Lady Gaga Versus Lady Marmalade: DADT, DREAM Turns To Nightmare In The Age Of Fake

If you think issues matter in the Age of Fake you are an idiot. It’s all ploys and plots in the Age of Fake. Fake president, fake congress, fake Democrats, fake progressives, fake events, fake laws with fake names, fake media, fake news, fake issues – it’s all a fake.

Examine the fake drolleries in the U.S. Senate today. A Defense Department appropriations bill was supposed to be voted on in order to keep the Defense Department funded. Harry Reid, in a desperate battle to keep his senate seat away from Sharon Angle decided to play tricks. Reid threw into the appropriation bill two amendments in order to get him votes for reelection and gull voters into voting for the retrograde Obama Dimocratic Party.

The first amendment was the hallucinatory “Dream Act” which added immigration language and provisions to the military appropriations bill. This amendment was designed to help Reid and Obama Dimocrats convince Latinos that they were doing what they promised to do two years ago.

The second amendment was a fake “repeal” of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy which keeps Gay American from serving in the U.S. armed forces. This so-called “repeal” was a fake nod, without real effort behind it, to the Gay community in order to get votes from gullible Gays and liberals.

The Dream Act was an act, a political ploy designed to hide the reality that Obama and his band of Hopium fueled Dimocrats broke their promise on “comprehensive” immigration reform. The DADT provision was a handover of congressional authority to Obama and a few top military people to eventually decide the fate of Gay Americans who wish to serve in the armed forces.

Today all the fake hit a very real Republican filibuster. Here is what happened:

“Senate Republicans have blocked an effort to repeal the law banning gays from serving openly in the military.

The partisan vote was a defeat for gay rights groups who saw the provision in a defense authorization bill as their last chance any time soon to overturn the law known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Democrats fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation, which authorized $726 billion in defense spending including a pay raise for troops.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins had been seen as the crucial 60th vote because she supports overturning the military ban. But Collins sided with her GOP colleagues in arguing that Republicans weren’t given sufficient leeway to offer amendments to the wide-ranging policy bill.”

Why is this all fake? Consider:

“Now, gay rights advocates say they worry they have lost a crucial opportunity to change the law. If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections this fall, repealing the law will prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.

“The whole thing is a political train wreck,” said Richard Socarides, a former White House adviser on gay rights during the Clinton administration.

Socarides said President Barack Obama “badly miscalculated” the Pentagon’s support for repeal, while Democrats made only a “token effort” to advance the bill.

If it was a priority for the Democratic leadership, they would get a clean vote on this,” he said.”

Socarides is being a fake. This was not “badly miscalculated”. This was a ploy. This was a total fake. Obama hates Gay people and only pretends on Gay issues. Compare and contrast Lady Gaga to Barack Obama Lady Marmalade:

“Senate Democrats attached the repeal provision to a bill authorizing $726 billion in military spending next year. With little time left for debate before this fall’s congressional elections, the bill received little attention until gay rights groups backed by pop star Lady Gaga began an aggressive push to turn it into an election issue. [snip]

Gates has asked Congress not to act until the military finishes a study, due Dec. 1, on how to lift the ban without causing problems. He also has said he could live with the proposed legislation because it would postpone implementation until 60 days after the Pentagon completes its review and the president certifies that repeal won’t hurt morale, recruiting or retention.

In another blow to the bill, Obama’s pick to lead the Marine Corps told a Senate panel on Tuesday that he worried that changing the policy would serve as a “distraction” to Marines fighting in Afghanistan.”


Lady Gaga did more than Barack Obama, the hooker Lady Marmalade of Washington D.C.
Only the very stupid Big Blog Boys believe that Obama would not find an excuse to certify “that repeal won’t hurt morale”. Very fake Gay Big Blog Boys think Obama really, really likes Gay people.

Think we are being unfair to Barack Obama Lady Marmalade?



Consider that “a few hours” before the vote Barack Obama finally broke his silence on the bill and further destabilized potential passage by “strongly” objecting to a Guantanamo provision in the bill. It was all a ruse to get the Defense money and fool voters into thinking he wanted the other provisions passed as well.

Read our articles on the fake Gay benefits Obama proffered only when the Gay ATM threatened to deny him money. Obama loathes Gay men. Obama waged a campaign of Gay-bashing during the primaries and nothing has changed since then.

Dimocrats, including Gay Big Blog Boys, knew Obama’s Gay bashing history but they applauded Obama nevertheless. Now the Gay Big Blog Boys will whine and pout.

Those Gay Big Blog Boys that raised money for Obama and loved Obama are not proud Gay men (we’re sorely tempted to use the “F” word here as a sign of total contempt for these swine). Read the assessment of the Gay swine Big Blog Boys from last week:

“With the imminent demise of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” compromise that did not, in any case, repeal DADT (even though the NYT and other lazy journalists like to claim it did), and the imminent demise of the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives, President Obama is about to have accomplished a record zero of his top promises to the gay community. A record that, if we lose the House, will likely remain at zero for the next six years, if the President is so lucky as to win re-election.

We were told that the President simply couldn’t get to his promises to our community in his first two years in office because we are a nation at war, and he had to work on health care reform, the economy, and many other issues that were meant to believe were far more important than our basic civil and human rights.

And now, after all the pandering by all the pro-Obama apologists who said that we were wrong to ask the President to address our community’s needs during his first two years in office, that we were wrong to warn of the imminent loss of a Democratically-controlled House, and how that loss would stymie gay rights progress for years to come, and that we were wrong to suggest that this President would never, ever get to addressing a real repeal of DADT and DOMA, and the passage of ENDA – after all that, it turns out we were right.

Barack Obama is on the precipice of accomplishing a grand total of none of his major promises to gay and lesbian Americans in return for our supporting his candidacy with our votes and our money. I’m not smelling change.[snip]

Perhaps, though I would argue that it’s precisely Obama’s fault that Democrats are in such a sorry state. After all, who’s the leader of our party? Who took the lead in setting our agenda last year…. [snip]

It clearly was Barack Obama’s choice not to move ahead with any of his major promises to the gay community in the first two years of his administration. No one else is to blame other than the President for that simple decision. That decision may have killed any chance of ever passing ENDA, or repealing DADT and DOMA, for the entire four years that President Obama in office. It was Barack Obama’s choice not to even touch DADT until this year, and then not to push for a full repeal, but rather some make-shift compromise that may, or may not, lead to some kind of change in the policy at some future date (though what kind of change, for the better or the worse, isn’t a guarantee). We simply weren’t important enough, and now it appears we are getting nothing.

What is the point anymore?[snip]

We were told that Obama would be our “fierce advocate.” We were told that by Barack Obama himself. That, my friends, has turned out to be a crock. The President is not our advocate, and on no issue, gay or otherwise, is the man fierce.”

This is truly repulsive stuff. We’re not talking about Obama. We have known Obama is repulsive for too long. The ones that are repulsive are simpering creeps like the writer of the above excerpt. John Aravosis and his political bed mate Andrew Sullivan knew all this about Obama but they raised money for him and attacked Hillary Clinton. Aravoisis now pretends to be a fierce critic of Obama but his dirty attacks on Hillary Clinton are not forgotten.

Aravosis the hypocrite simpering whiner who fellated Obama repeatedly needs to come clean about his acknowledged dirty deeds performed in service for Barack Obama. Now this traitor to the Gay community wants to be perceived as a defender of Gay people but he forever will be known as one of those that betrayed the Gay community in service to Barack “Lady Marmalade” Obama.

Aravosis does not have the intellectual honesty to understand how these words he wrote apply to every Hillary Clinton supporter but we will post them just so we can laugh at that fool:

“But as I’ve written before, I’m not a big fan of being betrayed by friends, even when I know my enemies would have treated me worse. I expect my enemies to treat me like a pariah. I don’t expect my friends to do the same. And in many ways, it’s worse when the indifference, and the lies, come from a friend rather than an enemy.”

Never trust a back stabber ‘sis. The same knife used to stab others in the back will someday be stuck in you.

* * * * * *

As to the DREAM act, which was a fake publicity stunt to bamboozle the Latino community in the same way Obama Dimocrats succeed in bamboozling the Gay community, there is not much to add. It’s all the same fake stunt. The promised “comprehensive immigration reform” never came. Sorry Latinos who believed treacherous Barack Obama – you were just as stupid as the Gay people who believed Barack Obama – and the Black people, and Asians, and Greens and Republicans, and Independents, and men, and women, and Whites, and….

Do we need genuine comprehensive immigration reform? You betcha!

Every time we reported on Obama’s Aunt Zeituni we have been fair to her. We have noted that Obama exploited his Aunt and Uncle in his book and then when he no longer needed them for narrative material he forgot all about them. We did note Aunt Zeituni’s illegal contributions to Barack Obama’s campaign and the campaign to keep her under wraps and not answer any questions about her creepy nephew. But we always said that we did not want Obama’s aunt “to be hounded and persecuted” the way others (we referred to Joe the Plumber) have been.

Today, illegal immigrant Aunt Zeituni repaid the kindness from us and other Americans with the type of contempt so typical of the Obama family.

It turns out Aunt Zeituni is just another run of the mill creepy Obama:

“If I come as an immigrant, you have the obligation to make me a citizen.” Those are the words from 58-year-old Zeituni Onyango of Kenya in a recent exclusive interview with WBZ-TV.

Onyango is the aunt of President Barack Obama. She lived in the United States illegally for years, receiving public assistance in Boston.

‘I KNEW I OVERSTAYED’ [snip]

Onyango had violated the law, and she knew it.

I knew I had overstayed” she told WBZ-TV’s Jonathan Elias when the two sat down one-on-one.

ASSIGNED PUBLIC HOUSING

Zeituni Onyango said she came to the United States in 2000 and had every intention of leaving. Then, however, she says she got deathly ill and was hospitalized. When she recovered, she said she was broke and couldn’t afford to leave.

For two years Onyango said she lived in a homeless shelter, before she was assigned public housing despite thousands of legal residents also awaiting assistance. “I didn’t take any advantage of the system. The system took advantage of me.

“I didn’t ask for it; they gave it to me. Ask your system. I didn’t create it or vote for it. Go and ask your system,” she said unapologetically…

… “To me America’s dream became America’s worst nightmare,” she said adamantly. “I have been treated like public enemy number one.”



It’s easy to see the Aunt Zeituni in Barack Obama. Barack Obama has turned the American Dream into a Hopium fueled nightmare where fakery is all and arrogance rules.

Share

114 thoughts on “Lady Gaga Versus Lady Marmalade: DADT, DREAM Turns To Nightmare In The Age Of Fake

  1. admin, you might have left out the worst line this lady uttered, something to the effect, “you have an obligation to make me a citizen”

    so she achnowledges she came here illegally, is an illegal resident and yet demands that she be made a US citizen?!?!?

