March Madness: Libyans And Obama Cry ‘Bring Bush’ – Americans Cry ‘Bring Jobs’ – And Facebook And Twitter Are ‘Not All That’

March Madness is here. Earlier in the week Reuters reported that Libyan rebels called out for George Bush, not planet healer Barack Obama, to save them:

Bring Bush! Make a no fly zone, bomb the planes,” shouted soldier-turned-rebel Nasr Ali, referring to a no-fly zone imposed on Iraq in 1991 by then U.S. President George Bush.”

Wasn’t it Barack Obama who, according to Dumb White People like Andrew Sullivan, was supposed to be the great inspiration and HOPE for Muslims/Arabs?

It is possible, and soon we will hear this as an excuse from the Obama Hopium hobbled, that the Libyan rebels have been made loopy by the beatings and bombings they are getting from their loser leader. Loopy Libyans might have forgotten that George W. Bush is long gone and we have our own loser leader called Barack Obama. But it has been three lonnng years since Mess-iah Obama has been in office so we doubt that forgetfulness is the reason for the “Bring Bush” pleas.

If it’s not forgetfulness then perhaps it is a total lack of knowledge. This could be another excuse for Libyans shouting “Bring Bush” instead of ‘Save Us Mess-iah Obama’ – that Libyans, now completely deprived of internet access, have never known that Obama, not Bush, is driving the car into the ditch. The problem with this excuse is that it kills a favorite Big Media narrative about Facebook, Twitter, and what amounts to today’s version of CB radio.

Big Media keeps telling us that all the uprisings, rebellions, revolutions, hissy fits, in the Muslim/Arab world are a major product line of the internet. But that narrative falls apart when an examination of internet penetration is made:

“The movie “The Social Network,” which is about the founding of Facebook, received far more media commentary than any other movie in 2010, despite being only the 28th highest U.S.-grossing film that year.

This applies to foreign affairs as well. In the context of the events occurring in the Middle East, the Western media loves to argue that Twitter and Facebook constitute catalysts for revolution in the modern era. Indeed, some articles called the 2009 Iranian protests the “Twitter Revolution.” One excited journalist at the time wrote:

Iranians are blogging, posting to Facebook and, most visibly, coordinating their protests on Twitter, the messaging service. Their activity has increased, not decreased, since the presidential election on Friday and ensuing attempts by the government to restrict or censor their online communications. [snip]

The trouble with all this is that in June 2009, the entire country of Iran only had 19,235 Twitter users, according to statistics assembled by Sysomos. This is about half the number of people who attend a professional football game. [snip]

But it certainly is not enough to make a “Twitter Revolution.” Foreign Policy analyst Golnaz Esfandiari probably provides a more accurate analysis of Twitter’s role in Iran:

Twitter was definitely not a major communications tool for activists on the ground in Iran.

Nonetheless, the “Twitter Revolution” was an irresistible meme during the post-election protests, a story that wrote itself. Various analysts were eager to chime in about the purported role of Twitter in the Green Movement. Some were politics experts, like the Atlantic‘s Andrew Sullivan and Marc Ambinder. Others were experts on new media, like Sascha Segan of PC Magazine. Western journalists who couldn’t reach — or didn’t bother reaching? — people on the ground in Iran simply scrolled through the English-language tweets posted with tag #iranelection. Through it all, no one seemed to wonder why people trying to coordinate protests in Iran would be writing in any language other than Farsi.

The recent revolutions in the Arab world also, in all likelihood, have very little to do with either Twitter or Facebook, whatever the Western media might say. Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen have a combined total of 14,642 Twitter users. That is a tiny, tiny number. There are more people in a major public university than Twitter users in these three countries combined.

Facebook is relatively more widely used throughout the world; its penetration in Egypt was 4.58% as of July 2010.. This is better than Twitter, but the usage pales in comparison to – say – the percent of the population that watches Al Jazeera. Fortunately, given the nationwide Internet shutdown in Egypt, journalists are not talking about a “Facebook Revolution” in Egypt.

But the articles about Facebook or Twitter supposedly inciting revolution continue. [snip]

But only 10% of people in Sudan even have access to the Internet, let alone use Facebook or Twitter. One wonders how many people in Sudan (or Egypt or Iran, for that matter) even know that these websites exist.

Indeed, the primary users of Twitter and Facebook seem to be well-educated, Internet-savvy Westerners – the type of people who, not coincidentally, write articles for the New York Times and Washington Post. The Western media’s focus on so-called “Twitter Revolutions” may tell less about the revolution and more about the preoccupations of the American journalists who cover about the revolution.”

The Emir backed Al Jazeera is the big fish in all these protests not Facebook or Twitter. Al Jazeera is very biased but Hillary Clinton was right when she essentially said Al Jazeera had better coverage of the news in the Middle East than what passes for American news outlets. Hillary Clinton is absolutely right, though much too polite, when she slams Big Media. Our Big Media sucks and only fools would defend it. After Hillary made her remarks only a very few Republican/conservative websites wrote rationally about her remarks. Many of these sites went into instant Hillary Hate instead of realizing she is correct. We’ll stick by Hillary and to hell with Big Media.

So take your pick: (a) Are the Libyans loopy and going through their own March Madness or; (b) do they simply respect George W. “Bring Bush” Bush more than weak Barack Hussein Obama (don’t forget Bill Clinton’s dictum that it is better to be wrong and strong than weak and right – and we are not saying for a moment that Obama has done anything right)?

Also, are the Libyans internet savvy or current events ignoramuses (ditto the rest of the Middle East revolutionaries)? We won’t ask about Hillary – we know she is exactly correct when she says Big Media stinks.

* * * * * *

The Libyans, loopy or not, were not alone in yelling “Bring Bush”. The loser leader of the Hopium hobbled cadres was yelling “Bring Bush” too:

“Miami – Seeking support for increasing the country’s investment in education, President Barack Obama appeared at a high school here on Friday with an unlikely ally he described as a “champion of education reform” – Jeb Bush, the former Republican governor of Florida.

Obama chose Central Miami Senior High School at Bush’s suggestion for a rare moment of bipartisan collaboration on an education agenda that, at least in general terms, the two can agree on. [snip]

Obama said Bush “is someone who championed reform when he was in office, someone who is now championing reform as a private citizen.” And he called for a bipartisan effort to end to the “status quo” in education, using the example that he and Bush set in their appearance together.”

Obama then turned to Jebby Bush, gave him a Charlie Crist hug, and followed up with a deep throat tickling kiss. We jest. We know ‘sacrifice and live within our means’ Obama is only grappling with gay marriage. Blame our whimsy on March Madness.

Obama not only got money while in Miami, Obama tried to bring the Hope in Change back:

“I believe the status quo is unacceptable, it’s time to change,” Obama said. “It is time for us to work together, just like Jeb and I are doing—coming from different parties, but we came together not as Democrats and Republicans but as Americans.”

Apparently he’s back to being a uniter not a divider too.

The teachers protesting in Wisconsin hate what Jeb Bush did to education and Obama proposes many of the same things:

“In theory, Obama’s education reform agenda makes room for many of the same ideas.

His “Race to the Top” program, which requires states to produce aggressive education reform plans in order to compete for billions in federal money, has resulted in states allowing more charter schools, moving to merit-based-pay systems for teachers, and raising student performance standards. [snip]

Four years after Bush left office, critics see a legacy of tension with teachers unions, underfunded schools and just moderate gains in student performance.

But by courting Bush, Obama is aligning himself with a politician who otherwise could damage Obama’s own hard-earned credibility on education reform. Obama’s connection with Bush can be seen as an effort to win over independents and moderate Republicans — in the same vein as December’s tax-cut compromise.”

“Race to the Top” is Obama’s career path strategy, not education reform. A man who did nothing raced to the top to do damage. We don’t jest. Well, perhaps just a little. Blame it on March Madness.

While loopy or not loopy Libyans and racing like a spinning top Barack were yelling “Bring Bush” oppressed Americans were yelling “Bring Jobs“. Some of us remember Jobs, Jobs, Jobs:

“I remember all too well my refrain in the fall of 2008: “It’s all about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!”

We created 192,000 headline jobs in the February employment report. It’s not enough, but it certainly is welcome news and it is heading in the right direction — although too slowly.

We also learned from the February report that the unemployment rate finally trended below the psychologically important 9 percent mark. This is a very big development, considering the rate was pushing the 10 percent level several months ago.

Upon closer scrutiny though, there is another factor contributing to the drop that is not necessarily good news: The official size of the U.S. labor force is shrinking.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes the “Labor Force Participation Rate” each month, along with a litany of other metrics that are used to give us the headline jobs number and the unemployment rate.

The government’s definition of the labor force is all individuals 16 years of age and older, who are employed or seeking employment. It does not include students; retirees; anyone with unreported income, or “discouraged” workers.

The participation rate is the comparison of the “labor force,” those looking for work or employed, and everyone else. That ratio is currently 64.2 percent seasonally adjusted, and 63.9 percent non-seasonally adjusted, the same level as last month. Both of those percentages are currently running at 27-year lows, meaning the percentage of Americans not working or even trying to join the work force is at a near three-decade high.

The last time the participation rate was above 66 percent — the 10-year average — was in August 2008.

It is imperative that we continue to monitor this relationship in order to determine if an improving unemployment rate means that American workers are finding jobs, or have just given up looking.”

Robert Reich, the short Hillary Hater, thinks it is not only jobs, but the green stuff too:

“To get the unemployment rate down to 6 percent by 2014 we’d need over 300,000 new jobs a month, every month, between now and then.

Overall, the number of unemployed Americans — 13.7 million — is about the same as it was last month. The number working part time who’d rather be working full time — 8.3 million — is also about the same.

But to get to the most important trend you have to dig under the job numbers and look at what kind of new jobs are being created. That’s where the big problem lies.

The National Employment Law Project did just that. Its new data brief shows that most of the new jobs created since February 2010 (about 1.26 million) pay significantly lower wages than the jobs lost (8.4 million) between January 2008 and February 2010.

While the biggest losses were higher-wage jobs paying an average of $19.05 to $31.40 an hour, the biggest gains have been lower-wage jobs paying an average of $9.03 to $12.91 an hour.

In other words, the big news isn’t jobs. It’s wages.”

The Short Reich, he who endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton possibly because she once dumped him as a suitor, is possibly right that “…the unemployment rate will continue to decline. But so will the pay and benefits of most Americans.”

The Short Reich (blame our insensitive insult on March Madness too) is also expectations setting on behalf of Barack Obama when he talks about needing 300,000 jobs a month in order to get to 6% unemployment by 2014. The Short Reich is trying to help Obama by moving the goal post from 2012 (election year) to 2014 and by lowering the jobs needed per month.

The Short Reich is expectations setting for tall Barack and trying to distract from the Obama misery index. Jay Cost explains why:

“This item from Reuters caught my eye:

With a leading Republican candidate yet to emerge, the biggest risk to President Barack Obama’s quest for a second term next year is a jobless rate that has hovered between 9 and 10 percent for months.

Friday’s jobless report is expected to show nonfarm payrolls soared in February by 185,000 jobs, but the overall unemployment rate is nonetheless expected to edge up to 9.1 percent…

Analysts say the jobless rate needs to drop below 8 percent by autumn 2012 for voters to feel optimistic about the economy — and Obama’s handling of it — when they go to the polls that November.

This notion — that 8 percent is a magic threshold — has been making the rounds of late. It has absolutely no basis in established fact. None whatsoever. It is pure speculation.

Jay Cost explains why The Short Reich and others and trying the ol’ switcheroo:

“Here’s why:

I put this graph up a few months ago. The implication of it is simple. Forget 8 percent. In the 16 presidential elections since 1948, unemployment has been around or above 7 percent on Election Day five times. The incumbent party’s success rate in those contests is just 20 percent. And even that victory, in 1984, depended mightily upon 7.2 percent economic growth that year (as well as a 5.6 percent annual jump in real disposable income per capita, more than anything we’ve seen since).

Look carefully and you’ll see that there are precisely zero elections held since 1948 that have had unemployment at 8 percent or higher. So why 8 percent is any kind of threshold is beyond me.”

Cost is not making a case for what will happen in 2012. What Cost is saying is that “Ultimately, he [Obama] is going to be judged on whether the public is satisfied with the pace of the clean-up.” Cost makes an even strong case on the dwindling population that is employed:

“If you look at the percentage of the total adult population employed, you might wish to conclude that we are actually in the second phase of a double-dip jobs recession.

This often overlooked trend is something that the unemployment rate is not going to pick up when large numbers of workers become discouraged and drop out of the labor force. This graph helps explain why George W. Bush was hounded by criticism of a “jobless recovery” in 2004 despite the fact that the unemployment rate was low. You will also see that, though the country added jobs last year, those have basically just kept up with population growth, meaning that we’re still at the bottom of a huge crater.

We, Americans, are at the bottom of a huge crater. It’s as if we are oppressed Libyans being thrown into the ditch by a loser leader. The loser leader is Obama – who is getting ready to race to the top for his own personal benefit and glory. It’s March Madness.

Share

128 thoughts on “March Madness: Libyans And Obama Cry ‘Bring Bush’ – Americans Cry ‘Bring Jobs’ – And Facebook And Twitter Are ‘Not All That’

  1. “America with that Israel-hating Waffles in the WH will not come to the aid of Israel and Israel without a doubt knows this.”
    ____________________

    I don’t believe that- As long as SOS Hillary Clinton is there, Israel is safe.

  2. Mrs. Smith,

    I pray you are right. I could see this being the straw that breaks…. Obama will procrastinate until it is almost to late. Hillary will come out and push for supporting Israel no matter what.

  3. “Hillary Clinton is absolutely right, though much too polite, when she slams Big Media. Our Big Media sucks and only fools would defend it.”

    ——————-

    Amen! And calling for Bush would embarass a normal human being, but in bambi’s case, nothing will penetrate his thick narcissistic brain.

  4. Hillary cannot save Israel..the damage is done and I expect a massive war sooner than later.

  5. I told you these ME countries’ populations were too poor to be coordinated via social media. I agree that story is a western invention.

    Obama appearing with Jeb Bush just proves he is for sale to the hightest bidder (aka Barbara Bush).

