Single Bullet Theory

Get the fork, get the shovel, call the undertaker, order the coffin, schedule the burial, get the foot tag – Arlen Specter’s dead, doornail dead. Diagnosis: Poison. Death by Obama.

Poor Arlen Specter, just as he is able to cite an honorable accomplishment (OK, we exaggerate on the “honorable accomplishment” bit) to his credit, Barack Obama comes into Pennsylvania with a death dealing television advertisement. Here’s the Obama single bullet aimed at “single bullet theory” Arlen:

The only thing worse would be a personal, live appearance by Barack Obama on behalf of Specter.

With that ad, Specter joins the ranks of the walking dead. Arlen should have asked, “Anybody here seen my friends – Creigh, Martha, and Jon?” Before allowing Obama to nail the box, Specter should have looked to the dead campaigns Barack Obama has shot himself into.

With the nomination of Elena Kagan, some thought Arlen Specter was in a tough position. Arlen Specter voted against Kagan for her current Solicitor General job. But, Specter had a point and he should have pressed the reason why he was right to vote “no”.

“I voted against her for Solicitor General because she wouldn’t answer basic questions about her standards for handling that job. It is a distinctly different position than that of a Supreme Court Justice. I have an open mind about her nomination and hope she will address important questions related to her position on matters such as executive power, warrantless wiretapping, a woman’s right to choose, voting rights and congressional power.”

Specter was right and he should make it clear that he will hold Elena Kagen to account, based on her own standards of transparency – the “Kagan standard”.

“Nominees reveal their legal vision (or lack of vision) in hearings more than they know. In an academic article she will no doubt most regret, Kagan laid out what conservatives are already calling the “Kagan standard,” insisting that senators should question Supreme Court nominees closely. The Kagan standard is well worth applying to Elena Kagan, because her answers to the many legitimate questions about her views are likely to demonstrate her intellectual security, ability to empathize with and win over her ideological opponents, insistence on clarity, judicial temperament, and political skill.”

Specter could even have added that he wants to question Elena Kagan on her hiring practices. When Kagan was at Harvard 31 of her 32 hires were white (only seven were women). Is Kagan one of those “Limousine Liberals” whose philosophy is “do as I say, not as I do”? That old “Limousine Liberal” epithet is one we used to fume at when it was used, but now… now we see that indeed some of our brethren are hypocrites on these matters. We want to see the hypocrites called out.

There is another hypocrisy which amuses us no end as we watch the Nutroots in Pennsylvania and in NothingLeft world complain. These buffoons ask the question now, which they should have asked during the 2008 Democratic Presidential primaries: “Can the powers that be can hoist any candidate they want onto their constituents?” Now they ask. These “creative class” types are truly late bloomers and the most stupid people on the ‘internets’.

What they are complaining about is that when Arlen Specter decided to become an Obama Dimocrat because he could not win the Republican primary in Pennsylvania, Obama cut a deal. The deal was to campaign for Specter and gift Specter the Democratic nomination in Pennsylvania. Joe Sestak decided to forgo the Obama bribes and thuggery and so now Obama is out to crush Sestak. And the wittle bitty nutroots are upset.

The Nutroots and Democrats should have realized the game was fixed, without any doubt, after 2008. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Joe Sestak has the advantage of knowing that the game is fixed because the stabs are on his chest, not on his back (as with Hillary and the quiet, traitorous, army of 2×4 assassins).

Joe Sestak resisted the Obama bribes and thuggery and now Joe Sestak might actually beat Arlen Specter. The polls are moving to slim Sestak leads and Spector continues to make mistakes. Sestak also has a powerful new advertisement to beat Specter with:

But what will finish Arlen Specter is not advertisements of Specter with George W. Bush. What will finish Arlen Specter is advertisements of Specter with Barack Obama. Obama Is Poison.

Arlen Specter invented the “Single Bullet Theory” to explain how Oswald killed Kennedy. The single bullet headed towards Specter, that will end his political career, is called Barack Obama. Obama Is Poison. Specter drank the poison. Now Specter will die.


121 thoughts on “Single Bullet Theory

  1. ROTFLMAO! I almost thought for a minute that you were mistaken, admin, and that the Obama video was put out by the SESTAK campaign!

    Jeebus Crispies, the DNC is clueless. That video is the kiss of death for Arlen.

  2. HillaryForTexas, it is really a bad ad especially when seen, as Pennsylvanians will, with the actual Sestak ad.

  3. Interesting how the Obama camp went straight from The Times They Are A Changin’ to being Mr. Jones.

    Holy moly, you are on a roll, admin. Outtathepark.

  4. Nothing would please me more than the long list of people that are knocked out of office by the ONE TERM Fraud. They can all talk of ‘the good old days in Washington’ as they wait in the unemployment line.

    Karma for corruption.

  5. That first video, beside nauseating, could just be the video Photoshop version for all Fraud ads…background and canned enthusiastic obots, cut/copy in a different candidate.

    And the ending, “I love you, I love Specter”…that’s a real sincere comment if there ever was one.

  6. Damn
    Now I’m annoyed with self for going non-affiliated before the primary
    I’d have taken such joy voting against the rat prick bastard
    Here in Pittsburgh ads for senate and Murthas’s seat are ubiquitous far worse than the general

  7. henry
    Can’t you dump the non-affiliated or is it too late?
    That’s why I keep my Dem card…like a loaded gun.

  8. henry, shadow
    April 18th or 19th was last day to change PA party affiliation.

    Great article, admin. Amazing how Dems don’t have a clue as to what people think. Sad, but humorous too. Look how long they clung to the idea that MA Kennedy’s were the cat’s meow.

  9. Obama is up to 48.7% on RCP!!!! This is not good!!!!
    The Rassmussen spread between strongly approve vs strongly disapprove measured among likely voters which RCP shows a comfortable 10% margin. The RCP average based on less targeted and less rigorous polling methodology reflects a closer race, but it is not predictive of election results. In fairness, it was 14% a few days ago, but like JP Morgan was asked what will the stock market do he replied it will fluctuate. If the Republicans do their job, and there is a bloodbath in the mid term election, that will have a lasting impact on his numbers. The recent economic news has been favorable and he is receivign a short term bump over that. Also, the campaign has not yet begun, regardless of what some say. The long term trends remain favorable at this point, and it is imperative to our plans that there be a bloodbath in the mid terms. That plus a few more stumbles will prove to be a tipping point.

  10. Ahhhhh, so frustrating. No solutions, only endless problems in the news.

    Still don’t know why the stock market went nuts the other day.

    Still don’t know how to fix the oil leak.

    Still don’t have a clue about anything while the little people keep working to pay the rich.

  11. Come here everyday to read, rarely write, but just in the mood to thank everyone that posts here, especially wbboei and admin. You are really brilliant and awe-inspiring. I love to stop by and read what is new and what you have to say. Thanks.

  12. Clinton to campaign for Critz in Pa.

    By: James Hohmann
    May 11, 2010 03:43 PM EDT

    Former President Bill Clinton will travel to Johnstown, Pa., Sunday to stump for Mark Critz ahead of the May 18 special election to succeed the late Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.).

    Critz’s campaign announced Tuesday that Clinton will come into town for a get-out-the-vote rally at 4:30 p.m. Sunday in the Pasquerilla Conference Center.

    The heated contest pits Critz, a former Murtha aide, against Republican Tim Burns in Pennsylvania’s 12th District. The news that Clinton will travel into the district demonstrates how nationalized the race has become. The special election will be a key test of each party’s standing in a host of similar reddish districts where Democrats hope to stay competitive this year.

    Burns has sought to make the election about national issues as much as possible in this conservative-minded coal and steel district, such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the health care overhaul. In a recent debate, Critz tried to focus on local issues. Bringing Clinton in could undermine that message, but the former president could also drum up Democratic turnout.

    Clinton traveled to a nearby spot the day before the 2008 general election for another get out the vote rally. He helped Murtha handily win an 18th full term, even as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) narrowly carried the district.

    Murtha, first elected to the seat in 1974, had endorsed then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) in that year’s Democratic primary. The powerful appropriator died Feb. 8 from complications relating to surgery.

    Rep. Mike Pence, the third-ranking Republican in the House, campaigned with Burns Monday.

  13. Jan H
    Cannot recall ever being so inundated with political ads
    For reasons unknown to me they really load them up during the half hour when Jeopardy airs,
    Small district outside of Pittsburgh

  14. Anyone else get the 2010 Presidential Survey from the dnc?
    Got one today looks like they haven’t updated their data base. No longer a dim but going to fill out out anywho

  15. Jan H
    Quite well
    Using a scratch pad to formulate my response to the dnc the last question on survey allots five lines to tell them what I think of them and I want to make them good

  16. Also feel like I hit the freaking powerball
    As I bought my nephew a fridge for college for his high school graduation. Ordered it Sunday and opted for standard shipping at a whopping 3.95. Expedited was almost 200 so I nixed that but it just arrived via Fedex for a whopping 3.95. Two days. Off to give it to him

  17. Did I just see that Beau Biden has suffered a mild stroke??? Wow! that sure seems to run in their family. He is young for that!