  2. Øbama’s hatred of gays must be fake, too, because if you believe like I do, Øbama is gay himself. It’s a ruse that Øbama plays in order to continue his Reggie Love lovin’. He loves those old white men pleasuring him. Gross, right?

  3. If you think issues matter in the Age of Fake you are an idiot.

    ————–
    Love it when you start out a post with the bottom line in snark, Admin.

    Just don’t mention FAKE boobs……….. 😉

    (Now, back to reading…)

  4. NoMoBama, we did not want to get into the weeds of the fake on fake on fake in front of a mirror fake. What Obama does or has done in bed is none of our concern. But whether as you write, his gay-bashing is a fake to mask self-hate or whether he does hate gay people or love gay people, the results are the same – a bunch of words resulting in nothing but bamboozlement.

  5. As far as DADT, I have never served in the military…good for them, I am not good at taking orders from anyone.

    The whole ploy for gay votes is a scam, as said by Admin. If Barry cared about helping gays, or Latinos, he would have taken a stand, worked with congress long before the election.

  6. nomobama
    September 21st, 2010 at 9:29 pm

    Øbama’s hatred of gays must be fake, too, because if you believe like I do, Øbama is gay himself. It’s a ruse that Øbama plays in order to continue his Reggie Love lovin’.
    ———–
    I’m with you. I think Barry is sexually gay, but wants to appear straight to the public.

    He reinvents his religion, his beliefs, policies…which ever moves him forward or feels good at the moment.

  7. I agree to what both admin & shadowfax wrote. I really could care less about Øbama being gay or straight. That has nothing to do with why I can’t stand him. Hillbuzz sometimes will mention Øbama’s romps at the Man’s Club in Chicago, along with Rahm’s. I believe that they both have visited there in the past. Øbama likes the older white men, perhaps the “daddys” that he never had. Maybe that is what one of his stupid poems was about.

  8. Wow admin!! You have outdone yourself with this one. Every nail he puts in the coffin that we are in, I am forced to thank all those people that believed his empty rhetoric.

    It’s sadly, just going to make Hillary’s job that much harder.

    Asshats.

    Hillary 2012

  9. The Republicans are as stupid and full of hubris as the Obamacrats were in ’08. They are unveiling a new Contract for America Thursday. Fools. No one buys their ideas anymore than they did in ’08. People are simply unhappy with the in Party. All the Republicans have to do is keep their traps shut. But, no, Newt Gingrich is out there prposing shutting down the federal government again, and now they have their new Contract for America. Idiots. Bill Clinton must just shake his head…clowns to Left of me, jokers to the Right.

  10. Admin:

    Thanks for posting this clarification:

    admin
    September 21st, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    JbStonesFan, it didn’t sound to us like Bill Clinton supported the Mosque of Doom. Bill Clinton noted that there is a legal right to build. Bill Clinton noted that the sensibilities of the families should be taken into account. Then Bill Clinton said that what he thought should have been done was not done. That was to dedicate the building to the “murder victims” of a particular strain of Islam that kills in the name of the religion.
    ___________________

    Well said:

    Checkmate!

  11. Mrs. Smith

    Admin:

    Thanks for posting this clarification:

    admin
    September 21st, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    JbStonesFan, it didn’t sound to us like Bill Clinton supported the Mosque of Doom. Bill Clinton noted that there is a legal right to build. Bill Clinton noted that the sensibilities of the families should be taken into account. Then Bill Clinton said that what he thought should have been done was not done. That was to dedicate the building to the “murder victims” of a particular strain of Islam that kills in the name of the religion.
    ___________________

    Well said:

    Checkmate!
    ————-
    It never ceases to amaze me that the Clintons can take all the political spin and boil it down to clear, intelligent solutions that all can agree upon and leave the idiots looking like even bigger fools.

    Hillary 2012

  12. Top White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers is expected to leave his post after November’s mid-term elections,

    ————-
    Another one bites the dust.
    Who’s left in the cabinet to make up bs charts and cover BO and MO’s wild spending us into eternal debt? All the elites are going back to their University jobs…

  13. basil9
    September 21st, 2010 at 4:25 pm
    [….]
    This is the info I saw.

    “I believe people should be free to practice their faith,” Clinton told Steve Grove, YouTube’s head of news and politics.

    “What the Muslim group wants to do is to build a community center near Ground Zero,” Clinton continued. “It’s clearly a decision for the city of New York to make. The mayor supports it and they’ve gotten the requisite approvals, so I think they ought to be able to do it.”

    Clinton also had a suggestion for the builders of Park51

    “Much or even most of the controversy…could have been avoided, and perhaps still can be, if the people who want to build the center were to simply say, ‘We are dedicating this center to all the Muslims who were killed on 9/11,’” Clinton said.

    Dedicating the center to the Muslim victims would show that “not all Muslims are terrorists,” Clinton said, and it could help unite all the family members of 9/11 victims in a common cause of remembrance. Many 9/11 family members have been outspoken in opposition of the center.

    “We’ve all forgotten: There were a lot of Muslims killed on 9/11,” Clinton said.

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

    I’m too tired to compare word for word, but I Googled around and this looks like the most complete version.

  14. Finally, Robert Reich throws in the stimulus towel (when will Krugman face the economic reality the ordinary person faces – which is not helped by distrust of Obama and economic anxiety about the future?):

    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/09/21/stimulus_not_enough/index.html

    The Fed’s decision today (Tuesday) to keep short-term interest rates near zero is no surprise. What’s odd is its apparent decision not to boost the economy by buying hundreds of billions of bonds — despite its acknowledgment that “the pace of recovery in output and employment has slowed in recent months,” and that prices are rising too slowly for comfort (i.e., we might be facing deflation).

    Every indicator suggests third-quarter growth will be as slow if not slower than in the second quarter. Consumer confidence is down. Retail sales are down. Housing sales are down. Commercial real estate is in trouble.

    A growth rate of 1.6 percent means even higher unemployment ahead. Maybe we’re not in a double-dip but we might as well be in one. Growth this slow is the equivalent of heading downward relative to the growth needed to get us out of the hole we’re in.

    The Fed is deadlocked because it harbors hawks who worry near-zero interest rates will lead to another round of speculation, ending in an even bigger bust. Kansas City Fed president Thomas Hoenig, for example, is openly dissenting from the Fed’s near-zero policy and I’m sure he resists doing anything more to stimulate borrowing.

    I don’t generally side with the hawks but they have a point.

    Even if the economy is heading downward, flooding it with more money may not help.

    The problem isn’t the cost of capital. Most businesses can get all the money they need. Big ones are still sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash.

    The problem is consumers, who are 70 percent of the economy. They can’t and won’t buy.[snip]

    Without consumers, businesses have no reason to borrow more. Except to speculate by buying back their own stock and doing mergers and acquisitions, which is exactly what they’re doing.

    Ultimately, even if fiscal and monetary policy weren’t deadlocked, we’d still face the same conundrum. Say the White House and Ben Bernanke got everything they wanted to boost the economy. At some point these boosts would have to end and the economy would have to be able to run on its own.

    But it can’t run on its own because consumers have reached the end of their ropes.

    After three decades of flat wages during which almost all the gains of growth have gone to the very top, the middle class no longer has the buying power to keep the economy going. It can’t send more spouses into paid work, can’t work more hours, can’t borrow any more. All the coping mechanisms are exhausted..

  15. Bill is applying the sociological concept of point of arrival to the Mosque of Doom fiasco; and it is my opinion that it is very, very smart of him to do so.

    Meaningful sociological analysis almost always begins with examining a situation’s ontological point of departure (or sometimes many points of departure), but the whole point of analysis is that it must, at some point, also ARRIVE somewhere. What I gather from Bill’s comments is that he is thinking of how this must end….he is thinking of where we may all end up (ARRIVE)….and thus is proposing the best case arrival scenario for the Mosque of Doom — that it be categorically dedicated as honoring the victims of 9/11.

    In the earliest days of the Mosque of Doom controversy, some people on here pointed out how, for instance, Imam Rauf had not repudiated Hamas. I remember reading this and thinking “Rauf must take a stand one way or the other. If he did, I could perhaps get behind supporting his project, for it is not just 1) the only way to know what is truly in his heart, but 2) such an act would be the first step at truly solving this matter, for it would represent a commitment to healing — which imo should always be the main goal in something of such magnitude as 9/11.”

    Bill however has done me one better, and figured out a way for all parties her to save face; for all parties to get something out of this still remain intact; and in fact even transcend from where they all began. Therefore, I must laud Bill’s idea that the project itself be dedicated to condemning radical fundamentalism and honoring those who have been wronged by such insanities. It is what a real problem solver would call for in this matter, and lord knows, we could use some REAL transcendence right now, as we have to endure through even more of Obama’s Age of Fake!

    ***

    On another note, Admin, I just wanted to say….this was an incredible post that you wrote today. It was moving, correct on all marks, but most of all…it was inspiring. Many thanks.

  16. Shadowfax
    September 22nd, 2010 at 1:42 am

    It never ceases to amaze me that the Clintons can take all the political spin and boil it down to clear, intelligent solutions that all can agree upon and leave the idiots looking like even bigger fools.

    Hillary 2012

    Yes, exactly! You said it much more effectively than I could.

  17. Bill however has done me one better, and figured out a way for all parties her to save face; for all parties to get something out of this still remain intact; and in fact even transcend from where they all began. Therefore, I must laud Bill’s idea that the project itself be dedicated to condemning radical fundamentalism and honoring those who have been wronged by such insanities. It is what a real problem solver would call for in this matter,

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

    Hope you’re right. Sounds like he’s suggesting ‘just words.’ But then, ‘mosque’ ‘near’ and ‘Ground Zero’ are just words too.

  18. admin
    September 22nd, 2010 at 1:57 am

    He’s not referring to stimulus spending. He’s talking about fed policy in buying up bonds to put money into the economy. These are two vastly different measures. Reich has been consistant that tax cuts and/pr stimulus spending has to go to the bottom because we don’t have a supply issue, but one of demand. He’s as consistant here as ever.

  19. admin
    September 22nd, 2010 at 1:57 am

    He’s not referring to stimulus spending. He’s talking about fed policy in buying up bonds to put money into the economy. These are two vastly different measures. Reich has been consistant that tax cuts and/pr stimulus spending has to go to the bottom because we don’t have a supply issue, but one of demand. He’s as consistant here as ever.

  20. admin: I agree your post today is outstanding. Its fake on fake thats been fake…yes, yes yes!

    I am sick of the mosque thing, personally! At this point I could care less where they build the damn thing because its going to be a freaking “gotcha question” used by the media and the rethugs to get what they want.

    Bill also is good friends with Huma, and her husband and I am sure they have good muslim friends…they were just trying to trip him up….gotta know he did good with his answer.

    Obumbles bumbles everything! I think he is now below Jimmy Carter…I think old Jimmy is happy that someone has taken his place on the bottom rung of the ladder. Jimmy’s been out there talking sheit today about how wonderful he really was and how Kennedy screwed him over…well Jimmy join the crowd…Kennedy screwed the whole freaking United States this last go around!

