2X4 Treacherous Chuck Schumer Against Virtuous Hillary Clinton, Israel, Obama’s Muslim Tropism, and the 2010 Elections

Our crystal ball is still working and Chuck Schumer is still afraid and reacting to what we see. When on February 5, 2010 we wrote “No Dimocrat Is Safe” it was to congratulate the New York Times for catching up to us on the terror the New York Terror Trials held for Chuck Schumer. Almost immediately Chuck turned tail on the Terror Trials and left his dreamboat Barack Obama upriver without a paddle, on that issue.

Our crystal ball foresaw the current mess in foreign policy as well. In January 2009 we stated that Hillary Clinton as the leader of the United States Department Of State would be very successful, with one caveat:

“Hillary should make it clear that Obama will not interfere with his harebrained schemes and plots in foreign policy. Hillary Clinton should make it clear that Obama will be too busy making a mess in the U.S. to get in her way.”

Unfortunately, unlike a worm in an apple, Barack Obama decided to mess up the whole batch of both domestic and foreign policy apples. The Corrupt Bow To The Corrupt and Obama loved bowing to foreign potentates, insulting American allies, and smooching America’s opponents. Barack Obama took particular delight in snubs, insults, slaps and treacheries, told and untold, against American ally Israel.

The Barack Obama treacheries and plots against Israel are not perpetrated with Hillary’s complicity. Indeed, Hillary Clinton “praised Prime Minister Netanyahu” for his policy on construction in the eastern precincts of Jerusalem. Praise one day and condemnation the next – not quite the full story.

Little did Hillary Clinton know that her dress down phone call to Netanyahu, a phone call no doubt prompted from Biden (who felt personally treated like a buffoon when on his visit to Israel the announcement on Jerusalem building was made and therefore required a reprimand phone call from the Secretary of State – to protest Biden exposed publicly as a buffoon outside his usual habitats of buffoonery) and Barack Obama – was part of an Obama plot against Israel.

After snaring the Hillary Clinton phone call to Prime Minister Netanyahu, Obama proceeded to the second part of his plot – a public humiliation and snub of the Israeli Prime Minister and a “smell ya’ later” Simpsons cartoon style “Chicago diplomacy“. These vile treacheries by Barack Obama against Israel are part of Obama’s desireto serve as the Arabs’ lawyer” due to his Arab and Muslim world tropism.

So toxic and nauseating are Barack Obama’s smears, slurs, and snubs against Israel that we recalled when our crystal ball glowed with this prediction:

More nastiness from Barack Obama towards Israel and Chuck Schumer will have to do more than just merely distance himself from Obama. Chuck Schumer will have to take a 2×4 to Barack.”

As with the Terror Trial prediction by our trusty crystal ball, Chuck Schumer bowed yet again to its wisdom. By then we had already seen Hillary Clinton’s crafty moves to counter Obama’s earlier attempt to turn Hillary into an Obama cats-paw against Israel, when all she did was agree to defend American prestige and America’s image against even the slightest perceived slight.

But the full story is that Chuck Schumer smeared Hillary Clinton and protected Barack Obama. That’s typical 2×4 Hillary Hater Chuck Schumer behavior and it recalls exactly the secret “hit her with a 2×4” treachery of Chuck Schumer.

On the Nachum Segal radio show, Treacherous Chuck, attacked Hillary Clinton while the real culprit is Barack Obama. The gullible saw it as an attack on Obama, but the real target was Hillary. Here’s Politico’s gullible take:

“New York Senator Chuck Schumer harshly criticized the Obama Administration’s attempts to exert pressure on Israel today, making him the highest-ranking Democrat to object to Obama’s policies in such blunt terms.

Schumer, along with a majority of members of the House and Senate, signed on to letters politely suggesting the U.S. keep its disagreements with Israel private, a tacit objection to the administration’s very public rebuke of the Jewish State over construction in Jerusalem last month.

But Schumer dramatically sharpened his tone on the politically conservative Jewish Nachum Segal Show today, calling the White House stance to date “counter-productive” and describing his own threat to “blast” the Administration had the State Department not backed down from its “terrible” tough talk toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”

Notice how the Obama treacheries became the problem of the State Department? Notice how the entire problem became a State Department problem? Yet Treacherous Chuck did not have a word to say about the personal Obama snub and slap at Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Amazing isn’t it? Obama slaps the ally Israel’s Prime Minister but that is not a problem to Schumer but instead Treacherous Chuck demands an apology from a State Department spokesman. Here is the rest of the Politico story:

“Schumer, a hawkish ally of Israel since his days as a Brooklyn Congressman, described “a battle going on inside the administration” over Middle East policy.

“This has to stop,” he said of the administration’s policy of publicly pressuring Israel to end construction in Jerusalem.

“I told the President, I told 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 told Segal. “Palestinians don’t really believe in a state of Israel. They, unlike a majority of Israelis, who have come to the conclusion that they can live with a two-state solution to be determined by the parties, the majority of Palestinians are still very reluctant, and they need to be pushed to get there.

“If the U.S. says certain things and takes certain stands the Palestinians say, ‘Why should we negotiate?‘” Schumer said.

Schumer described the recent confrontation over construction in Jerusalem as a “kerfuffle.”

“Israel apologized and when Biden left, and Biden is the best friend of Israel in the administration [and] everything was fine,” Schumer said. “But then what happened is the next day Hillary Clinton called up Netanyahu and talked very tough to him, and worse they made it public through this spokesperson, a guy named Crowley. And Crowley said something I have never heard before, which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations.”

Schumer was referring to State Department spokesman PJ Crowley’s description of Clinton’s conversation with Netanyahu, in which he said that Clinton “made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words but through specific actions that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process.”

“That is terrible,” Schumer said today. “That is the dagger because the relationship is much deeper than the disagreements on negotiations, and most Americans—Democrat, Republican, Jew, non-Jew–would feel that. So I called up Rahm Emanuel and I called up the White House and I said, ‘If you don’t retract that statement you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this,'” Schumer said.

Schumer said the White House had backed off that statement, but that now “many of us are pushing back, some of the Jewish members will be meeting with the President next week or the week after, and we are saying that this has to stop.”

“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. At the same time you have to show the Palestinians that they are not going to get their way by just sitting back and not giving in, and not recognizing that there is a state of Israel,” Schumer said. “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.”

While it is clear (we know this because of the President Bill Clinton negotiations in which the Palestinians would have had a homeland but decided to persist in hatred of Israel) that the Palestinians leadership and most likely Palestinians too, do not want a two state solution. And while it is clear that the Arabs and Muslims and Palestinians want Barack Obama to be their lawyer and hammer against Israel, these are facts that Treacherous Chuck Schumer of the 2×4 does not publicly condemn. For Treacherous Chuck Schumer it’s “Hit Hillary, Protect Obama“. The conservative website Hot Air noticed the obvious in the Treacherous Chuck diatribe:

“He let The One off the hook a bit by not touching on his repulsive treatment of Netanyahu at the White House or his harebrained idea to propose a Palestinian state himself, but otherwise he’s on target — especially vis-a-vis the Palestinians’ willingness to adjust their demands to exploit disagreements between the U.S. and Israel. As Yossi Klein Halevi put it, “Obama is directly responsible for one of the most absurd turns in the history of Middle East negotiations. Though Palestinian leaders negotiated with Israeli governments that built extensively in the West Bank, they now refused to sit down with the first Israeli government to actually agree to a suspension of building. Obama’s demand for a building freeze in Jerusalem led to a freeze in negotiations.”

It’s not just Schumer who’s souring on Obama on this point either. According to Quinnipiac, his approval rating on the Israeli/Palestinian issue stands at a robust 35/44, with — wait for it — two-thirds of Jewish voters saying they disapprove, down from 55 percent approval last month. Good work, champ.

Not a word from Treacherous Chuck Schumer on the direct insult to the Israeli Prime Minister delivered first hand with a slap from Barack Obama. Instead Treacherous Chuck Schumer of the bloody 2×4 focuses on a second-hand statement from a press spokesman about a conversation he was not a party to. Something is very wrong with Chuck Schumer.

We noted (in Thanks For Nothing Barack!) the problem Treacherous Chuck Schumer of the 2×4 has: Ron Lauder.

For Treacherous Chuck Schumer the chickens are coming home to roost. Recall this quote from the book Game Change:

“More intriguing were the entreaties he was receiving from New York’s Chuck Schumer. Schumer’s relationship with Hillary had always been fraught with rivalry and tinged with jealousy; though she was technically the junior member of the New York team in the Senate, she had eclipsed him in terms of celebrity and influence from the moment she arrived on the Hill. [snip]

The political handicapper in Schumer was fascinated by Obama’s potential to redraw the electoral map, a capacity Clinton surely lacked. In conversations with other senators and strategists in 2006, Schumer would make these points over and over. He made them to Obama as well, and repeatedly; in one instance Schumer even double-teamed him with Reid. Although Schumer was careful to signal that home-state decorum would prohibit him from opposing Clinton publicly—“You understand my position,” he would say—he left no doubt as to where his head and heart were on the question.”

Jealous and Treacherous Chuck Schumer did not have our crystal ball or he would have seen that indeed it was and is Hillary Clinton who had and has the capacity to change the electoral map (exit polls demonstrated that Hillary Clinton would have beaten John McCain by 11 points compared to Obama’s 7 point margin; also 16 percent of McCain voters would have voted for Hillary) Today the New York Times echoes our No Dimocrat Is Safe article of February 5, with its version “Republicans Threatening Congressional Seats Long Held By Democrats”:

“Representative David R. Obey has won 21 straight races, easily prevailing through wars and economic crises that have spanned presidencies from Nixon’s to Obama’s. Yet the discontent with Washington surging through politics is now threatening not only his seat but also Democratic control of Congress.

Mr. Obey is one of nearly a dozen well-established House Democrats who are bracing for something they rarely face: serious competition. Their predicament is the latest sign of distress for their party and underlines why Republicans are confident of making big gains in November and perhaps even winning back the House.

The fight for the midterm elections is not confined to traditional battlegrounds, where Republicans and Democrats often swap seats every few cycles. In the Senate, Democrats are struggling to hold on to, among others, seats once held by President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.”

Chuck, you keep right on reading from our crystal ball. You’ll see how wrong you were and how catastrophic your blurred vision has been not only to the United States, but to the once great Democratic Party.

Keep on playing your games Chuck. The next 2×4 you see will be headed the Dimocrats way this November. Treachery will beget treachery.

169 thoughts on “2X4 Treacherous Chuck Schumer Against Virtuous Hillary Clinton, Israel, Obama’s Muslim Tropism, and the 2010 Elections

  1. Despite the heavy rain the “Stand With Israel” rally took place today. We’ll post news reports as they come in.

  2. I haven’t verified this.

    Arizona Immigration Law

    The bill was Arizona bill SB1070, and the full source is on the Arizona State Legislature site.

    Here’s the most controversial section:

    B. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

    1. A valid Arizona driver license.

    2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

    3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

    4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

  3. Admin,

    Thank you for revealing obama’s increasingly poisonous plans and telling it like it is.

    Well said!

  4. Ask me how much sympathy I have for Ed Koch? I would hand him a Kleenex to wipe his snivelling nose and say, “Don’t whine to me big fella, you voted for him!” What, Ed didn’t bother to look into the anti-semitism of Obama’s 20-year preacher? These people are surprised?

    If I’m not mistaken, the Clintons had a lifetime track record of strong support for Israel. You went with the part-time state-senator with no track record of anything? Shame on you.

  5. To be taken with the usual Big Media size shovels of salt:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0410/Clintons_todo_lists.html?showall

    Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh offers one of the more richly textured takes on the much-examined Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama alliance, with some previously noted observations — the all-important role that the Hillary Clinton-Robert Gates alliance played for better or for worse in influencing Obama’s decision to surge troops to Afghanistan — and some new details. Among them, an unnamed Obama official’s observation that Clinton dutifully (Method-ically) crosses off items from a to-do list of nine or ten items, rather than play the role of Kissingerian strategist.

    Yet the on-the-record effusions of good feeling don’t tell the whole story. There’s a wariness in both camps that may never completely disappear. The giant Clinton entourage once known as Hillaryland, now relocated to the wood-paneled corridor on the seventh floor at Foggy Bottom, remains to some degree a place and mindset unto itself. It is still dominated by Hillary and, of course, her husband—who has remained surprisingly out of view, even if his advice is often sought throughout the Obama administration, as Hillary herself acknowledges. “When they say on the seventh floor, ‘We need to run this by the president,’ that phrase doesn’t necessarily refer to Obama,” remarks one former Clinton administration official wryly. In the White House, it’s still possible to hear someone dismissing Hillary as a foreign-policy lightweight. “She has no real strategic vision,” says an NSC official. “But she’ll get done what she has to do. She’s the good little Methodist girl. In the end she’ll have her list of the nine or 10 things she has to do and check them off one by one.”

    Associates bridle at such condescension, and so do many White House officials, including General Jones. Clinton’s former longtime policy chief, Neera Tanden, sees nothing to apologize for: “She definitely has lists. And she really feels a sense of obligation, duty, responsibility, as part of her general outlook; perhaps it is her Methodism. It’s part of who she is.” Clinton herself ridicules the criticism. “At the end of the day, have you solved the problem or haven’t you? Have you crossed it off the list or haven’t you?”

    And for all her partnership with Obama seems to have genuinely deepened, Hirsh again brings attention to the question Clinton herself has broached of how long she plans to remain in the job, with Hirsh raising the possibility not even through the entire first term:

    Asked about such criticisms, Clinton reveals a glimmer of the testy feelings she is usually so successful at concealing. “I think when you inherit the range of problems that we have, from one end of the world to the other—the threats that we faced, the two wars that we inherited—I think trying to have a very clear approach to actually dealing with those problems [and promoting] American leadership at this time in our history is about as big an idea as you can get,” she says. How long she’ll stay focused on this job is another question. Before Obama stunned her with his offer, Clinton had wanted to go back to the Senate and write a book about the campaign she’d lost. She’s occasionally hinted to friends that she may not last out the first term. Pressed about that now, she looks down and replies, “We’ll see.” For the moment, strange as it may seem, she appears to enjoy the partnership she’s made with the man she once tried so hard to beat.

  6. I agree that Koch has a lot to answer for as well as others who fell for the fraud and are just now realizing what a hate-monger he is.

    At the same time, if Koch et al can do anything to bring the idiot down as well as to change bambi’s agenda for Israel, then I’m all for it.

  7. admin,

    Newsweek is once again wrapping bambi in cotton and using Hillary to do it. Their twisted compliments and veiled put downs get sillier and sillier.

  8. Obama in his summit next week will teach Muslims civilized behavior so they can turn their attention away from terrorism. If only he could ask the Saudis to stop funding the mullahs and terrorist outfits. Another sham, another PR exercise.

  9. I have so little respect for Ed Koch, his only and best redeeming quality is at least he now sees the fool as the most anti-Israel US president and is calling the fool in the WH out for it.

    I believe Ed Koch recently said something to effect that he went around supporting Obama b/c of Obama’s supposed support of Israel and Ed commented that how that support is dwindling and will go down even more if Ed Koch as anything to do with it.

    (sorry admin, I wish I had that article where Ed said this in an interview)

  10. so, Mr. Obama is more interested in a job summit for Muslim nations instead of job summit for the citizens of this country?

  11. WHY did I just hear Newt on Huckabee (Fox) defend Obama’s right to select the senator to take his place in Illinois???? He even quoted Lincoln doing it??? WHY?? All you Newt lover’s please make a plausible explaination, otherwise I will know the republicans DID put Obama in power as I have ALWAYS KNOWN and want him to stay in power if they are defending Obama in Blago’s quest to uncover who exactly wanted to select who got the seat???EXPLAIN!!!

    I knew it, I knew IT!!!

  12. “WHY did I just hear Newt on Huckabee (Fox) defend Obama’s right to select the senator to take his place in Illinois???? ”

    wow. Just wow. so forget elections, we now just have a political elite of both parties openly oking selection of “public servants”. Newt really disgusts me, the same elitist nonsense I see in Chuck S. or in Kerry or Barbara “call me Ma’am” Boxer

  13. Looks like North Korea did indeed sink the South Korean ship, I believe about 40 south korean sailors perished.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704446704575205400833858626.html

    “”South Korea’s top military official said Sunday that a torpedo likely exploded under the Cheonan, the South Korean patrol boat that sank a month ago near the maritime border with North Korea, edging Seoul even closer to declaring it was attacked by forces from the North.” “

  14. Hillary Clinton: She stoops to conquer

    The Monday Essay: Hillary Clinton may have lost her bid for the US presidency – but even her critics admit she has shone as Secretary of State.

    Rupert Cornwell on the real comeback kid

    Monday, 26 April 2010

    For a brief moment, you imagined that history had taken a different course.

    There was Hillary Clinton, stepping up to the rostrum in the White House press room one day last month, to expound on the virtues of the new nuclear arms limitation treaty between the US and Russia. She performed with her customary authority and command of the facts, as well as the sense of humour, often overlooked, that is another of her trademarks. Might there be problems over ratification in the Duma, the Moscow parliament, a reporter asked. Well, she replied with a giggle, the US had offered to send White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel over to use his legendary (and foul-mouthed) powers of persuasion on recalcitrant Russian legislators. “If President Medvedev wants to take us up on it, we’re ready.”

    Hillary, in other words, looked a president. But as we all know, she wasn’t one. Rahm Emanuel was not her man, he was Barack Obama’s. Hers was no more than a supporting act, filling in the details after the man who defeated her in that epic battle for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination had made the big announcement himself, before leaving the room without taking a single question. Yet in a way, it was remarkable she was there at all.

    If Barack Obama had not come along and rewritten history, the passage of Hillary Clinton from brilliant lawyer to controversial First Lady to admired United States senator to the woman who went on to win the White House in her own right, would have been the most astonishing story of modern American politics. However, no less remarkable is her current incarnation as America’s 67th Secretary of State, an office first held by Thomas Jefferson between 1790 and 1793.

    The surprise is not that, by common consent, she’s doing the job pretty well. The truly astounding thing, when you remember the length, intensity and ferocity of that 2008 primary struggle, was that Obama offered it to her in the first place.

    It was Obama after all who had condescendingly and crushingly remarked during one primary debate that, “you’re likeable enough, Hillary”, sneering that her sole foreign policy experience consisted of tea parties with the wives of foreign heads of state. And Hillary had given as good as she got, accusing her opponent of being criminally naive in his offer of unconditional talks with the likes of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Hugo Chavez, and suggesting that his only claim to expertise lay in his having spent a few childhood years in Indonesia.

    What was going on, everyone wondered, when word of the appointment first surfaced. Was Obama trying to recreate the “Team of Rivals” whom his idol Abraham Lincoln had put in his cabinet almost 150 years earlier? What about the national psychodrama of the Clinton marriage, and what about Bill, with the ego of a man who had been president and a reputation as a loose cannon? Surely a new president would not let a former one near the wheel room. And how could Hillary’s pride allow her to subordinate herself to the man who had bested her?

    In reality, the calculations on both sides were more complicated. In fact, the really hard feelings were held by their staffs, not the candidates. Once those were set aside, a deal had considerable attractions. With Hillary, Obama was enlisting one of the world’s most famous and popular women to promote the tarnished Brand America. At the same time, he was largely neutralising a potential re-election threat, should the lady have plans of picking up in 2012 where she left off in 2008.

