It pains me to say this, because I think the election was stolen (I've explained why numbers of times in here, and won't belabor the issue any further). But the Minnesota Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in favor of al franken on the vote count.
At this point Governor Pawlenty should certify franken and allow him to be seated as Minnesota's new senator.
If Norm Coleman wants to pursue this to the Supreme Court, I wish him well. But, for better or worse, Minnesota's highest legal authority has spoken.
If Minnesota can survive Jesse Ventura, I suppose it can survive al franken.
Here is an excerpt from today's Associated Press article reporting on the bernard madoff sentencing. The maroon is the article's text, the blue is my reaction to it:
When asked by the judge whether he had anything to say, Madoff slowly stood, leaned forward on the defense table and spoke in a monotone for about 10 minutes. At various times, he referred to his monumental fraud as a "problem," "an error of judgment" and "a tragic mistake." A problem? An error of judgment? A tragic mistake? You spent DECADES screwing the people who trusted you and robbing them blind. That isn’t a problem, an error or a mistake. It is that you are a low-life, scumbag, amoral thief who lived a life of unbelievable opulence off of the money you stole. I hope you rot in hell for eternity.
He claimed he and his wife were tormented, saying she "cries herself to sleep every night, knowing all the pain and suffering I have caused." If ruth madoff is crying, it is because her scumbag husband got caught, so she has to give up the penthouse, the other homes around the world, the yacht and the limos. And because if there is any justice, they will be coming for her next.
He said: "I live in a tormented state now knowing of all the pain and suffering that I have created. I have left a legacy of shame, as some of my victims have pointed out, to my family and my grandchildren. That's something I will live with for the rest of my life." Poor baby. YOU’RE going to live with this for the rest of your life? It’s about YOU?Enjoy the three hots and a cot, courtesy of the US penal system. You’ll be living better than some of the people you destroyed.
His immediate family did not attend the sentencing. But Ruth Madoff—often a target of victims' scorn since her husband's arrest—broke her silence afterward by issuing a statement through her lawyer. She said she, too, had been misled.
"I am embarrassed and ashamed," she said. "Like everyone else, I feel betrayed and confused. The man who committed this horrible fraud is not the man whom I have known for all these years." You stinking liar. You were in that office every day with him.You handled the books. You should be in a cell too, for as long as he will be, for exactly the same reason: because you are a low-life, scumbag, amoral thief And that goes for your brother in law and both your kids too. There is no way I will ever believe they weren't in on this as deeply as you were. Not a chance.
Does what I just said make anything better? Nope. But it feels good to get it out.
In case you are wondering how well the so-called "stimulus package" is doing, the Associated Press has your answer:
Jobless rates rise in all US metro areas in May
By Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Unemployment rates rose in all the largest U.S. metropolitan areas for the fifth straight month in May.
The Labor Department says jobless rates in May rose from a year earlier in all 372 metropolitan area it tracks.
The unemployment rate in Kokomo, Ind., jumped to 18.8 percent, up 11.7 percentage points from a year ago, the largest increase of all metro areas. The second-highest jump occurred in Indiana's Elkhart-Goshen. Its rate jumped to 17.5 percent, up 11.4 percentage points from a year earlier. Both areas have been slammed by layoffs in transportation equipment manufacturing.
It is now 4 1/2 months since the "stimulus package" was passed.
We were told that, in return for putting a crushing multi-trillion dollar burden on our children and grandchildren, we would see a substantial improvement in the economy in a matter of weeks or maybe a few months.
Does that look like substantial improvement to you?
And let's not forget that unemployment, which the "stimulus package" was supposed to cap at about 8%, is now at 9.4% and even the Obama people admit that it is headed into double-digit territory.
Bottom line: This harebrained scam which put us in unprecedented debt not only has not helped, but has put us in worse shape than we were before it was passed.
And the Obama administration's explanation? It's Bush's fault. Bush's fault.
This article was published today by Warner Todd Huston, writing for Publius Forum.
Huston concludes that Sonia Sotomayor is an overt racist, a product of affirmative action (using her own words) and a judge whose rulings are consistently reversed by the US Supreme Court she is in line to be part of.
Here is his reasoning. Read it and judge for yourself:
Soon the Senate will take up the cause of President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. In the news this week, one of her decisions that appeared before the current court was reversed. With Sotomayor in the news, then, it is time to look her over once again. It must be said, though, that any close scrutiny finds her wanting.
To begin with, it’s shocking that President Obma has nominated for a spot on the Supreme Court a judge whose decisions have been reversed or rejected in five out of the six times her cases appeared before that august body. Additionally and by her own admission, she was admitted to Princeton ahead of other law students as a result of affirmative action despite having lower grades. She once gleefully called herself a “perfect affirmative action baby,” even as her grades were “highly questionable.”
“My test scores were not comparable to that of my colleagues at Princeton or Yale,” Sotomayor once said on a discussion panel during an event sponsored by a non-profit law organization in the 1990s.
All that is bad enough. To be sure, high grades in law school are not in and of themselves any guarantee of an ideal Supreme Court Justice and should not stand as a final qualification at any rate. One must determine a candidate’s judicial mentality in order to find the most important benchmark by which to consider confirmation and it is that mentality that should serve to disqualify Sotomayor immediately. Her judicial philosophy is a far more disqualifying factor in her bid for the highest court of the land than her grades.
Her views are racist, simply put. There is no way to construe them otherwise despite what her supporters’ spin may be.
Those most familiar with Sotomayor’s most publicized comment will recognize her infamous 32-word statement.
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Her supporters have said that this quote has been taken out of context and that read in context with the rest of the speech, this single sentence culled from the whole is easily misconstrued. But that is simply not the case. The New York Times helpfully published the entire speech and there is no way, when all is said and done, not to understand that
Sotomayor is asserting in a straight forward manner that minorities — “Latinas” in particular — are better judges than white men. She further asserts that white men are less likely to have such experiences that will make them a good judge unless they are fortuitous enough to have reached “moments of enlightenment” that will put them on par with minorities.
Put plainly, she is saying “Latinas” make better judges simply by virtue of being Latinas.
That is as perfect an example of racist sentiment as can be imagined.
The whole piece is shocking for its basic assumptions but, aside from the sentence quoted above that everyone is familiar with, the following paragraphs are revealing.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?
The first paragraph taken by itself seems almost sensible. Of course everyone’s experience might tend to interfere in how they perceive things. But taken with the second paragraph, one sees that Sotomayor is saying that only a “Latina’s” experience serves as the best basis for judicial perfection. The most stunning part nestled in this excerpt is when Sotomayor said that white men are less able to judge because of their “experiences” unless, she says, they make some supreme effort toward “enlightenment.”
I quote again from the second paragraph:
For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach.
Her basic premise here is that white men are incapable of being inherently good judges unless they make that effort toward “enlightenment” like “other men… have been able to reach.” Yet, Latinas are simply in the perfect place to judge without having to reach for any such “enlightenment.” They just have it by virtue of being “Latinas” and by the very nature of their “experiences.”
How this cannot be understood as an assumption of racial superiority is beyond me. Maybe I’m just not “enlightened” enough to understand how a bald-faced assumption of racial superiority is not a racist sentiment?
So, this is the person that a President of the United States has proffered to take a seat on the nation’s highest court. A racist with low grades and a sense of entitlement that has been reversed or scolded in five out of the six cases of hers that have appeared before past Supreme Court sessions.
It shouldn’t be so hard to vote no on such a candidate.
Sotomayor’s Cases Before the SCOTUS
Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) reversed on a 5-4 vote. Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled to uphold a lower court’s decision in favor of the City of New Haven’s decision to ignore results of an exam for promotions in the fire department. Promotions were denied because no blacks and only one Hispanic passed the test. White and Hispanic firefights fought the ruling.
Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) - reversed 6-3. Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the EPA may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the “best technology available” must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Sotomayor ruled that the “best technology” regulation did not allow the EPA to weigh the cost of implementing the technology against the overall environmental benefit when issuing its rules. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor’s ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor’s interpretation of the “best technology” rule was too narrow.
Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) - reversed 8-0 In a 2005 ruling. Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch’s argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor’s ruling, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails and that doing otherwise could give rise to “wasteful, duplicative litigation.”
Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) - reversed 5-4. Sotomayor, writing for the court in 2000, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual’s constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing law, known as “Bivens,” which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations, could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor’s ruling, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government.
Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) - reversed 7-2. As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers’ work on electronic databases and archives such as “Lexis/Nexis” without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor’s decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor’s original ruling).
Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) - upheld but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductible. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor’s decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach “flies in the face of the statutory language.”
Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) affirmed on a 5-4 vote. Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from those whom she claimed caused her husband’s injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party.
For many years, New York City's venerable Russian Tea Room (on 57th Street next to Carnegie Hall) used the following slogan to establish that it was a full-menu restaurant:
"When is a tea room not a tea room? When it's the Russian Tea Room"
"When is a coup not a coup? When it's the Honduras coup"
The Times certainly has made its opinion known: between the headline, the text and Barack Obama's comment, the Times referred to the Honduras situation as a coup 9 times.
It also took pains to assure readers of how badly the US has acted toward Latin America in the past and how deeply involved the US is with Honduras' military.
Why this was necessary is a bit of a mystery, since there has not been any coup in Latin America, USA-supported or otherwise, in 16 years and US involvement with the Honduras military existed throughout zelaya's entire reign as President. But, hey, this is the New York Times, right? Who cares if it's in the news section. What a great opportunity to propagandize.
However, even the Times has to cover itself by inserting the other side of the story here and there. So, buried deep in the article, there are also these little tidbits:
-"...things reached a boil last Wednesday and Thursday, when Mr. Zelaya fired the leader of the armed forces and the Supreme Court followed up with a declaration that Mr. Zelaya’s planned referendum was illegal."
-"Roberto Micheletti, the veteran congressional leader who was sworn in by his fellow lawmakers on Sunday to replace Mr. Zelaya, seemed to plead with the world to understand that Mr. Zelaya’s arrest by the army had been under an official arrest warrant based on his flouting of the Constitution.
“We respect the whole world, and we only ask that they respect us and leave us in peace,” Mr. Micheletti said in a radio interview, noting that previously scheduled elections called for November would go on as planned."
In other words, the article insists this was a coup. But, in as unobtrusive a location within the article as possible, we find that Honduras' supreme court declared the President's actions illegal, his replacement was an elected congressional leader, he was sworn in by his fellow lawmakers, there was an official arrest warrant for the President because he acted illegally and that the November elections will go on as planned.
I don't know about you, but when I hear the word "coup" and see that the military was involved, I think of some General or Colonel imposing a junta (unelected military government). I don't think of a series of legal moves to oust someone who was found by the supreme court to have flouted the law.
It seems to me that the side acting legally is the side that removed zelaya. He is not some aggrieved party ousted in a coup, he is a wannabe dictator whose actions caused the country's supreme court to order him removed.
Maybe somebody should tell that to the New York Times
And maybe somebody should tell that to President Obama -- the guy who couldn't find a reason to support freedom marchers in Iran but happily stood up with a leftist dictator-in-progress in Honduras.
Sadly, yet another Hollywood star is gone. Gale Storm, an icon of 1950's TV (with a couple of record hits too) is dead at the age of 87. In failing health over the past few years, she died of natural causes at a convalescent hospital outside of Los Angeles.
Though Ms. Storm had a long, varied and successful career, I will always remember her as Margie Albright, the wacky daughter of Vern Albright (played by the wonderful Charles Farrell), girl friend of Freddy (Don Hayden) and confidante of next-door neighbor Mrs. Odets (Gertrude Hoffman).
Gale Storm was perky, animated, lots of fun to watch and very, very talented.
According to ABC News (and numerous other sources), "Michael Jackson was "heavily addicted" to the powerful pain killer Oxycontin and received "daily doses" of it and of another pain killer, Demerol, according to a senior law enforcement official briefed on the initial investigation of his death."
-Jackson, who may have killed himself via the use of these drugs, is being lionized nonstop by the media.
Rush Limbaugh was also addicted to Oxycontin.
-Limbaugh who overcame his addiction to Oxycontin and remained the #1 most listened-to radio personality in history, was attacked and sneered at nonstop by the media. The attacks continue to this day.
This article, from Jacob Gershman of the New York Post, needs no additional comment from me.
Read it and weep for what is left of Columbia University:
COLUMBIA TENURES AN ISRAEL-BASHER
By JACOB GERSHMAN
Last updated: 6:17 am June 29, 2009 Posted: 2:06 am June 29, 2009
JOSEPH Massad's schol arly contribution during his decade as a faculty member of Columbia University's Middle East Studies Department may be summed up as follows: Israel is racist, and homosexuality is an insidious Western invention.
Yet that was enough for Columbia, which officially -- if quietly -- awarded Massad tenure earlier this month.
Columbia's process for reviewing tenure candidates is as rigorous as any Ivy League school's. Ordinarily, an academic of Massad's caliber would be bounced from MorningsideHeights. And in fact, the system did work -- it denied Massad tenure two years ago.
But now the school's academic standards have succumbed to ideological tensions and campus politics -- in what appears to be a remarkable manipulation of the tenure process and a breach of fiduciary trust.
First, a little background on Massad.
A Christian secularist of Palestinian-Arab descent, Massad has dedicated his academic career primarily to encouraging the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. Criticism of Israel is far from unusual in his field, but Massad goes much further, taking arguments to bizarre ends. "The ultimate achievement of Israel," he writes, is "the transformation of the Jew into the anti-Semite, and the Palestinian into the Jew." In a book, he rails against the "Zionist theft of Palestinian Arab food (e.g., hummus, falafel)."
In a recent work, "Desiring Arabs," Massad claimed to expose yet another plot against the Muslim world -- the "Gay International." He describes how a vast conspiracy of gay activists descended on Arab countries and endangered the lives of "practitioners of same-sex contact" by transforming them into "subjects who identify as 'homosexual' and 'gay.' "
Nor is Massad fond of the women's rights movement, or "colonial feminism," as he calls it. He bristles at the attention paid to the Muslim practice of honor killings, which he likens to "crimes of passion," accusing women's groups of ignoring "rampant Western misogyny."
He specializes in reductio ad hitlerum. "If Germans spent the day on the beach when the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939, and Americans cheered in bars and at home the fireworks light show the US military put up over Baghdad while slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in 1991 and in 2003, Israeli Jews insisted on having front row seats on hills overlooking Gaza for a live show, cracking open champagne bottles and cheering the murder and maiming of thousands of civilians, more than half of whom were women and children," he wrote in a February essay, referring to the Gaza War.
Four years ago, it seemed as if Massad would be on his way out of the Broadway gates. A university probe backed up students' complaints that he disparaged Jewish students who disagreed with him. In one instance, while lecturing near campus, he responded to an Israeli student who asked a question by demanding to know how many Palestinians he had killed.
But faculty members opted instead to lionize Massad as a supposed martyr of academic freedom. A crucial ally for him was Dean of Arts and Sciences Nicholas Dirks, whose wife taught a class with Massad.
In 2007, months after Massad completed his latest book, a committee rejected his tenure application. Tenure candidates rarely get a second shot at Columbia, but Dirks intervened and pushed for a second committee, sources say.
Oddly, the professor who led the first review of Massad refused to serve again. Even odder, the administration justified the do-over by claiming that Massad had switched his field of specialty from political science to cultural studies.
After the second committee approved Massad, President Lee Bollinger and Provost Alan Brinkley took extraordinary measures to protect the secrecy of Massad's tenure case and guard against an outcry from Jewish alumni and donors.
The last step in the process was the trustees. The administration refused to share with the trustees any list of who was on the two tenure committees. The board was also kept in the dark as to why Massad failed the first review. Bollinger and Brinkley also refused to discuss in detail why Massad was permitted another shot.
Instead, the administration -- apparently more interested in managing public relations than dealing with the substance of the underlying problem -- simply provided the trustees with a set of talking points with "helpful facts" about the university's Jewish student center.
When I tried contacting trustee Esta Stecher, a senior administration official alerted the board about my inquiries and reminded the trustees that the university doesn't comment on tenure cases.
In the end, Columbia's board of trustees approved Massad's tenure appointment before ever getting answers.
Which raises the question: Just what does a trustee do? Are they merely fund-raisers? Do they view the title as a ceremonial honor? What's the point?
As for Bollinger, one wonders how he allowed his faculty to undermine his authority and the university's reputation.
The promotion of Massad isn't a victory for academic freedom but a cheapening of it. The freedom extended to a Columbia faculty member isn't the same as the rights of a soapbox crank. Protecting free inquiry and valuing scholarship are not mutually exclusive goals, but together define the university ideal.
If the trustees and Bollinger haven't figured that out, Massad's enduring presence at Columbia will help remind them.
The liar, swindler and general all-around scumbag bernard madoff was sentenced to 150 years in jail today. If that stands, it is surely a life sentence for him.
My reaction: Is that all?
What about his wife, ruth? True, she is being divested of her gazillion dollar penthouse and something like 170 million dollars in ill-gotten assets. But that leaves her with millions (and whatever additional millions she has successfully hidden).
ruth madoff worked with her husband in that office and was his partner in every sense of the word. Why does she walk away with those millions? Why isn't she on trial too? Why isn't she going to jail?
And what about his brother and his sons, all of whom worked in the business. Can anyone seriously believe everything they did was legitimate, even as bernard madoff spent decades perpetrating his multi-billion dollar scam? Why aren't they on trial? Why aren't they going to jail?
And that's before we get to madoff's cohorts, like ezra merkin, stanley chais and jeffry picower. Why aren't they on trial? Why aren't they going to jail?
And when do we issue the thank-you to Harry Markopolos, the whistle blower who spent the better part of a decade begging the SEC to go after madoff? From London's Daily Guardian:
Markopolos discovered Madoff's alleged malfeasance in May 2000, after he became suspicious of his years-long record of success in all market conditions. Markopolos said it took him about five minutes perusing Madoff's marketing materials to suspect fraud, and another roughly four hours to develop mathematical models to prove it. He eventually delivered a detailed case to securities regulators in Boston and followed up several times over the next eight years as he continued to gather evidence. He said that important SEC officials in New York and Boston brushed his reports aside.
In testimony before members of the House financial services committee, Markopolos described "an abject failure by the regulatory agencies we entrust as our watchdog".
And when do we call the misfeasant and/or malfeasant SEC toadies who ignored Markopolos for all these years to testify? Why aren't they in jeopardy?
Yes, I am glad madoff is going to spend the rest of his life in jail. But what about everyone else?
Here, from Brian Maloney of www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com, is an excellent analysis of the current state of Minnesota Senate race between incumbent Norm Coleman and challenger al franken.
Prepare to be disgusted:
24 June 2009
Counting All Votes Could Become Nightmare For Al Franken
AL'S DARKEST FEAR
Now, Counting Ballots Is 'Conservative'
At any time over the next several days, Minnesota's Supreme Court is expected to rule in Democrat Al Franken's favor, potentially putting an end to a challenge by Norm Coleman over disputed ballot counts that suspiciously placed the former Air America host over the top.
Within moments of that decision, Democrats are expected to push to seat Franken in the US Senate, regardless of whether Coleman, the previous incumbent, presses on with his case.
That's why the push by Hubbard Broadcasting to examine ALL of the disputed ballots and subsequently count them provides much-needed daylight for the darkness that has consumed Minnesota's US Senate race. It gives Franken something to truly worry about for the first time in months.
With the Minnesota Supreme Court about to rule on the U.S. Senate race, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS is asking to examine more than 10,000 rejected absentee ballots.
Along with Hubbard Television stations in Duluth and Austin, the stations requested from election officials around the state access to the disputed ballots and the envelopes they were sent in on Monday.
In the letter, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS assured election officials that, "We fully respect the sanctity of the private ballot, and the importance of voter confidentiality in the electoral process."
As part of the project, we want to count the ballots and try to determine how different counties decide to reject absentee ballots.
Though this unofficial, independent analysis won't affect the outcome and if it occurs at all, the count would be well after the state's high court ruling. What it does offer voters, however, is a fresh reminder that a highly arbitrary process has potentially placed an election day loser in the US Senate.
Franken's apologists clearly aren't interested in a full accounting of the approximately 10,000 disputed ballots, they want their candidate quickly seated, with no questions asked. That's why the left's talking pointsfocus on Hubbard's motivations, rather than the need for a complete account:
About 10,000 ballots were rejected and not counted for one reason or another during the statewide hand recount and election contest trial.
The request, filed under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) by TV stations KSTP, KSTC, WDIO, KSAX and KAAL, comes as an order is expected at any time in Coleman’s appeal of his election-contest defeat to the state Supreme Court.