  21. BTW, I am reading Palin’s book “Going Rogue”, just in case Hillary doesn’t run!

    I’ve convinced an Obot tonight at work that Obama was a POS and Hillary really was the “ONE”.

    I’ve almost convince that if Hillary doesn’t run, we’ll both need to hold our nose and vote for Palin….

    I actually getting better at convincing folks this time around.

  22. Mj, the link we posted is a mirror of the original post on Reich’s personal site. On his own personal site where he has control over things such as headlines this is the full title of his article: Why No Amount of Fiscal or Monetary Stimulus Will Be Enough, Given How Small A Share of Total Income the Middle Now Receives

    http://robertreich.org/post/1163051320

    The buying of bonds, as you know is monetary policy. Fiscal policy relates to government spending and taxation

    Unless Reich has no control over the detailed headline it appears he means both monetary and fiscal policy.

    He’s thrown in the towel on fiscal and monetary stimulus.

  23. Confloyd, TheRock – Obama supporters are “exhausted” defending him. Hillary supporters are just getting warmed up. 🙂

  24. “Think we are being unfair to Lady Marmalade?”

    Well, Lady Marmalade’s customers got their money’s worth. Obama’s tricks like Avarosis are screaming ‘no more no more no more.’

  25. Bambi is more like one of those backstreet crackwhores, you know if you go there, you’ll be in the clap clinic with something nasty within a day regretting it for the rest of your life.

  26. Quinnipac….Cuomo and NY Dems officially in crap your pants mode

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1504

    Paladino Trails Cuomo By 6 Points In NY Gov Race

    Republican Carl Paladino, aided by a 4 -1 margin among Tea Partiers, trails New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic candidate for Governor, 49 – 43 percent among likely voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

    Only 18 percent of New York State likely voters consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement, but they back Paladino 77 – 18 percent.

    Cuomo leads 87 – 8 percent among Democrats while Paladino leads 83 – 13 percent among Republicans and 49 – 43 percent among independent voters, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey, conducted by live interviewers, finds. This first likely voter general election survey in New York in this election cycle can not be compared with earlier surveys of registered voters.

    Women back Cuomo 54 – 34 percent, while men go 49 percent for Paladino and 46 percent for Cuomo.

    Seven percent of voters remain undecided and 21 percent of those who name a candidate say they might still change their mind.

  27. moononpluto
    September 22nd, 2010 at 6:08 am

    Do you have alot of backstreet crackwhore experience? :))

    Great analogy! The Obots here are starting to feel the clap that Obumbles gave them.

    Hillary 2012

  28. moononpluto
    September 22nd, 2010 at 6:55 am

    Too Funny!!! I’m not sure that is a picture I want to carry in my head throughout the day…

    Hillary 2012

  29. I could Bambi on a street corner……sucky sucky 5 dollar, you give me money i give you paradise, money for honey…..Cash for Old Clappers now there is something Bambi has not thought about to make cash.

  30. moononpluto
    September 22nd, 2010 at 7:06 am

    ‘…I give you paradise, money for honey…’ That’s exactly what he said to Soros and Dimon.

    Asshat.

    Hillary 2012

  31. moononpluto,

    i as getting ready to post that Paladino – Cuomo post. i should have know you would beat me to it.

    Anyway, here’s an except from the NYP.

    Based on his opposition to the MOD (mosque of Doom) alone, Paladino could win in New York State. NO ONE in the REST of the state, outside those cited by some posters in NYC, wants it built!!!!!!!!!! And the rest of the state has more people than NYC.

    ALBANY – A stunning new poll this morning shows Democratic Attorney General Andrew Cuomo holding a mere six point lead over bomb throwing Buffalo businessman Carl Paladino in what until now has been Cuomo’s runaway race for governor.

    The startling Quinnipiac University survey of likely voters showed Cuomo ahead of Republican Paladino by 49-43 percent, a far cry from the 60-23 percent lead he held in a Quinnipiac poll of registered – but not necessarily likely – voters released Sept. 1.

    Since the poll’s margin of error is plus- or minus-3.6 percent, the findings – if accurate — mean the race between the popular and well-known attorney general and the little-known but highly controversial, Tea Party-linked, Paladino could be a dead heat.

    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/poll_paladino_within_six_points_QAWA8lvV88JUkUytHrOi3K#ixzz10G8bPcwV

  32. HillaryforTexas,

    I understand your interpretation of BC’s words and while I confess I haven’t had time to watch the clip, the transcript comes off a different way.

    I yield to your interpretation of the true meaning behind his words. But the thing is, many people (including me) are not able to transcribe at such a high level without effort which most won’t or can’t or don’t have time to expend.

    That’s more where i was coming from. To those gifted in interpretation, BC’s meaning might be perfectly clear. But to the majority, I think, it is not.

  33. I’m hearing that Michelle O is making the closing speech at the CGI, I don’t understand why with all the hard work President Clinton has done why he would give her the floor…..

  34. jtjames: Me-shell “is making the closing speech at the CGI, I don’t understand why with all the hard work President Clinton has done why he would give her the floor”

    It’s a better alternative than having o himself. Me-shell’s ratings are higher. Actually, I kind of like her and feel sorry for her. She thinks being first lady “is hell” (that’s what she told Carla Bruni).

  35. Admin, bravo on your previous post: “Barack Obama was petted, not vetted” and “the unvetted pet is making a mess on the Oval Office floor”

    Love him or hate him (and I’m aware that the majority of us here fall in the first category), three of Bill Clinton’s recent proclamations have really struck a raw nerve with me. My only interpretation is that he is attempting to build new allies and strengthen existing support within what’s left of the Dimwit Party for Hillary’s run in 2012 or 2016. But as my mother is still very fond of saying, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. If I’m correct that the Tea Party movement is bringing in more and more traditionally liberal-leaning voters, BC tying himself to the current rat-infested administration will backfire. The three recent transgressions are:

    -Supporting Jerry Brown (Wasn’t that Brown I saw attacking Hillary back in the day and BC just a few days ago?)
    -Asking us to give B. Hussein 2 more years (Is he perhaps focused more on politics than country?)
    -His mosque comments (Why, especially on this issue, didn’t he just keep quiet? Perhaps reaching waaaaaay out to the left?)

  36. The last person in the world I feel sorry for is Moo-shell.

    She is an arrogant, angry, nasty entitlement-raised piece of work.

    I feel sorry for Americans that we have to put up with her for another 2 years.

  37. Just tongue-in-cheek. But at least she feels like it’s hell. I hope her hubby thinks so too, may make him think twice about running again.

  38. Obama in fierce battles to craft Afghan strategy: reports

    (AFP) – 2 hours ago

    WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama struggled to craft an Afghan war strategy amid political infighting and fierce differences between the White House and the Pentagon, media accounts of a new book said Wednesday.

    The US leader rejected any US effort for “long-term nation-building,” according to the book “Obama’s Wars” by veteran reporter Bob Woodward, to be released Monday.

    The book reveals internal fissures, distrust and infighting among the White House national security team as it debated every aspect of the Afghanistan war, a conflict which is seen as defining Obama’s entire presidency.

    With access to administration officials and even Obama himself, Woodward paints a picture of a White House national security team consumed by dissension as the president seeks a way to extricate the US military from Afghanistan.

    “Everything we’re doing has to be focused on how we’re going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint,” Obama is quoted as saying in the book, according to the Washington Post, where Woodward worked for decades.

    “It’s in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room,” Obama is reported to have said.

    “This needs to be a plan about how we’re going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan,” Obama said.

    Obama decided last December on a surge of 30,0000 troops to battle Afghan insurgents and set a July 2011 date to start an American withdrawal.

    The president rejected a Pentagon request for 40,000 troops, Woodward said, chronicling Obama’s meetings with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the months leading up to his December announcement.

    “I’m not doing 10 years,” he told Gates and Clinton in a late October 2009 meeting.

    “I’m not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars,” he is quoted as saying, according to the Post.

    The New York Times, which said it received a copy of the book on Monday, reported that the famously cool-headed Obama at times lost his composure as pressure built to make a decision.

    “I’m done doing this!” he exploded at one point, the Times reported.

    The book describes the sometimes pointed and personal tone of the debate among the sparring factions within the administration.

    National security adviser James Jones privately referred to Obama’s political aides as “the water bugs,” the “Politburo,” the “Mafia,” or the “campaign set,” Woodward wrote.

    Meanwhile, General David Petraeus, hailed for his successful Iraq strategy, reportedly felt shut out by the new administration.

    He reportedly told an aide that he considered the president’s senior adviser David Axelrod to be “a complete spin doctor.”

    On the July 2011 withdrawal deadline, Obama appeared to base the calculation partly on domestic political support.

    “I have to say that,” Obama told Republican Senator Lindsey Graham when asked about the date. “I can’t let this be a war without end, and I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”

    But while some Democrats complained that his timeline was too vague, the Republicans objected that it was too specific.

    The president’s overall plan was ultimately panned by critics on both the right and the left: the Republicans opposed any idea of a timeline for a pull-out and while his own Democrats warned of a quagmire without end.

    The surge eventually rose by 33,000, with Obama granting Gates authority to also send in 3,000 medics, intelligence analysts, bomb disposal specialists and other support troops to supplement US combat forces.

    The deployment, accelerating the now nine-year war against Taliban fighters, brought the number of US forces in the country to more than 100,000.

    Woodward’s book also details how the White House was barraged by warnings about the threat of fresh attacks on US soil, even as the president insisted that the lesson of September 11, 2001 was that the country would be able to rebound any such attack.

    “We can absorb a terrorist attack,” the president said during an interview with Woodward in July.

    “We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever… we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jFIqtY-ilYlq08xzNhKDmAPg4FqQ

  39. NMF, I dont know what Rasmussen is playing at, he moved the Cal senate yesterday to leans dem at 47/43 but has Wisconsin with Feingold down 11 as a toss up, i dont know what his game is, he is doing this on a lot of races with Dems leading slightly as a lean dem but when it comes to a GOP leading it stays as a toss up..

  40. Obama is just plain nutz, no other explaination fits. We can absorb another attack…what planet did he come from anyway??

    As far as Mo speaking at the CGI…she is afterall a REAL black american and she certainly represents that sect. They also for the most part love her. I think they are getting wise to O’Bumbles. So it makes perfect sense they would want her to speak.
    Obama can still make it very hard on Hillary, so they might as well keep the peace.

  41. #
    jtjames
    September 22nd, 2010 at 8:51 am

    I’m hearing that Michelle O is making the closing speech at the CGI, I don’t understand why with all the hard work President Clinton has done why he would give her the floor…..

    ————
    Closing speech- talk is cheap.