  6. Good grief a girl can’t even go shopping without the bottom falling out in between log ins…

    This feels like a comedy and bad one….how can Obama lose the whole freaking ME and then continue to brew Ale with his new found friends while Hillary alone tries to save the planet??

    Admin: I have got to back to town, so I can’t read your post, but I will as soon as I get back…for pete’s sake this is horrible for Israel…it’s past time for Bebe to bring out the big weapon of mass destruction and clean out some of those radicals….how do you spell Hiroshima???

    Sometimes I wonder if Obama’s indecision is just what he’s there for….to fart around so DinnerJacket can take over???

  7. I told you all years ago that the Bush’s are the ones who put Obama in….now its beginning to show…hell he might even be a Bush…the old man is known for his out of town visits.

  8. #
    JanH
    March 5th, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    Mrs. Smith,

    I pray you are right. I could see this being the straw that breaks…. Obama will procrastinate until it is almost to late. Hillary will come out and push for supporting Israel no matter what.
    ________________________

    I think I wrote about this last week, mentioning Hillary was out on a limb all by herself calling for no violence in Libya against protesters. She spoke out on her own without support of neither countries or Congress. She stood her ground and gave a forceful speech at the HRC meeting addressing the Libyian violence against civilians, Egypt and the problems in the ME. Within a day or two she addressed the Congressional Budget Hearing elucidating cuts and consolidations she had made to the State Budget and the overall savings she found. She then navigated questions from Sen Graham where he was visibly impressed with her knowledge and scope on a wide range of questions… I cheered her on for tip-toeing through the land-mines Graham had laid out for her. I knew if she stumbled just once or didn’t possess the right answers… she would have been in trouble.

    The Congressional inquisition was a brilliant testament to her knowledge demonstrating she was not leading with her heart but protecting American interests and what little is left of our prestige worldwide.

    That being said, I think Bob Gates and Hillary are working together and have formulated plans if things get out of hand in the ME, they can move unencumbered waiting for traditional protocols.

  9. “I expect a massive war sooner than later.”

    ——————-

    jbstonesfan,

    On this we agree.

  10. Yes Israel would be safe, but only if Hillary had been president, or Mccain had been president. As SOS, especially with the Waffles administration looking at every chance to undermine her, Hillary can only do so much, she does not direct the overall policy, which is Waffles’s Anti-Israel policy as president

    I’ll never forget in one of the debates that dumba$$ brian williams asked if Israel was attacked by Iran what would America’s response be,
    Hillary answered, and correctly, full force and might of the US Military would be used against Iran. For this, she was called a “war monger” by the ignorant obots.

    I agree with jstronfan, Hillary cannot save Israel, Iran is building a permanent naval base just miles from Israel’s shore, massively arming the muslim brotherhood in Egypt, and greatly finding Hamas and Hezabollah.
    This will not lead to anything good for Israel, this is the first time, I am actually genuinely afraid for Israel, there were be a massive conflict soon in the future, the only question is when and who will stand with Israel

  11. Confloyd, you are at least correct when you say “the old man is known for his out of town visits.” You should have heard the Moynihans speak in private about Bush in China. 🙂

  12. Since Hillary performance in both of those meetings I mentioned above, the UK has thrown in some support by land even though they were unwilling to get involved by sea sending ships monitoring the Iranian war ships cruising Israel’s shores and the Suez Canal.

    With the technology we have today, Iranian ships are easily monitored by satellite to the point of closeup troop movement calibrating numbers including deployment on land.

  13. #
    jbstonesfan
    March 5th, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Hillary cannot save Israel..the damage is done and I expect a massive war sooner than later.
    ___________________

    That was never the question- The question was would the US support Israel (if they were attacked) The US has a longstanding agreement to defend Israel if an attack should occur.. correct-

  14. “Obama appearing with Jeb Bush just proves he is for sale to the hightest bidder (aka Barbara Bush).”
    __________________

    Bill Clinton must be laughing his a** off- He warned Tony Blair when Bush was elected in 2000: “Republicans play Hardball” Bill probably forgot to remind Obama of this axiom and is taking pleasure having his cake and eat it too for all the right reasons! 🙂

  15. Obama misery index about to go up:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41923052/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

    RIYADH — Saudi Arabia said Saturday it would ban all protests and marches after minority Shiites staged small protests in the oil-producing eastern province.

    Security forces would use all measures to prevent any attempt to disrupt public order, the interior ministry said in a statement carried by state television.

    The ban follows a series of protests by Saudi Shiites in the kingdom’s east in the past weeks mainly to demand the release of prisoners they say are long held without trial.

    Saudi Arabia’s Shiite minority mostly live in the east, which holds much of the oil wealth of the world’s top crude exporter and is near Bahrain, scene of protests by majority Shiites against their Sunni rulers.

    Saudi Shiites complain they struggle to get senior government jobs and other benefits like other citizens.

    The government of Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy without an elected parliament that usually does not tolerate public dissent, denies these charges.

    Last week, King Abdullah returned to Riyadh after a three-month medical absence and unveiled $37 billion in benefits for citizens in an apparent bid to insulate the kingdom from protests spreading in several Arab countries.

  16. “Last week, King Abdullah returned to Riyadh after a three-month medical absence and unveiled $37 billion in benefits for citizens in an apparent bid to insulate the kingdom from protests spreading in several Arab countries.”
    _____________________

    I saw that- did he ever say what those benefits are or when the citizens will be so kindly rewarded?

    I don’t think $10.00 and a cell phone will cut it-

  17. Sunday Times: Up to eight members of an SAS unit and a junior UK diplomat have been detained in Libya

  18. “Check out the numbers for “NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE.” In February 2010 83,440,000 were placed in this category. In February 2011? The number is 85,605,000. In other words, 2,165,000 people disappeared from the labor force.”

    hence the lower unemployment numbers.

    from the NQ post.

  19. Some of the left wing tea leaf readers are telling us that because Boehner and Biden met and did not say much about their meeting, that they are having an “adult conversation” about the deficit, spending cuts, debt ceilings and all that.

    Ya, sure, you betcha.

    Adult conversation? Boehner and Biden.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    What you have is a wailing wall on the one hand, and an Irish drunk on the other.

    Like Jackie Gleason and Frank Fontaine in The Honeymooners.

    The more likely explanation is they are at some kind of impasse, and the wolf is at the door.

  20. oh my word, looks like Waffles really is following down the path of Carter.
    Jimmy’s brother Billy was the spokesman for a beer, came out in 77 or 78, there was some to do in the press because of brother Billy’s relation to the then president Jimmy and so this beer’s brand was used in the same sentence as Jimmy Carter many times in the press.

    I think it was called “Billy beer”. Not sure when the production stopped, but they sure were trying to get rid of the remaining beer.

  21. “The US has a longstanding agreement to defend Israel”

    ——————
    Mrs. Smith,

    The U.S….YES.

    Obama…not so much.

  22. hundreds of children’s advocates — a third of them children themselves — are visiting congressional offices with a similar message: don’t slash foreign aid.

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

    A good cause … but I’m not too happy about enlisting children as advocates. We didn’t like it when Obama did that for himself.

    WI children waving signs to support their own teachers is a LITTLE better….

  23. “Check out the numbers for “NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE.” In February 2010 83,440,000 were placed in this category. In February 2011? The number is 85,605,000. In other words, 2,165,000 people disappeared from the labor force.”

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

    Unemployment numbers don’t mean much because they are too easy to juggle. Personal bankruptcy filings would be a better indicator. Or applications for welfare, etc etc.

  24. Instead of Lincoln being Barry’s hero, it seems as though he plans to become O’Jeb W Bush. Goes really well with the morph photo at the side of Big Pink.

    When either Barry or his bros the Rethugs are finished with public education, there will be nothing left and only the wealthy will be able to secure a good education for their children in private schools.

    Great job, Barry. Something else to make your mark in history for – destroying public education.

  25. Speaking of the Social Network…did you folks hear that a woman that gave birth in Egypt, after the downfall, named her new baby daughter….
    …….
    ……..
    ……….
    …………………. ‘Facebook’

    I’m not kidding. Can you imagine her marriage vows…

  26. tim,
    A friend of mine in Sugarland has a can of “Billy Beer”…it’s a conversation piece…LOL! I have a pic of it on my phone…

  27. “Miami – Seeking support for increasing the country’s investment in education, President Barack Obama appeared at a high school here on Friday… (Politico story)

    How can anyone with a brain still functioning read those words spewn forth as if vomit from a drunken tyrant’s lacky?
    There is suffering and death spreading over the planet and across our nation as a result of Wall Street cocaine-addled pigs and the always-rich banking family’s malignant cancerlike eating of America’s good soul–and this Politico writer vomits on our table and expects us to see a meal being served?

    Let us read something sane:

    As Wisconsin teachers and other teachers throughout the United States lead the fight against scapegoating of teachers and other public workers, Obama is deliberately making it clear that it is he, and no one else, who is their–and our–main enemy.

    He did this by publicizing a meeting in Florida on Friday which is a celebration of the anti-teacher crackdown—a meeting with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, and Obama’s Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, at Miami Central Senior High. Why Miami Central Senior High? Because it is one of the many predominantly Black high schools around the country which have been forced, under Obama’s “Race to the Top” (or, “Racist at the Top”) program, to fire its principal and half of its dedicated teachers, as the price for a little handout of Federal taxpayer funds. RTTT can also force districts to close so-called “failing” minority schools entirely, or to hand them over to the corporate bloodsuckers of the private so-called “charter” schools

    This is precisely why all the leading U.S. civil rights organizations (Urban League, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, National Council for Educating Black Children, and the Schott Foundation) criticized Obama’s RTTT as a violation of civil rights in a joint report of July 26, 2010. [1]

    Where does Obama stand on Providence, Rhode Island’s firing all its teachers en masse recently? It should be obvious: When Rhode Island’s Central Falls district, the state’s poorest, fired all its teachers early in 2010, Obama publicly supported the firings in another “education” event at the US Chamber of Commerce on March 1, 2010. Those firings have since been rescinded, despite Obama.

    The reason for the showcase invitation to Jeb Bush, is that Jeb pioneered precisely the Obama type of racist and anti-teacher reforms when he was Governor, as are now being continued by current Republican Gov. Rick Scott.

    While in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio citizens are standing against union-busting moves against public (and private) employees, the state of Florida, which Obama is visiting today, has pending legislation, fully supported by Governor Scott, which would: 1) tie at least half of a teacher’s salary to his or her students’ scores on standardized tests; 2) prevent consideration of many advanced degrees and much special training in determining teacher salaries; 3) eliminate tenure for teachers hired after the summer of 2014; and 4) require the creation of new standardized assessments for all courses.

    All with the full support of Governor Scott, a “right-to-work,” union-busting, Republican. And, more important, with pointman puppet Obama’s support forcefully pushed into the faces of our nation’s citizens, again.

    http://www.larouchepac.com/node/17680

    [1] http://choosingdemocracy.blogspot.com/2010/07/civil-rights-leaders-criticize-obama.html

  28. Damn. I posted this just above with two links in it and it got trapped in the filter. Again, with one link…
    ——–

    “Miami – Seeking support for increasing the country’s investment in education, President Barack Obama appeared at a high school here on Friday… (Politico story)

    How can anyone with a brain still functioning read those words spewn forth as if vomit from a drunken tyrant’s lacky?
    There is suffering and death spreading over the planet and across our nation as a result of Wall Street cocaine-addled pigs and the always-rich banking family’s malignant cancerlike eating of America’s good soul–and this Politico writer vomits on our table and expects us to see a meal being served?

    Let us read something sane:

    As Wisconsin teachers and other teachers throughout the United States lead the fight against scapegoating of teachers and other public workers, Obama is deliberately making it clear that it is he, and no one else, who is their–and our–main enemy.

    He did this by publicizing a meeting in Florida on Friday which is a celebration of the anti-teacher crackdown—a meeting with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, and Obama’s Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, at Miami Central Senior High. Why Miami Central Senior High? Because it is one of the many predominantly Black high schools around the country which have been forced, under Obama’s “Race to the Top” (or, “Racist at the Top”) program, to fire its principal and half of its dedicated teachers, as the price for a little handout of Federal taxpayer funds. RTTT can also force districts to close so-called “failing” minority schools entirely, or to hand them over to the corporate bloodsuckers of the private so-called “charter” schools

    This is precisely why all the leading U.S. civil rights organizations (Urban League, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, National Council for Educating Black Children, and the Schott Foundation) criticized Obama’s RTTT as a violation of civil rights in a joint report of July 26, 2010. [1]

    Where does Obama stand on Providence, Rhode Island’s firing all its teachers en masse recently? It should be obvious: When Rhode Island’s Central Falls district, the state’s poorest, fired all its teachers early in 2010, Obama publicly supported the firings in another “education” event at the US Chamber of Commerce on March 1, 2010. Those firings have since been rescinded, despite Obama.

    The reason for the showcase invitation to Jeb Bush, is that Jeb pioneered precisely the Obama type of racist and anti-teacher reforms when he was Governor, as are now being continued by current Republican Gov. Rick Scott.

    While in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio citizens are standing against union-busting moves against public (and private) employees, the state of Florida, which Obama is visiting today, has pending legislation, fully supported by Governor Scott, which would: 1) tie at least half of a teacher’s salary to his or her students’ scores on standardized tests; 2) prevent consideration of many advanced degrees and much special training in determining teacher salaries; 3) eliminate tenure for teachers hired after the summer of 2014; and 4) require the creation of new standardized assessments for all courses.

    All with the full support of Governor Scott, a “right-to-work,” union-busting, Republican. And, more important, with pointman puppet Obama’s support forcefully pushed into the faces of our nation’s citizens, again.

    [1] http://choosingdemocracy.blogspot.com/2010/07/civil-rights-leaders-criticize-obama.html

  29. Back to Daddy Bush and his “out of town visits”…how come none of this ever came out or is mentioned?

    If a person just listened to Hannity and the media you’d think that Bill Clinton was the ONLY president to have ever “been involved”…except for Jimmy Carter who lusted in his heart he admitted.

    The Bushes surely must have huge closets with giant “skeleton” keys.