    For Hillary too, the change made sense. A failed presidential campaign wins no points in the Senate. She might have been its best-known member and one of its most assiduous. But in the tradition-bound Senate, hard work and celebrity are no substitute for seniority. She was already 61, but would have had to wait years, maybe decades, before one of the plum Senate posts opened up. The most prestigious post in the cabinet was therefore not one to be turned down lightly.

    Most striking, perhaps, has been the harmony within the Obama national security team – a sea change from the administration of George W Bush, when the dour Dick Cheney became the most powerful vice-president in US history and, during its first term especially, public feuds between Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon and Colin Powell’s State Department made constant headlines.

    Some feared a variation on the theme under Obama, with the Clintons stirring the pot. Nor was Hillary’s presidential campaign a good omen, handicapped by clashes of egos, by sometimes less than helpful intrusions by her husband, and the Praetorian Guard of loyal retainers known as “Hillaryland”, that kept the most well-intentioned outsider at arm’s length. But it hasn’t worked out that way.

    Apart from his trip to North Korea to bring home two jailed American reporters last summer, Bill has scarcely been a factor. Certainly, he was not to blame for the supposedly mistranslated question, while his wife was visiting Africa last summer, which asked what Mr Clinton thought of a Chinese trade deal with the Congo. To which Hillary snapped: “My husband is not Secretary of State, I am.”

    The walls of Hillaryland are less forbidding these days. Unusually, she did demand the right to pick her own people for the 200-odd political appointments at State, as a condition for taking the job. In reality, far from cloistering herself off, she has opened her doors to senior career officials and become deeply involved in internal management.

    She has set out to rebuild the State Department from within, boosting its budget and expanding its staff in an effort to recapture the clout lost to the Pentagon under George W Bush. The only hint of discord has been reports that her deputy, Jim Steinberg, whose ambition was to be Obama’s National Security Adviser at the White House, wants out.

    In fact, Hillary has been the model team player, in a team bristling with foreign policy heavyweights. These “competitors” include Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before becoming Vice President, as well as his successor as chairman, John Kerry, the Democrats’ 2004 White House candidate, not to mention the Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, a top national security adviser to the first President Bush and the sole holdover from the administration of the second.

    Then there are two special envoys, either of whom would have made a plausible Secretary of State: Richard Holbrooke, the former UN ambassador, for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and George Mitchell, former Senate majority leader and Northern Ireland peace-broker, working on the Middle East.

    Many wondered how much influence Hillary wielded, especially during her first six months, when she kept a low profile. Interestingly, in its August 2009 survey of the world’s most powerful women, Forbes magazine ranked her only 36th, compared with the fourth and seventh places occupied by her predecessor Condoleezza Rice in 2007 and 2008. But that has always been Hillary’s way. In the Senate too, she made a quiet start. Where Bill was the improviser who left everything to the last minute, she has always been disciplined and formidably prepared – the lawyer who wanted first to master her brief before holding forth in court.

    Now she is visibly more assertive, but few signs of infighting have emerged. As anyone who has seen them testify together on Capitol Hill can confirm, she and Gates get on splendidly, while Biden is an old friend from Senate days. As for Mitchell and Holbrooke, Hillary maintains that so many and so complicated are the claims on her attention that even a Kissinger or a modern Bismarck could not keep abreast of every twist in Afghanistan and the Middle East, on a day-to-day basis. Instead she operates, in the words of one top official, “as a closer” with the envoys.

    Most important of all, though, are Hillary’s relations with her boss. Plainly, they get on well, if only from a mutual respect born of the shared trial of the 2008 campaign. Clearly Obama and Clinton do not share the bonds of affection and long co- operation that existed between The first President Bush and his old retainer James Baker, or between the younger Bush and Rice.

    In public, Hillary is always deferential. Privately, the 44th President and his Secretary of State meet once a week for 45 minutes, every Thursday afternoon. So important is the session for her that when her plane ran into mechanical problems during a February visit to Saudi Arabia, she abandoned her travelling entourage and hitched a ride home with General David Petraeus, who had also been in Riyadh, in order to keep her White House date.

    And whatever her power, her popularity is indisputable – her approval ratings are better than Obama’s. One reason, of course, is that her job keeps her at a safe distance from the President’s bitterly contested domestic agenda, and from a polarised, staggeringly unpopular Congress. Another is that Democrats and Republicans are basically agreed on key foreign policy issues. Take it from none other than Chavez, Venezuela’s President and a constant thorn in Washington’s flesh, who recently described Hillary as “a blonde Condoleezza Rice”.

    If he were still in the Oval Office, George W Bush would now probably be running things much as Obama: extricating troops from Iraq, ramping up the war in Afghanistan, trying unsuccessfully to shut the prison at Guantanamo Bay and to prod Israelis and Palestinians in the direction of peace. Indeed, apart from diehard neo-cons, the loudest critics of the administration are from the left, complaining that foreign policy is not liberal enough.

    That, too, may be thanks in part to Hillary. Candidate Clinton was more hawkish than Obama; as President, he has moved in her direction. As Secretary of State she has shown herself to be a tough-minded pragmatist with no qualms in talking about war. On Afghanistan most notably, Obama took her advice rather than Biden’s, going for an across-the-board troop increase, rather than narrowing the US mission to purely anti-terrorist operations, as the Vice-President recommended.

    If her first year was a crash course in global affairs, Hillary has stepped up the pace during her second year. In 2009, she made 15 foreign trips, visiting 44 countries; as of yesterday, she had already made 11 this year, travelling to 19 countries and spending 30 days on the road. What this gruelling schedule has achieved is open to debate. The most frequent criticism is that in her ubiquity, she has made no issue recognisably her own.

    The Afghanistan and Iraq wars probably should not be counted, since they have been run out of the White House. But Iran has ignored every overture and every warning from Washington, pressing ahead with its nuclear programme regardless. Thus far at least, her labours have not brought the US much closer to securing UN “sanctions that bite”. As for China, divisions have if anything grown, on issues ranging from trade and currency policy to human rights and nuclear proliferation – though blame can hardly be laid at Hillary’s door.

    Where she did make a gaffe was in the Middle East. Progress towards peace was the tallest of orders, given the intransigence of Benjamin Netanyahu and the weakness of the Palestinian leadership. But she and the President allowed the Israeli Prime Minister to call their bluff over US demands for an outright settlements freeze, then Hillary compounded the error by describing Netanyahu’s vague promise to suspend construction as “unprecedented” – a remark that enraged the Arab world. Since then, US relations with Israel have gone from bad to worse.

    This year, she set off a mini-storm in London when she declared her readiness to mediate between Britain and Argentina over the Falklands. But the reaction reflected less US clumsiness than the tender sensibilities of sections of the British press over the “special relationship”.

    Her most concrete achievement has been the “resetting” of relations with Moscow, culminating in the new Start treaty, cutting the countries’ nuclear arsenals. A contributory factor is the better personal relationship she has developed with her Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, who could barely abide Condoleezza Rice.

    Ultimately though, the success or failure of America’s foreign policy is ascribed to a president. Only rarely does a secretary of state leave a lasting individual mark: Henry Kissinger, certainly, in the Seventies, and before that George Marshall and Dean Acheson under Harry Truman, but who else? Hillary, moreover, must toil in the shadow of the biggest global superstar in the White House since John F Kennedy.

    But she too is not short of star wattage. She may be a diplomat now, but remains a politician too – a very accomplished one. Unlike her predecessors, with the possible exception of Powell, Hillary has a global name recognition that enables her to speak not just to her peers in the chancelleries, but the population at large.

    In fact an informal “Clinton Doctrine” is discernable. She is the ideal exponent of “smart power”, of the US leading by the example of what is most attractive about that country, not because of its military might. The fight against poverty, the struggle for human rights and in particular women’s rights, are Hillary issues. Her fame and gender put her in an extraordinarily strong position to promote these issues, which may prove her most enduring legacy.

    One day, of course, Hillary will no longer be Secretary of State. So what then? The surprising answer may be: not a great deal. Political disclaimers should normally be taken with a generous pinch of salt. But in Hillary’s case there is no reason to disbelieve her when she insists she will not run for president again – and when she says she does not see herself sticking in her present job beyond the end Obama’s first term.

    Naturally those words have been taken by the irredeemably conspiracy-minded as leaving the door open to a challenge to Obama in 2012, should his presidency unravel. But that now looks a good deal less likely, after his victory over healthcare and the arms treaty with Moscow. And Hillary the student of presidential politics knows that a primary challenge to a sitting President results in two things: the defeat of the challenger in the primaries, and the subsequent electoral defeat of his or her party.

    By the time election day 2016 rolls around, she will be 69; only Ronald Reagan was as old when he took office. She maintains that she plans a future of writing and teaching. Enoch Powell once said all political careers end in failure. But in Hillary Clinton’s case the observation is true only in that she failed to crack America’s ultimate glass ceiling. As for the rest: high-powered lawyer, First Lady, senator, Secretary of State – if that’s failure, who needs success?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hillary-clinton-she-stoops-to-conquer-1954092.html

  15. Jan, one of the top IT companies in India is Wipro and its founder and Chairman is a Muslim, Azim Premji. I hope he politely declined Obama’s invitation.

    From the wiki:

    Azim Premji (Gujarati: અઝીમ પ્રેમજી) (born July 24, 1945), is an Indian industrialist. He is the Chairman of Wipro, one of the largest software companies in India. According to Forbes, he is currently the second richest Indian with a personal wealth of US$17 billion in 2010[5] Azim Premji was rated the richest person in the country from 1999 to 2005 as per Forbes[6]. In 2000, he was voted among the 20 most powerful men in the world by Asiaweek. He was also among the 50 richest people in the world from 2001 to 2003 according to Forbes. In April 2004, he was rated among the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine.

    His father declined an invitation from M. A. Jinnah to go to the newly partitioned Pakistan and stayed back in India! His son is married to a Hindu.

  16. confloyd
    April 25th, 2010 at 8:30 pm

    WHY did I just hear Newt on Huckabee (Fox) defend Obama’s right to select the senator to take his place in Illinois????

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

    As I said about Gillibrand, I think EVERY elected official everywhere should get to pick the person to finish their term (or until an election can be held).

    The voters chose Mr. X for Mr. X’s policies and performance. They deserve a replacment that will carry on those policies and performance as closely as possible. Certainly not someone of the opposite party appointed by a Governor from the opposite party!

  17. Why is it all men have to do is say they can do the job, even with considerable lack of experience, whereas women have to prove they can do the job, even though they have considerable experience.

  18. Candidate Clinton was more hawkish than Obama

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

    Not in July 2007 when Hillary and Bush had to do a WORM on Obama’s plan to move the troops from Iraq “to the right battlefield in Pakistan and Afganistan”, and threatened Pakistan with nukes.

  19. pm317
    April 25th, 2010 at 9:44 pm

    ———————
    You and me both.

    The arrogance of bambi continues. Another photoshoot.

  20. tim, there are still people out there who believe that there is not a party of repubs and dems that are actually working together for the CFR. These folks listen to Glenn Beck and believe every darn thing he says…

    Turndown…WTH happened to you…we know have Obama lying about his senate seat and now everyone wants to say, its ok that he did this???

    Bill was impeached for lying about his blowjob….WTH?? Don’t you want Obama gone???

  21. confloyd,

    I didn’t say lying was okay. I said choosing somene to finish your term is okay. I think everyone should do that.

  22. When the people vote someone into the senate or into any political position, they have expectations that said person will serve for his/her full term.

    If he/she chooses to leave before the term is up (for whatever reason) then I think the people have the right to elect a replacement.

  23. JanH said:
    If he/she chooses to leave before the term is up (for whatever reason) then I think the people have the right to elect a replacement.

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

    Sure. I just think that till there can be an election, the person who was elected should choose his/her substitute for that short period.

  24. Turndown, I don’t since he wasn’t selecting his substitute for any other reason except to assure that the corruption he was associated with would continue.

    Your missing the point Turndown…this was a republican saying this…had a dem said this I might of been able to let it go, but this was Newt Gingrich…Mr. Republican….why is a republican take up for Obama???

    What I am really getting at is that the republicans really agree with Obama’s policies…just look at what Rev. Manning said a week ago…he said he agreed with Obama’s policies, but not Obama…how’s that? Is he saying Obama personally is what we should be disagreeing with or his policies…I don’t agree with Obama’s policies…he is NOT a democrat!

  25. Newt is a former high school history teacher. And the is more than a little pedantic. He will attack Obama on other fronts. The Republicans did not select Obama. The financial people who now control BOTH parties did that. The people Cronkite described as the titans of commerce and finance who “so manipulate democracy that they control democracy”. The omnipotent, omnificent Republican party is a myth. A better description would be the gang that cannot shoot straight. Their only virtue is they are not dimocrats–except for the three weak sisters.

  26. I for one refuse to wear blinders…if Newt is giving him an out on the selection of his former senate seat then he’s one of the globalists we both have talked about….Obama lying about this seat is enought for impeachment…if fact its more than what they used to impeach Clinton. That’s all I need to know about Newt.

    Hillary is a paid employee and yet she still repeats day after day that this is Obama foreign policy…so why would Newt let Obama off the hook?

    I do also believe its the financial folks…many republicans are joining in passing Obama plan??? How about that,maybe we should remember their names???

  27. The Federal Gov to hire 244,000 people. Watch them tout this as creating jobs. Only the private sector creats jobs. We will be using private money, ours, to pay other people to have a job.
    *****************

    Why You Should Consider a Job With the Federal Government

    ArticlePosted Apr 22nd 2010 6:44AM
    Kelly Services

    As the economy continues to recover and we see more encouraging news regarding employment, inevitably people start thinking about finding new work. According to findings from the 2009 Kelly Global Workforce Index, 40 percent of employees across the United States intend to look for another job within the next year, including as many as 62 percent of workers from Generation X (ages 30-47).

    Their reasons for moving on vary, ranging from personal preference, to better personal reward or compensation, or simply because new opportunities came available.

    What motivates you most when you’re ready to find a new job? Rank these in order of importance:

    a) Personal preference for one working environment over another.

    b) Desire for fair compensation.

    c) Need for intangible benefits from work.

    d) It’s just a matter of availability in your line of work or in your geographic area.

    The good news? No matter what inspires you to get to work every weekday, you’ll find some compelling rationale for seeking employment with the federal government, according to research released by the Partnership for Public Service. Below is a guide with detail related to your favorite reasons:

    Availability …

    If all the motivation you need to change jobs is access to a new opportunity, then your prospects for government work are better currently than in some areas of the private sector. Already the nation’s largest employer with nearly 1.9 million on its payroll, federal agencies are expected to hire 244,000 new employees before 2012 — a need driven by retiring baby boomers.

    … in your specialty

    Better still, new positions are expected across nearly every category and discipline of employment: from administrative and office work; to professional areas like accounting, marketing, law or health care; to technical specialties within engineering, IT and science.

    … and in your neighborhood

    Before you assume most jobs are in our nation’s capital, check the facts: almost 85 percent of federal jobs are outside the D.C. area. States with the highest number of federal employees include California, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington state. Another 44,000 federal jobs are based abroad.

    As a model for workforce diversity, the federal government ensures equal opportunity to all Americans regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or disability. Roughly 44 percent of the federal workforce are women, and 33 percent are minorities. Military veterans are actively recruited through organizations like the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which offers programs for helping out-of-work veterans find jobs in the public sector.

    Personal preference …

    With such a vast array of employment scope and scale available across federal operations and agencies worldwide, the government can offer a work environment suited to almost any personal preference — in the laboratory, the office, the field, the courtroom or the classroom.

    Are you a scientist, nurse or an IT technician who happens to love medicine? Check the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s foremost medical research center. Engineer? Try NIH or the Department of Energy. Crime fighter? There’s always the Department of Justice.

    The possibilities extend in every conceivable direction. Are you a world traveler? The State Department operates an embassy or consulate in 180 countries. Want to make a difference? Federal employees address the most urgent national issues facing Americans today. Wherever your interests lie, a federal cabinet or agency is addressing it in some respect.

    Compensation and benefits …

    And if you always took for granted that federal pay lags the private sector, think again.

    … in material form

    Federal compensation is shown time and again to be competitive with the private sector, often offering better or more comprehensive health- and child-care benefits, plus innovative savings plans. Federal agencies offer hundreds of different scholarship opportunities and can help pay back up to $10,000 per year in student loans. Some will even pay for you to pursue an advanced degree or executive program at a local college or university — nearly 75 percent of public-sector employees have some post-secondary education.

    … and the intangible

    Just 26 percent of the federal workforce is under the age of 40. Much like their baby boomer counterparts, as many as 70 percent of senior federal executives will retire over the next few years, lending to faster career advancement in the near term. The government offers state-of-the-art training for employees interested in learning new skill sets or advancing their professional development. Government work also facilitates an exceptional work/life balance through flexible work schedules and programs like job sharing, telecommuting or on-site child care.

    Studies estimate that during President Obama’s full term, new hiring for all types of federal government positions will reach nearly 600,000 employees — almost one-third of the current workforce — with a 41 percent increase in mission-critical hiring compared to previous years.

    Kelly Government Solutions (KGS) provides experienced staff to the federal government and its key suppliers, including prime and small business contractors. Through services such as government contract staffing, workforce management, project management, and contract compliance services, KGS supplies talent to both public and private sectors alike. For more information, please visit http://www.kellygovernmentsolutions.com/.

    The Kelly Global Workforce Index is an annual survey revealing opinions about work and the workplace from a generational viewpoint. Results of the 2009 survey from across North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific gave insight into the rapidly changing global workforce — and how it affects the way companies recruit and retain talent.
    **************

    There may be 4 questions but more importantly there are 5 very important sentences to never forget. They are:
    1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

    2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

    3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

    4. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

    5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

  28. I for one refuse to wear blinders…if Newt is giving him an out on the selection of his former senate seat then he’s one of the globalists
    —————-
    Yes he is. In fact, Wall Street hired him to lobby against the imposition of mark to market accounting rules in the aftermath of the crash. If those rules had been implemented which would have shown which banks were swimming without a bathing suit. By not implementing that rule they were able to keep home mortages on their books at inflated value, show profits and pay themselves multi million dollar bonuses. Also, they were able to bury evidence of fraud. Without a full fledged Pecora Commission like Roosevelt ordered, I doubt we will ever get to the bottom of this. And because Obama himself is a Wall Street supported just as they supported his candidacy the prospects seem even more unlikely.

  29. Hope and change? Not exactly. Gangster government? You betcha. What is gangster government? According to Michael Barone it is “the channeling of vast sums of money from the politically unprotected to the politically connected”. In other words, the Chicago Way.
    —————————————————————————————–
    Big Government in Bed with Big Business
    By Michael Barone

    Almost a year ago, in a Washington Examiner column on the Chrysler bailout, I reflected on the Obama administration’s decision to force bondholders to accept 33 cents on the dollar on secured debts while giving United Auto Worker retirees 50 cents on the dollar on unsecured debts.

    This was a clear violation of the ordinary bankruptcy rule that secured creditors are fully paid off before unsecured creditors get anything. The politically connected UAW folk got preference over politically unconnected bondholders. “We have just seen an episode of Gangster Government,” I wrote. “It is likely to be a continuing series.”

    Receive news alerts

    Sign Up

    Michael Barone RealClearPolitics
    Detroit economy

    labor Obama administration
    Christopher Dodd Goldman Sachs
    Chrysler

    [+] More

    Fast forward to last Friday, when the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against Goldman Sachs, alleging that the firm violated the law when it sold a collateralized debt obligation based on mortgage-backed securities without disclosing that the CDO was assembled with the help of hedge fund investor John Paulson.