  18. I did not get an email from Bill:( I guess they found out I voted for the republicans the last time.

  19. Wow—admin, this is too choice!! Great work and thank you-I do need a boost. Just saw ken Salazar on Wolf Blitzer show and he was lying his a** off. Wolf asked him about the exemptions that the administration had given BP (per Wapo May 5) and Salazar looked stunned. He kept saying that they did many environmental studies before drilling at that site. Of course, Blitzer didn’t call him on it.

  20. A little bit of levity just because-

    Just in case you weren’t feeling too old today:
    The people who are starting college this fall were born in 1991.

    They are too young to remember the space shuttle blowing up.

    Their lifetime has always included AIDS.

    The CD was introduced two years before they were born.

    They have always had an answering machine.

    They have always had cable.

    Jay Leno has always been on the Tonight Show.
    Popcorn has always been microwaved.

    They never took a swim and thought about Jaws.
    They don’t know who Mork was or where he was from.

    They never heard: ‘Where’s the Beef?’, ‘I’d walk a mile for a Camel’, or ‘de plane, Boss, de plane’.

    McDonald’s never came in Styrofoam containers.

    They don’t have a clue how to use a typewriter.

    ….AND they never knew our world without PLASTIC!

    P.S.. Save the earth.. It’s the only planet with chocolate.

  21. that does make me feel old. It’s strange but I don’t think of myself as old, but in the eyes of younger people, I am.

    that’s our edge over the bots—we have historical memory. If they studied they could also have the benefit of history, but we know that is not their forte.

  22. #
    May 11th, 2010 at 6:37 pm

    “that’s our edge over the bots—we have historical memory. If they studied they could also have the benefit of history, but we know that is not their forte.”

    BINGO! kc and confloyd- Obama catered to the college crowd because …. “they have no memory of the past and what we revered and stood for in our history.”

    And the reason why he IGNORED the BOOMERS- ( during the campaign)
    Out of FEAR the BOOMERS would stand-up to him and reveal his True hustler nature!
    May 11th, 2010 at 8:10 pm

    Mrs. Smith…to think these folks are the voters….OMG!

    Yes, and to think they will be the future protectors and defenders of the Constitution with SCOTUS Judges like Kagan.

  23. I read today somewhere…that the lights went out on the rig before the explosion occurred…and the kill switch was pulled and it did not work..thats for sure!

  24. I saw some youtube videos of the oil spill, its worse than they are letting on…it isn’t even on the national news anymore..Odumbo controls the news!

  25. confloyd-

    I think there was a plan to sabotage the rig but the plan for resolution of the oil spill failed.

    I don’t understand why the pipeline can’t be blown up and buried by underwater charges.

  26. In case anyone missed this: the potential damage by the latest bombing attempt.,8599,1987396,00.html

    If you wanted to do a lot of damage with a well-rigged car bomb, the junction of West 45th Street and Broadway in midtown Manhattan, where Times Square narrows into an asphalt bottleneck, would be the place to pick. If the bomb planted in a green 1993 Nissan Pathfinder SUV on the evening of May 1 had exploded, here’s what would have happened, according to retired New York police department bomb-squad detective Kevin Barry. The car would have turned into a “boiling liquid explosive.” The propane tanks that the bomb comprised would have overheated and ignited into “huge blowtorches” that could have been ejected from the vehicle. The explosion, lasting only a few seconds, would have created a thermal ball wide enough to swallow up most of the intersection. A blast wave would have rocketed out in all directions at speeds of 12,000 to 14,000 ft. per sec. (3,700 to 4,300 m per sec.); hitting the surrounding buildings, the wave would have bounced off and kept going, as much as nine times faster than before. Anyone standing within 1,400 ft. (430 m) — about five city blocks — of the explosion would have been at risk of being hit by shrapnel and millions of shards of flying glass. The many who died would not die prettily. A TIME reporter familiar with the ravages of car bombs in Baghdad describes how victims appeared to be naked because a fireball melted their clothing onto the surface of their skin.

  27. jbstonefan: thanks for posting the Jay Cost article. He is a solid political analyst (like our Admin). He is head and shoulders above his colleagues, with the exception of Krauthammer.

    The big media shills who bother me most are not the bomb throwers like Matthews, Olberman and their ilk. By now most people are wise to their game, and do not take them seriously. It is the subtler ones who are photogenic, stack the deck along partisan lines, and pretend to be objective who are the real problem.

    One of the key young people in our campaign told me he had an in with Tapper since they exchanged emails. I told him you must learn the art of worldly wisdom. Lesson 1: never confuse style with substance. Tapper’s style is smooth, worldly and urbane. But he is an ideologue if you look at his history, where he worked before ABC and the little things he said during the campaign like calling Hillary Tonia Harding. The sign around his neck should read bought and paid for.

    Alas, it was one of those things that 60 can’t tell 20.

    Basement Angel: that reference to the rat pack is pretty good. That would make Obama Biggie Rat I suppose.

  28. Mrs. Smith, I don’t know if it was really sabotage or not…just a bunch of unusual circumstances. My friend who works on an oil rig was glad he no longer worked offshore. It’s dangerous, but I’ve haven’t heard of a blowout in years and I had a son-in-law that worked offshore in the gulf, he said he was never afraid because of all the improvements that had been made in offshore drilling since the 70’s when they blew up all the time. We never had oil spills though because I guess those rigs had that safety mechanism on it. THe one in Mexico, the Bay of Campeche was an oil spill I believe it was in the 80’s. They capped it with the sombrero. They should have plenty of experience plugging these oil wells since the first gulf war. Sadaam blew up all his own wells.

  29. Another one gone:

    West Virginia Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan lost his bid for a 15th term tonight at the hands of state Sen. Mike Oliverio, a defeat that further affirms the anti-incumbent sentiment coursing through the country.

    Mollohan hadn’t faced a serious primary fight in more than a decade and was seen in some circles as unbeatable given that the 1st district seat had been in his family since 1968. (His father held it from 1968-1982 before handing it off to the son.)

    But, Oliverio, who served a single term in the state House of Delegates before being elected to the state Senate in 1994, ran hard against Mollohan’s entrenched incumbent status and the lingering whiff of ethics problems that had dogged the Congressman for years.

    The race has gotten very nasty over its final weeks with Oliverio referring to Mollohan as “one of the most corrupt members of Congress” and the incumbent retorting that his opponent is “lying” and “spreading right-wing smears”.

    Mollohan, despite regular warning from state and national Democratic strategists, never seemed to understand the threat posed by Oliverio and, according to several sources, ran a campaign suited to the early 1990s rather than 2010 in terms of its sophistication.

    On the Republican side, former state Del. David McKinley won his party’s nomination. Republicans, however, had made clear they preferred to run against Mollohan and must now re-orient their strategy.

    Mollohan is the first House member to lose a re-election bid in the 2010 cycle and the first Democrat to lose a bid for re-nomination since Rep. Al Wynn (Md.) in 2008. Three House Republicans — Rep. Chris Cannon (Utah), Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (Md.) and Rep. Dave Davis (Tenn.) — lost in intraparty fights last cycle.

    Mollohan’s defeat follows hard on a loss by Utah Sen. Bob Bennett (R) in the Beehive State’s convention process over the weekend and, as such, will foment the sense that incumbents — of all parties and offices — need to be on guard heading into the summer primary season and the fall midterms.

    (While the race is rightly seen — at least partially — through a national prism in terms of its scope, it’s important to remember two factors unique to this race: Mollohan had been damaged by ethics allegations over the last few years and Oliverio actually ran to the incumbent’s ideological right — castigating him for his vote in favor of President Obama’s health care bill.)

    A recent Washington Post/ABC poll showed that less than one in three people said they plan to vote to re-elect their member of Congress — numbers that haven’t been seen in Post/ABC data since the Republican wave election of 1994.

    Just how bad it has gotten for incumbents will be tested in a serious way next Tuesday when Democratic Sens. Arlen Specter (Pa.) and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) attempt to fend off serious primary challenges.

  30. Mrs. Smith, Do you find it odd that we had one large mining accident and one small one very close to each other…then the oil well…then the bombing in New York…its all just such a coincidence. Its weird, just like the election of 08′ and the primary of 08′.

    I heard that Blago is going to cop a plea and why hasn’t Rezko been sentenced…its been 2 years…what wrong with our legal system that its takes 2 years for the sentence or is that a good thing?

