Al Gore And Barack Obama Play Defense, Big Media Plays Stupid

Trust a hooker, a drug dealer, a petty thief, before you trust Big Media. Whether it’s John Edwards or Tiger Woods (we wrote about the Tiger Woods, Obama similarities) Big Media protected their favorites and violated their duty to report the news to their various publics and the American electorate. Don’t trust Big Media.

The latest news about Al Gore (by the way, when is a Big Media outlet going to write about Clinton Karma – the ugly fate that has befallen so many, if not most, Hillary backstabbers?) is another example of Don’t Trust Big Media. We don’t particularly care about the Al Gore divorce. We do not rejoice at the news of potential sexual misconduct, or worse. But this alleged incident of Al Gore and the masseuse, official police report filed, back in 2006 IS and was NEWS.

There was a police report filed, there are some creepy allegations, there are some lurid allegations – and a big newspaper knew all about this but decided to keep the NEWS quiet. That the woman in question refused to press charges at the time or to cooperate with a “legitimate” newspaper then, and only now is cooperating with the National Enquirer for pay, are facts to be considered, but the bottom line is that this was and is NEWS.

To say the least, the Al Gore Sex Creep story has to make Bill Clinton supporters queasy. There is even the angle of alleged DNA stains on the woman’s clothes. [The music allegedly played by Al Gore to the masseuse was “Dear Mr. President” by the singer “Pink” – which makes us doubly blush.]

Bill Clinton had a rakish history which Americans knew about when they elected him. Bill Clinton, as documented by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons in The Hunting Of The President was targeted by Republicans for destruction going back to 1988, before he ran for president. Once elected Bill Clinton made a mess of things by consorting with Monica Lewinsky. This was a consensual relationship. Bill Clinton, according to the lurid Starr Report repeatedly tried to stop his affair and was remorseful of his actions. But by then busybodies like Linda Tripp and assorted Republicans (as vividly described by then Republican insider David Brock in Blinded By The Right) conspired to keep the affair going and advised Monica Lewinsky to keep the affair going – in pursuit of their nefarious schemes.

Bill Clinton was hardly an innocent, but without doubt he was a target of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy which had its origins in the mind of Lee Atwater and other Republican operatives who feared Clinton’s political skills and political opportunities. It has therefore been disappointing to find people like Joe Conason allege that Obama has been hunted in the same way that Bill Clinton was hunted. To the contrary, Obama was protected and advanced by nefarious elements in the Democratic Party and given a pass by foolish Republicans who fell for his “unity” scam. But we digress. The point we are trying to make is that the Al Gore NEWS is indeed NEWS and should have been reported in 2006 as NEWS.

The Al Gore story was NEWS simply by dint of the alleged echoes with the Bill Clinton mishaps. That there was a police report filed also made it NEWS. That Al Gore was a major public figure made it NEWS. That Al Gore was involved in major battles of public policy made it NEWS. That there was a potential angle of hypocrisy made it NEWS. That it was not a consensual relationship made it NEWS. It was NEWS but it was not reported to the American public in a timely manner.

That such a story could be unfair to Al Gore should be a consideration before publication. A well written story, including strong caveats and warnings as to its validity should have been the course taken. Al Gore should have been provided a full, front page opportunity, to respond to the allegations.

But instead the Big Media outlet in question chose to ignore the NEWS and the value of a fully informed public. Could this story have hurt Al Gore and denied him the now very much devalued, but once worthy, Nobel Prize? Undoubtedly. But the first priority for a NEWS outlet should be NEWS and the public should have been informed of what was not a consensual relationship. Hillary supporter Ed Rendell, is currently responding to allegations of marital infidelity due to a story about to be published tomorrow. Instead of hiding the story from the public, Ed Rendell, according to conservative magazine The Weekly Standard has responded in a way to be emulated (Ed Rendell Teaches Everyone How To Respond To A Thinly Sources Sex Scandal Rumor)

The priority for a NEWS operation should be NEWS not protection of its favorites. But the alleged news outlet, The Portland Tribune, protected Al Gore and defrauded its readers:

“Portland’s Oregonian today printed a police report echoing a National Enquirer story that a masseuse accused Al Gore of sexual harassment in 2006.

The woman did not wind up pursuing her complaint, for reasons unclear. It’s also worth noting that the Portland Tribune had the story two years ago, and writes that it “chose at that time not to publish a story.”

UPDATE: Portland Tribune executive editor Mark Garber declined to discuss the story in detail, but did shed a bit more light on why his paper had chosen not to run with it, based on what he called “many of the test points that we would normally have to determine whether there was sufficient evidence that something inappropriate had occurred.”

“We weren’t able to meet our own test,” he said.

The paper also quoted a Gore spokeswoman, Kalee Krieder, saying, “Not only has there not been a settlement, we haven’t been approached about one nor can we imagine any basis for one.”

Big Media outlet The Portland Tribune did its readers a disservice by keeping the public ignorant of a major story about a major public figure in a story with a police report. The Portland Tribune‘s excuses for not informing their readers and the American public are not believable and are not the standard a NEWS operation should operate under.

Al Gore was protected. It’s possible that his issue posture in a state in which environmentalism is very popular protected him. Al Gore has almost disappeared from the environmental debate at a moment when there is an environmental catastrophe in the Gulf Of Mexico. This is very odd. But we are used to oddity when it comes to Obama.

The other day a federal district judge scorched Obama and the Interior Department decision to impose a drilling moratorium. The judge today refused to stay his order striking at the drilling moratorium. The judge has been threatened with death, attacked for having financial interests in the matter. But little mention of Obama’s financial interests can be found at Big Media outlets. Obama indeed has financial interests at stake and as we have reported and re-reported lots of lobbyist friends from BP.


Chicago Clown

* * * * *

Yesterday another Big Media protection of Obama continued the slow motion over years crumble.

“A top aide to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich said he believed Barack Obama knew of Blagojevich’s plot to win himself a presidential Cabinet post in exchange for appointing Valerie Jarrett to the U.S. Senate.

John Harris, Blagojevich’s former chief of staff, testified Wednesday in the former governor’s corruption trial that three days after the Nov. 4, 2008, presidential election, the ex-governor told Harris he felt confident Obama knew he wanted to swap perks.

“The president understands that the governor would be willing to make the appointment of Valerie Jarrett as long as he gets what he’s asked for. . . . The governor gets the Cabinet appointment he’s asked for,” Harris said, explaining a recorded call.

Harris said Blagojevich came away believing Obama knew what he wanted after having a conversation with a local union representative, who in turn spoke with labor leader Tom Balanoff, with whom Blagojevich met to discuss a Jarrett appointment. Jarrett, now a White House adviser, was seeking the appointment to Obama’s Senate seat.

Defense lawyers say Harris’ testimony contradicts the government’s previous public statements that Obama knew nothing about deal-making involving the Senate seat appointment.

The defense on Wednesday moved to force the prosecution to turn over FBI reports of Obama’s interview with federal agents in December of 2008. Obama is not accused of wrongdoing.

“Testimony elicited by the government from John Harris and wiretaps played in court raise the issue of President Obama’s direct knowledge and communication with emissaries and others regarding the appointment to his Senate seat,” lawyers wrote in the filing.”

“Obama is not accused of wrongdoing” only by those blind or willfully blind. Obama must be dragged away from the gold courses and to the witness stand even if the defense has to hire Tiger Woods’ wife to chase him with a gold club to testify.

Obama’s own “internal report” from 2008 stated that various people in the White House communicated with Blagojevich and that Blagojevich wanted to be Health and Human Services Secretary in exchange for making Obama crony Valerie Jarrett a U.S. Senator. Drag Jarrett and Emanuel and others to the witness stand as well.

A special prosecutor has long been needed to investigate the Chicago Corruption Obama. We started to write about Rezko and Obama and Chicago Corruption our first week of publication in April 2007. Since then we have documented the Blagojevich twists and turns and why Obama is sweating it out. We’ve discussed why Obama was mentioned at least 40 times by Prosecutor Fitzgerald in the 76 page criminal complaint.

We have not left out Michelle Obama’s various corruptions nor her sleeved pal Valerie Jarrett. When the Blagojevich trial began we noted the potential hazards for Barack Obama and his circus of crime.

Just before the trial began, a major victory for the Obama protection squads was announced. For many obvious reasons Barack Obama should have been called as a witness in the trial, but the presiding Judge instead issued various protective rulings and an order which meant Obama would not have to testify and be subjected to cross examination.

After yesterday’s testimony we know that Obama’s testimony to the FBI contradicts one of the main witnesses against Blagojevich. Rahm Emanuel provided a list to Blagojevich of Obama’s supposed choices to replace him. Obama should be dragged to the stand to either refute the testimony or confirm it. Obama should be cross examined, at length, about Chicago Corruption and his relationship with Rezko and other criminals. Blagojevich should be allowed access to Obama’s FBI testimony and any inconsistencies by Obama given a proctology exam.

At the very minimum, Big Media should ask the questions that Blagojevich’s lawyers are thus far prevented from asking. What did Obama know and when did he know it. For that matter, even though we hope the story has no semblance to the truth, Al Gore needs to be asked the questions John Edwards was not asked because Gore purports to be a moral leader on public issues and because there is a public report with allegations and circumstantial evidence (the bill and the dates confirm aspects of the story) that support the allegations.

Big Media deserves to die because Big Media protects its friends and attacks its enemies. No thought is given to the public interest by Big Media even though the American Constitution protects the “press” in the interests of an informed citizenry.

Big Media failed to vet Barack Obama in 2007, 2008, 2009 and in 2010. It’s about time Big Media outlets did their job. Till then trust hookers, drug dealers, petty thieves and masseuses for the news before you trust Big Media.

Share

284 thoughts on “Al Gore And Barack Obama Play Defense, Big Media Plays Stupid

  1. Admin: You have outdone yourself again with this article…it is clear BM is protecting Obama and Gore…hmm, hmmm. I wonder if the Gore alligation could possibly out to keep from covering the news from the Blago trial…no one is covering the Blago trial…it is just a travesty!

  2. The Blago trial has been scripted; Fitzie and Judge Zagel aren’t going off script….From what little that has come out, Obama was a small fish in the consortium. At one Rezko gathering, the big fish were negotiating high six figure kick-backs and Obama got $10k. However, the good Dr. Dean and other DNC scouts did spot a totally apolitical and amoral puppet and the rest is history.

  3. Have folks read the masseuse’s statement? It is gross. Couldn’t get through the entire thing.

  4. We all know Barry isn’t a wizard, brilliant nor wise.

    So, WHO is the one person that put the Obama brand and plan together that got the Fraud all the way to the White House?

    It couldn’t be someone like Nancy, nor Reid, nor Howie…who is smart enough, corrupt enough to plan this from day one to Barry’s first day in office?????

    This isn’t a trick question, there had to be one original puppet master that came up with it and made it happen.

    Was it Uncle Teddy, Rove or who?

  5. blowme0bama
    June 24th, 2010 at 9:31 pm

    Have folks read the masseuse’s statement? It is gross. Couldn’t get through the entire thing.

    —————
    The thought of french kissing Gore is gross, do you have the link?

  6. So, WHO is the one person that put the Obama brand and plan together that got the Fraud all the way to the White House???
    ********
    The question that I keep asking is “Who is running the show now?”…BushI ran his admin., the Clintons ran theirs, Cheney directed Bush/Cheney…Who is/are the decision makers for Obama; it definitely isn’t him. How were the pro-corporation appointments selected?…Most incoming Presidents have been around the power structure for a long time and have a long list of candidate for positions. Obama doesn’t even have any friends. Valerie Jarrett is probably the closest to Obama and was likely the pay to play organizer during his political career but I can’t see her running the show.

  7. #
    blowme0bama
    June 24th, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    Ughh. Her statement is like several pages down.

    I couldn’t get through the entire thing.

    http://www.kptv.com/download/2010/0623/24012172.pdf
    ————-
    I realized the link was somewhere in Admin’s post above and when to read the ‘News’………

    Patooie, spit, gag…………..I couldn’t get all the way though the details, but if this woman isn’t a fiction writer, then Gore is really a big fat frickin’ pig! Disgusting to say the least and he molested her!

    Mr. Cold fish is a molester, and my guess this isn’t his first rodeo.

  8. Reading that, all I can say is, ewwwwwwwww!!!!!!

    BTW, anyone else notice that when the woman mentioned Bill and Hillary’s marriage being no one’s business but theirs, Gore got angrier? I wonder if he’s insanely jealous of them or something. Very weird.

    At some level, I think Gore just lost it after the 2000 election and hasn’t recovered.

  9. oh…a little more irony to stir the pot…BP has hired Bill Clinton’s #1 FEMA man, James Lee Witt, to help them with the oil crisis…

    has O even activated our FEMA yet?

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

    btw…re: Big Media and their protection of O…did you notice how yesterday the pundits all used the same word “brillant” to spin O’s latest debacle after he choose Petraus (sp)…they sounded like a bunch of robots…all just coincidently drumming the idea and choosing the same word to describe that O was “brillant”

    do they really think we are that dense, especially NBC, that we don’t see through
    them…

    note to msnbc: Mika already let the cat out of the bag and TOLD US on the air that she coordinates her talking points with the WH…

  10. SHV
    June 24th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
    So, WHO is the one person that put the Obama brand and plan together that got the Fraud all the way to the White House???
    ********
    The question that I keep asking is “Who is running the show now
    _________________________________

    Back in the early days of his occupancy of the WH, Soros was logged on the visitors log a BUNCH of times. So was Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright (which the WH claimed “was not THAT Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright”.

  11. Afghanistan: The 7/11 problem

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, June 25, 2010; A19

    President Obama was fully justified in dismissing Gen. Stanley McChrystal. The firing offense did not rise to the level of insubordination — this was no MacArthur undermining the commander in chief’s war strategy — but it was a serious enough show of disrespect for the president and for the entire civilian leadership to justify relief from his post.

    Moreover, choosing David Petraeus to succeed McChrystal was the best possible means of minimizing the disruption that comes with every change of command, and of reaffirming that the current strategy will be pursued with equal vigor.

    The administration is hoping that Petraeus can replicate his Iraq miracle. This includes Democrats who, when Petraeus testified to Congress about the Iraq surge in September 2007, accused him of requiring “the willing suspension of disbelief” (Sen. Hillary Clinton) or refused to vote for the Senate resolution condemning that shameful “General Betray Us” newspaper ad (Sen. Barack Obama).

    However, two major factors distinguish the Afghan from the Iraqi surge. First is the alarming weakness and ineptness — to say nothing of the corruption — of the Afghan central government. One of the reasons the U.S. offensive in Marja has faltered is that there is no Afghan “government in a box” to provide authority for territory that the U.S. military clears.

    In Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, after many mixed signals, eventually showed that he could act as a competent national leader rather than a sectarian one when he attacked Moqtada al-Sadr’s stronghold in Basra, faced down the Mahdi Army in the other major cities in the south and took the fight into Sadr City in Baghdad itself. In Afghanistan, on the other hand, President Hamid Karzai makes public overtures to the Taliban, signaling that he is already hedging his bets.

    But beyond indecision in Kabul, there is indecision in Washington. When the president of the United States announces the Afghan surge and, in the very next sentence, announces the date on which a U.S. withdrawal will begin, the Afghans — from president to peasant — take note.

    This past Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reiterated that July 2011 is a hard date. And Vice President Biden is adamant that “in July of 2011 you’re going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it.”

    Now, Washington sophisticates may interpret this two-step as a mere political feint to Obama’s left — just another case of a president facing a difficult midterm and his own reelection, trying to placate the base. They don’t take this withdrawal date too seriously.

    Problem is, Afghans are not quite as sophisticated in interpreting American intraparty maneuvering. This kind of Washington nuance does not translate into Pashto. They hear about an American departure date and they think about what will happen to them when the Americans leave. The Taliban will remain, and what it lacks in popular support — it polls only 6 percent — it makes up in terror: When Taliban fighters return to a village, they kill “collaborators” mercilessly, and publicly.

    The surge succeeded in Iraq because the locals witnessed a massive deployment of U.S. troops to provide them security, which encouraged them to give us intelligence, which helped us track down the bad guys and kill them. This, as might be expected, led to further feelings of security by the locals, more intelligence provided us, more success in driving out the bad guys, and henceforth a virtuous cycle as security and trust and local intelligence fed each other.

    But that depended on a larger understanding by the Iraqis that the American president was implacable — famously stubborn, refusing to set any exit date, and determined to see the surge through. What President Bush’s critics considered mulishness, the Iraqis saw as steadfastness.

    What the Afghans hear from the current American president is a surge with an expiration date. An Afghan facing the life-or-death choice of which side to support can be forgiven for thinking that what Obama says is what Obama intends. That may be wrong, but if so, why doesn’t Obama dispel that false impression? He doesn’t even have to repudiate the July 2011 date, he simply but explicitly has to say: July 2011 is the target date, but only if conditions on the ground permit.

    Obama has had every opportunity every single day to say that. He has not. In his Rose Garden statement firing McChrystal, he pointedly declined once again to do so.

    If you were Karzai, or a peasant in Marja, you’d be hedging your bets too.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/24/AR2010062404870.html

  12. Just before the trial began, a major victory for the Obama protection squads was announced. For many obvious reasons Barack Obama should have been called as a witness in the trial, but the presiding Judge instead issued various protective rulings and an order which meant Obama would not have to testify and be subjected to cross examination.
    ——————————————
    Blowmeobama: if you were defense counsel, would you not argue that inasmuch as Obama is “unavailable” to testify at trial by reason of a court order, and his prior statement to the FBI may bear on the question of his clients innocence, that said statement must be made available to the defense and be deemed admissible provided the statement is competent, relevant and material? This is after all a criminal trial, and defendant has a constitutional right to introduce such evidence.

  13. Haven’t dealt with a federal unavailable declarant hearsay exception, ever. In state court (here), you have to give prior notice of intention to use it. Rather ingenious turn to use it as a discovery device there wbb.

  14. I don’t like this comment by Krauthammer:

    This includes Democrats who, when Petraeus testified to Congress about the Iraq surge in September 2007, accused him of requiring “the willing suspension of disbelief” (Sen. Hillary Clinton) or refused to vote for the Senate resolution condemning that shameful “General Betray Us” newspaper ad (Sen. Barack Obama)

    Now, I realize it’s a throwaway line and a very obvious rhetorical ploy by Krauthammer — designed to generically lump Hillary in with the pisspoor narratives of Dims like Obama — but really Charles? Somehow, I thought you had more journalistic integrity than to default to such banal distractions. This is really scraping the bottom of the barrel stuff on Krauthammer’s part, and lest he continues on this desperate trajectory, maybe he should get thee to a good psychiatrist.

    ALSO — I have a much more relevant and appropriate example for Charles Krauthammer, if he is truly interested in how David Petraeus may fit in with Democrats, and specifically, Hillary Clinton.

    One reporter once asked David Petraeus “What Senator knows what’s going on in Iraq and Afghanistan better than anyone else?” To which David Petraeus looked at the reporter and said “You mean other than Hillary?”

    Don’t worry Mr. Krauthammer….somehow, I think Petraeus will be just fine with Hillary. Just as General McChrystal was.

  15. Wbboei, as Montgomery Burns would say “Excellent!”.

    JBStonesFan is involved in a court proceeding until Monday. Maybe he will weigh in on the strategy you and BlowMeObama have outlined. We’ll try and see if we can get a copy of the motion Blagojevich’s lawyers have made requesting the FBI Obama testimony.

  16. The administration is hoping that Petraeus can replicate his Iraq miracle.
    *******
    I wait to see the Iraq “miracle” after the 90,000 US troop and 100,000(?) contractors leave.

  17. JanH, regarding the title of Krauthammer’s latest, we thought he was referencing our own 7/11 articles. We’ve repeatedly written that Obama is not qualified to run a moribund 7/11 franchise. 🙂

  18. They’re trying to deport this guy:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/23/hamas-founders-son-decries-islamic-god-hate/

    The son of one of the founders of Hamas is turning his back not only on the organization that now controls Gaza, but the religion that so animates the followers of the group his father helped create.

    Speaking on Wednesday night to the Endowment for Middle East Truth, a pro-Israel organization that focuses on radical Islam in education and media, Mosab Hassan Yousef said, “The god of Islam is the god of hate.”

    Mr. Yousef’s father, Sheikh Hassan Yousef, is a leading imam within Hamas, a group that seeks to impose Islamic law throughout the territory it considers Palestine, land that also encompasses the modern state of Israel.

    The younger Mr. Yousef came to the United States in 2007, but only sought publicity after the publication of his memoir, “The Son of Hamas,” this year.

    His book details the harrowing story of his recruitment by Israel’s Shin Bet, the country’s domestic intelligence and security service. At the dinner, the man who recruited and mentored Mr. Yousef when the Imam’s son was undercover for Israel, revealed his identity to the public for the first time. [snip]

    Mr. Yousef faces a possible deportation due to charges, ironically, that he is a terrorist affiliated with Hamas.

    Mr. Yousef is not the first scion of an Islamic leader that has turned on political Islam. Hossein Khomeini, the grandson of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini Khomeini, the father of Iran’s Islamic revolution, toured Washington in 2003 and told this journalist that he supported the violent overthrow of the Iran’s government.

    But in the case of the younger Khomeini, he did not turn on the faith of Islam, only the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mr. Yousef condemned the entire religion.

    Mr. Yousef now calls himself a devout Christian, giving credit for his life today to “[his] God on the cross.”

    He also said that the greatest problem facing his fellow Palestinians was the religion of Islam.

    “They want to destroy Israel while they worship the God that is really their enemy every day,” he said. “There is no denying that they are worshiping their greatest enemy every day while they are looking for enemies.”

    He continued, “What would happen if Israel just disappeared from the map? There is no Israel anymore. Would there be peace in the Middle East? Palestinians would kill each other, I guarantee you.

    At the end of his address to the organization, Mr. Yousef said that he was convinced there were other “heroes,” as he called them, that were cooperating with Israel in the Palestinian territories.

    “We have lots of heroes,” he said. “They work in the shadows to defeat this evil god.”

  19. SHV, it was a miracle. Funny how no one has asked General Wesley Clark what he thinks of all this. More than likely Wes agrees with the firing. But of course the Balkans “miracle” must not be mentioned.

    BTW, O’Reilly last night agree with our Shinseki point.

  20. From CitizenWells

    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/blagojevich-trial-wiretap-evidence-june-23-2010-taped-november-8-2008-barack-obama-michelle-obama-john-harris-jarrett-balanoff-obamas-resignation-is-synchronized-for-blagojevichs-benefit/

    Whoever linked to our story at CitizenWells should consider posting Wbboei’s suggestion.

    Also, from the tape, Blagojevich mentions Obama’s relationship with Jarrett and says “I don’t know the nature of the relationship”. What is Blagojevich alluding to if anything?

    At the beginning Blagojevich laughs when he says Obama wants to get away from Chicago politics. We laugh too.

    Page 2

    1 BLAGOJEVICH Um, didn’t know quite what to make of my
    2 request. Uh, Barack rea-, really wants
    3 to get away from Illinois politics.

    4 HARRIS (Laughs)
    5 BLAGOJEVICH (Laughs). Right?
    6 HARRIS Right.

    Page 6

    7 P. BLAGOJEVICH (Speaking in background) I think he
    8 wouldn’t want to resign until he knows
    9 that, you know…
    10 BLAGOJEVICH Till he knows I’ll do Valerie Jarrett.
    11 HARRIS Yeah, so he’s not gonna resign yet.
    12 BLAGOJEVICH Look, she wants it. We know that.
    13 HARRIS Right.
    14 BLAGOJEVICH He’s also been told now that I would do
    15 it if I got this. So now she knows I
    16 can get this Senate seat if my friend
    17 will give ‘em this.
    18 HARRIS Mm-hmm.
    19 BLAGOJEVICH Okay? She’s the audience we’re
    20 interested in right now. We know he’s,
    21 he wants her and what, I don’t know the
    22 nature of the relationship but it’s
    23 clear he wants her
    and she’s got
    24 influence with him. So now she knows
    25 it’s there for her. To get it, I need26 X, right?
    27 HARRIS Right. The question is if Alexi is28 coming in on her behalf, do we use Alexi29 to get the word back to her?
    30 BLAGOJEVICH No, I don’t trust Alexi, I, no, under no 31 circumstances.
    32 HARRIS Mm-hmm.
    33 BLAGOJEVICH No, no. Absolutely, not. Balanoff…

  21. I really got sick to my stomach today…I accidently saw Brazoid on CNN…she is still so sickening.

  22. One question before I read though all the chapters wwb wrote, is Hillary connected to Soros….

    I hope not.

  23. Soros has given money to her campaign, but she is no more beholden to Soros than any one who gives her money for her campaign…he gave money to lots of people

  24. One question before I read though all the chapters wwb wrote, is Hillary connected to Soros….
    —————————
    He is such a big fundraiser and powerhouse in the party that every politician in party of any stature has some connection to him. In Las Vegas they would refer to someone like him as a whale.

    But the question you are really asking is whether Hillary is controlled by Soros. The answer to that question is an emphatic NO. I think he gave her early indications of support, but was really supporting Obama all the time. The same was true of other key democrats whom she trusted.

    According to my research, there are two reasons Soros supported Obama over Hillary. The first reason is she is a loyal American, and would never ever sell out this country. The second reason is Obama fits the criteria of the Dean Plan which was an Americanized adaptation of the colors revolution playbook which Soros used successfully in eastern europe.

    There are two places where this strategy failed. One was in the Cedars Revolution in Lebanon. The other is in Iran where it was crushed. The student rebellion was part and parcel of a colors revolution that failed. The CIA uses the term colors revolution to describe a Soros inspired revolution. And he calls the old Soviet empire the Soros empire.

    You do not hear much about this guy in the press. Yet big media giants like Bill Moyers and Tom Brokaw sit on his boards. Perhaps that has something to do with it.

  25. Holy crap. I just read the massuese’s testimony. She’s credible. I am in a state of shock.

    I was expecting a Paula Jones tale with a jealous boyfriend pushing the accusations for a big pay day. Nope. Nope. Nope.

    This is just heartbreaking but makes strange sense as well.

  26. he administration is hoping that Petraeus can replicate his Iraq miracle.
    *******
    I wait to see the Iraq “miracle” after the 90,000 US troop and 100,000(?) contractors leave.
    ————————————-
    My thoughts exactly. And that is why I very much doubt that we will leave entirely or immediately at the 18 month mark. It is a starting date for withdrawal and the end date may be decades out.