  30. I have no words anymore, just when I though the rapid left had reached bottom. I sort of had some respect for Salon.com, but after seeing this, I see them as nothing but a hate filled website, absolutely disgusting.
    It appears Salon now has no issue with this kind of vitriolic nonsense posted on their blog. The professor at legalinsurrection has noted that this comment continues to be left on their website, it has not been removed.

    http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/03/saloncom-commenter-calls-for-lynching.html

  31. A month or so ago some liberal was complaining about an offensive comment on Palin’s Facebook not being removed fast enough.

  32. JanH
    March 5th, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    I can agree with that-

    Israel will be defended with or without Obama-
    _______________________

    This statement from Wapo is worth a read. The connotations of the Islamic hybrid in the article I posted earlier today segues into this article published yesterday by Scott Wilson @ Wapo-

    Obama administration prepares for possibility of new post-revolt Islamist regimes

    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, March 4, 2011

    The Obama administration is preparing for the prospect that Islamist governments will take hold in North Africa and the Middle East, acknowledging that the popular revolutions there will bring a more religious cast to the region’s politics.

    The administration is already taking steps to distinguish between various movements in the region that promote Islamic law in government. An internal assessment, ordered by the White House last month, identified large ideological differences between such movements as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and al-Qaeda that will guide the U.S. approach to the region.

    “We shouldn’t be afraid of Islam in the politics of these countries,” said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe internal policy deliberations. “It’s the behavior of political parties and governments that we will judge them on, not their relationship with Islam.”

    Islamist governments span a range of ideologies and ambitions, from the primitive brutality of the Taliban in Afghanistan to Turkey’s Justice and Development Party, a movement with Islamist roots that heads a largely secular political system.

    None of the revolutions over the past several weeks has been overtly Islamist, but there are signs that the uprisings could give way to more religious forces. An influential Yemeni cleric called this week for the U.S.-backed administration of President Ali Abdullah Saleh to be replaced with Islamist rule, and in Egypt, an Islamist theoretician has a leading role in drafting constitutional changes after President Hosni Mubarak’s fall from power last month.

    A number of other Islamist parties are deciding now how big a role to play in protests or post-revolution reforms.

    Since taking office, President Obama has argued for a “new beginning” with Islam, suggesting that Islamic belief and democratic politics are not incompatible. But in doing so, he has alarmed some foreign-policy pragmatists and allies such as Israel, who fear that governments based on religious law will inevitably undercut democratic reforms and other Western values.

    Some within the U.S. intelligence community, foreign diplomatic circles and the Republican Party say Obama’s readiness to accept Islamist movements, even ones that meet certain conditions, fails to take into consideration the methodical approach many such parties adopt toward gradually transforming secular nations into Islamic states at odds with U.S. policy goals.

    Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories have prospered in democratic elections and exert huge influence. Neither party, each with an armed wing, supports Israel’s right to exist, nor have they renounced violence as a political tool.

    And while many in the region point to Turkey as a model mixture of Islam and democracy, the ruling Islamist party is restrained by the country’s highly secular army and court system, a pair of strong institutional checks that countries such as Egypt and Tunisia lack.

    “The actual word and definition of Islamism does not in and of itself pose a threat,” said Jonathan Peled, the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, citing Israel’s relationship with the Turkish government, among others.

    But Peled said Israel fears that “anti-democratic extremist forces could take advantage of a democratic system,” as, he said, Hamas did with its 2006 victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections. Israel allowed Hamas to participate only under pressure from the George W. Bush administration as part of its stated commitment to promote Arab democracy. ….( and Peled is right.)

    “We obviously have concerns that are different than the administration’s,” Peled said. “We live in the neighborhood, obviously, and so we experience the results more closely.”

    The choice between stability and democracy has been a constant tension in U.S. foreign policy, and in few places has it been more pronounced than in the Middle East.

    Many of the fallen or imperiled autocrats in the region were supported by successive U.S. governments, either as Cold War foils to the Soviet Union or as bulwarks against Islamist extremism before and after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    In his June 2009 address at Cairo University, Obama acknowledged the controversy that the Bush administration’s democracy promotion stirred in the region.

    “That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people,” he said, adding that “each nation gives life to the principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people.”

    In the Arab Middle East, those traditions include Islam, although Obama did not directly address the religion’s role in democratic politics. He said the United States “will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.”

    ( at best Obama is a dupe. At worst, he is part and parcel of a ruse constructed by and with Radical Islam)

    The goal of Islamist movements after taking power is at the root of concern expressed by Republican lawmakers and others in Washington.

    Paul Pillar, a longtime CIA analyst who now teaches at Georgetown University, said, “Most of the people in the intelligence community would see things on this topic very similarly to the president – that is, political Islam as a very diverse series of ideologies, all of which use a similar vocabulary, but all ( interpreted ) quite different.”

    “The main challenge President Obama will face is a political challenge from across the aisle, and one reinforced by Israel,” said Pillar, whose portfolio included the Middle East.

    As the Arab revolutions unfold, the White House is studying various Islamist movements, identifying ideological differences for clues to how they might govern in the short and long term.

    The White House’s internal assessment, dated Feb. 16, looked at the Muslim Brotherhood’s and al-Qaeda’s views on global jihad, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the United States, Islam in politics, democracy and nationalism, among others.

    The report draws sharp distinctions between the ambitions of the two groups, suggesting that the Brotherhood’s mix of Islam and nationalism make it a far different organization than al-Qaeda, which sees national boundaries as obstacles to restoring the Islamic caliphate.

    The study also concludes that the Brotherhood criticizes the United States largely for what it perceives as America’s hypocritical stance toward democracy – promoting it rhetorically but supporting leaders such as Mubarak.

    “If our policy can’t distinguish between al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, we won’t be able to adapt to this change,” the senior administration official said. “We’re also not going to allow ourselves to be driven by fear.” ( To me, the word “fear” (a Jarret word)is used as cover to proceed..)

    After Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, the United States and Israel led an international boycott of the government. But Obama administration officials, reviewing that history with an eye toward the current revolutions, say the reason for the U.S. boycott was not Hamas’s Islamic character but its refusal to agree to conditions such as recognizing Israel.

    In a speech Monday in Geneva, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to draw on that lesson, implicitly inviting Islamist parties to participate in the region’s future elections with conditions. “Political participation,” Clinton said, “must be open to all people across the spectrum who reject violence, uphold equality and agree to play by the rules of democracy.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030305531.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2011030400073
    ________________________

    Hillary has laid down firm rules of engagement with the diverse elements of the Islamic culture which of course if her statement has been made public, Obama is in agreement. By agreeing to the rules, he has put himself on the hook. The negatives are these (take from the article):

    “If al-Qaida is the measure of all things, then everyone looks moderate in comparison. At least they aren’t attacking Manhattan! And this is why we’ve been subjected to the whitewashing of the Muslim Brotherhood, to make it acceptable to the American people and Congress. That’s why President Obama unilaterally welcomed the Brotherhood into Egypt’s government before anyone asked him to or set the topic out for discussion before he made the remark on that subject.”

    “The administration’s definition of moderate is someone who is willing to participate in elections. If you know any history they’d be aware that both Communists and Nazis participated in elections.”

    Yet we see this theme everywhere in terms of Obama policy: the attempt in Afghanistan to win over the “moderate” Taliban elements; the effort to get Syria to abandon its alliance with Iran in order to be a friend of the United States; the building and restoration of mosques with U.S. taxpayer money; the wooing of the Muslim Brotherhood; and so on.”

    “The administration’s U.S. policy, could be construed to be deliberately helping the Islamists in order to show them America is their friend, to separate “radicals” (al-Qaida) from “moderates” (Hizballah and the Muslim Brotherhood!), and to get them in a situation where they will be “moderated” by having to exercise of power” (the same strategy if you recall that failed miserably with Yasir Arafat and the 1990s’ a peace process with disastrous results)

    If anyone is aware of ME history, it is Hillary. Bill was president then. There has to be a test developed for self-governance by ‘moderate Islam’, a guarantee of a willingness exhibiting democratic values that they have control over Radicals before we go forward with Obama’s plan. imo-

  33. Re: Adult conversation? Boehner and Biden.
    ———————-
    [March madness. Admin, you can always tie Obama into the idiocy of life in general!]
    Admittedly, this is a cut, paste and run entry as I’ve not researched what I’m suggesting. Here it is:
    Biden leaving in middle of budget talks – Washington Times

    Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. walked out of Thursday’s high-stakes negotiations to stop a government shutdown and said the conversations will continue — but he won’t actually be part of them since he leaves this weekend for major negotiations with European leaders….
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/mar/4/biden-leaving-middle-budget-talks/
    Question: Was there time sufficient for this adult conversation with Boehner to take place?

    Reminds me of a certain day in December when BOBush tax cut extension needed a push. Hasty impromptu presser. Obama speaks briefly, hands the ball to our Bill, then nearly immediately exited stage right … Michelle had been waiting.
    This time it is out of the country talks. ‘Impotent ones.’ Don’t think Biden’s plane’s takeoff was imminent, however.

  34. Let them eat cake!

    from the article above:
    “Huffington dismissed the strike Thursday at a conference hosted by PaidContent in New York City. “Go ahead, go on strike,” Huffington said, ridiculing “the idea of going on strike when no one really notices.”

  35. I wouldn’t have posted on this, but for running across this observation:

    The excrement has just hit the rotary oscillator. If Hillary is going to throw the Obamanoids under this bus and come out the other side smelling not only like a rose but like a 2012 candidate, this is the time.

    The ATF deliberately allowed the entry of almost 2,000 military style guns into Mexico for 15 months, according to documents obtained by the Center for Public Integrity and Los Angeles Times.

    This lands at Holder’s feet: The ATF reports to him and he allowed this “project” to go on. And thus this is Obama’s problem too. What’s he doing letting Wall Street off the hook and allowing his Justice Department to knowingly stand aside and watch 2,000 deadly weapons and crates of ammunition to end up slaughtering people in Mexico?

    One whistleblower ATF street agent reports: “All key players have been summoned to DC. Wheels up Sunday to be in HQ Mon a.m.”

    Another writes: “They’re all being called in to make sure they have the script and will all tell the same lie.”

    Truly there is reason for outrage. Truly the guilty of Project Gunwalker and the other ATF scandals must be exposed and punished — imprisoned if possible. But to dissolve the ATF as an agency now and parcel out the agents and the mission to other agencies would be a disaster far greater than the many dead of Gunwalker. It would, I’m convinced, lead to even greater tyranny by the Feds and thence, in not very much time, to civil war.

    Begin with this fact:

    Regardless of whether or not ATF survives this scandal and the hearings that will flesh it out and make it even more outrageous and even more repugnant to the American people, the federal firearms laws on the books will not be repealed — either immediately or even the short run. Someone will be tasked to enforce them.

    The question is, who?

    You can bet the farm that Janet Napolitano has some very detailed ideas about that.

    She would be more than happy — as would her likely successor — to take over the “gun control mission” and those tens of thousands of ATF street agents. Only as DHS agents hiding behind Dubya’s PATRIOT Act, they would end up even less accountable than they are now.

    Imagine giving Janet her first sizable corps of American political secret police bully boys pounding the streets that lead to your door.

    Just … imagine that … for a moment.

    Down that path is madness.

    The architects of this evil have not been called to account, and the chance is small that all of the guilty will, leaving the highest-ranking of them to continue with their liberty-stealing agenda. In a way, the dissolution of the ATF would work for those people.

    So, no, I don’t want the ATF dissolved immediately. What I want at the moment is far more achievable: I want for some group of adults to see the wisdom of taking today’s oath-keeping whistleblowers and making them the bosses of this agency — with transparent rules, common sense rule-making, testing procedures, management accountability and strict and constant oversight by Congress.

    So this is an international incident

  36. Woah! It posted as I was typing the last sentence or two, in which I just want to point out this is an international incident caused by the malfeasance of the Attorney General, and of course the Resident Obama. And the potential ramifications domestically are, I believe as stated above, gravely serious.

    I think almost everything above is from the blog of Mike Vanderboegh. He has been on this story since December.

    http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/03/i-am-spartacus-brief-exploration-into.html

  37. Good info, ohanson, thanks for posting it-

    Calls for the unPresident to step aside.
    ____________________

    Romney calls for ‘a new president’

    Mitt Romney, speaking in New Hampshire on Saturday night for the first time since the midterms, plans a direct attack on President Barack Obama and what Romney has been calling “the Obama Misery Index.”

    Romney, in the unofficial kickoff of his Granite State campaign, will be keynoting the Carroll County Republican Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner.

    Senator Obama campaigned hard in New Hampshire but he apparently didn’t like what he saw,” Romney says in prepared remarks. “He certainly didn’t learn from it. Instead of lowering taxes, he raised them. He wrapped businesses in red tape, he grew government, he borrowed trillions of dollars, and he made it clear that he doesn’t like business people very much.

    “He created a deeper recession, and delayed the recovery. The consequence is soaring numbers of Americans enduring unemployment, foreclosures and bankruptcies. This is the Obama Misery Index, and it is at a record high. It’s going to take more than new rhetoric to put Americans back to work — it’s going to take a new president.

    In a section of the speech on jobs, Romney says: “And we need to stop penalizing companies that want to invest in America. Right now, we tax companies who make money overseas if they want to bring it home, but we don’t tax them if they keep their money abroad. That makes no sense at all. We want that money here, invested in new factories, new equipment, and new jobs.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50709.html#ixzz1FpZoN6Of

  38. Is Netanyahu Breaking Toward the Center?

    Mar 3 2011,
    By Jeffrey Goldberg

    There are signs that reality is forcing Prime Minister Netanyahu to the center, just as reality pushed Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, his two predecessors, to the center. Goldblog Central has been hearing rumors and intimations for some time that Bibi is going to announce something dramatic — perhaps before a joint session of Congress (a friendlier audience than the Knesset, by a long shot). How dramatic? This is what is unclear. It’s got to be pretty dramatic to keep Bibi’s ostensible allies, President Obama and Angela Merkel among them, from giving up on him. According to Ha’aretz, Bibi has been telling associates that he fears the creation of a binational state in Israel’s place if the country fails to allow the birth of a Palestinian state next door. He is even said to be thinking about endorsing a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. For a man like Bibi, a hard-edged nationalist, this would be quite something, and would invest a speech with suitable drama. Here is Aluf Benn, the best Israeli analyst of Bibi’s intentions:

    Signs have become plentiful in recent days that Netanyahu is following in Sharon’s footsteps and breaking away from the extreme right to the center. It began with his address to the Knesset last week, in which he hinted at an interim settlement with the Palestinians that will keep the Jordan Valley in Israeli control, and also dropped the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a homeland of the Jewish people. He continued with the razing of the Havat Gilad outpost, a clear sign to the extreme right.
    On Monday, Netanyahu told Likud − like Sharon before him − that he will not continue along the same line in view of the tremendous amount of international pressure.

