actually “non-existent”) is an appalling but not surprising abdication of responsibility by our commander-in-chief.

    Howard Berman seems to have gone along for the ride down that slippery slope — endangering America and our imperiled ally, Israel.

    One sign that Berman’s weak approach matches Obama’s agenda is that J Street — an appeasement oriented lobby that declared it will serve as the “president’s blocking back” regarding his policies towards Israel — specifically endorsed Berman’s approach towards Iran. Not a good sign that his approach has teeth.

    There is more.

    Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) attempted to introduce a resolution in the House that strongly supported Iranian protesters and freedom-fighters during last year’s massive protests throughout Iran. The Obama White House was feckless, and its aversion to helping the Iranians even led them to chant the question in the streets of Iran whether Obama was “with us.” By now, the answer to that is clear. In any case, Pence’s resolution was gutted by Howard Berman, who preferred to dilute the resolution. Was this at the behest of the White House?

    A further sign that Howard Berman is just following marching orders from the White House is an act that has nothing to do with Iran but is indicative that he wants to curry favor with the Oval Office. The president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was legally removed from power and escorted out of that nation. Barack Obama objected, as did Hugo Chávez and a Nazi-sympathizer ally of Zelaya’s inside Honduras. The Law Library of Congress ruled that his ouster was legal — frustrating Obama. Howard Berman (and John Kerry) then both wrote letters demanding that the opinion be retracted and “corrected”

    Berman even went so far as to pen an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times advocating that the legal removal be characterized as a “military coup” and that foreign aid be terminated as a way to pressure Honduras to reinstall Zelaya. Berman is known for his left-wing sympathies, but is there something more at work here — perhaps a bit of sycophancy?

    Howard Berman appears to be doing the president’s bidding as chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In doing so, he is following an agenda that puts America at risk, as well as putting Israel in peril. His district in California covers part of Los Angeles, a lot of San Fernando Valley, and a bit of Hollywood. The survival of Israel just may be one of the concerns of many of his constituents.

    There may be a number of constituents there who might wonder why their representative seems to be serving the interests of Barack Obama instead of looking after their concerns and goals. They might judge him now — as history will later.

    John Appleton a pen name.

  22. Admin: AT&T is who my dad retired from…he has the best medical care…now it will be substandard…although I hope and pray my dad will be alive in 2014, but he is 87.

  23. BP
    ************

    Would the U.S. Shoot Down an Israeli Jet? Top Officer Won’t Say

    MORGANTOWN, West Virginia — I’m not going to make a big deal of this, although some dug deep in the trenches of the Middle East debate might. But America’s top military officer wouldn’t rule the possibility today of U.S. forces firing on Israeli jets, if Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

    In a town hall on the campus of the University of West Virginia, a young airman asked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen to respond to a “rumor.” If Israel decided to attack Iran, the speculation went, those jet would need to fly through Iraqi airspace to reach their targets. That airspace is considered a “no-fly” zone by the American military. So might U.S. troops shoot down the Israeli jets, the airmen asked the chairman, if they breached that airspace?

    Mullen tried to sidestep the question. “We have an exceptionally strong relationship with Israel. I’ve spent a lot of time with my counterpart in Israel. So we also have a very clear understanding of where we are. And beyond that, I just wouldn’t get into the speculation of what might happen and who might do what. I don’t think it serves a purpose, frankly,” he said. “I am hopeful that this will be resolved in a way where we never have to answer a question like that.”

    The airmen followed-up: “Would an airmen like me ever be ordered to fire on an Israeli – aircraft or personnel?”

    Mullen’s second answer was much the same as his first. “Again, I wouldn’t move out into the future very far from here. They’re an extraordinarily close ally, have been for a long time, and will be in the future,” the admiral said.

    Does this represent a shift in American policy towards Israel? Some signal that the U.S. would stop an Israeli first strike at the final moment? Probably not. I’d guess this is Mullen trying not to wade further into treacherous waters. But it was interesting to hear America’s top military officer decline to knock down the idea that U.S. troops might fire on America’s closest ally in the Middle East.

    Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/top-officer-iraq-no-fly-zone-applies-to-israeli-jets/#ixzz0lkdrVciM

  24. Hi all!

    Tax Season is over YEY

    Great post Admin.

    Admin the video on tea party rascism. I would love to copy it to send to some of my friends.

    Can you help me

  25. Guess what! Judas Richardson has just been named one of the worst Governors I assume currently in office. He is amoung the top 11 they say.

  26. #
    neetabug
    April 21st, 2010 at 7:22 pm

    Hi all!

    Tax Season is over YEY

    Great post Admin.

    Admin the video on tea party rascism. I would love to copy it to send to some of my friends.

    Can you help me
    ————-
    I don’t mean to butt in on your request to the Admin, but to get a video link to send, just double click on the video (before you run it is best, and this works for all youtube videos, maybe others). It will take you to the site where the link is. The link is up top in the url, copy and paste that link in an email is the easiest. Here is the link to that video, if you want it:

  27. NewMexicoFan

    Guess what! Judas Richardson has just been named one of the worst Governors I assume currently in office. He is amoung the top 11 they say.
    ———–
    More Karma for Judas.

  28. This was a great article, Admin. Really enjoyed. Especially liked how the social ideology of the tea party was fleshed out. Like others, I was also turned off by the “Straight Pride” shirts being sold at a Tea Party event, so it is good to see some counterbalance to that…showing that there are tea partiers supporting gay rights and womens’ rights.

    Admin, was wondering if I might ask you a question. I am trying to find a comment that I believe you posted in one of the comment sections to your articles. (I think it was you, and I believe it was at this site).

    It basically had to do with the Glass Steagall act, and more specifically, how the repeal of the provisions that prohibited a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were a function of the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. In this comment, IIRC, you described how the Republicans were responsible for this repeal (the same repeal that some Republicans want put back in place), and how Bill Clinton actually worked very hard to mitigate this disaster from being far worse than it actually was. (I think it had something to do with the CRA). Does this sound familiar to you? If so, could you please direct me to the correct post? If not and I am mistaken, my apologies. I tried to do a search for this, but only one entry came up for “Steagall.” Many thanks in advance.

  29. neetabug, on most videos, if you click on the bottom rightmost corner/button, a (very) small, illegible, dialog box pops up and if you click on it, it will show you the link/URL and also code used to embed. Copy and paste the URL.

  30. admin, another superb article.

    “The fact that so many Tea Partiers are new to political participation suggests that, like the Perot voters of 1992 who were said to represent the “angry middle,” a plurality of Tea Partiers are moderates who are simply shocked by Obama’s great leap forward in the size of government”

    The Tea Party movement is much bigger than Ross Perot’s vote-getting in the 90s. I couldn’t stand listening to the man, agreeed with him, just couldn’t sit through listening to him.

    I had never been to protest, the Tea Party in my area was the first one I had attended, I was still a registered democrat then. The movement is much much bigger.

    I saw this ad at RedState.com, I thought it captured an excellent line that many like me and I suspect many in the Tea Party movement have been feeling.

    “The Top’s Getting a Bailout and the Bottom’s Getting a Handout ”
    (essentially the working middle class is getting squeezed from both ends)

    sorry, I don’t know how to put youtube videos here.

  31. This may be getting ridiculous
    ***************

    Did Native Americans contribute to global warming?

    April 15, 2010
    Courtesy of Ohio University
    and World Science staff

    Early Na­tive Amer­i­cans caused more car­bon di­ox­ide emis­sions than pre­vi­ously thought—and they thus con­tri­but­ed to glob­al warm­ing even be­fore the in­dus­t­ri­al era be­gan, a new study sug­gests.

    The in­dig­e­nous peo­ples burned trees as part of for­est-manage­ment strat­e­gies that ul­ti­ma­tely led wood­lands to yield more of the nuts and fruit that the peo­ples ate in abun­dance, ac­cord­ing to sci­en­tists. The re­sult: emis­sions of car­bon di­ox­ide, one of the key heat-trapping gas­es blamed by clim­at­ol­ogists for glob­al warm­ing.

    Present-day forest-burn­ing in the Ama­zon. (Photo cour­tesy US For­est Svc.)

    ——————————————————————————–

    “It was­n’t at the same lev­el as to­day, but it sets the stage,” said Greg­o­ry Spring­er, a ge­ol­o­gist at the Ohio Uni­vers­ity and lead au­thor of the stu­dy, pub­lished in the re­search jour­nal The Hol­o­cene.

    The con­clu­sions are based on chem­i­cal anal­y­sis of a stal­ag­mite, or mine­ral growth, found in the moun­tain­ous Buck­eye Creek ba­sin of West Vir­gin­ia.

    Na­tive Amer­i­cans “ach­ieved a pret­ty soph­is­t­ica­ted lev­el of liv­ing that I don’t think peo­ple have fully apprecia­ted,” Spring­er said. “They knew how to get the most out of the for­ests and land­scapes they lived in. This was all across North Amer­i­ca, not just a few loca­t­ions.”

    In­i­tial­ly, Spring­er and col­la­bo­ra­tors from Uni­vers­ity of Tex­as at Ar­ling­ton and Uni­vers­ity of Min­ne­so­ta were stu­dying his­tor­ic drought cy­cles in North Amer­i­ca us­ing iso­topes, or vari­ants, of car­bon in stal­ag­mites. To their sur­prise, they said, the car­bon rec­ord con­tained ev­i­dence of a ma­jor change in the lo­cal ec­o­sys­tem be­gin­ning at 100 B.C. This in­trigued the team be­cause an ar­che­o­logical dig in a near­by cave had yielded ev­i­dence of a Na­tive Amer­i­can com­mun­ity there 2,000 years ago.

    Spring­er re­cruited two Ohio Uni­vers­ity gradua­te stu­dents to ex­am­ine stream sed­i­ments. With the help of Har­old Rowe of Uni­vers­ity of Tex­as at Ar­ling­ton, he said, the team found very high lev­els of char­coal be­gin­ning 2,000 years ago, as well as a car­bon iso­tope his­to­ry si­m­i­lar to the stal­ag­mite.

    This sug­gests Na­tive Amer­i­cans sig­nif­i­cantly al­tered the lo­cal ec­o­sys­tem by clear­ing and burn­ing for­ests, probably to make fields and en­hance the growth of nut trees, Spring­er said. It’s a pic­ture that con­flicts with the pop­u­lar no­tion that early Na­tive Amer­i­cans had lit­tle im­pact on North Amer­i­can land­scapes. They were bet­ter land stew­ards than the Eu­ro­pe­an colo­nial­ists who fol­lowed, he said, but they ap­par­ently cleared more land and burned more for­est than pre­vi­ously thought.

    This long-a­go land clear­ing would have im­pacted glob­al clima­te, Spring­er added. On­go­ing clear­ing and burn­ing of the Am­a­zon rainfor­est, for ex­am­ple, is one of the world’s larg­est sources of green­house gas emis­sions. Prehis­tor­ic burn­ing by Na­tive Amer­i­cans was less in­tense, but a non-trivial source of green­house gas­es to the at­mos­phere, he said.

  32. Blago wants Fitzgerald to man up with the tapes…

    Former governor Rod Blagojevich called prosecutors involved in his federal corruption case “cowards” and “liars” Tuesday.

    During a statement at his lawyer’s office, he issued a challenge to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to play all the wiretapped conversations that led to his arrest at his trial.

    [snip]

    “It’s bad enough that they have lied about me, now they’re actually trying to keep all the evidence that proves (my innocence) from being heard before a jury,” said Blagojevich. He also accused the government of “hitting below the belt” by attacking his wife, Patti, who is accused of paying $38,000 for home repairs after receiving a $40,000 payment for work she didn’t do from convicted fundraiser Tony Rezko.

    “They are cowards and they are liars,” said Blagojevich.

    Blagojevich strongly defended Patti, who is mentioned many times in the proffer.

    “She works hard in everything she does and does a good job in everything she does,” said Blagojevich.

    Blagojevich said prosecutors don’t want all of the secretly recorded tapes to be played in court because they will prove his innocence and expose the “big lie” Fitzgerald told when he said he had to arrest Blagojevich to stop a crime spree before it happened.

    “They know when all those tapes are going to be played, they will show I’ve done nothing wrong. They will prove my innocence and that Patti did nothing wrong. The second reason they’re doing this is a reason they know and we know — there’s a smoking gun on those tapes,” said Blagojevich.

    I wonder if the smoking gun leads back to someone in the Fraud’s administration…

    It’s a point Blagojevich has made before many times. But this time he took aim at Fitzgerald.

    “So I’m here today to issue a challenge. If I’m wrong with what I’m saying, I challenge Mr. Fitzgerald, why don’t you show up in court tomorrow and explain to everybody, explain to the whole world why you don’t want all the tapes that you made played in court. I’ll be in court tomorrow. I hope you’re man enough to be there tomorrow, too,” said Blagojevich.

    “Sometimes the best defense is a good offense,” said Patrick Collins, former U.S. attorney.

    Collins says Blagojevich’s statement is consistent with his strategy so far — go on the offensive and play the victim. But he thinks it could backfire.

    “What he said tonight with the name calling and personal invective directed at United States Attorney Fitzgerald, I would be shocked if the judge doesn’t have something to say about that in court,” said Collins.

    Blagojevich is- among other things- accused of trying to sell the Senate seat left vacant by Pres. Barack Obama to the highest bidder. The former governor has denied any wrongdoing and maintains he is innocent on all charges.

    The U.S. Attorney’s Office had no comment.

  33. gonzotx

    This may be getting ridiculous
    ***************

    Did Native Americans contribute to global warming?
    ————–
    I guess the only way to save the plant is to get all the humans off of it.

  34. I also wanted to mention something a friend of mine told me recently. My friend recently hung out with Michelle (yes that Michelle). They’ve known each other a while, as I have also known my friend.

    Anyway, my friend (as I will refer to this person from here on out, do not want to reveal even gender) told me that any losses in November doesn’t really matter because “Well, that’s what happens in any election. Everyone expects to lose some seats. It’s doubtful they’ll take back either the House or the Senate. 50 some votes in the Senate is fine, and Nancy will still be Speaker next year.”

    Basically, the sense that I got from my friend is that the Dems are gearing up to explain away losses in November in this manner. That it’s not really a big deal, that they figured they would lose some seats, that it is a ‘natural’ function of any election.

    Make of that what you will. I think they are trying to lower the bar to this level so that any gains made against them can be minimized, marginalized in this way. Having heard this, it made me reconsider just what we should do from here on out. Makes me also realize that perhaps Admin is right and the Dims need to lose devastatingly this year in order to wake them up.

    Both houses flip, one house flips, doesn’t matter anymore. (although, on some level, I’d still prefer one each in the control of each party, gives us more breathing room in 2012)….but it is starting to seem like that at least ONE of the Houses of Congress will need to be flipped in order to make the point, otherwise, it is the continued marginalization that so many of us (liberals, moderates, conservatives) are getting bored of. For this, we will need all hands on deck.

  35. fifth dimension, thank you for posting that.

    “Makes me also realize that perhaps Admin is right and the Dims need to lose devastatingly this year in order to wake them up.”

    I actually absolutely agree with admin. The damn dimocrats need to lose and lose big in november, so big, that they cannot explain it away. For the first time in my voting life, I am contributing to repubs, not the RNC but repub candidate who are suppoters of the Tea Party movement. I will not fundraise for one dinocrat. Not in 2010 not in 2012, and this is after a lifetime of being a loyal, very loyal dem.

    No party should have complete control.

  36. Fifth Dimension
    Both houses flip, one house flips, doesn’t matter anymore. (although, on some level, I’d still prefer one each in the control of each party, gives us more breathing room in 2012)
    ———–
    I have heard that it is possible to flip the house, bounce Nasty out of her leader chair, but flipping the senate will be much more difficult, so the talking heads say.
    I wonder if flipping both houses is good, too much power in the hands of the Repubs will make the Fraud as lame of a duck as possible, but also the Pretender can veto anything the Repugs try to push past him.

    How would it be for Hillary to run in 2012 with the majority in both houses…I think it would be very difficult for her (depending on if the Repugs mess up the next two years like they did with Bush and who their candidate is.) and if Hillary won, could she govern with both houses under repug control?

    I would love to see the House flip, and kick Nasty out, and the senate be more equal. I don’t like either party to have too much control because neither can be trusted these days.

    Here I am talking like my little vote even matters, my candidate hardly ever wins…

  37. gonzotx
    April 21st, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    Did Native Americans contribute to
    global warming?
    April 15, 2010
    Courtesy of Ohio University
    and World Science staff
    “Early Native Americans caused more carbon di­oxide emissions than previously thought—and they thus contributed to global warming even be­fore the industrial era began, a new study sug­gests.”

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

    Could be very valuable information if the dates match up with traces of actual warming.

  38. The BIGGEST shriekers in American politics have always come from the left. To refer to the tea party advocates as such is calling the kettle black. Screw them. My Democrat roots are history, not the future. I won’t be silenced, and I won’t look back.

  39. And don’t forget the PARODY of the Fraud…Do YOU think there is a connection? I do…
    ************************

    Hitler `Downfall’ parodies removed from YouTube

    NEW YORK – Adolf Hitler, for years a vessel of frustration in a popular Internet meme, has been quieted.
    “Downfall,” a German film released in 2004 about Hitler’s last days, has been adopted for wildly popular YouTube parodies that have spanned mock rants about topics as varied as playing Xbox video games to Kanye West to Apple’s new iPad.
    Every spoof is from the same scene in the film: A furious, defeated Hitler, played by Bruno Ganz, unleashes an impassioned, angry speech to his remaining staff, huddled with him in his underground bunker.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100421/ap_en_ot/us_hitler_youtube_meme

  40. “Raise My Taxes! Raise My Taxes! Raise My Taxes!”
    —Ace
    So chanted thousands of bused-in ACFSME union “grassroots” agitators to Illinois state congressmen, urging them to “raise [our] taxes!” so that their salaries and benefits wouldn’t be cut.

    But that sort of indicates right there that their taxes aren’t really being raised, doesn’t it? Their employer is the government. If the government raises their taxes a bit but continues hiking their salaries, they are net-ahead as far as the government. They’re paid out of taxes, of course. They are in the unique position of actually seeing their net income go up whenever taxes are raised.

    The rest of the public is finally starting to notice that, and that the public — 20% of whom are out of a job or working part-time when they want a full-time job — is basically paying their employees more than they themselves receive in salary, and with far better benefits and job-security, too.

    I think the public is finally starting to wake up to that. People have this asinine “let’s not be mean” thing going with public-employees unions. They don’t like being a cheap boss who won’t give a big raise every year.

    But they’re finally starting to understand that they are, ultimately, the boss, and all these 4%-per-year raises and ridiculously huge pension plans are coming out of their own hide.

    I don’t think the unions understand this. They are getting more aggressive and obnoxious about their undeservedly high salaries and pension plans rather than being conciliatory about it. They are continuing to demand salaries and benefits that most of the rest of the country could only dram of without even offering even the slightest apologies to the strapped taxpayers whose incomes they are reducing in order to increase their own.