    MO and BO didn’t get invited to the wedding, that speaks volumes. 😉

  42. mj

    The Republicans are as stupid and full of hubris as the Obamacrats were in ‘08. They are unveiling a new Contract for America Thursday. Fools. No one buys their ideas anymore than they did in ‘08. People are simply unhappy with the in Party. All the Republicans have to do is keep their traps shut. But, no, Newt Gingrich is out there prposing shutting down the federal government again, and now they have their new Contract for America. Idiots.

    ——-

    Amen.

  43. Both parties are in bed with the corporations. And every 2-4 years we have a big fight, because the Dems want to have a more powerful govt in charge of doing what is beneficial for the corporations, and make corporations a subsidiary of BigGov Inc.

    But the R’s think that this govt/corporation partnership would work much better if the corporations themselves just called the shots and then supported the entrenched power structure of that friendly government.

    So basically, the argument is never about whether they should be in bed together at all, it’s merely an argument of who gets to be on top. No one in the establishment of either party has any intention of stopping the orgy.

    Many teapartiers DO see this, albeit from a stridently libertarian perspective. They DO want them out of bed together, and the status quo torn down, though they see it as more gov’s fault than business’s fault. And that is the thing that is so terrifying to DC. Power to the people? No way!

    Which is a big reason why I wish the left could go after our establishment like they are going after theirs. No, we do not agree on most stuff with the teapartiers. But can you imagine if TWO populist movements upset the apple cart in both parties, hitting from both left and right? After it was all over, we would still have to argue over the role and scope of govt – but at least it would be we the people arguing, not Goldman Sachs and BP and their toadies in Washington deciding between themselves who was top dog in this corporate/govt partnership.

  44. From TC and Wonk:

    Pitch Perfect Analysis on a Mama Grizzly from a Big Dawg
    Posted on September 21, 2010 by Wonk the Vote

    H/t to commenter fif for linking to this piece in the morning thread. From George Snuffleupagus (I just don’t want to typo his name) at ABC… Bill Clinton on Palin: ‘Resilient,’ Like Me, Don’t ‘Underestimate’ Her:

    I sat down with the former president as he kicked off the sixth annual Clinton Global Initiative. Palin, who recently made a high profile trip to Iowa, was the subject of Mark Halperin’s “One Nation” column Monday. I asked Clinton to react to Halperin’s take on the former Alaska governor that “Most of all, she is like Bill Clinton: what doesn’t kill Sarah Palin makes her stronger.”

    Clinton laughed and then offered his own observations.

    “I do think she’s a resilient character. And we may be entering a sort of period in politics that’s sort of fact free, where the experience in government is a negative,” he told me.

    “I think she’s clearly a public figure who is, who speaks well and persuasively to the people who listen to her. And she’s somebody to be reckoned with,” he said. “And she’s tough.”

    I love Bill Clinton. This analysis is the most concise and most accurate I’ve ever seen.

    Another tidbit:

    So is she qualified to be president? Clinton said the “American people can elect whomever they want.”

    “But [she] served, you know, not a full…term as governor, and she went out and did this. We don’t even know if she’s going to run for President,” he said.

    http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/

  45. Kinda long, but lots more on this link:

    Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war

    President Obama urgently looked for a way out of the war in Afghanistan last year, repeatedly pressing his top military advisers for an exit plan that they never gave him, according to secret meeting notes and documents cited in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward.

    Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page “terms sheet” that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in “Obama’s Wars,” to be released on Monday.

    According to Woodward’s meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives.

    “This needs to be a plan about how we’re going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan,” Obama is quoted as telling White House aides as he laid out his reasons for adding 30,000 troops in a short-term escalation. “Everything we’re doing has to be focused on how we’re going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It’s in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room.”

    Obama rejected the military’s request for 40,000 troops as part of an expansive mission that had no foreseeable end. “I’m not doing 10 years,” he told Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a meeting on Oct. 26, 2009. “I’m not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars.”

    Woodward’s book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

    But most of the book centers on the strategy review, and the dissension, distrust and infighting that consumed Obama’s national security team as it was locked in a fierce and emotional struggle over the direction, goals, timetable, troop levels and the chances of success for a war that is almost certain to be one of the defining events of this presidency.

    Obama is shown at odds with his uniformed military commanders, particularly Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command during the 2009 strategy review and now the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.

    Woodward reveals their conflicts through detailed accounts of two dozen closed-door secret strategy sessions and nearly 40 private conversations between Obama and Cabinet officers, key aides and intelligence officials.

    Tensions often turned personal. National security adviser James L. Jones privately referred to Obama’s political aides as “the water bugs,” the “Politburo,” the “Mafia,” or the “campaign set.” Petraeus, who felt shut out by the new administration, told an aide that he considered the president’s senior adviser David Axelrod to be “a complete spin doctor.”

    During a flight in May, after a glass of wine, Petraeus told his own staffers that the administration was “[expletive] with the wrong guy.” Gates was tempted to walk out of an Oval Office meeting after being offended by comments made by deputy national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon about a general not named in the book.

    Suspicion lingered among some from the 2008 presidential campaign as well. When Obama floated the idea of naming Clinton to a high-profile post, Axelrod asked him, “How could you trust Hillary?”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092106706_pf.html

    ———
    MO and BO are not having a good time.

  46. Just talked to a Dem, who probably voted for him. I asked if they thought he would be re-elected, and the reply I got was he has been a big disappointment to a lot of people including them.

    Sounds like a no to me.

  47. Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war..
    ********
    I think Woodward makes sh*t up in order to sell books. The Obama WH has always been in a tight lock-down about what goes on behind the scenes. Also Woodward pictures Obama as engaged in policy decisions; that really doesn’t fit the golfing, vacationing, party throwing, indifferent, sociopathic POTUS that we know and love.

  48. While we absorb that poll from New York (imagine the upset at Cuomo, 2×4 Schumer, and Gillibrand’s campaign offices) with Paladino behind by only 6 points (we thought this would be the situation in the 2nd or 3rd week of October) – here’s what’s happening in congress:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092105113_pf.html

    It was a strange bit of office equipment. Are Democrats so resigned to defeat that they’re expecting Republicans to stop by and take measurements of the majority offices?

    They still have their largest majority in decades, but the Democrats have succumbed to paralysis in the closing days of the legislative session. Congress has yet to pass a budget or a single one of the annual spending bills. Plans to spur the economy with tax cuts await action. Senate Democrats, faced with a GOP filibuster, have now punted on immigration reform and repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military. Meanwhile, House Democrats have so little on their schedule that their first vote of the week is coming at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, when Americans are most of the way through their workweeks.

    Among the items they’ll consider: H.R. 1545, “Expressing support for designation of the week beginning on the third Monday in September as ‘National Postdoc Appreciation Week.’ ” And: H.R. 4387, naming the building at 100 North Palafox St. in Pensacola, Fla., the “Winston E. Arnow Federal Building.”

    “Your schedule,” Linda Scott of PBS remarked to Hoyer at Tuesday morning’s meeting, “looks pretty light.” She asked whether Democrats are “telling you they need to be back home, rather than naming post offices?”

    “We always name post offices,” Hoyer replied with irritation. “It’s a worthwhile endeavor to do that, and people really do appreciate it, particularly when it’s their name and their community.”

    The Democrats are unable to rally themselves around tax cuts for millions of Americans, and their leader is defending . . . postal namings. In fairness, they’re not just talking about post offices: They’re also talking about flags. “On the floor we’ll have the All-American Flag Act,” announced Hoyer.

    Over the past 20 months, Democrats have done a lot — too much, the opposition says. But they don’t want to talk about the achievements. The stimulus bill is unpopular; they’re not getting credit for health-care legislation, financial reforms and many other accomplishments; and the spent majority can’t limp out of town fast enough.[snip]

    The Senate, burial ground for hundreds of House bills this session, is, as usual, doing nothing. [snip]

    After a couple of speeches denouncing the Republican opposition, Democrats moved on.

    Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) delivered a floor speech celebrating the 114th birthday of the world’s oldest living man.[snip]

    It just doesn’t add up. “Your members are going to go home with no appropriations bills passed, no budget resolution, record deficits,” David Lightman of McClatchy News noted. “How can they go home and say they did good jobs?

    Hoyer said something about a “302(a) allocation” and “statutory PAYGO.”

    “We have a powerful message to send,” Hoyer said, then asked himself: “And what is that message?”

    That you named a lot of post offices?

  49. And WaPo continues to completely misunderstand the tea party, and who they are. They continue to assume they are composed of backward mouth-breathing imbeciles. And it is THAT misunderstanding on the part of the dems and the media that is going to doom them:

    WaPo
    Obama’s losing the suburbs

    “I’ve never been more disenchanted,” said Donna Mastrangelo, 48, who moved here from Arizona in 2005. She supported Barack Obama in 2008 but now thinks the president overreached. Sitting on a park bench on a balmy afternoon, she turned to her husband, Louis, and said: “We can be swayed any which way at this point. . . . I don’t want anyone to assume my vote anymore. I want them to work for it.”…

    Sentiments like this can be overheard all around Reunion, and in outer-ring suburban neighborhoods across the country. Democrats rose to power in Washington in part with a concerted effort to expand their base of support to include the moderate, college-educated and increasingly diverse voters who now populate the farther-out bedroom communities around Denver, Las Vegas, Washington and other metropolitan areas that rose up over the past decade.

    This is not tea party country. The two dozen independent voters here who spoke to The Washington Post this month were more practical than ideological in their political views. They said they support politicians based on the everyday concerns that affect their lives: schools, jobs, traffic, the economy.

    And a tea partier responds:

    I live in some pretty pricey suburbs (except for a few homes, such as ours) of a major metropolitan area.

    And we have lots of tea partiers here.

    When the major metropolitan area held a tea party last year, the public transportation was a sea of red.

    Just where does the Washington Post think the tea partiers live? Back in the hills of West Virginia, isolated in the Ozarks, out on the lone prairie, or exactly where?

    Looks to me like the suburbanites are the majority of the tea partiers.

    Yes, the WaPo does indeed think you are all inbred hicks living in trailers in the rural south, or the equivalent. So do many Dems. And that misunderstanding of the opponent, that refusal to see the reality right in front of their noses because they do not wish it to be so, is going to leave them on the morning of Nov 3rd spinning every explanation for their losses except the real ones.

  50. I yield to your interpretation of the true meaning behind his words. But the thing is, many people (including me) are not able to transcribe at such a high level without effort which most won’t or can’t or don’t have time to expend.

    That’s more where i was coming from. To those gifted in interpretation, BC’s meaning might be perfectly clear. But to the majority, I think, it is not.

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

    So why would Bill even take the question, and then say something that would be interpreted as a positive — unless he meant it? Or, as someone suggested, he was offering a solution.

  51. NO ONE in the REST of the state, outside those cited by some posters in NYC, wants it built!!!!!!!!!!

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

    Yeah, those poor ignorant people next door to the actual address, who would get to use it, and who know just how far away it really is from ‘GZ’ and just how un-hallowed the whole GZ area really is, and how Rauf and his group have functioned in the local community for many years…. Whadduh they know?