  31. Is anyone else having problems with NO QUARTER? When I try to go there I get a warning that it is NOT a safe site.

  32. Just how bad it has gotten for incumbents will be tested in a serious way next Tuesday when Democratic Sens. Arlen Specter (Pa.) and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) attempt to fend off serious primary challenges
    Lets hope they both get knocked off in the primary.

  33. I dnno conflod but Brenda Elliot’s book is doing alot of damage. The book just came out a few weeks ago and is already SOLD OUT. There is a 4-6wk wait for filling new orders and people are beginning to demand it be made available on Kindle.

    Amazon’s book reviews (465 so far) are very favorable. I think the book has a good chance of going viral.

    You can read about it here and at her RBO site.

  34. why hasn’t Rezko been sentenced…its been 2 years
    I do not know whether model sentencing rules apply here or not. I have seen good prosecutors (and ex-prosecutors) navigate their way around them if the convicted party agrees to cooperate in an unrelated prosecution. My suspicion is that the sentencing has been held open for that very reason.

    I believe the prosecution goal goes far beyond a conviction of Blago. I think Fitz wants to treat the Illinois Combine as a criminal enterprise. I think he sees Blago as the key witness who can expose the inner workings of the Combine, and bring it down, just as Joe Valachi did to the Mafia over 50 years ago. If Blago provides a road map to prosecutors plus names and dates then Fitz can go back to the Grand Jury for more indictments. In that case you may see politicians, bankers and contractors become targets.

    If that is the goal, then Rezko is a key asset for the prosecution. As long as he is convicted but not sentenced he is in an extremely vulnerable position. He has an incentive to cooperate and Blago knows that. If Blago believes Rezko will testify he is more likely to cop a plea. Conversely, if Blago believes Rezko will not testify, then he may decide he can beat the charge, in which case he has no incentive to cop a plea.

    If I were advising a member of the Illinois Combine–politician, attorney, judge, banker, contractor, et. al. who was worried about being swept up in the net I would ask him to think about what Blago or Rezko have on him. If I were advising Obama I would tell him to resign for the good of the country.

  35. The above is sometimes referred to as the Prisoners Dilemma, and is a key exercise in game theory.

  36. Really!

    Amazon is listing the book, “Manchurian President” as sold out, when it actually isn’t. Coincidence? ha!

  37. I dnno conflod but Brenda Elliot’s book is doing alot of damage
    Mrs. Smith: I am happy for Brenda. I am glad you sent her that nice note.

  38. Amazon is listing the book, “Manchurian President” as sold out, when it actually isn’t. Coincidence? ha!
    So is the fact that Jeff Bezos founder and CEO of Amazon is . . . you guessed it, an Obama supporter.

  39. If Sestak beats Specter then I will contribute to his campaign for the general election. He is a quality guy, as ABM 90 will be the first to tell you. He stood by Hillary when the going got tough. And, you can be pretty sure that after telling Specter how much he loved him, Obama will not be on Sestak’s dance card.

  40. wbboei
    May 12th, 2010 at 1:52 am

    I’m happy for us as well, if her book creates consternation within the rank and file paid to defend and cover up for him. Her book should be like a contagious disease designed to infiltrate and sicken the masses that do not realize this president is not only changing our way of life but using us as his sacrificial lambs for as much gelt as he can collect in his lifetime.

  41. Southern Born
    May 12th, 2010 at 12:11 am
    Is anyone else having problems with NO QUARTER? When I try to go there I get a warning that it is NOT a safe site
    Larry just posted this:

    Virus Warning–Worry Not

    We don’t know why, but folks who are on Microsoft systems are getting a warning that the site is UNSAFE.


    Fear not. We’re trying to figure out what’s going on. Hang in there.

  42. So is the fact that Jeff Bezos founder and CEO of Amazon is . . . you guessed it, an Obama supporter.

    yes, by now, Jeff has figured out theres no turning back after he made a deal with the devil when he supported him. Is it against the law to sell cyanide pills?

  43. Oops- 2:13? Feather-ball time.

    Hmm… the w/coast does have some advantages besides sun and beaches..

  44. Southern Born
    May 12th, 2010 at 12:11 am
    Is anyone else having problems with NO QUARTER? When I try to go there I get a warning that it is NOT a safe site.
    It’s not a safe site in reality. Larry is a little crazy

  45. Ace…ah, those peaceful misunderstood Muslims…

    This was a coordinated attack; not only are the Muslims cheering the assault, but others join in, attacking cops (like at the very end, one Brave Soldier of Allah cold-cocks an unaware cop, then runs away and assumes the fetal position).

    Swedish Artist/Badass Attacked By Muslim Thugs At Lecture

  46. Is there any real difference between Muslim radicals and Barack Obama Thugs? Rambo, Messina, and other names which we have not heard from yet. Both are politically extreme and neither one has much respect for human life.

  47. How true!

    What’s the difference if it’s for security reasons?
    May 11, 2010

    Being stopped by the police and asked for identification in Arizona exposes one to far less indignity than the average air traveler undergoes as a matter of routine More

  48. May 12, 2010
    ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’… Anything about Shariah Law
    By Alan Foster
    Elena Kagan, current Solicitor General of The United States and former Dean of the Harvard Law School, exemplifies selective outrage. She knows a lot about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” when it comes to ROTC on the Harvard Campus, but wears official blinders when it comes to Islamic treatment of homosexuals.

    When Professor Kagan ascended to the position of Dean of the Law School, Harvard was in a quandary over military recruitment. Long opposed to the military’s policy towards openly gay men and women but ever solicitous of the greenbacks offered by the federal government, the school tried to hedge its bets on the Solomon Amendment, passed in 1994, which required the Secretary of Defense to deny federal grants to institutions of higher learning that prohibited or prevented ROTC or military recruitment on campus. And who better to circumvent the law’s intent than the serried ranks of lawyers in Cambridge, Massachusetts? They argued that Washington money should still flow because even though the college placement office was barred to recruiters, ROTC courses could be offered by the Harvard Law School Veterans’ Association.

    Training on campus was still verboten for Harvard ROTC candidates, and they were forced to travel down the road to MIT to fulfill their training obligations. Too clever by half? Some congressmen thought so, and they responded by fortifying the act in 2001 by passing an amendment that denied all funding — not just to law schools, but to the entire institution that prohibited or prevented recruiting. Although Dean Kagan did not sign a petition along with many of Harvard’s Law School faculty opposing the Solomon Amendment, she did join two amicus briefs in that regard, one submitted to the Supreme Court.

    In 2006, The Supreme Court upheld the law, and only two schools refused to comply, thus forfeiting federal largesse. Now, these facts are widely known to the legal community and to many in the country at large. What is not so well-known is Dean Kagan’s contemporaneous approval of and promotion of a little-known but richly endowed Harvard Law School program called The Islamic Legal Studies Program. What does all this have to do with Elena Kagan and her principled stand on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?” It has a lot to do with honesty, integrity, and Harvard’s vaunted advocacy for human rights.

    The Harvard Islamic Legal Studies Program was made part of Harvard Law School in 1991 with significant funding from distinctly undemocratic sources, mainly from the Gulf States. The program purports to be a research program “that seeks to advance knowledge and understanding of Islamic law.” The program works closely with the Harvard Islamic Finance Project, which became an official part of the Law School in 2003, the same year Professor Kagan was awarded the title of Dean.

    But is it strictly a “research program”? A few times a year, the directors of the Finance Program take groups of promising Law School and Harvard Business School students to the Middle East on junkets to learn the intricate and arcane practices of Sharia Compliant Finance. Many of these promising students go on to work for such banks and investment firms as the Kuwait Finance House, HSBC Amanah Bank, and the Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank. The intertwined programs, it would seem, go far beyond mere “research” projects. Shariah Finance, it should be noted, is the Islamic approach to investing, mortgage lending, and a host of other money-related practices. Along with its prohibitions on interest accrual and trading in commodities such as pork, alcohol, and gambling is an overarching negative view of homosexuality. Negative, that is, to the point of advocating violence against gays.

    Whatever dim views one may hold on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the U.S. Military, the policy pales in comparison to the outright calls to violence enunciated by some of the Islamic world’s most prestigious and powerful Shariah advisors.

    Case in point: Meet Sheikh Muhammed Taqi Usmani, former appellate court judge in Pakistan, a Deobandi (one of the most extreme Pakistani schools of Islam, associated with the Pakistani Taliban)-trained jurist and chief Shariah advisor to the HSBC Amanah Bank, one of the world’s largest and richest banks and one of the sponsors of Harvard’s Islamic Finance Project. Among other delightful quotes from Sheikh Usmani:

    For a non-Muslim state to have more pomp and glory than a Muslim state itself is an obstacle, therefore to shatter this grandeur is among the greater objectives of jihad (from Islam and Modernism)

    Also from Usmani’s book: “Killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay jizyah (subjugation tax) after they are humbled or overpowered.”