It also comes only days after rightwing blogger Michael Brodkorb filed similar requests with several cities and counties. Brodkorb is soon to drop his blogging to assume the position of deputy chairman with the Republican Party of Minnesota.
Hubbard Broadcasting owner Stanley Hubbard is a major contributor to the Republican Party and its candidates, including Coleman. He used the airwaves for which he holds a license to editorialize in favor of the conduct of law enforcement agencies’ conduct during the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. Indications are he lent his 125-foot yacht for a “Coleman for Senate Donor Appreciation Cruise.”
How is counting all of the ballots suddenly "rightwing" (sic)?
One lesson that will be taken from the race, regardless of its final outcome, is that conservative activists can be more easily worn down than their liberal counterparts.
Most on the right abandoned this cause months ago, not because they were convinced Franken won the race, but as a result of lower court decisions and hardball tactics by the left. Many bloggers no longer cover developments in the case, though the state court decision will prove impossible to ignore.
That said, some remain in the fight, according to NewsMax:
Embattled former GOP Sen. Norm Coleman has at least one diehard advocate in his corner: Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who says he'd be happy to support a further Coleman appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
That assumes, of course, that the Minnesota Supreme Court rejects Coleman's current appeal of an earlier panel's ruling that declared Democrat Al Franken the winner by 312 votes out of about 3 million ballots cast.
"We'll do everything we can to support Norm as long as he has appellate remedies to purse," said Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
A ruling by the state's highest court could come any day now. Most legal experts expect the justices to announce their decision before the July 4 recess.
"I'm not suggesting Norm has this plan in mind," Cornyn hastened to add, "because frankly I think he's hopeful it turns out well at the state Supreme Court."
As it stands today, not many believe Norm Coleman will be able to reclaim his seat, or that Franken can be stopped. Conservatives can still learn from this potentially-failed effort, however: next time, toughen up and truly gear up for a long, ugly fight.
What will happen if Hubbard is allowed to count those ballots and they show that Coleman actually won? Nothing, that's what..
And before you make a parallel between this and the 2000 Presidential election, remember that they are 180 degrees opposite of one another. In 2000, Bush demanded that all ballots be counted the same way. In Minnesota's senate race Franken demands that all ballots not be counted the same way, that they be counted under different rules from county to county.
So where are our wonderful "neutral" media on this story? Never mind, why ask questions we all know the answers to.
Until about three minutes ago I assumed that the legitimate Honduran government had been overthrown by the military. I certainly had no reason to think otherwise, based on the short report I caught on this morning's Today Show (which devoted the first 15 or so minutes to Michael Jackson - whose death, three days ago, apparently is still far more important than a governmental takeover).
But now that I have read the following report/analysis by Scott Johnson of www.powerlineblog.com, I'm not at all sure.
Here it is. You decide for yourself. Please pay special attention to the segments I have put in bold print:
and President Obama sides with the Fidel Castro and this thug epigones Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega. As the Honduran President Mel Zelaya sought to conduct an illegal referendum to extend his rule, the Honduran military sought to enforce the rule of law by removing Zelaya from the scene. Mary Anastasia Grady explains:
Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.
That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.
But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.
The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.
Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.
The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.
It remains to be seen what Mr. Zelaya's next move will be. It's not surprising that chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose, too.
Mrs. Clinton has piled on as well. Yesterday she accused Honduras of violating "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" and said it "should be condemned by all." Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government.
Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. The Honduran Congress met in emergency session yesterday and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward. The Supreme Court later said that the military acted on its orders. It also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it.
Many Hondurans are going to be celebrating Mr. Zelaya's foreign excursion. Street protests against his heavy-handed tactics had already begun last week. On Friday a large number of military reservists took their turn. "We won't go backwards," one sign said. "We want to live in peace, freedom and development."
Besides opposition from the Congress, the Supreme Court, the electoral tribunal and the attorney general, the president had also become persona non grata with the Catholic Church and numerous evangelical church leaders. On Thursday evening his own party in Congress sponsored a resolution to investigate whether he is mentally unfit to remain in office.
By contrast with his dithering on Iran, President Obama has immediately sorted out the rights and wrongs of the situation. Unfortunately, he sorted them out and cast his lot with Zelaya. Obama is "deeply concerned" about the ouster of a tyrannical president exceeding the bounds of his lawful authority:
"I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of President Mel Zelaya. As the Organization of American States did on Friday, I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference."
Here, however, the military has sought to preserve the rule of law against the president's lawless efforts to extend his rule. Why is Obama standing with Castro, Chavez and Ortega to support Zelaya? The company he's keeping should give him a clue, but one begins to wonder if he likes it.
Amazing, isn't it? President Obama was, and remains, a paragon of waffling as Iranians desperately try to become more democratic. But he, along with his sock puppet Hillary Clinton, is fast as greased lightning to take the side of a ruthless illegal dictator in Honduras.
Great. Just great.
Well, we elected a left wing Chicago machine politician, with no experience that would prepare him for the Presidency. And this is what we got.
This could make for some interesting dialogue between Sonia Sotomayor and the other justices if she is confirmed for the supreme court, wouldn't you say?
From the Associated Press, via the Washington Post:
Court rules for white firefighters over promotions
By MARK SHERMAN The Associated Press Monday, June 29, 2009 10:27 AM
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.
New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.
The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.
Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them."
Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg's dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday.
Kennedy's opinion made only passing reference to the work of Sotomayor and the other two judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who upheld a lower court ruling in favor of New Haven.
But the appellate judges have been criticized for producing a cursory opinion that failed to deal with "indisputably complex and far from well-settled" questions, in the words of another appeals court judge, Sotomayor mentor Jose Cabranes.
"This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal," Cabranes said, in a dissent from the full 2nd Circuit's decision not to hear the case.
Since Ms. Sotomayor would be replacing David Souter, who had a dissenting opinion, it means that she would join a Supreme Court in which 5 of the 8 members reversed her most famous decision.
Oops.
If I were betting money, it would still be on Sonia Sotomayor being confirmed despite the increasing load of baggage she brings to the USSC. My main reason is that there is such a large Democratic majority in the senate.
But even with that majority, I have to wonder how much Democratic senators - some of whom have serious battles for their seats next year - are willing to overlook.
Last night I put up an article by Drew Zahn of www.worldnetdaily.com, which suggested it is possible that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. The article challenged Mr. Obama to provide his original birth certificate.
My lead-in was as follows:
I have no idea if any of it is true. But since the Obama people have moved heaven and earth to prevent us from seeing his actual birth certificate (not the "Certification of Live Birth" which has been referred to as a birth certificate but in fact is not), I feel other possibilities should at least be made public
Two people immediately commented that the Certification of Live Birth which has been used to "prove" Barack Obama was a naturalized citizen should end the issue. One of the commenters suggested that the COLB is all that there is because Mr. Obama "probably lost" the original. The other assured me that "two officials of the state of Hawaii who looked into the file, and the PR representative of the DOH called the Chicago Tribune, which asked whether the original in the file meant that Obama was born in Hawaii, and she said YES".
Nice try, guys.
In response, I will repost part of my March 8, 2009 blog which, I believe, debunks these claims. But before doing so, I want to specifically address what was said by the two Hawaiian officials.
Here is the verbatim statement issued by DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino:
"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics (Alvin Onaka) who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures"
What do we learn from this statement?
-It tells us in so many words that there is an original birth certificate on record - which blows away the claim that the COLB is all that exists;
-It assures us that the certificate is in accordance with state policies and procedures. But in 1961, the year of Mr. Obama's birth, he did not have to be born in the state of Hawaii for the certificate to be issued. So even if Dr. Fukino personally saw and verified the document, it is meaningless to whether or not Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii
-In fact, the wording of this statement appears to be a very artful construction which attempts to leave the impression that Mr. Obama was born there without saying anything of the kind.
Ok. With this in mind, I will now post the relevant excerpt from my March 8, 2009 blog:
Barack Obama, born in 1961, has shown the world his “short form birth certificate,” or “Certification of Live Birth”:
For comparison, here’s an example of the more-detailed “vault copy” of a “Certificate of Live Birth”:
A very important point to note is that a “Certification of Live Birth” is an abbreviated version of the birth record on file with the Hawaiian Department of Health. The root document(s), could be: a) a true “Certificate of Live Birth”; b) a “Late Birth Certificate” with or without modifications; or c) a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.”
A “Certification of Live Birth” may reflect data that had been changed over time, and does not provide corroborated testimony such as dates, locations, change in paternal identification, and witnesses. Any record that amendments had been submitted and information changed is not shown on the “Certification of Live Birth,” which is laser printed on special green stock paper, and lacks detailed information that would be expected from a true “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth,” or “Certificate of Delayed Birth.”
Knowing the intricacies of the Hawaiian “birth certificate” adds mystery instead of resolution with Obama birth record critics, especially when applied to statements provided by Hawaiian officials before the Presidential election.
On Oct. 31, after being inundated by requests for more details about Obama’s birth records, Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said she and registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, had personally verified that the Health Department possesses Obama's original birth certificate.
The cryptic and carefully-worded statement offered no true details of the “birth certificate,” and leads to more questions than answers among critics. In July, when Barack Obama’s Certification of Live Birth” was first distributed publically on the internet, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo simply asserted to the St. Petersburg Times, “it’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.”
Although officials are on record that there is an original “birth certificate” held by the state, and that it is correctly filed according to Hawaii state directives. However, the specifics of the type of “birth certificate” records on file, with modifications, as well as the details and accounts of witnesses, is still unknown at this time.
However, despite this written notice on the form, some Hawaii state agencies do not accept the “Certification of Live Birth” as irrefutable verification of Hawaiian birth. There have been numerous cases when the Hawaii Family Court System required more detailed data for paternity suits. Additionally, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands provides the following guidelines to Hawaiian natives applying for Hawaiian Home Lands homestead:
The primary documents used to show you are of age and a qualified native Hawaiian are: - A certified copy of Certificate of Birth; - A certified copy of Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, including testimonies; or - A certified copy of Certificate of Delayed Birth.
“In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.” (emphasis added)
Additionally, the “Certification of Live Birth” is not recognized by many Federal agencies. DoD 5220.22-M, the "National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual," provides baseline standards for the protection of classified information released or disclosed from the military, Department of Energy, and other agencies, to industry. Section 2-208states that acceptable certificates must show that the birth record was filed shortly after birth. If a “Delayed Birth Certificate” is on file, it must be supported by secondary evidence of birth, such as baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records, or affidavits of persons having personal knowledge about the facts of birth.
Even to work at the Navy Ship Yard in Pearl Harbor, the August 2008 version of the, “Unified Facilities Guide Specifications,” section 1.5.22.2allows for a total of 18 different means to verify US citizenship, ranging from a military ID card to even a “Hawaii certificate of foreign birth.” The “Certification of Live Birth” is not on the list of approved documents acceptable for proof of Citizenship.
Persisting questions and Constitutional Problems
Although some vetting took place in summer 2008 after Barrack Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth,” most media outlets and online bloggers failed to explore the unique aspects and varieties of Hawaiian “birth certificates.” Unfortunately, the birth certificate issue may cause a Constitutional crisis if Obama is determined to be other than a “Natural Born Citizen,” as Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires.
One potential problem might involve a name change to “Barry Soetoro” when attending elementary school in Indonesia, which may have occurred if there was an amendment in Obama’s birth record. Some accounts of Obama’s youth indicate his name may have been changed to. A name change would also need to be legally registered in court.
Verbal accounts by some of Obama’s family reportedly indicate Obama’s birthplace was either Kapiolani or Queens Hospital in Hawaii on Aug. 8, 1961. However, no birthing records reportedly can be found in either of the two hospitals, and no records seem to exist that list Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, as a patient at either hospital. Also, no medical staff has come forward to offer affidavits of Obama’s birth. A birth announcement appeared in the Aug. 13, 1963 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser, however, it’s not definitive if the announcement was placed by the Department of Vital Statistics or a family member. If the latter is true, it’s plausible that Obama and mother may not have been on the island at the time of birth.
I do not know how anyone could read this and think there is no issue about Barack Obama's birth.
Even if you can somehow ignore the facts posted above, what about the simple, practical realities?
Barack Obama is 47 years old. Common sense tells you that whatever hospital he was born in would have had numerous people in it who are still alive today. A 25 year old then is only 72 now. A 30 year old then is only 77 now.
What about the doctor? The nurses? The admissions people? The food services people?. Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Can anyone seriously believe they're all dead now, every one of them?
Is it in any way plausible to you that NOT ONE of these people has come forth to say that they were there and/or had some level of involvement, with the birth of our new President?
Wouldn't the hospital itself be proud to publicize that it was "the birthplace of President Barack Obama"? Wouldn't it have a plaque up by now? Wouldn't it at least mention that he was born there?
And what about the fact that Mr. Obama has moved heaven and earth to avoid showing us the "vault copy" of his birth certificate?
If the birth certificate is as he claims, then a telephone call and a $10 or so processing fee would have gotten the vault copy and ended this issue months ago. Instead, Mr. Obama enlisted an army of lawyers and spent over $1 million dollars to fight every attempt to have his birth certificate see the light of day.
You don't have to be a world class detective to figure out that there is something on Barack Obama's birth certificate that he doesn't want us to know about. What do you suppose it could possibly be?
In closing, let me repeat that I do not claim to know whether Barack Obama is legally able to be President. I have never said definitively that he is or is not.
But the facts you have just seen, coupled with Mr. Obama's actions, suggest very strongly that he may not be.
Now: if either of the two commenters, or anyone else, has something more to say about this, fire away. If you can show me where I'm wrong I will be happy to put it up on this blog, agree with it, and change my position. All I'm interested in is the truth.
But please make sure that the information you are providing is real. Thanks.
I have no idea if any of it is true. But since the Obama people have moved heaven and earth to prevent us from seeing his actual birth certificate (not the "Certification of Live Birth" which has been referred to as a birth certificate but in fact is not), I feel other possibilities should at least be made public:
BORN IN THE USA? 'Kenyan birth certificate' remains eBay mystery Investigator who traveled to Africa 'skeptical' document is real deal
How much would a genuine copy of President Obama's birth certificate – from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya – be worth on the open market?
One eBay seller, known to the public only as "colmado_naranja," attempted to find out, only to be shot down by the auction website's administrators … at least four times.
As WND reported, colmado_naranja alleged that he had been traveling in Kenya, where natives boasted that Barack Obama II was, indeed, born in the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961, which correlates with speculation that has existed over President Obama's birthplace since even prior to his election.
The eBay seller, with a flawless track record of dozens of sales on the auction website, also claimed that he was able to obtain a genuine copy of Obama's Kenyan birth certificate and posted it for sale online, with an opening bid of $1,000 and a "buy it now" price of $1 million.
As WND reported, however, the auction was taken down again and again. Even after WND posted a story on it yesterday, including the eBay seller's explanation for why the auction was allegedly scrubbed by eBay administrators, a page offering the birth certificate for sale appeared yet a fourth time … only to disappear yet a fourth time.
And while repeated contacts have been made with colmado_naranja, the validity of his claims – as well as the document – remain a mystery, for the seller has refused to allow the document to be seen or photographed.
In the original listing, colmado_naranja explained, "I am not posting any photos of the birth certificate here on eBay. I have not seen this birth certificate anywhere on the Internet, to post it here on eBay would lead to a flood of facsimiles on the Internet. This would inadvertently decrease the value of the certificate as well."
At least one investigator, who has traveled to Africa and sought the birth certificate from the very same hospital, however, told WND he remains "skeptical" of the eBay auction's claims.
WND's senior staff writer, Jerome Corsi, traveled to Kenya in 2008 to look into Obama's past and remaining ties to the nation.
While there, however, immigration authorities detained Corsi and his publicist – holding them under armed guard and without food – to prevent Corsi from holding a news conference revealing what he had discovered, eventually requiring thousands of dollars in bribes to set the writer free.
Corsi told WND that despite contacts in government offices, the help of others and even the offer of financial reward, the CoastProvincialHospital in Mombasa would not confirm Obama's birth there nor provide access to records.
"When I was there, I tried to get records from that hospital, but I couldn't do it," Corsi said. "The hospital either had no records or wouldn't release them.
"That's what makes me skeptical," Corsi continued. "How did [colmado_naranja] get the birth certificate, if it's real?"
Corsi wouldn't rule out the possibility that the eBay seller may have somehow obtained a genuine document, but stated only that his efforts in Kenya proved fruitless.
WND has continued to attempt to contact the seller through several channels, but thus far, examining the document colmado_naranja claims to hold has proven as difficult as examining the records at the Coast Provincial Hospital.
President Obama's place of birth, however, remains only one of several questions and possible avenues for answers that remain in determining whether or not Obama is a "natural born citizen" under the U.S. Constitution and eligible to serve as president.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
The eBay birth certificate seller is a self-proclaimed "collector of old Dominican and Cuban money" and has worked in the Congo.
"This spring I traveled through Kenya and its capital Nairobi. I was overwhelmed by the 'iconicized' face of U.S. President Barack Obama that displays itself throughout the country. I had lunch at a small eatery and noticed that the club sandwich with fried plantains was now known as 'Obama's Plate of the Day,'" the seller wrote on the initial auction page. "As an American I was bombarded with questions in English (English is national language of Kenya) on my feelings and opinions of a Kenyan governing the United States of America. The first several times I responded in saying that not enough time had elapsed since Barack Obama's appointment as president of the U.S.A., and that I'd have to hold my official opinion until at least January 2010, a year in office might be sufficient for me to judge his ability to govern the U.S.A.
"Naturally I thought that by 'Kenyan' they were referring to Barack Obama's blood, being that his father Barack Obama Sr. was a native of Kenya. After a day and a half of my being in Nairobi I learned that they were literally referring to President Barack Obama Jr. as being born in Kenya, a native of Kenya."
The seller also cited the fact that Obama has not release his "Hawaiian" birth certificate. His administration, the seller says, "in an attempt to put the birth certificate issue to a rest, has presented the American public with a fake, forged, fraudulent Hawaiian birth certificate."
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
There it is. Make of it what you will.
And remember: If Barack Obama was really born in Hawaii, it would take a short telephone call and a small processing fee to get the actual vault copy, show it to us all, and end this issue. Instead, Mr. Obama has spent a ton of money for a small army of lawyers to prevent it from ever seeing the light of day.
Super-pitchman Billy Mays, who gave us such "as seen on TV" products as Oxi Clean, Orange Glo, Mighty Putty and that stuff that is supposed to fix scratches on your car, is dead at the age of 50.
He was found by his wife in their Tampa, Florida home this morning. No cause of death has been reported yet, but it appears there was no foul play involved.
I couldn't stand the guy and turned his commercials off whenever they assaulted my senses. But being an annoying pitchman is not a capital crime. I'm very sorry he is gone.
… [Robert Moffitt, director of health policy studies at the Heritage Foundation] says fiscally conservative Republicans, who traditionally would have opposed the Medicare bill — the biggest expansion of an entitlement program in nearly 40 years — are fuming that the actual price of the Medicare bill was suppressed by the administration. "They had grave reservations about voting for it," he says. "They were told repeatedly by the Republican leaderships, ‘It’s a fiscally responsible bill, we promise you.’ Now there’s a lot of buyer’s remorse up on the Hill." …
Last November, in an extraordinary vote held open for an unprecedented three hours by the speaker of the House, the Republican leadership, after leaning on its members, eked through passage of the historic Medicare bill by a count of 220-215. (Most Democrats opposed it, calling the bill a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.)
Pivotal to passage were reluctant yes votes by 13 conservative Republicans who had initially balked at the $395 billion price tag. During the pre-dawn hours of the Nov. 22 Medicare vote, they were eventually persuaded to vote yes. Bush signed the bill into law in December.
The following month, the administration announced the program would actually cost $534 billion to implement, nearly 40 percent more than advertised. "Had people known that real price, the bill wouldn’t have ever made it to the House floor for a vote," says Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill…
Then, last month, Richard Foster, the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the top independent Medicare cost analyst, revealed he had been threatened by the Bush administration that he would be fired if he told Congress the true cost of the policy. He received orders in June 2003 from his boss, Thomas Scully, the Bush-appointed director of the Medicare program, instructing him to ignore information requests from members of Congress who were drafting the drug bill. In the past, lawmakers had free access to the actuary’s estimates. And they assumed they were getting a true statistic as they considered the bill this time.
The Wall Street Journal first reported March 18 that Foster received a note from Scully’s aide ordering him to answer the Republicans’ questions but warning him not to respond to Democratic queries — "with anyone else until Tom Scully explicitly talks with you — authorizing release of information. The consequences for insubordination are extremely severe."