  27. Another Chicago source:
    June 24, 2010 3:01 pm US/Central
    Testimony: Obama Had 4 Possible Successors In Mind For His Senate Seat
    Chicago (CBS) – Jurors in ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s corruption trial got a purported look Thursday at a short list of candidates President Obama favored to replace him in the U.S. Senate. Federal prosecutors played a tape that revealed the first official message from the budding Obama administration about who the president supported for the Senate seat. In the call, Blagojevich’s chief of staff, John Harris, tells his boss that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s soon-to-be top aide, had called him to give him a list of four people that Obama would find acceptable as his successor in the Senate. They were Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.; injured Iraq War vet Tammy Duckworth; U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Illinois State Comptroller Dan Hynes. Harris tells Blagojevich “He doesn’t want to say who he doesn’t like,” adding that if a person Blagojevich was considering was not on Emanuel’s list, “he’s not high on them.” Harris explained that the message from Emanuel was that Illinois Senate President Emil Jones was not a favored candidate for the U.S. Senate spot. Harris also testified that Emanuel told him that no one else in the Obama camp was authorized to talk about the Senate seat. That seemed to be an indication that previous messages from a union official that Jackson Jr. was not one of Obama’s preferred candidates were unauthorized. But Blagojevich doesn’t appear to believe the list Emanuel provided is a genuine list of Obama’s preferences for the Senate seat. “It’s a B.S. list,” Blagojevich says. From the stand, Harris explained that the list appeared it might be just a political maneuver to show that Obama backed a diverse crop of candidates for the Senate seat. The four names included an African American male, Jackson; a white female, Schakowsky; an Asian-American female, Duckworth; and a white male, Hynes.
    h t t p://cbs2chicago.com/local/Blago.Obama.Senate.2.1770821.html

  28. #
    Shadowfax
    June 24th, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    blowme0bama
    June 24th, 2010 at 9:31 pm

    Have folks read the masseuse’s statement? It is gross. Couldn’t get through the entire thing.

    —————
    The thought of french kissing Gore is gross, do you have the link?
    _______________________________

    The witness statement reads like a novel. Sounds a little phony to me. I;m having trouble believing it’s true. He may very well have been involved with someone; but I don’t believe it was this Phantom Madam X. The Police Report is in such great detail it just doesn’t ring true. (It became a little weary at about pg 10) Looking at the pdf document’s page count to 73(?) I thought, no way! If someone is intent on ruining Al Gore, I’d appreciate the Truth not some trumped up story written by an unemployed trashy writer to be viewed as a kind of interregnum news created to knock Obama’s foibles off the front pages.

  29. Jan,

    I think they hate the Clintons so much because they are somewhat independent and their popularity with so many Americans give them the room to use that power,

  30. I wish the Clintons would purchase one of the smaller islands off the coast of Greece and set up a new government in remembrance of our once Free Republic. Hillary would take on the role of good will ambassador of the first country grown from the dna of one of the most famous and popular 21st century Democratic presidents, now resident Mayor of the goodwill country, “The New US”.

    (name taken from the old english, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire… etc.)

    http://indyposted.com/29225/to-save-economy-greek-islands-for-sale/

  31. CRISIS MANAGEMENT FOR DIMOCRATS 101
    Instructor: Barack Insane Obama
    Credits: academic O street cred 0

    1. Step 1: politicize the crisis

    2. Step 2: blame Bush for the harm it inflicts

    2, Step 3: characterize it as a federal problem

    3. Step 3: but withhold federal remedial action

    4. Step 4: ignore state pleas for assistance by Republican governors pleas

    5. Step 5: thwart state efforts to deal with the crisis through lawsuits, etc.

    6. Step 6: make speeches on the subject to the rave reviews of media shills like Brian Williams

    7. Step 7: extract some political concession to finally deal with the problem, e.g. amnesty for border protection

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    Pensacola Beach Closed Due To Obamaspill

    Posted by Moe Lane (Profile)
    Thursday, June 24th at 6:31PM EDT
    18 Comments
    Heckuva job there, Barry.

    A popular section of Pensacola Beach has been closed because of oil that washed ashore there.

    Government officials closed about a quarter-mile section of Casino Beach on Thursday. Thick pools of oil washed ashore there Wednesday.

    Via Gateway Pundit, via Instapundit. But never fear: the White House in on the case!

    …if by ‘on the case’ you mean ’stopping Louisiana from doing its emergency dredging and berm constructing operation’ and ‘fighting the overturn of its knee-jerk oil drilling moratorium.’ Both of which are much more likely to please campaign contributors than, say, the people of Louisiana and Florida. Speaking of the latter: hey, guess who’s mad (Rubio) about the way that the government’s mucking up Obamaspill? And guess who’s being an apologist for it (Crist)?

    Again: heckuva job, Barry. What’s your handicap, these days?

    Moe Lane

  32. Another Chicago source:
    June 24, 2010 3:01 pm US/Central
    Testimony: Obama Had 4 Possible Successors In Mind For His Senate Seat
    Chicago (CBS) – Jurors in ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s corruption trial got a purported look Thursday at a short list of candidates President Obama favored to replace him in the U.S. Senate. Federal prosecutors played a tape that revealed the first official message from the budding Obama administration about who the president supported for the Senate seat. In the call, Blagojevich’s chief of staff, John Harris, tells his boss that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s soon-to-be top aide, had called him to give him a list of four people that Obama would find acceptable as his successor in the Senate. They were Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.; injured Iraq War vet Tammy Duckworth; U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Illinois State Comptroller Dan Hynes. Harris tells Blagojevich “He doesn’t want to say who he doesn’t like,” adding that if a person Blagojevich was considering was not on Emanuel’s list, “he’s not high on them.” Harris explained that the message from Emanuel was that Illinois Senate President Emil Jones was not a favored candidate for the U.S. Senate spot. Harris also testified that Emanuel told him that no one else in the Obama camp was authorized to talk about the Senate seat. That seemed to be an indication that previous messages from a union official that Jackson Jr. was not one of Obama’s preferred candidates were unauthorized. But Blagojevich doesn’t appear to believe the list Emanuel provided is a genuine list of Obama’s preferences for the Senate seat. “It’s a B.S. list,” Blagojevich says. From the stand, Harris explained that the list appeared it might be just a political maneuver to show that Obama backed a diverse crop of candidates for the Senate seat. The four names included an African American male, Jackson; a white female, Schakowsky; an Asian-American female, Duckworth; and a white male, Hynes.
    h t t p://cbs2chicago.com/local/Blago.Obama.Senate.2.1770821.html
    —————————-
    He is so buy playing the political angles that he has no time, energy or interest in governing, and Lord knows it shows.

  33. And that is why I very much doubt that we will leave entirely or immediately at the 18 month mark. It is a starting date for withdrawal and the end date may be decades out.
    **********
    This is what Petraeus said at the Sen. hearing on June 15(?) about the withdrawal date: (the hearing where the MSM reporting was Petraeus “faints”.)

    “And that is why I very much doubt that we will leave entirely or immediately at the 18 month mark. It is a starting date for withdrawal and the end date may be decades out.”

  34. And that is why I very much doubt that we will leave entirely or immediately at the 18 month mark. It is a starting date for withdrawal and the end date may be decades out.
    **********
    This is what Petraeus said at the Sen. hearing on June 15(?) about the withdrawal date: (the hearing where the MSM reporting was Petraeus “faints”.)

    “And that is why I very much doubt that we will leave entirely or immediately at the 18 month mark. It is a starting date for withdrawal and the end date may be decades out.”
    ———————————————-
    I agree that is what he said. But he did not say we would be entirely out, or did he. There have been too many indications to the contrary. If you think back to Hillary’s comments at or near the time of the Iraq Study Group testimony, the general consensus was that we would withdraw in the near term, but would leave behind a reserve force with special forces personnel to maintain the peace. Even then the thinking was similar to yours namely that any democracy there would be fragile and could not survive on its own. The other reason I say that is because it is a logical corollary that the main reason we are there in the first place is to give us control over the oil supply, to preclude Chinese entry and to provide a staging base to prevent an overthrow of the royal family in Saudi Arabia should that contingency materialize as a result of the failure of Obama to deal effectively with Iran. Also, there is the statement by McCain that we will be there for 100 years god forbid. I think cost factors will compel us to leave, but it will be a phased withdrawal as opposed to a last helicopter out of Saigon scenario. And I do think we will leave behind a significant military force based on the considerations above.

  35. I agree that is what he said. But he did not say we would be entirely out, or did he.
    ********
    My conclusion was that Patraeus was basically saying that the withdrawal date was a “joke”. We have no intention of withdrawing from Afghanistan. It will be a replay of the futility of throwing lives and money down a “rat hole” that forces the US out.

  36. TOTAL VOMIT ALERT:

    Bob Shrum heaps praise on Obama. Most of it excised to keep your eyes from bleeding. But the end is just hillarious:

    realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/25/president_obama_rises_to_the_occasion_106101.html

    “Sometimes, in the swirl of events, we forget that the president has already kept us out of depression, saved the auto industry, passed health care after a century of delay, overcome fierce lobbying and achieved the wholesale reform of college student loans, and will soon sign into law the most comprehensive financial reform since the New Deal. One passable speech does not unmake a presidency. And if anyone continues to harbor the cliché that Obama’s too professorial, too indecisive, they should try offering that opinion to Stanley McChrystal. Barack Obama just understands that decisiveness is not impulsiveness—and eloquence is not empty boasting. In that, he’s different from his predecessor, who got us into so much of this pervasive mess.”

    “With his cool steadiness, his capacity for thought, his strength under pressure, Obama is uniquely a president for our time. After watching the week that was in June, there is new reason to believe that he will come through the storms and finish the job.”

    &&&&&&

    Thank you, Bob Shrum, for explaining the unexplainable. Obama hasn’t been screwing up… we just haven’t realized how good he is.

  37. Ignore the messenger and focus on the message.
    ———————————————
    MCCHRYSTAL’S ATTACK HURTS OBAMA’S LEFT WING BASE

    By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

    Published on DickMorris.com on June 23, 2010

    Printer-Friendly Version

    General Stanley McChrystal’s interview in Rolling Stone Magazine will do a lot to damage further President Obama’s standing among liberals and Democrats and will undermine his chances of keeping control of Congress in 2010.

    To conservative voters and commentators, his comments underscore doubts about Obama’s competence. To the Administration’s spokespeople, the interview shows a lack of proper subordination in the chain of command. But to the voters of the left, the key import of his comments is that the general in charge of the war in Afghanistan basically said the war is not being won, and perhaps cannot be won.

    Obama’s decision to fire McChrystal guarantees that the story will now share page one with the Gulf oil spill, focusing liberal attention on Obama’s two cardinal sins in liberal eyes – the oil spill and the war in Afghanistan. Relieving the general of command sends a message that Obama is thin-skinned, arrogant, and easily offended.

    Coming at the same time that the failure of the Obama Administration to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf is already rankling liberal voters, the McChrystal comments will add to their doubts about Obama. They already are against his decision to send additional troops there and have long believed that we should not be fighting in Afghanistan. By calling attention to how badly the war is going and the disarray in the president’s foreign policy apparatus, the McChrystal interview can only highlight and underscore these concerns and further dampen liberal enthusiasm for Obama.

    Neither the oil spill nor the Afghan War will drive any liberals to vote for conservatives or induce Democrats to vote Republican. But they both will hold down Democratic turnout and reinforce cynicism about the Obama presidency on the left. Those initially attracted by Obama’s charisma will be driven away by these twin failures.

    The Democratic Party is really a synthesis of environmentalists and peace advocates with a few gay rights activists and public employee unions thrown in. Now, Obama has alienated both the green and the anti-war segments of the party. And the continuing spillage from the Gulf oil well and from the General’s mouth will further damage his standing with his political base.

    Whatever the fate of General McChrystal or of the American involvement in the war, the mounting casualty lists will drag down Obama’s prospects in November still further and depress his ratings in the days ahead.

  38. Good one on Obama using “manufatured” crises for political purposes, but runs away from a real crisis.

    spectator.org/archives/2010/06/25/obama-in-crisis

    Obama in Crisis
    By Andrew Cline on 6.25.10 @ 6:09AM

    Crisis exploitation has been President Obama’s chief political strategy from Day 1.

    “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told the Wall Street Journal in November 2008, before the administration had even entered the White House. “Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

    But what about a crisis that provides no political opportunities?

    This administration is brilliant at using a perceived crisis to advance pre-existing political goals. There’s a recession? Expand government, impose new regulations, dole out money to favored groups, and say the universal health care proposal is really a “jobs bill.” People don’t see the need to jump to universal care immediately? Tell stories of individuals confronted with personal health care catastrophes and claim that only the health care bill can solve them. Pass this bill now or the cancer patient gets it!

    The administration showed us how to exploit crises: Propose swift action — any action — and structure proposed remedies so their success or failure cannot be measured in real time, then accuse critics of supporting the status quo.

    Patience, Obama repeatedly said. Patience. Fixing the enormous mistakes of the Bush years would take time. There would be no quick fix. Don’t look for immediate results, keep gazing into the horizon. Here, I’ll show you how, just tilt your head this way, slightly squint your eyes… there, now hold that position for the next three years.

    Then, without warning, a pocket of methane gas exploded on an oil rig roughly 50 miles offshore. Suddenly we had a crisis that demanded a real-time solution, not a promise of rewards to be reaped after the next election.

    The president was paralyzed. He could not talk the oil back into the well. He could not stop the leak by convincing Congress to pass a bill that would go into effect four years from now. A president whose sole skill set is confined entirely to the world of politics found himself just about impotent to deal with this emergency.

    “The president doesn’t get down here in the middle of this…. I have no idea of why they didn’t seize this thing,” James Carville said on ABC’s Good Morning America on May 26, more than a month after the explosion. “I have no idea of why their attitude was so hands off here.”

    That’s the same complaint Gen. Stanley McChrystal made to aides about President Obama’s handling of Afghanistan, according to the Rolling Stone piece that got McChrystal fired. “”Here’s the guy who’s going to run his f***ing war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed,” an unidentified aide reportedly said.

    Barack Obama being hands-off and disengaged? Who would have thought?

    We have a president who in April gave a 17-minute, 2,500-word answer to a woman’s question about taxes in the health care bill, but who cannot come up with an appropriate response to an oil spill. The reason is easy enough to see. One cannot spin an oil spill. One simply has to act.

    Obama seems to have internalized an axiom from the Bhagavad Gita: “The wise man never initiates any action.” If nothing else, Obama imagines himself a wise man. There is nothing he can’t give a 17-minute answer to. But his attempts to portray himself as a man of action, necessary for anyone running for president of the United States, have been comical.

    Asked during a 2007 South Carolina debate how he’d respond to a terrorist attack, he said, “The first thing we’d have to do is make sure that we’ve got an effective emergency response.” Hillary Clinton, not exactly a paragon of swift-acting machismo, showed him the right answer: “If we are attacked and we can determine who was behind that attack, and if there were nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.”

    When Obama said on Good Morning America that he was looking for an ass to kick, it made him look weaker, not stronger. He just isn’t the ass-kicking sort of guy. So he did what he knows how to do. He gave a speech. It was so awful, even the left panned it. Instead of acting to end the crisis, the president tried to exploit it. A huge oil spill? Use it to hype cap-and-trade! That’s not a response, that’s a sales pitch.

    Americans put too much faith in the presidency. The federal government’s CEO is not a superman who can command the resources of the nation to fix any problem that might arise. But it is not unreasonable to expect him to take necessary and proper action to solve certain problems. The president cannot plug a leaking oil well that sits a mile under the Gulf of Mexico. But a good one would have the organizational and managerial skills to quickly set a swift and appropriate federal response in motion. Instead, this president uses the spill as the platform from which to launch a renewed appeal for the same old energy regulations he has been hawking for years.

    Obama’s reaction to the Gulf oil spill has been so awful because he is incapable of transitioning from politician to manager. He sees the world only in terms of political opportunities. A crisis that requires action? Sorry, that’s not this president’s bag, baby.

  39. Apparently, Shrum finds hopium comforting.
    —————————————–
    Schrum has been in the major leagues of punditry for many years, has faced hundreds of pitchers and thousands of pitches–fast balls, slow balls, curve balls, knuckle balls, sliders, sinkers and now finally tar balls.

    And through the thick of it, Shrum has maintained a perfect batting average: zero (0).

    When he says Obama has saved us from a depression, I think it is time for him to retire and rest on his laurels.

  40. #
    wbboei
    June 25th, 2010 at 1:47 am

    One question before I read though all the chapters wwb wrote, is Hillary connected to Soros….
    —————————
    He is such a big fundraiser and powerhouse in the party that every politician in party of any stature has some connection to him. In Las Vegas they would refer to someone like him as a whale.

    But the question you are really asking is whether Hillary is controlled by Soros. The answer to that question is an emphatic NO. I think he gave her early indications of support, but was really supporting Obama all the time. The same was true of other key democrats whom she trusted.

    According to my research, there are two reasons Soros supported Obama over Hillary. The first reason is she is a loyal American, and would never ever sell out this country. The second reason is Obama fits the criteria of the Dean Plan which was an Americanized adaptation of the colors revolution playbook which Soros used successfully in eastern europe.

    There are two places where this strategy failed. One was in the Cedars Revolution in Lebanon. The other is in Iran where it was crushed. The student rebellion was part and parcel of a colors revolution that failed. The CIA uses the term colors revolution to describe a Soros inspired revolution. And he calls the old Soviet empire the Soros empire.

    You do not hear much about this guy in the press. Yet big media giants like Bill Moyers and Tom Brokaw sit on his boards. Perhaps that has something to do with it.
    ——–
    Thanks for those explanations Wbb, I am still going though the chapters and reading slowly to not only absorb it but also am a kinda freaked at the implications. Makes logical sense, but still is frightening and right now I keep thinking this person needs to be taken out. Jeezelouise.

  41. Amidst the hubris of everything else is this:
    Blanket Legalization for Millions of Illegals?
    [An article I thought I saw earlier today appears to be merely a vote/comment segment. I’m not advocating that we all go there to vote. I’m suggesting that this topic is one of many to keep on our radar.]

    The Obama administration reportedly is studying whether the Department of Homeland Security can grant legal status to many of the estimated 11 million people living illegally in the U.S. Would you support such a plan if Congress can’t agree on a comprehensive immigration reform bill?
    Share your thoughts. First answer our question below. Then click “Leave a Comment.”
    h t t p://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/25/blanket-legalization-millions-illegals/

  42. I have to wonder if the Gore story coming out now is a political hit. If so, it fuels the suspicion that there is really odd activity going on around the Democratic primary in 12.

    Is there any chance Gore was thinking about running again?

  43. The Obama administration reportedly is studying whether the Department of Homeland Security can grant legal status to many of the estimated 11 million people living illegally in the U.S. Would you support such a plan if Congress can’t agree on a comprehensive immigration reform bill?
    Share your thoughts. First answer our question below. Then click “Leave a Comment.”
    h t t p://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/25/blanket-legalization-millions-illegals/
    ————————–
    Unconstitutional.

  44. Here is the perspective of a Canadian commentator. I do not know who he is, or what his politics are. But it sure sounds like he has a reservation or two about Mr. Obama. Then again maybe it is just my imagination. Still, it is good to take account of the many successes of his intergalactic post partisan presidency.

    Barack Hussein Obama:

    I Told You So – Yes I Did

    By Howard Galganov

    Montreal , Quebec , Canada

    When Obama won the Presidency I wrote: It won’t take six months until the People figure this guy out and realize how horrible a mistake they’ve made.. And when they come to that realization, the damage to the United States of America will be so great it will take a generation or more to repair – IF EVER.

    The IDIOTS who not only voted for the Messiah, but also worked [hard] to promote his Lordship, are now left holding the bag.

    Here are two things they will NEVER do: They will NEVER admit to making a Blunder out of all proportion by electing a snake-oil salesman with no Positive social history or management experience of any kind. They will NEVER take responsibility for the curse they’ve imposed upon the immediate and long-term future of their country.

    In essence, the people responsible for putting this horror show in power are themselves responsible for every cataclysmic decision he makes and the Consequences thereof.

    In just six months, the Messiah’s polls are showing the following:

    1. On Healthcare Reform – He’s going under for the third time with polling well Under 50 percent, even within his own Party. Even though he might be able to Muscle a Healthcare Reform Bill by using Chicago BULLY tactics against his Fellow Democrats, it will just make things worse.

    2. On Cap and Trade (Cap and Tax) – The Fat-Lady is already singing.

    3. On the Stimulus Package (Tax and Spend) – His popularity is in FREE-FALL.

    4. On the TARP package he took and ran with from President Bush – It’s all but Good-Night Irene.

    5. On the closing of GITMO and “HIS” war on what he no longer wants called the War On Terrorism – He’s standing in quicksand with his head just about to go under.

    6. On a Comparison between himself and George W. Bush at the same six months into Their respective first term Presidencies – Bush is ahead of him in the Polls.

    7. On a comparison between He Who Walks On Water and the 12 preceding Presidents between WW II and now – Obama ranks 10th.

    8. On a Poll just Conducted, that asks who would you vote for today between Obama and Mitt Romney – It’s a dead heat. Between Obama and Palin – Obama’s ONLY ahead by 8 Points and she hasn’t even begun to campaign. It seems to me that Obama Wants to be everywhere where he shouldn’t be.

    He’s personally invested in ‘totally insulting’ America ‘s ONLY REAL Middle Eastern ally ( Israel ) in favor of Palestinian Despots and Murderers. He’s traveling the world apologizing for the USA while lecturing others on how to do it right, when in fact and truth he has no experience at doing anything other than getting elected.

    He went to the Muslim world in Egypt to declare that America IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION while he heaped praises on Islam, where he compared the “plight” of the Palestinians to the Holocaust.

    The Russians think he’s a putz, The French think he’s rude.

    The Germans want him to stop spending.

    The Indians want him to mix his nose out of their environmental business.

    The North Koreans think he’s a joke, The Iranians won’t acknowledge his calls.

    And the British can’t even come up with a comprehensive opinion of him.

    As for the Chinese, he’s too frightened to even glance their way. [After All, China now owns a large portion of the United States .]

    Maybe if America’s first Emperor would stay home more, travel less, and work a little bit instead of being on television just about everyday or stop running to “papered” Town Hall Meetings, perhaps he would have a little bit of time to do the work of the nation.

    In all fairness, it wasn’t HARD to be RIGHT in my prediction concerning Obama’s presidency, even in its first six months, so I’m going to make yet another prediction:

    OBAMA WILL PROBABLY NOT FINISH HIS 4-YEAR TERM, at least not in a Conventional way.

    He is such a political HORROR SHOW, and so detrimental to the USA and his Own Democratic Party, that the Democrats themselves will either FORCE him to Resign or figure out a way to have him thrown out.

    Who knows, maybe he really isn’t a BORN US Citizen and that’s a way the Democrats will be able to get rid of him. [He is a citizen, but not a naturalized citizen with both mother and father being US citizens.]

    Or – MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, the Democrats will make Obama THEIR OWN LAME DUCK PRESIDENT.

    I don’t believe the Democrats have nearly as much love for their country as they do for their own political fortunes. And with Obama, their fortunes are rapidly becoming toast.

    If you agree with this email please pass it along to everyone you know! If you don’t agree with it, then just delete it and be part of the greatest problem your country has ever seen! My guess is, You don’t think this “CHANGE” is what you expected either.

  45. Bush was the first Emperor. I have real problems with these articles that pretend that Obama is not simply an extension of Bush – because he is. Obama is so costly because Bush was such a disaster. Had Bush been an even moderately responsible president, Obama couldn’t have the impact that he is. But Bush ran up the deficit, allowed the fraud which has produced the foreclosure crisis, looked the other way as Islamic terrorists plotted to fly planes into the WTC and engaged us in a way with a nation that had no ability to defend itself.

    Bush was probably the worst president in American history.

  46. I do not think he will finish his four year term either. What they need however is a good long vaudeville hook.

  47. Nobody is asking you to give up your hatred of Bush. You can hate both of them, and I will be on your side. You may not believe it but many republicans I know hated Bush with a passion by the end of his second term. They hate this guy too. W and BO are similar in the sense that both of them abandoned the middle class, and working people. They are similar in the sense that they pursue many of the same policies. I believe Bush had the same marching orders as Obama to collapse our southern border to create this North American Union, and that aint tin foil hat stuff. Just follow the money. Certain commitments were made to the Mexican President, Vicente Fox, a former Coca Cola executive, then 9/11 happened and Bush left Fox standing at the alter. What makes Obama worse is his contempt for America, and the fact that because he inherited a deteriorating situation, his first obligation was to hit the brake and instead he hit the accelerator. That makes him an even greater menace that W. I am pretty sure that assessment will prove out when you survey the damage which will become apparent by 2012.

  48. Worse? By no means is he worse. That doesn’t mean he’s not terrible, but he’s not instigating wars around the world or looking the other way while terrorists plot to kill thousands of Americans. He’s as bad on the oil spill as Bush was on Katrina.

    My beef is people who don’t address the fact that Obama is the calamity he is due to the disaster that Bush was.

    Bush was at least as contemptuous of the US, and Americans as Obama is. At least. Bush was aggressively hostile to ordinary Americans as Obama is.

  49. admin
    June 25th, 2010 at 12:07 am
    Wbboei, as Montgomery Burns would say “Excellent!”.

    JBStonesFan is involved in a court proceeding until Monday. Maybe he will weigh in on the strategy you and BlowMeObama have outlined. We’ll try and see if we can get a copy of the motion Blagojevich’s lawyers have made requesting the FBI Obama testimony.
    ——————–
    Good idea. But just to be clear on this, I am not saying it will work, all I am saying is it might work and that is enough to give it a whirl. It has to do with the psychology of judges/

    Put yourself in the position of the Judge in this case. You want to be impartial. You want to accord full rights to the defendant. You know the press the public and no less the appellate court will be looking over your shoulder.

    Nonetheless, you would have a hard time ordering the President to testify. Especially if you lived in Chicago. Why? Well for one thing he might defy your order and then where would you be? Or, he might show up in your courtroom, and it might blow up on cross examination, when defense counsel takes apart the Bamboozler like a cheap watch. Then you would be forced to rule on objections like counsel is badgering the witness, and you would look like Judge Ito sans ux.

    Much easier to excuse him from testifying. Much easier to tell the public that the majesty of his office is such that he must stay focused on the people’s business, which would be a valid point if that was in fact what he was doing. Reggie Love knows better.

    But wouldn’t that ruling leave you with a pit in your stomach, that maybe by taking the easy way out, you had deprived the defendant with access to material evidence, and the concomitant opportunity to present it in his own defense. In other words, had you in some way not deprived the defendant of a fair trial?

    The easy way out for you in that instance might be to let defense counsel see Obama’s testimony to the FBI. The government would object, but you could tell them that your ruling has deprived defense counsel of both the opportunity to hear from Obama and the opportunity to cross examine him.