    Apparently, these kinds of medieval barbarities did not rise to the level of immorality embodied in the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. At any rate, Dean Kagan never objected to the underlying principles of the program at her law school. Perhaps topics from the program like “Recent Trends and Innovations in Islamic Debt Securities” distracted her from the fundamental discriminatory underpinnings of Sharia Law.

    The idea that Harvard Law School would abide such opinions emanating from less well-heeled spokesmen is not even worthy of consideration. Imagine the nation’s preeminent law school hosting a program on “white supremacist law and finance.” It’s all about the money, of course. In addition to the funding of the Islamic Legal Studies Program, other Muslim plutocrats like Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who dropped twenty million dollars into Harvard’s coffers a few years ago, have had a tremendous influence on the university and its culture.

    If Sheikh Usmani’s views on jihad were not repellent enough, keep in mind that homosexuality has been a crime under Shariah Law in his native Pakistan since 1860. According to that country’s penal code, enforced by Judge Usmani, Article 377 states:

    Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than two years nor more than ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.

    And here, the chief Shariah Adviser to the sponsors of Harvard’s program writes:

    It is the same modernity that has engulfed the whole world in the tornado of nudity and obscenity, and has provided an excuse for fornication, and moreso it has led under thunderclaps to the passage of a bill in the British House of Commons to legalize homosexuality (Islam and Modernism).

    Suddenly “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” seems pretty benign.

    Not only does the Harvard program feature homophobic and “homicidal” clerics, but even the Harvard Muslim Student Chaplain, Taha Abdul-Basser, who has lectured regularly at the Islamic Finance Project, declared apostasy from Islam a capital (not the finance kind) offense:

    Abdul-Basser wrote that there was “great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment [for apostates]) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand (The Harvard Crimson April 14, 2009).

    Dean Kagan’s reticence about these programs at her own law school should raise serious questions of integrity, sincerity, forthrightness, and ultimately, honesty.

  49. I have been reading some stuff by Leslie Gelb who is the Grand Imperial Wizard of the Council of Foreign Relations. He has an interesting theory of foreign policy. one which I agree with in part. He starts off by assuming that you want country X to do something and country X refuses, thus the problem is how do you induce them to change their position to conform to your wishes. He faults the Clinton Administration for its soft power approach which he says relied on rational persuasion and globalization. I think he is wrong about that because the Clinton Administration did use military power in Bosnia and had a full range of responses to perceived threats to national security. He faults the Bush Administration for the use of hard power meaning gunboat diplomacy to get nations to comply with our wishes. On that point I think he is fundamentally correct. He then says that the right approach is a matter of manipulating other nations through a combination of carrots and sticks. I do not like that characterization because it is trite and it misses the point. I know from my own experience that if you reduce the equation to a carrot and stick then human nature will resist your attempts and find other ways to get more carrots and less sticks. The better answer is to find out what makes those countries tick and work with them to help them to meld their goals and ambitions to yours. That I think is the whole point of smart power as Hillary defines it. This approach to leadership is the one that Harry Levinson, an expert in industrial psychology endorses. He calls the carrot and stick approach the jackass theory of manageement because that is how you move a donkey with the carrot in front and the stick in the rear. But Hillary’s approach also includes the prudential use of military power, foreign aid and diplomacy. The biggest obstacle she faces is Obama is not respected by other world leaders. They believe he lives in a virtual world rather than a real world. They see him as egocentric and unwilling to make hard decisions. The other problem she has is our economic position today is so weak compared to other nations that they are less inclined to accept our leadership. Gelb has this model that we are the indispensable nation, and contends that we must continue to play that role but need partners from a list of eight which includes the usual suspects namely China, India, Russia, Germany, France, Britain and Brazil. He is right that we need partners. He is wrong that they will accept us as the indispensable nation. Not with Obama in charge. The leaders of those countries are not stupid bots. nor did they get there by accident. On the conrary they are conosseuirs of power, and they know weakness when they see it. Finally Gelb asserts that Obama gets all this, when that is patently untrue. Obama is the proverbial deer in the headlights, and his idea of diplomacy is to make Bibi cool his heels while Obama has dinner with his brood. Gelb, for all his supposed brilliance, is a poor judge of character.

  50. clarification: if you put people or nations in an environment where you try to control them with carrots and sticks they will trick the system to get more carrots and avoid the sticks without doing what you want. They would rather do that than be controlled in that manner, because that kind of control is dehumanizing. I have seen this happen in the military, in business and in government. That is the conceptual flaw in his analysis/

  51. I’m not seeing much coverage of this election result; had thought it would be top story on early TV.
    Newark Mayor Cory Booker easily won a second term Tuesday night, but with a tighter margin of victory than in 2006, and with only seven of his nine council candidates winning re-election, according to incomplete election results.
    Booker outspent Minor 20-to-1, yet Minor, a member of the city’s old guard, was able to marshal an already vocal anti-Booker contingent along with dissatisfaction about crime and joblessness to bring out voters against a mayor who promised major reform and a new era for the city in 2006.

    Booker, the city’s 41-year-old effusive political leader, ran a largely positive campaign, avoiding many of the public forums. With $7.5 million raised, the Booker camp flooded local media markets with television commercials, and a steady stream of campaign fliers, posters and mailers, touting the city’s lower crime rate, park expansion and development of small businesses.

    Minor, running a grassroots campaign, attended almost every public forum on the campaign trail, held coffee klatches, and won the support of a disaffected minority, attacking Booker as an outsider who is unengaged with city residents. He spent only $240,00 on the race.
    www dot

    At NJN News last night, I learned that Booker had been financed by the likes of Oprah, Spielberg, and Streisand.

  52. Mrs. Smith
    May 12th, 2010 at 1:38 am

    If Amazon is playing games like this, there is also the option of going straight to the publisher and purchasing direct.

  53. confloyd
    May 11th, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    “Mrs. Smith, Do you find it odd that we had one large mining accident and one small one very close to each other…then the oil well…then the bombing in New York…its all just such a coincidence. Its weird, just like the election of 08′ and the primary of 08′.”

    And obama has yet to take a leadership role in any of these instances.

  54. Here isOur Hillary just keeps fighting for our country and the world.She is a tireless patriot and must be our choice as POTUS and the one person that is afraid of no one from fhe media and its subversive agenda to keep her in the box of silence and marginalization.
    Joe Sestak in Pa is cleaning Specters clock.He too is a patriot and a Hillary supporter.By the way I am still a reg.Dem. and hope to cast my vote for the candidates that I fell will help facilitate the Hillary POTUS run that is my sleeping giant that will make her move when the time and climate are at hand.


  55. JanH Your point is so well taken. By the way has anyone seen the cover of Newsweek. A very stern photo of HRC, and it says Hillary is Os bad cop.

    I really thought that tough photo of HRC on the Cover right as we checked out made a big impression. She looked like a tough leader, something we are sorely missing. That just might have an interesting influence.

  56. Hillary is busy today 24/7

    -SOS Hillary Clinton’s Wednesday Appointments
    May 12, 20102 Comments
    tags: Hillary Clinton, Secretary Clinton’s Daily Appointments, Secretary of State, State Departmentby stacyx
    .9:20 a.m. Secretary Clinton delivers remarks at the 40th Washington Conference on the Americas, at the Department of State.

    10:15 a.m. Secretary Clinton attends President Obama’s bilateral meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, at the White House.

    11:15 a.m. Secretary Clinton attends President Obama’s joint press availability with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, at the White House.

    12:25 p.m. Secretary Clinton attends President Obama’s lunch with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, at the White House.

    2:30 p.m. Secretary Clinton attends a meeting with President Obama at the White House.

    3:30 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Members of the House of Representatives, in the Cannon House Office Building.

    5:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton attends a meeting at the White House.


  57. JanH
    May 12th, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Yes, JanH- definitely!

    I’m getting the sense BO is trying to prevent distribution… this is a good sign imo. As it relates to the Truth coming out revealing his undying loyalty to corruption. Obama and his minions are truly a scourge of a life-time on the US.

  58. NMF,

    I saw the cover in a bookstore last weekend. It reminded me of a picture I once saw of Abraham Lincoln…and in a good way. She looked strong, dignified and all about taking care of the country.

    Also saw a new book about oprah…lol…of course I had to put another title in front of it. 🙂

  59. Netanyahu: Jerusalem Is Our Lifeblood
    ‘No other nation has such a connection to its capital’


    PM defends Jews’ connection to capital on eve of J’lem Day.

    The fight for Jerusalem is the fight for truth, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared on Tuesday evening at the capital’s prestigious Mercaz Harav Yeshiva.

