“They need some serious come-uppance or we’re all f***ed.”

Time for us to “cackle”. The first in our series of articles “Obama Is The Third Bush Term” was published on November 13, 2008 – less than a week after the November 2008 elections (don’t miss our pictorial representation of “Obama is the Third Bush Term” on the lower right hand column). This week Obama thug Robert Gibbs lost his mind over that one.

“Culture of Corruption”? We began to expose the Obama Dimocrat “Culture of Corruption” before Michelle Malkin even dreamed of her book (see, June 2, 2008’s The Democratic? Party Fractures; see, June 4, 2008’s Rezko Convicted – Culture Of Corruption – Barack Obama“; see July 2, 2008’s “Barack Obama’s Chicago Culture Of Corruption” as examples).

We hit the bulls-eye with those prescient evaluations. But only now are the Hopium Guzzlers beginning to understand how right we have been with this:The antidote to the poison which is Barack Obama is devastating defeat for his drone Dimocrats.”

When we wrote “Tough Times Ahead For Hillary Clinton Supporters” the central thesis of our argument was resisted. We argued that

“The tough times will come because in order to do what is best for the country and to resurrect the now dead Democratic Party of FDR and Hillary Clinton we will have to assist in the destruction of the Obama Dimocratic Party.

Lifelong Democrats will find the purposeful destruction of a party disguised as the Democratic Party a difficult decision to make. [snip]

We still believe that in order to bring sanity to the process we must make sure that the Obama Dimocratic Party suffers devastating defeat in election after election after election.

The resistance to our strategy of doom, destruction, defeat was a misguided call to think first of “the issues” and “principles”. Our response was “what principles? – Obama has no principles other than self-agrandizement”. We asked a devastating question:

“The argument is we must support Dimocrats who stabbed us in the back. Where does that get us? Where has that argument gotten the Nutroots?

We now have an answer from the Nutroots. The very same answer the PUMA movement came up with in 2008, the very same answer we gave in 2008, is now dawning on the “creative class” Nutroots. Here is what happened, courtesy of JournoLister Ben Smith:

A prominent progressive who backed Obama early doesn’t buy my theory that the White House’s attitude toward the “professional left” comes from a sense that Obama won Iowa without its help.

I wrote:

But after Iowa, from the vantage point of Gibbs and others who had begun two years earlier, was very late in the game. If you were with Obama before Iowa, you were making an investment. If you were there after Iowa, you were jumping on the bandwagon, going with the front-runner. You would still incur gratitude — but the risk you were taking just wasn’t the same.

My correspondent furiously e-mails:

F*** them. We were with them pretty damn early on, and they still treated us like sh**, after they used us, and then came back and begged for more help when the going got tough in September. [Economist Joe] Stiglitz was with them from the beginning, and they treated him like sh**. So, with all due respect, f*** them. This isn’t about them not liking people who came late to the ball game. It’s about the smartest people in the world and the smartest candidate in the world thinking they don’t need anyone’s help, because they’re just so much damn better than everyone else, and thinking they did it all without anyone’s help. They need some serious come-uppance or we’re all f***ed.

That “prominent progressive” Hopium Guzzler, now gets it. They need some serious come-uppance or we’re all f***ed. Only now does he understand what we said for so long. The only way to deal with thugs, Obama thugs, Chicago thugs, is to punch them in the face. No words just punch them in the face. F**k ’em.

Hillary used the more polite “Deck’Em”. But we will be much more blunt, just like that idiot “prominent progressive” – F**k ’em. F**k You Barack Obama. (we use the asterisk version due to internet censorship programs which would block our site if we used the full word – but we mean the full “uc” version of the word. “F**k You Barack Obama”.)

“They need some serious come-uppance or we’re all f***ed.” is another way of saying “doom, destruction, defeat” for Obama Dimocrats and Obama in November 2010 and 2012 and on and on until every vestige of the Obama corruption is purged from American life.

Earlier this year we compared Barack Obama to fecal matter on a fine dinner. In that same article we addressed the many Hillary VP rumors. An extended excerpt of “Let’s Boo Hillary Clinton” follows which addresses some of the Hillary rumors (we’ll have a full series of articles on Hillary strategy for 2010/2012 coming soon) and the need and reasons for “doom, destruction, defeat”:

“That is as elegant/inelegant a way to say that not even the lovely Hillary Clinton could induce us to vote for Barack Obama. We write this because of all the gushing speculation lately that Hillary Clinton might replace Joe Biden and rescue Barack Obama in 2012.

Mess-iah Barack Obama needs a Savior and that Savior is Hillary Clinton. The Hope and Change is to dump Biden and beg Hillary to become Obama’s VP.

In 2008 we occasionally stated that an Obama/Hillary ticket would be perhaps difficult for us in the same way that a child might have an unsavory dinner vs luscious dessert moment. “Eat your vegetables and you can have your favorite dessert.”

No longer. Barack Obama is not a personality issue. True, here at Big Pink, Obama’s nasty self, his snubs, his self-worship and self-love, his Joker face, his head shape, his lanky akimbo self, the very air he breathes, his stinkiness which we can smell through the television – we have grown to dislike Obama personally. But as we have repeatedly written it is Obama and Obamaism that must be defeated, and defeated without mercy and without doubt.

“The person singularly responsible for these catastrophes and the policy singularly responsible is Obama and Obamaism.”

It is not only Barack Obama who must be defeated. Obama’s politics of division “situation comedy coalition” must be defeated and the Democratic Party resurrected and restored.

Now some Democrats are so disgusted, some newly minted Independents are so disgusted, many Republicans are so disgusted that their response is to say that they just want the Obama Dimocratic Party to die and that every Dimocratic elected official should be politically killed, – they never want to have anything to do with, ever again, with or for the Democratic or Dimocratic Party or anything it stands for, has ever stood for, or will ever stand for. We understand that level of disgust.

However, America needs the old Democratic Party. Republicans need the Democratic Party as it used to be before Barack Obama and his thugs so thoroughly trashed it, killed it, and replaced it with that monstrosity we dub the Obama Dimocratic Party.

As we have written before the Republican Party should be the party of the green eye-shade accountants always asking how much things cost and wanting America to either stay the same or go back to an earlier and mythical easier time. The Democratic Party, as it used to be, should be the party that wants to change things – for the better – and wants to move to the future.

The modern Republican Party, in other words, should be the stern “Daddy Party” of stereotypical fastidiousness, frugality, conservatism and the status quo. The modern Democratic Party, in other words, should be the smiling “Mommy Party” of stereotypical freshness, generosity, and daring coupled with change for the better. That’s what the Founding Fathers and Mothers wanted – faction versus faction leading to good government from the clash of ideas.

The Democratic Party, once resurrected, must be for CHANGE. But, it must be CHANGE FOR THE BETTER. We wrote that over and over and over in 2007-2008 but the Hopium guzzlers wanted change for the better or the worse – we got worse with Barack Obama.”

* * * * * *

Regular Big Pink readers know our catechism, our mantra:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

Tim in our comments section added another important mantra which we have adopted as one of the canonical truths:

They do not care and they do not care that you know they do not care.

When Gibbs attacked Obama supporters because he knows these fools will humiliate themselves further and vote for Obama and his corrupt Dimocrats he was letting them know that he does not care that they know he does not care. Later Gibbs made the point again when he refused to retract his statements.

“But if there was nervousness over base voters not heading to the polls, Gibbs didn’t show it.

“I don’t think [liberal voters won’t show up],” he said, “because I think what’s at stake in November is too important to do that.”

Its the same “red flag” politics we rejected in November 2008. When Obama needed votes from Hillary supporters and especially from women he began to wave the red flag on abortion rights and Supreme Court appointees. Now Gibbs makes the “red flag” politics obvious. To the Nutroots we say: They do not care and they do not care that you know they do not care.

When we rejected “red flag” politics and refused to give our votes to the corruption called Barack Obama many on the “professional left”, the “creative class” were angry with us. Now they know we are right but can’t quite bring themselves to say “Big Pink you have been right all along, please accept our totally abject apology, humiliate us all you wish… you were right and are right.” Our response on the day they say that: “F**k You!”

Thug Gibbs and corrupt Barack Obama believe this is still 2008. But as we noted yesterday, Obama and his Dimocratic corrupt clowns are in trouble. Even the Hopium Guzzlers on Huff n’ Puff know it’s not 2008 anymore:

“For all the chatter about the White House’s ability to get out the vote in Colorado’s Tuesday night primary, the election produced one statistic that could leave Democrats unsettled.

The losing candidate in the Republican race, former Lt. Gov Jane Norton, actually earned more votes (197,143) than the winning candidate in the Democratic primary, Sen. Michael Bennet (183,521).

A voting breakdown like that is troubling enough for the party. That it occurred in Colorado — a state targeted by the Obama presidential campaign and turned into a potential Democratic stronghold in 2008 — makes it slightly more frightening.”

It’s not 2008 anymore. When Michelle Obama paraded her cheap Chicago self through the streets of Marbella, Spain, in her Dolce Vita John Paul Gaultier Halloween Eurotrash outfit in her movie-stars-wear-these sunglasses she was telling economically distressed Americans “I don’t care and I don’t care that you know that I don’t care.” MoonOnPluto informs us today that Americans are saying to Michelle: “F**k You Michelle!”

“The number of Americans who have a positive opinion of First Lady Michelle Obama has fallen in the last 16 months, according to the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. In April, 2009, 64 percent of those surveyed by the Journal/NBC said they had a positive impression of Mrs. Obama; today, the number is 50 percent. That 50 percent personal approval is just slightly above President Obama’s personal approval figure, which stands at 46 percent in the new poll.”

Obama Dimocrats are in trouble (“Recovery Summer” is “Relapse Summer” to most Americans not in Marbella) because they are not Democrats in the FDR/Hillary Clinton mold (check out the latest results from California to see how bad Obama Dimocrats will be beaten this November).

This November all Americans, Democrats and Republicans and Independents better say “F**k You Barack Obama! F**K You Michelle Obama! F**k You Obama Supporters!

“They need some serious come-uppance or we’re all f***ed.”

Share

106 thoughts on ““They need some serious come-uppance or we’re all f***ed.”

  1. One more “cackle”: we were the first to declare “Recovery Summer” to actually be “Relapse Summer”.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-claims-for-unemployment-apf-3180551258.html?x=0&.v=1

    The economy is looking bleaker as new applications for jobless benefits rose last week to the highest level in almost six months.

    It’s a sign that hiring remains weak and employers may be going back to cutting their staffs. Analysts say the increase suggests companies won’t be adding enough workers in August to lower 9.5 percent unemployement rate.

    First-time claims for jobless benefits edged up by 2,000 to a seasonally adjusted 484,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. That’s the highest total since February. Analysts had expected claims to fall.

    Initial claims have now risen in three of the last four weeks and are close to their high point for the year of 490,000, reached in late January. The four-week average, which smooths volatility, soared by 14,250 to 473,500, also the highest since late February.

    The report “represents a very adverse turn in the labor market, threatening income growth and consumer spending,” Pierre Ellis, an economist at Decision Economics, wrote in a note to clients.

  2. Room for one more “cackle”? We also said it was Obama supporters who would be hurt most by Barack Obama.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/38674003

    Global youth unemployment has hit a record high following the financial crisis and is likely to get worse later this year, the International Labor Organization (ILO) said Thursday.