    By allowing defense counsel to see the statement and admit it into evidence as credible hearsay benefits defendant. The prior ruling precluding live testimony and cross examination benefits the prosecution. Thus the scales of justice balance.

  50. wbboei
    June 25th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
    Here is the perspective of a Canadian commentator.
    &&&&&&

    Simply fantastic! No holding back, calling a spade a….oops (go ahead, call me the R-word).

  51. basement angel
    June 25th, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    Bush was probably the worst president in American history.
    &&&&&&&

    And Obama is determined to give him a run for the money.

    Each one is truly terrible, but in their own unique ways.

  52. Worse?
    —————
    I really think so. If you are driving a car at a break neck speed which endangers the life of other people you are culpable–no question about that. But if you turn the con over to another driver and he hits the accelerator instead of the brake, thereby ensuring a disaster, I think the second driver is more culpable. There is an old doctrine of tort law called last clear chance which embodies this principle. It has been superceded by the doctrine of comparative negligence in most jurisdictions, nevertheless the underlying concept is a valid one. The policy objective is to prevent a fatal collision.

  53. Dear RGB,

    Still, it’s important to remember that everyone in DC was begging Bush to be more aggressive regarding the terrorist chatter around 9/11 and he refused to do anything to stop that attack. When the 9/11 commission was finally convened, he and Cheney only agreed to testify, if they could testify together in a room at the White House, that their testimony not be under oath, and that the attendents to the hearing not be allowed to take notes or use a tape recorder. Bush and Cheney’s testimony could only be committed to memory – nothing more. It’s highly unlikely that Obama, or any other president in the next 200 years, will do anything as deadly, treasonous and irresponsible as the above.

    Then Bush used that event to engage us in a war that is consuming trillions of dollars, and thousands of American lives – for no reason whatsoever. We have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and have totally destabilized their lives.

    NO, they are not equally terrible. Not by a long shot. Obama is continuing a lot of Bush’s policies and is to the right of him time and time again, but the amount of blood on Bush and Cheney’s hands will likely never be on Obama’s.

    Life matters. And Bush/Cheney have allowed hundreds of thousands of people – perhaps even millions – to die for reasons that none of even know.

  54. Wbboie,

    Again, Bush looked the other way and allowed 9/11 to happen, refused to testify under oath about what transpired that day and then used that even to embed us in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead because of his actions. The same, as of yet, cannot be said of Obama. Bush initiated the policies that Obama is continuing – that’s bad on Obama, but Bush is still the lead culprit. It’s unlikely that Obama or anyone on his staff would have cooked up Bush’s torture regime. And thousands were tortured under the policies that Bush developed – that’s all on him.

  55. And Obama is determined to give him a run for the money.

    Each one is truly terrible, but in their own unique ways.
    ———————————————–
    Then two Nobel Prizes for Gross Incompetence are in order. We must never discriminate.

  56. Hopefully this will down down in flames.
    All caucus voting should be eliminated.

    End of the Texas “Two-Step” primary ?

    Opponents of the so-called “Texas Two Step”” system to determine presidential delegates are working at the state convention to end the system. Texas is the only state in the country that distributes its presidential convention delegates based on (First) the primary vote and (Second) a series of caucuses primary night. The hybrid system was overwhelmed in 2008 when supporters of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama jammed caucus sites. Chaos ensued in some places. From the party’s standpoint, it was not good TV to see angry Democrats yelling at each other. In 2008, Clinton won the primary vote, but Obama ended up with more delegates because his side did a better job in the caucuses.

    Delegates on both sides gathered Friday morning at the state Democratic convention in Corpus Christi. Several advocated abolishing the two-step. Austin delegate Scott Cobb – who was wearing a green-and-white “Scrap the Texas Two-Step” sticker – said lots of people vote in the primary but can’t make the caucuses because they’re elderly, disabled, work at night or for other reasons. “We’re saying you don’t build a party on the backs of the disabled,” he said.
    But another delegate said the two-step process is a good thing because she got more actively involved in the Democratic party because she showed up at her primary-night caucus. The issue could come to a head on Saturday. Opponents of the current system are circulating petitions among delegates to force a floor vote Saturday afternoon.

  57. I am seeing an undeniable mirror of Jimmy Carter in The One and I reported this during the primary. I do not surrender that The One is doing anything other than what he is commanded to do, and doing it well. His goal is to ‘help’ the Islamic world and his puppetmasters’ goal is to force us into collapse and the result will be communist rule with a tinge of Sharia law in a new world order. And like it or not, it all started with Woodrow Wilson, who I think was THE worst President of all time. This is just my humble opinion, but it is based on much research.
    With that being said, I agree with others on here that W set the stage for The One. I have witnessed first hand smart people voting for The One because they hated W,and by association ALL republicans, so much because during his reign they lost sooooo much money. This was partly what prompted me into action to, for the first time in my life, to become a political activist. It bears repeating, the D and the R are simply the two wings of the same bird. We effectively only have one party since the marxists/communists were victorious in their hostile takeover the Democratic party. And after all that I, and we, learned during the primary it displaces belief that ANYONE with one brain cell in tact would STILL support a ‘party’, ANY party.

  58. But Basement Angel, you forget the fact that Bush had eight years to work his perverse agenda on the country whereas Obama is less than two years into his. If you compare the damage done to the country during the same time period mano a mano do you still believe Obama is better? Before you answer that question take a look at what our Canadian friend says about Obama up thread. It is a sobering assessment, and it opens the door to Hillary. I will defer to your judgment on this matter if you like, provided we can agree that Obama is now the wolf at the door and must be chased out of office asap.

  59. Thank God for the report that Texas is working to do away with the discriminatory caucus two-step. I talked with a number of Texans who did not understand the two-step process and to some that were not physically able to attend the caucus and were upset because it dimished his/her vote count during the primary as I was phone banking for our Hillary.

  60. It’s the bankers that have taken over the Democratic party – that’s why they got bailed out and not ordinary people. There are no Marxists anywhere in the Dem party.

    Let’s deal in the real world here, not some John Birch fantasy.

    If the Dems were Marxists, banks wouldn’t have gotten a dime.

  61. By two years into Bush’s admin, 9/11 had happened and he had manuevered Congress into supporting his invasion of Iraq. Obama is terrible but has no equivalent actions in his administration. He has handled the corruption terribly, refused to fix the economy and has totally ignored the disaster that is the oil spill. But he has not aggressively created a situation that allowed 3500 Americans to die, and used that as a pretense for a totally unnecessary war that has 5000+ Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis their lives.

  62. I never get enough of these articles…

    Hillary in 2012? It could happen

    The resurrection of Hillary Clinton as a potential president may now be taking place. Hard to believe, but a Rasmussen poll released Tuesday showed the former first lady, U.S. senator and now secretary of state is viewed as more qualified to be president than the current occupant of the White House, who came from nowhere to beat her out for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

    Both she and President Obama are thought to be more qualified for the job than three Republicans who have expressed interest in it. Ms. Clinton, according to this poll, is thought to be qualified by 57 percent of the voter respondents, while 34 percent say she is not. As for the president, 51 percent think him qualified for the job he has held for the last year and a half, while 44 percent disagree.

    Republican Mitt Romney is close behind with 49 percent saying the former Massachusetts governor is qualified and 32 percent thinking not. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin trail far behind.

    It was widely thought to have been a wise political move when Mr. Obama made his 2008 rival secretary of state, since that would make her by definition a supporter of the Obama presidency, which now however, seems to be in the midst of a great unraveling. Is it likely that this president would be challenged in a primary fight if he seeks a second term? No. Is it possible? Sure, if the president’s popularity continues to fall.

    As I mentioned a couple weeks ago in this space, the more likely thing — as hard as it might be to believe right now — is a decision by the president not to seek another four years in office. Lyndon Johnson stepped aside in ’68 and Harry Truman in ’52, simply because they knew they couldn’t win the upcoming election. Unpopular wars did them in.

    Which brings us to the current, increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan and the remarks attributed to General Stanley McChrystal, the American commander there, and his merry band of intimates who dubbed themselves “Team America.”

    As you know, “Stan the Man,” as his acolytes call him, is portrayed in a Rolling Stone magazine profile as “The Runaway General,” a man author Michael Hastings says “is always open to new ways of killing” — and is also contemptuous of his civilian bosses. One subordinate is quoted as saying that the general always kept his eye on the real enemy, the “wusses in the White House.” The civilian PR man who arranged for Rolling Stone’s access to Stan the Man and his merry band of thugs was “asked to resign.” General McChrystal was called back to Washington for a face-to-face dressing down. He apologized to several of those he had insulted and offered his resignation, which the president accepted.

    The story created such a sensation it deflected attention away from the ever-expanding disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. It’s been likened to the insubordination that prompted President Truman’s firing of Gen. Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War, an act that led the way toward the terrible approval ratings resulting in Truman going home to Missouri rather than running for reelection.

    Whatever Mr. Obama did with his theater commander was bound to be highly criticized. It represents yet another in a cascading set of circumstances that seem to have reduced the president to being a witness to his own diminishment. He certainly has discovered by now that rhetorical skills, while helpful to winning elections, are not sufficient in exercising executive power, cannot turn around an economy in shambles, cannot stop the BP leak and cannot make people believe the opposite of what they see and experience in their own lives.

    If this president continues to stumble and his party is smashingly repudiated in November, it wouldn’t surprise me to see Hillary Clinton ride to the rescue in 2012.Meanwhile, the Republicans have quite the job ahead themselves: to see if they can nominate someone electable. Surely they’ve learned not to select hacks like Bob Dole or John McCain. Haven’t they?

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-smith-mcchrystal-20100624,0,7837959.column

  63. We do not know how to argue according to Daily Howler:

    TAKE THE TRUST FUND CHALLENGE (permalink): Let’s return to a key point from yesterday’s hurried HOWLER. This concerns a key conservative propaganda point—a point which has created untold mischief over the past 27 years. According to this familiar claim, the Social Security trust fund is just a worthless pile of IOUs.

    The money isn’t there—we’ve already spent it! Voters have heard this persuasive claim for almost thirty years.

    The money isn’t there—we’ve already spent it! This claim is lodged in voters’ heads. At present, it has relevance to the Reid-Angle senate race in Nevada. And this claim is all tangled up in the efforts of Obama’s Bowles/Simpson commission, the group which will try to form recommendations about changes to Social Security.

    Yesterday, we linked to this post from Digby. At the start of her post, Digby discusses recent statements about this matter by Alan Simpson, Republican co-chair of the commission. She then links to a post by Paul Krugman, who describes this general conservative claim as a “zombie lie.” This is Krugman, framing the problem:

    KRUGMAN (6/21/10): On Social Security, Simpson is repeating a zombie lie—that is, one of those misstatements that keeps being debunked, but keeps coming back.

    Specifically, Simpson has resurrected the old nonsense about how Social Security will be bankrupt as soon as payroll tax revenues fall short of benefit payments, never mind the quarter century of surpluses that came first.

    We went through all this at length back in 2005, but let me do this yet again.

    For the record, the “quarter century of surpluses” to which Krugman refers created the Social Security trust find—the trust fund Republicans like Simpson say is no longer there.

    True to his word, Krugman goes through the matter “yet again” in the rest of his post. Digby block-quotes his presentation. According to Krugman, this matter has been debunked many times. Simpson is telling a “lie” when he keeps misstating this matter.

    We think Kruggers makes this too simple.

    It’s true that the standard GOP claim is profoundly misleading—so misleading that it pretty much qualifies as a flat misstatement. The money isn’t there—we’ve already spent it! That statement isn’t exactly “false”—but it’s profoundly misleading. As such, we regard this as perhaps the most successful bit of political propaganda/deception of the past thirty years. This simple, conservative sleight-of-hand is deeply convincing—and it has been widely repeated. Voters have heard this misleading presentation again and again in the past (roughly) twenty-five years.

    By way of contrast, liberal “debunkings” have tended to be complex, confusing, chaotic. No two liberals have ever said the same thing twice in the course of debunking this “lie.” For that reason, the liberal response—while correct on the merits—has been almost wholly worthless as a matter of persuasion. Just this Wednesday, we hard a well-informed lefty (a friend) repeat the conservative construct over a Subway lunch.

    Everyone believes the GOP claim! Everybody knows how to repeat it! In large part, that is because the GOP’s sleigh-of-hand has been advanced in a highly professional manner, while the liberal world’s “debunkings” have been the work of rank amateurs. But this is the way the propaganda wars have tended to work in the past thirty years: Conservatives are disciplined and professional in their deceptions. The liberal world has gamboled and played, behaving like children in response.

    That in mind, we’ll suggest the following:

    Go ahead—take the Trust Fund Challenge! Read Krugman’s latest “debunking,” a debunking which is perfectly accurate. Then ask yourself if you could ever repeat this explanation to a typical voter. Average voters have heard the GOP “lie” a million times—and the story they hear is very simple. By way of contrast, Krugman’s debunking is four paragraphs long—and it defies repetition.

    We don’t mean this as a criticism of Krugman, who has been a journalistic hero over the past dozen years. But Krugman’s debunking is virtually useless as a matter of politics—and this is the best our side can do with this seminal topic after these 27 years. (To all intents and purposes, the creation of the current trust fund began with President Reagan’s Greenspan commission, which led to changes in Social Security in 1983. That’s when “the quarter century of surpluses” began creating the trust fund.)

    The contrast between this conservative “lie” and the liberal “debunking” offers us a primer in the politics of the past thirty years. The Republican lie has everything! It has a classic villain. (The politicians in Washington, D.C.) It has a bone-simple story line. (In their greed, they’ve already spent the money!) The presentation is easily restated, and it creates compelling drama. By way of contrast, the liberal “debunking” has never been said the same way twice. It has no story-line at all. Simply put, it defies restatement.

    Rather typically, the liberal world has gamboled and played, leaving this “zombie lie” un-rebutted. Voters can repeat the GOP/conservative “lie.” By way of contrast, most voters have never even heard a Democrat or liberal “debunk” it. This raises an obvious question: After these 27 lost years, what would a workable liberal debunking actually look like?

    To be effective, this debunking would need a story-line. And it could use a villain.

    Our suggestion: The villain should be the wealthy dissemblers who are constantly deceiving the public. (Liberals almost never explain this fact to voters.) The story-line should make use of Reagan’s role in this matter. There they go again, we should say. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the way the trust fund has been used. It has been used exactly as President Reagan (and Alan Greenspan) prescribed in 1983.

    In our view, that could be the start of an effective debunking. Someone else might have a better idea. But might we make an unfortunate guess about the political world you live in:

    Our guess: In the past 27 years, you have never seen any liberal explain the need for a simple, standard liberal debunking. You have never seen a liberal describe this obvious, bone-simple need.

    Go ahead—reread Krugman’s debunking. What Krugman says is perfectly right. But how on earth would you repeat it to an average voter? Has fast would her eyes glaze over?

    Sorry. That zombie lie “keeps coming back” because it has never been debunked in a competent, professional manner. Conservatives have driven the “lie” with great skill. Your own side’s intellectual leaders have “debunked” the lie in a typically feckless manner.

    Are you happy with the way this has turned out? This contrast—professional dissembling versus feckless debunking—almost defines American politics over the past thirty years.

  64. basement angel, I will agree to disagree. I have done my own research and I base my statement on facts; however, the Democrat and Dimocrat party are not exactly the same. But, I am starting to wonder why more Democrats are not totally enraged that their party really no longer exists. Further, your definition of who is ‘right’ and who is ‘left’ is the opposite of mine in a lot of instances. I think that we do not have the same center of gravity.

  65. a cascading set of circumstances that seem to have reduced the president to being a witness to his own diminishment. He certainly has discovered by now that rhetorical skills, while helpful to winning elections, are not sufficient in exercising executive power, cannot turn around an economy in shambles, cannot stop the BP leak and cannot make people believe the opposite of what they see and experience in their own lives.
    ——————————
    Obama’s claim to leadership no longer passes the smell test for most people. Action talks and bullshit walks.

  66. Clinton to visit Eastern Europe, Caucasus next week
    (AFP) – 1 hour ago

    WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to Eastern Europe and the Caucasus on July 2 for a trip aimed at bolstering bilateral ties, the State Department said Friday.

    In Kiev, the top US diplomat will open the US-Ukrainian Strategic Partnership Commission, which provides for increased cooperation on a range of issues, such as economics, energy and trade, security and defense, reinforcing democracy and cultural exchanges.

    She will also meet with President Viktor Yanukovych and Foreign Minister Kostyantyn Gryshchenko, as well as members of non-governmental groups and independent media leaders, according to her spokesman Philip Crowley.

    Clinton will then head to Krakow for the 10th anniversary celebration of the founding of the Community of Democracies, which her predecessor Madeleine Albright and her Polish counterpart Bronislaw Geremek initiated in 2000. She will hold talks with Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski.

    Her visit will then take her to Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia for meetings with government officials and civil society leaders to “discuss bilateral issues, as well as issues related to regional peace and stability,” Crowley said.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hokLialGa9U7fWnEL2NEH9VYxWTQ

  67. Admin. To the point our your article, J Edgar Hoover, bless his heart, maintained a dossier on most important political figures in Washington, which he could use when necessary to steer events and get what he wanted. Politicians of that era were reluctant to defy him or say no to his requests for that reason. If there is a better example of the old idiom knowledge is power, I cannot think of it. Except perhaps the way big media uses information it gathers in the ordinary course of business to protect those they support and destroy those they oppose. This is the furthest thing in the world from journalism, or creating an informed public. It is pure power politics, and the reasons they are referred to disparagingly as the third estate and/or the fourth branch of government. They are devoid of morality, decency and they now serve the interests of multi national business, more than they ever did before. They do not want an informed public, they want an angry mob or else a bamboozled bunch of no nothings, depending on the subject matter. When Jefferson wrote the First Amendment,he thought it important to protect patriots with printing presses deploring the abuses of the British Crown. He never envisioned, nor would he approve of the way that Amendment is now used to dumb down the people and steal elections. That would have seemed Hamiltonian and Federalist to him.

  68. Picking Secretary of State Clinton’s Brain on Africa, World Cup

    June 25, 2010

    UCF was one of only three universities in the nation to recently participate in a virtual briefing with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on issues associated with U.S. relations in sub-Saharan Africa.

    Among the questions asked was how the United States could ensure a long-term focus on the region after the World Cup ends next month.

    “Much of the world will be paying attention to Africa because of the World Cup in a way that they perhaps have not in the past,” Secretary Clinton answered recent UCF graduate Amal Khan, who works in the university’s Global Perspectives Office.

    “But there is so much more that needs to be done,” she added, including expanding food security and health programs.

    UCF was invited to the June 14 diplomacy briefing because of its Global Perspective Office’s longstanding ties with the U.S. State Department. Among the many connections that have benefitted UCF students are several public forums, class presentations and videoconferences with State Department leaders, as well as the service of retired U.S. Ambassador Harriet Elam-Thomas.

    Elam-Thomas now directs UCF’s Diplomacy Program after acting as the university’s diplomat-in-residence.

    The first conference in the series, held December 2009, focused on U.S.-Latin American relations.

    The Department of State [3] is organizing the Diplomacy Briefing Series, which highlights U.S. relations with various regions across the globe.

    To watch a videoconference and read a transcript of the briefing, visit the Department of State’s Web site .

    http://today.ucf.edu/picking-secretary-of-state-clintons-brain-on-africa-world-cup/

  69. The little weasel is covered on HuffPuff………

    Michael Hastings, Rolling Stone’s McChrystal Profiler, Says Troops Are Happy That General Was Ousted

    The Rolling Stone correspondent whose profile of Gen. Stanley McChrystal upended America’s Afghan war leadership says that soldiers on the ground are happy that the brash and sometimes reckless general was ousted by President Obama.

    Michael Hastings tells Huffington Post in a phone interview from Afghanistan, where he is embedded with U.S. troops: “Over here, soldiers were happy that he got fired. I’ve had a number of people come up to me, I got an email from a Marine this morning [Thursday]: ‘Hey man, you did great work. All the guys in my company think it’s good McChrystal is not there because he was putting or lives at risk.”

    Hastings adds he was “very surprised” by the resignation, assuming that McChrystal was unfireable. Taking note of the general’s “tense relationship” with the president, Hastings says that Obama had to push out McChrystal to “prove that he was in control” and not a weak leader.

    Hastings also paints a grim picture of the major U.S. offensive in Kandahar. “I think it’s in trouble, in serious trouble,” he says. “The fighting is really, really heavy and they’ve postponed the heaviest fighting till the fall. But it’s going to be nasty.”

    In a wide-ranging interview with HuffPost, Hastings talks about his crazy week, what he thinks about McChrystal’s retirement, the challenges facing the U.S. military and he forcefully responds to the media pundits who were shocked that a reporter would dare to risk that most precious commodity: access.

    It’s been some week for you. Were you surprised to see the impact your story would have? Did you anticipate that kind of reaction?

    Yeah, it seems to have gotten some attention. No, I didn’t expect it. It’s unusual for Afghanistan to get any attention. What I thought was that it will probably cause a headache for [General] McChrystal for a couple of days but that it would only be watched by those who follow Afghanistan closely.
    Story continues below

    Where were you when you first started to hear about the story’s ripple effects?

    I was in Kandahar. It was Monday and I’d been on an embed all day. I was sun-burned as hell. I was on the Kandahar air base, interviewing pilots, who were basically fighting every day IN THEIR helicopters. I went to bed, plugged my phone in to charge and all of a sudden I got this text message saying the AP picked up the story. I thought that was interesting.

    I went out the next day with these helicopter pilots and while that was happening, by the end of that day – Tuesday – [the story] appeared to take on some momentum. I spent a lot of time on the phone. Later that night, I went out on a helicopter mission. At 3 a.m., I had to go out and meet these helicopter guys again. That morning, it was a mission where I followed these helicopters called Kiowa Warriors — and they get called down for this gun battle between insurgents and Americans. The fighting was intense, two insurgents were killed… Then we went back to base. I had no Internet. I knew that I was getting a lot of phone calls, I was running out of batteries and had horrible reception.

    McChrystal had issued his apology earlier in the day and then I learned he had been called back to Washington. It was understood that it was due to my reporting in the story, and I figured it would be good to get back to Kabul because of the fact that it looked like Gen McChrystal would resign. On Wednesday evening, I went back to Kabul… Sometimes, it’s hard to get flights out of military bases, but it was pretty easy this time. They were like, “This ride’s for you, man!” I was late to the flight but they got me on the flight anyway. And there were soldiers reading the story around me, reading printouts, and they didn’t know who I was. That was a strange experience…

    Some of the soldiers must have made the connection, hearing your name and knowing that it was you?

    It was funny — one of the soldiers I was talking to said, ‘Hey, did you hear this story about McChrystal. And I said, ‘Yeah, I have. I wrote it. He just said, ‘That’s fucking crazy, man.”…

    What story are you working on now – the Kandahar offensive?

    That’s the story I’ve been working on.

    How is that offensive going?

    I think it’s in trouble, in serious trouble. The fighting is really, really heavy and they’ve postponed the heaviest fighting till the fall. But it’s going to be nasty. This June has been the deadliest month of the war. You have this problem where we told our Afghan partners, if you don’t want it , then we don’t have to do it, and they said no and we said, well, we’re doing it anyway. Now we’re in situation where we are eventually going to do it and we don’t have the popular support of the locals.

    What was your reaction to McChrystal’s resignation? And Obama accepting it? Were you surprised?

    I was very surprised. I thought Gen. McChrystal was unfireable, that his position was secure. What is telling is that our story demonstrates this tense relationship between Pres. Obama and Gen. McChrystal and the way the WH responded confirms this. They could have swept it under the rug but they drove it… obviously McChrystal’s political opponents took advantage of this opportunity to relieve him of his command, though that’s just my speculation.

    I didn’t think Obama would do it. Essentially the story calls him out for being weak and not having control of his Afghan policy. If he had let him stay, it would have confirmed this idea in the story. He had to prove that he was in control. I wasn’t sure that he was willing to do that. I was shocked that he was — not because I don’t think Obama is courageous, but because it involved some political drama… It was so fast, both right and left seemed to get together to call for his resignation. There was no one defending McChrystal.

    Do you think it was the right decision?

    Obviously, I have significant doubts about the [military] campaign anyway. The most important decision is not whether I think Obama made the right decision but whether his firing will satisfy the soldiers. Over here, soldiers were happy that he got fired. I’ve had a number of people come up to me, I got an email from Marine this morning [Thursday]: ‘Hey man, you did great work. All the guys in my company think it’s good McChrystal is not there because he was putting our lives at risk… (Ooooo, he actually got a few soldiers that were happy, doesn’t sound like groups of soldiers were praising McChrystal’s being fired.)

    Petraeus is sort of a genius. He managed to turn what could have been catastrophic defeat in Iraq into a face-saving withdrawal. That’s his mission in Afghanistan, to make it look like we didn’t get run out. He’s a master at playing the game… the soldiers look up to him and respect him.

    Will Petraeus continue this counterinsurgency offensive?

    Yes. And Petraeus has the ability to communicate this strategy in a way that is more effective… I have a scene in the story [in which McChrystal goes to meet some soldiers in a unit who were angry with the general for putting them in harm’s way by limited their range of responses, which led to the killing of one of their own]. The reason those guys are so angry [with McChrystal] is that Corporal Michael Ingram was killed because they weren’t allowed to tear down this house [an abandoned home long considered a security risk in the area they were patrolling]. It was a total failure to communicate his vision.

    The trash talking has gotten a lot of attention but the more damaging part [of the story] for McChrystal was how the soldiers would be portrayed. He pulled me aside after the meeting [at which McChrystal went to meet with Ingram’s unit to hear their concerns and to explain his strategy] and said that for them the wound is still raw. They [McChrystal’s staff] were under the impression that I would make the soldiers look like they did not understand counterinsurgency but what was clear to me instead is that McChrystal’s command had an issue. They thought he won them over but he didn’t. He knew they were angry and upset. I had a quote from a soldier saying, ‘We don’t even want McChrystal to come here’ which I didn’t include in the story.

    Have you heard from McChrystal or his staffers?

    I’ve had some communications with his folks – not from him. Members of his staff have lost their jobs as well. They’re fairly upset and they expressed that to me. Of course they’ll be upset, it was quite unexpected.

    What did you leave out of the story – any other comments by McChrystal about Obama, Gates, Biden, Petraeus, McKiernan, etc?

    I’ve got over two months’ worth of reporting. There was a bunch of stuff that got left out. We’ll see if I can use at a later date…

    I read that you are working on novel? About the punditry?

    I write for fun. I had written a kind of media satire but I doubt it will see the light of day. It was just a personal project.