    On its face, the complaint seems flimsy. Paulson has since become famous because his firm made billions by betting against mortgage-backed securities. But he wasn’t a big name then, and the sophisticated firm buying the CDO must have assumed the seller believed its value would go down.

    That’s not the only fishy thing about the complaint. Yesterday came the news, undisclosed by the SEC Friday, that the commissioners approved the complaint by a 3-2 party-line vote. Ordinarily, the SEC issues such complaints only when the commissioners unanimously approve.

    Fishy thing No. 3: Democrats immediately used the complaint to jam Sen. Christopher Dodd’s financial regulation through the Senate.

    You may want to believe the denials that the Democratic commissioners timed the action in coordination with the administration or congressional leaders. But then you may want to believe there was no political favoritism in the Chrysler deal, too. The SEC complaint looks a lot like Gangster Government to me.

    The Dodd bill, however, has it trumped. Its provisions promise to give us one episode of Gangster Government after another.

    At the top of the list is the $50 billion fund that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp could use to pay off creditors of firms identified as systemically risky — i.e., “too big to fail.”

    “The Dodd bill,” writes Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman, “has unlimited executive bailout authority. That’s something Wall Street desperately wants but doesn’t dare ask for.”

    Politically connected creditors would have every reason to assume they’d get favorable treatment. The Dodd bill specifically authorizes the FDIC to treat “creditors similarly situated” differently.

    Second, as former Bush administration economist Larry Lindsey points out, the Dodd bill gives the Treasury and the FDIC authority to grant an unlimited number of loan guarantees to “too big to fail” firms. CEOs might want to have receipts for their contributions to Sen. Charles Schumer and the Obama campaign in hand when they apply.

    Lindsey ticks off other special favors. “Labor gets ‘proxy access’ to bring its agenda items before shareholders as well as annual ‘say on pay’ for executives. Consumer activists get a brand new agency funded directly out of the seniorage the Fed earns. No oversight by the Federal Reserve Board or by Congress on how the money is spent.”

    Then there are carve-out provisions provided for particular interests. “Obtaining a carve-out isn’t rocket science,” one Republican K Street lobbyist told the Huffington Post. “Just give Chairman Dodd and Chuck Schumer a s—load of money.”

    The Obama Democrats portray the Dodd bill as a brave attempt to clamp tougher regulation on Wall Street. They know that polls show voters strongly reject just about all their programs to expand the size and scope of government, with the conspicuous exception of financial regulation.

    Republicans have been accurately attacking the Dodd bill for authorizing bailouts of big Wall Street firms and giving them unfair advantages over small competitors. They might want to add that it authorizes Gangster Government — the channeling of vast sums from the politically unprotected to the politically connected.

  30. US prepares to push for global capital rules
    By Tom Braithwaite
    Published: April 25 2010 17:24 | Last updated: April 25 2010 17:24

    The US is preparing to pivot from domestic regulatory reform to a push for a tough new international capital regime after the weekend’s G20 and International Monetary Fund meetings glossed over differences between leading economies. Tim Geithner, US Treasury secretary, met Mario Draghi, chairman of the Financial Stability Board, on Sunday to discuss the contours of a system that would decide the safety and profitability of banks for decades to come and could eclipse the arguments over bank taxes and regulation.
    The remainder at:
    www dot ft.com/cms/s/0/28959166-5082-11df-bc86-00144feab49a.html

  31. gonzotx:
    “3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.”

    Not to gainsay your other ‘sentences’, but this one is irrelevant and untrue. The government is a service organization, and can provide the services it was created to perform without taking those services from somebody else. It has tax resources to pay itself for those services. As an example of how government can increase its services while avoiding deficit and reducing debt, take Bill Clinton. And Hillary now, too: Mind you, she has asked for a 10% increase in the State/AID budget, but she has increased the clout of the State Department ten fold while reducing unnecessary (and unwanted, by Gates) Defense Department expenditures.

  32. holdthemaccountable:

    “The US is preparing to pivot from domestic regulatory reform to a push for a tough new international capital regime after the weekend’s G20 and International Monetary Fund meetings glossed over differences between leading economies.”

    I’m just wondering why the G20 and the IMF didn’t take on this issue. International finance is international and needs international regulation. Sorry if that sounds globalist to you, but every country, including the US perhaps more than any other, needs some level of control over the workings of the financial market. The only people who might be scared of this are people like Soros.

  33. jeswezey @ 9:42 am
    Perhaps it’s just that “US ( = Obama)” and “push” have combined to form a process extremely distasteful to me.

  34. I just saw the video of O waking with a widow from that mine disaster at the funeral he spoke at. He seemed to be focused on where the camera was, or am I just seeing things.

  35. jeswezey
    April 26th, 2010 at 9:30 am

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

    Yes. Imo the zero sum model doesn’t quite apply to government; Keynes was warmer.

  36. Schumer and Koch are a day late and a dollar short. Like other Jewish leaders, they preached to fellow Jews like me how great Obama was and that he would be a true friend to Israel. Finally, they speak out only after our Israel, alonf with her Prime minister are treated with a kind of disrespect and underlying ant-Semitism that Obama learned well for over 20 yrs. Hear in Florida, our Jewish Congressmen/women still remain silent and are walking drones for Pelosi and Waffles.

  37. jeswezey
    April 26th, 2010 at 9:30 am
    *************
    I disagree. The Gov by it’s very nature must take from us in oder to give to others.

  38. wbboei
    April 26th, 2010 at 4:19 am
    Hope and change? Not exactly. Gangster government? You betcha. What is gangster government? According to Michael Barone it is “the channeling of vast sums of money from the politically unprotected to the politically connected”. In other words, the Chicago Way.
    **************

    From WBB’s mouth to jeszewy…

  39. Schumer and Koch are a day late and a dollar short. Like other Jewish leaders, they preached to fellow Jews like me how great Obama was and that he would be a true friend to Israel. Finally, they speak out only after our Israel, alonf with her Prime minister are treated with a kind of disrespect and underlying ant-Semitism that Obama learned well for over 20 yrs. Hear in Florida, our Jewish Congressmen/women still remain silent and are walking drones for Pelosi and Waffles.
    ==============================================
    True. But I believe they are distinguishable in one important sense. To my mind however Koch was simply wrong, whereas Schumer was evil. As I recall Koch was a bona fide Hillary supporter during the primary. He did not defect to Obama until after she suspended her campaign. Schumer on the other hand was one of the plotters against Hillary and ultimately against Israel. Now of course his support of Obama is a problem for him with the Jewish community, so naturally he tries to shift the focus. I hope his opponent takes the information about him in Game Change and holds it like a dagger to his throat. That would be justice worthy of Solomon. People who have met him say shaking hands with him is like grabbing a greasy donut. He is oily, and the most dangerous place to ever be is between Schumer and a camera.

  40. I have to think he was able to get the IRS to examine Rubio because he is a Dem lite and they want him vs Rubio. But as usual with politicians, they play light with others money.
    ************************

    Crist must decide if he will abandon or stay with GOP this week as clouds form over Marco Rubio
    By The Daily Caller | Published: 04/25/10 at 4:38 PM | Updated: 04/26/10 at 11:12 AM

    Come February months of primary elections for party nominations get under way in House, Senate, gubernatorial, and legislative races nationwide, and no race epitomizes the GOP’s battle for the future more than the Florida Senate primary between Crist and Marco Rubio, a former state house speaker backed by anti-establishment “tea party” activists. (AP Photo/Chris O’Meara, File)
    Charlie’s dilemma

    Florida Governor Charlie Crist must decide his political future by Friday, April 30, the deadline for when he has to file as an Independent candidate in the Florida U.S. Senate race. The one-time GOP primary frontrunner’s fortunes have changed dramatically in the last year as he lost a commanding lead in the polls over former Florida House speaker Marco Rubio. Crist is now in the unenviable position of remaining loyal to a party that has seemingly spurned him or try his chances at an Independent candidacy.

    The Miami Herald reports:

    “Charlie Crist, once Florida’s spectacularly popular governor, now in danger of seeing his political career washed up?

    ‘I honestly don’t know,’ Crist said Friday. ‘But I certainly think the economy played a role.’

    In hindsight, the warning signs were too numerous: Marco

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/25/crist-to-decide-to-stay-or-abandon-gop-this-week-as-clouds-form-over-marco-rubio/#ixzz0mDndslIS

  41. Sorry Wbb, Koch, if he loved Israel, could see that the Fraud was anti-Semitic. I could see it, and I am not Jewish. One look @ his church alone, one look.

  42. “The US is preparing to pivot from domestic regulatory reform to a push for a tough new international capital regime after the weekend’s G20 and International Monetary Fund meetings glossed over differences between leading economies.”
    ——————————
    There is that godawful word that the Obama media loves dearly–pivot. A more accurate word would be stumble, stagger etc. I can tell you this much: when a President installed by bankers writes the financial regulations, it stands to reason that bankers and those sympathetic to their interests will be writing the rules. And when bankers write the rules the regulations will not cramp their style or their ability to make money. Therefore one should ignore the precatory words and focus on whether the rules have loopholes, unaddressed areas. For starters, do they provide for the reinstatement of an effective global Glass Stegal or whatever they call it. If not then this is simply a case of smoke and mirrors, or yet another campaign event full of sound and fury signifying nothing lauded by the big media component of the endless Obama campaign,

  43. There is that godawful word that the Obama media loves dearly–pivot. A more accurate word would be stumble, stagger etc.
    *******************

    My feelings exactly. Very funny you are by the way.

  44. Sorry Wbb, Koch, if he loved Israel, could see that the Fraud was anti-Semitic. I could see it, and I am not Jewish. One look @ his church alone, one look.
    ——————————-
    You are right. I do not absolve him for that. He knew at the time that McCain would protect Israel, and he knew or should have known that Obama would not. The Reverend Wright association was a four alarm fire. He probably assumed that with Rambo and Grease as his key advisors, Israel would be protected. If that was the case, he badly misread the situation. All I was saying above is that Koch is distinguishable from Schumer in the sense that he was not one of the plotters against Hillary.

  45. gonzotx

    “The Gov by it’s very nature must take from us in oder to give to others.”

    Not even the anarchists I have known, nor the small-government conservatives, would follow this line of reasoning. I think you’re obsessed with the idea of welfare payments, which operate as you say, and perhaps the health insurance subsidies envisioned by the new law. I suggest you look at the examples I gave of the Clintons.

    One of the hallmarks of Bill’s administration was a large reduction in welfare payments, by way of finding jobs for people and thereby getting them off the welfare roles.

    And perhaps I wasn’t very clear about what Hillary is doing. In hearings before the Senate, she claimed that her increased budget ($4.5 B, or about 10%) corresponded to reductions of more than $16 B by the Defense Department, which had hitherto conducted certain properly civilian activities inefficiently. The result is greater efficiency on both the State/AID side and in Defense, with savings of $11.5 B in global budget demands. In other words, the taxpayer is getting more for his money.

    Now, you may argue that AID is giving our money away to foreigners. However, this has never been the case and is even less so now than before. Before, AID money was given to governments on condition that the country bought US goods for an equivalent amounts. This led to a lot of corruption, but was not a giveaway. Now, under Hillary, any AID money left over from humanitarian efforts (a giveaway, if you wish) is invested in microcredits through banks or NGOs. The small businesses that accept the microcredits may or may not buy American goods, but in any case there is a return on the investment.

    As for the effectiveness of the State Department, I can’t see how the services of the State Department can be construed as a handout. If you don’t want America to be represented at all overseas, just because it’s on your tax dollar, I can’t do anything to help you.

    wbboei
    “Hope and change? Not exactly. Gangster government? You betcha. What is gangster government? According to Michael Barone it is “the channeling of vast sums of money from the politically unprotected to the politically connected”. In other words, the Chicago Way.”

    Yes, gonzotx, but I am not arguing that this is not what is actually happening, but rather that it should not and does not have to be this way. The writers of the Constitution warned us against this possibility, and now it is upon us; but it would never have happened had we elected Hillary, and we can still change things back again.

  46. If you want to know why the word pivot starts showing up in so many columns of the Obama media, here is your answer. Would be competitors collaborate, coordinate and conspire with each other over email to promote a common line of propaganda. We saw this same thing during the Bush Administration when the words weapons of mass destruction were repeated with mind numbing cadences, as a predicate for a war which they now condemn as the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.

  47. This article is a continuation of the above comment
    —————————————————
    Just Because They Say It is So Does Not Make It So
    Eric Erickson

    The left-wing advocacy class who hide behind press credentials have for the past year tried to make the tea party and Republicans agents of domestic terrorism.

    It was Barack Obama’s own Organizing For America that labeled them “right-wing domestic terrorists.”

    Well, the RGA puts up an advertisement called “Remember November”. These “journalists” get together on their Journolist — an email list where they conspire together to develop a common theme that they can repeat over and over as if it is fact regardless of whether or not it is — and decide that the GOP is talking about Guy Fawkes in a “political terrorism” theme.

    The Huffington Post is the latest. Michael Sherer at Time and Josh Marshall before him all got in line.

    Never mind that the ad is clearly about Election Day. No, to these guys, the supposed shortbus riders of conservatism, when not choking on NASCAR fumes and tea bags, are smart enough to collaborate together on a Guy Fawkes theme.

    These people are beyond parody.

    We also know, by the way, that they view this RGA web ad as a serious production and serious threat. Otherwise they would not be going out of their way to paint it as advocating destroying government.

    By the way, the ad does advocate blowing up the Democrats, just doing so at the ballot box. The geniuses of the left have no ability to distinguish between politics and violence when it comes to the right, but applaud violence as politics when the purple people beaters are on full display.

    Closing question: Does it not say more about the effete liberal elitists who want us to be more like Europe that they would seize on a bit of British history and claim that a bunch of people connecting the present times to the American revolution are instead actually connecting the present time to something most of them could care less about and certainly did not study in the failed liberal run public schools of the United States?

    Category: Huffington Post, Josh Marshall, Michael Sherer, Sam Stein

  48. http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/joseph-sean-mcvey-arrested-near-president-barack-obamas-plane/19453712?ncid=webmaildl1

    Another misleading headline. If you only read the headline, you would think that Obama might be in danger. However, they found him near a runway which Obama was already taxing down in AF 1. He might have had one hand gun, and his car was made up like a cop car, and he was listening to a scanner. However, he did not threaten anyone, and said he only wanted to see the President. You get a detailed description of his car. Don’t really understand how this is a story. He sounds strange. So don’t understand the big story, unless it was to get some sympathy for O, and alude to the idea he might be in danger.

  49. Iranian scientist requests asylum in Israel
    April 26, 2010

    JERUSALEM (JTA) — An Iranian nuclear scientist has requested political asylum in Israel, an Israeli lawmaker said.

    Ayoub Kara, a Druze minister of the Likud Party, said Saturday that an Iranian academic with ties to Iran’s nuclear program passed the request for asylum via an Israeli woman of Iranian descent, according to reports.

    The scientist is waiting for Israel’s decision from a “friendly” third country, according to Kara, who did not name the scientist or the country in which he is hiding.

    The Washington Post reported Sunday that an increasing number of Iranian nuclear scientists are defecting or leaking information about Iran’s nuclear program to Western nations.

    http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/04/26/2394509/iranian-scientist-requests-asylum-in-israel

  50. jeswezey
    April 26th, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    You are assuming, which of course, we know the moniker for that. We all know that the Gov has certain rights to raise money to support the security of this country. The abuse of that is what this quote is all about. Only 47% of American’s pay taxes now. We have little if no control as to where that money goes, be it the study of bisexual ants or the welfare mother with 12 kids. I am for LIMITED gov as our founding forefathers and personally my family, sacrificed so much for. Gov has become the golden tit for corporations,politicians, illegals and the lazy. The stewards of this great country have failed miserably.
    **********

    By the way, Reid has promised to have an Immigration bill passed in 3 weeks. Ridiculous

  51. And yes, we wouldn’t be in this mess if Hillary had not had the nomination stolen from her. I realize Hillary is more left center than I , but I know she honored the American middle class and expects all corporations and people to pull their own weight. I am all for helping the least among us, the problem is, they are fast becoming the majority.

  52. National Security Adviser’s ‘greedy Jew’ joke deleted from White House transcript

    By John Byrne
    Monday, April 26th, 2010

    Update at bottom: Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman slams ‘inappropriate, stereotypic’ joke; Mediaite: Joke ‘missing, not scrubbed’

    President Obama’s National Security Adviser James Jones told a joke stereotyping Jews as greedy merchants to a Washington policy forum Friday night.

    The remark — little-noticed except in the New York-based Jewish newspaper The Forward — drew laughter and applause but raised more than a few eyebrows among those in attendance.

    In fact, the White House left the joke out of Jones’ official speech transcript, “which conveniently began a couple of minutes into the speech.”

    Jones was speaking to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel thinktank. According to the Forward, the Institute was founded by Jewish donors.

    The joke, according to video of it posted on YouTube (below), was:

    GENERAL JAMES JONES: In order to set the stage for my remarks, I’d just like to tell you a story that I think is true. It happened recently in southern Afghanistan.

    A member of the Taliban was separated from his fighting party and wandered around for a few days in the desert — lost, out of food, no water. And he looked on the horizon and he saw what looked like a little shack, and he walked towards that shack. And as he got to it, it turned out that it was a shack, a store, a little store owned by a Jewish merchant.

    And the Taliban warrior went up to him and said, ‘I need water. Give me some water.’

    And the merchant said, ‘I’m sorry. I don’t have any water, but would you like to buy a tie. We have a nice sale of ties today.’

    Whereupon the Taliban erupted into a stream of language that I can’t repeat, but about Israel, about Jewish people, about the man himself, about his family. ‘I’ve just said I need water. You try to sell me ties. You people don’t get it.’

    And passively the merchant stood there until this Taliban was through with his diatribe and said, ‘Well, I’m sorry that I don’t have water for you. And I forgive you for all of the insults that you’ve levied against me, my family, my country. But I will help you out. If you go over that hill and walk about two miles there’s a restaurant there and they have all the water you’ll need.’

    The Taliban, instead of saying thanks, still muttering under his breath, disappears over the hill, only to come back about an hour later. And walking up to the merchant, he says, ‘Your brother tells me I need a tie to get in the restaurant.’

    The Forward said that in private conversation, two participants questioned the joke’s taste and appropriateness. “After all, making jokes about greedy Jewish merchants can be seen at times as insensitive,” the paper wrote.

    One “think-tank” source purportedly said the attempt at humor was “wrong in so many levels” and “demonstrated a lack of sensitivity.”

    “Can you imagine him telling a black joke at an event of African Americans?” the anonymous attendee is quoted as adding.

    Jones hasn’t been a darling of pro-Israel hawks, who’ve questioned his stance on Palestinian issues.

    A former official for AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, has written that Jones “wrote [a] harsh report on Israel,” and another newspaper noted that he “reportedly wanted to publish a report that was harshly critical of Israel’s failure to facilitate the creation of a Palestinian security force and to allow more freedom of movement for the Palestinians.”

    Other conservatives have critiqued him for participating in the J-Street conference, a group described as “pro-Israel,” and “pro-peace.”

    But despite the joke, Jones’ complete speech seems to have come off well. “Jones got a standing ovation before and after his remarks,” Politico’s Laura Rozen wrote Friday.