    The report from the ILO says 81 million out of 630 million 15-24 year olds where unemployed at the end of 2009, some 7.8 million more than at the end of 2007.

    Thursday marks the first day of the UN International Youth Year; the ILO warned these trends will have “significant consequences for young people as upcoming cohorts of new entrants join the ranks of the already unemployed.”

    The world risks a crisis legacy of a “lost generation” of young people who dropped out of the job market, the organization added in its report.

    The report also points out that the unemployment rates of youth have proven to be more sensitive to the crisis than the rates of adults and that the recovery of the job market for young men and women is likely to lag behind that of adults.

  3. haha hilarious, never seen this before.

    PHILADELPHIA (AP) — An office manager who admitted stealing $475,000 from her employer has been sentenced to 21 years of house arrest so she can work to repay it.

    Lanette Sansoni’s unusual sentence came after her ex-boss said he was more interested in restitution than jail time…..

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_21_YEAR_HOUSE_ARREST?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

    “This was just a creative compromise,” defense attorney A. Charles Peruto Jr. said Thursday. “I think it will encourage her to pay it off, so the judge was pretty smart about it.”

    Peruto, a veteran defense lawyer in the region, guessed the two-decade term may be a record for house arrest in Pennsylvania. State officials could not immediately confirm that.

    Sansoni, 40, has repaid about $275,000 after selling her home in Warminster, just north of Philadelphia, and moving in with her mother. She will remain on house arrest until the remaining $200,000 is repaid to Kenneth Slomine, who owned JRS Settlement Services, a title company in Lower Moreland Township.

    Montgomery County Judge Joseph A. Smyth on Wednesday set a payment schedule of $750 a month, which works out to about 21 years.

    Sansoni can leave home to work but could go to jail if the payments stop. She has a job paying $700 a week, Peruto said, but he wouldn’t disclose what it is.

    ……………………..

    makes sense, you go to jail, the money ain’t paid back and we got to pay for the thiefs upkeep in jail.

  4. Well, since Obama seems so determined to play Hoover, it does open the door nicely to Secretary Clinton being able to easily step in to the FDR role.

  5. Admin, not surprised at Obama using that old dictator ploy, use the youth to put you in power and then squeeze the life out of them.

  6. Oh, good. You mentioned the California poll that shows Carly Fiorina ahead of the one that I prefer not to mention, but everyone knows nonetheless. That’s why I showed up here today. Anyway, I visited the link and read some of the comments left on Hot Air. I liked this one very much:

    Maybe people are starting to decide that they would rather have jobs and an actual economy, rather than what the Democrats offer – handouts and serfdom.

    NoDonkey on August 12, 2010 at 4:21 PM

    What I find encouraging is that Carly seems to be polling 27% with blacks. That is pretty strong, and if she keeps it up, I think that will be what helps her beat back the one who shall remain nameless.

  7. Polling AA’s in CA is tricky. They only make up 7% of the electorate. Only about 40 were polled. Ten saying Carly. I doubt Boxer won’t win about 88-90 percent of the AA vote in CA, as is usual for a Dem in CA. To see the AA vote slipping from Dems, we would need to see Obama polling slipping among AA’s. But he remains as popular among AA’s as ever. I don’t think the AA vote will make or break the CA race, but I would not expect Carly to win 27% of that vote.

  8. The comments by Gibbs did more damage to Obama than most people realize. The progressives can no longer pretend that he is on their side. They know now that they were deceived. If they have access to the Dean Plan then they have reason to know that they were never anything more than a small cog in a large wheel. The fat cats who engineered Obama’s candidacy as early as 2004 were simply looking for foot soldiers. I used to ask what do they see in him–these young idealists. Well, first they never realized this was fundamentally a hiring decision, even though that is exactly what it was. The saw it as a passport to a brave new world. Second, they thought there would be a place for them inside heaven’s gate, and failed to realize when his grass roots supporters were evicted from their seats at the Convention to make room for billionaires and their mistresses, maybe there was a message there, which self abnegation for the greater good could not answer. Third, many of them saw him as a symbol of their own hopes either for a better life or to be seen by their peers as hip to the jive. The problem is that street of dreams ended with the comments of Gibsie. The administration will have a difficult time rekindling the flame.

  9. blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050412/the-stunning-decline-of-barack-obama-10-key-reasons-why-the-obama-presidency-is-in-meltdown/

    The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown

    By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: August 12th, 2010

    430 Comments Comment on this article

    The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.

    Against this backdrop, the president’s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer, with the latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of US voters dropping to minus 22 points, the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office. While just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president’s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, strongly disapprove. According to Rasmussen, 65 per cent of voters believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents.

    The RealClearPolitics average of polls now has President Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving.

    Related link: The Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime
    There are an array of reasons behind the stunning decline and political fall of President Obama, chief among them fears over the current state of the US economy, with widespread concern over high levels of unemployment, the unstable housing market, and above all the towering budget deficit. Americans are increasingly rejecting President Obama’s big government solutions to America’s economic woes, which many fear will lead to the United States sharing the same fate as Greece.

    Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President’s aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lacklustre handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire.

    On the national security and foreign policy front, President Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one.

    Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.

    1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people

    In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.

    2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership

    This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.

    3. Obama fails to inspire

    In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2006 Convention speech in Chicago which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.

    4. The United States is drowning in debt

    The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.

    5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat

    The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.

    6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake

    In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”

    7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive

    While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.

    8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration

    It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.

    9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security

    From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.

    10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness

    Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.

    There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.

    This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.

  10. oh boy, that # 3:

    3. Obama fails to inspire

    In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2006 Convention speech in Chicago which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.

    ************************************
    “America is no longer inspired by Barak Obama’s FLAT, MONOTONOUS AND OFTEN DULL presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter…”

    ***************************************************
    O was flat, monotonous and dull during the primaries…the only thing Gardenier forgot to mention was all those speeches are filled with “I, I, I, me, me, me, mine, mine, mine”

  11. like we said, those flowery dull speeches could only enchant the sheeple for so long, thank god, us at hillary44 are immune to bullshit and saw right through it straight away.

    First time i heard him speak, my bullshit-o-meter flew off the dial and out into orbit.

  12. America on Edge

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/12/america_on_edge.html

    Wednesday in Atlanta, thousands of people barraged a shopping center. The goal was not to purchase the latest “it” item. It was to attain a public housing application. Folks cut the line. Some children were reportedly trampled. Riot police arrived. The coveted housing slots are for families with an annual income below $16,000.

    The same day in southern California, a man’s car was being repossessed. The unemployed man rammed a rented U-Haul truck into the tow truck. The man proceeded to barricade himself inside his home. The local SWAT team was called in. Police negotiated with him for hours. He eventually surrendered peacefully.

    Two days earlier, a JetBlue flight was on the tarmac at New York’s JFK airport. A passenger rose to retrieve his luggage while the plane taxied. Veteran flight attendant Steven Slater asked the passenger to sit down. The passenger cursed him out. The luggage, or bin, struck Slater in the head. Reports vary. The two argued. Slater took to the intercom. Let loose his own profane rant. Grabbed a beer. Opened the emergency-evacuation chute and slid away in a blaze of workingman glory.

    On the other side of the country, not far from the repo-man standoff, Slater’s mother was asked about the incident. “I can understand why he snapped,” she said. So can America.

    The nation feels ready to snap. Not as a people. But tens of millions are on edge.

    Or as Peggy Noonan’s column was headlined over the weekend: “America is at risk of boiling over.” No columnist captures the American psyche better than Noonan. Yet America has felt on the cusp of boiling over all year. It was last August that town hall meetings erupted across the nation.

    That tension only seems to be building. Perhaps it’s the disconnect between the country’s leaders and its people. The ceaseless tide of foreclosures. Or simply jobs. Most are not coming back.

    Long-term joblessness is at the highest level since the Great Depression. Nearly 15 million Americans are unemployed. About 11 million more adults have been relegated to part-time work or given up altogether. Half the nation has no net worth.

    Job insecurity is at record levels. In spring, a fifth of workers told Gallup that they believe it is “very” or “fairly” likely that they will lose their jobs in the next year. It was the highest level recorded since the question was first asked in the 1970s.

    That means higher rates of personal depression, of stressed families, of physical health issues.

    America is stressed out. Much of it, at least. The need for state mental health services has risen as state budgets constrict. In New Jersey, its health crisis units saw a 20 percent increase in demand last year.

    Many of those with work are also unhappy. In January, the Conference Board research group found the lowest level of job satisfaction, 45 percent, in its 22 years of polling the issue. How many Americans wish they could open an emergency exit and quit as Slater did?

    The political ramifications are everywhere. The Democratic House might fall in November. The nation has the least confidence in Congress of 16 major institutions. Congress recently earned its lowest confidence rating, 11 percent, since Gallup first asked the question in the early 1970s. Only 31 percent of adults believe “the country is better off” than when Obama took office, according to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Meanwhile, less than half of the public approves of President Obama’s management on 12 of 13 issues Gallup regularly polls.

    Americans were most displeased with Obama’s handling of immigration. No issue is more explosive today. About one in four adults say the number of illegal immigrants in the country makes them feel “angry,” according to a CNN poll.

    Yet this too cannot be divorced from our economic anxiety. The recession remains the dominant issue of these times. And in hard times, nations turn inward. The outrage over illegal immigration is, in part, a symptom of our national anxiety.

    In fact, America has not felt this anxious since the 1970s. It was in 1976 that the movie “Network” made character Howard Beale an icon of disgust. “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” the anchorman ranted.

    Slater’s slide was a Beale moment. He is a metaphor. This nation does not want to take it anymore. It has made Slater America’s newest celebrity. Cameras already stalk his every move. Slater told several reporters, “It seems like something here has resonated with a few people.”

  13. Compare and contrast. This is how Republicans handle broken promises (via Tony Blankley):

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/11/we_socialists_vs_we_the_people_106699.html

    The cheerful, jaded, sneering question de jour from liberal journalists and Democratic Party commentators (I know, there’s a pretty fine distinction) is, “What will the Republican Party do if it gets back the House?” The question is phrased along the line of what a car-chasing dog would do if it caught the car.

    As a conservative tea party Republican, I am not particularly worried about that eventuality. Despite itself, a majority GOP, driven powerfully by the unambiguous vox populi of such an election, almost certainly would go about trying to repeal Obamacare and put serious, current-fiscal-year spending cuts into place — necessarily including “entitlements.” Republicans would try to reduce some taxes and start serious oversight of federal regulatory intrusions into traditional American freedoms — including a powerful pushback on administration regulatory efforts on climate change, illegal immigration and other left-wing agenda items. With sufficient votes in the Senate, they would block future liberal judicial appointments — from the trial court to the Supreme Court.

    If they didn’t go all-out for such a basic conservative agenda in 2011 after such an election as is possible, Republican Party leaders would know that across the nation, even 50-year party regulars such as I would walk out and seek a third party to carry out the people’s business.

    We can disagree with Republicans such as Tony Blankley on policy proposals but, as with “read my lips, no new taxes” they know how to fight against broken promises. It’s a lesson the Nutroots do not understand but which the PUMA movement certainly understood.

  14. Newsweek jumps in…and of course the insults flow left and right…

    Don’t Believe the Hillary Clinton for VP Meme

    by David A. GrahamAugust 12, 2010

    The Daily Beast’s Tunku Varadarajan isn’t mincing words: “The only way Obama can win re-election is with Clinton on his ticket. The Democrats’ least-sullied heavy hitter, she’ll hold the party together—and be a magnet for crossover voting,” he writes today.

