A Smörgåsbord Of Treachery – Rahm, Rouse, Dashcle, And Rubio Debates Crist

It is not sleeveless dresses from “fashion don’t” Michelle Obama that is the style these days. Treachery, as we predicted long ago, is in vogue. It’s the latest political style brought from Chicago by Barack Obama.

So much treachery stinks out from Barack Obama we have to serve a buffet of highlights, not a full course sit down dinner.

On the last days of 2008 we warned repeatedly that the corruptions and debasements Obama practiced in Chicago would come to Washington. We warned thatThe multi-headed Hydra which is the Obama Chicago Culture of Corruption is growing another head in Washington, D.C….” Now the open sewer from Chicago floods freely through the streets of D.C.

In June of 2007 in our article Obama’s Dirty Mud Politics, which was attacked by Peggy Noonan and Tim Russert, we began to detail how Obama and David Axelrod won elections by smearing their opponents. The entire Obama /Axelrod strategy was to dig up dirt on opponents and leak the smears to a compliant Big Media.

We now see the Obama strategy in full flower. The entire Obama Dimocratic Party campaign is “fear and smear”. What Obama did in Chicago is now the official modus operandi of the Obama Dimocratic party.

In state after state the fear and smears by Obama Dimocrats are in full play. Dick Morris, who knows quite a bit about treachery, informs as to why the fear and smears campaign will not work in 2010:

“The Democrats are widening the enthusiasm gap against them by running exclusively negative campaigns against their insurgent Republican rivals. The vast proportion of Democratic and allied independent-expenditure media is negative, portraying Republican congressional candidates as tax evaders, spousal abusers, mob-linked, eccentric flakes, sexual molesters and absentee officeholders (all actual charges against key GOP candidates). While these ads may chip away at the Republican vote share in the polls, they do nothing to generate a Democratic turnout.

The Democrats are without a theme, a message or a positive reason to go vote. Negative ads are supposed to depress turnout — the last thing Democrats need. But when they come up against Republican enthusiasm, they may not do much to check the GOP rise.”

Morris is right. Negative ads suppress turnout so the entire Obama Dimocratic strategy is self-defeating. “Fear and smears” worked in Chicago and in 2008, but in 2010 the depress turnout strategy is make-up on a clown.

Treachery. Dig in, dinner is served:

Did Big Media out Rahm Emanuel? How else to explain the odd coverage of Rahm’s Chicago run? In a discussion of Rahm Emanuel’s strengths and weaknesses in the Chicago mayoral race the New York Times stuck in an odd “strength”:

“3. WHO SENT YOU? Mr. Emanuel arrives in Chicago without an obvious coalition to form the base of his support. Most candidates here start with one or more blocs: the black vote, the labor vote, the white ethnic vote, the lakefront liberal vote, the Hispanic vote. Mr. Emanuel’s supporters note how easily he carried his district when he ran for Congress, and say they expect he will have support from some gay voters and from Jewish leaders (although not all are happy with Mr. Obama’s policies on Israel).

Still, he will probably need more than that to head off a challenge from someone like Representative Davis, who is black, or Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, who may get strong support from Latino voters.”

Rahm Emanuel is Jewish so it is conventional wisdom that Jews will feel some affinity for this turncoat and persist in voting for him. African-American Davis can expect affinity votes from African-Americans and Gutierrez can expect affinity votes from Latinos. But why would Gay Americans feel any affinity for Rahm? Does the New York Times know something we are not being told explicitly?

The creepy Gay Blog Boys who trashed Hillary Clinton, fluffed for Barack Obama and betrayed Gay Americans by supporting the gay-bashing Obama certainly do not think that Rahm deserves support from the Gay community based on the issues of importance to Gay Americans:

“Can some enterprising reporter ask candidate Rahm his position on same-sex marriage? I suspect Rahm will be seeing and hearing a lot from LGBT activists as he campaigns over the next few months.

Also, I do wonder what Rahm Emanuel would say to any senior staffer who quit a key job with under five weeks to go before an election? I can’t imagine it would be pretty, unless said staffer was the kind of disaster that Rahm has been.”

Many Gay Americans in the “creative class” set think that after the November elections a concerted effort should be made to defeat Rahm Emanuel. So why does the New York Times give any credence at all to those who believe that Rahm will get Jewish and Gay votes? Any Gay or Jewish voter who supports Rahm Emanuel deserves a heaping helping of Treachery and that is what they will get on the issues from Rahm Emanuel.

* * * * * *

Treachery. All during the Obama health scam debate we refused to fool anyone by engaging in a discussion of the “issues”. We knew it was a scam. The public debate was a subterfuge for deceit. We knew that the Obama health scam would be the same asThe Obama Health Plan Obama Supporters Do Not Want To Discuss.

Tom Daschle, admits it was a scam:

“In his book, Daschle reveals that after the Senate Finance Committee and the White House convinced hospitals to to accept $155 billion in payment reductions over ten years on July 8, the hospitals and Democrats operated under two “working assumptions.” “One was that the Senate would aim for health coverage of at least 94 percent of Americans,” Daschle writes. “The other was that it would contain no public health plan,” which would have reimbursed hospitals at a lower rate than private insurers.

I asked Daschle if the White House had taken the option off the table in July 2009 and if all future efforts to resuscitate the provision were destined to fail:

DASCHLE: I don’t think it was taken off the table completely. It was taken off the table as a result of the understanding that people had with the hospital association, with the insurance (AHIP), and others. I mean I think that part of the whole effort was based on a premise. That premise was, you had to have the stakeholders in the room and at the table. Lessons learned in past efforts is that without the stakeholders’ active support rather than active opposition, it’s almost impossible to get this job done. They wanted to keep those stakeholders in the room and this was the price some thought they had to pay. Now, it’s debatable about whether all of these assertions and promises are accurate, but that was the calculation. I think there is probably a good deal of truth to it. You look at past efforts and the doctors and the hospitals, and the insurance companies all opposed health care reform. This time, in various degrees of enthusiasm, they supported it. And if I had to point out some of the key differences between then and now, it would be the most important examples of the difference.

Despite being “taken off the table” as a result of the “understanding,” the White House continued to publicly deny claims that it was backing away from the provision even as it tried to focus on other aspects of the bill. “Nothing has changed,” said Linda Douglass, then communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform in August of 2009 and many times thereafter.”

Linda Douglas was unwittingly telling the truth – “Nothing has changed.” All the Hope and Change was a fake. Obama made deals with Big PhaRma and Big Insurance, just like he did in Chicago. We were not fooled. Those who wasted their time chasing the fake public option goose should know:

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

While we’re discussing tax cheat Tom Daschle let’s not leave out Rahm Emanuel’s replacement at the White House – Pete Rouse. Politico has a summary of “Who is Pete Rouse” which fortifies the fact that Obama was gifted the Democratic nomination by a treacherous crew.

Obama Hopium Guzzlers will live in the delusion that Obama was a grassroots type guy. But Obama was a treacherous Chicago creep from the get-go who as far back as 2004 was groomed by the Democratic establishment to be their stooge. Ezra Klein:

“Back in August 2008, Dana Goldstein and I reported out an article on Obama’s relationship with the existing powers in the Democratic Party, and our interviews quickly led me to see Rouse as the key figure in the Obama operation. Rouse’s background and connections were the only way to explain how a state senator who gave a great convention speech could, in two short years, build a national campaign operation able to credibly challenge — and eventually overcome — Hillary Clinton’s juggernaut. Here’s the relevent section from the piece: [snip]

The Obama campaign and Senate staff, by contrast, are full of Daschle and Gephardt veterans–an unexpected rebirth of the power bases and reputations of two politicians who had long been written off. Obama’s chief of staff is the aforementioned Daschle associate, Pete Rouse. His deputy campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, managed Daschle’s 2004 campaign. His director for battleground states, Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, and his director of communications, Dan Pfeiffer, were both deputy campaign managers for Daschle in 2004. Obama’s foreign-policy director, Denis McDonough, was Daschle’s foreign-policy adviser, and his finance director, Julianna Smoot, was head of Daschle’s PAC. Many of those who didn’t come from the Senate minority leader’s office came from the House minority leader’s office. Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, was Gephardt’s deputy campaign manager in 2004. His head of delegate operations, Jeff Berman, played the same role for Gephardt. His national press secretary, Bill Burton, was Gephardt’s Iowa press secretary. Dozens of others come from related arms of the party, in particular the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

It’s a tremendous operation for a first-term senator who hadn’t worked a day in Washington before 2004. But it’s exactly the team you’d expect a former chief of staff to the Senate minority leader to construct. “The person most responsible for this was Pete Rouse,” says Tom Daschle, sounding almost wistful. After all, Obama’s campaign was in part based on plans Rouse had drawn up for Daschle in 2004, before Daschle decided to sit out the presidential race.”

The myth that Obama rose because of his own efforts and accomplishments is risible. It was all a fix by establishment figures like Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle:

“Put simply, there were only two Democratic power centers capable of running a national campaign in 2008: the veterans of the Clinton campaign, and the staff around the congressional leadership. Obama had the good fortune to enter office in the very year when both Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt left office, and then he had the good fortune to land Rouse, who knew that world of staffers.

This gave Obama’s campaign — and, eventually, his White House — a congressional character. Rahm Emanuel was subsequently plucked out of the House leadership, and legislative liaison Phil Schiliro, who is one of the leading candidates to replace Emanuel if the Rouse pick proves temporary, was taken from Rep. Henry Waxman’s office.

The Obama administration has often been criticized for adopting an overly deferential approach to Congress, but it’s staffed by longtime congressional hands who strongly believe that this is the right approach to take to Congress if you actually want to get anything done in it. Rouse’s ascension suggests that little is likely to change in that regard.”

As John Kass has written Rahm Emanuel was not a Clinton person, he was a Daley person, and a congressional person who did not forget being demoted by Hillary Clinton when he screwed up in the White House.

As we have repeatedly written, Barack Obama is the Frankenstein monster of the Democratic establishment.

Creeps like Harry Reid thought that Obama could be elected precisely because he had no record to run on. Obama was inexperienced and willing to be a blank slate for those wishing to use him – as long as he would advance in his career. All the crazy theories of a new coalition enticed 2×4 Chuck Schumer and others. The new Obama coalition would replace the tried and true FDR/Hillary Clinton coalition and that wacked out theory animated these fools in their treachery towards Hillary Clinton and the country – about to be foisted with a boob which would do their bidding:

“These were not the only senatorial voices importuning Obama. Daschle, too, was on the case, and so was a coterie of senators close to him, including Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad, both of North Dakota. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Barbara Boxer of California, and even Ted Kennedy—all were nudging Obama to take the plunge. Their conversations with Barack were surreptitious, a conspiracy of whispers.”

The conspirators planted Rouse as the guide dog to Boob Obama. Politico links the Rouse history:

“–WashPost A1, “Emanuel’s replacement is known as a fixer,” by Anne E. Kornblut: “It was Rouse who arranged the presidential transition, hiring John Podesta to run it. … In late 2009, Obama asked [Rouse] to grapple with the administration’s policy for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after it became clear that the president would miss his self-imposed deadline to close the prison … More recently, Rouse helped create the administration’s new consumer protection bureau, navigating competing internal factions (including between Emanuel and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett) to make Elizabeth Warren a senior adviser to the bureau. … Rouse is single and famously fond of the Maine coon cats he keeps as pets. [snip]

N.Y. Times A1 teases an A13 Rouse profile with, “The Swearing Stops Now.” … Sheryl Gay Stolberg: “‘He puts fires out,” said Tom Daschle, who employed Mr. Rouse as a chief of staff when he was the Senate Democratic leader. ‘He’s the primary personnel negotiator. There’s constant friction, and he reduces the friction. There’s a constant need for somebody to do something for which there is no job description. He is that person.’ … Intensely private, Mr. Rouse is unmarried and lives alone in northwest Washington with his two cats. (He is a big cat person, friends say.) … [snip] Mr. Rouse … worked early in his career in South Dakota and also in Alaska, where he was chief of staff to that state’s lieutenant governor, Terry Miller, from 1979 to 1983. Sarah Palin, Alaska’s former governor, has sent unflattering Twitter messages about Mr. Rouse in the past week. ‘Alaska’s Pete Rouse (@ least he claims to be ‘Alaska’) finally comes out of the shadows,’ she wrote in one message. ‘Obama looks to appt him COS; strange doings in the WH. [snip]

WHITE HOUSE BIO: “Peter M. Rouse is Senior Advisor to President Barack H. Obama. He was a co-chair of the Obama-Biden Transition Project, a senior adviser to President Obama’s campaign, and chief of staff to then-Senator Barack Obama. Known as the ‘101st Senator’ for his extensive knowledge of Congress, Rouse served as chief of staff to members of the United States Congress for more than thirty years. Before joining President Obama’s Senate office in 2004, he was chief of staff to former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) for 19 years. He also served as chief of staff to then-Rep. Dick Durbin of Illinois (1984-85) and Lt. Governor Terry Miller of Alaska (1979-83). [snip]

–SENATE BIO, 2008: “Rouse … has served as chief of staff to members of the United States Congress for more than thirty years. … Mr. Rouse, as Sen. Obama’s chief of staff, was part of a small group of advisors who helped Sen. Obama through the process that led to his decision to run for president in 2008.” [snip]

NYT’s “The Long Run” campaign series, “Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role,” by Kate Zernike and Jeff Zeleny – After Obama was elected to the Senate in Nov. 2004: “Knowing he needed insider help, Mr. Obama cajoled Mr. Daschle’s former chief of staff, Pete Rouse, to lead his office. Mr. Rouse advised Mr. Obama about managing relationships on the Hill and helped engineer hefty assignments, including a Foreign Relations Committee Seat.” [snip]

WP’s “The Gurus” campaign series, “The Outsider’s Insider,” by Perry Bacon Jr.: “Rouse … first started work in the Senate in 1971, when Obama was a 10-year-old in Hawaii with basketball dreams. … Rouse … organized a presidential operation in 2002 for Daschle before the South Dakotan decided not to run.”