In other words, the MMA only passed because fiscal conservatives had been assured that its ten year cost estimate would not exceed $400 billion.
But a mere one month after the bill was signed into law, that estimate was hiked to $534 billion, which is a $140 billion over the cost figure presented during the Congressional debate.
Worse yet, as the Salon article notes, this was a matter of administration policy. The point man for the MMAl, Thomas A. Scully, was told not to reveal the true numbers. Indeed, he was threatened with firing if he had revealed them.
(Do note the irony of Mr. Obama’s point man on healthcare, Rahm Emanuel, complaining about these phony cost estimates.)
But the worst was yet to come, for a mere one year later, the Washington Post was gleefully reporting that the White House Budget had increased the 10-year estimate to $1.2 trillion:
Medicare Drug Benefit May Cost $1.2 Trillion
Estimate Dwarfs Bush’s Original Price Tag
By Ceci Connolly and Mike Allen Wednesday, February 9, 2005; Page A01
The White House released budget figures yesterday indicating that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit will cost more than $1.2 trillion in the coming decade, a much higher price tag than President Bush suggested when he narrowly won passage of the law in late 2003.
The projections represent the most complete picture to date of how much the program will cost after it begins next year. The expense of the new drug benefit has been a source of much controversy since the day Congress approved it, with Democrats and some Republicans complaining that the White House has consistently low-balled the expected cost to the government…
So the ten year costs of the MMA program skyrocketed from $395 billion to $1.2 trillion, even before it began.
Who knows what the cost estimates are now? Or where they will ultimately end up?
Of course the MMA was a Republican social program. Neither Salon nor the Washington Post would ever deign to report such failings about any Democrat program.
Nor will they even suggest that the Mr. Obama’s healthcare plan might be similarly low-balled.
Still, is there any doubt that history will repeat itself – and with a vengeance?
I could write paragraph after paragraph seconding Steve's motion. But you don't need it. He has laid it out for you in crystal-clear terms.
Never believe them. I don't care which party is in power. They lie to us and do not think twice about it. I don't know how to say this any plainer.
And never forget that if it is a Republican lie, you are far more likely to hear about it than if the lie comes from Democrats.
Since I've cited the influence of Andy Stern on President Obama, I thought I would give you a heads-up on who he is and how he operates.
Instead of referencing the numerous attacks on Stern from organizations which oppose him politically and philosophically, I decided to give you a perspective from someone who is at least as far left as Stern is -- Ralph Nader. Here, from www.counterpunch.org, is his takedown of Stern, published on April 23, 2008:
Violent Crackdowns and Sweetheart Deals
Andy Stern's Rackets
By RALPH NADER
Andy Stern, the president of the 1.9 million member Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is embroiled in the politics of accepting sweetheart union contract deals and, ironically is being condemned by the Wall Street Journal. What gives here?
It seems that Stern wants to put heat on the private equity funds that have bought hospitals, nursing home chains and other firms whose employees he wants to organize. He lost a clumsy attempt to get a bill through the California legislature to restrict state pension funds from investing in private equity firms. The bill was backed by some foreign countries’ sovereign investment funds.
The state pension funds—CalSTRS and CalPERS—defeated the bill and received the approval of the Wall St. Journal’s right wing editorial writers—a rare plaudit indeed. The Journal even praised the California Nurses Association for obtaining a restraining order from a California court against SEIU harassing, assaulting and stalking members of this union, which is embroiled in disputes with SEIU for what the nurses’ union says are blatant sweetheart contracts that SEIU dangles before large employers.
Are you confused?
The California Nurses Association (CNA) is a fast growing union that fights for patient rights, for adequate nurse-patient ratios and bargains for strong contracts with hospital chains. SEIU, by contrast wants membership growth even if the cost is a weaker contract for the newly organized workers.
In Ohio, the CNA exposed a SEIU deal with nine hospitals owned by Catholic Healthcare Partners. SEIU let the employer pick SEIU as its chosen union without a single signed union card. The company-union collaboration scheduled elections.
CNA sent representatives to Ohio and sounded the alarm about a top-down agreement sealed by a mutually imposed code of silence.
SEIU and the hospital chain owner postponed the election after the employees became aware of this sweetheart deal.
CNA’s actions threw SEIU into a rage. Buses of SEIU people from Ohio were sent by Mr. Stern to break up an annual meeting of 1000 labor activists sponsored by the magazine, Labor Notes, in Dearborn, Michigan. CNA’s Executive Director, RoseAnn DeMoro was scheduled to speak to the assemblage.
Shouting, scuffling, overturned chairs and the arrival of the Dearborn Police to impose order led A.F.L.-C.I.O. president John J. Sweeney, to denounce what he called “a violent attack” orchestrated by SEIU.
SEIU split from the A.F.L.-C.I.O. in 2005. SEIU aggressively raids other unions, such as the Allied International Union (AIU).
AIU fled a RICO law suit in New York against Stern’s alleged racketeering behavior and tactics to replace AIU leadership and take control of its members.
In addition, the Department of Labor is investigating a Las Vegas local of SEIU regarding possible misuse of employer funds to advance certain candidates in a local election.
All these struggles and outside charges against Andy Stern are not keeping him from moving to remove rebellious leaders of locals and consolidate power at the top. The biggest battle is in San Francisco. Dissident, Sal Rosselli, head of SEIU-United Health Care Workers West, will propose democratic changes to the autocratic way Stern runs the union at their national convention in June.
Rosselli is pushing to give local unions of SEIU more authority in contract bargaining and more voice in proposed union mergers.
Some labor observers believe Andy Stern is biting off more than he can chew. His assurance to the Democratic Party of over $50 million for the upcoming election exposes him to critics who believe he should be spending the money on and pay far more attention to getting more for his members from the large corporations he massages.
Is this the guy you want whispering in President Obama's ear? Is this the guy you want influencing the President of the United States?
Well, it doesn't matter what you want. This is what you got.
Sometimes it happens. Sometimes a newspaper that usually is strongly partisan to one side actually talks from a different perspective.
Today's departure is found in the Los Angeles Times, where Peter Nicholas has written a genuinely troubling analysis of President Obama's ties to Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union (SIEU).
I have posted the first part of the article below. You can read the entire article by clicking here:
Obama's curiously close labor friendship
SEIU chief Andy Stern enjoys unusual access to the White House, but some in the fractious labor movement question its value.
By Peter Nicholas June 28, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- They led the most powerful forces in healthcare -- the trade groups representing doctors, insurance companies, hospitals and drug makers. Any one of them could stall, if not derail, President Obama's hopes of overhauling the U.S. healthcare system.
Instead, they stood with Obama before TV cameras at the White House and pledged their cooperation. For Obama, the show of unity gave momentum to perhaps his most ambitious domestic goal.
But the moment was a victory, as well, for another man invited to the event that morning in May. Andy Stern heads the SEIU, the union that helped corral the industry groups, and his presence at the White House was a fresh sign of his formidable clout with Obama.
When the president met privately with the health industry leaders that day, Stern and a second Service Employees International Union official were the only labor representatives in the room.
In a fractious labor movement fraught with rivalries and mutual suspicion, Stern's close association with Obama has given him cachet that may prove important in the fierce competition to lure new members.
But Stern's access to the White House has also provoked jealousies. His opponents paint him as a polarizing figure that Obama elevates at his own peril.
The Obama-Stern relationship has emerged as one of the most curious within the young administration.
The SEIU spent $60 million to help elect Obama, according to the union. Stern said the group deployed 100,000 volunteers during the campaign, including 3,000 who worked on the election full time.
Now in the White House, Obama has continued to derive political benefits from the union. It was the SEIU's health chief, Dennis Rivera, who helped bring industry to the table to start talks on a healthcare overhaul.
With nearly 2 million members, the SEIU says it has people in 13 states whose senators are considered important targets in the lobbying effort behind the emerging Democratic healthcare bill. The union wants to coax those senators into voting for the bill.
Stern can boast that union officials are scattered throughout the Obama administration. White House political director Patrick Gaspard is a former executive at an SEIU local based in New York. No other union has placed anyone at such a high level in the White House.
Anna Burger, SEIU secretary-treasurer, was appointed to Obama's economic recovery board. And union associate counsel John Sullivan was named to the six-member Federal Election Commission.
Moreover, Stern has enjoyed considerable entree to the new administration -- starting on Inauguration Day, when he joined Obama and the new president's family on the reviewing stand outside the White House to watch the inaugural parade.
Stern estimates he visits the White House once a week. SEIU officials talk to senior Obama advisor Nancy-Ann DeParle about healthcare -- a top priority for Stern -- and to Obama aide Cecilia Munoz about immigration, Stern said.
"We get heard," Stern said.
Stern's access is envied by some fellow union leaders. John Wilhelm, head of Unite Here, the apparel, hotel and food service union, said his perception is that Stern gets a steady stream of invitations to the White House that other union executives do not.
Wilhelm said he was disappointed, for example, that his union was not invited to a White House meeting that touched on travel to Nevada -- an important subject for his union, which represents hotel and culinary workers in Las Vegas. Part of the meeting was spent placating Nevada interests upset over comments Obama made that banks receiving bailout money should not take Las Vegas junkets.
The SEIU's access to the White House also has left California officials unsettled. Earlier this year, the Obama administration invited the SEIU to take part in a conference call centering on a dispute over pay cuts to home healthcare workers represented by the union. State officials said the union's involvement in a government-to-government conference seemed inappropriate.
Personally, I am a strong proponent of unions. I've talked about this many times and won't repeat my reasons here now.
But I am not a proponent of the head of one extremely strong union exerting this much influence (control?) over the President of the United States. And that is what we have right now.
It is time for Barack Obama to start opening his mind and expanding his horizons. Today would be a good day to start.
You certainly can't accuse house minority leader John Boehner of political rhetoric on this one.
From www.thehill.com -- and please pay special attention to the last part, which I have put in bold print:
Boehner: Climate bill a 'pile of s--t'
By Molly K. Hooper
Posted: 06/27/09 09:22 PM [ET]
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had a few choice words about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) landmark climate-change bill after its passage Friday.
When asked why he read portions of the cap-and-trade bill on the floor Friday night, Boehner told The Hill, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s--t."
Using his privilege as leader to speak for an unlimited time on the House floor, Boehner spent an hour reading from the 1200-plus page bill that was amended 20 hours before the lower chamber voted 219-212 to approve it.
Eight Republicans voted with Democrats to pass the bill; 44 House Democrats voted against it.
Pelosi's office declined to comment on Boehner's jab. But one Democratic aide quipped, "What do you expect from a guy who thinks global warming is caused by cow manure?"
Even though Sen. Majorty Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) holds the bill's fate in his hands, House Republicans intend to hammer Speaker Pelosi's signature climate-change measure over recess.
And GOP Conference Chairman Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.) said "we have only just begun to fight” as he left the Capitol Friday night.
Pence encouraged GOP rank-and-file lawmakers to hold energy summits in their districts over the Independence Day recess. In the recess packets sent home with members, he even included directions on how to organize energy summits.
The goal of holding an energy forum is to “educate your constituents about the Democrats’ national energy tax legislation and let them know what 'all of the above' solution you support.”
"All of the above” solution is a reference to the Republicans' plan that would increase the use of and exploration for domestic energy supplies.
Further, officials with the House GOP's campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee, confirm that they will run with paid media over recess in districts of conservative Dems who voted for the bill. The official would not reveal details on the ad buys at this time.
One Democrat was upset that his leaders would needlessly force vulnerable Dems to vote for a bill that will come back to haunt them. Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor (D) voted against the measure that he says will die in the Senate.
"A lot of people walked the plank on a bill that will never become law," Taylor told The Hill after the gavel came down.
Yesterday, we discussed sickening, disgraceful way that this bill was put through the house (i.e. with hundreds of pages added, then a vote taken before anyone could read them to know what they were voting on). That, by itself, makes Boehner right in his opinion, including the expletive he used.
And Gene Taylor is exactly right in his analysis as well. Some of the Democrats who voted for this pile of...what did Boehner say? oh yeah, 's--t'...will pay for it in the next election.
You can bet several of the 8 Republicans voting for it will pay as well. What were they thinking? Were they thinking at all?
BY JIM SCHAEFER, BEN SCHMITT, TAMMY STABLES BATTAGLIA and CASSANDRA SPRATLING • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS • June 27, 2009
The federal trap finally snapped Friday on Detroit City Councilwoman Monica Conyers, ending a year of speculation about her role in the Synagro sludge contract scandal.
The normally boisterous Conyers, 44, appeared in U.S. District Court to quietly plead guilty to a bribery conspiracy charge during a brief hearing.
Conyers, the wife of powerful U.S. Rep. John Conyers, left the courtroom on personal bond without commenting.
In a few short weeks, Conyers, who was the council's president pro tem, went from one of Detroit's most politically powerful and mercurial women to an admitted felon in a pay-to-play scheme for a $1.2-billion-plus sludge treatment contract.
She was president of the council during Ken Cockrel Jr.'s mayoral regime from September through May. Now, she faces up to five years in prison for taking cash-stuffed envelopes at a city recreation center and in a McDonald's parking lot.
It was unclear Friday whether Conyers would stay in office until sentenced or quit before the August primary. No sentencing date has been set.
Councilwoman's fire gone as she quietly pleads guilty
Conyers, known for her last name and her fiery outbursts, faced the likely demise of her stormy first term in a subdued way Friday, admitting to a federal judge in a barely audible voice that she sold her vote on city business deals.
Her guilty plea to a federal charge of conspiracy to commit bribery ended months of whispers that the council president pro tem was a major target of an ongoing public corruption investigation. She admitted taking at least $6,000 from Detroit businessman Rayford Jackson to change her vote in favor of a $1.2-billion sludge disposal contract in 2007.
Though she has not been sentenced, her crime can carry up to five years in prison.
Federal prosecutors withheld many details of the evidence against her but singled out her swing vote in November 2007 to approve the sludge contract with Synagro Technologies, which employed Jackson.
Her plea agreement states Conyers also took money in connection with her former appointed position on the city's General Retirement System, but it gives no specifics. Federal agents have subpoenaed records from the pension fund.
Conyers and his wife have been at the heart of ongoing scandals in Detroit for years. For a partial look at what the Conyers' are about read this two year old article from sweetness-light.comand see for yourself. You will be appalled.
If Conyers were a Republican instead of a Democrat, there is little doubt that he would be out of office and in jail today. And his wife would not have had the opportunities for corruption she was so willing to take advantage of.
But that is the reality of USA politics in this day and age. Most mainstream media are so deeply partisan that I despair they will ever find the way to what they're supposed to be - objective, neutral journalists.
This story, from the Shelbeyville (Tennessee) Times-Gazette, is definitely "you can't make this stuff up" material:
Arguing couple does no damage with Cheetos
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 By Brian Mosely
A local couple arrested on domestic assault charges Sunday had an unusual choice of alleged weaponry -- Cheetos.
Warrants filed by Cpl. Kevin Roddy, of the Bedford County Sheriff's Department, stated he responded to a call at a home on Pass Road, where 40-year-old James Earl Taylor and Mary S. Childers, 44, were allegedly involved in an argument.
According to Roddy's report, the pair became "involved in a verbal altercation" with each other "at which time Cheetos potato chips were used in the assault."
"There was evidence of the assault," the report read, "however no physical marks on either party and the primary aggressor was unable to be determined."
Both Taylor and Childers were charged by Roddy with domestic assault. Both posted a bond of $2,500 and will appear in Bedford County General Sessions Court on July 15.
The combatants were also cited for referring to each other as "agent orange".
After the exhausting physical activity involved in trying to throw a Cheeto hard enough to hurt someone, they each drank a great deal of water, which caused them both to take a cheese whiz.
Ok, I've done my part. The next bad joke is yours.
In the previous blog I showed you what a vicious jerk john kerry is. But next to keith olbermann, kerry is a rank amateur.
While we started unpacking from our cruise last night, I put on the TV and watched about one minute of olbermann's low-rated "Countdown" (still at about one-third of Bill O'Reilly's viewership after over 6 years on the air). And in those seconds, olbermann, with a smirk from here to Pittsburgh, was attacking the several Republican politicians who have recently be found out as philanderers.
Has he got a point? Frankly, yes he does. I have no problem with keith olbermann or anyone else attacking cheaters for cheating.
But there's a bit more to this. Has olbermann also gone after, say, Bill Clinton? or Jesse Jackson? Or John Edwards? Or Eliot Spitzer? Or former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick? Or New York Governor David Paterson?
I'm not talking about a couple of days of mentioning them. I'm talking about the same smirking, pompous crapping-on that he gave the Republicans
See, cheating and assorted other sexual escapades are not peculiar to Republicans. Democrats are every bit as loose with their morals as Republicans are. So is keith olbermann attacking them the same way?
The answer? C'mon, you already know the answer.
keith olbermann is to hypocrisy what Afghanistan is to mountain caves. Maybe that is why Bill O'Reilly, pompous and stale has he is, continues to run rings around olbermann's show.
WASHINGTON - A jovial U.S. Sen. John Kerry must have been channeling his inner Letterman Tuesday when he quipped the wrong governor had gone missing.
The Bay State Democrat was regaling a group of business and civic leaders invited to the Capitol on the bizarre disappearance of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who was said to be hiking the Appalachian Trail.
“Too bad,” Kerry said, “if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.”
The Democratic-centric crowd chuckled.
Try to imagine the maelstrom if a Republican senator ever said this about a Democratic Governor. Especially a five-termer and former presidential candidate.
Now try to remember if, other than this little squib article from the Boston Herald, you have seen kerry's vicious hateful comment anywhere else.
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.
IS THIS WHY THEY RUSHED THE GLOBAL WARMING BILL THROUGH?
Ken Berwitz
From (surprisingly, I must admit) CBS News comes the following excerpt from a larger article which would almost certainly have hurt prospects for passing the cap-and-trade disaster described in my previous blog:
The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."
The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."
The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency -- and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.
Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously coming from higher levels."
E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.
"I was told for probably the first time in I don't know how many years exactly what I was to work on," said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. "And it was not to work on climate change." One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.
For its part, the EPA sent CBSNews.com an e-mailed statement saying: "Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted."
Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.
After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.
If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.
The EPA's possible suppression of Carlin's report, which lists the EPA's John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.
Well, well, well.
I wonder how the 219 geniuses who passed the house version of this disastrous bill will feel about what you just read.
I doubt most will tell us, though, because no one wants to admit just a day or two after the fact that what they did was based on a combination of incomplete and suppressed information.
We, as a country, are being played like a Stradivarius by Obama & Company, with copious help from our wonderful "neutral" media. And the one-size-fits-all answer to every action? "Blame Bush".
Some voters will never figure out that this fraudulent little panacea is being used on them time after time, to justify horrible legislation that is crushing us under unprecedented debt and unprecedented redistribution of income.
GLOBAL WARMING "CAP AND TRADE" LEGISLATION: "THE STEALFROMUS PACKAGE" II
Ken Berwitz
If you liked the way Democrats' "stimulus package" (which I call the "stealfromus package") passed through congress, you're going to love the Global Warming cap-and-trade legislation which moved through the house of representatives yesterday by a 219-212 vote.
The bill passed with a sudden 300-page addendum, added at 3:00AM (yes, that is three in the morning) and was voted on with absolutely no time for members of congress to read what it says.
This is exactly how the "stealfromus package" was voted on. It was dumped in the hands of congress, all 1,000 pages-plus of it, and a vote was taken hours later with no one given enough time to even read it, let alone react to what it entailed.
Are you happy with that bill? President Obama assured us it would prevent the unemployment rate from rising above 8.0%. Well, after four months of not stimulating a thing other than the crushing long-term debt it saddles our children and grandchildren with, the unemployment rate is currently at 9.4% and even Obama's acolytes admit it is going straight into double figures.
Their explanation? It's Bush's fault (I swear, that's what they're saying). "We didn't realize what Bush left us was this bad". Of course the doomsday warnings issued by President Obama that if it didn't pass there would be a "catastrophe", etc, etc, etc, must conveniently be forgotten to buy into the "we didn't realize it was this bad" lie...er, explanation.
What a crock of BS. They told us it was that bad. In so many words. That is how they railroaded it into law.
Now that the legislation is so obviously an abject failure, their choice is either to take responsibility or try another round of blaming Bush. Guess what? They're blaming Bush. What a shock.
And with the so-called Global Warming legislation, we have the exact same path. A bill that will cost us untold billions/trillions in both governmental and private expenditure, passed by a lopsided Democratic majority, complete with a huge addition that no one knows a thing about but they voted on it anyway.