    He reasons that President Obama is potentially in electoral trouble for 2012 (a fair assumption) and that Joe Biden has outlived his usefulness, having given the Obama campaign the gravitas of an old, white, working-class man that it needed. For 2012, however, Clinton—who still enjoys high approval ratings—will give the presidential re-election campaign a boost.

    Varadarajan’s column follows on a column at his old employer, the Wall Street Journal, by John Fund, who claims that the Draft Hillary for Veep campaign “is gaining traction.” Fund, in turn, cites former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder, who made the argument in a Politico op-ed last week.

    There are two problems here. One, the movement isn’t gaining traction—unless baseless speculation by pundits constitutes traction—and two, the political math is fuzzy at best.

    It’s probably a safe assumption that if the major proponents of a strategy for Democrats are current or former staffers of the Journal editorial pages, the Dems should perhaps be wary (just as the GOP would want to steer clear of an Republican strategy proposed by the Huffington Post). You can look, too, at the people who are doing their best to amplify the claim: right-wing outlets like Pajamas Media, the Daily Caller, and even WorldNetDaily.

    Nor is Wilder exactly in the Democratic mainstream. He left his last high-profile gig, as Virginia’s governor, in 1994, and was last heard from refusing to endorse the Democratic candidate for Old Dominion governor last year. Washington Post online style columnist and D.C. doyenne Sally Quinn is also in Wilder’s camp, but she’s also not part of the Democratic mainstream. MSNBC’s Hardball discussed the topic, but that seems mostly to be proof that Chris Matthews has to fill a long show every night. And Politico’s Mike Allen ridiculed Fund’s column, offering the tongue-in-cheek disclaimer that it was “NOT [from] The Onion.”

    But let’s consider the merits anyway. First, what would adding Clinton gain Obama? Proponents/sophists point to her high approval ratings and successful (so far) tenure as secretary of state. But Foggy Bottom is a good place to boost poll numbers. She’s avoided major gaffes, and the major foreign policy hot spots are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so the heat’s on the Pentagon and White House. Anyone in her job would be cruising along. Proponents also say that Clinton—and perhaps just as importantly her husband—would bolster Obama’s sagging ratings among white, working-class voters. But that’s something that Biden does, too, and his Scranton foundational myth makes him perhaps more effective than the Wellesley- and Yale-educated Clinton.

    On the other hand, there are plenty of negatives to the Hillary option. Obama avoided adding her to his 2008 ticket, and received criticism for appointing her secretary of state, because of the danger of Bill Clinton overshadowing her and the administration. That’s still a danger—love him or hate him, the former president’s star power is undeniable. She’s got plenty of baggage of her own, too. As soon as Clinton returns to the domestic-policy spotlight, her rabid and devoted detractors will start up the mantra: Hillarycare, Vince Foster, Whitewater. And that doesn’t even get into her wildly undisciplined 2008 campaign; a similarly sloppy squad in 2012 would be tough to reconcile with the famously on-message Obama team.

    Furthermore, as Steve Kornacki of Salon—a determined debunker of the Hillary for VP meme—points out, Biden’s hardly problematic in comparison with his predecessors. Still, if he were a liability, orchestrating the swap would be full of tactical headaches (especially if, as John Heilemann suggests, Obama were to send Biden to take over State in Clinton’s stead), even if, as my colleague Howard Fineman reports, she’d jump at the opportunity to join the ticket. Yes, it’s true that Clinton looks like a strong contender to run for the Democratic nomination in 2016, but that will be the case either way, it’s a long way away, and as Kornacki says, a defeat as running mate in 2012 could set her cause back.

    So it’s hard to see how the math really works. The idea of a Dream Ticket in 2012 is fun for pundits to discuss in a slow August news cycle, but don’t expect to see Biden bowing out in a year’s time.

    http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/08/12/don-t-believe-the-hillary-for-vp-meme.html

  15. JanH, Even though I don’t buy the Hillary-as-VP argument either, I thought that Newsweek article made some silly points. First of all, how in the world does Biden have more appeal to working class voters than Hillary? Was that writer asleep during the primaries???

  16. Lebanon: We’ll Only Accept U.S. Military Aid if We Can Use Weapons Against Israel

    Thursday, August 12, 2010

    Well, at least they’re being honest.

    Lebanon’s defense minister said Wednesday that his country will not accept conditions on military aid it receives from the United States.

    That comment comes after a U.S. congressional committee withheld $100 million in aid over suspicions that the Lebanese army has been overrun by Hezbollah infiltrators.

    “That person who said in Congress, ‘I will stop aid to the army’, he is free to do so … Anyone who wants to help the army without restrictions or conditions, is welcome,” Defense Minister Elias al-Murr said. “This person wants to make military aid conditional on not protecting (Lebanon’s) land, people and borders against Israeli aggression. Let them keep their money or give it to Israel. We will confront (Israel) with the capabilities we own.”

    For years, the U.S. has funded the Lebanese army — $720 million since 2006 — in the hopes that it would maintain a balance of force against the terror group Hezbollah. But now that Hezbollah is acknowledged as the preeminent military force in the country, U.S. lawmakers are rethinking that strategy. Their move comes in the wake of last week’s shooting at the Israeli border, when an Israeli officer was killed by a Lebanese army sniper.

    http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/aid.php

    ———————

    Easy enough for them to say now that Iran has offered to replace any funds that the U.S. keep back.

  17. With all the California Proposition 8 and Gay rights news in the headlines – we just love this story and Burt’s answer (via The National Enquirer 🙂 :

    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/burt_lancaster_gay_secret_rock_hudson_jedgar_hoover/celebrity/69138

    Hollywood legend BURT LANCASTER’s wild nights at ROCK HUDSON’s all male orgies.

    Ultra-liberal Lancaster, who marched on Washington with Martin Luther King, was an outspoken proponent of equality and freedom for everyone.

    During the 1950s, at the height of his action movie fame, the ripped Burt who had been an acrobat, often visited pal’s Rock Hudson’s home — sometimes when there were wild all-male pool parties.

    As The ENQUIRER reported previously, movie studios may have kept Hudson’s homosexuality from his fans but Hollywood insiders knew all about it.

    And so did the FBI under the ever watchful eye of bureau chief J. Edgar Hoover who spied on Hudson’s parties – ostensibly worried a blackmailer could control Rock to keep his gay secret, potentially undermining national security. Celebrities have access to people and places ordinary folks do not.

    According to a close Lancaster pal, Burt would have no problem going to Hudson’s parties and showing off his toned physique to gay admirers and get a kick out of not letting them have him.

    And to get the goat of the FBI and whoever else was watching. Burt was powerful enough and secure enough not to care.

    When asked point blank if he had participated in Rock’s gay orgies, Lancaster denied it.

    He told a pal: “I go to the opera too, but I don’t sing.”

  18. This post is priceless! A real ROTFLMAO post!

    Interestingly, I just returned from covering a fundraiser for two repub candidates. One is contesting Scott Murphy and the other 108th district’s Tim Gordon.

    Names are Chris Gibson and Steve McLaughlin. Both of them were on fire! A crowd of about 75 (high for this area) gave them standing ovations. They were both in the Scott Brown vein – rugged, charismatic, strong patriots.

  19. That’s pretty outrageous JanH….yet, the State Dept. supports contuining to supply the LAF with arms that have been used to kill Israeli’s.

  20. Hannity showed a clip of Bill C. denying that he was the one that offered Sestak a job for Obama…they want a congressional investigation. Have you all heard about this???

  21. If they didn’t go all-out for such a basic conservative agenda in 2011 after such an election as is possible, Republican Party leaders would know that across the nation, even 50-year party regulars such as I would walk out and seek a third party to carry out the people’s business.

    This is what I believe Hillary and supporters should have done after the primary fraud….start a third party. I believe Hillary could have been elected as an independent even if her name was just on the ballot and she didn’t campaign.

  22. Jan–here is the skinny on this David Graham reporter clown. The notation below his signature should read “in the tank for Obama ergo not to be bleiever”:

    David A. Graham: A Closer Look at a Newsweek ‘Reporter’

    Posted by John Nolte Jul 15th 2010 at 8:47 am in ACORN, Newsweek, media bias | Comments (35)

    On his Twitter account, David A. Graham’s bio reads “Reporter at Newsweek.” Got that? He’s a… reporter. You see, when it comes to Newsweek you have to check for stuff like that because the difference between a reporter and a left-wing opinion columnist has nothing to do with what that particular individual writes. Everyone shares the same tank marked OBAMA, they just wear different uniforms under the mistaken impression they’re fooling someone — especially themselves.

    Earlier today, John Sexton did a superb job exposing Graham for what he really is: yet another one of Obama’s Media Palace Guards terrified at the prospect of what a serious investigation — media or otherwise — into the charges of ongoing and systemic discrimination at the Department of Justice could do to an already embattled and increasingly unpopular Obama administration. Here are the facts of a story that in no way interest David A. Graham Reporter:

    After winning a case of voter intimidation against The New Black Panther Party, the Obama Department of Justice inexplicably dropped the charges.

    Yesterday, the Washington Times reported a direct tie between the NAACP and The New Black Panther Party…
    …the very same NAACP that just stirred the racial pot something fierce with a condemnation of the Tea Party that just happened to occur as the DOJ scandal was starting to gain a little media traction. Hmmm…?

    And then there’s J. Christian Adams, a legitimate government whistle-blower who has testified that he was told by his fellow DOJ staffers to all but ignore cases where the defendant is a minority and the plaintiff white.

    With all these dots begging to either be connected or discredited, what’s does David A. Graham Reporter suggest be done? Further investigation? Nope. Congressional hearings? Nope. Instead of wanting to get the bottom of the story, Graham instead attempts to smoke-and-mirror the story right off the MSM radar by writing the whole thing off as nothing more than right-wing political theatre — you know, like ACORN was.

    Reporter.
    Sounds like Multiculturalism 101 and LeftCanDoNoWrong 102 have taken the place of Curiosity 101 and GettingToTheBottomOfThings 102 at all the finest journalism schools.

    Just for giggles I thought it might be interesting to take a look at what David. A. Graham Reporter has found newsworthy in the recent past:

    On June 28th, Graham somehow managed to write Senator Robert Byrd’s obituary without once mentioning the Senator’s history with the KKK.

    On June 22nd, the same David A. Graham who only sees political theatre in the ACORN and DOJ stories found time for all kinds of reporting with a 550 word look at a failed RNC program to bring in the youth vote.

    On May 20th, David A. Graham Reporter finally did find an issue about race worth his reportering time — writing about how Republican Rand Paul’s ”race comments roiled Kentucky.”

    As Big Journalism’s own John Sexton pointed out, Graham doesn’t use reason to discredit the DOJ discrimination story, it’s all emotion, speculation, conjecture, half truths, double talk and — wait for it, wait for it – links to Media Matters! All that’s missing is a quality we used to find in reporters — a burning desire to get unanswered questions answered and to find out who’s lying and who’s telling the truth.

    David A. Graham may call himself a reporter, but that job description is only true if by reporter you mean left-wing propagandist.