    Ever since I was a kid, I’ve heard it said twenty times at every singe Democratic National Convention that it was absolutely imperative we pay our teachers as if they’re doctors or lawyers (!), and everyone dutifully applauds, because it’s just the sort of sentiment that you’re supposed to agree with.

    I don’t think that’s going to play well in 2012. I don’t think these guys are understanding that things have changed, and that the public is no longer willing to uncritically bless 4%-a-year-regular-as-clockwork raises when their salaries have been more or less flat for a good long time.

  41. The best way to convince an adversary that he is wrong is tell him that he or she is a fair person, the truth is not always what it seems, and ask him or her to consider the merits of the opposing case before making up his or her mind. And then lay out a congent line of argument and seek buy-in.

    If you want to see a paradigmatic example of how this is done, just listen to Ed Shultz help a caller to his show achieve a higher state of enlightenment. He does it with such panache you would swear you were listening to Marcus Tulius Cicero, or perhaps Don Rickels on LSD.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC3XxN0pdkg&feature=player_embedded#!

  42. Brenda Elliot’s new book co-authored w/Aaron Klein The Manchurian President is now available at Amazon- I’m ordering my copy tomorrow. Theres no holds barred w/Brenda.
    ____________________________

    Klein: “Obama wants to slice up Israel’s capital as ‘precondition’ for talks. Demanding Jewish state carry out unprecedented ‘confidence-building gesture”

    Aaron Klein, Jerusalem bureau chief for World Net Daily, reports:

    The Obama administration is pushing Israel to hand the Palestinian Authority full control of a major city in Jerusalem as a so-called confidence-building gesture to jumpstart Israeli-PA negotiations, WND has learned.

    According to sources in both the PA and in the bureau of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Obama administration has demanded the following from Israel as “confidence-building gestures” toward the Palestinians ahead of any negotiations:

    * That Israel scale back roadblocks and checkpoints in the strategic West Bank to near the levels of such measures prior to the Palestinian intifada, which started in September, 2000. Israel says roadblocks and checkpoints are crucial security measures in stopping terrorist attacks.

    * That Israel release about 2,000 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails.

    * That Israel ease its siege of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. That siege applies only to materials that Israel believes will be used by Hamas to enhance its military apparatus. Basic foods, medicine, supplies and even monetary exchange flows into Gaza regularly.

    * That Israel turn over to the PA full control of key West Bank cities that are currently under security control of Israel due to security threats. This demand includes what are known as areas B and C. B, as defined by the 1993 Oslo Accords, are cities administered by the PA but patrolled by Israel. C encompasses cities under full Israeli control

    WND has learned that as part of its demands, the Obama administration is asking Israel to transfer to the PA the town of Abu Dis, a largely Arab neighborhood in eastern Jerusalem that borders key Jerusalem roadways and is home to about 12,000 residents. Some Arab homes in the neighborhood are built illegally on Jewish-owned land.

    Netanyahu is said to strongly oppose this demand, arguing that only negotiations can determine the future borders of Jerusalem.

    The demand, if enacted, would be unprecedented for any previous Israeli-Palestinian talks. The Jewish state has never been asked to withdraw from any Jerusalem territory in exchange for starting negotiations.

    Sources in Netanyahu’s office told WND that any change of the status quo in Abu Dis would signal that Israel is willing to forfeit the strategic neighborhood.

    The officials said that while former Prime Minister Ehud Barak discussed the neighborhood in talks with late-PLO Leader Yasser Arafat, later negotiations under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did not come to any conclusion regarding Abu Dis.

    “They are asking us to go beyond what Olmert started and this would only be as a precondition for further talks,” said a source in Netanyahu’s office of the U.S. demand.

    Already as a “confidence building gesture,” Netanyahu, acting under heavy U.S. pressure, in November announced a 10-month halt to all Jewish construction in the West Bank in an attempt to jumpstart talks aimed at creating a PA-led state

    The Obama administration is also demanding a total halt to all Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem as a precondition to jumpstart talks. Netanyahu has refused an official freeze; however, almost no new Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem has been approved since last month.

    Meanwhile, the PA has not been asked to enact any major gestures toward Israel to jumpstart talks. The U.S. has not demanded the PA recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

    http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/klein-obama-wants-to-slice-up-israels-capital-as-precondition-for-talks-demanding-jewish-state-carry-out-unprecedented-confidence-building-gesture/

  43. gonzotx
    April 22nd, 2010 at 12:33 am

    After I got the memo to beware of the zealots paying homage to politicians enshrined in their homes, I burned my KFC card just in case.

  44. “Ridiculing the tea party shenanigans is a serious error,” Chomsky said.

    Their attitudes “are understandable,” he said. “For over 30 years, real incomes have stagnated or declined. This is in large part the consequence of the decision in the 1970s to financialize the economy.”

    There is class resentment, he noted. “The bankers, who are primarily responsible for the crisis, are now reveling in record bonuses while official unemployment is around 10 percent and unemployment in the manufacturing sector is at Depression-era levels,” he said.

    And Obama is linked to the bankers, Chomsky explained.
    —————————————————–
    That is quite true. But the left does not understand. Here is why:

    “Love is an apple, round and firm
    Without a blemish or a worm
    Bite into it and you will find
    You’ve found your heart, and lost your mind.”

    –Lady Brooke Astor, on the auspicious occasion of her 94th Birthday.

  45. I think Noam C. is very ignorant about all of this. The dem. old playbook no longer works. For me, I am not against bankers, I am against corrupt bankers, I want captilism, I do not want crony captilism, where risk is socialized and profit is privatized.

    Wanted to post this, apparently Police reports show that Tea Parties are much more peaceful than anti-war rallies, really, this is a surprise??

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/candance-moore/2010/04/21/shocking-report-police-find-tea-parties-more-peaceful-anti-war-prote

    the MSM still has not realised people do not believe them any longer, we can filter our own information on the internet now.

  46. Chomsky is starting to get it. When he realizes that the Democratic Party was split in two to place Obama as the candidate in the nominating process then he will be getting somewhere. After the fall elections the Democratic Party will begin its death spiral. When a party ignores, belittles, and humiliates its’ constituency, it becomes marginal. The mantra of establishment Democrats in 2008 is you got no where else to go. The Republicans went off the rails with Bush. So people found somewhere else to go. It is the Tea Party. It reminds me of cliques where they target and bully an individual or a group . Then the bullied form a group and tell them to shut up, sit down and behave. Democrats are loosing the power of their inside cliques as the Republicans already have. They are loosing the power of their group, sending out their most outrageous bullies, and it is not working. They will get louder and nastier because that is essentially all they have left. It will be especially painful for the most ardent Obama supporters because they made their choices based upon personal rather than ideological decisions. They aren’t the cool kids anymore, they are the creeps.

  47. Ref: wbboei April 22nd, 2010 at 2:06 am

    That was freaking funny, Wbb.
    With your deadpan intro, I didn’t know what to expect.
    Ed Schultz wasn’t like this during Bush years.
    He has clearly gone crazy.
    A local radio host here in DC area calls him “special Ed”.

  48. Mrs. Smith
    April 22nd, 2010 at 2:38 am

    ——————
    Israel must do this. Israel must do that. Next Israel will have to sacrifice their firstborn in order to appease the terrorist palestinians.

    And exactly what have the Palestinians done for Israel? What conditions have they met? Have they released Shalit? Have they stopped attacking? Have they recognized the State of Israel?

  49. Binyamin Netanyahu tells US: We won’t stop east Jerusalem settlement building

    Israeli prime minister defiant ahead of visit from US special envoy, George Mitchell, despite deadlock in peace talks

    Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem guardian.co.uk, Thursday 22 April 2010

    Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu has reportedly told the US administration that his government will not stop settlement construction in east Jerusalem, despite US pressure and long-running deadlock in peace talks.

    The message was delivered to US officials at the weekend, according to reports by AP and the Wall Street Journal, and comes ahead of a visit to the Middle East by George Mitchell, the US special envoy, later today.

    Mark Regev, a spokesman for Netanyahu, would not discuss the details of Israel’s talks with the US administration but he said: “We want this process to succeed and to see the restart of talks. We hope that this is possible soon.”

    Earlier this week Netanyahu insisted again that construction in east Jerusalem would continue. “The Palestinian demand is that we prevent Jews from building in Jewish neighbourhoods in Jerusalem. That is an unacceptable demand. If we made it in London or made it in New York or in Paris, people would cry foul,” he told US television network ABC.

    He admitted there were outstanding issues with the US. “We’re trying to resolve them through diplomatic channels in the best way that we can,” Netanyahu said.

    Relations between Israel and the US sank to a new low last month, after a tense meeting between Netanyahu and President Barack Obama in Washington. Details of their discussion have not emerged, but it appeared Obama wanted Israel to stop building in Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem as a prelude to restarting peace talks with the Palestinians. The Palestinian leadership says it will not return to talks without a full halt to settlement construction, in line with the US roadmap. There have not been direct peace negotiations between the two sides since before Israel’s war in Gaza early last year.

    Israel claims sovereignty over east Jerusalem, which it captured in the 1967 war and later annexed, and Netanyahu has insisted construction must continue there. Internationally, east Jerusalem is regarded as under Israeli military occupation and settlement on occupied land is illegal under international law.

    The US administration spent much of last year trying to convince Netanyahu to halt all settlement construction. Netanyahu refused and agreed only to a 10-month, partial halt to construction in the West Bank – a moratorium which expires this autumn. Mitchell then spent many months trying to prepare indirect negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but a day after an agreement on so-called “proximity talks” was announced, Israeli officials gave approval for 1,600 new homes in an east Jerusalem settlement during a visit by the US vice president, Joe Biden. Biden condemned the decision and the indirect talks collapsed before they had begun.

    Israel has yet to restore its relations with the US and a refusal by Netanyahu to halt east Jerusalem settlement building would only prolong the confrontation. However, the Wall Street Journal said Netanyahu would offer other incentives instead, including the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, the lifting of some checkpoints on the occupied West Bank and allowing some more goods to enter Gaza, despite the long Israeli economic blockade.

    Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said he hoped Mitchell would bring the right formula to allow indirect talks to start. Mitchell is expected to hold meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders from tomorrow.

    Several US officials have emphasised the importance for the US of progress in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Jim Jones, the national security adviser, indicated this week that progress in the Middle East would help Washington curb Iranian nuclear ambitions. “Advancing this peace would … help prevent Iran from cynically shifting attention away from its failures to meet its obligations,” he said.

    Israel has long argued that confronting Iran ought to be an international priority. But Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister, this week resisted any suggestion that a peace agreement should be imposed on Israel and the Palestinians.

    “Any attempt to force a solution on the parties without establishing the foundation of mutual trust will only deepen the conflict,” Lieberman told diplomats in Jerusalem .

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/22/binyamin-netanyahu-jerusalem-settlements-building

  50. And exactly what have the Palestinians done for Israel? What conditions have they met? Have they released Shalit? Have they stopped attacking? Have they recognized the State of Israel?
    _______________

    And exactly what have the Palestinians done for Israel? What conditions have they met? Have they released Shalit? Have they stopped attacking? Have they recognized the State of Israel?
    _______________

    One has to ask why is Obama laying down demands as an advocate for the PA? Shouldn’t he attempt negotiations acting as an arbitrator from a neutral position encouraging both sides to speak for themselves?…

    Demanding release of 2,000 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails?

    I believe BO is trying to incite Bibi to lose his cool and do something that in the end would not be in Israel’s best interest.

    I see Bibi receiving reassuring words to ignore Obama’s incendiary demands from another source.

    Unbelievable!

  51. So why would Blagojevich challenge Fitzpatrick to show all the tapes? If Fitzpatrick says there are no more tapes, does Blagojevich have tapes he can bring out and play?

    If so, it might be very interesting for the administration and Fitzpatrick. One has to wonder about this move.

  52. I’m really getting tired of the death threats coming from Black and Muslim Radicals. Who are they to infringe on our First Amendment Rights to Free Speech? They should be found and deported back to where their beliefs originated and leave America the way they found it…

    Admin, could you please post this video discussing “Radical Muslim Group Warns ‘South Park’ Writers” in veiled death threat…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CS-Dc1iUyo&feature=player_embedded

  53. Ed Schultz wasn’t like this during Bush years.
    ——————————————–
    There is a saying among lawyers that goes like this: Never defend an indefensible position. In this case, the indefensible position is Bambi care. And Schultz is a perfect example of what happens. Especially when the defender is a wack job to begin with. It is hardly surprising that Schultz is married to a psychiatric nurse.

  54. Even slimy Clinton-hater Dick Morris admitted on O’Reilly last night that Bill was, at heart, a sensible moderate. He was not a blind ideologue – he was practical, adapting whatever ideas worked best for the country. Dickie even admitted that Bill loved America, and believed in our freedoms and free markets. Obama is rigid, according to Dick, and I hate to agree with the toe-sucker, but I do. He’s a statist to his core. He will play off of genuine problems that DO need solutions (such as healthcare or the financial mess), but the difference is that he does not merely seek solutions to the problem, as Bill did. He seeks to USE those problems as an opportunity to expand power in far-reaching ways.

    This is no different from Bush, just the other side of the coin. Use public fear and anger as a catapult to grab more power for the govt. Put in place sweeping programs with vast power that can be used for all sorts of things in the future, rather than a common-sense, simple, immediate responses to the threat.

    This is what so many on the left saw clearly with Bush, but refuse to see about the Dims. Our beef wasn’t that Bush was running around illegally spying on innocent citizens and throwing them in jail for no cause. There is no proof he ever actually did that. Our beef was that the sweeping programs he put in place gave the govt the potential authority to do that in the future. The left sticks their fingers in their ears and sings lalalala over the same sort of sweeping powers that the Dims are grabbing.

    My rule of thumb in evaluating EVERY piece of legislation that expands govt power is simple: Read carefully the powers and authorities granted in the bill, then imagine that power in the hands of the most reprehensible, immoral, corrupt, ideologically batshit insane group of leaders you can think of. If you would not want that sort of power in the hands of some crazy fundie dominionist, if the bill is not specifically worded as to what they can and cannot do, then the bill goes too far, PERIOD.

  55. wbboei

    We have to face it, the O supporters went way out on a limb supporting, electing, and now justifying this man. What we are witnessing is the sawing off of that limb behind all of them. When the limb severs, it will be interesting to see how they react.

    To me it is a little like Sandra Bullock, who just raved about her husband at the academy awards (don’t get me wrong I like her and feel a lot of empathy for her). She immediately dropped from sight, and did nothing. Now, it looks like she will take him to the cleaners. There will probably be some who refuse to see the reality. Those that do, might turn on him with a vengence. We are seeing a little of this already.

  56. H4T:

    “but the difference is that he does not merely seek solutions to the problem, as Bill did. He seeks to USE those problems as an opportunity to expand power in far-reaching ways.”
    _______________

    Well said!

  57. Daily Howler

    Keith Olbermann, snarling racist (permalink): Race-baiting is easy—and it’s fun! This thought popped into our heads last night as we watched Keith Olbermann, snarling racist, dismissively denigrate Florida’s former Speaker of the House, an Hispanic.

    The politician in question is Marco Rubio, a candidate for governor of Florida. He has served in the Florida House since 2000; in 2007 and 2008, he served as the chamber’s Speaker. But to Olbermann, it seems that something is somehow “missing” in Rubio’s political make-up. Here’s the first way he teased last night’s report about the Rubio-Crist gubernatorial race:

    OLBERMANN (4/20/10): The House majority whip endorses not the Republican governor of Florida for the Senate but the tea party guy, the purge of the GOP hive accelerates.

    Crist and Rubio are both Republicans, of course. (Though Crist is now saying he may run for the senate as an independent.) But to Olbermann, only Crist was a Republican—Rubio was just “the tea party guy.” In his next tease, his racism deepened:

    OLBERMANN: Another establishment Republican endorses the bizarro world candidate, not the governor, for Senate from Florida.

    In this tease, Crist was politely described as “the governor.” Rubio was denigrated as “the bizarro-world candidate.”

    Olbermann proceeded to author a characteristically foolish segment, in which he belly-ached about the way the Republican establishment is abandoning Crist in favor of Rubio. Some major figures are even saying that they will drop their endorsements of Crist if he runs as an independent! It was left to Dave Weigel, another bright young liberal who has taken employment at the Washington Post, to remind this big dope that he bellowed, wailed, cried and complained when Democrats didn’t adopt this stance in the case of Joe Lieberman.

    You know it; we know it; everyone knows it. If someone on Fox described an Hispanic Democrat as “the bizarro-world candidate,” as “the Daily Kos guy,” this big fraud would rise up on his haunches and yell race all through the ether. No, Keith Olbermann isn’t a snarling racist—at least, as far as we know. But he is a major clown. He’s shoveling greenbacks into his pants—and dumbing down liberals in the process.

    Race-baiting is easy—and it’s fun! As we’ve noted, it also strikes us as a good solid way to help Dems lose seats in November.

    Baiting is easy, Rich edition (permalink): With apologies, we didn’t do justice to Frank Rich’s dumbness in a recent post. In that post, we commented on this declaration by America’s number-one numb-nut:

    RICH (3/28/10): In fact, the current surge of anger—and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism—predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of ”traitor” and ”off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama’s election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since—from Gov. Rick Perry’s kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishingof assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to ”You lie!” piercing the president’s address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot.

    If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House—topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman—would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.

    America’s current “dumbest known human” was singing the one song he knows. The fury directed at Obama is a reaction to the rise of two women, a black and a Latina, he let Times readers know. At the time, we noted that the Tea Party’s current heart throbs include Palin, Bachmann and Rubio—two women and an Hispanic. We should have called a bit more attention to Rich’s Supreme Court “analysis.”

    Are conservatives howling at Obama because a Latina sits on the Court? In fact, conservatives luvvv Justice Thomas (he’s black)—and, as everyone knows, a fire-fight in the Senate in 2003 reflected Democratic fears that the GOP wanted to elevate Miguel Estrada to a seat on the Supreme Court. Estrada was filibustered out of a seat on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The back-story here was widely noted—Democrats feared that this appointment was intended as a stepping-stone to the Court.

    (Similar thinking, with roles reversed, now applies to Obama’s nomination of Goodwin Liu to sit on the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.)

  58. “To me it is a little like Sandra Bullock, who just raved about her husband at the academy awards (don’t get me wrong I like her and feel a lot of empathy for her). She immediately dropped from sight, and did nothing. Now, it looks like she will take him to the cleaners.”
    ______________________

    Sandra Bullock is nobody’s fool. She’s an actress. She pulled off and Oscar winning performance declaring after receiving her award… “I finaly have someone at my back..” or words to that effect. Her performance was so good Jesse’s eyes began welling up from the great guilt he was hiding from her.

    “Take him to the cleaners?”

    Her movies have earned her $47M this year. There isn’t a doubt in my mind she knew he was unfaithful and has documented proof stating such. She did her very best making sure he “owned” it as a serial adulterer in order to protect her vast forune. Very shrewd indeed.