    At ABC News, Jake Tapper reports, “While many in the largely Jewish audience laughed, others didn’t find it so funny, including Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.”

    “It’s inappropriate,” Foxman told ABC News. “it’s stereotypic. Some people believe they need to start a speech with a joke; this was about the worst kind of joke the head of the National Security Council could have told.”

    At Mediaite, Tommy Christopher writes, “Politico reported that the joke was ‘left out’ of the White House transcript of the event, and right-wing blogs are a-burnin’ with outrage. Jones’ joke may have been ill-advised, but there doesn’t appear to be any attempt by the White House to ‘scrub’ it.”

    Conservative blogger Yid with Lid correctly points out that the video posted at the Institute’s website does omit the joke, and the transcript provided by the White House doesn’t include the joke. What he, and others, failed to check, though, was whether the transcript provided by the White House constituted “prepared remarks” or “remarks as delivered.”

    A comparison of the White House transcript and the full C-Span video clearly shows that the White House transcript consisted of Jones’ prepared speech, not the speech as it was delivered. There are multiple (minor) deviations between the two from very early in the speech.

    This doesn’t get the White House completely off the hook, since they did not label the transcript “as prepared for delivery,” but it does provide a certain amount of insulation from criticism. For very high-profile speeches like the State of the Union, the White House will release two transcripts, “as prepared” and “as delivered,” but not for most others.
    The Mediaite columnist doesn’t believe the joke is anti-Semitic, even though it seems to portray how Jewish merchants could take advantage of an Arab dying of thirst in the desert.

    Christopher adds, “perhaps ethnic humor isn’t the best choice for administration officials to try out,” but that “the point of the joke is the Taliban fighter’s cleverly delivered comeuppance, not the ‘greed’ of the merchants.”

    Tapper adds, “To make fun of Jews in terms of ‘Jews won’t help you in need, Jews want to sell to you?’ Whoa!” Foxman says. “Where’s the sensitivity? The irony of it is General Jones went to this forum to reach out to the Jewish community. Of all the jokes this is probably the worst one he could have picked.”

    On the other hand, a Jewish member of Congress, asked for a response to Jones’ joke, told ABC News, “Lighten up.”

    http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0426/national-security-adviser-tells-greedy-jewish-joke-jewish-crowd/

  53. Interesting comments above in regards to defections of the Iranian nuclear scientists.

    I post the following link as I have never seen this picture before, and it both
    made me laugh and wonder what Meewchelle is hiding down yonder.

    http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=22193

    Some of the comments concerning the picture were funny in a most crude way.

  54. gonzotx:
    “I am for LIMITED gov as our founding forefathers and personally my family, sacrificed so much for.”

    Just remember that the founding fathers wrote enumerated powers for the federal government, leaving a blanket of all remaining powers to the states. This means there are things the federal government cannot do, but the states can. For example, the individual health insurance mandate may be declared unconstitutional on grounds of congressional overreach, but this does not mean individual states cannot apply the individual mandate. They can. The states have a lot more power than people generally think.

    In my day, of the civil rights movement, many people were in favor of federal intervention in realms that were considered to fall within states’ rights. There was a big fuss about that, around the time George Wallace stood in front of the University of Alabama to prevent the entry of 2 black students. Wallace was acting within the law of Alabama in so doing, and stepped aside only in the face of the threat of force by federal marshals. Take your pick: states’ rights or federal intervention for the greater good? At the time, I chose the side of the feds. That meant not ‘big’ federal government, but greater federal powers to correct a very bad situation where a minority was being intentionally oppressed.

    As Hillary has said, the question is not whether we want bigger or smaller government, but how to get the government to work for the people, ie to better their everyday lives. What we need is not bigger or smaller government, but smart government.

    My example of Hillary at State still holds, all the more so: a shift in attitude and policy, assumption of greater powers (with respect to Defense), hiring competent people and putting them to work, all with a reduced budget. That’s smart government. It can be done.

  55. jeswezey
    April 26th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
    ****************

    Clearly those powers have been abused as our forefathers feared.

  56. A post from the Lame Cherry blog today. There are also a couple of linked articles to this blogpost on his/her site.

    Obama denies American Hero Lt. Col. Terry Lakin his Constitional Rights

    America has now descended into the Obama gulag, the respit trap of concentrated camps denying Americans their rights, as the Obama regime jackboots on trampling Americans and foreigners who dare stand in the Obama tsunami of enslavement.

    It is official now that the Obama brass at the Pentagon are in the process of obliterately the most basic of American rights in the Right of Defense, as in the charges against Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, they are attempting to void discovery by narrowing the scope of what they say he is being charged with.
    See the Obamagon has charged Lt. Col. Lakin with not using an airline ticket and not reading a time clock. I am not kidding in this that the Pentagon in protecting usurper Obama has stated the charges against the Lt. Col. are he did not ride a plane to where they said he should and he did not have a meeting with his commander.

    To put this bluntly so even the Obama folks comprehend, Hitler’s Nazi’s would have loved to have had this bunch at the Pentagon filing charges in their cases as none of them would have ever been convicted in crimes against humanity as they protected Hitler in such narrow scope.
    Imagine every Nazi, not being charged with holocaust crimes, but instead the charges would be, “Did the train run on time” and, “Did the Jews show up for the meeting in the incinerator?”
    The Pentagon is deliberately burying what is the crux of this case in every Soldier is a war criminal if it is found that Mr. Obama is disqualified from being in the Oval Office. The very reason American Hero Terry Lakin is going through this is the matter of orders issued by Mr. Obama, but the Obamagon brass is instead attempting to make this not about Obama, but rather if a plane ticket was used and an appointment was kept.

    How would anyone in defending their family or home from an intruder like the District Attorney to show up and say, “Sorry, you can not bring up in your defense that the intruder had a Glock, had raped children, has 50 people buried in his backyard and shot your dog, but we will bring up that you were armed with a gun, were outside threatening this intruder and were scaring people passing by”. That is exactly what the Pentagon is up to. They are denying the right of defense and the right of discovery to an innocent American while protecting the criminal.

    The very essence of the Law is Biblical innocense handed down in English Common Law. One can face his accusers, one can discover evidence and in America a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a doubt.

    The very issue of the orders in not using a plane ticket or reading a time clock, all rests upon the foundation of were those orders by Barack Hussein Obama legitimate. Lt. Col. Lakin has stated such in a letter he sent to Mr. Obama and that is part of the official evidence of motive behind the Lt. Col’s actions of duty and honor to the Constitution he has sworn to uphold and defend.

    In reality, Lt. Col. Lakin can not be deprived of his rights, and in reality the JAG’s behind this or whatever ilk they are denying Constitutional rights are now in jeopardy of Court Martial, as they have just violated the very rights they swore to uphold and defend. This is not some cute Boston Legal drama where law can be misapplied as it fits a liberal. This is the United States military and her Codes which are being violated by the very military lawyers who are sworn to uphold it.

    The fact is Lt. Col. Terry Lakin not only has discovery, but he can subpoena one Barack Hussein Obama to the witness stand, in the Lt. Col’s right to face his accuser, as Mr. Obama has now become his accuser in the Pentagon brass at the behest of Mr. Obama have just joined in the denial of rights to Lt. Col. Lakin and have indeed produced a conspiracy to cover up the very issue of what motivated the Lt. Col. to these actions which he is being made a political prisoner over.

    Barack Hussein Obama should be kept very busy in this, as Rod Blagojevich’s defensive team is hauling Mr. Obama into court to explain his lies and the vicious attack by Obama justice on the Blagojevich family, and now Lt. Col. Terry Lakin has every right to haul Mr. Obama into a court for questioning in why he has subverted the Constitution in hiding all of his legal papers at a cost of almost 2 million dollars to donors.

    The fact of this matter is, if Lt. Col. Terry Lakin’s trial does not yield any new documenation from Mr. Obama in this cover up, then the Lt. Col. is proven innocent as the onus is upon Mr. Obama, who just defied the United States military courts, the requirements of the Constitution and the Federal Courts with the 50 states, as he is an undocumented person.

    For that Mr. Obama would be immediately expunged from the White House, along with his entire regime, his illegal laws and all of his trillion dollar rapine, which he is then criminally responsible for as he was spending other people’s money and making war, without any authority.

    It does not matter what the silver tongued Jags are running in their Obama scams in narrowly railroading Lt. Col. Lakin and apparently hosts of other Soldiers into prison by denying them their right to defense and discovery.

    Amazing isn’t it that Obama and his JAGS give laptops to Gitmo terrorists in assisting them in every way to defend themselves and discover things about George W. Bush, but when it comes to an American Hero like Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, they deny him his rights while protecting Obama.

    As this is the case, then let it be known to all the Obama minders in the JAG office that as the elections rectify in Congress a court martial of Mr. Obama in checking him, that there will be full criminal accounting of the JAG group who have apparently been subverting Justice for decades in making political prisoners of United States Soldiers.

    Those who enabled Obama and imprisoned the innocent, will face charges in and out of service for their criminal conspiracy in this attack upon Americans and the Constitution of these United States.
    We will see who smug these JAG traitors are when it is them in little orange jump suits in chains before a Judge explaining their conspiratorial crimes against Americans. This group has been getting away with this for far too long if this is what they deem justice.

  57. says, this is sobering and explains a lot of what and how this administration and the Dimocrats are doing to our country: http://apathetic-usa.com/

    Overall it is a good explanation of what Obummer’s Fundamental Transformation entails in detail; however, it could not be happening if American citizens were dutiful about their civic responsibilities. Apathic America!!!! Wake up America. Wake up for goodness sake.

    It says that Alinsky was Hillary’s mentor, why they put that in there is beyond me. She did a paper on Alinsky and his methods, but it is Alinsky that mentored Obummer, and so many of those allied with him.

    The website has a lot of links and it does not state who the ‘actual’ owner is and that always concerns me. Could Big Pinkers check it out and critique the website? I am going to share this video with my family, especially the younger ones with a foreword neutralizing the criticism of Hillary. Do you know of Cloward & Piven; do you teach your friends and family about Cloward & Piven? If so, this video lays it all out; and your memory over the decades will verify so much of what the video reports.

  58. Richard Haass debunks the notion that solving the Palestinian problem will be a miracle solution. It won’t. It’s like a teenager who thinks all problems will be solved and they would be happy if only they could get a nose job, or their pimples would go away. They don’t.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704448304575196312204524930.html

    President Obama recently said it was a “vital national security interest of the United States” to resolve the Middle East conflict. Last month, David Petraeus, the general who leads U.S. Central Command, testified before Congress that “enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests.” He went on to say that “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples . . . and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.”

    To be sure, peace between Israelis and Palestinians would be of real value. It would constitute a major foreign-policy accomplishment for the United States. It would help ensure Israel’s survival as a democratic, secure, prosperous, Jewish state. It would reduce Palestinian and Arab alienation, a source of anti-Americanism and radicalism. And it would dilute the appeal of Iran and its clients.

    But it is easy to exaggerate how central the Israel-Palestinian issue is and how much the U.S. pays for the current state of affairs. There are times one could be forgiven for thinking that solving the Palestinian problem would take care of every global challenge from climate change to the flu. But would it? The short answer is no. It matters, but both less and in a different way than people tend to think.

    Take Iraq, the biggest American investment in the Greater Middle East over the past decade. That country’s Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are divided over the composition of the new government, how to share oil revenues, and where to draw the border between the Kurdish and Arab areas. The emergence of a Palestinian state would not affect any of these power struggles.

    Soon to surpass Iraq as the largest U.S. involvement in the region is Afghanistan. Here the U.S. finds itself working against, as much as with, a weak and corrupt president who frustrates American efforts to build up a government that is both willing and able to take on the Taliban. Again, the emergence of a Palestinian state would have no effect on prospects for U.S. policy in Afghanistan or on Afghanistan itself.

    What about Iran? The greatest concern is Iran’s push for nuclear weapons. But what motivates this pursuit is less a desire to offset Israel’s nuclear weapons than a fear of conventional military attack by the U.S. Iran’s nuclear bid is also closely tied to its desire for regional primacy. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians would not weaken Iran’s nuclear aspirations. It could even reinforce them. [snip]

    Nor is it clear what effect successful peacemaking would have on Arab governments. The Palestinian impasse did nothing to dissuade Arab governments from working with the U.S. to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in the Gulf War when they determined it was in their interest to do so. Similarly, an absence of diplomatic progress would not preclude collaboration against an aggressive Iran. Just as important, a solution would not resolve questions of political stability and legitimacy within the largely authoritarian Arab world.

    Alas, neither would terrorism fade if Israelis and Palestinians finally ended their conflict. [snip]

    The danger of exaggerating the benefits of solving the Palestinian conflict is that doing so runs the risk of distorting American foreign policy. It accords the issue more prominence than it deserves, produces impatience, and tempts the U.S. government to adopt policies that are overly ambitious.

    This is not an argument for ignoring the Palestinian issue. [snip]

    As Edgar noted in “King Lear,” “Ripeness is all.” And the situation in the Middle East is anything but ripe for ambitious diplomacy. What is missing are not ideas—the outlines of peace are well-known—but the will and ability to compromise.

    The Palestinian leadership remains weak and divided; the Israeli government is too ideological and fractured; U.S.-Israeli relations are too strained for Israel to place much faith in American promises. The West Bank is the equivalent of a fragile state at best. What is needed are sustained efforts to strengthen Palestinian economic, military and governing capacities on the West Bank so that Israel will come to see the Palestinian Authority as a partner it can work with.

    Also needed are efforts to repair U.S.-Israeli ties. [snip] (Simon & Schuster, 2009).

  59. nomobama
    April 26th, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    —————–
    I watched a program on the History Channel yesterday about the rise of Hitler and a war/holocaust that could have been stopped by the British before it even started.

    What became crystal clear to me was the numerous comparisons I could make between Hitler and the Reich and obama and his dims. Quite shocking actually. Hitler in essence only had 40% of the popular vote when he had all his detractors shot and became a dictator. He did not win fair and square. Hitler was appeased by Britain’s Prime Minister Chamberlain in every way possible, i.e. okaying his takeover of Austria, Checkoslovakia, etc… Hitler was often believed to have a narcissistic personality disorder. We all know that obama has an exaggerated sense of self-importance and needs constant admiration.

    And finally, both were/are arrogant to the extreme and provoked/provoke fear.

  60. Chuck is a weasel.

    This kind of talk makes me crazy:

    ““When they say on the seventh floor, ‘We need to run this by the president,’ that phrase doesn’t necessarily refer to Obama,” remarks one former Clinton administration official wryly. In the White House, it’s still possible to hear someone dismissing Hillary as a foreign-policy lightweight. “She has no real strategic vision,” says an NSC official. “But she’ll get done what she has to do. She’s the good little Methodist girl. In the end she’ll have her list of the nine or 10 things she has to do and check them off one by one.”

    ——–
    Nice little Hillary is gonna kick their a$$ if she runs again and the little boys with big mouths and nothing to show will eat their words.

  61. Correct JanH….Obama has , along with the Euros, set the stage for a global backlash against Israel, and ultimately Jews. The sad fact is that we(Jews) still overwhelmiongly support him. Very embarrassing when our Christian breathren care more about Israel than our own kind.

  62. Admin,

    It amazes me how much energy obama is using to bully Israel and appease the Arab world.

    How come he isn’t spending as much time bulling Iran? North Korea?

  63. The Fraud posted a new video today (doesn’t he have real work to do?) playing to Hispanics, Blacks and women…trying to refill their Kool-aid IVs. If he doesn’t see them swooning in the streets before November, I wonder what unicorns he is going to promise the Obots?

    If he actually thinks he will pull Hillary voters out from under the bus, he is delusional.

    I won’t post the link, no one wants to watch it anyway…

  64. JanH: “Nice little Hillary is gonna kick their a$$ if she runs again and the little boys with big mouths and nothing to show will eat their words.”

    Yes, it does seem that o’s approach is to bully Israel and appease the Palestinians, and I say that as a gut supporter of the Palestinians. I think the final remarks in Hass’s analysis is the wisest approach, and o’s Secy of State would be well placed to understand and implement such a policy: “The West Bank is the equivalent of a fragile state at best. What is needed are sustained efforts to strengthen Palestinian economic, military and governing capacities on the West Bank so that Israel will come to see the Palestinian Authority as a partner it can work with.” Israel is an independent state, armed to the teeth and financed to the tune of $2.5 B per year by the U.S., and Israel is using that money to make further incursions on Palestinian land. What we need to do is not appease the Palestinians, but to offer them the same level of help as we do to Israel, and I further think that the aid we give to Israel gives us a right to some say in how that aid is used. That’s not bullying, it’s just common sense.

  65. Sorry, JanH, what I meant to quote from you was “It amazes me how much energy obama is using to bully Israel and appease the Arab world.”

  66. The other quote was from Shadowfax: “Nice little Hillary is gonna kick their a$$ if she runs again and the little boys with big mouths and nothing to show will eat their words.”

    I don’t know about Hillary “kicking ass”. She’s certainly likes to win, but she’s not one to consider victory as someone else’s defeat. Think I’m idealizing her? No, I think her history shows that, and that’s the way she would have (will someday?) governed. That doesn’t make her any less of a fighter; just a different kind of fighter.

  67. jeswezey
    April 26th, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    ————–
    I don’t take issue with aid for the Palestinians, but I would want them to first recognize the State of Israel as well as make peace, i.e. hamas and hizbollah laying down their weapons. I would also hope that their government would be a little more stabalized than it is right now.

    Did you know that one condition of U.S. aid to Israel is that it must be earmarked entirely for military spending? As well, under an agreement between both allies, at least three-quarters of the aid must be spent with U.S. companies. (sourced here: www2.journahow.com/content/2010/mar/21/aid-to-israel-helps-us/news

  68. JanH:
    “Did you know that one condition of U.S. aid to Israel is that it must be earmarked entirely for military spending? As well, under an agreement between both allies, at least three-quarters of the aid must be spent with U.S. companies.”
    I think any earmarking for military purposes is pointless – Israel spends it all the way it wants anyway, and what it wants is to expand its military machine. A few years ago, I heard a reporter ask an Israeli official why US money was not used for education or construction or some other peaceful purposes, and the official’s reply was that “when the money is given, it’s given. We use it for what we need.” The official apparently was unaware of the earmark.

    “I don’t take issue with aid for the Palestinians, but I would want them to first recognize the State of Israel as well as make peace, i.e. hamas and hizbollah laying down their weapons. I would also hope that their government would be a little more stabalized than it is right now.”

    I’m sorry, JanH, but this shows a lopsided double standard: Hass notes that the way to negotiations is by helping the Palestinians economically and militarily, to increase their credibility in Israel’s eyes; but you would condition any aid on prior stability of the PA, which is only possible with outside support, and complete disarmament, which would decrease any credibility the Palestinians now have. You’re placing inherently contradictory demands on the Palestinians. I think even the Israelis would understand that.

    I never heard of this military earmark you speak of, but if such an earmark exists, it’s a good thing. It just shouldn’t be a military earmark. Rather, we should insist that the money be spent on civilian items, and expressly to even out the disproportionate spending on Jewish settlements. For example, Arab schools in east Jerusalem are dilapidated and never renewed, the teachers go unpaid. Until such time as these Arabs are totally expelled from Jerusalem, they are treated as second-class citizens in their own country. As conditions worsen, this only increases their determination to hang in there. Actually, if the Israeli government just recognized the Arabs as citizens equal to the Jews and devoted funds to things like schools, home development and utilities, it just may happen that those Arabs will be content to live in Israel and not be so demanding for a state of their own. After all, roughly 1/3 of Israelis in Israel proper are Arabs and they are generally content with their lot. Many learn Hebrew, many Jews learn Arabic, there is no religious friction. But some Jews are determined to have east Jersulam for themselves alone, and further insist that settlements in the occupied West Bank must be expanded.