    In the hypercompetitive media world, some of the reaction to your story has been a little negative, that you have “hostile views” and that you’re anti-war. Some have wondered how you could jeopardize your future access to sources. How do you respond to that?

    Look, I went into journalism to do journalism, not advertising. My views are critical but that shouldn’t be mistaken for hostile – I’m just not a stenographer. There is a body of work that shows how I view these issues but that was hard-earned through experience, not something I learned going to a cocktail party on fucking K Street. That’s what reporters are supposed to do, report the story.

  70. Back to this Al Gore thing….some thoughts:

    – It happened in late 2006; maybe Al Gore knew of this police report and this explains the reason thatg he was mostly on the sidelines until almost the end…

    – if he had any thoughts of runnning, this story would have killed his chances…even if it provoed to be false

    – Most likely BM knew about it and stayed silent to promote their boy king by keeping it under the rug and also knowing that if Al ran, they could damage him or anybody else he backed other than the fraud

    – the woman’s story is weird…sure some parts of it must be true as she mentions a lot of things that could be verified by the hotel staff…but she seemed to be prepped up for her surrpise customer – I mean she knew that he was Apple’s board etc etc…

    Finally I do know if Al Gore is guilty or not but it seems he was also another person who succumbed to the finer life…I mean his work was so stressed that he needed all that pampering to relieve his stressful like….

  71. Have you all heard the news? Ezra Klein’s Journolist has been shut down. Of course, there still remains many salvos to be fired against these hacks, but one could almost even consider this a sin qua non moment in their takedown. 🙂

    Why is this important? Well, the unconfirmed (caveat) but more or less prevailing wisdom inside the Beltway had been that EK’s Journolist is one of the principle apparatus by which many Big Media cronies have been coordinating their deceptive narratives. This was denied up and down by them….but some observers thought it worked something like this: Ezra will post something on Journolist, then Jonathan Cheit will come along and regurgitate it in his next column, followed by say Matthew Yglesias in one of this Ygelsia reports, and so on and so on….and pretty soon, by way of echo amplification, they had created a cacophony of $1.98 “political analyses”. I’m sure we all remember the hateful (and yet interestingly enough, nearly identical in nature) remarks against Hillary from many of these so called politicos back in 2008.

    Well, it turns out today, Journolist has been shut down. Apparently, the WaPo’s Dave Weigel, who was marketed by the WaPo as one of their conservative/libertarian columnists, was in fact, revealed to be talking trash about conservatives on Journolist. In the wake of this story, Weigel resigned, and Klein shut down Journolist. Quite the blow against Big Media. It’s like from Admin’s lips to God’s Ears!

    And while I would not condone and vociferously condemn such a list serv from the conservative end — say for instance, if someone like Tucker Carlson started a conservative counterpart to the now defunct Journo list — today, this PUMA is doing a happy dance. Let’s hope these big media morons take this is a sign that they need to start thinking for themselves and reporting in an honest manner.

  72. WBB

    Good idea. But just to be clear on this, I am not saying it will work, all I am saying is it might work and that is enough to give it a whirl. It has to do with the psychology of judges/

    Put yourself in the position of the Judge in this case. You want to be impartial. You want to accord full rights to the defendant. You know the press the public and no less the appellate court will be looking over your shoulder.

    Nonetheless, you would have a hard time ordering the President to testify. Especially if you lived in Chicago. Why? Well for one thing he might defy your order and then where would you be? Or, he might show up in your courtroom, and it might blow up on cross examination, when defense counsel takes apart the Bamboozler like a cheap watch. Then you would be forced to rule on objections like counsel is badgering the witness, and you would look like Judge Ito sans ux.

    Much easier to excuse him from testifying. Much easier to tell the public that the majesty of his office is such that he must stay focused on the people’s business, which would be a valid point if that was in fact what he was doing. Reggie Love knows better.

    But wouldn’t that ruling leave you with a pit in your stomach, that maybe by taking the easy way out, you had deprived the defendant with access to material evidence, and the concomitant opportunity to present it in his own defense. In other words, had you in some way not deprived the defendant of a fair trial?

    The easy way out for you in that instance might be to let defense counsel see Obama’s testimony to the FBI. The government would object, but you could tell them that your ruling has deprived defense counsel of both the opportunity to hear from Obama and the opportunity to cross examine him.

    By allowing defense counsel to see the statement and admit it into evidence as credible hearsay benefits defendant. The prior ruling precluding live testimony and cross examination benefits the prosecution. Thus the scales of justice balance.
    _________________________________________________

    WBB, I’ve not followed what has actually been accepted. Did the prosecution try to cross examine Harris (or whoever it was that was supposedly contradicted by the Obama declaration?), or was the fact of “contradiction” just something that was communicated to the reporter / press / whatever outside the courtroom?

    If the “contradiction” was somehow communicated to the jury, then I don’t see how the judge can preclude the Defense from seeing the statement and then any relevant portions allowed in. I guess the balance is between what, if any, non-privileged or protected elements are contained in the Obama declaration, vs Blago’s right to a fair trial.

  73. . Let’s hope these big media morons take this is a sign that they need to start thinking for themselves and reporting in an honest manner.
    _________________________________________

    They’ll just create a new one. You know it. They have no ethics.

  74. WBB, I’ve not followed what has actually been accepted. Did the prosecution try to cross examine Harris (or whoever it was that was supposedly contradicted by the Obama declaration?), or was the fact of “contradiction” just something that was communicated to the reporter / press / whatever outside the courtroom?

    If the “contradiction” was somehow communicated to the jury, then I don’t see how the judge can preclude the Defense from seeing the statement and then any relevant portions allowed in. I guess the balance is between what, if any, non-privileged or protected elements are contained in the Obama declaration, vs Blago’s right to a fair trial.
    —————————
    I begin with the premise that the defense asked to examine Obama.

    Unless their purpose is to turn the proceeding into a side show, it is reasonable to assume that they believe there is, or could be something material in his testimony which would be helpful to their client, and supportive to their defense strategy. It may involve contradictions, or it may be simply an attempt to show the jury that this is how business is done in Chicago.

    We know that the prosecution has taken he position that there is no evidence of criminal activity by Obama.

    I am confident they believe that. After all, they would be obliged to disclose it if it contained exculpatory information. But sometimes what is exculpatory is different from what could be useful to the defense in its strategy, or its final argument to the jury.

    We also know that there is a contradiction with respect to Jarrett.

    I assume that issue was broached by the FBI when they interviewed Obama. I assume that he denied it. But Blago is convinced that is what he really wanted, and if that is true, then he knew how the pay for play game in Chicago worked. The testimony relating to what Emanuel said sounds sanitized.

    The law of probability suggests that if Obama wanted Jarrett and knew how the game was played that overtures of some sort were discussions were had with Blago to determine what it would take. After all, this is Chicago. When her name was withdrawn those promised inducements went away. But Blago kept pursuing them.

  75. Michael Hastings, Rolling Stone’s McChrystal Profiler, Says Troops Are Happy That General Was Ousted..
    ********
    Doesn’t surprise me. I am just finishing Sebastian Junger’s “War”…The troops are in an impossible and frustrating situation. The ROE are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. The soldiers can watch “insurgents” position themselves but if no guns or radio are seen then no engagement. On the other hand, dead civilians and destroyed infrastructure destroys any hope of successful “counter-insurgency”. Also pointed out was that soldiers feel that one of the major if not most important “combatant”, Pakistan, is off limits and not recognized by as such by the Obama admin.

  76. If WaPo is to be believed, Obama’s takeover of the country is nearly complete… takeover of the private sector by the Federal Bureaucracy, that is. (Snip.)

    The guys that can’t oversee an oil spill in the middle of the Gulf expect us to believe they can manage this much of our Financial sector? The guys that run a budget that keeps going deeper and deeper into debt? The guys that already managed to destroy the jobs market, the automobile industry, the Insurance business, the School loan industry, and soon the Health Care system…and the very same guys that can’t guarantee our security at home, let alone manage and win foreign wars…these very same guys? Really?

  77. Michael Hastings, Rolling Stone’s McChrystal Profiler, Says Troops Are Happy That General Was Ousted..
    ********
    Doesn’t surprise me. I am just finishing Sebastian Junger’s “War”…The troops are in an impossible and frustrating situation. The ROE are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. The soldiers can watch “insurgents” position themselves but if no guns or radio are seen then no engagement. On the other hand, dead civilians and destroyed infrastructure destroys any hope of successful “counter-insurgency”. Also pointed out was that soldiers feel that one of the major if not most important “combatant”, Pakistan, is off limits and not recognized by as such by the Obama admin.
    ————————————
    Yes, that is a predictable reaction. Paterus will loosen the rules of engagement. But that still leaves the rest of the problem. Meanwhile, Hastings cannot stand the thought that his brief moment in the sun will end. He feels compelled to take curtain calls for what he did. The Taliban is happy for what he did as well judging from their press release.

  78. Actually, they didn’t go nearly far enough on regulating derivatives, but this isn’t an Obama thing. This is a commonsense thing. Why on earth would anyone oppose regulating the financial sector after what just happened. The financial meltdown was not an accident. Repeat, the financial meltdown was not an accident. It was the result of unmitigated greed and an unfettered financial sstem with zero government oversight. Sheesh. Not everything is about Obama. Opposing financial regulations makes zero sense.

  79. Well Hastings is BFF’s with Rachel Maddow so I’m not surprised he’s trying to milk the Rolling Stone fiasco for all he can…

  80. wbboei
    June 25th, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    I am in total agreement with you! How anyone could think the Fraud not the worst president ever is unclear.

    On another note, Blaggo. I think Fritz and the judge have been paid off in some manner. There was no reason for the Fraud to keep Fritz on, clearly, and not to produce the entire phone record and allow the Fraud off the hook, I smell dead rat….

  81. Shorttermer,

    Whether you and I have the same center of gravity is irrelevant. Political words have definitions. By definition, socialists pursue policies that benefit the middle class and the poor. They oppose policies that benefit corporations and the rich. On the other end of the spectrum, the right supports policies that benefit business and the financial elite at the expense of ordinary people. You cannot define Obama as anything but a conservative. Nothing he does benefits ordinary Americans – nothing. All of his aid, all of policies are in service to upper income Americans and large corporations.

    Obama is consistently to the right of Bush on issues regarding civil liberties. He’s a very, very conservative guy. There is no way to rebut that.

  82. Gonzo,

    It’s very simple how I think that – Bush ignored all the warnings and did not take a single action to prevent 9/11. Because of that 3500 Americans lost their lives and tens of thousands of jobs were lost. He then used that tragedy to justify a war against a country with no means to defend itself that has since cost 5000+ Americans there lives as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. He then instituted a program of torture that defies agreements that Americans fought hard to obtain. His administration took a balanced budget, slashed taxes on the wealthy and went to war running an absolutely unnecessary deficit. He tolerated an extraordinary level of corruption that has led to a housing crisis that has resulted in millions of Americans losing their jobs and hundreds of thousands losing their homes.

    How you can think they are equivalent is beyond anyone with an IQ over 90 and a functioning conscience.

  83. I agree that GWB did many things that are indefensible.

    However, I think a top-line comparison between Obama and GWB is flawed because — given that Obama has only been in office for ~1 year vs GWB who was in office for 8 years — this sort of comparison always favors Obama because the length of time in office is in Obama’s favor.

    How do we mitigate this then? Well, it reminds me of a distinction we have to make in Chemistry. We don’t just look at the length of time it takes for a reaction to happen, we also look at the rate of a reaction. (its k value)

    Bringing this back to politics then, the only way to fairly compare, IMO, GWB and Obama, is to look at the rate of country’s decline under both. That metric is what’s meaningful, as it corrects for the length in office differential.

    And what is it that we see? That the rate of the US’s decline under Obama is far worse than it was under GWB.

    Put another way — GWB crashed the country against a wall at 20 m/hour.

    With Obama, we’re heading toward a wall at 80 m/hour.

    Physics tells us…that when we hit the wall, the latter will very much be more devastating.

  84. Obama is consistently to the right of Bush on issues regarding civil liberties. He’s a very, very conservative guy. There is no way to rebut that.
    ****************

    Here’s one. He is NOT conservative, he is an opportunist. You always seem to be stuck on labels.

  85. How you can think they are equivalent is beyond anyone with an IQ over 90 and a functioning conscience.
    ************
    Ahhh,once again the superiority in one’s own mind. Let’s not forget the daily insults. You must be a blast on the party circuit!

  86. An incoherent resignation

    By Christopher Caldwell
    June 25 2010 23:25

    A question persists in the wake of the Rolling Stone article that this week led to the forced resignation of Gen Stanley McChrystal as commander of the Isaf and US forces in Afghanistan: how could a top general be so foolish as to shoot his mouth off about his dissatisfaction with White House war policy? The answer is that he wasn’t, and he didn’t. Gen McChrystal seems hardly to have spoken to the article’s author, journalist Michael Hastings, at all. The principle of civilian control of the military, around which Washington built a melodrama this week, was never at issue. The trouble lies elsewhere.

    Gen McChrystal differed with many in the administration about how to manage Afghanistan. Last year he asked for 40,000 troops for a counterinsurgency plan aimed at incremental improvements in security. These, he hoped, would win the hearts and minds of Afghans. Barack Obama agreed, but set a deadline of July 2011. Many subsequent squabbles concern what kind of deadline that is. Roughly speaking, Gen McChrystal, his successor Gen David Petraeus and defence secretary Robert Gates, see it as a time to assess progress. Vice-president Joseph Biden sees it as a time to leave.

    Gen McChrystal’s candour often upset the White House, as when he spoke of the danger of “Chaos-istan” at a meeting in London last October. But he has never directly criticised the president’s conduct of the war, and he did not do so in Rolling Stone. One of the interesting nuggets in the profile is that Gen McChrystal voted for Mr Obama. The indiscreet, insulting and occasionally stupid quotations all come from his aides. One noted that “Biden” sounds like “bite me”. Another called Mr Obama’s national security adviser James Jones “a clown”. Another said Gen McChrystal was sceptical about Mr Obama’s regional envoy, Richard Holbrooke. Yet another noted that Gen McChrystal thought Mr Obama looked intimidated at his first meeting with top military brass in 2009. But the only damning thing Gen McChrystal said was that US ambassador Karl Eikenberry “cover[ed] his flank for the history books” by expressing scepticism about Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president. The article builds a scandal out of Gen McChrystal’s dispositions, as divined by others — not his actions.

    In announcing Gen McChrystal’s replacement, Mr Obama said on Wednesday: “The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system.” No, it doesn’t. This was the highest-profile sacking of a military officer since President Truman fired Gen Douglas MacArthur in 1951, during the Korean war, and naturally news accounts scavenged for parallels between the episodes.

    Whether or not MacArthur was engaged in outright insubordination, there was reason to worry that he was ready to expand the war into China. That is not what Gen McChrystal was doing. A better, although still exaggerated, parallel would be to the bluster of Gen George Patton towards the end of the second world war. Gen Patton was removed from command of the Third Army when he admitted the US had not “denazified” the Bavarian government thoroughly. (Gen Patton felt that, given the threat of Germany turning communist, the US might not want to.) Other officers held similar views. Gen Patton’s offence was against his own country’s prestige and its “message”, not against the chain of command.

    The president, as commander-in-chief, can fire generals for any reason, from treason to boorishness. Of course, a soldier’s right to speak his mind as a citizen does not disappear when he takes up arms for his country. Americans have tended to focus on free speech when an enlisted man says something politically sensitive, and on civilian control of the military when an officer does. But fuss over the latter is rare. As chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in 1992, Gen Colin Powell made a number of political arguments in Foreign Affairs magazine, particularly about Nato expansion and US troop levels in Europe and Kuwait, that might well have raised accusations of military usurpation, but did not.

    The problem with Gen McChrystal’s statements is that they came at a moment when Mr Obama is seen as weak. New polls by Gallup and NBC show his approval rating falling to 45 per cent. Once the Rolling Stone article seemed to place the president’s prestige on the line, backing away from a confrontation with Gen McChrystal would have had a demoralising effect on Mr Obama’s presidency in general, and his Afghanistan policy in particular.

    “I welcome debate among my team,” the president said this week, “but I won’t tolerate division.” Mr Obama has made the best of a bad situation. But it is a bad situation. The brouhaha has awakened in both parties the sleeping giant of opposition to the Afghan war. Gen McChrystal was not the only shaper of Afghan policy with big ambitions and an impatience with teamwork. Mr Eikenberry and Mr Holbrooke, who argued Gen McChrystal had put too many eggs in Hamid Karzai’s basket, were also at fault. The president’s remark about division led to calls in the New York Times and the New York Post that they both resign as well. Polls show Americans no longer have a clear idea of what the Afghan war is about. The administration has failed to present a coherent picture of its policy. That could be because the policy is not yet coherent to begin with.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b7e5fd4-809f-11df-be5a-00144feabdc0.html

  87. Actually, that HuffPuff 15 minutes of fame for the weasel said that some soldiers came up and talked to him, they were glad the General was gone, and the weasel got AN email from someone else saying something similar.
    My point is, these few people giving the weasel high fives does not equate to the military folks, being happy with the change of Generals at all. It would be nice if the article actually did some poll to the troops to back up their claim.

    #
    wbboei
    June 25th, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    Michael Hastings, Rolling Stone’s McChrystal Profiler, Says Troops Are Happy That General Was Ousted..
    ********
    Doesn’t surprise me. I am just finishing Sebastian Junger’s “War”…The troops are in an impossible and frustrating situation. The ROE are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. The soldiers can watch “insurgents” position themselves but if no guns or radio are seen then no engagement. On the other hand, dead civilians and destroyed infrastructure destroys any hope of successful “counter-insurgency”. Also pointed out was that soldiers feel that one of the major if not most important “combatant”, Pakistan, is off limits and not recognized by as such by the Obama admin.
    ————————————
    Yes, that is a predictable reaction. Paterus will loosen the rules of engagement. But that still leaves the rest of the problem. Meanwhile, Hastings cannot stand the thought that his brief moment in the sun will end. He feels compelled to take curtain calls for what he did. The Taliban is happy for what he did as well judging from their press release.

  88. Yes, that is a predictable reaction. Paterus will loosen the rules of engagement…
    **********
    Petreus is one of the main proponents of the “Human Terrain Doctrine”, that McCrystal used for his “restrictive” counter-insurgency ROE.

    “HTS (Human Terrain System) is supported by General David Petraeus, Commanding General of CENTCOM and a powerful force in Washington, DC. President Barak Obama has embraced Petraeus’ notion of understanding, exploiting and dominating the Human Terrain as an element of “soft power” and counterinsurgency. As such, it has become central to US National Security Strategy.”

  89. Witness: Blago given list of Obama favorites

    Staff chief Emanuel relayed who president-elect wanted for Senate, Harris says
    Comments

    June 25, 2010
    BY NATASHA KORECKI AND SARAH OSTMAN Sun-Times Reporters

    After Barack Obama friend Valerie Jarrett publicly pulled out of contention for the U.S. Senate seat appointment, Rahm Emanuel called Rod Blagojevich’s top aide.

    Emanuel, now Obama’s chief of staff, wanted Blagojevich to know the list of Senate candidates “acceptable” to Obama, according to testimony Thursday in Blagojevich’s corruption trial.

    They were: Tammy Duckworth; Illinois state comptroller Dan Hynes; U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, according to Blagojevich’s former chief of staff John Harris.

    Harris told the ex-governor of the discussion in a secretly recorded phone call Nov. 12.

    On the call, Blagojevich calls the list “B.S.”

    Harris testified the former governor believed Obama’s list to be political cover.

    “If that became public, the president-elect would want the list to represent a diverse group of individuals,” Harris explained from the stand.

    In his fourth day of testimony, Harris walked jurors through the day-by-day developments involving Jarrett’s consideration for the Senate seat and the Blagojevich administration’s contacts with the Obama camp.

    The list Emanuel offered clashed with what union leaders Tom Balanoff and Andy Stern had previously told Blagojevich — that they would not support Jackson as a candidate. Obama had personally called Balanoff on Nov. 3 to give him the green light in talking with Blagojevich about the Senate seat and pushing Jarrett, sources have told the Chicago Sun-Times.

    Emanuel’s talk with Harris with a new, diverse list of candidates came two days after Emanuel called Blagojevich friend and lobbyist John Wyma with a different message, according to Harris’ testimony.

    Wyma had contact with Emanuel and then made the call on his behalf on Nov. 10 — several weeks after he began cooperating with federal authorities and had been asked to wear a wire, which Wyma refused.

    “The president-elect would be very pleased if you appointed Valerie and he would be, uh, thankful and appreciative” for an appointment, Harris said Wyma told him in a phone call.

    That put the brakes on Blagojevich’s hopes that he could win a Cabinet position or another high-ranking, high-paying appointment in exchange for Jarrett’s appointment. Blagojevich had told Balanoff the week before that he wanted Obama to give him a Cabinet position, Harris said.

    “They’re not willing to give me anything but appreciation — f— them,” Blagojevich says on the recording.

    Also in recordings Thursday, Blagojevich made clear his dislike for Jackson, calling him “repugnant” at one point.

    There had been “bad blood” between Blagojevich and Jackson dating back to the ex-governor’s 2002 primary, Harris testified. Jackson promised to endorse Blagojevich in that race, but changed his mind when Roland Burris announced he was running.

    Blagojevich had held a grudge.

    “He’s a bad guy,” Blagojevich was heard saying of Jackson on the recordings.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/2431290,CST-NWS-blago25.article#

  90. Yes, Bambi comes out smelling like a rose on this one–but only in the theater of the absurd.

    Act I: Bambi calls Afghanistan The Good War. (Move-on applause). The place we belong, not Iraq. He cans the general in charge. Too old school for Bambi’s new fangled ideas. (big media applause). Bambi hires a new general. (big media applause). Wants fresh eyes. (big media applause). But not a fresh mouth (big media boos).

    Act II: General takes command, decides what is required to win, and he tells Bambi. Bambi has no clue what he is talking about. (Big media church mice wring their hands not knowing what to say). Bambi dithers for five months. More troops than he wanted. Hillary and Gates give sensible advice–you hired the man to win, for gods sake man give him the troops. Biden disagrees. He says instead of 90, 000 troops we need 90, 000 drone helicopters. If we take out a few villages along the way that is a cost of doing business. Axelgrease tells Obama the only victory that counts here is YOUR victory in 2012. Tell the general to fuck off–or split the difference. (Big Media breathes a sigh of relief and wildly applauds. They portray him as a military commander with headlines like Obama Convenes War Council. Then Obama Listens to All View Points. Then Obama Prepares to Decide. Then finally Obama applies his remarkable intellect and decrees split the difference. (Big Media, Move On all give thunderous applause. With a straight face they call him a War President.

    Act III: The White House sends a cub reporter who is on the make over to Afghanistan. He embeds with the troops. He weens his way into their confidences. The general and members of his staff confide in him. He is less interested in reporting on dull stuff like how the war is going, and more interested in finding some way to undermine finding a sensational story. So he writes a hit piece entitled The Runaway General to cast him as an insubordinate. He censors useful information and prints gossip about what senior staff thinks about their political counterparts which is for the most part negative. The general is feels that he has not been given what he needs and will become the fall guy for the piece so he lets her rip. *Big Media is horrified, apoplectic and taken aback that anyone in uniform should utter an unkind word about the Messiah.

    Act IV: Bambi is informed of this in the middle of a 2 foot putt on the 16th hole. He proceeds to 4 putt from that distance. He calls Axelgrease and asks him Oh Svengali of Mine, what sayest thou now? Grease tells you need to get angry. The problem is you are such a cold bloodless chap that you do not do angry well. We will let you watch Glenn Beck and see if that can stir your juices. Also, we need to set the general up for the perp walk, make sure everyone knows he has apologized and tell them that this is a Mac Arthur moment and you will defend he principle of civilian leadership. Then you can appear with all your cabinet and announce your momentous decision to the country. Those suckers will eat it up. But watch the body language. You have got to project more emotion. (Big Media gives that speech a standing ovation and gush about it for days). Meanwhile the writer gets cudas from all quarters and basks in the sum. The troops who stand in harms way are glad there is a change in command. The hope it will change the mission or the ROE. Instead, it introduces new variables in an already tenuous mission at the worst possible time, and enboldens the Taliban. Obama fires a second general, the man he chose, and replaces him with the general his left wing supporters called General Betray Us. (This time, Move on.org applauds).

  91. I keep searching the internet to see what the strong connection between Valerie Jarrett is to Obama………

    I ran across this site, and maybe it’s tin foil hat stuff, I don’t know…

    This is near the bottom of the page:

    [snip]

    According to Take Political Action May 24th 2008;
    “She’s always been the other side of Barack’s brain.” That’s how an Obama insider described Valerie Jarrett as an Obama campaign aide announced Thursday night the former CTA chief and current Habitat Co. CEO is taking on a larger role to help her close friend win his White House bid.
    The development comes as Jarrett, a charter member of Sen. Barack Obama’s kitchen cabinet, has been formalizing her portfolio and stepping up the pace within the past few weeks as a top advisor within the campaign.
    Though she will be part-time, Jarrett will be one of the most visible and powerful African-Americans in the top rungs of the Obama operation… Today Valerie Jarrett serves as one of three Senior Advisors to President Obama. She is Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, and Chairs the White House Commission on Women and Girls.

    Frank Marshall Davis works closely in communist causes with Vernon Jarrett in Chicago. Davis moves to hawaii where he eventually meets and mentors a young Barack Obama. Then Obama moves to Chicago where his career is promoted by both Davis’s old colleague Vernon Jarrett and the Communist Party. Vernon Jarrett’s daughter-in-law employs Barack Obama’s fiance, befriends the family and becomes one of President Obama’s most trusted advisors. The Communist Party throws its entire weight behind Obama’s presidential campaign.
    Are we expected to believe that this is all mere coincidence?
    Would there be an Obama/Jarrett relationship today, if there had been no Frank Marshall Davis/Jarrett connection through the Communist Party of post war Chicago?
    What role, if any, has the modern Communist Party USA played in fostering that relationship in more recent times?
    The Communist Party USA continues to back their “friend” Barack Obama.
    How deeply has the Communist Party been involved in advancing Obama’s political career-through the Jarrett family, or by other means?

    http://theuniversalseduction.com/special/the-valerie-jarrett-connection-proof-that-obamas-hawaii-and-chicago-communist-networks-were-linked

  92. ShadowFax

    Try searching around for Obama and “New Party”. I’ve seen pdf fliers / brochures / propoganda sheets identifying him as the “new party” candiate. This was when he was running for state office. “New Party” is a commie org. The scanned flyers may have well been scrubbed by now. Seems like they may have been on some New Party website that either had been archived or hadn’t been maintained in several years.