    I’m proud of her behavior. Remember the days when the wife was the last one to know? There was a time when women didn’t even know how to write out a check, never mind squirreling away money for a rainy day..

    Sandra Bullock is the gold standard for:
    “You’ve come a long way baby.”

  59. A BLUEPRINT FOR COERCION

    By DICK MORRIS

    Published on TheHill.com on April 20, 2010

    Printer-Friendly Version

    How odd that when the president’s largest corporate donor, Goldman Sachs, gets indicted it is seen in the wonderful world of Washington as catalyzing his efforts to modify Wall Street regulation. Goldman’s employees, of course, gave Obama just shy of $1 million — a total exceeded only by the faculty and staff at the University of California — making them the second largest bundle of donors to the Obama campaign.

    There are so many reasons to oppose Obama’s financial regulation bill.

    Some Republicans have focused on the fact that it sets up a TARP II fund that starts the bidding at $50 billion. In making such an offer to back up firms that are too big to fail, the bill guarantees:

    a) that the big firms will feel free to make whatever risky bets they can get away with since their downside (i.e., backside) is covered;

    b) that the bigger firms eclipse the smaller ones (as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did to the mortgage industry) because of their implicit federal guarantee; and

    c) that more firms crowd to get under the $50 billion umbrella and that it expands into an even larger bailout.

    Other Republicans complain, correctly, about the power the secretary of the Treasury is given under the bill to seize any financial institution he deems too big to fail and thinks is at risk of insolvency. They rightly worry about the constraint this provision imposes on business growth and the dictatorial powers it gives the administration to fire management, replace directors, liquidate stock value and sell off parts of the companies they seize.

    But we also need to worry about how the power to seize on the one hand and bail out on the other will be used by this administration. Already, we have seen how Obama and Geithner did not hesitate to throw their regulatory weight around to force bondholders to take a pittance in very partial repayment of their loans to General Motors. We can imagine how much political clout these new powers will give to Obama.

    With political action committees and bundling by financial firms playing an ever larger part in campaign finance and issue advocacy advertising, will any large financial institution feel free to let its executives work against Obama’s reelection? Will they not worry that he could take them over in a twinkling of an eye? Or will they be so anxious to come in out of the rain of competition to nestle under the bailout umbrella that they won’t want to risk antagonizing Obama?

    Particularly after the Citizens United case, anything that inhibits corporations from participating politically limits political debate and slants it toward the administration. In the very debate now under way, are financial corporations not already pulling their punches so as not to alienate a president whose hand can feed them or seize them as he wishes?

    Yes, George W. Bush acquired vast new powers for the executive branch of government in the Patriot Act and the war on terror. But there is no record of his intentionally misusing them to intimidate political opponents. But Obama has a more ruthless mind. His war on Fox News shows how this thin-skinned president keeps track and takes names. We can well imagine a Nixonian enemies list of financial institutions earmarked for special regulation and intensive oversight, not for their economic performance, but for their political views.

    Let’s remember the days of JFK phoning steel-company executives to force a roll-back in their price increases while Attorney General Bobby threatened increased antitrust scrutiny. Equipped with the powers about to be conferred in the financial regulation bill, such government tyranny could be even more dangerous.

    Some seem willing to confer these powers if only a bankruptcy judge signs off on the takeovers and seizures. But the administration, which appoints the judges in the first place, can shop for a compliant one like a prosecutor looking for a jurist to issue a search warrant.

  60. This report is from the BBC noting Radical Muslim death threats.. I believe this is a huge story worldwide and the importance of it represents our basic Constitutional Rights being challenged and threatened by Muslim Radicals.

    The question is : How will President Obama deal with it and When? I doubt South Park will back down anytime soon. There is the distinct possibility this will be the impetus highlighting the focus and resolve of America’s president to either rollover or standup to oppression while the whole world is watching-
    _____________________________

    South Park creators warned over Muhammad depiction

    Islamists have warned the creators of TV show South Park they could face violent retribution for depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit.

    A posting on the website of the US-based group, Revolution Muslim, told Matt Stone and Trey Parker they would “probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh”.

    The Dutch film-maker was shot and stabbed to death in 2004 by an Islamist angered by his film about Muslim women.

    A subsequent episode of the cartoon bleeped out references to Muhammad.

    Drug-snorting Buddha

    The posting gave details about a home Stone and Parker reportedly co-own.

    It also listed the addresses of their production office in California and the New York office of South Park’s broadcaster, Comedy Central.

    “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show,” warned the posting, written in the name of Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee.

    “This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them,” it added.

    Mr al-Amrikee later told the Associated Press the posting was not an incitement to violence. It had been published to raise awareness of the issue and to see that it did not happen again, he added.

    This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them
    Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee

    A Comedy Central spokesman said the network had no comment.

    In the 200th episode of South Park, broadcast in the US and UK last week, Muhammad appeared several times inside a bear suit. Figures from other religions were also depicted, including a drug-snorting Buddha.

    Wednesday’s 201st episode saw any spoken references to Muhammad bleeped out, while a prominent banner stating “censored” was used in the programme.

    Speaking in an interview with the Boing Boing website before the 200th show aired, the South Park team defended the scenes.

    “We’d be so hypocritical against our own message, our own thoughts, if we said, ‘okay, well let’s not make fun of them because they won’t hurt us,'” said Parker.

    “It matters to me when we talk about Muhammad that I can say we did this… and I can stand behind that,” Stone added.

    “I don’t think it’s going to change the world, but this is how it’s got to be for our show.”

    In 2006, Comedy Central banned Stone and Parker from showing an image of Muhammad in an episode that was intended to be part of a comment on the controversy caused by the publication of caricatures of the prophet by a Danish newspaper.

    An earlier episode, Super-Best Friends (2001), contained an image of Muhammad but passed without comment.

    “It was before the Danish cartoon controversy, so it somehow is fine,” Stone told Boing Boing.

    “Then, after that, now that’s the new normal. We lost. Something that was okay is now not okay.”

    Muslims consider any physical representation of their prophet to be blasphemous. The caricatures published in Denmark sparked mass protests worldwide.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8636455.stm

  61. The GOP and the Politics of Financial Reform
    The Dodd bill favors Wall Street over Main Street.
    Article
    Comments (35)
    MORE IN OPINION »
    EmailPrint
    Save This
    ↓ More

    + More
    Text
    By KARL ROVE

    This is a season of discontent for congressional Democrats. This week’s Pew Poll holds plenty of bad news for them. Congress’s favorability ratings stand at 25%, the lowest in the poll’s nearly three decade-long history. The Pew Poll also found that the more upset independents are about the current state of politics, the more likely they are to throw out the Democrats. The independents that are most upset favor Republicans 66% to 13%.

    All of this explains why Democrats hope Sen. Chris Dodd’s proposed financial reform legislation will put some distance between them and the Obama administration’s reckless spending policies over the past year. They believe that by overhauling the rules Wall Street lives by, they can redirect populist anger away from them and toward the financial sector. But voters are smart enough to see through the ploy.

    Republicans made a smart early move by pointing out that Democrats want to enact legislation that would create a $50 billion bailout fund for big Wall Street firms. After being forced to admit the fund is part of the bill, Democrats defended it by saying it would be funded with money from the firms themselves.

    View Full Image

    Associated Press
    Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., accompanied by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.

    Senate Republicans responded by saying that regardless of where the fund got its money, it would give Wall Street a leg up on Main Street. Why? Because the fund would allow government-favored Wall Street firms to borrow money more cheaply than their Main Street competitors.

    Goldman Sachs, for example, would likely be able to borrow money at a lower interest rate than a regional bank or credit union. That idea isn’t sitting well with voters already upset about the cozy relationship between Big Government and Big Business.

    Feeling the heat from the public, Democrats might drop their government-sanctioned rescue fund. But that won’t end their troubles.

    Democrats are also playing with fire by pushing to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Republicans oppose interfering with or duplicating existing regulatory agencies. Voters might side with the GOP on this one.

    Then there’s the thorny issue of derivatives, which are complex financial instruments increasingly used by Main Street companies to hedge risk. For example, airlines use derivatives to insulate themselves against swings in jet fuel prices, and manufacturers use them to protect against commodity price increases.

    About Karl Rove

    Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy-making process.

    Before Karl became known as “The Architect” of President Bush’s 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.

    Karl writes a weekly op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is the author of the forthcoming book “Courage and Consequence” (Threshold Editions).

    Email the author atKarl@Rove.comor visit him on the web atRove.com. Or, you can send a Tweet to @karlrove.

    Democrat proposals would restrict many of the derivatives Main Street firms use to remain competitive. That’s not a smart approach at a time when voters are already worried about the economy. It also allows Republicans to argue that, in a rush to punish Wall Street, Democrats will end up harming Main Street companies and cost many Americans their jobs.

    There are other potential pitfalls for Democrats in Mr. Dodd’s bill. One is a provision that would create an Office of Financial Research that would receive half a billion dollars a year to gather information on individual financial transactions so government bureaucrats can analyze the data and suggest policy changes. I suspect Americans don’t want a new bureaucracy sweeping their brokerage and bank accounts for information.

    Mr. Obama should hope Republicans are successful in convincing Democrats to write a sensible financial regulation bill. After all, if congressional Democrats and the administration enact a bad financial reform bill, they could raise the cost of capital, retard economic growth, and drive wealth out of this country and into foreign financial markets that are more welcoming to derivatives. That, in turn, could hurt the president’s re-election chances in 2012.

    For Democrats in 2010, economic conditions are already baked in the cake. Incipient growth, high unemployment, lots of disgruntled job seekers, battered family budgets, and intense concern about government spending and deficits have energized voters and convinced many of them that change is needed in Washington. As a result, congressional Democrats will likely suffer bigger loses this year than the post World War II midterm average of 24 seats in the House and four in the Senate.

    On the other hand, the economic circumstances of Mr. Obama’s re-election are still up in the air. If Democrats get financial regulation right, there’s a chance the economy could be strong enough by 2012 to give Mr. Obama a shot at winning a second term.

    But if Democrats get financial regulation wrong and the economy is stumbling come 2012, Americans are not going to reward the man who gifted them four straight anemic years. If that’s the case, no amount of whining, spinning or adroit use of teleprompters will save Mr. Obama from voter wrath.

  62. More proof that McCain is in trouble–more trouble than the current polls disclose. Regardless of what he says or does now, voters remember a time when he was a leading proponent of amnesty. There should be a mandatory retirement age in Congress. He cannot seem to remember what he said a couple years ago.
    ———————————————————-

    Arizona Voters Support Controversial Immigration Bill, Poll Finds

    FOXNews.com

    An overwhelming majority of Arizona voters support a controversial bill that would give state officials broad new powers to arrest people suspected of being illegal immigrants, a new poll finds.

    print email share recommend (15)

    A Guatemalan illegal immigrant prepares to board a plane at the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway airport during his deportation process July 10, 2009. (Reuters Photo)
    An overwhelming majority of Arizona voters support a controversial bill that would give state officials broad new powers to arrest people suspected of being illegal immigrants, a new poll finds.

    The Rasmussen Reports poll found 70 percent of likely voters in Arizona back the bill, which cleared the state Legislature this week and awaits the governor’s signature, despite concerns about potential civil rights violations.

    The survey found 53 percent of voters are worried that immigrants’ civil rights could be infringed in the effort to find and deport illegal immigrants. Forty-six percent were not concerned about that possibility.

    But for immigrant-rights activists in Washington and elsewhere, the state bill has become a flashpoint in the national debate.

    Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., who has led the charge against the bill on Capitol Hill, said Wednesday that he wants the Department of Justice to be prepared to “go immediately to court” to stop Arizona officials from enforcing the law if it is signed.

    “There will be many, many people, American citizens, whose rights will be violated when the police come to them for no other reason than to check their immigration status,” he told Fox News.

    The Arizona bill would create a new misdemeanor crime for failing to have an alien registration document; allow officers to arrest anyone unable to show documents proving their legal residence in the country; and allow people to sue over claims that a government agency is hindering immigration enforcement.

    The Rasmussen poll reflected bipartisan support for the bill in Arizona. Eighty-four percent of Republicans support it — but so do 51 percent of Democrats. Forty-three percent of Democrats oppose it.

    The poll of 500 likely voters was conducted last Wednesday. It had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points

  63. More sociopathic behavior by Obama. This is the Obama we know. The Obama we saw in the primary. The Obama who worms like EJ Dion call The Happy Warrior.
    ———————————-
    Obama Hates Fox News

    It’s the summer of 2008 and Barack Obama is beginning to slip in the election polls.

    He blames Fox News for his election worries.

    He agrees to a secret meeting at New York’s posh Waldorf Astoria hotel with the head of Fox News, Roger Ailes and other top honchos of their parent company News Corp.

    The meeting goes into meltdown mode as a finger wagging Obama furiously vents his anger against Fox and their top conservative host Sean Hannity.

    Have you heard about this?

    Probably not, but Newsmax magazine, in a just-released special report “Obama Hates Fox News,” reveals how Obama’s war on Fox News all began, how it unfolded, and even predicts what will happen in the future.

    Boycotting debates, kicking journalists off a campaign jet, planting questions from friendly media during presidential news conferences, freezing adversarial media out of interviews, singling out individual journalists to scold them publicly — they’ve all been part of Team Obama’s efforts at manipulating and intimidating the media.

    Newsmax magazine’s special report “Obama Hates Fox News” takes an in-depth look at Obama’s army of advisers, who seem to some critics part of an audacious end-run around congressional authority.

  64. I will be posting two different posts from the lamecherry blog as they are very informative, and should be read in their entirety. I am one of the so-called birthers. I don’t consider myself crazy or totally uniformed. Barack has never provided any information to the public concerning anything about his past records… nada… zip.

    I hope the situation that is currently underway in Arizona settles this once and for all. If his records are not presented, then I hope the court martial of army doctor Lt. Col. Terry Lakin forces all the secrets about BO’s past to the fore.

    lamecherry part 1…

    With the initial passage of an Arizona House bill which would require Barack Obama to produce an original birth certificate and other legal papers proving he is a natural born Citizen of these United States, the glove has been slapped across the face of every patrician and Obama apologist in America.

    The Arizona bill is much bigger than what even the Obama supporters have ridiculed it as, including Dana Perino, another Obama voter from the Bush administration. This bill is not a laughing stock, but an exposure of all the patricians fools who were taken in by the biggest fraud in history.
    There is no bigger fraud in history than Barack Hussein Obama. He changed his name’s pronunciation from Bearick, he said his British subjection expired, he is a faux black experience chameleon and as the old saying goes, “You know when Obama is lying, because his lips are moving”.

    The real issue in this is a President is not elected to these 49 United States, but Constitutionally must be elected by all 50 states, unless they have seceded from the Union as the Confederates did. Unless an event as that has taken place, the Constitution is not about Electoral Colleges or being ratified by Congress, but it is about the Union electing a President of all 50 states.
    Understand that any President can loose the popular vote as President Bush had, and win the electoral votes, along with numerous states, but no President can be President of these United States if he is not on the ballot or certified in all 50 states.

    Scholars have missed this ultimate check and balance in the “silence of the Constitution”. No state can keep any legal candidate off the ballot, but a state can keep anyone off the ballot who does not provide legal documentation they are qualified to be President.
    That is the Constitution at it’s core in the Articles concerning the Presidency. 49 states can state a fraud can be President in their super majority, but if one state demands proof and the candidate does not provide that legal proof, the one state in checks and balances can negate a national Presidential Election.

    There is no court nor Supreme Court which can undo this. Thee only way this could be reversed is by Congress in majority or the states in majority undoing by Amendment the Arizona check and balance, but in that is the Catch 22 in no Amendment can undo the Articles in making a non natural born person a President of these United States.
    The majority could undo the Arizona check, but the majority can not negate the prime directive of the Constitution concerning Citizenship.
    If they did, it would be like Obama being given power to appoint all of Congress instead of elections by the People. That just could not take place in the Constitutional framework.

    As Massachusetts was the Scott heard round the world, Arizona is reaffirming the Jefferson State’s Rights heard round the world. One must comprehend that what Arizona is in the process of passing is something which does not need passing as Arizona already has this right as all 50 states do. Furthermore, Arizona should have already as all 50 states should have in requiring legal proof from Mr. Obama as the Congressional dupes should have.

    The experts will try to state that the Arizona clause can not override a majority vote by 49 other states, but they are Obama enablers, as that is exactly what the Constitution has always stated. A President must be accepted by all 50 states according to legal Constitutional requirements. Any subject failing to provide native born status can legally be rejected by any one state, and that one state in it’s minority rights will negate the other 49 states in the check and balance the Founders left silently in the Constitution to protect America from threats domestic and foreign.

    This is the eye of the Obama storm and this is the Arizona filibuster of Barack Hussein Obama. The Founders knew exactly what they were doing and the Obamite apologists are about to learn that their progressive breathing document just exhaled something hidden in it they never dreamed in all their fools wisdom.

    As a closing note which will surprise all, Barack Hussein Obama has not been certified yet by any of the 50 United States to be President. All the States did by their Secretaries was to certify the “election results”.
    There is an incredible legal difference between ballot box counts and legitimate assent that Obama is President of these United States by legal documentation.
    No state certified this as no state had any legal proof as Obama is undocumented.

    While it is unnecessary and every Sec. of State who even allowed Obama on the ballot in 2008 should be removed from office in violating their Constitutional oath, Arizona’s law does focus this and checks Obama to require him to do what is required which has been unbalanced by sloven Sec. of States of these United States.

    The Birther issue has just begun and as this blog stated will continue to grow as more and more Americans seek an immediate remedy to Mr. Obama in his removal by the Courts of America for being undocumented.

    agtG 267

    Eye of the Obama

  65. Lamecherry part 2….

    Listen my children and you shall hear
    Of the clarion call of Paul Revere
    It was in the year of 2010
    When America’s Revolution was reborn again

    I have a secret which is exclusive to this blog which I have hinted at previously which the Found Fathers deliberately hid in the Constitution for the day when they perceived would come when the great experiment would become so corrupt by treachery that it would come to the time of the Americans in the minority of one, who would be the check and balance to save the Republic from a foreign born, foreign allied, Bowbama, the product of patrician traitors meant to enslave all of America.

    Logic can tell you how these treacherous legal minds have worked in their mocking of the Birther movement and their shading the line with John McCain’s birth on a military reservation to bring about the “expired British subjection” of Obama ruling America illegally.
    See it is all about covenant which is the ancient rights. Look on any law books to this day and if you simply start mowing your neighbor’s lawn, or gardening on parts of their property, or farming, grazing or planting a hedge which you maintain on an adjacent property, that the law states in 7 years that land is your land.

    It is called precedent.