    Speaking on the eve of Jerusalem Day, the prime minister highlighted of the interaction between truth and justice, stressing that any distortion of justice concerning the Jewish people and Jerusalem was also a distortion of truth.

    “The truth is that Jerusalem is our lifeblood,” he said. “We have an indissoluble connection to it. Thousands of years, three thousands years. We have never relinquished this connection. We didn’t relinquish it when the temple was destroyed the first time, we didn’t relinquish it when the temple was destroyed a second time.”

    ‘The Jewish people are unjustly portrayed as invaders’

    In an apparent allusion to oft-voiced Palestinian claims that Israel was trying to ‘Judaize’ Jerusalem, the prime minister said that Israel was “not banishing anyone,” but rather reasserting the connection of the Jewish people to the capital, “a connection no other nation possesses.” Israel, he added, grants unprecedented freedom of religion and freedom of movement to those belonging to faiths other than Judaism.

    “I say this because there is an attempt to portray us as foreign invaders, as conquerors, as a people who have no connection to this place, and I say: No other nation has such a connection to its capital.”

    Netanyahu then spoke of the term ‘Diaspora,’ stressing that the Jewish people continued to be present in Israel and Jerusalem throughout the 2,000-year time-span between the destruction of the Second Temple and the creation of the State of Israel. “We continued to be present here,” he said. “Where did Rabban Gamaliel live and work? In Sweden? Where were these wonderful things written? In this country,” he stated. “The Jews were the majority in Israel until the 9th century, and lost that majority 200 years after Arab rule [began] – and even then they did not give up.”

    The wish to return to Jerusalem, he said, went part and parcel with Jewish daily life in the Diaspora for thousands of years. “Not a year went by in the Diaspora that we did not say, ‘Next year in Jerusalem,’ be it in the 10th century, the 11th century or the 12th century,” he said.

    During his speech, Netanyahu honored leading American attorney and stalwart defender of Israel Alan Dershowitz, commending him for his “sharp-minded” defense and promulgation of “the truth about the State of Israel and the Jewish people.”



  60. NewMexicoFan
    May 12th, 2010 at 9:10 am
    I really thought that tough photo of HRC on the Cover right as we checked out made a big impression. She looked like a tough leader, something we are sorely missing.


    I only glanced at the cover as I passed the magazine rack, but I got a good impression. She looked very calculating, very competent, rather amused.

  61. ABM90
    May 12th, 2010 at 9:10 am
    hope to cast my vote for the candidates that I fell will help facilitate the Hillary POTUS run that is my sleeping giant that will make her move when the time and climate are at hand.


    I agree! If Hillary does run in 2012, I want as many Superdelegates as possible on her side. That means electing people like Coakley to the positions that will make them superdelegates.

  62. Daily Howler On What’s Wrong With Kagen (And The Entire Liberal Careerist Anti-Clinton Clan(
    WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2010

    Career liberal pimping of Kagan: As Glenn Greenwald notes at Salon (click here), David Brooks wrote an intriguing column this week about Elena Kagan. Kagan is very smart, Brooks writes. But where the heck is Kagan’s soul? To Brooks, Kagan is a very smart person who has carefully kept his views to herself, carefully planning for the day when she might make her way to the Court. At Salon, Greenwald has excoriated Kagan for her silence on the issues of the past decade, even as Bush was destroying the legal landscape of the known world. This is the way Brooks closed his column on the same subject. (To understand his reference to “Organization Kids,” you’ll have to read the full column.):

    BROOKS (5/11/10): What we have is a person whose career has dovetailed with the incentives presented by the confirmation system, a system that punishes creativity and rewards caginess. Arguments are already being made for and against her nomination, but most of this is speculation because she has been too careful to let her actual positions leak out.

    There’s about to be a backlash against the Ivy League lock on the court. I have to confess my first impression of Kagan is a lot like my first impression of many Organization Kids. She seems to be smart, impressive and honest—and in her willingness to suppress so much of her mind for the sake of her career, kind of disturbing.

    If Kagan is a person who “has been too careful to let her actual positions leak out,” it’s hard to know why you’d go out of your way to call her “honest.” But such are the professional courtesies which drive the establishment world.

    For ourselves, we don’t know what Kagan is like. We don’t know what kind of Justice she will turn out to be, if confirmed. But we’ve been warning you about this type of upper-end “career liberal” player for quite a few years now. These hustlers killed you in the 1990s (through Campaign 2000), when they sat out the wars against Clinton and Gore for the sake of their precious careers. If Brooks and Greenwald are right, they may be selling your interests out again in the matter of Kagan.

    Lawrence O’Donnell is one of the players who aggressively sold you out in the Clinton-Gore era. (As late as October 2000!) Last night, O’Donnell was on Countdown pimping for Kagan. The permanent establishment is lining up to support the permanent establishment, just as they did in the Clinton-Gore years—the years the “career liberal” establishment still refuses to discuss.

    O’Donnell was pimping the insider line. But a much more remarkable case occurred on Monday’s night’s Maddow Show, when pro-Kagan hustler Larry Lessig basically lied in your faces, about Greenwald himself, all through his session with Rachel. For her part, Rachel kissed Lessig’s keister, in typical fashion, when his performance was done.

    Background: Greenwald appeared first on Monday night’s program, making the case against Kagan. After that, out came Lessig, a Harvard Law School professor—and a Kagan hire. Lessig trashed Greenwald all up and down, making a series of claims about the things Greenwald and Kagan have said which are quite hard to square with reality. We won’t review the facts here, but this rebuttal by Greenwald makes the case rather convincingly, even though Greenwald is much too polite about Lessig himself. (If Lessig has just “spewed total falsehoods on TV,” as the headline asserts, why does Greenwald continue to praise him? As we said moments ago, such are the professional courtesies…)

    In 1999 and 2000, these insider, establishment “career liberal” types lined up to support the stance of the clan. None of them told you what was apparent—that the clan was lying its keisters off about the hated Candidate Gore, spawn of the hated Bill Clinton. Half of these types drove the war against Gore. (This includes O’Donnell and Arianna.). The other half of this bankrupt group agreed to let them do it. (This includes E. J. Dionne and Keith Olbermann.)

    The same configuration presented on Monday’s Maddow Show.

    Last night, Maddow took the night off. Tonight, her viewers are owed an explanation for the extraordinary things her second guest, Lessig, said on Monday night’s program. Did Lessig really “spew total falsehoods” on her show, on the TV machine thingy? Remember how we all insisted, a few weeks ago, that we want our big news programs to fact-check matters like this?

    Of course, that pretty much wouldn’t be Rachel’s style. This is how she closed Monday’s segment—kissing establishment keister, as always:

    MADDOW (5/10/10): Professor Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law School, I have to tell you, the Supreme Court nomination process, in my view, has become a process where nominees try to prove how conservative they are, either small “C” or large “C,” depending on who’s president.

    Talking with you and Glenn tonight just makes me really wish that it was a big fight amongst liberals and centrists. I think it could be really, really interesting to get in to all this stuff in great detail. I really thank you for your time tonight.

    LESSIG: I appreciate it. Thanks for having me.

    MADDOW: Thanks.

    Kiss kiss kiss kiss kiss kiss kiss! Maddow, a prime self-promoter, has never met a useful keister she wasn’t prepared to kiss, often loudly. (Gwen Ifill! Andrea Mitchell! Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson! And good God: In a thoroughly gratuitous move, even the loathsome Chris Matthews!) Lessig had just filled viewers’ heads full of smack about Greenwald—and, to a lesser extent, about Kagan. Rachel thanked him for his brilliance, falling all over herself with praise for how “interesting” it had been.

    It’s quite possible Maddow didn’t know the problems with the things Lessig had said. By now, she certainly does.

    Alas! Whatever her various merits may be, Maddow’s a bit of a self-promoter. That said, she does owe viewers an explanation for the remarkable things they heard on her show Monday night. Remember when we all swore that we want this kind of fact-checking?

    These hustlers ate you alive in the Clinton-Gore years. Whatever Kagan’s merits may be, they seem to at it again.

  63. Daily Howler On The Race Follies

    Is the Tea Party’s anti-Obama sentiment driven by racial animus?

    Presumably, some of it is, though it would be hard to say how much. In his column in Saturday’s New York Times, Charles Blow made some intelligent statements about this general point (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/10/10).

    “There is no way to know how many Tea Party supporters—or supporters of any group—are motivated by racism, or to what degree,” Blow wrote, perhaps overstating the problem a tad. “There are no easy answers,” he said, “but blanket accusations and denials are worthless and disingenuous.”