    As to a majority of the out-of-towners opposing the project. I wish someone would do a poll to distinguish between:

    1. “I personally think it is a mosque and am personally horrified”
    and
    2. “I’m not upset but those who are upset should be respected, so move it.”

    Then ask how many of both groups would actually make that a deciding factor in their vote for Governonr. (And what they think a Governor could do about it.)

  52. FOX NEWS ALERT: Rahm leaving WH as early as next month

    bye bye good riddance, may the voters off Illinois see sense and keep your ass out of the mayors office.

  53. Rahm is a bastard, but he’s no dummy. The ship is headed for the iceberg, and he wants to be far far away when it goes down.

  54. [ Sorry for possible duplication here; Spammy is welcome to the earlier versions which he swallowed. ]

    NO ONE in the REST of the state, outside those cited by some posters in NYC, wants it built

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

    Yeah, those poor ignorant people next door to the actual address, who would get to use it, and who know just how far away it really is from ‘GZ’ and just how un-hallowed the whole GZ area really is, and how Rauf and his group have functioned in the local community for many years…. Whadduh they know?

    As to a majority of the out-of-towners opposing the project. I wish someone would do a poll to distinguish between:

    1. “I am personally upset about such a building in such a location”
    and
    2. “I’m not upset but those who are upset should be respected, so move it.”

    Then ask how many of both groups would actually make that a deciding factor in their vote for Governonr. (And what they think a Governor could do about it.)

    (I’d like an item to ask how far away they WOULD accept, but I expect most opponents would at that point drift away without answering the poll at all….)

  55. HillaryforTexas said:
    Both parties are in bed with the corporations. And every 2-4 years we have a big fight, because the Dems want to have a more powerful govt in charge of doing what is beneficial for the corporations, and make corporations a subsidiary of BigGov Inc.

    But the R’s think that this govt/corporation partnership would work much better if the corporations themselves just called the shots and then supported the entrenched power structure of that friendly government.

    ——————-

    What a great analysis!

    One other possibility: some politicians may be in bed under threat of the same sort of personal destrution used against Gore, Palin, etc.

  56. [ Sorry for possible duplication here; Spammy is welcome to the earlier versions which he swallowed. ]

    Re people being polled in Manhattan who support the Cordoba project.

    Yeah, those poor ignorant people next door to the actual address, who would get to use it, and who know just how far away it really is from ‘GZ’ and just how un-hallowed the whole GZ area really is, and how Rauf and his group have functioned in the local community for many years…. Whadduh they know?

    As to a majority of the out-of-towners opposing the project. I wish someone would do a poll to distinguish between:

    1. “I am personally upset about such a building in such a location”
    and
    2. “I’m not upset but those who are upset should be respected, so move it.”

    Then ask how many of both groups would actually make that a deciding factor in their vote for Governonr. (And what they think a Governor could do about it.)

    (I’d like an item to ask what distance they WOULD accept, but I expect most opponents would at that point drift away without answering the poll at all….)

  57. moonpluto,

    Oh please let this be true!

    (From hotair)

    Poll surpirse of the day: Barney Frank in trouble?

    The Sean Bielat campaign has declared themselves within reach of unseating Barney Frank in Massachusetts’ 4th CD, one of the presumed safest districts for Democrats in the nation. The poll, conducted for the campaign by OnMessage, shows Frank falling below the 50% mark despite the D+14 composition of his constituency. Bielat comes within nine points, even though the poll shows that he still badly trails in name recognition.

    The memo from the pollster explains that Bielat could shock the world on November 2nd:

    The ballot is very encouraging and shows Bielat at 38%, Frank at 48% and 13% undecided.

  58. Waaah. I’m trying to get a rant past Spammy. Just the latest version would be fine, pls I don’t want to hog the blog with all the attempts. Between 1.35 and 2.02.

  59. I actually kinda feel bad for Cuomo here. After all, he too was a victim of the “The Clintons are racist!!” charge from the Obama campaign.

    IIRC, his was the fifth remark mentioned in that memo that the Obama campaign sent around to the media back in January 2008. It was after Cuomo said “Anybody can shuck and jive words” (or something to that effect) — that the Obama campaign pointed to this comment as another example of how Clinton supporters are “racist.”

    Still, I guess this sort of fallout is to be expected and is a sign of the times when you elect an axxbag like Doggie O.

  60. Just where does the Washington Post think the tea partiers live? Back in the hills of West Virginia, isolated in the Ozarks, out on the lone prairie, or exactly where?

    Looks to me like the suburbanites are the majority of the tea partiers.

    Yes, the WaPo does indeed think you are all inbred hicks living in trailers in the rural south, or the equivalent. So do many Dems.

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

    Polls a month or so ago kept coming out with TP supporters having higher income levels and higher education levels than average. One Left blogger (maybe at Riverdaughter or Jane Hamser???) got that, and was condeming the TP as being ‘entitled Boomers’ or something.

    I think a poll that phones up and asks “Do you support the TP issues?” gets a different response than “Have you gone to a TP rally, organized one, worn TP insignia, called yourself a TP in public, etc?”

    Haven’t seen any saying “If a candidate is endorsed by the TP, are you more or less likely to vote for him/her?”

  61. SHV
    September 22nd, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war..
    ********
    I think Woodward makes sh*t up in order to sell books.

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

    I sure wasn’t impressed with Woodward’s book about the Clinton admin.

  62. MoonOnPluto, HillaryForTexas, here is the full of excuses for Rahm article (notice, there is no mention of Barack Obama is Poison):

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2020705,00.html

    White House aides are preparing for the possibility that Rahm Emanuel may step down as chief of staff as soon as early October if he decides to run for mayor of Chicago, according to a person familiar with deliberations in the West Wing.

    One issue hastening the timing of Emanuel’s departure is concern over whether he can build a campaign operation while holding down the second most powerful job in the Federal Government. If he chooses to go forward with the mayoral race, Emanuel intends to be sensitive to the fact that his dual role could create the appearance of using his government office to his personal advantage, say two people familiar with internal deliberations.[snip]

    The aide says Emanuel will not make a decision about whether or not to run this week, but was otherwise vague about when the decision would be made — or exactly when he might step down. Congress is scheduled to enter recess on Oct. 8, in advance of the Nov. 2 midterm elections.

    If Emanuel, a former Chicago Congressman, decides to run for mayor, he must gather 12,500 signatures by Nov. 22 in preparation for a Feb. 22 primary. Already, however, Emanuel has found himself hampered in his exploration of a mayoral run by his day job, which is among the most demanding positions in government, starting as early as 5 a.m. and continuing late into the evening. Several potential mayoral candidates, including Jackson, former U.S. Senator Carol Moseley Braun and Representative Luis Gutierrez, are also beginning the process of exploring candidacies to replace Mayor Richard M. Daley, who announced earlier this month that he would not seek a seventh term.

  63. This just entered my Inbox:
    [myname]
    In case you missed it, I was on CNBC last Wednesday night doing an interview with Larry Kudlow on The Kudlow Report. Please take a moment to watch highlights here [video highlights of show].
    This interview came one day after the Democratic Governors Association, unions and other special interest groups dropped nearly $1 million on negative ads against me. Despite the attacks from statewide and national special interest groups, the latest polls show we have continued to climb against current Democratic Governor Deval Patrick, and are now in a statistical dead heat. Rasmussen and Real Clear Politics have moved the race from “Leans Democrat” to “Toss-Up.” This is especially important for the national party in a race considered by many to be a bellwether for the re-election of Patrick’s pal President Obama.
    snip
    Charlie Baker
    ——————
    It would be so excellent if MA sent another stunning blow to the party in power.
    Republican Nominee
    Massachusetts Gubernatorial Race

  64. As if Illinois doesnt stink enough Rahm has to go back there and double the pollution level. Anyway, it would mean one stench level lowered in DC.

  65. moon, I’m not sure of what formulas they use, but I’m pretty sure that the trend either up or down has to hold for a couple of polls before they change the “leans” call.

    The safe/leans/tossup thing has as much to do with the whether it is trending up or down once it gets closer as it does with the raw numbers.

  66. Fifth Dimension, we’ve made some calls to NY operatives and here is what we have found.

    There is much upset with Cuomo in the ranks and still sore feelings due to the primary shenanigans on the part of Cuomo. Today at the Bloomberg endorsement Cuomo said he had voted for Bloomberg. Because Cuomo has only voted once in the past nine years that means he voted against Freddy Ferrer. Cuomo tried to clean up his remarks later in the day because he cannot afford to insult Latinos in New York (Ferrer is Puerto Rican).

    Cuomo of course battled with African-American candidate Carl McCall years ago and that race still rankles.

    Here’s the interesting stuff we have gleaned:

    Carl Paladino is a tough guy and he has hired Roger Stone to run his campaign. Roger Stone has done a lot of secret stuff and tough ugly stuff in the past, including the set up of Eliot Spitzer and the hookers story.

    Roger Stone also has a history with Al Sharpton. Stone has funneled money to Sharpton in the past and Sharpton owes him. Now Sharpton might pay back. Sharpton is helping his friend, an African-American “rabble-rouser” from Brooklyn called Charles Barron. Barron is running for governor on a Freedom Party ticket to protest the lack of blacks on statewide NY races.

    If Barron gains traction with the help of Sharpton he could split or shave off votes from Cuomo in the black community. If this happens Sharpton gains more power and influence in the black community and in the NY Dimocratic Party.

    Even more interesting: Paladino will insist that Barron be included in any debate. This will help Barron get votes, Paladino to close the gap, enhance Sharpton’s reputation as a backroom player, and badly hurt Cuomo.

    So the circle is Stone helped Sharpton, Sharpton now pays back Stone, Sharpton helps Barron, Barron splits black vote and helps Paladino, Stone gets paid back.

    As Cindy Adams says, “Only in New York kids, only in New York.”

  67. Hillary Clinton could have handled all of this with her hands tied behind her back. But heaven forbid that obama allow her to get more accolades for doing his job or that she get ahead of herself…

    —————-

    Obama to announce change in strategy on aiding poor countries

    From Jill Dougherty and Elise Labott, CNN
    September 22, 2010 2:32 p.m.

    New York (CNN) — The Obama administration is changing the way it delivers development aid, elevating the issue to a centerpiece of its national security and economic strategy and targeting nations where resources can be most effective, a senior administration official told CNN.

    The policy will be unveiled by President Barack Obama on Wednesday at a meeting on the Millennium Development goals, an ambitious agenda world leaders set 10 years ago to tackle global poverty.

    The official did not wish to be identified because the president had not given the speech yet.

    The days of “just throwing assistance at problems” are gone, the official said. The new policy will treat development as strategic issue, focusing on countries demonstrating good governance and strong economic policy that have the potential to become the strongest partners for the United States.