    Understand my children, that once Barack Hussein Obama completes one legal term in office, there is legal standing for any crime which he has completed. Illegal then becomes legal in the eyes of Obama lawyers who will make the courts enforce a new mandate which supersedes the Constitution in a foreign born British subject, allied to Europe, placing covenant moneys in the trillions of dollars into central European banks, making wars with full consent of Congress and making vassal treaties with Russia, that that usurper is no longer bound by the Constitution and Barack Hussein Obama will, as much as Vladamir Putin, be a legal President of these United States.
    That is what is about Bush patricians like Dana Perino, Ann Coulter and Noel Sheppard mocking of the Birthers and those who stand against Obama. Most of these folks are not that intelligent to know the real reason they are being sent out by the Obama benefactors who pay all of their salaries, but the benefactors know completely the reason has to do with precedent.
    This group holds off Americans for one term, and Barack Obama can produce his Kenyan birth certificate, kiss the European Union flag, fly the Rothschild banner over the White House, and there is nothing in the courts which can legally remove him, including Congress as the precedent has been set for an undocumented illegitimate despot to rule from the White House.

    There is though in the quite living Constitution a hidden check and balance to all of this as I have hinted at previously that the experts have no idea the Founders put in there. For fitting terms, let us call it the Arizona Filibuster.

    See, the Constitution states in the Articles that the President must be elected by the States. This means all 50 states now, and not just a majority. A President can not be kept off the ballot for bias reasons, but a State can without documentation proving a candidate is a native, can refuse to run someone who is in violation of the Constitution.
    That filibuster is as complete as that of the Senate, because one Senator can indeed keep speaking and 99 other Senators can not overrule that Senator.

    The Constitution has no clauses in it which states a majority of Congress or States could overrule a State filibustering an election, so that means that power is reserved to the individual states as in the 10th Amendment.
    1 state as in Arizona, can indeed neutralize an entire Presidential election in not taking part in a national fraud.

    This is the reason the heckling is so intense against Arizona, because if Arizona succeeds, there is no legal precedent which can be set, as Arizona, and hopefully dozens of other states will demand the same documentation the Constitution demands of anyone running for President.
    When Arizona conducts itself as demanding Constitutional proof as is it’s stated rights, the Courts will then be mandated to rule on the evidence in removing Mr. Obama if no documentation is exhibited which proves nativity.

    This is what the Founders put in as thee last check and balance of the filibuster of one state dissenting from the fraud majority to keep the Union of this Republic sound.

    There is no Amendment which Congress or the States could pass which can overturn this in making a foreigner a President as no Congress or State can impeach the integrity of the original Articles.
    Blacks were affirmed the vote, but they were already Americans. Americans could vote at a younger age, but they were already Americans.

    Amendments can only affect Americans and no one else. They do not expand rights of foreigners or those with dual citizenships. Those are precedents which the Founders intended and are set in stone.

    So for the salvation of the Union, it is hoped that other states will affirm their rights and Constitutional Authority by passing laws, which do not need to be passed, but to make Mr. Obama and any person running for President produce all data from medical files, birth certificates, passports and government loans. In that, the Union will be protected as the Founders intended.

    When the elitists find out this is in the Constitution they are going to go insane claiming it is not there, but indeed the Arizona Filibuster is there, has always been there, but no one knew it was there, as in the Founders checks and balances guided by the unseen Hand of Providence, it was put there for this Obama time to protect the Republic against illegal precedent.

    The Arizona Filibuster, and hopefully Oklahoma and other Reagan Blue States will arise to affirm their rates and make the 3rd world despot of Obama bow to American Constitutional Law.

    God is always a light year ahead of satan’s mobs.

  66. wbboei
    April 22nd, 2010 at 11:57 am
    More proof that McCain is in trouble–more trouble than the current polls disclose. Regardless of what he says or does now, voters remember a time when he was a leading proponent of amnesty. There should be a mandatory retirement age in Congress. He cannot seem to remember what he said a couple years ago.
    ———————————————————-
    __________________________________

    Forgetting what you said is perquisite for being an elected official in America now.

  67. Jesus, they are applauding the Fraud at Wall Street. Well, then again, he is going to give them permanently our money. I guess I would be slapping my thigh’s too!

  68. On a day when many Americans will be reflecting upon how they can reduce their impact on the environment, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will board separate jets in Washington on Earth Day morning to fly 250 miles up the east coast to New York, where they will land at separate airports to attend separate events within a few miles of each other

    http://nycaviation.com/2010/04/21/obama-and-biden-to-celebrate-earth-day-by-flying-separate-carbon-belching-jets-to-the-same-city/

  69. nomobama

    Thank you for posting the most uplifting news I’ve heard in a long time. One question- I”ve followed most of the lawsuits calling for Obama producing proof of his NBC… The court’s denials for redress by plaintiffs has consistently been they “have no standing to bring such a suit.” I don’t think I’m clear on how this will ultimately play out.

    If you have more info how this will be done.. or give me a hint, it would be appreciated. Thanks-

    I have an apt to go to but will ck back later for any good news you may proffer.. 🙂

  70. I know she is just his messenger, but can I just say how much I despise the hateful racist president of yours???

    —————-

    Clinton defends outreach to Syria despite Scud row

    By Arshad Mohammed
    Reuters
    Thursday, April 22, 2010;

    TALLINN (Reuters) – The United States defended its policy of engagement with Syria on Thursday despite its concerns that Damascus might be trying to transfer Scud missiles to Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

    Speaking in the Estonian capital ahead of a NATO meeting, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dodged questions about whether Iran might have given Syria Scud technology ultimately destined for Lebanon’s Hezbollah, a Shi’ite Islamist group.

    Israeli President Shimon Peres has accused Syria of sending Scuds to Hezbollah. Syria denies the charge and says Israel may be using the accusation as a pretext for a military strike.

    Such a weapons transfer could threaten U.S. President Barack Obama’s diplomatic outreach to Syria and create fresh obstacles to U.S. Senate confirmation of a new ambassador being sent to Damascus after a five-year absence.

    “We have expressed directly to the Syrian government … in the strongest possible terms our concerns about these stories that do suggest there has been some transfer of weapons technology into Syria with the potential purpose of then later transferring it to Hezbollah,” Clinton told a joint news conference with Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet.

    Washington has long accused Tehran of arming Hezbollah, which fought a war with Israel in 2006 and enjoys deep support in mainly Shi’ite south Lebanon.

    But the United States has not publicly addressed where Syria itself may have obtained the Scud missiles nor has it said it could confirm that any transfer to Hezbollah took place.

    Despite Syria’s failure to satisfy long-standing U.S. demands that it cease interfering in Lebanon’s affairs and make greater efforts to forge peace with Israel, Clinton argued that it was in the U.S. interest to have an ambassador in Damascus.

    “This is not some kind of reward for the Syrians and the actions that they take which are deeply disturbing,” Clinton said. “It’s a tool that we believe can give us extra leverage, added insight, analysis, information with respect to Syria’s actions and intentions.”

    The last U.S. ambassador to Syria was withdrawn in 2005 after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. The killing triggered an international outcry that led Syria to end its 29-year military presence in Lebanon.

    The Obama administration’s plan to return an ambassador to Damascus has been criticized by some Republicans, including Representative Dan Burton, who this week said that the Syrians “just spit right in our face.”

    Clinton noted Washington’s long list of complaints against Damascus, which include accusations that it hosts Palestinian militants and fuels violence in Iraq, but said an ambassador would help to convey the U.S. message.

    “We think having an ambassador there adds to the ability to convey that message strongly and hopefully influence behavior in Syria,” she said.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/22/AR2010042202123.html

  71. BP
    *********

    Netanyahu to Obama: Pound

    Benjamin Netanyahu delivered an unequivocal message to the Obama administration this morning, rejecting completely a call from Barack Obama to stop building settlements in Jerusalem. The rejection creates a standoff between the two traditional allies in the region and all but halts Obama’s efforts to force Israel back to the bargaining table (via JWF):

    More @ link

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/22/netanyahu-to-obama-pound-sand

  72. Belated happy third birthday, Big Pink! Congratulations and thank you, Admin. And, thank you all, Hillfriends.
    I haven’t posted much lately, but this is too good not to share – let’s call it a birthday present. Link to follow this post.
    * * * * * * *
    CAPITOL FAX ILLINOIS
    Blagojevich hurls allegations at Obama in bid to force testimony
    Thursday, Apr 22, 2010

    Rod Blagojevich’s attorneys filed a motion today to subpoena President Obama to testify at the former governor’s trial…

    “President Obama has direct knowledge to allegations made in the indictment. In addition, President Obama’s public statements contradict other witness statements, specifically those made by labor union official and Senate Candidate B,” the motion said.

    The motion is here. Several parts are redacted, but you can easily copy and paste the entire motion into a text file and view all the redacted material. Oops on somebody’s part.

    * All of the most explosive allegations in the motion were redacted.

    Blagojevich’s lawyers allege that Tony Rezko admitted to violating the law by personally contributing “a large sum of cash” to a public official’s campaign, which the Blagojevich people say is Obama.

    The lawyers claim that Obama may not have been telling the truth when he said Rezko never relayed a request from a lobbyist to hold a fundraiser for Obama in exchange for favorable legislative action (Obama, however, refused to agree to the offer, Rezko allegedly says).

    They also claim that Obama allegedly lied when he said he didn’t have any conversations with Rezko about a casino license…

    In a recent in camera proceeding, the government tendered a three paragraph letter indicating that Rezko “has stated in interviews with the government that he engaged in election law violations by personally contributing a large sum of cash to the campaign of a public official who is not Rod Blagojevich. … Further, the public official denies being aware of cash contributions to his campaign by Rezko or others and denies having conversations with Rezko related to cash contributions.

    Rezko has also stated in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a fundraiser for the official in exchange for favorable official action, but that the public official rejected the offer. The public official denies any such conversation.

    In addition, Rezko has stated to the government that he and the public official had certain conversations about gaming legislation and administration, which the public official denies having had.

    President Obama is the only one who can testify as to the veracity of Mr. Rezko’s allegations above.

    A redacted footnote offers further explanation…

    The defense has a good faith belief that this public official is Barack Obama.

    As its proof, the Blagojevich people reference a 2006 Sun-Times story…

    Senator Barack Obama was asked: “Did Rezko or his companies ever solicit your support on any matter involving state or federal government? Did Al Johnson, who was trying to get a casino license along with Tony Rezko, or Rezko himself ever discuss casino matters with you?”

    Senator Obama answered: “No, I have never been asked to do anything to advance his business interest. In 1999, when I was a State Senator, I opposed legislation to bring a casino to Rosemont and allow casino gambling at docked riverboats which news reports said Al Johnson and Tony Rezko were interested in being part of. I never discussed a casino license with either of them. I was a vocal opponent of the legislation.”

    * The rest of the redacted stuff mostly involves claims by the Blagojevich team that Barack Obama was not totally truthful during FBI questioning. “Senate Candidate B” is Valerie Jarrett, who is now one of three senior advisers to the president…

    9. Yet, despite President Obama stating that no representatives of his had any part of any deals, labor union president told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he
    spoke to labor union official on November 3, 2008 who received a phone message from Obama that evening. After labor union official listened to the message labor union official told labor union president “I’m the one”. Labor union president took that to mean that labor union official was to be the one to deliver the message on behalf of Obama that Senate Candidate B was his pick.

    10. Labor union official told the FBI and the United States Attorneys “Obama expressed his belief that [Senate Candidate B] would be a good Senator for the people of Illinois and would be a candidate who could win re-election. [Labor union official] advised Obama that [labor union official] would reach out to Governor Blagojevich and advocate for [Senate Candidate B].. . . [Labor union official] called [labor union president] and told [labor union president] that Obama was aware that [labor union official] would be reaching out to Blagojevich.” (Labor union official 302, February 3, 2009 p. 3).

    11. According to Senate Candidate B, on November, 4 2008, Senate Candidate B spoke with labor union official about the Senate seat. Labor union official said he spoke to Obama. Labor union official said he was going to meet with Blagojevich and said “he was going to push Blagojevich hard on this.

    * There is also an allegation of an attempted quid pro quo on the Jarrett Senate appointment…

    Supporter of Presidential Candidate Obama is mentioned in a phone call on November 3, 2008, having offered “fundraising” in exchange for Senate Candidate B for senator (Blagojevich Home Phone Call # 149).

  73. “The rejection creates a standoff between the two traditional allies in the region and all but halts Obama’s efforts to force Israel back to the bargaining table”

    —————-

    Gonzo,

    This also creates the biggest tantrum known to mankind by the idiot playing potus.

  74. JanH, thanks for the Mideast updates. The anti-Semite Obama has forever turned the democrat party away from Israel and seeks to fill the void with outreaches to American Muslims/Arabs and illegal soon to be legal immigrants(until he need big $$$$ for 2012 re-election bid).
    Sadly, the Jews I speak to, still support him by and large. We are lucky to have righteous Christians and the republicans to speak up for us. Can you beleive representatives like Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, and Howard Berman, the poweful Chairman of the House Committe On Foreign Affairs, say or do little as Obama and his anti-Israeli advisors like Scowcroft and Zebrinski(sic) meet with Obama and urge him to squeeze Israel into a position which anyone can see would be suicidal for her survival.

  75. JanH
    April 22nd, 2010 at 1:49 pm
    I know she is just his messenger, but can I just say how much I despise the hateful racist president of yours???
    _______________________

    “Despite Syria’s failure to satisfy long-standing U.S. demands that it cease interfering in Lebanon’s affairs and make greater efforts to forge peace with Israel, Clinton argued that it was in the U.S. interest to have an ambassador in Damascus.”

    “This is not some kind of reward for the Syrians and the actions that they take which are deeply disturbing,” Clinton said. “It’s a tool that we believe can give us extra leverage, added insight, analysis, information with respect to Syria’s actions and intentions.”
    ________________________________

    My interpretation of the above quotes is this:

    Hillary is building a consensus. For that she needs knowledgeable bodies. By the placement of an Ambassador in Syria, she can choose someone she trusts at the hub in the ME. Feedback from him (to her) will be honest and true with a deeper insight into who the troublemakers are and in what region they are hiding. Eventually productive solutions will benefit stability in the region when the militants are rooted out permanently.
    ________________________________

    The Obama administration’s plan to return an ambassador to Damascus has been criticized by some Republicans, including Representative Dan Burton, who this week said that the Syrians “just spit right in our face.”
    ___________________________

    No Dan, they spit in Bush/Cheney faces not ours, because they refused to hear and address any grievances.
    _____________________________

    Clinton noted Washington’s long list of complaints against Damascus, which include accusations that it hosts Palestinian militants and fuels violence in Iraq, but said an ambassador would help to convey the U.S. message.
    “We think having an ambassador there adds to the ability to convey that message strongly and hopefully influence behavior in Syria,” she said.
    ___________________________

    Exactly! Hillary will know first hand who and where the hidden instigators are holed up and set a plan in motion for instituting a local [peaceful] resistance. You do this when a vacuum is created by the extrication of militant groups.

  76. American Thinker
    ********

    April 22, 2010
    MSNBC’s Deutsch booted for criticizing Olby
    Rick Moran

    Someone should ask Chrissy Matthews what he now thinks of purges on the right after this little tantrum from Keith Olbermann:

    A week-long anchoring stint on MSNBC by Donny Deutsch ended abruptly on Wednesday, and four people briefed on the decision said the cancellation stemmed from an unflattering mention of that channel’s No. 1 anchor, Keith Olbermann, a day earlier.
    Mr. Deutsch had labeled his hour on MSNBC “America the Angry,” and Mr. Olbermann was shown briefly in a series of clips of media bloviators during a segment that pondered what role the media plays in fomenting the public’s anger. The four people briefed on MSNBC’s decision said Mr. Olbermann’s anger about the segment prompted the cancellation of the weeklong “America the Angry” series…

    Mr. Olbermann’s detractors have repeatedly claimed in the past that he has refused to host his show on occasions when he was unhappy with management…

    “The segment did not go unnoticed and we’re dealing with it internally,” said Jeremy Gaines, an MSNBC spokesman.

    So, to sum up, Keith Olbermann went postal when another anchor on MSNBC basically said he was an angry man because he was included in a segment entitled “America the Angry.”

    Does the man have no sense of irony at all?

  77. Amrtican Thinker…make a special note @ the shout out @ the end of the article…these are the bots we are up aganist IMHO…
    ***************

    April 22, 2010
    Why I Am Enlarging My Carbon Footprint

    By Robin of Berkeley

    As a psychotherapist, I try my best to calm down my anxious clients. But in this case, I inadvertently triggered a panic attack.

    My twenty-something client Emma, a survivor of the Berkeley public schools, had a coughing fit during our session. I helpfully got up to get her some water. When I handed her a cup, she looked at it, incredulous.

    Her voice quivering, she asked, “Is this Styrofoam?”

    I said yes. She stared at the cup, mesmerized by this forbidden fruit. When she finally found her words, she said, “I’ve never seen Styrofoam before. We learned in school that it kills baby birds.”

    Worried that Emma would bolt, I quickly defended the contraband, “Actually, I bought the cups years ago, and still have a few left.”

    When Emma returned the next week (thankfully), I asked about her reaction. She flooded me with stories about indoctrination by teachers. One of her earliest memories was singing songs on Earth Day, prayerfully, when she was five.

    A sensitive soul, Emma became terrified that her beloved Earth would perish, and that she’d be culpable. Starting in third grade, she became an environmental fanatic. Emma went ballistic on her disabled grandmother when the old woman threw a bottle in the trash.

    After school, she and her friends would sift through other people’s garbage to root out recyclables. While Berkeley has plenty of homeless folks going through trash, Emma and her friends were out to save the world.

    The poor thing would even sob in her car when she had to drive more than a few miles. She envisioned the pollution burning up the rain forests and asphyxiating polar bears.

    A year into our therapy/cult deprogramming, I asked Emma about her fixation with all things ecological. She replied, “I’m over it.”

    Emma hasn’t morphed into a consumer-glutton. But she’s not making herself a stress case anymore. Emma even told me, with obvious pride, that for the first time in her life, she took a road trip.

    How did I help Emma snap out of her trance? I simply imparted truths that someone should have communicated years ago, like the following:

    Emma, you’re a wonderful, good-hearted person. You deserve to be here. Your life is a blessing. It’s OK to drive your car or to take a bag from the store. You deserve all these things and more. Besides, the earth has been here for millions of years and will be here long after your great grandchildren are gone.

    Now, if the planet is not about to crash and burn, why turn children like Emma into eco-warriors? Why condition them to take three-minute showers and lambaste their elders?

    The Left’s underlying goal: to convince all of us that we don’t matter. Our happiness, our cleanliness, our ease of living, our money, and our time…it’s the government’s business, not ours. While Marxist theory celebrates the proletarian, in actuality, people become interchangeable cogs in the collective wheel.

    With the promotion of environmental hysteria, the government keeps the masses frightened and in survival mode. When you traumatize and terrify people, they’re malleable. As stated succinctly by Adolph Hitler himself, “Terror is the best political weapon.”

    Another potent way to dominate people? Blame and shame them; make them feel defective if they trash a bottle or enjoy a hot bath. Self-hate and shame are unbearable states of mind. People will do almost anything to get out of them.

    Simply put, the Green Meanies care about power, not the planet. Does anyone out there really believe that Obama gives a hoot about the spotted owl?