    We agree with almost everything Blow wrote in that passage. It is hard to measure the degree of racial animus directed at President Obama, especially given the severe (and irrational) hostility directed at President Clinton before him. (President Obama was born in Kenya. President Clinton was a serial murderer.) But liberals love to call conservatives racist; we sometimes seem to love it more than life itself. And so, sure enough! Within three paragraphs, Blow renounced his basic good sense. He made something resembling a “blanket accusation,” basing it on a bungled study from a big football school:

    BLOW: [Tea Party leader Amy] Kremer credits the Tea Party’s racial problems, to the extent that she would agree they existed, to an unwelcome “fringe.” This seems plausible at first blush. There is often rabble at rallies.

    However, widely cited polling, like the multistate University of Washington survey released last month, has found that large swaths among those who show strong support for the Tea Party also hold the most extreme views on a range of racial issues. The fringe theory is a farce.

    That isn’t quite a “blanket” accusation, but for political purposes, it comes pretty close. According to Blow, “large swaths” among the Tea Party movement “hold the most extreme views on a range of racial issues.” Gone was the day, three paragraphs earlier, when there was “no way to know how many Tea Party supporters are motivated by racism, or to what degree.”

    Repeat: Liberals love calling people racists—as long as the people in question belong to The Other Tribe. It often seems that liberals know no other political move.

    Unfortunately, the research on which Blow bases this claim is, simply put, a multiply-bungled pile of pseudo-academic crap. But so what? The liberal world has rushed to embrace this pleasing study. (The study was presented by assistant professor Christopher Parker.) In the process, the liberal world has showcased its bad judgment, its bad faith on matters of race, and its generally low IQ.

    Liberals should be embarrassed to see such bungled work hailed by its biggest players.

    Who has hailed this multiply bungled study? Let’s start with this post at by Professor Tom Schaller. We like Baltimore’s own Schaller a lot around here, but “Tom Terrific” embarrassed himself as he raced to affirm this pleasing but bungled project. Schaller’s post was one of the first which sent this bungled study to fame in the liberal world.

    Joy to the world! At a liberal site known for its technical savvy, Schaller announced the great new findings which had emerged from Parker’s study! At the start of his post, he presented two charts, titled “White Views of African-Americans” and “White Views of Latinos.” And he quickly announced the Good News—white Tea Party sympathizers express very bad attitudes about these minority groups:

    SCHALLER (4/12/10): The survey asked white respondents about their attitudes toward the tea party movement—and their attitudes toward non-whites, immigrants and homosexuals.

    The charts contained herein show the disparity between whites who strongly approve and disapprove of the tea party movement. In a few cases—attitudes toward Latinos, for instance—the differences were small. But only in a few cases: tea party sympathizers believe blacks are less intelligent, hardworking and trustworthy. They appear to be particularly wary of immigrants. And they don’t much care for gays, either. (Although note that two-thirds of them support gays in the military, an issue on which policy has long lagged public sentiment.)

    Let’s repeat that highlighted claim: “[T]ea party sympathizers believe blacks are less intelligent, hardworking and trustworthy,” Schaller said, writing unclearly. (“Less intelligent” than whom?) And that’s not all! “Parker’s study shows much higher levels of intolerance among whites who sympathize with the tea party movement,” Schaller soon said. But that claim, however appealing, simply isn’t supported by the charts which Schaller produced.

    Warning! Parker bungled his study in a wide variety of ways. For today, let’s concentrate on the data which went into Schaller’s charts about “white views of” blacks and Latinos. Do Schaller’s charts of Parker’s data really show “much higher levels of intolerance among whites who sympathize with the tea party movement?” Not really. In fact, if we take Schaller’s data at face value, the charts seem to show extremely high levels of intolerance among whites who oppose the Tea Party too.

    Warning: Parker bungled the part of the study to which Schaller’s charts refer. And Schaller failed to see the way Parker had bungled. But let’s assume that none of that is true; let’s assume that Schaller’s data are fairly transparent. It’s stunning to think that the liberal would want to take a bow for the data as Schaller presents them.

    Look at Schaller’s first chart, for example—the chart called “White Views of African-Americans” (for an enlarged version, click here). As Schaller presents it, this chart seems to say that only 45 percent of white Tea Party sympathizers view African-Americans as intelligent. (Though Schaller doesn’t describe the question which produced those results.) That seems like a rather low figure, as Schaller helps triumphant liberals see—until we look at the comparable figure for white Tea Party opponents. (For simplicity sake, you might call this second group “liberals.” You might even call them “us.”) Uh-oh! According to Schaller’s chart, it looks like only 59 percent of this group view African-Americans as intelligent! Yes, that is a higher number than obtained among the white Tea Party supporters. But are liberals really prepared to parade about, claiming their own moral greatness, on the basis of data like these? On the basis of such minor differences?

    That said, the difference between Tea Party supporters and Tea Party opponents is even smaller when it comes to Latinos. Judging from Schaller’s chart (click here), it seems that only 44 percent of white Tea Party supporters view Latinos as intelligent. (What question had they been asked? We weren’t told.) That number is low—but the corresponding figure for white Tea Party opponents (us) is only 56 percent! It’s stunning to think that liberals like Schaller are willing to trash Tea Party supporters on the basis of their numbers on this question, whatever it was, while ignoring the very low numbers recorded by Tea Party opponents. If these numbers say what they seem to say, the news was bad about white Tea Party supporters. But the news was almost as bad about white Tea Party opponents—about people in our own tribe

    What does it say when liberals are prepared to claim “victory” from marginal data like these? Are prepared to parade about, proclaiming our own moral greatness? Most obviously, it says that we liberals maintain a very low standard for ourselves—for those in Our Own Shining Tribe. (More simply put, it says that we liberals aren’t especially moral.) But in this highly bungled case, our cry of victory says several things beyond that.

    In this case, it says that Schaller misrepresented what these data meant, right from the start. It says that Schaller failed to understand the various ways Parker bungled his study. And uh-oh! Since Schaller is a bright young liberal academic, writing at what is supposed to be one of our brightest liberal sites, this says something quite unflattering about the basic intellectual capital of the liberal world.

    Go ahead—examine those charts again. It’s clownish to think that the liberal world was prepared to claim a moral victory from data like these—data which make white Tea Party opponents look almost as bad as white Tea Party supporters. Even more shocking is the fact that we were too dumb to know how to interpret such data—how to spot the problem with Parker’s work. That we’re so careless in talking about something as crucial as race.

    What actually happened in the case of this study? Professor Parker mishandled his project from the get-go, bungling in innumerable ways. Along came Professor Schaller, and he failed to notice. And alas! In the weeks which followed, a laundry list of bungling triumphalist liberals only made matters worse; this was especially true at Salon, from triumphalist editor Joan Walsh on down. And then, last weekend, Blow made it official: The bungled study drove a bungled column on the New York Times op-ed page—the prime location for clownish bungling in the world of American journalism.

    Moral of the story? If a study calls the Tea Party a bunch of bigots, its results will be trumpeted widely by “liberals,” even if the study is so bungled that it’s a virtual hoax. But so it goes as the “liberal” world pretends to care about race. So it goes as the “liberal” world keeps showing us how liberals lose.

  64. The liberal doctrine Bob Somerby rails against is not just a poltical construct it is a secular religion. And, as we saw with Bush, religion and politics do not mix.

  65. Dogma – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or from which diverged.

  66. In a joint news conference by BO and Afghan Pres Karzai, BO read his remarks as usual…word for word. Karzai had outline notes but looked at BO, the audience, etc. as he made his remarks. He was talking NOT reading them.

    The difference was obvious.

  67. The difference, then, is between rational liberals (or conservatives) vs. dogmatic liberals (or conservatives). Throughout Bush I, Bush II and now Bush III (Obama’s tenure), dogmatists have held power. And more is the pity for that.

  68. Apparently obama was the very first one to call Britain’s new prime minister and wish him well…mere minutes after the announcement was made.

    Guess he is trying to woo the Brits back after all the idiotic mistakes and snubs he has made towards them.

  69. Obama knows he has done enough to kill off Specter:

    PITTSBURGH – The first time Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) slipped up here Tuesday night at the Allegheny County Democratic Committee’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, most in the audience pretended not to notice.

    But at the end of his remarks when Specter again thanked the “the Allegheny County Republicans” for their endorsement, many couldn’t help but laugh nervously and shoot did-he-really-just-say-that looks at each other. [snip]

    Sestak also brought up Specter’s aggressive questioning of Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings – a moment that some liberals still haven’t forgotten roughly two decades later.

    “He was very unfair in his almost inquisition of Anita Hill,” Sestak said.[snip]

    President Obama has raised money for Specter and is featured praising him in a new ad the senator’s campaign began airing Tuesday.

    But a well-placed Democrat said unambiguously that Obama would not be returning to Pennsylvania to campaign for Specter before the May 18 primary.

  70. Rumors flying around the net on financial blogs that Germany is going to abandon the Euro and re-issue the Deutschmark over the weekend. Almost certainly tinfoil, but it would be seismic if it happened.