  93. Shadowfax, I am convinced Obama was put here to destroy America…if you think about everything he has done has hurt America and its people…Bush was here to do the same thing.

  94. Blow and Confloyd,
    I don’t know what group Obama was pushed to support, but even those groups should be amazed at what a crappy job he is doing. He should be having his last fling before his lame duct act defines the rest of his term as pResident.

    He’s toast.

  95. I found this over at TM’s, it is a tweet from AL GORE…hmmm, hmmm, could this be the reason his love life is now spattered all over the tabloids?
    ———————————————–

    Gov. Bobby Jindal’s message has been loud and clear, using language such as “We will only be winning this war when we’re actually deploying every resource,” “They (the federal government) can provide more resources” and “It’s clear the resources needed to protect our coast are still not here.” But nearly two months after the governor requested – and the Department of Defense approved the use of 6,000 Louisiana National Guard troops – only a fraction – 1,053 – have actually been deployed by Jindal to fight the spill. – Gulf Coast Governors Leaving National Guard Idle – Thousands of Troops Called Up to Fight Oil Spill Haven’t Been Deployed

  96. Al has been extremely quiet about the devastation going on in the gulf, but now he has given the “One” political cover….what is the exchange??? Could you Potus make this Massuesse thing go away, like you did your birth certificate??

    Does anyone really think Jindal would not deploy everything possible to fight the oil spill or do you think he would wait to score political points???

  97. Time for reflection and repost of an old article that cuts to the chase.

    Obama Is A Flake
    American Thinker–August 2008
    The odd choices in Barack Obama’s career
    By J.R. Dunn

    It’s time to throw my hat in the ring as regards predicting the election results. So here it is: Barack Obama will be defeated. Seriously and convincingly defeated. Not due to racism, not due to the forces of reaction, not even due to Karl Rove sending out mind rays over the national cable system. He will lose for one reason above all, one that has been overlooked in any analysis that I’ve yet seen. Barack Obama will lose because he is a flake.

    I’m using the term in its generally accepted sense. A flake is not only a screwup, but someone who truly excels in making bizarre errors and creating incredibly convoluted disasters. A flake is a “fool with energy”, as the Russian proverb puts it. (“A fool is a terrible thing to have around, but a fool with energy is a nightmare”.)

    Barack Obama is a flake, and the American people have begun to see it. The chief characteristic of a flake is that he makes choices that are impossible to either understand or explain. These are not the errors of the poor dope who can’t grasp the essentials of a situation, or the neurotic who ruins things out of compulsion, or the man suffering chronic bad luck.

    The flake has a genius for discovering solutions at perfect right angles to the ordinary world. It’s as if he’s the product of a totally different evolutionary chain, in a universe where the laws are slightly but distinctly at variance to ours. When given a choice between left and right, the flake goes up — if not through the 8th dimension. And although there’s plenty of rationalization, there’s never a logical reason for any of it. After awhile, people stop asking.

    Obama’s rise has been widely portrayed as a kind of millennial Horatio Alger story — young lad from a new state on the outskirts of the American polity, a member of once-despised minority, works his way by slow degrees to within arm’s length of the presidency itself. That’s all well and good — we need national myths of exactly that type.

    But what has been overlooked is the string of faux pas marking each step of Obama’s journey, a series of strange, inexplicable actions, actions bizarre enough to require some effort at explanation, through such efforts have rarely been offered. It’s as if the new Horatio made it to the top by stepping into every last manhole and open trapdoor in his path. And we, the onlookers, the voters who are being asked to put this man in the White House, are supposed to take this as the normal career path for a successful chief executive.

    What are these incidents? I’m sure many of you are way ahead of me, but let’s go to the videotape.

    Here’s a young man who graduated from Columbia with high marks, with a choice of positions anywhere in the country. He comes from a state generally held to be a close match to Paradise. One, furthermore, that can be characterized as the most successful multiracial society in the world, with harmonious relations not only between whites and blacks, but also Japanese-Americans and native Hawaiians as well. To top it off, a state controlled in large part by a smoothly-functioning Democratic machine. So where does he choose to go?

    To Chicago. One of the windiest, coldest, most brutal cities in the country. One that is also infinitely corrupt in a sense that Hawaii is not. One that remains one of the most racist large cities in the U.S. (Cicero, Al Capone’s old stomping grounds, a suburb that is effectively part of the city, is completely segregated to this day.) It would be nice to learn which of these aspects most attracted young Obama to the city. But if you’d asked at the beginning of the campaign, you’d still be waiting.

    And what does he do when he reaches the city? Why, he joins a cult. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church has been turned inside out since the videotaped sermons appeared early this year, without anyone ever quite explaining exactly what Obama was thinking of when he joined up in the first place. Street cred, so it’s claimed. But there are a plethora of black churches that would have provided him that without the taint of demented racism that Wright’s church offered.

    Obama apparently had to swear an oath of belief in “black liberation theology” when he joined the church. (It is the little touches of that sort that make it a “cult”, and not simply a “church”.) Did the thought of his career ever cross his mind? Didn’t he realize that church would inevitably cause him trouble somewhere down the line? That he’d be required to repudiate it and its ideas eventually? We can ask — but we won’t get an answer.

    Back at school, Obama got himself named editor of the Harvard Law Review. This is a signal achievement, no question about it. The kind of thing that would be mentioned about a person for the rest of his life, as has been the case with Obama. But then… he writes nothing for the journal.

    Now, let’s get this straight: here we have one of the leading university law journals in the country, one widely cited and read. Entire careers in legal analysis and scholarship have been founded on appearances in the Review, including some that have led to the highest courts in the country. Yet here’s an individual who, as editor, could easily place his own work in the journal — standard practice, nothing at all wrong with it. But he fails to do so. And the explanation? There’s none that I’ve heard. We can go even farther than that, to say that there is no explanation that makes the least rational sense.

    We follow Obama down to Springfield, where as a state legislator, he voted “present” over 120 times. What this means, as far as I’ve been able to discover, is that he voted “present” nearly as much as he voted “yes” or “no”.

    Now, statehouses work very simply: a member approaches his colleagues and asks them them to vote for his bill. Some comply, some do not. Some ask, “Is it a good bill?” and some don’t. Either way, they customarily, except in unusual circumstances, vote “yes’ or “no”. All except for Barack Obama. And how did get away with it? How did mollify his colleagues? How did he square himself with the party bosses? Echo answereth not.

    (A good slogan could be made of this: “You can’t vote present in the Oval Office.” I hereby commend it to the McCain campaign.)

    We turn eagerly to learn what his term in the U.S. Senate will reveal, only to be disappointed. But it’s not surprising, really. After all, he was only there for 143 days.

    And there lies one of the keys to Obama’s rise. David Brooks pointed out in a recent New York Times column that Obama spent too little time in any of his positions to make an impact one way or another. This is what saved him from the normal fate of the flake: he was never around long enough for his errors and strange behavior to catch up with him.

    But a presidential campaign is a different matter. A man running for president is under the microscope, and can’t duck anything, as many a candidate has had reason to learn. If Obama is a flake in the classic mode, now is when it would come out. And has it?

    The case could be made. Here we have a campaign with everything going for it — the opposition party in a shambles, a seriously undervalued president, the media in the candidate’s pocket, the candidate himself being worshiped as nothing less than the new messiah. And yet the results have comprised little more than one fumble after another.

    First came the Wright affair. Obama apparently thought he was above it all — a not-uncommon phenomenon with flakes — and allowed the revelations to take on a life of their own before bothering to respond. Even then, his thoughtful and convincing explanation (that he hadn’t been listening for twenty years) did little to settle the crisis, which instead guttered out on its own after nearly crippling his campaign. Even months afterward it threatens to pop back up at any time. The latest word is that Wright — now a deadly enemy of his onetime protégé — has written a book. I can’t wait.

    Obama learned his lesson, and confronted the next threat immediately, tackling The New Yorker cover with the avidity of a man having discovered zombies in the basement. A development that could have been defused with a chuckle and a quip (the customary method is for the politician to ask the cartoonist for the original) was allowed to explode into a major issue. The campaign’s relentless attacks on one of the oldest liberal magazines extant merely perplexed the country at large. After all, any Republican has had to endure far worse.

    Almost simultaneously, the birth certificate saga was unfolding. On no reasonable grounds, the campaign blew off requests for a copy of the document, at last releasing it through one of the least reputable sites on the Internet, and so badly copied that literally anything could be read into it — and was. I’m not one of those who believes that Obama was actually born in Indonesia/Kenya/Moscow/the moon, but I still have plenty in the way of questions, almost all of them arising from how the matter was handled. Well played.

    The latest pothole (or one of them, anyway) involves Jerome Corsi’s The Obama Nation. Corsi has been given the full New Yorker treatment, with the campaign hoping to avoid John Kerry’s “error” in not challenging Corsi’s 2004 book, Unfit for Command. What Obama missed was the fact that Kerry’s major problem was not with Corsi but with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who were disgusted with Kerry’s hypocrisy in running as an experienced military veteran, and set out to take him down. Corsi’s effort dovetailed with the veteran’s campaign and to a large extent was swept up with it. No such campaign is in operation against Obama. The smart method of answering Corsi would have been to allow the media to handle it, instead of drawing attention to the book and raising it to level of an issue. This appears to be a real talent for the Obama campaign.

    We could go on. The victory tour of Europe, and the speech in which Obama declared himself “citizen of the world”, a trope guaranteed to focus the attention of Middle America. His inept handling of Hillary, in which he wound up appearing frightened of the opponent he’d just beaten. Allowing Hillary (and her husband there, what’s-his-name) a starring role in the Democratic convention is not a solution any sane individual would be comfortable with — much less a roll-call vote. This threatens the near-certainty of turning the entire affair into BillandHillarycon, with the nominee winding up as a footnote. But it’s all of a piece with the campaign Obama has waged up until now.

    We’ve never had a flake as president. We’ve had drunks, neurotics, cripples, louts, and fools, but never a career screwup. (I except Jimmy Carter, whose errors arose from sincere, misguided goodwill.) And I don’t think we’re going to get one now. Another three months of flailing, incompetence, and a collapsing image will do little to assure voters concerned with terrorism, the oil crunch, a gyrating economy, and a bellicose Russia. (Anyone doubting that Obama will go exactly this route can consider the Saddleback church fiasco, which unfolded as this piece was being wrapped up. Evidently, the campaign goaded NBC news personality Andrea Mitchell into all but accusing John McCain of “cheating” by failing to take his place within the “cone of silence” during Obama’s part of the program. The grotesque element here is that Obama’s people and much of the liberal commentariat — including Mitchell — apparently believe that the “cone of silence”, a gag prop for the old Get Smart! comedy series, actually exists and was in use at Saddleback.)

    Many of us have dealt with flakes at one time or another, often in settings involving jobs and careers, and not uncommonly in positions of some authority. We all know of the nephew, the fiancé, the boyfriend, whose whims must be catered to, whose reputation must be protected, who must be constantly worked around if anything at all is to be accomplished, always at the cost of time, money, efficiency, and personal stress.

  98. #
    Mrs. Smith
    June 25th, 2010 at 10:04 pm

    Shadowfax-

    Wiki Jarrett- There’s plenty of info there.
    ——–
    I did look at wiki, she is pretty clean there, but something more seems to make her such an important person to Barry, not sure what.

  99. I found it very interesting that BO said that Valerie was like a sibling to him…what if she were. She and her mom traveled with her dad to africa to give injections and study genetics….she was born in 56 and supposedly he was born in 61′.

  100. Gonzotex,

    If the label fits, as it does with Obama and conservatism, then it’s useful. Yes, I agree he is an opportunist. But he never does anything that doesn’t benefit big business and which does benefit average American – like it or not, that makes him a conservative.

    As for Jindal, Confloyd, name one time in the past thirty years that Republicans have deployed every imaginable resource to protect the environment or jobs. It hasn’t happened. He’ll deploy whatever is politically comfortable for him and no more. Remember, Senate Republicans are refusing to back an extension of unemployment benefits. As a party, they don’t give a flying fuck about anyone with less than a healthy six figure income and Jindal is no different.

  101. basement angel, If he doesnt clean that oil up, he will not get re elected…so he has to make sure he does everything he can to get it off the marshes…I realize they want to make the One looked harpooned, but they can’t possible want to do it to the extend of damaging their own job.

  102. #
    confloyd
    June 25th, 2010 at 11:07 pm

    I found it very interesting that BO said that Valerie was like a sibling to him…what if she were. She and her mom traveled with her dad to africa to give injections and study genetics….she was born in 56 and supposedly he was born in 61′.
    ———–
    confloyd, you crack me up. 😉

    You think she could be his sister,

    I was wondering if they had some sort of ‘Gore’ date,

    maybe she is someone connected to power that helps him get more of what he wants or needs…I have no idea. 😆

  103. It’s Friday and Barry is out of the country…happy days are here again…at least for the moment.

  104. Shadowfax, You really need to look at the pics…maybe he has two wives…he could afterall he’s muslim. LOL!

    Jarrett is connected plenty to the Daley’s, Farrakhan and if you ever see a pic of Jarrett’s father and a pic of Farrakhn you would think they were brothers.

  105. Shadowfax, He’s in Canada, right? How do you know that Canada is still considered separate from the US, Barry has been doing treaties, signing statements, executive orders…how do you know…BM is not going to tell you, LOL!

  106. Confloyd,

    What damages a Republican’s ability to hold office is not the same as what damages a Democrat’s ability to hold office.

    Jindal will only act as far as BP’s comfort level – he’ll go no farther or he won’t get money to run again. They have an investment in him winning re-election so they’ll give him latitude as long as it not costing them, but it being paid for by the tax payers. Aye, there’s the rub.

  107. As for your posts, there is lotta mystery around this site. Do you know how many times the link for this site has disappeared from my bookmarks? The internet gods toy with us here, I’m sure.

  108. basement angel, others opinions are irrelavant including mine – to you. And your definitions match little of what I know and believe. The One is as much a conservative as Mao, Chavez, Che, and Fidel. You seem to like to play semantic games. yawn. The time is too perilous to play any game.

  109. No, I’m not the one playing semantic games. I’m the one using traditional definitions. The people playing semantic games are the ones defining Obama as a liberal, or as a socialist. Socialists and liberals cater to the middle class and lower income citizens. Obama does not do that.

    What you’re objecting to is using words as they are defined because you find it politically uncomfortable. The fact of the matter is that Obama is a deeply conservative president in the mold of George Bush and Ronald Reagan. There is nothing liberal about him or his policies. That’s reality. Not a semantic game.

  110. And Che, Chavez and Fidel all pursued policies that benefitted the peasants at the expense of the elite. Obama doesn’t do that.

  111. basement angel, You seem to know lots of stuff, so let me ask you this…Dr. Louis Sullivan former sugeon general under H.W. Bush. I have been trying to find out about his children. Wiki says he has 3, but it only mentions one who is also a Dr. and is married to a Pharmacist. I can’t find out anything about the other two….if you know let me know…I am kind of chasing rainbows here.

  112. Oh, I remember that guy. Don’t know anything off the top of my head, but I’ll look around as well.

  113. Re. Afghanistan Select excerpts–

    1. Eroded Political Capital: The president himself is in a parlous position with regard to support, which means with regard to his ability to persuade, to be believed, to be followed. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll shows more people disapprove of Mr. Obama’s job performance than approve. (snip)

    2. Waning Support: The left doesn’t like this war and will only grow more opposed to it. The center sees that it has gone on longer than Vietnam, and “we’ve seen that movie before.” We’re in an economic crisis; can we afford this war? The right is probably going to start to peel off, not Washington policy intellectuals but people on the ground in America. There are many reasons for this. Their sons and nephews have come back from repeat tours full of doubts as to the possibility of victory, “whatever that is,” as we all now say. There is the brute political fact that the war is now President Obama’s. Partisans will let him stew in it.
    ——————————–
    Full Article

    McChrystal Forces Us to Focus
    Now Petraeus owes us a candid assessment of the Afghan effort.
    By PEGGY Noonan
    Wall Street Journal

    Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s greatest contribution to the war in Afghanistan may turn out to be forcing everyone to focus on it. The real news there this week was not Gen. McChrystal’s epic faux pas and dismissal but that 12 soldiers were killed on June 7-8, including five Americans by a roadside bomb, making that “the deadliest 24 hour period this year,” as The Economist noted. Insurgency-related violence was up by 87% in the six months prior to March. Agence France-Presse reported Thursday that NATO forces are experiencing their deadliest month ever.

    It has gone on almost nine years. It began rightly, legitimately. On 9/11 we had been attacked, essentially, from Afghanistan, harborer of terrorists. We invaded and toppled the Taliban with dispatch, courage and even, for all our woundedness, brio. We all have unforgettable pictures in our minds. One of mine is the grainy footage of a U.S. cavalry charge, with local tribesman, against a Taliban stronghold. It left me cheering. You too, I bet.

    But Washington soon took its eye off the ball, turning its focus and fervor to invading Iraq. Over the years, the problems in Afghanistan mounted. In 2009, amid a growing air of crisis, Secretary of Defense Bob Gates sacked the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan—institutional Army, maybe a little old-style. He was replaced by Gen. McChrystal—special forces background, black ops, an agile and resourceful snake eater. “Politicians love the mystique of these guys,” said a general this week. Snake eaters know it, and wind up being even more colorful, reveling in their ethos of bucking the system.

    Last August, Gen. McChrystal produced, and someone leaked, a 66-page report warning of “mission failure.” More troops and new strategy were needed. The strategy, counterinsurgency, was adopted. That was a signal moment within a signal moment, for at the same time the president committed 30,000 more troops and set a deadline for departure, July 2011. The mission on the ground was expanded—counterinsurgency, also known as COIN, is nation building, and nation building is time- and troop-intensive—but the timeline for success was truncated.

    COIN is a humane strategy not lacking in shrewdness: Don’t treat the people of a sovereign nation as if they just wandered across your battlefield. Instead, befriend them, consult them, build schools, give them an investment in peace. Only America, and God bless it, would try to take the hell out of war. But the new strategy involved lawyering up, requiring troops to receive permission before they hit targets. Some now-famous cases make clear this has endangered soldiers and damaged morale.

    The Afghan government, on which COIN’s success hinges, is corrupt and unstable. That is their political context. But are we fully appreciating the political context of the war at home, in America?

    The left doesn’t like this war and will only grow more opposed to it. The center sees that it has gone on longer than Vietnam, and “we’ve seen that movie before.” We’re in an economic crisis; can we afford this war? The right is probably going to start to peel off, not Washington policy intellectuals but people on the ground in America. There are many reasons for this. Their sons and nephews have come back from repeat tours full of doubts as to the possibility of victory, “whatever that is,” as we all now say. There is the brute political fact that the war is now President Obama’s. Partisans will let him stew in it.

    Republican leaders such as John McCain are stalwart: This war can be won. But there’s a sense when you watch Mr. McCain that he’s very much speaking for Mr. McCain, and McCainism. Republicans respect this attitude: “Never give in.” But people can respect what they choose not to follow. The other day Sen. Lindsey Graham, in ostensibly supportive remarks, said that Gen. David Petraeus, Gen. McChrystal’s replacement, “is our only hope.” If he can’t pull it out, “nobody can.” That’s not all that optimistic a statement.

    The U.S. military is overstretched in every way, including emotionally and psychologically. The biggest takeaway from a week at U.S. Army War College in 2008 was the exhaustion of the officers. They are tired from repeat deployments, and their families are stretched to the limit, with children reaching 12 and 13 without a father at home.

    The president himself is in a parlous position with regard to support, which means with regard to his ability to persuade, to be believed, to be followed. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll shows more people disapprove of Mr. Obama’s job performance than approve.

    When he ran for president, Mr. Obama blasted Iraq but called Afghanistan the “good war.” This was in line with public opinion, and as a young Democratic progressive who hadn’t served in the military, he had to kick away from the old tie-dyed-hippie-lefty-peacenik hangover that dogs the Democratic Party to this day, even as heartless-warlike-bigot-in-plaid-golf-shorts dogs the Republicans. In 2009 he ordered a top-to-bottom review of Afghanistan. In his valuable and deeply reported book “The Promise,” Jonathan Alter offers new information on the review. A reader gets the sense it is meant to be reassuring—they’re doing a lot of thinking over there!—but for me it was not. The president seems to have thought government experts had answers, or rather reliable and comprehensive information that could be weighed and fully understood. But in Washington, agency analysts and experts don’t have answers, really. They have product. They have factoids. They have free-floating data. They have dots in a pointillist picture, but they’re not artists, they’re dot-makers.

    More crucially, the president asked policy makers, in Mr. Alter’s words, “If the Taliban took Kabul and controlled Afghanistan, could it link up with Pakistan’s Taliban and threaten command and control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons?” The answer: Quite possibly yes. Mr. Alter: “Early on, the President eliminated withdrawal (from Afghanistan) as an option, in part because of a new classified study on what would happen to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal if the Islamabad government fell to the Taliban.”

    That is always the heart-stopper in any conversation about Afghanistan, terrorists and Pakistan’s nukes. But the ins and outs of this question—what we know, for instance, about the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence service, and its connections to terrorists—are not fully discussed. Which means a primary argument in the president’s arsenal is denied him.

    It is within the context of all this mess that—well, Gen. Petraeus a week and a half ago, in giving Senate testimony on Afghanistan, appeared to faint. And Gen. McChrystal suicide-bombed his career. One of Gen. McChrystal’s aides, in the Rolling Stone interview, said that if Americans “started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular.”

    Maybe we should find out. Gen. Petraeus’s confirmation hearings are set for next week. He is a careful man, but this is no time for discretion. What is needed now is a deep, even startling, even brute candor. The country can take it. It’s taken two wars. So can Gen. Petraeus. He can’t be fired because both his predecessors were, and because he’s Petraeus. In that sense he’s fireproof. Which is not what he’ll care about. He cares about doing what he can to make America safer in the world. That means being frank about a war that can be prosecuted only if the American people support it. They have focused. They’re ready to hear.

  114. The Perils of A Media Presidency *The Bigger They Are–The Harder They Fall– Barack”)
    Dan Henninger
    Wall Street Journal

    (snip)
    Barack Obama used the Web to win the White House. Once in the White House, Obama allowed—no, he encouraged—the electronic vapors to raise him up to the status of an iconic presidency. His White House whiz kids deployed all the elements of electronica to ensure that Barack remained larger than life.

    No person, no president, can bear this much media weight.

    Presidents need to find a way to redistribute the load. They need to find a way to re-normalize expectations.

    Consider the BP spill.

    The blown well and its aftermath were tailor-made for the president’s heralded mediation skills. In “Promise,” Jonathan Alter’s book on Mr. Obama’s first year, he describes how for the Afghanistan decision the president gathered 16 advisers in the Situation Room for “the most methodical national-security decision in a generation.” He quotes Mr. Obama: “I had to . . . ask a bunch of tough questions and force people to sharpen their pencils until we arrived at the best possible solution.”

    If that person had been on top of the Gulf oil spill, he would have summoned to the Situation Room: Tony Hayward of BP; top engineers from BP, Anadarko, Halliburton and the oil industry; the Interior Department; Coast Guard, EPA and all other first-tier parties from the public and private sectors.

    Within hours, he would have established that he was in charge—”responsible”—but that significant pieces of that responsibility belonged to identifiable, invested parties. Instead of all media running straight at him, they would have had many relevant story lines to chase.

    Confidence Waning in Obama, U.S. Outlook
    He famously did not meet with BP’s top brass for 57 days. Did hanging BP out to dry work? Yes, clearly it undermined BP.

    But the media hurricane today doesn’t discriminate between the tall trees in its path. The game of isolating one’s political enemies isn’t what it was. For 57 days, the relentless media winds also focused on Barack Obama, eventually building up impossible pressure to “make the oil stop.”

    The president was correct in his June 15 Oval Office speech that this spill “tested the limits of human technology.” A more public, shared consultation with all parties early on would have made that reality clear. But asking in the opposition might also have surfaced rational reasons not to impose that drilling moratorium.

    Look at today’s Wall Street Journal/NBC poll on the president and the oil spill. His numbers are awful.

    Ordering Stanley McChrystal to fly back from Afghanistan to be fired over his aides’ intemperate remarks in Rolling Stone is a closer call. Firing Gen. McChrystal so publicly probably looked like an opportunity to restore some of the stature and authority lost in the Gulf. But in the new hyper-potent media world, close calls—and this is a close call—can go in the wrong direction fast for a president.

    The McChrystal decision was not obvious. There was in fact no challenge to the chain of command. His aides, not the general, insulted Joe Biden. Mr. Obama’s July 2011 withdrawal deadline has put almost impossible pressure on the troops in Afghanistan. The media furies will whip around this seemingly “decisive” decision, just as they did around the Gulf non-decision.

    New media is hard. It isn’t fair. It distorts policy making. Judgment and courage still matter. All true. But the relentless, gravitational pull of all this electronic opinion diminishes and flattens presidencies. If one of these guys doesn’t figure out that media means more than checking your Blackberry, a lot more than their ambition is going to take the hit.

    Put this forgotten folk wisdom on the next president’s desk: The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

  115. Yeah, right, basement angel. I’d bet the peasants under Fidel would love a car manufactured in the last 30 or so years. I have met people who are from Cuba and they do not describe any of it as ‘helping the peasants’ at the expense of the elites. Each one of the has described in different words, that our citizens do not appreciate our freedoms. And each has said they ‘escaped’ from Cuba.

  116. And now we see buyers remorse in re. Obama by the very business leaders helped elect him. So sad . . .
    ———————————————————————————-
    Business’s Buyer’s Remorse
    For cooperating with the White House, member companies of the Business Roundtable gets socked with higher taxes and more regulations.
    By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

    To listen to President Barack Obama, corporate America is a juggernaut, a force of calculating capitalists who ceaselessly plot against his national reforms. To listen to Ivan Seidenberg is to wish the president were even a little right.

    Mr. Seidenberg, officially Verizon’s CEO, moonlights as chairman of the influential Business Roundtable, the “association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies.” That would be the same Business Roundtable that woke up this past month to discover the White House has been playing it for a patsy. It turns out that actively supporting a pro-tax, pro-regulation Democratic majority on issues like health care doesn’t really get you anything save more taxes and more regulation.

    This has clearly come as a shock to the Business Roundtable, as Mr. Seidenberg made clear this week with his newsy and newfound criticism of the White House. The chairman revealed in a speech to the Economic Club of Washington that he’d become “somewhat troubled” by a “disconnect between Washington and the business community.” Here he and his fellow CEOs had “worked closely with policy makers”—they’d even pushed ObamaCare. And yet! “We see a host of laws, regulations and policies being enacted that impose a government prescription” on private actors. Truth was, Washington had created a downright “hostile environment” for job creation!