    I whimsically entitled this article “Why I’m Enlarging My Carbon Footprint.” Truth be told, I’m not really into littering or trashing the streets. But I’m also not obsessing about every little thing I ingest or buy.

    I refuse to kowtow to a government that not only wants to control my body and my money and what I eat, but also wants to get into my head and become my Higher Power. Frankly, I’m not interested. I’ve got a Higher Power already, and His name isn’t Barack.

    A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley. She’d like to wish her readers a Happy Earth Day/Lenin’s Birthday. Robin would also like to send a special shout-out to Ira Einhorn, the master of ceremonies of the globally televised first Earth Day ceremony, now rotting away in prison for murdering his girlfriend and hiding her body in a trunk.

  78. FAKE POPULIST

    gonzotx
    April 22nd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
    Jesus, they are applauding the Fraud at Wall Street. Well, then again, he is going to give them permanently our money.
    &&&&&&&&&&&

    There is 100% that:
    a) Obama will want the media to report his “tough love” for Wall St.
    b) the media will comply in trying to puff up the StaPuff Prez.
    c) In exchange for the public humiliation, Wall Street biggies will get to write key parts of any financial reform bill, and be the beneficiaries of governmental largesse that will marketed as “stimulus”.

  79. “MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION EVER”???

    Outdoing Bush the 43rd in secrecy.

    thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-21/the-medias-double-standard-on-presidential-golf/?cid=hp:mainpromo5#

    The Media’s Golf Double Standard
    =========================

    by Mark McKinnon

    The president has gone golfing more than he’s met the press. Had Bush tried that, he’d have been clubbed by the media. Mark McKinnon on Washington’s 18-hole hypocrisy.

    News flash: President Obama hasn’t held a formal press conference in almost a year (274 days and counting) yet has golfed 32 times since he was elected—eight more times than President George W. Bush did during his entire presidency.

    Now personally, I think the president should golf every day and never have a press conference. I want the leader of the free world to be as stress-free as possible. And if golf helps fade the psychic heat from the job, by all means tee it up often, Mr. President. Sadly, press conferences have turned into not much more that vanity exhibitions for White House reporters who preen and exhort in front of the cameras—not to convey needed news to the public, but to make themselves seem important.

    Does anyone really think that Obama has been hiding from the press? Obama has more press exposure than any president ever—by a long shot. He and his team have just figured out clever ways to communicate by going around the White House press corps, whose members are about as busy as the Maytag repairman these days. They’ve become glorified babysitters.

    But imagine the press histrionics we would have heard if George W. Bush had gone nine months without a press conference?

    Recall that Bush was loudly criticized when he didn’t hold press conferences frequently enough to satiate a badgering press, though he averaged one about every two months. Over the course of his presidency, he held 45.

    Bush was also constantly ridiculed and criticized for playing golf, most memorably by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11. In August 2003, Bush gave up the game, believing it sent the wrong message to grieving parents of soldiers killed or wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, he was ridiculed for that as well.

    Obama was criticized by foreign press recently when, unable to travel to pay respects to the president of Poland who was killed in a plane crash, he went golfing.

    But there was not a critical peep from the American press.

    On Memorial Day last year, the press reverently reported that Obama placed a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknowns in the morning, and then observed a moment of silence that afternoon—on the golf course before teeing off. (I can only imagine how this would have been reported if Bush’s moment of “silent remembrance and solemn prayer” was on the green.)

    And here’s how ABC reported an outing after Obama had just returned from a trip to Germany visiting the horror of the Holocaust camps: “Nobody would fault Obama for taking Sunday to catch up on sleep and unwind after the breakneck travel schedule. But instead of vegging out on the couch, Obama returned to the White House for only about 90 minutes, then hopped in his motorcade and went right back to Andrews to get in nine holes of golf at one of the three courses on the base.”

    And how about this headline from The Washington Post: “Just the Sport for a Leader Most Driven.” Richard Leiby reports, “To some, Obama’s frequent outings reflect a cool self-confidence.” The article then quotes a sports psychologist who said Obama seemed able to play golf despite the grim reports by the media about the wars and the economy.

    That bears repeating. Here is a journalist remarking about Obama that he is “able” to play golf despite war casualties and economic disaster. For Bush, the press couldn’t believe that he would dare golf at such a time, but for Obama they marvel that he can.

    Now that’s a double standard that unfortunately we’ve come to expect. When it comes to press coverage of Bush vs. Obama, it’s become par for the course.

  80. gonzotx
    April 22nd, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    Amrtican Thinker
    April 22, 2010
    Why I Am Enlarging My Carbon Footprint

    By Robin of Berkeley

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

    The patient may be compulsive, but the doctor is paranoid.

    The patient just thinks environmental damage is happening accidentally; the doctor thinks They are Out To Get Her for Secret Motives.

  81. And here’s that link the extols the virtues of Obama spending so much time playing both basketball AND golf, fro Jun 2009.

    washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/08/AR2009060803812.html

  82. #
    NewMexicoFan
    April 22nd, 2010 at 9:25 am

    So why would Blagojevich challenge Fitzpatrick to show all the tapes? If Fitzpatrick says there are no more tapes, does Blagojevich have tapes he can bring out and play?

    If so, it might be very interesting for the administration and Fitzpatrick. One has to wonder about this move.
    ——-

    I am not sure how Blago knows Fitz has more tapes, if it came out in discovery or what…but since Fitzgerald was taping Blago, secretly, there is no way Blago can bring those tapes forward for the court.

    Something stinks in this whole case and I hope the smell leads back to the Fraud and his bros.

  83. wbboei

    More sociopathic behavior by Obama. This is the Obama we know. The Obama we saw in the primary. The Obama who worms like EJ Dion call The Happy Warrior.
    ———————————-
    Obama Hates Fox News

    It’s the summer of 2008 and Barack Obama is beginning to slip in the election polls.

    He blames Fox News for his election worries.
    ———
    As well he should.

    This isn’t the old USSR with one government controlled station of adulation for the deal leader.

    The internet should also worry him, not all bloggers are from his beloved DailyKos.

  84. Descriptions of Obama being a “fighter” and a “populist” are a sad joke, that fortunately few people are buying.

    Otherwise:

    * why is his disapproval higher than his approval (which is at it lowest, now somewhere around 44%)?

    * Why are the Repubs licking their chops in anticipation of November??

    * Why is a massive independent movement forming, including but NOT limited to the Tea Party?

    Indeed, 29% of the 2008 voters described themselves as Independents. I guess this is just a “minor fringe” that “won’t have much of an impact” in deciding elections. Hah, hah.

  85. Just as there are multiple sides to any complex case in court, there are many sides to political and economic reality. If you read today’s WSJ report, you find all good economic news from Corporate American about improved first quarter earnings. Obama’s numbers get a slight uptick for the week. But then you look behind the curtain a very different reality emerges:

    1. economically, most of those profits are produced either by government bailouts, or the outsourcing of labor. The latter does not get mentioned, and yet this is where corporate welfare and public welfare are decoupled. Also, many state governments are in trouble, and our largest state California is broke in the sense that its liabilities exceed its assets.

    2. politically, while the ignorant and deluded cheer, others believe the dims are dangling on the edge of a cliff. Dan Henninger at wsj.com happens to be one of them:
    ———————————————————————————————————————–
    Democrats at the Edge of the Cliff
    Democrats are spending trillions at the worst possible moment, with a new poll showing public trust in government at a historic low of 22%.
    By DANIEL HENNINGER

    Article
    Video
    Comments (303)
    MORE IN OPINION »
    EmailPrint
    Save This
    ↓ More

    + More
    Text
    There was always something eerie about the way the Democrats said their health-care legislation was what the American people had waited “70 years” for. Invoking the ghosts of 1939 was kind of creepy. Then when the moment in history finally arrived, history got no votes from the other party. Whatever the politics, there was something ominous about all this. One felt something else was going on.

    A Pew Research Center report just out, the one that says trust in government is at an “historic low” of only 22%, looks like the something else.

    Dig past the headline of the Pew study and one discovers why Bill Clinton is insinuating that “demonizing” government could cause another Oklahoma City bombing. If these numbers are at all close to reality, something one can hardly doubt just now, the American people have issued a no-confidence vote in government, at both the national and state level. To the extent one believes in the “consent of the governed,” consent is being eroded.

    Daniel Henninger says that the American people have issued a no-confidence vote in government.

    Podcast: Listen to the audio of Wonder Land.

    This report isn’t bad news for the Democrats. It’s Armageddon.

    The survey compares views sampled in 1997 with now. The “now” is the Democrats’ problem. The survey took place this mid-March. After one year of the charismatic, ever-present Barack Obama, after passage of the party’s totemic health-care bill, after spending zillions on Keynesian pump-priming, the American people—well beyond the tea partiers—have the lowest opinion ever of national government.

    A year ago, 54% said government should exert more control over the economy; a year later it’s 40%.

    Some 58% say Uncle Sam is interfering too much in state and local affairs; 53% want “very major reform” of the federal government. After health care passed in March, Pew re-sampled in early April: Trust in government rose—to 25% from 22%. Inspector Clouseau would call that a “bmp.”

    Pew concludes: “A desire for smaller government is particularly evident since Barack Obama took office.” That’s pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey without blindfolds.

    Democrats could cite one passage in Pew to mitigate this dire portrait. Historically, the report notes, whichever incumbent party is standing next to a big disaster gets pulled down in the undertow. Thus Bush and the Iraq war and Katrina. They can argue that Mr. Obama and the Democrats are getting hit with the legacy of the Bush downdraft and the after-shocks of the financial meltdown of September 2008. Once that passes, and after the inevitable November losses, the economy will stabilize and by 2012 the playing field will reset to normal.

    I don’t buy this. Something unique happened in the first Obama year, about the last thing the Democratic Party needed: The veil was ripped from the true cost of government. This is the ghastly nightmare Democrats have always needed to keep locked in a crypt.

    Before the Internet, that was easy. Washington, California, New York, New Jersey—who knew what the pols were spending? The Democrats (and their Republican pilot fish) could get away with this. Not now. Email lists, 24/7 newspapers, blogs, TV and talk radio—the spending beast is running naked.

    When the financial crisis piled in atop a recession, the Democrats’ academic/pundit economists blandly convinced the party to wave a $787 billion stimulus at the problem in early 2009. Then, on April 30, the Democrats passed an FY 2010 budget of $3.5 trillion. This year the FY 2011 budget hit $3.8 trillion, reaching a post-World War II high of 25% of GDP. In March, they passed the trillion-dollar health-care bill. Total headline spending commitments in one year: about $9 trillion. That’s a lot of “trust” to ask for during a recession with 9% unemployment. And now a sense is building of some broad middle-class tax grab. After soaking the rich, comes the deluge.

    Demonization? No need. They did it to themselves.

    Barack Obama’s speeches are filled with the Democrats’ core claim to legitimacy: Government must and will do good. It must “act.” But in a crucial period when voters across the political spectrum were losing faith in that core claim, the Democrats lost any self-protective sense of what they were doing with public budgets. Barack Obama took a rising reservoir of public trust for his party (62% said they liked the Democrats in January 2009), and emptied it. Since he took office, the percentage of people who want smaller government and fewer services has risen, to 50% from 42%.

    View Full Image

    Associated Press
    A Quinnipiac poll released yesterday has the Obama presidential approval rating down to 44%—after health care, after the arms treaty with Russia, after the 47-nation, anti-proliferation convocation in Washington.

    He insists on more government. People want less, and don’t trust what they’ve got. They want reform. Here’s the Pew blowout data:

    In 1994 when the Democrats lost over 50 House seats at mid-term, the party’s favorable rating was 62%, and for the Congress they controlled it was 53%. They still got killed. Now the party’s favorable is 38% and Congress’s approval is 25%. The Republicans’ numbers are low, too, but they’re not in charge.

    The Democratic Party is on the edge of an electoral cliff with a long fall to the bottom. No wonder they’re seeing a demon under every bed.

    Write to henninger@wsj.com

    MORE IN OPINION
    EmailPrinter FriendlyOrder Reprints

  86. The byzantine complexity of US Strategy is revealed in this article, and how easily it can be thwarted.
    ————————————————–

    Iran Launches War Games, Lobbies Against Sanctions

    By CHIP CUMMINS

    DUBAI—Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps started a large-scale, land, sea and air exercise in the Persian Gulf and strategic Strait of Hormuz early Thursday, with state media reporting units would test-fire new missile capabilities during the drill, dubbed “Great Prophet 5.”

    Iran has a history of saber-rattling under pressure. A U.S.-led push has been building steam at the United Nations for fresh economic sanctions against Tehran, while President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials have mounted what appears to be a diplomatic push to thwart the U.N. effort.

    View Full Image

    Xinhua/ZUMA Press
    Iranian students protest at the U.N. office in Tehran Tuesday, demanding action against U.S. sanction efforts.

    The Revolutionary Guard’s deputy chief, Brig. Gen. Hossein Salami, said the five-day exercise would begin Thursday, according to Iran’s IRIB news agency. He said the exercises were aimed at showing Iran’s “strength, will and national resolve to defend independence and territorial integrity.”

    The Strait of Hormuz, which links the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, is a transit route for about 20% of the world’s daily oil supply, is the relatively narrow passageway between Iran and Oman that connects the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman . Iranian commanders have from time to time threatened to obstruct the strait in retaliation for any attack. Oil prices appeared little affected by the announcement, reported by Iranian media late morning Wednesday. Prices of U.S. benchmark crude were higher in Asian trading, but analysts attributed the move to strong corporate profit reports and reopened commercial air space in Europe.

    The Iranian navy and Revolutionary Guard, which operates in parallel to Iran’s regular armed forces, frequently patrol the Persian Gulf. The Gulf is also heavily patrolled by American and allied warships, and U.S. and other Western naval officials describe the Guard’s naval units as more erratic than Iran’s regular navy.

    Some analysts worry that provocation from Guard units could quickly escalate. “It’s the IRGC navy…that will be more provocative in their maneuvers and in their potential interaction with shipping,” said Theodore Karasik, director of research and development at the Dubai-based Institute for Near East & Gulf Military Analysis, a think tank.

    The Revolutionary Guard is a vast military and paramilitary organization that operates in parallel with Iran’s regular armed forces and answers directly to Iran’s clerical leadership.

    Iran’s revolutionary guard begin three days of large scale military exercises in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. Video courtesy of Reuters.

    The U.S. and many of its Western and Arab allies accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons. Tehran says its program is peaceful. President Barack Obama said late last month he hoped to have a sanctions deal within weeks, but talks among Security Council members have been slow, with China continuing to signal ambivalence toward new measures.

    In recent days, Iranian officials have floated anew a counterproposal to a U.N.-backed draft deal, hammered out last year, for providing nuclear fuel to Iran for use in a medical-research reactor. That deal would have seen Iran sending off the bulk of its lower-enriched nuclear fuel to be upgraded overseas and sent back to Iran.

    Iranian negotiators helped draft the deal, but the country’s leadership never backed it. Instead, officials have offered several, sometimes-contradictory alternatives, including most recently a proposal to swap the fuel simultaneously and on Iranian soil. Earlier this year, Iran began enriching its lower-grade fuel on its own, further alarming Western officials.

    Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, said Wednesday that Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki would be reaching out to U.N. Security Council members to discuss the sanctions effort. He said he will also be talking to officials in other countries about Iran’s proposed fuel swap, Iranian media reported.

    Iran and the West both appear to be courting nonpermanent members of the Security Council over sanctions. The U.S. and its allies need the support of nine of 15 members, without a veto by any of the council’s permanent members, which include China. Still, nonpermanent members opposed to fresh sanctions could weaken any package and provide diplomatic support to Tehran.

    This week Mr. Ahmadinejad is scheduled to visit Uganda, a nonpermanent member. U.K. officials have also reached out to Uganda, along with Nigeria, another former British colony and nonpermanent member, people familiar with the matter said. Ugandan and Nigerian leaders have yet to declare their hand, one of these people said.

    —Alistair MacDonaldin London contributed to this article.
    Write to Chip Cummins at chip.cummins@wsj.com

    MORE IN WORLD
    EmailPrinter FriendlyOrder Reprints

  87. Mrs. Smith,

    Well said. I agree that Hillary is on the ball but…I very much disagree with the reinstatement of an ambassador to Syria.

  88. wbboei
    April 22nd, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    ———————
    Unfortunately, while Iran continues to lie and play games, Rome burns.

  89. Illinois Underground
    April 22nd, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    Blagojevich hurls allegations at Obama in bid to force testimony

    Rod Blagojevich’s attorneys filed a motion today to subpoena President Obama to testify at the former governor’s trial…
    ________________________________

    Oh well- Blago knows the drill and is prepared to jack up that bus if Obama doesn’t get him off the hook.

    Nevertheless- I can’t help smilin’.

  90. I confess I kind of like Blago in a weird way. Not that I would EVER want him in govt – he’s shady as the day is long. But he’s ballsy and blunt, and upfront about how the game is played in Chicago. He makes no bones about the fact that he played the game like everyone else. I just like him. I’m beginning to hope he gets off.

  91. How can we let the AZ folks know that we support their effort in the Arizona Filibuster? We need to do that en masse.

  92. ShortTermer
    April 22nd, 2010 at 7:30 pm
    How can we let the AZ folks know that we support their effort in the Arizona Filibuster? We need to do that en masse.
    _______________________–

    Instead of calling it the AZ Filibuster; I think McCain’s Revenge is a good working title. 🙂 Good idea letting the AZ folks know we are with them. Maybe send in a oped to their local newspapers.

  93. ShortTermer
    April 22nd, 2010 at 7:30 pm

    I called a few of the AZ’s state reps to thank them. If you do a yahoo search on “AZ state reps + birth certificate” or something along those lines, you will find state representatives who voted for it, and then you can look up their phone numbers.

  94. #
    HillaryforTexas
    April 22nd, 2010 at 6:58 pm

    I confess I kind of like Blago in a weird way. Not that I would EVER want him in govt – he’s shady as the day is long. But he’s ballsy and blunt, and upfront about how the game is played in Chicago. He makes no bones about the fact that he played the game like everyone else. I just like him. I’m beginning to hope he gets off.

    I feel the same way. I would love for him to unravel the workings of the Chicago machine and expose the dirty deals that were common place in their state…that also expose the dirty deals of the Fraud and his bros there.
    Love to see Rod come out smelling like a rose compared to the dear leader.

  95. nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-Six-Secrets-You-Need-to-Know-From-the-Blagojevich-Filing-91848634.html

    WHOA! CHECK THIS OUT!

    Update: Judge calls emergency meeting over redaction errors.

    1. Obama may have lied about conversations with convicted fraudster Tony Rezko

    Blagojevich’s lawyers allege that Rezko admitted breaking the law by contributing “a large sum of cash” to a public official. Blagojevich’s attorneys say that public official is Obama. Obama said that Rezko never relayed a request from a lobbyist to hold a fundraiser in favor of favorable legislative action. But the point may be moot: regardless of Obama talking/not talking to Rezko, Blagojevich’s attorneys say that Obama refused the request regardless.

