Not So Fast My Friend...'When Harry Met Arlen' Gets Poor Reviews in Dem Caucus

from American Thinker
by Ralph Alter
April 30, 2009

The flipping of Arlen Specter's party identity to the partie gauche is already roiling the waters in the Democratic Caucus as senior party members speak out against the deal Specter cut with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Apparently without consulting senior members of his party, that old smoothie Reid agreed to let the senator from Pennsylvania keep his seniority regarding committee appointments.

"Not so fast, Harry" comes the cry from the offices of several senior Democrats. Alexander Bolton writes in The Hill:

"I won't be happy if I don't get to chair something because of Arlen Specter," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who sits on the Appropriations Committee with Specter and is fifth in seniority among Democrats."

And she is not alone. Another senior Democrat pointed out that Reid's deal with Specter was not the caucus's deal:

" The lawmaker requested anonymity because the issue of Specter's seniority is "a sensitive subject." The lawmaker said it would be OK if Specter joined his panel as long as he "sat at the end of the dais" with junior members."

Meanwhile Mitch McConnell and senior Senate Republicans have requested that Specter return campaign donations from Republican sources.

Life is about to get very complicated for the Democrat's new Quisling. Self-serving treachery like that demonstrated by Specter is certain to generate revulsion on both sides of the aisle.

This should be fun to watch.

Ralph Alter blogs at Right on Target
Click to read the article and the comments

Guns bought this year could outfit 2 armies

WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Report cites surge that coincided with last year's election
Posted: April 30, 200910:55 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
from WorldNetDaily

Guns purchased legally in the United States this year could outfit two armies – and not just any armies, the armies of China and India, according to new government reports cited by a website for sport-shooting enthusiasts.

The federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System database statistics show there were more than 3.7 million background checks during the first three months of this year, compared to about 8 million annually not even a decade ago, according to the documentation assembled by Ammoland.com.

That's not individual guns, that's background checks, the organization pointed out. If a purchaser obtains two, three or even four guns at a time, often there is only one background check.

"You also bought 1,529,635,000 rounds of ammunition in just the month of December. Yeah, that is right, that is billion with a 'b.' This number takes no account of reloading or reloaded ammunition," the report said.

According to the Global Security website, the Indian army is estimated to have about 1 million soldiers. A news report from several years ago estimated the Chinese army at 1.7 million, although recent estimates put that at 2.25 million.

Here is a table documenting the federal gun background checks by month:

The report cites the quote from Admiral Isoruko Yamamota, a World War II leader for Japan, who said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

The report said the evaluation on firearms and ammunition purchases are "based on low end numbers."

"The numbers presented are only PART of the overall numbers of arms and ammunition that have been sold. The actual numbers are much higher."

That's because no private individual-to-individual sales would be included, and there's no assessment of how many guns are purchased through each background check.

"Law abiding citizens appear to be concerned about our 'right to own and bear arms,'" said one forum page participant.

The statistics show that U.S consumers sought 3.1 million gun background checks every three months last year, for an annual total of 12.7 million. The annual averages had been about 8.4 million for a number of recent years, but there was a surge starting last October, when check requests rose suddenly from 970,000 a month to nearly 1.2 million. Totals have remained at that higher level.

The answer is finally here to the real reason why guns and church must mix!

Another forum participant added, "It's logical that gun sales took sharp upturn. The concern is that the super majority of Democrats in Washington will make firearms either harder to obtain or outright contraband. … As for myself, I have all the weapons I could possibly need, so I've just been stocking up on ammo because I think ammo will be subject to new regulations and increased taxes under this president and Congress."

Steve Sanetti, the head of a shooting sports organization, said, "Americans concerned about their ability to purchase many types of home defense, hunting and target shooting firearms in the future are continuing to purchase these products in record numbers today."

WND reported that the usually liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition" and long has been regarded as the "true palladium of liberty," so it therefore must be applied against state and local government weapon restrictions as well as federal gun limits.

But the decision appears to run counter to the general direction sought by the administration of President Obama three months into his tenure.

He's already advocated for a treaty that would require a federal license for hunters to reload their ammunition, has expressed a desire to ban "assault" weapons, has seen a plan to require handgun owners to submit to mental health evaluations and sparked a rush on ammunition purchases with his history of anti-gun positions.

