“And that’s the way it is Friday, July 17th, 2009"

July 17, 2009

Mr Walter Cronkite died today at home surrounded by his family in his home. He was 92.

A man who earned the title “The Most Trusted Man in America” by understanding and respecting the difference between news and commentary:

Our job is only to hold up the mirror — to tell and show the public what has happened.

Here are some links.

Wonder if he got a chuckle dying on a Friday night?

BBC
CNN
CNN obit video
CBS
NPR
NY Times Swedish anchormen were called “Cronkiters”

(2003) Recounts JFK assassination – He had no idea he was going to tear up when he made the announcement.

That moment was purely extemporaneous in every sense of the way. I hadn’t planned to have a tear in my eye. I wouldn’t have thought of that. I would never have yielded to that if it had been a thought. I would have regretted if I had broken down and couldn’t have continued. The brief show of emotion is perfectly natural.

(2001) LARRY KING: How many days are there where you miss being on?

Every day. Not being on…I don’t miss being on the air. I miss being at the center of gravity where you’re getting these stories together, getting the broadcast together — really setting the agenda for people’s consideration. That’s an important job, and I miss that.

As for his wife, Betsy Maxwell, who he met in 1936, married in 1940 and loved until her passing in 2005:

She was one of the most beautiful people I ever saw in my life. I saw her for the first time … coming down the hall … and I fell in love before I ever knew her name, or what she did, or whether I would ever see her again in life.

“Uncle Walter”

Walter Leland Cronkite, Jr
(Nov 14, 1916 – July 17, 2009)

“There were many important stories in the those years that affected the course of mankind that I would like to have covered.”

Who exists to do his justice?

Man charged, incited by Obama-Hitler mustache sign

July 1, 2009

I wonder how many times a day that evil man’s name is said?

Did you wonder which one I was referring to?

AH of course.

A 66 y/o man in Highland Park (suburb far north of barry’s mansion) goes to the local post office. He sees a man and woman from Chicago holding up signs depicting barry with a AH mustache. (Not clear if AH’s name was also on the sign). They were protesting barry’s healthcare plan. The man has words with the couple and then leaves. Protesters go to local police station and allege the man made a threatening statement. Police call man – he returns – says he was agitated by the sign because he has relatives who in the Holocaust — Highland Park has a sizeable Jewish Community. The protesters decide to press charges and the man is charged with disorderly conduct and given a court date.

Why?

Source: Chicago’s Breaking News Robert Channick

Tarpley: "Obama is a world tragedy in the making"

April 5, 2009

Interview with Webster Tarpley, who is a historian and author. He’s written about the world economic crisis, terrorism, 911, George Bush 1, essays on history. Wrote two books about barry: Obama, The Postmodern Coup, The Making of a Manchurian Candidate. Second book: Unauthorized Biography of Obama.

DISCLAIMER: I have no personal knowledge of who he is or what he does or anything else. I am not promoting anything he says - I found it interesting and am providing it as information only.

There’s the videos and then a written interview below it.

“The Men Behind Obama”

Interview by DeepJournal in MAY 2008

Part 1

200nmo

Some of his words - He think Brzezinski is the main player in everything. And it doesn’t sound like it is a personal vendetta - bu I don’t know who he is.

barry is a servant of finance capital and can deliver Europe as a pawn as puppets as expendable assets.

Wars on a greater scale - Zbigniew Brzezinski says center of power in the world is in Moscow and Beijing and he’s determined to smash Russia and China in order to let the US/UK world domination for the UK/USA next 100 years. He wants to use Iran against Russia. Make a deal with Syria against Russia.

People in Europe had better wake up because that silly romantic illusion they have about Obama is going to be suicidal for them if they don’t understand this.

Puppet of finance capitol of the David Rockfeller and George Soros impoverishment of the US. [two of barry's staunch supporters]

Theirs is extreme austerity.

Plan to have a global showdown with Russia and China so they need left cover.

Puppet of the worst circles of imperialism.

Left wing demagogue who promises hope and change

This is what he wants to know: [they are not my thoughts]

Did he sign up for the Selective Service? [possible forgery]
Is he HIV positive? [He and Michelle had their blood drawn in Africa - but as far as I know the results were not made known if it was even tested. He has refused to release his medical records.]
Bisexual?
Does he have a criminal record?
Does he smoke crack cocaine?

He says nothing about the birth certificate issue, which is very interesting as he questions so many other things.

PART 2

Goal to destroy Pakistan. Iraq cut up into 3 parts. Pakistan cut up into 4-5 parts. Because it is a potential ally to China. Iran is a candidate to be played against China. [Darfur has 7% oil supply to China] Obama doesn’t even know where Pakistan is.

Last summer a conference in Chicago - barry said he wants to have unilateral bombing of NW Pakistan. US is bombing there.

Would Japan be a staging area for China - no. Tawain no.

[Interestingly - as born out in their behavior] Tarpley says that Bush and Chaney are not even lame ducks. They’re there for show.

Power passed to the principles committee Rice, Gates, Paulson, Admiral Mullen. Policies are from Brzezinski - no attack on Iran. Make a deal with North Korea. Chaney was horrified that was done by Rice. Attack Pakistan, Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma - under humanitarian considerations.

Interview with Daan de Wit of DeepJournal May 16, 2008.

There are alot of typos and European spelling of words that I did not correct.

Discussing the Kentucky and West Virgina Primaries.

TARPLEY: The US Intelligence Community penetrates the news organisations like mad and most of these organisations are now owned by the same bankers who want to put Obama in a kind of dictator.

Q: I have always wondered, where do these candidates for presidents come from? Is there a grooming process? You actually say Obama has been recruted by Zbigniew Brzezinski as a student on Columbia University?

TARPLEY: Yes. This is the interesting about Obama’s biography, that he has these lost years and the lost years where nobody knows anything about what he was doing, we’re not even sure where he was. 1981, 1982, 1983 his last two years in college. He was a Junior and a Senior at Columbia University, actually Columbia College at Columbia University in uptown Manhattan, Morningside Heights. He had started his career at Occidental College near Los Angeles after going to a very expensive private school in Hawaii, the Punahou School. If you go back to 1981, 1982 - you can do this with the help of Samuel Huntington’s Book on American politics, which I quote in my own book, which is called Obama, The Postmodern Coup, the Making of a Manchurian Candidate. If you look in here you will see that they were already sort of summing up their experiences under Carter and they were looking ahead. Huntington is explicitly looking ahead to 2010 and 2030, in other words he believes that there’s gonna be a crisis of ungovernability, what he called the ‘creedal passion period’. Political upsurge and economic breakdown perhaps. All of this starting around 2010, which is now where we are, we have reached that point.

[Also note that Bill Ayers lived within a mile of Columbia when barry was there.]

TARPLEY: My guess is that Obama was recruted by Brzezinski at Columbia 1981, 1982, 1983. You cannot notice this positively, because Obama in his memoires, he has got this thing called Dreams from my Father, he tells you everything about himself, he tells you about marihuana, cocaine, almost heroine, but not quite, tells you all this stuff, but when it comes to Columbia University he tells you nothing. It’s exactly puzzling, because why would he tell you about marihuana and cocaine, which are bad and than not tell you about his career, with this wonderful Ivy League prestigious elite Columbia University, he doesn’t say anything about it.

The same thing is what The New York Times found. The New York Times, trying to do the life of Obama, they focused on his years in New York City, because they’re from New York and they couldn’t find anything. They couldn’t find out what courses he took, who his friends were, anything that he did, he doesn’t seem to be in the yearbook, it’s all very strange. Chicago Tribune which is very, very favourable to Obama did the same thing, could not find anything about those years at Columbia.