    Redacted portion: However, the defense has a good faith belief that Mr. Rezko, President Obama’s former friend, fund-raiser, and neighbor told the FBI and the United States Attorneys a different story about President Obama. In a recent in camera proceeding, the
    government tendered a three paragraph letter indicating that Rezko “has stated in interviews with the government that he engaged in election law violations by personally contributing a large sum of cash to the campaign of a public official who is not Rod Blagojevich. … Further, the public official denies being aware of cash contributions to his campaign by Rezko or others and denies having
    conversations with Rezko related to cash contributions. … Rezko has also stated in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a fundraiser for the official in exchange for favorable official action, but that the public official rejected the offer. The public official denies any such conversation. In addition, Rezko has stated to the government that he and the public official had certain conversations about gaming legislation and
    administration, which the public official denies having had.

    Redacted footnote: The defense has a good faith belief that this public official is Barack Obama.

    2. Obama may have overtly recommended Valerie Jarret for his Senate seat
    Blagojevich’s defense team basically alleges that Obama told a certain labor union official that he (Obama) would support Valerie Jarrett’s candidacy for the Senate seat. Jarrett, referred to as “Senate Candidate B”, is now a senior advisor to the president.

    Redacted portion: Yet, despite President Obama stating that no representatives of his had any part of any deals, labor union president told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to labor union official on November 3, 2008 who received a phone message from Obama that evening. After labor union official listened to the message labor union official told labor union president “I’m the one”. Labor union president took that to mean that labor union official was to be the one to deliver the message on behalf of Obama that Senate Candidate B was his pick. (Labor union president 302, February 2, 2009, p. 7).

    Labor union official told the FBI and the United States Attorneys “Obama expressed his belief that [Senate Candidate B] would be a good Senator for the people of Illinois and would be a candidate who could win re-election. [Labor union official] advised Obama that [labor union official] would reach out to Governor Blagojevich and advocate for [Senate Candidate B].. . . [Labor union official] called [labor union president] and told [labor union president] that Obama was aware that [labor union official] would be reaching out to Blagojevich.” (Labor union official 302, February 3, 2009 p. 3).

    3. A supporter of President Obama may have offered quid pro quo on a Jarrett senate appointment
    Redacted portion: Supporter of Presidential Candidate Obama is mentioned in a phone call on November 3, 2008, having offered “fundraising” in exchange for Senate Candidate B for senator (Blagojevich Home Phone Call # 149).

    4. Obama maintained a list of good Senate candidates
    Redacted portion: President-elect Obama also suggested Senate Candidate A to Governor Blagojevich. John Harris told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to President’s Chief of Staff on November 12, 2008. Harris took notes of the conversation and wrote that President’s Chief had previously worked as Blagojevich’s press secretary. Obama agreed of Staff told Harris that Senate Candidate A was acceptable to Obama as a senate pick. (Harris handwritten notes, OOG1004463) President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that “he could not say where but somewhere it was communicated to him that” Senate Candidate A was a suggested candidate viewed as one of the four “right” candidates “by the Obama transition team.”

    5. Rahm Emanuel allegedly floated Cheryl Jackson’s name for the Senate seat
    Redacted portion: President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that he had a conversation discussing the Senate seat with Obama on December 7, 2008 in Obama’s car. President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI “Obama expressed concern about Senate Candidate D being appointed as Senator.

    [President’s Chief of Staff] suggested they might need an expanded list to possibly include names of African Americans that came out of the business world. [President’s Chief of Staff] thought he suggested Senate Candidate E who was the head of the Urban League and with President’s Chief of Staff’s suggestion.

    6. Obama had a secret phone call with Blagojevich
    Redacted portion: President-elect Obama also spoke to Governor Blagojevich on December 1, 2008 in Philadelphia. On Harris Cell Phone Call # 139, John Harris and Governor’s legal counsel discuss a conversation Blagojevich had with President-elect Obama. The government claims a conspiracy existed from October 22, 2008 continuing through December 9, 2008.6 That conversation is relevant to the defense of the government’s theory of an ongoing conspiracy. Only Rod Blagojevich and President Obama can testify to the contents of that conversation. The defense is allowed to present evidence that corroborates the defendant’s testimony.
    BY Ward Room Staff // 4 minutes ago

    IT GOES ON…

    nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-Six-Secrets-You-Need-to-Know-From-the-Blagojevich-Filing-91848634.html#ixzz0lscctxxP

  96. Obama may have overtly recommended Valerie Jarret for his Senate seat
    ***************

    And this is why the house of Blago fell….

  97. mediaite.com/online/mediaite-exclusive-censored-portions-of-blago-subpoena-may-implicate-team-obama/

    MORE BREAKING…

  98. cbs2chicago.com/governor/blagojevich.obama.subpoena.2.1650066.html

    Judge Holds Emergency Hearing In Blagojevich Case
    Defense Motion To Subpoena President Barack Obama Contained Sealed Information That Was Visible In Some Electronic Formats

    …proverbial tip of iceberg…

  99. From the History Channel’s “Nostradamus Effect”:

    Examines prophecies from Nostradamus that reportedly predict three evil dictators that are referred to as anti-christs.[2] The first believed to be Napoleon, the second Hitler, and the third is unknown.

    —————

    Some think the 3rd one could be Bin Laden. I can think of one other person…

  100. S

    nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-Six-Secrets-You-Need-to-Know-From-the-Blagojevich-Filing-91848634.html

    WHOA! CHECK THIS OUT!
    ———–
    Awesome!
    ……….and this is just the beginning of the trial.

  101. According to nomoobama, Obama will not survive the Constitutional issues and therefored will be removed, eventually-

    So, Biden moves up a notch and is asked to pick a VP- I can only think of one person that can run this country (through Biden) until Biden finishes out Obama’s term. Until she runs her own race starting from the Top.

  102. Hi Jan, Fifth Dimension and JBStonesfan, & Mrs. Smith…thanks for your kind sentiments a few threads back…i appreciate it…hope all is well with you all…

  103. I tried to send the article about Blago’s emergency meeting to Greta, and see that she already has it posted on her site:
    ————
    giant OOPS! Now we know the 6 reasons (and this is going to make the White House very unhappy!)
    Greta Van Susteren | Anchor

    (I am so glad I am not the lawyer or the clerk who made have made this blunder!)

    As you may know, former Gov Blagojevich wants to subpoena President Obama as his witness in his criminal trial that starts in June. To secure President Obama’s presence on the witness stand, Gov Blago’s lawyers filed a motion with the Fed Judge arguing the reasons why the President should be compelled to testify. The motion was submitted to the court. The actual enumerated reasons for the subpoena of the President were supposed to be redacted from the copy made available to the public. The Judge wanted to consider that under seal.

    Well…it hasn’t quite worked out that way….the contents of the documents – including the 6 reasons why the Gov thinks President Obama should be a witness is now out and contained on the website below.

    http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/

    I think Greta ‘likes’ Blago too 🙂

  104. Shadowfax
    April 22nd, 2010 at 10:10 pm
    ******************
    Don’t get your hopes up. The Billionaire/Trillionaire club isn’t going to let it happen, and if it did, the media will blow it off. The media was not in the pockets completely in the Nixon era and a few politicans had a few morals then. Not so much now i am afraid.

  105. You’re probably right gonzotx, but it would be poetic justice if Blago brought the Fraud down to save himself.

  106. This week Mr. Ahmadinejad is scheduled to visit Uganda, a nonpermanent member. U.K. officials have also reached out to Uganda, along with Nigeria, another former British colony and nonpermanent member, people familiar with the matter said. Ugandan and Nigerian leaders have yet to declare their hand, one of these people said.
    ————————————————————————–
    When we play the game of foreign policy by Bambi’s rules, we go on bended knee to non security council members like Uganda and beg them to support sanctions against Iran. Then, Dr. Strangelove shows up and tells them that the sanctions proposed by the United States and other western powers are racist, colonialist and imperialistic. The Ugandan leaders listen to him because they remember a time when those forces were real and they were the victims. Even worse, when Mr. Ahmadinejad deigns to characterize us in those damning terms, how can Bambi possibly object? He himself had slandered our country, and our people, i.e. tea parties on the world stage. In fact, Iran can quote his exact words. That is the problem with a policy of appeasement.

    And where the hell does that leave Israel? Does its survival depend upon the consent of Uganda? In the virtual world perhaps. But not in the real world. Not by a long shot.

  107. wbboei
    April 22nd, 2010 at 11:07 pm

    “how can Bambi possibly object? He himself had slandered our country, and our people, i.e. tea parties on the world stage. In fact, Iran can quote his exact words. That is the problem with a policy of appeasement.”

    you nailed it. Dr. Strangelove is applying the alinksky tactics against us. The man is nuts and using the fool in the WH’s own words and/or at least his past of slanderous remarks about America against us as a country.

  108. Here is clear, cogent and convincing evidence that Joan Walsh of Salon is a blind ideologue. She appears on MSNBC which features deranged left wing screamers like Olberman, Matthews, Schultz, and dearly departed David Wunderkind Shuster, and asks who on the left is as bad as Rush? Everyone of the set proceeds to chuckle and refuses to answer. So what does Joan do? She affects this bewildered look and continues asking the same foolish question. I am proud of Joan. She gives new meaning to the old adage keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, rather than opening your mouth and removing all doubt.
    ———————————————————————————————-
    http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=XdSU8znzVr

  109. “oh, let the god of karma descend upon the blago trial…”

    this is going to get very interesting. I just saw Greta’s piece on this.

  110. When I was at Annapolis, the upper classmen would cross examine plebes on a number of different subjects, and when these Clarence Darrow inquiries elicited a stupid response, the plebe would be directed to stand up on his chair and scream the stupid answer at the top of his lungs so everyone could laugh at him. Well, thanks to the marvels of electronic journalism, Joan Wash did not have to stand on her chair and scream. Everyone in the country who tuned in to that silly station heard what she said, and saw her reactions.

    After graduation, some of those plebes entered the submarine service, but before they were accepted they had to pass an interview with the terrifying Vice Admiral Rickover. Rickover was the Father of our nuclear power program, and did not suffer fools lightly. This otherwise admirable trait grew worse with age, and he became a real eccentric. If you doubt this google the stories about him, and I can assure you they are absolutely true. He would routinely deliver stupid questions, and when they elicited stupid answers, he would lock the young ensign in his broom closer for a hour or so to reflect on their stupidity. I suspect that is where Joan Walsh is now–assuming she has any sense.

  111. “oh, let the god of karma descend upon the blago trial…”

    this is going to get very interesting. I just saw Greta’s piece on this.
    —————————
    Yes. I hope something comes of it. If we could just get people to understand how Chicago works, what a Rezko deal looks like and how Obama has taken those people with him to Washington DC for the express purpose of doing lots and lots and lots of Rezko deals against the nation. As they say in bridge, Bambi is strictly a pattern player.

  112. I haven’t been keeping up with this…lets hope Blago brings him down….lying about Rezko is impeachment stuff….I knew he was in it and Blago is not giving up his life for Obama…watch some big money pass hands now…just like it did for Scooter Libby!

  113. This guy was Soros partner for many years. The Mad Hungarian and Obama mentor Soros is bearish too.
    ———————————————————————————————————

    Rogers: Goldman May Fuel 20 Percent Market Tumble
    Monday, 19 Apr 2010 09:20 AM Article Font Size
    By: Julie Crawshaw

    Billionaire investor Jim Rogers says the SEC allegations against Goldman Sachs could act as the catalyst end markets downward regardless of the outcome of the charges.

    “Markets are overdue for a correction,” says Rogers, chairman of Rogers Holdings.

    “When the markets are ready for a correction, something will come along … the straw that breaks the camel’s back,” he told CNBC.

    “Any market that goes up this much, this fast, this steadily without correction — it’s not normal. When that sort of things happens, the market could be setting itself up for a 15 to 20 percent correction.”

    Rogers wasn’t surprised by the SEC’s actions, pointing out that these kinds of investigations usually take place after major financial meltdowns

    “When the tide goes out, you see who’s swimming naked,” Rogers said, quoting Warren Buffett. “I’m sure there will be many, many more skeletons to come.”

    Though Rogers believes this could well be the beginning of a correction, he doesn’t advise selling just yet. However, he says investors should start thinking about adding shorts to their portfolio, and suggested shorting indexes, bank stocks included.

    As usual, Rogers strongly suggests buying gold. “Go back to 2008, you have AIG go broke, Lehman go broke,” he notes.

    “There was a gigantic forced liquidation in commodities — not because of fundamentals, but because people were forced to sell … it would be an opportunity.”

  114. Can the judge and will the judge make Obama testify?? Is it unheard of for a sitting President testify at a corruption trial??

  115. Why isn’t Blago scared of Obama?
    ——————————–
    There are alot of reasons. First, he knows the real story on Obama and has given it to his lawyers. Second, I assume he has reduced it to writing to be opened in the event of my death. Third, he know Obama has a glass chin, as they say in boxing. Fourth, Blago believes he is innocent since all he ever did was play by Chicago Rules, just like Obama. (Note: we saw the same reaction from Daley’s political fixer Sorich when he was convicted and sentenced by a federal judge a couple years ago). Fifth, there will come a time when he wants to trade up to save himself and his wife, or at least his wife. Sixth, part of his defense will be I didn’t do nuthin that nobody else was doing, and here is the proof. Seventh, he does not scare easy.

  116. Well now here comes the payola Chicago style. And you thought those Chicago thugs in the west wing were serving the county. Well . . . guess again. This is a perfect vehicle for them to throw government business to their cronies Chicago style. This is so transparent that the union is complaining about it. Rezko redux, loot, loot, and then steal the taxpayers blind.
    ——————————————————————————————————–

    Posted by Dave Poff (haystack) (Profile)
    Thursday, April 22nd at 10:44PM EDT
    1 Comment

    Apparently (and stunningly) the President of the American Federation of Government Employees (affiliate of the AFL-CIO) spoke out against the so-called “High Road Contracting Policy” (currently under consideration by the Obama Administration’s Union-hugging policy geniuses and eagerly being awaited by those who would most benefit by it being inflicted on us) when he “recently questioned the wisdom of using the procurement process as a tool of social policy”:

    [I]n a letter dated March 23 to Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag, AFGE President John Gage expressed concern about the “High Road’ proposal, noting that it could “significantly increase subjectivity and politics in federal procurement.” AFGE is the largest union representing federal workers, with more than 600,000 members worldwide.
    [snip]
    “The various preferences for small businesses that ‘High Road’ proponents cite as precedents for rewarding a certain class of contractors are in fact riddled with fraud and often ultimately benefit ineligible businesses that act as subcontractors,” Gage wrote. “Finally, as proponents now acknowledge, there are no jurisdictions at the state or local levels that use a process similar to the one proposed by ‘High Road’ proponents.”

    To be fair…Gage didn’t directly challenge the idea of using High Road Contracting as a “tool of social policy” but his concerns make perfect sense if you are a non-Union worker, and echo the concerns of many people worried about the effects of this High Road Contracting idea on non-Union private sector jobs and the struggling businesses out there trying to make a go of it in these Depression-like economic times. So, why would an AFL-CIO bigwig stand up against it, given its deference to Big Labor?

    Answer? [emphasis mine]:

    “In his letter Gage argued the High Road proposal should not apply to any functions that currently or in the future may be performed by federal employees and questions expanding federal preferences for certain contractors.

    Why IS that, one wonders…but a closer read of what Al Burman (”a top federal procurement official under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush”) said in the Caller piece clears things up nicely for us:

    “We’ve already got issues with an understaffed contracting corps. They’re just trying to keep their heads above water,” Burman said, pointing out that the federal government has seen a huge increase in funding during the last 10 years but the acquisition work force has remained the same size. President Obama has proposed increasing the acquisition work force by 5 percent but that change could take years to implement given the federal government’s lengthy recruitment and hiring process.

    Translation? We already have enough trouble…we don’t need this monstrous bureaucracy piled on top of an already overwhelmingly monstrous bureaucracy…we’re going to screw this thing up worse than we already do!

    Make no mistake, this ‘High Road’ idea truly WILL set social policy in ways Congress has been unable to do for years. It will require Contractors to pay their employees a ‘living wage’ as well as mandate paid sick days, insist on employer-provided health insurance and retirement plans, and open a back back door to putting ‘Card Check’ in place, completely circumventing Congress and rendering moot the entire EFCA debate still raging on Capitol Hill. The temptation to raise Union Membership is just too great to pass up…just ask SEIU’s Anna Burger…but, more on that separately.

    Mark Hemingway, over at the Washington Examiner summarizes Obma’s logic in redefining America through the prism of Organized Labor rather nicely:

    If even prominent union leaders think this is terrible policy, why is the White House supporting it? Oh right — unions spent $400 million electing Democrats in 2008.

  117. If they had it all to do over again–I mean the James Roosevelts and other members of the elite, knowing then what they know now. was it really worth it to disenfrachise Hillary supporters? Do they realize that when they did that, they forfeited the good will of good democrats who would have marched through the gates of hell for them if she had asked them to. Now, those supporters who have the courage of their convictions will never return to the party. And everything they have done along the way from false charges of racism, to vilifying American citizens who speak out as seditionists, terrorists. and the like will be their permanent enemies. Was it really worth it? If you are Jamie Dimon, Jack Immelt, or the other beneficiaries of Obama’s crony capitalism then I guess the answer is yes. But for the rest of us it is no, and we too can vote early and often.

  118. Jeff Imelt–ceo of GE. When I said we can vote early and often I was being facetious. We will stick by the rules, and if we catch them cheating we will deal with it legally. That is what differentiates us from the Obama thugs. We respect the law whereas they trash it–as we saw repeatedly in the caucus states.

  119. Score one for Jersey’s tax revolt
    By ADAM BRODSKY
    Last Updated: 4:01 AM, April 23, 2010
    Posted: 1:51 AM, April 23, 2010
    WEST ORANGE, NJ

    THE Garden State tax revolt is starting to bear fruit — and it’s about time, too.

    On Tuesday, voters nixed 315 of 537 school-district budgets, including many that sought tax hikes. That’s a whopping 59 percent; usually, less than 30 percent fail. The state hasn’t seen anything close to even 50 percent rejected since 1976. It all started with anti-tax GOP crusader Chris Christie’s defeat last fall of then-Gov. Jon Corzine in this Democratic-leaning state. Faced with an $11 billion cash shortfall, Christie quickly sliced state aid to schools by $820 million — and followed up with warnings that school boards should clamp down on costs, not just force hikes in property taxes and spend as usual.

    It was a perfect test: If residents truly wanted standard, bloated school budgets, they’d have to ante up. Christie went further, offering a bonus — greater state aid — to districts where teachers unions agreed to concessions. He urged voters to reject school budgets if the unions were intransigent. The upshot: Only 20 districts or so won union pay freezes or givebacks; more than 80 percent sought property-tax hikes. And the voters went with Christie in nearly 60 percent of districts. Not only did they say “No way, Jose” to budgets, they also gave many school-board incumbents the boot, in an unusually heavy turnout for such a vote.
    www dot nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/score_one_for_jersey_tax_revolt_OBfpgjsRYvvdtFHXCM7ioJ

  120. Clinton hopes no ‘miscalculation’ to spark Korean war

    (AFP) – 2 hours ago

    TALLINN — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday that she hoped there would be “no miscalculation” that could spark a new war between North and South Korea.