Obama also supported the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., before it was tossed out last year by the Supreme Court.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

The Biggest Threat To America

by Michael Ramirez
from Investor's Business Daily

Taxpayers to get rude surprise - Millions of couples, retirees may have to repay some of Obama tax credit

Geez, what a shock that Obummer didn't happen to mention this last night at his press conference when he could easily have informed millions of people.

Oh, wait, that's right! This would have been bad news that would have spoiled the lovefest the media was having with him. Yeah, it might just have provoked an uncomfortable question or two.

Oh, never mind, that would never have happened. Wow, I just never cease to be amazed at him. It's just hard to imagine how Obama has enough time to sleep with all these journalists. He truly is Superman.
Rees

Please! Obama! Say it ain't so...What a bammer! oops, I mean bummer!
from Yahoo News
by Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press Writer
Thursday April 30, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Millions of Americans enjoying their small windfall from President Barack Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit are in for an unpleasant surprise next spring.

The government is going to want some of that money back.

The tax credit is supposed to provide up to $400 to individuals and $800 to married couples as part of the massive economic recovery package enacted in February. Most workers started receiving the credit through small increases in their paychecks in the past month.

But new tax withholding tables issued by the IRS could cause millions of taxpayers to get hundreds of dollars more than they are entitled to under the credit, money that will have to be repaid at tax time.

At-risk taxpayers include a broad swath of the public: married couples in which both spouses work; workers with more than one job; retirees who have federal income taxes withheld from their pension payments and Social Security recipients with jobs that provide taxable income.

The Internal Revenue Service acknowledges problems with the withholding tables but has done little to warn average taxpayers.

"They need to get the Goodyear blimp out there on this," said Tom Ochsenschlager, vice president of taxation for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

For many, the new tax tables will simply mean smaller-than-expected tax refunds next year, IRS spokesman Terry Lemons said. The average refund was nearly $2,700 this year.

But taxpayers who calculate their withholding so they get only small refunds could face an unwelcome tax bill next April, said Jackie Perlman, an analyst with the Tax Institute at H&R Block.

"They are going to get a surprise," she said.

Perlman's advice: check your federal withholding to make sure sufficient taxes are being taken out of your pay. If you are married and both spouses work, you might consider having taxes withheld at the higher rate for single filers. If you have multiple jobs, you might consider having extra taxes withheld by one of your employers. You can make that request with a Form W-4.

The IRS has a calculator on its Web site to help taxpayers figure withholding. So do many private tax preparers.

Obama has touted the tax credit as one of the big achievements of his first 100 days in office, boasting that 95 percent of working families will qualify in 2009 and 2010.

The credit pays workers 6.2 percent of their earned income, up to a maximum of $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples who file jointly. Individuals making more $95,000 and couples making more than $190,000 are ineligible.

The tax credit was designed to help boost the economy by getting more money to consumers in their regular paychecks. Employers were required to start using the new withholding tables by April 1.

The tables, however, don't take into account several common categories of taxpayers, experts said.

For example:

--A single worker with two jobs making $20,000 a year at each job will get a $400 boost in take-home pay at each of them, for a total of $800. That worker, however, is eligible for a maximum credit of $400, so the remaining $400 will have to be paid back at tax time -- either through a smaller refund or a payment to the IRS.

The IRS recognized there could be a similar problem for married couples if both spouses work, so it adjusted the withholding tables. The fix, however, was imperfect.

-- A married couple with a combined income of $50,000 is eligible for an $800 credit. However, if both spouses work and make more than $13,000, the new withholding tables give them each a $600 boost -- for a total of $1,200 -- so the remaining $400 will have to be paid back at tax time -- either through a smaller refund or a payment to the IRS.

There were 33 million married couples in 2008 in which both spouses worked. That's 55 percent of all married couples, according to the Census Bureau. - that will have to pay money back

-- A single college student with a part-time job making $10,000 would get a $400 boost in pay. However, if that student is claimed as a dependent on a parent's tax return, he/she doesn't qualify for the credit and would have to repay it when he/she files next year.

Some retirees face even bigger headaches.

The Social Security Administration is sending out $250 payments to more than 50 million retirees in May as part of the economic stimulus package. The payments will go to people who receive Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, railroad retirement benefits or veteran's disability benefits.