And where are our wonderful "neutral" media as it happens? Well, read the New York Times front-page article on this bill today. Try and find any news of that 300 page dump. It isn't there. But what you will find is a quote from henry waxman, who co-sponsored the bill, assuring us that the vote was a “decisive and historic action” that would position the United States as a leader in energy efficiency and technology.
Thanks New York Times. Your love affair with Barack Obama continues unabated.
Thanks, also, to henry waxman. Didn't you tell us how great the "stealfromus package" was too?
There has to come a point where the voting public realizes what is happening here. Even if much of our media will not report it. There has to come a point when we understand that Barack Obama and his Democratic cohorts are going at breakneck speed to morph the country we live in to something we will not recognize. Something that, in my opinion, we will desperately regret?
Our only hope is that the US Senate, which almost has to operate more openly than these utter frauds in the house (how could they operate more covertly?), will reverse this disaster.
And the saddest part of the story? It is that this is our fault. We elected Barack Obama and a moveon.org-quality congress.
The earliest we can do something about it is next year. Will we? By that time, will it even matter?
JEREMIAH WRIGHT & LOUIS FARRAKHAN: THE ARCHITECTS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY?
Ken Berwitz
What an interesting, illuminating, fact-filled article The American Spectator's Mark Hyman has written about how much Barack Obama's foreign policy positions parallel those of the hate-based reverend jeremiah wright - Mr. Obama's spiritual leader and personal mentor - and wright's hero, the even-worse louis farrakhan.
Anyone familiar with the views of Barack Obama's pastor of twenty years might wonder if Reverend Jeremiah Wright is the chief inspiration behind the president's foreign policy. The president's overseas forays – dubbed the "American Apology Tour" – have featured Obama issuing one apology after another on behalf of a U.S. he has pronounced guilty of countless transgressions.
Obama has apologized for Guantanamo Bay; for alleged mistakes committed by the CIA; for U.S. policy in the Americas; for America's history of slavery; for "sacrificing [American] values;" for "hasty decisions" in the war on terror; for "America's standing in the world;" for American errors in foreign policy; for U.S. relations with the Muslim world; and for American "arrogance," being "dismissive, [and] even derisive" toward U.S. allies. One gets the sense Obama is far from finished.
Wright, too, found unlimited fault with America. For example, he opposed the great American melting pot. He denounced racial impurity particularly when white men and black women have offspring. "Black women were raped by the millions," Wright claimed in his 1996 book, When Black Men Sand Up for God. "Look around your church or neighborhood at the colors of African people today. America is the land of our trouble," he warned in his 1995 book Africans Who Shaped Our Faith.
Wright lectured his parishioners "When you forget who you are, you start letting your behavior be determined by the enemy's [white people's] expectations. How you act is based upon what they think. And that sickness is perpetuated, because through assimilation and acculturation, you now think just like they think." Wright admonished his congregants "If you are not European, stop pretending you are."
Wright's black separatist sermons have been notorious for racist comments about "white arrogance," "the United States of White America," and "the U.S. of KKK." Wright also accused the U.S. government of conspiring against black people. "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied," he claimed in one sermon. Rather than asking for divine blessings for the U.S., instead Wright urged "G** D*** America!"
In August 2007, Wright delivered a eulogy at MorehouseCollege in Atlanta, Georgia. He referred to the nation's Founding Fathers as the "fondling fathers." He called Texas "the cradle of dehumanization," he made an ethnic slur about Italians and "their garlic noses," and he repeatedly mentioned "white enemies." Wright warned mourners of "White supremacist brainwashing, passing itself off as education."
Wright's anti-Semitic leanings seemingly play themselves out in U.S. relations with Israel. Just recently, Wright derided "them Jews" for blocking his access to President Obama.
In contrast to his deference to anti-American leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, and Daniel Ortega, Obama has strong-armed Benjamin Netanyahu on key Israeli matters. He snubbed the Israeli Prime Minister in his first request to meet with the president. While pronouncing Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology acceptable and announcing the U.S would not meddle in Iran's election, Obama has warned Netanyahu against targeting Iran's nuclear facilities, has demanded an end to Israeli settlements and has insisted on the creation of a two-state Palestine solution. Obama's attitude is not new.
Years ago, Wright and Obama helped organize participation in the 1995 march on Washington led by the deeply anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan. In his remarks, the Nation of Islam leader accused former President George H. W. Bush of "buck-dancing in a yarmulke for the Jews."
Farrakhan's anti-Semitic activities spanned years. Months before the march, he was embroiled in an ugly, anti-Semitic episode. Khalid Abdul Muhammad, a senior Nation of Islam official, delivered three hours of remarks at New Jersey's KeaneCollege that attacked whites, Jews, Catholics, homosexuals and white South Africans.
Muhammad said, "[Jews] are a European strain of people who crawled around on all fours in the caves and hills of Europe, eatin' Juniper roots and eatin' each other. … They're the blood suckers of the black nation and the black community."
Muhammad warned the audience of "Columbia Jew-niversity over in JewYorkCity." He called the U.N., the "Jew-nited Nations." He said Jews were named Rubenstein, Goldstein and Silverstein because they "[have] been stealing rubies and gold and silver all over the earth. That's why we can't even wear a ring or a bracelet or a necklace without calling it Jewelry … but it's not jewelry, it's Jew-elry."
Muhammad argued Jews who perished in the Holocaust had it coming to them. He asked, "[D]on't nobody ever ask what did they do to Hitler?" Then he answered his own question with, "They had undermined the very fabric of the society."
Prior to his KeanCollege address, Muhammad dismissed the "so-called Jew holocaust" at appearances in Dallas, Texas and Washington, DC. He argued the film "Schindler's List" should be named "Swindler's List."
Countless public figures implored Farrakhan to repudiate Muhammad. Instead, Farrakhan stood by his friend. At a "Black Men Only" rally of 10,000, Farrakhan said, "We know that Jews are the most organized, rich and powerful people, not only in America, but in the world. They are plotting against us even as we speak." Then Farrakhan clasped Muhammad in an embrace on stage.
Even with Farrakhan's long history of racism, bigotry and anti-Semitism, Wright remained a fervent supporter. In 2007, Wright praised Farrakhan as one who "will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African-American religious experience." Trumpet, a magazine operated by Wright and TrinityChurch, honored Farrakhan in November 2007 with the "Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer" Award for his years of service.
It is understandable that after sitting through 20 years of sermons delivered by the pastor Barack Obama considered his spiritual mentor that Jeremiah Wright's politics would heavily influence Obama's worldview of the U.S. and Israel. It is unfortunate that they do.
Can you find even one thing in Mr. Hyman's article that is either inaccurate or untrue?
Now consider that these are the people who shaped Barack Obama's views for most of his adult life.
Knowing this, you have to wonder how it was possible for people who think the United States is a force for good, and/or support Israel and/or are tolerant of other races and religions, not to have realized what they were getting with Barack Obama. Yet millions and millions of such people voted for him.
I hope they're happy with who they elected. I can assure you that I am not.
If I had been blogging when they occurred, these three deaths would have gotten more attention than I will give them now. But, since they are old news for you, let me acknowledge them briefly:
Farah Fawcett R.I.P.
Farah Fawcett had the same problem Brad Pitt has. She was so physically beautiful that her excellence as an actor was often overlooked.
No wonder that poster of Ms. Fawcett and her gorgeous smile (shown below) was, I have been told, the single biggest selling "pin-up" in history.
I prefer to remember her as she looked then, not as the woman who suffered a horrible, painful death due to anal cancer. I hope you feel the same.
May she rest in peace.
Ed McMahon R. I. P.
For 35 years Ed McMahon was the "sidekick" to Johnny Carson - first on the game show "Who Do You Trust" and then on the Tonight Show.
I put the word "sidekick" in quotations because he was so much more than that. McMahon was no appendage, he was an integral part of the show, someone who countless viewers were entertained by every bit as much Carson.
Johnny Carson was amazingly talented in his own right, but I believe Ed McMahon brought him to a place he would not have been with someone else on that couch.
After Tonight, McMahon had his own personal successes (Star Search being one of them) and was the perennial co-host of Jerry Lewis' Muscular Dystrophy telethon, until physical and financial problems took him down in the year or two before his death.
Less well known is the fact that Ed McMahon was also a decorated Marine pilot during World War II.
He will be greatly missed.
May he rest in peace.
Michael Jackson R. I. P.
I was never a fan of Michael Jackson's. Not my music, not my style. But he had more talent and more charisma than just about anyone I've ever seen in my life.
Mr. Jackson's 1982 album "Thriller" was not just the biggest seller of all time. It more than doubled the next biggest seller. That puts him in the same rarefied league as people like Babe Ruth, Louis Armstrong, Enrico Caruso and Tiger Woods.
He was a transcendental performer on stage, both singing and dancing (the "Moonwalk" was his signature dance move). World-wide.
Unfortunately there was also a pretty significant underbelly to the Michael Jackson story. His apparent relationships with young boys (never actually proven, it should be pointed out), his cosmetic surgeries that turned him into a sort of male Jocelyn Wildenstein and his increasingly bizarre behavior (remember him dangling his baby son from a window?).
But none of this in any way changes the greatness of Michael Jackson as an entertainer. I doubt we'll ever see anyone else like him again.
Very simple answer. My wife and I were on an anniversary cruise through the Mediterranean. We visited ports in Italy, Turkey and Greece. It was spectacular.
I don't like to announce to the world that we will be away - at least not before or during the trip - so this is the first time I am mentioning it.
As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding "secret energy meetings" with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged "presidential communications." The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig's office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a "new era" of openness, "nothing has changed," says David -Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. "For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies."
The hard line appears to be no accident. After Obama's much-publicized Jan. 21 "transparency" memo, administration lawyers crafted a key directive implementing the new policy that contained a major loophole, according to FOIA experts. The directive, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, instructed federal agencies to adopt a "presumption" of disclosure for FOIA requests. This reversal of Bush policy was intended to restore a standard set by President Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno. But in a little-noticed passage, the Holder memo also said the new standard applies "if practicable" for cases involving "pending litigation." Dan Metcalfe, the former longtime chief of FOIA policy at Justice, says the passage and other "lawyerly hedges" means the Holder memo is now "astonishingly weaker" than the Reno policy. (The visitor-log request falls in this category because of a pending Bush-era lawsuit for such records.)
Administration officials say the Holder memo was drafted by senior Justice lawyers in consultation with Craig's office. The separate standard for "pending" lawsuits was inserted because of the "burden" it would impose on officials to go "backward" and reprocess hundreds of old cases, says Melanie Ann Pustay, who now heads the FOIA office. White House spokesman Ben LaBolt says Obama "has backed up his promise" with actions including the broadcast of White House meetings on the Web. (Others cite the release of the so-called torture memos.) As for the visitor logs, LaBolt says the policy is now "under review."
Can anyone still believe a word this man says? Can anyone doubt any more that Barack Obama is a slickly packaged Chicago machine politician who won an election on clever slogans and imagery but little else?
Gallup is now showing Mr. Obama at 58% approval, its lowest level since he was elected
Rassmussen shows his approval at just 53%, with 32% strongly approving of him and 34% strongly disapproving. On January 20, the day Mr. Obama was elected, the strongly approve was 44% and strongly disapprove was 16%.
Finally, at long last, people are catching on. And I have to believe that instance after instance in which he goes back on what he promised us is a key reason for it happening.
Yes I still have very limited use of a computer, and this will continue for up to one more week. But I got my hands on one now, and wanted to talk about Iran.
Here is a pretty decent look on what is happening in Tehran, from three different sources over the past few days:
One is from Reuters:
Iran blames "terrorists" for clashes, hits at West
Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:09pm IST
By Parisa Hafezi and Fredrik Dahl
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian authorities on Sunday blamed "terrorists" for clashes in which at least 10 people were killed and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the West to stay out of unrest sparked by his disputed re-election.
In a sign of increased opposition among clerics to the Islamic Republic's leadership, Mohammad Khatami, a moderate former president, warned that banning protests in support of defeated presidential candidate Mirhossein Mousavi was a dangerous move.
"Preventing people from expressing their demands through civil ways will have dangerous consequences (for the country)," Khatami, a Mousavi ally, said in a statement, the semi-official Mehr news agency reported.
Iran state television said 10 people were killed and more than 100 others injured in protests held in Tehran on Saturday in defiance of a stern warning by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A separate report put the number of deaths at 13.
State television said the violence included the torching of a mosque, which it blamed on "rioters".
Another is from Andrea Tantaros, writing for Fox News:
By Andrea Tantaros Conservative Political Commentator/FOXNews.com Contributor
President Obama is feeling the heat lately for his limp foreign policy postures, showcased now more than ever with the increasing violence and chaos following Iran’s presidential election. Surprisingly, the critique is stemming from both sides of the aisle and is beginning to crescendo. Since the announcement of Ahmadenejad’s victory, Obama’s response has been more than unimpressive, it’s been plain impotent. If Iran is the ringing red phone, Obama is putting the call straight to voicemail.
————–
We’re now the Mr. Rogers of foreign relations. Even Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are urging Obama to toughen up.
————–
Apparently in this administration, forceful, timely responses have been reserved for houseflies instead of our most threatening enemies.
The president believes that we shouldn’t “meddle” when it comes to Iran (or anyone else for that matter). Obama doesn’t want to appear like he is directing the protests; but even so, the Iranian government has already accused America of “interventionist” statements. Remind me again why democracy promotion is such a bad thing?
President Obama: you aren’t the leader of some insignificant Caribbean territory. You are the leader of the free world.
The world expects you, like your predecessors, to lead. But the global community is quickly learning not to hold its breath. In mere months, Obama has transformed the United States of America from the world’s policeman to the world’s cheerleader. We’re now the Mr. Rogers of foreign relations. Even Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are urging Obama to toughen up.
How can someone so quick to meddle in private domestic enterprises — from insurance to banking to the auto industry — remain so hands off when it comes to our national security?
Iran needs some major meddling. The same goes for North Korea. In fact, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, North Korea is seen as a bigger threat than Iran, China, Pakistan, and Afghanistan — surpassing Iran by a more than two-to-one margin on voters’ worry list.
The scariest part about both is that the two countries are intrinsically linked. Though the administration insists it’s keeping an eye on Iran, Iran is watching North Korea and how we deal with them. We deal with them through the Chinese. Problem is, our leverage with China is limited considering that they hold the bulk of our ballooning debt. Plainly put: if the North Koreans decide to sell a nuclear weapon the likely customer will be from Tehran. That is why sitting on our hands and spending our nation into an economic choke-hold will result in unprecedented American vulnerability.
This is one “holy crap” moment that photo ops and late night talk show appearances can’t fix. It’s time for the Obama administration to swat down stubborn, rogue regimes and anyone who seeks to threaten our safety. That’s what I call real pest control.
Finally, we have this from Stephen Hayes and Bill Kristol at Weekly Standard:
Resolutely Irresolute Obama dithers while Tehran burns. by Stephen F. Hayes & William Kristol 06/29/2009
The events of the past week in Iran, following the June 12 presidential election there, have been remarkable and hopeful. It's been a moment when one would like a president of the United States--who has, in such moments, a supporting but not an inconsequential role--to rise to the occasion. Barack Obama hasn't. We are therefore put in the position of hoping that the words of an American president are being mostly ignored, that his weakness won't matter, and that the forces of reform or revolution will be able to prevail--as they may--with the support of many in America, if not the president.
The day after the election, as hundreds of thousands of Iranians gathered in the streets to protest election fraud, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration was "monitoring" the situation. The next day, Sunday, as the extent of the fraud became clear to anyone willing to see it, Vice President Joe Biden said that while there were "doubts" about the outcome, "I don't think we're in a position to say" that the election wasn't free and fair. Obama played golf.
On Monday, Obama finally had something to say: "I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we've seen on the television over the last few days." He said he was "deeply troubled" by the violence but noted, "We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran." Eight people were killed that day.
On Tuesday, Obama acknowledged the "amazing ferment" inside Iran. But, as the forces of change rallied behind Mir-Hussein Mousavi, and as Mousavi, heretofore a cautious apparatchik, was carried along Yeltsin-like to a position of virtual opposition to the regime, Obama seemed to try to take the steam out of the protest, declaring, "The difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised." Meanwhile Gibbs said that while Obama "deplored the violence"--disembodied violence, whose perpetrators went unnamed--he was nonetheless encouraged by the "vigorous debate inside of Iran by Iranians."
On Wednesday, Gibbs repeated those words verbatim and reported that the president would continue to "ensure that we're not meddling." And on Thursday, Gibbs once again said the president "deplored unnecessary killing." Senator John Kerry, defending Obama, said, "We can't escape the reality that for reformers in Tehran to have any hope for success, Iran's election must be about Iran--not America."
All week, the Obama administration bent over backwards to avoid questioning the legitimacy of the Iranian regime. In this, Obama became a de facto ally of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Although Obama finally spoke about the protesters--"the whole world is watching," he said--he never expressed real support for them.
Obama supporters defended his silence. Anything he said to endorse the protests, they argued, would taint the protesters' message and damage their cause.
The events of the past week in Iran, following the June 12 presidential election there, have been remarkable and hopeful. It's been a moment when one would like a president of the United States--who has, in such moments, a supporting but not an inconsequential role--to rise to the occasion. Barack Obama hasn't. We are therefore put in the position of hoping that the words of an American president are being mostly ignored, that his weakness won't matter, and that the forces of reform or revolution will be able to prevail--as they may--with the support of many in America, if not the president.
The day after the election, as hundreds of thousands of Iranians gathered in the streets to protest election fraud, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration was "monitoring" the situation. The next day, Sunday, as the extent of the fraud became clear to anyone willing to see it, Vice President Joe Biden said that while there were "doubts" about the outcome, "I don't think we're in a position to say" that the election wasn't free and fair. Obama played golf.
On Monday, Obama finally had something to say: "I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we've seen on the television over the last few days." He said he was "deeply troubled" by the violence but noted, "We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran." Eight people were killed that day.
On Tuesday, Obama acknowledged the "amazing ferment" inside Iran. But, as the forces of change rallied behind Mir-Hussein Mousavi, and as Mousavi, heretofore a cautious apparatchik, was carried along Yeltsin-like to a position of virtual opposition to the regime, Obama seemed to try to take the steam out of the protest, declaring, "The difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised." Meanwhile Gibbs said that while Obama "deplored the violence"--disembodied violence, whose perpetrators went unnamed--he was nonetheless encouraged by the "vigorous debate inside of Iran by Iranians."
On Wednesday, Gibbs repeated those words verbatim and reported that the president would continue to "ensure that we're not meddling." And on Thursday, Gibbs once again said the president "deplored unnecessary killing." Senator John Kerry, defending Obama, said, "We can't escape the reality that for reformers in Tehran to have any hope for success, Iran's election must be about Iran--not America."
All week, the Obama administration bent over backwards to avoid questioning the legitimacy of the Iranian regime. In this, Obama became a de facto ally of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Although Obama finally spoke about the protesters--"the whole world is watching," he said--he never expressed real support for them.
Obama supporters defended his silence. Anything he said to endorse the protests, they argued, would taint the protesters' message and damage their cause.
The bottom line? Iran is in turmoil, moving headlong toward overt revolution. The revolution it is moving toward, while hardly a 100% turnaround from the lunacy of khamenei and ahmadinejad, is a dramatic change in favor of the west.
And Barack Obama is nowhere to be found. Nowhere.
But his supporters are desperately trying to convince you that he is doing the protestors a favor by not having a good word to say about them.
You would have to be brain dead to believe this BS. That's what this sorry bunch is counting on.
WHAT MOST ISRAELI JEWS SEE, THAT MOST AMERICAN JEWS DO NOT
Ken Berwitz
Here is an excerpt from today's Jerusalem Post which tells the story:
'6% see US administration as pro-Israel'
Jun. 19, 2009 Gil Hoffman , THE JERUSALEM POST
Only 6 percent of Jewish Israelis consider the views of American President Barack Obama's administration pro-Israel, according to a new Jerusalem Post-sponsored Smith Research poll.
The poll, which has a margin of error of 4.5%, was conducted among a representative sample of 500 Israeli Jewish adults this week, following Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's speech in which he expressed his support for a demilitarized Palestinian state.
Another 50% of those sampled consider the policies of Obama's administration more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli, and 36% said the policies were neutral. The remaining 8% did not express an opinion.
The numbers were a stark contrast to the last poll published May 17, on the eve of the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama at the White House. In that poll, 31% labeled the Obama administration pro-Israel, 14% considered it pro-Palestinian and 40% said it was neutral. The other 15% declined to give an opinion.