Now they’re two possibilities. One is that he’s hiding homosexual activity. Obama, I think, is pretty well established to be a bi-sexual, he’s accused by Larry Sinclair of homosexual encounters with crack-cocaine. We can talk about that in a minute. But I think the deeper level is what he’s covering up in terms of his contacts with Brzezinski.

Obama was a politic’s major with his speciality in international relations and a thesis topic that was Soviet nuclear disarmament. Now that has Brzezinski written all over it. In those years Brzezinski was on the campus at Columbia, he was the head of the Institute of Communist Affairs, an anti Soviet thinktank. It seems to me extremely likely that he was recruted by Brzezinski at that point. Meaning that he has been indoctrinated for 25 years.

If this is not true, I would invite Obama to tell us the full story of his years at Columbia and he has said zero. No friends, no professors, no transcript, no nothing. It is the biggest obsessive secrecy that we’ve seen. It’s comparible to, you know Bush has tried to hide his drunk driving record. In this case Obama won’t let you know what he did at Columbia. He should be saying, ‘Oh I’m proud, I was an A-student, I wrote this wonderful thing’, the highlight of his early career was to go to Columbia. So, he doesn’t do that. What this means then is: 25 years of indoctrination and grooming. With Carter they only had 5 or 6 years at most. They’re from 1970, 1971, 1972 until 1976 when he won the presidency. In the case of Obama I think you’re looking at a 25 year process where they were guiding his career.

He didn’t graduate with honors from Columbia and he took several years off before he got into Harvard - so how did he get in? Was it just the little boxes or was there a word put in?

He talks about Austin Gooslbee barry’s NAFTA economist who told Canada not to worry. Then about how the Intelligence community is barry’s best buddies. Would explain why no one cares about the birth certificate issue. The entire US Intelligence knows exactly where barry was born, where he has visited and what citizenship he has - they have his passport and school and medical records and they know if he was in the church when that racist anti-American was spewing evil and they have not said anything.

TARPLEY: I don’t have a crystal ball, but it is very interesting that all these left liberals, basically all the names you have mentioned, are the left wing of the U.S. intelligence community, or at least some of them. Hersh certainly is, some of them represent a kind of right wing of the U.S. intelligence community. But Obama is the candidate of the U.S. intelligence community in toto. If you don’t believe that, just turn on an American television station and you will see what is going on. So, I would believe that the scenario has fundamentally changed and that people are having a very hard time grasping this. We have got to radically shift our field. What you have seen going on now for the past 18 months to two years is that the field has been shifting. Tony Blair is gone; most of the top neocons have now left the government. They are trying to cash in in the private sector. And you know, you have a whole new crew coming in which are these Brzezinsky types. The Samantha Power-Brzezinsky types, the Soros people, the color revolutions crew, the people power coup crew, and they are on their way in. And that means that the face of U.S. imperialism is indeed getting a facelift.

His thoughts on Brzezinski. I have no idea who Tarpley is - I’ve just read and listened to this and neither endorse nor defend his words - this is just information. But I will say in all the times I have watched Brzezinski on Morning Joe, I have wondered what side he is on. I don’t know his personal history in Poland or what the Russians might have done to his family but he sure hates Russia and is sympathetic of sorts to Syria, Iran.,and Iraq - the Arab world in general. Just observations with absolutely nothing to back them up. He just comes off as very skin-crawly is the best I can say. And frighteningly menacing. I’ve written about it before. Tarpley puts Brzezinski as the head mover in all this, which is hard to imagine, but then again all of this is - except for the fact that barry is hiding a great deal and the Intelligence community doesn’t care to share it with The American People.

In fact, I wish I had not run into this - but since this website is set up to question the proobama media bias this certainly qualifies. Wonder what government agencies it will bring to our doorstep. They already know all about me because Marine One has flown directly over my house (two different times) on the way to O’hare with Bush inside. I happened to be in the yard and I have to say it was totally surreal to see that helicopter in person - it’s more brown than green - flanked by weaponized helicopters. They were not flying very high and were a lot quieter than I would have thought. barry goes south, so there’s no chance of seeing him unless he goes somewhere north.

Anyway. This is just information - with no underlying agenda or endorsement. In the back of my mind, I can still hear President Clinton saying with an interesting face that after the Inauguration he was going to sit down and reveal what is really going on. And then his wife was appointed Secretary of State, leaving him essentially muted for the sake of her job.

TARPLEY: Brzezinsky’s hatred of Russia is now this: Brzezinsky looks at the neocons and he says to the neocons: ‘You bunglers’. Brzezinsky and Samuel Huntington, his right hand man, says: ‘We gave you the clash of civilizations as an idea’ and he says: ‘What you should have done is to play these different countries one against the other. The essence of imperialism is you don’t attack Iraq, you play Iran against Iraq. You don’t attack Venezuela, you play Colombia against Venezuela. You don’t attack Somalia, you play Ethiopia against Somalia’. ‘And ultimately you don’t attack Russia ‘ he says, ‘You play China against Russia, or some variation of that’. So the strategy that Brzezinsky has is to say first of all: ‘There should be no attack on Iran. There should rather be an effort to turn Iran against the Russians’. And this is realistic, based on the fact that there is a large degree of anti-Russian resentment in the Iranian population. He would also say: ‘You can probably turn Syria against Russia at the same time’.

Brzezinski did visit Syria and is sympathetic to them. Nancy Pelosi went as well and barry’s best bud - who tried to recruit him right out of Harvard - Tony Rezko - is from Syria. Not buying into conspiracy - merely facts.

TARPLEY: But now the heart of Brzezinsky strategy is this. Brzezinsky looks at China. And he says: ‘China can be manipulated through their raw material and oil dependency on Africa, and in particular Sudan. We know that now Sudan is supplying 7, 8% maybe of China ’s oil needs, petroleum, in general. Brzezinsky would say: ‘What you have to do first of all is kick the Chinese out of Africa. That is why Bush went to Africa, that is why the U.S, is creating a new Africom, U.S. African command, probably in Ethiopia. That is why you have Al Qaeda in Algeria, Tunesia and Morocco to help this destabilization. You’ve got the campaign against Mugabe. You got a quasi civil war in Kenya , you’ve got destabilization in Chad, and most of all you’ve got this attempted coup now. In the last couple of days there was an attempted bloody coup in Khartoum, Sudan undoubtedly piloted by these Brzezinsky forces.

So the first step of this is to use Obama as the facelift of U.S. imperialism; a new face for U.S. imperialism in Africa specifically, to kick out the Chinese. At the same time you’ve got a campaign to destroy Pakistan as a state, as a nation. And that is being done through bombing now, demanded by Obama, and now going on; a bombing of so-called Al Qaeda bases in northern Pakistan. It is a very interesting story.

Q: You call Obama a Manchurian candidate, a sort of mind controlled man. Why do you do that?

TARPLEY: First of all Obama is the most synthetic. He is the most prepared, indoctrinated, and I would indeed say brainwashed candidate that we’ve had. Obama himself is nothing. He has no legislative record, he has no accomplishments, no commitment, no loyalties. He is essentially an empty slate on which people are invited to project what they think.

His pedigree is first of all the Ford Foundation. The Ford Foundation is of course the institution which more than any other, tries to maintain the existing social order in the United States , which is to say: The dominance over this society by Wall Street, by financier oligarchs and the super rich. So his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham - he had a mother named Stanley which is interesting in itself – his mother was a pro-communist who worked for the Ford Foundation. She was part of the gender equality program of the Ford Foundation. She also worked then for the Word Bank and the US Agency for International Development.