    Now he is saying in closed meetings that “a binational state would be disastrous for Israel” and suddenly Netanyahu sounds like former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who in an interview with Haaretz at the Annapolis Conference declared: Two states or Israel is finished. And this is the same Netanyahu who has always denied the demographic threat, regarding it as a scarecrow in the service of the left.

    http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html?4t=extlink&4u=http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/is-netanyahu-breaking-toward-the-center/72016/

  39. SouthernBorn,
    Yesterday evening comment:’

    Why/how do the Bushes get away with it…they are CIA! That’s why I’m sure Obama came from them….nothing comes out on Obama….he’s connected to the Bush’s some way!

  40. 04.03.11

    Netanyahu: Binational state would be disastrous for Israel

    Comment comes as Prime Minister expected to present Mideast peace initiative after weeks of intense international pressure over the apparent peace talks deadlock.

    By Barak Ravid

    Tags: Israel news Benjamin Netanyahu Middle East peace
    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected in the coming weeks to put forward a peace initiative in a bid to break through the deadlock in the peace process and extricate Israel from international isolation.

    Netanyahu has warned in recent days during closed meetings that “a binational state would be disastrous for Israel,” and therefore it is necessary to undertake a political move that will remove this threat.

    In recent weeks the prime minister has come under intense international pressure over Israel’s policies. Europe’s unequivocal stance against Israel at the Security Council vote on the issue of the settlements, the rebuke that accompanied the U.S. veto, and the unpleasant telephone exchange with German Chancellor Angela Merkel last week reportedly shook Netanyahu.

    Moreover, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations are working together to push through an unprecedented agreement during the Quartet’s meeting in Paris in a week. According to the draft of the agreement that is being passed between the parties, the Quartet will declare that a Palestinian state will be established on the basis of the 1967 borders, with some land swaps.

    In some of the drafts East Jerusalem is mentioned as the capital of the Palestinian state.

    Sources in the Prime Minister’s Office say that in recent weeks Netanyahu has been talking with the Obama administration in order to formulate a program that would restart the peace process.

    His adviser, Ron Dermer, flew secretly to Washington a week ago and met with senior White House officials. U.S. envoys Dennis Ross and Fred Hoff also visited Israel and met with Netanyahu.

    “The prime minister has realized that the political impasse is not working in favor of Israel,” one of Netanyahu’s advisers said.

    “Following a few weeks of revolution in the Arab world he is convinced that there are opportunities, not just threats, and that it is important to take advantage of the situation that was created in order to restart the peace process and put an end to the unilateral initiatives of the Palestinians.”

    In private talks recently, Netanyahu has reportedly begun discussing the growing threat of a binational state.

    “This trend will intensify and become stronger,” Netanyahu told his advisers. “However there are those in Israel who think that one state is a good idea. I think it is a disaster.”

    Netanyahu would like to announce his peace plan in a speech in the coming weeks. One of the ideas being considered is that Netanyahu would speak before a joint session of the U.S. Congress.

    Netanyahu is scheduled to travel to Washington for an AIPAC conference in May, but his advisers are trying to move the trip to an earlier date. Discussion of a speech before a joint session was central to the talks between the Prime Minister’s Office and the White House.

    A well-positioned Israeli source said that at this stage U.S. President Barack Obama and his advisers are reluctant to run with the idea over fears it has the imprint of talks between Netanyahu’s advisers and Republic Congressmen. Moreover, the White House is not yet convinced that Netanyahu’s speech will have sufficient substance for it to constitute a political breakthrough.

    “The prime minister wants to move ahead substantively but he wants to know that he has American backing,” one of Netanyahu’s advisers said. “If the U.S. administration goes with him, he is willing to undertake compromises and take difficult steps.”

    A senior source in Netanyahu’s bureau said that the prime minister had held talks about how to proceed forward with a small number of advisers, including ministers Dan Meridor and Benny Begin, in order to avoid leaks. Defense Minister Ehud Barak participated in some of the meetings.

    http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html?4t=extlink&4u=http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-binational-state-would-be-disastrous-for-israel-1.346999

  41. ““If the U.S. administration goes with him, he is willing to undertake compromises and take difficult steps.””

    I hope Bibi reads admin’s advise.

    “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.”

  42. Israel has developed a vaccine against Alzheimer’s?

    Israel has apparently developed a vaccine against Alzheimer’s disease. It’s a nasal spray.
    Researchers from Tel Aviv University are working on a nasal two-in-one vaccine that could protect against both Alzheimer’s disease and stroke. The proposed vaccine appears to repair vascular damage in the brain by rounding up “troops” from the body’s own immune system.

    According to an article soon to appear in the journal Neurobiology of Aging, the vaccine not only has a preventative function but could also help fight Alzheimer’s symptoms that are already present.

    This breakthrough is of extraordinary interest to American pharmaceutical makers, given that one in eight Americans will develop Alzheimer’s disease – and its related devastating memory loss — at some point in life. And because Alzheimer’s is often associated with vascular damage in the brain, many patients are also at great risk of a potentially fatal stroke.

    http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/03/israel-has-developed-vaccine-against.html

  43. “The administration’s U.S. policy, could be construed to be deliberately helping the Islamists in order to show them America is their friend, to separate “radicals” (al-Qaida) from “moderates” (Hizballah and the Muslim Brotherhood!), and to get them in a situation where they will be “moderated” by having to exercise of power” (the same strategy if you recall that failed miserably with Yasir Arafat and the 1990s’ a peace process with disastrous results)”

    ———————
    Mrs. Smith,

    This article bothers me no end. The Muslim Brotherhood gets a pass?

    As Tim says,

    Obama cannot be trusted. I will go a step further and say Obama must be impeached.

  44. I had a conversation with a friend who is a liberal fashionista (as distinguished from Hedges who I regard as an honest man of the left). He is a PHD candidate who has lost interest in that pursuit and is doing day labor–although by his own admission he does not want to be doing that sort of thing when he is 65. He is a good human being by any objective measure BUT he is full of the hopium even now as Obama fails–and the country fails because of it. He started to praise Obama and I told he he was wasting his breath. I told him the guy is a wall street shill and his response was they all are–to which I asked him whether that is not in fact the root of the problem. He then said well he was the best choice because look at the options we had. I said if you mean in the primary, there was a clear choice between someone who stood for the country and had a concrete plan to put us back on the right track–Hillary, and a short order cook–Obama. He then launched into a pereoration of Sarah Palin hate, which is another knee jerk reaction from the Pavlovian left. This is so typical of academia that it is part of the secret handshake for being a member of the club of the self professed annointed that they know what is best for society. In fact, these people can do not better than to reflect those interests, and in doing so they become the footsoldiers of the elite–as bamboozed as the blacks and youth to the real designs of their invisible masters. Throughout the ages, the common fear of the masters has been the fear of a peasant uprising which would knock them off their high perch from whence all the kings horses and all the kings men cannot put Humpty together again. And how does that relate to Sarah Palin? She is much closer to the beating heart of average Americans than the elites and their transparent surrogates like Obama are. And that is why they work so hard to destroy her. That is why those corrupt surrogates like Gibson, Couric and others are hell bent on destroying her. They would say they are simply trying to show the American People who she is, which would be legitimate IF they had applied the same standard to Obama. The fact that they didn’t means you have a big media in this country who shits and pisses all over themsleves every day, and asks the American People to ignore the fact that they and their standards of journalism stink to high heaven. So much so that only a fool takes them serriously–with the few notable exceptions who do in fact speak truth to power.

  45. “And how does that relate to Sarah Palin? She is much closer to the beating heart of average Americans than the elites and their transparent surrogates like Obama are. And that is why they work so hard to destroy her. That is why those corrupt surrogates like Gibson, Couric and others are hell bent on destroying her. ”

    Nailed it. Excellent commentary.

  46. Good for Israel! Stuns me that no commentators ever point out the obvious, Israel has no oil –it is not an oil exporting country, yet its GDP is about 30% higher than any other middle east country, even more stunning, it is one of the smallest country, the most free and the only democracy in the middle east. A country based on freedom, indiv. rights and choice.

  47. Jan @ 11:34

    I have a relative just diagnosed with Alzheimers this past week. I found an article on that also. I think it is amazing. I know a bio researcher in this area, and I am going to ask him about this method of cure. I think it is exciting. I know have a personnel interest.

  48. JanH
    March 6th, 2011 at 11:37 am

    It seems if I understand what was written correctly, which by the way is speculative as interpreting a method of categorizing each sect by it’s past history as a Muslim entity[ separating “radicals” (al-Qaida) from “moderates” (Hizballah and the Muslim Brotherhood!)] are the means by which a determination will be made if the Muslim Brotherhood belongs in that category when in fact it might belong due to patterns of violence in it’s past history, in the radical al-Qaida category.

    Fortunately, Obama is not the only voice to be heard making this determination. If evidence is brought forward showing there is good reason to believe the Muslim Brotherhood has at times had a connection to radicals, the Taliban or al-Qaida, they’ve lost their credibility and their standing declaring them as moderates.

    You can’t run the race in the paddock, as we continually refer to when we see a horse’s chest drenched in foaming sweat as he is brought to the post before the race has been run. Otherwise, you expend energy needed to win the race when it is actually run.
    ______________________

    I believe this quote is actually more relevant now than the categorizing of Muslim factions- This one from Bibi:

    “The prime minister wants to move ahead substantively but he wants to know that he has American backing,” one of Netanyahu’s advisers said. “If the U.S. administration goes with him, he is willing to undertake compromises and take difficult steps.”

    Bibi is categorically putting Obama on the spot for an answer. Whether Bibi is sincere in his proposal or not is not important right now. What he is accomplishing is drawing Obama out getting a definite YES or NO whether the US will continue to support Israel.

    Remember, the same identical question, we discussed yesterday. You all voted NO- Obama will not support Israel.

    We will have to watch and make note of Obama’s answer to this most important question.

  49. looks like rory reid is in some legal trouble for sort of perhaps illegally “whitewashing” campain money

    http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/06/rory-reids-house-cards-crumbles/

    the chutzpah line:
    “Reid’s reaction to the scandal was the height of chutzpah, not only insisting on the transparency of the ploy, but to declare, “If this is a statement on anything, it is a statement on the failures of the campaign laws … If someone thinks it’s inappropriate, change the law.””

  50. JanH
    March 6th, 2011 at 11:34 am

    and

    NewMexicoFan

    Israel has developed a vaccine against Alzheimer’s.
    ______________________

    That is good news. And fantastic if clinical trials reveal documentation of an astonishing success rate. The nasal spray will be a God sent to many including their families.

  51. off of to work.

    BTW, wife just came back from the grocery store, she rarely buys News-Weak anymore, but this edition has a profile on Hillary, so she bought it, seems to be a pretty fair piece on Hillary, and very nice photo of Hillary on the cover. I’m glad at least once they were fair to Hillary.

  52. #
    tim
    March 6th, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    off of to work.

    BTW, wife just came back from the grocery store, she rarely buys News-Weak anymore, but this edition has a profile on Hillary, so she bought it, seems to be a pretty fair piece on Hillary, and very nice photo of Hillary on the cover. I’m glad at least once they were fair to Hillary.
    ____________________

    WOW, Tim- I’ll have to get a copy- thanks for the heads up!

  53. Watching the making of the new mini-series “Mildred Pierce”.
    A period piece from the James Cain novel, taking place during the depression. Looks to be a spectacular series.. starring Kate Winslet.

  54. Government lies blatantly to the American People on gnp, budgets, health care deform, unemployment rates and every other material metric of economic significance. Whenever and wherever they can lie, they most definitely do. As a result we march in lock step toward a financial Armageddon aided and abetted by big media–as noted below. Yes, the people who want us to accept them as the gatekeepers–fuck them. Now there is one lone voice calling for an honest system of accounting for government–but he has plenty of leverage. And guess fucking what? If these uber corrupt politicians do not listen to Gates, then in the end they will be compelled to listen to China . . . Good stuff:
    ———————————————————–
    I can’t remember reading a single editorial or hearing a single sound bite calling for honest accounting by governments. Until yesterday. That’s when Bill Gates spoke out on the issue.

    “It’s riddled with gimmicks,” Mr. Gates said of the “tricks” states use to balance their budgets. Citing moves such as selling state assets and deferring payments, he said some methods are “so blatant and extreme,” that “Enron would blush,” referring to the energy company that collapsed a decade ago amid an accounting scandal.

    Gates thinks that governments ”need more scrutiny and should follow more-transparent accounting principles, such as those used by Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp.” In other words, governments, like every corporation in the country, should be required to keep their books according to the governmental equivalent of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and to have their books certified by an independent, politically insulated body that has a mandate to ensure honest accounting.

    Politicians will hate the idea and can, undoubtedly, depend on their water bearers in the press to run interference for them. Corporate management hated the idea when Wall Street forced it on them over a century ago. But they learned to live with it, to the infinite benefit of the American economy, and so will the politicians, also to the infinite benefit of the American economy.

    http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2011/03/06/bill-gates-wants-numbers/

  55. Admin says:

    While the biggest losses were higher-wage jobs paying an average of $19.05 to $31.40 an hour, the biggest gains have been lower-wage jobs paying an average of $9.03 to $12.91 an hour.

    In other words, the big news isn’t jobs. It’s wages.”

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

    BINGO!

    …and lest we forget, we now live in a version of the USA where seniors, many who have seen their life savings evaporate, must come out of retirement to compete with colleges kids looking for their first job and all are competing with the unemployed and often overeducated middle class…all thrown into the same abyss and black hole of competing for those service jobs paying from $ 9 – 12 and hour…

    …and to top that off, many that get those meager jobs will get a 3 month probationary period that if not completed will cancel out chances for unemployment and health benefits…

    …no one in their right mind should let O and the dims get by with shallow and questionable numbers that indicate people are going back to work and our standard of living is improving…pleaaase….