    The policy is being unveiled after a year-long review ordered by Obama in an effort to examine how U.S. aid dollars can be more effectively targeted after the world recession.

    “The policy is about real attention to focus and selectively,” the official explained. “We cannot spread limited resources so thinly across every nation.”

    Upon taking office, Obama promised to double U.S. foreign aid to $50 million by 2012 and make U.S. programs, accused of being riddled with waste and fraud, more effective.

    The strategy was born out of a yearlong battle between the White House and the State Department on how to improve the delivery of U.S. foreign aid. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argued for more control over development policy and control over the U.S. Agency for International Development, arguing diplomacy and development go hand-in-hand.

    In the end, the State Department will maintain oversight of USAID, but as evidence of the new importance of development, the White House is establishing a “deputies committee” to coordinate policy across the U.S. government, the official said.

    While USAID will continue to be the premier agency for delivering development aid, the official said the new strategy offers a “whole-of-government approach,” integrating development aid currently handled by about two dozen federal agencies and departments. Countries selected for U.S. development attention also will get assistance with technical innovation and trade.

    Selection of countries will be primarily based on evidence of strong governance and economic policy, but other factors to be involved are where donors are currently directing their aid and where the private sector is investing, so as not to duplicate effort. Two countries singled out for possible inclusion are Ghana and Bangladesh.

    The strategy builds on the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a Bush administration program that encourages political and economic stability by making multimillion-dollar investment in nations that offer plans for reform.

    The official said that while the new policy focuses on more stable countries, the administration does not want to send a signal that the most vulnerable countries, such as Haiti, will be ignored.

    “We are not walking away,” the official said. “We will still have a commitment to improving humanitarian conditions and helping countries suffering from natural disasters and conflict.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/22/united.nations.obama/

  68. ‘Girls Don’t Cry’: Beware ‘Campaigning While Female’

    by Maureen Corrigan

    I thought I was awake and alert throughout the 2008 presidential election. I faithfully read two major American newspapers each day; I was glued to news and talking-head analysis on TV and the Internet; and I live in Washington, D.C., after all, where politics is the hometown industry.

    But reading Rebecca Traister’s superb new book about the election, called Big Girls Don’t Cry, made me feel retrospectively dopey, like the “stupid sidekick” in detective fiction who dutifully takes in the details of a crime scene, but always fails to see the Big Picture.

    The problem with the 2008 presidential campaign was that there were so many head-snapping moments to take in, so many “firsts,” that even Traister, who was covering the campaign for Salon, admits to having felt dizzy and distracted. (One of my favorite of these “Say what?” moments in the book is the morning when Traister recalls being awakened by one of her colleagues with the news that John McCain had “picked Palin” as his running mate. Traister, groggily coming to consciousness, asked, “Michael Palin?”)

    But Big Girls Don’t Cry is much more than an assemblage of these type of “boys on the bus” campaign anecdotes. As anyone who’s followed Traister’s sharp and lively essays in Salon knows, her particular “beat” is gender. What she does here is tease out the cultural narratives that came to wield so much power during the campaign and, finally, in the voting booth: narratives about femininity and the demands of wife- and motherhood, as well as narratives about how women should “play nice” and let the other historically discriminated-against guy go first through the door of the White House.

    Traister surveys a changed political landscape in 2008 where women were key players, not only as candidates but also sometimes outspoken spouses of candidates, as well as reporters and pundits. She brings a historically informed perspective to her reading of the cultural curveball that was Sarah Palin and her undoing — at least during the campaign — by the tag team of Tina Fey and Katie Couric, in addition to the sexist criticism lobbed at her even by her fellow conservatives.

    But far and away the longest and most eye-opening part of Traister’s book is devoted to Hillary Clinton and her gender misadventures in, as Traister wittily calls it, “Campaigning While Female.” Traister excavates the Bill Clinton-era back story to many feminists’ reluctance to support Hillary and chronicles the misogynist responses to her campaign not only by the usual Neanderthal suspects — the guys who took to wearing the “Iron My Shirts” and “Stop Mad Cow” T-shirts — but also by liberal commentators like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Frank Rich. She was pilloried — right and left — for her voice, her laugh, her age, her ankles and even a flash of her cleavage.

    Traister charts the attitudinal shifts in the campaign: how Hillary, arguably misguided by her campaign manager, Mark Penn, embraced a stiff-upper-lip “gender free” strategy early in her campaign that ironically ceded the more traditional womanly role of appealing to passions and ideals to Barack Obama, particularly after he was endorsed by the nation’s emoter in chief, Oprah Winfrey. Here’s a snippet of how Traister astutely analyzes the gender dynamics at this point in the pre-New Hampshire Democratic primaries: Where once Hillary’s competence had made her a prepared and inevitable presidential standard, it was now the thing that made her a particular kind of female archetype. Like Harry Potter’s Hermione Granger or Margaret from Dennis the Menace, Hillary was being portrayed as the hand-in-the-air, know-it-all girl, grating and unpopular in her determination to prove herself. By broadcasting their disdain for Clinton, pundits like Dana Milbank and Chris Matthews and Roy Sekoff were affirming their own social worth: nobody asked women like Hillary to the dance.

    After that infamous moment in New Hampshire that Traister refers to as “The Night of the Imaginary Tears,” hordes of formerly skeptical women flocked behind Hillary, not, as Traister says, “because she was a girl but because she was being treated like one” — jeered at by commentators for transforming from a so-called tight-ass into a “basket case.”

    There’s so much more to be learned and argued over in Big Girls Don’t Cry, whose subtitle is: “The Election that Changed Everything for American Women.” Certainly one of the things that’s changed about presidential elections is the very existence of books like this one. Girls, these days, can not only run for president; they can also brilliantly analyze presidential campaigns, too.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129938556

  69. Shadowfax
    September 22nd, 2010 at 12:13 pm
    From TC and Wonk:

    Clinton laughed and then offered his own observations.

    “…And we may be entering a sort of period in politics that’s sort of fact free, where the experience in government is a negative,” he told me.

    —–

    LOL, now who could he be talking about?

  70. Heh. Was just reading a food fight on HotAir handicapping 2012. Some brought up Hillary, some scoffed, and some said “not so fast”. One said this:

    Don’t kid yourselves.
    If Hillary does run all bets are off on both sides. Changes the perspective of left of center dems and many independents.

    Conservatives are deadly afraid she will run. They can win against Obama’s weak sauce and “big govt that spends like crazy and actually does nothing for you” They are not so sure they can win against the smart chick who believes in govt that works efficiently for you, and size is irrelevant.

  71. alloutin10
    September 22nd, 2010 at 9:10 am
    ◄———————————-►

    Good questions. The answer will be “political realities” or something similar, but it still makes my skin crawl.

  72. Oh, no! My last comment, which was in answer to alloutin10 is in moderation, and it was only a single two sentences long.

  73. Will Obama Force America To “Absorb A Terror Attack” To Save His Presidency?

    Ominous words suggest desperate administration could turn to false flag in bid to crush resistance against big government

    Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
    Prison Planet.com
    Wednesday, September 22, 2010

    President Obama’s ominous claim that America can “absorb” a terror attack will have many fearing that staging some kind of false flag event will be the only way the government can overturn the massive resistance to big government that has grown exponentially since Obama took office.

    During an interview with journalist Bob Woodward, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

    However, the only thing that was made stronger by 9/11 was the federal government’s power to harass, shake down and spy on the American people, as was exemplified yet again recently when Pennsylvania’s Office of Homeland Security was caught conducting surveillance on peaceful protest groups with the aid of an Israeli security company who listed Second Amendment groups amongst others as terrorists.

    Given how both Bush and Clinton before him exploited terror attacks on U.S. soil to boost their flagging political agendas, we should be wary of Obama and his masters making good use of their own “October surprise” to counter record low approval figures for Congress on the eve of the midterm elections.

    Talk show hosts such as Michael Savage have long been warning of a “Reichstag fire-like event” would be concocted to reinvigorate support behind Obama and given that his advisors include such ruthless individuals as Rahm Emanuel, the knife wielding son of a former Israeli terrorist who was involved in bombing hotels, marketplaces as well as massacres, we would be naive to put anything past these people.

    Indeed, it was only two months ago that former Clinton advisor Robert Shapiro wrote in the Financial Times that the only thing that could save Obama’s tenuous grip on power was a terror attack on the scale of Oklahoma City or 9/11.

    “The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” said Shapiro, adding, “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”

    Shapiro was clearly communicating the necessity for a terror attack to be launched in order to give Obama the opportunity to unite the country around his agenda in the name of fighting terrorists, just as President Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11 when his approval ratings shot up from around 50% to well above 80%.

    Similarly, Bill Clinton was able to extinguish an anti-incumbent rebellion which was brewing in the mid 1990’s by exploiting the OKC bombing to demonize his political enemies as right-wing extremists. As Jack Cashill points out, Clinton “descended on Oklahoma City with an approval rating in the low 40s and left town with a rating well above 50 and the Republican revolution buried in the rubble.”

    Only by exploiting a domestic terror attack which can be blamed on right-wing radicals, or by rallying the country round another war in the middle east, can Obama hope to reverse the tide of anti-incumbency candidates that threaten to drastically dilute the power monopoly of establishment candidates from both major political parties in Washington.

    Shapiro is by no means the first to point out that terror attacks on U.S. soil and indeed anywhere in the world serve only to benefit those in positions of power.

    During the latter years of the Bush presidency, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mused with Pentagon top brass that shrinking Capitol Hill support for expanding the war on terror could be corrected with the aid of another terror attack.

    Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star in July 2007 that “The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago.”

    The same sentiment was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which yearned for new attacks that would “validate” the President’s war on terror and “restore his image as a leader of the American people.”

    In June 2007, the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval.

    The Obama administration has proven itself to be alarmingly adept at lying about every issue under the sun, so why should we believe any different when it comes to the terror threat to America?

    Using terror or the threat of terror as a political tool has been a routine ploy in recent years, and was acknowledged by former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge when he admitted he was forced to issue fake terror alerts shortly before elections to influence the outcome.

    Threatening terror has also been a tactic of some of Obama’s biggest supporters in the Democratic party, people like former Senator Gary Hart, who in 2007 wrote a thinly veiled threat to Iranian leaders pointing out that the U.S. has been involved in numerous staged provocations over the years to achieve political agendas, mentioning specifically the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the sinking of the Maine.

    Given the documented history of staged false flag events being used to manipulate both domestic and geopolitical affairs, added to the numerous threats of such provocations from several highly respected political operatives, it would be foolish to rule out the notion that the Obama administration could turn to such desperate measures in a last gasp effort to salvage power and demonize its growing legions of political adversaries.

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

  74. turndownobama
    September 22nd, 2010 at 1:56 am
    ======================================

    If the mosque was going to be dedicated to the Muslims that were killed as Bill Clinton recommends, then they should also somehow remember the non-Muslims in their dedication of this mosque. The muslims who were killed were but a small percentage of the total number killed, even smaller when you don’t include the people who did the killing.