    Agreed, said Roundtable President John Castellani, in an op-ed the same day. We stuck with that majority “through trying circumstances,” even “alienating many of our traditional colleagues,” and what did we get? They keep “vilifying” the private sector! And taxing it, and empowering unions, and ignoring trade. “The time has come for a new course,” declared Mr. Castellani, a mere 18 months after Democrats announced plans to tax companies, empower unions and ignore trade.

    Just how the Roundtable came to this tardy rebellion is a tale worth recounting, as it holds lessons. It begins more than a year ago, when the White House announced it would further tax U.S. companies that operate overseas. Our multinationals already face higher taxes than companies in other countries, but President Obama also wanted an end to “tax breaks” for companies that “ship jobs overseas.”

    Why announce such a big fight when the White House was already knee-deep in health care and energy? Ask Robert Reich, former Clinton labor secretary, who blogged the day of the announcement: “The President needs the cooperation of many big corporations if he’s going to get universal health insurance,” and this was a “bargaining chip.” “He might be willing to take [the tax hikes] off the table if big corporations lend him active support . . .”

    The specific target was in fact the Business Roundtable, which represents the multinationals that would be most hurt by the tax hikes. The lobby ran for the bait. The plan would “cripple economic growth,” said Mr. Castellani upon the announcement, broadcasting that his group would do anything to prevent it.

    The White House played it magnificently. It spent a year carefully fiddling with the tax proposal, even disappearing it for a while. The White House provided cheery access to its Business Roundtable partners, even as it whacked the Chamber of Commerce for daring to step out of line. All the while a hopeful Business Roundtable worked for ObamaCare, made pleasant comments about climate-change legislation, and stayed quiet on issues it might have otherwise condemned.

    And guess what? Health care passed. Democrats moved on to new priorities, including another round of unemployment benefits and spending. And guess what, then? The House decided to help pay for it with $14 billion in . . . taxes on companies that operate overseas. The Business Roundtable reeled off a denunciation, which congressional Democrats ignored.

    As did Obama budget director Peter Orszag, who last month met with the group and explained that Democrats needed the revenue, so that was, well, that. But thanks again for that health-care assist.

    Thus this week’s revolt. The Business Roundtable took up Mr. Orszag’s invitation to send him a list of its other economic concerns. Mr. Seidenberg unveiled the 54-page report this week, with his speech, describing it as “literally hundreds of actions and decisions” that Washington has taken to hurt the economy.

    Now that it thinks about it, the Business Roundtable is hard-pressed to name much the White House has done for growth. It is standing by as taxes increase on dividends. Its financial reform threatens derivatives and opens boardrooms to activists. It has failed to pass trade agreements. It still wants union “card check.” Its EPA is taking over energy markets. It will stifle the Internet. It has ignored tort reform. Immigration remains broken. Deficits are nuts. Even that health-care bill is creating “uncertainty.”

    One can only guess how much shorter this list might be had the “leading U.S. companies” been fighting for free markets from the start. In the meantime the Roundtable can join that nonexclusive club of economic actors—health insurers, drug companies, Medicare doctors, utilities—that purchased a share of the Obama agenda and are now feeling buyer’s remorse.

    Write to kim@wsj.com

  117. If you think any of this is bothering Barack think again. He is having the time of his life pretending to be President, and when it comes to solving problems he is oblivious. If ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise.

  118. Short Termer,

    In point of fact, Cubans have more food, education and health care than they have ever had. They live longer than we do and they have a lower infant mortality rate. They are still poor but things were worse before the revolution.

    People who don’t like Fidel leave. People who do like Fidel stayed.

    I have long term ties to Cuba. My father began visiting in the early thirties and continued his relationships there until the eighties, when he was too old to travel.

    Yes, the mob was about to take over the state of Cuba. Women were being forced into prostitution and money was increasingly flowing to a very small group of people. Castro brought an end to that. He kept Cubans fed, educated them and provided them with better health care than we have. He was also oppressive and jailed political enemies.

  119. Che, Chavez and Fidel all pursued policies that benefitted the peasants at the expense of the elite.
    ———————————-
    Yes, that was what they promised. But they were communists and as Lenin himself said promises are like pie crusts made to be broken. I have friends who lived through the Castro take over and have recounted some of its horrors. Many people were placed in re education camps. Children aged 9 and above were taken away from their families. Workers were ordered out of the workplace and were forced to stand in the hot sun for 9 hours listening to Fidel drivel on. My friend’s father worked at a bank. One day the bank manager disappeared, and a Fidelist showed up at his desk. He reached into his brief case and pulled out a gun. He supervised the operation for several months and was an ominous character. My friends father had a short wave radio and listened to radio Miami. One night a car pulled up in front of his apartment complex, Fidel secret police got out and proceeded up the walk way. My friends father was convinced they were coming for him so he locked his wife and children in the bedroom and pulled out a revolver. They went to the next apartment and arrested the occupant, took him away and he was never heard from again. My friends father asked the gunman at the bank for a vacation, and he refused. Finally, he relented but told my friends father if he did not come back he would take that gun and execute his relatives. He went on vacation in Puerto Rico, and emigarated to the United States. Back in Cuba, the communist set up Committees For The Defense of the Revolution, and appointed block watch captains to spy on their neighbors and turn them in for any subversive activity. My friends grandfather was Basque. He had been a cavalry officer, and he was also in charge of inspecting cows for tuberculosis which could contaminate the milk supply. He was a tee totaler, but he was famous on the Island for having a horse that drank beer. He was taken before a peoples court, and the judge asked if anyone in the courtroom knew him to be a traitor to the revolution. No one spoke up and he was allowed to go home where he spent the remandinder of his days. To this day, my friend remains traumatized by this experience. The final irony was that when Fidel first came to power both of his parents were taken in by his speeches and charisma and his age. The grandfather who was the cavalry officer read Fidel like a book, but they would not listen. One year after the revolution they understood exactly what the old man was talking about. As you might expect the rise of Obama calls up certain ghosts for my friend.

  120. And yet for many, many Cubans, Castro offered food, education and health care – something that was difficult to obtain before his arrival.

    He was oppressive. I’m not defending that. But he also made sure everyone on that island had food, schooling and good health – that’s significant. There was a time in the eighties, when Cubans were the healthiest people in Central America.

    My father was a Republican and a business partner of Richard Nixon. He began traveling to Cuba long before the revolution. And like a lot of people who witnessed the evolution of business on the island, he understood the appeal of a strong man who would keep the mob at bay and provide for the locals. The Cuba of the fifties was not the US of the fifties. It was violent and deeply corrupt. Castro’s rise was a reaction to the deprivation and the criminality ordinary people were experiencing.

  121. The remarkable thing about these revolutions is that western momey men are usually behind them. In that sense, Soros is not alone. The Russian Revolution was financed by the Shiff banking interests in New York. If you recall the blog I posted the other night on General Butler USMC the banana wars of the early twentieth century were designed to benefit Citibank, United Fruit, Anaconda Copper and Wall Street Interests. The Cuban revolution was financed by New York Banking interests (Cunin et. al), because Baptista had become a problem. British financial interests engineered the overthrow of the Shaw of Iran, because the oil contract was coming due and he put them on notice that he wanted major increases. And where our own country is concerned Walter Cronkite stated just before his death that there is an elite in this country, they are the leaders of finance and business, and they so manipulate democracy that they control democracy–his words not mine.

  122. And Lenin also said to make an omelette an egg must be broken. Which is fine as long as you are not that egg.

    For how long was your father able to continue his business interests in Cuba after the revolution? The reason I ask is because there was a sugar cane magnate named Julio Lobo who believed that Castro was a man he could work with, but over the course of time, his holdings were confiscated. He was a big name on a small island in those days so your father undoubtedly knew him. In the beginning Castro told the middle class farmers that he would leave them alone and concentrate on nationalizing the large estates. Later he changed his mind and took theirs as well.

    Che was a piece of work. You may recall the blog I did the other night noting how he came to a Russian missile site in Cuba with 200 men and wanted to fire it at the United States. That was during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

  123. And yet for many, many Cubans, Castro offered food, education and health care – something that was difficult to obtain before his arrival.
    —————————
    Their pharmaceutical industry today is one of he best in the world.

  124. I have long term ties to Cuba. My father began visiting in the early thirties and continued his relationships there until the eighties, when he was too old to travel.
    ———————————–
    Sorry, I see you answered my question. But it is remarkable because his business interests survived while most others perished. And he was a Republican at that. He must have had a good niche, a close relationship or something they needed.

  125. I have long term ties to Cuba. My father began visiting in the early thirties and continued his relationships there until the eighties, when he was too old to travel.
    ———————————–
    Sorry, I see you answered my question. But it is remarkable because his business interests survived while most others perished. And he was a Republican at that. He must have had a good niche, a close relationship or something they needed.

  126. Ousting general stupid (Obama shows thin skin by firing McChrystal)

    June 26, 2010

    The earth moved last Wednesday afternoon, both literally and metaphorically.

    In parts of Ontario and Quebec and several northern U.S. states, an earthquake shook buildings and streets. In Washington, an incompetent and arrogant American president fired one of the finest military leaders the country has had in a half-century just as troops prepared for a major and vital campaign.

    Nobody died due to the earthquake; people will die because of U.S. President Barack Obama’s hubris and pomposity.

    What Gen. Stanley McChrystal said or allowed to be said by his staff about the Obama, U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden and a handful of senior advisers was rude and deserved a reprimand and warning. A bigger man than Obama — Bush or Reagan or even Clinton — would have done this. But not he who can do no wrong and has been told by the media for years now that he is god-like.

    That the comments reported in Rolling Stone magazine are entirely true — Obama is out of his depth in military matters, Biden proves on a regular basis that he is a fool and many of the major players in this administration are wimps — is not entirely the point. In a civilized nation, the army is subservient to the head of state and respect is essential. Soldiers, however, say harsh things at times. It’s something to do with facing death, rather than sumptuous three-course diplomatic meals, on a daily basis.

    We also need to remember that Obama and his boys have said the most obnoxious and insulting things about their opponents. It was Obama who, in a conversation he assumed was not being recorded, dismissed much of America as being populated by frightened little people running to God and guns for solace and revered a preacher who was infamous for spewing racism and intolerance from the pulpit. Obama’s White House chief of staff had the endearing habit of banging knives into tables to illustrate what would happen to political enemies.

    The man whose resignation was accepted by the president is renowned for being not only a gifted leader, superb strategist and courageous officer who spends time with ordinary soldiers in trenches at isolated outposts, but also as someone who was willing to put his career on the line for the Afghanistan war. The Afghans adore the man and his loss to them, to the men and women on the front lines and the entire war effort is incalculable.

    As for “resignation accepted”, this is a clumsy euphemism for dismissal. It is protocol for a general to offer resignation in such a case and common decency and wisdom for a president to thank the general, demand that he not offend again him and then congratulate him for his efforts and encourage him to continue in his fine work. Instead we have this revolting spectacle.

    There is simply no reason why this had to happen and shows a thin-skinned, invincibly self-righteous politician in his true light. Remember, though, that Obama and his crew not only do not understand the military, but despise it and its culture. Obama will lose in all this but, tragically, not before people better than him lose a great deal more.

    http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/06/25/14518811.html

  127. FT Reveals Orszag Resigns Over Inability To Persuade Summers And Obama Keynesianism Leads To Suffering

    As we speculated previously, the sudden and unprecedented departure of Peter Orszag, the day prior to the US Budget’s formalization (which incidentally never happened as now the US will likely not have a 2010 budget at all, for fear of disclosing to most Americans just how broke the country is ahead of mid-terms) was due to Orszag’s disagreement with the administration’s, and particularly Larry Summer’s, inability to fathom that reckless spending is a recipe for bankruptcy. As the FT reports: “Peter Orszag, Barack Obama’s budget director, resigned this week partly in frustration over his lack of success in persuading the Obama administration to tackle the fiscal deficit more aggressively, according to sources inside and outside the White House.” And so, as any remaining voices of reason realize they are dealing with a group of deranged Keynesians, soon there will be nobody left in the administration who dares to oppose the destructive course upon which this country has so resolutely embarked, which ends in one of two ways: debt repudiation, or war. And with the only remaining economic “advisers” being the trio of Summers, Romer and Geithner, you know America will somehow hit both of these mutually exclusive targets.

    More from FT:

    Mr Orszag, whose publicly stated reasons for leaving were that he was exhausted after years in high pressure jobs and also that he wanted to plan for his wedding in September, is seen as the guardian of fiscal conservatism within the White House.

    Other members of Mr Obama’s economic team, notably Lawrence Summers, the head of the National Economic Council, have placed more emphasis on the need for continued short-term spending increases to counteract what increasingly looks like an anemic economic recovery in the US.

    Although Mr Orszag agrees with the need to push short-term spending, particularly in the Senate, which again this week failed to pass a measure extending insurance to the unemployed, the budget director has become increasingly frustrated with the administration’s caution on longer-term fiscal restraint.

    Mr Orszag, whom Mr Obama has dubbed a “propeller-head” because of his brilliant facility with projections and spreadsheets, has tried but failed to convince his colleagues to “step up the action”, according to one insider.

    In particular, he has collided with the political team, led by Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama’s chief of staff, over Mr Obama’s 2008 election pledge not to raise taxes on any households earning less than $250,000 a year – a category that covers more than 98 per cent of Americans.

    Economists say that would put all the fiscal emphasis on draconian – and highly unrealistic – spending cuts, or else pushing the marginal tax rates on the very rich to confiscatory levels. “Peter feels strongly that this is a pledge that has to be broken if the President is to take a lead on America’s fiscal crisis,” says an administration official not authorized to speak on the matter.

    And after Barney Franks’s disastrous appearance earlier on, where the market did a shot and an uptick for every lie uttered, we can safely say that this bankrupt country truly deserves all of its elected individuals.

  128. Obama Knew of Blagojevich Plot, Aide Says

    Friday, June 25, 2010

    CHICAGO — An ex-aide to former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich testified this week that President Obama knew Blagojevich wanted a plum job in the administration in exchange for appointing a politically palatable person to fill Obama’s vacated Senate seat.

    John Harris, Blagojevich’s former chief of staff, testified in the ex-governor’s corruption trial in federal District Court here this week that Obama was aware Blagojevich was working to leverage the Senate seat into a cabinet position for himself.

    He also said Blagojevich believed that if he appointed to the Senate Obama’s longtime friend Valerie Jarrett, Blagojevich would get a top job. Jarrett had been working on the Obama presidential campaign before accepting her current position as a senior White House advisor.

    “The president understands that the governor would be willing to make the appointment of Valerie Jarrett as long as he gets what he’s asked for,” Harris told the court Wednesday.

    The White House declined to comment Thursday on testimony regarding Obama and Jarrett. Blagojevich’s attorneys will cross-examine Harris next week.

    President Obama is joined by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, left, and White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett during a speech at the White House.

    In court filings, Blagojevich’s defense team asked presiding Judge James B. Zagel to order the government to hand over interviews the Federal Bureau of Investigation “conducted with President Obama regarding this case.”

    The defense team’s filings said that, contrary to White House statements, Obama had “direct knowledge and communication with emissaries and others regarding the appointment to his Senate seat.”

    Blagojevich’s lawyers tried to subpoena Obama earlier this year but Judge Zagel refused to allow it. Other White House aides, including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, have been subpoenaed.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704227304575327303542585086.html

  129. “now the US will likely not have a 2010 budget at all, for fear of disclosing to most Americans just how broke the country is ahead of mid-terms”

    “…In particular, he has collided with the political team, led by Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama’s chief of staff”

    ————————-

    Mrs. Smith,

    Those two doomsday points struck me as the beginning of the end. Enough said!

  130. Wow, you know you’re in trouble as President when country stars starting writing songs about how bad it is. Here is a rocking new county tune by Daryl Worley “Keep the Change”

    VERSE 1

    If you see me hold my hand over my heart before I start the Pledge of Allegiance
    There’s a reason, it’s to honor those who died
    And if you see me close my eyes and bow my head before I break bread with my family
    It ain’t a habit, it’s important and it’s my right
    I work half a year for me, the other half for Uncle Sam
    While he’s bailing out those sinking ships and drowning the little man

    CHORUS:

    I watch the news and have to wonder if this country’s going crazy
    Talkin’ about how much they love it here but how they wanna rearrange it
    I’m just your average Joe and that makes me smart enough to know
    There’s a bunch of us our here that feel the same
    Gonna keep our God, our freedom, a little money in the bank
    Y’all can keep the change

    VERSE 2

    Now the fat cats on the Hill acting so brilliant
    Ain’t smart enough to notice that we’re angry
    And America’s in trouble.
    If they don’t wise up and stop
    Busting out the blocks that were laid as a foundation
    This nation could wind up in a pile of rubble
    They say we’re making progress but it’s a big ‘ol shame to me
    That common sense ain’t near as common as it used to be

    REPEAT CHORUS-BRIDGE:

    I’ll bet our grandpas are getting dizzy
    Down there in their graves
    Rolling over and over, over what’s going on these days

    REPEAT CHORUS

  131. #
    JanH
    June 26th, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Mrs. Smith,

    Those two doomsday points struck me as the beginning of the end. Enough said!
    ____________________________________

    My thoughts as well. The time may be coming near for a military coup. If in a few months Petraus is of the same opinion as McChrystal, you never know what may happen. After all, Obama is the titular head of America’s Armed Forces. He may need a replacement if McChrystals fears are bore out by Petraus.

  132. The defense team’s filings said that, contrary to White House statements, Obama had “direct knowledge and communication with emissaries and others regarding the appointment to his Senate seat.”

    Blagojevich’s lawyers tried to subpoena Obama earlier this year but Judge Zagel refused to allow it.
    *******
    The “fix” is in with the Blago trial but the recent Pelosi fund raising e-mail shows the real worry…Loss of the HR= Republican subpoena power and big trouble for Obama afer Jan 2011.

  133. Keynes is the key to reviving the economy. You spend money to put people back to work and their incomes finance even more people returning to work. All of those people pay taxes. The more people go to work, the more jobs are created. And if you look at the deficit/GDP charts from the 30s through the 50s, you’ll find that the deficits shrink quickly in relationship to the wealth of the nation.

    The best thing the federal government can do now is spend money to create jobs. They shouldn’t be worried about the deficit. Worrying about the deficit is going to push employment down, raise the amount of misery inflicted on this nation, and destroy out opportunities to put people back to work.

    Just look at what Truman and Eisenhower did in the fifties. There was predictable and massive unemployment as WWII came to an end and our soldiers returned home. So we began a process of building infrastructure – highways, schools, houses – and we hired new teachers, and built colleges to send kids to. All of that spending and hiring created the prosperity of the 50s and 60s. It was Reagan’s deficit spending that finally brought an end to the massively high unemployment of his early administration.

    Keynes works. It’s literal. It’s simple to understand. Hire 100 guys to build a road, and you’ll produce dozens of more support jobs to supply the needs of the construction, and of their family.

  134. We have one of these in Turkey, they block any site they disagree with, with no recourse and it takes months to try and reopen a site or gain access. What are we China now?

    http://news.techworld.com/security/3228198/obama-internet-kill-switch-plan-approved-by-us-senate/?acpn=2

    A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.

    Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet “kill switch.” Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause “the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication” in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.

    The committee unanimously approved an amended version of the legislation by voice vote Thursday, a committee spokeswoman said. The bill next moves to the Senate floor for a vote, which has not yet been scheduled.

  135. Wbboei,

    My father was simply a real character who had friends there and everywhere. He was a business man but he found what was happening to Cuba in the late fifties and early sixties deeply objectionable. He didn’t really approve of Castro either, but spending a lot of time visiting the islands down there, it was clear that Cubans were doing better than the others. That’s all. Somebody has to speak up for the fact that making sure your people have food, education and healthcare puts you in a fundamentally different category that other dictators who simply suck up all the money for themselves and leave the population poor, malnourished, sick and uneducated – a la Papa Doc and Baby Doc. Just look at the mess that is Haiti. Haiti doesn’t have a big problem being saddled with political refugees from Cuba. I mean, really.

    There are people here who want to argue that words don’t have specific meanings. But they do. Obama is a conservative by any real world criteria – and they hate that. They’ve gotten sucked into the idea that he is a lefty but, in the real world, he does nothing to advance liberal goals. He doesn’t help ordinary people except on rare occasion where his hand is forced.

    Fidel, Che and Caesar were all recognizable lefties.

  136. Mrs. Smith
    June 26th, 2010 at 9:04 am
    FT Reveals Orszag Resigns Over Inability To Persuade Summers And Obama Keynesianism Leads To Suffering

    That’s the first smart thing I’ve read about Obama. We are heading into a double dip recession because we didn’t spend enough to stimulate the economy. It’s effing stupid to worry about the deficit when you have 10% unemployment.

    For all of you who are so gung ho for the country to go back into recession, you are going to get your wish on spending. Obama has a commission working on cutting your social security and Medicare benefits to be voted on after the midterms. Frankly, the people who run around calling Obama some huge marxist will get exactly what they deserve when their social security gets gutted. Being willfully ignorant should bear a penalty. Anyone who thinks Larrys Summers is a flaming “tax and spend” liberal would have to be a facist.

  137. Say it ain’t so, Joe.

    ———–

    Biden: We Can’t Recover All the Jobs Lost

    Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters, “there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession.”

    Appearing at a fundraiser with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) in Milwaukee, the vice president remarked that by the time he and President Obama took office in 2008, the gross domestic product had shrunk and hundreds of thousands of jobs had been lost.

    “We inherited a godawful mess,” he said, adding there was “no way to regenerate $3 trillion that was lost. Not misplaced, lost.”

    Claims for jobless benefits fell by the largest number in two months last week, but were still high enough to signal weak job growth. Meanwhile, the Senate on Thursday failed to pass an extension of unemployment benefits.

    Biden said today the economy is improving and noted that in the past four quarters, there has been 4 percent growth in the economy. Over the last five months, more than 500,000 private sector jobs were created.

    “We know that’s not enough,” the vice president said.

    Last week the White House put out a Recovery and Reinvestment Act update claiming that between 2.2 million and 2.8 million jobs were either saved or created because of the stimulus as of March 2010. In signing the Recovery Act into law on Feb 17, 2009, Mr. Obama said the measure “will create or save 3-and-a-half million jobs over the next two years.”

  138. basement angel, After reading the “Shock Doctrine” I too was convinced that the Keynesian philosophy was the best for our economy, but I went over and read about Denmark’s a few minutes ago. Their overal tax rate is 65% and they live in bunglolow’s. I can’t see us American’s would ever get use to this.

    I am interested in your opinion and why you think this is best, since I am now not convinced. I can’t understand why we can’t have capitalism with just a few regulations and safety nets without going full fledged Keynes method?

  139. Moon…we can’t let this happen or we can easily become a stalinistic state, which we are close to now.

  140. My father was simply a real character who had friends there and everywhere. He was a business man but he found what was happening to Cuba in the late fifties and early sixties deeply objectionable. He didn’t really approve of Castro either, but spending a lot of time visiting the islands down there, it was clear that Cubans were doing better than the others. That’s all. Somebody has to speak up for the fact that making sure your people have food, education and healthcare puts you in a fundamentally different category that other dictators who simply suck up all the money for themselves and leave the population poor, malnourished, sick and uneducated – a la Papa Doc and Baby Doc. Just look at the mess that is Haiti. Haiti doesn’t have a big problem being saddled with political refugees from Cuba. I mean, really.

    There are people here who want to argue that words don’t have specific meanings. But they do. Obama is a conservative by any real world criteria – and they hate that. They’ve gotten sucked into the idea that he is a lefty but, in the real world, he does nothing to advance liberal goals. He doesn’t help ordinary people except on rare occasion where his hand is forced.

    Fidel, Che and Caesar were all recognizable lefties.
    —————————————————–
    Interesting bio. Were you and he close, if I may ask.

    One of the factors that gave rise to that revolution was the bleak economic situation in Cuba which preceded the revolution. It is a hypothetical question perhaps but would similar progress have occurred in the absense of a communist revolution? The economic recovery plan of the Baptista Admininstration was to turn Havana into a second Las Vegas with business partners like Lucky Luciano and Myer Lansky at the helm. This could have introduced an element of urban prosperity into what was fundamentally an agricultural economy, beyond the vig and the skimming and the bribes and the payoffs. We will never know for sure. The one thing can say for sure is the communist revolution nationalized US holdings and banished most American business interests from doing business there, and that included the Mafia. Meanwhile the middle class who could perhaps have lifted Cuba out of poverty better than Fidel did fled to Miami.

  141. Well, first confloyd read Paul Krugman.

    krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/against-the-super-asinine-the-gods-themselves-contend-in-vain/

    krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/in-the-long-run-we-are-still-all-dead/

    krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/the-facts-have-a-well-known-keynesian-bias/

    You could also try Naked Capitalism or Brad DeLong. These are economist NOT responsible for effing up our economy.

    What relevnace Denmark has to spending policy in the US is of little sense to me. Nobody is talking about disrupting capitalism.

  142. Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters, “there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession.
    —————————————————————
    How can the administration say this and turn right around and demand blanket amnesty?

  143. confloyd
    June 26th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    Moon…we can’t let this happen or we can easily become a stalinistic state, which we are close to now.

    We are NOT close to a stalinistic state.

  144. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/the-bad-logic-of-fiscal-austerity/

    The Bad Logic Of Fiscal Austerity
    So, one more time: here’s an attempt to put together some key arguments about why the rush to fiscal austerity is deeply misguided.

    Let me start with the budget arithmetic, borrowing an approach from Brad DeLong. Consider the long-run budget implications for the United States of spending $1 trillion on stimulus at a time when the economy is suffering from severe unemployment.

    That sounds like a lot of money. But the US Treasury can currently issue long-term inflation-protected securities at an interest rate of 1.75%. So the long-term cost of servicing an extra trillion dollars of borrowing is $17.5 billion, or around 0.13 percent of GDP.

    And bear in mind that additional stimulus would lead to at least a somewhat stronger economy, and hence higher revenues. Almost surely, the true budget cost of $1 trillion in stimulus would be less than one-tenth of one percent of GDP – not much cost to pay for generating jobs when they’re badly needed and avoiding disastrous cuts in government services.

    But we can’t afford it, say the advocates of austerity. Why? Because we must impose pain to appease the markets.

    There are three problems with this claim.

    First, it assumes that markets are irrational – that they will be spooked by stimulus spending and/or encouraged by austerity even though the long-run budget implications of such spending and/or austerity are trivial.