    “I hope that there is no talk of war, there is no action or miscalculation that could provoke a response that might lead to conflict that is not in anyone’s interests,” the chief US diplomat told reporters.

    Clinton had been asked to comment on North Korea’s seizing South Korean-owned assets at a mountain resort and warning both sides were on the brink of war over the sinking of a warship on their disputed border.

    “We have said time and time again that North Koreans should not engage in provocative actions and that they should return to the six-party talks,” she said, referring to the talks for the de-nuclearisation of the Korean peninsula and other matters.

    “The way to resolve the outstanding differences … is to return to the six-party talks framework as soon as possible,” she added in Estonia where she has been attending a meeting of NATO foreign ministers.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g9wDfJ_z_XbU4YwPUGzBMyTpwCjg

  121. Hillary Clinton – There is not Veto Power Russia has Over Any Country in Europe or in the Region Concerning NATO Membership

    ‘We’ve been very clear that we believe that there is no sphere of influence, that there is no veto power that Russia or any country has over any country in Europe or in this region concerning membership in organizations like NATO or the EU’, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton Remarked after meting Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet in Tallinn.

    ‘I’m heartened to see Europe moving more to take steps that will empower it in its dealings with Russia, including moving toward more energy security, another issue that the foreign minister and I discussed.
    This is a balancing act. And even as young as the foreign minister is with his recent birthday, he’s old enough to remember Soviet occupation. This is a very live sense of the historical reality in the hearts and minds of the people of Estonia, so we are very conscious of that and we recognize the need to build up our relationships and support actions of independence such as moving toward energy security as a way of sending a very clear message that we want to live in a peaceful, stable world with our Russian friends but we’re going to be committed to the defense of our NATO allies,’ Clinton stated.
    Unofficial meeting of NATO member foreign Ministers takes place in Tallinn. General Secretary of the Alliance Anders Fogh Rassmussen heads the4 meeting.

    http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home&newsid=21364

  122. April 22, 2010

    Hillary Clinton: Traveling the Globe “Wears You Out”

    Posted by Stephanie Condon

    Traveling as America’s top diplomat “wears you out,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says in an interview in Esquire magazine, published in the May issue.

    “The jet lag, the dry air on planes, the whole ‘If it’s Tuesday, I must be in…’ kind of thing,” she says.

    In a largely flattering profile, writer Tom Junod notes that Clinton’s “stamina has become the most shocking thing about her, but it’s not simply that she doesn’t stop; it’s that she won’t let herself stop, or let anyone else stop her.”

    In her first year as secretary of state, the article notes, Clinton traveled a quarter of a million miles, and her staff contends she has become the most well-traveled woman in the world.

    “I do have good stamina and resilience,” Clinton says. “But you would think, in the world in which we live today, that with instantaneous communications, that you wouldn’t need to travel as much.”

    In fact, she says, “you almost have to travel more, both because everybody knows you can get on an airplane and get to where they’re expecting you, but also because it’s almost as if the virtual reality cries out for the real relationships need to be affirmed. It’s ironic.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003231-503544.html

  123. More from the upcoming May Esquire…

    Inside Secretary Clinton’s Iran Strategy: Forget the Gates Memo Flap — We Have a Plan

    April 22, 2010

    I felt better about myself as an American after spending time with Hillary Clinton for the profile of her that appears in the May issue of Esquire. Seriously. It’s not just the obvious — it’s not just the fact that she never appears so quintessentially American, as simultaneously Daisy-Millerish and Tracy-Flickish, as when she stands smiling on a stage with a bunch of European guys with permanent five-o’clock shadows. It’s not even that I wind up applauding my country for producing a woman whose genius is for a kind of can-do level-headedness that somehow manages to drive both enemies and admirers around the bend. No, it’s that after traveling to Montreal, London, and Paris with the secretary of state — after listening to three of her speeches and attending at least a dozen diplomatic ceremonies and then interviewing her — I’m a little less concerned than I was about the problem of American power. And because of Hillary Clinton, we should all be a lot less concerned about the problem of a nuclear Iran (no matter the war games nor the cautious talk).

    But first, let’s face it: The problem with American power is that there seems to be less of it these days. We’re fighting wars we can’t win and incurring debts we can’t pay, and the upshot of all that is that we can’t tell other countries what to do. “You have to approach this [diplomacy] with humility,” Secretary Clinton told me. “Even if you think we’re right — and in fact I do believe we’re right about the major issues — you can’t just assert it.” Now, on the face of it that sounds like a pretty standard, Obama-era formulation, right down to the encoded reference to the Bush administration, whose policy of diplomacy-by-assertion only wound up making us look at once decisive and ineffectual — decisively ineffectual, if you will. But the thing that makes it also a classic Hillary formulation is the parenthetical insistence that she, and we, are right. She has never been given to apology, and while this has caused her some problems politically — think the Iraq war vote — it serves her well as President Obama’s secretary of state. She does not give you the sense, as Obama sometimes does, that she’s conducting foreign policy in expiation of the sins of the previous administration, or for that matter of the previous 234-odd years of American history. She’s not guilty about anything, least of all American power, and standing next to her is like standing next to a Minuteman missile — you can have all sorts of opinions about her, but ultimately you’re glad that she’s one of ours.

    Of course, I was particularly susceptible to the patriotism that Secretary Clinton inspires because I was reporting my story at a time when President Obama was just having his ass handed to him, in the wake of Scott Brown’s election as the successor to Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts. It was good to see the pageant of state power that accompanies Madam Secretary’s trips abroad, good to see the urbane Continental smoothies that are her diplomatic counterparts stooping to kiss her ring, good to hear her say, in our interview, “I don’t buy that [American] decline stuff at all. We have some work to do here at home — our deficit is a huge challenge to our international position that we’ve got to address — but we still have the reserve currency, people would rather invest here than anywhere else in the world, we have the instruments of power, all across the board, from hard to soft to where I like to land, in the middle, with ‘smart’. So there’s no doubt people want to see us, they can’t get enough of us, they’re constantly wondering what we think and what we’re going to do.”

    So it’s hard not to feel a little more sanguine about American prospects after hanging around with Hillary, especially when some of the things that seemed impossible back when I was reporting the story — from the health care bill to the arms treaty with the Russians — have now come to pass. Hell, I don’t even get upset when the Times reports on a leaked memo from Hillary’s coeval at the Department of Defense, Robert Gates, complaining that the United States doesn’t have a coherent policy concerning Iran’s nuclear ambitions. First of all, the memo was written back in January. At the time, Secretary Clinton was quickening her very public push for sanctions, to the extent that the subject of sanctions came up everywhere she went, even if where she was going was a conference on rebuilding Haiti. Yes, the administration’s initial effort to engage Iran had turned into an international embarrassment. But it had given the administration room to pursue what it calls “the pressure track” with Iran, which is what Secretary Clinton was doing through the late winter and early spring, with her particular brand of doggedness. I mean, it didn’t matter if she was giving a speech about Internet Freedom, or attending a summit on Afghanistan — the deep subtext for just about everything she did was the question of sanctions on Iran. So clearly someone in the administration was and is thinking about it.

    And secondly, the secretary’s push seems to be working, sort of, in that a little more than a week ago Chinese president Hu Jintao agreed to “join negotiations on a new package of sanctions against Iran.” Okay, you think, big deal — we’ve certainly heard this before, dating back to the dark days of the Bush administration, and if the Chinese enter negotiations on Iran sanctions, they’re going to negotiate to weaken them and render them meaningless. Indeed, that’s what diplomatic blunderbuss John “I Am The Walrus” Bolton was arguing Tuesday night, on Fox — that “the Chinese interest [in Iran] is in locking up as much oil and natural gas as they can. And to them, while they may not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, it’s an incidental. It’s an irritant, but it’s not a real problem, like it is for us and our friends and allies in the region, like Israel and the Persian Gulf Arab states.”

    Bolton is right about that. But once again, it’s not like no one in the administration has thought about it. Here’s what the secretary of state said when I interviewed her in March: “With a country like China — which gets a significant amount of its oil from Iran, which has investments in Iran, whose single-minded devotion to increasing the standard of living of its people depends on having the national resources to do so — how do we make the case that this is not an easy choice for you: We understand that. But if your goal is to ensure that you have the natural resources in order to be able to grow your economy, then you have to be aware of what instability in the Gulf and potential conflict would do to you. [The Chinese] have to know that there are neighbors of Iran that will even go to the extent of engaging in military action to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons, which could very likely shut down the Gulf, and therefore that would be a direct that would be far beyond any abstract notion of instability. It would hit their bottom line and their pocketbook.”

    What she’s saying is that the United States does have a coherent policy on Iran — and it’s called Israel. What she’s saying is that we are already using the “crazy little brother” strategy to get the Chinese to accept sanctions — Hey, it’s not me you have to worry about, it’s my crazy little brother. What she’s saying is that sanctions are being pursued not simply to stop Iran from developing the Bomb, but also to stop Israel from bombing Iran. We are being primed to worry about the consequences of a nuclear Iran. But there is not going to be a nuclear Iran, because Israel is not going to allow it. And so what the world has to worry about is not so much the prospect of Iran having a bomb, but rather the aftermath of it not having one. Hillary Clinton knows this, and is preparing for it. The great prophets of American decline, on both the left and the right, portray us as a powerless power, without a card to play in our engagements with challenging nations. But spending time with Secretary Clinton makes you understand that not only do we have cards to play; she’s already playing them.

    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/hillary-clinton-iran-sanctions#ixzz0lw0W1glL

  124. I’m from Jersey, and our school budget proposal was defeated. Rather soundly. Outside the town of Allentown, Upper Freehold Twp:

    1,412 agin
    512 fer

    Even in Allentown proper:

    251 agin
    173 fer

    Overall:
    71% agin
    29% fer

    Did I mention it was a blowout?

    Prior to the Tuesday vote, the mailer was curiously sparse on details of the vote, lacking much contextual detail. It simply gave the dollar amount:

    RESOLVED: That there should be raised for the General Fund $19,106.937.00 for the ensuing school year (2010 – 2011).
    Your school district has proposed programs and services in addition to the core curriculum content standards adopted by the State Board of Education. Information on this budget and the programs and services it provides is available from your school district.
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    So it did not compare the budget to the previous year, or translate that to what the percent of the resulting increase in taxes would be.

    But throughout the township, there were many “Vote NO” signs, much less “Vote Yes for the kids” signs. And one house had a sign saying the budget if passed would result in a 9.88% tax increase.

    Not sure where I heard this, but only about 30% of families have school-aged kids. so that makes 70% that don’t.

    Not that we want kids to have terrible schools, bad facilities, drastically reduced school year, etc. But many people are just eking by, barely able to meet their mortgages in this horrible economy, and are considering moving out of state.

  125. April 23, 2010

    Schumer: Obama’s Israel Policy “Counter-Productive”

    Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer on Thursday criticized the Obama administration’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, calling it “counter-productive.”

    The United States has to maintain a solid standing with Israel, the New York senator said on the Nachum Segal Show, a conservative Jewish talk radio show.

    “I told the president, I told [White House chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel and others in the administration that I thought the policy they took to try to bring about negotiations is counter-productive, because when you give the Palestinians hope that the United States will do its negotiating for them, they are not going to sit down and talk,” Schumer said.

    The United States last month condemned Israel’s decision to construct new Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, which was announced while Vice President Joe Biden was in Israel to try and revive talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Biden maintained that the U.S. has “no better friend” than Israel.

    Later, however, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “It was insulting not just to the vice president, who certainly didn’t deserve that … but it was an insult to the United States.”

    Schumer said that many in Washington are “pushing back” against the administration and that some Jewish members of Congress are meeting with President Obama within the next couple of weeks.

    “We are saying that this has to stop,” he said. “You have to have, in terms of the negotiations, you have to show Israel that it’s not going to be forced to do things it doesn’t want to do and can’t do… And right now there is a battle going on inside the administration, one side agrees with us, one side doesn’t. And we’re pushing hard to make sure the right side wins, and if not, we’ll have to take it to the next step.”

    Recently 76 senators signed a letter, organized by the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, urging Clinton to “reaffirm the unbreakable bonds that tie the United States and Israel together and to diligently work to defuse current tensions.”

    Schumer said that “90 percent of the Senate is overwhelmingly in support of Israel.”

    Mr. Obama on April 19, the 62nd anniversary of Israel Independence Day, released a statement saying the United States shares an “unbreakable bond” with Israel and he was confident the relationship “will only be strengthened” into the future.

    Still, Schumer said, “The only way the Palestinians will sit down and talk is if they know Israel and the United States are as close as could be. And each administration learns it… We are at a crucial moment here, and I am hopeful that administration will see the right way to go. I am working on it.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003254-503544.html

  126. When you eliminate the middle class, when you get rid of the older, and bring in the younger at a reduce salaries, when the jobs are going over seas, people don’t vote for tax hikes. In NM the unemployment number went up last month, and we are one of the places they thought would have jobs. It is so obvious what is happening. Even those who keep their jobs, have to do 2 and 3 jobs, and are being stressed to death. I really think the government and the corporations think we do not notice. They complain about workers stealing them blind when the CEO’s continue to, and show absolutely no loyalty to them.

    I understand that we need tax hikes to keep this country going. But when you have this large a segment out of work, and no sign of corporations hiring American’s back at the same level, expect defeats. After all, you don’t need to pay to vote, and they will in large numbers, as they don’t have to worry about running to work.

    I fear for the future.

  127. wbboei
    April 22nd, 2010 at 11:37 pm
    *********************************************

    Joan Walsh is becoming a major disappointment and O suck up…I used to have such respect for her and admired her ‘voice’ for Hillary but wow she has really lost all objectivity…integrity gone…MIA…

    …that clip above was amazing…the thought ‘how stupid can you be?’ comes to mind…
    …not to mention what has Joan done to her face?? botox, face lift, eye and brow lift? something…maybe it is has gone to the capacity in her brain to accuately analyze the most obvious…

    …msnbc is even worse than we thought…i rarely tune in…but even Joe S has lost his nerve and sounds like an O dim…they must be paying him tons of money…msnbc, as usual, wins the prize for propaganda and censorship…can you imagine what their in house meetings are like…

  128. Joan Walsh is becoming a major disappointment and O suck up…I used to have such respect for her and admired her ‘voice’ for Hillary but wow she has really lost all objectivity…integrity gone…MIA
    ———————————————————————-
    S: was she really a voice for Hillary? I can recall listening to her and hoping she would be forceful, and always coming away disappointed. But maybe I missed something. The opponents were much more forceful, which is to say virulent. Of course it was MSNBC, and that was never intended to be a news network. The mistake people make is thinking that it is a news network. The left likes to say it is our FOX News, but while FOX may be biased on some of the issues that matter to us, they do present two sides of an issue, most of the time. I do not see any attempt to do that at MSNBC.

  129. The RAP on Andy Stern has always been that he does a poor job of servicing his members, and spends most of his time in high profile projects, like Presidential campaigns. Also, there has always been a whiff of corruption. This is an interesting article, and it helps explain what is really going on. Hoffa and Stern pulled their respective unions out of the AFL-CIO and formed their own umbrella organization. Stern’s departure puts Hoffa in an awkward position. Hoffa campaigned hard for Bambi and was promised something of value in return, namely the lifting of the trusteeship which was created in 1988 to root out the Mafia. That trusteeship has continued long after its initial purpose was served–a familiar dynamic when it comes to bureaucracies. This has enriched a generation of former justice department officials who were given jobs as members of the Internal Review Board, or as officers in the trusteeship apparatus. A prominent federal judge and ex US attorney I knew told me that he was invited to join that IRB and refused as a matter of principle. Those moneys came directly out of the union treasury. Recently, the IRB put the large Teamster Local in Philadelphia in partial trusteeship and that will provide a justification to continue the trusteeship in violation of Bambi’s promise. He lied. So what else is new?
    ————————————————————————————————————

    I mean, I’d push him out for this:

    SEIU has seen its liabilities skyrocket during the past decade. The union’s liabilities totaled $7,625,832 in 2000. By 2009, they had increased almost by a factor of 16, to $120,893,259. Meanwhile, SEIU’s assets barely tripled, growing from $66,632,631 in 2000 to $187,664,763 in 2009. A significant portion of SEIU’s current assets are from IOUs from hard-up locals.

    SEIU is $85 million in debt, down from its 2008 high of $102 million, and has been forced to lay off employees. Mr. Stern has led protests against Bank of America, calling for the firing of Chief Executive Ken Lewis. Yet the union owes $80 million to Bank of America and $5 million to Amalgamated Bank, which is owned by the rival union Unite-Here.

    Stern’s also presided over the drastic underfunding of SEIU’s pensions, both at the national and local level. He’s probably not being pushed out, though. You see, what SEIU was doing during all that time was spend $86 million to support Democrats, particularly the current President (almost $61 million). And yes, it is interesting that if SEIU hadn’t spent that political money then they probably wouldn’t be in debt now. But – just like Patrick Gaspard, Craig Becker, and Anna Burger – that’s not Andy Stern’s problem anymore. I wonder if he’ll get the same punishment for failure that they did?

    Is Andy Stern Leaving Or Is He Being Pushed Out?
    Moe Lane

    I mean, I’d push him out for this:

    SEIU has seen its liabilities skyrocket during the past decade. The union’s liabilities totaled $7,625,832 in 2000. By 2009, they had increased almost by a factor of 16, to $120,893,259. Meanwhile, SEIU’s assets barely tripled, growing from $66,632,631 in 2000 to $187,664,763 in 2009. A significant portion of SEIU’s current assets are from IOUs from hard-up locals.

    SEIU is $85 million in debt, down from its 2008 high of $102 million, and has been forced to lay off employees. Mr. Stern has led protests against Bank of America, calling for the firing of Chief Executive Ken Lewis. Yet the union owes $80 million to Bank of America and $5 million to Amalgamated Bank, which is owned by the rival union Unite-Here.

    Stern’s also presided over the drastic underfunding of SEIU’s pensions, both at the national and local level. He’s probably not being pushed out, though. You see, what SEIU was doing during all that time was spend $86 million to support Democrats, particularly the current President (almost $61 million). And yes, it is interesting that if SEIU hadn’t spent that political money then they probably wouldn’t be in debt now. But – just like Patrick Gaspard, Craig Becker, and Anna Burger – that’s not Andy Stern’s problem anymore. I wonder if he’ll get the same punishment for failure that they did?

  130. McCain’s revenge….good, very good! Thanks Tim and Mrs. S. I posted about eh AZ filibuster on my facebook page, and one woman slammed me for it, I slammed her back.