  69. You calling the Dims socialists and comparing Obama to Hitler is a waste of time…it is just causing us to not be able to fix the things that need fixing….Obama is no more Hitler than Newt is…

    What we should be concentrating on is his Rezko affiliations and what he did with Blago and the corruption of him trying to fix his senate seat….this is a way to get Obama out…I want Obama out asap…but the name calling is a waste of time…which I myself did…but have since then realized this is what Obama wants us to do…it causes people to not see what he really is doing to the detriment of our country…I believe we need to look at the REAL reasons and the REAL ways to get him out and try not to start a civil war because in case you haven’t realized it…would play right in the hands of Obama!

  70. I’m sorry, JanH, but this shows a lopsided double standard: Hass notes that the way to negotiations is by helping the Palestinians economically and militarily, to increase their credibility in Israel’s eyes;
    ******************
    No thanks jeswezy…Israel does not negotiate with Palestinians, because they don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist, not because they aren’t credible enough.
    And the Arab nation’s could throw around a little more of it’s wealth to it’s poorer brethren, but then they probably wouldn’t be educating too many women.

  71. confloyd: “You calling the Dims socialists and comparing Obama to Hitler is a waste of time…”

    Sure is, thanks for pointing this out. o always seems to me to be the worst of GWB combined with the worst of Carter. But even that is true, it’s a waste of time too.

    As for looking at the real reasons and real ways to get him out, I think we’ve all been over the real reasons enough and the only real way to get him out is to publicize those real reasons to the population. And for that, we are powerless here on this blog. What we can do is find bot sites and spend some time blogging and publicizing there. Personally, I have never looked for nor found a site that is still glowing with praise for o and where I can blog a few jems. If you know of any where blogging is possible, please indicate.

  72. gonzotx: “No thanks jeswezy…Israel does not negotiate with Palestinians, because they don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist, not because they aren’t credible enough.
    And the Arab nation’s could throw around a little more of it’s wealth to it’s poorer brethren, but then they probably wouldn’t be educating too many women.”

    It’s a vicious circle: Israel does not negotiate with Palestinians because (some) Palestinians do not recognize Israel’s right to exist, and Palestinians don’t negotiate with Israel because some Israelis do not even recognize their existence, no less their right to exist. This last assertion may seem exaggerated, but it is true: When I first went to Israel in 1979, the Israelis would not even use the word “Palestinian” because “Palestinians do not exist.” “They’re all terrorists.” “We put them in Lebanon and now the Lebanese want us to go in and clean them out, which we will do” and which they did try to do, a few years later.

    And credibility is very important in every political environment, dealing with Israel is certainly no exception to this rule. For example, Israel has been negotiating for a peace treaty with Syria, and has proposed exchanging the Golan Heights for a hard promise to stop the weapons supply from Iran to Hezbollah and Hamas. Here, Israel is negotiating with a previous enemy on the battlefield, an armed and potentially dangerous neighbor who has something it can exchange for the Golan Heights. But in the case of the Palestinians, they have nothing to exchange even for recognition of their own existence. The Palestinians are occupied in their own land, the Israelis have dones things like uprooting all the citrus trees in Gaza, and the Palestinians can’t do anything about it except shoot some more rockets or send suicide bombers. They have nothing, and have no credibility.

    You are right, of course, that other Arab nations could lend a helping hand. This was another thing that was pointed out by the Israelis I met in 1979: They said “Israel gets help from Jews around the world,” (not mentioning US aid, or German guilt money), “so why don’t the Arabs get help from other Arab nations?” Without getting into the whys and wherefores of how Israel has blockaded even humanitarian aid to the Palestinian territories, let’s just say you have a point there.

    But your snyde remark of how many women would be educated by aid from other nations is uncalled for. I think you have some idea of all Arab, or muslim, women being excised, passive, slaves in polygamy waddling around in burqas. I think you should open your eyes a little here. Such is definitely not the case in Palestine, anyway. And you can be sure that any American aid coming from the current State/AID manager will target women and girls first. (After all, it was American aid that JanH and I were talking about.)

  73. Soon to surpass Iraq as the largest U.S. involvement in the region is Afghanistan. Here the U.S. finds itself working against, as much as with, a weak and corrupt president who frustrates American efforts . . .
    ===============================================================================
    For a moment I would have sworn they were talking about Obama.

  74. confloyd,

    I respect your opinions, but I do not see why I can’t compare obama’s exaggerated sense of self-importance and need of constant admiration to Hitler’s.

    And no I am not trying to start a civil war. However if I’m not supposed to make a comment like this then I’m fine with admin deleting it and I apologize to anyone I offended.

  75. “In a 17-minute, 2,600-word answer to a question about tax increases, Obama . . .”
    ———————————————————————————-

    ObamaCare Mulligan
    Op Ed Column
    Wall Street Journal

    When President Obama signed his health-care reform last month, he declared it will “lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government.” So why, barely a month later, are Democrats scrambling to pass a new bill that would impose price controls on insurance?

    In now-they-tell-us hearings on Tuesday, the Senate health committee debated a bill that would give states the power to reject premium increases that state regulators determine are “unreasonable.” The White House proposed this just before the final Obama- Care scramble, but it couldn’t be included because it violated the procedural rules that Democrats abused to pass the bill.

    Some 27 states currently have some form of rate review in the individual and small-business markets, but they generally don’t leverage it in a political way because insolvent insurers are expensive for states and bankruptcies limit consumer choices. One exception is Massachusetts: Governor Deval Patrick is now using this regulatory power to create de facto price controls and assail the state’s insurers as cover for the explosive costs resulting from the ObamaCare prototype the Bay State passed in 2006.

    National Democrats now want the power to do the same across the country, because they know how unrealistic their cost-control claims really are. Democrats are petrified they’ll get the blame they deserve when insurance costs inevitably spike. So the purpose of this latest Senate bill is to have a pre-emptive political response on hand.

    View Full Image

    Associated Press
    Barack Obama

    ObamaCare includes several new cost-driving mandates that take effect immediately, including expanding family coverage for children as old as 26 and banning consumer co-payments for preventive care. Democrats are bragging about these “benefits,” but they aren’t free and their cost will be built into premiums. And those are merely teasers for the many Washington-created dysfunctions that will soon distort insurance markets.

    In Massachusetts, Mr. Patrick says his price-control sally will be followed by reviewing what doctors and hospitals charge—or in other words for price controls on the medical services that make up most health spending. ObamaCare will gradually move in the same direction.

    Or maybe not so gradually, judging by the study released last last week by Richard Foster, the Obama Administration’s Medicare actuary. Mr. Foster predicts net national health spending will increase by about 1% annually above the status quo that is already estimated to be $4.7 trillion in 2019. This is one more rebuke to the White House fantasy that a new entitlement will lower health costs.

    “Although several provisions would help to reduce health care cost growth, their impact would be more than offset through 2019 by the higher health expenditures resulting from the coverage expansions,” Mr. Foster writes—and that’s assuming everything goes according to plan. He considers it “plausible and even probable” that prices in the private market will rise as greater demand due to subsidized coverage runs into the relatively fixed supply of doctors and hospitals.

    Most of ObamaCare’s unrealistic “savings” come from cranking down the way Medicare calculates its price controls, and Mr. Foster writes that they’ll grow “more slowly than, and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers’ costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries.” He expects that 15% of hospital budgets may be driven into deficits, thus “possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries.” Isn’t reform grand?

    The official who will preside over this fiscal trainwreck is Donald Berwick, the Harvard professor and chief of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement who the White House has nominated to run Medicare. Dr. Berwick explained in an interview last year that the British National Health Service has “developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy-connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn.” He added that “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly.”

    In fact, the real choice with medical care, as with any good or service, is between rationing via politics and bureaucratic lines or via a competitive market and prices. As Democrats are showing by trying to pass a new insurance bill, they want all U.S. health care to function like price-controlled Medicare. Dr. Berwick’s job as the country’s largest purchaser of health care will be to find ways to offset the higher insurance and medical costs that ObamaCare’s subsidies and mandates will cause, which will inevitably mean political rationing of care.

    In a 17-minute, 2,600-word answer to a question about tax increases in Charlotte, North Carolina earlier this month, Mr. Obama mentioned that “what we’ve done is we’ve embedded in how Medicare reimburses, how Medicaid reimburses, all these ideas to actually reduce the costs of care.” The embedding via price controls is already underway.

  76. What is the matter with Jones? It is one thing to stick your foot in your mouth when you talk extemporaneously. But to do it with premeditation and deliberation in prepared remarks, when in theory he is trying to promote a peace process is something I thought only Biden could do, and only after he had spent some quality time in the club car. Do you suppose this thing is contageous? Of course when Bambi does it the press calls him brilliant so maybe that is the problem.

  77. I was talking with my doctor today about Monsanto, that glorious food giant who makes billions in profit with genetic engineering of food substances, cornering the market on seeds, and when they get bored with their monopoly they make a little napolm and agent orange on the side. If you got inside their company I can pretty much tell what you would find. Wall murals depicting the deep green of summer, the brilliant blue sky, the glowing wheat fields of wheat as only Willa Cather could describe them. And above them would be pious statements about what good corporate citizens they are, how they care about the planet and how committed they are to ending world hunger. The only problem with that is it is just words. Given a choice between doing what is right and doing what makes them a profit, they are like any other corporation in the sense that they will do what makes them a profit and say it is right, when it is not.

    The reason I selected Monsanto to make this point is because they are on record saying that they have no responsibility to ensure food safety–that is the FDA’s job, to which the FDA says no it is the food producers job, which leads to one ineluctable conclusion: as between Monsanto on the one hand and the FDA on the other food safety is no one’s job.

    Now take that same truism and apply it to the world of politics. Corporations like Monsanato control the political system and to quote Walter Cronkite they so manipulate democracy as to control democracy. Obama is their man–he has been paid for. They see him clearly for what he is–someone who can bamboozle the masses. Like Monsanto he has all the right words but the actions he takes do not match. As Barone says he is the instrument of gangster government which takes from the politically unprotected and gives to the politically connected. To expect good citizenship from big business, and by extension Mr, Obama is like asking Monsanto not to make napom. If they can make a profit and it is not clearly unlawful they will do it–regardless of who it harms. It is just that simple.

  78. wbboei: “the Senate health committee debated a bill that would give states the power to reject premium increases that state regulators determine are “unreasonable.”

    There’s something wrong here. Congress doesn’t have to give states this or any other power. They have the power already, and Massachusetts is a perfect example of that. All they need to do is have HHS send around a memo to all the governors reminding them of that, or recommending that course of action. It would be more effective still if the states demanded annual audits of the insurers to make a clearer assessment of what is “reasonable” and what is not.

  79. Clinton Signs Surrender Warrant for Noriega Handover

    By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan

    April 26 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has signed a surrender warrant for former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, an action that paves the way for his extradition to France, Charles Luoma-Overstreet, a State Department spokesman, said.

    The U.S. Supreme Court had rejected an appeal from Noriega, which led to the signing by Clinton.

    Noriega was overthrown by the U.S. and brought to Miami to face drug charges in 1990. He was convicted and completed his sentence in 2007. While in a U.S. prison, Noriega was convicted in France of money laundering. French officials say he will be given a new trial if sent to that country.

    Successive Panamanian governments have called on the U.S. to extradite Noriega to stand trial in the Central American nation, where he faces charges including the killing of army officers.

    Panama will respect the decision to extradite Noriega to France and seek to prosecute him in Panamanian courts in “due time,” Foreign Minister Juan Carlos Varela told reporters today in Panama City.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aSvhuW2K58F4#

  80. wbboei: Thanks for the case study of Monsanto and the likening to o. Just “Napom” is spelled “Napalm”. I’ve always wondered where the word came from.

  81. President Obama’s new face?

    White House may be realizing rift with Israel not a wise move

    Yitzhak Benhorin 04.26.10

    A secret meeting took place in the White House last week between Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and 20 Jewish rabbis. A short while later, Obama’s senior advisor David Axelrod appeared before Democratic Jewish organization NJDC. He said that as one who has known the president for nearly 20 years and who works with him every day, he knows that the president’s commitment to Israel is rock solid.

    Meanwhile, also last week, at the last moment, National Security Advisor Jim Jones confirmed his attendance at a lecture marking the 25th anniversary of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The very same day, organizers of the annual American Jewish Committee event, to be held this Thursday in Washington, were informed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will make an appearance.

    All of this is no coincidence. Something happened there, at the White House, with all these senior officials being sent with a similar message about the unshakeable relationship between the US and Israel. Something prompted President Obama himself to send a letter last week to the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and declare that a Mideast peace treaty cannot be imposed from the outside, stressing that “”We have a special relationship with Israel and that will not change.”

    Obama and his senior aides have embarked on an intensive public relations campaign aimed at quickly rectifying the impression of a US-Israel rift. We must keep in mind that when it comes to the White House, nothing is coincidental. Someone did some thinking over there and reached the conclusion that the top US brass must quickly put out the political fire that is threatening to spread here.

    The US Administration is indeed determined to advance peace between Israel and the Palestinians, yet suddenly the Jerusalem issue no longer makes headlines, and suddenly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict no longer risks the lives of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, Obama himself stressed that “Our alliance with Israel serves our national security interests.”

    Now, we hear General Jim Jones declaring that Israel assists the US in training, innovation, intelligence, and whatnot. We also heard about the strategic alliance between the US and Israel, which are fighting the same enemies. Later, he told us, Israeli reporters, that the US has no demands of Israel in respect to Jerusalem and tried to convince us that Hillary Clinton is not waiting for answers from Netanyahu, but rather, this is just part of the routine dialogue.

    Declining Jewish support

    So what happened? Was it the phone call from senior Democratic Senator Charles Schumer to Rahm Emanuel, where the former warned of his intention to publicly come out against the Administration? Or is it the fact that the New York Times was working on a large story on the ties between US Jews to Israel and to the Obama Administration? Is it about Jewish leaders who passed on a message to the White House, letting it now that there’s a problem with their voters?

    If two months ago Obama still maintained the support of the Jews, even when he pressed Israel to freeze settlement construction and compromise to enable the two-state solution’s advancement, the US pressure on Jerusalem was apparently the breaking point for quite a few Jews among his supporters. The White House apparently received reports warning that Obama is losing the support of Jews who voted for him.

    A Quinnipiac University survey released recently indicated that Obama made a mistake on the Israel issue, and not only among Jews. Overall, the US public supports the president’s foreign policy, mostly in Afghanistan (56%) and in handling terror (61%), yet Americans are dissatisfied with Obama on one issue – his attitude to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

    This trend is especially noticeable among Jews. While they support Obama on any other issue, when it comes to Israel 67% of them object to the president’s policy, while only 28% support him. Among the overall population, a majority of 57% support Israel while only 13% back the Palestinians. According to the survey, 66% of Americans are telling Obama that they expect him to support Israel.

    Just before the weekend, AIPAC made sure to provide the American media with analysis via email regarding the president confirming the significant of the Israel-US alliance. AIPAC, which had been working against the Administration’s moves behind the scene, went out of its way to praise Obama as well as top government and military officials.

    The Obama Administration’s PR campaign among Jews should not lead to the conclusion that the White House changed its policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Peace and the two-state solution are still among the most urgent challenges on the American president’s agenda. The pressure on Israel and the Palestinians will continue in order to quickly facilitate direct talks on the core issues.

    However, it appears that the Americans will be making every effort to avoid public confrontations vis-à-vis the Israeli government in the future.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3880528,00.html

  82. I respect your opinions, but I do not see why I can’t compare obama’s exaggerated sense of self-importance and need of constant admiration to Hitler’s
    —————————–
    I agree. It is the same pathology. It may not lead to the same result, but it is anathema to representative government. Surely we can see the parallels and learn from history. What we are dealing with here is not the normal political paradigm. This is more like a cult. So was the twisted cross.

  83. David Axelrod appeared before Democratic Jewish organization NJDC. He said that as one who has known the president for nearly 20 years and who works with him every day, he knows that the president’s commitment to Israel is rock solid.
    ———————————————
    And what about you David?

  84. wbboei: “prices in the private market will rise as greater demand due to subsidized coverage runs into the relatively fixed supply of doctors and hospitals”

    This makes free-market sense, but there is a solution that can be learned from a foreign experience: The French saw this coming in the 60s and took over the medical colleges, making medical education free like almost all education in France. (In the US, we could do the same thing differently by extending low-cost loans and scholarships for medical education.) This led to a higher demand for medical education and a corresponding rise in the number of licensed doctors and nurses. By the mid-80s, doctors began complaining about “relative unemployment” where general practitioners, for example, could not find enough customers to make a going business and nurses could not find hospital work. From the health care consumers’ viewpoint and from that of the Social Security system itself, this was a nice crunch to be in. (Never waste a good crisis!) Everyone benefitted in the solution of this “crisis.” Doctors got a pay hike, med school applications levelled off, the nursing professions were re-organized, specialists were trained, the quality of medical care went up… all because the French have no qualms about their government organizing things.

    The idea of making free or low-cost med education for doctors and nurses could be put over in the US, I think, with the scholarships and low-cost guaranteed loans I mentioned above. But the idea of having more doctors and nurses on the market would have to get past the AMA. The AMA has always argued that doctors’ fees must be high to compensate for the cost and time spent on their education, and they might be convinced to reduce the cost of education this way. However, the AMA has also moved in the past to strictly limit the number of doctors on the market, and apportion their trade areas, as a way of increasing their incomes. I think the AMA would be viscerally opposed to increasing the number of doctors. They, along with many doctors and many consumers too, think doctors should be paid exorbitantly as a matter of principle, period.

  85. jeswezey
    April 26th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
    —————————–
    That is a good idea. It should be explored in depth.

  86. jeswezy said:
    The idea of making free or low-cost med education for doctors and nurses could be put over in the US, I think, with the scholarships and low-cost guaranteed loans I mentioned above. But the idea of having more doctors and nurses on the market would have to get past the AMA.

    ===========

    An excellent approach!

  87. The Palestinians deserve no aide as they freely elected a terrorist organization to represent them in Hamas. They are lucky that Israel allows them the freedoms they have considering 99.9% of them want to wipe Israel off the map. Israel needs once again to remind all the perverse reality of a world were a democratic, peace loving society is villified and terrorists are glorified.

  88. jbstonesfan: “The Palestinians deserve no aide as they freely elected a terrorist organization to represent them.”

    So now they have to forego free elections too, to please the Israelis? The Israelis freely elected Netanyahu too, and he’s doing his best to peacefully push Palestinians out of their occupied homeland, but nobody cares if that pleases the Palestinians or not.

    “They are lucky that Israel allows them the freedoms they have…”

    Yes, they certainly are lucky if Israel allows them anything at all, like staying in their homes (oops, that’s not allowed), getting an elementary education (that’s not forbidden, but it’s pretty damn hard), growing crops (except that a lot of crops pose a “security” problem of their own, because they hide the terrorists), getting humanitarian aid after an Israeli raid (that’s a lot like an elementary education).

    “…considering 99.9% of them want to wipe Israel off the map.”