The payments are meant to provide a boost for people who don't qualify for the tax credit. However, they will go to retirees even if they have earned income and receive the credit. Those retirees will have the $250 payment deducted from their tax credit -- but not until they file their tax returns next year, long after the money may have been spent.

Retirees who have federal income taxes withheld from pension benefits also are getting an income boost as a result of the new withholding tables. However, pension benefits are not earned income, so they don't qualify for the tax credit. That money will have to paid back next year when tax returns are filed.

More than 20 million retirees and survivors receive payments from defined benefit pension plans, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. However, it is unclear how many have federal taxes withheld from their payments.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union raised concerns about the effect of the tax credit on pension payments in a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in March.

Geithner responded that Treasury and IRS understood the concerns and were "exploring ways to mitigate that effect."

Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said Geithner has yet to respond to concerns raised by committee members.

"So far we've got the, 'If we don't address this maybe it will go away' approach," Camp said.

IRS withholding calculator:
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id96196,00.html
Click to read the article and the comments

Obama basically gave Turkey green light to insult Israel

from the Debkafile Special Report
April 30, 2009

Turkey's army chief Gen. Ilker Basburg brushed off the Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak's comment that the joint Turkish-Syrian military exercise was "disturbing."

Barak referred to the first exercise Turkey, Israel's longstanding military ally and NATO member, had ever staged with an Arab nation, Israel's avowed foe Syria. Gen. Basbug said it was only a border exercise, small-scale and "none of anybody's business."

NATO member Turkey and Syria hold first joint military exercise
DEBKAfile Special Report
April 30, 2009, 1:02 PM (GMT+02:00)

The joint Turkish-Syrian tank and armored infantry exercise backed by air power begins across the Turkish-Syrian border Monday, April 27, and lasts three days.

DEBKAfile's military sources stress that it is the first joint military maneuver any NATO member, including Turkey, has ever carried out with Syria. It appears to have received a nod from the Obama administration and another first: Never before has an important NATO power staged a joint exercise with any Arab army.

Ankara's decision to launch the drill on the day Israeli commemorates its war dead - in league with Iran's leading ally - is a measure of how far Turkey's longstanding strategic pact with the Jewish state has fallen by the wayside of recent changes.

Washington's approval underscores its new policy of boosting the strength of the Syrian army as partner in a strong a three-way military coalition with Turkey and Lebanon.

Ankara made its announcement while US secretary of state Hillary Clinton was on a short visit to Beirut.

It comes only four days after another first US step: Tuesday, April 22, DEBKAfile's exclusive sources reported that the Obama administration had just approved a large Turkish arms sale to the Lebanese army assigning Turkish military instructors to train Lebanese army units (half of whose personnel are Shiites sympathetic to Hizballah.)

Neither of the Obama administration's actions took into account Israel's vital security interests; nor was Jerusalem consulted about the strategic changes on its borders - or even informed.

DEBKAfile reports that both US drastic policy reverses are causing extreme consternation in Israel's top security echelons, which are criticizing the new Netanyahu government for taking too long to respond to the dire security setbacks piling up around its borders. The most troubling development confronting Israel in years is the grouping together of the Turkish, Syrian and Lebanese armies.

According to the statement from Ankara, the joint exercise "aims to boost friendship, cooperation and trust between Turkish and Syrian land forces and to increase the capability of border troops to train and work together."

In recent weeks, too many developments are closing in too fast and too dangerously for Binyamin Netanyahu to put the whole can of worms on hold until he has a chance to figure out his policies and talk to Barack Obama in the coming month. The dynamic on the ground will be in full flight by then. Too late, the Israeli prime minister will find the security situation running out of his control. Turning back the clock will be hopeless and he will find himself fed some unpalatable accomplished facts.
Click to read the entire article

Petraeus: Next Two Weeks Critical to Pakistan's Survival

Gen. David Petraeus said he is looking for concrete action by the Pakistani government to destroy the Taliban in the next two weeks before determining the United States' next course of action.

By James Rosen
FOXNews.com
Thursday, April 30, 2009

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command, has told U.S. officials the next two weeks are critical to determining whether the Pakistani government will survive, FOX News has learned.