  75. jle222
    September 22nd, 2010 at 4:01 pm
    ==================================

    God I hope not!

    Believe me, any successful terrorist operation within the next two years will leave me very suspicious, and probably view it as a conspiracy.

  76. The Choice Between Two Americas

    Scott Lazarowitz
    LewRockwell.com
    September 22, 2010

    Here is a comparison of two Americas. The first one is our current America, a country whose federal government is based on a Constitution that gives the government powers it shouldn’t have, and gives the government various monopolies it shouldn’t have, and allows agents of the State to have the power of compulsion over others that no one should have, all of which have led to the grief we now face on a daily basis. The second America is much closer to what the Founding Fathers envisioned and what anyone who loves and desires Liberty would want. Like Greece and other countries, America must make a choice.

    Our Current America

    For the first time in history, many Americans are experiencing “downward mobility,” in which a whole generation is worse off than the previous generation. Contributions to that phenomenon include the State’s taking away much of one’s earnings and of profits that businesses make, the Federal Reserve’s monopolistic dictatorial control over our money and its devaluing the dollar we are forced to use, and the stealth tax called inflation.

    Other contributors to our downward mobility include the domino effects of taxes, regulations, mandates and bureaucratic red tape that result in businesses not expanding and jobs being cut, as well as the further repercussions of irresponsible Keynesian economic policies of id-pleasing short-sightedness.

    But we also have less liberty, because the State intrudes into every aspect of daily life. And we are less safe because our federal government has used its military to intrude into the territories of foreign nations, thus provoking the inhabitants of those nations to retaliate against America.

    In the current America, so much time in the daily life of the average individual is stolen away by government, as the individual is forced to spend hours upon hours deciphering the tax code of the day, as well as other technically complicated aspects of the bureaucrats’ demands.

    Our current America also has a particular kind of mentality, in which too many people view the superficial qualities of someone like skin color as important, while ignoring the importance of someone’s abilities and achievements. It just seems that the famous maxim of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” has been reversed by decades of LBJ Great Society/Obama Affirmative Action programs and attitudes. Most recently, as conservative columnist Thomas Sowell noted, Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty was defeated in his reelection bid despite the fact that his policies and appointments have resulted in lower violent crime rates and higher local schools’ test scores, because of “racial patronage and racial symbolism” preferred by the majority of DC’s voters.

    The fact that so many college and job applicants are rejected because they are not of a preferred racial or ethnic minority, despite their academic or otherwise achievements, is just one of many factors that are also stressing out Americans.

    And people are stressed out because of what government bureaucrats are doing to them. Many are depressed, frustrated, fearful and anguished, particularly those who have lost their jobs because of the intrusions that government bureaucrats have inflicted into private economic matters. At a recent CNBC town hall meeting, a black woman who is chief financial officer of her company, and who voted for President Obama, told Obama of her disappointment in the lack of change for the middle class that he had promised during his campaign. Of course, Obama gave his trademark smiley face during her question as though he was watching an episode of Saturday Night Live, and his response to her consisted of his typical career bureaucrat mealy-mouth answer, basically, “Don’t worry – be happy.”

    And at the same forum, a recent law school grad asked if the American Dream is dead for him. Of course the American Dream is dead. These professional politicians and bureaucrats killed it, with one law after another, one policy after another, accomplishing nothing but destroying businesses, causing more unemployment and stifling economic growth. The State crushes everything that gets in its voracious, parasitic way.

    Now that we have summarized our current America, here is the second choice, the Free America:

    The Free America

    In the second America, the one of liberty that the Founders envisioned, money would not be monopolized by the government. Competing currencies would exist, and there would be no Federal Reserve. People would have a choice, which is their right to have. And there would be no government control over banks, whose success or failure would be based on the free market. Individuals take responsibility for their decisions. Government would be forbidden by the people to take advantage of those individuals whose fortunes might be lost by failed banks, and charities would be in abundance to help those who need it. And any congressman or senator who attempts to force banks to lend to unqualified applicants would be arrested for intrusions into the private bank owners’ right to freedom of association and contract.

    In this free America, there would be no government-compulsory taxation. That is because the people of this free America recognize the rights of the individual, including the right to the fruits of one’s labor. The Founders believed that any taking of an individual’s compensation for labor, or any taking of any individual’s justly acquired wealth or property is theft, pure and simple. And the people of this free America would never approve of the State’s demanding information of private individuals where they work, who their employers are, how much they earn, or how much they pay employees or who works for them.

    In the second, free America, the people would not permit the State to demand private information such as what profits private businesses or property owners earn on sales or trades, and the people would certainly not permit the State to demand a “take” on the profits. If the State is assumed to be representative of the people, and “the people” consists of you and your neighbors, then one’s neighbors cannot possibly have any moral or legitimate claim on any profits you make on the sale of a property, or of goods and services. And any information regarding those private contracts is no one else’s business – any attempts to intrude into those private contracts will be considered trespassing, theft or general public nuisance crimes and subject to severe penalties.

    In the second, free America, same-sex marriages could not be outlawed. That is because the people of this society recognize that individuals have a right to establish private, voluntary contracts with others who are mutually agreeable and consenting. What kind of private contracts one has with others and the terms of the contracts are nobody else’s business.

    Some people believe that the State must have the power to protect traditional “social institutions,” such as marriage. However, the preservation of traditions and social institutions is not the role of the State, but of private individuals, organizations, communities and the church.

    A d v e r t i s e m e n t
    In free America, the State would play no role in any people’s marriages. There would be no such thing as a marriage license, because if individuals’ private relationships and contracts are none of their neighbors’ business, then they are none of the State’s business.

    In the free America, all relationships, associations and contracts are voluntary. No individual is permitted to have any power of compulsion over another. That is the only way to have a civil society. Any compromise of that rule compromises the notion of rights, the individual’s right to life, liberty and property, and the right to be free from the aggression and intrusion of others.

    In free America, the relationship between doctors and patients is entirely private, and no government official is permitted to have access to any private medical information. And also in the free America, more people would be in better health, because they would be encouraged to be responsible for themselves and take care of themselves. The emphasis would be on individual responsibility and not dependence, and the State may not force an insurance company to cover someone who engages in risky behaviors. Employers would also be discouraged from providing health coverage, because that also creates more dependence, and further discourages individual responsibility.

    And if there are employment unions, they are not permitted to force employers to pay employees more than what the market demands. Those who are dissatisfied with their compensation are free to seek other employment.

    There would also be no government-run schools. Freedom of education means no State intrusion in the individual’s learning.

    In free America, only acts in which an actual victim exists are considered crimes. If there is no victim, then an act is not a crime, as Laurence Vance and Walter Block and have noted. And there certainly would be no “war on drugs,” because the people understand the mistakes of 1920s Prohibition, and realize that the individual has to be responsible for the consequences of one’s actions or one’s irresponsible behavior. Punishing victimless acts tells people that they need a nanny state to protect them from themselves. Sorry – not in this free America.

    And also, without a war on drugs, the people of Arizona and Texas especially would be safer, because there would be nothing to incentivize Mexican drug cartels because there would be no profits for them, no reason for lowlifes to push drugs on America’s youths or others, and there would thus be no drug cartels moving northward into Arizona and Texas that is now making Arizonans and Texans less safe. And, as the Future of Freedom Foundation’s Jacob Hornberger noted,

    The drug-war violations of privacy and civil liberties would disappear, along with one of the police’s favorite excuses for harassing citizens. No more asset-forfeiture, no more cash reporting requirements, no more planting drugs on innocent people. Indeed, no more drug-war bribes to government officials…

    (And drug decriminalization would) restore a core aspect of human freedom to our land – the right of human beings to ingest whatever substance they want without being punished by the state for it.

    And, as far as the defense of the free America is concerned, the people would also recognize that giving an institution such as the State a monopoly in territorial protection while outlawing competing protection agencies is immoral, impractical and counter-productive. It is counter-productive because, given compulsory monopoly power in territorial defense, bureaucrats will abuse that power, as the more honest historians have exposed. We would have had no American involvement in Korea or Vietnam and no U.S. government invasions against Iraq had we not had the government protection monopoly that we have had. There would have been no U.S. entry into World War I, and because of that there probably would not have been a World War II, or at least not such a lengthy and destructive one, nor would there have been such a repressive and destructive Soviet Union, because Woodrow Wilson’s World War I interventionism was a major contributor to the rise of Hitler and Stalin.

    Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

    Some people might ask, “Well, how would Americans protect themselves from Islamic terrorism directed against the U.S. without a centralized national defense in Washington?” My contention is that there wouldn’t be Islamic terrorism directed against America in the free America, because the current Islamic terrorism directed against America is in response to all the intrusions by the U.S. government in Middle-Eastern and Asian territories for the last 60 or 70 years, a region over which the U.S. government has no legitimate authority nor sovereignty.

    The federal government’s monopolizing the business of protection for 300 million Americans, and forbidding competing protection agencies from doing business, violates the inherent right of the territory’s inhabitants to protect themselves from the aggression of outsiders. One of our rights as human beings is the right of self-defense.

    For those reasons, and for the reason that no individual’s inherent right to defend oneself may be violated by anyone at any time, in this free America, “Gun Control” would be unheard of.

    Conclusion

    If such a free America, based on the sound principles of individual liberty, private property and freedom of association, seems too “utopian,” then at the very least, we should get rid of the federal government. Murray Rothbard suggested we can “repudiate the national debt,” and he gave advice on how (and how not) to desocialize, and Lew Rockwell has this 30-day plan.

    There’s no reason why we can’t just have a country, United States of America, consisting of the various independent, sovereign states, and not have a federal government. (Actually, that was the original intent of the Founders!) If you need something as a symbol in a central location called “federal government,” then make it solely ceremonial but with no actual power. There’s no legitimate need for a centralized federal government with power.

    For those who think there can be any compromise between those two Americas, the truth is that any attempt at compromise leads to the first America, our current state. That is because, what has been compromised has been individual liberty, private property rights and freedom of association, a natural result of giving a centralized authority compulsory power and monopoly.

    Those rights are absolute rights. Either the individual has an inherent right to one’s life and liberty – the right to be free from the aggression of others – or one does not. Either one has an absolute right to the fruits of one’s labor and to one’s justly acquired wealth and property, and the right to defend them against aggression, or one does not.

    The current America is one of Keynesian, socialist centralized economic social and defense planning, in which the government directs everything by force of gunpoint, as opposed to the freedom of the second America, in which individuals, families and businesses plan their own lives, and government is forbidden to intrude into anyone’s private personal or economic matters, and competing protection agencies have an actual competitive incentive to protect their fellow Americans.

    The choice should be a no-brainer.

  77. admin
    September 22nd, 2010 at 1:31
    ◄———————————►

    Gosh, that was funny!

    Hey, Walmart employees people at a job that doesn’t involve much in the way of a skill set, or requires a college degree. Should these employees be paid like a pharmacist? No. The unions, if successfull, will only cause an increase in prices at Walmart that will cause the rest of us who shop there to pick up the costs of unionism. I am not against unions, either. I’m against their fakery. They want to increase their size, and the amount of money that they bring in. There is nothing altruistic in their attempts to unionize certain segments of the work force that don’t seem to need it. Now, if the workers were involved in a job in which their lives were consistently endangered, I would view it differently. I believe, though, that at least some type of low cost healthcare in which the employees pay a share should be available to their employees, which is something that I don’t think they currently have.

  78. BUSTED…this really is no way to behave and they wonder why the tea party is on the upswing.

    http://biggovernment.com/sright/2010/09/22/race-baiting-dem-caught-on-spanish-tv-pitting-latinos-against-asians/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Government%29&utm_content=Twitter

    Race-Baiting Dem Caught on Spanish-TV Pitting Latinos Against Asians

    Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez appeared on Spanish-language Univision to appeal to her most important voting base: Latino voters. Perhaps with a false assumption that only Latinos from the left were listening, she let slip an offensive and patronizing charge: The Vietnamese are trying to take the seat from Latinos.

    Rep. Sanchez district has seen an enormous influx of Vietnamese immigrants over the past two decades. There have often been tensions between the Latino population and the new arrivals from Asia. Because the vast majority of Vietnamese immigrants arrived here seeking refuge from a communist, totalitarian regime, they tend to lean more to the right than their Mexican counterparts.

    Rep. Sanchez’ opponent is Van Tran, an impressive and inspiring figure who is living the American dream. He is a role-model to his community and he represents the values and economic philosophies of the Republican party as well as anyone. And, he is on the verge of defeating Sanchez.

    This video could provide Mr. Tran with his “Scott Brown Moment”. Let’s hope he has an opportunity to remind Ms. Sanchez that California’s 47th Congressional District is not Sanchez’ seat and not the Democrat’s seat and not the Latino’s seat.

    It’s the people’s seat.

  79. nomobama
    September 22nd, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    Agree on the fakery. It’s absolutely appalling. But I don’t think a unionized Walmart would ever mean people would be paid like pharmacists. Indeed, there are lots of Wal-Mart type gorcery stores that are unionized that get paid a better wage, but nothing close to the wages of professionals. Unions are good at pulling for health benefits. But there is a myth in this country, and Stewart repeats it, that unions are outdated and have pushed jobs overseas. This is simply false. Indeed, wal-Marts in almost every other country, including China, are unionized, and one of the most unionized labor forces in the world, Germany’s, is experiencing an export boom(incidently to China), that America can only dream of.

  80. mj
    September 22nd, 2010 at 4:26 pm
    ====================================

    The point I was trying to make more than anything else is that the costs of doing business would increase at Walmart, and that these costs would be passed down to the consumers who would pay more for the items that they purchase at Walmart.

    Germany’s export boon to China will slow down once China has the capability of copying and then producing for themselves and ultimately the rest of the world that which the Germans are exporting to China. That’s the way I see it anyway. They did it with American companies, and unfortunately, the American companies did this with their eyes wide open.

  81. I don’t consider Woodward anything different than the rest of the MSM….he was , at one time, a credible journalist, but that was decades ago.

  82. nomobama
    September 22nd, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    Yes, but ofcourse they would have more purchasing power due to the higher wages, and higher wages never matches dollar for dollar higher prices. There is too much competition for that. I think Germany will takes its boom for however long it lasts and I think America would relish such a boom. At any rate, the rise of Germany’s exports, and the lag in our own shows the lie to the notion that it’s unions that push jobs away. It is not. Only 7% of our workforce is unionized and yet jobs keep leaving the US. While about 90% of German labor market is unionized and they are expereincing a jobs boom.

  83. If anyone needs an afternoon siesta Barack Obama will soon be speaking to the UN. Tune in for a snooze inducer.

    There was a time when this speech would be broadcast live on all networks. Now, nobody but us is talking about it. If Obama wants to put some fizz into his speech we suggest he return the Nobel Peace Prize. He could also apologize for making fools of so many people. Instead we are sure he will get his frat boy speech writers to dig into their many thesaurus’ (thesauri?) and add many flowery words.

  84. SEPTEMBER 22, 2010.

    The Carter-Obama Comparisons Grow

    Walter Mondale himself sees a parallel..Article Video

    By JOHN FUND

    Comparisons between the Obama White House and the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter are increasingly being made—and by Democrats.

    Walter Mondale, Mr. Carter’s vice president, told The New Yorker this week that anxious and angry voters in the late 1970s “just turned against us—same as with Obama.” As the polls turned against his administration, Mr. Mondale recalled that Mr. Carter “began to lose confidence in his ability to move the public.” Democrats on Capitol Hill are now saying this is happening to Mr. Obama.

    Comparisons between the Obama White House and the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter are increasingly being made by Republicans -and by Democrats. Video courtesy of Fox News.

    Mr. Mondale says it’s time for the president “to get rid of those teleprompters and connect” with voters. Another of Mr. Obama’s clear errors has been to turn over the drafting of key legislation to the Democratic Congress: “That doesn’t work even when you own Congress,” he said. “You have to ride ’em.”

    Mr. Carter himself is heightening comparisons with his own presidency by publishing his White House diaries this week. “I overburdened Congress with an array of controversial and politically costly requests,” he said on Monday. The parallels to Mr. Obama’s experience are clear.

    Comparisons between the two men were made frequently during the 2008 campaign, but in a favorable way. Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz, for instance, told Fox News in August 2008 that Mr. Obama’s “rhetoric is more like Jimmy Carter’s than any other Democratic president in recent memory.” Syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg noted more recently that Mr. Obama, like Mr. Carter in his 1976 campaign, “promised a transformational presidency, a new accommodation with religion, a new centrism, a changed tone.”

    But within a few months, liberals were already finding fault with his rhetoric. “He’s the great earnest bore at the dinner party,” wrote Michael Wolff, a contributor to Vanity Fair. “He’s cold; he’s prickly; he’s uncomfortable; he’s not funny; and he’s getting awfully tedious. He thinks it’s all about him.” That sounds like a critique of Mr. Carter.

    Foreign policy experts are also picking up on similarities. Walter Russell Mead, then a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Economist magazine earlier this year that Mr. Obama is “avoiding the worst mistakes that plagued Carter.” But he warns that presidents like Mr. Obama who emphasize “human rights” can fall prey to the temptation of picking on weak countries while ignoring more dire human rights issues in powerful countries (Russia, China, Iran). Over time that can “hollow out an administration’s credibility and make a president look weak.” Mr. Mead warned that Mr. Obama’s foreign policy “to some degree makes him dependent on people who wish neither him nor America well. This doesn’t have to end badly and I hope that it doesn’t—but it’s not an ideal position after one’s first year in power.”

    Liberals increasingly can’t avoid making connections between Mr. Carter’s political troubles and those of Mr. Obama. In July, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked his guests if Democrats up for re-election will “run away from President O’Carter.” After much laughter, John Heileman of New York Magazine quipped “Calling Dr. Freud.” To which Mr. Matthews, a former Carter speechwriter, sighed “I know.”

    Pat Caddell, who was Mr. Carter’s pollster while he was in the White House, thinks some comparisons between the two men are overblown. But he notes that any White House that is sinking in the polls takes on a “bunker mentality” that leads the president to become isolated and consult with fewer and fewer people from the outside. Mr. Caddell told me that his Democratic friends think that’s happening to Mr. Obama—and that the president’s ability to pull himself out of a political tailspin is hampered by his resistance to seek out fresh thinking.

    The Obama White House is clearly cognizant of the comparisons being made between the two presidents. This month, environmental activist Bill McKibben met with White House aides to convince them to reinstall a set of solar panels that Mr. Carter had placed on the White House roof. They were taken down in 1986 following roof repairs. Mr. McKibben said it was time to bring them back to demonstrate Mr. Obama’s support for alternative energy.

    But Mr. McKibben told reporters that the White House “refused to take the Carter-era panel that we brought with us” and only said that they would continue to ponder “what is appropriate” for the White House’s energy needs. Britain’s Guardian newspaper reported that the Obama aides were “twitchy perhaps about inviting any comparison (to Mr. Carter) in the run-up to the very difficult mid-term elections.” Democrats need no reminding that Mr. Carter wound up costing them dearly in 1978 and 1980 as Republicans made major gains in Congress.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704129204575505822147816104.html

  85. Running for the hills…..

    U.S. Financial Bailout Chief Resigns (Herb Allison)

    Herb Allison, the head of the government’s $700 billion financial bailout program, announced on Wednesday that he would resign. He is the latest in a series of departures from President Obama’s economic team.

    Allison, who had served as head of the bailout program since April 2009, said in a letter to colleagues at the Treasury Department that they had accomplished a great deal and helped to stabilize the financial system.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130053728&ft=1&f=1001

  86. Ya know, I get so darn sick of the hypocrisy.

    Politico
    Republicans destroying Democrats in campaign spending by outside groups
    As of Monday, pro-Republican third-party organizations had paid for a total of $23.6 million worth of ads, while Democratic-aligned groups had spent just $4.8 million on TV.

    For the next month — the crucial period during which many voters begin to consider their choices and make up their minds — the disparity is even more daunting for Democrats: Between now and Oct. 20, groups backing Republicans have $9.4 million worth of TV ads reserved across 40 districts, while outfits supporting Democrats have put down only $1.3 million in five districts.

    “It’s frustrating down here because we know if we get our message out, people will agree with us, but when airwaves are flooded like they are, democracy and public debate lose,” said Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), a heavily targeted freshman, in a phone interview in between campaign events in his Southside Virginia district.

    Says a man from a party that was crowing with glee when the Dems and all their third party groups were raising money hand-over-fist in 2006 and 2008. None of you ever have any ANGST over skewing “public debate”, and the poor little underdog being out-gunned financially, when it is YOU doing the gunning. Obama was the new Dem ATM machine, and it was all good, baby!! Remember that?

    And the next time MoveOn and public unions and other groups have a cash bonanza for the Dems, the R’s will be bitching and moaning as well.

    Tell ya what – if you want to go to public financing at equal levels for ALL campaigns, and forbid any private money at all, then let’s have that conversation. I’d love to. Until then, BOTH parties can STFU with their WHINING about it.

  87. Oh, and I also think that a big thing that is scaring the crap out of the establishment is that they could always control the elections because they controlled the dispersal of funds to candidates they preferred.

    That is changing. People are deciding to donate to individual candidates, or to outside groups like PACs etc rather than to their respective parties senatorial committees, the RNC, the DNC, etc.

    That is freaking them the hell out. If the parties lose control of the money, they lose control of the candidates and the elections.

  88. Pingback: Hillary and Me

Comments are closed.