Israelis' views of Obama's predecessor in the White House, George W. Bush, are nearly the opposite. According to last month's poll, 88% of Israelis considered his administration pro-Israel, 7% said Bush was neutral and just 2% labeled him pro-Palestinian.
One possible explanation for the Obama administration's plummeting approval rating among Israelis is its opposition to building for natural growth in settlement blocs and its refusal to differentiate its policies regarding construction in unauthorized outposts, settlement blocs close to the Green Line and suburbs of Jerusalem.
Israeli Jews are not blind and stupid. Sadly, all too many American Jews (most of whom presumably support Israel) seem determined to be both, on behalf of Barack Obama.
What is wrong with them?
In the last election, 78% of American Jews voted for Mr. Obama. I hope they're happy with what they got.
Speaking as one of the other 22%, I assure you I'm not.
WASHINGTON -- Millions of Iranians take to the streets to defy a theocratic dictatorship that, among its other finer qualities, is a self-declared enemy of America and the tolerance and liberties it represents. The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.
And what do they hear from the president of the United States? Silence. Then, worse. Three days in, the president makes clear his policy: continued "dialogue" with their clerical masters.
Dialogue with a regime that is breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, expelling journalists, arresting activists. Engagement with -- which inevitably confers legitimacy upon -- leaders elected in a process that begins as a sham (only four handpicked candidates permitted out of 476) and ends in overt rigging.
Then, after treating this popular revolution as an inconvenience to the real business of Obama-Khamanei negotiations, the president speaks favorably of "some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."
Where to begin? "Supreme Leader"? Note the abject solicitousness with which the American president confers this honorific on a clerical dictator who, even as his minions attack demonstrators, offers to examine some returns in some electoral districts -- a farcical fix that will do nothing to alter the fraudulence of the election.
Moreover, this incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators.
This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East.
This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.
The latter is improbable but, for the first time in 30 years, not impossible. Imagine the repercussions. It would mark a decisive blow to Islamist radicalism, of which Iran today is not just standard-bearer and model, but financier and arms supplier. It would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism -- leave it forever spent and discredited.
In the region, it would launch a second Arab spring. The first in 2005 -- the expulsion of Syria from Lebanon, first elections in Iraq and early liberalization in the Gulf states and Egypt -- was aborted by a fierce counterattack from the forces of repression and reaction, led and funded by Iran.
Now, with Hezbollah having lost elections in Lebanon and with Iraq establishing the institutions of a young democracy, the fall of the Islamist dictatorship in Iran would have an electric and contagious effect. The exception -- Iraq and Lebanon -- becomes the rule. Democracy becomes the wave. Syria becomes isolated; Hezbollah and Hamas, patronless. The entire trajectory of the region is reversed.
All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. Except for the desire that this "vigorous debate" (press secretary Robert Gibbs' disgraceful euphemism) over election "irregularities" not stand in the way of U.S.-Iranian engagement on nuclear weapons.
Even from the narrow perspective of the nuclear issue, the administration's geopolitical calculus is absurd. There is zero chance that any such talks will denuclearize Iran. On Monday, Ahmadinejad declared yet again that the nuclear "file is shut, forever." The only hope for a resolution of the nuclear question is regime change, which (if the successor regime were as moderate as pre-Khomeini Iran) might either stop the program, or make it manageable and nonthreatening.
That's our fundamental interest. And our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.
And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.
Question: What do you get when you elect a President who is wholly unqualified for the job/in about 100 miles over his head, and hand him a lopsided majority in both houses of congress?
Answer: Barack Obama.
We elected him. So we are getting what we deserve. I hope that, albeit way too late, some of the folks who facilitated his election are now starting to understand this.
President Obama continues the "Chavezing" of the US Government. Here, from Ed Morrissey of www.hotair.com are the particulars:
Obama has fired 2 IGs in 2 weeks, leashed another
posted at 8:47 am on June 18, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The firing of Gerald Walpin as Inspector General was not an isolated incident, as the Chicago Tribune reports today. Two more IGs have been dismissed in the past two weeks, and Senator Charles Grassley has started demanding answers. The sudden push to rid the government of independent watchdogs appears to coincide with Barack Obama’s plans to use government spending to get control over more aspects of American life, such as with stimulus spending, the financial sector, and volunteer organizations (via Dan Riehl):
He was appointed with fanfare as the public watchdog over the government’s multi-billion dollar bailout of the nation’s financial system. But now Neil Barofsky is embroiled in a dispute with the Obama administration that delayed one recent inquiry and sparked questions about his ability to freely investigate.
The disagreement stems from a claim by the Treasury Department that Barofsky is not entirely independent of the agency he is assigned to examine — a claim that has prompted a stern letter from a Republican senator warning that agency officials are encroaching on the integrity of an office created to protect taxpayers. …
The dispute comes as Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is looking into the abrupt firings within the last week of two other inspectors general ¿ one of whom was fired by the White House and the other by the chair of the International Trade Commission.
Both inspectors general had investigated sensitive subjects at the time of their firings.
Grassley is now concerned about whether a pattern is emerging in which the independence of the government’s top watchdogs — whose jobs were authorized by Congress to look out for waste, fraud and abuse — is being put at risk.
The positions themselves indicate where the White House wants to go with its efforts. Barofsky ruffled feathers in April when his watchdog report showed that the Obama administration had placed insufficient safeguards on Porkulus spending. This later caused Joe Biden to shrug and tell the media, “Some people are being scammed already,” as if it wasn’t the job of the administration to stop it from happening. Barofsky now has a leash around his neck, with the White House insisting that he answers only to Treasury.
We’ve already covered the case of Gerald Walpin, whose work brought him into conflict with Obama crony Kevin Johnson, now the mayor of Sacramento. The White House and Johnson claim that there is no connection between the two, but this video from Naked Emperor News tells another story:
Walpin stands between the White House and their desire to use AmeriCorps as a reward system for their political allies and to use government money for the kind of “community organizing” that put Obama in the White House. His report to Congress made that difficult in Sacramento, where Mayor Johnson had been blocked from receiving federal grant money for his admitted earlier fraud. Walpin’s independence had to be removed, and in this case, Walpin had to be smeared to make it stick.
The third incident came last week at the International Trade Commission, where Judith Gwynne worked independent of the White House, and which will be a critical position as Obama reshapes trade arrangements around the world. An ITC employee earlier this year “forcibly removed” paperwork from Gwynne. Rather than back the IG after Grassley wrote a letter demanding answers, the political appointees at the ITC dumped her.
We are seeing a pattern, no longer just a single data point. IGs work independently to protect taxpayers from corruption and abuse from its own government agencies. A coordinated attack on IGs certainly suggests hostility to that mission, which isn’t the Hope and Change Obama promised on the campaign trail.
Barack Obama continues his takeover of our government, and the obliteration of anyone with any power who is noticing. And our wonderful "neutral" media continue drooling over him anyway.
Wait until he comes for them......
PS: Yes, I still have very limited use of a computer. Next week we'll crank it up again and get back to normal!!
I have access to a computer for just a few minutes here.......
Letterman finally made the apology he should have made the day after his obnoxious, vicious, insulting, coarse, crude, rude and obvious attacks on Sarah Palin and her 14 year old daughter.
The problem is that it occurred a week too late. Clearly, he was forced to do so by his network and/or his advertisers.
It therefore had about as much sincerity as a get well card from mahmoud ahmadinejad to Benjamin Netanyahu.
Letterman, therefore, remains the bitter, acerbic unfunny jerk he had to be to have made those "jokes" in the first place.
Without going into the details, I will have almost no access to a computer for the next week or two. If I am able, I will blog here and there during that time. But it is unlikely.
I will definitely be back at my computer by the last week of June, when I will explain the reasons for this short hiatus.
Remember all those attacks, by our so-called "neutral" media and the various talking heads, on Miss California, Carrie Prejean, because she spoke against legalizing gay marriages?
Do you remember those few voices in the wilderness noting that President Obama has the exact same position on gay marriages?
Well, albeit ridiculously belated, a few more voices are finally chiming in, instead of just genuflecting at Obama's feet and saying "yes, yes, yes!", to everything he is, says or does.
By LINDA DEUTSCH and LISA LEFF – 1 day ago LOS ANGELES (AP) — Gay rights groups expressed dismay with the Obama administration Friday over its championing of the Defense of Marriage Act, a law the president pledged to try to repeal while on the campaign trail.
The government filed a motion late Thursday to dismiss the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, who are challenging the 1996 federal act. The law prevents couples in states that recognize same-sex unions from securing Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint taxes and other federal rights of marriage.
U.S. Department of Justice lawyers argued that the act — known informally as DOMA — is constitutional and contended that awarding federal marriage benefits to gays would infringe on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages.
"The president made very explicit and emphatic campaign promises that he opposes DOMA and would provide leadership calling on Congress to repeal it," said Jennifer Pizer, marriage project director for Lambda Legal. "This brief is not consistent with that promise."
Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Friday that the department is abiding by its standard practice of defending existing law and that the filing doesn't mean Obama has changed his mind about wanting to see gay couples win federal recognition.
"Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system," Schmaler said.
More than four months into his first term, Obama has been under growing pressure from gay rights activists who supported his candidacy to move forward on repealing DOMA and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents gays from serving openly in the military.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights lobbying group based in Washington, called on Obama to reassure his supporters by sending Congress a bill to lift the federal marriage law.
"The Administration apparently determined that it had a duty to defend DOMA in the courts. The President has just as strong a duty to put his principles into action," Solmonese said in a statement.
In the papers, Justice Department lawyers said federal court was not the right venue to tackle legal questions raised by Hammer and Smelt, who got married in California last year during the five-month window in which the state sanctioned same-sex unions.
Lambda Legal's Pizer said the government's stance in some ways marks an improvement from Justice Department positions taken on the Defense of Marriage Act when George W. Bush was president.
The brief acknowledges that gay couples who tie the knot in the six states where same-sex marriages are permitted are legally married and does not cite the oft-used argument that children fare better in households headed by a married man and woman, Pizer said.
At the same time, it repeated several arguments made under Bush, including the argument that a union between a man and a woman is "the traditional, and universally recognized, version of marriage."
The Obama administration will have more opportunities in coming weeks to weigh in on the subject. Another challenge to DOMA brought on behalf of married couples in Massachusetts and a lawsuit seeking to overturn California's gay marriage ban under the U.S. Constitution are making their way through the courts.
At this point you may be wondering how come these same groups weren't all over Barack Obama for the same reason during last year's campaign.
Well, either they weren't, or they were but it wasn't reported very much, or at all, by our wonderful "neutral" media.
Either way, it would be nice to see President Obama nailed for the things he should be nailed for. And this is one of them (yes, I support gay marriage).
I read www.buzzflash.com every day, because it is a good clearinghouse for left wing thought and opinions. And I respect and accept Buzzflash's hardline political view.
But not when it is presented dishonestly.
Here is a case in point. This headline is on buzzflash.com's home page as of now (about 10:45AM Eastern Time):
A prominent S.C. Republican Party activist is in hot water after describing an escaped gorilla at a South Carolina zoo as an “ancestor” of First Lady Michelle Obama.
The exchange occurred after Trey Walker, an advisor to S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster, posted an innocuous Facebook update about this morning’s escape of a Western Lowlands Gorilla from Columbia’s Riverbanks Zoo.
Walker’s harmless update, however was followed by a highly-questionable comment from longtime SCGOP activist and former State Senate candidate, Rusty DePass. [...]
An early South Carolinasupporter of former President George W. Bush, DePass has been active in Republican politics in South Carolina for decades. [...]
The comment has been removed from Facebook. No word yet on who yanked it.
Is the comment racist? You're kidding, right? Of course it is. The best possible thing you can say about this is that rusty depass didn't mean it the way it came out -- and if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. If depass himself subsequently removed the comment you can also say that he realized how offensive it was - which doesn't change the fact that he said it in the first place.
Now, what does this have to do with the overall Republican Party?
Has Mark Karlin (who runs buzzflash.com) written about how you can't take the anti-Semitism out of Barack Obama because he proactively belonged to a church run by the anti-Semite jeremiah wright? Has Karlin written about how Sonia Sotomayor's string of comments which indicate she thinks her Latino roots and her gender make her superior, prove something about the overall Democratic Party?
No, of course he hasn't. Nor should he. Because in both cases the issue involves individuals, not an entire party.
But if he is going to generalize and stereotype this way, it seems to me that the actions of a nationally famous reverend and a Supreme Court nominee would be more significant than those of one "activist" no one outside of South Carolina ever heard of, whose great claim to fame is that he ran for the state senate -- and lost.
I think it would be. So I'm pointing it out now.
I hope (not optimistically) that in the future Mr. Karlin will try to be a lttle more realistic, a little less exaggerated -- ok, ok, a little ess dishonest.
I started to write more about President Obama's amazingly naive statement regarding the "robust debate" in Iran (doesn't anyone in that White House advise him about what can happen in a Muslim theocracy when the "clerics" decide they want someone to win?).
But Paul Mirengoff of www.newsbusters.org has written it so well, that I won't bother. Here is Paul's commentary, which says it all --- please pay special attention to the last paragraph, which I've put in bold print:
On Friday, President Obama had this to say about the election in Iran:
We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran. Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways.
This was an extremely foolish comment for at least two reasons. First, the debate in Iran was circumscribed. The candidates were screened by the mullahs. Four were permitted to run; hundreds were deemed insufficiently in tune with the "Revolution." And there appars to have little or no debate on the issue of primary concern to the U.S. -- Iran's nuclear program. Ahmadinejad's main rival, Mir-Hossein Moussavi, was in full agreement with the regime on this matter.
Second, there was always a strong possibility of election fraud. Robust debate, even had it existed, would be meaningless in the face of a fraudulent election. Thus, Obama should not have lauded the election, much less characterized it as advancing our ability to engage Iran in new ways, until he was satisfied that the election was honest. A fraudulent election in which the existing, intransigent regime claims a landslide victory will not advance our ability to engage in Iran in new ways.
A day later, it seems clear that the election was fraudulent. U.S. officials have said as much off-the-record. They find it "not credible" that Mousavi would have lost the balloting in his hometown or that a third candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, would have received less than 1 percent of the total vote.
So Obama has praised an election that appears to have been a travesty. It's difficult to see how either Iran's rulers or its dissidents can view him as other than a fool -- usefully so in the case of the rulers; criminally so in the case of the dissidents.
Realistically speaking, how can you blame Barack Obama? He is so used to being beloved, adored and lionized for everything he says and does by our wonderful "neutral" media, that his (frankly, stupid) comments about Iran will just vanish like a fart in the wind.
Watch your network news, watch the morning shows, read the New York Times or LA Times or.....etc. etc. etc. and see if this is what happens.
As U.S. stock markets plummeted last September, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin, sold more than $115,000 worth of stocks and mutual-fund shares and used much of the money to invest in Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
The Illinois senator's 2008 financial disclosure statement shows he sold mutual-fund shares worth $42,696 on Sept. 19, the day after then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged congressional leaders in a closed meeting to craft legislation to help financially troubled banks. The same day, he bought $43,562 worth of Berkshire Hathaway's Class B stock, the disclosure shows.
Altogether, Durbin sold investments worth $116,000 in September. By Oct. 2, he had invested $98,046 in Omaha, Neb.-based Berkshire Hathaway, the form shows.
The Standard & Poor's 500 index plunged 4.7 percent last Sept. 15 after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Bank of America Corp.'s government-engineered takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co. By the end of October, the index had fallen 22.6 percent.
"Durbin was doing what a lot of other people were doing, taking a look at their savings" and seeing it "start to tank and trying to preserve some level of wealth by getting out of the market," said his spokesman, Joe Shoemaker.
Shoemaker said Durbin didn't capitalize on anything Paulson and Bernanke told congressional leaders at the Sept. 18 meeting.
Whatever information Paulson gave lawmakers wasn't secret or classified and was disclosed publicly the next day, Shoemaker said.
Video: Obama auto team called shareholder lawyer a “terrorist”
posted at 8:46 am on June 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
When we last left the negotiations between Chrysler’s senior bondholders and Barack Obama’s auto task force, Thomas Lauria and his clients alleged that the government used intimidation tactics and threatened to sic the White House press corps on individuals if they didn’t give up their rights to allow the unions to win in the bankruptcy. Congress took an interest in this”madman” theory of the Presidency and got access to some e-mails floating between the task force and an analyst. Rep, Steven LaTourette (R-OH) reads from the e-mails, in which the auto task force calls Lauria — their attorney — a “terrorist” and refuses to negotiate after a Chrylser expert consulted him:
The important part comes at the end: an email exchange between Matthew Feldman, attorney on the President’s Auto Task Force, and Robert Manzo, Chrysler restructuring expert. Manzo is basically pleading to further negotiate to prevent bankruptcy, but Feldman is having none of it. Here is the exchange:
Robert Manzo, Chrysler restructuring expert: “I hope you think it’s worth giving this one more shot.”
Matthew Feldman, attorney on the President’s Auto Task Force: “I’m now not talking to you. You went where you shouldn’t.”
Manzo: “Sorry. I didnt’ mean to say the wrong thing and I obviously did. I was trying oto make sure that if we had to contribute to the solution you knew we had some room. Sorry I did not realize the mistake!!”
Feldman: “It’s over. The President doesn’t negotiate second rounds. We’ve given and lent billions of dollars so your team could manage this properly….And now you’re telling me to bend over to a terrorist like Lauria? That’s B.S.”
A terrorist like Lauria? Lauria represented a teacher’s pension fund in Indiana (among other bondholders), and had the temerity to insist that the government follow contract law. I may be no fan of lawyers, but I don’t call them terrorists. Apparently the White House has another view of lawyers, especially when they insist that the government follow the law.
In this process, we see which side tried to terrorize the other, and it wasn’t Lauria’s.
How proud we should all be of what is happening to our country under Barack Obama.
And how proud mainstream media should be of not reporting it to us.
Amir Tehari, writing for the New York Post, does an excellent job of showing us the real vote in Iran. Not the phony popular-vote fraud (every opponent of ahmadinejad lost his home town - you would have to be a spud to believe that), but the vote on how much ahmadinejad would "win" by.
Read it for yourself:
TEHRAN’S RE-ELECTION FIXERS SCRIPT A ‘LANDSLIDE’ FOR HATE
Last updated: 7:25 am June 14, 2009 Posted: 2:18 am June 14, 2009
THAT Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would win re-election was never in doubt. But the scale of the victory arranged for him has surprised even some of his friends.
Whoever scripted the results made sure that Ahmadinejad won more votes than anyone in the 103-year history of elections in Iran. With almost 63 percent of the votes, Ahmadinejad is credited with twice as many votes as his closest rival, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi. The turnout was also the highest ever -- put at 85 percent. The president won in every social category and age group and in every one of Iran's 30 provinces. It was even arranged that Ahmadinejad's three rivals, all veterans of the Khomeinist revolution, were roundly defeated in their respective hometowns.
Not surprising, the scale of the victory has raised many eyebrows, even among the regime's apologists.
Mousavi, the best known of the three defeated candidates, has called the election "a dangerous spectacle." Mahdi Karroubi, the only mullah among the four candidates, has threatened unspecified action against "this charade." The third defeated candidate, Mohsen Rezaei, a former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has described the results as "contrary to all reasonable expectations."
The defeated candidates' protestations are unlikely to carry much weight. All three are regime insiders, having occupied key positions within the system for decades. They agreed to enter an electoral process of which every aspect is fixed. To start with, only candidates approved by the Council of the Guardians, a 12-mullah "star chamber," are allowed to run. In the absence of an independent electoral commission, the Ministry of the Interior and the security services control the process. There is no secret ballot, and no representatives of candidates are allowed to supervise the casting and counting of the votes. In theory, the authorities could declare any results they wish without having to worry about outside observers. And this time, at least, it seems that they have done precisely that.
Ahmadinejad may have wanted a big mandate to justify what many believe will be a massive purge of the top echelons of the ruling elite. During the presidential debates, broadcast live on national television, Ahmadinejad named a number of dignitaries, including two of his predecessors, Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, as Mafia-like "godfathers" engaged in "plundering the nation." He promised that, if re-elected, he would bring the "thieves" to justice and "restore the probity of our Islamic system."
Ahmadinejad has vowed to devote his second four-year term to fighting on two fronts, against Israel and the United States abroad and "centers of corruption" at home.
A communiqué published by the official Islamic Republic News Agency described the president's re-election as "the revival of the revolution" and a "victory for Hezbollah and the soldiers of Allah."