  131. That Bertha Lewis,she is one piece of, er, work. I suddenly have an urgent need to have a ‘bowel movement’.

  132. Mediaite Exclusive: Censored Portions of Blago Subpoena May Implicate Team Obama

    Today in United States v. Rod Blagojevich: following up on his 2008 claims that then-Senator Barack Obama was one of a few people who could testify to his innocence, his defense team issued a motion today to subpoena the President to testify in court. Most of the juiciest bits involving Obama’s role in choosing a new Senator are blacked out, or so we thought. It turns out a lucky PDF glitch gave us VIP access. Who wouldn’t want to see the blacked out part? Let’s investigate!

    Most of the non-blacked out portions of the motion are predictably tame general knowledge: the seat in dispute belonged to the President; the FBI did speak with the President about this case at some point in time. A “labor union official” close to the President (who may be SEIU President Andy Stern) is said to contradict public statements on the case by Obama directly. The credibility of money man Tony Rezko being crucial to the case, the defense would like the President to testify about it. The defense also spends significant amount of time bringing up previous cases of sitting presidents being subpoenaed to testify in relevant cases. What the defense didn’t want you to see is the allegation that an Obama “supporter” offered Blagojevich “fundraising” in exchange for the seat. In other words: Blagojevich didn’t try to sell the seat; an Obama “supporter” tried to buy it.

    Here is a link to the actual PDF, via BreakingNews, for your perusal, and a helpful who’s who of Senate candidates. What follows are all the major blocks of blacked-out text in the motion, with some commentary. Some of the allegations make a very close link between the president and the governor; others seem a little to benign to have been given the “confidential” treatment. One wonders if all classified portions of government documents are this easy to breach, or whether whoever put the document together was hoping a reporter somewhere would crack the code. :

    Yet, despite President Obama stating that no representatives of his had any part of any deals, labor union president [possibly Andy Stern, though not confirmed] told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to labor union official on November 3, 2008 who received a phone message from Obama that evening. After labor union official listened to the message labor union official told labor union president “I’m the one”. Labor union president took that to mean that labor union official was to be the one to deliver the message on behalf of Obama that Senate Candidate B was his pick. (Labor union president 302, February 2, 2009, p. 7).

    Not a particularly damning conversation, but possible evidence that the President was very intimately involved in negotiations over that seat– which directly contradicts public statements by the President. Imagine what certain people on the right will say about Obama negotiating so closely with both Blagojevich and Chicago union officials.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/mediaite-exclusive-censored-portions-of-blago-subpoena-may-implicate-team-obama/

  133. Pretty revealing information if in fact it is ALL True!
    ______________________________

    (cont:)

    More details from the subpoena:

    Labor union official told the FBI and the United States Attorneys “Obama expressed his belief that [Senate Candidate B] would be a good Senator for the people of Illinois and would be a candidate who could win re-election. [Labor union official] advised Obama that [labor union official] would reach out to Governor Blagojevich and advocate for [Senate Candidate B].. . . [Labor union official] called [labor union president] and told [labor union president] that Obama was aware that [labor union official] would be reaching out to Blagojevich.” (Labor union official 302, February 3, 2009 p. 3).

    According to Senate Candidate B, on November, 4 2008, Senate Candidate B spoke with labor union official about the Senate seat. Labor union official said he spoke to Obama. Labor union official said he was going to meet with Blagojevich and said “he was going to push Blagojevich hard on this. According to Senate Candidate B, labor union official’s language could have been stronger than the language that she was reporting to the government.” (Senate Candidate B 302, December 19, 2008).

    On November 5, 2008, Blagojevich told John Harris that labor union official “talked to Barack Obama, wants to come and see me.” Blagojevich then told Harris that labor union official “was very explicit with me, “I talked to Barack about the Senate seat. Can I come and see ya? Can I do it tomorrow?’ I said, sure.” (Blagojevich Home Phone Call # 261).

    A supporter of Presidential Candidate Obama suggested that she talk to the wife of Governor Blagojevich about Senate Candidate B for Senator. (Valerie Jarrett 302, December 19, 2008). Supporter of Presidential Candidate Obama is mentioned in a phone call on November 3, 2008, having offered “fundraising” in exchange for Senate Candidate B for senator (Blagojevich Home Phone Call #149).

    President-elect Obama also spoke to Governor Blagojevich on December 1, 2008 in Philadelphia. On Harris Cell Phone Call # 139, John Harris and Governor’s legal counsel discuss a conversation Blagojevich had with President-elect Obama. The government claims a conspiracy existed from October 22, 2008 continuing through December 9, 2008.6 That conversation is relevant to the defense of the government’s theory of an ongoing conspiracy. Only Rod Blagojevich and President Obama can testify to the contents of that conversation. The defense is allowed to present evidence that corroborates the defendant’s testimony.

    These pieces of alleged evidence mostly serve to highlight the level of involvement the President had in the negotiations. He was, according to these conversations, overseeing all the talks and very invested in giving the seat to Senate candidate B (identified in the original federal complaint at IL Attorney General Lisa Madigan, though whether the defense is using the same identification numbers that the federal complaint used is unclear). In fact, if his “Supporter” “offered ‘fundraising’ in exchange for Senate Candidate B,” it would follow that it wasn’t Blagojevich who tried to sell the seat, but the unidentified supporter who tried to buy it.

    18. President-elect Obama also suggested Senate Candidate A to Governor Blagojevich. John Harris told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to President’s Chief of Staff on November 12, 2008. Harris took notes of the conversation and wrote that President’s Chief had previously worked as Blagojevich’s press secretary. Obama agreed of [sic] Staff told Harris that Senate Candidate A was acceptable to Obama as a senate pick. (Harris handwritten notes, OOG1004463) President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that “he could not say where but somewhere it was communicated to him that” Senate Candidate A was a suggested candidate viewed as one of the four “right” candidates “by the Obama transition team.” (Rahm Emanuel 302, p. 5, December 20, 2008). Harris told Blagojevich Obama’s suggestion on November 12, 2008 (Blagojevich Home Phone Call # 539).

  134. More fuel for the fire. aside: A little experiment with your friends… Ask them if they LIKE Blago? Surprisingly, everyone I ask thinks he’s either cute, very personable or basically alright. Could it be we subconsciously compare him to the ruthless, sociopath Obama? So therefore, Blago in contrast to Obama’s disreputable character, is seen as very like able…
    ____________________________________

    (cont.)

    More details from the subpoena:

    19. President-elect Obama was also involved in other senate candidate choices. On December 8, 2008, John Harris’ secretary’s call log noted President’s Chief of Staff called at 10:47 am and wrote “needs to talk to you asap” (Harris 302, February 20, 2009). President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that he had a conversation discussing the Senate seat with Obama on December 7, 2008 in Obama’s car. President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI “Obama expressed concern about Senate Candidate D being appointed as Senator. [President’s Chief of Staff] suggested they might need an expanded list to possibly include names of African Americans that came out of the business world. [President’s Chief of Staff] thought he suggested Senate Candidate E who was the head of the Urban League and with President’s Chief of Staff’s suggestion.” (President’s Chief of Staff, 302, 12-20-08).

    These are the paragraphs that directly implicate White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in the affair. The direct conversation between Emanuel and Harris (Blagojevich’s chief-of-staff) is mostly bad for the Democrats for image reasons, but because of the continued denial of any communication between Obama and Blagojevich staff, this new bit of conversation is also not helpful.

    However, the defense has a good faith belief that Mr. Rezko, President Obama’s former friend, fund-raiser, and neighbor told the FBI and the United States Attorneys a different story about President Obama. In a recent in camera proceeding, the government tendered a three paragraph letter indicating that Rezko “has stated in interviews with the government that he engaged in election law violations by personally contributing a large sum of cash to the campaign of a public official who is not Rod Blagojevich. … Further, the public official denies being aware of cash contributions to his campaign by Rezko or others and denies having conversations with Rezko related to cash contributions. … Rezko has also stated in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a fundraiser for the official in exchange for favorable official action, but that the public official rejected the offer. The public official denies any such conversation. In addition, Rezko has stated to the government that he and the public official had certain conversations about gaming legislation and administration, which the public official denies having had.”

    President Obama is the only one who can testify as to the veracity of Mr. Rezko’s allegations above.

    Finally, the defense makes a case for Obama being pivotal to the credibility of Tony Rezko, an Illinois fundraiser who became an albatross on the Obama campaign’s back in 2008 when he was convicted of several charges of corruption. While there was ultimately very little evidence of wrongdoing involving Obama, Rezko and Obama bought property in the same neighborhood and had known each other for a long time. Rezko was a frequent donor to the Blagojevich campaign, though not particularly implicated in the Senate seat case.

    It seems the defense is the guilty party for being lazy enough to highlight classified portions of the motion black and hope that no one notices, though it seems counterproductive to try to hide these bits of evidence– most of which has Blagojevich coming out smelling like a rose– so feebly. One theory is that, given how well their client looks in these clips, they wanted the evidence out there without it being their fault, so they made it easy to discover it. This makes the defense look good for not releasing classified but favorable information while having their client reap the benefits of it.

    UPDATE: Upon further examination of the subpoena, we found the following:

    Although it is the defense’s position that all tapes and sealed information be made public, to comply with the Protective Order of April 14, 2009, portions that contain sealed information provided by the government have been
    redacted. The defense, however, urges this Court unseal the entire motion.

    Because of the favorable nature of the redacted material, we assumed the defense would be interested in having it out there. This proves that they were. Whether the defense deliberately made the motion’s private data so easy to read, however, is still a matter of discussion.

    There is a lot to sift through in the motion of subpoena, so if we missed anything or you have more information on the matter, feel free to email us the info along. We’ll be keeping tabs on the trial and Obama’s response to the subpoena as the story develops.
    _____________________________

    It’s days like this when you’re happy to be alive. Where you are living long enough to possibly see justice meted out in full to the ones who have thumbed their noses at the public and the LAW of the land they recklessly ignore with ease.

  135. I think the reason Blago is not afraid of Obama is because Blago knows where all the bodies are buried and probably has that information on a cd somewhere in the event he is threatened…Blago is smart.

  136. Top News
    ——————————————————————————–

    Morris Opposes Financial Regulation Bill

    Sarah Palin Testifies in E-Mail Hacking Case
    Brown Thinks Palin Qualified, Backs Romney Now
    Senators: Hold Immigration for Climate Change

    Specter Accused of ‘Swift Boat’ Hit

    Sponsors
    How to sweep your arteries clear
    Men Report Marriages “Revived” By Pheromones
    Is Your Money Safe???
    Male Enhancement Exposed – Pilot Tells His Secret
    Save up to 75% – New Lower Rates on Term Life
    5 Warning Signs The Rally Could Be Over
    Is Your Fish Oil Supplement Slowly Killing You?
    1 Trick To Stock Trading Riches: Free presentation
    Drop Your Blood Pressure Naturally

    Have a better life. Eliminate perplexities.
    Click Here
    This little blue pill is amazing! Ladies love guys that take it.
    Sign up today to get Free weekly email alerts from Ann Coulter!
    Warning on Vaccinations, Dangerous Side-Effects
    You Can Reverse Heart Disease, Heart Doctor Says
    Doctor: 3 Nutrients Stop Cholesterol, Artery Hardening
    Free Offer on Palin’s Best Selling Book. Click Here Now.

    Home > InsideCover Print Page | Forward Page | E-mail Us
    Crist Expected to File as Independent Next Week
    Friday, 23 Apr 2010 08:17 AM Article Font Size

    Florida Gov. Charlie Crist reportedly is set to declare that he is an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate, according to a report by News-Press.com.

    Crist is expected to file as an independent next week — bypassing the Aug. 24 Republican primary.

    As an independent, Crist can remain a member of the Republican Party but he goes on the November general election ballot, without a primary.

    Top GOP leaders have been advising Crist to drop out of the race because he trails Rubio by double digits in many recent polls. Meanwhile, an impressive cadre of Republican leaders has endorsed the former House speaker

  137. Goldman’s White House Connections Raise Eyebrows
    by Greg Gordon

    WASHINGTON — While Goldman Sachs’ lawyers negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission over potentially explosive civil fraud charges, Goldman’s chief executive visited the White House at least four times.

    White House logs show that Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein traveled to Washington for at least two events with President Barack Obama, whose 2008 presidential campaign received $994,795 in donations from Goldman’s political action committee, its employees and their relatives. He also met twice with Obama’s top economic adviser, Larry Summers.

    No evidence has surfaced to suggest that Blankfein or any other Goldman executive raised the SEC case with the president or his aides. SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro said in a statement Wednesday that the SEC doesn’t coordinate enforcement actions with the White House or other political bodies.

    Meanwhile, however, Goldman is retaining former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig as a member of its legal team. In addition, when he worked as an investment banker in Chicago a decade ago, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advised one client who also retained Goldman as an adviser on the same $8.2 billion deal.

    Goldman’s connections to the White House and the Obama administration are raising eyebrows at a time when Washington and Wall Street are dueling over how to overhaul regulation of the financial world.

    Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political scientist, said that “almost everything that the White House has done has been haunted by the personnel and the money of Goldman . . . as well as the suspicion that the White House, particularly early on, was pulling its punches out of deference to Goldman and its war chest.

    “There’s now kind of a magnifying glass on the administration for any sign of interference or conversations with the regulators and the judiciary,” Jacobs said.

    The SEC investigation of Goldman’s dealings lasted 18 months and culminated with the SEC filing civil fraud charges against the investment bank last week.

    According to White House visitor logs, Blankfein was among the business leaders who attended an Obama speech on Feb. 13, 2009, and he also joined more than a dozen bank CEOs in a meeting with Obama on March 27, 2009.

    Blankfein also was supposed be among the CEOs who met with Obama in December, but he and two others phoned in from New York, blaming inclement weather.

    He and his wife, Laura, were listed on the logs among 438 presidential guests at the Kennedy Center Honors the previous week.

    The logs also indicate that Blankfein met twice in 2009, on Feb. 4 and Sept. 30, with Summers, who was undersecretary of the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration when it was headed by Robert Rubin, a former Goldman CEO.

    Asked whether Goldman executives had talked to administration officials about the SEC inquiry, Goldman spokesman Michael DuVally said that the firm doesn’t discuss “what conversations we may or may not have had with government officials.”

    Schapiro’s statement said that she’s “disappointed” by Republican rhetoric suggesting that the SEC case against Goldman might have been timed to boost legislative prospects for a financial regulation overhaul bill, which Obama plans to pitch in a speech in New York Thursday.

    “We do not coordinate our enforcement actions with the White House, Congress or political committees,” Schapiro said. “We do not time our cases around political events or the legislative calendar . . . We will neither bring cases, nor refrain from bringing them, because of the political consequences.”

    Obama dismissed any such suggestion as “completely false” Wednesday, saying in a CNBC television interview that the SEC “never discussed with us anything with respect to the charges that would be brought.”

    While describing Craig, his former counsel, as “one of the top lawyers in the country,” Obama also said that he’d imposed “the toughest ethics rules that any president’s ever had.”

    “One thing he (Craig) knows is that he cannot talk to the White House,” Obama said. “He cannot lobby the White House. He cannot in any way use his former position to have any influence on us.”

    Goldman’s chief spokesman, Lucas van Praag, said the firm “wanted Craig . . . for his wisdom and insight.”

    Craig, now an attorney with the Washington law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagre & Flom, said: “I am a lawyer, not a lobbyist. Goldman Sachs has hired me to provide legal advice and to assist in its legal representation.”

    Goldman’s nearly $1 million in campaign contributions to Obama’s presidential campaign were the most from any single employer except the University of California. Still, they represented only a fraction of the more than $700 million that the campaign raised.

    “The vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country,” Obama told CNBC. “Moreover, anybody who gave me money during the course of my campaign knew that I was on record in 2007 and 2008 pushing very strongly that we needed to reform how Wall Street did business.”

    One White House insider who knows something about how Wall Street does business is chief of staff Emanuel, who earned millions of dollars in investment banking after he left the Clinton White House. His work for the Chicago-based financial services firm Wasserstein Perella & Co. intersected with Goldman in at least one deal.

    In 1999, Emanuel was a key player representing Unicom Corp., the parent of Commonwealth Edison, in forging its merger with Peco Energy Co. to create utility giant Exelon Corp. Goldman was also advising Unicom.

    The White House declined immediate comment on that connection.

    Several former Goldman executives hold senior positions in the Obama administration, including Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Mark Patterson, a former Goldman lobbyist who is chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Robert Hormats, the undersecretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs.

    Jacobs of the University of Minnesota said that the administration now risks “kind of a feeding frenzy.”

    “The administration has to be very careful,” he said, “because . . . they’re seen as the ones who bailed out Wall Street. If there are indications that the administration was talking to regulators or to Justice Department people about when and how Goldman or other firms would be investigated, I think that’s going to create almost a mob scene.”

  138. “One thing he (Craig) knows is that he cannot talk to the White House,” Obama said. “He cannot lobby the White House. He cannot in any way use his former position to have any influence on us.”

    Goldman’s chief spokesman, Lucas van Praag, said the firm “wanted Craig . . . for his wisdom and insight.”
    —————————–
    Goldman bankrolled the Obama campaign, but it is a mistake to assume they will protect him at all cost to themselves. As the old saying goes, we are friends, but if it ever comes down to a choice between you and me then the fall guy is gonna be you. Politically speaking Obama is expendable.

    Goldman Sucks hired Craig for the same reason Axelgrease hired PSD. When they say he was hired for his wisdom and insight what they mean is he was hired because he knows where the bodies are buried. This wisdom and insight will be factored into the defense strategy. Once the designated fall guys are taken down, it will be used to insulate higher ups. That is what Goldman means by wisdom and insight.

    And of course, Craig has an axe to grind. He betrayed Hillary for Obama, and then Obama betrayed him. Not only was he made the fall guy for the Gitmo mess (remember that one?), but the word of this was leaked out on the street by the Chicago Thugs in the West Wing. As a result Craig became dead man walking, and whined to the Beltway press about the way he was treated. That Obama would even opine on what Craig can and cannot do tells me that he is worried.

  139. Mrs. Smith
    [snip]
    There is a lot to sift through in the motion of subpoena, so if we missed anything or you have more information on the matter, feel free to email us the info along. We’ll be keeping tabs on the trial and Obama’s response to the subpoena as the story develops.
    _____________________________

    It’s days like this when you’re happy to be alive. Where you are living long enough to possibly see justice meted out in full to the ones who have thumbed their noses at the public and the LAW of the land they recklessly
    ———-

    Thanks for putting all the info out there in one piece.

    Yes, it is a good day when we see that there is a possibility that the Teflon fraud might have some dirt stuck to him, and exposed by someone that isn’t racist, and from his own Chicago world of dirty deals.

    Rock on Blago!

  140. Welcome Shadowfax-

    I was holding my breath another post inbetween would breakup the continuity of the article.

    I haven’t read the article in it’s entirety. Just skimming the dutiful nugget.
    ____________________

    ShortTermer: McCain’s Revenge is a keeper. I’m sure BO realizes the irony and feels it whether he likes it of not in the form of sour spit!

Comments are closed.