  56. Mrs. Smith
    March 6th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
    #
    tim
    March 6th, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    off of to work.

    BTW, wife just came back from the grocery store, she rarely buys News-Weak anymore, but this edition has a profile on Hillary, so she bought it, seems to be a pretty fair piece on Hillary, and very nice photo of Hillary on the cover. I’m glad at least once they were fair to Hillary.
    ____________________

    WOW, Tim- I’ll have to get a copy- thanks for the heads up!

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

    from what I understand that is due to Tina Brown (Daily Beast) and her new affiliation with revamping Newsweek…

  57. NewMexicoFan,

    A tiny country, hated by many, comes up with a cure for one of the most dreaded diseases out there (exception being the cancers)…this is significant in more ways than one.

  58. from what I understand that is due to Tina Brown (Daily Beast) and her new affiliation with revamping Newsweek…
    _____________

    Thanks, S- I’m going to look online until I get to the store tomorrow and see if there are any teasers to explore- 🙂

  59. A little long but…

    From Newsweek…

    The Hillary Doctrine

    In a time of momentous change in the world, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sets out on her most heartfelt mission: to put women and girls at the forefront of the new world order.

    Hillary Clinton seemed to be in a rare moment of repose while the Middle East erupted. She’d just returned from a surprise trip to Yemen and now sat for 30 minutes against a blue backdrop in the State Department’s Washington broadcast studio as reports streamed in of Libya’s violent crackdown on its own people.

    But Clinton was far from a passive observer. She was in energetic discussion on the Egyptian news site Masrawy.com, where her presence excited a stream of questions—more than 6,500 in three days—from young people across Egypt. “We hope,” she said, “that as Egypt looks at its own future, it takes advantage of all of the people’s talents”—Clinton shorthand for including women. She had an immediate answer when a number of questioners suggested that her persistent references to women’s rights constituted American meddling in Egyptian affairs: “If a country doesn’t recognize minority rights and human rights, including women’s rights, you will not have the kind of stability and prosperity that is possible.”

    The Web chat was only one of dozens of personal exchanges Clinton has committed to during the three months since Tunisia’s unrest set off a political explosion whose end is not yet in sight. At every step, she has worked to connect the Middle East’s hunger for a new way forward with her categorical imperative: the empowerment of women. Her campaign has begun to resonate in unlikely places. In the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, where women cannot travel without male permission or drive a car, a grandson of the Kingdom’s founding monarch (Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud) last month denounced the way women are “economically and socially marginalized” in Arab countries.

    “I believe that the rights of women and girls is the unfinished business of the 21st century,” Clinton recently told NEWSWEEK during another rare moment relaxing on a couch in the comfortable sitting room of her offices on the State Department’s seventh floor, her legs propped up in front of her. “We see women and girls across the world who are oppressed and violated and demeaned and degraded and denied so much of what they are entitled to as our fellow human beings.”

    Clinton is paying particular attention to whether women’s voices are heard within the local groups calling for and leading change in the Middle East. “You don’t see women in pictures coming from the demonstrations and the opposition in Libya,” she told NEWSWEEK late last week, adding that “the role and safety of women will remain one of our highest priorities.” As for Egypt, she said she was heartened by indications that women would be included in the formation of the new government. “We believe that women were in Tahrir Square, and they should be part of the decision-making process. If [the Egyptians] are truly going to have a democracy, they can’t leave out half the population.”

    “I have had quite an experience over the last three months,” is how Clinton characterizes the stamina requirements of an amped-up shuttle diplomacy. Two years into her tenure as America’s 67th secretary of state, she has out-traveled every one of her predecessors, with 465,000 air miles and 79 countries already behind her. Her Boeing 757’s cabin, stocked with a roll-out bed, newspapers, and a corner humidifier, now serves as another home as she flies between diplomatic hot spots, tackling the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, tensions with Iran and North Korea, the Arab-Israeli peace process, and, now, the serial Middle East upheavals. She is, it seems, everywhere at once, crossing time zones and defying jet lag, though signs of exhaustion—a hoarse voice, bleary eyes—slip through. (A recent 19-hour “day trip” to Mexico landed her at Maryland’s Andrews Air Force Base well after 2 a.m., which left approximately six hours to get home, sleep, and make her first meeting of the day that would culminate in President Obama’s State of the Union address.)

    It is hardly the life the former first lady and senator from New York envisioned. Indeed, she can fairly be described as the surprise secretary of state, the country’s first formidable female presidential candidate who had made clear her desire to shed the supporting roles of her past. When Barack Obama approached her about assuming the post, it was clear what he got out of the deal: an opportunity to reinforce his “change the tone” pledge by offering a choice role to his one-time competitor, and the credibility, gravitas—and gender balance—her appointment conferred. Less obvious at the time was what she might hope to accomplish. A sense of duty and a want of appealing alternatives may have led her to Foggy Bottom, but Clinton has turned the job into what may well be the role of her lifetime: advocate in chief for women worldwide.

    Amid the current unrest and pervasive uncertainty, Clinton’s mission has only gained in urgency. As she noted in Qatar in January, two weeks before Egypt’s first “day of rage,” the Middle East’s old foundations were “sinking into the sand.” But there has been a hard core of realism to her recognition of a new opening for women. “We are watching and waiting,” she said. “People jockey for power, and often the most conservative elements once again use the opportunity to crack down on women and women’s roles.”

    While Clinton views the subjugation of the world’s women as a moral question, she plants her argument firmly on the grounds of national security, terrain she knows is far less likely to be attacked as “too soft” to be relevant to U.S. interests. “This is a big deal for American values and for American foreign policy and our interests, but it is also a big deal for our security,” she told NEWSWEEK. “Because where women are disempowered and dehumanized, you are more likely to see not just antidemocratic forces, but extremism that leads to security challenges for us.”

    Championing opportunity and equality for women is the fulfillment of her life’s work, but for a time, it looked as if that trajectory might be derailed. In 1974, the blazing young intellect who won national attention with an unscripted response to Sen. Edward Brooke, boldly arguing for the end of the Vietnam War in her Wellesley commencement speech (a speech that landed her on the cover of Life magazine), disappointed her feminist friends by spurning New York and Washington in favor of Fayetteville, Ark., to become the young Bill Clinton’s wife.

    For two decades, Clinton put her own ambitions second to and in the service of her husband’s political rise, enduring personal struggles and eating political crow when her high-profile effort to reform health care at the start of Bill Clinton’s first term ended in a rout. A return to first-lady purdah soon followed.

    And then came Beijing. The 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women, organized by the United Nations to advance and promote women’s opportunity and equality, stirred Hillary to reassert her own credo as a woman, on behalf of women. She would gather America’s delegation and serve as its honorary chair, lending her imprimatur as first lady to put women’s rights in the global spotlight at the largest such assembly of its kind.

    When word reached the West Wing of Hillary’s interest in attending the conference, her husband’s aides saw only the political downside for the president and feared the first lady would derail already-fragile bilateral relations. “I did get a call from someone on the National Security Council who said to me, ‘My job is to make sure Hillary Clinton doesn’t go to China,’?” says Theresa Loar, who helped Clinton organize the Beijing delegation. “I am thinking, my job is to make sure it’s a rip-roaring success—and guess who is going to succeed?”

    Clinton herself says she paid little heed to the political tug-of-war within her husband’s administration. “I always intended to go,” she says, stressing the word “always.” “The real question was, what would I do when I got there … It became more and more important to me that we really lay down a declaration of American values when it comes to women.” And so, clad in a striking pink suit, she ascended the Beijing stage and delivered what The New York Times called “an unflinching speech that may have been her finest moment in public life.” Thousands of delegates—women and men—from 180 countries had gathered to hear Clinton, and some of the women cheered and pounded the tables in front of them while she spoke.

    “If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights once and for all,” Clinton declared. “As long as discrimination and inequities remain so commonplace everywhere in the world, as long as girls and women are valued less, fed less, fed last, overworked, underpaid, not schooled, subjected to violence in and outside their homes—the potential of the human family to create a peaceful, prosperous world will not be realized.”

    Those who have worked closely with Clinton on women’s issues view that speech as a turning point for an embattled first lady. “What Mrs. Clinton so clearly realized in Beijing was that she had a voice and she had power,” says Alyse Nelson, president of the women’s leadership group Vital Voices Global Partnership, who paid her own way to the conference as a college student. “And she could use that voice to help those who had no power.”

    Mu Sochua met Clinton in Beijing and credits Clinton’s speech with changing her career path. “That was the day I decided to enter politics,” says Sochua, now a prominent Cambodian opposition leader. “Watching her I had the sense that I could do it, that other women could do it, if we really spoke from the bottom of our hearts and reflected the voices of women.”

    Significantly, at the age of 63, Hillary Clinton is once again focusing on the issues that first inspired her to seek a life of public service more than four decades ago, a time when America’s schools remained segregated and no woman had ever served on the Supreme Court, been elected mayor of a major city, or entered the country’s military academies.

    Despite her punishing schedule, Clinton appears far more at ease with her own role and in her own skin than ever before. Even her oft-commented style—the coiffed hair, a wardrobe of tailored pantsuits—now shows a settled sureness. Clinton’s political instincts may have served others—principally her husband—to great effect, but over the years they have often done her a disservice. Today, she exudes not just the confidence that her White House–era trials are behind her but the conviction that they are beside the point. In crafting her role as secretary of state, she has shown remarkable political dexterity and a marked absence of inner conflict, crystallized by the moral clarity of addressing injustices faced by young girls sold into slavery or mothers raped in front of their children.

    In January, Clinton became the first secretary of state in two decades to visit Yemen. It’s a country infiltrated by Al Qaeda, and so she talked security and development issues in three hours cloistered with Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh at his sprawling presidential compound. It’s also a country where a man may marry a girl of 9, and so Clinton sought out the kind of people who rarely meet American secretaries of state—the students, community activists, and, most obviously, the women. She toured the narrow streets of the capital’s old city to the great dismay of her security detail; through the windows of her heavily armored SUV she caught sight of men in traditional clothes, knives dangling from their belts, and children yelling “welcome” in Arabic. Missing from the scene: virtually any sign of the country’s women.

    Arriving at a packed conference center in a luxury hotel complex perched above the old city, Clinton found young men and women packed into a raucous town-hall meeting. When she finished speaking, a cluster of Yemeni women’s activists approached. A petite young woman wearing a glitter-fringed black head scarf and a denim jacket with BEAUTY embroidered on its sleeve told the secretary the women needed advice about how to stop child marriage. During her remarks, Clinton had cited the story of Nujood Ali, a Yemeni girl in the audience that day whose very public fight for a divorce at age 11 has become a global cause célèbre—one that Clinton herself follows closely.

    “Today, Nujood is back in school where she belongs, learning English along with her studies,” Clinton told the crowd. “And I really see her as an inspiration and representative of so many other young girls who can contribute positively to their families and their country.”

    By Clinton’s side as she spoke was Melanne Verveer, ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues, a post Clinton encouraged President Obama to create when she became secretary. In 1995, while serving as Clinton’s chief of staff, Verveer helped the first lady create the President’s Interagency Council on Women. With Verveer as her trusted deputy, Clinton pushes for recognition of women’s contributions in traditional areas such as health and education, along with newer and, in her view, equally critical arenas such as diplomacy and peacekeeping. “Politics is seen in most societies, including our own, I would add, as a largely male sport—unarmed combat—and women are very often ignored or pushed aside in an effort to gain or consolidate power,” she says. Her work aims to change that.

    During Clinton’s daylong stop in Papua New Guinea last November, Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare sought to dismiss concerns about domestic violence. “Sometimes there are fights, arguments do take place, but it’s nothing very brutal,” Somare said, before asserting that “a person … cannot control [himself] when he’s under the influence of liquor.” Clinton noted pointedly that one of her highest priorities was “enabling more women to have access to their rights, to take their position in society” and she added—evidently to the surprise of those traveling with her—that Verveer would be returning to Papua New Guinea to “figure out what else the United States can do, so that we have even more women playing leadership roles in every aspect of your society.”

    “Let’s stay true to our values” is, Clinton says, her message to the American public. “Let’s continue to stand up for those who are vulnerable to being left out or marginalized.” It’s a pledge in sync with a growing national awareness of the unappreciated potential of women and girls around the world. Children now study the young readers’ edition of Three Cups of Tea as part of their classroom curriculum, while an increasing number of college-age students are committing time to NGOs involved with women’s issues. And though Washington is proving slower to embrace Clinton’s cause, her own popularity is soaring: she is the second-most-admired woman in America (after Oprah Winfrey), according to a NEWSWEEK poll of women in late February.

    Meanwhile, the State Department’s 2012 fiscal-year request includes $1.2 billion in programs specifically targeting women, $832 million of which will go toward global health initiatives. Tellingly, comparisons with past years can’t be made, since the department only started tracking women-focused dollars in 2010. Once a month, Verveer meets by videoconference with the Afghanistan Gender Task Force, which packs into a narrow room in the heavily fortified U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan’s capital. During a 2009 visit, she unveiled what is now the $36 million Ambassador’s Small Grants Program to Support Gender Equality, which has awarded 523 grants totaling $8 million via the USAID contractor Creative Associates. Most awards last less than four months, but two dozen have gone to organizations working on long-term change, such as a domestic violence law that went into effect last year.

    Afghan grant recipient Suraya Pakzad’s Voice of Women offers refuge to women who suffer beatings and mental abuse at the hands of husbands and in-laws. Thuraya Dammaj, a Yemeni human-rights activist, plans to use a Middle East–focused $25,000 State Department grant to push for quotas to get more women into Parliament and to repeal a law allowing the marriage of young girls.

    During Clinton’s last Middle East visit, former Iraqi minister Bakhtiar Amin told her he worried about the increasing invisibility of women in Iraq’s government. Once there were six female ministers, Amin noted, and now there was only one. Clinton pledged to follow up. “The secretary remembers things, she takes notes, she asks questions weeks or months” after the fact, according to Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary for management at the State Department. “She checks on the issues she cares about, deeply and specifically,” keeping track of it all with her famous to-do lists.

    “I honestly think Hillary Clinton wakes up every day thinking about how to improve the lives of women and girls,” says Theresa Loar. “And I don’t know another world leader who is doing that.”