Ahmadinejad defeated those who "mocked his anti-Israel campaign in support of the wronged Palestinian nation" and "those who regard a crippled creature named the United States as a superpower," the communiqué claimed.
Recalling the president's belief that we are living at "the end of times," the communiqué said Iran would use its power to prepare for "the return of the Master of Time," referring to the Hidden Imam of Shiite Islam, who disappeared 14 centuries ago.
Yesterday, the defeated candidates, with Khatami, gathered at Rafsanjani's house to forge a common strategy against what they now see as a threat not only to their positions but also to their safety within the Islamic Republic. Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad's supporters marched in Tehran streets, calling on the re-elected president to "bring the thieves to justice."
Ahmadinejad presents himself as the champion of a new generation of revolutionaries who believe that most of the older ones have betrayed Ayatollah Khomeini's ideal by creating a new class of "parasitical rich sucking the blood of the poor masses."
His re-election is also a victory for the military and security organs of the state that have tried to secure more power at the expense of the mullahs.
Under Ahmadinejad, the number of mullahs in key official positions has been cut by almost 70 percent. In every case, their places have been taken by members of the Revolutionary Guard or its allied security services. Friday was historic in that this was the first presidential election in which no mullah was featured as a major contender. The only mullah allowed to stand, Karroubi, was put at the bottom of the polls and credited with less than 1 percent of the votes.
Ahmadinejad's re-election is bad news for President Obama's key foreign-policy ambition of making a deal with the Islamic Republic. Ahmadinejad is convinced that the United States has embarked on a "historic retreat" and that, as a "sunset power," it lacks the political courage to challenge a rejuvenated Islamic revolution in Iran.
The Khomeinist regime remains deeply unpopular, especially among young Iranians, who account for two-thirds of the population. Yesterday, Tehran and other major cities witnessed a series of anti-regime demonstrations, mostly with young people shouting, "Shame on you, Ahmadinejad! Quit the government!" Though small and isolated, these demonstrations could in time snowball into a mass movement against a divided regime that relies on social bribery and repression for its survival.
Unless the "Supreme Guide," Ali Khamenei, succeeds in calming things down, the two camps, frowning at one another like a pair of angry cats for months, are certain to clash at some point. The clash could push Iran, already facing economic meltdown, ethnic revolts and mass labor unrest, closer to the edge.
Ahmadinejad may end up with what looks like a pyrrhic victory.
.This ridiculous farce, it should be noted, was what "excited" Barack Obama because it provided a "robust debate" in Iran (those are President Obama's words, not mine).
The sad part is that he obviously didn't see this coming. Did he really think Iran holds legitimate elections? Why would he think that? Because of its sterling history of electoral honesty?
This is what happens when we elect a President who is not qualified for the office, and in way over his head.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday he was hopeful the robust debate taking place in Iran's presidential election would advance his administration's efforts to engage longtime U.S. rival Tehran in new ways.
"We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran," Obama told reporters when asked about the Iranian election during an event at the White House.
"Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways," he said.
Iranians voted on Friday in a hotly contested election that will determine whether hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets a new term or is unseated by one of his more moderate challengers.
The United States has had no ties with Iran since shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution, but Obama has expressed an interest in a dialogue if Tehran "unclenches its fist."
Obama said he had tried to send a clear message during a speech to the Islamic world last week in Cairo that his administration sees a possibility for a change in relations.
He said while "ultimately the election is for the Iranians to decide," voters in the Middle East had shown they were looking at the possibility of a change.
Obama was referring to the victory of Saad al-Hariri's anti-Syrian bloc in Lebanon on Sunday. The bloc won 71 of parliament's 128 seats, versus 57 for an opposition alliance that included Hezbollah, a pro-Iranian group Washington formally has designated a "foreign terrorist organization."
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she was encouraged by the size of the Iranian voter turnout.
"It's a very positive sign that the people of Iran want their voices and their votes to be heard and counted. And like many people inside and outside of Iran we are going to wait and see what the results are," Clinton told reporters.
A senior State Department official said the United States would not be surprised if there was a run-off.
"It's anyone's guess what is going to transpire. If you were a betting person you would probably look at some sort of run-off," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
There will be a run-off on June 19 between the two front-runners if none of the four candidates wins 50 percent of the votes in the first round.
Note to President Obama: The guy who "won" (it looks like a cooked election) is the guy telling Israel Iran is creating a nuclear capability and he intends for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth.
But yes, the debate is robust. Isn't that wonderful? After all, what's it all about other than debate?
A quick point: The picture below is david letterman and his son, Harry, who is now 6 years old.
How do you suppose letterman would react if a popular late night host - say, Conan O'Brien - started cracking jokes about letterman's wife Regina Lasko looking like a slut and Harry being molested at a sports event?
I'm sure that will never happen. Not from Conan O'Brien. He has far too much class.
But if it ever did? Welcome to Sarah Palin's world, dave. How do you like it?
Well, the votes are in. And mahmoud ahmadinejad, it is claimed, has won with 63% of the vote, over the so-called "moderate" Mir Hossein Mousavi.
There are reports of increasingly violent clashes in the streets and the "supreme leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (who, despite this so-called "election", actually runs the show) is calling for unity. Maybe he'll get it and maybe he won't.
Assuming ahmadinejad holds on to his presidency (which is very likely), it means Iran will continue down the path of creating a nuclear weapon which then can be used to fulfill its desire to "wipe Israel off the face of the map".
What is President Obama going to do about it? Talk?
What do you think Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel is going to do about it - especially if all President Obama will do is talk? Sit on his rump and wait for his country to be vaporized?
There are very, very dangerous times. And they are not helped by a tra-la-la vision of talking things out with people who don't talk things out.
A criticism heard during the early years of the Bush administration was that the media were ''in the tank'' for Bush, fearing to question his foreign and domestic policies in the aftermath of 9/11 because of his then-high approval numbers and concern that they would be labeled unpatriotic.
Such fears have evaporated with the advent of the Obama administration. The intensity of media worship and slavish devotion by more journalists to President Obama and his policies has risen to what one might expect from members of a cult.
On MSNBC, Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said of the president: ''. . . in a way, Obama's standing above the country, above -- above the world. He's sort of God.'' Speaking of Ronald Reagan, Thomas said he was ''all about America'' [and] Obama is 'we are above that now. We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial.' '' When was the last time you heard an American president faulted for putting America first?
This religious-like faith in Obama has led the media not to question much of what he does. He claims that his stimulus plan has ''saved or created'' 150,000 jobs and that ''stimulus II'' will ''save or create'' 600,000 jobs this summer. How does government ''save'' a job and how does one measure such a claim? In January, before taking office, the president said 90 percent of the new jobs he would create would be in the private sector. The media have yet to ask him why that promise has not yet been fulfilled.
Last March, the president visited Columbus, Ohio and announced that 25 police jobs were being saved because of his stimulus bill. According to CNN, ''without the money, the officers never would have hit the streets. They were to be laid off before their first day of patrol, victims of city budget cuts.'' The influx of federal stimulus money, however, has done little to solve the city's budget crisis. Columbus voters will decide in August whether to approve a tax increase. If they refuse, city officials may have to lay off 324 police officers. That would be a net loss of about 299 jobs. Don't look for the media to headline that outcome, should it occur, as they trumpeted the original ''job-saving'' announcement.
Commenting (reporting is a lost art) on Obama's D-Day speech at Normandy, Chip Reid of CBS News said Obama ''hopes to create a world where there never has to be another D-Day.'' Who told Reid that? And why didn't Reid ask how Obama intends to bring that about and what makes such an effort different from, say, the failed League of Nations and failing United Nations?
NBC's Brian Williams recently hosted an Inside the Obama White House special. As the conservative Media Research Center has noted, even liberal Bill Moyers couldn't take the sugar rush: ''NBC News this week delivered a candygram to the president -- two primetime specials called Inside the Obama White House. President Obama couldn't have asked for a sweeter salute . . .'' Perhaps what gave Moyers a toothache was this statement by Williams, ``People react strongly to this president. We've seen people moved to tears after just the briefest encounter with him.''
The danger in such hero worship is that this president (or any politician) might begin to believe his own press. A president who hears nothing but praise is likely to be less cautious and more enamored with himself. He could be tempted to think, if not actively, than passively, that he is, like Caesar, a ''god,'' above all others in ability and accountability.
It is neither in the interest of the country, nor the president, for the public and the media to treat President Obama as a messianic deliverer.
I recently saw two bumper stickers on the same car. One said, ''Obama '08'' and the other ''Question Authority.'' Surveys have shown most in the mainstream media supported Obama's election. Too many journalists have forfeited their responsibility by failing to question his authority, losing what little remains of their credibility, not to mention readers and viewers. The public is losing its right to be told the truth. There are houses for worship. Newsrooms ought not to be one of them.
What an excellent piece - and sorry commentary - on media's love affair with President Obama and its consequences for the way they report news.
What we need is neutral media, just as willing to report the negatives of a politician as the positives. But we don't have it.
What we don't need is media falling all over themselves to prove their love for a politician, to the point of looking the other way at his distortions and overt lies. That, sad to say, is what we do have.
When do they wake up? When do they start acting like journalists instead of members of a fan club? Ever?
Earlier this week, david letterman made some unseemly, tasteless jokes about Governor Sarah Palin and her daughter. Among his gems of humor were that Ms. Palin looks like a slutty flight attendant*** and that her daughter (a 14 year old) got knocked up during the 7th inning of the Yankee game they attended together.
This pathetic verbal vomit is what passes for humor on the letterman show. And, lamentably, there are plenty of people who think it is clever and witty.
When Sarah Palin went on the Today show to talk about this disgrace, instead of neutrally interviewing her Matt Lauer went after Ms. Palin with a degree of malevolence you will never see him use for a Democrat. Palin made mincemeat of him.
Now we come to keith olbermann.
I don't know what olbermann said about this before last night. But I watched last night's segment on Palin just now (MSNBC proudly puts it up for you, and - at least on the day I'm posting this - you can see it by clicking here).
If you didn't think olbermann was a nasty, obnoxious, shameless twerp before, this should seal the deal for you.
-Olbermann starts off by listing out a bunch of adjectives to describe Sarah Palin. He calls her: sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, exploitative, undignified, pedantic, childish, self-inflating, insipid, backwards, embarrassing, overreactive, overreaching...yammering". A nice start to this hard-hitting journalistic report. Very evenhanded.
-olbermann then says that Palin"...returned to national television to exploit her own daughters...". In other words, defending her daughter (not daughters, keith, only one was attacked by letterman) is exploiting her daughter. Yeah, ok, sure.
"...pursuing a bizarre and unwinnable vendetta..." letterman attacks both Palin and her daughter - and, by responding to his crude insults Palin is engaging in a vendetta? That's just brilliant.
-"...against a TV figure who has already apologized..." I watched letterman's entire commentary the night he "apologized", and he did not apologize at all. Not once in his comments did he say "I apologize", "I'm sorry" or "I regret..." letterman did however whine about how put upon he was to have to explain his Palin jokes (e.g. looking ruefully at the audience and saying "Yeah, think about getting yourself a talk show"). Poor baby.
Further, the audience was laughing and applauding throughout his comments. But not one time did letterman say any version of "I can't stop you from laughing, but I'm serious about this". He just accepted the laughter and applause. Yep, that's some apology.
-"...and who is several times more popular than she is" The "she is" part is said with an emphatic air of finality, apparently to communicate that if letterman is more popular than Palin (a very questionable premise) this somehow means she shouldn't defend herself and her 14 year old daughter against letterman's vicious, personal attacks on them.
Folks, that was just the first two sentences of olbermann's segment. If you want more, go to the MSNBC site and watch it for yourself. Believe me it continues at this level, and even lower. You'll hear olbermann - incredibly - call letterman the victim. And a lot more.
keith olbermann is a disgrace and MSNBC is a disgrace for airing his one-side-only rants.
I'd say MSNBC should be punished for having olbermann represent the network during prime time (or any time). But since olbermann, after all these years, still hovers at about one-third the viewership of Bill O'Reilly, the rival he so pathologically hates, I guess he is his own punishment.
***The "top 10 lists I am seeing on various web sites indicate he said "slutty flight attendant", not "slutty stewardess". My initial recollection was that he said "stewardess" instead, and vaguely remember someone commenting, the next day, that his use of the word "stewardess" was outdated - that term is no longer used. But I have found two sites with a video of the list being read, and apparently "flight attendant" is, in fact what letterman said.
Of coure, this has no bearing on my comments, since it is no less insulting to say that Sarah Palin looks like a "slutty flight attendant". But I strive to be accurate, as much as david letterman strives to be vicious and tasteless.
TWO VIEWS ON PRESIDENT OBAMA'S OUTREACH TO MUSLIMS
Ken Berwitz
If you want to consider two thoughtful views on how President Obama is trying to connect with, and presumably redirect, Muslim culture, this is about as good as it gets.
Here is Paul Mirengoff's very useful opinion, and a link to Charles Krauthammer's column which, as always, is brilliant. Mirengoff and Krauthammer are partly in agreement but, as you will see, they do differ in key aspects as well.
Charles Krauthammer rips President Obama for "the moral equivalencies and self-flagellating apologetics" of his Muslim outreach rhetoric. Among other examples, Krauthammer cites these:
On religious tolerance, he gently referenced the Christians of Lebanon and Egypt, then lamented that the "divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence" (note the use of the passive voice). He then criticized (in the active voice) Western religious intolerance for regulating the wearing of the hijab -- after citing America for making it difficult for Muslims to give to charity.
Obama offered Muslims a careful admonition about women's rights, noting how denying women education impoverishes a country -- balanced, of course, with "meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."
Krauthammer concludes:
Creating false equivalencies is not moral leadership, but moral abdication. And hovering above it all, above country and history, is a sign not of transcendence but of a disturbing ambivalence toward one's own country.
I think that Krauthammer, to some extent, is misunderstanding what Obama is up to here. Obama is trying, as President Bush did, to induce Muslims to modify their ways on issues such as religious tolerance and women's rights. He believes he will have more success with this project if he acknowledges that the U.S. is also imperfect in these areas. This is a familiar rhetorical device; there may even be a Greek name for it.
Greek name or not, Obama is quite misguided to think he can "jawbone" Muslims into being more tolerant . And Obama's confession of Western error will hurt rather than help. Muslims in his audience who are not already disposed in favor of the reforms he urges will ignore the critique of Muslim society and hear only the part about America's ills. Thus, anti-Americanism will be reinforced.
But it is unfair, I think, to argue that Obama is drawing moral equivalencies or that he is not seeking to advance American interests. Our interests would be greatly served If Obama could pursuade Muslims to become more moderate and more tolerant. The real problem is what Krauthammer correctly describes as Obama's messianism, which allows him to believe that his words can bring this about.
TAKE THE 'R' TRAIN TO 14TH ST, AND TRANSFER TO MATERNITY...
Ken Berwitz
From CBS News, New York:
Baby Born On NYC Mass Transit For 2nd Straight Day
Passenger Plays Doctor As Brooklyn Bus Becomes Makeshift Delivery Room Friday After 'R' Train Childbirth On Thursday
Believed To Be Nation's First Back-To-Back Mass Transit Births
(6/12/2009)
For the second day in a row a newborn girl has been born on New York City's mass transit system.
A Brooklyn bus became a makeshift delivery room on Friday morning. A woman passenger helped the mother deliver the baby that just couldn't wait to come aboard.
Paramedics took the new mother and baby to a hospital. Their names were not released.
On Thursday, conductor Bretta Sykes helped a mother deliver a girl in a subway car. The mother of two says she used information from her own chilbirth classes to coach the woman through her seven-minute delivery.
A New York City Transit spokesman says it could be the system's first consecutive births on a subway train and a bus.
Sykes was waiting for an incoming train in lower Manhattan on Thursday afternoon when a woman in a subway train at the station went into active labor.
The conductor and mother of two says she used information from her own childbirth classes to coach the woman through her seven-minute delivery.
Sykes says the emerging newborn girl just slid right into her hand.
A passenger in the subway car took out her cell phone and recorded the birth — which landed on the local evening news.
Transit officials say mother and child are doing well at a hospital. Their names were not released.
The last mass transit birth was a girl born on a Manhattan subway platform last June.
MTA subways, buses, and railroads provide 2.6 billion trips to New Yorkers annually.
I had a friend who swore that when his wife was overdue with their child, he induced her labor by driving down Pennsylvania Avenue in Brooklyn between Linden Boulevard and the Belt Parkway. The road was so uneven that she bounced around enough to break water.
Well, they fixed that road some years ago. So maybe mass transit is the new way to do it.
I hope both sets of moms and children are doing fine. And don't let them make you pay an extra fare for the kid!!
It turns out that Chris Dodd, the Senator from Connecticut with as rich a history of scandal as just about anyone in that body (e.g. his involvement in Enron, his involvement in the sub-prime mess, the fact that he personally inserted the language of the "stimulus package" that allowed those AIG executives those big bonuses, etc.), has another scandal.
That's like saying that the Pacific Ocean gained more water.
Here are excerpts from a story in today's Hartford Courant which tell the tale. The bold print is mine:
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES
In Financial Disclosure Forms, Dodd's Irish Cottage Jumps In Value
By DAVE ALTIMARI and DANIELA ALTIMARI | The Hartford Courant
June 13, 2009
A new appraisal of the Irish cottage owned by Sen. Christopher Dodd concludes that it is worth about three times as much as Dodd has been reporting on his financial disclosure forms.
The new value of the cottage, on Inishnee island in CountyGalway, is $658,000, according to Dodd's 2008 financial disclosure form released Friday.
The two-page appraisal was done by the same man who did the original one in 2002 when the 1,200-square-foot cottage was valued at about $190,000.
The new appraisal comes two years into a historic crash in property values in Ireland, which suggests that it might have been worth even more in recent years when Dodd never reported its value at more than $250,000 in annual Senate financial disclosures.
Dodd's new disclosure form also shows that his wife, Jackie Clegg Dodd, has received compensation from three of the four health care companies on whose boards she sits.
Clegg Dodd is on the boards of Brookdale Senior Living, Cardiome Pharma Corp., Javelin Pharmaceuticals and Pear Tree Pharmaceuticals, although she did not receive any income from Pear Tree, a Cambridge, Mass.-based firm that is developing drugs for aging women.
Dodd will play a key role in shaping health care policy as the No. 2 Democrat on the Senate's Committee On Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Committee Chairman Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., is being treated for brain cancer and has deputized Dodd to lead the charge for health care reform in his absence.
Republicans have accused Dodd of having a conflict of interest because his wife serves on the boards of health care and pharmaceutical firms.
The disclosure forms do not require Dodd to list specifically how much Jackie Clegg Dodd received from her various directorships, only that she received more than $1,000 for each.
However, Clegg Dodd was compensated at a rate of about $500,000 a year in 2007 and 2008 from seats on five corporate boards, according to the most recent filings by the companies to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. Dodd's office said that her annual compensation was actually about $400,000.
How malodorous does this get?
Dodd grossly underestimates the value of an asset in his disclosure forms (maybe he learned that from charles rangel, the equally corrupt house member who chairs the Ways and Means Committee), and he is now the point guy on legislation involving his wife's $400,000 - $500,000 a year income (why does she sit on those boards, other than because her husband is a powerful senator?).
Apparently, the Democratic Party (which joined in censuring Dodd's father when he was the Senator from Connecticut) won't do a thing about this. But Dodd is up for re-election next year - maybe the voters there will finally come to their senses about Dodd.
From the invaluable www.sweetness-light.com we have this latest example of the Chavezing of the United States under Barack Obama. The bold print is mine:
What’s behind Obama’s sudden attempt to fire the AmeriCorps inspector general?
By: Byron York 06/11/09
Some strange and potentially suspicious events tonight concerning the Obama White House and the AmeriCorps program. I’ve been told that on Wednesday night the AmeriCorps inspector general, Gerald Walpin, received a call from the White House counsel’s office telling him that he had one hour to either resign or be fired. The White House did not cite a reason. "The answer that was given was that it’s just time to move on," one Senate source told me tonight. "The president would like to have someone else in that position."
Inspectors General are part of every federal department. They are given the responsibility of independently investigating allegations of waste, fraud, and corruption in the government, without fear of interference by political appointees or the White House. Last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which added new protections for IGs, including a measure requiring the president to give Congress 30 days prior notice before dismissing an IG. The president must also give Congress an explanation of why the action is needed. Then-Sen. Barack Obama was one of the co-sponsors of the Act.