"The Pakistanis have run out of excuses" and are "finally getting serious" about combating the threat from Taliban and Al Qaeda extremists operating out of Northwest Pakistan, the general added.

But Petraeus also said wearily that "we've heard it all before" from the Pakistanis and he is looking to see concrete action by the government to destroy the Taliban in the next two weeks before determining the United States' next course of action, which is presently set on propping up the Pakistani government and military with counterinsurgency training and foreign aid.

Petraeus made these assessment in talks with lawmakers and Obama administration officials this week, according to individuals familiar with the discussions.

They said Petraeus and senior administration officials believe the Pakistani army, led by Chief of Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, is "superior" to the civilian government, led by President Ali Zardari, and could conceivably survive even if Zardari's government falls to the Taliban.

American officials have watched with anxiety as Taliban fighters advanced earlier this month to within 70 miles of the capital city of Islamabad. In recent days, the Pakistani army has sought to reverse that tide, retaking control over strategic points in the district of Buner even as the Taliban struck back by kidnapping scores of police and paramilitary troops.

The see-saw nature of the battles Wednesday demonstrated to U.S. officials that, as one put it to FOX News, "even with intent and superior technology, the capability may not be there" for the Pakistani army to defeat the extremists.

As for the security of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last Saturday, in an interview with FOX News in Baghdad, that the U.S. believes the arsenal to be "safe" but only "given the current configuration of power in Pakistan."

She described as "the unthinkable" a situation in which the the Zardari government were to be toppled by the Taliban, adding "then they would have the keys to the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan, and we can't even contemplate that. We cannot let this go on any further..."

The officials who spoke with Petraeus, however, said he and they believe that even were Zardari's government to fall, it was still conceivable that Kayani's army could maintain control over the nuclear arsenal.

That is because the Pakistani arsenal is set up in such a way -- with the weapons stockpile and activation mechanisms separated -- so as to prevent easy access by invaders. Moreover, the Taliban is not believed at present to possess the sophisticated technical expertise necessary to exercise full "command and control" over a nuclear arsenal, and would probably require weeks if not months to develop it.

The anxiety with which U.S. officials are monitoring events in Pakistan is compounded by a battle here at home over how best to help the Pakistanis. Some members of Congress want to attach benchmarks to any aid provided to Islamabad -- a move opposed by the Obama administration -- while still others wish to transfer authority over key funding streams from the Defense Department to the State Department, also opposed by the administration.

At a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday, Chairman Ike Skelton,D-Mo. asserted that the existing funding mechanism, the Coalition Support Initiative, under which the U.S. reimburses Pakistan for military expenditures undertaken in support of the U.S. global war on terror, "is not serving the interests of either our country or Pakistan very well."

Michele Flournoy, U.S. under secretary of defense for policy, rejected that view, saying the initiative has proved "absolutely critical" to the missions in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

At the same hearing, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, whose bureau oversees South and Central Asia, told lawmakers the Obama administration favors the Defense Department retaining control over the new funding mechanism for Pakistan being proposed, a Title X provision entitled the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund (PCCF).

The goal of PCCF is to provide funding for the immediate training and equipping of the Pakistani army to fight a counterinsurgency war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The Pakistani army, U.S. officials say, has historically been modeled to fight a conventional war against India, as opposed to unconventional warfare against non-state actors like terrorist groups.

A final problem, officials told FOX News, was that no one in the U.S. possesses "an understanding of the Taliban's true objective." It remains unclear to policymakers here whether the group truly seeks to overthrow the Zardari government or merely to carve out a territory within Pakistan in which it can establish safe haven, impose Sharia law, and plot attacks on external targets.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape - He is so incredibly intellectually dishonest!!!

from myway.com
Apr 29, 5:55 PM
CALVIN WOODWARD

WASHINGTON (AP) - "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.

And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.

Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review his progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.

At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.

His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.

He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.

A look at some of his claims Wednesday:

OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." - in Missouri.

THE FACTS:

Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.

To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.

The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.

Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."

He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.

---

OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term." - in Missouri.

THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."

---

OBAMA: "You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax." - in Missouri.

THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

That means he would still have to cut benefits, raise the payroll tax rate, raise the retirement age or some combination to deal with the program's long-term imbalance.