Obama himself has worked for the Gamaliel Foundation. This is a counter insurgency operation. It is the Saul Alinsky community organizing foundation of Chicago and the Gamaliel Foundation is a satellite of the Ford Foundation. And the idea with them is organizing community control projects, autogestion, local control on a very very local basis , always with the idea of pitting white against black, against Hispanic, against Asian, against Korean or Chinese or whatever it is, always keeping the population fragmented. On the lowest possible level, very parochial, very local and not allowing therefore a challenge to Wall Street to emerge.

He is also associated, this Obama, with the Woods Fund. And here he sat next to Bill Ayres, the Weatherman terrorist bomber, a professed an unrepented terrorist, an odious personality who I had a chance to observe in the late 1960s inside Students for a Democratic Society. Ayres is somebody who has also promoted Obama’s carrier. Ayres hired Obama to become president of the board of the Edinburg [ANNENBERG] – Chicago Challenge, which is yet another foundation funded effort at social engineering and racial conflict inside the Chicago school system. So we’ve also got the fact that Obama attends a church the pastor of which is now a Ford Foundation scholar, a guy who got his college education thanks to the Ford Foundation, and that is the Trinity United Church of Christ. You must have seen things about this.

Q: But is it fair to go that far to portray a man? \

TARPLEY: You have to because you’re dealing with somebody… This is a man who wants to get his hands on the thermo-nuclear button. How in God’s name can you allow access to the thermo-nuclear button by someone of whom you know basically absolutely nothing? Someone who consorts with terrorists, who consorts with gangsters like the Mafioso Rezko, and his backer Auchi, when reaching now into the Iraq world of organized crime, the Iraq - Syria mafia with this character Auchi. The only way to know anything about Obama is to look at his advisors and to look at these people around him. And the overwhelming thing you see around him is what I would call ‘left CIA’. And let me just try to explain this.

[...]

TARPLEY: Now, the obvious courses are first of all, a global warming tax, a carbon tax, that will further cut into the standard of living, then probably a Third World solidarity tax. So with Obama they are going to say: “We’re gonna teach you now into savage austerity, killer austerity, in the name of the polar bears, the ice cap and the Third World.” Now the trick of course is that none of this money will go for the polar bears, the ice cap and the Third World. It will go into the pockets of David Rockefeller, George Soros and other Wall Street thugs, who are running Obama.

Because that is what Obama is today, you can look at the cast of characters. It’s pretty much the same as Carter: He’s got Zbigniew Brzezinski and Mark Brzezinski, that is to say Zbigniew’s son who now is on the scene. Zbigniew Brzezinski is the guru of the entire campaign, although efforts are being made to conceal this fact. Brzezinski has put forward the entire profile, the austerity, the globalization and this question of the final showdown with Moscow.

About rev Wright:

TARPLEY: I just want to add in terms of that church: This Jeremiah Wright is of course a racist provocateur, working in the framework of something called ‘Black Liberation Theology’. It’s a synthetic religion created by the Union Theologian Seminary in New York and then spread with the help of the Ford Foundation, in order to do what? In order to perpetuate racial conflict. The model of the Ford Foundation is divide and conquer. Play white against black in every conceivable way to prevent the emergence of a class based challenge to Wall Street. And what they’ve done is take this into the realm of theology and church affairs, knowing the importance of churches in the black community and in the United States.

Where has he been hiding? And after all his years of spouting he ended up selling out anyway.

Again this post in no way endorses any comments made by Webster Tarpley. This is provided as information only.

Capt Sullenberger nays running for office

April 5, 2009

After posting on Sully’s first pitch at Yankee’s stadium, I found a bunch of unposted drafts, including the crew US AIRWAYS Flight 1549’s appearance before Congress.

Seems folks in his hometown of Danville, California (11th district) wanted Capt Sullenberger to run for Congress. Curiously, the spot is open, since the representative from his next door district (10th), Ellen Tauscher, accepted an appointment from Madame Secretary Clinton to be the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

For the record, he has voted Republican and there are no requirements he reside in the district for which he were to run. His testimony on the Hill was probably enough for him to say no way. Well, that and his day (and night) job, which he plans on returning to in June/July.

From the source: LISA VORDERBRUEGGEN:

When I called his house, Sully’s wife laughed out loud when I explained why the Times’ political writer wanted to talk with him.

ALEX CLEMENS, Sullenberger spokesman:

Sullenberger will continue to decline requests that he “throw his pilot’s hat into the ring,”

He is focusing his time and energy fully on his family, his work for US Airways, and the other obligations that he has taken on since the dramatic events of January 15.

Like his two book deal and throwing out the first pitch at Yankees Stadium (4-4) and his planned 4-7 first pitch at AT & T Park for the San Francisco Giants. The Oakland A’s wanted him too but he’ll be on vacation. He is also slated to give the commencement address at his high school alma mater, Denison High School (north of Dallas) on June 6. And, according to Vorderbrueggen, his well-deserved six-figure motivational speaker’s fees.

***
Rep Ellen Tauscher accepts Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security

Sullenberger tossed 1st pitch at Yankee Stadium (4-4)
Video Capt Sullenberger’s 1st pitch Yankees - Cubs (4-4)
Capt Sullenberger’s 2 book deal
Capt Sullenberger: nays running for office
Capt Sullenberger to speak at HS alma mater (6-6)
Captain Sullenberger to throw out first pitch for SF Giants (4-7)

Rep Ellen Tauscher accepts Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security

March 20, 2009

California Rep Ellen Tauscher, present member of the House Armed Services Committee, accepted the position of undersecretary of state for arms control and international security offered her by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher’s message to California’s 10th Congressional District:

For the past 13 years, I have had the honor and privilege of serving you in Congress. Representing California’s 10th Congressional District always has been and remains – especially in these trying times – my first priority.

Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton asked me to serve as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

While her offer is both generous and flattering, I did not take the decision lightly. I accepted it after much soul searching and long discussions with my family and friends.

In my seven terms in Congress, I have worked hard to make sure that families can get to work and travel safely on our roads, bridges, airports and waterways. I also have worked on national security issues, including working closely with officials at the Livermore and Sandia National Laboratories.

Keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists, making sure other countries do not obtain them and, one day, I hope, ridding the world of these terrible weapons, has become my passion and, I hope, my life’s work.

The confirmation process for senior posts in government is fraught with uncertainty and can take weeks, if not months. My staff and I will continue to work on the issues and challenges facing the 10th District and our nation, including growing the economy, making health care more affordable, developing a green energy policy, repairing our infrastructure, easing congestion and improving the quality of life for families. We will do that with the same level of energy and commitment as when I was first elected in 1996.

No matter where I am serving in government, I always will remember those who sent me to Washington and I always will be grateful for your support and the trust you placed in me.

barry on AIG (video)

March 16, 2009

barry’s outrage is 6 months late and 3 months seriously overdue. He should have expressed it before the bailout money was disbursed and The American People should have been able to know about it so they could pressure their elected officials. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

Transparency is an imaginary concept with barry.

barry's FDA appointments

March 15, 2009

What are the odds these folks had their taxes checked? From barry's weekly address. (text, audio, video). He has video of his weekly radio addresses but for his second swearing in there is only scratchy audio and a few posed pix. Not sure why the White House has to include their nicknames.

Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration:

Dr Margaret "Peggy" Hamburg

Dr. Hamburg is a nationally and internationally recognized leader in public health and medicine, and an authority on global health, public health systems, infectious disease, bioterrorism and emergency preparedness. She served as the Nuclear Threat Initiative's founding Vice President for the Biological Program. Before joining NTI, she was the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Prior to this, she served for six years as the Commissioner of Health for the City of New York and as the Assistant Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Principal Deputy Commissioner of the FDA:

Dr Joshua "Josh" Sharfstein

Dr. Joshua M. Sharfstein is Commissioner of Health for the City of Baltimore. He also serves as chair of the board of four affiliated nonprofit agencies. He has been recognized as a national leader for his efforts to protect children from unsafe jewelry and over-the-counter medication, and ensuring Americans with disabilities have access to prescription drugs. He is a member of the Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice of the Institute of Medicine.

He also created the Food Safety Working Group, which will be chaired by the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture.

Will coordinate with other agencies and senior officials to advise the President on improving coordination throughout the government, examining and upgrading food safety laws, and enforcing laws that will keep the American people safe.

To help protect The American People:

The Department of Agriculture will close a loophole to prevent diseased cows from entering the food supply.

The government will invest in the FDA to substantially increase the number of food inspectors and modernize food safety labs.

Why was there a loophole for diseased cows?

And what about a law requiring produce to be labelled as to their origin? It would have saved tomato growers millions of dollars and the FDA a whole lot of time and resources by isolating just the source.

barry's visual effect on the stock market

March 8, 2009

barry likened the stock market "gyrations" to daily tracking polls - what he uses to decide what to say.

3-3-09 AP: President Barack Obama is comparing the stock market to the daily tracking polls used during campaigns, saying that paying too close attention to Wall Street's "fits and starts" could lead to bad long-term policy.

Obama spoke to reporters Tuesday after meeting in the Oval Office with visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Obama said he is not measuring policies against "the day-to-day gyrations of the stock market," but by whether lending is flowing more freely, businesses are investing and the unemployed are going back to work.

Visuals.

Real Clear Politics

Investor's Business Daily

Read the article

dshort

yahoo! finance

Straight downhill after he was nominated (and inaugurated)

Madeleine Albright thinks Secretary Clinton has “done really well”

March 6, 2009

Morning Joe - Former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright weighs in on Secretary Clinton.

PantSuitPolitics

Discusses Middle East peace process, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Nuclear Weapons, Dennis Blair, Ambassador Charles Freeman, Taliban, Women’s rights.

Worth listening to.

***

Secretary Clinton's travel itinerary
Secretary Clinton arrives in Japan
Secretary Clinton arrives in Indonesia
Secretary Clinton speaks at Asia Society
Secretary Clinton meets with Israeli PM Ehud Olmert
Secretary Clinton meets with President Mahmoud Abbas
Secretary Clinton's "reset button" moment (video)

DL Hughley to Ron Paul: “You are too human to be Republican”

March 7, 2009

DL Hughley interviews Rep Ron Paul (R-TX). The “Rush Limbaugh is the head of the Republican Party” debate continues.

HUGHLEY: Why is his name Steele? You should call him aluminum.

HUGHLEY to Paul: You talk sensibly, you’re very reasonable, you’re very pragmatic in your approach…Is Rush Limbaugh the Republican Party Leader?

PAUL: Philosophically, he has a lot to do with it but technically, no, he’s not that leader. He’s not an elected leader. But philosophically he’s filling a void. I think there’s a void in the Republican Party and somebody is filling it. There are philosphic influences and that’s what Rush Limbaugh does.

HUGLEY: If the word conspiracy is gonna be used let the black guy do it.

HUGHLEY to Paul: You don’t seem like a Republican to me - like that I’ve ever heard. You seem so reasonable…You seem to make sense, which I don’t attribute to too many politicians.

Paul says he’s a “strict Constitutionalist” but he didn’t have the nads to go to the wall with barry and his birth certificate.

HUGHLEY: You are too human to be Republican….You make too much sense - you can’t be a Republican.

Both interviews - Steele and Paul - Hughley remarked that they didn’t seem like Republicans, revealing his own generalized thinking.

What if someone were to say to Hughley: You don’t seem like a black person to me - you seem too reasonable - too human - you make too much sense.

Would it be considered worse than *articulate*?

Hx31963

HUGHLEY: Next we’ll find out if Jesus was a Republican…

barry re: Holder’s “nation of cowards”

March 7, 2009

I find this hysterical. Mr Transcender of Race decided to come forward and pretend he really intended to Unite! As usual, he waited to see the fallout before he commented.

Was there a poll re: Holder’s comments?

barry appointee Atty General Eric–I forgot to mention I dealt with impeached governor Rod Blagojevich–Holder made his thoughts known that “in things racial we have always been and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”

He was speaking to a rapt audience at the Department of Justice marking Black History Month.

He had the barry obamanating thing going on though: I believe…too many ways…essentially. He didn’t even have the moral fortitude to come right out and say: ‘I believe we have always been and still are a nation of cowards.’

Then he could at least garner some respect.

As was - he covered his bases, saying what was expected, while leaving himself some qualifiers.

That was February 19th.

My post then (with video).

March 6th is when barry decides to speak out and only because he was with Holder in Ohio.

What is going to happen to those officers when the money runs out next year? Will he go back to take credit for that, too?

And haven’t we had enough of these made-for-documentary campaign moments?

Anyway. CNN:

BARRY: I think it’s fair to say that if I had been advising my attorney general, we would have used different language.

I think..it’s fair to say…if I had been…attorney general. Never any definitive statements and he made sure not to mention Holder’s name.

I think the point that he was making is that we’re oftentimes uncomfortable with talking about race until there’s some sort of racial flare-up or conflict, and that we could probably be more constructive in facing up to the painful legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and discrimination.

And I’m not somebody who believes that constantly talking about race somehow solves racial tensions.

Only when he needs the votes.

I think what solves racial tensions is fixing the economy, putting people to work, making sure that people have health care, ensuring that every kid is learning out here.

I think if we do that, then we’ll probably have more fruitful conversations.

We’ve made enormous progress and we shouldn’t lose sight of that.

So much so, 8 million eligible black voters couldn’t be bothered to register to vote for barry.

***

Rev Lowery: “When white will embrace what’s right”

John Ridley: “Are you black enough to be part of all this?”

DL Hughley: “The Republican Convention looked like Nazi Germany”

Active member of Military Intelligence signed on with Taitz

March 6, 2009

I don't like to go to Orly Taitz's website (defendourfreedoms.us) because my browser always seizes up. Stopped by tonite and saw something very interesting - an active member of Military Intelligence signed on. She has approximately 110 plaintiffs - including regular citizens, retired and active military folks and elected office holders - but a member of any type of Intelligence has got to raise some eyebrows.

David Shuster still cluelessly obamerized

March 6, 2009

David Shuster is trying to be like Big Brother Herr Olbermann and Little Sister Righteous Rachel Maddow in his gotcha "Hypocrisy Watch" segment. He rants about how Rove said what barry is doing is not what he promised and is the same old Washington politics. An absolutely 100% true statement. Shuster then goes into detailing all the things Rove politicized as a way of counterpoint.

What Shuster neglects to realize is barry said he would do none of that. He stumped on it over and over and still lies about it. So nothing Rove did or does or didn't do has any bearing on what barry's minions are doing.

Why can't they get past their blind devotion and see that barry's words do not - nor have they ever - match up with his actions?

Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton's Travels

March 6, 2009

Here's a link to an interactive map of the Secretary of State's travels. Listed already are 6 countries barry has never been to.

Asia (Feb 15-22)

Tokyo, Japan
Jakarta, Indonesia
Beijing, China
Seoul, South Korea

Middle East and Europe (March 1-8)

Egypt
Israel
Palestinian Territories
Belgium
Switzerland
Turkey

Madame Secretary could have used Orly Taitz to translate

March 6, 2009

So barry's push is to reconnect with Russia after their Olympics raid on Georgia...in digital terms "pressing the reset button". Evidently the idea was to present a gift to symbolize this. The idea was nice - but the translation was off.