Now, there is the hurried attempt to dismiss Walpin, without the required notice or cause. After last night’s call, Walpin got in touch with Congress, and it appears the White House has backed off, at least for now. This afternoon, Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, who is something of a guardian angel for inspectors general, fired off a letter to the White House about the affair.
"I was troubled to learn that last night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated," Grassley wrote. "As you know, Inspectors General were created by Congress as a means to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and to be independent watchdogs ensuring that federal agencies were held accountable for their actions. Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure. This independence is the hallmark of all Inspectors General and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny."
Grassley said he was "deeply troubled" by the Walpin matter and closed by asking the president "to review the Inspector General Reform Act you cosponsored and to follow the letter of the law should you have cause to remove any Inspector General."
UPDATE 1: I’ve been trying to discover the real reason for Obama’s move, and it’s still not clear. I’m told that it could be a combination of the normal tensions that surround any inspector general’s office, or the president’s desire to get his own people in IG positions, or a dispute over a particular investigation. "Bottom line," one source wrote, "getting rid of a tough, Republican-appointed IG who has been aggressively going after waste and fraud gives Obama a chance to replace that IG with a more compliant team player."
I’m also told that a number of inspectors general around the government have been expressing concerns to Congress recently about threats to their independence.
UPDATE 2: More information now, from the Associated Press. The White House is going ahead with firing Walpin. The firing apparently stems from Walpin’s investigation of a non-profit group, St.HOPEAcademy, run by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California (and a big Obama supporter). "[Walpin] found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car," the AP reports. In April, the U.S. attorney declined to file any criminal charges in the matter and criticized Walpin’s investigation. But at the same time Johnson and St. HOPE agreed to repay about half of the $850,000 it had received from AmeriCorps.
Bottom line: The AmeriCorps IG accuses prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money. Prominent Obama supporter has to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. Obama fires AmeriCorps IG.
Notice that this information has been presented in an editorial.
Our watchdog media didn’t report it.
They are too busy presenting their editorials as news.
The sweetness-light.com piece goes on to cite an Associated Press dispatch on the Walpin firing. Among its key points:
-Obama’s move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star.
-The IG found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.
-The U.S. attorney’s office reached a settlement in the matter. Brown cited press accounts that said Johnson and the nonprofit would repay half of nearly $850,000 in grants it received.
This is hugo chavez in action. Systematically remove the opposition, and the hell with laws or that silly multi-party stuff.
House Health-Care Bill to Include $600 Billion in Tax Increases
By Laura Litvan
June 12 (Bloomberg) -- Health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said.
Democrats will work on the bill’s details next week as they struggle through “what kind of heartburn” it will cause to agree on how to pay for revamping the health-care system, Rangel, a New York Democrat, said today. He also said the measure’s cost will reach beyond the $634 billion President Barack Obama proposed in his budget request to Congress as a down payment for the policy changes.
Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion, Rangel said, “the answer is yes.”
House Democrats plan to release their legislation
We deserve this.
We elected a hard-left President absolutely unqualified to hold the office, in 100 miles over his head, whose entire adult life has consisted of spending huge amounts of other people's money.
And we handed him a lopsidedly Democratic congress in which the hard left a) rules and b) is largely obeisant to the moveon.org crowd.
When that is who you elect, this is what happens.
So now, not content with the trillions upon trillions of dollars in additional debt that is literally bankrupting what's left of this country, Obama and his congress will now add another trillion in debt to ruin our health care system. What the hell, if you're spending money you don't have, spend lots of it.
We have a year and a half before we can do something about this, and even then we won't be able to rid ourselves of Obama, only some of his congress. It can't come too soon.
I just checked CBS' web site. It has tons of promotional and fan-oriented material on david letterman and you can see his entire commentary (not apology - he didn't apologize for a thing) about Sarah and Willow Palin.
But there is no statement about letterman's vile, vicious, offensive hurtful and eminently unfunny attacks and the Palins.
Did CBS have anything to say about don imus' calling the Rutgers woman's basketball team a bunch of "nappy ho's"? You bet it did.
But one of its own does a disgusting hit job on Sarah Palin and her 14 year old daughter, saying the mother looks like a slut and the daughter was "knocked up" at Yankee stadium, not to mention an anti-Semitic implication that their only understanding of Jews is what Mel Gibson thinks of them, and all you hear from CBS is the sound of silence.
Politico.com's Ben Smith (writing at The New Republic's web site), has a short, very well thought out position on james von brunn, the human colostomy bag who shot up the holocaust museum, killing one of its guards:
"...he's so far out to the right that he seems to despise most of what we consider the right: The Washington, D.C. Fox News Affiliate reports that his notebooks included "a Fox News location" among potential targets. That could also be coherent with an extreme Buchananite, but it's far enough out that it seems silly to suggest he's really an "extreme" version of, say, a Fox News Republican, rather than the product of an ideology with different roots.
I especially agree with the comparison to buchanan - who I find objectionable and then some. Like von brunn, buchanan has several extreme right views, but also is way to the left on other issues (e.g. he's an isolationist and his positions on tariffs with other countries is loved to death by unions).
I could live very nicely without either of those two.
Will you teach your son to talk about women and girls the way you talk about Sarah Palin and her daughters?
You called the married 45-year-old mother, grandmother and Alaska governor a "slutty flight attendant" on your national TV talk show because she happens to be a tall, beautiful and dynamic public figure who doesn't look, walk or talk the way you think she should.
You joked on national television about Palin's teenage daughter "getting knocked up" by professional baseball player Alex Rodriguez or solicited by the prostitute-addicted former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer because it's acceptable in your social and professional circles to sneer at the children of politicians you despise.
You admitted that your attacks on Palin's family were in "poor taste," but cackled while acknowledging your sophomoric judgment.
You expressed moral indignation at being misconstrued, yet you purposely omitted the name of the daughter you were mocking.
Fourteen-year-old Willow Palin was the daughter who accompanied Gov. Palin on her trip this week, not 18-year-old Bristol Palin, whom you now claim was the target of your feckless smear -- a smear you still insist is perfectly defensible. Look at yourself, Dave. Look at how lame your excuse-making was on your Wednesday night show:
"These are not jokes made about her 14-year-old daughter. I would never, never make jokes about raping or having sex of any description with a 14-year-old girl. I mean, look at my record. It has never happened. I don't think it's funny. I would never think it was funny. I wouldn't put it in a joke..."
Tell us, great comic genius, how tacking on four years to the target daughter makes it funny? We unenlightened dim bulbs who live outside of Manhattan's boundaries don't get the joke.
Will you be able to explain it to your son?
Face it: David Letterman, late-night entertainer turned partisan hack and hit man, has a deranged obsession with Palin and her family that has crossed into rank bigotry and hatred. If the CBS network cares about basic standards of decency on public airwaves and if it cares at all about bolstering its shrinking audience, the network honchos will get Letterman a therapist pronto.
Over the past year, Letterman has displayed his sexist, elitist stripes in jibe after jibe aimed at Palin. Taken cumulatively, Letterman's mockery is about much more than expressing contempt for the popular GOP governor. It's a handy device to deride a broad class of working-class and middle-class women he holds in contempt:
"You know, she reminds me, she looks like the flight attendant who won't give you a second can of Pepsi. No, you've had enough. We're landing. Looks like the waitress at the coffee shop who draws a little smiley face on your check. Have a nice day."
"She looks like the dip sample lady at Safeway. She looks like the nurse who weighs you and then makes you sit alone in your underwear for 20 minutes. She looks like the Olive Garden hostess who says, 'I'm sorry, your table isn't ready yet.' She looks like the infomercial lady who says she made $64,000 a month flipping condos."
"She looks like the lady at the bakery who yells out '44! 45!' She looks like a real estate agent whose picture you see on the bus stop bench. That's who she looks like. She looks like the lady who has a chain of cupcake stores."
In November 2008, Letterman told tanking CBS News anchor Katie Couric that he was "aroused" by Palin. In March 2009, Letterman attacked Bristol and snickered about her being "knocked up" again.
Letterman reminds me of the lecher at the school bus stop. Or the aging creep lurking in the dirty magazine section at the 7-Eleven.
Attention, CBS: Get him help now.
Thank you, Michelle. That is about as good an answer as it can be.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says he has lost confidence in the inspector general who investigates AmeriCorps and other national service programs and has told Congress he is removing him from the position.
Obama's move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star.
This, I am truly sorry to say, is not an isolated incident. It is the latest in a series of chavez-like moves.
When do our wonderful "neutral" media wake up? Just before it's their turn to get the chavez treatment - at which point it will be too late? Or ever?
Here is an excerpt from a blog by Adam Brickley at www.conservatives4palin.com. He picked up on a facet of david letterman's disgusting comments about Sarah Palin that I did not know about (I don't watch letterman and didn't actually see the top-ten list on Palin, I only knew about crudities aimed at the way she looks and her daughter being "knocked up")
I realize I'm a bit late to the outrage over David Letterman's vomit-inducing anti-Palin 'jokes', but trust me I have been watching - and the coverage here has been spectacular. That said, there is one other angle to this story which I am surprised is not getting more coverage. This little joke is rightly overshadowed by the outrage over Letterman's perverted sexual 'humor', but I cannot let this issue die without going back to item #3 from the "Top 10 Highlights of Sarah Palin's Trip to New York":
3. Finally met one of those Jewish people Mel Gibson's always talking about
Maybe I'm a little oversensitive about these things, but as both a Palin supporter and a practitioner of Judaism...well...Let's just say that I would tell you how I felt, but that would require me to use a long string of Yiddish profanity and this is a family friendly site.
In my opinion, Letterman was out of line here on three fronts. First, he is assuming that we all get the joke - as if we all assume that people not from the East or WestCoasts are bigoted, xenophobic anti-Semites. Unfortunately for Dave, the idea that such comments are funny is actually limited to the elitist circles in which he apparently runs.
Second, he assumes that it's funny to joke about anti-Semitism - and it's not. Frankly, I found this joke about as funny as the time somebody (knowing my religion) asked me what the difference between a pot roast and a Jew is (the answer being that that the pot roast doesn't scream when you put it in the oven).
And finally, I would think that he owes Alaska's Jewish community an apology for just assuming that they don't exist (and yes, I know there are Jews in Alaska, because I distinctly remember Gov. Palin having a bill signing at a synagogue last year). Listen, I grew up in Colorado, so I will admit that Western Jewish communities are much smaller than those on the coasts - but I can guarantee you that there are Jews all over the country, and people meet them all of the time. Frankly, the assertion that an Alaskan - or any other rural American - has never met a Jew is ridiculous, and the fact that Letterman even thought about cracking that joke is evidence that he lives in a New York bubble.
For the record, Sarah Palin is a staunch, outspoken supporter of Israel. And david letterman is even smaller than what I thought before reading this - which is a major accomplishment.
One more thing: I'm still waiting for CBS to say something about his disgusting comments. If they have, I didn't see it.
And I'm also waiting for all the groups, and political web sites, that had a collective cow when don imus called the Rutgers female basketball team a bunch of "nappy-headed ho's". I guess saying that a Governor and Vice Presidential candidate looks like a "slutty flight attendant" and joking that her 14 year old daughter was part of a statutory rape is just fine......as long as they're Republicans, that is.
For years and years we have heard that Limbaugh did just that. And now this accusation is again in the news as some kind of answer to david letterman's insult of 14 year old Willow Palin (and her mother, Governor Palin). The premise seems to be along the lines that "yeah, ok, letterman did what he did, but your guy, Rush Limbaugh did it too so what's your problem"?
But did he?
Here is a very interesting -and very informative - piece by Noel Sheppard of www.newsbusters.org that says otherwise. It is particularly worthwhile because Sheppard has added the verbatim transcript of Limbaugh's alleged insult to Chelsea Clinton.
Take a look, read the transcript, and decide for yourself (Limbaugh's verbatim comments are in blue):
NOW Bashes Limbaugh While Putting Letterman in Hall of Shame
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive) June 12, 2009 - 10:22 ET
In a fine example of liberal hypocrisy, the National Organization for Women placed "Late Show" host David Letterman in its Media Hall of Shame Thursday, and took the opportunity to bash conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.
In its admonishment of Letterman's now infamous jokes about Sarah Palin and one of her daughters, NOW oddly felt the need to balance their indignation with a reference to an incident from Rush's television show back in the '90s.
Not surprisingly, NOW misrepresented what transpired back then.
But before we get there, here's NOW on Letterman (h/t Hot Air):
Comedians in search of a laugh should really know better than to snicker about men having sex with teenage girls (or young women) less than half their age.
The sexualization of girls and women in the media is reaching new lows these days -- it is exploitative and has a negative effect on how all women and girls are perceived and how they view themselves. Letterman also joked about what he called Palin's "slutty flight attendant look" -- yet another example of how the media love to focus on a woman politician's appearance, especially as it relates to her sexual appeal to men. Someone of Letterman's stature, who appears on what used to be known as "the Tiffany Network" (CBS), should be above wallowing in the juvenile, sexist mud that other comedians and broadcasters seem to prefer.
Sounds good, right? Unfortunately, the liberals at NOW felt the need to rehash something from the early '90s in order to bash Limbaugh and conservatives:
On that point, it's important to note that when Chelsea Clinton was 13 years old she was the target of numerous insults based on her appearance. Rush Limbaugh even referred to her as the "White House dog." NOW hopes that all the conservatives who are fired up about sexism in the media lately will join us in calling out sexism when it is directed at women who aren't professed conservatives.
Isn't that special? Couldn't just chastise a fellow liberal without bringing up a conservative?
But that's not the most disgraceful aspect, for Limbaugh never referred to Chelsea as the White House dog. Here's how the Lying Liar website explained what really happened back then:
On his TV show in 1992, a few days after the Presidential election, Rush Limbaugh was reviewing In/Out lists (a popular fad at the time):
In today’s New York Daily News right here… it’s the obligatory in-out list. Every time there’s a massive change somewhere, people are in, people are out. I’m now out. It says about me on here, Rush Limbaugh, loud-mouthed conservative and Bush favorite. He’s out.
Rush commented that most of the other things on the days’ list were not funny, but that “one of them in particular” was. Rush quoted from the David Hinckley article
“In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.”
Could– could we see the cute kid? Let’s take a look at– see who is the cute kid in the White House.
A picture of the “cute dog” (Millie) appeared on the screen instead of the “cute kid” (Chelsea).
Rush immediately said
No, no, no. That’s not the kid.
Then a picture of Chelsea Clinton came on the screen and Rush said
That’s– that’s the kid.
Rush apologized several times and told a story about how he had learned early in his career the importance of not making fun of someone’s appearance. He then apologized again and said
I’m– I hope you will forgive me. I’m fatigued. I’m tired…
Before breaking to a commercial, Rush asked the audience what he could do to make amends for the incident and, in an odd, spontaneous joke, proceeded to spank himself. [...]
Rush has always maintained the incident was an accident. On his show four days later, Rush offered an explanation to his audience. First, the show played, “Who’s sorry now” in the background and Limbaugh pointed to himself. Then he said:
Ladies and gentlemen, I’m sorry. Let me tell you very quickly what happened last Friday night. There was a new in list and new out list that was published in the newspaper. The writer said in, cute kid in the White House; out, cute dog in the White House. Could we show the cute dog in the White House who’s out, and they put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton back in the crew. And many of you people think that we did it on purpose to make a cheap comment on her appearance. And I’m terribly sorry. I don’t–look, that takes no talent whatsoever and I have a lot of talent. I don’t need to get laughs by commenting on people’s looks, especially a young child who’s done nothing wrong. I mean, she can’t control the way she looks. And we really–we do not–we do not do that on this kind of show. So put a picture up of her now and so we can square this.
They then showed the picture of Chelsea Clinton. She had a displeased look on her face, as if to show that she was not too happy with the mistake.
Rush continued:
All right. We’re sorry. We didn’t intend to hurt her feelings. We’ll be back with our final segment right after this. Don’t go away.
With this in mind, NOW should be applauded for admonishing Letterman, but place itself in its own Hall of Shame for bringing up and misrepresenting this episode.
First off, let's get our terms straight. The terms in question are "feud" and "attack":
-A feud is when two parties go after each other in a nasty and/or bitter and/or violent way
-An attack is when one party goes after another
With this in mind, I would like to tell you about Matt Lauer's interview of Governor Sarah Palin on this morning's Today Show.
I will begin by pointing out that Matt Lauer, both yesterday and today, referred to the letterman/Palin incident as a "nasty feud" or just "feud". The word "feud" implies that letterman and Palin are each going after the other. But the truth is that Palin did no such thing. It was letterman, out of nowhere, making crude, offensive, viciously insulting comments about Palin and her 14 year old daughter in front of millions of TV viewers.
That's not a feud, Matt. It's an attack. Learn the difference - or someone might think you're hopelessly biased against Sarah Palin and her family. They just might....
Now let's talk about the questions Lauer asked Ms. Palin:
The questioning had two parts - the first of them involved a 26 billion dollar natural gas pipeline that will wind up supplying the "lower 48". Lauer's questionning was not cream-puff and it was not neutral. He first challenged Palin by quoting disparaging remarks made about it by a Republican rival (who voted in favor of the pipeline, by the way). When this didn't fluster Palin, he then challenged the need for natural gas being pumped from Alaska to the rest of the country. Palin's answer was terrific (click here to see the entire interview).
That isn't what a neutral interviewer does, that is what an adversary does. Great job, Matt. Very professional.
Now Lauer moved on to the letterman "jokes" He started out by referring to them as "this feud". As I pointed out above, it isn't a feud -- and calling it one suggests an equality between letterman and Palin that did not exist in this situation (in other words, it is an outright lie).
Here is a video of this part of the interview (please note that whoever put this video up accuses Palin of distorting what letterman said --- watch the video and you'll realize how ridiculous and untrue that is):
Here are the questions Palin was asked and my take on them (If I were you I'd watch the video and read this simultaneously):
-Lauer first asked how Ms. Palin heard about letterman's comments "Were you watching, or did someone tell you about (letterman's comments)?
-Next, Lauer said that letterman did not mention Palin's daughter by name, and that he was not referring to her 14 year old daughter - the one Ms. Palin took to Yankee Stadium! What was the point of this half-baked defense of letterman? That's it's ok for him to compare Palin to a slut, as long as he's also doing the same for her 18 year old rather than her 14 year old? Pathetic.
-Next Lauer picked up on Palin's statement that a joke like this contributes to sexual exploitation of minors by older men. Lauer took on a patronizing, condescending tone and said"...it was a joke, it was probably by most standards in bad taste, but can you really connect the dots to criminal activity the way you did in that statement?"
Breathtaking. In just those few words Lauer's legitimized letterman's slimy, weaselly rationale (hey, it's just a joke), that it probably was in bad taste (which means maybe it wasn't) by most standards (by whose standards is that in good taste?) and, by his tone of voice, that Palin was wrong to connect it to "criminal activity" (i.e. older men sexually exploiting younger women: keep in mind that david letterman is 62 years old and Willow Palin is 14). What else do you need to know about Matt Lauer's "neutrality"?
-Lauer then stated that letterman offered to have her on the show so they could "hash things out". Hash what out? This wasn't some back-and-forth between the two of them which could be resolved, this was letterman acting like s sophomoric, boorish hate-filled pig.
Did Lauer challenge the ridiculous "hash this out" line? Nope, not at all.
Instead, he referenced Palin's written refusal to go on the show ("The Palins have no intention of providing a ratings boost for David Letterman by appearing on his show...plus it would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman") and challenged Palin to explain what the part about keeping Willow from letterman meant, by asking "I'd like you to explain what that meant. Are you suggesting that david letterman could not be trusted around a 14 year old girl........but is that not perhaps in bad taste also, Governor, if you're y'know, suggesting that a 62 year old man couldn't be trusted?
Un-effing-believable. Lauer literally tried to equate letterman's crudely offensive insults with a statement that it would be wise to keep the daughter letterman insulted away from him.
I could go on. But if you don't see the disrespect and condescension Lauer showed Palin and the dishonesty and tastelessness of his questions by now, you never will.
But listen to him squeal like a stuck pig if you call him biased.
Carrie Prejean was fired as Miss California - supposedly for breaching her contract (though I doubt anyone believes she did). I think we all sort of knew they were going to concoct a way of ridding themselves of her. After all, she had the temerity to state that she thought marriage was between one man and one woman. How dare Miss California have her own set of beliefs!
But there is a problem.....
The runner-up who takes Ms. Prejean's place, Tami Farrell, apparently has exactly the same views.
