Saturday, February 28, 2009

Uncle Obama Wants You

Guest Editorial by Edward Cline:

When I finished reading and marking up a transcript of President Barack Obama’s address to the joint session of Congress on February 24, there was possibly as much of my own ink on the page as in the speech itself. Numerous triple question marks highlighted blatant lies, half-truths, fallacies, ambiguities and generalizations pregnant with unspecified meanings. Several “Huh?’s” were linked to statements that made no sense at all. And sixty-one checkmarks were penned over bracketed instances of applause by Congress.

That was the result of just one pass at the speech. The experience was much like editing a James Joyce novel, which would also be an oxymoronic task, because no rules of grammar or logic or clarity would apply to that task, either. As I had remarked in another post, an Obama speech is yadda-yaddaism elevated to a high art. It is appropriate that his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, is an equivocating ignoramus with all the charisma of Elmer Fudd, and that his thuggish chief-of-staff, Rahm Emanuel, is staying out of sight.

It was the number of checkmarks for the applause that was scary. Listening to and watching Hitler rant shrilly in front of thousands of cheering and saluting Nazis never fails to send shivers up my spine. But Hitler never frightened me as much as did the mob entranced by his messianism and in gestalt with his message. Listening to and watching Obama speak to crowds, however, does not affect me personally. I know that he is a power-luster imbued with far fewer oratorical skills than had FDR, JFK, or even Hitler, and that he wishes to complete the job begun by his “progressive” predecessors over a century ago and transform the country from a republic into a national socialist state. There are plenty of such creatures around, in and out of office. But listening to Obama speak bores me to distraction, almost as much as having listened to former president George W. Bush stumble through a speech or trip over words and contradictions during press conferences.

What scares me more than Obama are his worshippers, his supporters, and anyone else who would approve of putting a gun to my head, picking my pockets, and marching me to a make-work program to assemble solar panels or smoking-cessation kits or to lay track for Harry Reid’s Los Angeles-to-Las Vegas magnetic rail line.

As was Hitler, George Bush and Barack Obama are nonentities, mediocrities. As was Bush, Obama is in a position of power not for any special talent for reaching it or for out-maneuvering his competitors for it. He is simply the most accommodating zero willing to echo the wishes and intentions of lesser power-seekers, such as George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, to name but a few. Obama is the beneficiary of the collapse of philosophy and the implosion of political pragmatism.

Now is the time to act boldly and wisely -- to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity…..That is what my economic agenda is designed to do, and that is what I’d like to talk to you about tonight. (Applause)
What is the nature of that “foundation”? There was no answer, except the implication that it is the government and the Democrats who will be laying that foundation along fascist/socialist lines, leaving a “tired ideology” behind, one that belabored “trivialities” such as property rights and freedom. And, it is a measure of Obama’s own ignorance of economics and history that “prosperity” has never been the hallmark of any police state or any collectivized nation or of any command economy.

His ignorance and arrogance notwithstanding, Obama stated:

I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity,” Obama declared, echoing generations of American progressives before him. “For history tells us a different story. History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas.
Which resulted in vast expansions of government power over the economy. As for the history of the role of the Industrial Revolution, of freedom of thought and action, of free minds and free markets, of the prosperity those things made possible, that history Obama is utterly blind to. That history doesn’t fit his vision of what America must become for him to be seen as its “savior.”

E.J. Dionne Jr., writing for The Washington Post on February 25, fervently endorsed Obama’s vision and revealed that Obama’s “faith-based initiative” has little to do with religion:

Like Franklin Roosevelt, Obama sought to restore the public’s faith that the private economy would recover by bolstering confidence in government’s capacity to act rationally, creatively and efficiently.
I will go out on a limb here and credit Obama and the Democrats with the repressed knowledge that the best way to “stimulate” the economy is to suspend all income and excise tax collection for a year or so, freeze all federal regulatory enforcement by cabinet and non-cabinet departments and agencies, fire all “non-essential” federal employees -- in short, to paraphrase John Galt in Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, to get the hell out of the way and allow the economy to function rationally, creatively, and efficiently. Those actions would certainly “stimulate” economic recovery beyond any politician’s comprehension. But that would mean a relinquishment of power, and that is the last thing Obama and the Democrats want to do. After all, the temporary suspensions might become permanent, once enough Americans realized they didn’t need the government to “jump start” the economy or to give purpose to their lives.

And, one must wonder: Is he so ignorant of economics and history? Are the Democrats?

Now, I’m proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks -- (applause) -- and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities.
Whose priorities? Not those of any individual with a shred of self-esteem, a nominal commitment to reason, and a desire to live his own life in freedom guided by his own values. No, when Obama said “our most important national priorities” he meant his and those of virtually everyone’s in that chamber, which are the impoverishment of America and its dependence on and compliance with government priorities.

Obama is not changing the course of the country. He is following it. In this sense, nothing he has ever said is “radical.”

Nearly all of the sixty-one instances of ovation were led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It was odd the way she was repeatedly the first to shoot up and begin clapping, and odd as well what she thought merited applause, although Obama in most instances had said nothing remarkable. It was a cue to the rest of the chamber to rise and join her. It was almost as though she was trying to stop people from thinking about what Obama had just said by drowning his words with the noisy sanction of applause.

It explains why, for example, Obama was able to get away with the lie that the bill was “free of earmarks.” I kept imagining that the instant, hurried applause stopped most Democratic Congressmen from ribbing each other in ribaldry, or scoffing up their collective sleeve, or just sitting quietly in the stony-faced denial of a liar invoking the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. The applause was in the nature of a combination of a triumph of the statist manifesto and repeated blank-outs of what it would actually accomplish, which, in virtually every goal, will be precisely the opposite of what Obama claimed it would.

As though to answer the volume of criticism of his “plan” to “revive” the economy and command it to regain “prosperity,” a volume that must have been monitored by his staff and the Democrats, Obama felt it necessary to state:

Now, I know there are some in this chamber and watching at home who are skeptical of whether this plan will work. And I understand that skepticism. Here in Washington, we’ve all seen how quickly good intentions can turn into broken promises and wasteful spending. And with a plan of this scale comes enormous responsibility to get it right. (No applause here; why draw attention to the contrary?)
Skeptical is hardly the adjective to describe the anger and incredulity of the criticism in the press, in some segments of the news media, on political blogs, and on talk radio. Skepticism, in Obama’s and the Democrats’ lexicon, is a synonym for reason. In this instance, reason recognizes that the $787 billion “stimulus” bill is a testament to broken promises and wasteful spending. So, he said, let’s pooh-pooh reason and believe it is not those things.

But, enough of the speech before Congress and the “stimulus” bill. Both have been exposed as the frauds they are here and elsewhere. What also deserves attention is Obama’s next economic “plan.” Of all the newspaper coverage of Obama’s proposed $3.6 trillion budget, The Washington Post of February 27 was the most straightforward about how that budget plan meshes with the “stimulus” plan:

President Obama delivered to Congress yesterday a $3.6 trillion spending plan that would finance vast new investments in health care, energy independence and education by raising taxes on the oil and gas industry, hedge fund managers, multinational corporations and nearly 3 million of the nation’s top earners.
Further on, the Post lets the cat out of the bag:

With its immense scope and bold prescriptions, Obama’s agenda seeks to foster a redistribution of wealth, with the government working to narrow the growing gap between rich and poor.
Remember Obama’s patronizing assurance to Joe the Plumber during the campaign, that he just wants to “spread the wealth around”? The Post, however, was merely the first to admit that Obama’s plan is one of “redistribution” (without employing the qualifying term socialist). Now the news media sense it is safe to repeat the term. It is only a matter of time before Congress and the news media feel arrogant enough to use the term socialist. Perhaps not. But the consequences will be the same. The "rich," or those earning over $250,000 annually, will be punished, looted, and vilified. We, the lower middle classes, will be expected to cheer and throw rocks at limousines.

In his new website announcement, “Organizing for America,” Obama condescended to release this message to his followers and supporters:

The budget isn’t just a reflection of President Obama’s priorities. It’s a reflection of yours. This is the change you worked for and Americans demanded. But to make sure it succeeds, the President will need your help.
Of course. Just submit to his will, like a Muslim, like a feudal serf, like a selfless manqué. Too many Americans are ready to heed his “call to prayers,” too many who believe that all one needs is faith to make sure Obama’s plan succeeds. These are the gnomes who worry me the most.

This is “democracy” in action -- against me.

Crossposted at The Dougout

Smoke Screen: Hezbollah Inside America (video fixed)

D'UH indeed. Tie this in with Epaminondas' story below. Fox news put this together 2 YEARS AGO. And intel is just telling us NOW they're a homeland security threat ?

Smoke Scree: Hezbollah Inside America

Also, from Fox April of this Year:

Cigarette Smugglers Funnel Money to Terror Groups, Report Finds

By Catherine Herridge

Cigarette smuggling is generating millions of dollars every year that can be reaching terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda, according to law enforcement sources. In a single case, $100,000 was sent to Hezbollah.

A 15-page report congressional report, obtained by FOX News, includes intelligence from law enforcement as well as New York State’s Department of Taxation and Finance.

The report reads in part: Cigarette smuggling is generating millions of dollars every year that can be reaching terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda, according to law enforcement sources. In a single case, $100,000 was sent to Hezbollah.

“This is a very serious homeland security issue, one that has gone unnoticed for far too long,” said Rep. Peter King, (R-N.Y.), the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, who called for the investigation.

“Cigarette smugglers are able to generate millions of dollars in illegal profits with a great deal of this wealth being sent to terrorist groups overseas – groups that would like nothing more than to inflict devastating harm on our country and its citizens.”

One of the key issues, according to the report, is a potential flaw in New York State policy. According to King’s office, there is a policy in the state of “forebearance,” or refusing to collect on sales of Native American tax-free cigarettes to non-Native Americans.

Critics of the policy say it has effectively created a safe haven for smugglers. In some cases, the report says, a well-organized operation can buy cigarettes tax-free on New York’s Indian reservations and sell them at a great profit in the New Yock City area, generating up to $300,000 per week with a loss of up to $576 million in tax revenues to New York State.

According to the report, citing federal and New York state law enforcement sources, nearly 60 percent of all convenience retail outlets in New York City are now Arab-owned, primarily families of Lebanese, Yemeni, Jordanian and Palestinian descent. While the vast majority of retailers are operating above board, some are not.

The report says that these retailers can funnel their profits from the sale of cigarettes to terrorist groups in the Mideast. It claims this “tobacco and terror” relationship has been found in a handful of recent cases.

“…the infamous ‘Lackawanna Seven’ reportedly received funding from an individual named Aref Ahmed for their travel from Buffalo to Afghanistan to attend an al Qaeda training camp,” the report says, referring to a group of American-born men of Yemeni descent who pleaded guilty to terror training.

“The State is losing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue; and given the current budget shortfall, this would seem to be more than enough reason to put the so-called policy of forebearance out of its misery,” King said.

“But this is more than just a matter of lost revenue. It is a matter of national security. Cigarette smuggling in New York State must be brought to an end immediately.”

Hearings dealing specifically with the report are scheduled this Thursday in Washington before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.


Yeah, A Homeland Security Threat. No shit, fellas. Maybe ya wanna read the blogs a little more.

And the DUH of the week - U.S. intelligence: Hizbullah now qualifies as homeland security threat

GERTZ: (ok this is really ridiculous)
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. intelligence community has deemed the Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah a threat to homeland security.
Is this news to anyone who can read or think?

A U.S. intelligence report said Hizbullah has developed the capability to attack American cities. The annual intelligence assessment said Hizbullah could decide to target U.S. interests should the organization regard the United States a strategic target or threat.

"Lebanese Hizbullah continues to be a formidable terrorist adversary with an ability to attack the U.S. homeland and U.S. interests abroad," the report said. "Hizbullah is a multifaceted, disciplined organization that combines political, social, paramilitary, and terrorist elements, and we assess that any decision by the group to resort to arms or terrorist tactics is carefully calibrated."

Lebanon's Hizbullah supporters watch Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on a screen during a rally to mark the first anniversary of the assassination of Hizbullah senior commander Imad Moughniyah, in Beirut's suburbs. Moughniyah, on the United States' most wanted list for attacks on Israeli and Western targets, was killed by a bomb in Damascus on Feb. 12 2008. Reuers/Issam Kobeisy
The report, titled "Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community," (46 pages of fun right here) said Hizbullah could also attack the United States on orders from Iran.


The report said Hizbullah would prefer to use proxies for any such strike.

Guys, HIZBALLAH IS a proxy ..of you know who. Their leader is an IRANIAN.

"At the same time, we judge armed struggle, particularly against Israel, remains central to Hizbullah's ideology and strategy," the report said. "We assess Lebanese Hizbullah, which has conducted anti-U.S. attacks overseas in the past, may consider attacking U.S. interests should it perceive a direct U.S. threat to the group's survival, leadership, or infrastructure or to Iran."

If Hezbollah does not now perceive the USA as a direct threat to their existence, SHAME ON US

The report said the Hizbullah or other Islamic insurgency threat to the United States was much less than that to Europe. But the intelligence community remained concerned by Al Qaida-inspired Americans and Europeans who could be planning to strike the American homeland.

At this point, the U.S. intelligence community believes that Hizbullah, financed, trained and equipped by Iran, was preparing for another war with Israel. The report said Hizbullah would be more capable than during the last war with Israel in 2006.

"We assess Hizbullah anticipates a future conflict with Israel and probably continues to implement lessons learned from the conflict in the summer of 2006," the report said. "In a potential future conflict, Hizbullah is likely to be better prepared and more capable than in 2006."

The Chinese DEMAND collateral for buying T Bills, and get it - THE USA ITSELF


LIVE LEAK....and this one is HARD TO BELIEVE
Beijing, China -- Sources at the United States Embassy in Beijing China have just CONFIRMED to me that the United States of America has tendered to China a written agreement which grants to the People's Republic of China, an option to exercise Eminent Domain within the USA, as collateral for China's continued purchase of US Treasury Notes and existing US Currency reserves!

The written agreement was brought to Beijing by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and was formalized and agreed-to during her recent trip to China.

This means that in the event the US Government defaults on its financial obligations to China, the Communist Government of China would be permitted to physically take -- inside the USA -- land, buildings, factories, perhaps even entire cities - to satisfy the financial obligations of the US government.

Put simply, the feds have now actually mortgaged the physical land and property of all citizens and businesses in the United States. They have given to a foreign power, their Constitutional power to "take" all of our property, as actual collateral for continued Chinese funding of US deficit spending and the continued carrying of US national debt.

This is an unimaginable betrayal of every man, woman and child in the USA. An outrage worthy of violent overthrow.

I am endeavoring to obtain images or copies of the actual document but in the interim, several different sources both in the US and in China have CONFIRMED this to me.

If we are in these kinds of straights we have NO BUSINESS with any kind of frigging stimulus anything.
If this is true, 95% of Americans would countenance invading the entire ME and TAKING 100% of the oil first

A search yields Live Leak, the Examiner, Atlas Shrugs,, and ominously ..RENSE
I'd like to see much more on this


Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- China should seek guarantees that its $682 billion holdings of U.S. government debt won’t be eroded by “reckless policies,” said Yu Yongding, a former adviser to the central bank.

The U.S. “should make the Chinese feel confident that the value of the assets at least will not be eroded in a significant way,” Yu, who now heads the World Economics and Politics Institute at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said in response to e-mailed questions yesterday from Beijing. He declined to elaborate on the assurances needed by China, the biggest foreign holder of U.S. government debt.

Anyone else?


Dutch Theater segregates gender to appease Muslims

You've come a long way baby, now go back.

Imagine going to the movies and not being able to sit next to your spouse. (emphasis not mine.)

On Friday night, a Muslim stand-up comedian was scheduled to give a show in a Rotterdam theatre with segregated seating for the men and women in his audience.

Moroccan-born writer and TV producer Salaheddine Benchikhi was to make his debut as a stand-up comedian at Theater Zuidplein in Rotterdam. At his request, the theatre said it would offer female audience members the option of sitting apart from the men, as Algemeen Dagblad reported several hours before the show on Friday.

According to the newspaper, 50 of the 590 seats had been reserved for women who object to sitting beside a man due to their Islamic faith. As an extra 'service', the orthodox ladies may sit in the first rows of the balcony.

"Whether the option will actually be utilised remains to be seen", Joyce van Dongen of Theater Zuidplein stated. "Fifty is an estimate made by Salaheddine's management. Since the show is an opening night, we have no previous shows to serve as an example". If called for, a larger number of separate seats would be arranged, according to Van Dongen.

Do you think it can't happen here? There are already footbaths being installed in airports and universities across the US, and gender segregated swimming pools. In Norway, Islamic clerics are trying to stop women police officers from arresting male criminals.


As the influence of Islam grows,the seemly innocuous demands for sharia compliant buildings and customs will be catered to by well intended Westerners in the name tolerance and multi-culturism.

Once these Islamic precedents are set in place, it will be nearly impossible to remove them without appearing to victimize Muslims.

Given that scenario, genuine tolerance will be replaced with gender segregation, the erosion of women's rights, censorship and intolerance not seen since the Dark Ages.

Islamists are not here to be liberalized.

TEA PARTIES! Updated at bottom

D.C. featuring Joe The Plumber (last minute or so) from This Ain't Hell

Chicago from unliberaled woman

St Louis by the Gateway Arch (1,500 according to Gateway Pundit)from Bulldog

from A J Strata

Michelle has more

Reynolds has more

All the above blogs have many more

Updates -- comments from Ro who attended a Tea Party in Texas:

I just got back from our tea party. It was pretty lightly attended, but there was zero publicity about it, so that doesn't surprise me. My picture was taken by several people who were not wearing press credentials. Creepy.Too bad. If we don't stand now, we are sure to fall. Maybe we'll fall anyway, but it won't be for lack of "patriotic dissent!"

I also faxed a letter to my state rep, senator, speaker of the state house and governor asking - pleading, actually, for their political and moral support in rejecting all unconstitutional "laws" passed by this Congress and signed by this President.I want a resolution / declaration -whatever - stating that no federal authority has the right to enforce any such pretend "laws" within the territorial jurisdiction of our state, and that the state will not act as the fed's agents to enforce them.

When I wrote an e-mail earlier this month to my state rep, expressing concern over our loss of liberty, I got a letter back explaining that the federal government "funds" up to like, a third of state projects.As if that buys them the power to infringe. So, my letter back was very, very clear - the federal government cannot take our money, give it back with strings, and then assert that somehow that buys them the power to infringe my rights. The rights are "inalienable" - that means they CANNOT be taken, given, bought or sold. Of course, they can be forcibly infringed, which is what is happening now.We'll see.

The latest attempt by the feds to buy international approval by selling me is apparently the UN "Rights of Children" thingy. I just called one senator and wrote another and told them that the feds could purport to enforce that against me over my cold dead body.

Since our federal government does not own me, my kid or my right with respect to how I raise my kid, it has no power to"negotiate" those rights away by international agreements.

We are dealing with a soft tyranny that is fixin' to get "hard" real quick. We are in danger, folks.

also said in another thread:

There was a very small crowd, which wasn't awful, but there were a number several people circulating in the crowd, obviously not press, taking pictures of people. Lots. They were very conspicuous and stone-faced. They had great cameras. Weird.

Then there was this other guy, walking around with a computer and a backpack, looking like he knew where he was going, but who just walked around in the crowd, looking agitated.The main speaker, while I was there, was a black preacher, who was quite good, but it seemed kinda exclusionary to me. (I am a Christian, but if I were an atheist, I still would believe human beings have inalienable rights, for instance).

He talked about abolishing the income tax - great idea, I think. But golly, there seem to be more pressing concerns today - like keeping our rights to speech, arms, raise our children as we see fit and a sharia-less existence.But that's just me. He did talk about getting more blacks and Hispanics into the conservative movement, and how to do that. I dunno - it wasn't as "happy warrior" as I would have hoped from the other protest pics that Atlas has posted, for instance. I shoulda brought a cool camera - I could have taken pics of the pic takers!

And, I know I am pretty gloomy sometimes, but the fact that the event got so much attention from the "intimidators" and none from the local media (at least for the time I was there) just seemed sinister to me.
Comments from Getting Hot and Heavy -- Something I noticed right away was how friendly everyone seemed to be. I didn't hear anyone say anything "I hate Obama" related. I heard alot of discussion about how to stop the spending spree Obama has embraced.

Personally, I think the best course of action is to keep up pressure on our local representatives. I also heard alot of talk about another demonstration with April 15 as a likely day. I think this is a great idea and I'm going to stay tuned for that one.

If you attended a Tea Party and want to talk about it leave it in the comments here I'll see how many I can put up. This is an important grass roots movement. The government works for us, not the other way around. And they seem to be having a serious memory lapse on that point.

U.S. pulling out of ‘Durban II’ conference

from JTA h/t Atlas

U.S. pulling out of ‘Durban II’ conference

By Ron Kampeas · February 27, 2009

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The Obama administration has decided to boycott the so-called Durban II conference out of concerns for anti-Semitism.

Multiple sources on a conference call with the White House on Friday told JTA that the Obama administration had opted not to attend any further preparatory meetings ahead of the planned U.N. conference against racism in Geneva in April.

The conference reprises the 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa that devolved into an anti-Jewish free-for-all. Canada and Israel have opted not to attend the conference, and some U.S. Jewish groups had been pressing the United States to do the same.

Preparations for a draft document so far have seen Iran leading a coterie of nations blocking inclusion of anything that might guarantee Jewish protections – including mention of the Holocaust – while inserting draconian language guarding Islam against "insult."

The State Department sent a delegation, including a senior staffer from the American Jewish Committee, to this month's preparatory talks. The delegation's conclusions were that the anti-Israel and anti-Western tendencies were too deeply entrenched to excise.

Now that the United States is withdrawing from the conference, European nations are expected to follow.

Speaking for the White House on Friday's call were Samantha Power and James Warlick, who handle international organizations for, respectively, the national security council and the State Department; and Jennifer Simon, an adviser to Susan Rice, the U.S. envoy to the United Nations.

Friday, February 27, 2009

Friday Night Bonus Tune

Especially (but not exclusively!) for Ro Ro and Shiva

The video he directed for it:

Peaches en Regalia

Visualize the DOW at 6000

Oh God !! Please no !!

Back in July of 2008, Mike Whitney wrote a piece called Crystal Ball Gazing: Visualize the Dow at 6,000. 

Is it possible? And what would that mean to what we call today ‘Capitalism’. 

Stock market mayhem is just around the corner. Visualize the Dow at 6,000 and then hang on for dear life. The indexes will tumble and Wall Street will be reduced to Dresden-type rubble, nothing left but toxic fumes and twisted iron. By the end of 2009, the last few bulls will be driven out of the exchanges and onto the streets where they’ll be slaughtered one by one. It won’t be pretty. 

But no matter how bad it gets, the media will still bang-out its “Sunny Jim” market-forecasts while reiterating every mangled phrase and muddled thought from our alcohol-addled Dear Leader (referring to Bush now cocaine –addled Obama). The lines from the shelters, pawn shops and soup kitchens may stretch from the Golden Gate to the Statue of Liberty. 

He wrote that in mid-2008. It’s true now as much then. 

Obama’s cheerleaders point to the latest polls pointing out that his poll numbers are still above 50%. I guess those are the people who voted for him. 

But there is only one poll that counts and it’s not ABC, NBC, CBS, USA Today, Gallup or even Wall Street Journal’s poll. The only poll that counts, the one that supplies the capital for Mr. Obama’s grand social experiment, is the DOW, S&P and NASDAQ. 

And they’re saying NO !! 

According to some technical analysts, next stop after 6000 is, GULP- Oh God !! – 4000 on the Dow. 

In the 1980s there was a popular commercial that went, "When E.F. Hutton Talks, people listen”. Every time Obama speaks, the Dow listens – and DROPS

  • Jan. 9, 2009 (one day after Obama speaks at George Mason University on “need” for $800 billion stimulus package): -143 (1.6%)
  • Jan. 20, 2009 (Inauguration Day): -332 (4.0%)
  • Feb. 10, 2009 (one day after Obama declares that without a stimulus, “an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with a catastrophe”): -382 (4.6%)
  • Feb. 17, 2009 (market opens for the first time after Congress passes $787 billion stimulus on Feb. 13; Obama signs bill into law, declaring, “The stimulus lets Americans claim destiny.”): -298 (3.8%)
  • Feb. 19, 2009 (one day after Obama announces potential mortgage relief plan): -90 (1.2%)
  • Feb. 25, 2009 (one day after Obama’s first speech to the full Congress): -80 (1.1%) 

Is it time for Obama to shut up for the good of the nation? 

Talking about fiscal responsibility and cutting the deficit when he is responsible for the biggest spending bill in history. Its all appears to be "do as I say not as I do." Is he deliberately trying to destroy our wealth? 

Or perhaps he and the Democrats are deliberately making war on Wall Street? You know, those that have IRAs, Keoghs, 401ks, Pensions, Roth IRAs, individual investors? The sector of society that works for their money? 

Perhaps by killing capitalism, socialism will win by default. 

Elizabeth Reed

Band #3 seemlessly fused blues, jazz, rock, country and bluegrass to create an entirely new subgenre: Southern Rock

Rolling Stone (once a truly great magazine) rated Duane Allman the second greatest rock guitarist of all time, second only to Jimi Hendrix. I'll buy that.

The Allman Brothers Band
In Memory of Elizabeth Reed

We tried to tell Them

Till we were blue in the face we tried to tell them. But would they listen? Noooooo. But look at this picture, and that about face. Ya really think she has your best interest at heart? But they wouldn't listen. And so now, of course. . .

Jewish Leaders Blast Clinton Over Israel Criticism
Zuckerman, Lawmakers, Local Jews Say Secretary Of State Not The Hillary Clinton They Used To Know
Hillary Pressuring Israel To Speed Up Aid To Gaza
ReportingMarcia Kramer NEW YORK (CBS) ―

In a swift about face from her views as New York's senator, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now hammering Israel over its treatment of Palestinians in Gaza.

As First Lady, Clinton raised eyebrows when she kissed Suha Arafat.

Since she was then seeking a Senate seat the resulting brouhaha caused her to "re-think" her positions.

"I'm a very strong supporter of Israel," Clinton said back in February 2000.

On Thursday, as Secretary of State she had yet another about face in the form of angry messages demanding Israel speed up aid to Gaza. Jewish leaders are furious.

"I am very surprised, frankly, at this statement from the United States government and from the secretary of state," said Mortimer Zuckerman, publisher of the New York Daily News and member of the NYC Jewish Community Relations Council.

"I liked her a lot more as a senator from New York," Assemblyman Dov Hikind, D-Brooklyn, said. "Now, I wonder as I used to wonder who the real Hillary Clinton is."

Clinton's decision to hammer Israel comes as the Clintons and President Barack Obama are planning to give the Palestinians $900 million toward the rebuilding of Gaza in the wake of the Israeli offensive that was sparked by Hamas rocket fire.

"We are working across the government to see what our approach will be," Clinton said.

"I don't believe that we should be in a position at this point to do anything to strengthen Hamas," Zuckerman said. "We surely know what Hamas stands for as I say they are the forward battalions of Iran."

For some, Clinton's change of position is upsetting.

"I feel it's unfortunate that they don't continue the policy of the Bush administration, which was much more pro-Israel," said Akiva Homnick of Jerusalem.

"I happen to have a lot of family who live in Israel and I feel, personally, when you are dealing with people who are very strong against you, you have to stand up to them," said Tami Davudoff of Kew Gardens.

"Hillary had Mrs. Arafat here and she invited Mrs. Arafat for lunch when she was the first lady," added Babak Chafe of Great Neck. "She is pro-Palestinian 100 percent, really. Of course, we always knew it."

"The easy way to make a peace agreement is to pressure Israel because you can't pressure the Arabs," said Solomon Loewi of Monsey, N.Y.

All this could lead to a chilly reception when Mrs. Clinton arrives in the Middle East next week.

The new U.S. envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, arrived in Israel on Thursday with a mission to inject new life into peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

h/t Little Green Fussballs

Princess Hijab Strikes Again

Febuary 28 2009 PARIS,

"Princess Hijab knows that L’Oréal and Dark & Lovely have been killing her little by little. With her spray paint and black marker pen, she is out to hijabize advertising. Even Kate Moss is targeted. By day, she wears a white veil, symbol of purity. By night, her black veil is the expression of her vengeful fight for a cause," states Princess Hijab ( in her manifesto.

What is that cause? In a nutshell, it is to subvert consumer images—especially of women—and to push cultural boundaries.

And few are spared the Princess' black marker and spray paint in her artistic Jihad.

In the online gallery of her "hijabizing" of ad campaigns, lightly clad models in ads for Virgin Music and various clothing companies have been re-dressed by the Princess in veils and chadors (body-length veil), their eyes popping out of face-covering hijabs.

They are striking as much as they are irreverent, and they have caused anger in both Muslim and secular circles.

Cinderella in chador and hijab men

Even Cinderella dancing with her prince in an animated advertisement for the popular fairytale turned film has had her dress changed to a black chador/abaya.

Next to the "hijabized" Cinderella is an ad of a man with a black medieval-style helmet painted over his head, only his bright blue eyes sticking out of the artistic arrangement.

Princess Hijab told MENASSAT that her hijab campaigns are not plastered on the streets of Paris as an act of "art for art's sake," but instead represent a part of what she calls "art propositions for a more global idea."

In this global idea, Princess Hijab means she pursues what she calls her "noble cause," or her "anti-advertising movement" in an attempt to fight today's mainstream and sexist consumerism.

But what she calls her "subverting visuals" are done in a manner that puts it in opposition to a Western-style advertising format, with its images of scantily clad women and underweight men and women used to sell anything from deodorant to coffee.
Seeing this reminds me of a post I done last year

May 6 2008 A COUNCILLOR today called for more control over advertising posters in "culturally sensitive" areas of Birmingham.
Coun Talib Hussain made his plea after a billboard on the corner of Sydenham Road and Golden Hillock Road, in predominantly Muslim Sparkbrook, was defaced.
The hoarding, close to mosques in Anderton Road and Golden Hillock Road and visible to parents and children walking to Montgomery Primary School, promotes Matalan's new swimwear range and features three scantily-clad models.

The models have been covered in thick white paint to conceal bare flesh.

Coun Talib Hussain (Ind, Sparkbrook) criticised the vandalism but said it was a result of the lack of action from city council bosses. He said: "I condemn the people that did this but at the same time it's wrong for companies to put that kind of advert in sensitive wards.

"I have received complaints on a number of occasions not to put adverts like that in Sparkbrook. "The city council should not give permission to advertising like that in these wards. "Having families seeing naked pictures does not bring the community together, it provokes things."

The vandalism is similar to a spate of attacks in 2005 and 2006 by a group called Muslims Against Advertising.

A Birmingham City Council spokesman, said: "Our only power is to approve where advertising can take place, but not what is put on it. "That is between the Advertising Standards Agency and the firm itself."

The ASA said the content of billboard adverts was controlled by billboard owner and the advertiser, and that the agency only had "responsive" powers.

"If we receive complaints we will consider if an advert should be removed."

Well if the phukers dont like the sight of infidel catmeat

They can always fuck off to where every they came from

Now back to the other Jihad

Denmark Donates Lego To Sderot Children

And the Danish ambassador to Israel even gave a speech to the children in Hebrew:

Denmark's ambassador to Israel, Liselotte Plesner, visited Sderot on Tuesday to take part in a celebration – held in a fortified pre-school – to honor a generous contribution by the LEGO group to WIZO (Women's International Zionist Organization) pre-schools.

The LEGO group contributed two large containers holding a thousand boxes of 'duplos' – large-sized Lego blocks. The Danish toys will be distributed among 170 WIZO pre-schools across Israel and particularly to the 35 pre-schools located in southern communities, where residents are still suffering from rocket-fire.

The Danish ambassador surprised participants by delivering a speech to the children and pre-school employees in Hebrew. In her speech, she referred to the trauma to children in the rocket-plagued region, saying "the children who live under the threat of Qassams need to be able to escape to a world of magic and creativity – something that can be done with Legos."

Plesner related that she had played with Legos as a child. She also remarked on the characteristics of creativity and innovation seen in Israel and Denmark, noting the outstanding achievements of Israeli hi-tech, among them Modu CEO Dov Moran's cellular telephone developments and Shai Agassi's electric car project, which is being undertaken in collaboration with Denmark.
Read the rest...
Hollywood MIA on Abuse in Islam
Posted 02/27/2009 ET

Hollywood rarely shies away from delving into politics, and it routinely rewards films that comport with its political worldview. It couldn’t get enough of Michael Moore’s screeds against guns and “Bush’s war,” and it warmed up nicely to Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. This year, Hollywood celebrated Che, the sympathetic biopic about the Castro lieutenant, mass murderer and cult hero to leftwing radicals.

But Hollywood’s favorite political film this year was Milk, which chronicles the life of slain gay rights advocate Harvey Milk. For his portrayal of Milk, Sean Penn won the Best Actor award at this year’s Academy Awards. Taking the stage to accept his Oscar last weekend, Penn started in on a rant over the passage of Proposition 8, California’s marriage protection amendment. He said, in part:

“… I think it’s a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect on their great shame and their shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that support. We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone.”

Putting aside the ridiculousness of Sean Penn, a man who holidays with tyrants like Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro, advising others to “sit and reflect on their great shame,” there is a larger point. Given how often Hollywood sees fit to rail against this or that perceived political or social injustice, there is one area about which Hollywood has remained conspicuously silent: the brutality of radical Islam.

Not only has the film industry consciously avoided using Muslim characters in its many films about war and terrorism, Hollywood has also been missing in action when it comes to speaking out against some Muslims’ unacceptable views on gays and women.

In many Islamic countries, homosexuality is considered an executable offense. In Iran, homosexuals are sometimes crucified. The absurdity of Iran’s treatment of homosexuals was on display when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited New York in 2007. He told an audience at Columbia University, “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who has told you we have that."

Women have it no better in many Muslim societies. Last November in Afghanistan, a group of school girls were assaulted by men who sprayed them with acid, leaving some of them with permanent scars and vision problems. The men, who are suspected of having been hired by the Taliban, attacked the girls because they felt it was an abomination for women to attend school.

Sadly, this misogyny is not confined to Muslim countries. It can happen in the U.S. too, a reality that was underscored recently in Buffalo, N. Y., when Pakistani immigrant Muzzammil Hassan allegedly beheaded his wife, Aasiya. Mr. Hassan is the founder and CEO of Bridges TV, which he launched in 2004 to help portray Muslims in a more positive light.

Media reports indicate that Aasiya may be the victim of an “honor” killing, which is defined as the murder of a (usually female) family member when it is believed that she has brought dishonor to the family. According to a 2000 report by the United Nations, as many as 5,000 women are killed globally each year in honor killings. In the Hassan’s case, the justification for the alleged murder may have been that Aasiya had filed for divorce.

According to Human Rights Watch, honor killings are typically committed by male family members against female members for reasons that include refusing to enter an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce or being accused of having committed adultery.

But honor killings are also common punishment for Muslim women and girls who refuse to wear head scarves, refuse to act as domestic servants, wear make-up or western clothing, choose to have friends from other religions or seek higher education, among other perceived wrongs.

In an article published in the most recent edition of Middle East Quarterly, Phyllis Chesler argues that the U.S. has failed to acknowledge the severity of honor killings, and that this denial stems in part from a fear of being called “culturally insensitive,” a fear that is exacerbated when U.S.-based Muslim advocacy groups like CAIR reflexively deny that such killings are a problem.

Although honor killings are comparatively rare in the U.S., domestic abuse is widespread in Muslim American households. In fact, Muslim American women are often imprisoned in abusive relationships and can face social ostracism and intense family pressure if they speak up against abuse or try to escape or file charges. The upshot is that even in the West, many Muslim women are suffering in silence and fear.

After the Academy Awards, Sean Penn did an interview in which he continued to lash out at the majority of Americans who support traditional marriage, claiming that they demonstrated “emotional cowardice” and that they were “…essentially telling you that you’re less than human.”

No rational person believes homosexuals are “less than human.” But that’s precisely how Muslim women are often viewed and treated by their co-religionists, even here in the U.S. Why is it that Hollywood obsesses about the alleged splinter in the eye of the West but ignores the plank in the eye of a culture that treats women no better than property?

I wish Hollywood would make a film highlighting the brutal treatment of gays and women in Islam, especially given the steady stream of films detailing how stifling to women American society supposedly was in the 1950’s and how oppressive it continues to be for homosexuals today.

Granted, it is much harder to bully groups from which one need not fear violent reprisal. When in 2004 Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gough directed the short film Submission, which chronicled the violence against women in some Islamic societies, he was brutally murdered by a Muslim extremist. Perhaps I shouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Hollywood, or “tough guy” Sean Penn, to summon the emotional courage to address this neglected issue.

from Human Events

End of the Fairness Doctrine?

Fairness Doctrine Victory?
by Connie Hair

A ban on the so-called Fairness Doctrine passed overwhelmingly in the Senate yesterday in the form of the Broadcaster Freedom Amendment offered by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) to the D.C. Voting Rights Act, which was later passed by the Senate. The Broadcaster Freedom Amendment would prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which was scrapped by the FCC in 1987 as unconstitutional. The vote on the amendment was 87-11 in favor with 46 Democrats crossing over to vote with Republicans.

“Today’s vote slammed the front door on the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which threatens to censor free speech and shut down talk radio,” said DeMint. “When senators were forced to vote in the open on this issue, they were compelled to side with the American people.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) had this to say, “The overwhelming bi-partisan vote in support of the Broadcaster Freedom Act shows that the American people reject the idea of reinstating the fairness doctrine. As one of the most outspoken members in the Senate against re-instating the doctrine, I am pleased to have supported Senators DeMint and Thune in their effort. Today is a tremendous victory for free speech and the First Amendment, and while I am sure liberals will continue to look for another way to attack conservative radio, I will be standing with my colleagues to ensure that doesn’t happen."

But the result may be neither that strong or that clear. First, the DeMint amendment may have been used by the Democrats to gain political cover: they can now say they voted against the Fairness Doctrine. But a later amendment offered by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) may give them all they wanted to begin with: an easy and quick path for the FCC to impose the Fairness Doctrine by regulation without further congressional action.

And that’s very likely what is going on. Durbin’s amendment passed the Senate 57-41 with no Republican support whatsoever. It instructs the FCC to take a proactive stance “to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership.” Democrats can use this broad language to empower the FCC to impose everything from racial quotas on media ownership to, given the tyrannical zeal of the current Democrat leadership, eminent domain-type power over media ownership through enforcement of racial ownership quotas. The White House would define what actions the FCC could and would take under this broad, new, proactive “diversity in communication media ownership” directive.

If they do so, radio station owners could literally have to sell all or part of their interest to others with different political views, resulting in changes in programming. This sounds complicated, but given the Dems’ proclivity for hiding intentions in legislation -- and turning it over to bureaucrats who naturally exert the maximum power they’ve been given -- to do the dirty work.

DeMint saw through Durbin and issued a warning.

“Today was an important victory for free speech, but the fight is far from over,” DeMint continued in his statement after passage. “Sen. Durbin’s amendment exposed Democrat intentions to impose radio censorship through the back door using vague regulations dealing with media ownership. Sen. Durbin’s language was so broad, it could apply beyond radio to television, newspapers and the internet. All eyes are now on the FCC. If they attempt to shut down free speech indirectly, we will fight to stop them.”It will happen.

And Republicans will have to fight this fight again, and soon.

the Rest at Human Events

Return of the War Party

I've never thought too highly of him myself (your opinion may differ) but, to me, it seems Pat Buchanan has been into some serious mushrooms & kool aid here, to minimize the Iranian threat as he seems to be doing.

at Human Events:

Return of the War Party
Posted 02/27/2009 ET
Updated 02/27/2009 ET

"Real men go to Tehran!" brayed the neoconservatives, after the success of their propaganda campaign to have America march on Baghdad and into an unnecessary war that has forfeited all the fruits of our Cold War victory.

Now they are back, in pursuit of what has always been their great goal: an American war on Iran. It would be a mistake to believe they and their collaborators cannot succeed a second time. Consider:

On being chosen by Israel's President Shimon Peres to form the new regime, Likud's "Bibi" Netanyahu declared, "Iran is seeking to obtain a nuclear weapon and constitutes the gravest threat to our existence since the war of independence."

Echoing Netanyahu, headlines last week screamed of a startling new nuclear breakthrough by the mullahs. "Iran ready to build nuclear weapon, analysts say," said CNN. "Iran has enough uranium to make a bomb," said the Los Angeles Times. Armageddon appeared imminent.

Asked about Iran's nukes in his confirmation testimony, CIA Director Leon Panetta blurted, "From all the information I've seen, I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability."

Tuesday, Dennis Ross of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a front spawned by the Israeli lobby AIPAC, was given the Iranian portfolio. AIPAC's top agenda item? A U.S. collision with Iran.

In the neocon Weekly Standard, Elliot Abrams of the Bush White House parrots Netanyahu, urging Obama to put any land-for-peace deals with the Palestinians on a back burner. Why?
"The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is now part of a broader struggle in the region over Iranian extremism and power. Israeli withdrawals now risk opening the door not only to Palestinian terrorists but to Iranian proxies."

The campaign to conflate Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria as a new axis of evil, a terrorist cartel led by Iranian mullahs hell-bent on building a nuclear bomb and using it on Israel and America, has begun. The full-page ads and syndicated columns calling on Obama to eradicate this mortal peril before it destroys us all cannot be far off.

But before we let ourselves be stampeded into another unnecessary war, let us review a few facts that seem to contradict the war propaganda.

First, last week's acknowledgement that Iran has enough enriched uranium for one atom bomb does not mean Iran is building an atom bomb.

To construct a nuclear device, the ton of low-enriched uranium at Natanz would have to be run through a second cascade of high-speed centrifuges to produce 55 pounds of highly enriched uranium (HUE).

There is no evidence Iran has either created the cascade of high-speed centrifuges necessary to produce HUE or that Iran has diverted any of the low-enriched uranium from Natanz. And the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors retain full access to Natanz.

And rather than accelerating production of low-enriched uranium, only 4,000 of the Natanz centrifuges are operating. Some 1,000 are idle. Why?

Dr. Mohamed El-Baradei, head of the IAEA, believes this is a signal that Tehran wishes to negotiate with the United States, but without yielding any of its rights to enrich uranium and operate nuclear power plants.

For, unlike Israel, Pakistan and India, none of which signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and all of which ran clandestine programs and built atom bombs, Iran signed the NPT and has abided by its Safeguards Agreement. What it refuses to accept are the broader demands of the U.N. Security Council because these go beyond the NPT and sanction Iran for doing what it has a legal right to do.

Moreover, Adm. Dennis Blair, who heads U.S. intelligence, has just restated the consensus of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran does not now possess and is not now pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Bottom line: Neither the United States nor the IAEA has conclusive evidence that Iran either has the fissile material for a bomb or an active program to build a bomb. It has never tested a nuclear device and has never demonstrated a capacity to weaponize a nuclear device, if it had one.

Why, then, the hype, the hysteria, the clamor for "Action This Day!"? It is to divert America from her true national interests and stampede her into embracing as her own the alien agenda of a renascent War Party.

None of this is to suggest the Iranians are saintly souls seeking only peace and progress. Like South Korea, Japan and other nations with nuclear power plants, they may well want the ability
to break out of the NPT, should it be necessary to deter, defend against or defeat enemies.

But that is no threat to us to justify war. For decades, we lived under the threat that hundreds of Russian warheads could rain down upon us in hours, ending our national existence. If deterrence worked with Stalin and Mao, it can work with an Iran that has not launched an offensive war against any nation within the memory of any living American.

Can we Americans say the same?

Video: Will The U.N Make Blasphemy Illegal?

And I wish them luck ..Bloggers and unions form group to push Democrats to the left


WASHINGTON: A group of liberal bloggers said it is teaming up with organized labor and MoveOn to form a political action committee that will seek to push the Democratic Party farther to the left.

Soliciting donations from their readers, the bloggers said they are planning to recruit liberal candidates for challenges against more centrist Democrats currently in Congress.

The formation of the group marks another step in the evolution of the blogosphere, which has proved effective at motivating party activists to give money and time to political campaigns, especially in local races.

Organizers of the new group, to be called Accountability Now, said their intention is to enable Obama to seek more liberal policies without fear of losing support from the more conservative members of his party serving in Congress. But they did not rule out occasional friction with Obama, as well.

"We're going to be about targeting incumbents to make space for Obama to be more progressive," said Glen Greenwald, a liberal blogger with Salon who is part of the effort. "There may be other times when the Democratic Party, as led by Obama, is being unresponsive, so yeah, we have the potential to push back against that, as well."

Another founder of the group, Jane Hamsher, of Firedog Lake, said the group may also involve itself in Republican primary contests, though the focus for now seems to be primarily on the Democratic side.

Left-leaning bloggers have already proven themselves influential in congressional races, most notably providing muscle for the movement that helped Ned Lamont defeat Senator Joseph Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary in 2006. ( Lieberman went on to retain his seat after running in the general election as an independent.)

But organizers of the new effort said the new political action committee will mark the start of a more organized and concentrated approach.

Hamsher said Accountability Now -- which will also have support from the Service Employees International Union and DailyKos -- would concentrate more fully on candidate recruitment in the states.


They are who we thought they were ..Clinton blasts Israel for not helping HAMAS voters (fast enough), Jewish leaders respond

It is the minds of the American people which must be the object of persuasion.

Obama who has appointed the Walt/Mearsheimer KSA functionally anti Semitic cipher Chas Freeman, and whose litany of events and appts indicating not exactly wild support for Israel ..puncutated by the now invisible Dennis Ross (who also defended the NOW very visible Robert Malley), and the apparently good soldier Rahm Emanuel ..has apparently mind melded with Hillary Clinton changing her from the pathologically lying Israel supporting Sen to the pathologically lying OBAMANOID SecState.

"I'm a very strong supporter of Israel," Clinton said back in February 2000.

On Thursday, as Secretary of State she had yet another about face in the form of angry messages demanding Israel speed up aid to Gaza. Jewish leaders are furious.

"I am very surprised, frankly, at this statement from the United States government and from the secretary of state," said Mortimer Zuckerman, publisher of the New York Daily News and member of the NYC Jewish Community Relations Council.

Clinton's decision to hammer Israel comes as the Clintons and President Barack Obama are planning to give the Palestinians $900 million toward the rebuilding of Gaza in the wake of the Israeli offensive that was sparked by Hamas rocket fire.

"I don't believe that we should be in a position at this point to do anything to strengthen Hamas," Zuckerman said. "We surely know what Hamas stands for as I say they are the forward battalions of Iran."

"Hillary had Mrs. Arafat here and she invited Mrs. Arafat for lunch when she was the first lady," added Babak Chafe of Great Neck. "She is pro-Palestinian 100 percent, really. Of course, we always knew it."

"The easy way to make a peace agreement is to pressure Israel because you can't pressure the Arabs," said Solomon Loewi of Monsey, N.Y.
To Obama Israel looks a lot like Czechoslovakia. Somewhere J Carter is smiling.

Perhaps we can convince the American leadership to explain how aiding HAMAS IN ANY WAY serves the American people in any way other than perceived begging to show we are good guys to those who hate everything about us, as a people