    Well, now, that’s quite a statistic you’ve cooked up there. But supposing it’s true, the fact that they would like to do this dastardly thing does not mean that they can do anything about it. You’re just allowing Israel to do any old thing because the supposed enemy doesn’t like Israel.

    “Israel needs once again to remind all the perverse reality of a world were a democratic, peace loving society is villified and terrorists are glorified.”

    It’s funny how the ‘world’ vilifies this democratic, peace-loving society and then glorifies all those ‘terrorists’ who have an objection to being democratically, peacefully bereft of their own heritage because they are a minority. What a perverse reality! Yes, I think Israel needs to remind the world of something, but I’m getting confused here. Maybe Netanyahu should send in a preventive air strike on Ramallah or something?

  89. For anyone interested, Greta is going to post all of her interview with Blago on her site tomorrow.
    In her show today, she tried to pry out details…

  90. jeswezey
    April 26th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
    What we can do is find bot sites and spend some time blogging and publicizing there. Personally, I have never looked for nor found a site that is still glowing with praise for o and where I can blog a few jems. If you know of any where blogging is possible, please indicate.

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

    There are some possibilities at LiveJournal. Email me and I’ll be more specific.

    1950democrat at gmail

  91. JanH
    April 26th, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    I’m not offended at all. And there is no need for apologies. Everyone is feeling the effects of a destructive presidency playing on raw nerves. If you would like to bask in a little sunshine, I have the antidote in a post at http: pumasunleashed.wordpress.com

    Obama and the whole Senate caboodle got shot down today.. by none other than one of their own, Sen Ben Nelson (D) Nebraska and Sen Lindsey Graham. Not many of you like Graham, what I like about him is he speaks in an easy to understand straightforward manner. He says what he means and means what he says. He isn’t romancing the stone with anecdotal stories running up and down the pillowcase hoping you’ll catch his drift. He isn’t a qualifier or a comparison shopper. Graham has the power and he knows how to use it…

  92. A Quinnipiac University survey released recently indicated that . . . the US public supports the president’s foreign policy in handling terror (61%).
    _____________________________________________

    I wonder which part of his policy on terror they support:

    1. staying in Hawaii when the Detroit bomber struck because he can run the country from the back of a golf cart

    2. Neo(phyte)politican claiming the system worked when it did not?

    3. refusing to accept a guilty plea for kalid sheik mohammed?

    4. mirandizing terrorist so we lose the opportunity to interview him?

    5. allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon?

    6. dissing our allies in the war on terror?

    7. bowing to our enemies in the war on terror?

    8. sending dog whistle messages to terrorists?

    9. projecting weakness to the world?

    Assuming that poll number is true, I can only conclude that H.L. Mencken was right when he said: Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American People. Also, it proves the Republicans are not getting the job done in terms of educating the public. For that, the party leadership should be in front of the ass kicking machine. New leaders.

  93. Obama Concerned About The Loss of The House In November
    Moe Lane

    But, more importantly, Obama played the GOTV Card here. The political junkies on both sides are now nodding: everybody else, watch this video and it’ll be discussed in just a bit.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh-yR1HWkbM&feature=player_embedded

    Said discussion after the fold:

    Calculating the trajectory of DOOM in a campaign is a tricky thing, but one of the classic signs of a campaign in trouble is the classic call for GOTV, or Getting Out The Vote. To put it very simply: while turnout is of course of vital importance to winning elections, explicitly basing your victory strategy around it – like the way that the President did, above – is a sign of a campaign expecting to lose. Winning campaigns don’t need to tell their supporters to go out and vote. They’ve already worked that out for themselves. It’s the campaign whose supporters know that they’re losing who have to be exhorted to go out to the polls, even if their candidate isn’t going to win*.

    I’m not going to declare DOOM on the Democrats’ attempt to keep the House just quite yet: it’s still six months before the election. But seeing the Democrats being already publicly worried about generating voter enthusiasm six months before the election is… encouraging. And amusing.

    Moe Lane

    *If you’re wondering why losing campaigns bother with GOTV efforts when they know it’s futile, it’s because there’s a difference between a loss and a rout. For example, the NJ elections last year were a loss for the Democrats. The VA elections were a rout, and the primary reason why it was a rout was because Virginia Democrats visibly just… gave up three or so weeks before the election. If they had kept swinging like New Jersey Democrats had – including GOTV entreaties – they still would have lost the gubernatorial race and (possibly) all of the other statewide seats, but they would have staunched the bleeding a little in the state legislature. In other words, down-ticket races benefit from at least keeping the base motivated to go to the polls, even if the marquee races don’t.

  94. Obama’s failed power play against Bibi–deserting him in the middle of a meeting, and trying to play Israeli politics against him through the opposition leader–are hardly surprising when you understand who and what Obama is:
    —————————————————————————-
    Tendencies of Sociopaths

    One of the main tendencies of sociopaths is the whole and sole aim to win. They will do anything to get what they want and cannot afford to loose. They are very clever and convincing with their tricks to manipulate others. The sociopathic tendencies in adults shows that they are not entangled in a web of emotions and dilemmas that any normal person goes through, but they are busy scheming and plotting ways to gain trust and then stab the unsuspecting friends and lovers in the back. They are so shy in their ways that you will never know what struck you.

    Another interesting sociopathic tendencies in adults that is observed is that they tend to get bored very easily. This is because normal people are so occupied with their relationships and people around them, that it does not give them time to get bored every now and then. But, sociopaths are shallow and empty from inside and are just playing a game to win. Thus, they get bored when there is nothing stimulating their calculating minds like drama, worry or anything negative enough to keep them active.

  95. I read the piece in NPR which calls a challenge to Bambi in 2012 unthinkable. What is unthinkable to NPR is obvious to most people. And why is that?

    I believe it is because they are ideologues. They may not leave obscene messages on answering machines, or threaten to commit acts of violence against those who disagree with them. But they are part and parcel of the same mindset. The bias and lack of fairness is no different.

    As such, they must be careful what they say because their careless comments may cause some deranged left winger like Bill Ayers to go over the edge. It is their responsibility to watch their words and police the excesses of the left. Otherwise we may have another Oklahoma City.

    You see how easy it is to suppress free speech. I am simply throwing one of he dim ploys right back in their ignorant faces. They would destroy this country to win an election. I honestly believe that. Seeing is believing.

  96. Lindsey Graham creates a tsunami like atmosphere in the senate that may get more attention than the pros and cons of the legislation being crafted. Sen Graham runs circles around Schumer and the laborious Kerry. I have a feeling any time now, the Senate is about to be handed the Republican version of their proposed bills on Immigration and Climate Change.

    A few lighthearted blurbs as we step away from the abyss momentarily:
    ________________________________

    “His [Graham’s] reversal has thrown official Washington into a tizzy, raising questions about his motives. Some Democrats whisper that he must be trying to spare Mr. McCain, who is facing a tough primary challenge from the right, an uncomfortable vote on immigration. Others openly surmise that Mr. Graham must have caved in to his Republican critics.”

    “There has been enormous back pressure against the kind of bipartisan cooperation that Senator Graham has engaged in,” Lawrence H. Summers, Mr. Obama’s top economics adviser, said Sunday on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “And that perhaps has made this a more complex situation and more difficult for him than it would otherwise be.”

    “Mr. Graham says he has not caved in to anybody, but his cross-party cooperation has clearly come at a price. At home, passions are running high. Locals derisively call him “Graham-nesty” for his work on immigration. He has been censured by three chapters of the South Carolina Republican Party. At a town-hall-style meeting in Greenville last fall, constituents angrily shouted him down.

    “You and Obama — guilty of treason!” one hollered.

    “Why do you think it’s necessary to get in bed with people like John Kerry?” demanded another, referring to Mr. Graham’s Democratic co-sponsor on the energy bill.

    A former military prosecutor with a clever wit and Southern charm, Mr. Graham comes off more like the boy next door than a United States senator. His snappy sound bites (he recently referred to Mr. Obama’s health care bill as “a Ponzi scheme” on NBC’s “Meet the Press”) and willingness to buck his own party have made him a favorite on the Sunday talk show circuit.

    “I like dealing with him because he makes me laugh,” Carol M. Browner, Mr. Obama’s top environmental adviser, said in an interview this month. “He’s kind of self-deprecating.
    _________________________

    He makes me laugh as well. Waking up the dead and the nearly dead Democratic Partisans to the fact this is just the beginning of a never ending assault courtesy of the Republicans who have given them a free ride for the last 3 years.

  97. Ruminations from, JACK CAFFERTY:

    So Arizona passes a tough law against illegal immigration and suddenly they’ve got Washington’s attention. One poll finds 70 percent of Arizona voters support this new law, so hey, maybe we better do something, too. And like the lemmings they are when they smell a chance to score some political points, and some of them need a lot of help with the midterms coming up, there is now talk of rushing immigration reform through Congress.

    President Obama called the Arizona law misguided. What’s misguided, Mr. President, is the federal government’s ongoing refusal to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Read the Arizona law. Parts of it are word-for-word the same as the federal statutes which continue to be all but ignored.

    Now we’re hear all sorts of blathering from our Washington gerbils about the need for a new federal law. There’ll be news conferences and interviews and committee hearings and draft legislation and polling, all the usual carnival acts that accompany any hot button Washington issue. Instead of simply closing the borders and enforcing the existing law so they could turn their attention to something like the national debt and the fact that the country is bankrupt, instead we’re going to get this freak show.

    Washington’s position on illegal immigration is patently dishonest from the top down. No enforcement, no border security. Just pandering to the Hispanic voters and the corporations that hire the illegals. And then, when one of our states that’s being ravaged by the presence of 460,000 illegal aliens inside its borders does something about it, the President says that’s misguided. What a shame.

    Here’s a question: Will the federal government ever enforce our immigration laws?

  98. U.S.-China talks set for Beijing May 24-25

    Mon, Apr 26 2010

    WASHINGTON, April 26 (Reuters) – The U.S. Treasury Department confirmed on Monday that the second round of an annual U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue will be held in Beijing May 24-25.

    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will lead the U.S. side in meetings co-chaired by Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo and Vice Premier Wang Qishan.

    No formal agenda was disclosed but interest in the talks centers on whether China will indicate, before or afterward, that it intends to let its yuan currency appreciate as the United States and others want it to do.

    Geithner said on Friday, following a meeting of Group of 20 finance ministers in Washington, that some emerging-market countries now were relying less on exports and said that should be reinforced by adopting market-oriented exchange rates.

    Geithner didn’t name China and wouldn’t say afterward whether he was specifically referring to China, only commenting that he thought Beijing will eventually find it is in its own interest to allow more currency flexibility.

    The two days of talks in Beijing conclude with a joint statement on Tuesday, May 25.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2622369520100426

  99. Egypt warns of Israel-Lebanon war

    By JPOST.COM STAFF
    27/04/2010

    FM Gheit tells UNSC permanent members tensions could turn into armed conflict.

    Egypt has issued a stark warning of a summer war between Israel and Lebanon.

    Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abdul Gheit passed on messages to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and representatives of the other permanent UN Security Council membersת warning that the current Israel-Lebanon tensions could deteriorate into an armed conflict, Israel Radio reported on Tuesday.

    The latest tensions arose after reports surfaced in Kuwait’s Al-Rai newspaper that Syria had transferred Scud ballistic missiles to Hizbullah. Israel subsequently issued a stern warning that it would consider attacking both Syrian and Lebanese targets in response to a Scud attack on its territory.

    http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=174071

  100. 27/04/2010

    After impromptu Obama talks, Barak to meet Clinton and Gates

    By Natasha Mozgovaya

    WASHINGTON – U.S. President Barack Obama held an impromptu meeting with Defense Minister Ehud Barak Monday, during which Obama affirmed his country’s “unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.”

    Barak is to meet Wednesday with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

    According to White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, Obama “dropped by” a meeting Monday morning between Barak and U.S. National Security Adviser James Jones.

    Obama also reasserted his administration’s determination to achieve regional peace, “including a two-state solution with a secure Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with a viable and independent Palestinian state.”

    Gibbs also said Obama and Barak discussed challenges to regional security and how to deal with threats faced both by Israel and the United States.

    The U.S. administration responded cautiously to the Israeli announcement of a construction freeze in East Jerusalem.

    “We have asked both sides to take steps to rebuild trust and to create momentum so that we can see advances in the peace process,” a State Department spokesman said.

    Meanwhile, Jones apologized publicly for telling a Jewish joke last week at an event in Washington.

    “I wish that I had not made this off-the-cuff joke at the top of my remarks,” Jones said.

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1165630.html

  101. wbboei
    April 27th, 2010 at 3:45 am
    I read the piece in NPR which calls a challenge to Bambi in 2012 unthinkable.

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

    Was that the article that said the record on such challanges (in the Dem party anyway) was:

    1. the challenger loses in August
    2. the party loses in November

    Of course that doesn’t say which was cause and which was effect.

  102. Barak is to meet Wednesday with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
    =============================
    He will ask them what he should do now that he has got everything fucked up. He should not have taken charge of these negotiations. Things were making some progress until he intervened. Unshakeable commitment to Israel? Sure. But will his actions follow suit. He has done irreparable harm to the trust between the two counties. And when he backs water now he will look like a coward to the Arabs whom he has been leading down the primrose path. What a public relations victory he has created with Iran. The man is a dangerous sociopath.

  103. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
    ———————————-
    I would sooner rely on red china to protect the interests of the American People than this joker.

  104. Was that the article that said the record on such challanges (in the Dem party anyway) was
    ————————–
    That was another article. To my knowledge, NPR has not spoken to that issue.

  105. Don’t know if this embed code will work, but here’s a clip of the hypocrisy of the Left, starring Maxine Waters.

    This is the crap that makes me ill. The sheer hypocrisy is astounding. I know for a fact that the Left was way more agitated, violent, and name-calling in their protests than the Tea Partiers have ever been, because I WAS THERE. Whether you agree with them or not, this meme that the teapartiers are somehow un-civil and alarming in some heretofore unprecedented way is a FUCKING LIE. I was there. I KNOW how angry we were at Bush.

    I can’t even think of whether I agree more with Dims on policy or not, because I cannot get past the breathtaking manner in which they LIE LIE LIE and manipulate. Sorry, but I want nothing to do with a party that will baldfaced lie in that manner about my fellow citizens.

    http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgdOpFQI%2Em4v” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” width=”480″ height=”360″ allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true”

  106. You know how Obama begged blacks, latinos, and WOMEN to get involved again … I think the favorable interviews with Hillary were no accident. Watch for more. They write a hit piece on her when they don’t want her but favorable pieces when they need her. Pathetic.

    He even explicitly said this:

    Asked if he would consider nominating a judge to the Supreme Court who does not support abortion rights, President Obama said today that, like presidents before him, he is not applying a “litmus test” on that or any issue.

    But he went on to say that he wants “somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women’s rights. And that’s going to be something that is very important to me.”

    “Part of what our core Constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that,” the president added. He said he is “somebody who believes that women should have the ability to make often very difficult decisions about their own bodies and issues of reproduction.”

    which made reclusiveleftist to say “what the hell?”

    If he could get away with it, he would have included “Jews” in his list of “AAs, Latinos, and women..” It is scary how that “women,” the nearly half of the population is just another group in an election season. Unfortunately for him the legal Latinos are on the side of AZ law I think.

  107. jeswezey
    April 26th, 2010 at 6:54 pm

    But your snyde remark of how many women would be educated by aid from other nations is uncalled for. I think you have some idea of all Arab, or muslim, women being excised, passive, slaves in polygamy waddling around in burqas. I think you should open your eyes a little here. Such is definitely not the case in Palestine, anyway.

    ****************
    Palestine (Palestinian Authority and Isreali-Occupied Territories)

    http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=180
    The status of women inside the family and in Palestinian society is determined in part by recent Palestinian legislation and in part by laws inherited from the Jordanian and Egyptian laws in effect in the West Bank and Gaza before the 1967 Israeli occupation. While there have been many positive changes for women under laws adopted by the Palestinian Authority, gender-based discriminatory practices enshrined in the Jordanian and Egyptian laws still apply to situations not covered by new legislation. Personal status law for Palestinians is based on religious law. For Muslim Palestinians, personal status law is derived from Shari’a, while the varied ecclesiastical courts rule on personal status issues for Christians. Civil courts do not adjudicate on such matters.

    oh snyde, snyde….

  108. 1. Obama tried a power play against Israel, got rebuffed, lost his cool, and stormed out of the meeting with Bibi.

    2. Thereafter Gibbs claims that Obama’s faith in Israel is unshakable

    3. Conclusion: as always, Obama’s words and the actions do not match

  109. A waste of taxpayer money. Anyone who lives in the same world as most of us (which is not Beverly Hills) knows that US Representative Waxman (CA-D) is a blithering idiot. We did not need a congressional hearing to tell us this, but he asked for one. So now it is official.
    ———————————-
    Congressional Committee Confirms Waxman Is An Idiot
    Moe Lane

    Posted by Moe Lane (Profile)
    Tuesday, April 27th at 11:00AM EDT

    So, let us review the sequence of events leading up to this confirmation:

    Rep. Henry Waxman – and a whole other number of Members of Congress, all of whom can be identified by the D after their names – vote for a health care bill that will cost the American people a ridiculous amount of money.
    A variety of companies, upon being informed that this has happened, turn around and report to their stockholders that said companies are about to take a hit on their profits because of this bill. This is otherwise known as ‘accounting basics.’

    That these reports were generated would only be a surprise to anyone who was pig-ignorant of the requirements of 8-K disclosures.

    Waxman and other Democrats, surprised that these reports were generated, declares that he will investigate this outrage. Inquiries are begun.

    Much mockery ensues. As well as a good number of observations that this was one of the problems with the notion of Obamacare in the first place.

    The investigation into the nefarious companies is quietly dropped.

    Unfortunately for Waxman and his colleagues, once you start an inquiry, it’s kind of hard to stop (we call this bu-reau-crat-ic in-ert-i-a: annoying, isn’t it?).

    Said inquiry is now out, and it concludes that, yes, the companies were doing what they were supposed to be doing all along.
    All in all, I of course would like to thank the Representative from Beverly Hills, CA for his participation in the democratic process. But perhaps Congressman Waxman should focus his future energies on less… challenging… issues in the future? Surely there’s something going on with the plastic surgery or exotic pet industry that he could involve himself in, and thus please his core constituency…

    Moe Lane

    *Not that they can actually say that: aside from everything else, the inquiry presumably involved Democratic staffers. But seeing as we of the blogosphere are the political world’s monsters from the id, there’s no reason for me not to provide an accurate translation…

    Crossposted to Moe Lane.

  110. From BP
    ***************

    OKLAHOMA MAY JUST BE THE PLACE TO LIVE!

    An update from Oklahoma :

    Oklahoma law passed, 37 to 9, had a few liberals in the mix, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values…! HB 1330

    Guess what….. Oklahoma did it anyway.

    Keep going….. There’s more.

    Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. HB 1804. Hope we didn’t send any of them to your state. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake.

    Guess what…….Oklahoma did it anyway.

    Recently we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegal’s to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional. SB 1102

    Guess what……Oklahoma did it anyway.

    Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. Joining Texas, Montana and Utah as the only states to do so. More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolina’s, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003

    The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I’m sure that was a setback for the criminals (and Obamaites). Liberals didn’t like it — But ….

    Keep going. There’s more……

    Guess what…..Oklahoma did it anyway.

    Keep going. There’s more…..

    Just this month, the state has voted and passed a law that ALL driver’s license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma , you must read and write English. Really simple.