–“Game Change,” by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin,” on Obama’s first days in the Senate, in 2005: “Pete Rouse was a round man in his late fifties with a head of thick salt-and-pepper hair, a gruff manner, and a voice that sounded as if he gargled with gravel. The consummate insider, he had come highly recommended by Tom Daschle, after many years as the former Senate majority leader’s chief of staff. … Obama wanted to take advantage of his newfound prominence to build a larger brand. His staff was fielding three hundred speaking invitations a week. … Together with Axelrod and Gibbs, Rouse developed a strategic plan to capitalize on this outsize interest. The plan – which Rouse and the rest ingeniously dubbed ‘The Plan’ – called for Obama to dive neck-deep into fund-raising for his Senate colleagues. (They’ll be coming for you anyway, Rouse told him, so you might as well volunteer.)” (pp. 27-28)

–“Game Change,” on Obama’s appearance on “Meet the Press” on Jan. 22, 2006, when he said, “I will not” run for president or vice president in 2008: “A week before Obama’s face-off with Russert, Rouse, on a road trip to see his father in New Haven, Connecticut, had pulled off the highway in the middle of the night, ordered a coffee at a donut shop, and sketched out a memo, an update of his earlier strategic plan, that set forth two alternate paths for Obama in the year ahead: one if he was categorically rejecting a presidential bid, the other if he wanted to keep the door ajar, however slightly. Rouse knew he was being manipulative by framing the case this way. Even a year earlier, when they first discussed his future, Obama hadn’t definitively ruled out running, so why would he want to now? But, more than manipulative, Rouse was being methodical, which was his way. If there was any chance that Obama would end up in the race, there were steps he could and should take beforehand to put himself in the best possible position. He would need to spend more time on the road, showing his face in certain key states. He would need to devote more time to developing relationships with potential allies, something Obama lacked a feel for and had little interest in.” (p. 31)”

Even as Obama was denying Rouse was planning. Sarah Palin better watch out. Her fellow Alaskan is a treacherous fellow.

* * * * * *

Those who supported Obama will tolerate all the treachery Obama will dish out. All the humiliation in the world will not wake up those fools.

How do conservatives react to perceived treachery? Here’s how:

“On a chilly January morning in Erie, Pa., members of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List stood outside Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper’s office to thank her for opposing a health care bill that didn’t include stringent abortion restrictions.

Ten months later, Dahlkemper and other anti-abortion Democrats are at risk of becoming an endangered species in the House.

She and others eventually signed on to the health reform law, endorsing an executive order that barred federal funding of abortions. But SBA List and other anti-abortion groups opposed the executive order, contending it was too weak.

Now, SBA List is engaged in a multimillion-dollar attack on its former allies, replete with bus tours and billboards alleging that members “voted for taxpayer-funded abortion.” The group invested $1.5 million in its “Votes Have Consequences” bus tour in August, targeting anti-abortion Democrats who supported health reform. Just last week, SBA List spent $55,000 on 32 billboards dotting the districts of three vulnerable Democrats.”

The Republicans/conservatives will not tolerate treachery. They fight back. Whether they are correct on the abortion issue or not, whether they are correct on the executive order or not – perceived treachery will be paid back in full.

“In the 43 districts held by Democrats with mixed or complete anti-abortion voting records, as scored by the National Right to Life Committee, the outlook is bleak: four lean Republican, 12 are tossups and nine lean just slightly Democratic, according to The Cook Political Report.

Just 12 anti-abortion Democrats’ seats are considered safe.”

While Obama Dimocrats will pig out on treachery in service to their master, the new breed of Tea Party bridled Republicans are made of sterner stuff.

Yesterday we discussed the most important candidate in this November’s election. Tonight at 7:00 p.m. ET, Marco Rubio will again debate turncoat Governor Charlie Crist. We’ll witness how treachery is repaid by a Republican conservative. [The debate can be seen HERE and on the internet HERE.] Many will be watching to see how Rubio handles himself and how Rubio handles turncoat Charlie Crist.

We know how Obama handles himself. Today it was announced that Obama will skedaddle two days earlier than scheduled immediately after the November elections. By November 5, Obama will be out of the country inflicting himself on the good people of India while Obama Dimocrats bleed all over the country.

Already 21% of those that voted for Obama in 2008 fail to recollect that they did so. It’s either the brain forgetting a horrible memory or a subtle form of Treachery. Treachery, is in vogue these days.


122 thoughts on “A Smörgåsbord Of Treachery – Rahm, Rouse, Dashcle, And Rubio Debates Crist

  1. Bravo admin!

    I think we should start a whisper campaign to get rid of obama and go for a Hillary/Biden or Hillary whatever for 2012. I think its time that low-grade rock group “bambi and the bimbettes” had a taste of their own medicine.

  2. Admin, the other two were sort of pooh-poohing the deficit in their answers, and Rubio said “Even Hillary Clinton says it’s a national security issue, and she’s right!” or something to that effect.

  3. “Ebony and Ivory live together in perfect harmony, side by side on my piano….”

    What a wonderful celestial choir Heaven we are in.


    Perceptions about the state of black-white relations in America have fallen dramatically since the summer of 2009. But voters are still more optimistic about that relationship than they are about relations between whites and Hispanics and between blacks and Hispanics.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 36% of voters now say relations between blacks and whites are getting better. That’s down from 62% in July of last year at the height of the controversy involving a black Harvard professor and a white policeman. That number had fallen only slightly to 55% in April of this year.

    Twenty-seven percent (27%) now say black-white relations are getting worse, up 10 points from July 2009, while 33% think they’re staying about the same. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

    African-Americans are much more pessimistic than whites. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of whites think black-white race relations are getting better, but just 13% of blacks agree.

    Confidence in the nation’s course among African-Americans soared after Barack Obama’s election. But then several prominent Democrats, perhaps most notably former President Jimmy Carter, suggested that opposition to the president’s health care plan was motivated in part by racism. Only 12% of all voters agreed in September of last year, but among blacks, 27% felt that way and 48% were undecided.[snip]

    Only 21% of all voters now think race relations between whites and Hispanics are improving, down seven points from April and down 19 points from last December. Fifty percent (50%) say they are getting worse, and 24% say they’re remaining about the same.

    Similarly, just 16% say race relations between blacks and Hispanics are getting better. Thirty-four percent (34%) say they are worsening and 24% staying the same. However, 26% are undecided. These findings are basically unchanged from December.

    Democrats and voters not affiliated with either major political party are more positive about black-white relations than Republicans are. Men are more optimistic than women.

    Interestingly, 59% of African-American voters continue to believe the country is moving in the right direction, a view shared by just 27% of whites.

    Confidence in relations with Hispanics has undoubtedly been soured by the growing national concern with illegal immigration, which many view largely as a problem coming from Mexico. Support is high nationally for Arizona’s new law cracking down on illegal immigration, a statute that has drawn loud protest from the Mexican government.

    Most Americans don’t believe Mexico wants to stop the illegal flow of its citizens into this country and think America’s southern neighbor should be asked to compensate U.S. taxpayers for costs incurred by illegal immigration.

    Still, 69% of all voters nationwide say U.S. society is fair and decent, while only 20% think it’s unfair and discriminatory.

  4. Jan,

    Hillary / Biden….what are you thinking? Hopefully, if Hillary runs she will pick a quality vice president and it will be the start of a new era of competent government. No clowns allowed.

  5. Well isn’t this just wonderful! (sarcasm intended)

    CBS Poll: Israel Can’t Count on U.S. Public If Iran Attacks

    The majority of Americans are opposed to American reprisals against Iran if Iran were to attack Israel, a CBS poll finds.

    About 28 percent would likely support an American counter-attack if Iran were to attack Israel.

    Another 53 percent would support American reprisals if Iran attacked the U.S. fleet in the Persian Gulf or attacked the U.S. directly.

    Nearly a fifth of the respondents said they “would never support” a war with Iran.

    Here are the results of the survey:

    Which would cause you to support a war with Iran?

    •Only if Iran attacks U.S. soil: 26 percent
    •If Iran attacks the U.S. fleet: 28 percent
    •If Iran tests a nuclear bomb: 13 percent
    •If Iran attacks Israel: 15 percent
    •Nothing: 18 percent


  6. I’m not sure what to think of this…


    Rahm Emanuel won’t be Chicago’s next mayor, because the city won’t elect a Jew

    By Rachel Shteir | Oct 6, 2010

    It doesn’t matter how big a war chest Rahm Emanuel can accumulate, to whom he sends dead fish wrapped in newspaper, or how many folksy features the New York Times runs to give his campaign legs. “Rahmbo” will never be mayor of Chicago.

    I am hardly the only one to be un-wowed by the former Congressman’s announcement that he was leaving his position as White House chief of staff to campaign for mayor of the Second City. But the early blogosphere reaction got everything wrong: Chicago’s Jewish voters may shun Emanuel because his politics are either too conservative or not conservative enough (in other words, Jews are either disappointed with Obama or critical of his position on Israel), one ventured. An equally boilerplate line of thinking speculated if Emanuel does not win it is because he is “too Washington” and “not Chicago” enough, as one timorous blog ventured after his resignation from the White House.

    This is all ridiculous. Emanuel doesn’t stand a chance here because, as one longtime Chicagoan put it to me recently, he is “too Jewish” in a city that has never had a Jewish mayor and a state that has never had a Jewish attorney general, state senator, or U.S. senator, despite having the fifth-largest Jewish population of any U.S. city, according to the World Jewish Congress.

    “He has a potty mouth,” another bystander put it, basically repeating the sentiment.

    I grew up on the East Coast, but I’ve lived in Chicago for 10 years—as long as I lived in New York as an adult—and by now I am all too acquainted with this sort of thinking. Emanuel’s brash public persona, which in New York and Washington is synonymous with the allegedly Jewish qualities of ambition, striving, and aggression—all desirable qualities, or at least ones that get you talked about on Sunday morning news shows—does not play in the power corridors here.

    Chicago might be rough and tumble, but where Jews are concerned the most racially and ethnically segregated city in the nation prefers repressed politesse, a country-club attitude more pre-Civil Rights than post-racial. Whenever I complain about this to New Yorkers I get bewildered stares and shrugs. They’re too concerned with Palestine to bother with what’s going on in a flyover zone.

    As everyone who has not been asleep for the past two years knows, since Emanuel’s arrival in the White House, he has traded on his Jewishness in the casual, shorthand way familiar to anyone who has lived on the East or West Coast, now mentioning his bar mitzvah, then talking about his Tel Aviv-born father. Every fact in every article about him, from his getting accepted to Juilliard for ballet to his doing yoga (full disclosure: I once practiced Vinyasa a few mats away from him) gets measured against the fact of his Jewishness. None of that is worth a dime here.

    One piece of evidence in the Emanuel-is-too-Jewish-to-win argument is simply numbers: Whereas Jews make up 9 percent of New York City’s population, the percentage of Jews in the Chicago metropolitan area is about 2 percent.

    Irving Cutler’s The Jews of Chicago: From Shtetl to Suburb, the classic work on the subject, tells the story of the vanishing urban Chicago Jewry with a mournfulness only bested by Irving Howe’s World of Our Fathers. The percentage of Chicagoland Jews living in the suburbs grew from 5 percent in the 1950 to 70 percent in the 1990s, Cutler reports.

    Indeed, given that Emanuel grew up in the North Shore suburb of Wilmette, to cast his appearance in Chicago as a homecoming is as absurd as saying that Jersey Shore’s Snooki is from New York City.

    This is my second tour in the city. The first one began in 1982, when I arrived at the University of Chicago campus in Hyde Park.