    Clinton’s knack for personalizing foreign policy was evident last month, when she convened the annual gathering of the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. It’s another issue she began working on in the mid-1990s, and in a borderless world with instant communication, sexual slavery has exploded into an epidemic; the State Department estimates there are now 12.3 million adults and children worldwide in “forced labor, bonded labor, and forced prostitution.”

    Squeezed in elbow to elbow around a long wooden table in the State Department’s Jefferson Room was a virtual cabinet gathering, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. As host of the meeting, which began so promptly that several attendees sheepishly slid in late, Clinton asked each of the officials to share their team’s progress. She moved briskly around the table, then stopped to make a frank appeal. “One thing I would urge, if you do get a chance, is to visit a shelter, a site where trafficking victims have been rescued and are being rehabilitated,” she said to a room that had suddenly gone silent. “I recently was in Cambodia, and it is just so overwhelmingly heartbreaking and inspiring to see these young girls. One girl lost her eyes—to punish her, the owner of the brothel had stabbed her in the eye with a nail,” Clinton continued. “She was the most optimistic, cheerful young woman, just a tremendous spirit. What she wants to do when she grows up is help other victims of trafficking, so there is just an enormous amount of work to be done.”

    The shelter Clinton referred to is run by the Cambodian activist Somaly Mam, who herself was forced into a brothel as a little girl. Mam credits Clinton’s visit with making her work rescuing young victims respectable in the eyes of her government. “She protects our lives,” Mam says simply, noting that during her visit Clinton took the time to talk with the girls and that many of the shelter’s children now keep photos of her on their walls. “Our people never paid attention. Hillary has opened their eyes, so now they have no choice; by her work she has saved many lives in Cambodia—our government is changing.”

    For her part, Clinton says that her ambition now is to move the discussion beyond a reliance on her own celebrity. She must, she says, take her work on women’s behalf “out of the interpersonal and turn it into the international.” At the State Department, that goal is reflected in a new and sweeping strategic blueprint known as the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), which establishes priorities over a four-year horizon. Women and girls are mentioned 133 times across the 220 pages of the final QDDR document.

    By institutionalizing a process that recognizes the importance of women’s involvement, Clinton hopes her successors will continue what she has started. Many of those on the front lines of implementing Clinton’s changes say they believe her message will stick. “Once you have built this track record, it is much harder to ignore it,” says Anne-Marie Slaughter, who served as a chief architect of the QDDR process. But some women’s-rights advocates who applaud Clinton’s leadership aren’t so sure. “When I go to Iraq or Afghanistan and I meet State Department officials, I don’t see women’s issues at the core of the discussion,” says Zainab Salbi, who heads Women for Women International. (See My Turn, page 40.) Salbi notes that on a recent trip to the southern Iraqi province of Diwaniya, she had to fight to convince her State interlocutors that spending precious program dollars on women was a worthwhile investment. “Their patriarchy and chauvinism,” she says, “was harder on Iraqi culture than Iraqis themselves.”

    “There is a culture at State, and you have to break through that culture,” admits one former ambassador. “The guys who work on country-to-country relationships don’t think these issues are central.” Clinton’s efforts could easily stall or be reversed when she and Verveer leave, he adds, in part because each is so good at what she does. “I think the combination of those two personalities is crucial, and that’s why I can’t be at all sure it will last beyond this administration.”

    Speculation continues that Clinton would stay on in a second Obama term, and a few pundits go as far as to suggest she might even make another White House run in 2016, though Bill Clinton joked recently that his wife now covets the title of grandmother far more than that of commander in chief. For now, Hillary Clinton is sticking to her story that she is getting ready to take a break from public life.

    Asked whether she worries her eventual departure from the State Department will endanger the future of her mission, Clinton admits to feeling a great weight of responsibility for all the women and girls she has met and the many millions of others like them. “It is why there are 133 references to women and girls in the QDDR,” she says, turning reflexively to the hard evidence. “It is why I mention the issue in every setting I am in, and why I mention it with every foreign leader I meet.

    “It is like any challenge,” she goes on, her tone brightening. “You just keep at it, take it piece by piece, seize the ground you can, hang onto it, and then move forward a little bit more.” She pauses. “And we are heading for higher ground.”

    Lemmon, a fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of The Dressmaker of Khair Khana, published this month.

    http://www.newsweek.com/2011/03/06/the-hillary-doctrine.html

  60. I thought the Bush/Obama connection was a bit of a stretch but I’ve always been puzzled over GW never criticizing the “won” and Barbara Bush’s comments about Sarah Palin. These things never made sense to me. The only explanation is the power elite are just one big happy family. If Barbara Bush doesn’t like Sarah Palin, that’s a point for Sarah, IMHO.

  61. The reason I say this is because as government becomes the primary cost center in the economy and as it consumes a greater and greater portion of the gross national product, foreign nations holding US debt will be compelled to ask whether the massive government programs that Obama and his ilk will impose on the peasant class for the benefit of his handlers are cost neutral as he and his stooges will always say or are yet another step toward finacial Armageddon which leaves them as well as the American People holding the bag, so the political class can have perpetual power over the society even as the lefties tell us they are creating a brave new world, but they never address the next question which is a brave new world for whom?

  62. I see all the usual suspects have got the cover picture 🙂

    crazyhorse, about this Bush-Obama thing, whenever I hear this, I go back to reading somewhere the not so publicized meeting between Rove, Bush junior and Obama soon after Obama won his senate election in 2004. I think Bush clan was very afraid of Hillary..

  63. JanH
    March 6th, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    Mrs. Smith,
    ___________________

    Yes, and thanks a bunch for posting the story- Drudge has the Newsweek cover and the Huffpo story up-

  64. Did anyone catch FoxNewsSunday with Chris Wallace….he had as a guest the daughter of the minister that picketts the funerals of fallen soldiers. I believe the name is Westside Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas. It was the usual craziness of a cult, but I couldn’t get over her calling the President the anti-christ and saying President Obama was going to hell…LOL!

    How’s that for free speech..of coarse Wallace managed at the end to classify this church as a replica of Al Queda…LOL!

    Well we’ve all seen the anti-christ sentiment on the net, but never on traditional news…if that’s what you want to call FoxNews!

  65. The NYT has noticed that the US is not broke, and here’s someone elsewhere putting it well:

    The country is awash in wealth and cash. It’s just that it’s not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich.

    Today just 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.

    Let me say that again. 400 obscenely rich people, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer “bailout” of 2008, now have more loot, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined. If you can’t bring yourself to call that a financial coup d’état, then you are simply not being honest about what you know in your heart to be true.

    And I can see why. For us to admit that we have let a small group of men abscond with and hoard the bulk of the wealth that runs our economy, would mean that we’d have to accept the humiliating acknowledgment that we have indeed surrendered our precious Democracy to the moneyed elite. Wall Street, the banks and the Fortune 500 now run this Republic

  66. Lovely to see Hillary on Newsweek accompanied by the statement: “HILLARY’S WAR How she’s shattering glass ceilings everywhere”
    Freshman GOP Senator: Continuing Resolution is A “Disappointing Failure”
    …In a statement released Wednesday, [Freshman] Senator [Mike] Lee [R-Utah] called the proposal “a disappointing
    failure on the part of both parties to seriously address the economic meltdown we face from our massive deficit and growing national debt.” Lee said he doesn’t think anyone in his party wants to see a government shutdown But he added more aggressive budget cuts are needed.

    Earlier this week, Lee came just nine votes shy of passage on a constitutional amendment forcing Congress to pass a balanced budget. Lee said doing that would “prohibit Congress from engaging in this practice of perpetual deficit spending.If they certainly want to get my vote they’ll have to put in place some kind of a mechanism to make sure we don’t continue borrowing at this rate,“ added Senator Lee….
    http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/03/05/freshman-gop-senator-continuing-resolution-disappointing-failure

  67. So Tina Brown is making amends for the old Newsweek and going after the 18 million Hillary supporters to increase her sales, and even declaring that the glass ceiling not one many have been shattered because of Hillary. call me cynical. We want the ultimate prize given to an incompetent guy just because he was a black guy. That is the one glass ceiling that matters the most. I have a friend who lives in India and has done remarkable things herself but she would say in 08, US presidency is too powerful for a woman to hold — I want such people silenced and I want others to get empowered. So let us ask Tina Brown how to boot the usurper out and put the rightful winner in the WH.

  68. This is just amazing- I’ve had House Hunters International bookmarked on my tv to record every episode that is run on the cable station.

    I’ve seen houses in Fiji, Thailand, Greece, Rome, Sicily, Netherlands,
    El Escondido Mexico, Costa Rica, Australia, with all of them quite small 2/br. 1/ba, in the low end of $325,000 on up. For the first time today, I’ve seen a property that is in the $130,000+ range in Cape Town, South Africa that is descent.

    Can you imagine the damage that has been done to the US Real Estate market because of the Bank’s created economic crisis. And the millions of poor people that have lost their homes and been displaced to wherever because of a their mismanagement and deceptive banking practices? The next big question raised is; how come none of these Bankers have been indicted for theft and fraud ?

  69. TD, Who are these 400 rich bas%$#ds, names please….surely someone has made a list….definitely they are the ones who is stealing the middle class blind and ruining America?

  70. pm317
    March 6th, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    you outlined exactly what my wife said. She bought this one News-Weak magazine for this week only because of Hillary, but the whole time she was reading it, all I heard (and agreed with), “stupid a$$holes, if Hillary challenges Waffles, News-Weak will be front and center ripping her apart just like they did in 2008”
    Tina Brown can try and revamp that piece of trash “news”magazine all she wants, what they did in 2008 against Hillary and Sarah will not be forgetten.

    BTW, one thing I noticed, that magazine is so thin now, I was stunned, it is barely more than 20 or so pages. It just surprised me how thin it was.

  71. TD,
    I know Michael Moore’s on to something…but whether he’s still a bot I don’t know….He did back Obama over Hillary…so I hope he’s realized his mistake.

  72. just indulging in a fantasy…

    wouldn’t it be great if we could put the MSM, the blog boys, the DIMS, etc…heck, this is a fantasy…let’s put the repubs in there too…

    …if we could put all of them under sodium pentathol…’the truth drug’ or have them take a lie detector test…

    …and make all of them answer:

    (1) ‘if they could have their vote back, would they vote for Hillary’ ?

    (2) ‘do you believe that Hillary would have made a better President than O’?

    and (3) Who do you believe is a stronger fighter for progressive ideas and for
    the middle class and those in need?

    … and for good measure…

    (4) Who is the real ‘brains’ in the O admin?
    (and O would lose all credibility without)

  73. Offhand, Moore’s speech sounds like the same facts that have been posted here, most recently from ohansen?? Moore’s putting it very clearly.

  74. Shadowfax
    March 4th, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    ohanson

    Official Trailer – “Inside Job”

    ———–
    I gotta see this movie.

    Nothing has been done to change things. Bail outs, money handed over from the public to these crooks in big bags and here we sit…..

    ———————————-

    I downloaded (free) and watched it. Wow. Twenty first century Pecora commission? The investment banks and bankers and the Fed Reserve exposed in terms almost anyone can understand. Not dry or boring. Not sensationalist.

    If the general population sees this, something would change.

    We still lack courageous leaders with a plan to fix the economy.

    The powers that be do not want you to watch this.

  75. Oh, the 400 Americans… the *fact* was stated in INSIDE JOB, but not most names, not directly. Pretty obvious most of them are in the investment banks and hedge fund operations. Seems an investigator with time and no special resources could make a list. Marcy W. at Firedoglake?

  76. I got to see this movie…when is it coming out…something is not right with all this chaos…its just too convenient for everything to happen at the same time…..I read this in the “Shock Doctrine”…..

  77. MARCH 6, 2011

    Obama’s Libyan Abdication

    Will the U.S. let Gadhafi slaughter his way back to power? Will the U.S. let Gadhafi slaughter his way back to power? .The battle for Libya has reached a bloody impasse. Moammar Gadhafi continues to hold Tripoli, but his sons and mercenaries have been unable to break the uprising or retake the country’s east. Having loudly declared that Gadhafi “needs to step down from power and leave,” President Obama now seems to have retreated into a bizarre but all too typical passivity.

    We say bizarre because the U.S. has already announced its preferred outcome, yet it is doing little to achieve this end. The greatest danger now to U.S. interests—and to Mr. Obama’s political standing—would be for Gadhafi to regain control. A Libya in part or whole under the Gadhafi clan would be a failed, isolated and dangerous place ruled by a vengeful tyrant and a likely abettor of terrorists. We presume that’s what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meant the other day when she said that “one of our biggest concerns is Libya . . . becoming a giant Somalia.”

    Ghadafi can also only prevail at this stage through a murderous campaign that will make U.S. passivity complicit in a bloodbath. Media reports relate stories of his secret police terrorizing Tripoli’s population and killing indiscriminately. Al Jazeera is already comparing the West’s failure to act in Libya to the slaughter of Iraq’s marsh Arabs in 1991 and of the Bosnian Muslims by Serbs later that decade.

    The Administration is explaining its reluctance to act by exaggerating the costs and the risks. It rolled out Pentagon chief Robert Gates last week to mock “loose talk” of military options. “It’s a big operation in a big country,” he said. “We also have to think about, frankly, the use of the U.S. military in another country in the Middle East.” Centcom Commander James Mattis offered a similar warning.

    We can understand if our war-fighters are trying to make sure that civilians understand the costs and are totally committed before they order U.S. forces to action. But no one is talking about introducing U.S. ground forces a la Afghanistan or Iraq. The Libyans want to liberate Libya. The issue is how the U.S. can help them do it, which includes humanitarian, diplomatic and perhaps military assistance.

    Three weeks into the uprising, Mr. Obama has finally approved a humanitarian airlift. The U.S. should also recognize the provisional government known as the National Transitional Temporary Council, which has issued a declaration of principles that is at least as enlightened as the average Arab constitution. U.S. officials may not know these men well, but we will have more influence with them if they see us helping their cause when it matters.

    The U.S. should also bar Gadhafi’s agents from U.S. soil and world councils. His government has requested that senior diplomat Ali Abdussalam Treki be recognized as Libya’s new ambassador to the U.N. A U.N. spokesman naturally says this is Libya’s right, but the U.S. ought to deny Mr. Treki a visa. If Libyan officials realize they are going to be persona non grata around the world, more of them might defect.