  23. I spoke to a lady who just returned from Parma Italy, stayed at a fine hotel and was blown away by the poor service. She made the same comment about the restaurants. She and her husband had been there before, both are of Italian extraction, and both agreed they would never go back. Others who had been there recently reported the same experience. I asked her whether it had anything to do with the dire economic situation Italy is facing. She said it had everything to do with that. The same is true in Greece and Spain, less so the Scandinavian countries which have North Sea Oil to fall back on. She said as a result of conversion to the Euro, the price of everything has gone up, but the wages have stayed the same. At some point, we are apt to see the same thing here. Also the tax rate in Italy is very high and the Italians say anyone who declares their income so it can be taxed is stupid. As you might well imagine, there is a thriving black market. Again that is likely to happen here, thanks to Mr. Obama.

  24. Sacrilege at Ground Zero

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, August 13, 2010

    A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).

    When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there — and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.

    That’s why Disney’s 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It’s why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It’s why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

    And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.

    Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers “to show some special sensitivity to the situation.” Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message or show “special sensitivity” to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely that Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.

    Bloomberg’s implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by “insensitive” Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.

    But then, why not? By the mayor’s own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there’s no guarantee that this couldn’t happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won’t one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi — spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?

    An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in — violating the same First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents — and exercise a veto over the mosque’s clergy?

    Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history — perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

    Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi — yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

    Which makes you wonder about the goodwill behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, “I’m not a politician. . . . The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.”

    America is a free country where you can build whatever you want — but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

    These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz — and no mosque at Ground Zero.

    Build it anywhere but there.

    The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf’s ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081204996.html

    ———————

    Forgive the “shouting” but…AMEN!!!

  25. Paula
    August 12th, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    JanH, Even though I don’t buy the Hillary-as-VP argument either, I thought that Newsweek article made some silly points. First of all, how in the world does Biden have more appeal to working class voters than Hillary? Was that writer asleep during the primaries???
    ————

    totally agree.

  26. Sacrilege at Ground Zero

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, August 13, 2010

    A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).

    When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there — and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.

    That’s why Disney’s 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It’s why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It’s why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

    And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.

    Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers “to show some special sensitivity to the situation.” Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message or show “special sensitivity” to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely that Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.

    Bloomberg’s implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by “insensitive” Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.

    But then, why not? By the mayor’s own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there’s no guarantee that this couldn’t happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won’t one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi — spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?

    An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in — violating the same First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents — and exercise a veto over the mosque’s clergy?

    Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history — perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

    Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi — yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

    Which makes you wonder about the goodwill behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, “I’m not a politician. . . . The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.”

    America is a free country where you can build whatever you want — but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

    These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz — and no mosque at Ground Zero.

    Build it anywhere but there.

    The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf’s ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081204996.html

    ————–

    Forgive the shouting but……..AMEN!

  27. jbstonesfan
    August 12th, 2010 at 9:22 pm

    Clinton expresses concern over Iran minorities:

    —————

    It amazes me how this wonderwoman keeps her finger in so many pies. Thank God for Hillary.

  28. wbboei said on previous thread:
    Of all possible times, why now. I make an assumption about these people which may or not be valid, but there is plenty of current evidence to support it. I assume they are avaricious people who do not care about the country or its traditions, they are pushing their toxic agenda at the worst possible time in the worst possible way, and now it is backfiring. In those circumstances, they may want somebody who can solve the problem

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

    The GOP have another incentive for pushing Hillary now: to make mischief, sow discord among the Dems.

    So, which groups of elites do you think are sincerely wanting her now to solve the problem? Liberals like the Kennedys who see their mistake? DNC insiders who think things have gone too far? GOPs who are more interested in solving the problem than in making mischief?

    Are there enough of them to make an honest primary/nomination contest this time?

  29. wbboei said on previous thread:
    the same elites who spent vast sums of money telling the public that Hillary was too ambitious, to divisive, and too polarizing to lead the is country, and that Barack was brilliant, inspirational and who needs experience when you have got style is the right man at the right moment with the right message, are now crawling back to the Clintons and begging her to bail out their shlimil.

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

    Catch me up? Last I heard it was only GOP who were saying this. Are Dems saying it now?

  30. mj said:
    He’s not the most left wing. That’s ridiculous. If he was so left wing, why the hell is it you think the left wing is so angry at him? Don’t blame a left leaning philosophy for Obama. It makes no sense. Why the hell are the ranks of millionaires swelling along with the ranks of the poor, if he is left wing? That doesn’t make any sense. You all were so worried about Obama redistributing wealth toward the poor, well, that hasn’t happened at all. The opposite is true. Explain to me how that is left wing. He passed a republican health plan, a republican “stimulus”, a republican financial reform plan, that’s it! Where is the left wing in that?

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

    YOU ARE RIGHT! HE’S JUST A FASCIST IN SOCIALIST’S CLOTHING.

  31. turndownobama
    August 12th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
    wbboei said on previous thread:
    the same elites who spent vast sums of money telling the public that Hillary was too ambitious, to divisive, and too polarizing to lead the is country, and that Barack was brilliant, inspirational and who needs experience when you have got style is the right man at the right moment with the right message, are now crawling back to the Clintons and begging her to bail out their shlimil.

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

    Catch me up? Last I heard it was only GOP who were saying this. Are Dems saying it now?
    ——————

    The Obama campaign was spreading this lie, and big media was marketing it with a vengeance. Neither of these were Republican sources, but they were behaving like the worst Republican campaign consultant. I wrote about this is what I sent you after in late 2008:

    7. Conspiracy To Hijack An Election: During the 2008 Democratic Primary Big Media set out to destroy Hillary Clinton both as a candidate and as a person. The third step in their strategy was to hijack the process by stamping Hillary with a negative brand, applying a double standard, depriving her of equal time and applying intense pressure to terminate her campaign. Once again, they conspired with the Obama campaign and the DNC every step of the way to do so.

    a. negative branding: on the eve of the primary season, CNN retained strategists developed a marketing strategy to brand Hillary Clinton as someone who is “divisive”, “polarizing”, “dishonest”, “untrustworthy”, “calculating”. Then they proceeded to repeat those adjectives again and again in the same manner that “biological warfare” and “weapons of mass destruction” were pounded across the air waves in the lead-up to the Iraq War. ABC resident lightweight Jake Tapper (aka Snark) compared Hillary to “Tanya Harding” implying that she would break Obama’s knees to steal his crown. And another pundit compared her to the deranged villainess in “Fatal Attraction” who continued to pursue the hero. Terry McAuliffe observed no candidate in history has received so much disrespect from Big Media

  32. confloyd, I wouldn’t pay Hannity any mind. He’s a Clinton hater as much as an Obama hater. I read somewhere that he was calling Rush Limbaugh’s wedding the wedding of the year, obviously because he was annoyed at the publicity over Chelsea’s wedding. As if anyone gives a flying fig when Rush gets married for the fourth time.

  33. Jan, thanks for linking this:

    Sacrilege at Ground Zero
    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, August 13, 2010
    A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).
    When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there — and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.
    That’s why Disney’s 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It’s why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It’s why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.
    And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.
    Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers “to show some special sensitivity to the situation.” Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message or show “special sensitivity” to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely that Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.
    Bloomberg’s implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by “insensitive” Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.
    But then, why not? By the mayor’s own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there’s no guarantee that this couldn’t happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won’t one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi — spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?
    An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in — violating the same First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents — and exercise a veto over the mosque’s clergy?
    Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history — perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.
    Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi — yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.
    Which makes you wonder about the goodwill behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, “I’m not a politician. . . . The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.”
    America is a free country where you can build whatever you want — but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.
    These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz — and no mosque at Ground Zero.
    Build it anywhere but there.
    The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf’s ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.

  34. Sure, some Dems used the GOP charges against Hillary: ‘divisive’ etc.

    My question is whether those same Dems “are now crawling back to the Clintons and begging her to bail out their shlimil.”

  35. So, which groups of elites do you think are sincerely wanting her now to solve the problem? Liberals like the Kennedys who see their mistake? DNC insiders who think things have gone too far? GOPs who are more interested in solving the problem than in making mischief?
    ———————-
    If you assume that a large percentage of the wealth of this country is held by a small number of families, that is where I would look. In terns of dollars at risk they have the most to lose. This group is in a position to exert significant influence over the political process, although it is far from complete. This is inevitable in any complex system, because the alternative is quite simply chaos. You even saw this in the case of the Mafia. The public believed that this godfather or that godfather ran the show, when in fact from the night of the Sicilian vespers Don Salvatore aka Lucky Luciano set up an entity called The Commission which acted like a Board of Directors to avoid the risks of overly competitive behavior. In the case of the elites the structures are different, but that they exist in both political parties I do not doubt.

  36. Sure, some Dems used the GOP charges against Hillary: ‘divisive’ etc.

    My question is whether those same Dems “are now crawling back to the Clintons and begging her to bail out their shlimil.”
    ————————-
    What, if anything, do you make of the fact that the Clintons stayed at the residence of a Soros relative during Chelsie’s wedding? Soros was Obama’s godfather in 2008/ What, if anything, do you make of the fact that the disreputable racist Douglas Wilder who said there would be riots in Denver if Hillary was selected by the superdelegates over Obama now wants her to be his vice president? And I am sure there is a lot more going on than meets the eye. But I was thinking just as much of big media and of people like Heilman who has a book deal riding on the success of the Obama presidency, and I would even venture to guess that Sally Quinn–the great horizontal would be receptive to the idea, and she represents the Washington establishment.

  37. wbboei
    August 12th, 2010 at 11:41 pm

    —————-

    wbboei,

    The rumor that they stayed at Soros daughter’s house was negated by the daughter herself. They stayed elsewhere.

  38. If any of these Dem elites are sincere about wanting Hillary back, a 2012 O/Hillary ticket (repulsive as it would be to us) might be a way to save their face and Obama’s. She could ‘advise’ Obama next term, then in 2016 be their nominee for — if they haven’t changed their mind again by then.

    Wouldn’t they have to fight Obama’s Combine backers — or do the Combine also think things have gone too far? A smart parasite doesn’t kill its host.

  39. It amazes me how this wonderwoman keeps her finger in so many pies.
    ——————————————————————-
    The famous management consultant Peter Drucker once opined that an effective chief executive officer should focus on a handful of things he wants to accomplish rather than getting spread too thin where nothing gets accomplished. One of Obama’s greatest failings was precisely that and if you will recall Warren Buffet admonished him to narrow his focus when he was wandering aimlessly in several different directions–between his 7 vacations. But great political leaders, the kind that come along once or twice in a century do have the ability to see a much broader picture, how everything fits together and how to function effectively and simultaneously on multiple fronts. There is a distinct brain wave pattern associated with this and religions have assigned names to it like nirvana, etc. Others call it simply prudential wisdom. Hillary has that unique ability plus significant experience. it is what we need now in a president. We need a president with those attributes to save the nation from the crises we are facing. Obama is incapable of making the transition from campaigning to governing, and that is a very serious problem for our country especially now.

  40. If any of these Dem elites are sincere about wanting Hillary back, a 2012 O/Hillary ticket (repulsive as it would be to us) might be a way to save their face and Obama’s. She could ‘advise’ Obama next term, then in 2016 be their nominee for — if they haven’t changed their mind again by then.