Crazy, isn't it? Did they just use google translate page or did they talk to a real human being? Orly Taitz would have happily supplied the proper translation.

According to CNN's JILL DOUGHERTY, Madame Secretary greeted Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva Friday and gave him with a small green box with a ribbon.

MADAME SECRETARY: I would like to present you with a little gift that represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying and that is: 'We want to reset our relationship, and so we will do it together.'

He opened it and inside was a red button (without barry's face or logo) printed with the Russian word “peregruzka”.

CLINTON (laughing): We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?

LAVROV: You got it wrong.

CLINTON (laughing): I got it wrong?

LAVROV: It should be “perezagruzka” [reset]. This says ‘peregruzka,’ which means ‘overcharged.’

CLINTON: We won't let you do that to us, I promise. We mean it and we look forward to it.

Lavrov said he’d put the “reset” button on his desk.

How utterly embarrassing. Clinton senior adviser PHILLIPE REINES email message to the reporters covering Clinton shortly afterwards:

Since we're all learning a little Russian today, ‘opechatka’ is Russian for ‘typo'. So the *Opechatka* is being fixed, the gift will correctly read ‘Perezagruzka’ by the time of the joint press conference. If any of you travel with labelmaking devices equipped with Russian spell-check, please do let me know…

Don't they travel with a Russian speaking person? Don't they sign off with folks who read and write the language before they do anything? Her quick recovery was born out of a brilliant mind and decades of "tea sipping".

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov + Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

This picture says more about Madame Secretary's ability than anything that was said on paper.

Face the Nation: Rahm Emanuel (video + transcript)

Face the Nation: Rahm Emanuel (video + transcript)

By mattie14

March 1, 2009

barry’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel on “Face the Nation” goes off on Rush Limbaugh.

Why is the White House wasting time on a radio host when they are in power? Would someone please tell barry he won and that he is no longer campaigning?

barry and his buds are playing let’s lay the groundwork for 2012 when the ground is burning.

CQ Politics Transcript: Face the Nation

Bob Schieffer & Rahm Emanuel

[emphasis added - CAPS mine]

SCHIEFFER: And good morning again. Rahm Emanuel is with us in the studio this morning.

Good morning, Mr. Emmanuel.

It was a big week last week. It’s going to be another big one this week. When the president told the joint session of Congress on Tuesday there was nothing more important than bringing the deficit down, House Democrats, led by Speaker Pelosi, jumped to their feet with applause.

Yet on Wednesday, those same Democrats passed a spending bill to keep the government running for the rest of this fiscal year that contained 9,000 — count ‘em — 9,000 earmarks, costing nearly $8 billion.

The Senate is going to act on that bill this week, will send it to the president for his signature. It looks like most of those earmarks are going to stay in.

Is the president going to sign this bill?

EMANUEL: As you noted, that’s last year’s business. Second is when President Obama came to office, two major bills were passed without earmarks. The major economic recovery act — earmark-free; the children’s health care bill — earmark-free.

He has said clearly his policies about earmarks, which is you’ve got to be — more accountability, more transparency, and a reduction.

This bill has some of those, but he has enunciated his view and given an indication, when he was a senator, he, like I, when I was a member of Congress, put his own individual request on his own Web page.

That policy has now been adopted because the most important thing is to be transparent and accountable for what you ask.

Because what the American people want to know is, do these individual congressional earmarks meet a worthy public objective, or are they just an individual desire of a member of Congress?

And that’s why transparency and accountability are so important.

[SAY IT ENOUGH TIMES AND PEOPLE BELIEVE IT - IT WORKED TO GET HIM THERE.]

SCHIEFFER: Well, I understand that. But why didn’t he just tell the Senate, look, take these things out of here; I’ve told people we were not going to have these earmarks; then send it back to me?

EMANUEL: What he has always said is — and what he’s clear is, again, the economic recovery act, earmark-free, a major bill.

Second, this is last year’s business.

And third most importantly, we’re going to have to make some other changes, going forward, to reduce and bring more — reduce the ultimate number and bring the transparency. And that’s the policy that he enunciated in his campaign.

SCHIEFFER: But it sounds to me like what you’re — what he’s about to do, here, is say, well I don’t like this but I’m going to go ahead and sign it, but I’m going to warn you, don’t ever do it again. Is that what’s about to happen here?

EMANUEL: In not so many words, yes.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, let’s talk about this budget, because it was a whopper, that was outlined this week.

Republicans say it’s going to increase the size of government by one-third, just next year alone. It produces a deficit of $1.75 trillion. That’s the largest since World War II, probably larger than the last five combined.

On our Web cast, “Washington Unplugged,” I asked former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich on Friday about it. Here’s what he said about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I think that what President Obama has done is outlined the boldest effort to remake America since Lyndon Johnson’s great society in 1965.

I think he has courageously laid down the challenge to the whole country. He said, I want to become a more left-wing country with a bigger government, with higher taxes. Now, do you want to go that way or not?

And I think the challenge will be, for those of us who don’t want to go that way, to articulate an alternative vision. But I think this budget sets the stage for the biggest fight over the future of America since 1965.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIEFFER: The biggest fight since 1965?

EMANUEL: Three quick points, Bob. First, this is a $1.7 trillion deficit he inherited. Let’s be clear about that. We inherited this deficit and we inherited $4 trillion of new debt.

EMANUEL: That is the facts.

Second, this budget is very honest with the American people. It’s honest about the cost of the war, which we have never been honest for seven years. It’s honest about the alternative minimum tax, which we’ve never been honest with the American people about. And that, in this deficit, reflects what we inherited at this point.

Second, I happen to think that Newt is right about one thing. There’s a challenge now to the Republicans. Because the president is very clear. We can subsidize the HMO industry on 114 cents on the dollar rather than pay 100 cents on the dollar for health care. Will the Republican budget continue down the path of subsidizing the health care industry and the insurance industry in particular, while in fact coverage and premiums — lack of coverage for the uninsured continues to go up? The fact is that premiums go up for the rest of America, and also America’s life expectancy goes down. Will they continue to subsidize the big oil industry, while we send — but while we send over, Bob, $700 billion of our wealth overseas. They have a challenge. Will they subsidize the banking industry rather than helping kids go to college?

We’ve laid out a vision — start to invest in America, invest in your middle class, make the tough choices, be honest with the American people. The challenge will be, as he said there, which is will the Republicans meet the challenge of the future or keep us on the path that they have set for the last seven years that got us to this point of reckoning.

SCHIEFFER: You cannot say, though, can you, that this is all something he inherited, this deficit. I mean, there are things in this budget that were not in George Bush’s budget, talking about health care and all of these other things.

EMANUEL: No, no, but what we are doing — as we did in the Economic Recovery Act — and it’s fundamental to our goal — first of all, we bring the deficit down. That’s different.

Second is, we and the president– the president was very clear in the Economic Recovery Act as he is in this economic program — it is time to invest in our energy independence, which is why in the Economic Recovery Act we doubled the size of alternative energy. It’s time to invest in our kids’ ability to go to college, which is why we don’t subsidize banks but we subsidize kids’ ability to go to college. It is time we start insuring and bring the costs down, the premiums, as well as expand coverage. Those are the type of investments that are key for America’s economic growth and competitiveness going forward. The health care system is a particular example where America’s economic competitiveness, its strength around the world is sapped because we have a health care system that doesn’t allow American workers and business to compete. And it is the key to our long-term putting our fiscal house in order.