Workers currently pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay an equal rate - for a total of 12.4 percent - on annual wages of up to $106,800, after which no more payroll tax is collected.

Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.

Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

White House issues advisory after Obama Mexico trip - Obama's staff is spreading the flu

from Politico.com
By CAROL E. LEE & JOSH GERSTEIN
04/30/09

The White House has issued a health advisory outlining "protective measures" for anyone who traveled on President Barack Obama’s trip to Mexico after a member of the U.S. delegation came down with flu-like symptoms – and tests on his family showed they’re probably infected with the swine flu.

The individual – an advance security staffer for Energy Secretary Steven Chu –appears to have spread the flu to his wife, son and nephew. All three have tested probable for swine flu, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday.

Gibbs, who did not name the security aide, said he did not work closely with Obama, didn’t fly on Air Force One and is back at work at the Energy Department.

But the staffer was at a working dinner Obama attended with Mexican officials April 16. The aide “was asked specifically if he ever came within six feet of the president, and the answer to that was 'No,' " Gibbs said.

“The president has not experienced any symptoms,” Gibbs said. He said Obama and other aides are “highly, highly, highly unlikely” to develop such symptoms now because of the time that has passed since Obama’s visit on April 16 and 17 and the relatively short incubation period for the flu virus, known as H1N1.

The disclosure of the likely flu case in the president’s entourage was startling because Gibbs said earlier this week that White House physicians believed the flu had posed no risk at all to Obama when he visited Mexico. “The doctors have informed me… that the President's health was never in any danger,” Gibbs said Monday.

Also on Monday, Gibbs had said no one traveling with the president “in either governmental or press capacity has shown any symptoms that would denote cause for any concern."

Gibbs said Thursday that Chu’s aide developed a fever while in Mexico and that several of the aide’s relatives subsequently fell ill with flu-like symptoms. The aide has not tested positive for swine flu, probably because so much time has elapsed, but tests on his three relatives came back as “probable” cases on Tuesday, Gibbs said.

The man flew back to Washington on a commercial United Airlines flight that landed at Dulles International Airport on April 18, Gibbs said.

Gibbs said Secretary Chu has shown no flu-like symptoms and has no plans to be tested for the virus. [Why, just as a precaution wouldn't he want to be tested? Why wouldn't the White House insist that he be tested? That makes no sense whatsoever. The White House is trying to play the angle that there is nothing to worry about - my comment]

Gibbs said a White House physician reported that about 10 staffers who traveled to Mexico visited him. But Gibbs said, “None of those people, however, came back with any positive tests.”

The press secretary said officials don’t expect any more cases related to the trip because of the time that has passed.

The White House advisory echoes the advice of the Centers for Disease Control – and even the president himself at Wednesday’s news conference – including urging workers to stay home if they suspect they have the virus. But the advisory also paints that advice as a way to make sure the White House can keep functioning, no matter how serious a global flu outbreak gets.

“Limiting influenza exposure within the buildings at the White House Complex will allow normal operations to continue, even if the world-wide influenza outbreak becomes more widespread,” the advisory reads.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Fox Program "Lie to Me" beat President Obama's press conference - Obama lost half his audience from previous one - OUCH!

Fox beats President Obama

TV Newser: The fictional “Lie To Me” beat the presidential version in the TV ratings.

Tee hee hee.

Fox went with regular programming at 8 p.m. on Wednesday, while the other 3 networks carried the presidential press conference.

Citing early Nielsen numbers, TV Newser declared Fox the winner.

Fox drew 7.9 million viewers in the time slot. NBC was second at 6.7 million.

“Overall, Obama’s news conference was seen by nearly 19 million viewers across NBC, ABC, CBS according to the early numbers,” TV Newser said.

That is about half the people who watched his last prime-time press conference.

To be fair, the fictional “Lie To Me” also drew 7.9 million viewers in the same timeslot a week earlier.

Still, I think the shelf-life on these prime-time press conferences has passed.