    Wouldn’t they have to fight Obama’s Combine backers — or do the Combine also think things have gone too far? A smart parasite doesn’t kill its host.
    ———————–
    turndown, I have reflected on this possibility now for several days, and I have come to the conclusion that that dog wont hunt. The Obama administration has alienated itself from the core of the American People, and no one has made that point more cogently than the writer I posted yesterday. Given that fact, the best course for her is to separate herself from him, because joining him would be fatal to her future prospects. The record she made in the primary will serve her in good stead, and will position her to run against him. Put differently, if he is weak enough to need her help to survive, then he is also weak enough to not survive a primary challenge by her. That challenge is likely to occur anyway from the Howard Dean left. That could Balkanise Obama’s support and she could not be blamed for it.

  41. 1968 all over again. Dean and whoever as Balkanizers, Hillary as Humphrey to pick up the pieces. But remember Humphrey was LBJ’s surrogate, the choice of the inside establishment.

  42. Obama’s health care plan is as far from socialism as it gets and has nothing to do with European coverage. It’s a plan developed by the right wing Heritage Foundation in the early 90s to counter Clinton’s original health care plan.

    Forcing people to pay corporate profits is anti-socialism.

    When someone says something that dumb, quit reading. They are a functional moron or extremely dishonest.

  43. wbboei 12:15

    O accomplishments amount to small issues, and putting bandages on the large issues. They can list his accomplishments, but he has not really solved a complicated issue, I think he is incapable of it. Leaders work with their enemies, and solve complicated issues.

  44. confloyd
    August 12th, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    Hannity showed a clip of Bill C. denying that he was the one that offered Sestak a job for Obama…they want a congressional investigation. Have you all heard about this???
    ————
    I did see that confloyd, and not only did Bill say that and it was captured on tape (pretty poor quality tape though), but it was interesting that the idea that Bill and Barry are at odds over many things, keeps me thinking that Bill is making sure that Hillary is not Barry’s lapdog and is clearing the path for her.

  45. Another great post Admin, yes, we are still not falling in line for Slick Rick the Poverty Pimp and his thugs in office.

  46. Re: Bill’s recent denial of having asked Sestak to not be a candidate. I think he’s parsing his words. In other words, reading between the lines, he’s basically saying that he didn’t ask Sestak not to run, he didn’t have a desire for Sestak not to run, he wasn’t accused of asking Sestak not to run – what he did was pass on a message from the BO administration – it was THEIR message, it didn’t reflect his desires. (if he even passed the message on at all, who knows lol)

  47. 434,000 increase in the unemployment numbers. I guss the rookie could not hack it.

    You watch the rookie cop series, and there are always experienced people there to watch and help them learn. Rookie cops are not put in as Chief of Police. They are allowed to make rookie mistakes.

    For the highest job in the contry, perhaps world, we put a rookie community organizer.

  48. James Carville was on Good Morning American talking about the rumor to replace Biden with HRC. He laughed, and said that bringing up HRC just causes media excitment. Then the other commentator (a Rep of course but his name escapes me), said well according to the number Bidens numbers are better than Os, so he would not be the person to replace. Carville and the other guy just laughed.

  49. Shadowfax-

    “keeps me thinking that Bill is making sure that Hillary is not Barry’s lapdog and is clearing the path for her.”
    ___________________________________

    Exactly- and why would some think Bill should stay out of the picture? (boggles the mind.)

  50. The year is 2035- a news alert posted says: former president Obama has died. more details to come….
    _______________________

    When Obama died, George Washington met him at the Pearly Gates. He slapped him across the face and yelled, “How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped conceive?”

    Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, “You wanted to end our liberties but you failed.”

    James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, “This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!”

    Thomas Jefferson was next, beat Obama with a long cane and snarled, “It was evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence .”

    The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the radical, socialist leader.

    As Obama lay bleeding and in pain, the death Angel appeared. Obama wept and said, “This is not what you promised me.”

    The Angel replied, “I told you there would be 72 VIRGINIANS waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said”…..”You really need to listen when someone is trying to tell you something!” :eyeroll:

  51. Clinton talks to Netanyahu in bid to restart peace talks

    WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a bid to clear hurdles to restarting direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, her spokesman said Friday.

    In messages on Twitter, State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said Clinton also spoke with her counterparts Nasser Judeh of Jordan and Ahmed Abul Gheit of Egypt as she “continued the US push for peace in the Middle East.”

    Crowley said the chief US diplomat discussed with “Netanyahu issues to be resolved for direct negotiations to begin,” while she spoke with Judeh and Abul Gheit about “negotiation details.”

    Clinton held the conversations with the key players after US Middle East envoy returned Wednesday to Washington after two days of talks with Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas.

    Egypt and Jordan, the two Arab countries to have made peace with Israel, play a key Arab mediating role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

    Crowley said Wednesday the two sides had moved closer toward restarting the talks.

    But he said details about how talks would proceed need to be ironed out before the two sides agree to resume direct talks that broke off in December 2008 when Israel invaded the Gaza Strip to stop Hamas militant rocket fire.

    Israel and the Palestinians have held indirect “proximity” talks since May.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gUekd7CZnVCYQaOT5cN-Ny5g1clQ

  52. lil ole grape
    August 12th, 2010 at 11:08 pm

    Jan, thanks for linking this:

    Sacrilege at Ground Zero
    By Charles Krauthammer
    ————————-

    You are very welcome.

  53. Hillary’s Kissinger Moment

    Yuriko Koike
    2010-08-13

    TOKYO – Hillary Clinton’s recent trip to Asia may one day be seen as the most significant visit to the region by a United States diplomat since Henry Kissinger’s secret mission to Beijing in July 1971. Kissinger’s mission triggered a diplomatic revolution. Renewal of US-Chinese relations shifted the global balance of power at the Cold War’s height, and prepared the way for China to open its economy – the decision that, more than any other, has defined today’s world. What Clinton did and said during her Asian tour will mark either the end of the era that Kissinger initiated four decades ago, or the start of a distinct new phase in that epoch.

    Clinton’s tour produced the clearest signals yet that America is unwilling to accept China’s push for regional hegemony. Offstage at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Hanoi, Clinton challenged Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi over Beijing’s claim that its ownership of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea was now a “core interest.” By that definition, China considers the islands (whose ownership is disputed by Vietnam and the Philippines) as much a part of the mainland as Tibet and Taiwan, making any outside interference taboo.

    Rejecting this, Clinton proposed that the US help establish an international mechanism to mediate the overlapping claims of sovereignty between China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia that now exist in the South China Sea. For China, Clinton’s intervention came as a shock, and, given the warm response she received from her Vietnamese hosts – despite criticizing Vietnam’s human-rights record – the US Secretary of State may well have raised the issue at least partly at their urging, and perhaps with additional prompting from Malaysia and the Philippines.

    A general fear has arisen in Asia that China is seeking to use its growing maritime might to dominate not only development of the hydrocarbon-rich waters of the South China Sea, but also its shipping lanes, which are some of the world’s most heavily trafficked. So it was welcome news when Clinton later deepened America’s commitment to naval security in the seas around China by personally attending joint naval and air exercises with South Korea off the east coast of the Korean peninsula. Likewise, military ties between the US and the most elite unit of Indonesia’s armed forces – suspended for decades – were restored during Clinton’s Asia tour.

    Those war games were, most immediately, a warning to North Korea of the strength of America’s commitment to South Korea, following the North’s sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan earlier this year. Perhaps more importantly, they also confirmed that the US military is not too distracted by its Iraqi and Afghan engagements to defend America’s vital national interests in Asia.

    A later portion of the war games took place in the Yellow Sea, in international waters very close to China, bluntly demonstrating America’s commitment to freedom of the seas in Asia. And this was followed by the visit of a US aircraft carrier to Vietnam, the first since the Vietnam War ended 35 years ago.

    North Korea, no surprise, wailed and blustered against the war games, even threatening a “physical” response. And China not only proclaimed Clinton’s intervention over the South China Sea islands an “attack,” but also held unscheduled naval maneuvers in the Yellow Sea in advance of the US-South Korean exercise.

    Clinton’s visit was important not only for its reaffirmation of America’s bedrock commitment to security in Asia and the eastern Pacific, but also because it exposed to all of Asia a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Chinese foreign policy. In 2005, China’s leaders announced a policy of seeking a “harmonious world,” and set as their goal friendly relations with other countries, particularly its near neighbors. But in August 2008, the Communist Party Central Committee declared that “the work of foreign affairs should uphold economic construction at its core.”

    All foreign relations have, it seems, now been made subservient to domestic concerns. For example, it is fear of spreading turmoil from a collapsing North Korea that has made Chinese policy toward the North so supine. And Chinese intransigence over the South China Sea is a direct result of the economic bonanza it suspects lies on the seabed. As a result, China is making the task of developing amicable regional relations almost impossible.

    In Asia, the hope today is that Clinton’s visit will enable China’s rulers to understand that it is primarily in Asia that their country’s overall international role is being tested and shaped. Strident rhetoric and a hegemon’s disdain for the interests of smaller neighbors create only enmity, not harmony. Indeed, it is the quality of China’s ties with its Asian neighbors, particularly India, Indonesia, Japan, Russia, and South Korea, that will be central to forging its international image, signaling not just to the region, but to the wider world, the type of great power that China intends to be.

    A Chinese policy of pressure and great-power threats against Vietnam and/or the Philippines over ownership of the Spratly Islands, or deliberate intimidation of China’s smaller South Asian neighbors, will continue to raise alarms across the Pacific and be seen as proof of the Chinese regime’s hegemonic ambitions. Unless China demonstrates that it can reach peaceful accommodations in its sovereignty disputes with its neighbors, its claims to a “peaceful rise” will appear unconvincing not only in Washington, but in capitals across Asia.

    Forty years ago, the US opening to Mao’s China shocked Japan and all of Asia. Clinton’s visit has done the reverse: it has shocked China – one hopes in a way that moderates its behavior in the region. And, if a shock can be said to be reassuring, this one certainly soothed Asian concerns about America’s enduring commitment to regional security.

    Yuriko Koike, a former Japanese Minister of Defense and National Security Advisor, is a member of the opposition in Japan’s Diet.

    http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/koike8/English

    ————————-

    A strong case could be made that Hillary Clinton is highly respected and looked to for the answers, while obama is not.

  54. “They need some serious come-uppance or we’re all f***ed.” is another way of saying “doom, destruction, defeat” for Obama Dimocrats and Obama in November 2010 and 2012 and on and on until every vestige of the Obama corruption is purged from American life.”

    It would be beyond foolish to trade in a Democratic administration or legislature for a Republican one. We know what the Republican agenda and modus operandi are: supply-side laissez-faire economics (except when wall street or banks need bail-outs); privatization of social security, no consumer protections, the Grover Norquist attitude of shrinking government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub”, feel-good magnetic made-in-China-flag-style warfare like Iraq that is depleting our armed forces and costing trillions of dollars.

    Vote in the Republicans? Are you serious?

  55. Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
    Benito Mussolini

    This is obama.

  56. Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
    Benito Mussolini

    This is obama.
    ——————
    True. Another word for it is state capitalism. It is the model we see today in China. It is the model that is being debated now among emerging nations who are trying to figure out whether to pursue that model as opposed to the traditional amglo american model which sees the state and business as separate entities and uses the market as the guide as opposed to some form of central planning. There was an article in Foreign Affairs magazine on this subject perhaps a year ago, and those like Zeib Brzeznesky who are members of the Council of Foreign Relations which produces that magazine and is backroom architect of his anti Israel policies is said to greatly admire the Chinese Model. One can only speculate whether there is any connection between that doctrine, and the attempted dismantling of our constitutional democracy by Obama and the statement by Dingel that we are putting in place a set of policies which will have the American People under control in 20 years, which comment I wish so enterprising journalist with integrity would explore.