And the Republicans will have an opportunity not just to criticize, but to propose. And the question is, will they continue the path of the seven years that have got us to the point of basically a culture of rising deficits and more and more consumer spending? This budget deficit, this budget, an economic program fundamentally changes the culture in this way. It rejects the past and says we are going to be a culture and a society that invests and saves.

SCHIEFFER: What the Republicans also say, it raises taxes on everybody. I think everybody expected that taxes on upper-income people were going to go up. Barack Obama said during the campaign that that’s what he planned to do. But Newt Gingrich and some of the other Republicans say when people find out that when you’re talking about these things you’re talking about on the energy front, it’s going to be a new tax on everybody that uses electricity, who drives a car, and there’s going to be tax increases in myriad other ways.

EMANUEL: Well, first of all, let’s be very clear. Because I’ve seen these scare tactic before. You’ve seen it too, Bob. 95 percent of Americans, working Americans, will have a tax cut. As the president said Tuesday night, 95 percent of Americans will have a tax cut. And starting April 1st, they’ll see it, which the Republicans voted against in large measure in the House and in the Senate.

Second, nobody will see a tax increase for two years, when we get out of this recession. And he ran on, as you noted, the fact that the wealthy 2 percent will have their marginal rates go back to where they were under Bill Clinton, when we produced 22 million jobs, and their deductions will go back to where they were under Ronald Reagan. We’re going really just back to that point, that starting point.

[ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL EVERYTHING BILL CLINTON DID SUCKED - NOW THEY'RE TAKING CREDIT FOR THE GOOD THINGS - EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON AS FIRST LADY.]

So there will be these scare tactics of trying to talk about the fact that everybody is going to see increases. And the president couldn’t have been clearer Tuesday night that working, middle-class families will get a tax cut.

In addition to that, more and more will get assistance so they can go to college in a society and a time economically where you earn what you learn, we’re going to help more people go to college and have the most educated workforce.

We’re also fundamentally — the most important thing economically is getting an energy policy and a health care policy that ensures that the economy and members of our society and our country can get a health care system that works for them, rather than them working for that health care system, and an energy policy that weans us off dependence on foreign oil and towards an independent policy on energy.

SCHIEFFER: Aren’t there more tax increases in this plan than Barack Obama talked about during the campaign? For example, on upper- income people, talking about reducing the deductions they can take on charitable giving. Aren’t you going to get a lot of opposition from places like where Barack Obama used to work, charitable enterprises, when he was a community organizer?

EMANUEL: There will be, you know, voices of criticism. But I want everybody to be reassured by the fact, these are the rates that were — the deductions that Ronald Reagan had, and the marginal rate is where Bill Clinton and the time in the ’90s, we had. That’s what they are. There’s not like just something totally radically new. We’re going back to those points.

And making sure — but what do we do? We reduce the deficit and we make critical investments that are essential to the economic strength of this country. And what has not happened over the years when we were subsidizing these powerful interests is, in fact, we went farther and slid farther and farther behind while we were piling up record amount of debt and deficits.

And the question is and the challenge is, that day of reckoning can no longer be put off. And the president is very clear. He ran on this. And one of the big news here in Washington is not only did he run on it, he then proposed it, which is always a surprise, and I think one of the gaffes that you hear here in Washington. People expect you to run on one — say one thing in the campaign and then govern different. I think what’s woken up Washington is he’s been consistent from the campaign all the way through to his economic programs, and he’s said these are the challenges we have, and the day of running away from those challenges and not meeting them while America slid behind economically is no longer feasible or is no longer smart.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Do you think you’re going to get more Republican support than you had, for example, on passing those stimulus packages? I noticed you said in an article in the New Yorker when somebody asked, “is bipartisanship dead?”

You were quoted as saying, “the public wants bipartisanship. We just have to try. We don’t have to succeed in getting it.”

What does that mean?

EMANUEL: Well, there’s slightly — a little more about that.

First of all, we did succeed, number one, in bipartisanship.

[SUCCEED? WHEN? AND NOW?]

SCHIEFFER: You got three Republicans.

EMANUEL: No, well, let’s do the entire scorecard. On the Ledbetter legislation, a number of Republicans in both the House and the Senate voted for it. On the children’s health care bill, a number of Republicans voted for that.

[HOW MANY EXACTLY? AND HOW WERE THEY GOING TO VOTE AGAINST LEDBETTER AND GET REELECTED WHEN THE MAJORITY IF THE ELECTORATE ARE WOMEN?]

You are right on the Economic Recovery Act, because of its boldness, we had three. But we had governors throughout the country who support it. Republican mayors throughout the country support it, and Republican voters who supported it.

[THAT IS NOT BIPARTISANSHIP.]

Going forward, the president has been very clear. He called on the national service bill that Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch, Republican for Utah, had proposed. He has been clear about wanting a stem cell legislation that a number — like Senator Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania, as well as Senator Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa. So we will continue to reach out, as we did in the fiscal summit earlier this week, as we will in the health care summit on Thursday.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this question…

EMANUEL: But our goal, our goal, Bob, is to continue to reach out.

[HOW DID THEY REACH OUT? THEY JAMMED IT DOWN THEIR THROATS AND NO ONE READ IT. HURRY AND GET IT THROUGH AND THEN GO HOME TO THE HYDE PARK RANCH FOR VACATION AND THEN GO TO A SWING STATE TO SIGN IT.]

And it’s our desire that the Republicans would work with us and try to be constructive, rather than adopt the philosophy of somebody like Rush Limbaugh, who is praying for failure.

SCHIEFFER: Rush Limbaugh. We’ve talked about Newt Gingrich a lot this morning and now you bring up Rush Limbaugh. Who do you think now speaks for the Republican Party?

EMANUEL: You just named them. It was Rush Limbaugh. I mean, he has laid out his vision, in my view, and he said it clearly, and I compliment him for that. He’s been very upfront and I compliment him for that. He’s not hiding.

He’s asked for President Obama and called for President Obama to fail. That’s his view. And that’s what he has enunciated. And whenever a Republican criticize him, they have to run back and apologize to him, and say they were misunderstood.

He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party. And he has been upfront about what he views, and hasn’t stepped back from that, which is he hopes for failure. He said it. And I compliment him for his honesty, but that’s their philosophy that is enunciated by Rush Limbaugh. And I think that’s the wrong philosophy for America, because what Americans want us to do and what President Obama has been very clear about is work together, setting our goals. We may take different roads to get to that goal, but be clear on what we have to do to build this country, by investing in our people, changing the health care system, having an energy independence policy that clearly weans America off its dependence on foreign oil…

SCHIEFFER: Do you really think he is that important, that other Republicans are paying that much attention to him?

EMANUEL: Well, he was given the keynote, basically, at the Conservative Caucus to speak. When a Republican did attack him, he was — clearly had to turn around and come back and basically said that he’s apologizing and was wrong. And I do think he’s an intellectual force, which is why the Republicans pay such attention to him.

[WHY IS THE WHITE HOUSE PAYING ATTENTION TO HIM?]

SCHIEFFER: All right. We’re going to take a break here and we’ll come back to talk about this, about drawing down the troops in Iraq and a whole lot more when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHIEFFER: Back now with the White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel .

Mr. Emanuel, General Motors is now losing $100 millions a day. They have already spent, we are told, two-thirds of what they have already received from the government. And we’re hearing they want some more. They’re now asking for another $16 billion.

Is the president going to do that?

Because the question I have is, how long does this go on?

EMANUEL: As you know, the panel of experts we’ve assembled on the auto industry is working with GM and the others on their plan. The president has been very clear, though, what his priorities are. They have to have a viable business plan, on a going-forward basis, and it’s going to require a sacrifice from all the parties involved to do that.