Interestingly, the peevish president took no questions from Fox. Again.
TV Newser’s report is here.
Robert Seidman has more.
Click to read the article and the comments

Jon Stewart: You know who was a war criminal? Harry Truman

Read these comments before watching the video - these comments show how absurd Jon Stewart's logic (if you can call it that) is. There is obviously nothing you can say to reason with Jon Stewart and his clones.
------------------------------------------
We must frog march all surviving WW II vets and everyone who voted for FDR/Truman, and send them to Spain for trial.
Only then can our nation reclaim the moral high ground.
Loxodonta on April 29, 2009 at 9:56 PM
------------------------------------------
Might as well add FDR to the mix…he built those weapons. Then, better add Wilson to the mix, as well. Set the stage for WWII, and turned the Presidency from head of the Executive Branch to the power center of national policy is is today. Maybe JFK, too…that whole Vietnam thingie? And LBJ…he prolonged that Vietnam, even after it was apparent that we were just tossing more and more Americans into the meat grinder. Couldn’t decide to win it, or just pass it along to the next guy. And, Clinton…Rwanda was a stellar day in our history, among other things that happened on his watch.
OK…what do these men have in common?
President — check.
Democrat — ditto.
The more important point here being, however, Stewart is out for giggles and ratings…and he’ll bend the truth to extremes to get a laugh and higher ratings.
This is how many Americans get their news. The Daily Show started out telling the audience it was a fake news program…satire. It has evolved since into a perceived real news show…and has the Emmy’s and Peabody’s to prove it.
News as entertainment, entertainment as news…and people wonder how we could have elected a total novice to the highest office in the Nation?
coldwarrior on April 29, 2009 at 10:00 PM

Warning - Video is unedited for language

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 2
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

posted at 9:43 pm on April 29, 2009
by Allahpundit
from Hot Air.com

Via Goldfarb, the key exchange comes at around 5:50. Hundreds of thousands of lives saved by averting a U.S. invasion of the Japanese home islands, and all this tool can do is point a finger and mumble “yes” in response to whether Truman’s a war criminal or not. Behold the face of mindless anti-torture absolutism. Like what you see?
Click to read the article and the comments

Daily Gut: Schoolgirls In Love - The Media slobber fest nauseatingly continues

from Breitbart.com
by Greg Gutfeld
April 30, 2009

So after weeks of delving deeper and deeper into Miss California’s thoughts on social issues, we now turn to last night’s press conference, where one reporter preferred to serve up a question suited more for a pageant than a President.

Check it out, check it outers.

(ROLL FOUR PART QUESTION FROM TIMES DUDE)

Well, someone definitely is enchanted - beguiled and bewitched by a wizard whose spell renders anyone not immune to “The More You Know” commercials to the emotional state of a fawning school girl.

It’s a credit to Obama that even he had to openly acknowledge the convoluted question from Jeff Zeleny, the New York Times reporter - for it was something Barbara Walters would have posed to Barbara Streisand in 1979, right after asking her what kind of tree she would be, if she could be a tree.

(I think she said “spruce”)

So how do you get to a point where a reporter actually feels compelled to ask such a question? It takes two things.

-one: obsession. Remember the Sandra Bernhard character in King of Comedy? Well, that’s the press personified, and Obama is Jerry Langford. I`m beginning to think that many in the press have collages of Obama hanging inside their lockers. Chris Matthews, I hear, has created an Obama love doll in his garage. For a magical thrill, it’s hooked up to a car battery.

-two, acquiescence. The press completely buys into Obama’s worldview, because it`s theirs too. So it’s not really media bias. It’s “me” bias. He is them. Them is…he, if you pardon my grammar. Fact is, the press has always believed the world needs a healthy dose of fairness - meaning other people deserve your money. And that fits nicely with Obama’s main goal - to create a world where all of us are truly equal - by talking up dreams, but leveling achievement.

It’s a surprise that Zeleny didn’t ask Obama to sign his dream journal, which later, he could decorate with hearts. Pink hearts, with arrows in them!

That`s what I would do. But I`m different.
Tonight we have Dr. Michael Baden, S.E. Cupp, Ron Geraci, and Anna Gilligan!!
Fun, fun, fun.

Click to read the article

Ship captain: Just arming crews won't stop piracy

from Yahoo News
By Laurie Kellman
Associated Press Writer
April 30, 2009

WASHINGTON – Commercial ships working pirate-infested waters should be protected by an armed corps of senior officers backed by the government, Maersk Alabama Capt. Richard Phillips told Congress Thursday, emphasizing all must operate under a clear chain of command.