    The U.S. and U.N. may also be repeating their Bosnian mistake with their arms embargo on Libya. In the 1990s, a U.N. embargo didn’t hurt the Serbs, who were already well-armed, but it crippled the Bosnians, who lacked the weapons to defend themselves.

    The current U.N. embargo may have been intended to apply only to Gadhafi’s government, but we saw conflicting reports on the weekend that some countries may be interpreting it to apply to the opposition too. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama ought to correct the world’s understanding straightaway, or rewrite the resolution. Even short of providing arms—which we would support—the U.S. could help by jamming Gadhafi’s propaganda or military communications, as well as providing intelligence.

    As for the no-fly zone, the Administration is far too solicitous of U.N. and Arab approval. The approval that matters is from the Libyan opposition. The Arab League is heavily influenced by the Saudis, who have their own budding problem with popular dissent. Moscow and Beijing don’t want a no-fly zone in Libya, but so what?

    We didn’t need Chinese or Russian support to keep Iraqi Kurds safe from Saddam Hussein’s bombers in the 1990s. NATO can act without U.N. approval, or at least it could before this Administration. Even Senator John Kerry thinks the Administration is making too much of the risks of a no-fly zone. “This is not a big air force,” he says about Libya. “It’s not an enormously complicated defense system.”

    We suspect the real reason for Mr. Obama’s passivity is more ideological than practical. He and his White House team believe that any U.S. action will somehow be tainted if it isn’t wrapped in U.N. or pan-Arab approval. They have internalized their own critique of the Bush Administration to such a degree that they are paralyzed to act even against a dictator as reviled and blood-stained as Gadhafi, and even though it would not require the deployment of U.S. troops.

    Mr. Obama won’t lead the world because he truly seems to believe that U.S. leadership is morally suspect. But if Mr. Obama thinks George W. Bush was unpopular in the Arab world, he should contemplate the standing of America—and the world reputation of Barack Obama—if Gadhafi and his sons slaughter their way back to power.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704005404576176861610325024.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

  78. Keeping busy, Mr President?

    Obama heads out for his 60th game of golf since reaching the White House… as he also takes up brewing his own beer

    By Daily Mail Reporter and Paul Thompson
    6th March 2011

    Playing a regular round of golf is par for the course for American presidents, and Barack Obama is certainly no different.
    The President – who admits to more than a passing fondness for the game – has managed to rack up 60 games since he was elected president in 2008.

    With spring in the air he was spotted back on the course this weekend, at the same time it was revealed he has become the first president to produce White House beer.

    According to statistics compiled by CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller, who keeps close tabs on the president’s activities, Mr Obama played 28 rounds in 2009, 30 rounds in 2010, and two this year.
    It is far more than his predecessor George W Bush managed in his entire presidency.

    George Bush was widely criticised for playing golf during his term of office, and he became the subject of ridicule when during one media interview on the golf course he signed off by saying,

    ‘I call upon all nations to to everything they can to stop these terrorist killings. Thank you. Now watch this drive.’

    Mr Bush announced he was giving up golf in 2003 because of the war in Iraq, explaining, ‘I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.’

    There are those who believe Mr Obama should follow Bush’s example, but the President’s love of the game has been supported by White House staff who say he needs ‘downtime’ to deal with the stresses of ruling the U.S.

    Last year the head of BP Tony Hayward was taken to task by Whitehouse spokesman Bill Burton about attending a yacht race at the Isle of Wight soon after the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

    Burton’s comments echoed those of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who called Hawyard’s decision to go to the yacht race the latest in a ‘long line of PR gaffes and mistakes.

    But when asked about Mr Obama’s four hour golf game at a course near Washington, Burton said the President had the right to decompress a bit after a hard week.

    ‘I don’t think that there’s a person in this country that doesn’t think that their President ought to have a little time to clear his mind,said Burton, adding, ‘I think that a little time to himself on Father’s Day weekend probably does us all good as American citizens.’

    The Golf Digest has ranked Mr Obama eighth in terms of how much he has played golf in his presidency, behind Bill Clinton but ahead of Ronald Reagan. John F Kennedy, widely considered the best golfing president, made sure he was never photographed on the course.

    Mr Obama is said to choose the company of young administration staffers instead of lawmakers or senior aides, backing up the idea that he uses the game to relax rather than plan policy.

    Last year the volcanic plume covering most of Europe forced him to cancel a trip to Poland to attend the funeral of the nation’s president. With the resulting gap in his schedule the President headed to the links for a round of golf instead.

    Meanwhile Mr Obama has become the first US President ever to produce his own beer, which he calls White House Honey Ale.

    More than 100 bottles of the home brew were served at his recent Super Bowl part, and he is planning to bring out more at a St Patrick’s Day party he is holding later this month.

    The President paid for the home beer making kit and asked his culinary team to use honey from the White House hives for the beer.

    He is is known for his love of beer and has used social drinking to help break the ice during diplomatic meetings.

    At the G20 summit in Toronto last June, he and David Cameron traded bottles of beer to settle a bet on the U.S.-U.K. World Cup game.

    During the 2010 Olympics he and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper each wagered a case of beer on the outcome of the men’s hockey final.

    ‘It is very safe to assume that there will be more White House beer in the future,’ said White House spokesman Semonti Stephens.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363563/Keeping-busy-Mr-President-Obama-heads-60th-game-golf-reaching-White-House-takes-brewing-beer.html?ITO=1490

  79. Mrs. Smith
    March 6th, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    woo-hoo, Hillary’s Newsweek cover just came online:

    http://i.huffpost.com/gen/254246/NEWSWEEK.jpg

    ————–
    Wow, what a great photo of our Hillary and talking about how she is breaking glass ceilings all over the world.
    Damn, we need Hillary in the Oval.
    Gotta get this magazine. Another great photo for my wall at work to rile up the Obots. 😉

  80. Anyone watching 60 minutes?

    Story on the rise of childhood poverty.
    1 million homes foreclosed on last year, another million this year.
    With the high unemployment along with the housing crash, families below the poverty line 20+K/year, soon 25% of American’s children will be in this group. Many homeless, living out of their car with family or in cheap hotels.

    School buses stop in more places by these cheap hotels…with the pending destruction of public schools, how will these children be educated?

    This is so damn sad, yet………BO and MO party on.
    Ain’t life great if you are an Obama!

  81. Oh, the 400 Americans… the *fact* was stated in INSIDE JOB, but not most names, not directly. Pretty obvious most of them are in the investment banks and hedge fund operations.

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

    Hm. I was assuming it would be people like Caroline Kennedy: inheritance, estates, old money investments. But such people have plenty of money to hire accountants to keep them off such lists, and lawyers to sue anyone who busts them.

  82. Shadowfax,
    I saw that 60 minutes segment….its awful all these homeless children….you can bet Obama and his rethugs care nothing for that.
    I don’t know how these rethugs can get up and complain daily about entitlements after seeing that segment. I just wonder about the old foggies….they can’t even get into a car to sleep…what are the rethugs wanting to do with those folks?
    I’m an old foggie but at least I’m regaining my health….so I can work!

  83. Yes, Confloyd…the Rethugs only care about their own wealth and hording and duplicating every penny…….for those that can’t afford private education or country club living…………they don’t give a ratsass…never did, never will.

  84. admin-

    The Republicans are pointing to Obama and Hillary doing business with Terrorists. MSNBC just posted a video noting the outrage of Americans learning the US had lifted sanctions w/Libya in 2004 (didn’t mention it was by Bush) and hurried a recent video of Hillary at a UN Summit mentioning Violence in Libya will not be tolerated- and within a second, have another video at the State Dept welcoming Gadaffi’s son as the new PM of Libya, Hillary stating, we value the relationship w/Libya. Also,a pic of Obama giving Gadaffi a warm handhake at the WH less than 3 mos ago-

    Further, a victim’s wife of the Lockerbee bombing stating her disgust with our country for not prosecuting Gadaffi and big OIL corporations doing business with Libya and her comments.

    Here is the video-

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41938615#41938615

    Trust the Bushes? Gotta be nuts!

  85. [IMG]http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu152/jbstonesfan/101220-102324.jpg[/IMG]

    Me preparing for trial…

  86. The local Catholic HS charges over $9K per year, which is over $700 if spread out over 12 months. We could hve never afforded that for our children. Our goals was for our children to go to public school. In NM, the standard taught is below te national average, so that your child is on taughter at the US Standard if they are in advanced classes. We are again cutting the schools out here. I would not recommend that anyone move here with children.

    Heather Wilson will announce tomorrow she will run. She is trying to get a leg up on Rep Pearce, whom she ran agains for Senate the last time in her Pirmary, and she almost pulled it out. He is pissed, as he wanted to wait to declare. He is afraid that his voters will be pissed because this will be the second time he has ditched them to run for the Senate. After his first failure, he ran again for his Rep seat, and was returned to office in his old area.

    Balderous (he is presently like the Comptroller in the State, anyway he makes sure all the books are OK, and he investigate any finanacial messes), is being promoted by the Dems. However, I would like to see Heinrich run. He has only said he is thinking about it. Again. I don’t understand why the Dems would promote putting a State person into the power position of the Senate, when he has no Federal experience. But obviously they want to make sure they keep the Rep job, and place a Dem in the Senate job. I don’t think that Baldarous will run that well against Heather. She is one tough cookie. Let’s face it, she has a lot of years experience as a Rep. But then the Dems obviously don’t care about experience. They care about winning no matter what crook they put in there. In addition, Baldarous walked into his intial office last minute on the coat tails of Richardson, and did get re-elected. But he has never had to run a tough campagin, and against Heather, you better have your roller skates on.

  87. turndownobama
    March 6th, 2011 at 10:46 pm

    Oh, the 400 Americans… the *fact* was stated in INSIDE JOB, but not most names, not directly. Pretty obvious most of them are in the investment banks and hedge fund operations.

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

    Hm. I was assuming it would be people like Caroline Kennedy: inheritance, estates, old money investments. But such people have plenty of money to hire accountants to keep them off such lists, and lawyers to sue anyone who busts them.

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

    It may well be some old money in there too. Makes the question all the more interesting. [Pause for some research]
    Wel… I knew Forbes did a “… richest,” but I didn’t know it had 400 people and all American! So, although some people (however they got the riches) may not appear on the list, it is at minimum, a start.

    Voilà!
    http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400/list
    Searching “forbes richest americans” (without the quotes) gives years going back.

    There is a link for “methodology” and we can filter by state and/or industry. The industry groupings are odd. For example, service and manufacturing are glommed together–but one can go through the individuals and see more detail.

    Most of these people are not young. The young billionaires seem to be hedge fund guys.

    I don’t see “kennedy” in the top 400 (around 1,000 million–e.g. one billion–cut off.

  88. Pretty obvious most of them are in the investment banks and hedge fund operations.

    ==========

    Yes, for them it would be advertising. Obviously.

  89. More mindless news: 3:55 AM. ABC’s Rob Nelson, in reporting Robert Gates’ current trip to Afghanistan, refers to Secretary Gates as Secretary of State, and never batted as much as an eyelash. Perhaps this is one of many reasons that appears to have launched a huge blitz to advertise itself.

  90. oops. “one of many reasons that appears” s/b “one of many reasons that ABC appears”

  91. The pairing of BO and Jeb Bush in Miami stirs up a sad memory regarding my friend Audrey who had retired to FL during the time of Jeb’s reign there. She was a widow with no children, save an adult step-son who lived far away. When I received unexpected word of her death, I sent a letter to her home requesting that whoever was tending to her mail call me. I included a picture of Audrey and me to add credence to my interest. Her friend had been acting as her advocate while she was in a nursing home. He felt that she had been given overdoses of coumadin which ultimately caused her death. Because she had no immediate family, state law under Jeb did not allow anyone to sue her doctor for malpractice. Just saying keep that about Jeb in mind as Obie courts his favors.

  92. Saw Onion News Network last night on IFC channel. They ran a segment about the ‘real’ Obama (from the campaign) having been kidnapped right after inauguration and held in a basement in Bethesda and the impostor carrying on in the WH. The segment would have been funny if it was not so true.

  93. “Yes, Confloyd…the Rethugs only care about their own wealth and hording and duplicating every penny”
    **********
    The number of “those” people aren’t enough to elect the local dog catcher. The question is how have they convinced +-50% of the American voters to elect politicians who have supported policy that has redistributed massive amounts of wealth to the upper 1% and has sucked the economic life out of the bottom 90% of the American population. Today’s rabid Republicans are likely the very people who are most damaged by traditional Republican economic philosophy. It’s the same disconnect of reality that had Veterans and Medicare recipients saying that they didn’t want the government “messing” with their health care.

  94. sigh…must be a slow news day. They need to give this up already. It’s from February 1998. Somebody tell me why the Washington is re-running it now???

    ——————
    If Clinton has lied

    By David S. Broder
    Sunday, March 6, 2011

    Editor’s Note: This piece originally appeared on Feb. 18, 1998.

    The mail is fascinating these days for the insights it offers into the way the American public is wrestling with the confusing and disturbing information coming out of Washington. You can see why the president’s approval scores have been so high — and why he still remains in jeopardy.

    For the moment at least, hard-core Democrats accept Hillary Clinton’s contention that this is a “right-wing conspiracy.” A woman from Tennessee writes, “I believe from the beginning Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers were bought and paid for by the Republican Party and the Religious Right. . . . Both women are liars.”

    Many others, particularly among the boomers and Generation X, bury their doubts about Clinton beneath their deep distaste for self-appointed moral monitors. They write, as a Cincinnati man did, of “inquisitor” Kenneth Starr. And they say, in the words of an upstate New York man:

    “Consider this. If all the married persons working in any city or county, in Congress, in any large church, TV network or anywhere else who are playing around with somebody of the opposite sex were fired from their jobs, the unemployment rate would soar.”

    Half of marriages end in divorce, with adultery a factor in many of the breakups. Other marriages are tested by infidelities but survive. The American people may not condone extramarital affairs, but many of them admire couples who work through what Clinton has referred to as “troubles.” The steadfast support Hillary Clinton has given her husband has built a powerful shield against public condemnation of the president.

    Then there are the factors in the national environment that would work in favor of any president. The economy is strong, crime rates and welfare rolls are down. People sensibly ask: Why upset the apple cart?