    Me, I view such rumors with great skepticism, but not with outright dismissal as I would have in the past. The world has gone crazy, and just about anything could happen.

  71. New FM invited for talks with Clinton: Foreign Office
    (AFP) – 42 minutes ago

    LONDON — New Foreign Secretary William Hague is to travel to Washington on Friday for talks with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Foreign Office said on Wednesday.

    “They’ve spoken on the phone and she’s invited him,” said a Foreign Office spokeswoman, after Hague took office in a new coalition government led by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron.

    Hague said on Tuesday the new government wanted a “solid but not slavish relationship” with the United States, stressing the importance of the relationship between the two countries.

    US President Barack Obama was one of the first to call Cameron after he took office on Tuesday.

    Hague added: “No doubt we will not agree on everything… But they remain, in intelligence matters, in nuclear matters, in international diplomacy, in what we are doing in Afghanistan, the indispensable partner of this country.”

  72. The Fraud has been ‘advising’ Greece and Spain to make cutbacks to save the Euro………

    isn’t that the funniest thing you have heard all day…
    while he runs American into the ground.


    Who’s running Europe? Now Obama pressures Spain over cuts after whispers he advised Merkel on saving the euro

    Barack Obama is pressuring Spain to make austerity cuts as the European debt crisis rumbles on, it has emerged.

    The U.S. President has also been credited with helping to save the Euro, after giving advice to European leaders on how to handle the debt crisis.

    U.S. officials have been adamant that Europe must take the lead in resolving the crisis.

    But amid fears for the impact on the American economy, behind closed doors the U.S. has been taking a far more active role.

    Mr Obama and his aides have privately pressured European leaders to take bold action to calm the storm in financial markets.

    Yesterday he called Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to discuss the importance of ‘resolute action’ by Spain.

    Spain’s public finances, along with Portugal’s, have caused the most concern after those of Greece, which secured a European bailout.

    The White House said Mr Obama was actively engaged in ensuring that Europe’s debt crisis did not hurt the global economy.

    There are fears that the state of the economies in Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland – who all currently have high levels of debt – could stall the U.S. economy just as it was beginning to improve.

    Former Treasury and White House official Tony Fratto said: ‘We’re in a slow growth recovery. It would not take much to get growth down to zero or 1 per cent.’

    Mr Obama has held phone calls with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy about the European crisis in recent days.

    The message was clear: Act boldly.

    American officials urged that Mr Sarkozy and Mrs Merkel recall the U.S. lesson of 2008-2009 when the Bush administration persuaded a reluctant Congress to approve a massive $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.

    While politically unpopular, the U.S. rescue plan convinced markets that authorities were serious about keeping banks afloat.

    Read more:


    The brutal truth is emerging about “King James”, LeBron James, and reading the critiques has a slew of similarities to the guy sitting in the Oval Office. And I mean “sitting”.

    So feel free to exchange the name Obama for LeBron James in the following article, which describes a pompous, ego-maniacal underachiever who wants to be adored for what they expect to accomplish in the future (hmmmm, Nobel Peace Prize sound familiar?) rather than stand on their list of accomplishments. And it describes overbearing arrogance that undermines their ability to get things done.

    Here are the best sections:

    “Most of all, James is forever selling something of himself – an ideal, an image, a possibility. Something nebulous, something promised. He’s chasing a global platform, the bright, blinking billion-dollar fortune, and he’s largely gotten the natural order of things backward. Stop strutting, stop preening, stop stomping away as an ungracious winner, a sore loser, and win something, LeBron.”

    “James invites these storylines into the gymnasium, this drama, and leaves everyone else to live with the consequences. Owner Dan Gilbert has fostered a culture of permissiveness with James that hasn’t served him or the franchise. The Cavs live in fear of him, his moods, his whims, and it’s the reason no one ever tells him the truth: Hey ’Bron, you looked childish for refusing to shake the Orlando Magic’s hands last season.”

    Go to the link for the full article:


    Federal budget deficit hits April record

    By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger, Ap Economics Writer – 46 mins ago
    WASHINGTON – The federal budget deficit hit an all-time high for the month of April as government revenue fell sharply.

    The Treasury Department said Wednesday the April deficit soared to $82.7 billion, the largest imbalance for that month on record. That was significantly higher than last year’s April deficit of $20 billion and above the $30 billion deficit private economists had anticipated.

    The government normally runs surpluses in April as millions of taxpayers file their income tax returns. However, income tax payments were down this April, reflecting the impact of a severe recession which has pushed millions of people out of work.

    Revenues for April were down 7.9 percent from a year ago, dipping to $245.3 billion. That decline included a fall in individual income tax payments. That reflected not only the impact of millions of people out of work but also tax relief provided through the economic stimulus program that Congress passed in February 2009.

    The back-to-back deficits in April marked a first, according to monthly budget records that go back to 1954. During that period, the government has run April surpluses in 43 of 56 years.

    Through the first seven months of the current budget year, which began on Oct. 1, the deficit totals $799.7 billion, down only slightly from last year’s deficit during the same period of $802.3 billion.

    The Obama administration is forecasting that the deficit for this year will hit an all-time high of $1.56 trillion, surpassing the current record of $1.4 trillion set last year. However, many private economists believe this year’s imbalance will be closer to the $1.4 trillion set last year.


    Health-care overhaul is up against long campaign across U.S.

    By N.C. Aizenman
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, May 12, 2010

    Efforts to block a key provision of the new health-care overhaul law are underway in 33 states, as a growing roster of mostly Republican officials have mounted legal and legislative challenges to an eventual requirement that virtually all Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty tax.

    This Friday, seven more states will formally join a lawsuit originally filed by Florida and 12 other states in late March.

    The suit, filed in a U.S. District Court in Florida, contends that Congress lacks the constitutional authority to mandate an individual’s participation in an insurance plan, and that it has infringed on states’ rights by requiring them to extend coverage to more low-income residents without fully funding the additional cost.

    Many constitutional scholars have said the suit has slim chances. But activists say they view the lawsuit as the first of what they hope will be a slew of challenges mounted by state governments, legislatures and individuals, ultimately narrowing the law’s scope and possibly unraveling it altogether.

    “This is going to be a long, protracted war of attrition and we haven’t even seen the first wave of regulations yet,” said Clint Bolick, litigation director of the Goldwater Institute — an Arizona-based group that is advising state officials.

    Supporters of the overhaul argue that if insurance were not mandated, costs would rise to prohibitive levels: Since the law will bar insurers from excluding people with pre-existing conditions the sick and elderly would be vastly over-represented in the insurance pool if other people held back. They also point to the Supreme Court’s long record of upholding congressional authority to regulate the economy by imposing taxes, to impinge on personal freedoms in the national interest and to supersede conflicting state laws.

    The private lawyer advising the states, David B. Rivkin Jr., a former Justice Department official under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said he anticipated that the judge would hear arguments on the case as soon as mid-September. “It’s an aggressive schedule,” he said.

    Virginia, which has filed a separate lawsuit, may get a decision even sooner. The state, which along with Idaho was one of only two to pass a law prohibiting the “individual mandate” to purchase coverage even before Congress passed the overhaul, is arguing that the federal law infringes on Virginia’s statute. Last Friday, the U.S. District judge presiding over that case gave Justice Department lawyers until May 24 to file their response.

    Political leaders in more than a dozen states, including many that are party to the multistate lawsuit, are also attempting to follow Virginia’s strategy of enacting legislation that will inevitably lead to a clash in the courts.

    Arizona, where attempts to adopt a nearly identical constitutional amendment failed in 2008, succeeded in passing a statute during a special session convened after the federal law was passed.

    Versions have since been approved by the legislatures of Georgia and Oklahoma and await gubernatorial signatures, according to records maintained by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a Washington group that advocates limited government and free markets and that has helped state lawmakers harmonize their efforts. On Tuesday, lawmakers in Missouri approved putting a similar law up for statewide referendum on Aug. 2. Seven more states are considering such bills, including Tennessee, where one chamber of the General Assembly has already signed off.

    Leaders in Arizona, Oklahoma and Florida are also trying a third approach: putting a state constitutional amendment prohibiting the individual mandate on their ballots for November. Similar campaigns are underway in 11 more states. (Proposals to adopt legislation or constitutional amendments were unsuccessfully attempted in 15 additional states, including Maryland.)

    For all his work coordinating it, Bolick said “the frontal assault on Obamacare faces very tough odds.” But he likened the fight to previous efforts to block the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, parts of which the Supreme Court struck down in January.

    “The initial challenges to McCain-Feingold were rejected,” said Bolick. “But since then, litigators found the vulnerabilities. Likewise, here I think you’re going to see a thousand flowers bloom in terms of lawsuits. I’m hoping that this will die a death of a thousand cuts.”