    Second, we’re talking about punishing the real economy to satisfy demands that markets are not, in fact, making. It’s truly amazing to see so many people urging immediate infliction of pain when the US government remains able to borrow at remarkably low interest rates, simply because Very Serious People believe, in their wisdom, that the markets might change their mind any day now.

    Third, all this presumes that if the markets were to lose faith in the US government, they would be reassured by short-term fiscal austerity. The available facts suggest otherwise: markets continue to treat Ireland, which has accepted savage austerity with little resistance, as being somewhat riskier than Spain, which has accepted austerity slowly and reluctantly.

    In short: the demand for immediate austerity is based on the assertion that markets will demand such austerity in the future, even though they shouldn’t, and show no sign of making any such demand now; and that if markets do lose faith in us, self-flagellation would restore that faith, even though that hasn’t actually worked anywhere else.

    And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what passes for respectable policy analysis.

    —-

    One trillion in stimulus would cost less than one tenth of a percent of GDP. There is zero logic in inflicting the kind of pain we now are on the economy. It makes no fiscal sense.

  145. Also, confloyd, what you have to realize is the fed has already tried to stimulate the economy through traditional tools. Interest rates have been near zero forever. It’s not enough. Denmakr was able to limit spending and see their economy rise in the 1980’s because they were able to cut interest rates 10 points. We have simply run out of those sorts of tools. We are in a liquidity trap.

  146. confloyd
    Denmark’s a few minutes ago. Their overal tax rate is 65% and they live in bungalow. I can’t see us American’s would ever get use to this.
    ———–
    While traveling in Europe the one country that was my favorite, by far was Denmark.

    That is not only one of the most beautiful, clean cities, but nicest, helpful and kind people I saw in all of Europe.

    People there live in houses and apartments like they do here. Denmark is a very small country compared to here, so many do not have huge lots of land they live on in the city, but country people and farms are large.

    They do have a high income tax rate, that’s true, but they don’t have to worry about health coverage, being homeless nor how they will live when they are old.

    It is a wonderful country, peaceful and people are generally happy as a whole…and mighty attractive…I might add. 😉

    I dated a guy there, his father was a surgeon, I was surprised when I whet to his home to found it to be an upper middle class style, but nothing extraordinary, like our doctors generally have here.

    There isn’t the extreme wealth we have here, like our wealthy, and there are no slums like we have either.

    The bungalows you refer to, are housing for young people, (education is free, even college) or people that need financial assistance, they are clean, safe and small apartments. People there are healthy, even the very old bike around the city…it is wonderful.

    I was actually thinking of living there, for a very long time…why didn’t I? I missed America, the crazy extremes of our country, the wild and exciting life. Even the struggle to make my life my own.

  147. Denmark I thought had the model of the Keynesian philosophy, that is the only reason I brought up Denmark.

    Well I guess as you say we are all out of rabbits to pull out the hats.

  148. shadowfax, I worked with a Doctor last night that was from little country in Africa that is on the Red Sea…he said that the people of Denmark and the surrounding area have a high social consciousness and are just wonderful.

  149. wbb

    How can the administration say this and turn right around and demand blanket amnesty?

    ————
    Because they are idiots???

    Because they have no clue and just want the Latino vote to save their sorry a$$es?

  150. Confloyd,

    We had 90% top marginal tax rates in this country through out the 50s. But we made the case as to why that was productive.

    People in Europe live in smaller homes because the homes were built in 18th and 19th century. And people who pay 65% are not the people living in little bungalows.

  151. #
    confloyd
    June 26th, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    shadowfax, I worked with a Doctor last night that was from little country in Africa that is on the Red Sea…he said that the people of Denmark and the surrounding area have a high social consciousness and are just wonderful.
    ———–
    Yes, they do confloyd.
    It’s been a long while since I was there, but I don’t think things have changed much since then.
    My friend and I talked about Denmark not joining in wars…he said they had one tank, it had a white flag on it. He said they refused to fight in any unjust war, no enemy would get their cooperation, even if they came into their country, and they prefer to volunteer to help out in other countries that need assistance…some go to Africa to help, like our Peace Corp. My friend did for a few years.

  152. Shadowfax,

    Exporting all the illegal immigrants is a vastly expensive action. You have to spend money to find them. Then you have to lock them up – costing their employers, their landlords and anyone else they owe money to – as well as the cost of incarceration. Then you have to figure out where it is that they are from, and be able to prove that somewhat definitively. Then you have to put them and two federal agents on a plane, fly them to where ever they are from and fly the agents back. You can easily spend $25k per person to get them back to their home country and we have 12 million illegal immigrants here. that’s what the problem is. And for all the money we would spend shipping people back home, we wouldn’t really create a lot of new jobs – not much bang for the buck.

  153. Close the frickin’ border!!!!

    Continuing to let in illegals than crying that it’s too expensive to export them is beyond a conversation.

  154. When I read about the virtues of Cuba, I want put my finger down my throat. It’s not just monied people who have escaped Cuba. Escape is the correct word to use. The socialists substitute free healthcare for free speech, and for me, that is not a good enough trade off. I want to tell government to leave me the hell alone. I don’t want to accept their interference in my life as if they know what’s best for me, or as many on the left like to say, “what’s in my best interests”. How presumptuous!

  155. The Hispanics I know support the Arizona Law.

    OBAMA COURTS LATINOS BY SUING ARIZONA

    By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

    Published on DickMorris.com on June 25, 2010

    Printer-Friendly Version

    Why is President Obama suing to invalidate the Arizona law on illegal immigration? Why is he incurring the enmity of even his own Democratic Congressmen from the Phoenix and Tucson areas by trying to kill a law that two-thirds of Arizona and a similar proportion of America as a whole supports?

    The answer: It is a desperate, last ditch attempt to rebuild his sagging popularity with America’s Hispanic voters.

    Furious at Obama for failing to keep his election year promise to promote comprehensive immigration reform when he had a super-majority at his disposal, they are deserting the president and his party in droves. Unemployment, a sagging economy, and their sharp disagreement with Obama over social issues don’t help the president’s cause any.

    So Obama has seized on the Arizona immigration law as a symbolic target, hoping to accomplish in a lawsuit the political task of rebuilding his base.

    Remember that in 2008, Obama won precisely the same share of the white vote that Kerry won in 2004. There was a shift among whites as the Obama won more young whites and lost more older ones, but the white vote ratios as a whole remained constant. His entire margin of victory was based on two factors:

    a) The African-American vote rose from 11% of the total in 2004 to 14% in 2008 and virtually all voted for Obama; and

    b) Latinos, who had backed Kerry by only 10 points, supported Obama by fifty points.

    For Obama to have a shot at keeping Democrats in control of Congress, he must replicate the enthusiasm of 2008 among minorities. But his Hispanic flank is definitely weakened. Hence the lawsuit to shore it up.

    The answer on immigration reform is to adopt a three part program to dry up the jobs that attract illegal migrants in the first place. When there are no jobs, they will not come and those who are here will go back home without deportations or roundups.

    We need to:

    1. Strengthen penalties and enforcement of laws barring people and companies from hiring illegal immigrants. Those who do so should face prison time.

    2. We need a fool proof national bio-metric ID card so employers can tell who is legal and who is not.

    3. We should implement a broad guest worker program to bring upscale and manual workers into the US to fill our labor force needs. They must get at least the minimum wage and have health benefits. But, when the job is over, they must go home.

    Democrats won’t embrace this program because the unions won’t let them and because they want illegals to stay here and become Democratic voters. Republican agri-businesses won’t go for it because they want to exploit illegal workers with low pay and bad work conditions.

    But this is the solution. Trying to seal the border is good rhetoric but is a hopeless task. Drying up the jobs that bring illegal immigrants here is something we can and must do.

  156. More stimulus money for jobs:

    As long as it is not for these types of jobs:

    – more govt jobs
    – more census type of jobs
    – more service jobs that merely promotes people to use their wages to buy chepaer goods from China
    – more jobs to bank and auto bailouts whose highly paid executives and employess continue to get high wages and bonuses
    – private institutions and even charities who have their personal agendas to push for. Currently I am of the opinion that only charitiies and its task of feeding the poor and providing free/cheap healthcare should be tax exempt…anything else should be taxed!!!!!!!
    – enforcement on illegal immigration and their jobs.

  157. Shadowfox, they create the costly problem, and bitch either way. These illegals strain services, but yet they complain about the costs for repatriating them. Letting them stay is a continual drain on finances. Sending them home is a one time cost, especially if the border is secured. Send them home now. Additionally, any illegal alien’s children who are born here should not be considered American citizens. That law should only apply to those who are here legally. There is one exception to my feelings about illegals. Any illegal immigrant who serves in our military should be fastracked to citizenship. This should also include a spouse, if married at the time of induction, and children from that relationship.

  158. nomobama

    I pretty much agree with all you said, didn’t know that illegals could serve in the military, but it they do, at the end of 4 years of honorable service, a fast track to legal immigration sounds good to me too.

    As long as the border is open, no law of immigration has any meaning.

  159. There is an interesting picture on bbc.co.uk of Bo and Sarcozy…I cannot paste it here – having difficulties.

    Bo using a finger and Sarcozky with his palm up….

    Guessing
    (BO: Look listen to me for a minute…???)
    (SArcozy: Enough from you?????????????????)

  160. USA scores a goal, camera cuts to bill clinton!!! love it! drinking bud and hanging out with mick jagger. lol

  161. mp, that is a funny pic of Sarkosy saying “talk to the hand”. Obama is nothing but a mouthpiece.

  162. someone said on twitter that Terry Mcauliffe was there two…. wonder what they are talking about?

  163. someone said on twitter that Terry Mcauliffe was there two…. wonder what they are talking about?
    ——————

    Chelsea’s wedding……what else is there to talk about!

  164. Shadowfax, I watched a video of Oprah in Denmark looking a some new little bungalow which had some sort of small closet for the children and a foldown bed for the parents.

    Oprah isn’t about to give her wealth to live like that so the rest of us can live a little better…you should of seen the look on her face. She was not going to be paying 65% of her money for anyone, not even the “One”. LOL!

  165. confloyd
    Oprah isn’t about to give her wealth to live like that so the rest of us can live a little better…you should of seen the look on her face. She was not going to be paying 65% of her money for anyone, not even the “One”. LOL!
    ———
    You’re right, the weathly in our country are not going to live in a middle class home, the only ones that live in the small apartments are folks that don’t work or don’t have enough money to survive on their own, like our homeless, elderly that don’t have retirement funds or enough social security or students that don’t work. Their students get to go to the University, so if they don’t work, they can live in one of the small apartments.
    Oprah wouldn’t live there, she would live in a very nice home or apartment, just not a huge American castle.

  166. confloyd
    Oprah isn’t about to give her wealth to live like that so the rest of us can live a little better…you should of seen the look on her face. She was not going to be paying 65% of her money for anyone, not even the “One”. LOL!
    ———
    You’re right, the wealthy in our country are not going to live in a middle class home, the only ones that live in the small apartments are folks that don’t work or don’t have enough money to survive on their own, like our homeless, elderly that don’t have retirement funds or enough social security or students that don’t work. Their students get to go to the University, so if they don’t work, they can live in one of the small apartments.
    Oprah wouldn’t live there, she would live in a very nice home or apartment, just not a huge American castle.

  167. basement angel
    June 26th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
    Keynes is the key to reviving the

    I think that is true to a point….untilyou don’t have the $ to pay for the jobs you are creating. When you have to pay for those jobs with mpney borrowed from a foreign company….you are in trouble.

    Look at the way NY and NY are confronting the lack of $ to run their states. Paterson wants to cut $ to basic services and raise taxes. The republican in NJ is going after public pensions and automatic pay raises for government employees….which is at the heart of the problem.

    I have always been a democrat,,,,but right now they are off the wall. If O tries to amndate amnesty for illegals thru executive order…there will be rioting in the streets.

  168. G20 protesters torch police cars

    Subway, GO train shut down, stores in lockdown
    TORONTO – Police cruisers were set ablaze, windows were smashed, and world leaders were on lockdown into the Metro Toronto Convention Centre as a peaceful march took a violent turn Saturday afternoon.

    Police moved in on the crowd at Queen’s Park around 5:30 p.m. Some of the protesters were pepper sprayed and others were found bleeding as police made arrests after a violent afternoon.

    http://www.torontosun.com/news/g20/2010/06/26/14526566.html

  169. If it is true what pollsters say, that by June the electorate has pretty much decided how it will vote in November, then the Democrats will lose both offices. In that case, the Republicans will gain the subpoena power. That is not to say they will use it, because they may prefer to let Mr. Obama continue in office and watch his party twist in the wind. I think that is a cynical position for them to take. I believe some of the things he is doing now may provide a basis for impeachment, and the majority of the country may support it. On the one hand, he is our first black president, is a former Harvard Law Professor, and he plays basketball. Far be it to disparage those important virtues. But if it comes down to a question of the country vs that megalomaniac, the latter must yield to the former, and impeachment is the constitutionally prescribed remedy. If that case, however, it is foreseeable that Obama’s minions, and perhaps even Obama himself sub silention will initiate a race war. Let us hope not. But if he is allowed to continue with his disaterous policies it may come to that anyway. So, they would have to do what is right as opposed to what is expedient. If you accept my theory of why Obama is president, namely because certain global elites wanted a cipher who they could use to advance their agenda, then it is not unlikely that they are seeing the economic condition of the country vs the incompetence of the man they put in vs the public reaction to what he is doing, and contemplating a change in leadership sooner rather than later. This could be done unceremoneously by having him appoint an assistant who would pull his strings or by seeking new a new president. The know better than anyone else when someone has outlived their usefulness and have become a liability.

    some of the things Barack is doing now including this talk of blanket amnesty would be such a violation of the Constitution and the rule of law that if the

  170. WASHINGTON — The demise of Democrats’ jobs-agenda legislation means that unemployment benefits will phase out for more than 200,000 people a week. Governors who had counted on fresh federal aid will now have to consider more budget cuts, tax increases and layoffs of state workers.

    Democratic officials said the House may try to revive the long-stalled jobless aid bill next week as a stand-alone bill shorn of controversial tax and spending provisions that prompted Senate Republicans to filibuster it on Thursday.

    But the Senate may not have enough time to clear the measure for President Barack Obama’s desk before leaving Washington for the Fourth of July recess. The impasse has meant that more than 1.2 million people have lost unemployment benefits averaging $300 a week.

    On HuffPuff

    What is a ‘stand alone’ stimulus bill?
    Is that possibly a bill that is for jobs without any pork? That would be a first.

    No unemployment checks, no budget…great job congress, now it’s time for you to be on unemployment until it runs out.

  171. Correction to the above:

    If it is true what pollsters say, that by June the electorate has pretty much decided how it will vote in November, then the Democrats will lose both houses of congress. In that case, the Republicans will gain among other things the subpoena power and the concomitant power to initiate an impeachment proceeding.

    However, there is no guarantee that they will use it. Indeed, they may prefer to let Mr. Obama continue in office and watch his party twist in the wind. Or, they may fear that if they do use it then it will touch off a race war in this country. Neither Barack or his followers are above such a thing. But if he is allowed to continue unfettered it may come to that anyway.

    Under the circumstance, we must weigh the equities. On the one hand, he is our first black president, is a former Harvard Law Professor, and he plays basketball. On the other hand, we must also think what is best for the country. Thus, if it comes down to a choice between the welfare of the country and the political survival of Barack Obama former must yield to the latter. That much seems clear.

    If you accept my theory of why Obama is president, namely because certain global elites wanted a cipher who they could use to advance their agenda, then they have to be seeing the economic condition of the country vs the incompetence of the man they put in vs the public reaction to what he is doing, and contemplating a change in leadership sooner rather than later. This could be done unceremoneously by having him appoint an assistant who would pull his strings or by seeking new a new president. They know better than anyone else when someone has outlived their usefulness and have become a liability.

  172. I would be curious to know what the republican answer is to the people who are unemployed. They are fine with fighting two wars half way around the world yet they fail to realize that if the cut off jobless benefits to people who cannot find jobs because there are no jobs that they may have a war at home to deal with. If it is the Republican turn to run the show, they nad better find themselves a Teddy Roosevelt.

  173. WTH, Bill Clinton and Katie (refrigerator) Farking Couric with Hillay’s husband…shall I be sick now or later…I can’t stand the slut Couric. I’m sure its just a photop and just politics…but Katie is the PITTS!

  174. shadowfax, I can’t believe it but I just met a Denmark tourist here in this little town in Texas…which BTW, she doesn’t like..LOL! The people are rude here she says.

    She was very nice even though sick, which is far and few between here in Texas, LOL!

    She said she is a nurse there in Denmark and makes 3 times the money the nurses make here…can’t wait to put that on facebook so my republican nurse friends can read it. LOL! She said they have no worries about medical bills there because of the “socialized medicine”.

    She was the first Dane I had ever xrayed and I have worked in the huge Texas Medical Center for St. Lukes. Goes to prove my theory correct and that is I have seen the more unusual here in the sticks. LOL!

  175. wbboei,

    On the one hand, he is our first black president, is a former Harvard Law Professor, and he plays basketball.

    ———————————–

    That is some kind of description, but it fits. The basketball part is the most true, LOL!
    Those aren’t much considering some of the past Presidents resume’s. LOL!

  176. I am definitely for closing the border, but if Hillary runs again and the black are still mad at her she will need the hispanic vote so lets not cut our noses off to spite our face, LOL!

  177. Wbb

    If it is the Republican turn to run the show, they nad better find themselves a Teddy Roosevelt.

    ———
    Or at least use that ‘common sense’ they keep talking about.

  178. jtjames, those photos at the link you provided are such a stark contrast. Obama, dressed in a suit (and photographed from the back no less) looking stiff and fake as he raises an arm to “cheer” for a US goal. Clinton, on the other hand, is on site at the game, dressed casual in pro-USA clothes, standing up in the stands, and clearly enjoying the moment.

    You wonder if the staged “Obama watches the game” photos were because of all the coverage Bill was getting at the game.

    As to the Katie Couric photo—it looks like a “celebrity” box was set aside for dignitaries so they all had to sit together. Actually, Bill looks like he isn’t actually enjoying the Couric hug…just my own observation….

  179. #
    confloyd
    June 26th, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    I am definitely for closing the border, but if Hillary runs again and the black are still mad at her she will need the hispanic vote so lets not cut our noses off to spite our face, LOL!
    ———–
    I’m for closing the border. I don’t want Hillary getting votes that way.

    She already won in 2008 in the primary, and she is even more popular today.

  180. This is what I don’t understand, why can’t obama get anyone to work for him….I hear that the vetting process is very bad…or is it that no one wants to put up with the boy emperor??

  181. shadowfax, I just know this country needs Hillary or her clone, so whatever we have to do to get her in there to save the country, we need to do.

    I don’t like paying for the illegals either.

    I just found out some high paying jobs up here on the pipeline are being held by illegals, there are many people that normal work for the pipeline out of work and can’t get a job because of this. I know this for a fact because I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Its happening in Nacogdoches, Tx right now.

  182. I see comments today pro-spending and those for tackling the huge deficit. Either way, with the current potus and his buddies, is anyone at all convinced that they would spend wisely or attack the deficit in the best way?

  183. JanH:

    I am seeing so many comments on the same subject on other blogs and the best I have seen is from the G20 outcome….:agree to disagree on how to handle the economy…

    ———————-

    When socialists have to lecture an American president on prudent economics you know we’re in trouble.

    Yep!!! the socialist countries are for austerity programs while the US stands for overspending without any budget constraints….
    —————–

    The only one smiling right now is Canada who very prudently regulated their banking system before the 2008 crisis and their economy is booming and they have vast natural resources…

  184. Well see…

    wbboei
    June 26th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
    I would be curious to know what the republican answer is to the people who are unemployed. They are fine with fighting two wars half way around the world yet they fail to realize that if the cut off jobless benefits to people who cannot find jobs because there are no jobs that they may have a war at home to deal with. If it is the Republican turn to run the show, they nad better find themselves a Teddy Roosevelt.

    —-

    Exactly right, wb. We know what they think of the unemployed, they think squat, which is why they are against the extension of UI benefits (save olympia snowe). But they are too stupid to know that even if the Democrats get thrown out, they won’t last if they don’t find a TR. They don’t get it. They think their way of thinking has been vindicated because Obama is an incompetent. The fools.

  185. Ha, this is so funny. Pete Peterson had these townhalls “America Speaks” all over the country this weekend. They were designed as propaganda in support of safety net cuts and deficit reduction. But the majority of people attending the events picked the liberal/populist solutions to every problem raised by the Peterson group. LOL. This totally backfired. Remember Pete Peterson is behind Obama’s deficit reduction committee.

    news.firedoglake.com/2010/06/26/america-speaks-in-la-they-want-economic-recovery-no-social-security-cuts

  186. mp,

    Yes Canada is smiling, but our cost of living is still high, taxes for the middle class are still over the top as well.

  187. Canadians get a lot for their tax dollars. People I know from other parts of the world are always shocked at how little Americans get for the tax dollars. The ratio is very low.

  188. Or at least use that ‘common sense’ they keep talking about.
    ********
    “common sense” is “dog-whistle” to the Republican base that education isn’t necessary and it’s really a Liberal, Atheist conspiracy.

  189. I have quiet a few pictures of the fraud at the G8/g20 meetings…..

    He seems to be touching the other guy in most of them….

    a pat on the shoulder…
    a pat of the back …..
    a pat on an arm…

    Where did he get this new offensive, ugly, unprofessional charm?

  190. According to Drudge, Obama gave his press corp a slip again, this time for one and half hours, hmm, hmm. He must be having to personally distribute the payola himself now….too many backstabbers. LOL!

    This is the second time…there is alway some conspiracy theory about his birth certificate when he does this.

  191. She said she is a nurse there in Denmark and makes 3 times the money the nurses make here
    *****************

    I will have to see the proof of that. So she is makimg between 150,000 and 240,000 a year? BS

  192. Were McChrystal and Staff Talking Off The Record to Rolling Stone?
    By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
    Sat, 06/26/2010 – 13:57 ET

    In the midst of this week’s Gen. Stanley McChrystal controversy, a possibility concerning statements allegedly made by him and his staff has largely gone overlooked: might they have been speaking off the record when they were around Rolling Stone’s Michael Hastings?

    This certainly would explain some of the bizarre comments allegedly made by military members knowing full well how the chain of command works and that the President is clearly at the top.

    With this in mind, the Washington Post explored this possibility in a front page piece Saturday entitled, “Gen. McChrystal Allies, Rolling Stone Disagree Over Article’s Ground Rules”:

    Story Continues Below Ad ↓

    On Friday, however, officials close to McChrystal began trying to salvage his reputation by asserting that the author, Michael Hastings, quoted the general and his staff in conversations that he was allowed to witness but not report. The officials also challenged a statement by Rolling Stone’s executive editor that the magazine had thoroughly reviewed the story with McChrystal’s staff ahead of publication. […]

    A senior military official insisted that “many of the sessions were off-the-record and intended to give [Hastings] a sense” of how the team operated. The command’s own review of events, said the official, who was unwilling to speak on the record, found “no evidence to suggest” that any of the “salacious political quotes” in the article were made in situations in which ground rules permitted Hastings to use the material in his story.

    The Post elaborated:

    A member of McChrystal’s team who was present for a celebration of McChrystal’s 33rd wedding anniversary at a Paris bar said it was “clearly off the record.” Aides “made it very clear to Michael: ‘This is private time. These are guys who don’t get to see their wives a lot. This is us together. If you stay, you have to understand this is off the record,’ ” according to this source. In the story, the team members are portrayed as drinking heavily. […]

    A U.S. military spokesman in Kabul, Air Force Lt. Col. Edward T. Sholtis, acknowledged that Hastings, like other reporters who have interviewed McChrystal over the past year, was not required to sign written ground rules. “We typically manage ground rules on a verbal basis,” Sholtis said. “We trust in the professionalism of the people we’re working with.”

    So, you’ve got husbands and wives in a Paris bar celebrating McChrystal’s 33rd wedding anniversary, and comments made during the event — which were supposed to all be off the record — became part of Hastings’ piece.

    Is that Kosher?

    Obviously, Rolling Stone thinks it is:

    The executive editor, Eric Bates, denied that Hastings violated any ground rules when he wrote about the four weeks he spent, on and off, with McChrystal and his team. “A lot of things were said off the record that we didn’t use,” Bates said in an interview. “We abided by all the ground rules in every instance.”

    But this isn’t the only beef McChrystal supporters have with this piece:

    Officials also questioned Rolling Stone’s fact-checking process, as described by Bates in an interview this week with Politico. “We ran everything by them in a fact-checking process as we always do,” Bates said. “They had a sense of what was coming, and it was all on the record, and they spent a lot of time with our reporter, so I think they knew that they had said it.”

    In an interview Friday, the managing editor, Will Dana, said the reporter’s notes and factual matters were exhaustively reviewed.

    But 30 questions that a Rolling Stone fact-checker posed in a memo e-mailed last week to then-McChrystal media adviser Duncan Boothby contained no hint of what became the controversial portions of the story. Boothby resigned Tuesday.

    In the e-mail, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post by a military official sympathetic to McChrystal, Boothby is asked to confirm the makeup of McChrystal’s traveling staff on the Paris trip and the communications equipment they brought with them on an earlier visit to London. “They don’t come close to revealing what ended up in the final article,” the official said.

    This all raises an interesting question that seemed to elude mainstream media as they quickly attacked the General probably forcing Obama to relieve him of his command: did the Rolling Stone break some journalism rules with this report?

    As NewsBusters’ Tim Graham pointed out Thursday, this is a FAR-LEFT magazine with strong anti-war convictions.

    Is it indeed possible that much of the truly damning comments were made to Hastings off the record, and that he and his editors in their zeal to tear down McChrystal just didn’t care?

    Is it also possible that the magazine didn’t go through proper fact-checking procedures before it published the piece?

    If the answer to both questions is “Yes,” then maybe media quickly overreacted to this article before weighing and investigating such possibilities thereby making them complicit in ruining the General’s career while also conceivably endangering the mission in Afghanistan.

    This is certainly not to say that any of these comments were appropriate irrespective of whether or not those making them believed they were speaking off the record.

    Regardless of the setting, the General commanding our troops in Afghanistan certainly shouldn’t have been party to such statements assuming he was aware they were being made.

    But that doesn’t exempt Hastings from adhering to the off-the-record status of such commentary if indeed there was a request for that to be the case.

    As the Post has now let this cat out of the bag, it will indeed be interesting to see how this matter is handled on the Sunday talk shows tomorrow as well as in the coming days.

    Stay tuned.

  193. Gonzo, The lady from Denmark asked me how much nurses made here in the U.S. I said here in Texas about $35.00 an hour…now she said we make 3 times that much….she could be lying but I was just quoting the what the lady said.