    It’s hard to say which was more shocking to me initially: the fact that six years earlier neo-Nazis won the legal right to march in Skokie, a Northern suburb where many Holocaust survivors settled, or that one of the first things my college boyfriend, a Polish-American from the Northwest side, said to me was that he had never met a Jew before. I had never been a victim. Nor had I had a chance to be the Other; I had no idea how to play either of these roles.

    As a sophomore, I watched the ugly mayoral race between Harold Washington and Bernard Epton, both of whom were from Hyde Park, which the rest of the city scorned as out of touch until Obama got elected.

    Washington was an African-American Democrat, and Epton was a Jewish Republican. Epton campaigned with the slogan “Epton. Before It’s Too Late.” Washington won and became the city’s first African-American mayor, but he died in office.

    Since then, the most prominent role Jews have played in Chicago politics is that of scapegoat. One of the most embarrassing events occurred in the spring of 1988, when Steve Cokley, a conspiratorially minded aide to Washington’s successor and Chicago’s second African-American mayor, Eugene Sawyer, speculated that Jewish doctors injected the HIV virus into black babies. It took Sawyer a week to fire him. The story made the national news, and several New York Times pieces accused the Second City itself of anti-Semitism. Op-ed columnist Anthony Lewis, channeling Arthur Miller, thundered “Attention Must Be Paid.” Other writers argued that the majority of African-Americans supported ejecting Cokley from office and that the city’s two African-American newspaper columnists, as well as Richard M. Daley, then attorney general, spoke out against him. Lewis’ piece quoted Michael Kotzin, now the executive vice president of the Jewish Federation of Chicago: “There has been some conspicuous silence,” he said. “Anti-Semitism gets out there in the marketplace, and leaders ignore it.”

    It’s absurd to say that anti-Semitism flourishes in the Midwest more than anywhere else—hatred does not respect geography. But Kotzin’s observation resonates for me. Midwestern reticence, which New Yorker writer Calvin Trillin once summed up with three words, “no big deal,” combined with a shrinking Jewish community and warring constituencies, seems to lead to a climate where, in some neighborhoods, it is still considered acceptable—even politically advantageous—to voice anti-Semitism. In 2009, Rev. Jeremiah Wright said about the president who had already distanced himself from his fiery friend: “Them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me.” The same year, Jewish cemeteries were vandalized and swastikas defaced buildings at my university.

    Alderman William Singer, an Obama supporter and a candidate for mayor in the 1970s, addressed the city’s reputation where Jews are concerned in a Daily Beast article on Friday: “[T]he city has become more mature” since anti-Semitic taunts were hurled at him, he said.

    Maybe so, but it still seems lamentably stuck in adolescence. Last year, the most improbable Jewish candidate for lieutenant governor was Scott Lee Cohen, whom the local press dubbed the “millionaire pawnbroker.” Initially ignored, Cohen was ousted by Democratic leaders after he won in the heavily Jewish districts in the city. Then the local media reported that he was a steroid-pumping, prostitute-dating, high-school drop-out, that he allegedly once held a knife to ex wife’s throat and that he owed back child support. Obviously no prodigal son.

    After Emanuel announced his candidacy, I took a spin downtown to see the new Spertus Museum exhibit, Chicago’s Jewish History.

    Where’s the new exhibit? I asked the guard.

    “It’s behind you,” she said.

    I turned around. Chicago’s Jewish History was crammed into a tiny 400-square-foot space at one end of the lobby, roughly the size of a budget New York hotel room.

    In a space this size, I don’t know where Emanuel can fit in.


  7. Admin, racists still exist in this country, but they are far from the majority, and there are plenty on the Left as well.

    One thing that has utterly disgusted me with the Dimocratic Party is their treatment of black conservatives. Michael Steele to this day has lefty loons throw oreos at him and shouting Uncle Tome slurs. The things the left said about Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice were just hateful. I don’t even LIKE Clarence Thomas, but you don’t use his race against him.

    The R’s have a LOT of blacks and hispanics and women running for office this year, but does the media remark on that as a positive thing? Nope. GW Bush appointed more blacks to high-level positions than any president in history, but does he get credit for that? No. Because black conservatives are either invisible and don’t “count”, or they are fair game for the vilest racist epithets. Major newspapers ran cartoons of Condi with huge red lips as Aunt Jemima, and there was no outcry against that bigotry.

    I have the greatest respect for black conservatives, even though we don’t agree on all things, because they get slimed so badly and no one on the Left will make a peep in protest. Those are some brave damn people.

  8. Admin

    What a job of research!! I knew that there was no way that a freshman senator could build the necessary machine to campaign for the presidency as fast as Obumbles. This post proves that beyond a reasonable doubt. Kudos!!

    A whisper campaign to nominate Hillary by acclamation?? Where do I sign up?

    Hillary 2012

  9. A short while back Ben Smith (along with a bunch of other fools) declared Hillary Clinton forever out of politics and alone with Bill Clinton. We mocked that article from Smith. Now Smith eats his own words and writes a bunch of new dumb words:


    The new round of speculation that Hillary Clinton could replace Joe Biden as President Barack Obama’s running mate in 2012 misses the point.

    Clinton doesn’t want to be vice president. But, her old advisers say, she may still want to be president.

    And all the denials of author Bob Woodward’s hint at a Clinton-Obama ticket in 2012, the latest in a string of similar notions floated by pundits, miss another point: that speculation about Clinton’s future is likely to be an on-going cross to bear for the Obama administration, fanned by a retinue of former Clinton aides and friends who may not be happy until another Clinton is in the White House. (See: Woodward: VP Hillary ‘on the table’)

    Clinton’s political team, many of them still in exile from the Obama White House, whether in the private sector or in other government posts, remains on standby. They are also the most invested in her prospects: Their relevance depends, to a degree, on hers. One, Ann Lewis, maintains an organization based on Clinton’s massive email list. It’s called NoLimits.org. Another, pollster Mark Penn, conducted a public survey for The Hill this week that included a pot-stirring match-up of Clinton and Obama in 2012.

    These advisers and supporters remain, to varying degrees, on the outside, but many still talk to Clinton or to her husband. Clinton recently finished paying off the debts her 2008 campaign owed Penn – a mark of their continued relationship.

    And Penn, for one, Woodward reported in his latest book, sees the secretary of state job as a potential stepping stone, perhaps via the vice presidency, to the White House.

    “Penn always had his eye on the prize — the White House. If she did the job for four years, Obama might be in trouble and have to dump Biden and pick her to run with him as vice president,” Woodward wrote. (Penn declined to comment to POLITICO on Clinton’s prospects.)

    It is from this group that Woodward presumably picked up suggestions that Clinton is interested in the 2012 ticket – and that Obama might consider putting her on it. But there is no evidence that Clinton has talked about it. In fact, just the opposite, according to some in her orbit.

    “Not happening,” said one of her 2008 campaign’s topmost figures. “Stay tuned for 2016.”

    Many in Clinton’s broader circle assume that she is positioning herself with an eye toward that 2016 bid – not that they claim to have first-hand knowledge of it.

    “Once you run for president you always want to be president,” James Carville, Bill Clinton’s former campaign manager, told POLITICO when he was asked about Hillary Clinton’s prospects. “My assumption is that once you’ve run you’re going to run again.”[snip]

    The renewed buzz around Clinton’s prospects, though, has been driven by the political weaknesses of Obama and Biden. Fanned by a media eager for conflict and fascinated by all things Clinton, the spark for the notion of Clinton’s return to politics comes from her original argument against Obama.

    Clinton made the case in the Democratic primaries that Obama would be unable to win among working-class white Democratic voters. The Democrats head into the midterms profoundly weak among some of those same white voters – though Obama’s biggest problem remains with Republicans, and pollsters argue that their real problem is a lackluster Democratic base.

    But Obama’s weakness on the cultural turf that Clinton claimed for her own (and where Obama did well enough in 2008) makes speculation about her prospects natural. Bill Clinton has also spent much of the year roaming from Arkansas to rural Pennsylvania, shoring up Democrats in Obama’s weakest districts and, simultaneously, reinforcing the notion that Clintons can play where Obama can’t.

    Clinton is also, polls show, substantially more popular than the president. (See: Clinton finds her ‘groove’)She has a 55-23 favorable-unfavorable rating, compared with Obama’s 46-49 figure in one recent NBC/WSJ poll.

    Clinton has deflected any discussion of a political future, though she did appear to flatly rule out running for president again in one 2009 interview. But she would turn 69 in 2016, young enough to run, and the circle of donors and operatives who depend on her for relevance have – reasonably – taken her silence as encouragement.

    Indeed, insiders debated Woodward’s suggestion that the possibility of her on the ticket is “on the table” through a sole lens: Would the vice presidency help or hinder Clinton in 2016?

    Being the vice president on his ticket the next time around doesn’t do anything for her politically. It’s not a step up,” said a former senior Clinton aide.

    “Hillary would re-emerge as that cold calculating ambitious you know what that killed her in her own campaign,” said another top 2008 aide.

    Others in Clinton’s circle do see the vice presidency as a useful stepping stone.

    She could help him lock down the voters that aren’t with him [in 2012],” suggested one Clinton intimate, who said he hadn’t spoken to her on the subject. “This would position her well for 2016.”

    But Clinton’s aides earlier this year had a more realistic stepping stone in mind: the Pentagon. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has signaled that he’ll end his tenure next year, and aides to both cabinet secretaries viewed her as a logical choice. Serving as secretary of defense would also be the ultimate credential for a candidate whose political team was always obsessed with insuring that the first serious female presidential candidate could project, above all, strength.

    And Woodward, floating the idea of the vice presidency this week, also suggested that the real focus is 2016.

    “Hillary Clinton could run in her own right in 2016 and be younger than Ronald Reagan when he was elected president,” he said.

    Woodward was on the air Tuesday night as part of the media blitz around his new book, “Obama’s Wars,” a tome for whose accuracy the White House has vouched. But the theory of a Clinton recovery wasn’t in the book, casting some doubt on the strength of the reporting behind it.

    “Since when does Woodward keep big news nuggets OUT of his books?” one well-placed Democrat asked in POLITICO’s Playbook.

    There’s little Clinton can – or should – be doing from Foggy Bottom to set up a presidential bid. But she has also done nothing to persuade supporters that she’s not planning on it.

    “Running for President is like having sex: you don’t do it once and forget about it,” said Carville. “It has a high, high recidivism rate.”

  10. Unfortunately JanH, Americans are very tired of war, and for the most part very stupid(see election of Barack Obama). The fact that Obama has turned the democratic party into the anti-Israeli party and that most liberals are now anti- Israeli does not help. Like it or not, republicans and evangelical Christians are our biggest supporters. The delegitimization of Israel has never been greater and we can only hope a big change in Nov. stops Obama from continuing to euthanize her.

  11. Admin: another brilliant article. As the picture comes more and more into focus, we realize not only the extent of the treason but who the masterminds of it were within Congress. Rouse. Cat man Rouse.

    “He has played these men in front of the battle, in hopes to escape under their shelter, but I will not join in the battle with them; their voices though screwed up to the highest pitch of human depravity are not of dignity enough to vindicate combat with me. I shall drag him into the light, who is the dark mover behind this scene of iniquity.”–Thomas Erskine, future Lord Chancellor of England, The Captain Bailie Case, 1789.’

    Rouse lives all alone in his house with two cats. And he wields this kind of Machiavellian power, hidden to the public eye. Is he Cardinal Richelieu? Or is he perhaps Hannibal Lector. If you did deep enough you will have your answer.

  12. Sorry if this is already posted, did you Admin or any Big Pink just hear Hannity say that information against Barry was fed to him by the Hillary camp? That they couldn’t say it, but that’s where he got some of his info.

    Could he be talking about the stuff hundreds/thousands of PUMAs were sending him during and after the primary?

    If so, seems as though Hannity only disclosed the things that helped conservatives, not that would disclose Barry’s corruption during the election.

  13. BSNBC’s new catchphrase is “Lean Forward.” Which literally means to bow. They’re not even subliminal about it. They are openly asking Americans to bow down.

  14. Great quote Wbboei. We always try to keep our focus on Obama not the minions. We highlight the minions’ actions but keep the focus on the sheltered one.

  15. Shadowfax, a few weeks ago Hannity tried to bait Michelle Malkin into attacking Hillary with a very direct question about Hillary’s motives. Malkin did not take the bait and kept the focus on Obama and totally ignored Hannity’s Hillary question.

    We’ve also noticed that Hannity has kept the Hillary hate to a minimum lately and it’s only when he operates on reflex instinct that he oozes out the Clinton hate. But lately he has kept that aspect of his shtick in check and kept the focus on Obama and kept from attacking Hillary. Maybe his producers (Fox producers read Pink) have gotten through to him that Hillary is a secret weapon that can be used against Obama.

  16. admin
    October 6th, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    Shadowfax, a few weeks ago Hannity tried to bait Michelle Malkin into attacking Hillary with a very direct question about Hillary’s motives. Malkin did not take the bait and kept the focus on Obama and totally ignored Hannity’s Hillary question.

    We’ve also noticed that Hannity has kept the Hillary hate to a minimum lately and it’s only when he operates on reflex instinct that he oozes out the Clinton hate. But lately he has kept that aspect of his shtick in check and kept the focus on Obama and kept from attacking Hillary. Maybe his producers (Fox producers read Pink) have gotten through to him that Hillary is a secret weapon that can be used against Obama.
    I have noticed Hannity keeping his attacks on Hillary on the lower end of the scale, I haven’t screamed at my tv as much. I didn’t catch Michelle M defending Hillary, that would have been golden. I just get sick of Hannity saying that only Repug women are attacked and keeps forgetting that Hillary has gotten blasted for years.

    Are you on a different tv time zone, here on the West Coast, Greta has only given teasers that Gloria is going to be on with an update.
    I am on the edge of my chair since I am waiting to be proven that Meg is the next One.

  17. Rouse lives all alone in his house with two cats.


    I hope he doesn’t walk them on leashes.

  18. admin, there are three houses for sale on the same street and there are three others within half a mile radius in my neighborhood. Three on the same street!! These are just what I can see.

  19. Gulf oil spill: White House blocked and put spin on scientists’ warnings

    Investigative report into the BP oil spill reveals US government blocked scientists model data two weeks after the rig explosion

    Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent The Guardian, Thursday 7 October 2010

    The White House blocked government scientists from warning the American public of the potential environmental disaster caused by BP’s broken well in the Gulf of Mexico, a report released by the national commission investigating the oil spill said yesterday.

    The report, produced by a panel appointed by Barack Obama to investigate the spill, said that about two weeks after the BP rig exploded scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) asked the White House for permission to release their models showing their worst case scenarios for the spill.

    The White House office of management and budget, which is a traditional clearing house for decisions, turned down the request, the report said, quoting interviews with administration officials.

    The report, one of four released today by the commission, provides the most compelling evidence to date of direct attempts by the White House to spin the BP oil spill disaster.

    The White House disputed the commission’s findings. “Senior government officials were clear with the public what the worst-case flow rate could be,” the acting director of the OMB, Jeffrey Zients and the NOAA adminstrator, Jane Lubchenco, said in a statement.

    The commission report does not explore why the White House sought to block the worst-case scenarios for the spill. The report amplifies scathing criticism last week by the commission’s co-chairs, Bob Graham and William Reilly, of the Obama administration’s handling of the disaster.

    It goes on to catalogue other lapses by the administration, including repeated underestimates of the size of the spill, and downplaying the environmental damage after the BP well was capped.

    The report found particular fault with the White House energy adviser, Carol Browner, who appeared on television on 4 August and said: “The vast majority of oil was gone.”

    It said Browner was overstating the findings of a NOAA analysis of the fate of the oil. “By initially underestimating the amount of oil flow and then, at the end of the summer, appearing to underestimate the amount of oil remaining in the Gulf, the federal government created the impression that it was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid with the American people about the scope of the problem,” the report said.

    The documents for the first time put the White House at the centre of the long running dispute between the administration and independent scientists about how much oil was discharged into the Gulf, and how much remains in the water.

    At first, BP claimed the well was leaking 1,000 barrels a day. By early May, the administration had revised its estimate upwards to 5,000 barrels a day, but based its assessment on the work of a single NOAA scientist using “overly casual” analysis of satellite images of oil on the surface of the ocean.

    The administration clung to that estimate – which turned out to be 12 times lower than the actual spill size – despite known inaccuracies in the scientists’ work, the report said.

    It went on: “Loss of the public trust during a disaster is not an incidental public relations problem.”


  20. imbroglio: Ambassadors denied entry to White House party
    From Elise Labott, CNN State Department Producer
    October 6, 2010 12:55 p.m. EDT

    Washington (CNN) — The White House has another party protocol problem on its hands after as many as 30 diplomats were stopped at the White House gate and not allowed into a Tuesday evening party being held in the diplomats’ honor.

    As many as 30 senior diplomats were denied entry initially, CNN was told.

    Several ambassadors who spoke to CNN after the reception said they were barred from entering the reception for Chiefs of Mission and Charges d’Affaires because the information on their identification didn’t match the names and dates of birth on the check-in list. The ambassadors asked not to be named to preserve relations between their countries and the White House.

    The party, an annual White House diplomatic reception, is a “must-attend” on the Washington diplomatic social calendar.

    White House spokesman Ben Chang acknowledged that “a few” guests were delayed at the entrance to the White House due to “an error in processing their personal data.”

    Two regular visitors to the White House, Omani Ambassador Hunaina Sultan al-Mughairy and Pakistani Ambassador Husain Haqqani, were among several ambassadors who left, rather than wait outside.

    “While eventually resolved, we regret that some departed due to the delay and apologize to those inconvenienced,” Chang said.

    The ambassadors CNN spoke to were good-natured about having to miss the cocktails and hors d’oeuvres, but one couldn’t resist comparing the experience to the infamous White House party crashers Tareq and Michaele Salahi.

    “I guess the Salahis can get in, but too bad I can’t,” one of the ambassadors quipped.

    The Salahis got through security at the White House gate last year for a state dinner for the prime minister of India. They shook hands with President Barack Obama and had their pictures taken with Vice President Joe Biden and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The couple claimed they were invited to the affair, but the White House denied that.


  21. admin
    October 6th, 2010 at 10:59 pm

    I hope there are more from where this one came from.

  22. Admin:

    The part of your wonderful diary outlining the sequence of events leading up to Obama declaring for the presidency.. that has compelled me to ask a question… is this:

    “Rouse, on a road trip to see his father in New Haven, Connecticut, had pulled off the highway in the middle of the night, ordered a coffee at a donut shop, and sketched out a memo, an update of his earlier strategic plan, that set forth two alternate paths for Obama in the year ahead: one if he was categorically rejecting a presidential bid, the other if he wanted to keep the door ajar, however slightly.

    How could Obama be the (his own) decision maker when he announced earlier, he wouldn’t run in 08′?

    Where Rouse got off the road in the middle of the night it seems more plausible, he got off the road after receiving a phone call, interrupting his seemingly innocuous trip to see his father. When it appears he was told by the caller, Mr X, to sketch out the necessary plans prefacing Obama announcing his candidacy in 08′.

    Otherwise, there was no urgency for Rouse pulling off the road at a Donut Shop in the middle of the night and sketching out a plan for a WH run contemplated at some future date.

    My question is who would have been Rouse’s caller in the middle of the night with go ahead plans already firmed up giving the OK for Obama to make the WH run?

  23. “Two regular visitors to the White House, Omani Ambassador Hunaina Sultan al-Mughairy and Pakistani Ambassador Husain Haqqani, were among several ambassadors who left, rather than wait outside.”

    🙂 Obama must have received an earful for dissing his favorite counterparts.

    “The ambassadors CNN spoke to were good-natured about having to miss the cocktails and hors d’oeuvres, but one couldn’t resist comparing the experience to the infamous White House party crashers Tareq and Michaele Salahi.”

    “I guess the Salahis can get in, but too bad I can’t,” one of the ambassadors quipped.”

    I’ve been following the reality series ‘The Housewives of DC’ just to see what the women in DC are all about.

    They are very aggressive and competitive towards each other. They quickly sort through your background and determine how affluent you are. Then comes the one upsmanship games meant to subjugate you or impress you. Most of them are plastic arrogant people. The Salahi’s are always a topic for conversation. My thoughts- they are plants put in place by the Obama Camp for their own purposes mainly for feedback from WH guests- or for more inside, intensive informational relationships.

  24. $6,210? A decent lawyer could have got her more than that as blackmail.

    Maybe they promised her a book deal? To play herself in the movie? Toy franchise?

  25. The case for 2012 (and not 2016) comes down to this:

    There is a tide in the affairs of men.
    Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
    Omitted, all the voyage of their life
    Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
    On such a full sea are we now afloat,
    And we must take the current when it serves,
    Or lose our ventures.
    Julius Caesar Act 4, scene 3

    Translation: power is a force that ebbs and flows in time, and one must “go with the flow.” Waiting around only allows your power to pass its crest and begin to ebb. If the Democrat Party is crushed in November, then by the same criterion that led her to suspend her campaign in 2008, i.e. the good of the Party, she must reactivate it within a reasonable time thereafter, if she wants to be president. It is not an easy question, and I do not presume to know what her answer will be. Furthermore it hard to know how to do it without dividing the party. The answer is others must initiate the action.

  26. It would be a blessing for my state if a Dem were elected in Nov. We have been under seige having a R governor for as long as I can remember.

    Caprio is using BC’s appearance at a fundraiser rally which comes off as pretty effective. In fact, I believe Caprio has gained a few points over Chafee since the ad began airing. Chafee is running a bad campaign and although I like Chafee as a person, I don’t understand how he can rationalize creating badly needed revenue from taxing non-taxable items, services (clothing, food, home heating oil, dentists, hairdressers, etc) and merchandise in a state with the highest unemployment rate second only to Michigan. In other words his campaign is asking people to vote for a man advocating taking money out of people’s pockets to buoy the state’s economy when people are struggling to feed their families and pay their mortgages from the money received standing in unemployment lines.

    And yes, Chafee, a former (R) now an Indy, is going very negative with attack ads on Caprio.

  27. NO RESPECT JOKES (1-4 courtesy of Rodney Dangerfield, 5 facts as reported by AP plus reasonable inferences).

    1. My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met.

    2. I asked my old man if I could go ice-skating on the lake. He told me, “Wait til it gets warmer.”

    3. My doctor told me to watch my drinking. Now I drink in front of a mirror.

    4. When I was born the doctor came out to the waiting room and said to my father, “I’m very sorry. We did everything we could…but he pulled through

    5. Barack Obama’s team walks out of the United Nations to protest Dinnerjackets anti-American speech. Europe follows. But MEXICO (our NAFTA partner who is given standing to sue the state of Arizona in our court system) and JAPAN (who was our closest ally in Asia before Obama, but has since changed its mind) remain behind in the room in tacit support of the maniacal Iranian dictator who bears a striking resemblance to Dr. Strangelove.

  28. 6. Barack Obama said he would slow the rise of the oceans. When we became president all we got was old lousy Gulf Oil Spill.

  29. I can’t believe we had no comments on “Sleeveless” being awarded by Forbes magazine, “The most powerful woman in the world”!
    Shall I barf now or later…

    She beat out Hillary….who in the world would’ve thunk it! Michelle must be getting the Nobel Peace Prize too this year.

    BTW, I thought Hillary looks quiet irritated that people think she would run with Obama or that she plans a run against him.

  30. WHAT! ME-chelle is the most powerful woman in the world. I’ve not had time to read earlier comments.

    Powerful…probably about the only person she scares the wham out of is little ol’ Barry!

    Add FORBES to the trash heap of publications like NEWSWEEK, TIME, NY TIMES among others.

  31. Intriguing posts, admin; hopefully I’m becoming more adept at understanding the minds of those who really are no more than bullies.
    BO was in NJ last night with his buddies: Quick House Visit: Obama Comes to NJ Home for Fundraiser Wednesday, October 06, 2010
    Last night President Obama raised a million dollars from wealthy Democrats at private fundraiser at the Cresskill New Jersey home of Michael Kempner. Attendees paid more than 30-thousand dollars each to attend. Kempner is the CEO of one the nation’s largest public relations and lobbying firms. The company represents some of the nation’s biggest health care industry companies, financial services and developers. Obama told the group that one of the Democratic Party’s greatest strengths is that it’s self-critical. But he said the time for Democrats to argue with each other is NOT four weeks before an Election Day.
    h t t p://beta.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/oct/06/quick-house-visit-obama-comes-nj-home-fundraiser/

    PS: NJN News announced that the affair was closed to the press, so who knows what really was said.

  32. Obamacare firesale: Three Catholic hospitals for sale in Pennsylvania
    By: Mark Hemingway
    Commentary Staff Writer
    10/07/10 1:05 AM EDT
    It looks like it’s not just insurers that suddenly want to get out of the health care business. Three Catholic hospitals in Pennsylvania are now on the market, and the hospital management is telling the local media that Obamacare is a major reason why the facilities are being unloaded: Mercy Hospital in Scranton is up for sale. Those who run the place and all other Mercy facilities in our area said Wednesday they are already in talks with organizations interested in buying. Mercy Health Partners hopes to have a buyer by the end of the year. snip For almost a century there has been a Catholic hospital in Scranton.
    This is likely to be a big story locally, and the hospitals fall in the districts of Rep. Chris Carney, D-Pa., and Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa. In the latest polls, Carney has a very narrow three point lead over his Republican challenger and Kanjorski, 13-term incumbent, is down 11 points against his Republican challenger.
    h t t p://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/obamacare-firesale-three-catholic-hospitals-for-sale-in-pennsylvania-104465154.html

  33. Rouse lives all alone in his house with two cats.

    Sounds just like our man “raised by the wolves.” A loner.

  34. BTW, I thought Hillary looks quiet irritated that people think she would run with Obama or that she plans a run against him.
    We will make no wine until its time.—-Ernest and Julio Gallo

    Big media is not the time keeper, and at this point their machinations are open and notorious.

  35. What has become of NQ commenters? They sound like Hillary haters. Some are passing on the misinformation like Clintons stayed at Soros’ daughter during the wedding. Incidentally if you google all you can find is pages of the same misinformation and one fool on NQ thinks that is what his/her ‘research’ says. I read that the daughter came out to deny it but can’t find the link. Anybody has a link?

  36. Attendees paid more than 30-thousand dollars each to attend.
    An act of detached and disinterested generosity? Must be. Certainly not a quid pro quo! Not from big media’s christ child (or baby mohammed perhaps). You can take the boy out of Chicago but you cannot take Chicago out of the boy. Why do I feel that under this uber corrupt presidency our country is being sold to the highest bidder, which will eventually be China? Probably because virtually everything he does in office points to that ineluctable conclusion. Put differently, this man is the most destructive force we have had to deal with in the office of president, and that statement covers alot of ground. In my opinion, he is truly the enemy within. I am not sure how many people realize the depth of this thing, but they had better.

  37. confloyd,

    I liken meme being awarded the Forbes most powerful woman in the world to her idiot husband receiving the ignoble peace price. Both most likely achieved by bribery and dirty coercion.

  38. confloyd
    October 7th, 2010 at 2:05 am

    This is the most powerful woman in the world.. she sets rules and guidelines about your dessert intake

  39. admin: Very intriging article…I guess all along this was payback time to Hillary from all those who aren’t fit to carry her shoes. Look how they’ve screwed up this country and healthcare…
    Its scares the heck out of me that all these hospitals are closing. Last Friday they fired a long time experienced xray tech with at least 10 or 15 years in…for some reason..no one knows. Of coarse, after coming off what they did to me in 2008′, I quickly put two and two together…she was top pay and was one of the older techs there. I really hope she did something wrong and it wasn’t the age/pay thing again. That’s why I’m not tuning in to the blog at work anymore…I have to have this job.

  40. JanH, Its funny because Andrea Mitchell on Messnbc was almost saying that Hillary was going to win it…but I guess the Queen stopped that. All this media focus on Hillary either running against him or with him sure can’t make it very easy on Hillary because their are many feeding his/her mistrust of Hillary.
    The two women that could really do something for the middleclass have been bushwacked before getting in. Disgusting!

  41. JanH
    October 6th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
    I’m not sure what to think of this…


    Rahm Emanuel won’t be Chicago’s next mayor, because the city won’t elect a Jew

    By Rachel Shteir | Oct 6, 2010

    Ah, he lost because of racism..it never stops.

  42. Admin: Doesn’t Daschle’s wife work in some sort of healthcare field???

    I personally think all the hospitals and their administrators knew and supported Obama in the general..I swear the little creep that runs our hospital in our little town knew about him.

  43. Well if I wasn’t in the medical field I would hope all those folks who supported Obama get their jobs and their asses kicked.

    So the way I’m reading your post is that Dascle’s team and money from the healthcare industry are the one’s that screwed Hillary??? Is that correct and looks like some are still giving too much money!

  44. confloyd,

    Yesterday I was thinking that maybe the rumors/speculation of Hillary become vp were of repub origin. Now I’m not so sure.

    How about this scenario:

    The dims throw this out early enough so that Hillary is boxed in with her denials. And when the time comes for some serious campaigning for bambi, the whole issue is mute.

  45. I have joined the ranks of individuals in this country that have a job and are fearfull that it could disappear. Its really not fun living this way.

    More jobs to China…Hewlett Packard moving their call center to China…the new hotspot to send them to is the Phillipines. I work with a lab tech from there and she’s moving their because their retirement age is 60 for full benefits.

  46. Jan H, I have thought of that too. We all know that Obama and his minions are treachous. They’re horrid…I hope we can get them out!

  47. Obama is pure evil. Just look at this. If he gives competitive advantage to multi national corporation over small business, and multi nationals create jobs overseas whereas small businesses creates them here at home, then he has betrayed the American People while lining his own pockets. This is the Chicago Model in spades. And it is evil. Every senator and every congressman who voted for this sell out is in pare delicto. Make no mistake about that.
    What Is The Point Of Obama Care Then?

    Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
    Thursday, October 7th at 10:21AM EDT

    To stop all the fussing by major American corporations about the devastating effects of Obamacare, the Obama administration is going to give a bunch of waivers to major corporations so they don’t have to comply with the law.

    What’s the point of the law then?

    The reality here is that this will perpetuate Obama policies in furtherance of John Edwards’ two Americas — those with the connections and power to get out from under the yoke of the law and those that cannot.

    The law and the waivers will pit entrepreneurs against armies of well paid lobbyists giving a competitive advantage, yet again, to big businesses.

    That’s Obama’s America.

  48. pm317, I would not be surprised to hear he’s got a second peace prize.

    I know for certain he’s promised the Palestinians something, because every middle eastern Doctor that I know was a Obama supporter to the max. I think he has promised to kick Israel’s ass. I just wish Hillary would quit and not try to help him achieve this goal…he can’t do it without her and by the looks of it he’s just using her like an old worn out whore…I just hate to see it…

  49. What little journolisters said that Meanshelle was the one with the power in the WH…that nothing gets past her?

  50. Jan H, I have thought of that too. We all know that Obama and his minions are treachous. They’re horrid…I hope we can get them out!
    A malignant tumor to be removed at the ballot box if and only if the people of this country have any common sense. I do not forget the fact that 58% voted for him. The question is are they educable and have they learned anything? In too many cases I am afraid the answer is no. They are as manipulable as children in the hands of big media.

  51. What little journolisters said that Meanshelle was the one with the power in the WH…that nothing gets past her?
    This is by far the most irrelevant award in the world. Just what are the criteria, who is the judge and what was the quid pro quo. The conclusion speaks for itself.

  52. It is beyond my comprehension how anyone could vote for a man like Reid who attains the pinnacle of power, and then lets the state that sent him to the Senate go to hell on his watch. Fourteen per cent unemployment yet he eviscerates the jobs bill. Wasteful stimulus spending. His mentor Obama tells the American People do not come to Las Vegas. Well, the Las Vegas Review Journal gets it and is now endorsing Angel because in their words Harry is “crippled by baggage”. Carpetbagger would the right word this miscreant who epitiomizes all that is treasonous, corrupt and indecent in American Politics.

    Angle Grabs Lead in Nevada — Reid’s Senate Days Numbered?
    Tuesday, 05 Oct 2010 08:36 PM Article Font Size
    By: David A. Patten

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could find himself out of a job in the next Congress based on a new Fox News poll showing him slipping behind GOP challenger Sharron Angle, 49 percent to 46 percent, with just 28 days to go before the Nov. 2 election.

    It is the largest lead either candidate has enjoyed since Fox began polling the race in Nevada.

    “As voters make up their minds with four weeks to go until Election Day, Angle seems to have the edge,” FoxNews.com reports.

    The poll results come during the most eventful week so far in a critical Senate battle that has major national implications for both parties.

    Syd James, the chairman of the Tea Party of Nevada, resigned Tuesday in the aftermath of the revelation that a third-party candidate in the race, Scott Ashjian, who is running on the Tea Party of Nevada ticket, secretly tape-recorded Angle as she tried to persuade him to drop out of the race.

    James announced Tuesday that he now backs Angle.

    Sources tell Newsmax that James resigned because he was shocked that Ashjian violated the pre-arranged ground rules for his meeting with Angle, and recorded the conversation.

    “I gave the Angle campaign my word that this was to be a private meeting and not tape recorded,” James said in a statement. “I feel my personal integrity and honor was violated when Scott [Ashjian] taped what was to be a private conversation and then made it public.

    “I can understand why the Angle campaign feels that they were double-crossed,” James added. “The Angle campaign trusted me, and that trust was violated.”

    In the recording, Angle tells Ashjian: “I’m not sure you can win and I’m not sure I can win if you’re hurting my chance, and that’s the part that scares me.”

    Angle also conveys antipathy toward GOP leaders, saying they have “lost their standards, they’ve lost their principles.”

    Some pundits have speculated that those anti-GOP remarks actually would strengthen Angle politically, by reassuring frustrated Nevada voters that Angle is sincere and harbors no delusions about Washington’s ability to bend maverick candidates to its will.

    Grass-roots conservative leaders statewide have denounced Ashjian and disavowed his candidacy. Angle’s supporters are concerned that Ashjian’s presence on the ballot in a tight election could be enough to throw the race to Reid, sending him back to Washington.

    Reid jumped on Angle over her meeting with Ashjian, stating: “Sharron Angle engaged in an act of supreme hypocrisy (even for her) during their secret meeting — attempting to cut a deal with Ashjian to get him off the ballot, and openly trashing the very same national Republicans that are supporting her candidacy.”

    A spokesman for Angle defended her remarks, telling Jon Ralston, the ace political reporter for the Las Vegas Sun: “Sharron expressed what many working families in Nevada and across the country are feeling. They are angry with Harry Reid, they are angry with Washington, D.C., and they want blunt plainspoken leaders who are willing to shake things up.

    “Sharron represents the interests of Nevada, not the interests of Washington, D.C., like Harry Reid does, and that’s why she is going to win.”

    The Fox News poll, in which Pulse Opinion Research surveyed 1,000 likely Nevada voters, was conducted on Oct. 2, before the details of the conversation between Angle and Ashjian leaked out.

    The poll suggests that several positive trends are now working in Angle’s favor. Among them:

    The percentage of voters selecting “none of the above” has dropped from 5 percent on Sept. 11 to just 1 percent. It is critical for Angle that this number be as low as possible, because the Nevada ballot actually gives voters the option of selecting “none of the above,” rather than selecting one of the candidates. Reid’s strategists have been aiming to drive Angle’s negatives up so high that voters will opt for neither Reid nor Angle, thereby improving the majority leader’s chances of returning to office.

    Fifty-three percent of voters said Angle’s views are “too extreme.” But 56 percent of them said Reid had been in office too long.

    Fox reports Angle’s supporters are no longer wavering. Two weeks ago, 10 percent of her supporters said they could still change their minds — a number that has dropped to 4 percent.

    Because the poll has a plus/minus 3 percent margin of error, the race is considered deadlocked. But this is the first Fox News poll in which either candidate had a lead of more than 1 point.

    Support for the tea party movement, which backs Angle, appears to be growing in Nevada. The grass-roots conservative movement has gone from 25 percent to 30 percent approval among likely voters in just three weeks, a trend that should favor Angle.

    On Sunday, the Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsed Angle, stating: “Seriously crippled by this much baggage, Sen. Reid has calculated that his survival depends on portraying Ms. Angle as an ‘extremist’ who would endanger women, children and the elderly.

    “In fact, Ms. Angle is well within the mainstream on most issues and embraces a political philosophy popular with millions of Americans who are making themselves heard this election cycle.”

    A vote for Reid, the editorial stated, “is a vote for the status quo in Washington.”
    © Newsmax. All rights reserved.

  53. It may be the most irrelevant award, but she doesn’t deserve any of them….she hasn’t done a damn thing except that stupid garden in the back of the house.
    There’s is one thing though…she truly is an AA, unlike her husband so I do give her credit for being the first AA First Lady…its just too bad she attached herself to the good for nothing Obama to get there.

  54. I am hoping we can send Reid, Pelosi, and Boxer back home to sit and meditate on what the did wrong in their careers and drink their Grey Goose Vodka while doing it….a fitting end to the treachery!

  55. I am soooo happy for Meechelle being voted the most powerful woman in the world. Heck, that’s a hell of a jump from number 40 last year! But wait! This was a year when the criteria was changed! It seems the only way that the Øbamas obtain awards is when the criterias are changed. In this dumbing down of the process, the organizations are able to back up their awards by pointing to their now dumbed down new criteria. They save face that way. That might work for some people, but it doesn’t work for everyone. Personally, I wouldn’t want accolades if I thought that I didn’t deserve them, and I would be visibly embarrassed to accept them.

  56. I woke up today and read Admin’s comments and the only thing I want now is for Hillary to quit working for this asshole.

    She may be doing a great job, but he’s taking the credit for it and it has to be his way which in my opinion cripples her ability to finish any project. She has made many friends in foreign countries…now its time to sing the song!

  57. This was an interesting article from the admin. It gives me insight into how these creeps managed to propel the stinker into the White House. It also makes me shudder at what a Daschle or Gephardt presidency would have been like. Both of those men tried to present themselves as reasonable, but they come from the same package as Øbama. All of the Øbama enablers need to be exposed so that wherever they lay their hats in future political campaigns for either themselves or others can be avoided. Their influence needs to be negated at all costs.

  58. confloyd
    October 7th, 2010 at 11:15 am

    Exactly. It’s taking questionable grammar school psychology and applying it to adults. Everybody’s a winner, so everybody gets a prize. Barry got his Nobel Prize because although he didn’t do anything, he was thinking about possibly doing something in the future. He definitely deserved a prize for thinking about something. And little Meechelled, well she might not have attempted to bring peace to the Middle East, but she has set a fine example by telling little girls that they should eat right, and excercise, and that they should nix the ice cream that she continues to love.

  59. noobama, Yes I agree, it was an eyeopener. My mom loved Gebheart, I wonder what she’d say today if she read this?? She’d loved Bill Clinton more though. She would of never guessed the treachery in the democratic party was/is much worse than the repubs ever dished out. Its really disgusting!

  60. I posted this elsewhere in response to talk about Jon Stewart’s “sanity” rally. I have my issues with JS and his weaseliness, but I do think that the concept is a good one.

    He basically wants the non-crazies, even those who sometimes disagree, to have a serious conversation about fixing this country. It’s the crazies who make us afraid to do that, for fear of “giving ammunition” to the other side’s crazies. It’s a vicious cycle.

    Just as a for instance, the “states rights” people do have a point that the federal govt has reached a point of flat out bullying the states – UNFUNDED MANDATES, anyone? But see, we can’t even have a conversation about whether there are limits to what the feds can force the states to do. We can’t even bring it up, because OMG that will put us “on the side of” loonies who want to completely dismantle the federal govt and throw everything back to the states.

    Um, no, I am not “on the side of” those people. Nor by bringing up criticisms of how the “free market” health care industry is neither free nor a true market, does it make me “on the side of” those who want a massive intrusive Big Brother State. I don’t. Stop telling me what I fucking think.

    Reasonable people are flat sick of being told “if you are in favor of A, that makes you a proponent of B, C, and D.” NO, it doesn’t. It just doesn’t. What I think is what I think, for reasons that are usually very logical. But people like me have no voice in our current political discourse, because I have two sides continually screaming at me “PICK A SIDE, GODDAMN YOU!!”

    No. I don’t have to, and I WON’T. Both “sides” have problems, and I will continue to point out the flaws, as I see them, and the benefits, as I see them, to individual policies. No one is going to browbeat me into giving up and quaffing anyone’s koolaid. If that gives me problems because neither “side” can figure out if I’m a friend or an enemy, then too freaking bad. That’s their problem, not mine.

    It’s my country too, and my voice and my vote is an individual one – it’s MINE. The rabid groupthink assimilators, either right or left, can kiss my individual American ass.

  61. Jon Stewart promotes Øbama, and I believe his rally is being done only to give a “non-crazy” face to Øbama’s supporters. He knows that the leftist media has done a crappy job of maligning the tea party, and I believe this to be his attempt to use a different tact at dismantling tea party support, and at encouraging disaffected Democrats who might sit out the upcoming elections.

    Yes, the concept is great, but it would have been wonderful to see the rally promoted by someone who is neutral.

  62. The White House has “concerns” Moving to coverup the foreclosure paperwork forging scandal?

    The White House is taking a careful look at legislation recently passed by Congress with little notice that would require courts to recognize notarizations from out-of-state, which some consumer advocates say would make it more difficult to fight bogus foreclosures by banks.
    “There were a series of meeting on that this morning here,” said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, who added the White House would have a more definitive statement later on Thursday. “It is something that, as you said, there has been a lot of news on, the processing of documentation, the resulting impact on foreclosures, and that is being evaluated….In general, there is concern, ultimately, about the situation.”

    IOW, as another commenter put it, the banks say: “You assholes said nobody would notice!”

    They are obfuscating because the problem isn’t the foreclosures themselves. The problem is all the mortgage-backed securities that spun off of those original notes – all the “side bets” that leveraged the original mortgage up to many multiples of the first note. Those are sitting on the big banks’ and hedge funds’ fake balance sheets of “assets” like big ole stinking turds.

    The law required due diligence, and that non-performing loans did not get bundled into those “assets”. And the banks all winked and nodded and proceeded to pile garbage by the truckload into those “baskets” of derivatives, not bothering with the paper trail that was legally required. They were making money hand over fist on this Ponzi scheme, and figured they would never get caught because the housing bubble would never pop.

    It’s not the foreclosures that will blow the whole thing sky high, it’s the side bets. Hillary knew this, which is why she wanted to actually unwind the MBS market, identify the toxic assets, and put them in a federal “bank”, a separate “pile” to isolate them from the rest of the system. Isolate them FIRST, leaving the banks healthy, then make decisions as to solutions for the toxic pile.

    Our corporate govt is going to write a law, give a waiver, whatever they have to do to make sure that all that shaky leverage the banks took on is never exposed. Because if the banks are forced to take their real losses, many of them implode immediately.

    The 700 billion bailout did NOTHING to clean up their balance sheets. Not one goddamn thing. They are as insolvent in reality as they were when this shit started, no matter what their fictional balance sheets say.

    Making them eat their losses in a structured, organized way, with some help from the treasury so that the whole system didn’t go down, would have been a difficult time for the economy. It would have sucked for the country. But we would have come out of it with clean accurate balance sheets and a solid foundation to rebuild.

    Instead, we spent 700 billion papering over the theft, only to wind up now right back where we started, with the rot still lurking there underneath, threatening at any moment to go kaboom once again.

  63. Apparently they are passing under the table, complete with R’s and D’s full support and bill that will help the Banks get out of fines and lawsuits with the illegally foreclosed homes…bipartiship is amazing when it helps the corporations.

  64. H4T, Fox is trying their best to keep people from realizing this today as is Forbes by awarding Michelle the “Power Woman”. Lots of meaningless stuff on the news to cover this story!!

  65. Rouse lives all alone in his house with two cats.

    Sounds just like our man “raised by the wolves.” A loner.


    Pls don’t insult loners! Or cats.

    Obama was raised (10-college) in a tiny apartment by White Guilt Liberals. Drama drama.

    BEfore that, more soap opera.

    Wolves would have been an improvement. See Kipling.

  66. She knew along time ago this was going to happen…

    There is a broad consensus that Congress must act to stave off deeper turmoil on Wall Street. Irrespective of the final agreement yet to be reached, there are several principles that must be part of a broader reform effort that begins this week and continues in the coming months.

    This is not just a financial crisis; it’s an economic crisis. Therefore, the solutions we pursue cannot simply stabilize the markets. We must also deal with the interconnected economic challenges that set the stage for this crisis — and reverse the failed policies that allowed a potential crisis to become a real one.

    First, we must address the skyrocketing rates of mortgage defaults and foreclosures that have buffeted the economy and ignited the credit crisis. Two million homeowners carry mortgages worth more than their homes. They hold $3 trillion in mortgage debt. Nearly three million adjustable-rate mortgages are scheduled for a rate increase in the next two years. Another wave of foreclosures looms.

    I’ve proposed a new Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), to launch a national effort to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. The original HOLC, launched in 1933, bought mortgages from failed banks and modified the terms so families could make affordable payments while keeping their homes. The original HOLC returned a profit to the Treasury and saved one million homes. We can save roughly three times that many today. We should also put in place a temporary moratorium on foreclosures and freeze rate hikes in adjustable-rate mortgages. We’ve got to stem the tide of failing mortgages and give the markets time to recover.

    The time for ideological, partisan arguments against these actions is over. For years, the calls to provide borrowers an affordable opportunity to avoid foreclosure as a means of preventing wider turmoil were dismissed as government intrusion into the private marketplace. My proposals over the past two years were derided as too much, too soon. Now we are forced to reckon with too little, too late.

    As a result, the home-mortgage crisis slowly eroded the value of debt instruments upon which Wall Street firms were depending. That is how this house of borrowed cards began to fall. If we do not take action to address the crisis facing borrowers, we’ll never solve the crisis facing lenders. These problems go hand in hand. And if we are going to take on the mortgage debt of storied Wall Street giants, we ought to extend the same help to struggling, middle-class families.

    Second, American taxpayers should have a voice and a stake in the resolution of this market crisis. If the Treasury proposal is enacted in its current form, the American government would assume enough financial risk to become the majority shareholder in the companies rescued by taxpayer dollars.

    The American people are bearing the risk and therefore deserve to reap the rewards of a shared equity model. And mortgage securities bought by taxpayers must be valued accurately at prices disclosed in real time, with checks and reporting requirements to prevent abuse.

    Third, taxpayers are being asked to bear an unparalleled degree of financial risk. We cannot allow taxpayers to take on this burden so that Wall Street and the Bush administration can hit the “reset button.” This historic intervention demands a historic shift in priorities: an end to the broken culture on Wall Street, and the broken economic policies in Washington.

    Corporations that will benefit must be held accountable, not only to large shareholders but also to the American people, who are rightly tired of business as usual: short-term profit at the expense of long-term viability; lax oversight and regulation; obscene bonuses and golden parachutes regardless of performance; reckless risk-taking that has placed the markets in jeopardy; rewards for foreclosing on middle-class families and selling mortgages designed to fail; and outsourcing good jobs to serve short-term stock prices instead of America’s long-term economic health.

    This is a sink-or-swim moment for America. We cannot simply catch our breath. We’ve got to swim for the shores. We must address the conditions that set the stage for the turmoil unfolding on Wall Street, or we will find ourselves lurching from crisis to crisis. Just as Wall Street must once again look further than the quarterly report, our nation must as well.

  67. Big media is not the time keeper, and at this point their machinations are open and notorious.


    What is Big Media’s motive in pushing this Hillary 2012 talk? They don’t really want Pres Hillary, do they?

  68. Turndown…I think he was raised to do just what he is doing…screwing middle America.

    He’s keeping Hillary so busy she might not know what going on in the financial mess. Of coarse Bill does.

  69. H4T, I did read it over there and it makes me sooo mad. I agree with a poster that said all this Hillary and Obama was to cover up is bill.

    Fox is working hard to keep everyone worried about security threats…bless their heart for not informing us of the real shit that is going down as we speak!

  70. What little journolisters said that Meanshelle was the one with the power in the WH…that nothing gets past her?


    If that were true, why would she be satisfied with a public image as a socialite shopping at farmers market for diet food? I don’t think she’s smart enough for such deep cover.

  71. h4t,


    Especially this: “Just as a for instance, the “states rights” people do have a point that the federal govt has reached a point of flat out bullying the states – UNFUNDED MANDATES, anyone? But see, we can’t even have a conversation about whether there are limits to what the feds can force the states to do. We can’t even bring it up, because OMG that will put us “on the side of” loonies who want to completely dismantle the federal govt and throw everything back to the states.”

    Oh, it’s worse than that! ‘States’ rights’ means you want to stand in front of the school to keep black children out and bring back slavery. That’s the only right the states ever wanted or could want.

    Oregon and Washington and CA wanting medical marijuana, assisted suicide, etc etc couldn’t be states’ rights, those are Liberal causes!

  72. Fox is trying their best to keep people from realizing this today as is Forbes by awarding Michelle the “Power Woman”. Lots of meaningless stuff on the news to cover this story!!


    In August Congress voted DOWN a bill to help 911 workers with their resulting medical conditions. So the media stirred up a different controversy to cover that.

  73. I just finished reading the main post, and WOW Admin, you are really something for putting all the pieces together in the FraudRiseToPower scheme. I thought Rove had a hand in it, but now I understand the machine was way beyond just Kennedy, Nasty and Reid.

    Sounds like the split in the Democrat party happened way before Hillary tossed her hat in the ring or her voters had their votes bamboozled. Also, the plan was to push the empty suit over the fish line by scamming the caucus states and manipulating Hillary voters in those caucus. ‘Win’ at any cost, DNC vote trading, bullying, threatening delegates…on and on. Anything to stop Hillary from winning no matter how many voters wanted her.

    So, now that Barry is impotent with the majority of voters, will Hillary challenge him in 2012 with the corrupt machine still in place???????????? Barry will be a lame goose in less than a month, his veto power will be his only tool……

  74. I forgot to comment on the very end of this post. Those who don’t remember voting for Øbama might not have done so. If they are basing their information on falsified and fraudelent elections, is it not possible that Øbama won the election through massive out and out fraud? I’ve seen comments in the past that millions of Republicans sat the election out. I believed that to be a fabricated story. So, if massive fraud took place, how did it happen? Was it perpetrated through electronic voting machines? Didn’t one of the heads of the voting machine companies make a comment about how he would do anything to see Øbama win? I thought I remember that from back in 2008. Also, I’ve read about voting machines being hacked in the past. I remember thinking massive fraud after Øbama won in 2008. I hope someone, somewhere, happens across proof of this if it did indeed occur.

  75. White House Calls Partisan Campaign Groups a ‘Threat to Our Democracy’

    Faced with an onslaught of campaign funding from partisan non-profit groups, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Thursday called the influx of election spending from unnamed donors “a threat to our democracy.”

    Speaking specifically about the conservative group American Crossroads and its sister organization, Crossroads GPS — both of which are supported by Republican strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie — Gibbs called for disclosure of their donor lists, saying, “If Mr. Gillespie and Mr. Rove consider themselves supporters, then the best thing would be for them to let the public see who all [their groups’] supporters are. Let the American people know who has written these checks.”

    Gibbs then extended this call to Democratic non-profits, saying, “This goes for every group — groups on either side of the political spectrum.” He added that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — presently under fire from a labor coalition alleging tax violations — should be forced to disclose its donor sources as well.

    This week, Democratic watchdog organizations Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center called on the IRS to investigate Crossroads GPS, saying the group was using its nonprofit status to avoid disclosing the names of wealthy donors.

    According to the Washington Post, as a nonprofit “social welfare” outfit, Grassroots GPS can effectively raise and spend as much campaign money as it wants with only minimal disclosure. But federal tax laws dictate that the primary purpose of such nonprofits cannot be political, including “participation or intervention in political campaigns.”

    Highlighting the influence of these groups, Crossroads GPS and American Crossroads are expected to spend $100 million in media campaigns before next month’s election.


  76. I think I remembered something incorrectly in my previous comment. One of the voting machine company presidents was accused of saying that he would do anything to see George Bush win his election (or re-election?). I still believe Øbama won the general election through fraud. There was a significant number of voters who would normally vote Democrat who voted against Øbama. This should have offset the new voters who supposedly voted for Øbama. And since I don’t believe millions of Republicans sat the election out, the movement of former Democrat party supporters to the Republican candidate should have either had McCain win, or at least a much closer vote than what actually happened.

  77. The Øbama campaign should be investigated to determine from where he received his billion dollars. I think it is important for Americans to know exactly how much money was funneled to his presidential campaign from illegal sources. Lord knows it wasn’t from the small donors that he claimed. Small donors mean small donations, and there is know way that his massive campaign funding came from a majority of small donors.

  78. the plan was to push the empty suit over the fish line by scamming the caucus states and manipulating Hillary voters in those caucus. ‘Win’ at any cost, DNC vote trading, bullying, threatening delegates…on and on. Anything to stop Hillary from winning no matter how many voters wanted her.

    So, now that Barry is impotent with the majority of voters, will Hillary challenge him in 2012 with the corrupt machine still in place?


    That’s the big thing. Wouldn’t the machine still want Obama, or find someone else?

  79. Just wait, MEchelle will be awarded the MVP award in the Super Bowl, as best “offensive player”.

  80. The demise of Obama will take place in three steps.

    Step 1: buyers remorse. by now, most party officials realize that it was a mistake for the party to nominate him, and the country to elect him, and if they voted for his policies then they are as much to blame for it as he is. They were gullible as hell, and there is no way to unring that bell.

    Step 2: fear of consequences: for the first year of his presidency, they feared him more that their own constituents. On that premise, they posted the most politically toxic peace of legislation since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1792, and called it a great civil right victory. Now they are finding that the majority of their constituents believe Mr. Obama is destroying the country and view those same party officials now a accomplices. Hence, now they are more afraid of the American People in 2010. They believe that they will lose Congress, that Obama’s popularity will decline even further during the next two years, and even more seats will be up for grabs in 2012 than in 2010. Thus, if they stay with him then they will surely go down in flames.

    Step 3: the need for change: as they struggle for survival in 2010, who is there to help them? Obama, the man who walked them out on that limb? No. He is too busy with vacations, parties, and backyard soirees. Bill Clinton is the one who has come in like the Carpathia to save the drowning victims of the Titanic disaster. Even so, many lives will be lost. I say that after apres le deluge no one in their right mind will be anxious to climb back aboard the Titanic. They will be forced to look for solutions that will work, in order to avoid an even bigger bloodbath in 2012. In sum, they will desert Obama, but not until they have a viable alternative. As we know there is only one viable alternative in the Party, who is now the object of their buyers remorse. They wish they had it all to do over again, and very possible they will have that opportunity. That does not happen often in life, but here it most definitely could.

  81. I wonder what those 2009 Inauguration dishes with their brick a bac construction and garish images are selling for these days. I would like to have one for myself. It would make a fine elegant spittoon. The only secondary market I am aware of for these quaint reminders of paradise lost is in Venezuela, Cuba, Iran and North Korea.

  82. Every now and then, a friend of mine will show me pictures of Michelle on my friend’s cell phone. There is always some comment like “Don’t you think this picture of Michelle and I looks great?” 🙄 Sometimes, it is less than enjoyable. Especially when I am just sitting on the couch, hanging out, trying to enjoy my beer, and then all of a sudden…a cellphone is in my face with an image of Michelle. The last time, I almost lost my cool and hurled. Let’s just say, a picture of Michelle is hands down the best emetic out there, in my book.

    Anyway, people who have known Michelle for 20 years will tell you, the Michelle Obama you see in the media now is not the real Michelle. The real Michelle Obama is indeed your stereotypical ‘angry black woman.” (while I generally try not to speak in stereotypes, I employ it here only for the purposes of expedient communication). Remember, Michelle was the breadwinner in her family for the longest time, while Barack was a lecturer, community organizer, whatever.

    But what happened in 2008 is that the Obamas’ handlers’ decided that a “strong” woman was not the right “image” for a candidate’s wife. So, in the guise of a “makeover” (which began the first time she was on The View), they changed Michelle. They took away all the bearings of a “strong, independent” woman, and made her seem more docile. It was the Stepford-ification of Michelle Obama.

    Now, what I want to know is, why don’t people in Big Media get this? They only have to look into her background, or ask people who have known her for years and years. Instead they continue with their phony narratives. But I would tell them, how on earth can you consider Michelle Obama the most powerful woman, when she couldn’t even maintain herself? How can she be the most powerful woman in the world and presume to tell others what to do with their lives, when she herself doesn’t even know who she is.

  83. they changed Michelle.

    Ooooowe, can you imagine the loss of sleeves when Barry doesn’t win his re-election and they have to pack their bags in total humiliation?

    The only thing that would please me more is if Hillary had the movers tear down the remodeled beige on beige crap and put up her bold, bright winning colors.

  84. Can we say GWB the second? This sounds vaguely familiar:

    A US terror alert issued this week about al-Qaida plots to attack targets in western Europe was politically motivated and not based on credible new information, senior Pakistani diplomats and European intelligence officials have told the Guardian.

    The non-specific US warning, which despite its vagueness led Britain, France and other countries to raise their overseas terror alert levels, was an attempt to justify a recent escalation in US drone and helicopter attacks inside Pakistan that have “set the country on fire”, said Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the high commissioner to Britain.

    Hasan, a veteran diplomat who is close to Pakistan’s president, suggested the Obama administration was playing politics with the terror threat before next month’s mid-term congressional elections, in which the Republicans are expected to make big gains.


  85. Democrat Talking Heads Privately Diss Obama
    Wednesday, 06 Oct 2010 12:26 PM Article Font Size
    By: Ronald Kessler

    No one would mistake Brad Blakeman for a Democrat. He is a former Bush White House aide who appears regularly on Fox News and other outlets as a Republican strategist.

    Yet Democrats are so disgusted with President Obama that when they shmooze with Blakeman in the green room before TV appearances, they diss the president.

    “They say how arrogant and disconnected Obama and his staff are,” Blakeman tells Newsmax. “They say that he refuses to take advice and basically demands that they toe his line no matter what.”

    If Democratic talking heads are disgusted with Obama, so are voters.

    “People aren’t buying the sales pitches,” Blakeman says. “They don’t like what he is selling. They have been burned by the product, and now they are looking elsewhere.”

    Ironically, “The most dejected people are Democrats because they feel that they have been let down by the guy whom they thought was going to solve all of the problems,” Blakeman says. “The people who’ve supported this guy the most are the ones hurting the most — young people and the inner city urban population, where unemployment is 20 percent.”

    Obama’s solution to the widespread disenchantment with him has been to demonize rich people, the tea party movement, the Bush administration, and Fox News.

    Yet, in a Politico/George Washington University poll, 42 percent of respondents said Fox News is their main source of information about the upcoming election, compared with 30 percent who cited CNN and 12 percent who rely on MSNBC.

    “In his speeches, Obama says look at what I inherited,” Blakeman says. “Yet during the campaign, he knew all of the answers. He demonizes the rich people and blames them for all of our problems,” Blakeman says. “But they’re not the problem. It’s those in the top 5 percent income brackets who pay for much of the government. He should be empowering them to employ people, to expand their businesses. If he did that, he would be able to create not only wealth for them but wealth for others.”

    At the same time, Obama signals weakness to America’s enemies.

    “He has no courage,” Blakeman says. “Those who seek to do us harm are building the instrumentalities upon which they can make good their threats, and he’s not standing up to that.”

    In contrast to Bill Clinton, Blakeman says, Obama is fixated on a left-wing ideology and will not change course.

    “Obama did what the left wing wanted to be done instead of what the people needed to be done,” Blakeman says. “There’s no crisis in healthcare; he created the crisis in healthcare. What good is healthcare in 2014 if I don’t have a job in 2010?”

    Clinton “was more of a realist politician who understood what he needed to do in order to run the government and have a legacy and accomplishments,” Blakeman says. “Obama is incapable of changing course. It is all about him, and he does not have it in him to admit that he and his policies are wrong.”

    Instead of being a leader, “He’s a pitchman,” Blakeman says. “He seems to think that his job is just saying things, and he doesn’t want to have his fingerprints on anything. It’s somebody else who caused the problem. He says Congress will get me a bill, and I’ll decide whether or not I’m going to support it or sign it. That’s not any way to be a president.”

  86. Anyway, people who have known Michelle for 20 years will tell you, the Michelle Obama you see in the media now is not the real Michelle. The real Michelle Obama is indeed your stereotypical ‘angry black woman.” (while I generally try not to speak in stereotypes, I employ it here only for the purposes of expedient communication). Remember, Michelle was the breadwinner in her family for the longest time, while Barack was a lecturer, community organizer, whatever.

    But what happened in 2008 is that the Obamas’ handlers’ decided that a “strong” woman was not the right “image” for a candidate’s wife. So, in the guise of a “makeover” (which began the first time she was on The View), they changed Michelle. They took away all the bearings of a “strong, independent” woman, and made her seem more docile. It was the Stepford-ification of Michelle Obama.


    The evidence is closer than that. Look at statements MO made to the press in 2007 and 2008.

  87. Notice the comparison between Obama and Clinton in the article posted above. Republican Blakeman says President Clinton knew what he was doing, whereas Obama is just a pitchman rather than a leader.

  88. About three dozen people have been treated for illness during a rally featuring President Obama at Bowie State University.

    Prince George’s County Fire and EMS spokesman Mark Brady tells WTOP numerous ambulances have been sent to the rally after people started fainting and became dizzy.

    The problems could be related to warmer temperatures today. Brady says crowds at the rally were outside and packed shoulder to shoulder.

    Two people have been taken to the hospital so far, Brady says. The rest have been treated at the scene.

    Officials have set up a triage area inside the gymnasium at Bowie State.

    Obama was scheduled to appear in an effort to rally Maryland Democrats for incumbent Gov. Martin O’Malley prior to November’s elections.

    The president still spoke despite the health issues in the audience. He implored voters to be ready to fight in the upcoming elections.


    The show must go on even if people are taken out on a stretcher………

    Mr. Sensative

  89. Murder and treason never kept Teddy awake at night, but there are those who cannot sleep soundly on either side of the grave while our country is being destroyed. Since Obama and his Chicago thugs relied on dead voters to elect him, it is only right that his opponents should receive financial backing from dead political contributors who make pledges in their will to anyone who runs against him in 2012.
    Obama On Voters’ Minds
    By A.B. Stoddard – 10/06/10 06:17 PM ET
    The Hill

    A reader passed along an obituary this week for a man who died last month in Rome, Ga. Donald Unsworth was 78 — husband, father, grandfather, veteran, former police officer, safety director of the Floyd County Police Department and owner of both Rome Driver’s Training School and Carter’s Hardware and Auto Parts. The obituary said Unsworth would “always be remembered for his generosity and his willingness to help needy families and friends,” and suggested donations to the American Cancer Society. Additionally, Unsworth asked to be remembered in two years, requesting that contributions be made in his name to “whoever is running against President Barack Obama in 2012.”

    While Republicans planning to challenge Obama in 2012 are seeking to capitalize on the energy of voters angry at the president, there is new evidence that disapproval of Obama may play a significant role in deciding the upcoming midterm elections this November, according to The Hill/ANGA poll published this week.

    In surveys of 12 districts represented by freshman Democrats elected to office in 2008 along with President Obama, strong majorities of voters in districts that could determine which party controls the House of Representatives said their opinion of Obama was important to their consideration of a candidate.

    In the poll, conducted by the firm of Penn Schoen Berland, voters in the 12 districts largely supported Republicans and divided government. Most respondents disapproved of the job Obama and Congress are doing, and the survey showed that Republicans are far more motivated to cast votes than Democrats. A majority of the likely voters sampled, including some Democrats, favored a repeal of healthcare reform. But as vulnerable freshmen, even those who didn’t support all of Obama’s agenda, defend their records back home, they will run up against a powerful Obama effect, The Hill/ANGA poll shows: Two-thirds of respondents said they would consider the president while choosing how to vote on Nov. 2.

    “The old adage is that ‘All politics is local.’ That may not be holding true this year,” said pollster Mark Penn of Penn Schoen Berland.

    In the 12 districts included in The Hill/ANGA poll — Mich.-7, Ariz.-1, Ill.-11, Md.-1, N.M.-2, Nev.-3, Ohio-15 and -16, Va.-2 and -5, Colo.-4 and Pa.-3 — sentiment against Obama is high. To the question “When you think about your vote in this November’s congressional election, how important in your decision is your feeling about President Obama?” 11 of 12 districts showed voters most likely to vote registering higher than 60 percent, and often more than 70 percent, in an “important/unimportant” response. Those voting blocs are Republicans, independents, males, females and voters 55 and older. In Rep. Frank Kratovil’s (D-Md.) district, voters 55 and older said the Obama factor was 80/20 “important/unimportant.” In the district of Rep. Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.), who is 18 points behind her opponent, voters 55 and older answered 81/15 about the importance of their consideration of the president, while independents answered 74/25 to the same question. The only district where the answers to that question were lower overall is the 7th district of Michigan, which shows the only tied race of the poll, a rematch between Democratic Rep. Mark Schauer and former Rep. Tim Walberg (R).

    Other recent polls have indicated the voter groups that maintain the highest approval of President Obama — namely, African-Americans and young people — have the least interest in voting in November’s midterm elections. Without Obama on the ticket, those voters aren’t planning to turn up at the polls. The problem for Democrats in those races is that an imaginary Obama will be on the ticket for many of those voters who do show up.

    Stoddard is an associate editor of The Hill.


    Comments (50)PAGE |1|2|3|>A.B.- all the “analyses” and all the polls have been jumping through hoops to avoid the question of the Emperor’s obvious nakedness. But, this is no longer merely one issue of JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. As your reference to Mr. Unsworth indicated, there is a visceral disgust with Obama. Why? Because he appears intent upon poking sticks in the eyes and hearts of “ordinary” Americans. He has a glacial contempt for Our History and Traditions. He is not a part of them by choice. The list of examples grows daily far too long to enumerate – Louisiana and a politically motivated “moratorium”, Arizona and a politically motivated “lawsuit”, “civil trials” instead of military tribunals, bail-outs to Wall Street and the Unions who have supported him, the continuing “Apology Tours”, the refusal to make guarantees to Israel in the face of Iran, the abandonment of Missile Treaties with Eastern Europe. On and on, infinitum, ad nauseum. This is a man who is pleased he is not One of Us because he is convinced of his superiority to those he “governs”. He has no concept of “President” except in the dictatorial sense of Fidel or Chavez or Putin. That’s why he is so “petulant” and brittle in his response to those who disagree with him. That’s why he feels so free to make garish remarks about perceived or real opponents. He doesn’t understand or care that these remarks are “un-Presidential”. When he attempts to threaten Ailes or Murdoch, he doesn’t care that he’s behaving like a Russian Mafia Don. Alot of what he does is pure “theater” – the hands “just so” as he runs down the steps of AF 1, the staccato vocal delivery and the daily televised speeches for the least significant thing. But, the theatrical performance that disgusted me the most —- was his “speech” at today’s Medal of Honor ceremony. How dare he speak as if he was present at that young man’s death! Vile. These are only a few of the reasons so many of us would join with Mr. Unsworth.”

  90. The evidence is closer than that. Look at statements MO made to the press in 2007 and 2008.

    That evidence has been there for ages, but for some reason had no sauce. So, one can’t keep beating that horse imo; instead, sometimes one has to bring new information for a re-examination of all relevant information.

    In any case, I sometimes wonder why people let Michelle get away with this sort of stuff. Even her fashion diva reinvention is contrived. After all, she was not a fashion diva for the first four and a half years that we knew Michelle on the national stage!!!

    It was only after she went on the View and this new affectation was necessary, that her handlers gave her a new personality as a fashionista. (One only has to look at the articles at the time to see how and when that meme started.) If people looked for the info, then imo, it’s pretty easy to figure out where, when and how, the Stepfordification occurred.

  91. They made her up just as they made him up. They had a headstart with him — he had written a fictional account of his long life ready to be adapted to a movie screen.

  92. This judge has the mental horsepower of Conyers. Not surpringly, he hails from the same venue–Detroit. We need half way intelligent judges on the courts in order for the system to function, and as this case shows, we do not alway get them. Fortunately, the problem here is appealable, therefor correctable.
    Federal Judge George Caram Steeh rejects attempt to stop health care provision!
    Posted by johnwk on October 7, 2010 at 6:08pm in General, Uncategorized Town Hall
    View Discussions
    See: Foes of health-care law lose key court ruling

    Associated Press – October 7, 2010 4:04 PM ET

    “The judge says lawmakers intended to lower the overall cost of health insurance by requiring people to participate. Steeh says Congress didn’t run afoul of the Constitution’s commerce clause.”

    This is the specific kind of judge who needs to be dragged of his bench and severely punished for his trashing of our Constitution and ignoring the limited powers granted to Congress!

    The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

    Let us first document the meaning of “commerce” as used by our founding fathers during the time our Constitution was being framed and ratified, for it is their intended definition of “commerce” which is required to be observed by the court when construing the Constitution. Likewise, let us also document the intentions for which the power to regulate “commerce” was granted, as the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is to be obedient to the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

    The historical record establishes that the word “commerce”, as our founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution meant, the exchange of goods between the states. ___ the transportation and exchange of goods between point A and point B. As we shall find out, Congress was given the power in question to insure “free trade“, an uninhibited transportation of goods “among” the states and prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders.

    “In fact, when Federalists and Anti-Federalists discussed the Commerce Clause during the ratification period, they often used trade (in its selling/bartering sense) and commerce interchangeably. See The Federalist No. 4, p. 22 (J. Jay) (asserting that countries will cultivate our friendship when our trade is prudently regulated by Federal Government); id., No. 7, at 39-40 (A. Hamilton) (discussing competitions of commerce between States resulting from state regulations of trade); id., No. 40, at 262 (J. Madison) (asserting that it was an acknowledged object of the Convention . . . that the regulation of trade should be submitted to the general government); Lee, Letters of a Federal Farmer No. 5, in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States 319 (P. Ford ed. 1888); Smith, An Address to the People of the State of New-York, in id., at 107.

    As one would expect, the term commerce was used in contradistinction to productive activities such as manufacturing and agriculture. Alexander Hamilton, for example, repeatedly treated commerce, agriculture, and manufacturing as three separate endeavors. See, e.g., The Federalist No. 36, at 224 (referring to agriculture, commerce, manufactures); id., No. 21, at 133 (distinguishing commerce, arts, and industry); id., No. 12, at 74 (asserting that commerce and agriculture have shared interests). The same distinctions were made in the state ratification conventions. See e.g., 2 Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 57 (J. Elliot ed. 1836) (hereinafter Debates) (T. Dawes at Massachusetts convention); id., at 336 (M. Smith at New York convention).

    Moreover, interjecting a modern sense of commerce into the Constitution generates significant textual and structural problems. For example, one cannot replace commerce with a different type of enterprise, such as manufacturing. When a manufacturer produces a car, assembly cannot take place with a foreign nation or with the Indian Tribes. Parts may come from different States or other nations and hence may have been in the flow of commerce at one time, but manufacturing takes place at a discrete site. Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles.” ___ See U.S. vs. Lopez

    As to the documented intentions for which the power over commerce was granted, a review of the historical record is very informative. A clue to the specific intentions is quickly pointed out in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of our Constitution.

    “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

    Indeed, we now begin to learn the intention for which the power to “regulate commerce” was granted . . . one reason being, to prohibit preferences being made by Regulations of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another, and to prevent Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

    As pointed out in Federalist Paper No. 42 concerning the intention of the power to regulate commerce, Madison states the following:

    “A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”

    The power to regulate commerce among the states was also intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders, and that is the intended and limited power granted as established by the historical record!

    Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws:

    “No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”

    It is sheer insanity and/or and act of tyranny by the court, to suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution intended by the power in question, to be authorizing a power in Congress to enter the States and interfere with the health care decision making of the people therein. As a matter of fact, our federal Constitution as documented in its preamble, was specifically adopted to secure the Blessings of Liberty which Obamacare seeks to erase with regard to the people’s inalienable right to make their own choices regarding their health care needs.

    And what does Federalist No 45 say with regard to Congress’s powers?

    “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

    The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”

    Judge George Caram Steeh has proven to be a domestic enemy of our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted and for this he needs to be punished!


    Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process — tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE Judge’s ruling!

  93. Republican Andrea Tantaros has said some smart things about Hillary before (we cited her comments in our “secret weapon” article). Now she weighs in on the VP in 2012 stories:


    With Barack Obama’s administration sinking, there has been – and likely will continue to be – a lot of chatter on whether or not Hillary Clinton (above) will challenge the current President in 2012. While it’s highly unlikely she’d divide the Democratic Party by pursuing the White House, she may find herself there via another route.

    This week the rumor mill was abuzz again after respected journalist Bob Woodward alleged that the idea of a Biden-Clinton swap is “on the table.” He would take the secretary of state job, while she would take second billing on Obama’s return ticket to the White House.

    While a switcheroo might not be in the cards, an Obama-Clinton is nevertheless a real possibility for Vice President. With Democrats in duress and the President’s popularity plummeting, especially with white voters, Obama might have no choice but to add her to the ticket if he has any hopes for a second term.[snip]

    If current polling is any indication, he desperately needs Clinton from a political standpoint and may have no choice. It wouldn’t be the first time, either. Dumping the veep has happened many times in history, most recently in 1976, when Gerald Ford dumped Nelson Rockefeller for Bob Dole.

    A Gallup poll released this week showed President Obama’s popularity at 91% among non-hispanic black voters. Among non-hispanic whites, though, it’s a mere 36%.

    He’s also losing white, working class voters. A recent AP/Gfk poll reveals Obama is losing blue collar whites by massive margins.

    The poll, conducted last month, found this group favoring GOP hopefuls 58% to 36%. While Democrats haven’t traditionally captured this group, the gap has never been this big. In 2008, when Obama won the presidency, they favored GOP congressional candidates by 11 percentage points, according to exit polls of voters. When Democrats won the House and Senate in 2006, the Republican edge was only 9 percentage points.

    Here’s where Hillary can help. These working class whites, also known as “Reagan Democrats,” preferred her by 2-1 in the 2008 Democratic primary. She can assist in critical states like Ohio, where she won the primary, and where Obama is now proving to be a huge drag on the Democrats running for state office. According to a Quinnipiac poll, 60% of Ohioans disapprove of the job he is doing and 65% disapprove of his handling of the economy.

    And of course don’t forget Hillary’s “18 million cracks” in the glass ceiling, a block of female voters that sided with her in the 2008 Democratic primary. This past summer Obama saw his support among females drop below 50% for the first time and reacted by running to the chattering women of “The View.” Hillary could grab the attention of women (especially if there is a Sarah Palin presidential run on the horizon) and make history as the first female Vice Presidential candidate to actually win. The twosome could prove a powerful visual if the GOP nominates two stiff duds.

    I can’t imagine Michelle Obama liking this move, or Joe Biden for that matter, but they might not have an option. If Michelle wants to maintain her First Lady lifestyle and proximity to power, her husband must obviously be re-elected.[snip]

    To be clear, Hillary is far from the perfect candidate. Her name is a throwback to the past when the electorate is clamoring for change and her signature policies – like the infamous Hillarycare health plan of 1993 – have failed miserably.

    There is also no guarantee Hillary will do it. [snip] It would also perfectly position her to run for President in 2016. Unless, of course, her sights are only set on running in six years, without the burden of serving as Vice President in the interim. Either way, Hillary will not fade into retirement after her current stint.

    Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America,” Biden conceded in 2008 on the campaign trail. Who knew those words could prove to be the most insightful thing he’s ever said?

Comments are closed.