    Funny numbers that don’t make us laugh.

    Remember when it was important to fudge the numbers so that it did NOT top 1 TRILLION BUCKS? Yeah, it’s now over that…just several weeks after the cooked numbers were fed to the public.

    CBO: Health Care Bill Will Cost $115 Billion More Than Previously Assessed

    May 12, 2010 9:08 AM

    The director of the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that the health care reform legislation would cost, over the next ten years, $115 billion more than previously thought, bringing the total cost to more than $1 trillion.

    The revised figure is due to estimated costs to federal agencies to implement the new health care reform bill – such as administrative expenses for the Internal Revenue Services and the Department of Health and Human Services — and the costs for a “variety of grant and other program spending for which specified funding levels for one or more years are provided in the act.”

    CBO had originally estimated that the health care reform bill would result in a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion from 2010-2019; this revised number would eliminate most of that savings.

    In a statement, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said that the new CBO analysis “provides ample cause for alarm. This comes just weeks after the Obama administration itself released an analysis confirming that the new law actually increases Americans’ health care costs. The American people wanted one thing above all from health care reform: lower costs, which Washington Democrats promised, but they did not deliver. These revelations widen the serious credibility gap President Obama is facing.”

    Office of Management and Budget spokesman Kenneth Baer said in response that the health care law “will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion in the first decade, and that will not change unless Congress acts to change it. If these authorizations are funded, they must be offset somewhere else in the discretionary budget. The President has called for a non-security discretionary spending freeze, and he will enforce that with his veto pen.”

    Baer also pointed a reporter to comments made by OMB director Peter Orszag on his blog in March in which the budget director says that Congress has the power to pay for the $115 billion costs with cuts elsewhere, or not act on those budget authorizations in the bill at all.

    -Jake Tapper

  77. Here’s an addendum for rgb’s post @ 3:22:

    The Obama administration threatened to veto parts of its own health care bill after budget scorekeepers found that the package would add at least $115 billion more to government health care spending.
    www dot

    It would be impossible to make this stuff up.

  78. When I sit back and watch Olberman, Maddow, Matthews, and Modo carry on as only they can, at the behest of executives like Steve Capus, Phil Griffin, and Jeff Immelt, I do not think of General Sarnoff or the other men who believed that television should be a vehicle for enlightening the public. No. I think of these prophetic words by Clarence Darrow:

    “Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding. Always it is feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers, tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed. With flying banners and beating drums, we are marching backwards to the glorious ages of the sixteenth century, when bigots lighted fagots to burn men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind.”

    The same of course can be said of some on the right.

    What we call radical conservatives are not conservatives. Conservatism is about freedom and liberty, not about imposing ones views on others. By the same token, radical liberals are not liberals. Liberalism is about tolerance as opposed to coerced conformity. When I look into the eyes of Keith Olberman, I see Bull Connor. When I look at Matthews I see traces of Goebbels. When I look at Pelosi when I can stand to look at Pelosi I see Martin Borman–a ruthless bureaucrat who could not survive without a system to manipulate. No heroes. Just thugs. Thugs who survive on hate, and the calling of Nemesis.

    If right wing conservatives are not conservatives and left wing radicals are not liberals, then what pray tell are they. They are dogmatists– purveyors of an established belief system which is authoritative, not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from by its followers. It brooks no dissent. It has its enemy and it demands a Pavlovian response from its own. To dissent is heresy and death to heretics.

    The goal of the dogmatist is total control. To that end, they must first destroy rational liberals and conservatives. We saw that in Berlin with the destruction of the Weimar Republic. And then they go to war with each other. When some air head journalist says its all okay because the left has MSNBC and the right has FOX, I tell them they are full of shit. The statement assumes that the rest of big media is in the middle. The same big media who lined up against Hillary, then Sarah and now average citizens is representative of the center? Give me a fucking break. They are all in pare delicto.

    What people must realize is the real battle is between rational people and dogmatists. Rational people want fact based solutions to problems. Rational people have no tolerance for unsubstantiated charges and accusations. Rational people know that there are paths which dogmatist lead the rest of us down which lead only to despair and from which no one ever returns. And rational people know that Chief Judge Learned Hand was right when he said the spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure it is right. It values the truth and the truthtellers–like Admin. Somerby. Krauthammer and a handful of others who rise far above the common herd of intellectuals.

  79. hold’um

    It would be impossible to make this stuff up.

    No kidding, and this is just the beginning of trying to unravel this poorly written, pork laced Hell Care bill.
    No ‘goodies’ for four years and lots of money to be paid by citizens during that time…how is the O’administration going to keep their mits off that money for 4 years, or not spend it on unnecessary ‘necessities’?

  80. I sent Hannity the video I posted here of the LA history teacher speaking at the La Raza rally. He played it o his radio show and will have it on his show tonight. I am sure I am not the only one to have done it,

  81. (Reuters) – The United States posted an $82.69 billion deficit in April, nearly four times the $20.91 billion shortfall registered in April 2009 and the largest on record for that month, the Treasury Department said on Wednesday.

    and the Fraud is giving financial advice to Greece and Spain……

  82. I sent Hannity the video I posted here of the LA history teacher speaking at the La Raza rally. He played it o his radio show and will have it on his show tonight. I am sure I am not the only one to have done it,
    Good job Gonzo! When you are rich and famous I hope you will hire me to clean out your ashtrays. By then I may need a real job.

  83. CBO: Health Care Bill Will Cost $115 Billion More Than Previously Assessed
    No, no, no, no, no CBO. Stick with the lie you told when it mattered. It suits you.

  84. (Reuters) – The United States posted an $82.69 billion deficit in April, nearly four times the $20.91 billion shortfall registered in April 2009 and the largest on record for that month, the Treasury Department said on Wednesday.

    and the Fraud is giving financial advice to Greece and Spain
    I am beginning to think it is the other way around. Not the horses mouth, but the horses ass.

  85. In a joint news conference by BO and Afghan Pres Karzai, BO read his remarks as usual…word for word. Karzai had outline notes but looked at BO, the audience, etc. as he made his remarks. He was talking NOT reading them.

    The difference was obvious.
    It would be equally obvious to a jury. A good lawyer NEVER reads his or her opening statement. It is artificial and you cannot make the connection with the jury that establishes credibility. And in the case of Obama it reminds readers that those are not his words. Big mistake.

  86. Jimmy Carter’s grandson wins his first election
    Knowing that makes me think I have been eating uncooked shellfish.

  87. JanH @11:20

    Pleeese be careful what you post I almost vomited! LOL! I have a slight headache and a queezy stomach!

  88. and the Fraud is giving financial advice to Greece and Spain
    Sounds like someone is telling him to tell them to do what Bush did and the White House thinks this this will sell with the American People. The real question is how much of our financial future has the idiot promised to take from us and give to them. That is the headline that matters. Trust me–he is getting his marching orders from others.

  89. The entire notion that Obama is doing this on his own, and that he understands the dynamics here is absurd on its face.

  90. What the asshole is preaching to Europe is austerity. Austerity however comes at a high political price to the leaders of the debtor countries. Plus it has no teeth.I wonder if this is a prelude to what he intends to do here when the witching hours arrives in 2011, and our debt load reaches critical mass. At this point, he is compounding the problem with his over inflated health care bill, and his huge budget over runs as noted above.

  91. Yes and on top of the movie about Obama as a boy in Indonesia and Carter’s grandson getting elected, its almost enough to make a person sick!

    There is some sickening news on this blog today. I had a little too much rum to read such stuff today. LOL!

  92. The public has a right to know what the Obama thugs are doing in Europe with our money–through the IMF, and the Federal Reserve. I realize we are trying to avert a collapse of the Euro, and to convert welfare state economies into market driven ones. But beyond that cover story, what is really happening here? My sense is this may be another scheme for making his banker buddies richer than they already are, and bailing out speculators.

  93. wbboei, where are you?? I have a question on a conservative I found in one of my moms books, he’s dead but hoping to find those that have his same vision…his name is Jessie Helms. Do you know anything about this guy???
    Surely you remember him. He was a right wing Senator from South Carolina who began his career as a journalist. The other Senator from that state at that time was Launch Faircloth. Faircloth and a district court justice conspired over lunch to press the case against Bill Clinton. I rather suspect Jessie was in on this too. I doubt your mother had a fond view of him.

    These are the counterparts to people like Kennedy, Leahy and Dodd, who are also far removed from the center. Before you dismiss the comparison, just remember how they conspired against Bill and Hillary. I cannot believe that John Kennedy would have been too proud of his younger brother if he had lived to see his entire life in all its glory. But then again, I thought very highly of John. He was a bona fide hero, as opposed to a nowhere man like Obama.

Comments are closed.