  57. A strong case could be made that Hillary Clinton is highly respected and looked to for the answers, while obama is not.
    ——————————————
    QED. You may recall that the relationship between Obama and Japan got off to a rocky start when he installed one of his wealthy contributor cronies as ambassador. The man was a very poor choice. Japan was so insulted that they refused to accept him. This was unprecedented of course, but it is yet another example of the “change” utterly detached from reality that Obama peddles along with that lovable grin and that booming telepromptered voice which inspires the ignoranti to abandon self interest and follow him over the edge of the cliff. It would be acceptable as natural selection if the damage was confined to his followers.

  58. Shadowfax, I think you were the one who asked whether there was a remedy for the election fraud which occurred during the primary and in particular the failure by the DNC to address the issue. I responded that this was not actionable based on what we concluded at the time and shv pointed out the irony of that position which no one will dispute. I know that answer was not very satisfying because we always assume that under our system of law where there is a wrong there must always be a remedy and would that this were so in this instance.

    I revisit that issue now because this morning Larry at No Quarter posted the article by jbjd which smirks posted here at 3;13 yesterday. In the echo section below that article there is a comment by the author which offers a more hopeful view of our rights and remedies in this situation. I think it is important enough to highlight this opinion in our continuing effort to get to the truth of what weapons we have to resist tyranny of the Obama crowd.

    “A pledged Clinton delegate from a vote binding state has standing to file a civil lawsuit against the DNC/named individuals for preventing her from carrying out her fiduciary duty, in that they prohibited her from carrying out the ‘proxy’ vote of the citizens elected her. (I proposed this idea on my blog more than a year ago.)

    The rest of us can petition our state A’sG to go after the scofflaws!”

    Assuming this is correct, the question then becomes why has no one acted upon it since it was first proposed a year ago? And is there now a pledged Clinton delegate who is willing to step forward and file such a suit. If that is to be done, we have to be mindful of the statue of limitations, so a decision needs to be made. As far as petitioning state parties if that were done in combination with press efforts it could keep this issue alive for 2012. I suspect FOX would cover it.

  59. What the heck is going on???

    Russia moving ahead with Iran nuclear reactor

    August 13, 2010

    CNN) — Russia said it will start loading a nuclear reactor in Iran with fuel next week, moving the project closer to being complete.

    The August 21 arrival of fuel at the facility, which Iran says will create atomic energy but other nations fear could be used for nuclear weapons, marks a key step toward its completion, Russia said.

    “This event will symbolize that the period of testing is over and the stage of physical start-up has begun,” said, Sergei Nokivov, spokesman for the Russian Atomic Agency.

    Russia’s state-sponsored nuclear corporation has been under contract for several years to help Iran build the Bushehr reactor site.

    Nokivov said the fuel’s arrival doesn’t mean the plant is ready to begin producing energy, though. He said that will take about six more months.

    The United States has urged Russia to wait, saying more evidence is needed that Iran doesn’t plan to use the site to make weapons.

    Nokivov said the fuel’s arrival and loading into the plant will be monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    “The IAEA inspectors will remove seals from containers with nuclear fuel, examine it,” he said. “The fuel will be then transferred into a special storage facility. And when the Iranian nuclear watchdog agency gives its permission, the fuel will be loaded into the reactor.”

    Iran has maintained all along that the site will produce energy, but the United States and other international observers remain unconvinced.

    Earlier this month, the United States extended sanctions against Iran, saying it was targeting a number of Iranian businesses and groups accused of helping organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban.

    In June, the U.S. Treasury Department announced sanctions targeting the country’s nuclear and missile programs — identifying more than 20 companies and several individuals allegedly involved with those programs.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/08/13/nuclear.russia.iran/

  60. washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Obama-closes-curtain-on-transparency-468557-100595914.html

    Obama closes curtain on transparency

    By: Timothy P. Carney
    Examiner Columnist
    August 12, 2010

    President Obama has abolished the position in his White House dedicated to transparency and shunted those duties into the portfolio of a partisan ex-lobbyist who is openly antagonistic to the notion of disclosure by government and politicians.

    Obama transferred “ethics czar” Norm Eisen to the Czech Republic to serve as U.S. ambassador. Some of Eisen’s duties will be handed to Domestic Policy Council member Steven Croley, but most of them, it appears, will shift over to the already-full docket of White House Counsel Bob Bauer.

    Bauer is renowned as a “lawyer’s lawyer” and a legal expert. His resume, however, reads more “partisan advocate” than “good-government crusader.” Bauer came to the White House from the law firm Perkins Coie, where he represented John Kerry in 2004 and Obama during his campaign.

    Bauer has served as the top lawyer for the Democratic National Committee, which is the most prolific fundraising entity in the country. Then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., the caricature of a cutthroat Chicago political fixer, hired Bauer to represent the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In the White House, Bauer is tight with Emanuel, having defended Emanuel’s offer of a job to Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., whom Emanuel wanted out of the Senate race.

    Another Bauer client was New Jersey Sen. Robert “Torch” Torricelli back in 2001. When one Torricelli donor admitted he had reimbursed employees for their contributions to the Torch — thus circumventing contribution limits — Bauer explained, “All candidates ask their supporters to help raise money from friends, family members and professional associates.”

    Bauer’s own words — gathered by the diligent folks at the Sunlight Foundation — show disdain for openness and far greater belief in the good intentions of those in power than of those trying to check the powerful. In December 2006, when the Federal Election Commission proposed more precise disclosure requirements for parties, Bauer took aim at the practice of muckraking enabled by such disclosure.

    On his blog, Bauer derided the notion “that politicians and parties are pictured as forever trying to get away with something,” saying this was an idea for which “there is a market, its product cheaply manufactured and cheaply sold.” In other words — we keep too close an eye on our leaders.

    In August 2006 Bauer blogged, “disclosure is a mostly unquestioned virtue deserving to be questioned.” This is the man the White House has put in charge of making this the most open White House ever.

    Most telling might have been Bauer’s statements about proposed regulations of 527 organizations: “If it’s not done with 527 activity as we have seen, it will be done in other ways,” he told the Senate rules committee.

    “There are other directions, to be sure, that people are actively considering as we speak. Without tipping my hand or those of others who are professionally creative, the money will find an outlet.”

    This perfectly captures the Obama White House’s attitude toward disclosure. Sure, the administration publish the names of all White House visitors, but, as the New York Times reported a few weeks back, White House folks just meet their lobbyists at Caribou Coffee across the street. Sure, they restrict the work of ex-lobbyists in the administration, but lobbyists who de-list aren’t questioned.

    And we’ve seen just a few of the e-mails former Google lobbyist, now Obama tech policy guru, Andrew McLaughlin traded with current Google lobbyists using his Gmail account, but who knows what else the White House whiz kids are doing to avoid the Presidential Records Act — Facebook messages? Twitter direct messages?

    Did I mention Bauer was a lobbyist? At Perkins Coie, Bauer lobbied on behalf of America Votes Inc., a Democratic 527 funded by the likes of the AFL-CIO and ACORN.

    The Sunlight Foundation is also concerned about the fact the White House no longer has anyone whose job is transparency, as Eisen’s job was. John Wonderlich, at SunglightFoundation.com, lists a few transparency promises on which the president hasn’t followed through, including earmark transparency, a single Web site (Ethics.gov) with all ethics and accountability information, and better lobbying disclosure, among others.

    As with his other reformer rhetoric, Obama’s transparency is mostly smoke and mirrors.

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

    Bob Bauer is married to Anita Dunn, former WH Communications Director…I notice Dunn is all over TV these days speaking for O and all the great things he has done

  61. Janet Napolitano is on FOX with Robert Gibbs in a joint daily news briefing as BO signs $600 million for border security. She said it is not a political deal but national security issue.

    She looks tired and as if she as lost weight.

  62. This line of reasoning would track the complaint to the California Secretary of State or Attorney General which Gloria Alred drafted at the convention in response to the efforts of Obama supporters to bribe and intimidate pledged Hillary delegates. I do not recall why exactly that cause of action was not pursued. Perhaps someone here does. Sometimes you file a lawsuit with no assurance that you will prevail but for other reasons. Here the other reasons are obvious.

  63. S: nice people. And here they are doing their little imitation of Sigfreid and Roy. The lion Bob is holding is too small to do much damage and more is the pity for that. Bob is a partner in Perkins Coie which is a mega firm with home offices in Seattle. He replaced Greg Craig and will follow in his footsteps when he becomes politically expendable. That is my guess.
    ———————–
    http://scarlett-journey.net/2009/10/23/robert-bauer-anita-dunn-husband/

  64. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/12/ground-zero-mosque-developers-decline-alternate-site-offer/?icid=main|main|dl8|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2010%2F08%2F12%2Fground-zero-mosque-developers-decline-alternate-site-offer%2F

    ——————-

    Mosque will not move!!!!

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

    Of course it won’t, if Frum is right about finding a use for this white elephant property they ALREADY have.

    Dunno how reliable Frum is. The website is tabloid trashy, but this article sounds reasonable.

    http://www.frumforum.com/is-the-911-mosque-a-publicity-stunt/

    “the whole thing is a phony-baloney publicity stunt by a developer in search of project financing.
    ….
    paid some $5 million in cash to buy the Burlington Coat Factory building, a building that yields no income. They are paying rent to hold rights to the Con Ed building, which also yields no income.
    ….
    You can see why the Gamal-Moussa team would be dazzled by the notion that philanthropists in the Persian Gulf might donate $100 million to raise a grand gleaming Islamic center in lower Manhattan. You can tuck a lot of development fees into a $100 million project. And if not a mosque … what else do you do with their two loser properties on Park Place?”

  65. wbboei, did Gloria Allred not say that she was one of the superdelegates that was required to change her vote to not reflect her consitituents? And she wore a pretend gag in an interview to show that the DNC had gagged her and others? Why does she not file suit, if this is accurate?

    Mrs. Smith, love that joke, or I would hope what is a premonition. I am going to share it everywhere. Thanks.

  66. jbstonesfan
    August 13th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
    ————–

    Disgusting! This is not about religious tolerance nor is it about serving moslems in the area. It is a slap in the face to 911 family surivivors.

  67. JanH,

    My post is caught in moderation. They don’t want to move their project because they already HAVE the property on Park and are losing money on it! The whole thing may be just a scam to find a use for that white elephant property.

    They couldn’t get any business people to invest in an ordinary real estate condo plan. So they are trying to get donations instead by advertising a religious/non-profit project (according to Frum).

  68. wbboei, did Gloria Allred not say that she was one of the superdelegates that was required to change her vote to not reflect her consitituents? And she wore a pretend gag in an interview to show that the DNC had gagged her and others? Why does she not file suit, if this is accurate?
    ——————————
    Good question. I do not know the answer. The Clinton campaign may have decided not to pursue it at that point, for some reason whether that be party unity or something else. However, I suspect the reason was more political than legal.

  69. This is simply not the America we grew up in. We have lost our country to political correctness and a way too leneient immigration policy.

  70. wbboei and everyone else, I came here because I am getting several hits on my blog from this site. I want to issue a word of caution. Speculating here about any action I propose in relation to remedying the wrongs of the 2008 election cycle is fine; but nothing substitutes for reading and understanding the work. For example, I only proposed that pledged Clinton delegates from vote binding states could file civil suits against the DNC in response to a question regarding standing. And these people would have standing. But I have been recommending for some time that citizens could redress those wrongs in any one of several ways, depending on the laws specific to each state. Especially in TX, redress can be gotten in just minutes, and would trigger Articles of Impeachment. But it would take persuading the AG to act upon the more than 100 citizen complaints of election fraud filed with AG Abbot, charging Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”), Certified to state election officials BO was Constitutionally qualified for office in order to get them to print his name on the ballot; before ascertaining this was true. In TX, to get on the ballot, the candidate must be qualified for the job. (Read these complaints to state A’sG in states that require ballot eligibility, in the sidebar of my blog. http://jbjd.org) As for citizens of the 13 vote binding states, again, what I am spelling out in this 3-part series is that the DNC conspired to violate state laws regarding pledged delegates in those states with laws that say, in our state, pledged means pledged. At least in GA, the AG will enforce the law. Bottom line, I could not possibly advocate that we rely on anyone other than ourselves to fix our electoral process. But this means, first, each of us needs to know as much about that process as those of us who would use superior knowledge to steal our power. Read; learn; act.

  71. basement angel
    August 13th, 2010 at 1:03 am
    Obama’s health care plan is as far from socialism as it gets and has nothing to do with European coverage. It’s a plan developed by the right wing Heritage Foundation in the early 90s to counter Clinton’s original health care plan.

    Forcing people to pay corporate profits is anti-socialism.

    ___________________________________________

    Its fascism, BA, fascism. Not “right wing” policies: croney-capitalism with state coercion and central planning – top down control.

    Obama is a leftist fascist, just as Mussolini was a right wing facsist.

  72. Obama is a fascist in left-wing clothing.

    The government forcing people to buy a product — from a government approved list of vendors.

    Corporate fascism, crony fascism — it’s all the same, and none of it is really leftwing. BA is right.

  73. This is interesting. I didnt think Connecticut could fall this Nov, but……

    Linda McMahon within striking distance

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/connecticut/election_2010_connecticut_senate

    The first Rasmussen Reports post-primary telephone survey of Likely Connecticut Voters finds that Democrat Richard Blumenthal has slipped below the 50% mark of support this month against Republican Linda McMahon in the state’s U.S. Senate race.

    Blumenthal, the state’s longtime attorney general, picks up 47% of the vote, while McMahon earns 40%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) remain undecided.

    Support for McMahon is unchanged from last month, despite her GOP Primary win on Tuesday. Blumenthal’s support is down six points since then. In June, Blumenthal held a 56% to 33% lead over McMahon, the former head of Worldwide Wrestling Entertainment.

  74. The One is a leftist, there is nothing right wing about him. Maybe he just not as left as those on the far far far far left want or need, but he is so far left from me and others like me that he is not even in the same ball park. He is a Marxist/Socialist/Facist/social liberator.
    Keep your crazy definitions to yourself. And, we heard you the first time you made the comment about him being Right Wing. The last thing I will write about ‘right wing’ in relation to The Won, is that he represents nothing that the ‘right wing’ stands for. After all the first word is ‘right’ meaning ‘correct’ and there is nothing politically, morally, or spiritually correct about him, remember Jeremiah Wright, the Annenburg Challenge, being termed the ‘most liberal’ senator, and now a smart person has labelled him ‘the worst President in American history.’ On that I concur. QED.

  75. The Dims are reaping what they’ve sown. The rest of us, including those who held their nose and voted for McCain knowing all his faults, could smell Obeyme from a freakin’ mile away. The PUMA’s knew how deceptive and bad-smelling Obeyme was and either turned their backs on him or voted for him for the sake of party unity or stayed the hell home.

    What is more grating than anything else is that Dims are learning what many conservative Republicans have known for years: the party doesn’t give a crap about you. They don’t care and know that you know they don’t care and it doesn’t matter. I stopped caring about either party after 2008. I was done. And so are a lot of other people.

    So many people in this country put a political party before their own citizenship or principles. Yeah, let’s vote for Obeyme because he’s “black,” “historic,” or “transformational.” Pick whatever catch word you want. Americans are politically illiterate and easily bought. That’s what we are now. The American voters are whores who place a vote so that they’re given gimmes such as: National Healthcare, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Housing Entitlements, Public Education, Perpetual Unemployment Insurance etc., etc. People, especially the stupid young voters, minorities, and liberal educated dimwits, don’t care about this country anymore. They want what they can get… and political parties give it to them.

    Unfortunately, a majority of Dims are still about “party,” or “party unity,” but don’t seem to care that the country is burning and that everything that the US used to stand for is disappearing and being dismantled. When are these people going to wake up? Excuse me, but, Big Pinkers, a lot of independents, especially the conservative independents who used to Repubs like myself, woke up a long time ago to the fact that both political parties are dysfunctional and no longer represent the interests of the people who employ them, American citizens and taxpayers.

    This country needs a serious enema… a deep, overwhelming cleansing. I’m tired of people saying that Obeyme is George Bush’s Third Term when we all know that forcing healthcare mandates down the throats of Americans is something Bush would NEVER have done. You think there’s a schism or fracture in the Dim party, well, the Repubs would have had even a bigger one than they do now.

    I’m sorry… but it’s time to wake up from political amnesia or illiteracy… especially folks like basement angel. While I’m so so sorry that your dreams of Canadacare have been dashed, perhaps you can consult members of the military and their dependents what Tricare is like… you think paying big premiums is bad then you should try having Tricare dictate where you’ll deliver your baby and who can and can’t be your doctor, because, we do have Canadacare right now in this country and it’s not going so well for the military.

    I’m sorry, but people like basement angel who think that Single Payer and Canadacare like options will work for America underestimate the anger and resentment that people feel for an already overly intrusive government. Then again, these folks don’t care about Americans being able to have choices over their own lives.

    So, forgive me, Big Pinkers, while I laugh bitterly and sarcastically that the Dim Party is in tatters. They’ve gotten theirs and left America with nothing. Absolutely nothing.

  76. I read this comment, and agree wholeheartedly with it: I could almost feel sorry for the Muslims EXCEPT they blow us up. They are out of place in a modern Western country. Someone explain why they keep going to Western countries and suffering the indignity of a wonderful world they don’t like.

  77. Re: jbstonesfan
    August 13th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
    This is simply not the America we grew up in.
    _____________________________________________________
    Agree. I am saddened to tears to think that my grandson and his children, will never know the kind of Norman Rockwell neighborhood that I grew up in. A community where everybody minded their own business, but were there to help each other. A community where the children could roam and explore til dark. A community where the smallest ones and the girls never had to worry about being adducted or worse; and that neighbors keep the neighborhood children on lookout out of the corner of their eye. Where your word was bond. Where you went to school to learn and patriotism was actually taught. And that if you got in trouble at school, you had worse waiting on you at home. Good parents. Good schools. Good neighbors. Good God what has happened to our country – and how will we answer the questions of the ones who are little or unborn now as to WHY we did not prevent the takeover?

  78. 100% correct shortTermer. It is particularly my age demographics(47) that failed to stop the “un-americanizing” of our country. Unlike the patriotic sacrifices our parents made, we were spoiled and pampered andc that is how we ended up with a anti-American, Muslim leaning President, and quitr frankly country. The elite press didn’t help matters either.

  79. He’s not a leftist. LOL. This is getting freaking old. All of you repeating the Glen Beck/fox news talking points that Obama is a socialist leftist are going to be sorely disappointed when that same crew goes back to calling Hillary and Bill socialist leftists. As for the anti-american, muslim leaning bs, I really don’t see it. I have yet to see any evidence of either. Obama’s an incompetent who never met a corporate donor he wouldn’t give a political favor to. That’s it. These delusions about his anti-americanism, and especially his socialism sound totally uniformed. Does it sound like the univision guy think Obama’s an anti-american, muslim lovin, socialist? That sure didn’t sound like what he said to me. Muslims worldwide have soured on him. They must not know he’s an anti-american “mslim leaning” type guy. LOL. Obama has already cut Medicare, and plans on cutting social security, what socialist would do that? Some of the criticisms just sound like lazy retreading of typical rightwingers. The same stuff they say about every Democratic, including Bill and Hillary Clinton. The rightwing media can go on and on about this socialism crap, but the average voter doesn’t care about that. They care about the fact that they either don’t have a job or their incomes are flat. And if you really have deluded yourselves that the Republicans are going to ride in on white horse, decimate the safety net, extend the Bush tax cuts, and poof, jobs are going to grow, you are in for a rude awakening. Neither of these Parties are worth spit right now, but that’s because they are both for wall street and against main street. They are too similiar not too dissimilar. There’s a reason there even was an FDR coalition. It’s because he got sh*t done for regular Americans. And guess what? Glen Beck thinks he was the most dangerous, anti-american socialist president of them all.

  80. About the “Israeli” who was murdering blacks in the US. Boy, the media really shows their true, slanted selves whenever they can. I am glad to know that they got caught on this. You can be damned sure that “Israeli” was used because most people think “Jew” when they read “Israeli”.
    ===========================================================================================

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/25786/serial-killer-who-targeted-us-blacks-is-palestinian-arab-illegal-alien-police-hid-mid-eastern-description/

    August 12, 2010, – 12:46 pm

    Serial Killer Who Targeted US Blacks is Palestinian Arab Alien (Expired Pasport), Police Hid “Mid-Eastern” Description
    By Debbie Schlussel

    For several weeks, police have been quietly searching for a serial killer who stabbed poor Black victims in Flint, Michigan, then fled to Leesburg, Virginia, where his sister lives. Many family members of the victims were angry that the police did not disclose the White identity of the murderer, saying it was racist. But, now, it’s very clear why they hid his identity and true visual description: Elias Abuelazam is a Palestinian Arab alien who was here on an expired passport. (**** UPDATE, 08/13/10: Since I first wrote this, news reports say Abuelazam has a green card and was here legally. ****)

    “He was a dark Middle Eastern guy and the description was of a White guy,” said [DS: his neighbor] Carrie Strang, who woke up this morning to find police cars and news vans outside.

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
    Wow, we’ve really regressed a long way when we endanger people’s lives to give a politically-correct, whitewashed description of a Palestinian serial killer.

    Abuelazam, who killed five people and attacked 20 others in three states, engaged in apparent marriage fraud, marrying a woman from Texas beating her, then divorcing her. (Some reports say they also had a child together.)

    Police stopped Abuelazam, who was trying to board a flight to escape to Israel. Unfortunately, while Abuelazam’s name isn’t being publicized, that he is “from Israel” is. It’s funny: they hate Israel, but whenever Palestinians are in trouble, suddenly they are “from Israel.” He may have been born in Israel and even have an Israeli passport, but he and his ilk identify as and with Palestinians. The guy is NOT Israeli, contrary to MSNBC’s disgusting headline:

    Israeli held in investigation of serial stabbings
    He’s Palestinian Arab who was born in Israel. Get that straight.

    Abuelazam specifically targeted Blacks and stabbed them to death. Disgustingly, some of the Detroit media, including “newscaster” Trudi Daniels of Detroit’s WRIF-FM, are making excuses for the guy, with Daniels saying that he probably did this because “maybe a Black guy raped his wife” or someone Black robbed him or committed some other crime against him, she surmised. Daniels is an uber-liberal . . . and, now, clearly a racist.