    By the way, Obama does not like any of this.

    Guess what….who cares… Oklahoma is doing it anyway.

  111. wbboei
    April 27th, 2010 at 11:57 am
    1. Obama tried a power play against Israel, got rebuffed, lost his cool, and stormed out of the meeting with Bibi.

    2. Thereafter Gibbs claims that Obama’s faith in Israel is unshakable

    3. Conclusion: as always, Obama’s words and the actions do not match
    **************

    But the media will never draw the same conclusions

  112. Mrs Smith

    Washington’s position on illegal immigration is patently dishonest from the top down. No enforcement, no border security. Just pandering to the Hispanic voters
    ——-
    Yes, this pretty much sums it up.

    The issue isn’t the safety of our citizens nor economics, it’s the votes stupid.

  113. Here we go again…

    Is Hillary prepping a challenge to Obama?

    Posted: April 27, 2010

    I think Rush Limbaugh may have overlooked a key point in his assessment of Bill Clinton’s comments concerning tea partiers.

    Clinton told those at the liberal Center for American Progress, “There was this rising movement in the early ’90s that was basically not just a carefully orchestrated plot by people of extreme right-wing views but one that fell into fertile soil, because there were so many people for whom the world no longer made sense. They wanted a simple, clear explanation of what was an inherently complex, mixed picture full of challenges that required not only changes in public policy, but personal conduct and imagination about the world we were living in. So demonizing the government and the people that work for it sort of fit that – and there were a lot of people who were in the business back then of saying that the biggest threat to our liberty and the cause of our economic problems was the federal government itself.” (April 16, 2010)

    Rush contended that Clinton was making a “connection between conservatism and terrorism – and between conservative ideology and terrorism. While I am inclined to agree with that assessment, I believe that it is the topical explanation and the sensus plenior to be far more sinister as it relates to Obama.

    Bill and Hillary Clinton (especially Bill) harbor no fondness for Obama. Bill’s disdain for him played out publicly during the presidential campaign in 2008 and even since then. I submit that Clinton’s remarks may have been intended as primary reasons for Hillary to oppose Obama for the presidency, should she decide to run in 2012.

    Blaming Obama for what Clinton referenced as “not just a carefully orchestrated plot by people of extreme right-wing views, but one that fell into fertile soil because there were so many people for whom the world no longer made sense,” can be used as a potent argument – saying Obama’s political ineptness and incompetence are the key factors for the people losing hope.

    Clinton is right when he says the world no longer makes sense to a lot of people. He is also right when he says people are angry. But, what he stopped just short of saying is that it is Obama’s fault and that Hillary is the one to resolve said issues.

    He’s right, in part, when he said, “[The people] wanted a simple, clear explanation [for] what was an inherently complex, mixed picture, full of challenges that required not only changes in public policy, but personal conduct, and imagination about the world we were living in.” But here again, he stopped just short of accusing Obama of being the primary contributing factor, and even worse, of not being able to provide reasonable solutions. Ergo, if I am correctly following his unspoken but intended meaning, Hillary is the one to clean up Obama’s mess.

    I don’t think my sequitur is lost on Obama. I think his reasoning for appointing her secretary of state was in no small part to prevent her from raising money and potentially criticizing his agenda. It may also be the reason she is being mentioned as a possible replacement for Supreme Court Justice Stevens.

    There is no question that Obama has been a miserable failure from any reasonable perspective – just as there is no question that there is a growing cacophony of disappointment from disillusioned independents and moderate Democrats. It would be very easy for Hillary to position herself as a moderate – pointing out the failures of Obama’s administration and at the same time blaming him for their fictional pandemic of “extreme right-wing” threats across the nation.

    She would be able to blame him for creating a zeitgeist of disillusionment that viewed the “biggest threat to our liberty and the cause of our economic problems [as] the federal government itself.” That would not be a hard sell. It would also allow them to attack the tea parties with a veneer of impunity. After all, Hillary wouldn’t be responsible for the socialist agenda Obama has pushed; she hasn’t voted on any piece of legislation; and Bill could always point to the success of his administration – which, such as it was, was due in large part to his taking credit for Republican initiatives.

    Even more insidious, if elected, she would be able to retain most of Obama’s agenda because to a marginally lesser extent, she and Obama represent the same thing. The difference would be that she would be afforded political cover, because she would neither be pushing his agenda nor implementing it. She would simply be working with the programs she inherited.

    And if, as we believe, a substantial turnover occurs in the Congress, she would not be encumbered to the same extent with anti-incumbent sentiment. Obviously I’m only surmising here, but it is worth noting that if I’m thinking about it, someone in camp Clinton is certainly thinking about it. It is also worth noting that few are better at political back-stabbings than the Clintons.

    He’s right, in part, when he said, “[The people] wanted a simple, clear explanation [for] what was an inherently complex, mixed picture, full of challenges that required not only changes in public policy, but personal conduct, and imagination about the world we were living in.” But here again, he stopped just short of accusing Obama of being the primary contributing factor, and even worse, of not being able to provide reasonable solutions. Ergo, if I am correctly following his unspoken but intended meaning, Hillary is the one to clean up Obama’s mess.

    I don’t think my sequitur is lost on Obama. I think his reasoning for appointing her secretary of state was in no small part to prevent her from raising money and potentially criticizing his agenda. It may also be the reason she is being mentioned as a possible replacement for Supreme Court Justice Stevens.

    There is no question that Obama has been a miserable failure from any reasonable perspective – just as there is no question that there is a growing cacophony of disappointment from disillusioned independents and moderate Democrats. It would be very easy for Hillary to position herself as a moderate – pointing out the failures of Obama’s administration and at the same time blaming him for their fictional pandemic of “extreme right-wing” threats across the nation.

    She would be able to blame him for creating a zeitgeist of disillusionment that viewed the “biggest threat to our liberty and the cause of our economic problems [as] the federal government itself.” That would not be a hard sell. It would also allow them to attack the tea parties with a veneer of impunity. After all, Hillary wouldn’t be responsible for the socialist agenda Obama has pushed; she hasn’t voted on any piece of legislation; and Bill could always point to the success of his administration – which, such as it was, was due in large part to his taking credit for Republican initiatives.

    Even more insidious, if elected, she would be able to retain most of Obama’s agenda because to a marginally lesser extent, she and Obama represent the same thing. The difference would be that she would be afforded political cover, because she would neither be pushing his agenda nor implementing it. She would simply be working with the programs she inherited.

    And if, as we believe, a substantial turnover occurs in the Congress, she would not be encumbered to the same extent with anti-incumbent sentiment. Obviously I’m only surmising here, but it is worth noting that if I’m thinking about it, someone in camp Clinton is certainly thinking about it. It is also worth noting that few are better at political back-stabbings than the Clintons.

    Mychal Massie is chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in Washington, D.C. He was recognized as the 2008 Conservative Man of the Year by the Conservative Party of Suffolk County, N.Y. He is a nationally recognized political activist, pundit and columnist. He has appeared on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, NBC, Comcast Cable and talk radio programming nationwide.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=146017

  114. Reclaiming the ‘B-Word’ In the Name of Feminism

    By Gina Chirillo
    Posted: 04/26/2010

    Anyone who knows me knows that I love Hillary Clinton. She’s my inspiration and my desktop background. So, I don’t really think anyone would be that surprised to find out that during the 2008 presidential campaign, I was extremely upset when people chastised her clothes, her looks, her voice and her attitude.

    But when Glenn Beck opened his idiot mouth to call her a “stereotypical bitch” on his radio show, I had had it. I was sick and tired of Hillary Clinton being called a bitch for possessing the same traits that male politicians were often lauded for.

    Now, we all (hopefully) know Glenn Beck is a nutcase, but this name-calling doesn’t just originate with radically conservative radio hosts and end with presidential nominees. We see it on our college campuses, in offices, among friends. The term “bitch” is thrown around to force assertive women to revert back to the quiet, soft-spoken girl who’s seen and not heard. The use of the term suppresses women; it causes them to modify their actions to avoid being called a bitch. It hinders women from being aggressive and speaking for themselves — traits that are associated with success — without fear of criticism.

    And that’s why I’m taking the word “bitch” back.

    This idea of reclaiming “bitch” isn’t new by any stretch. Tina Fey addressed the issue when she made a guest appearance on Saturday Night Live’s news segment “Weekend Update” a couple years ago, claiming that if Hillary is a bitch, so is she. After all, as Tina pointed out, bitches get stuff done. Feminist activist Jo Freeman has the same idea in “The BITCH Manifesto,” where she says that women should be proud to declare they are bitches because “Bitch is Beautiful.” But what has been brought to my attention recently is the fact that the word actually keeps women down economically and can even make them less successful in their careers.

    In her new book The Curse of the Good Girl, Rachel Simmons argues that women often don’t pursue promotions or assert themselves in the work place for fear of being called a bitch. This, in turn, decreases their chances to get ahead and move up the corporate ladder.

    Women today strive to be the good girl in order to avoid the negative connotations that come with deflecting the girl-next-door stereotype of being sweet and harmless. For too long women have faked being nice and compliant to avoid being termed a bitch. As a result, the idea that good girls finish last may actually be true. Studies have shown that when women ask for a raise or pursue competitive job offers, they are seen as less trustworthy and less valuable by their company. But when men do the same thing, they’re seen as go-getters with ambition who are an asset. If we can drive the negative connotation away from the word “bitch,” then we can avoid the fear of being called one. We can excel without being afraid of being put down. After all, I’d rather be a bitch than someone’s doormat.

    In today’s society, women who are called bitches are aggressive and unyielding. They’re strong and forceful. They don’t take anybody’s crap. They challenge gender norms and stereotypes. They may act in a way that is considered unfeminine and wrong, but ask yourselves: is it really so wrong for a woman to be strong and independent? We should embrace it. I’m a bitch, and I know it. I’m a bitch, and I’m proud.

    And I’m such a bitch for writing this editorial.

    http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=28431

  115. I like Ed, but I fear the Chicago thugs have something on him. I think I know what it is. I will say no more about that.
    ———————————
    “The Tea Party Is Not A Legitimate Movement”

    By Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy on April 27, 2010 at 8:30 AM in Civil Liberties, Current Affairs, David Shuster, Huffington Post, Media Bias, Ted Kennedy

    So claims Gov. Ed Rendell of PA. Yes, the governor thinks that it really is not a movement to be taken seriously, or that will have much of an impact, in the upcoming elections. I used to really like Ed Rendell, especially when he was such a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton. But since he tossed his hat in with Barack Obama, he does not seem able to put down that Hopium pipe, making connections and claims that, in my humble opinion, make him look downright foolish. It seems he will say ANYTHING to try and cast The One in a positive light, and anyone who dare question Obama is a nutjob. Sad, really.

    But wait until you hear one of his more outlandish claims – I about snorted my double cappuccino through my nose when I heard this one:

    Did you catch that? He claimed that it is because of the MEDIA that the Tea Party enjoys so much success. Oh, yes, because the MSM has discussed the Tea Party and its members in such GLOWING, positive terms, hasn’t it? Let’s look at a few of the headlines that really embody the support the media has given to the Tea Party.

    First up, this headline from The Huffington Post: David Shuster: GOP “Going Nuts” For Teabagging, But “They Need A Dick Armey”

    This is really a bonus one since it also includes a hommophobic term AND a sexual innuendo all at the same time! From the very people who try to tell us how GREAT the Democratic Party is for GLBT people. Yeah, right.

    How about the Associated Press? Well, they did an “Analysis” of the Tea Party, to see if it was “brewing a revolution.” They decided that it really has “little muscle.” That’s one of the least snarky things the article includes. For example:
    This we know: Tea parties know how to produce crowds. In the footsteps of the pamphleteers of the 1770s, organizers use e-mail, social networking and other electronic tools to draw enormous numbers of disaffected Americans together. Some wear revolutionary-era garb and carry signs bearing the language of 18th century patriots — “Don’t tread on me!” is a popular one.
    But rally building is no big trick in the era of Twitter and Facebook, when people with cell phones can summon crowds from thin air for events as frivolous as snowball fights and bursts of song.

    Wow, what a glowing recommendation for the Tea Party movement! No WONDER Gov. Rendell thinks the media has been helping them so much!! Right.

    There are so, so many more – feel free to find your favorite headlines! I do have one last one to share, another point missed by Gov. Rendell: Foes Of Tea Party Movement To Infiltrate Rallies. Oh, yes. And this is what they hope to accomplish:
    Opponents of the fiscally conservative tea party movement say they plan to infiltrate and dismantle the political group by trying to make its members appear to be racist, homophobic and moronic.
    Isn’t that special? Ironic, isn’t it? The opponents want to portray Tea Partiers as homophobic and moronic when they display those very qualities every single time they use the term “Tea Baggers.” Ahem.

    Is there any evidence to support Gov. Rendell’s supposition that it is the glowing references by the media that have helped this non-movement? Not according to this article:
    Study: Networks Snub, Malign ‘Tea Party’; Report finds news coverage of movement sparse, cynical
    The big three television networks virtually ignored the massive, grass-roots “tea party” surge in 2009, and so far this year have maligned the movement as teeming with racists and violent fringe figures, according to a report by the Media Research Center.

    “Rather than objectively document the rise and impact of this important grassroots movement, the ‘news’ networks instead chose to first ignore, and then deplore, the citizen army mobilizing against the unpopular policies of a liberal president and Congress,” wrote MRC Research Director Rich Noyes.

    Huh. That sounds like it completely contradicts Rendell’s assertion. So does this:
    As a nation-spanning “Tea Party Express” caravan plans to pull into Washington for a “tax day” rally on Thursday, a Rasmussen poll finds that the number of people who say they’re part of the tea party movement nationally has grown to 24 percent, up from 16 percent a month ago.
    “The rise in tea party support is perhaps not surprising at a time when more voters than ever (58 percent) favor repeal of the national health care plan just passed by Democrats in Congress and signed into law by President Obama,” the pollster wrote.

    The Media Research Center, a watchdog organization founded by conservative L. Brent Bozell III, compiled reams of statistics to support its findings about TV network coverage, among them:

    • ABC, CBS and NBC aired 61 stories or segments on the anti-spending movement over a 12-month period, and most of that coverage is recent. “The networks virtually refused to recognize the tea party in 2009 (19 stories), with the level of coverage increasing only after Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts” in January, the report said, referring to the Republican’s win of the Senate seat long held by Edward M. Kennedy.

    • Overall, 44 percent of the networks’ reports on the tea party suggested the movement reflected a fringe movement or a dangerous quality. “Signs and images at last weekend’s big tea party march in Washington and at other recent events have featured racial and other violent themes,” NBC anchorman Brian Williams said in a September report.

    Oops – sorry, Governor. Your attempt at claiming up is down, and down is up, is not reflected in the actual facts. Nice try. Now, seriously – put down the Hopium, stop drinking the Kool Aide, and try to bring yourself back to the Reality based community. I promise, we’ll welcome you back.

    Please stop with this ridiculous assertion of yours about the media’s warm embrace of the Tea Party movement. Really, it’s just embarrassing.

  116. But the media will never draw the same conclusions
    —————————
    Gonzo: the Obama media will not, the Republican media will, and Ed Kotch has spoken. Nobody can unring that bell.

  117. A bitch is a female dog.

    A strong, competent woman is just that…and I don’t buy into the acceptance of that label as a badge of honor.

    Women have accepted enough crap, under paid, still no ERA passed to give women any equal rights in this country but to vote.

  118. “it is because of the MEDIA that the Tea Party enjoys so much success.”

    ————–
    In a way it is a damned if you do and damned if you don’t scenario for the media. They lavish love on the messiah and he gets in. They attack Hillary and the Tea Party and both are still popular.

  119. jbstonesfan
    April 27th, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    “It was clear that a campaign had been orchestrated by the president to blame Israel for the lack of progress in achieving peace with the Palestinians, notwithstanding the Palestinians’ repeated rejection of Israel’s peace offers. The objective of this campaign was to fundamentally reorient US foreign policy in a pro-Arab direction.”

    ———————

    I still believe that this is firmly in place. However, one again…for the umpteenth time, bambi and the dimwits miscalculated the potential damage. Once again they thought that they could do anything they want and get away with it because they are so loved by the masses.

  120. The Fraud loves his bros……

    Obama Talks to Muslim Entrepreneurs

    President Obama vowed to continue to press for a comprehensive peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians, exhorting young entrepreneurs from Muslim majority countries on Monday to look for ways to work with their American counterparts on a wide range of issues.

    “So long as I am president, the United States will never waver in pursuit of a two-state solution that ensures the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians,” Mr. Obama said.

    Mr. Obama was speaking to businesspeople and intellectuals from Muslim countries who were attending his first summit on entrepreneurship, an offshoot of his speech to the Muslim world last year from Cairo.

    The president called for more exchanges between Americans and Muslims, vowing to engage in a “sustained effort” to reach out and listen to opinions from Muslim countries, particularly of young people.

    “Trade between the United States and Muslim majority countries is growing, but all this trade combined is only equal to our trade with one country—Mexico,” Mr. Obama said.

    [snip]

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/obama-talks-to-muslim-entrepreneurs/

  121. Shadowfax
    April 27th, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    ———————-
    Never know anyone who talks so much out of both sides of his mouth. In trying to appease and make promises to both sides, he accomplishes nothing but anger and mistrust.

  122. Correct Janh..but we must come to the realization that the democrat party we grew up with is no longer a friend to Israel.

  123. jbstonesfan

    Correct Janh..but we must come to the realization that the democrat party we grew up with is no longer a friend to Israel.
    ——-
    I think putting the blame where it belongs is healthy. Obama is no friend to Israel, never was. He is the person making these decisions, not the entire Democratic party. Congress has it’s own reasons to be distrusted, but this is Obama’s world view. I don’t understand any Jewish person that voted for him over Hillary or even McCain.

  124. “I think putting the blame where it belongs is healthy. Obama is no friend to Israel, never was. He is the person making these decisions, not the entire Democratic party. Congress has it’s own reasons to be distrusted, but this is Obama’s world view. I don’t understand any Jewish person that voted for him over Hillary or even McCain.”

    ————–

    Exactly.

  125. I don’t understand any Jewish person that voted for him over Hillary or even McCain.
    ==========================================================================================
    That makes two (2) of us.

  126. I think putting the blame where it belongs is healthy. Obama is no friend to Israel, never was. He is the person making these decisions, not the entire Democratic party.
    ———————————–
    But the entire party is following his lead. How can they be any less culpable. The congressional democrats are theoretically a separate branch of government. They could resist him if they wanted to. But the closest they came to doing that was that tepid letter directed to the wrong individual because they were fearful of antagonizing him. I think they are in pare delicto. At this point it is the party of Obama. And it can go to hell as far as I am concerned. I just don’t want to see the rest of us go to hell with them.

  127. BITCH=NIGGER

    WOMEN-BLACK

    Derogatory as it comes and used in the same manner. Do we have a name equal for the White male in our society? I don’t think Red neck qualifies.

  128. I have been looking for the Fraud’s voting record on Israel, only found comments he made, claiming he supported McCain’s viewpoint with Israel…this was before he decided to run for King of America.

    This site shows his voting record, nothing on Israel I can see, and I guess this site is reliable:

    President Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.