But here’s the other thing I think that people should see, in both GM as well as the others. They never invested in both alternative energy cars. They got dependent on big gas guzzlers. They didn’t do — they have a health care cost structure that’s outdated.

And as, sort of, an example, we talked earlier, Bob, about the fact that their health care system is affecting their business and their employers — and their employees, rather.

And it’s an example, in my view, of what the president’s saying for this country. The day of reckoning, of making sure that we had a policy on energy independence, a policy that ensures that our health care costs were under control and our ability to make sure that coverage was expanded to those who are uninsured, as one way to also bring costs under control — that is the challenge we face as a country.

Is it GM specific? The president wants to see a business model that, on a going-forward basis, is cognizant of the market and that all the parties made the sacrifices necessary for that independence. The panel of experts are now meeting to go over those plans and help them develop something — or review what they’re doing before any other decision is made.

SCHIEFFER: So you’re saying, unless they change their ways drastically, unless they come up with a new model, no more money.

EMANUEL: Basically, over the last 20 to 30 years, they had a strategy that has gotten them to, I think, a very unfortunate position both on health care costs, new types of cars, weaning themselves off of basically gas guzzlers to energy-efficient cars.

And they’re making those changes now, when everybody said, for the last 20 years — but it’s a wake-up call which is clear — what the president said on Tuesday night. It’s a wake-up call to America. Do we want to have an energy policy…

SCHIEFFER: So they have to do something different?

EMANUEL: They have to…

(CROSSTALK)

EMANUEL: Wait a second. The plan is in front of the panel of experts, which is where it should be (inaudible) basically making sure that the restructuring is a viable restructuring plan.

SCHIEFFER: Let’s talk about the president’s announcement that he is going to draw down the troops in Iraq, that he’s going to leave 50,000 there in support roles.

Before he made that talk, Nancy Pelosi , the Democratic leader in the House, said that 50,000 sounded like too much. Let’s listen to just what she said. This was just before he spoke.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I don’t know what the justification is for 50,000, the presence of 50,000 troops in Iraq. I do think that there’s a need for some. And I don’t know that all of them have to be in-country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIEFFER: So there you have it. And that seems to be most of the criticism now coming from Democrats, not from Republicans. John McCain likes the way the president’s doing this. The Republicans — I mean, the Democrats seem to be saying no, we need to get more troops out of there quicker.

EMANUEL: Well, first of all, as you noted earlier in the question, the president ran on this policy. He told the American people what he wanted to see.

[HE TOLD THEM WHAT THEY WANTED TO HEAR...AND THEY BELIEVED HIM.]

He said, on day one, I’m going to have a meeting with my national security staff to begin the process to evaluate how we can come out in 16 months. That’s what he did on day one.

[HE DID NOT SAY THAT UNTIL THE END.]

EMANUEL: And about a month later, he, as you saw on Friday, he enunciated that policy, because they came back, the entire apparatus of the national security apparatus for the president, on how to responsibly draw down our troops.

By August of 2010, the combat mission will be over.

We will have a residual force of somewhere between 35,000 and 50,000 troops, mainly dealing with training, protecting our diplomatic and civilians in Iraq, and some counterinsurgency. The president has been very clear that on a going-forward basis, as we draw down, that the Iraqis must politically and on a security basis take ownership of their country. So there will be an intensified effort on the diplomatic and political side, which is why we sent Ambassador Hill there, to work with our general and our entire…

[TROOPS PROTECTING ARE COMBAT TROOPS. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WILL BE CALLED INTO COMBAT IF NEEDED. THUS THEY ARE ALL COMBAT TROOPS. NO ONE IS BUYING IT.]

SCHIEFFER: Do you think the Democrats are going to go — in the end are going to go along with it?

EMANUEL: I think — well, first of all, the speaker spoke to her concern about 50,000. There have been other Democrats also including who have been supportive and understand where we are. The speaker has a right to question that size. The president said this is what I think is a responsible plan for withdrawal and a responsible residual force, and has worked it through both with the commanders, the diplomatic corps and the political apparatus to make sure we had a comprehensive view.

[ALWAYS LAYING IT OFF ON SOMEONE ELSE - EXPERTS, PANELS, COMMANDERS.]

SCHIEFFER: Let me go back to the budget for just one kind of cleanup question. You set a kind of a deadline for sometime in April to get most of this done. Am I correct?

EMANUEL: The Congress is working on that…

SCHIEFFER: Is that realistic?

EMANUEL: Well, yes. In this sense, Bob — I mean, there’s a lot to complement what this Congress has just pulled off. They passed the Ledbetter legislation on pay equity for women. They passed a children’s health care bill that 11 million children of working parents are going to now finally get health care, who because of no fault of their own did not have health care. Passed in a bipartisan way. And then two weeks later, they passed an impressive Economic Recovery Act that begins to invest in our country once again. And they did that in a month.

The president laid out his budget, and this Congress is already beginning to work. And you’ll see the president’s OMB director, Peter Orszag, up this week testifying. And the activity will go forward in both the House and the Senate, and we are confident, because this Congress is here understanding the extraordinary time we find ourselves in, to meet that challenge and meet the president’s objective of sending through an economic program.

SCHIEFFER: Let me also ask you quickly. We hear these horror stories coming out of Mexico. Nearly 7,000 people killed in these wars between these drug cartels. They forced the police chief of Juarez, just across the street from El Paso — across the river — out by threatening to kill a police officer a day until he left. And he left, after they killed four or five people. It just seems worse and worse. Does the administration consider Mexico a national security problem for the United States?

EMANUEL: As you know, the first foreign leader that the president met with was the president of Mexico. Attended that meeting. And both committed to working to stabilize the border, which is exactly what Janet Napolitano , the head of Homeland Security, said this week in congressional testimony. They want to clearly stop the guns from the United States going south. We want to stop the drugs coming north. And we have a mutual interest in working to secure that border, and that’s why the president of the United States had a meeting with President Calderon, his first meeting with a foreign leader, because that border is important to us and Mexico is a key ally of ours.

SCHIEFFER: All right. We have to stop there. Thank you very much, Rahm Emanuel …

EMANUEL: Thank you.

SCHIEFFER: … White House chief of staff.

EMANUEL: I actually enjoyed it.

SCHIEFFER: We’ll be back with the final thought in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHIEFFER: Finally today, we have just come through one of those who would have thought it weeks. As in, who would have thought that way back, when Barack Obama began his campaign for president, that his first State of the Union speech would hardly mention Iraq.

[BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO ADMIT THAT WHAT GOT HIM THE WHITE HOUSE HE ALREADY LIED ABOUT. THE PROMISES HE MADE ON IRAQ WAS WHY HE WAS "NOMINATED".]

Who would have thought back then that the state of the nation’s economy would be so bad, the president wouldn’t even call it a State of the Union speech, just so he wouldn’t have to finish the sentence that begins “the state of the union is…”

Who would have thought the Republican Party would be laying some of the blame for the bad economy off on their recently departed leader? I guess that’s what GOP stalwart Newt Gingrich was doing when he talked to me and others this week about what he labeled the failed Bush-Obama big-spending strategy. Who would have thought that when President Obama, who campaigned to bring the troops home from Iraq announced his withdrawal plan, that it would be the Republicans who liked it and the Democrats who didn’t?

[BECAUSE THE SURGE WORKED AND BARRY'S END PLANS TO GET OUT ARE THE SAME BUSH AGREED TO.]

And who, for that matter, would have thought that when the withdrawal was announced, that it would not be the lead story on the evening news?

[BECAUSE HE BROKE HIS NUMBER ONE PROMISE AND THE PRESS COULDN'T BEAR TO LOOK FOOLISH JUST 35 DAYS IN. THEY ARE ANGRY BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT BARRY TO FAIL. HE FAILS THEIR BIAS IS EXPOSED FOR WHAT IT WAS. A HUGE ASSIST TO AN UNKNOWN MAN WHO HAD NEVER MADE A SINGLE DECISION OF CONSEQUENCE. HIS FIRST WAS BURRIS AND IT'S CLEAR HOW THAT ENDED UP NOT TO MENTION GIRD YOUR LOINS BIDEN.]

Not only was it not the lead, two or three stories about the bad economy came ahead of it, nor did it get above the fold in many newspapers.

[AGAIN, THE SAME.]

Yes, Barack Obama campaigned on change, but I doubt he expected a lot of that. Who would have thought?

SCHIEFFER: That’s our broadcast. And we’ll be back right here next Sunday on “Face the Nation.”

END

Sen Ted Kennedy to be Knighted by the Queen

March 4, 2009

UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown announced Sen Ted Kennedy's honorary knighthood today during his speech to the joint session of Congress. He had notified Kennedy last evening.

BROWN: I hope that you will allow me to single out for special mention today one of your most distinguished senators, known in every continent and a great frien.

Northern Ireland is today at peace, more Americans have health care, more children around the world are going to school, and for all those things we owe a great debt to the life and courage of Senator Edward Kennedy.

Getty Images

SEN KENNEDY: I'm deeply grateful to Her Majesty the Queen and to Prime Minister Brown for this extraordinary honor. I have always prized the opportunity to work with the British government and strengthen and deepen the role of our two countries as leading beacons of democracy in the world. I am proud that I was able to play a part in the decades-long effort to bring peace to Northern Ireland.

I also think of my ties to Britain that stretch back across the years-from my childhood to the Kennedy Scholars today who come from Britain to study in America. It was from Britain that my oldest brother left for his last mission during World War II. It is in Britain that a portion of land at Runnymede, where the Magna Carta was signed, is now designated as American soil and dedicated to President Kennedy as a gift of the British people.

So for me, this honor is moving and personal- a reflection not only of my public life, but of things that profoundly matter to me as an individual. I accept this honor in the spirit in which it is given, with a continuing commitment to be a voice for the voiceless and for the shared ideals of freedom and fairness which are so fundamental to the character of our two countries.

Kennedy's father, Joseph Kennedy, was U.S. ambassador to Britain between 1938-1940. His son, Rep Patrick Kennedy (RI), thanked PM Brown.

He will not be "Sir", which is reserved for British citizens. He will have the letters "KBE" Knight of the British Empire. Others awarded honorary knighthood: New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Bob Hope, Steven Spielberg, Colin Powell, Ronald Reagan and George H W Bush.

Source: Boston.com's SUSAN MILLIGAN

Emanuel: “[Limbaugh] is the voice and intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party”

March 1, 2009

Why are the Democrats giving Rush Limbaugh so much acknowledgment? Aren’t they in power? Isn’t the next election in four years? I’ve never listened to him before the other day. I only heard a little but he is entertaining. He’s a natural speaker and the crowd loved him. I didn’t hear anything objectionable. And he explained his comment about wanting barry to fail.

LIMBAUGH: What is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?

Like barry didn’t say on a daily basis how much of a failure Bush was? What’s wrong with the crowd going wild? The robamabots chanted like mindless fools and went wild when barry talked about how wrong Iraq was.

And why are people so quick to come to barry’s aid? Sure makes you wonder if they don’t think he can handle the job and the criticism that comes with it.

Why was Gov Palin not in attendance?

Rahm Emanuel was on CBS’ Face the Nation. Don’t see much of him on the fly just these sit down prepared interviews with his pals in the press. barry must have him on a tighter leash than Biden. Though it could have something to do with the subpoena he got from Patrick Fitzgerald.

EMANUEL: He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party, and he has been up front about what he views, and hasn’t stepped back from that, which is he hopes for failure.

He said it, and I compliment him on his honesty. But that’s their philosophy that’s enunciated by Rush Limbaugh and I think that’s the wrong philosophy for America.

DL Hughley told RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who is the actual head of the GOP, that “Rush Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the Republican Party.”

And barry wasn’t hoping the Surge would fail?

Source: CNN

Gov Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services

March 1, 2009

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, 60, accepted the appointment to Secretary of Health and Human Services. She steps into the vacancy left by Tom tax evader Daschle. I still feel bad for that guy sorta. All the appearances he made. All the nasty things he said about Hillary Clinton. All for naught.

Somehow I get the feeling Sebelius was fit in because she was probably already vetted somewhat, he owed her and she is a woman. Evidently her experience as Kansas state insurance commissioner qualified her for the job.

Well the only major woman left to get a payback is Sen Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. Maybe she got some plum committee I'm not aware of.

Politico is making a big deal over the fact she didn't get "health care czar". It was a newly invented position anyway.

And what is the deal with Howard Dean? He was out sniffing the other day. He made barry's win possible by moving South Carolina and Nevada primaries up and his brother did a hit job on the McCain campaign. Why isn't he getting anything? He's a medical doctor. How bad is whatever he is hiding?

This is the picture Politico chose to put with their article. A high-ranking female cabinet position appointee gets a side profile.

Gov Kathleen Sebelius (AP)

Source: Politico

Nancy Pelosi on Hillary Clinton and gender bias

December 1, 2008

I've been looking around in the drafts and found this. Rather funny coming from a woman who looked the other way as one of the leaders of the Democratic Party, while the future POTUS made sexist comment after sexist comment. And who looked the other way while her colleagues made sexist comments and nothing while the media made sexist comments hourly.

Don't these people ever listen to what they say?

And what's most ridiculous is Pelosi acting like she has a higher profile than Madame Secretary Clinton on the world stage. I sure wish I had the energy to go back and match up her before and after words. Historians are going to have so much fun with this election.

Pelosi was speaking at the Hunter College forum on the role of gender in politics. She responded to a question on whether Clinton would face sexist behavior from world leaders - something Clinton had already said she had never experienced.

From Huffington Post's Sam Stein:

[PELOSI] None at all. I have traveled the world as Speaker of the House… and I have seen the treatment I have received in these places. And I know the respect that they will have for soon to be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

…What is important to world leaders is, 'Does the president listen to you?'

… She is a force in her own right and anybody that might have that thought that you mildly suggested does so at his peril.

A lesson proven on the campaign trail when barry couldn't put Clinton away after winning 11 primaries in a row. A few more of his Stein's words:

But the most interesting topic of debate centered around whether Clinton and Sarah Palin were hindered by their sex [He doesn't even notice how whacked this sounds. It should be gender.] while on the campaign trail.

Both Pelosi and Rep. Carolyn Maloney were put in a tricky position, arguing that their Democratic colleague had been disadvantaged by her gender while Alaska's governor was not. But they made the case astutely, noting that the policies pursued by the McCain-Palin ticket were antithetical to women's interests, even if Palin's candidacy was a symbolic victory.

"It as a very contrasting case," said Maloney. "[Clinton] earned 18 million votes, inspired and led many people to live a better life. But at the same time there were hurdles there for her that were not there for her opponents... Back then, I thought someone should write a book about it. And someone has. It is called 'Rumors Of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated,'" a reference to Maloney's own book.

"John McCain had a problem," she went on. "He had 20 years of anti-woman votes on his record… When he appointed Sarah Palin, he did nothing to help women or women's rights."

"[Palin's] lasting legacy is that the extreme right accepted a women with small children running for office," she concluded.