Blagojevich – A New Hope

After November – for the first time ever – there will likely be a legislative body willing to investigate Barack Obama and his business dealings. When he was in Illinois, Barack Obama was the darling of corrupt officials who ran the entire state. When he moved into Washington D.C in the majority Democratic Senate, Obama was not investigated but instead trained, by people like Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid and 2×4 Schumer, to become their puppet president.

After this November for the first time all the questions we have about Barack Obama can finally be investigated. There are a lot of questions. Obama earmarks in the millions of dollars for his wife’s employers meant a windfall for the Obamas as Michelle Obama got a substantial raise in pay (Maxine Waters gets investigated, Obama got a free pass). The boxes of papers Obama cannot seem to find would answer the questions about what he knew and when he knew it about freezing tenants in Rezko housing (as Obama got Rezko money). The Rezko house, the many deals with corrupt and corrupting individuals, the money deals and investments – all can be investigated after November.

This August 26, at an attorney conference, a retrial date will be set for impeached and removed Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. The retrial will likely take place in the new year with a new Republican majority in charge in Congress and willing to get answers to questions the trial will raise.

Rod Blagojevich was convicted today of only 1 of 24 counts. The prosecution was a mess and they got the comeuppance deserved. The prosecution sought to protect Barack Obama and therefore refused to call as witnesses against Blagojevich friends of Barack such as Antoin “Tony” Rezko. The witnesses not called against Blagojevich were the important witnesses. But it was “protect Barack Obama” time in the Chicago courts.

The judge and the prosecution did not want Blagojevich given an opportunity to question Rezko and other corrupt Obama friends. The Blagojevich defense would have explored all the corrupt details of Barack Obama’s life. Barack Obama would have had to be forced to testify. Even in the now ended trial Barack Obama’s name was constantly mentioned. In a new trial the prosecution will have to put up Rezko and open up the can of worms or they will lose again.

Governor Blagojevich did not even put up a defense and he still got off on 23 of 24 counts. The government prosecutors are humiliated. The judge did everything possible to convict Blagojevich (from the jury instructions to what the defense could say and who the defense could call as witnesses). The prosecution will now have little reason to protect Barack Obama because a Republican majority in either house of congress will not protect Obama but rather investigate Barack Obama.

The Blagojevich retrial is be scheduled during the last two months before the November elections. The two months before the elections will be garnished heavily with corruption and ethics trials of Culture of Corruption Obama Dimocrats.

Two months after the November elections the investigations will begin.

Share

141 thoughts on “Blagojevich – A New Hope

  1. Unless the WH gets the case dropped, which would not surprise me if they tried. Rahm will be pulling out all the stops to make sure that happens.

  2. What Happened to the 400,000 Jobs Pelosi Promised after Healthcare ‘Reform’ Passed?

    Back in February 2010, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised the American people that approximately 400,000 jobs would be created due to the passage of the healthcare bill.

    Remember Pelosi promised this:

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the health summit: “It’s about jobs. In it’s life, it [the health bill] will create 4 million jobs — 400,000 jobs almost immediately.”

    Well, it’s almost November and the economy still hasn’t gotten any better and we have no evidence of those jobs being created.

    http://biggovernment.com/sahiller/2010/08/17/what-happened-to-the-400000-jobs-pelosi-promised-after-healthcare-reform-passed/

  3. Looks like Polosi does not know as much about the economy as she thinks she does.

    The unemployment in CA is like 12 or 12.5. Maybe they need a new representative, one that really nows how to work with building the economy.

  4. Admin am I reading these two paragraph’s wrong. One says the retrial will be in the new year, and the other says it will be before the November election. I am confused.

    ——————————-

    This August 26, at an attorney conference, a retrial date will be set for impeached and removed Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. The retrial will likely take place in the new year with a new Republican majority in charge in Congress and willing to get answers to questions the trial will raise.

    The Blagojevich retrial is be scheduled during the last two months before the November elections. The two months before the elections will be garnished heavily with corruption and ethics trials of Culture of Corruption Obama Dimocrats.

  5. Concerning the ‘new and improved’ Blago retrial…

    Fitzgerald is a Dem prosecutor, and even if the Rethugs win the House, how can the Rethugs demand anything that will make Rahm or Barry testify for the prosecution?

    What do ya’ll think the Judge will do with Blago’s one charge? Pick up trash along the freeway for a week?

    How can someone be found guilty of misrepresentation, or a lie when the lie he is punished for isn’t identified.

    So many questions…when Blago still isn’t found guilty of the crime he was impeached for.

  6. Shadowfax, This just doesn’t pass the smell test does it? Why would they retry him the last two months before the election….my guess they will let all the cats out of the house then, to benefit the opposing party…LOL! That sounds like a good idea for the republicans….

  7. Even Hannity just said, Fitz should take his 5000 hours of tapes and give up on the retrial, that Blago shouldn’t be held hostage with debt for lawyers forever.

  8. confloyd
    August 17th, 2010 at 9:01 pm

    Shadowfax, This just doesn’t pass the smell test does it? Why would they retry him the last two months before the election….my guess they will let all the cats out of the house then, to benefit the opposing party…LOL! That sounds like a good idea for the republicans….

    ————
    Only if Rahm, Barry and Rezko HAVE to testiy will anything change. Blago wanted them, and decided to make closing arguments without a defense because there were no big players as witnesses that Blago could say, “See, they were involved in the conversations, why am I the only one that is on trial?”

    Frosts my cupcakes that Blago was impeached for all of this when the trial fell short of any real beef. You ruin someone’s career over this, there had better be a damn good reason. Protecting Barry isn’t good enough.

  9. NewMexicoFan, the retrial schedule will be discussed in a conference of judge and lawyers with probable dates set – on August 26. From then on until the election in November the retrial pre-trial motions will begin to be filed. The actual retrial itself with jurors selected will likely start in the new year.

    The Blagojevich post-trial and retrial pre-trial motions along with the Rangel/Waters corruption hearings will all be going on at the same time, just before the elections.

    As the retrial unfolds in the new year, Republicans in congress will be watching. At some point Republicans will have to subpoena Rezko and get answers to questions. Once the Republicans lift one rock, they will find that the snakes underneath will compel them to raise other rocks. From Rezko it’s a short skip to Michelle and all the doctors and medical establishment in Chicago. And of course there is always Alexi Giannoulias running for Senate who helped run the mob bank which served so many corrupt characters.

  10. ShadowFax, Republicans will not be able to make anybody testify in the Blagojevich retrial. What Republicans can do is call congressional hearings into questions raised by the trial.

    Prosecutor Fitzgerald will have to call Rezko in the new trial. Rezko will raise many questions about Obama in the cross-examination. That is why Rezko was not called to testify.

    Republicans in the congress will be able to investigate and grant immunity and subpoena anybody they want. That is what Obama Dimocrats fear and after the elections that will be the line of defense for Obama Dimocrats. Obama Dimocrats will yell “Leave Barack Alone”.

  11. Thanks for explaining Admin, what do you think the Judge will do with Blago on the one offense, put him in the pokie?

  12. Admin:

    This statement is making me nrevous:

    “The prosecution will now have little reason to protect Barack Obama because a Republican majority in either house of congress will not protect Obama but rather investigate Barack Obama.”
    _____________________________

    To me, the only thing worse than HOPE… is False HOPE. We all went down that road during the 08′ Primary when REZKO was on the rack and we waited with baited breath for him to spill all he knew implicating Obama in order to save himself from a lengthy prison sentence. It never happened. Fitzgerald failed.

    In fact, during the Primary Hillary felt it was inevitable and only a matter of time before Obama would be embroiled in a career ending dance eliminating him once and for all from the dem nomination. Why do you think this time will be different than 08′ when both Houses were dominated by Republicans then as it probably will be after this Nov election? I am trying to understand your rationale. Help me, please.

  13. S
    August 17th, 2010 at 6:02 pm

    mrs. smith…be careful driving…
    _______________

    I planned to venture out for the first drive tonight and stop imposing. That rattles me more than the injury… Thanks… 😉

  14. Thanks for the explaination. It was a bit over my head, obviously See, we really do carefully read your stuff.

  15. Are the political miscalculations simple hubris? Did they really think that with Obama in the Oval Office they could keep the Democratic base fired up with propaganda and fancy speeches? From the moment of TARP, I couldn’t figure out how Dems were going to hold Congress. When his god-awful medical reform passed, I knew it would be close to an impossibility.

    People vote Democratic, and put Democrats in the White House, because Dems go to work on behalf of ordinary people. If the Dems are going to serve corporate America, why vote for ’em? I’m not gonna vote Republican, but I might not show up and vote at all.

    Did they really think we weren’t going to notice the unemployment rate or did they think we wouldn’t care because Obama is just the ne plus ultra of personal awesomeness?

    Weird. Weird. Weird. Well, I’m amused that Blago got off by and large. Fitz is a tough guy. It’ll be interesting to see what he does next.

  16. Oh, and I am going to show up and vote for Boxer because Fiorina looks batshit, running-down-the-street-naked-with-a-fire-extinguisher insane and we don’t need that in the Senate for six years.

  17. What I don’t understand is why people as talented as Spielberg et al are throwing away so much money on a loser like obama. Can’t they see the damage he has done?

    As far as Blago goes, is it possible that he struck a behind the door deal with obama and his thugs?

  18. The Blagojevich post-trial and retrial pre-trial motions along with the Rangel/Waters corruption hearings will all be going on at the same time, just before the elections.
    **************

    But as usual no one will cover it besides Fox. Albeit, Fox has the most viewership, but the kool-aid drinkers will NOT get the damning information.
    ************

    Fritz is a tough guy? Really? If he was once, he is but a shadow of the man, bought and paid for in the U S of A.
    **************
    BA said…

    Oh, and I am going to show up and vote for Boxer because Fiorina looks batshit,…

    *********

    Well we already know Boxer IS Batshit crazy….

  19. Poll: Majority now disapprove of Obama’s job performance

    By MARGARET TALEV
    08.17.10

    WASHINGTON — More than half of Americans now disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance, new polling found, as the Ground Zero mosque controversy appeared to further erode ratings that the nation’s stagnant economy already had damaged.

    Gallup’s tracking poll for Saturday through Monday found Obama’s disapproval rating at 51 percent, a new high, the organization said Tuesday. For the third day in a row, the president’s average approval rating was 42 percent, also a low for Obama.

    “It’s certainly a reasonable hypothesis that the mosque comments are a cause of his lower approval ratings and his higher disapproval,” said Frank Newport, Gallup’s editor in chief.

    This latest three-day tracking began the day after Obama delivered a speech in which he said a group of Muslims had the right to build a house of worship anywhere local laws allowed, and that the nation’s commitment to religious freedom must remain “unshakeable.”

    The tracking poll doesn’t ask respondents to explain the factors behind their ratings.

    Presidents Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter all experienced job approval numbers as low or lower in the Augusts of their second years in office, Newport said, and such ratings are typical of tough economic times. The nation’s unemployment rate has been stuck at 9.5 percent since June and is expected to worsen this fall.

    The low numbers don’t necessarily have much to do with how Obama will fare in his 2012 re-election campaign, but Newport said that based on historical results they probably would spell bad news for Democrats who faced re-election in November.

    Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University historian and congressional expert, said the mosque controversy might resonate for “at least a couple more weeks” and that “Republicans watching these polls are going to continue to use the issue as the fall campaigns gear up.”

    For voters already frustrated with Obama, Zelizer said, the mosque issue “just plays into the broader storyline. … They say, ‘Well, there’s another example where he doesn’t seem to be a firm leader. He doesn’t seem to be on the right side.’ ”

    In the end, Zelizer expects the economy to remain the driving factor for the president’s ratings: “And I don’t think he’s hit rock bottom.”

    White House aides said Obama had known from the outset that his stance on the mosque wasn’t going to win political points. Polling finds that two-thirds of Americans oppose building a Muslim house of worship two blocks from where Islamic radicals attacked the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

    On Tuesday, White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said that Friday’s speech “wasn’t something that the president viewed through a political lens. This is something that he saw as his obligation to address.” Burton said Obama had no regrets about taking a stand.

    Obama’s approval rating was at 46 percent and his disapproval rating at 47 for Aug. 9-11. By Friday, Gallup found that his three-day approval rating had slipped to 43 percent and his disapproval rating had climbed to 48 percent.

    The tracking poll is a rolling average of 1,500 Americans surveyed over a three-day period, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/08/17/1780434/poll-majority-now-disapprove-of.html

  20. Noemie Emery: Let’s just appreciate the great Obama presidency

    By: Noemie Emery
    Examiner Columnist
    August 17, 2010

    Just how badly does President Obama want the Democrats to lose the 2010 midterm elections? Just how much did first lady Michelle Obama relish her Spanish vacation?

    Just how thrilled and grateful were the Gulf State residents to discover that the Obamas were giving them one whole day of their time — between Michelle’s Spanish vacation and the family’s real vacation, up there in Martha’s Vineyard, at a posh estate near their own kind of people — to dip their dainty toes in their oil-soaked waters?