Tami Farrell, the newly crowned beauty queen who is replacing the ousted Carrie Prejean as Miss California, apparently holds the same view as her predecessor, Carrie Prejean, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Fox News host Neil Cavuto asked Farrell, who is Christian, on his show today:
"[Prejean] went out and said that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Do you share that view?"
Farrell responded in the affirmative with a simple, "Uh huh."
"You do, OK," said Cavuto.
Farrell quickly added: "I don't think that I have the right or anybody has a right to tell somebody who they can or can't love. And I think that this is a civil rights issue. And I think that the right thing to do is let the voters decide."
Californians voted in favor of marriage being between a man and a woman in the most recent election on the issue in the Proposition 8 measure.
Earlier in the interview, Cavuto asked, "Do you mind my asking you, Tami, how you feel, about gay marriage since this has been such a hot issue with your predecessor?"
Farrell's response: "You know, I think it's hilarious right now that the world is turning to beauty queens for the answers for this. I think it's an important issue and I think that it's one that I don't think I can win a battle. I don't want to be any more divisive than it's already become."
What are they going to do? Find a way to fire her too? Try to book a wrestling match between Farrell and perez hilton/mario lavandeira? (which I'm betting he'd lose)?
Maybe they should demand that Barack Obama resign as President, since he is on record as having exactly the same views as both Prejean and Farrell.
Apparently james von brunn - i.e. the White supremacist anti-Semitic, nazi loving sack of manure who shot up the holocaust museum and killed a guard there - used to post comments at www.freerepublic.com. And this is a great opportunity for some people to attack Free Republic as if von brunn's filth was in any way typical of the site.
I read Free Republic every day, and have for years. I often use material I see there in this blog. I even provide a link to the site, as you can see by looking to the right side of this page (don't get excited about it being "to the right", the left-wing links are also "to the right"). So I think I'm in a pretty good position to judge what it is all about.
My take on Free Republic is as follows:
-A lot of the posting is well to the right of where I am. That's fine, people are entitled to their opinions.
-I tend to be a social liberal who is more conservative in fiscal and foreign policy matters. Social liberalism is not the norm at Free Republic, but there are a good many people there who think the way I do, and if I chose to post comments there (I don't) they would be perfectly acceptable.
-Several people post "devotionals" each day. I am neither Christian nor particularly religious so I skip by them. There certainly is nothing wrong with people having such beliefs, which I respect as I hope they respect mine.
-I do not ever recall seeing an overtly White supremacist post at Free Republic. I assume this is because if anyone posted one, it would be removed in short order. If james von brunn ever posted garbage like that it wasn't there long enough for me to see it.
-I do not ever recall seeing an overtly anti-Semitic post at Free Republic. In fact, I find that good will toward Jews is very, very prevalent there, as is support for the state of Israel. I say this as a Jew and a strong supporter of Israel.
-I would also point out that the commenters on Free Republic tend to be significantly less nasty and intolerant than what I typically find at left wing sites, like crooksandliars.com (I'm singling crooksandliars out, but it ain't the only one - not by a long shot).
I have no doubt there are far right sites with vile posts and vile commenters, but Free Republic is not one of them.
I suspect that if von brunn did post on Free Republic, either he did not put up his anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, anti-Black vomit there or, if he did, it was quickly removed by whoever administers the site.
I strongly urge you to check this for yourself. Never take anyone's word for anything on the internet, mine included. If you do, I think you'll find that I am accurately portraying what is there.
When then-President George Bush appointed John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, the left did everything in its power to prevent him from taking that position. The only way he got it was temporarily August, 2005 to December, 2006) through a recess appointment.
Here, excerpted from the Wall Street Journal, is Mr. Bolton's assessment of the Iran/Israel issue. Read it and see just how intelligent, substantial and realistic Mr. Bolton is - and then join me in lamenting the fact that he was forced out:
JUNE 11, 2009
What If Israel Strikes Iran?
The mullahs would retaliate. But things would be much worse if they had the bomb.
So what would such an attack look like? Obviously, Israel would need to consider many factors -- such as its timing and scope, Iran's increasing air defenses, the dispersion and hardening of its nuclear facilities, the potential international political costs, and Iran's "unpredictability." While not as menacingly irrational as North Korea, Iran's politico-military logic hardly compares to our NATO allies. Central to any Israeli decision is Iran's possible response.
Israel's alternative is that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs reach fruition, leaving its very existence at the whim of its staunchest adversary. Israel has not previously accepted such risks. It destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 and a Syrian reactor being built by North Koreans in 2007. One major new element in Israel's calculus is the Obama administration's growing distance (especially in contrast to its predecessor).
Consider the most-often mentioned Iranian responses to a possible Israeli strike:
1) Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz. Often cited as Tehran's knee-jerk answer -- along with projections of astronomic oil-price spikes because of the disruption of supplies from Persian Gulf producers -- this option is neither feasible nor advisable for Iran. The U.S. would quickly overwhelm any effort to close the Strait, and Iran would be risking U.S. attacks on its land-based military. Direct military conflict with Washington would turn a bad situation for Iran -- disruption of its nuclear program -- into a potential catastrophe for the regime. Prudent hedging by oil traders and consuming countries (though not their strong suit, historically) would minimize any price spike.
2) Iran cuts its own oil exports to raise world prices. An Iranian embargo of its own oil exports would complete the ruin of Iran's domestic economy by depriving the country of hard currency. This is roughly equivalent to Thomas Jefferson's 1807 embargo on American exports to protect U.S. shipping from British and French interference. That harmed the U.S. far more than the Europeans. Even Iran's mullahs can see that. Another gambit with no legs.
3) Iran attacks U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some Tehran hard-liners might advocate this approach, or even attacks on U.S. bases or Arab targets in the Gulf -- but doing so would risk direct U.S. retaliation against Iran, as many U.S. commanders in Iraq earlier recommended. Increased violence in Iraq or Afghanistan might actually prolong the U.S. military presence in Iraq, despite President Barack Obama's current plans for withdrawal. Moreover, taking on the U.S. military, even in an initially limited way, carries enormous risks for Iran. Tehran may believe the Obama administration's generally apologetic international posture will protect it from U.S. escalation, but it would be highly dangerous for Iran to gamble on more weakness in the face of increased U.S. casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan.
4) Iran increases support for global terrorism. This Iranian option, especially stepping up world-wide attacks against U.S. targets, is always open. Assuming, however, that Mr. Obama does not further degrade our intelligence capabilities and that our watchfulness remains high, the terrorism option outside of the Middle East is extremely risky for Iran. If Washington uncovered evidence of direct or indirect Iranian terrorist activities in America, for example, even the Obama administration would have to consider direct retaliation inside Iran. While Iran enjoys rhetorical conflict with the U.S., operationally it prefers picking on targets its own size or smaller.
5) Iran launches missile attacks on Israel. Because all the foregoing options risk more direct U.S. involvement, Tehran will most likely decide to retaliate against the actual attacker, Israel. Using its missile and perhaps air force capabilities, Iran could do substantial damage in Israel, especially to civilian targets. Of course, one can only imagine what Iran might do once it has nuclear weapons, and this is part of the cost-benefit analysis Israel must make before launching attacks in the first place. Direct Iranian military action against Israel, however, would provoke an even broader Israeli counterstrike, which at some point might well involve Israel's own nuclear capability. Accordingly, Iran's Revolutionary Guards would have to think long and hard before unleashing its own capabilities against Israel.
6) Iran unleashes Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel. By process of elimination, but also because of strategic logic, Iran's most likely option is retaliating through Hamas and Hezbollah. Increased terrorist attacks inside Israel, military incursions by Hezbollah across the Blue Line, and, most significantly, salvoes of missiles from both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip are all possibilities. In plain violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, Iran has not only completely re-equipped Hezbollah since the 2006 war with Israel, but the longer reach of Hezbollah's rockets now endangers Israel's entire civilian population. Moreover, Hamas's rocket capabilities could easily be substantially enhanced to provide greater range and payload to strike throughout Israel, creating a two-front challenge.
Risks to its civilian population will weigh heavily in any Israeli decision to use force, and might well argue for simultaneous, pre-emptive attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas in conjunction with a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Obviously, Israel will have to measure the current risks to its safety and survival against the longer-term threat to its very existence once Iran acquires nuclear weapons.
This brief survey demonstrates why Israel's military option against Iran's nuclear program is so unattractive, but also why failing to act is even worse. All these scenarios become infinitely more dangerous once Iran has deliverable nuclear weapons. So does daily life in Israel, elsewhere in the region and globally.
For the remainder of Mr. Obama's term, uncertainty about his administration's support for Israel will continue to dog Israeli governments and complicate their calculations. Iran will see that as well, and play it for all it's worth. This is yet another reason why Israel's risks and dilemmas, difficult as they are, only increase with time.
What a knowledgeable man. What an analytical mind. What an asset.
What a loss for us when he was pressured out of the UN.
barney frank is so self-impressed, his ego so distended, that he keeps doing the same thing over and over again. He is asked a question, and then goes into filibuster mode, showing anger and resentment if he is in any way challenged on his filibuster. He lashes out at the person daring to regain a part of the conversation and then goes into a mega-snit.
In the case below, reported by Mark Finkelstein, he did the equivalent of picking up his marbles and going home.
It's a conversation, Barney, not a soliloquy . . .
Discussing the regulation of executive pay with CNBC's Mark Haines today, the testy liberal Dem from Massachusetts was affronted when Haines tried to get in a word edgewise.
Before long, Barney announced that the interview was over, and ripped off his earpiece. Unruffled, Haines got off a good last line: "Fine, goodbye sir. We'll manage without you." [Hat tip reader Chuck S.]
And if you think this shows frank up as a pompous, imperious jackass, you ought to see him chairing his committee with a gavel in his hand. Even worse. He's Harry Potter's draco malfoy.....without the charm, wit or tolerance.
But keep electing him, Newton MA. He's apparently your kinda guy.
Predictably, the holocaust-denying, nazi loving, White supremacist scumbag who opened fire at the holocaust museum yesterday was immediately tagged as a right winger. And people to the right, as a group, are supposed to owe some kind of apology for him.
Well, read this piece by Noel Sheppard at www.newsbusters.org and get a taste of reality. The bold print is mine:
HolocaustMuseum Killer Conservative? Not So Fast!
By Noel Sheppard June 11, 2009 - 12:33 ET
Not surprisingly, the Left and their media minions are accusing conservative talkers such as Rush Limbaugh for inciting Wednesday's shooting at the Holocaust Museum Memorial in Washington, D.C.
As NewsBusters' Geoffrey Dickens reported Wednesday, Salon editor-in-chief Joan Walsh was quick to point such an accusatory finger.
Yet, as FrontPage Magazine's Ben Johnson noted Thursday, the assailant was hardly conservative:
A review of his lengthy associations reveals Von Brunn hardly fits the stereotype of a Religious Right, GOP precinct captain. He denounced the Christian faith as a dastardly Jewish conspiracy, a “HOAX” invented by the Apostle Paul to “DESTROY ROMAN CULTURE” from within by undermining its pagan virility. (All screaming capitalization and grammatical errors in this piece appear in the original.) Like others on the racist fringe, the shooter proclaimed clearly: “SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West.”
Yesterday’s attack was Von Brunner’s second attempted strike. Police arrested him on December 7, 1981, after they found him prowling the Washington, D.C., offices of the Federal Reserve Bank posing as a journalist. Inside a bag slumped over his shoulder, they discovered a handgun, a shotgun, and a knife, which he claimed he would use to place then-Fed Chairman Paul Volcker under citizens’ arrest.[3] After being convicted, he tried to obtain help by contacting then-Admiral Jim Webb, now a Democratic U.S. Senator from Virginia, but Von Brunn claimed the postmaster “purloined” the letter. The New York Daily News reports after his release in 1989, Von Brunner “worked at a bookstore run by a Holocaust-denying group called the Institute of Historical Review,” then lived in Hayden Lake, Idaho – then the headquarters of the Aryan Nations.[4]
At some point, he settled in the Maryland area and decided to jump into the publishing game himself.
Von Brunn’s motivation leaps off every page of his self-published “book,” Kill the Best Gentiles, a title supposedly derived from secret Jewish instructions to slaughter the goyim. (You can download the first six chapters here.) Remarkably, his words have received little scrutiny, likely because of what they establish: the “right-wing terrorist” of the HolocaustMuseum is an anti-religious socialist.
Readers are encouraged to review Johnson's entire piece to get facts about the assailant most in the media will likely ignore.
So if we're supposed to blame Rush Limbaugh because von brunner is a right winger.....and it turns out that von brunner is an anti-Christian socialist.....who are we supposed to blame now? keith olbermann? Rachel Maddow? Ed Schultz? Those fun loving neutralists at dailykos.com or crooksandliars.com?
As this grisly story from the Times of London shows, when your number is up, baby, your number is up.
June 11, 2009
Woman who missed Flight 447 is killed in car crash
(Brazil Air Force/AP)
The remains of Flight 447 is still being recovered
Philippe Naughton
An Italian woman who arrived late for the Air France plane flight that crashed in the Atlantic last week has been killed in a car accident.
Johanna Ganthaler, a pensioner from Bolzano-Bozen province, had been on holiday in Brazil with her husband Kurt and missed Air France Flight 447 after turning up late at Rio de Janeiro airport on May 31.
All 228 people aboard lost their lives after the plane crashed into the Atlantic four hours into its flight to Paris.
The ANSA news agency reported that the couple had managed to pick up a flight from Rio the following day.
Here, between the brackets, is david letterman's apology to the Palin family for his disgusting, offensive, viciously personal hate-jokes about them: [ ]
The reason that space is blank is that Letterman did not apologize. He parlayed his disgusting, offensive, viciously personal hate-jokes into another round of sarcasm, coupled with a series of whiney "I'm the victim" lines. Here is the beginning of his segment, with letterman in maroon and my thoughts about what he said in blue. If you want to see the whole sorry spectacle, just click here:
Ladies and gentleman, I’m in so much trouble, because I’ll tell you why. The governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin is angry with me. Fuming. Angry. Seeing red and has called me pathetic. I admit I haven’t been called pathetic since the honeymoon. I won’t kid you I was feeling a little depressed when I heard the governor was mad at me and called me pathetic and to cheer myself up I went out and spent about $150k on clothes. I feel better now. (This is another attack on Palin, for the supposed $150,000 Republicans spent on getting her clothing during the campaign – most of which, we have been told, she was not expected to, nor did she, keep.Does that sound apologetic to you?) I feel a little better. I was thinking about this, great, my luck I pissed off a hunter. [Acts like he's shooting a gun.] There he is! Get him!(Commercial break)
(After the commercial break)Speaking of stupid human tricks …I got myself into – I just stepped into traffic the other day – and by the way as this story unfolds – it’s going to take some time so I hope you’re comfortable at home. Think about what’s happened here in the last couple of days. If you think you’d like to get yourself a talk show…letterman says this ruefully, as if being a talk show host is some kind of curse.He then mugs for the camera and his audience dutifully laughs along with him.Poor david, he’s the victim.
We were, as we often do, making jokes about people in the news and we made some jokes about Sarah Palin and her daughter and, uh, her daughter, the 18 y/o girl – her name is Bristol. So now they’re upset with me. Let me read to you how upset they are. I didn’t realize this till today. And keep in mind, I can’t really defend these, they’re just jokes.It’s just some jokes and I have to defend myself???Poor me, how put upon I am.
And some jokes are fine and some jokes are not fine and of course we make some mistakes left and right. But listen to how upset these people are about the jokes. And when I say these “people” I mean Gov Palin and her husband, Todd What a surprise that comparing Governor Palin to a “slutty stewardess” and saying her daughter was “knocked up” at Yankee stadium is upsetting to them. What’s wrong with the Palins anyway?
This is on their website – I gotta get me one of them websites. The audience laughs at this. There is funny here, pretty obviously, but it is his audience, so they’re laughing at anything).
This is Todd Palin’s: “Any ‘jokes’ about raping my 14-year-old are despicable. Alaskans know it, and I believe the rest of the world knows it, too.”
At this point Letterman looks up, mugs for the camera, and the audience – his people, let’s always remember – laughs along with him. Do you think this is funny?
He continues with a rueful tone:“Yeah, think about getting yourself a talk show”.Another whiney “I’m the victim” line, which his audience treats as a laugh riot.
The next statement is from the governor herself – who by the way is an absolutely lovely woman. The audience spontaneously laughs.They know that Sarah Palin is nothing other than a cheap joke to their hero. I would love to have her on the show. I think we can put these differences behind us.WHAT differences?This isn’t about some back-and-forth letterman and Palin had, this is about his vile personal insults aimed at her.The fact that letterman suggests any parity in this matter is incredibly self-serving and pathetic.
The next comment comes from Gov Palin:
Concerning Letterman’s comments about my young daughter, and I doubt he would ever dare make such comments about anyone else’s daughter. Laughter incited by sexually perverted comments made by a 62-year-old male celebrity — I am hardly a celebrity Letterman says he’s hardly a celebrity and his audience erupts into laughter. Why?Not because it is funny, it isn’t. Not because it is true, it’s not. But because the guy they sent away for tickets to see is the one saying it. They are his fans, and determined to prove they are with him.I’m 62, yes. Audience laughs and applauds.At what?That he admits to being 62 years old?These letterman-lovers are obviously going to roar approval for anything and everything he says. – aimed at a 14-year-old girl is not only disgusting, but it reminds us some Hollywood/NY entertainers have a long way to go in understanding what the rest of America understands: That acceptance of inappropriate sexual comments about an underage girl, who could be anyone’s daughter, contributes to the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others. (Audience laughter. Again; these people will laugh at anything if it’s letterman saying it.
Well. I completely agree with that. I absolutely, completely agree with that. That’s not what I did. Actually that is what you did, you whining liar.
What a whining, self-pitying, immature jerk this man is. The fact that he earns millions and millions of dollars a year to "perform" this way speaks volumes about what is wrong with this country.
Does letterman owe the Palins an apology? Yep. But he is far too snarky and egotistical to ever provide one. Hey, he is DAVID LETTERMAN, and way above the rest, the little people (I wonder how derisive he is about his audiences when those mikes are turned off) and even a Governor and her family.
But grow old waiting for any similar jokes about the Obamas.
UPDATE: Commenter Steve Schneider points out that when a a talking head on MSNBC (David Schuster) said the Clintons were "pimping Chelsea" during last year's campaign, he was suspended because of it. But CBS won't do a thing about david letterman "joking" that a baseball player "knocked up" Sarah Palin's adolescent daughter. They're all class, aren't they?
Pinocchio, Snow White, and Superman are out for a stroll in town one day. As they walked, they come across a sign: "Beauty contest for the most beautiful woman in the world."
"I am entering!" said Snow White. After half an hour she comes out and they ask her, "Well, how'd ya do?"
"First Place!" said Snow White.
They continue walking and they see a sign: "Contest for the strongest man in the world."
"I'm entering," says Superman. After half an hour, he returns and they ask him, "How did you make out?"
"First Place," answers Superman. "Did you ever doubt?"
They continue walking when they see a sign: "Contest! Who is the greatest liar in the world?" Pinocchio enters.
After half an hour he returns with tears in his eyes.
"What happened?" they asked.
"Who the hell is this Nancy Pelosi?" asked Pinocchio.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: INSULTS WORTHY OF 5TH GRADE RECESS.
Ken Berwitz
Every time I think the on air "talent" at MSNBC can't sink lower I'm proven wrong.
This time it is Mr. Underachiever himself, Chris Matthews (still third in cable news after all these years) personally insulting Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney based on their physical appearance. You can see the 30 second clip by clicking here, or just read the transcript below:
"It's not too cartoonish to describe Rush Limbaugh as sort of a walrus under water, that's what he talks like, woo woo woo, he's like a drowning walrus the way he talks, and then you've got Newt Gingrich is clearly a...well he looks like Mephistopheles and then this guy well, well, Cheney is a troll, so you've got a troll a walrus and the devil as your cartoon characters. Can't you guys find more attractive figures that the right might rally to?
Message to Chris Matthews:
-Rush Limbaugh has the most listened to radio show in this country and has been #1 for longer than anyone else in radio history.
-Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House and the architect of the Contract With America that catapulted Republicans to a 12 year run as the majority party.
-Dick Cheney was a congressman, secretary of defense, presidential chief of staff and two-time Vice President of the United States.
You, on the other hand, have had your cable talk show for years and years. Currently, of the three major cable news venues, you come in third to Fox and CNN at 5PM, and are sometimes second/sometimes third to Fox and CNN at 7PM. In both time slots Fox, in particular, makes mincemeat of you. Here are the latest data, from last night:
