Washington, DC (TRN) -- The White House issued a Health Advisory to all its staff today announcing a member of the U.S. Delegation which accompanied President Obama to Mexico has become infected with the new flu.The White House is advising anyone who came into contact with the infected delegate or others who accompanied the President to Mexico, to be on high alert for symptoms of being infected or their close relatives having become infected.
As Barack Obama reaches the 100 day mark of his term as President, it’s time to pose a question: why is he so unpopular? According to Gallup’s April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton, who got off to a notoriously bad start after trying to force homosexuals on the military and a federal raid in Waco, Texas, that killed 86. Mr. Obama’s current approval rating of 56 percent is only one tick higher than the 55-percent approval Mr. Clinton had during those crises… It’s no surprise the liberal media aren’t anxious to point out that their darling is less popular than George W. Bush. But given the Gallup numbers, their hurrahs could be more subdued. USA Today’s front page touted the April poll results as positive, with the headline: “Public thinks highly of Obama.” The current cover of Newsweek magazine ponders “The Secret of His [Mr. Obama's] Success.” The comparison with previous presidents is useful because they are usually popular during their first few months in office - and most presidents have been more popular than Mr. Obama. The Left in this country does not recognize that the Tea Party movement, the surprising strength of fundraising for GOP campaign committees and the Republican polling advantages in off-year races, all reflect dissatisfaction with Barack Obama’s agenda. The President himself continues to be more popular than his policies, but even that is changing - and it cannot last until the midterm elections. Of course, the longer Democrats choose not to recognize this, the more likely they are to pay the price politically.
Remember when Comrade Maobama mewled during the campaign: "There is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments?" He lied. Evidently, this change included the deficit growing to 1.5 TRILLION dollars (and growing every YEAR of this idiot being in office) but also includes the fact that the puppet of Soros actually asked his cabinet to cut 100 million out of their spending, a measley .0027%! Wow. Remember when Teleprompter Jesus, “criticized pork barrel spending in the form of 'earmarks,' and then urged his fellow Libs in the Politboro on the Potomac to adopt spending proposals to end earmarks? He lied. This back bencher signs a spending bill that NO ONE bothered to read and which included ALMOST NINE THOUSAND EARMARKS! Maobama then remarked: “Let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability." Yeah. Right. Remember when Chairman Zero whined about Congress not moving fast enough on PORKZILLA? "After pushing Congress for weeks to hurry up and pass the massive $787 billion stimulus bill, President Obama promptly took off for a three-day holiday getaway." (NY Post) Remember when Soros’ puppet promised to an “end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics?” He lied. He even stole the election on a bed of lies that promised a new era of bipartisanship. Just a few days AFTER the Rookie was Inaugurated (in a party more expensive than Bush, which the liberals whined about in 2001 and 2005) and in a meeting with Republican leaders on PORKZILLA, about their concerns about overspending, Maobama replied simply, “I won.” PORKZILLA failed to get a single House Republican vote. Next Brave Sir Obambi signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law, getting a whopping eight Republican supporters (RINOs) in the entire Congress. Then there was SCHIP, that after Team Socialist was done, received no Republican votes, since greatly expands government's role in health care. Then comes Maobama’s incessant blaming of Bush for everything, just like a spoiled child is wont to do. Then comes the attacks, led by Maobama’s poodle, Ballerina Rahmboy Emasculated, against Rush, Hannity, Michael Steele, AM talk Radio, and best of all, Nappy’s attack on Vets as right-wing extremists. "The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today." DHS Intel Report Remember when the Mystical Magical Negro (LA Times) chortled about “ushering in a transformational age where hope would replace fear, unity would overtake partisanship, and change would sweep aside the status quo?” Well, he lied. Maobama: "Obama warned Americans that the US economy would be forever destroyed if the stimulus bill was voted down.” And he said it so much that it was BJ Bubba warned Boy Blunder against making such grim pronouncements. Doom and Gloom, the Democrat Way. Remember when Jug Ears promised to put Americans' interests ahead of his own political ambitions? He lied. Evidently, he was followed the guidance of the Ballerina Rahmboy Emasculated who said, “You never want to waste a good crisis.” They sure as H*ll didn’t. At least 30 straight days of doom and gloom and a stock market that lost MORE in the first 60 days of his reign of terror than ANY OTHER POTUS in our history. Remember when The Cipher thanked the CIA employees for their work and told them that they're invaluable to national security? He lied. After releasing the “torture” memos, he told them not to feel bad because The Annoited One was acknowledging mistakes. The CIA’s mistakes, not his. In fact, the Dear Leader consoled them by mewling, “that's how we learn,” as if they, as adults, did not know better. Remember when Maobama stated that he’d work for America and Americans? He lied. Obama opened American citizens up to international tribunals by releasing the “torture” memos. Naturally the Useless Nations jumped on the bandwagon stating that the US is obliged to prosecute lawyers who drafted the memos or else violate the Geneva Conventions. So much for sticking up for America. Naturally, only 28% of Americans think the Obama administration should further investigate the Bush administration’s treatment of terrorism suspects and Rasmussen finds 58% of Americans believe the Obama administration's release of CIA memos endangers the national security of the United States. But who cares what THEY think? Remember when Maobama crowed about putting REAL smart people in his cabinet who could LEAD us out of the wilderness? He lied. "Yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn't have a drug war going on. Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there." Sorry Nappy, the 9/11 hijackers did not come across the Canadanian border, Al Gore let them in. Remember when Maobama yammered about no tax increases? He lied. "The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for overhauling the health care system. The proposal is politically problematic for President Obama, however, since it is similar to one he denounced in the presidential campaign as 'the largest middle-class tax increase in history.' " (NYT 3/14) Remember when Maobama stated that he’s run the most ethical administration ever? He lied. Richardson, Ghietner, Adolfo Carrion, Solis, Dashhole, Nancy Killefer, Louis Susman, Annette Nazareth, Sanjay Gupta, Caroline Atkinson, etc, etc. BTW, Samantha Power, who called Hillary “a monster," is on the National Security Council, and is a radical leftist. Remember when Maobama promised black farmers that he would help them in a discrimination suit against the USDA? He lied. He [Maobama] significantly lowered the amount of money they could claim in a discrimination settlement against the USDA. John Boyd, head of the National Black Farmers Association stated, “I can't figure out for the life of me why the president wouldn't want to implement a bill that he fought for as a US senator.” Remember when Maobama told Europe that he was the "anti-Bush?" He lied. "Europe should not simply expect the United States to shoulder that burden alone. This is a joint problem it requires a joint effort." (Asking for more troops in Afghanistan) The UK offered more help, the rest told him to pound sand. Remember when Maobama campaigned AGAINST the Iraq War and Afghanistan War and promised to cut funding down? He lied. “Obama asked Congress for an extra $83.4 billion to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Remember when Maobama promised to have the most open, the most transparent administration in history? He lied. "While the online question portion of the White House town hall was open to any member of the public with an Internet connection, the five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama's campaign in 2008." (WaPo 3/27) Remember when Maobama promised to adopt a dog from a shelter, unlike what BUSH did? He lied. He bought the dog he named after his own initials…BO. Remember when Maobama stated during the campaign that he would not press for new labor and environmental regulations in the North American Free Trade Agreement? He lied. His bills are full of new rules, regs, enviro-nazi crap. Remember when Maobama bleated: "By any measure, my administration has inherited a fiscal disaster." He lied. Porkzilla. Remember when Maobama promised to be more green? He lied. He flew on Air Force One from Andrews AFB to Williamsburg, VA., a total of 86 miles. On Earth Day, he took two flights on Air Force One and FOUR on Marine One to get to Iowa, burning OVER 9,000 gallons of fuel. He also has the thermostat UP in the White House to 80 degrees…because he’s from Hawaii. Remember when Maobama stated that he’d give US five FULL days to read proposed legislation and to allow us to comment on it? He lied. "President Obama failed to consult Congress, as promised, before carving out exceptions to the omnibus spending bill he signed into law -- breaking his own signing-statement rules two days after issuing them -- and raised questions among lawmakers and committees who say the president's objections are unclear at best and a power grab at worst." (Washington Times, 3/24) Remember when Maobama stated that he’s do better for America’s vets and military members, unlike the evil Bush? He lied. "President Obama's plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs for the treatment of troops injured in service has infuriated veterans groups who say the government is morally obligated to pay for service-related medical care." (Fox News, 3/17) Also, Obama is trying to kill a lawsuit filed in federal court against Iran by former US embassy hostages. The lawsuit alleges that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage-takers who interrogated the captives. Remember when Maobama stated over and over that children MUST COME FIRST? He lied. "Education Secretary Arne Duncan has decided not to admit any new students to the D.C. voucher program, which allows low-income children to attend private schools.” (WaPo 4/11) BTW, Maobama enrolled his daughters in a DC private school. Remember when Maobama stated to Representative Peter Defazio who voted AGAINST Porkzilla: "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother." So much for feeling the love.Remember when Senator Obama excoriated Bush for refusing to acknowledge the 20th Century's first genocide: "The United State must recognize the events of 1915-1923 carried out by the Ottoman Empire, as Genocide. The Bush administration's refusal to do so is inexcusable.America deserves a leader who speaks thoughtfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocide, I intent to be that President." Well, believe it or not, he lied. Maobama refrained from branding the massacre of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey [during his visit] a "genocide," breaking a campaign promise while contending his views about the 20th century slaughter had not changed." This is just the tip of the iceberg America. This clown is dancing on Soros' puppet strings. Standby for more of the S.O.S. from The Mystical Magical Negro (LA Times).
On Sunday, April 12, this blog published a leak of bank stress test results. Stock markets around the world reacted swiftly, wiping our about $527 Million in bank stock value on the S&P 500 bank index in the USA. Overseas, stock markets analyzed which of their banks could be at risk from U.S. banks, and bank stocks on foreign exchanges dropped too. When it was done, markets around the world watched $2.3 Billion drop out of bank stock values.Then the damage control teams from the government stepped in and started "spinning" the story and assailing its author, Hal Turner. Folks were told "Don't believe Turner"Here we are, 16 days later and low and behold, "official statements" are coming out confirming that two of the top 19 banks -- CitiBank and Bank of America -- are in serious need of more capital to survive. This is why the federal reserve published the methodology of their "stress test" last Friday and announced the results would be given to the general public on May 4; so during the interim, they can leak out the VERY bad news in dribs and drabs.They don't want to cause a panic by simply blurting out that many of the top banks in the country are in technically insolvent. They are.Click Here Posted
The very people who rail on ad nauseum about Social Injustice, Poverty, Militarism, and Disenfranchisement for some inexplicable reason, seem to venerate and oft times adore thuggish Third World Dictators. The examples are endless: Jimmy Carters’ validation of Hugo Chavez’s rigged election. Half of Malibu’s entertainment glitterati making pilgrimages to Fidel’s or El Jefe’ Hugo Chavez’s Workers Paradise, then lauding those dictatorship’s political and health care systems as models for the world to emulate. Michael Moore’s “Crockumentary” of the same socialist paradise of Cuba. Lastly our newly minted President sitting through Daniel Ortega’s anti-American screed whilst nodding in affirmation, then apologizing for America’s alleged sins toward Latin America. Liberals almost without exception appear to feel this way about dictatorships and it is truly an oxymoron. How can one claim to love freedom yet fawn all over political leaders who crush dissent, imprison dissidents, marginalize women and other minorities, or in the Castro brother’s case have people stood up before firing parties? It seems to fly in the face of rational thought, and that is where those on the Far Left go off the reservation. They really don’t trust average people to govern themselves and arrogantly view non “Elites" in dire need to be led..... by THEM. I give you as example the recent tirade of Ms. Garoffalo who mused that Conservatives had ‘Limbic Brain” abnormalities. If one does not agree with her worldview, one is mentally ill. The Far Left seem to want a world which never was and never can be, but suspend reality because it makes them feel better thinking that they can craft a Utopia. Socialists / Fascists believe in the concept of a “Benign Dictatorship” where some political strongman rules his people in a father like manner. If one looks at any dictatorship’s propaganda and iconography it is apparent that those very strongmen cultivated that very image. North Korea has it’s “Dear Leader.” Nazi Germany had carefully crafted propaganda extolling Adolph Hitler as a “Savior” and father figure. Lenin, Stalin, Castro and Mao all used similar propaganda to appeal to the innate need of some humans to “Be Led” or taken care from the cradle to the grave. They are willing, as Benjamin Franklin observed, to relinquish political and economic liberty for security. The problem is you end up with neither safety nor security. You end up with a repressive, bloody Police State in every instance. Nations which embrace economic and political liberty have winners and losers, People win or lose elections and people succeed or fail economically, but they aren’t stood up against walls and shot, thrown in dungeons like the Lubiyanka or Lefortovo, or gassed and thrown into ovens like those at Dachau or Treblinka. For to implement all the glories of fascism / socialism it becomes necessary at some juncture to silence, cow, imprison, or outright liquidate a sizable segment of a nation’s populace who prefer liberty. University Professor and Obama “mentor" William Ayers explained exactly that to FBI Informant Larry Grathwohl in the early 1980s when he observed that it would be necessary to eliminate several million Americans who refused his form of governance. Ayers went so far as to suggest the armies of a foreign power be invited in to help in accomplishing this. The success of “The Revolution” had costs he explained. Somehow people who consider themselves intellectually superior like Garoffalo, Penn and their political counterparts like Ayers, Dohrn and George Soros, seem to believe when that type of socialist dictatorship is imposed upon the United States that they will be the Oligarchs who shall sneer down as Liberal Fascism is imposed on we that they hold in such utter contempt. Socialists love dictatorships and strongmen because in their hearts they secretly desire to be dictators and strongmen. They imagine how much “good” they could do for society without that antiquated Constitution, and those that still venerate its pesky Bill of Rights. They should be careful what they wish for. Lord Acton’s statement on “Absolute Power Corrupting Absolutely” has been born out in every instance. History reveals that when an absolute dictaorial regime is set up it soon finds threats and enemies--even amongst its own true believers. King Henry the 8th in the mid 1500s went about merrily cutting off the heads of those he thought might be threats, including his wife Queen Anne Bolyn. It was true under Stalin. He killed millions of Russian including his fellow “Hero of the Revolution” Leon Trotsky, going so far as to have NKVD agents track Trotsky down in Mexico and kill him with an icepick. Stalin paranoically even purged his entire Army senior staff liquidating any officer he felt to be remotely disloyal. Hitler in the “Night of the Long Knives” purged the SA and killed Nazi Party founding member Ernst Rohem. Mao Tse Tung killed millions in his Long March and purged and imprisoned a sizable percentage of his population in The Cultural Revolution. The North Vietnamese army after the fall of Saigon in 1975 went about eliminating former loyal VC leaders who might pose a political threat. The problem with dictatorships is that there is no “Separation of Powers." Kings and "Dear Leaders” almost always soon become paranoid and murderous. It is a fact and function of human nature. The Magna Carta was forced upon the English King at the point of a sword. Oliver Cromwell had yet another Crown Sovereign beheaded in the English Civil War for repressive and seditious acts against his own subjects. Dictators can only be removed and dissuaded from their repressive and murderous pursuits and policies by Force of Arms. It is why Dictatorships cannot ever be permitted to flower and take root in a society in the first place. It is why America’s Founders insisted upon a Bill of Rights, "checks and balances” and a Second Amendment. The Left is either ignorant, dismissive, or attempting to re-write history if it believes that it can have total power over all Americans without checks and balances and Separation of Powers without it eventually devolving someday into a bloody tyranny. I can think of not one historical example where an absolute leader came to power who then DIDN’T end up imprisoning or liquidating any and all who opposed him, including many acolytes, useful idiots, and fellow travelers. Sir Winston Churchill once observed that Democracy was a poor form of government except that all the others were so much worse. Perhaps that is why the bust of old Winny was unceremoniously sent back to London shortly after January 6, 2009. Sir Winston would be very leery of the course that the political Far Left has set for America.
State of the Union after Barack Obama’s first 100 Days: Taliban forces are raising hell in Pakistan and, if they are successful, that nation’s nuclear arsenal will be turned over to Osama bin Laden. Iran continues it’s relentless drive toward membership in the nuclear club while denouncing Israel. North Korea fires missiles and rockets at will. Recent events in Iraq suggest a surge in the insurgency there. The left’s pet project in Afghanistan is going badly and according to some military types, the war there may be lost. Mexico appears to be the source of a new and deadly swine flu that could become a global pandemic, while violence and murder from civil war spills over into the U.S. America’s economy continues to deteriorate with scant evidence of the millions of new jobs that the stimulus lark was supposed to produce. Losing “only” $1.4 billion dollars in the first quarter causes Ford Motor stock to rise, while executives at Chrysler and GM spend their hours trying to finagle additional billions from the U.S. treasury before filing bankruptcy. Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano has trained her sights on vets and other right-wing extremists while offering her blessings to illegal aliens. Meanwhile, President Obama spends his time bowing to foreign kings, playing Human Resources manager for the auto industry, cavorting with Latin American dictators, bad-mouthing America to anyone who will listen, and banning “harsh interrogation” techniques that proved effective in saving Los Angeles. THIS is change we need?
HR45 [aka the Blair Holt bill] is such a blatant attack on the Second Amendment, you would think it must be a hoax. But Snopes assures us otherwise: In a nutshell, the Blair Holt bill would: • Prohibit possession of any handguns or any semiautomatic firearms that can accept detachable ammunition-feeding devices (excluding antiques) by anyone who has not been issued a firearm license. • Require all sales of those types of firearms to go through licensed dealers. • Direct the Attorney General to establish and run a federal record-of-sale system. • Require the possessors of firearms to secure them (by secure gun storage or safety devices) when they are kept in locales where children might be capable of gaining access to those firearms. In order to be issued a firearm license under the provisions of the Blair Holt legislation, applicants would be required to submit the following information to the Attorney General: 1. a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant 2. the name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant … 7. a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding: […blah blah blah…] any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate […blah blah blah et cetera] It goes on, making crystal clear that federal bureaucrats do not want you to exercise your constitutional right to own a gun. Needless to say, no provision of this bill will affect criminals, who do not obtain firearms through legitimate channels, or bog themselves down with legal requirements. But the bill does serve a purpose beyond bureaucratic harassment. As the recent Tea Parties made clear, this government is already pushing the farthest limits of what the public will tolerate. It needs to keep very close tabs on where all the guns are, the better to confiscate them in the near future. The bill is sponsored by a guy who ought to know something about firearms, despite having gone AWOL from the US Army: Bobby Rush, a Congressman who used to be "deputy defense minister" for the Illinois chapter of the anti-Caucasian Marxist cult known as the Black Panthers. He served 6 months on an illegal weapons charge in 1969, the heyday of the ideology that is now being imposed from Washington. To quote Rush himself on his intentions: Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned … that's the endgame. He's also a major proponent of "reparations" to blacks. But he's wise to want to take our guns away first before moving forward with more race-based wealth transfers. As for the long-term objectives of Rush et al., his recent hajj to Cuba, where he and other Congresscreeps kissed communist dictator Fidel Castro's ring and came back praising him, gives a good idea of the direction in which disarmed Americans will be herded.
In May of 2008 when Barack Obama was running for president he made a stop in Miami, Florida, a place well known for being a hotbed of anti-Castro, anti-communist sentiment. Miami is a place where many thousands of self-exiled Cubans settled after they fled a life of religious and political oppression and torture at the hands of Cuban communist dictator Fidel Castro. While in Miami candidate Obama made some strong and passionate statements about how if he were to be elected president his administration would not bow to Castro’s tyranny. He excoriated Castro’s oppression and sympathized with the Cuban people pledging that as president he’d help bring freedom, liberty, and democracy to Cuba. At the height of his passion, Obama said, “I won’t stand for this injustice” and promised that, “together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba.”
Transcript There is no place for this kind of tyranny in this hemisphere. There is no place for any darkness that would shut out the light of liberty. Here in this hemisphere we must heed the words of Doctor King written from his own jail cell, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Throughout my entire lifetime there has been injustice and repression in Cuba. Never in my lifetime have the people of Cuba known true freedom. Never in the lives of two generations of Cubans have the people of Cuba known democracy. This is the terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century. Of elections that are anything but free or fair, of dissident locked away in dark prison cells for the crime of speaking the truth. I won’t stand for this injustice, you will not stand for this injustice and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba. That will be my commitment as president of the United States of America. But, that was then. Now that he’s won the White House, suddenly Barack Obama is less interested in all that talk of Castro’s tyranny and oppression and injustice. Now he’s all about “change” and working together and not “interfering” in other countries. Now it’s all about America’s errors, not Cuba’s. The rhetoric is suddenly quite soft on Castro’s despotism and oppression. Speaking to foreigners at Port of Spain, Trinidad in April of 2009. Read The Transcript below.
Notice how the focus has changed? Now it’s about America with her tail between her legs apologizing for her “mistakes.” Now it’s a “new beginning with Cuba.” Gone is all that hoary talk of tyranny and oppression in Cuba and in it’s place the “new” relationship where Obama looks the other way from Cuba’s half a century of tyranny. Yes, it’s a new beginning all right. It’s the beginning of Obama’s channeling of Neville Chamberlain in the face of Castro’s Hitler. Get ready folks because Obama’s acts of appeasement have only begun to excuse tyranny everywhere. Transcript There’s been several remarks directed at the issue of the relationship between the United States and Cuba, so let me address this. The United States seeks a new beginning with Cuba. I know that there is a longer --(applause) --I know there’s a longer journey that must be traveled to overcome decades of mistrust, but there are critical steps we can take toward a new day. I’ve already changed a Cuba policy that I believe has failed to advance liberty or opportunity for the Cuban people. We will now allow Cuban Americans to visit the islands whenever they choose and provide resources to their families --the same way that so many people in my country send money back to their families in your countries to pay for everyday needs. Over the past two years, I’ve indicated, and I repeat today, that I’m prepared to have my administration engage with the Cuban government on a wide range of issues --from drugs, migration, and economic issues, to human rights, free speech, and democratic reform. Now, let me be clear, I’m not interested in talking just for the sake of talking. But I do believe that we can move U.S.-Cuban relations in a new direction. As has already been noted, and I think my presence here indicates, the United States has changed over time. (Applause.) It has not always been easy, but it has changed. And so I think it’s important to remind my fellow leaders that it’s not just the United States that has to change. All of us have responsibilities to look towards the future. (Applause.) I think it’s important to recognize, given historic suspicions, that the United States’ policy should not be interference in other countries, but that also means that we can’t blame the United States for every problem that arises in the hemisphere. That’s part of the bargain. (Applause.) That’s part of the change that has to take place. That’s the old way, and we need a new way. The United States will be willing to acknowledge past errors where those errors have been made. We will be partners in helping to alleviate poverty. But the American people have to get some positive reinforcement if they are to be engaged in the efforts to lift other countries out of the poverty that they’re experiencing. (Go here for a full transcript of all of Obama’s remarks at the opening of the Summit of the America’s)
Torturing the Bush administration, American soldiers and members of the U.S. Intelligence community has long been a favorite pastime of both foreign and domestic enemies of American freedom and power. But the advent of a New Leftist regime in DC, largely funded by foreign anti-American money and elected by domestic anti-American voters, has upped the ante in that dirty little ideological war over political power… In other words, like every other divisive issue under the sun, national security has now been completely politicized, and as a result, dangerously compromised. This is what you should expect from a spineless commander elected by spineless leftwing ideologues, both of whom imagine America as the evil empire of the world. Against the advice of every security expert in the universe, including Obama CIA chief Leon Panetta, but much to the favor of American enemies everywhere, the Obama regime released Top Secret CIA interrogation memos directly related to an enemy who still has America squarely in its sights. In an effort to redirect public attention away from growing public dissent against failing Obama policies, Obama decided to refocus the nation upon regurgitated leftwing reports of CIA “waterboarding” and other allegedly “criminal” interrogation efforts used by the CIA in the international ”War on Terror,” which Obama recently renamed, the ”Overseas Contingency Plan,” whatever that’s supposed to mean… The reaction within the halls of the CIA were immediate and almost disastrous, as their efforts to keep America safe had been labeled a form of ”terror and torture” by the new administration. Immediately upon returning from his weekend retreat with Communist dictators and anti-American thugs, Obama was forced to rush a meeting at CIA headquarters, in which he tried desperately to quite violent reactions within the CIA, to administration efforts to politicize their work. An empty effort that clearly failed… These folks know a fraud when they see one. In that speech, and for the following 24 hours, Obama sought to calm CIA nerves by repeatedly rejecting any notion that his administration would ever seek prosecution against the people who had managed to prevent a second or third 9/11 for eight years. But on the other side of the debate, within the leftist groups responsible for electing Obama Commander-in-Chief, there was another, even more violent reaction building. Less than 24 hours after the CIA speech, Obama reversed course, and dumped the matter in Attorney General Eric Holders lap, allowing as how senior Bush administration officials who had issued the orders or had provided legal opinions to the CIA, would be investigated and possibly prosecuted for their efforts to prevent a second wave of terror attacks on U.S. soil. The charge would be a form of “war crimes,” ‚Äì similar to those asserted by America’s enemies abroad, who had hoped for a much friendlier enemy in America, and now have one. Obama was clearly caught squarely between his oath of office and his leftwing constituents. His office, which places above all other obligations, his obligation to defend America, American citizens and the American Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, - and his political power-base and their nutty political desires for a witch hunt to punish political opponents like Bush at any cost, a common fantasy within his extreme leftwing constituency. Though Obama tried to convince CIA employees to the contrary, clearly, his nutty leftwing constituents had won round one… National security was now front and center in the political war against all who dissent against leftwing nutjobs and their even nuttier concepts of American sovereignty and security. It’s a disgusting display of spineless partisan politics at the expense of national security, at best. At worst, it’s an overt effort to accelerate the leftwing goal of completely destroying the greatest nation ever known to mankind. What About the Truth? Let’s pretend like the truth matters for just a moment. The leftist allegations of “torture” and “terror” aimed at American intelligence operatives and members of our Armed Forces are based upon a couple of well-known interrogation tactics, at the center of the rage, a practice called “waterboarding.” For those who have never watched the NBC show Fear Factor, let me explain what “waterboarding” is… So as not to make this too complicated for leftists who might have accidentally made it this far into this column, it is ”simulated drowning,” with great emphasis on the word “SIMULATED.” The interrogation subject is NOT being drowned. They are being made to “FEEL” like they might be drowning, to introduce a “fear factor” aimed at getting them to disclose that which they desperately need and want to conceal, namely, the time, place and form of the next attack on innocent civilian populations, before their friends can carry out such attacks. Those of you who have watched the NBC show Fear Factor, know that this is NOTHING compared to what NBC put contestants through for a lousy $100,000 prize. A second tactic of grave concern to leftist weenies is the practice of placing a terror subject in a confined area, blindfolded, along with a completely harmless caterpillar, which would creepy crawl up and down the extremities of the terrorist, again, to induce a fear factor that might put him in a better mood to chat. If NBC had limited its games to only these tactics, their show would have failed after the first two episodes. High Valued Assets These “extreme” tactics were reserved only for “high valued assets.” Jaywalkers were never “waterboarded” or forced to sleep with caterpillars. Only well-known terror leaders, known to possess the very kinds of information that could prevent another 9/11, were interrogated with “extreme” measures. And, as a result, the tactics worked because they were used only on assets known to have the information sought. For the record, America has always had strict “rules of engagement,” including how captured enemy combatants must be treated and interrogated. On the other hand, our enemies have NO such rules… While we go out of our way to be humane to our enemies and avoid loss of innocent life whenever possible, even at the high price of American lives, our enemies choose innocent, unsuspecting civilians as their primary target. Making it Personal It has been my experience that the average American has no concept of what our enemies are like or what it takes to provide security for 300 million American civilians focused on a round of golf or the kids’ next soccer game. How wonderful that most Americans can live in such a world… But the only way to help the average American understand even a glimpse of what national security folks deal with is to make it VERY personal. So, I use the following scenario to help you better understand the topic. Imagine that your family is the victim of a home invasion, in which multiple attackers invade your home in the middle of the night, kidnapping your children before you can stop them. But you manage to catch the last attacker before he can escape your home along with the others, who have already taken your children to God knows where, to do God knows what.... You know that this man knows where your children have been taken and what they intend to do with your children. Where do you draw the line in trying to extract the information needed to save your children, from a man who has no intention of ever providing you with that information? You know that you should dial 911 for the police, but you also know that as the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away... You know that the police also have “rules of engagement,” that they cannot use “extreme” tactics to find out where your children are without being prosecuted for such abusive behaviors. So, you decide to ask the attacker yourself… Where do you draw the line? How far are you willing to go to save your children? Is “simulating” drowning to scare the truth out him too far? Is strapping him to a kitchen chair and letting a caterpillar crawl up his arm too far? 300 million Innocent Children The primary task of the DOD and CIA are to get the answer to this question, not for their own children and home at risk, but for 300 million innocent civilians and the entire American way of life, at risk. Where should they draw the line in efforts to gain the information necessary to keep you able to focus on your next round of golf or the next kids’ baseball game? Every individual will answer this question differently, but I suspect all of them will draw the line somewhere beyond “simulated drowning.” Prosecuting for What Purpose? 48 hours after Obama promised to “support” the CIA, news headlines are covered with Bush-Era Officials Could Be Prosecuted. After 9/11, the Bush administration clearly chose an aggressive pro-active strategy to make certain that no second or third wave of terror attacks happened on U.S. soil on their watch. As no follow up attacks succeeded on their watch, and many were indeed tried, I’d say that the Bush strategy was hugely successful. Despite the facts, some still disagree… The Obama administration clearly has a very different strategy in mind. Only time will tell how successful the apologetic appeasement strategy will be, even though there are past indications, 9/11 itself being one of many, that anything short of an aggressive pro-active strategy will fail with this particular enemy. Still, Obama is the current Commander-in-Chief, like it or not, and he will develop his own strategy for keeping America safe and sound. Maybe they will be as successful as the Bush strategy, and maybe not. But before those who want to lynch people for doing too much to keep America safe start making their nooses, I recommend they take a very serious look at the truth, and then ask themselves the following question… Before I lynch the Bush national security team for doing ”too much” to secure our nation from repeat 9/11 attacks, am I ready to lynch the Obama team if it turns out that they have done ”too little?” Watch what you wish for… As Bush is finding out today, the policies and powers once put in place to defend, can be used by a later enemy for attack. The same will be true for Obama soon… Tread carefully…
Ed Schultz's ratings on MSNBC have gone from small to microscopic.The Radio Equalizer reported, via Free Republic: Now that one of liberal talk radio's key figures has absolutely bombed on cable, however, the mainstream media hasn't a word to say about it. In this case, it's hot-headed Ed Schultz, who has taken a small MSNBC audience base and rendered it truly invisible, with ratings barely perceptible even when analyzed by a microscope.If the formerly Fargo-based faux populist and paid union hack has an excuse, it's that MSNBC's overall audience has dropped like a rock since the Obamist regime took over in January.In both the key 25-54 and overall audience demographics, the far-left NBC outlet is losing big to its competitors, especially FOX News Channel, often attracting one-half or even one-third of the latter's viewership. That includes declining figures for Maddow.Standing out like a sore thumb, however, is Schultz's performance to date. On Friday, his worst day so far, he scored the lowest 25-54 ratings of any cable news show between 6pm and midnight: just 75,000 average viewers nationwide. Overall, it wasn't much better: 365,000. For every person watching the Ed Show, there were more than four tuned into his competition at FOX.
Who says Comrade Obama has no sense of fiscal responsibility? He's called upon his henchmen to slash the federal budget by a whopping $100 million. Until recently, that would have sounded like a lot of money. But this graphic from The Heritage Foundation puts the number into context. Remarks Harvard University economics professor Greg Mankiw: To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year. Even AP is disgusted by this pathetic attempt to dupe us into thinking we're not being spent into oblivion, observing that $100 million is 1/10,000th of the government's operating budgets for Cabinet agencies, excluding the Iraq and Afghan wars and the stimulus bill. By the time Obama is done destroying the value of our currency by printing money to finance his demented spending spree, you'll be able to get $100 million for your used car — assuming gasoline is still available.
[W]hat I’ve proposed, you’ll hear Sen. McCain say, well, he’s proposing a whole bunch of new spending, but actually I’m cutting more than I’m spending so that it will be a net spending cut. -Barack Obama, Second Presidential Debate, October 7, 2008. OBAMA: …[W]hat I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut. I haven’t made a promise about… SCHIEFFER: But you’re going to have to cut some of these programs, certainly. OBAMA: Absolutely. So let me get to that. What I want to emphasize, though, is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I’ve proposed, I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches. -Barack Obama, Third Presidential Debate, October 15, 2008. If ever a public policy proposal deserved universal ridicule, it has to be President Obama’s effort to convince the public that [cue Dr. Evil voice] 100 million dollars in spending cuts are a significant dent in federal spending. Since Obama looked the nation in the eye and made that read-my-lips promise of a net spending cut in those two debates, we have sat and watched as he signed into law a colossal $787 billion ’stimulus’ bill, proposed a $634 billion fund to begin offsetting the projected trillion-dollar cost of his health care plans, and unveiled a $3.6 trillion budget that’s projected to consume 26% of GDP, the biggest share for federal spending since World War II (it hasn’t been above 21% since the last budget before the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994). Over at the New Ledger, our RS colleague Francis Cianfrocca notes the puny relative size of this proposal: That’s 0.0027% of his first budget, and 0.0057% of his first deficit. To put this start toward a net cut into terms that every American can visualize, this is roughly like having a baseball team made up of 3,600 Alex Rodriguezes downsize by cutting one-tenth of an A-Rod from the team. You could also do the baseball analogy and note that the proposed cuts are smaller than the $117 million contract the Rockies signed with Mike Hampton. Republicans have pointed out that the federal government spends $100 million every 13 minutes; this morning’s NY Daily News had a longer list of amusing analogies, from the budget for Titanic to the cost of Mike Bloomberg’s re-election campaign. Even the White House press corps, led by arch-liberal AP reporter Jennifer Loven and the indefatigable Jake Tapper, scoffed at this nonsense, leaving the hapless Robert Gibbs vainly trying to defend Obama’s proposal with a straight face: JENNIFER LOVEN, AP: The $100 million target figure that the president talked about today with the Cabinet, can you explain why so small? I know he talked about — you know, you add up 100 million and 100 million, and eventually, you get somewhere, but it would take an awfully long time to add up hundred million (inaudible) in the deficit. Why not target a bigger number? GIBBS: (Smiling) Well, I think only in Washington, D.C. is a hundred million dollars… LOVEN: The deficit’s very large. It’s not a joke. GIBBS: No, I’m… LOVEN: The deficit’s giant. $100 million really is only a step. GIBBS: But no joke. LOVEN: You sound like you’re joking about it, but it’s not funny. GIBBS: I’m not making jokes about it. I’m being completely sincere that only in Washington, D.C. is $100 million not a lot of money. It is where I’m from. It is where I grew up. And I think it is for hundreds of millions of Americans. LOVEN: The point is it’s not a very big portion of the deficit. TAPPER: You were talking about an appropriations bill a few weeks ago about $8 billion being minuscule — $8 billion in earmarks. We were talking about that and you said that that… GIBBS: Well, in terms of — in…(CROSSTALK) TAPPER: …$100 million is a lot but $8 billion is small? Those of us who had paid any attention to the man’s record knew that Obama was lying to us last October when he claimed to be proposing a net reduction in federal spending. Hold your breath if you like waiting for the remaining trillion or so dollars in spending cuts he’d need to do that. The only possible reason I can think for the fanfare surrounding the $100 million in cuts is literally Obama’s belief that he can fool voters who do not know the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion. So there you have it: Barack Obama thinks you can’t count.
One day after Turner Radio Network published - on this blog - the most salient points about the allegedly unfinished and unavailable bank stress tests, the Associated Press is now reporting they too have obtained stress test documentation!Unlike TRN, which released our stress test report before markets opened, the Associated Press waited until 4:00 PM eastern US time - after the markets had closed - to reveal they too had obtained access to stress test documents.Gee whiz. It looks like the bank stress test results, which the U.S. Treasury said yesterday were unavailable and unfinished, ARE leaking to the media and this blog got some of them before everyone else in the world. Imagine that.
After Nicaraguan Marxist President Daniel Ortega attacked America for 50 minutes in his speech on Saturday, Barack Obama smiled and shook his hand at the Summit of the Americas.Obama also hit it off with Marxist tyrant Hugo Chavez at the summit. But, Barack Obama won't meet with the Israeli Prime Minister at AIPAC this year.The Jerusalem Post reported: Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Sunday canceled his plans to attend the upcoming AIPAC summit, after it became clear that US President Barack Obama would not meet him during the conference. Netanyahu announced that while he will not attend the conference in person, he will send a video-taped message to Washington. Army Radio reported that the prime minister asked President Shimon Peres to represent Israel at the summit, scheduled to take place in Washington in the beginning of May.
Stocks suffered an across-the-board decline on Monday as investors questioned whether banks can continue to post strong results amid signs that borrowers are still falling behind on their debts. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 289.60 points, or 3.6%, to 7841.73. It was the blue-chip measure's steepest one-day point loss since March 2 and its worst percentage decline since March 5. The slide broke a three-day winning streak for blue chips. The Dow was hurt by a 24% slide in Bank of America. The bank said that its first-quarter net income more than tripled, with the company's recent Merrill Lynch acquisition contributing more than $3 billion to its bottom line, but net charge-offs rose and losses in its credit-card business ballooned. The bank is still facing "extremely difficult challenges primarily from deteriorating credit quality driven by weakness in the economy and growing unemployment," said Chief Executive Ken Lewis. Major bank stocks had rallied over the last month but fundamental questions linger for the sector. The industry's ability to extend credit is still constrained, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Treasury Department data. The Obama administration may also convert some of the preferred shares that it's obtained via bank bailouts into common stock once a round of stress testing is done next month, according to reports. Such a move would give the administration added flexibility to provide further aid to the banks without allocating additional money, but would dilute existing shareholders of the firms' common stock. The S&P 500 dropped 37.21 points, or 4.3%, to 832.39, led by an 11% slide in its financial sector. Goldman Sachs Group fell 4.6% and J.P. Morgan Chase fell 11%. Citigroup tumbled 19% after being cut to a "sell" rating from a "hold" by Argus Research. All three lenders posted better-than-expected first-quarter results last week. "The bank earnings so far just seem to be smoke and mirrors and the other companies aren't reporting quality earnings. It's just reducing expenses and dipping into reserves," said Harry Rady, chief executive officer of Rady Asset Management. The Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index jumped more than 16%, a sign that nervousness among investors is again on the rise, though it remained below the 40 mark, well short of its peak near 80 last fall. The technology-focused Nasdaq Composite Index slid 64.86 points, or 3.9%, to 1608.21. Oracle said that it plans to acquire Sun Microsystems for $7.4 billion. The deal followed the unraveling of Sun's talks to sell itself to International Business Machines. Sun's shares rose 37% while Oracle fell 1.3%. IBM, which reports earnings after the close on Monday, declined 0.8%. Last week's sunny outlook at the start of earning season has since clouded over, as trepidation over the health of the banking sector crept into the market. Although Bank of America reported solid first-quarter profits, many traders say banks are enjoying a one-time bonanza thanks to the government's bailout package, says Peter McKay. Some of the unease weighing on stocks rippled into the commodities markets as well. Crude oil for May delivery sank $4.45 per barrel, or 8.84%, to $45.88, the lowest settlement for a front-month contract since March 11. Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank in Chicago warned clients on Monday that stock and bond markets are sending conflicting signals about the prospects for an economic recovery and stabilization of the financial system. Mr. Ablin said he's concerned that the spread between yields on BBB-rated corporate debt and 10-year Treasurys has remained above five full percentage points since November, not budging even as the stock market posted a furious rally from its March lows. That means bond investors are still charging companies a hefty premium to borrow, reflecting deep skepticism that risk has dissipated enough to justify lower borrowing costs. That message is at odds with that of the most bullish stock investors, who believe the crisis that struck last fall is now waning. "Unfortunately, history tells us that it's the bond investors who are usually right in situations like this," said Mr. Ablin, who's maintaining a hold-steady approach on stocks for now. Regarding the recent spate of first-quarter profits at banks, he said: "There's a lot of cynicism out there about these income statements. They're one-time gains, clearly."
I found this essay by Dennis Prager on Front Page Magazine and wanted to share it:Why is it that when people want to describe particularly evil individuals or regimes, they use the terms "Nazi" or "Fascist" but almost never "Communist?"Given the amount the human suffering Communists have caused - 70 million killed in China, 20-30 million in the former Soviet Union, and almost one-third of all Cambodians; the decimation of Tibetan and Chinese culture; totalitarian enslavement of North Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Russians; a generation deprived of human rights in Cuba; and much more -- why is "Communist" so much less a term of revulsion than "Nazi?"There are Mao Restaurants in major cities in the Western world. Can one imagine Hitler Restaurants? Che Guevara T-shirts are ubiquitous, yet there are no Heinrich Himmler T-shirts.This question is of vital significance. First, without moral clarity, humanity has little chance of avoiding a dark future. Second, the reasons for this moral imbalance tell us a great deal about ourselves today.Here, then, are seven reasons.1. Communists murdered their own people; the Nazis murdered others. Under Mao about 70 million people died - nearly all in peacetime! - virtually all of them Chinese. Likewise, the approximately 30 million people that Stalin had killed were nearly all Russians, and those who were not Russian, Ukrainians for example, were members of other Soviet nationalities. The Nazis, on the other hand, killed very few fellow Germans. Their victims were Jews, Slavs, and members of other "non-Aryan" and "inferior" groups. "World opinion" - that vapid amoral concept - deems the murder of members of one's group far less noteworthy than the murder of outsiders. That is one reason why blacks killing millions of fellow blacks in the Congo right now elicits no attention from "world opinion." But if an Israeli soldier is charged with having killed a Gaza woman and two children, it makes the front page of world newspapers.I have to quibble over this one. The Jews, at least those who were from Germany were Germans. They were German citizens and many of them had fought for Germany in the First World War. Then there's the issue of Arab violence against Jews in Israel. Hamas can fire all the rockets into Jewish neighborhoods, using schools and hospitals and residential neighborhoods as launching pads, as it wants but let the IDF respond and the left howls in outrage. Fact is that the right hates Hitler because he was a genocidal antisemitic tyrant who tried to conquer the world. The left hates Hitler not because he murdered Jews, but because he attacked the Soviet Union.2. Communism is based on lovely sounding theories; Nazism is based on heinous sounding theories. Intellectuals, among whom are the people who write history, are seduced by words -- so much so that deeds are deemed considerably less significant. Communism's words are far more intellectually and morally appealing than the moronic and vile racism of Nazism. The monstrous evils of communists have not been focused on nearly as much as the monstrous deeds of the Nazis. The former have been regularly dismissed as perversions of a beautiful doctrine (though Christians who committed evil in the name of Christianity are never regarded by these same people as having perverted a beautiful doctrine), whereas Nazi atrocities have been perceived (correctly) as the logical and inevitable results of Nazi ideology. This seduction by words while ignoring deeds has been a major factor in the ongoing appeal of the left to intellectuals. How else explain the appeal of a Che Guevara or Fidel Castro to so many left-wing intellectuals, other than that they care more about beautiful words than about vile deeds?Christians don't get "beautiful words" credit because they believe in God.3. Germans have thoroughly exposed the evils of Nazism, have taken responsibility for them, and attempted to atone for them. Russians have not done anything similar regarding Lenin's or Stalin's horrors. Indeed, an ex-KGB man runs Russia, Lenin is still widely revered, and, in the words of University of London Russian historian Donald Rayfield, "people still deny by assertion or implication, Stalin's holocaust." Nor has China in any way exposed the greatest mass murderer and enslaver of them all, Mao Zedong. Mao remains revered in China. Until Russia and China acknowledge the evil their states have done under communism, communism's evils will remain less acknowledged by the world than the evils of the German state under Hitler.No arguement here. I once told Vladimer Posner that the Russian people needed a "decommunisation" process like the denazification that the victorious allies imposed on Germany.4. Communism won, Nazism lost. And the winners write history.Communism lost the Cold War. Where are the Capitalist histories? Oh, Miss Ann is writing them.5. Nothing matches the Holocaust. The rounding up of virtually every Jewish man, woman, child, and baby on the European continent and sending them to die is unprecedented and unparalleled. The communists killed far more people than the Nazis did but never matched the Holocaust in the systemization of murder. The uniqueness of the Holocaust and the enormous attention paid to it since then has helped ensure that Nazism has a worse name than communism.What about the way that Che rounded up and executed homosexuals?6. There is, simply put, widespread ignorance of communist atrocities compared to those of the Nazis. Whereas, both right and left loathe Nazism and teach its evil history, the left dominates the teaching profession, and therefore almost no one teaches communist atrocities. As much as intellectuals on the left may argue that they loathe Stalin or the North Korean regime, few on the left loathe communism. As the French put it, "pas d'enemis a la gauche," which in English means "no enemies on the left." This is certainly true of Chinese, Vietnamese, and Cuban communism. Check your local university's courses and see how many classes are given on communist totalitarianism or mass murder compared to the number of classes about Nazism's immoral record.True. As long as the enemies of Western civilization rule the academy don't expect any improvement.7. Finally, in the view of the left, the last "good war" America fought was World War II, the war against German and Japanese fascism. The left does not regard America's wars against communist regimes as good wars. The war against Vietnamese communism is regarded as immoral and the war against Korean (and Chinese) communism is simply ignored.WWII was America's "good war" because it was waged - in the leftist's mind - to rescue Stalin from Hitler. Don't misunderstand me. Hitler was pure evil and he needed to be stopped, but the more I study the war and the events leading up to it the more convinced I become that FDR's primary motivation for wanting the US in the war was saving Stalin.Until the left and all the institutions influenced by the left acknowledge how evil communism has been, we will continue to live in a morally confused world. Conversely, the day the left does come to grips with communism's legacy of human destruction, it will be a very positive sign that the world's moral compass has begun to correct itself.Good luck getting the left to make that admission. The fact is that they deeply admire Stalin and Mao, Castro and Pol Pot. They envy the raw power these dictators wielded and the fact that they cloaked their tyranny in pretty words. That is the secret dream of the American and European left. To hold the kind of power that a communist tyrant like Stalin held but to cover the iron fist in the velvet glove of "serving the people" and similar talk.
Looks like General Electric CEO Jeffery Immelt and NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker are going out of their way to prove that the truth about the control and bias of the media "is a different animal than the leftist trope pretends": General Electric CEO Jeffery Immelt, thought to be one of Keith Olbermann's biggest supporters, and NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker are reported to have called some of CNBC's on-air talent to a secret meeting at least if the The New York Post's Page Six column for April 16 has it right. The meeting was called to scold the cable yackers for being too harsh on the Obammessiah, with the duo ala Jeffs warning that CNBC is turning into "the Obama bashing network" and that the cable outlet is becoming "too conservative." OK... now how did that lefty mantra go again? Doesn't it go that the media couldn't possibly be lefitwing because "the suits" that own the media are conservative corporate types? Once again it looks like the truth is a different animal than the leftist trope pretends.Related: More on the GE-Obama Stimulus Axis
In a recent interview, General Norman Schwarzkopf was asked if he thought there was room for forgiveness toward the people who have harboured and abetted the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on America.His answer was classic Schwarzkopf: " I believe that forgiving them is God's function. OUR job is to arrange the meeting. "
*** NEW: Boston Globe's Sympathy For Left's Limbaugh Monitor ****** DID GARAFALO MAKE UP HER STORY? --- UPDATED WITH EXCLUSIVE REACTION FROM LIMBAUGH ***Providing an invigorating shot in the arm for conservatives, perpetually unhinged hothead Janeane Garofalo has emerged from her cave just long enough to hurl personal insults at anyone with differing viewpoint, all we can say is welcome back, Janeane! And thanks again for the fodder.This time, the former Air America talk host has managed to fuel our fire for months to come with these gems: She's labeled taxpayer advocates as racist, according to the Washington Times: "Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House," she said on MSNBC's "The Countdown" with Keith Olbermann Thursday evening. "This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. There is no way around that."Olbermann did not once try to challenge her on those assertions.The actress went on to describe the brain size of typical "right-winger, Republican or conservative or your average white power activist.""Their synapses are misfiring. ... It is a neurological problem we are dealing with," she said. This isn't the first time she's offered this analysis, either. Ms. Garofalo said similar things about Alaskan GOP Governor Sarah Palin's brain last February in an interview with an environmental blog.The actress went on to bash the GOP on MSNBC Thursday because it had "crystallized into the white power movement" as well as Fox News, which she said has captured the "Klan demo[graphic]." And according to the Los Angeles Times, Garofalo is making excuses for her willingness to accept work on 24, a program with a conservative reputation: In an interview with the Village Voice yesterday, Garofalo discusses the apparent disconnect between her politics and the show's, saying, "At first I passed on it because of the right-wing nature of a couple of the writers."Eventually, however, Garofalo relented. "There's only one or two right-wingers in the whole show, in the writer's room. There's nobody else whose opinions reflect that in the cast or the crew. And then midway through when I was working there the main right-winger left the show anyway," she says.Here, she is referring to series creator Joel Surnow. In the interview, Garofalo is complimentary of Surnow, however she draws the line at set visits from his pals, Rush Limbaugh and Lynne Cheney."When Rush Limbaugh visited the set, and when Lynne Cheney visited the set, I refused to have my picture taken with them or meet them or anything," Garofalo tells the Village Voice.Before the left gets too excited about the diminutive loudmouth's return to the public eye, however, they might take a Garofalo 101 refresher course: The demise of Garofalo's already low-rated lefty talk show on Air America was sped up by her use of the program to promote Scientology, which had even liberal supporters baffled. Her program was known for childish antics more at home on an elementary school playground than in the adult world.A bizarre online crusade to place Garofalo on Hollywood's Walk Of Fame has generated less than 200 signatures in over three years. Garofalo angily denounced her former employer, Air America, when it fired Randi Rhodes for calling Hillary Clinton "a big f---ing whore".With this kind of track record, conservatives should welcome the return of Hollywood's ultimate toxic asset.UPDATE: After having seen this piece, Limbaugh emailed your Radio Equalizer late Friday evening with this reaction: "The last time I visited the set of 24, Garofalo had not been hired to appear in the series. She was not there, she was not a member of the cast the last time I visited. I wouldn't have wanted to meet her anyway."The last time I visited the set, Kim Raver was still in the cast and CTU was the primary "location" of the show. This current season, seven, has been in the can since last summer or fall and I have been nowhere near the 24 set for any shoots for this season, which is this lunatic's first season," Limbaugh added.Did Garofalo make up her story about Limbaugh visiting the set during her stint as a member of the cast?
Today is the 10th anniversary of the Columbine shootings. Dozens of major papers and news magazines are publishing retrospective stories and/or book reviews, all of which aim to set the record straight about what happened on this day one decade ago. For instance, Harris and Klebold were not part of a “trenchcoat mafia”, they did not target jocks, they had not been bullied at school. And one of the myths that most outlets seek to correct is the so-called myth of martydom. Here’s how the NY Times explains it: A boy who witnessed the murders in the school library told people afterward that a slain student, a fellow evangelical named Cassie Bernall, was asked by one of the killers if she believed in God. “Yes, I believe in God,” he said she replied. Two other witnesses, both sitting near Cassie, heard no such thing, and Cullen goes on to say that a 911 tape from that day “proved conclusively” that she hadn’t uttered these words. It didn’t matter. The story caught the imagination of the evangelical world, and Cassie’s mother, Misty Bernall, wrote a book, “She Said Yes,” that has since sold more than one million copies. The NY Review of books takes the same route: The famed story of Cassie Bernall, the “She said yes” martyr supposedly killed because she professed her faith in God, was quickly debunked, but that didn’t stop publishers—who knew about problems with the story long before publication—from rushing a book by Bernall’s mom into production. (It sold over a million copies.) And that’s where the Times leaves it. Fox News is no better: [T]he gunmen did not target anyone and never fatally shot a student in the head who professed her faith in God, as was widely reported. The Wall Street Journal gets a bit closer to the truth: The Columbine student Cassie Bernall was not shot for answering “yes” when asked if she believed in God; she was never asked, and the girl who was asked and who did say “yes,” Valeen Schnurr, survived. But still, this makes it sound as if the killers gave her a pass. You have to travel across the Atlantic and read the Guardian to get the real story: Across the room, Valeen Schnurr, who had turned 18 six days before, was cowering beneath another table with her best friend Lauren. They had just been preparing an English presentation on the American Civil War novel Cold Mountain and their pencil cases were still on the desk above their heads. Valeen remembers Lauren holding her hand tightly. Then, without understanding why, Valeen felt her body jerk forcefully. She noticed she was bleeding and would find out subsequently that she had been shot nine times at close range. “The force of the bullets pushed me out from under the table,” says Valeen, now 27. “I was in excruciating pain. It feels like fire running through your body. I was saying ‘Oh my God, oh my God’ and one of them [Klebold] asked me if I believed in God. I said yes. He asked why. I said ‘My parents brought me up that way’.” Then she held her breath and closed her eyes, hoping he would leave her to die. The gunman walked away. “I didn’t see his face,” Valeen says. “But their voices… it was like they were happy. To them it was like playing a game.” It was only afterwards, when she nudged her friend so they could make their escape, that she realised Lauren was dead. The ninth bullet had sliced through Valeen’s shoulder and killed her. Valeen stumbled outside and collapsed. Her doctors later told her it was a “miracle” she hadn’t died. She has undergone years of physical therapy and a dozen surgeries to correct damage done that day. When they’re supposedly correcting the record, it would be nice if some of these domestic news outlets could finally get it right. Update: ABC almost gets it. CNN nails it.
The Turner Radio Network has obtained "stress test" results for the top 19 Banks in the USA.The stress tests were conducted to determine how well, if at all, the top 19 banks in the USA could withstand further or future economic hardship.When the tests were completed, regulators within the Treasury and inside the Federal Reserve began bickering with each other as to whether or not the test results should be made public. That bickering continues to this very day as evidenced by this "main stream media" report.The Turner Radio Network has obtained the stress test results. They are very bad. The most salient points from the stress tests appear below.1) Of the top nineteen (19) banks in the nation, sixteen (16) are already technically insolvent.2) Of the 16 banks that are already technically insolvent, not even one can withstand any disruption of cash flow at all or any further deterioration in non-paying loans.3) If any two of the 16 insolvent banks go under, they will totally wipe out all remaining FDIC insurance funding.4) Of the top 19 banks in the nation, the top five (5) largest banks are under capitalized so dangerously, there is serious doubt about their ability to continue as ongoing businesses.5) Five large U.S. banks have credit exposure related to their derivatives trading that exceeds their capital, with four in particular - JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, HSBC Bank America and Citibank - taking especially large risks.6) Bank of America`s total credit exposure to derivatives was 179 percent of its risk-based capital; Citibank`s was 278 percent; JPMorgan Chase`s, 382 percent; and HSBC America`s, 550 percent. It gets even worse: Goldman Sachs began reporting as a commercial bank, revealing an alarming total credit exposure of 1,056 percent, or more than ten times its capital!7) Not only are there serious questions about whether or not JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs,Citibank, Wells Fargo, Sun Trust Bank, HSBC Bank USA, can continue in business, more than 1,800 regional and smaller institutions are at risk of failure despite government bailouts!The debt crisis is much greater than the government has reported. The FDIC`s "Problem List" of troubled banks includes 252 institutions with assets of $159 billion. 1,816 banks and thrifts are at risk of failure, with total assets of $4.67 trillion, compared to 1,568 institutions, with $2.32 trillion in total assets in prior quarter.Put bluntly, the entire US Banking System is in complete and total collapse.Bonifides For those who may be skeptical about the veracity of the stress test report above, be reminded that only last Sunday, April 12, this radio network obtained and published a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Memo outlining their concerns that returning US military vets posed a domestic security threat as "right wing extremists." That memo, available here, is marked "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY" and contained strict warnings that it was not to be released to the public or to the media. We obtained it and published it days before other media outlets.Details of certain aspects of the stress test reported above have now been CONFIRMED through REUTERS News service when they disclosed the risk-capital percentages publicly on April 6, 2009 at this link Further, todays Wall Street Journal (April 20, 2009) is confirming at this link that lending by the largest banks has DECREASED 23% since the government began the T.A.R.P. program, causing many in Congress to ask where the money has actually been going. Apparently, it has been going into propping-up the failing banks instead of out in loans to the public.Additional details and proofs are forthcoming. . . . . continue to check back on this developing story.UPDATE 1154 HRS EDT April 20, 2009 --The United States Treasury has openly and brazenly lied regarding our stress test report and we can prove they have lied about it.This morning, the United States Treasury issued a statement (HERE) claiming they do not yet have the results of the Stress Tests, rebuking our report How do we know its a lie? Because of this from April 10th: April 10 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Federal Reserve has told Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and other banks to keep mum on the results of “stress tests” that will gauge their ability to weather the recession, people familiar with the matter said. The Fed wants to ensure that the report cards don’t leak during earnings conference calls scheduled for this month. Such a scenario might push stock prices lower for banks perceived as weak and interfere with the government’s plan to release the results in an orderly fashion later this month. How can you be ordered not to release something you don't have? Since that was published on the 10th of April, we therefore know that the results exist and Treasury, the banks involved and The Fed have them, as The Fed was concerned that some banks might try to use them (perhaps in a misleading fashion) during their first quarter conference calls and earnings releases. Sorry guys, but whether the Turner Radio Network has the real results or not is no longer material. What's material is the claim that Treasury doesn't have them, since they told the banks on the 10th not to release them, and you can't release what you don't have. The problem with lying is that eventually you forget your previous lies and thus get caught when you contradict yourself.
In the sort of fawning puff piece than now passes for journalism, Obama's toadies at AP have paid him the highest compliment they know how by comparing him to communist dictator Mikhail Gorbachev: While historic analogies are never perfect, Obama's stark efforts to change the U.S. image abroad are reminiscent of the stunning realignments sought by former Soviet leader Michael Gorbachev. Comparing Comrade Obama to Gorby may seem a stretch, considering the latter's impressive feat of presiding over the collapse of the Soviet Union. But Chairman Zero has the advantage that he's destroying his own country on purpose. Slobbering with devotion, AP lists Obama's Gorby-esque accomplishments: Admitted to Europeans that America deserves at least part of the blame for the world's financial crisis because it did not regulate high-flying and greedy Wall Street gamblers. Told the Russians he wants to reset relations that fell to Cold War-style levels under his predecessor, George W. Bush. Asked NATO for more help in the fight in Afghanistan, and, not getting much, did not castigate alliance partners. Lifted some restrictions on Cuban Americans' travel to their communist homeland and eased rules on sending wages back to families there. Shook hands with, more than once, and accepted a book from Hugo Chavez, the virulently anti-American leader of oil-rich Venezuela. Said America's appetite for illegal drugs and its lax control of the flow of guns and cash to Mexico were partly to blame for the drug-lord-inspired violence that is rattling the southern U.S. neighbor. What a resume. When this nightmare is over, BHO will be well positioned for a career as an international moonbat gadfly — Gorby's current job description. AP closes this benediction to its messiah by quoting his inspiring duckspeak: "One of the benefits of my campaign and how I've been trying to operate as president is I don't worry about the politics — I try to figure out what's right in terms of American interests, and on this one I think I'm right." So thought Gorbachev. But being right is not always politically healthy. Quick, where'd I put that bucket… Imagine if the sanctimonious, reflexively treasonous screwballs at AP ran the country. But I'm forgetting: now they effectively do.
Barack Obama has just taken the next step towards a complete disregard for America’s foreign policy by back slapping self-professed enemy to the “great Satan,” tin pot dictator and oppressor, Hugo Chavez. As Obama grins and associates with such low-end characters, treating them as worthy members of the international community, he drags down both the United States and any country that strives to treat its people with the dignity they deserve as human beings. But, Obama is, at least, fulfilling a campaign promise to treat all foreign leaders as equals no matter how evil, oppressive, and murderous they are. His compatriots on the left agree with this sort of engagement claiming that such “diplomacy” can only be a good thing. Despite this, though, this basic engagement-is-good ideal is not a principle held consistently by the left proving that situational ethics are the only ethics that the left can muster. Think back to the late presidential campaign where candidate Barack Obama showed his unpreparedness for leading American foreign policy by saying that he’d meet just any old murderous foreign dictator “without preconditions.” You’ll recall that the leftist spin on that statement was that Obama was right to rely on diplomacy and that meeting and talking was a good idea no matter what. Diplomacy was the cure to anything went the mantra from the left. Those realists on the right, however, said that meeting with every tinpot dictator the world has to offer lowers the president and the United States and lifts up those dictators supplying them with undeserved legitimacy. Naturally the left decried this claim and said engagement does nothing of the kind. Yet the left’s engagement-is-good concept took a turn in the opposite direction when now President Obama launched his ill-considered war with radio talker Rush Limbaugh. Suddenly, lefties all across the country were decrying the administration’s attack on Limbaugh saying that it is beneath the dignity of the White House to engage Limbaugh and saying that doing so lifts Limbaugh up to undeserved legitimacy. So, as far as the left is concerned it’s OK to “legitimize” murderous dictators that terrorize their own people by engaging with the White House but it’s not OK to legitimize a talk show host? What is wrong with this picture? Amazingly, it didn’t occur to these lefties that they were making the lie to their previous position supposedly dearly held. If by engaging him the White House legitimizes Limbaugh then what does it do for foreign dictators and strongmen that are beneath a legitimate place on the international stage? The illogic of their position, of course, doesn’t faze them it appears. Well, to be sure, what is wrong is that the left has no principles, no logic and nothing but spin in their political positions. They have situational ethics that change with the winds. During the 2008 campaign for the presidency, Obama made what many considered the major gaffe of saying he’d talk to America’s enemies “without preconditions.” In March of 2008, for instance, Foreign Policy In Focus, a foreign policy think-tank, posted a Howard Salter piece discussing the issues. In that piece, Salter compared the candidate’s views on foreign policy and diplomacy. Obama has consistently said, “We need to rediscover the power of diplomacy. So I said very early on in this campaign that I will meet not just with our friends but with our enemies, not just the leaders I like, but leaders I don’t.” Meanwhile, Clinton is opposed to Obama’s idea. “We simply cannot legitimize rogue regimes or weaken American prestige by impulsively agreeing to presidential-level talks with no preconditions,” she said. “It may sound good, but it doesn’t meet the real world test of foreign policy.” Obama believes that, “Not talking doesn’t make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support.” He feels that this type of direct diplomacy will help restablish our nation’s image and credibility around the world. Echoing President John F. Kennedy, he has said, “And I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, ‘You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.” In reply to Obama during the campaign John McCain said that talking to terrorists and dictators only strengthens them. In September 2008, CNN reported that, “McCain is saying that if you meet without preconditions you are legitimizing them.” Recently, Frank Gaffney in the Washington Times agreed with McCain’s worries from last year. Can there be any doubt what America’s adversaries make of all this? Great grief will come our way if they conclude, as Mr. Alinsky surely would, that our power is waning and that they can exercise theirs with impunity against our interests - and those of whatever friends we have left. There were then many other voices in praise of Obama on the issue, of course. On July 2, 2008, the World Policy Institute — publisher of World Policy Journal — posted a blog by Benjamin Pauker that more or less came down on Obama’s side. Pauker’s general conclusion was that it can’t hurt. “It’s hard to see how it would hurt” to have direct diplomacy with murderers and thug dictators he decided. Leftwing bloggers also quickly got into the game. On November 2nd, 2008, one blogger said of Obama’s claim to want to talk to our enemies that his, “willingness to engage his enemies will help reduce the future potential for warfare.” Another Obama supporter praised his desire to talk to dictators back in December of 2008. President-elect Barack Obama has espoused his philosophy of talking with the enemy, of the importance that diplomacy would play in his administration and, more specifically, that he would engage in talks with Iran or with President Ahmadinedjad. He made it clear that he would not invite him over to the White House for tea one day. But that this would be a well-prepared meeting, yet without pre-conditions. President-elect Obama also espoused that he stands for tough diplomacy but wants normal diplomatic relations with Iran. And President Ahmadinedjad has wanted to enter into conversation with the U.S. for a very long time. Luckily, both are ready and willing to engage in this dialogue. Yet at the same time, after the recent Somali pirate standoff ended, Gloria Borger of CNN defended Obama for not engaging the pirates. Borger praised Obama for not negotiating with the Somali pirates that held Captain Philips on April 12 saying, “Would it have been better if the president of the United States had publicly engaged with a bunch of teenage thug pirates? It’s beneath Obama’s pay grade and dignity — not to mention how it would have added fuel to an already incendiary situation.” Is there a difference between engaging “thug pirates” and engaging thug dictators? Apparently Borger thinks so, but this is in direct refutation of the campaign spin that the left supplied to Obama in 2008. Curiously, during the campaign, Borger herself tried to cover for Obama by claiming that he didn’t really say he’d meet foreign terrorists and dictators without preconditions. On CNN she said that meeting without preconditions would be bad, but claimed that Obama was “making that distinction.” She went on to say, “He’s saying with preconditions, perhaps you could eventually get around to talking.” This is quite a stretch from what Obama actually said during the campaign but it does comport the the left’s attempt to cover for him. Naturally, folks on the right disagreed, even to the rank-and-file. In February of 2008, for instance, one commenter on a blog said that it is a bad idea to meet with dictators. “A U.S. Presidential meeting further legitimizes a dictator inside his own country. By meeting with the dictator, a U.S. President thus discourages the success of internal dissenters who are risking their lives to oppose the dictator.” But as I said, that was then. Now we have the White House engaging Rush Limbaugh and suddenly the left has flip flopped on the concept of what “legitimizes” enemies and what doesn’t. Witness the blathering of one Earl Ofari Hutchinson the purported Political Analyst and Social Issues Commentator for the Huffington Post. On March 28 Mr. Hutchinson was quite exercised over the Limbaugh issue. The gabber instantly snatched at the quip and turned it into a multi show bonanza. No matter what topic Limbaugh gassed on, he managed to slide in a reference to Obama’s prop up of him as the Democrat’s prize punching bag. This did three things. It gave him an even bigger pile of fodder to puff himself up as the emperor of talk radio, claim to be the real kingmaker in the GOP, and in a perverse way paint himself as a credible and thoughtful political critic. It snapped many shell shocked Congressional Republicans out of their post election funk. Now suddenly feisty and combative, they draw a deep line in the sand against any and everything that Obama proposed. And it stiffened the spines of many timid Republicans and made them determined not to be bullied, or at least appear not to be bullied, by a mere talk show host into standing up to Obama. Any other time this might be fun and games stuff, a side show distraction that bored reporters and TV talking heads used to fill up column space or a talk cast on off a slow news day, but the Democrats just couldn’t let it go. And that insured that the Limbaugh as Democrat’s foil ploy would continue to have shelf life. Limbaugh in a phony self-deprecating moment mockingly minimized his importance as a radio talk show host, feigning puzzlement at why the Democrats were so obsessed with him. He was right. Who cannot see that this is a direct refutation of the engagement-is-good spin that the left offered Obama to excuse his foreign policy gaffe during the late campaign? Another Huffington Poster, Peter Daou, scolded the White House for taking on Limbaugh. Daou said that Democrats are “legitimizing and empowering” Limbaugh by engaging him. There’s precious little benefit in making Limbaugh more of a central player, in engaging him directly from the White House podium, in raising his stature, in stamping, sealing and approving the years he’s spent bashing his political opponents. Many liberal commenters on various blogs were also upset that the Obama administration launched the anti-Limbaugh war. One commenter by the name of Sandy, for instance, said referring to Rush that “Obama would be even a bigger fool to engage the jerk.” But at some point, even Obama Press Spokesman Robert Gibbs said it was “counterproductive” to engage Limbaugh. So, what can we learn from this comparison? We see that the left uses arguments only in such a way as to excuse their behavior and that they will take the same argument and turn it on its head for the next situation. So logic and consistency is obviously not a concern for them. But, worse than that, what we see from the left is a major disregard for the safety of this country. The same people that said it was a bad idea to engage a mere radio talk show host — and a fellow American to boot — the same people that found it disgusting to engage in the arena of ideas on matters of American domestic policy with other Americans thought it was perfectly fine to engage murderous dictators that stand as self-professed enemies to this country. It seems obvious that a sense of priorities is wholly lacking on the American left today.