    And exactly how thrilled were the Democrats’ candidates, already facing headwinds of epic proportions, to wake up Saturday morning to find out that their president had come out in favor of a Mega Mosque near Ground Zero, opposed by only two-thirds of American people, and added another to the impressive collection of millstones — health care, the stimulus, the economy, Government Motors and a few other triumphs — he had already hung round their necks?

    How brilliant are these strategists there at the White House, and how canny at reading the mood of the people? How wise is this strategy of giving them what they don’t want, and then, when they complain about it, telling them to shut up, and keep giving them more?

    How clever to tell them Missouri’s vote against the individual mandate meant “nothing,” when it is only the fourth vote against health care — Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts being the others — to be taken in less than a year?

    What smarts does it take to take a huge popular mandate, and shred it in no time? How clever of them to hit on coalition destruction as a method of governing! In that White House In The Sky, FDR and Reagan are probably seething with envy. Why didn’t they think of it first?

    How brave is Obama, to speak out as he did against the persecution of Muslims that is sweeping the country, and has swept it in fact since Sept. 11, 2001? Who can forget the riots that engulfed the whole country, the cross (and Star of David) burnings outside the mosques and the homes of innocent Muslims, the lynchings and hideous acts of unprovoked violence; the demands of conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Sarah Palin enthusiasts that Muslims and in fact all Arab-Americans, be confined in camps somewhere out in the country — Wasilla, for instance — as Japanese-Americans had been during the Second World War?

    How lucky was it that Obama was swept into office just as George W. Bush was about to put this vicious scheme into practice? What would the world then have said about that?

    How wise too for Obama to come out for the mosque, enraging survivors of those killed in the terror attacks and swing voters everywhere, and then walk it back somewhat, ticking off the press and the left wing of his party (but we repeat ourselves), who now feels a little betrayed?

    It’s not as if Muslim outreach hasn’t paid off already: Iran has dropped its nuclear plans, and adopted a Good Neighbor policy, which would never have happened if Bush were in office. Can we all say a prayer over this?

    Can we say a prayer too for President Obama, and all the mosque backers, for being sensitive to the right of the would-be mosque builders to violate the sensitivities of the victims’ survivors, New Yorkers and Americans everywhere? And how lucky are we to have this rare president, brave enough to look at these friends and relations, spouses and children, of people who died on Sept. 11, and call them out for the bigots they are?

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Let_s-just-appreciate-the-great-Obama-presidency-511601-100920094.html

  21. Mrs. Smith, as the article states, this is the first time that there will be an opposition force confronting and investigating Obama. During the primaries there was a lot of protection of Obama by fake “neutrals”. Even 2×4 Schumer probably helped protect Obama from within the campaign. The JournoListers organized Obama protection squads which yelled “racist” at every turn.

    If the Republicans take over there will not be protection from investigations. Issa has already begun to categorize the investigations he will launch. It is not false hope that there will be investigations. These investigations will reach back to his Chicago years as well as recent history.

    In 2008 the Democrats controlled the Senate so there were no investigations of Obama. In earlier years (2005-2007) Republicans controlled the Senate but Obama was not yet a candidate for president nor was the full extent of his connections to Rezko and others known so it was only much later that ethics charges and investigations were appropriate. The Democrats also controlled the House since 2006’s elections.

    If Republicans win either or both houses of congress, many investigations will begin almost immediately. That is not a false hope in any way. The Obama defense forces are already calling the prospects of investigations “an overreach”.

  22. Right – because once Republicans have the majority in one house, they have subpoena power. There haven’t been any Republicans since Obama began his rise and subsequent election to the White House, with the ability to subpoena anyone connected to him. If the Pubs take one house, they can force people to testify.

    Well, that is if Bush admin officials refusing to testify hasn’t set a sufficient precedent to protect them.

    So was it hubris, admin? Did they really think his personal awesomeness would overwhelm the horror of record unemployment and the ghastly health care plan and Dems would march like happy lemmings from their tent cities to vote for Obama to keep them there?

  23. When the Fraud went swimming with his daughter, in the “near, almost” Gulf, it reminded me of the movie “Jaws” when the mayor forced someone working for him and his family into the water with the shark to prove erroneously that the water was safe.

    I imagine MEchelle told him “no thanks, you go take a swim”…might have paid good money to see MEchelle out there with the sharks….

  24. basement angel
    August 17th, 2010 at 10:26 pm

    Oh, and I am going to show up and vote for Boxer because Fiorina looks batshit, running-down-the-street-naked-with-a-fire-extinguisher insane and we don’t need that in the Senate for six years.

    ———
    I’m with you BA on not wanting to vote for Rethugs, and most of them in our state are God awful! Fiorina seems to have a screw lose and Meg Whitman gives me the creeps. I would love to vote for women, but these two women make that impossible for me. I don’t know about Boxer, still debating on her…are there any independents in the General election to pick from? I will vote for Diane Feinstein, I still like her and think she tries harder than most. My rethug votes will probably go to some folks in Sacto, the Dems are idiots there.

  25. I’m afraid Fiorina is going to have to be tasered into submission at some point in her career and, as a Californian, I’d hate to see it happen on the Senate floor.

  26. “Mrs. Smith, as the article states, this is the first time that there will be an opposition force confronting and investigating Obama. During the primaries there was a lot of protection of Obama by fake “neutrals”. Even 2×4 Schumer probably helped protect Obama from within the campaign. The JournoListers organized Obama protection squads which yelled “racist” at every turn.”
    _____________________________________

    OK- I hear you and agree to a certain extent you have a valid point.

    Next- Can or will you orchestrate some type of organized active participation by Pinkers and Pumas, i e setting up a hounding machine manning the phones and faxes bird dogging the chairmen of the investigative committees demanding action even to the point of appointing a special prosecutor as they did pre-Clinton Impeachment to investigate Obama crimes and the entire Chicago Combine? We’re at a crossroads now… we either go BIG or WE go home… RIGHT? :eyeroll:

  27. Honestly, I will never stay home and not vote. Never. If torn I will vote for a Independent, as time goes on, maybe I will vote for more Rethugs towards Nov.

  28. Mrs. Smith,

    It will happen naturally, even if we never say a word. This is what Republicans do. They don’t have actual solutions to problems so they win by hounding Democrats out of office.

    Harassing Obama will drive huge funding into their coffers and make maintaining their various welfare for the rich schemes much easier.

  29. O must know the same things we do, all he had to do is read the blog. What does he possible think he has that will change things for 2012, that the stimulus stuff will finally kick in, that the cycle will be completed, and he will come out of it naturally?

    He must think there is a safety net to save him, so what could it be?

  30. pm317
    August 17th, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    Repubs will have subpeona power and they may even call witnesses but remember this from the Godfather?
    _____________________________

    Recanting sworn testimony?… We can dream can’t we?

  31. Guilty on just 1 count, Blago taunts U.S. attorney

    After a federal jury convicted him of just one count — lying to the FBI — and deadlocked on 23 other counts, Rod Blagojevich declared his innocence today and defiantly taunted prosecutors.

    “The government threw everything but the kitchen sink at me, and on every charge but one, they could not prove that I broke any laws except one, a nebulous charge from five years ago,” he told a crush of reporters at the Dirksen Federal Building this afternoon. “I did not lie to the FBI. I told the truth from the very beginning.”

    “We have a prosecutor who has wasted and wanted to spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to take me away from my family and my home,” he continued, accusing the government of persecuting him.

    In a theatrical burst of emotion, Blagojevich attorney Sam Adam Sr. went after U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

    “This guy Fitzgerald is a master at indicting people for noncriminal activity,” he said. “This guy is nuts.”

    “Lincoln is rolling over in his grave,” Adam Sr. continued, his voice rising. “[Fitzgerald] set the press against this man and, for 1 1/2 years, we have had to contend with the press.

    “This is one of those situations where he villified the defendant so bad in the press that when the case started…[we] had to go to Ace Hardware and find a ladder to climb up to the bottom,” he yelled.
    Another Blagojevich attorney, Sam Adam Jr. implored reporters to ask Fitzgerald one question: “Why are we spending $25 to $30 million on a retrial when they couldn’t prove it the first time?”

    “We didn’t even put a defense on, and the government couldn’t prove his case,” he said, adding that prosecutors “have to ask themselves, ‘Is this worth it?’ ”

    Fitzgerald appeared in the courthouse lobby a few minutes later but did not address any of the taunts and questions thrown at him by Blagojevich and his attorneys, explaining the government was already preparing for the former governor’s next trial.

    “We intend to retry those charges,” Fitzgerald said. “So for all practical purposes, we are in the mode of being close to jury selection for a retrial.

    “That’s it,” he added, cutting off questions.

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/14th-day-for-blagojevich-jury.html

  32. Apparently Blago’s conviction on a second count on the senate seat did not come to pass because of one woman, 11-1.

  33. PM317, Mark Levin is a bit nutty and barks a lot, although on occasion he will make a good point or two. He despises Hillary.

  34. pm317
    August 17th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
    =============================================

    Thank you very much for posting this video. It is nice to finally hear someone from within the Muslim community of America speaking as an American over speaking as a Muslim who is an American. This man’s last comment about a “PR stunt” was so on the mark that I wish I could speak to him personally, and give him my thanks for his efforts at combating radical Islam. He is the type of person that I have been waiting for, but I have never heard of him before. I hope that he is just one of many Muslims in the states who feel similarly. All one ever hears about is the C.A.I.R organization, and I don’t trust them. I hope this man’s star rises in this country so that more people get to know of him, and know what he has to say.

  35. The Republican commercial was clever, and gave me a chuckle. obama’s coming to your town… the gift that keeps on giving… to Republicans, that is.

  36. Yes, that was a good interview. Hope more Muslims with his point of view would get more attention by the msm.

  37. Fox parent gives $1 million to RGA
    News Corp., which owns Fox News and the New York Post, gave $1 million to Haley Barbour’s Republican Governors Association this year, according to the RGA’s most recent filing.

    The company’s media outlets play politics more openly than most, but the huge contribution to a party committee is a new step toward an open identification between Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and the GOP. The company’s highest-ranking Democratic executive, Peter Chernin, recently departed.

    The $1 million contribution this June 24 was first reported by Bloomberg and appears on the RGA’s July 15 filing with the Internal Revenue Service.

    The group’s other seven-figure donor is the libertarian billionaire David Koch.

    UPDATE: News Corp. Spokesman Jack Horner emails, “News Corporation believes in the power of free markets, and the RGA’s pro-business agenda supports our priorities at this most critical time for our economy.”

    The giant check to the RGA dwarfs low four-figure checks from Fox’s PAC to Democrats including Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer.

  38. I have to admit watching Hannity with some guy he was interviewing said “I went to a seminar with the communist Chinese and they lectured us on fiscal responsibility and they are right”, it did not make me feel better about Shawn Hannity’s republicans.
    When they start quoting the Chinese’s corportism, I get a little quisey inside. The right can go to fascism very easily. Now we have these corporations picking our President, like they have done for the past two.
    WE, Americans have very short memories….I AM NOT ADVOCATING DRINKING THE KOOLaid EITHER! We must be very careful!

  39. Dear Rest-of-America: Take This Map, It’s Why You’re Wrong About
    Interesting comment strings by real Manhattanites.

    the “Ground Zero Mosque”
    blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/08/dear_rest-of-am.php

    The Ground Zero Coat
    yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/the-ground-zero-coat/

    Where’s the Ground Zero Terror Mosque? 39 Experts Explain!
    theawl.com/2010/08/wheres-the-ground-zero-terror-mosque-39-experts-explain

  40. I wanted to post this yesterday afternoon, but I ran out of time. It’s about the Taliban and their lust for young boys.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=852

    Just recently, the Taliban issued a new set of 30 rules to its fighters.

    Many of the instructions were to be expected: rule No. 25 commands the murder of teachers if a warning and a beating does not dissuade them from teaching. No. 26 outlines the exquisite delicacy of burning schools and destroying anything that aid organizations might undertake — such as the building of a new road, school or clinic. The essence of the other rules are easily left to the imagination, basically involving what militant Islam is about: vile hate, death and destruction.

    But there is a curious rule that the Western media has typically ignored. Rule No. 19 instructs that Taliban fighters must not take young boys without facial hair into their private quarters.

    Right.

    (Cough and clearing of the throat).

    Aside from the question of what is permitted if a young boy does happen to have facial hair, this new Taliban commandment brings light to a taboo pathology that underlies the structures of militant Islam. And it is crucial to deconstruct the meaning of this rule — and the horrid reality that it represents — because it serves as a gateway to understanding the primary causes of Islamic rage and terror.

    Rule No. 19 obviously indicates that the sexual abuse of young boys is a prevalent and institutionalized phenomenon among the Taliban and that, for one reason or another, its widespread practice has become a problem.

    The fact that Taliban militants’ spare time involves sodomizing young boys should by no means be any kind of surprise or eyebrow raiser. That a mass pathology such as this occurs in a culture which demonizes the female and her sexuality — and puts her out of mind and sight — is only to be expected. To be sure, it is a simple given that the religious male fanatic who flies into a violent rage even at the thought of an exposed woman’s ankle will also be, in some other dysfunctional and dark secret compartment of his fractured life, the person who leads some poor helpless young boy into his private chambers.

    The key issue here is that the demented sickness that underlies Rule No. 19 is by no means exclusive to the Taliban; it is a widespread phenomenon throughout Islamic-Arab culture and it lies, among other factors, at the root of that culture’s addiction to rage and its lust for violence, terror and suicide.

    There is a basic and common sense empirical human reality: wherever humans construct and perpetuate an environment in which females and their sexuality are demonized and are pushed into invisibility, homosexual behaviour among men and the sexual abuse of young boys by older men always increases. Islamic-Arab culture serves as a perfect example of this paradigm, seeing that gender apartheid, fear of female sexuality and a vicious misogyny are the structures on which the whole society functions.

    It is no surprise that John Racy, a psychiatrist with much experience in Arab societies, has noted that homosexuality is “extremely common” in many parts of the Arab world. [1] Indeed, even though homosexuality is officially despised in this culture and strictly prohibited and punishable by imprisonment, incarceration and/or death, having sex with boys or effeminate men is actually a social norm. Males serve as available substitutes for unavailable women. The key is this: the male who does the penetrating is not considered to be homosexual or emasculated any more than if he were to have sex with his wife, while the male who is penetrated is emasculated. The boy, however, is not considered to be emasculated since he is not yet considered to be a man. A man who has sex with boys is simply doing what many men (especially unmarried ones) do. [2] And this reality is connected to the fact that, as scholar Bruce Dunne has demonstrated, sex in Islamic-Arab societies is not about mutuality between partners, but about the adult male’s achievement of pleasure through violent domination. [3]

    While secrecy and taboo surround this phenomenon, some courageous Arabs have dared to discuss and expose it. Walid Shoebat, for instance, a former Palestinian terrorist, has openly related the abuse of young boys in Palestinian Muslim society. He himself witnessed a line of shepherd boys waiting for their turn to sodomize a five-year-old boy. [4] Amnesty International has also reported that Afghan warlords routinely sexually victimize young boys and film the orgies. [5] (The sexual abuse of young girls in this environment is also obviously widespread). [6]

    While she was in Afghanistan in 1961, author and scholar Phyllis Chesler saw homosexuals roaming the streets, holding hands in broad daylight and gazing into each other’s eyes. “One of the pair,” she writes, “might sport a flower behind his ear; another might be wearing lipstick or have rouged cheeks.” At the same time, Chesler observed that everyone, including her Arab husband, was in denial about this common social reality, refusing to admit that this widespread behaviour was, in fact, homosexuality. [7]

    In the dysfunctional and morbid paradigms of this culture, the idea of love is, obviously, completely absent from men’s understanding of sexuality. Like the essence of Arab masculinity, it is reduced to a form of prison sex: hurting others with violence. A gigantic rupture inevitably develops between men and women, where no harmony, affection or equality is allowed to exist. [8]

    The sexual confusion, humiliation, and repression that develop in the mindset of many males in this culture are excruciating. And it is no surprise that many of them find the only avenue for personal gratification in the act of sexually abusing young boys and, of course, in humiliating the foreign “enemy,” whose masculinity must be violated at all costs — just as theirs once was.

    Islamist terror, therefore, is, in part, very much a release of the terrorists’ bottled-up sexual rage in connection to sexual frustration and desperation — and to the humiliation connected to feelings of emasculation, which culminates in the act of striking out against “the enemy” and violating his masculinity. The inner workings of this mindset explain why Islamic terrorists consistently engage in sexual mutilation of their victims. Psychiatrist David Gutmann notes this phenomenon in the context of Arab Jew-hatred:

    The Israelis perform in this Arab psychodrama of gender as a potent, destabilizing threat: to begin with, as a people they broke out of the deprecated but tolerated status of Dhimmi – a kind of submissive “woman” – to the “masculine” status of pioneer, rebel, warrior and nation builder. In retaliation, in their wars and Intifadas the Arabs strive to castrate the uppity masculinizing Jew — and this project is carried out quite literally on the battlefield, where the bodies of fallen Jews have been mutilated in the most obscene ways. [9]

    This lust for violence against “the enemy” and the accompanying yearning to die in the process are fuelled by the morbid earthly existence that is engendered by militant Islam. Indeed, there exists very few reasons for males to value their time on earth; their freedom of action and ability to experience joy and pleasure are extremely limited in terms of what is allowed. To be sure, most young men have absolutely no experience in love, sex, affection or friendship with females, and they have no outlet for their libido, which, to further pathologize the mindset, they regard as evil temptation. Killing and dying, therefore, become the only areas where free will can be exercised.

    This lust for death is further compounded by the theological underpinnings of Islam itself, which promises the Muslim male sexual treats in the afterlife which are forbidden to him on earth. Indeed, if a Muslim male dies in the cause of jihad, he will enjoy a blissful union with virgins in paradise (Suras 78:31, 37:40-48, 44:51-55). And for those Muslim warriors for whom women are not of interest, there will be young pre-pubescent boys at their service — and they will be like “scattered pearls” of “perpetual freshness” (Suras 52:24, 56:17, 76:19).

    Thus, for the Taliban fighters who are frustrated with the new obstacles posed by Rule No. 19, there no doubt exists an even greater incentive to get to paradise a little faster.

    In essence, suicide through jihad represents a form of perverted liberty through which an individual can express himself. In so doing, the Islamic radical strikes out at what tempts him, avenges his own emasculation and, through the act of suicide, cleanses himself of his own temptation by ridding himself of his earthly existence.

    Theodore Dalrymple offers a profound analysis of this phenomenon in the context of the Muslim fundamentalist’s agonizing hate and self-hate inside a Western society. Analyzing the motivations of the Pakistani suicide bombers who struck in London in June 2005, he demonstrates that they saw no way out of their confrontation with freedom and modernity except death:

    What more convincing evidence of faith could there be than to die for its sake? How can a person be really attached or attracted to rap music and cricket and Mercedes cars if he is prepared to blow himself up as a means of destroying the society that produces them? Death will be the end of the illicit attachment that he cannot entirely eliminate from his heart. The two forms of jihad, the inner and the outer, the greater and the lesser, thus coalesce in one apocalyptic action. By means of suicide bombing, the bombers overcome moral impurities and religious doubts within themselves and, supposedly, strike an external blow for the propagation of the faith. [10]

    All of these inter-related phenomena serve as windows of understanding for us, through which we become able to grasp the demented and psychopathic psychology that creates the need for a rule such as the Taliban’s No. 19. It is a rule that exposes a fanatic mindset that holds the sight and reality of an unveiled woman to be a horrific nightmare and the greatest sin, yet simultaneously considers the forced rape of a young prepubescent boy to be in the normal swing of things.

    It is on this eerie and putrid plateau that we come to see the factors that spawn the yearning for death and suicide inside militant Islam. Circumscribed in the most vicious and sadistic of ways, the men imprisoned in these cages long to regain a masculinity and humanity that was violently robbed from them as children. In a setting where healing through contact with feminine affection is denied and considered evil, self-extinction through hurting the “enemy” — and the tempter — becomes the only way out.

  41. Link found to controversial polarizing woman who has been photographed wearing a headscarf!

    Apparently from AP, posted at
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/paterson-if-ground-zero-m_n_677356.html
    The State Department said Tuesday that the imam behind the center was being sent on a religious outreach trip to the Middle East, a plan that predated the controversy.
    The department is sponsoring Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s visit to Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, where he will discuss Muslim life in America and promote religious tolerance, department spokesman P.J. Crowley said.
    “We have a long-term relationship with him,” Crowley told reporters, noting that Rauf had visited Bahrain, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar in 2007 and went to Egypt last January as part of a State Department exchange program.
    Associated Press writer Matthew Daly in Washington contributed to this report.

  42. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this suggestion for Hillary, but I think it’s a good one that she would accept, as she would be breaking a glass ceiling and taking on a management role even bigger than that of State. Top generals and admirals have recognized that she understands the military better than any other Senator (when she on the Armed Service Committee) and there are a lot of reforms needed in the military, such as deciding on DADT and recovering control over the “military-industrial complex”, but also a new GI bill. And, as the author says, “the military love her.”

    **********

    Sec. Gates’s exit sparks talk of Hillary Clinton taking over at the Pentagon
    By Russell Berman – 08/17/10 06:00 AM ET

    Speculation in the nation’s capital on who will replace Robert Gates at the Pentagon has centered on an intriguing possibility: Hillary Clinton.

    Gates told Foreign Policy magazine that he wants to step down as secretary of Defense sometime in 2011. A Republican, Gates was the only member of President George W. Bush’s Cabinet to stay on under Obama.

    “It would be a mistake to wait until January 2012 [to leave],” Gates said. “This is not the kind of job you want to fill in the spring of an election year.”

    Clinton may seem an unlikely choice to head the Pentagon, but she has won praise for her performance at State and forged a strong relationship with Gates. Many supporters argue she has the most credibility with the military of any Democrat and would be a logical choice to take Gates’s place at the Pentagon.

    “The military loves her. They love her,” said Leslie Gelb, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Gelb floated the possibility of a Foggy Bottom-to-Pentagon move for Clinton in a Wall Street Journal op-ed earlier this year.

    The appointment of Clinton to replace Gates would be historic. The former first lady and presidential candidate would be the first woman to serve as Defense secretary and only the second person – after George C. Marshall – to have served as both secretary of State and Defense.

    “That might appeal to her,” Gelb said.

    Still, the Hillary-for-Defense speculation drew a familiar retort from some Washington veterans: It must be August, when the congressional recess makes for a slow news cycle. They viewed the suggestion as a slightly less far-fetched version of the other fantasy that has been making the summer gossip rounds: that Obama will swap Clinton for Vice President Joe Biden on the 2012 ticket and send Biden to run the State Department.

    “It’s a little hard for me to go along with that theory,” Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said of the possibility that Clinton would replace Gates. “I just don’t know why she would ever consider it.”

    O’Hanlon said the real news about Gates was not that he planned to leave the Defense Department, but rather how long he planned to remain. In the interview, Gates acknowledged that he initially did not want Obama to ask him to stay on as secretary of Defense.

    “No one has ever assumed that Gates would stay for a long time,” O’Hanlon said.

    O’Hanlon said the secretary’s remarks leave open the possibility that Gates will stay on for another 16 months.

    The Pentagon’s chief spokesman, Geoff Morrell, downplayed the interview in an e-mailed statement to reporters. “This is not Secretary Gates announcing his retirement,” he said. “This is the secretary musing about when it would make sense for him to finally bow out. He has long said he would not serve the whole term and now he has told Foreign Policy that he thinks it best to leave with enough time on the administration’s clock for his successor to be effective.”

    Among the other frequently-mentioned contenders to replace Gates is Richard Danzig, a former Navy secretary and Obama campaign adviser, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), and former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.). Nunn would likely be a controversial choice among Democrats, as he helped negotiate the controversial “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military that many in the party are working to eliminate.

    In an appearance Monday on MSNBC, William Cohen, a Republican who served as Defense secretary during President Bill Clinton’s second term, said Obama should reach across the aisle for “some balance of having a Republican sitting in that seat.” He floated the names of former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who joined many Democrats in opposing the Iraq surge, and John Hamre, a former deputy secretary of Defense who is president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and chairman of the Defense Policy Board.

    Choosing another Republican could rankle Democrats, however. If Gates serves through 2011, it would mark 15 years since a Democrat last ran the Pentagon.

    “It will appear that they don’t have a Democrat” who can head the Defense Department, Gelb said. “The Democrats worry about that.”

    As for Clinton, her selection would surely draw cheers from the legions of supporters who are looking for the next glass ceiling for her to break.

    “She’d be extraordinary in the position,” said Robert Zimmerman, a Democratic strategist and top fundraiser for Clinton in 2008. “She has shown an extraordinary capacity for growth [and] for creative thinking in every challenge she’s had in government.”

    The State Department declined to comment for this story.

    ***********

    Of course State would not comment. But this is very different than the promise of the VP sinecure. It leaves room to show further her “capacity for growth and creative thinking” and would actually put an end to the glass ceiling, as Hillary’s big challenge during 2007 was to convince everybody she could be Commander in Chief. At the time, her campaign strategy all revolved around that.

  43. For those of her “critics” who feel that Hillary has been sidelined in the administration or is not acting as a strategist but as a tactician, there are things like this:

    Hillary Clinton may have hit her Kissinger moment in Asia

    By Yuriko Koike

    (Yuriko Koike, a former Japanese defense minister and national security adviser, is a member of the opposition in Japan’s Diet.)
    Wednesday, August 18, 2010

    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 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 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.

  44. Here’s a good one with teeth in o’s ass for 2010 and a tongue-in-cheek reference to Hillary’s intentions for 2012:

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

    One-time adviser to President Clinton comes down on side of GOP’s Tipton

    Tuesday, August 17, 2010

    The way voters react to several Obama administration initiatives will make the difference in the 2010 elections, political analyst Dick Morris said Tuesday.

    Those reactions will work against Democrats seeking re-election, Morris said in a visit to Palisade, where he headlined a fundraiser for Scott Tipton, a Republican running for the 3rd Congressional District seat now held by Democrat John Salazar, who is seeking his fourth term.

    The district, which covers most of the Western Slope and much of southern Colorado, is one of several that Morris has targeted as part of his effort to force a change in the leadership of the House.

    The Senate, however, also is in play, Morris said.

    Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck has an advantage over incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat, because of Bennet’s support of those Obama initiatives, Morris said. Bennet’s votes “are going to sink him,” Morris said.

    The reason, Morris said, is voters already identify Democrats with terms such as “the failed stimulus package, cap and trade, Obamacare. This year, you don’t need adjectives” to describe incumbents, “you only need nouns.”

    A Republican takeover of Congress helped Morris advise President Clinton to triangulate and capture a second term by campaigning against the Republican Congress.

    President Obama, however, won’t have the advantage of being able to tack to the political center even if Republicans are implacable, Morris said.

    “Obama will not be able to emulate that,” he said.

    Part of that is because Obama has moved so far left that “what was the right has become the center,” Morris said.

    OBAMA ALSO WILL BE HOSTAGE TO THE SIDE OF THE PARTY HEADED BY HILLARY CLINTON.

    And Hillary Clinton, “with her strong sense of integrity and loyalty,” would never challenge a weakened Obama in the Democratic Party primary, Morris said WITH A SARCASTIC GUFFAW.

    After speaking in Palisade, Tipton and Morris were to attend a fundraiser in Aspen.

  45. Issa is issuing reports to a familiarize the public with the Obama administrations tactics. That is step two in investigating Obama with the public made aware that they use the government they control to propagandize and beat back opposition. Journolist controlled media exposure was step one in neutralizing attacks on anyone who dares bring up the good old days in Chicago, current rigged corruption trials in Illinois, and future “stuff”. The Republicans are doing a fairly gradual buildup to make it more difficult for the media and Democrats in general to refute each charge as evidence progressively becomes more serious, outrageous, and felonious. They are also going slowly to avoid the public having an information overload as well as to slowly bring outrage to a boil which Obama is doing all by himself. The Republicans already have a lot on him, but rather than dump it so the media can ignore it, they will drag people into hearings and make Democrats rat him out. The Democrats and media showed their hand with the tactics and cheating used against Hillary Clinton and apparently were too stupid to understand that Republicans were watching and developing ground plans to neutralize them. I am frequently amazed at how invested and stupid Democrats are concerning O. They will eventually realize they are going down with him or will have to cut him loose.

  46. eswezey
    August 18th, 2010 at 6:47 am
    This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this suggestion for Hillary, but I think it’s a good one that she would accept, as she would be breaking a glass ceiling and taking on a management role even bigger than that of State. Top generals and admirals have recognized that she understands the military better than any other Senator (when she on the Armed Service Committee) and there are a lot of reforms needed in the military, such as deciding on DADT and recovering control over the “military-industrial complex”, but also a new GI bill. And, as the author says, “the military love her.”
    ————————————
    Fine. But explain to me how this helps her become the nominee in 2012. I do not think breaking that glass ceiling is that important compared to the overall welfare of our country. And the only way she can help in that respect is to wrest the Presidency from the dangerously incompetent anti American Obama.

    Besides, being head of the Pentagon is a thankless job. One way or the other our military is going to be downsized and our forces will be brought home. We cannot afford to indulge the neocon dream of American Empire any further. This has nothing to do with the delusions of the left and everything to do with the fact that we are on our way to national bankruptcy. If we reduce military role then we can reduce our military cost and that will save half a trillion per year.

    Nobody who has thought this thing through seriously believes that China will go on financing our military adventures. They have their own imperial ambitions, which have been mentioned before. Therefore, there is no glory in being Secretary of Defense in an incompetent administration. This bullshit was started by Leslie Gelb for reasons which have also been discussed. Our future ability to project military strength will depend on our economic health and until the right policies are put in place by a future administration, we are on the road to bankruptcy.

  47. I think Obama should make Neopolitano Secretary of Defense since she has done such an outstanding job as Director of Homeland Security. The system worked not because it worked but because she said it worked. And the jurno listers could praise this as a brilliant and courageous decision by Obama, who is such a principled man that he refuses to discriminate against someone just because they are incompetent. Ben Smith could write a long article on that and it would not tax his pea brain too much since all he would have to do is put his pc on automatic pilot and let her rip. And to think there are competent journalists out there who are unemployed while this fool still has a job.

  48. The Senate, however, also is in play, Morris said.
    ————————————————-
    He is hedging now. A couple months ago he was rather sure of himself.

  49. wbboei – I don’t see either how Sec of Defense for one year or less would position her well for a 2012 presidential bid. But it has occurred to me that she may REALLY not have her sights on 2012 at all. I’ve said many times that, despite o’s plummeting popularity and the fact that he doesn’t like the job, his ego will not let him back out of the 2012 race and we all seem to agree that Hillary will not primary him. I’m still holding out for 2016.

    Head of Pentagon is a thankless job? I’d say anything under o’s “authority” is a thankless job. But compared with State, the Pentagon is a big step up: 10 times more budget, much more staff diversity, 30 times as many people to manage… and much less travel necessary than for the Secretary of State.

  50. AUDIO – Rep. Pelosi calls for investigation of WTC mosque opposition

    Kerry PicketPublished on August 17, 2010

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, called for an investigation of those who are protesting the building of the Ground Zero Mosque on Tuesday. She told San Francisco’s KCBS radio:

    AUDIO

    “There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said. “How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City.” (h/t Kristinn)

    Calls to investigate the funding for those proposing the $100 million “Cordoba House” have fallen on deaf ears, though, as New York’s Mayor Mike Bloomberg has described such an investigation as “un-American.”

    Ms. Pelosi called the Ground Zero mosque an “urban development decision” for New Yorkers to work through. Her remarks happened on the heels of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, parting ways with President Barack Obama on the issue. Mr. Reid suggested the mosque should be built somewhere else.

    More to come…

    follow me on twitter: @KerryPicket

  51. @jeswezey sounds more like a troll — you know like those liberal Dems who want to get along with Obots for Party’s sake, like those who say let us have a Dem two-term president even if it is Obama and he shows everyone everyday how incompetent he is.

    Hillary 2012! now and not 2016. Why do we want to settle for something less?

  52. wbboei – I don’t see either how Sec of Defense for one year or less would position her well for a 2012 presidential bid. But it has occurred to me that she may REALLY not have her sights on 2012 at all. I’ve said many times that, despite o’s plummeting popularity and the fact that he doesn’t like the job, his ego will not let him back out of the 2012 race and we all seem to agree that Hillary will not primary him. I’m still holding out for 2016.

    Head of Pentagon is a thankless job? I’d say anything under o’s “authority” is a thankless job. But compared with State, the Pentagon is a big step up: 10 times more budget, much more staff diversity, 30 times as many people to manage… and much less travel necessary than for the Secretary of State.
    ————————————————-
    Defense is a step up only in the sense that no woman has held that position before. In terms of being an actor on the world stage it is not as good as what she has now. I am reasonably certain that 2016 will never happen. It is a ploy used by the Obama people to take her out of the running in 2012 and that is all it is. Therefore, I believe whatever she decides to do must be geared to 2012. Of course you could be right and I could be wrong, but it is hard for me to see it any other way. I think everything we see today will be superceded by what happens–or does not happen in November, and by the financial day of reckoning we will be facing a year from now. The inability of this economy to produce jobs is not just the top priority, it is alpha omega to political stability or the lack thereof. Without jobs there will be ability to finance government, food shortages and rioting in the streets. That is why we cannot suffer the fool in the White House lightly much longer. Given these trends, I have lost my own ability to think long term with any degree of confidence.

  53. pm317
    “jeswezey sounds more like a troll — you know like those liberal Dems who want to get along with Obots for Party’s sake, like those who say let us have a Dem two-term president even if it is Obama and he shows everyone everyday how incompetent he is.”

    I’m not proning that at all. I don’t want o in the WH even now, no less for a second term. But the man has a huge ego and won’t step down of his own accord, no matter how bored he is with his job. And I’m not the only one here who thinks Hillary will not primary Obama in 2012. admin, for example, doesn’t think so either.

    “Hillary 2012! now and not 2016. Why do we want to settle for something less?”

    Fine. But it’s just wishful thinking until the window of opportunity opens. o is keeping it shut for himself.

  54. @jeswezey, I am an optimist and don’t like to give up even before we start the fight. And no, it is not wishful thinking. We the voters ought to be able to say a big NO to his run in 2012 with the way things are going and everything else will fall into place. Why should the Dem voters think his nomination is guaranteed? Why should we let him think his nomination is guaranteed?

  55. Frankly, I think a lot of things are falling in place. Certainly, the outing of the jurno listers is a major development, which provides a rational basis for discerning people to discount the validity of their assessments. That is an important setback for big media. The migration of the audience to FOX News is another. The fact that big media is boring and worshipful to the point that is begins to resemble the hollow pronouncements of Pravda is another important development. Bill’s recent trip to see Chris Ruddy. I could go on–and so could you. Little things perhaps, but when you put them all together a hopeful picture starts to emerge. Hopeful in the sense that it is always darkest before the dawn, and the party will turn away from this court jester to someone who is competent before it is too late. The only candidate who fits that bill is Hillary. I think a consensus is starting to gel. But again I could be wrong.

  56. Turndown,

    Here is my response to your post in the previous article.

    turndownobama
    August 17th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
    rickya,

    Any scripture can be cherry picked or reinterpreted by any adherant, regardless of what some verses in the scripture say.

    There you go again with your ignorance. Did you read my post? What I am saying is that the Quran need not be cherry picked to find violent passages. In fact, if you follow the Quran, you would disregard the very few and very ambiguous peaceful verses. It is obvious that you don’t know anything about Islam. Stop discussing and start studying. I understand the natural tendency to think the best of all religions but you need to look at it with searching for the truth as the primary objective – whatever you will find.

    What matters is not what you think the scriptures mean, but what actions the different sub-groups are actually preaching (and what weapons each group can get).

    Even so, the important thing is not what percentage is moderate and what percentage is fanatical, or even that a ‘moderate’ in Tehran would be considered ‘fanatical’ in Tulsa. The important thing is to encourage anyone who is even relatively moderate, so to speak. Not push them toward the fanatical end by equating them with the fanatics — a self-fulfilling fallacy.

    Or, you know, saying nasty things about a religion as a whole.

    I disagree completely that the best way to moderate Islam is to spare their feelings. The best way to moderate Islam is to shine the light of truth on their religion. As it is right now, criticism of Islam is stifled in the Islamic countries. Do you want to stifle criticism of Islam even in the US? Before you write that every opinion/belief should be respected, let me tell you that I don’t believe that. I believe that every opinion/belief should be made to stand to scrutiny. All other beliefs are subjected to the same standard, why should religious beliefs be exempt?

  57. wbboei, the most recent sign is this mosque thing. As admin wrote, Obama and his cronies tried to make it a high minded teaching lesson in tolerance and they are still doing it (as they did with the race thing). But the public is putting up a fight. There is no way he can recreate the fog he and his cronies did in 2008. All we need in the next six months is a winnable Republican candidate emerging and the Dems have to start thinking about alternatives. And this is not Kennedy-Carter at all because Hillary was deprived of her nomination against people’s preference once and as Obama slides the party would be foolish to stick it to them again.

  58. I’m not proning that at all. I don’t want o in the WH even now, no less for a second term. But the man has a huge ego and won’t step down of his own accord, no matter how bored he is with his job. And I’m not the only one here who thinks Hillary will not primary Obama in 2012. admin, for example, doesn’t think so either.
    ——————————————————————–
    Trust me. He may not want to step aside, but he will have to. The conditions in the country will preclude him from running again. He will be used up and reviled by the majority of Americans by late 2011. And the party elders will do to him what they did to LBJ in 1967. And because he is mentally unstable, and likely to unleash a race war if he is cut off the way LBJ was they will offer him a job in world government. But he is a one termer for sure. The only question is whether he will make it through this term or be impeached. Again, do not judge his prospects based on the current situation. You must project current trends and a collapsing economy into the future to realize how tenuous his political future really is. I have been talking to many people in finance and elsewhere and nobody sees much daylight ahead. I am very sorry to say that, because nobody including the elites will escape unscathed.

  59. rickya, the best way to deal with Islam in a pluralistic society is to tell them that they can’t have everything they want in the name of religious tolerance. They will get some concessions and protection for minority rights (like every other minority) but only in the context of the greater societal obligations.

    Recently the supreme court of India decided a case where the Muslim woman would not take off her veil for the photo id for voting privileges. The court ruled if her religious beliefs trumps all others, then she just has to forgo her voting rights. India does make some accommodations for Sharia Law but only that which makes sense in the larger context of the rule of law.

  60. wbboei

    I think that key to this is the candidate the Reps come up with, and it can not be the same old tired ones. If they pull someone new and energetic, male or female, female even better, O’s supporters will have to make a hard decision, to win or to support the incumbent, when incumbent has almost become a dirty word.

  61. The best example of this I can think of comes from old New York. During the roaring twenties the city had a flamboyant high living mayor by the name of Jimmy Walker who was a product of the old Tammany Hall Machine. In many respects he was like Obama. He was corrupt but people looked the other way. Then came the financial crash of October 1929 and he lost public support. When the wolf was at the door no one wanted good time charley any longer. He was passe. They turned instead to Fioloreta La Guardia (the little flower) who was stable, experienced and someone who gave them a sense of confidence in the future. That is another model which favors Hillary, with this caveat however. La Guardia was a Republican. Hillary is different in the sense that if things get bad enough, party label is no deterrent so long as she keeps a respectable distance from Obama and does not allow herself to get enmeshed in his controversies, like the victory mosque.

  62. Not many paid attention to my comment on a previous thread. I think Hillary-Gates is a good alternative for 2012. Don’t know if Gates is up to it. But the optics will be good.

  63. This is old news to all here, but I enjoy considering the magnitude of the rift as stated by Rasmussen at his tracking poll site.

    In a book released earlier this year, Scott Rasmussen observes that, “The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century.” In Search of Self-Governance is available at Rasmussen Reports and Amazon.com.
    h t t p://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

  64. pm317

    I noticed your comments, but I had to think about it. As I remember Gates was appointed under Bush. It might provide a very good cross over path to the Reps with that team. We have to start working together. I would expect HRC to have a independents and Reps in her Cabinet. I think this country wants to work together, and quit all of this my way or the highway stuff from both parties. We need to find the best compromises, or this country will fail.

  65. pm317
    August 18th, 2010 at 10:41 am
    Not many paid attention to my comment on a previous thread. I think Hillary-Gates is a good alternative for 2012. Don’t know if Gates is up to it. But the optics will be good.
    ————–
    Great idea.

  66. Also, it will be great for America to elect a woman at this time in history considering how troubled (and troublesome) are Muslim countries in the world. They thought electing a Muslim 😉 president (with an exotic name no less) would solve the problem but electing a capable woman into that high office will work better.

  67. I need to clarify something I said above. I said that any attempt to get Obama to step down must be handled deftly and he must be given a position befitting his stature as opposed to summarily dismissed the way LBJ was. To do otherwise could provoke a race war. Or, he could stay on the sidelines and promote racism the way ex Governor Doug Wilder does. The reason I believe this is true is because of the way Obama has stacked the deck. He and his media allies have correlated any and all opposition to Obama as racism. Thus, to many people in his coalition, any attempt to force Obama to step down would be quickly perceived as a racist act. Most of these people are too caught up in identification with Obama to understand what he is doing to the country. And is there any doubt that a man who would hold border security hostage to his own political ambitions and has shown a propensity to use the race card as a sword as well as a shield would hesitate to use it if he was shown the door? I think it goes without saying. Finally, he fits the psychological profile of a socio path to a tee. Consequently, I think the risk described is real and palpable. If I were a party elder who planned on speaking to him about the unwisdom of running again, this is definitely a concern to be mindful of.

  68. wbboei

    I think that key to this is the candidate the Reps come up with, and it can not be the same old tired ones. If they pull someone new and energetic, male or female, female even better, O’s supporters will have to make a hard decision, to win or to support the incumbent, when incumbent has almost become a dirty word.
    ———————————————————————
    I agree with the first part. They need to come up with some new names, and I can think of several. Governors for example, but not Jeb Bush whose family name is toxic to the American People. As far as Obama’s supporters without him they would go for Howard Dean. At one point I believed an alliance with those on the far left might make sense to save the country. I no longer believe they are interested in saving the country. In my opinion they are a lost cause.

  69. I understand that there are stretches of beach front property in southern California which were once in the public domain. The public used them for swimming, sun bathing and other recreational activities. Then Hollywood moguls and real estate barons bough up these beaches and closed them off to public use. These elites are at home maybe 30 days per year, but the beaches are closed to the public 360 days per year. Given the state of the law at the time, and perhaps how as well, those elites had the right to buy the property and they had the money. But given the public sentiments and activities surrounding them you have to wonder if it was the right thing to do. Obama would support it, and would cite the Constitution and local ordinances. If they were Muslim he would say the public must learn to be more tolerant and treat this as a teachable moment. But he would be wrong there as he is here. The public sentiment must be considered in such matters, rather than condescended to.

  70. President
    Poll: Obama Hits New Low on Handling of Economy

    President Obama talks about his position on the mosque at Ground Zero at the U.S. Coast Guard Panama City District Office in Panama City, Fla., Aug. 14. (AP Photo)
    WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama earned his lowest marks ever on his handling of the economy in a new Associated Press-GfK poll, which also found that an overwhelming majority of Americans now describe the nation’s financial outlook as poor.

    A frustrated electorate could take it out on the party in power — Obama’s Democrats — in the November elections.

    Eleven weeks before the Nov. 2 balloting, just 41 percent of those surveyed approve of the president’s performance on the economy, down from 44 percent in April, while 56 percent disapprove. And 61 percent say the economy has gotten worse or stayed the same on Obama’s watch.

    Still, three-quarters also say it’s unrealistic to expect noticeable economic improvements in the first 18 months of the president’s term. And Obama’s overall approval rating was unaffected; it remained at 49 percent, in part because most Americans still like him personally.

    Americans’ dim view of the economy grew even more pessimistic this summer as the nation’s unemployment rate stubbornly hovered near 10 percent. That’s been a drag on both Obama and Democrats, who control Congress.

    YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
    INTERESTED IN
    Ten Worst Places to Live5 Common Mistakes That Can Cripple Your Credit ScoreOuch!10 Biggest Brand Nightmares of 2010Why Older Americans Walk Away From MortgagesBest and Worst College Degrees for 2010 Grads”The economy is on life support,” says Scott Bradley, 38, general manager of a carpet store in Columbia, Mo. Bradley says he voted for Obama in 2008 but he wouldn’t again. He blames Congress for the unemployment woes but says, “Obama’s policies are making the economy worse.”

    Even staunch Obama backers like college student Julius Taylor of Flint, Mich., struggle to stay optimistic about the economy, particularly when they see the recession’s toll in their backyard. “I’d like to say it’s improving, but there are a lot of indicators it’s not,” says Taylor, 25.

    Viewpoints like those have Democrats on edge as they try to hang onto comfortable majorities in the House and Senate in a political environment made ever more challenging by economic woes.

    Republicans are trying to convince Americans that the GOP can create the jobs that Obama hasn’t delivered. Obama and his Democrats are pleading for the frustrated public to give them more time to prove that their economic fixes will work.

    “The truth is, it’s going to take a few years to fully dig ourselves out of this recession. It’s going to take time to bring back 8 million jobs,” the president said Tuesday while campaigning for Democratic candidates in Seattle. “Anybody who tells you otherwise is just looking for your vote.”

    Democrats are keenly aware that they face strong headwinds; 60 percent of people say the country’s headed in the wrong direction. And it’s hard to overstate the importance of the economy to voters; 91 percent of Americans say it’s a top problem, with unemployment close behind.

    A whopping 81 percent of people now call the economy poor or very poor, up from 72 percent in June, and just 12 percent say it has improved in the past month, compared with 19 percent in June. Both are record measurements since AP-GfK started asking those questions.

    “Everyone is scared — everyone,” says Gerda Chapman, 63, a retired schoolteacher in Harrison, Idaho, who backed Obama and isn’t ready to ditch him. “The man has not had a long enough time and he’s doing a good job.” She, like him, urges patience: “We’re not out of the recession and we’ve got a ways to go. It’s going to take time, but it is on an upward trend.”

    Stacey Pederson, 36, a massage therapist and independent voter in Asheville, N.C., agrees that it’s improving. But, she says, more progress would be made “if we would have cooperation within the two parties. It’s getting to be really difficult watching them fight.”

    Neither party is faultless, adds Jeff Vick, 49, a self-employed consultant from Fort Worth, Texas.

    “Republicans have just been incredibly greedy,” he says, and Democrats are instituting “un-American” policies that inhibit citizens’ abilities to earn a living.

    People have little trust in Democrats or Republicans on handling the economy; less than half trust either. But voters older than 64 and whites lean heavily toward the GOP.

    While Congress’ overall performance rating is at a miserable 24 percent, Democrats in Congress are slightly more popular than Republicans; 37 percent approve of Democrats while 30 percent approve of Republicans in Congress.

    But in a shift from earlier this summer, when Democrats had an advantage, Republicans now are about even with Democrats on the question of which party should win control of Congress. Among registered voters, 49 percent say they would vote for the Republican candidate in their congressional district — half say to express their opposition to Obama — while 45 percent say they’d cast their ballot for the Democrat.

    Obama is suffering in other areas, too.

    Just 34 percent now call him an above average or outstanding president, down from 42 percent in January. And 28 percent call him average, while 38 percent say he’s even worse. Marks on how people view him personally have fallen: 89 percent liked him personally in January, but now 82 percent do.

    Also, more people disapprove of his performance on the following issues than approve: the federal budget deficit, unemployment, health care, taxes and immigration. Conversely, he’s viewed more favorably than not on his handling of terrorism, the environment, relationships with other countries and education. About equal percentages of people view him positively and negatively on Iraq, Afghanistan, energy and gas prices.

    The AP-GfK Poll was conducted Aug. 11-16 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. It involved landline and cell phone interviews with 1,007 adults nationwide and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

  71. QUESTION?

    if Blago is retried, does he have the same judge or will a new judge be in the second trial? also, if so, will that effect who he can call as witnesses that might have been denied in the first trial, ie, O…and what about more of the tapes being heard instead of the selected tapes the prosecutor provided…

    …it surely seemed like the judge and prosecutor did everything they could to box Blago in and only allow info that worked against Blago while withholding the full picture…

  72. wbboei
    August 18th, 2010 at 11:49 am
    —————

    You have got to be kidding me! They are more concerned about who is funding the opposition? Why aren’t they more concerned, in fact, very concerned, over who is really funding the building of the mosque itself?

    This is just plain stupid.

  73. moononpluto
    August 17th, 2010 at 9:58 am
    Democrats: We were blindsided by President Obama’s Ground Zero mosque comments

    WASHINGTON – Democrats complain they were blindsided when President Obama weighed in on the Ground Zero mosque and handed the GOP a new club to beat them with.
    &&&&&&&&

    I thought Biden was the one that frequently “goes off the reservation”, and that Obama was the quintessential Man In Control.

    Oh well, so much for THAT illusion.

  74. anyone notice what a dictator Pelosi is…when the tea party first appeared…she labeled all those americans astro turf and nazi like…

    …now with opposition to the mosque, she wants to investigate…

    what happened to that great liberal principle of free speech…the concept of ‘agreeing to disagree’ and the liberty of free press and debate in our american society???

    the dim party has shown that they do not care about anything but what they want…they will force thru major, flawed mandatory health scam regardless if people in their own party and the opposition party is against it…

    they pass thousands of pages of health ‘reform’ and financial regulation that no ones has read and have no idea of the coming ramifications…

    pelosi and gang…’tough luck! ‘we’ want what ‘we’ want when ‘we’ want it’ …and btw…if you do not agree with us…you are a racist as well as nazi astroturf…

    …the dims have begun to resemble a totalitarian approach to governing…

  75. confloyd

    I have to admit watching Hannity with some guy he was interviewing said “I went to a seminar with the communist Chinese and they lectured us on fiscal responsibility and they are right”, it did not make me feel better about Shawn Hannity’s republicans.
    When they start quoting the Chinese’s corportism, I get a little quisey inside. The right can go to fascism very easily. Now we have these corporations picking our President, like they have done for the past two.
    WE, Americans have very short memories….

    I AM NOT ADVOCATING DRINKING THE KOOLaid EITHER! We must be very careful!

    ———
    Yup, just like we can’t trust a word out of Barry’s mouth, we can’t trust the Rethugs either.

    We can only use the Rethugs as a tool to diminish the runaway Obamatrain, and knock Nasty and Reid off their perch.

    We can’t give the Rethugs so much power they rule the roost either, balance of power is the best we can hope for until Barry is sent packing.

  76. nomobama
    August 18th, 2010 at 3:18 am

    I wanted to post this yesterday afternoon, but I ran out of time. It’s about the Taliban and their lust for young boys.

    ———–
    I could only read half of the post, it made me sick to my stomach and causes me to go into a rage!!!

    These are sick bastards, sick, sick, sick. They abuse women, girls, boys and anything they can screw, stone or kill.

  77. Here’s a link about George Soros from back in 2009. I did not realize that his vision is very similar to the Dimocrat part vision. It’s not that I haven’t heard that before, but here is an article with different links that explains it better. I make no judgments on its accuracy, but needless to say, he is an evil man.

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14700

  78. I fully believe, and it is OMHO, that the 2012 election will be determined by either: another and a worse economic collapse, an unforeseen catastrophe possibly even man made, or violent civil unrest. One or any combination of these will happen before the election process. And then there is the probability of another stolen and/or rigged election by the Dimocrats.

  79. Obama is suffering in other areas, too.

    Just 34 percent now call him an above average or outstanding president, down from 42 percent in January. And 28 percent call him average, while 38 percent say he’s even worse. Marks on how people view him personally have fallen: 89 percent liked him personally in January, but now 82 percent do.

    Personally, I can’t pretend to like someone who like to tell people to bend over and just take it.

  80. That is: Personally, I can’t pretend to like someone that likes to tell people to bend over and just take it.

  81. If I remember correctly, someone her, possibly wbboei, made a comment about Peggy Noonan recently. It was made in a positive light. Yet yesterday, I was looking at some used books, and Peggy had written one about Hillary entitled “The Case Against Hillary Clinton”. I didn’t have much time to read anything in it, but obviously with a title like that, it was not flattering to Hillary. Has anyone read this book here? It was published around the year 2000.

  82. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_ground_zero_mosque_poll

    MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press Writer Michael Gormley, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 28 mins ago
    ALBANY, N.Y. – A majority of New Yorkers remain opposed to a mosque proposed as part of a planned Islamic cultural center near ground zero, and the issue will be a factor for many voters this fall, according to a statewide poll released Wednesday.

    The Siena College poll showed 63 percent of New York voters surveyed oppose the project, with 27 percent supporting it. That compares with 64 percent opposed and 28 percent in favor two weeks earlier, results that are within the polls’ sampling margins.

    Democrats nationwide, including President Barack Obama, have defended the proposal as protected by the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom. Many Republicans have called it an affront to the memory of those killed in the Sept. 11 attacks.

    A CNN/Opinion Research poll released last week found that nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed the mosque plan, while 29 percent approved.

    In a new question, the latest poll found that many New Yorkers believe the project is protected by the Constitution, even if they oppose the plan.

    Nearly two-thirds of voters, 64 percent, say the developers have a constitutional right to build the mosque. Twenty-eight percent say they do not.

    Among those who oppose building the mosque, about half agree that developers have the constitutional right to build it. Twenty-eight percent of mosque opponents say they do not have that right.

    Nearly a quarter of voters questioned said the issue will have a major effect on which candidate for governor they support. Thirty-seven percent say it will have some effect, while about 40 percent of voters say it won’t matter.

    The poll showed Republican Carl Paladino, who has taken the hardest line against the project among the candidates, is continuing to gain on Rick Lazio heading into the GOP primary and also gaining on Democrat Andrew Cuomo. Still, Cuomo continues to have twice the support of either Lazio or Paladino.

    Of those who see the issue as a major factor in their vote, almost all — 92 percent — oppose building the mosque near ground zero. Cuomo has only a narrow lead over Lazio among those voters.

    Cuomo has defended the project, saying it is protected by the Constitution. Lazio wants an investigation into who will fund the $100 million project. Paladino said it is akin to a Japanese war memorial at Pearl Harbor, the site of the 1941 attack that brought the United States into World War II.

    As the Sept. 14 Republican primary draws near, Lazio’s lead over Paladino, who has tea party activists among his supporters, is shrinking among Republicans. The lead is down to 13 points at 43 percent versus Paladino’s 30 percent, with 27 percent undecided. That compares with Lazio’s 20-point lead over Paladino in July, although the margin of error is greater when only Republicans were questioned, reflecting the smaller sample.

    The Siena telephone poll questioned 788 registered voters Aug. 9 through Monday. It has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

  83. Haven’t read all the comments, but is this news here? I got it from Fox News dot com:

    Greek Orthodox leaders trying to rebuild the only church destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks expressed shock this week after learning, via Fox News, that government officials had killed a deal to relocate the church.

    The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, once a tiny, four-story building in the shadows of lower Manhattan, was destroyed in 2001 by one of the falling World Trade Center towers. Nobody from the church was hurt in the attack, but the congregation has, for the past eight years, been trying to rebuild its house of worship.

  84. ShortTermer
    August 18th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
    …And then there is the probability of another stolen and/or rigged election by the Dimocrats.

    Republicans and Democrats are different fingers on the same hand.

    We thought the same thing when the Republicans stole or rigged the elections. We need to learn and never forget that it is not the republicans or democrats who steal and rig elections – it is the unknown people who laugh up there sleeve every time we fall for one of their shinny distractions and throw away our vote.

  85. I’ve read different snippets here and there that the congregation of the St. Nicholas church was running into all kinds of obstacles in its quest to rebuild their church. You see, its all about fast tracking a Muslim mosque, but killing a Christian church. That’s not a lie. Where are all the people pontificating about this injustice being done to the St. Nicholas church?

  86. #
    S
    August 18th, 2010 at 11:54 am

    QUESTION?

    if Blago is retried, does he have the same judge or will a new judge be in the second trial? also, if so, will that effect who he can call as witnesses that might have been denied in the first trial, ie, O…and what about more of the tapes being heard instead of the selected tapes the prosecutor provided…

    …it surely seemed like the judge and prosecutor did everything they could to box Blago in and only allow info that worked against Blago while withholding the full picture…
    ——–

    I don’t have the answer to your questions, but I do agree with you that Blago was restricted from putting on much of a defense in the first place.

    I guess the way it works, that Blago can only call on a witness that the prosecution has put on in the first place? IE: if Rezko, Barry or Rahm are not witnesses to the prosecution, then Blago can’t call on them at all????

  87. I’m 100 percent sure Hillary isn’t running in 2012. Unless Obama doesn’t run again.

    She would never do that to the Dem Party, even though its elites have treated her like crap. Plus, I seriously doubt she’d win if she did. Obama would still get 90 percent of the African American vote, making it awfully hard for her to overcome that disadvantage going in. Remember, Kennedy couldn’t even beat Carter in 2000. It’s really, really hard to defeat a presidential incumbent in a primary.

  88. Rupert Murdoch donates $1 million to Republican party

    By Lynn Herrmann

    Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch has donated $1 million to the Republican cause, making his donation to the party one of the largest by any group or individual.

    Rupert Murdoch, after publicly praising Barack Obama during the 2008 run for the White House, donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association (RGA) in June, according to information provided to the Internal Revenue Service.

    cont… http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/296219

  89. Paula
    August 18th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
    ————–

    I tend to agree with you. Wishful thinking aside, I don’t think she would go up against him.

  90. In haste. Must leave now.

    Re St Nicholas church, do you have details on what ‘obstacles’ they are facing? My impression was that the congregation/donors couldn’nt agree.
    Are they are wanting help, like money or land, from the government?

    The Cordoba people don’t have that ‘obstacle’ because they aren’t ASKING for help from the government.

    Also there may be some special ‘obstacles’ in building St Nicolas because it really is in an area officially designated ‘ground zero.’ The Cordoba so-called ‘ground zero’ so-called ‘mosque’ doesn’t have that obstacle because it is NOT in ground zero, it’s two blocks away.

    As for investigating funding, sauce for the goose. If you’re going to investigate Cordoba, investigate Gingrich et al also.

    Except that the Cordoba people don’t HAVE any funding TO investigate. All they have is a white elephant building they’re losing money on.

    Have fun beating that dead white elephant. 😉

  91. turndownobama,

    You little swirling dervish, you. Round and round and round! It’s making you dizzy! 😉

    The problems with the rebuilding of the St. Nicholas Church are bureaucratic. The government and the church can’t seem to come to an agreement, and since the church blames it on the government, let’s see… I think I’ll believe the church.

    Additionally, don’t you think that the church was insured for its losses? What makes you believe that they are for anything but cooperation from the government? If anything, the government is instructing them on what they can or cannot do in that area. The Fox news account said that the government has now indicated that they are done with any talks with the church, while the church indicated that they were waiting for a response from government lawyers that never came. Again, call me biased or cynical, but I’ll believe the church on that one, as a church is more likely to be operating under the notion of “good faith”. The church also indicated that the site in which their church used to stand is not good. They did not elaborate on that, but I have to wonder if there is something at that particular site caused by the collapse of the WTC that has made the site unsuitable for building.

  92. There are so many variables that is hard to say what will happen. The only thing I am sure of is that she will not run in 2016. I would bet my life on it.

  93. nomobama
    August 18th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
    Here’s a link about George Soros from back in 2009. I did not realize that his vision is very similar to the Dimocrat part vision.
    ——————
    Nomobama: you are kidding. Right?

  94. wbboei,

    Not really. I have seen comments about Soros being behind some of the Dimocrats, but I did not know to what extent. It was the extent of his involvement to was I was referring more than anything. It’s like he IS the Dimocrat party.

  95. This is how the globalists view the current situation. NB North American executives are least positive about the current and future economic situation. Now that is a referendum on Obama.
    ——————————————————–

    Economic Conditions Snapshot, August 2010: McKinsey Global Survey results

    Most executives think reform of the US financial-services industry was a necessary step toward stability. Meanwhile, their views on the economy as a whole haven’t changed much since June, though optimism has slipped in the United States and risen in Europe.

    A solid majority of executives from around the world who responded to a new McKinsey survey say the recent reform of the US financial-services industry was a necessary step toward economic stability.1 There is, however, strong disagreement about the bill’s effect on the competitiveness of financial-services companies.

    This perceived step toward stability comes during a summer of regulatory uncertainty, significant regulatory or policy changes in some major economies, and stock market volatility. Through all the uncertainty, executives’ expectations for national economies and corporate prospects at the global level have remained about the same as they were in June: more positive than negative, though less hopeful now than last spring. The most notable difference is that North American executives are now the least positive about current and future conditions

  96. I just realized I wrote “swirling dervish”, when I should have typed “whirling dervish”. Same difference I guess.

  97. Paula
    August 18th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
    I’m 100 percent sure Hillary isn’t running in 2012. Unless Obama doesn’t run again.

    She would never do that to the Dem Party, even though its elites have treated her like crap. Plus, I seriously doubt she’d win if she did. Obama would still get 90 percent of the African American vote, making it awfully hard for her to overcome that disadvantage going in. Remember, Kennedy couldn’t even beat Carter in 2000. It’s really, really hard to defeat a presidential incumbent in a primary.
    ============================================

    Agree with you completely.

  98. wbboei,

    Not really. I have seen comments about Soros being behind some of the Dimocrats, but I did not know to what extent. It was the extent of his involvement to was I was referring more than anything. It’s like he IS the Dimocrat party.
    ————————————————–
    If you want the full story with the bark off a few of us on this blog wrote a 50 page report on this subject. It is still posted at Pumas Unleashed. The conclusion is that Soros is Obama’s godfather–his Don Vito Coreleone so to speak. One of the key players in the party Don Iverson commented a couple years ago that Soros controls the party. Most people think of him as a charitable donor, but he is really a megalomaniac. In discussing this subject with Wall Street people–brokers, bankers and fund managers who know the game, they concur. How he did this and what it means to the country is what this paper attempted to illuminate. A lot of the source material came from sources in Europe, and around the world.

  99. Thanks wbboei. I’ll save it as a favorite and read it as I can. I have never visited the Pumas Unleashed site before. How do I find the article there?

  100. Well okay. Matthews says that if Obama falls from grace then the Republican Party will win. And by 2016 there will be younger leaders whom the country will turn to. And our great opportunity will be lost. Which is what Obama and his big media allies really want. I know the way this thing works. The age discrimination which is rampant in the workplace today is rampant in politics as well. Someone–it may have been Noonan was commenting on this the other day not about Hillary but just in general. A generation ago, we looked to elder statesmen who had experience to lead our nations. Thatcher and some of her male counterparts were typical of the breed. They were master politicians and old war horses. Today, it is the polar opposite. We look to young attractive leaders who can be packaged to look sleek and hip. They are front men but they are marketable. Obama id typical of the breed. A friend of ours from USC Professor Katherine Kelly Reardon has commented on this phenomenon and concluded that the era of great leaders in business is gone. What we have any more is promoters, and they are supported by experts. Arguably, that is what you have in Obama and his predecessor. Believe me age is a huge deterrent in todays world, and an even bigger one by 2016.

  101. This is mostly music to our ears…(some is lame ass Rethug bs)

    ————

    Daily Caller:

    The return of President Hillary Clinton

    I’ve always been convinced that Hillary Clinton would find her way back to the Oval Office one way or another.

    Therefore, the recently reignited chatter about her being considered as President Obama’s 2012 running mate is the most exciting news I’ve heard since…well, since the news broke that Levi Johnston is running for Mayor of Wasilla.

    BUT, hold on just a minute, because it gets way better: Even more titillating than these two juicy nuggets is the less-reported Washington insider buzz that Hillary is actually…drum roll, please…plotting to run against President Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2012.

    WOWSA!

    Did someone say, “DRAAAAMA!” (Now you’re speakin’ my language.)

    My, my, my, which delicious Hillary rumor to devour first? Dare I be so gluttonous?

    Let’s dig in: A 2012 hostile Veep takeover would be historic for sure, and even makes sense (though I bet Joe B. would disagree). However, the general consensus seems to be: Why in the world would Hillary want to play second fiddle to anyone?

    On the other hand, it would elevate Hillary to savior status as she single-handedly injects Obama’s plunging popularity with much needed adrenaline, and it would allow her to collect another highly coveted title (She’s quite the collector, you know). Most importantly, the Office of the Vice President would naturally position her for a 2016 run.

    Then again, that would mean Hillary would have to waste another four years before she could finally have a shot at claiming the real prize. [snip]
    ENTER the whisperings of a sizzling rematch:

    Talk about a sensational game-changing sequel to 2008 (John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, I hope you’re taking notes here). I’m salivating just thinking about it!

    I recently met with my very own Deep Throat who’s perched high up on the Beltway power grid. I was told that Capital insiders are all atwitter with what they consider a Clintonian conspiracy of epic magnitude – the final act to end all and to cap off everything the Clintons. [snip}.

    In what is the most underreported, hottest rumor EVER, it’s believed that Bill and Hillary Clinton have spent the last few years setting her up to launch a challenge to Obama in 2012 (As in, SURPRISE, she never actually stopped running for president). When you really think about it, they’ve been doing it in plain sight right under our noses.

    Consider how she graciously conceded to Obama after what was anything but a tiptoe-through-the-tulips race for the nomination, and then publicly supported him with unbridled enthusiasm and smiles (What a good sport she is! No sore loser here! WINK-WINK).

    Next, Hillary surprisingly accepted the position of Secretary of State
    , essentially getting in bed with the enemy (Translation: All to gain unprecedented access to the new administration and the world – literally). She then spent the last two years crisscrossing the globe as our top diplomat, gaining critical acclaim and even more followers from abroad and at home – all on Obama’s dime.

    And, lest we forget, those 18 million cracks are still in the glass ceiling right above her head waiting for one more teeny-tiny little nudge (while the president’s groundbreaking cracks have long since been shattered and swept away).

    Meanwhile, Clinton 42 certainly doesn’t like losing, so no doubt he views the 2008 defeat of his wife (aka, the would-be Clinton
    45) as all the more reason to covertly forge ahead to grasp victory, and to seek the ultimate revenge on the campaign trail.

    Aaaaand, was it mere coincidence that the Clintons recently hosted THE Wedding of the Year, making the world collectively go “Ahhhhhh”? Cue the wedding photo, showing them ensconced in that rarified Kennedy-esque glow. That pic was worth every penny of the multi-million dollar
    price tag (which should be reimbursable or at least written off as a campaign expense, or would that be a little too obvious?).

    Back to all this recent 2012 Veep talk. What of it then? Isn’t the buzzing that Hillary may be/is challenging Obama much bigger news?

    My chatty Deep Throat has a spicy insider’s take on this as well: Perhaps the Veep thing is actually a smoke screen being floated by a nervous Obama administration to maintain control and lessen the impact of any stories about her challenging him for the top spot. After all, something like that could go viral fast, at which point all control will be lost amidst a new tidal wave of Clinton-mania.

    OK, Obama White House, I can take a hint, so listen up:

    First Bit of Advice: Never-never-EVER underestimate the Clintons (You should know this all too well by now, but it never hurts to be reminded). They’re made of 100% pure grade Teflon and they’ll bite you when you least expect it if you’re not careful.

    Second Bit of Advice: Never-never-EVER forget that Hillary wasn’t called “The Lady MacBeth of Little Rock” for nothing! (Somewhere Shakespeare is nodding with approval.)

    The looming question then: If this Veep switch-a-roo talk is a diversionary tactic (or, better yet, if it isn’t), exactly who will the joke really be on (because someone here is going to find themselves on the butt end of this one very soon)?

    If you’re like me and gobble this poli-drama stuff right up, here’s some parting food for thought on this brewing intrigue:

    It’s a win-win-win for Hillary. In this electrifying cliffhanger, she’ll end up as either Vice President
    or President (or both), or simply remain the most famous woman in the world.

    Joe Biden? You can bet your (BLEEP!) that if this mother-(BLEEP)-ing! swap goes down, he’ll be (BLEEP)-ing! paid-off (BLEEP)-ing! BIG-TIME.

    Finally, as for President Obama, if he doesn’t continue to keep one eye on the Clintons while turning around his poll numbers, he might just end up becoming so two thousand and late.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/18/the-return-of-president-hillary-clinton/2/#ixzz0wzIfV7MX

  102. RATS FLEE OBAMA’S LISTING SHIP

    Oh, the excuses:
    “…to spend more time with my family”
    “This fantastic job opportunity came up”
    “Whew, I’m beat…”

    nytimes.com/2010/08/12/us/politics/12memo.html

    The First Wave of Weary Aides Heads for the Exits
    ========================

    By PETER BAKER
    Published: August 11, 2010

    WASHINGTON — Linda Douglass slept nearly 12 hours the day after she left her job as a communications aide at the White House. And the day after that and the day after that. It took two weeks until she finally felt rested.

    “I got to the point where I was almost traumatized by how hard I was working and how much stress I was feeling all the time,” Ms. Douglass recalled.

    When she resigned, she said: “I felt like a real burden was lifted from my shoulders. I was really surprised how exhausted I was when I left.”

    Eighteen months into President Obama’s term, some of the first-generation team that arrived with him at the White House are moving on. One by one, usually with little fanfare, they have turned in White House badges and BlackBerrys to rejoin the outside world, some eagerly seeking the exit, others unhappily shown the door.

    Even in calmer times, the White House is a pressure cooker that can quickly burn out the most idealistic aides, but it may be even more so in an administration that inherited an economic collapse and two wars — and then decided to overhaul the nation’s health care system for good measure. Add to that the nonstop, partisan intensity of the e-mail-Internet-cable era, and it takes a toll.

    In the last two weeks, Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director, clocked his final day; Christina Romer, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, announced plans to return to California; and Camille Johnston, the first lady’s communications director, accepted a high-level corporate job. They follow nearly a dozen others who have left since the inauguration.

    “There should be more joy in government service, but it’s really hard work,” said Gregory B. Craig, who left as White House counsel after the first year. “No matter what the job, each administration is different from the last administration, so everybody is learning the job from the beginning and there’s enormous pressure to get it right.”

    The departures are likely to accelerate after the midterm elections, a traditional time for turnover in any White House. Many in the West Wing wonder whether Rahm Emanuel, the high-octane chief of staff, will stay after the vote. He has said he wants to run for mayor of Chicago when Richard M. Daley steps down, and the two met privately in Chicago last week, but the mayor sounds as if he is running for re-election.

    Colleagues also wonder about David Axelrod, the president’s senior adviser, who left his family in Chicago and regularly expresses distaste for Washington. But Mr. Axelrod just renewed his lease on a Washington apartment for another year, so he appears set until mid-2011, when he could leave to map out the re-election campaign.

    “It’s amazing and heartening given the marathon this team has sprinted over the last 18 months that turnover is as light as it is,” said Stephanie Cutter, who left the White House to help her old boss, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, before his death, and then recently returned.

    Some who left took other prestigious administration jobs. Don Gips, the presidential personnel director, became ambassador to South Africa. Norm Eisen, the White House ethics czar, has been nominated as ambassador to the Czech Republic.

    Others left after friction with colleagues or a re-evaluation about whether the job was the best fit, like Mr. Craig; Mark Lippert, the National Security Council chief of staff; Ellen Moran, the communications director; Desirée Rogers, the social secretary; and Jackie Norris, the first lady’s chief of staff.

    Ms. Romer clashed early on with Lawrence H. Summers, the National Economic Council chief, and there was tension with others on the economics team. But she told Bloomberg TV that she was moving home because her 13-year-old son was starting high school, not because of differences with Mr. Summers.

    “Larry has become one of my dear friends,” she said. “I know there have been lots of reports of some fireworks early on. But the truth is, we are great colleagues. I think we’ve been a good team and fought for many of exactly the same policies.”

    Those who leave can find jobs with higher salary and fewer hours. Ms. Rogers was named Tuesday as chief executive of the Johnson Publishing Company, which produces Jet and Ebony magazines. Ms. Johnston will become vice president for corporate affairs at Siemens. “There’s no place more rewarding to work than the White House,” she said, “so for me this was not a job decision but a life decision and a great opportunity.”

    Anita Dunn understood the life decision enough to decline a permanent position in the first place. When asked to serve as communications director, she insisted on staying only seven months. “The White House is a difficult, challenging place for someone trying to raise children,” Ms. Dunn said.

    White House officials show up for work at 7 a.m., go home at, say, 8 p.m. and find themselves on e-mail until they fall asleep, often six or seven days a week. Mr. Orszag told friends that he felt liberated now having only one BlackBerry.

    “I was never off my BlackBerry — ever,” said Ms. Douglass, who was spokeswoman for the health care drive. At dinner, even with her husband, she would sneak to the bathroom or keep it in her lap. “It was just the three of us — him, me and my BlackBerry. I felt like I was losing friendships.”

    Ms. Douglass said working at the White House was a great honor, but one that ultimately required tradeoffs. “I think everybody there,” she said, “is dedicated and loyal — and torn.”

  103. YOU CALL THIS “OVERSIGHT”???

    “It was the second day in a row that the Obama administration faced sharp questions from a federal judge in Washington over a settlement reached with a big bank.”

    nytimes.com/2010/08/18/business/18barclays.html

    Judge Denounces a Barclays Settlement
    ==============================

    By REUTERS
    Published: August 17, 2010

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The British banking giant Barclays received a “sweetheart deal” from the Justice Department in a proposed settlement of criminal charges that the bank had violated federal trade sanctions, a federal judge said.

    The judge, Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court, said at a hearing Tuesday that he was concerned about the proposed deal in which the bank had agreed to pay $298 million to resolve the charges over its dealings with Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Myanmar.

    “This is a sweetheart deal,” Judge Sullivan said, adding that the average American citizen who gets caught robbing a bank does not get a deferred prosecution agreement, as Barclays did.

    It was the second day in a row that the Obama administration faced sharp questions from a federal judge in Washington over a settlement reached with a big bank.

    On Monday, Federal District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle asked for more information on Citigroup’s $75 million settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission over claims it had misled investors by not disclosing about $40 billion of subprime mortgages.

    In the Barclays case, Judge Sullivan questioned whether the bank was being penalized if it paid back only the money involved. He said he wanted information about the penalties at another hearing scheduled for Wednesday.

    Frederick Reynolds, a lawyer for the Justice Department, defended the agreement and said the amount of money Barclays would pay was “beyond what they earned.”

    Mr. Reynolds said Judge Sullivan would be satisfied with the answers to be provided Wednesday.

    Barclays was charged with violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading With the Enemy Act as a result of $500 million in illegal transactions from 1995 through 2006, court documents filed Monday said.

    The United States has imposed sanctions and trade embargoes against Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Myanmar. Barclays was accused of hiding transactions on behalf of banks in those countries.

    The Barclays case followed three similar ones.

    Credit Suisse Group agreed last December to pay $538 million to settle charges that it had hidden thousands of transactions on behalf of clients in Iran, Libya, Sudan and elsewhere.

    Also last year, Lloyds TSB agreed to forfeit $350 million over charges that it had faked records so that clients from Iran, Sudan and elsewhere could do business in the American banking system.

    In May, the former ABN Amro Bank, now largely part of the Royal Bank of Scotland, agreed to forfeit $500 million to settle charges that it had conspired to violate United States sanctions and bank secrecy laws.

    Judge Sullivan asked why the government had not indicted and prosecuted the foreign banks, rather than agreeing to the settlements. He also asked whether any individuals from Barclays were being held responsible, though no one else has been charged in the case.

    “One must wonder what the penalty is,” said Judge Sullivan, who has the final say on whether to approve the Barclays settlement.

  104. EVEN MODO WONDERS W-T-F IS GOING ON WITH ZERO-BAMA

    Today’s op-ed is sub-titled “Once more, Mr. Perfectly Clear is perfectly unclear”.

    Hmmmm, wasn’t part of the rationale of electing him was because he is such a maaahvelous speaker and KEEN INTELLECT????

    nytimes.com/2010/08/18/opinion/18dowd.html?ref=opinion

    Our Mosque Madness
    ==============

    By MAUREEN DOWD
    Published: August 17, 2010

    Maybe, for Barack Obama, it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.

    When the president skittered back from his grandiose declaration at an iftar celebration at the White House Friday that Muslims enjoy freedom of religion in America and have the right to build a mosque and community center in Lower Manhattan, he offered a Clintonesque parsing.

    “I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,” he said the morning after he commented on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. “I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”

    Let me be perfectly clear, Mr. Perfectly Unclear President: You cannot take such a stand on a matter of first principle and then take it back the next morning when, lo and behold, Harry Reid goes craven and the Republicans attack. What is so frightening about Fox News?

    Some critics have said the ultimate victory for Osama and the 9/11 hijackers would be to allow a mosque to be built near ground zero.

    Actually, the ultimate victory for Osama and the 9/11 hijackers is the moral timidity that would ban a mosque from that neighborhood.

    Our enemies struck at our heart, but did they also warp our identity?

    The war against the terrorists is not a war against Islam. In fact, you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.

    George W. Bush understood this. And it is odd to see Barack Obama less clear about this matter than his predecessor. It’s time for W. to weigh in.

    This — along with immigration reform and AIDS in Africa — was one of his points of light. As the man who twice went to war in the Muslim world, he has something of an obligation to add his anti-Islamophobia to this mosque madness. W. needs to get his bullhorn back out.

    Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are both hyper-articulate former law professors. But Clinton never presented himself as a moral guide to the country. So when he weaseled around, or triangulated on some issues, it was part of his ultra-fallible persona — and consistent with his identity as a New Democrat looking for a Third Way.

    But Obama presents himself as a paragon of high principle. So when he flops around on things like “don’t ask, don’t tell” or shrinks back from one of his deepest beliefs about the freedom of religion anywhere and everywhere in America, it’s not pretty. Even worse, this is the man who staked his historical reputation on a new and friendlier engagement with the Muslim world. The man who extended his hand to Tehran has withdrawn his hand from Park Place.

    Paranoid about looking weak, Obama allowed himself to be weakened by perfectly predictable Republican hysteria. Which brings us to Newt Gingrich.

    Gingrich fancies himself an intellectual, a historian, a deep thinker — the opposite number, you might say, of Sarah Palin.

    Yet here is Gingrich attempting to out-Palin Palin on Fox News: “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.” There is no more demagogic analogy than that.

    Have any of the screaming critics noticed that there already are two mosques in the same neighborhood — one four blocks away and one 12 blocks away.

    Should they be dismantled? And what about the louche liquor stores and strip clubs in the periphery of the sacred ground?

    By now you have to be willfully blind not to know that the imam in charge of the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is the moderate Muslim we have allegedly been yearning for.

    So look where we are. The progressive Democrat in the White House, the first president of the United States with Muslim roots, has been morally trumped by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, two moderate Republicans who have spoken bravely and lucidly about not demonizing and defaming an entire religion in the name of fighting its radicals.

    Criticizing his fellow Republicans, Governor Christie said that while he understood the pain and sorrow of family members who lost loved ones on 9/11, “we cannot paint all of Islam with that brush.”

    He charged the president with trying to turn the issue into a political football. But that is not quite right. It already was a political football and the president fumbled it.

  105. Meeting Turns Into Battle Over New Black Panthers Case

    By Mike Levine
    Created 2010-08-13

    A regularly scheduled “business meeting” of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights [1] on Friday turned into a fiery shout fest — finger-pointing and all — over whether the Justice Department [2] was “stonewalling” their investigation into a controversial voting rights case, whether that investigation has been fruitful, and whether the commission can even fulfill its mission anymore.

    For more than a year, the commission has been looking into why the Obama administration reversed course on a federal lawsuit against two members of the New Black Panther Party, who were videotaped outside a Philadelphia polling station on Election Day 2008. The two were dressed in military-style uniforms, and one was holding a nightstick. The issue escalated in June when a former Justice Department [2] attorney alleged it was all part of an Obama administration policy to avoid prosecuting minorities, an allegation the Justice Department [2] has strongly denied.

    The former Justice Department [2] attorney, J. Christian Adams, has said that Christopher Coates, head of the Voting Rights section at the time, could corroborate his allegations. But the Justice Department [2] has blocked Coates from complying with a subpoena for his testimony.

    An Independent member of the commission, Todd Gaziano, said “stonewalling of the Justice Department [2]” means the commission “won’t be able to make findings of facts,” but members from both sides of the aisle agreed the investigation has uncovered a “larger issue” over whether the law allows the commission to take the Justice Department to court to enforce subpoenas.

    “Are we an independent commission with the ability to make a determination as to what we deem to be relevant and important information that we want to review,” Republican commissioner Ashley Taylor asked, “or are we a commission that can ask a question and when rebuffed must go away?”

    Democrat Michael Yaki, though, said questions about the commission’s authority and relevance go even further, when what is supposed to be an “independent” and “bipartisan” commission looking at civil rights [1] issues across the country has “spent over a year and a half obssessing about whether or not there is some sort of kabal, conspiracy, culture at” the Justice Department and done “very little about what is going on in the outside world.”

    At one point, Gaziano interrupted Yaki, prompting Yaki to point his finger at Gaziano and say sternly, “If you would just stop interrupting me!” Gaziano then pleaded with Yaki to “stop bloviating.”

    The chairman of the commission, Republican Gerald Reynolds, jumped in, telling Yaki, “You have mud on your hands … because you escalated it” unnecessarily. “Please show some discipline,” he implored.

    During the one-hour discussion about the New Black Panthers case investigation, commissioners erupted into shouting over each other at least six times. One such episode lasted a full minute, with Reynolds interrupting to say, “I will not have this useless exchange.”

    In fact, Reynolds suggested at one point, the entire debate over Adams’ allegations could be brought to an end if Coates would testify.

    “The simplest thing in the world to do for the Department of Justice, in terms of putting this to bed, is to turn to Mr. Coates and instruct him to go testify,” Reynolds said. “He will either refute the statements made by Mr. Adams on this point, or he will confirm them.”

    Gaziano agreed, saying commissioners “have sworn testimony” from Adams, “and the Department has still neither admitted, denied or commented on that statement.”

    But Yaki said suggestions that Adams’ “sworn testimony” amounts to evidence are “a farce” and “a joke,” calling Adams’ testimony “not credible to say the least.”

    “There was sworn testimony by one individual, who’s no longer an employee, about a statement by another individual who said he heard it from a third individual,” Yaki said.

    In a letter sent to the commission on Wednesday, Perez, who testified before the commission in May, said the Justice Department “is firmly committed to the evenhanded application of the law, without regard to the race of the victims or perpetrators of unlawful behavior.”

    “Any suggestion to the contrary is simply untrue,” Perez wrote, pointing to “our ongoing work in Mississippi,” where the Justice Department recently filed a motion to stop Democratic officials from discriminating against white voters.

    Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, a Republican, said Perez’s letter “gave us the back of the hand,” and Gaziano said Perez “continues to refuse to allow Chris Coates to testify when it’s clear that he would have relevant and material evidence to present.”

    But Yaki insisted that the letter offers “proof” that “all this blowing smoke is just that.”

    “It shows actual actions by the Department of Justice that completely bely the claims made by [Adams],” he said. “The letter states very clearly that … [when an] African-American was doing all these pretty awful things to suppress the white vote, the Department of Justice got involved.”

    In addition, Abigail Thernstrom, the Republican Vice-Chair of the commission who has been an outspoken critic of the New Black Panther case investigation, said there “can be perfectly legitimate internal reasons” for the Justice Department’s refusal to comply with the commission’s subpoena.

    “If Republicans were running the Justice Department, I think that for reasons of internal management to the department they would undoubtedly handle this in the same way that Perez is,” Thernstrom said. “It seems to me we’re talking about how Washington works. … We are not uniquely victimized here.”

    Gaziano called that a “strange notion” disputed by history, and he offered a motion urging Congress to amend the law creating the commission or write new laws to clarify what can be done if the Justice Department has a “conflict of interest.” The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 3.

    The commission is currently working on a report about its investigation into the New Black Panthers case.

    A month after the Justice Department won a default judgment against the two defendants in April 2009, the Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss charges against one of the men, saying a lack of sufficient evidence meant the case against him wouldn’t stand up in court. The Justice Department successfully pursued an injunction against the man seen holding a nightstick. That injunction bars him from visiting a polling station in Philadelphia for the next two years.

    http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/13/meeting-turns-battle-over-new-black-panthers-case

  106. Digging himself in deeper…

    Obama: ‘No regrets’ about NY mosque defense
    (AFP) – 1 hour ago

    COLUMBUS, Ohio — US President Barack Obama said Wednesday he had “no regrets” about defending the right of Muslims to build a mosque near the New York site of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

    “The answer is: No regrets,” the president told NBC television on the sidelines of a visit to a middle-class family aimed at highlighting his efforts to revive the sputtering US economy ahead of November congressional elections.

    Obama upset some of his Democratic allies late last week by joining a bitter national debate over the plans, affirming the right to build on religious freedom grounds but without endorsing what he called the “wisdom” of doing so.

    His remarks drew immediate fire from his Republican foes, including possible contenders for the White House in 2012, who have denounced the project as offending the memory of those killed in the attacks.

    And Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, facing a stiff re-election challenge, came out against the project just days after Obama spoke after Reid’s Republican rival Sharron Angle pressed the veteran lawmaker on the issue.

    Some Democrats reportedly worried that Obama’s comments would give the controversy fresh prominence in races around the country at a time when at least one opinion poll has found the public deeply uneasy about the project.

    The president’s remarks came as Democratic US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that the fate of the project — an Islamic community center two blocks from Ground Zero — was a “local decision.”

    “The freedom of religion is a constitutional right. Where a place of worship is located is a local decision,” she said in a statement.

    Pelosi said she backed calls for transparency regarding who is funding the project, which reportedly will cost 100 million dollars, but that it was also necessary to know who was bankrolling opposition to it.

    Republicans have denounced the planned construction on grounds that building a Muslim place of worship near where Islamist extremists attacked the United States offends the memory of the victims of 9/11.

    Some critics have also cited opposition from some relatives of those killed in the strikes that brought down the World Trade Center’s twin towers — though other victims’ family members have also backed the project.

    Pelosi urged “all of those expressing concern about the 9/11 families” to support legislation — opposed by Republicans — aimed at helping emergency workers coping with serious health problems stemming from their exposure to hazardous materials when they responded to the attacks.

    Pelosi’s statement largely echoed Obama’s own remarks on the issue, which played up the US Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion while omitting any explicit endorsement or criticism of the project.

    But Republicans have served notice that they plan to challenge Democrats on the issue in the run up to the November elections that will decide control of the US Congress.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jcCIYzlU1CrA9zaMViUshJLGF9ZA

  107. The problems with the rebuilding of the St. Nicholas Church are bureaucratic. The government and the church can’t seem to come to an agreement [….] The church also indicated that the site in which their church used to stand is not good. They did not elaborate on that, but I have to wonder if there is something at that particular site caused by the collapse of the WTC that has made the site unsuitable for building.

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

    Could be; either physically or bureaucratically. Because that church really was in ‘ground zero.’

    ‘The government’ is not a monolith there. St Nick does not have to demolish a possible ‘landmark’ which Cordoba does. St Nick does not have to buy land from the electric company, which Cordoba does (possibly with some sort of government approval).

    St N and Cordoba are dealing with different bureacracies.

  108. If St Nick bought the Burlington Coat Factory, I bet nobody would want to protect it as a ‘landmark.’ 😉

  109. Pelosi urged “all of those expressing concern about the 9/11 families” to support legislation — opposed by Republicans — aimed at helping emergency workers coping with serious health problems stemming from their exposure to hazardous materials when they responded to the attacks.

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

    Now that’s something real!

  110. A response to a statement in the article posted by JanH @ 4:42. The statement within the article is: Some Democrats reportedly worried that Obama’s comments would give the controversy fresh prominence in races around the country at a time when at least one opinion poll has found the public deeply uneasy about the project.
    ——————–
    To my mind, when Obama mentions anything about anything Muslim, it revives one of the greatest debates never answered by him: is he, or is he not a Muslim at heart? ( Recall the little greek helping him with that thought: h t t p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw )

    The great conspiracy associated with Primary Campaign 2008 makes Pelosi the last person who should be questioning whether there is a conspiracy fueling those against the mosque.

    In other words, both principals are (evidently unwittingly) digging up their own dirt.

  111. Shadowfax, That column about Hillary challenging Obama in 2012 is more B.S. than anything else. The capital elites have always been wrong about the Clintons because they look down their noses at them. They believe the silly rumor she’ll run in 2012 because it fits in with their caricature of Hillary as a power-hungry, disloyal b____.

    I will say this, though. The reason the rumors that she’ll be VP or challenge O are out there is because at some level there’s a recognition she’d be doing a better job as president than he is.

    BTW, the MoDo column had me LMAO. Why were people who should’ve known better naive enough to believe Obama was “different”? Even if he believed his own rhetoric, no one changes Washington.

  112. I was talking to two Republican women who are friends about the 2008 election. They both said that our Hillary would be a better President than The Won. I said our Hillary would have been better than McCain or The Won; they agreed that they had not liked McCain because, though a patriot, he lacked the will to stand up for right.

  113. WE REMEMBER

    The board members of Keep America Safe, Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol and Debra Burlingame announce the release of “We Remember,” an ad featuring first responders and family members of the victims of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 who are speaking out in opposition to the proposed Ground Zero Mosque. We believe their voices should be heard throughout our country and we encourage you to pass their message along.

  114. basil,

    Quite powerful and frustrating at the same time. That this conditioned behavior continues to go on in the 21st century is just criminal.

  115. Popcorn time……this ought to be a laugh.

    http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/

    Blagojevich attorney says he’ll ask for President Obama to testify in retrial

    Aaron Goldstein, Rod Blagojevich’s Attorney, has just confirmed to In Session that assuming the government retries his client, the defense will renew their motion for President Obama to be a witness in the United States of America v. Rod and Robert Blagojevich.

    The defense will also renew their motion for mistrial as well as their motion to dismiss.

    In Session has also confirmed that no plea deal is in the works at this point.

    Goldstein says to expect the renewal of those motions in court next week, in addition to the possible scheduling of a retrial.

    U.S. District Judge James Zagel could sentence Blagojevich before any retrial takes place. The defense could then proceed with its appeal, but the government could then proceed with a retrial on the other counts.

Comments are closed.