    The nation has a political and emotional investment in any twice-elected president. He is a known quantity. His accusers are people who popped up from nowhere. Their own actions raise doubts. They secretly tape each other, negotiate publicly for legal immunity, seek publicity or book contracts.

    The press that echoes their charges is itself deeply suspect in many Americans’ eyes. “Do newsmen get pleasure from putting President Clinton through the third degree?” a Wisconsin woman asks. “What power do they have to put him on trial?”

    Some social critics say the support for Clinton reflects a deeply cynical public ready to abandon important values; to trade ethics for a fat paycheck. I don’t agree. What we are seeing is the sensible conservatism of people who want to wait for the facts to emerge before they make up their minds.

    My mail suggests the ultimate judgment may be harsh. A Floridian writes: “Bill Clinton’s problem is reprehensible and possibly illegal behavior. Extramarital sex merely underlies and accentuates the real problem.” And from Washington state: “Personally, I don’t give a damn if the president sleeps with sheep. That truly is between him and his wife. But I do care if he uses a star-struck intern for his personal pleasure. I do care if he lies to the American people.”

    In the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, those interviewed said by a 53 percent to 34 percent margin that they believe Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. But 60 percent said that even if he did, it is not important to them, and even more rejected an affair as a reason for removing Clinton from office.

    More than eight out of 10, however, said that lying about the affair is more serious. So there is an obvious disconnect. If Clinton had an affair, his past denials to the public and to Paula Jones’s lawyers are lies. The public, lacking clear proof, has not yet confronted that more serious charge. If proof appears that the president has lied, Clinton may yet face Richard Nixon’s fate.

    We should not forget the one positive thing that emerged from the long ordeal of Watergate, the certain knowledge that Americans in the 1970s were as deeply committed to the fundamental idea of the Constitution — the rule of law — as the men who wrote the charter in the 1780s. It took months to puncture the public’s desire to think well of a president they had but recently reelected. But once the facts were clear, Nixon quickly lost his political and popular support.

    The rule of law requires any American to give truthful testimony when sworn as a witness in a legal proceeding. If it turns out that President Clinton has not done that, the props of public opinion now supporting him will collapse. I would bet anything that Americans will once again say no one is above the law.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030603775.html

  95. JanH,
    It’s the normal Newt B.S. and now with Romney taking center stage as well as Newt…you can bet more crap about Bill’s love life are going to appear in the news. I hope Bill and Hillary are ready for this…and have gathered their own info on the rethugs…if they can get a news network to play the real truth…fancy that happening!

    Texas is trying to pass a bill that will require a real B.C. to be shown before a person can be put on the ballot. Boyd Richey who single handedly lied and got Obama on the ballot here in Texas has sent me a letter calling us all birthers…I might forward that to jbjd…LOL! If it were not for the paid in full crapheads like Richey we’d have a real President and her name would be Hillary!

    Personally I think Hillary will run, but she’s too busy right now in the M.E. to quit and run, but there is still lots of time and Bill could be doing it quietly. I wonder what this “no labels” thing is about….they say they are not seeking a Presidential candidate, but it is chok full of Hillarites…it kinda makes you go hmmm, hmmmm!

    I think the rethugs are going to run Romney/Gingrich….if they do that then the dems will run Obama/Clinton….well only time will tell, but I can tell you as much as I hate Obama I hate Romney/Gingrich worse….they are killing the American middle class. Well so is Obama with his weakness, but that’s another whole story. LOL!

  96. THE “OBAMA BLOCKADE” THREATENS TO STARVE DEMOCRATS

    Admin’s opening piece had a link that referred to this Politico piece, about Obama’s Quest for One… Billion… Dollars. Dems promoted Obama over Hillary out of their self-interest, one assumes. Turns out that hunch wasn’t based in a “fact-based reality”. Heh, heh.

    This section is worth highlighting:

    One of their pitches: an offer to join a new “National Finance Council,” which would entail a contribution to the Democratic National Committee of up to $61,600 per couple, per year. That money could be used to fund support operations for Obama’s reelection effort, in addition to smaller donations they would be expected to make directly to Obama’s as-yet-unincorporated Chicago-based campaign, according to donors.

    The decision to ask for the DNC’s $61,600 up front, while hardly unprecedented, has taken some Democratic fundraisers by surprise. In part, that’s because it comes so early in the cycle — before any clear GOP frontrunner has emerged.

    But that kind of commitment from wealthy donors could crowd out the party’s cash-hungry congressional committees, which are desperately competing for 2012 contributions, often from the same source.

    Under current federal campaign finance limits, individuals can contribute a total of about $71,000 to committees, campaigns and PACs — leaving donors with $10,000 or less in post-Obama discretionary income.

    “It’s just like them to think about themselves first,” said one Democratic congressional fundraiser, referring to the Obama campaign team.

    Here’s the link, and the whole deal

    politico.com/news/stories/0311/50643.html

    Barack Obama reelection starts cash chase
    By GLENN THRUSH
    3/4/11 4:35 AM EST

    President Barack Obama’s 2012 fundraising team has begun nailing down major cash commitments from top donors during a coast-to-coast “listening” tour — the surest sign to date that the vaunted Obama money machine is back in business.

    Former White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, along with Hollywood producer-turned-Democratic fundraiser Rufus Gifford, has been aggressively recruiting big-money contributors who maxed out to the 2008 campaigns of Obama and Hillary Clinton, donors and party officials told POLITICO.

    One of their pitches: an offer to join a new “National Finance Council,” which would entail a contribution to the Democratic National Committee of up to $61,600 per couple, per year. That money could be used to fund support operations for Obama’s reelection effort, in addition to smaller donations they would be expected to make directly to Obama’s as-yet-unincorporated Chicago-based campaign, according to donors.

    The decision to ask for the DNC’s $61,600 up front, while hardly unprecedented, has taken some Democratic fundraisers by surprise. In part, that’s because it comes so early in the cycle — before any clear GOP frontrunner has emerged.

    But that kind of commitment from wealthy donors could crowd out the party’s cash-hungry congressional committees, which are desperately competing for 2012 contributions, often from the same source.

    Under current federal campaign finance limits, individuals can contribute a total of about $71,000 to committees, campaigns and PACs — leaving donors with $10,000 or less in post-Obama discretionary income.

    “It’s just like them to think about themselves first,” said one Democratic congressional fundraiser, referring to the Obama campaign team.

    But Tony Podesta, a lobbyist and prominent Democratic fundraiser, said the congressional committees will do just fine, joking that Obama donors can recruit “their older children” to finance the Hill committees, “or maybe their former spouses.”

    “It’s not a big deal, and [it’s] in line with what everyone would expect,” he added.

    Obama, who has repeatedly sought to smooth tensions with Hill Democrats, will headline a joint fundraiser in Florida on Friday for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Sen. Bill Nelson, an occasional critic of the president.

    Messina, an Idaho-bred operative who has been technically unemployed since leaving the West Wing earlier this year, has been barnstorming the country, previewing a two-tiered fundraising strategy to tap donors large and small during invitation-only events in Chicago and New York.

    POLITICO has learned that Messina held similar events — previously unpublicized “donor listening sessions” — last week for top donors in San Francisco and Boston.

    And he will hold a new round of meetings next week, which will kick off on Tuesday in Miami, where he is expected pitch Obama to a Florida Gold Coast Democratic base won over by Clinton three years ago.

    From there, Messina, who is expected to be named Obama’s 2012 campaign manager, will head to Texas from Wednesday to Thursday for meetings with wealthy Democrats in Dallas, Austin and possibly Houston, according to a party official.

    The entire operation took a brief hiatus recently when the peripatetic Messina went to Africa for a post-White House vacation.

    Julianna Smoot, Obama’s hard-driving 2008 finance director and architect of an operation that raised a record-shattering $745 million, will leave her job as White House social secretary to work her donor list full time and reassemble her team of regional fundraisers.

    There are other stirrings: DNC Chairman Tim Kaine will host a gathering of major Obama fundraisers in donor-rich Fairfield, Conn., on March 9 to discuss strategy. The event will be co-hosted by millionaire Ned Lamont, who beat Joe Lieberman in Connecticut’s 2006 Democratic Senate primary but lost the general election to him and ran unsuccessfully last year for the party’s nomination for governor.

    James Torrey, a powerhouse Obama fundraiser on Wall Street and CEO of hedge fund Torrey Associates , is another co-host for the event, according to an Obama ally.

    The rules for contributors are the same clean-hands rules as last time, with a ban on cash from PACs and lobbyists and Messina telling supporters, “We are doing this our way,” according to one donor. He’s also reportedly pushed back on the hype that the campaign will raise $1 billion, telling associates a repeat of ‘08’s $745 million will be just fine, considering Obama faces no meaningful primary challenge next year.

    So far, the embryonic operation is being run out of DNC’s cramped headquarters near the Capitol — and Messina’s overnight bag. That will change sometime in the next three weeks, when Obama OKs the creation of his new campaign committee.

    Some of the first staff hired are likely to be more fundraisers, sources say, and they will eventually move to office space rented in Chicago, and join former White House senior adviser David Axelrod who has taken up semi-permanent residence at Manny’s, his favorite Chicago deli.

    Still, the big money donors are only a part of the Obama strategy. Small donors, who played a major role in the campaign last time, remain the cornerstone of the campaign’s fundraising strategy – and its self-image as a rewrite-the-rules, grass-roots powerhouse.

    The DNC’s in-house fundraising staff used Obama’s revamped master list to recruit small donors for the midterms. The results, which one party official described as a “dry run for 2012,” exceeded expectations — and Obama’s team is hopeful that two years of governing won’t dent his popularity with small-contribution, online donors.

    “On the surface, 2012 looks like a much tougher year for Obama to raise all this money.The economy is worse from last time, plus a lot of people are really disappointed in his performance,” said one Democratic fundraiser not affiliated with Obama’s 2008 campaign.

    “But these guys seem very, very, very confident, so I wouldn’t underestimate them.”

  97. I really do think Bill’s sex life is old news at this point. My God if he tries it now it could kill him. Anyway, there is so many more that accused him that were doing it at the same time, and now, it is rediculous. It is like the cat calling the kettle black, like my mother use to say.

    In addition, we need to get the case of Edwards straightened out first. I personel hope he goes to jail, to give Elizabeth some justice. However, it will probably be just a slap of the wrist. He was such a hipocrate, I don’t think it gets much worse.

  98. FWIW, I have this from my grandchildren’s grandfather who lives in the UK: Even at the time of the Lewinsky accusations and ensuing impeachment, Europeans snickered that Americans had their panties in a twist over the situation. Rightly or wrongly, they accepted it as an expected occurrence – like the sun rising and setting. And at this time of 2011, with apologies for borrowing a phrase too well-worn by GWB for other purposes, BC/Lewinsky is old news. Really old news. TV coverage will try to stir it up, but I think doing so will backfire now.

  99. Right wing conspiracy

    Global Economy
    Speaker: William Jefferson Clinton, President, United States of America
    September 14, 1998
    Council on Foreign Relations
    (I think the independent council was delivering truckloads of documents to Congress this day–just to put it in a time frame.)

    Words of President Clinton – snippets:

    The subject that I want to discuss — let me just say one thing in advance — I’m going to give you my best thoughts. We have been working on this for three years at some level of intensity or another, going back to the Naples G-7 meeting in the aftermath of the Mexican financial crisis. I have done everything I could do personally to reach out across the country, and indeed across the world, for any new ideas from any source.

    this is the biggest financial challenge facing the world in a half-century. And the United States has an absolutely inescapable obligation to lead, and to lead in a way that’s consistent with our values and our obligation to see that what we’re doing helps lift the lives of ordinary people here at home and all around the world.

    But if you consider today’s economic difficulties, disruptions, and the plain old, deep, personal disappointments of now tens of millions of people around the world, it is clear to me that there is now a stark challenge not only to economic freedom, but, if unaddressed, a challenge that could stem the rising tide of political liberty as well.

    our future prosperity depends upon whether we can work with others to restore confidence, manage change, stabilize the financial system, and spur robust global growth.

    It seems to me there are six immediate steps we should take to help contain the current financial turmoil around the world, and then two longer-term projects in which we must be involved.

    Above all, we must accelerate our efforts to reform the international financial system. Today I have asked Secretary Rubin and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Greenspan to convene a major meeting of their counterparts within the next 30 days to recommend ways to adapt the international financial architecture to the 21st century.

    Went nowhere. The President was under attack and distracted.

    Conspiracy or coincidence?

    http://www.cfr.org/international-finance/global-economy/p9349

  100. Citigroup Inc. (branded Citi) is a major American financial services company based in New York City. Citigroup was formed from one of the world’s largest mergers in history by combining the banking giant Citicorp and financial conglomerate Travelers Group on April 7, 1998.

    The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to consolidate. For example, Citicorp (a commercial bank holding company) merged with Travelers Group (an insurance company) in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. This combination, announced in 1998, would have violated the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 by combining securities, insurance, and banking, if not for a temporary waiver process.[1] The law was passed to legalize these mergers on a permanent basis. GLB also repealed Glass–Steagall’s conflict of interest prohibitions “against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank.”

    ——————————————————————————————–
    Looking at [1]

    The impetus for the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) was the merger
    between Citicorp and the Travelers Group. Citigroup took advantage of a provision of the Bank
    Holding Company Act that grants a company that becomes a bank holding company by virtue of
    its acquisition of a bank a two-year period (subject to three additional one-year extensions) in
    which to divest itself of operations that are not permissible for a bank holding company. 12
    U.S.C.A. § 1842(a). Operation of an insurance underwriter (Travelers) was not then permissible
    for a bank holding company. Travelers owned Salomon Smith Barney and its bank-ineligible
    activities were potentially in excess of the existing twenty-five percent revenue limitation
    authorized by the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) for Section 20 subsidiaries. The formation of
    Citigroup represented a big gamble that financial modernization legislation would be passed.
    The Citigroup combination was announced on April 6, 1998, and GLBA was enacted on
    November 12, 1999. GLBA permits financial holding companies, like Citigroup, to own banks,
    insurance companies, and securities firms. Some observers have characterized GLBA as the
    “Citigroup Relief Act.”
    ————————————————————————————————

    Citi’s assets listed as
    $1.915 trillion (2010)
    Roughly two thousand billions

Comments are closed.