    It is well known that Palestinians, Arabs, and the Arab and Muslim worlds are racist. As I’ve noted before, they call Blacks, “abed” or “abeed”–singular and plural for slave, in Arabic.

    Abuelazam was employed at a Flint-area convenience store, the Kingwater Market, owned by fellow Arab, Abdullah Farah. How interesting that it didn’t bother them that he was here illegally. Yes, they are accessories to his illegal alien presence in America, but nothing will happen to them. Because we just don’t have the guts, do we?

    We don’t have the guts to protect our borders or to do a damned thing to those who help keep it porous and indefensible.

    Nor do we do a damned thing about police who won’t correctly identify a Middle-Eastern Arab serial killer on the loose because, post-9/11, we must bow down to the Arab street at all cost.

    Nauseating to the Nth.

  81. I have to wonder why self-identified socialists supported obama for the presidency. Could it have been his rhetoric? Did his rhetoric not sound socialistic in nature? I believe that it did.

    I believe that obama, unconstrained, would happily implement socialist/marxist policy here. Who knows who exactly is pulling his strings right now. Regardless, he has supported ideas in the past that have been in agreement with the socialist party in this country.

    Here’s a link that mentions some of his beliefs and compares them with socialist party beliefs.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=78330

  82. BA is from California, I wonder where mj is from? No, the regular average person is not for this fundamental transformation of America; we outnumber you uber leftists.

    And yes, they will call Hill and Bill a progressive because that is what they are. In one of the 2008 debates, Hillary, called herself a progressive, a 20th century progressive….like FDR.

  83. correct nomobama…from wikipedia

    “….Elias Abuelazam (born August 28, 1976) is a suspected serial killer, suspected in killings and stabbings in Genesee County, Michigan, and stabbings in Toledo, Ohio and Leesburg, Virginia in the spring and summer of 2010. Media has dubbed him “the serial slasher”.[1] According to the Palestinian Ma’an News Agency, Abuelazam is a Palestinian[2] Christian citizen of Israel from Ramle, and has Israeli citizenship.[3][4]….”

  84. nomobama, the link you posted states facts, then links to The Won’s own words backing up the stated facts. Thank you. Who do you think the Roosevelt in the article is?

  85. This back and forth about he is a leftist socialist and no, he is a rightwing Bushie is getting tiresome. The right wingers will use the lefty socialist meme because that is what will sell to their audience. To their advantage, he masquerades like a lefty because that is his base. What he is is a corporate whore to the highest bidder and what he has to offer are the government perks to his corporate masters. So he tries to amass as much of government as he can under his control…he installs people in the govt agencies who are as corrupt to do his bidding — latest example letting EPA turn a blind eye to pouring Corexit in the Gulf so he can whore himself to Larry Fink or whatever other bastard and the BP. The rightwingers don’t raise a peep about it because they are as beholden to oil companies and corporations as this guy is.

  86. I agree with mj. My biggest gripe with Obama is that he isn’t up to the job and couldn’t hold a candle to Hillary in that area.

  87. More Embarrassment…………….

    Senate hopeful Alvin Greene indicted on porn charge

    US Senate candidate Alvin Greene has been indicted on two pornography-related charges.

    The South Carolina Democrat is accused of distributing, procuring or promoting obscenity and communicating obscene material to a person without consent.

    Mr Greene, an unemployed veteran, was a surprise winner of the June Democratic primary, beating a party favourite.

    He was arrested last November after a female student accused him of showing her obscene online photos. Continue reading the main story Related stories

    * Just who is Alvin Greene?

    Mr Greene declined to comment on the incident, which allegedly occurred in a University of South Carolina computer lab.

    Although he was on the ballot, Mr Greene had not actively campaigned for the Democratic Senate nomination.

    Since his win he has made few public comments and has raised less than $1,000 (£640) in campaign funds.

    He will face Senator Jim DeMint, a popular incumbent,

  88. Even the Poor Are Abandoning Obama, According to Gallup Poll Data

    In every week of his presidency until now, Barack Obama has enjoyed a majority approval rating in the Gallup Poll from people earning less than $2,000 per month. But that changed in the Gallup survey conducted from Aug. 2-8, when only 49 percent of Americans in that income bracket said they approve of the job Obama is doing.

    This marks the first time since Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009, when Americans in all four of the income brackets reported in Gallup’s weekly survey of presidential approval gave Obama less than 50 percent approval.

    For the week of Aug. 2-Aug. 8, only 42 percent of Americans earning $7,500 per month or more said they approve of the job Obama is doing. Forty-four percent of those earning between $5,000 and $7,499 said they approve of the job he is doing. And forty-six percent of those earning between $2,000 and $4,999 said they approve of the job he is doing.

    The higher the income bracket an American occupies, the sooner he or she was likely to stop approving of the job Obama was doing and the more likely he or she was to stop approving of the job Obama was doing.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/71089

  89. Jesus, read the CNN spin on this one.

    Poll: Half Would Vote For Generic GOP Challenger In ’12 (CNN/Opinion Research Corp)

    Pres. Obama trails a generic GOPer in a WH ’12 re-election bid, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released today. Among registered voters, fully half, 50%, said they were more likely to vote for a generic GOPer, while just 45% said they were more likely to vote for Obama.

    While the numbers are striking, the generic ballot at this stage doesn’t always mean the incumbent pres. is destined for just one term. Prior to his re-election bid, George W. Bush never trailed a generic Dem, according to trends from what was then the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. The closest a generic Dem came to Bush was 47-43% in Sept. ’03.

    Bill Clinton, on the other hand, trailed a generic opponent from the GOP by wide margins. In Dec. ’94, a month after his party was drubbed at the polls in the midterm elections, the generic GOP candidate led Clinton, 53-39%.

    http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/08/poll_half_would.php

  90. All the discussion on if Barry is ‘right wing’, socialist, capitalist or whatever.

    Obama doesn’t fit in any box because he panders to who ever will pay him for his services. He is a pimp, a crook, and a thief. He and MO think they deserve everything they are gifted and even more, just because…

    His promises and speeches were words the young and downtrodden would find appealing, but they were never policies or actions he had planned out and intended to work on and make happen.

    For example, the Hell Care Bill. Nasty and Reid ran with the plan and when they couldn’t pass a real health care bill, they bought off congressional votes in back room deals and bowed down to insurance companies. Barry just wanted his name on any health care bill, to beat Hillary to that accomplishment. He doesn’t care what’s in it, he will have excellent health insurance for the rest of his life. He wanted the title in history, just like the first black man (half) to be Pres., the unearned Peace Prize and what ever else he could steal without earning it.

  91. Just getting caught up on reading, admin. Thanks for all the cackles! We surely need them.
    In the past, I always voted for integrity when I could identify it. Sadly, doing so does not gain me many winners, but I cannot vote issues because you never know what the future will necessitate, or what the issue-oriented candidate will actually do when given the power.
    I soured on Senator Obama during the Alito nomination process – thought he was too slow to respond to a moveon (?) call for a filibuster. (Details are now fuzzy, but conclusion as to his integrity is not.) Then when he began hitting on Hillary’s vote for Iraq, all the while banking on most voters not realizing he was not yet a US Senator when he allegedly was so wise as to know better than to authorize that war, I knew he was sleaze. And I knew he was aiding and abetting the Party ouster of Hillary. Therefore I had to hurt his candidacy as much as possible. Which meant voting for John McCain. John’s choosing Palin made it more pleasant for me to cast that vote, but there was never any doubt that my vote would be cast to negate one vote for Obama.

  92. Israel’s Netanyahu Poised to Take Out Iran’s Nuclear Sites
    Monday, 16 Aug 2010 09:43 AM Article Font Size
    By: George Will

    When Israel declared independence in 1948, it had to use mostly small arms to repel attacks by six Arab armies. Today, however, Israel feels, and is, more menaced than it was then, or has been since. Hence the potentially world-shaking decision that will be made here, probably within two years.

    To understand the man who will make it, begin with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s belief that stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program is integral to stopping the worldwide campaign to reverse 1948. It is, he says, a campaign to “put the Jew back to the status of a being that couldn’t defend himself — a perfect victim.”

    Today’s Middle East, he says, reflects two developments. One is the rise of Iran and militant Islam since the 1979 revolution, which led to al-Qaida, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The other development is the multiplying threat of missile warfare.

    Now Israel faces a third threat, the campaign to delegitimize it in order to extinguish its capacity for self-defense.

    After two uniquely perilous millennia for Jews, the creation of Israel meant, Netanyahu says, “the capacity for self-defense restored to the Jewish people.” But note, he says, the reflexive worldwide chorus of condemnation when Israel responded with force to rocket barrages from Gaza and from southern Lebanon. There is, he believes, a crystallizing consensus that “Israel is not allowed to exercise self-defense.”

    From 1948 through 1973, he says, enemies tried to “eliminate Israel by conventional warfare.” Having failed, they tried to demoralize and paralyze Israel with suicide bombers and other terrorism. “We put up a fence,” Netanyahu says. “Now they have rockets that go over the fence.” Israel’s military, which has stressed offense as a solution to the nation’s lack of strategic depth, now stresses missile defense.

    That, however, cannot cope with Hamas’ tens of thousands of rockets in Gaza and Hezbollah’s 60,000 in southern Lebanon. There, U.N. resolution 1701, promulgated after the 2006 war, has been predictably farcical. This was supposed to inhibit the arming of Hezbollah and prevent its operations south of the Litani River.

    Since 2006, Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal has tripled and its operations mock resolution 1701. Hezbollah, learning from Hamas, now places rockets near schools and hospitals, certain that Israel’s next response to indiscriminate aggression will turn the world media into a force multiplier for the aggressors.

    Any Israeli self-defense anywhere is automatically judged “disproportionate.” Israel knows this as it watches Iran.

    Last year was Barack Obama’s wasted year of “engaging” Iran. This led to sanctions that are unlikely to ever become sufficiently potent. With Russia, China, and Turkey being uncooperative, Iran is hardly “isolated.” The Iranian democracy movement probably cannot quickly achieve regime change. It took Solidarity 10 years to do so against a Polish regime less brutally repressive than Iran’s.

    Hillary Clinton’s words about extending a “defense umbrella over the region” imply, to Israelis, fatalism about a nuclear Iran. As for deterrence working against a nuclear-armed regime steeped in an ideology of martyrdom, remember: In 1980, Ayatollah Khomeini said: “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”

    You say, that was long ago? Israel says, this is now:

    Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, says Israel is the “enemy of God.” Tehran, proclaiming that the Holocaust never happened and vowing to complete it, sent an ambassador to Poland who in 2006 wanted to measure the ovens at Auschwitz to prove them inadequate for genocide. Iran’s former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is considered a “moderate” by people for whom believing is seeing, calls Israel a “one-bomb country.”

    If Iran were to “wipe the Zionist entity off the map,” as it vows to do, it would, Netanyahu believes, achieve a regional “dominance not seen since Alexander.” Netanyahu does not say Israel will, if necessary, act alone to prevent this. Or does he?

    He says CIA Director Leon Panetta is “about right” in saying Iran can be a nuclear power in two years. He says 1948 meant this: “For the first time in 2,000 years, a sovereign Jewish people could defend itself against attack.” And he says: “The tragic history of the powerlessness of our people explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defense.” If Israel strikes Iran, the world will not be able to say it was not warned

Comments are closed.