  194. some articles re Denmark
    ***************

    Something Rotten in Denmark?

    by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard
    New York Post

    August 27, 2002
    A Muslim group in Denmark announced a few days ago that a $30,000 bounty would be paid for the murder of several prominent Danish Jews, a threat that garnered wide international notice. Less well known is that this is just one problem associated with Denmark’s approximately 200,000 Muslim immigrants. The key issue is that many of them show little desire to fit into their adopted country.

    For years, Danes lauded multiculturalism and insisted they had no problem with the Muslim customs – until one day they found that they did. Some major issues:

    * Living on the dole: Third-world immigrants – most of them Muslims from countries such as Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iraq – constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.

    * Engaging in crime: Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark’s 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country’s convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.

    * Self-imposed isolation: Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.

    * Importing unacceptable customs: Forced marriages – promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death – are one problem.

    Another is threats to kill Muslims who convert out of Islam. One Kurdish convert to Christianity, who went public to explain why she had changed religion, felt the need to hide her face and conceal her identity, fearing for her life.

    * Fomenting anti-Semitism: Muslim violence threatens Denmark’s approximately 6,000 Jews, who increasingly depend on police protection. Jewish parents were told by one school principal that she could not guarantee their children’s safety and were advised to attend another institution. Anti-Israel marches have turned into anti-Jewish riots. One organization, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, openly calls on Muslims to “kill all Jews . . . wherever you find them.”

    * Seeking Islamic law: Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark’s Muslim population grows large enough – a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.

    Other Europeans (such as the late Pim Fortuyn in Holland) have also grown alarmed about these issues, but Danes were the first to make them the basis for a change in government.

    In a momentous election last November, a center-right coalition came to power that – for the first time since 1929 – excluded the socialists. The right broke its 72-year losing streak and won a solid parliamentary majority by promising to handle immigration issues, the electorate’s first concern, differently from the socialists.

    The next nine months did witness some fine-tuning of procedures: Immigrants now must live seven years in Denmark (rather than three) to become permanent residents. Most non-refugees no longer can collect welfare checks immediately on entering the country. No one can bring into the country an intended spouse under the age of 24. And the state prosecutor is considering a ban on Hizb-ut-Tahrir for its death threats against Jews.

    These minor adjustments prompted howls internationally – with European and U.N. reports condemning Denmark for racism and “Islamophobia,” the Washington Post reporting that Muslim immigrants “face habitual discrimination,” and a London Guardian headline announcing that “Copenhagen Flirts with Fascism.”

    In reality, however, the new government barely addressed the existing problems. Nor did it prevent new ones, such as the death threats against Jews or a recent Islamic edict calling on Muslims to drive Danes out of the Norrebro quarter of Copenhagen.

    The authorities remain indulgent. The military mulls permitting Muslim soldiers in Denmark’s volunteer International Brigade to opt out of actions they don’t agree with – a privilege granted to members of no other faith. Mohammed Omar Bakri, the self-proclaimed London-based “eyes, ears and mouth” of Osama bin Laden, won permission to set up a branch of his organization, Al-Muhajiroun.

    Contrary to media reports, the real news from Denmark is not flirting with fascism but getting mired in inertia. A government elected specifically to deal with a set of problems has made minimal headway. Its reluctance has potentially profound implications for the West as a whole.

  195. Someone here thought I was absurd for stating the obvious, to me , and others…Muslims are populating Europe, and their plan is to populate the World… Read and weep

    Denmark and the Muslim Immigration Crisis
    ——————————————————————————–
    Posted GMT 7-18-2008 15:52:8
    ——————————————————————————–
    In 1978-9 I was living and studying in Denmark. But in 1978 – even in Copenhagen , one didn’t see Muslim immigrants.

    The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 – a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time.

    The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism.

    Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies – it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism.

    How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets -all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?

    By the 1990’s the growing urban Muslim population was obvious – and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious.

    Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark ‘s liberal way of life, the Danes – once so welcoming – began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.

    The New York Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:

    “Muslim immigrants.constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.” “Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark ‘s 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country’s convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.”

    “Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population.”

    A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.” “Forced marriages – promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death – are one problem”

    “Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark ‘s Muslim population grows large enough – a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.”

    It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and the U.S .: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark , a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden – before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa – who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers – and I wonder what she would say today.

    In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years – one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe . ( Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of “racism” by liberal media across Europe – even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.)

    If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark ‘s history, culture, and a Danish language test.

    You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark , you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won’t find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you.

    You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen . Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark , they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren’t.

    In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government’s welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. “We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration.

    The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,” he said.

    A large thorn in the side of Denmark ‘s imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, “The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference,” Hvilshxj says, “There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.” And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, “In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech.”

    Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark , Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen , stating that the family’s thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark . The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time – in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.

    Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law.

    And meanwhile, Americans clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in America look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history . . we would do well to look to Denmark , and say a prayer for her future and for our own.

    By Susan MacAllen
    FamilySecurityMatters.org

  196. Salary: U.S Dollars 50,000 – 70,000 Salary as per the respective country’s currency
    Location: Australia, Canada, Denmark
    Date posted: 19 Jun, 2010
    From: naukri.com
    Share:

    Description:
    Provide direct nursing care to patients,deliver health education programs. Professional with 3 yrs. post qualification exp. and excellent English communication skills stand a good chance to settle abroad. Hurry before qualifying criteria changes. Nurses are in shortage in developed countries like
    about the same, I make a little more
    **************

    Canada,Australia,Denmark where immigration is possible in 3-12 months depending on different schemes.We can help you avail the golden opportunity to migrate abroad.Visit/contact to see if you qualify… Keywords: nurse, health care professional, head nurse, clinical nurse, intensive care nurse, registered / licensed nurse , occupational health nurse , nurses, anaesthetic nurse, registered midwife , registered…

  197. Shadowfax
    June 27th, 2010 at 12:17 am
    gonzotx

    How did you get the little arrow?

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

    I wish I knew how but it was in the post

  198. I wish I knew how but it was in the post

    A simple copy/paste……….huh. ↓↓↓

    It’s so cute. 😉

  199. Gonzo, That was a good article, thanks for posting it…isn’t it a shame when all good intentions go to hell in a hand basket when dealing with some immigrants. Its seems the the Danes did know what they were doing until they became too trusting and too caring. They good heartedness was exploited.
    Now we need to know which side of the fence Barack Hussein Obama is on.

  200. shadowfax…do you remember that pantsuit Hillary wore for the convention?…I think it was orange? I don’t think I’d ever seen her in orange, have you???

    Just curious as I was reading about the orange revolution….it sounded much like our primary, LOL!

  201. #
    confloyd
    June 27th, 2010 at 12:36 am

    shadowfax…do you remember that pantsuit Hillary wore for the convention?…I think it was orange? I don’t think I’d ever seen her in orange, have you???

    Just curious as I was reading about the orange revolution….it sounded much like our primary, LOL!
    ——
    I remember it well, those of us in Denver took it as a ‘sign’ from Hillary, we like to read tea leaves with her…who knows if it was just a good color she liked or what. Pretty bold color though. 😉

  202. Shadowfax, I don’t think I have ever seen her wear that exact color again. If you read Wikipedia on the orange revolution the opponent cheated and actually used a server that was falsifying votes. The opposition also had been in jail and was know to be part of organized crime. It was so like the primary, it was astonishing.

    Oh well, she wears blue now, but if I ever see her wear that bright orange again, I might think something is up, LOL!

    She was really stunning in that outfit and she looked happy. It was after that when she started campaigning for him that she looked so ragged in her facial appearance and that much hasn’t changed. Her look has definitely changed since the convention. She looks so tired and she should be with the amount of flying she is doing.

  203. Unemployment for 99 weeks is welfare.
    ————————————
    Yes, I suppose it can be construed as such. But whatever you call it welfare, unemployment or something else. the underlying reality is the problem. The reality of a permanently unemployed workforce that has the skills to work and the desire to work but cannot find a job. Biden spoke the truth when he said the 8 million jobs that have been lost are not coming back. The private sector is not creating replacement job the way it once did. And our labor markets are inundated with cheap unskilled labor. Those are the conditions that breed crime, social unrest and ultimately revolution. The Mafia has an expression every body has got to eat, and so it is here. The problem cannot be ignored. And that is why I posed the question. This is not left wing stuff. It is a matter of hard cold reality. Bismark is he one who invented the scheme of welfare state capitalism and he was a Prussian. As bad as these policies are, the alternative is worse.

  204. What a remarkable man our president is. HE can sprinkle fairy dust on any problem, and presto it goes away. Like the Gitmo problem. He said let there be no Gitmo, and voile Gitmo disappeared and HE said that is good. Then on the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth day HE rested and partied like a teenager without no chaperone. When he woke up from his drunken stupor there was still a Gitmo, an obvious racist plot and ever worse there was this:
    —————————————————————————-
    GITMO IS NOT GOING AWAY
    Posted by Moe Lane (Profile)
    Saturday, June 26th at 10:45PM EDT
    9 Comments
    ‘Zounds (Via Hot Air Headlines):

    Stymied by political opposition and focused on competing priorities, the Obama administration has sidelined efforts to close the Guantánamo prison, making it unlikely that President Obama will fulfill his promise to close it before his term ends in 2013.

    The “‘zounds” (which, by the way and in case you ever wondered, is short for ‘God’s wounds’) is not quite sardonic, but only because it’s aimed at those poor unfortunates who are relying on the NYT for their news, instead of, well, me. I have been waxing most sarcastic about about this administration’s Gitmo policy, which upon review seems to have fallen out of the Stupid Policy Decision Tree and hit every branch on the way down. It takes skill to find a working methodology that both the Left and the Right can equally despise, but this administration seems to have been up for the challenge when it comes to our detention policy.

    But as whines go, this one from the White House is fantastic:

    “The president can’t just wave a magic wand to say that Gitmo will be closed,” said a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal thinking on a sensitive issue.

    Sure the President can: it’s called an ‘executive order,’ and there’s a whole phalanx of lawyers available to the White House capable of crafting one into something that lets him do precisely that. What the ’senior administration official’ didn’t care to say was that the President doesn’t dare wave a magic wand to say that Gitmo will be closed – which is another thing entirely.

    A considerably more craven thing.

  205. I wonder if anyone besides Shrum believes that Messiah Obama saved us from a depression. On second thought Baracks body person Reggie Love probably subscribes to that delusion as well.

  206. The meddlesome Soros is at it again. Anyone that believes this serial prognosticator might as well go to work for him and get paid to believe his lies. Soros ought to be imprisoned for crimes against humanity beginning with his pickpocket days in Germany.
    __________________________________

    “The notorious hedge fund predator George Soros is frenetically churning out his own variations on the Anglo-American line in advance of the G-20 with a series of attacks on Germany. He does not make the ban on naked credit default swaps the issue, but bashes Berlin using other pretexts. Soros pretends to be concerned about the German austerity policies, which are admittedly ill-advised in the extreme. Soros wants brutal austerity for Greece and the southern tier, but demands deficit spending and consumerism in Germany. This is the old Carter-Mondale locomotive theory of 1977, when Germany and Japan were expected to launch vast stimulus programs to weaken their currencies and reduce their exports so as to relieve the pressure on the US dollar. In an interview with Die Zeit of Hamburg, Soros absurdly blamed the entire hedge-fund induced European crisis on the Germans, pontificating: “The German policy is a danger for Europe, it could destroy the European project.” Soros thinks that the collapse of the euro may be at hand; in fact, his hedge funds have been a key part of the speculative attack, for which he has also served as ideologue. Soros thinks that the end of the euro may be followed by a new era of European wars: “That would be tragic, because then Europe would be threatened by the sort of conflicts between states that have shaped European history.”[1]

    “According to a recent speech by Soros in Berlin, current German austerity policy “is in direct conflict with the lessons learnt from the Great Depression of the 1930s and is liable to push Europe into a period of prolonged stagnation or worse…. The wide range of possibilities will weigh heavily on the financial markets. They will have to discount the prospects of deflation and inflation, default and disintegration…. In a worst case scenario that could undermine democracy and paralyze or even destroy the European Union. If that were to happen, Germany would have to bear a major share of the responsibility because as the strongest and most creditworthy country it calls the shots. By insisting on pro-cyclical policies, Germany is endangering the European Union.”[2] Austerity is a bad thing, but it is absurd to blame Germany for the current depression, the direct cause of which was the 2008 panic in the $1.5 quadrillion derivatives bubble centered in Wall Street and the City of London.”

    continued from:

    http://pumasunleashed.wordpress.com/

  207. Team Hillar is having a contest on the your favorite HRC pantsuit. Not sure if this has been discussed, but you might want to participate, and vote for the orange.

    Message is below:
    ———————————

    J.c. JonesJune 26, 2010 at 6:56pm
    Subject: FAVORITE HILLARY PANSTSUIT…
    Team Hillary – THIS WEEK when you have a few spare moments –
    Upload your FAVORITE Hillary Pantsuit to the group photos…
    Title it (Red Pantsuit) or (Yellow Pantsuit) or whatever color it is so that we know it’s a contest suggestion…

    Make sure that it is a Full body (toe to hair) picture and we will make a collage asking members to VOTE ON THEIR FAVORITE…
    You can find Hillary in just about every pantsuit she’s worn by typing into your yahoo image search *Hillary Clinton (COLOR) such as red Pantsuit”

    Next week we will have the contest…

  208. Gonzo, The lady from Denmark asked me how much nurses made here in the U.S. I said here in Texas about $35.00 an hour…now she said we make 3 times that much….she could be lying but I was just quoting the what the lady said..
    *******
    Best that I can tell is $5000-$8300/month for 37 hour work week, 25 days paid vacation and 9 paid holidays so at the upper end ~$55-$60/hour (pre-tax)

  209. Admin, I don’t know why only part of that link shows as blue. Hopefully you can fix it as the photo there is special.

  210. Clinton or Obama: Who’s the bigger asset on midterm campaign trail?
    By Shane D’Aprile – 06/26/10 06:00 AM ET

    Given the electorate’s current state of economic anxiety and frustration with Washington over the pace of economic recovery, Madden said Clinton is the opposition party’s safer bet as a surrogate this year.

    “He can generate enthusiasm among the base without many of the other trappings a visit from President Obama would generate,” he said.

    Democrats point to the impact Clinton has already exerted this campaign season. In May, he headlined an event for Rep. Mark Critz (D-Pa.) in the final days of Pennsylvania’s special election to fill the late John Murtha’s congressional seat. Critz pulled off a somewhat unexpected win in the Republican-leaning district.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/105665-clinton-or-obama-whos-the-bigger-asset-on-the-campaign-trail

  211. NMF, I don’t know why I did not connect the dots during the convention with the color of her pants suit, I guess I was just catatonic from all the crap during the primary.

    I fully believe she wore orange to tell us she did fight, but was out manuvered in the back room deal associated with the primary. I also bet she knows of the treachery of the cheating against her and has proof.

    All you have to do is look at her facial expressions from the primary to the first speech she gave in Unity. She also wore blue after that all the time and still does.

    Its my favorite pants suit because this was our Hillary the one that was the fighter.

  212. SHERMAN FREDERICK: Incompetence catches Obama

    Can’t fake leadership

    Make it official: Everything Barack Obama touches turns to mush. Not because he wants to screw up everything, but because he’s simply in over his head as president of the United States.

    He is the quintessential wrong guy at the wrong time, and the events of last week provided another exclamation point to that sentence.

    http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/incompetence-catches-obama-97255519.html

  213. They have even suggested that the “Orange Revolution” had foreign intervention associated with it….well we do know that that is what happened and that Obama had foreign help. Wow, the evidence is just mounting.

  214. JanH
    June 26th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
    I see comments today pro-spending and those for tackling the huge deficit. Either way, with the current potus and his buddies, is anyone at all convinced that they would spend wisely or attack the deficit in the best way?
    _________________________________________

    Absolutely not. The 850 billion dollars would have done a LOT of good IF it had been directed towards private sector job creation rather than just thrown up in the air. Absolutely wasted.

  215. heRealist
    June 27th, 2010 at 10:14 am
    SHERMAN FREDERICK: Incompetence catches Obama

    Can’t fake leadership

    Make it official: Everything Barack Obama touches turns to mush. Not because he wants to screw up everything, but because he’s simply in over his head as president of the United States.

    He is the quintessential wrong guy at the wrong time, and the events of last week provided another exclamation point to that sentence.

    http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/incompetence-catches-obama-97255519.html
    ———————————————————————-
    Isn’t that the bottom line really? I used to know a guy who said I never stay at any job for more than two years. And he had a resume to prove it. I assumed he meant after two years he got bored and needed to find some new challenge. But one day after he said it again for what was perhaps the twentieth time I decided to ask him why he never stayed at any job for more than two years. And he smiled and answered very directly: because I can fool any employer for two years. I had a manager who worked for me once who was a much married. He had an alimony trail to prove it. By the time I met him he was convinced that seven was a magic number, whereas I expect that in his case it was more likely to be eleven. I asked him why he was reluctant to settle down. I expected to hear all that don’t fence me in crap. But no that was not it. He said I guess I have never found the right one. More likely those he had married got to know him and what they knew they did not like. So you see there are more 90 day wonders out there than just Barack. But nowhere will you find a more disastrous example of this fatal flaw than you see in him.

  216. The meddlesome Soros is at it again. Anyone that believes this serial prognosticator might as well go to work for him and get paid to believe his lies. Soros ought to be imprisoned for crimes against humanity beginning with his pickpocket days in Germany.
    ———————–
    From the days of his youth he has been committing crimes against humanity. It is a miracle he has survived this long. He is Obama’s godfather. Point by point by point the Obama campaign was and is the mirror image of the campaigns he launched in the Ukraine (Orange Revolution), the Ukraine (Rose Revolution), Bosnia etc. He believes the United States should not be the leader of the world and wants China and Brazil to be the new economic engine. Our evidence shows that he is the stringpuller in the new dimocratic party, that changes to campaign law he orchestrated put him there, that he owns interests in 273 newspapers around the world, believes in open borders and the destruction of the middle class. Our evidence puts him at the center of the Obama campaign from its inception, and he used the Deval Patrick campaign as his trial run. There is nothing good anyone can say about Soros. He is the paradigmatic example of the figure Undershaft in the Shaw Play Major Barbara, and conclusive proof that at times life imitates art, rather than the reverse.

  217. wbboei

    The people I knew that were incompetent at the top, went up fast, and did not stay any longer than 2 years in the job. They could show flash in the pan brillance for one year, but after that, they failed.

  218. Well, Lets all hope Barack Insane Obama will only have until November and he will throw in the towel because he is in over his head and just can’t play golf all day…the man doesn’t like to work.

  219. Posted by Moe Lane (Profile)
    Sunday, June 27th at 9:00AM EDT
    3 Comments
    In 2008, I (and most of the rest of the Online Right) engaged in a long and unsuccessful fight against the notorious group ACORN. It was, honestly, a frustrating one: although you could show, time after time after time again, that ACORN was routinely involved in election fraud (including election registration fraud, which was its usual apologists’ prime excuse/primary distraction) we never could get any traction from that. And ACORN knew this, and was insufferably smug about it as they went on their merry way urinating on the election process for the eventual benefit of the Democratic party.

    In 2009, I watched Andrew Breitbart and his band of Merry Pranksters casually swat ACORN out of the air like the annoying fly that it was – and they did it by destroying the group’s primary reputation as a community group. Once people associated ACORN with ‘adviser to pimps of underage El Salvadorean brothels,’ the money dried up, the name got radioactive, and the group fell prey to vicious internal backbiting. At this moment, it becomes a story if the successors/fragments of ACORN are found to be involved in any political race in 2010 – which is why any involvement by the remnants will be hidden very, very deeply. In other words, gutting ACORN was a heavy win for conservatives, Republicans, Right-activists, and pretty much anybody who doesn’t like election fraud.

    All of the above was necessary for my next comment: Conor Friedersdorf. Culture 11 was an uninteresting idea that was badly executed, and it’s not Breitbart’s fault that he came up with something that succeeded where you failed. You can call him ‘counterproductive’ all you like… but the 2010 elections are going to be missing a group of election fraud specialists largely because of Bretibart’s websites and methods, so (speaking as an Online Right activist) I have to ask: what have you done for the conservative movement lately?

  220. The people I knew that were incompetent at the top, went up fast, and did not stay any longer than 2 years in the job. They could show flash in the pan brillance for one year, but after that, they failed.
    —————————–
    In Mafia circles, they used to say somebody who was an associate as opposed to a made guy had “the protection of the ring”. Obama has the protection of the ring. The ring consists of a coterie of journalists and money men who are so invested in his presidency that if he fails they fail so now they are fighting for their own survival when they fight for his. Their mistake was to continue to defend him after his position became indefensible. And so, as he ammasses an unbroken record of failure, and as the pillars of our society groan shake and crash like a great ice glacier in Alaska during the spring thaw, the two year rule may not apply as precisely as it does in other situations. However we do reach a tipping point and I think we are there.

  221. Nice to see Mr.Kick-Ass has his priorities straight

    “When U.S. President Barack Obama stepped off his helicopter in Huntsville on Friday, the first thing he said was, “You’ve got a lot of golf courses here, don’t you?” Industry Minister Tony Clement told the National Post in an exclusive interview.”

    The man doesn’t care and no longer cares if people see he no longer [if he ever did] care. What a jerk.

  222. Wow. Just Wow.

    Now VP Bite-me is now openly insulting constituents. I’m a now registered independent after leaving the undemocratic party, but I have no doubt had some repub or conservative openly insulted a constitutent to his way, ABS, NBS, CBS, and all the liberal media would be replaying this over and over again.

    Biden calls a Milwaukee custard shop owner a smartass just for asking to have his taxes cut!

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/06/27/open-thread-biden-calls-shop-owner-wanting-lower-taxes-smartass#ixzz0s42jWXUF

  223. Re: Big Media protects Al Gore from Sex Scandal — too bad they didn’t protect him during the 2000 election cycle!

  224. tim, I think his handlers keep promising him more golf courses to keep him coming to work everyday. LOL! I think he was pist that Bill C was getting to watch the World Cup while he was there in Canada having to listen to hours and hours of some one else giving speeches other than himself.

    The man is a total waste of 400,000. a year salary…maybe the taxpayers will cut his stipend short…lets hope so.

  225. The Obama strategy here is clear:

    1. Short Term: to appeal to the Hispanic vote, on the Machiavellian assumption that they will put ethnicity before country. Obama believes this will cause those voters to support the dimocrats in 2010 and Obama in 2012.

    2. Long Term: to let the situaton become so desperate that a consensus will form in the country for blanket amnesty and a national id card, which will give the government control over the American people as the Dean of the House of Representatives John Dingel so eloquently put it.

  226. wbboei — I know many hispanic americans {legally immigrated here}, 3rd and 4th generation who used to very consistently vote for Dems, I cannot express how disgusted they are with Mr. Kick Ass. One recently made the comment, something along the line, “do the dems think we are sheep to be herded or somthing?”

    They saw the manipulation of 2008 against Hillary, and now always see everything through the prism of that pure bias. They are very conservative, and I think the DNC must be pretty stupid to think all the minority groups are all monolithic.

  227. Another topic; the same conclusion: the man is pathetic
    Petraeus May Need a New Team in Afghanistan, Senators Say
    Two influential senators suggested Sunday that President Obama clean house on the civilian side of his Afghanistan war team if Gen. David Petraeus cannot get along with the same diplomats who may have sparred with outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also said the withdrawal timetable needs to be flexible, though the president has set July 2011 as the deadline to get out.
    The senators spoke just days after McChrystal resigned over a Rolling Stone article in which he and his aides were quoted mocking the Obama administration, particularly Amb. Karl Eikenberry and Special Representative Richard Holbrooke. The article reflected deep divisions between the military and civilian side of the war effort.
    While lawmakers were nearly unanimous in saying Obama had to change generals after the article, Feinstein said those diplomats should not get a free pass with Petraeus. Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” the senator said Petraeus must be a “command presence” on the team.
    “(Petraeus) should make the calls. If he can’t work with the ambassador, the ambassador should change. If he can’t work with Holbrooke, that should change,” Feinstein said. “I think we put all of our eggs in the Petraeus basket.”
    h t t p://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/27/senators-raise-option-diplomat-shake-afghanistan/
    Question of the day: Could Obama not have done the same for McChrystal?

  228. Question of the day: Could Obama not have done the same for McChrystal?

    I was thinking the same thing. Bite-me, mc-eikenberry all were backstabbing General Mccrytal, all except for Hillary Clinton, who both mccrystal and peterus have respect for.

    As of now and for the foreseeable future, General Peterus has much more command than the ignorant incompetent current CIC. People trust General P (as General M for that matter) much more than a CIC who believes “US military is doing nothing but airraiding villages and killing civilians.”

    I have a few friends who have either served or have family who do, no one likes or trusts Mr. Community Organizer.

  229. I like ACORN. They do good work. And of course, unlike the Republicans, there is no actual campaign or electoral fraud associated with them. There is the occasional fraudulent registration which, of course, does not lead to illegal voting.

    Now, the Republicans, who are attacking ACORN, have actually had people who run campaigns for them convicted for fraudulent behavior and served prison time.

    This is all rightwing bullshit.

  230. I don’t really think ACORN lived up to what it was supposed to be, and I do think they becamse an arm of the Obama campaign in the primary. But I also don’t think they are this huge corrupt group some people do. I also think George Soros is just a billionaire that donates to Dems just like Repubs have billionaires that donate to them. I don’t believe the world domination theories I’ve read here. Also, Soros started MoveOn to help Clinton avoid impeachment. He’s not the world’s greatest villian.

  231. mp,
    I can’t get to that link, about the skimmer from MA because I am at work.

    Why wasn’t this skimmer sent earlier…if its from Ma, then what was the problem?

  232. wbboei,

    Did you read some of the comments below the video of the gov.? Its all about getting to call more people racists….I am beginning to believe that the only way to save this country is thru impeaching this man which will cause a civil war.
    How can we as a country go thru 8 years of this guy after Bush’s 8 years.
    The ball will be in the republicans court when they take over in 10′, we will see if their up to the challenge or in on it to keep Hillary (the true change candidate) out.

  233. confloyd:

    The skimmer is newly fitted oil tanker…from Taiwan…..it will need approval from the EPA, coast guards etc before being used….

    Case in point: Hats off to taiwanese engineers….they converted a super tanker to a skimmer tanker in the the course of two months!!!!!!

  234. mp, thats great…how long will it take the EPA to approve it…can’t Obama just kick the ass of the EPA and get it approved quickly or is this going to take 6 months?

Comments are closed.