    Current Office: President
    First Elected: 11/04/2008
    Last Elected: 11/04/2008
    Next Election: 2012
    Party: Democratic

    BiographicalVoting RecordIssue Positions

    Foreign Aid and Policy Issues

    Date Bill Title Vote Outcome
    10/01/2008 United States – India Nuclear Agreement
    HR 7081 Y Bill Passed – Senate
    (86 – 13)

    09/17/2008 Defense Authorizations Bill
    S 3001 NV Bill Passed – Senate
    (88 – 8)

    07/16/2008 Funding Amendment to AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Bill
    S Amdt 5077 NV Amendment Rejected – Senate
    (31 – 64)

    07/16/2008 Funding to Combat AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis
    HR 5501 NV Bill Passed – Senate
    (80 – 16)

    07/15/2008 Limiting Countries for HIV/Aids, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Funding
    S Amdt 5078 NV Amendment Tabled – Senate
    (70 – 24)

    07/10/2008 Nomination of General Petraeus as Military Leader of the Middle East
    PN 1641 NV Nomination Confirmed – Senate
    (95 – 2)

    06/26/2008 Iraq and Afghanistan War Funding, Unemployment Benefits Extension, and GI Bill
    HR 2642 Y Concurrence Vote Passed – Senate
    (92 – 6)

    05/22/2008 Funding for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
    S Amdt 4818 NV Amendment Adopted – Senate
    (70 – 26)

    05/22/2008 Funding for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with Provisions Regarding Conduct and Congressional Oversight
    S Amdt 4817 N Amendment Rejected – Senate
    (34 – 63)

    05/22/2008 GI Bill and Other Domestic Provisions
    S Amdt 4803 Y Amendment Adopted – Senate
    (75 – 22)

    01/22/2008 Defense Authorizations Bill
    HR 4986 NV Bill Passed – Senate
    (91 – 3)

    12/18/2007 Iraq Withdrawal Amendment
    S Amdt 3875 NV Amendment Rejected – Senate
    (24 – 71)

    12/18/2007 Inclusion of Consolidated Appropriations
    HR 2764 NV Concurrence Vote Passed – Senate
    (76 – 17)

    12/18/2007 Inclusion of Iraq and Afghanistan Military Operations Funding with the Consolidated Appropriations
    HR 2764 NV Concurrence Vote Passed – Senate
    (70 – 25)

    12/04/2007 United States-Peru Trade Agreement
    HR 3688 NV Bill Passed – Senate
    (77 – 18)

    11/16/2007 Supplemental Appropriations for the Department of Defense and Timeline for Withdrawal from Iraq
    HR 4156 Y Cloture Not Invoked – Senate
    (53 – 45)

    11/16/2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Department of Defense
    S 2340 N Cloture Not Invoked – Senate
    (45 – 53)

    10/01/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
    HR 1585 NV Bill Passed – Senate
    (92 – 3)

    09/26/2007 Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Federalism in Iraq
    S Amdt 2997 NV Amendment Adopted – Senate
    (75 – 23)

    09/26/2007 Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
    S Amdt 3017 NV Amendment Adopted – Senate
    (76 – 22)

    09/11/2007 Limiting Mexican Trucks to Commercial Zones Near the Border Between the U.S. and Mexico
    S Amdt 2797 Y Amendment Adopted – Senate
    (75 – 23)

    09/06/2007 Prohibiting U.S. Assistance for Groups that Support Coercive Abortion
    S Amdt 2707 NV Amendment Adopted – Senate
    (48 – 45)

    07/19/2007 Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees
    S Amdt 2351 NV Amendment Adopted – Senate
    (94 – 3)

    06/19/2007 Preventing Petroleum Export Organizations (NOPEC Act of 2007)
    S Amdt 1519 Y Amendment Adopted – Senate
    (70 – 23)

    05/24/2007 Emergency Departmental Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 2007
    HR 2206 N Concurrence Vote Passed – Senate
    (80 – 14)

    09/28/2006 Military Commissions Act of 2006
    S 3930 N Bill Passed – Senate
    (65 – 34)

    09/28/2006 Habeas Review Amendment
    S Amdt 5087 Y Amendment Rejected – Senate
    (48 – 51)

    09/28/2006 Oversight of CIA Interrogation and Detention Amendment
    S Amdt 5095 Y Amendment Rejected – Senate
    (46 – 53)

    09/19/2006 U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation
    HR 5684 Y Bill Passed – Senate
    (62 – 32)

    09/07/2006 Media in the Middle East Amendment
    S Amdt 4909 N Bill Tabled – Senate
    (51 – 44)

    09/06/2006 Cluster Munitions Amendment
    S AMDT 4882 Y Amendment Rejected – Senate
    (30 – 70)

    06/22/2006 Defense Department FY 2007 Authorization bill
    S 2766 Y Bill Passed – Senate
    (96 – 0)

    06/22/2006 Troop Redeployment Amendment
    S AMDT 4442 N Amendment Rejected – Senate
    (13 – 86)

    06/15/2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006
    HR 4939 Y Conference Report Adopted – Senate
    (98 – 1)

    05/04/2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006
    HR 4939 Y Bill Passed – Senate
    (77 – 21)

    03/16/2006 National Defense Funding Amendment
    S AMDT 3166 N Amendment Rejected – Senate
    (50 – 50)

    11/15/2005 Iraq Progress Reports Amendment
    S AMDT 2518 Y Amendment Adopted – Senate
    (79 – 19)

    11/15/2005 Reporting Matters in Iraq Amendment
    S AMDT 2519 Y Amendment Rejected – Senate
    (40 – 58)

    http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490&category=32

    Bottom line, the Fraud has little to no experience voting and thinking of Israel.

    Pretty much the same for every issue except race, and certain aspects of education. What idiots thought his guy would make a good president is beyond me.

  129. wbboei

    I don’t have much I agree with that is going on with the Dem party these days either, but in the same boat… where were all the Repugs that opposed GW’s war in bombing the Hell out of Iraq to get Sadam and WMD (that were not there), while Bin Laden scurried back and forth into Pakistan and is still MIA.

    Could the Repugs have really stopped George in is wild rage to ‘democratize’ the middle east while demolishing that country?

    What happened to the good old corrupt days of the US when they would send in super snipers to get someone like Bin Laden, and not destroy a country instead? (How much $ does it cost to rebuild Iraq that was needlessly destroyed? Not mentioning all the innocent people that were killed in the process.)

  130. #
    gonzotx
    April 27th, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    BITCH=NIGGER

    WOMEN-BLACK

    Derogatory as it comes and used in the same manner. Do we have a name equal for the White male in our society? I don’t think Red neck qualifies.
    ——

    A$$holes 😆

  131. 1500 American’s applied for the jobs after reading in the newspaper or hearing it on the radio of the firings. I guess American’s WILL do the jobs that illegals’s are doing. They try to use this moniker all the time to sell illegal immigration. It reminds me of the time I had graduated with a fine arts degree and was in Milwaukee, broke, (think Jimmy Carter regime) and tried to get a job at the tanning factory down the street. I lived 3 blocks away, I knew the smell and what I was getting into. The HR guy took one look at me and refused to hire me. He said “you will never last, I am not going to hire you.” I tried and tried to talk him into it, but alas he wouldn’t. I would have done the job. I was that broke and was brought up not to take handouts. I had a lot of self pride. I am sure I would have kept looking for a job, but I was desperate. A job at a supermarket would have seemed like a very major step up at the time. Of course, the mind set in America has changed thanks to the likes of our continued socialistic/fascist/globalist regimes. But some of us remember. That is what the Tea Party represents to me. It is what I think one of the building blocks of this great country was founded on. Opportunity…not handouts…by the way, the tanning factories have been turned into $500,000 condos as it was built on the Milwaukee river and is now part of the yuppie/obot downtown revival. Go figure.
    ********

    Hundreds seek to fill vacant positions
    Pro’s Ranch Market

    Supermarket Chain Fires 300 Illegals After Audit
    April 21, 2010 — desertgardens
    From AZ Central:

    About 300 employees at Pro’s Ranch Markets’ six metro Phoenix supermarkets were let go Tuesday and Wednesday after an initial Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency audit found them to be working illegally in the United States.

    The fired employees can appeal the decision, but they are prohibited from working during the process.

    Julie Pace, an attorney for Pro’s Ranch Markets, said most of the affected workers gave the company forged documents when asked to demonstrate their eligibility to work in the United States.

    It’s hard to believe Ms. Pace (the company’s attorney mentioned above) that the company had complied with the employment requirements and still, amazingly, 300 people (20% of their local workforce) was able “to slip through” and not be identified as illegal. Very hard to believe indeed. Especially when you read what the company’s parting gifts were to the illegals:

    Pace said Pro’s Ranch Market gave terminated employees packets containing an immigration resource list, parting message from the company’s president and a $250 grocery gift card.

    Does this sound like a company which is upset about being duped by its former employees? A $250 grocery gift card and an immigration resource list? If you ran a company and found a substantial number of your employees had lied to you about their background, would you be patting them on the back and giving them gifts as they walked out the door? Seems like the grocery chain regrets having to let them go. After all, I’m sure the illegals were only doing jobs Americans wouldn’t do (yes, I’m being sarcastic here).

  132. From a blogger @ BP
    ************

    I live on the border. Arizona is not misguided. The federal government will not enforce the current laws so what do they expect?
    We now have the cartels blocking the bridges between the 2 countries and having their shootouts. Last Saturday, they shot up the Mexican side of one of the bridges and destroyed the tollbooth and took the toll collectors hostage.
    Most of the stuff is not getting reported since the cartels will kill those reporting it.
    Have you all been hearing about the hotels being stormed, guests being kidnapped, rooms ransacked? We have home invasions in my city and the neighboring cities almost daily.
    My alarm is on instant 24 hours a day and I don’t even go out to get the mail without a weapon.
    Welcome to the land where hopey changey voters rule.

  133. Here’s a good Fox Video:
    Immigration Protests vs. Tea Parties
    Why are rowdy protesters in Arizona getting a pass from the media after months of negative Tea Party coverage?
    Fox News Contributor
    Bernie Goldberg
    Author: A Slobbering Love Affair
    Video also covers South Park/Muslim situation
    video dot foxnews.com/v/4167737/immigration-protests-vs-tea-parties?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g4:r5:c0.000000:b33379626:z6

  134. I don’t have much I agree with that is going on with the Dem party these days either, but in the same boat… where were all the Repugs that opposed GW’s war in bombing the Hell out of Iraq to get Sadam and WMD (that were not there), while Bin Laden scurried back and forth into Pakistan and is still MIA
    ————————————————-
    When that happened I abandoned the Republican Party. I resigned my membership in the RNC and voted straight Democrat in 2006. By the time 2008 was at hand, a new wolf was at the door and I voted for McCain.

    When either party abandons the American People for the global elites, it is time to run them out of town on a rail. I am doing the same thing now, and all true Democrats should do the same thing.

    I was a big supporter of Jim Webb (D-VA), and I still get emails from him. But after the way he caved on Obama care I will support his opponent in 2012 whoever it is. I admire his military courage but his political courage is sadly lacking.

  135. wbboei
    April 27th, 2010 at 3:51 pm

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

    I supported Jim Webb too. Had the higest of hopes for him. Hope doesn’t seem to be paying off these days. Think I will stick with another H, Hillary.

  136. Laureate Education lures Clinton as ‘honorary chancellor’

    Former president expected to raise profile of company abroad

    April 26, 2010|By Gus G. Sentementes

    The Baltimore SunLaureate Education Inc., a Baltimore-based for-profit higher education company, said Monday that it scored former President Bill Clinton as its “honorary chancellor” – a high-profile position that’s expected to raise the company’s profile abroad.

    The company, which owns a global network of more than 50 campus-based and online institutions in 21 countries, tapped Clinton as an internal adviser. He will also be featured in campus visits and in the company’s marketing material to students.

    “This is huge” for Laureate, said Amna Kirmani, marketing professor at the University of Maryland, College Park. “It’ll put this company on the map. People will notice it. Other companies will notice them. It will bring a huge amount of credibility to the company.”

    The company’s global network — called Laureate International Universities — will likely benefit from the prominence that Clinton still enjoys throughout most of the world, Kirmani said.

    Laureate evolved out of Sylvan Learning Systems, a publicly traded company until three years ago. Sylvan’s founder, Douglas L. Becker, took Laureate private in 2007 in a $3.82 billion buyout and has spent the past three years steering the company’s education business abroad.

    Becker said Clinton had expressed interest in learning more about Laureate’s efforts during his world travels in recent years. Last year, Becker said, he traveled with Clinton to Haiti to work on higher education challenges on that island.

    Also last year, Becker said, Clinton stopped to speak to students at Laureate universities in Peru, Brazil and Spain.

    “As he understood better the quality of the universities we created, it seemed to build his confidence and interest in supporting and advising us,” Becker said.

    The “honorary chancellor” role that Clinton will fill means the former president will advise Laureate’s executives and help foster youth leadership on its campuses, Becker said.

    “His image outside of the United States is really remarkable,” Becker said.

    Becker declined to say how much Clinton would be compensated for his position at Laureate.

    A message left with Clinton’s foundation office was not returned.

    Laureate operates campus-based and online schools in the United States, Central and South America, Europe and Asia.

    The company says it has more than 550,000 students. Its schools offer certificate, undergraduate and graduate degree programs in a variety of fields, from architecture and art to law and medicine.

    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-04-26/business/bs-bz-laureate-bill-clinton-20100426_1_laureate-education-laureate-international-universities-higher-education

  137. Secretary Clinton to lead U.S. Delegation to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference at the United Nations

    Office of the Spokesman
    Washington, DC
    April 27, 2010

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will lead the U.S. delegation to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference at the United Nations in New York City, which begins Monday, May 3. Secretary Clinton will deliver remarks on Monday afternoon. Additional details will be forthcoming.

    The Secretary’s role underscores the Obama Administration’s top-level commitment to revitalizing and strengthening the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

    Other members of the delegation will include Ambassador Susan Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations; Ellen Tauscher, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security; Tom D’Agostino, NNSA Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator; and Ambassador Susan Burk, Special Representative of the President for Nuclear Nonproliferation.

    The Review Conference meets every five years to assess the status of the world’s nuclear nonproliferation efforts and to reach a consensus on further steps to strengthen it. For 40 years, the Treaty has been the cornerstone of our efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, material and technology. As more states and non-state actors seek to acquire nuclear weapons, nuclear terrorism and proliferation have become the gravest threats of the 21st century.

    Secretary Clinton will underscore the need to revitalize and strengthen the grand bargain in the NPT: nations with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament, nations without nuclear weapons will not seek them, and all nations have the right to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/04/140938.htm

  138. Another WTF moment when a country feels they have to warn their citizens that sneaking into the US may land them in jail.

    Because they know the US government does not follow though on their immigration laws, making us look like total fools (for votes)……..

    MEXICO CITY (AP) — The Mexican government warned its citizens Tuesday to use extreme caution if visiting Arizona because of a tough new law that requires all immigrants and visitors to carry U.S.-issued documents or risk arrest.

    And a government-affiliated agency that supports Mexicans living and working in the United States called for boycotts of Phoenix-based US Airways, the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Phoenix Suns until those organizations rebuke the law.

    “We are making a strong call to the Arizona government to retract this regressive and racist law that’s impacting not only residents of Arizona, but people in all 50 states and in Mexico as well,” said Raul Murillo, who works with the Institute for Mexicans Abroad, an autonomous agency of Mexico’s Foreign Ministry.

  139. jbstonesfan
    April 27th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
    I don’t understand any Jewish person that voted for him over Hillary or even McCain.
    ==========================================================================================
    That makes two (2) of us.

    I believe people were brainwashed by CNN and The NYT…… Educated people who should know better.

    don’t underestimate the power of brainwashing and the media. Our only hope for 2012 is that the media changes horses.

  140. Unbelievable!! This country is going downhill.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28abortion.html?src=mv

    The Oklahoma Legislature voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to override vetoes of two highly restrictive abortion measures, one making it a law that women undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before having an abortion.

    Though other states have passed similar measures forcing women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, requiring a doctor or technician to set up the monitor where the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

    The second measure passed into law Tuesday protects doctors from malpractice suits if they decide not to inform the parents of a unborn baby that the fetus has birth defects. The intent of the bill is to prevent parents from later suing doctors who withhold information to try to influence them against having an abortion.

  141. pm317, I had to vote on this proposition here in Texas when I voted for the first time as a republican….sickening isn’t it…it failed here in Texas I think!

  142. I was born about 20 miles north of the Texas/Mexican border…during my childhood I could of easily went to Mexico by myself an never worried about being abducted, molested or killed even though I was blond and blue eyed. Of coarse, I spoke fluent TexMex, in fact the first bar I ever went into by myself was in Mexico…now I would not even consider going there for dinner or to go to the market…It has gotten so dangerous as these cartels run the country…I think if they would legalize marijuana in this country some of the pressure would be off, but of coarse there is stronger stuff that will be in demand though…border fence…won’t work! A wall!

  143. #
    Shadowfax
    April 27th, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    Mrs Smith
    ——-
    Yes, this pretty much sums it up.

    The issue isn’t the safety of our citizens nor economics, it’s the votes stupid.
    ______________________________

    Mrs. S says:

    There has been another development.. If it hasn’t been posted here yet; I will update it-
    ___________________________________

    JanH-

    My pleasure.
    ___________________________________________
    #
    gonzotx
    April 27th, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    From a blogger @ BP
    ************

    I live on the border. Arizona is not misguided. The federal government will not enforce the current laws so what do they expect?

    We now have the cartels blocking the bridges between the 2 countries and having their shootouts. Last Saturday, they shot up the Mexican side of one of the bridges and destroyed the tollbooth and took the toll collectors hostage.

    Most of the stuff is not getting reported since the cartels will kill those reporting it.

    Have you all been hearing about the hotels being stormed, guests being kidnapped, rooms ransacked? We have home invasions in my city and the neighboring cities almost daily.

    My alarm is on instant 24 hours a day and I don’t even go out to get the mail without a weapon.

    Welcome to the land where hopey changey voters rule.
    __________________________________________

    This is very disturbing, gonzotx. If you don’t mind me asking, on which blog did you find this post?

    It is reports like this, bloggers reporting what is going in their neighborhoods as locals giving first hand accounts of the unreported destructive violence happening that is upsetting. Not hearing anything about US citizens living in fear of their lives because the US government is allowing Pro-Muslim sympathizers the latitude to ignore protecting our Rights.

    My fear is this cancer will eventually spread and metastasize it’s way around the nation. This is a creeping coup (with all the earmarks of a Bill Ayers orchestration) eventually turning into a Civil War within the states. This is exactly type of circumstance the Muslims are waiting for… The chaos provides cover for their threatened, deranged, obsessive jihad against Christians and for that matter, the new minority, white people.

  144. Reid has given Graham and the Republicans an unexpected riposte. (I hope he didn’t get the info here) He’s backpedaling calling Graham’s bluff reneging on working on the Imm-Reform-Bill. If you read the article you see where Graham is a little surprised at Reids sudden super quick 180- This should prove very interesting watching the SC gunslinger outwit the Nevadan nitwit.
    _______________________________

    Reid: Senate to act on climate bill before immigration

    http news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100427/ap_on_bi_ge/us_climate_bill

  145. After reading this just released article, Graham has chosen a passive aggressive lateral move, suggesting the shiny new AZ Immigration Law may be unconstitutional. Does Lindsey plan on tying this Imm Bill up in court until Reid is no longer Senate Majority Leader and Obama is no longer president?

    Sen. Lindsey Graham: Arizona immigration bill may be unconstitutional

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36418.html

Comments are closed.