"I am not comfortable giving up command authority to others, including the commander of a protection force," Phillips said in remarks prepared for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and obtained by The Associated Press. "In the heat of an attack, there can be only one final decision-maker."

Phillips, who was held by pirates for five days this month and rescued by Navy SEALs, was the star witness during a series of hearings as Congress considers ways to combat a spike in piracy against ships carrying billions of dollars in cargo and humanitarian aid.

Modern-day piracy, the experts were to testify, is the product of lawlessness in places like Somalia and is motivated by money more than ideology. It's a dangerous business nonetheless, with pirates carrying small arms and rocket launchers.

The International Maritime Bureau recorded 111 attacks in the waters off the Horn of Africa in 2008, almost double the number of the year before. The bureau has recorded at least 84 attacks in the first quarter of 2009.

About 300 non-U.S. crew members remain in Somali captivity aboard 18 hijacked vessels, according to the Senate panel.

The problem requires a complex regional response between the United States and other powers such as China, India and Russia, Ambassador Stephen Mull told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He said U.S. officials are working with other countries to deny pirates whatever they might gain from taking ships and crews.

"We will continue to press the importance of a 'no concessions' policy when dealing with pirates," Mull said.

Phillips' firsthand experience aside, there's little consensus among policymakers and maritime experts on the wisdom of arming merchant seamen.

The chairman of Phillips' own company told the Senate panel that doing so could make the seas even more dangerous. [Oh, so we should just give up and do whatever the pirates demand? That wreaks of Obama type appeasement. - my comment]

"Arming merchant sailors may result in the acquisition of ever more lethal weapons and tactics by the pirates, a race that merchant sailors cannot win," Maersk Inc. Chairman John P. Clancey said in his prepared remarks.

Witnesses said the solution will require a combination of diplomacy and cooperation between governments, shippers and seamen's unions.

Government protection for ships in vast international waters was already in progress.

Belgium said Thursday that its military will provide onboard protection to commercial ships off the Horn of Africa, beginning this weekend. Teams of eight soldiers will be available to Belgian ships upon request if an EU anti-piracy flotilla in the region can't guarantee protection. The costs will be assumed by ship owners. [This is absolutely what should be done - my comment]

Phillips, 53, was taken hostage April 8 after four Somali pirates assaulted his ship, the Maersk Alabama. He was rescued April 12. He has described the siege in interviews, but told the Senate panel he would not talk about the details because of an ongoing investigation and legal proceedings against one of the pirates who held him hostage.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

White House aide's family likely has swine flu

DON'T BE KISSING ANY PIGS!

Apr 30 01:13 PM US/Eastern
from Breitbart.com

WASHINGTON (AP) - A member of the U.S. delegation that helped prepare Energy Secretary Steven Chu's trip to Mexico City has demonstrated flu-like symptoms and his family members have tested probable for swine flu.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday that three members of an aide's family are being tested to see if they have the same strain of swine flu that is threatening to become a pandemic. The aide worked in presidential advance, which is responsible for planning and preparing trips.

Gibbs said that Secretary Chu has not experienced any symptoms. The spokesman also said that President Barack Obama also has had no symptoms of the virus and doctors see no need to conduct any tests on his health.
Click to read the article

Swine Flu - Do's and Don'ts - Mostly Don'ts

Security Before Politics - a concept liberals don't understand

from The Washington Post
By Porter J. Goss
Saturday, April 25, 2009

Since leaving my post as CIA director almost three years ago, I have remained largely silent on the public stage. I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can't have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets. Americans have to decide now.

A disturbing epidemic of amnesia seems to be plaguing my former colleagues on Capitol Hill. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, members of the committees charged with overseeing our nation's intelligence services had no higher priority than stopping al-Qaeda. In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA's "High Value Terrorist Program," including the development of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and what those techniques were. This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers.

Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience.

Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:

-- The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.

-- We understood what the CIA was doing.

-- We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.

-- We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.

-- On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.

I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues. They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding. And for those who now reveal filed "memorandums for the record" suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately -- to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president's national security adviser -- and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted. And shifted they have.

Circuses are not new in Washington, and I can see preparations being made for tents from the Capitol straight down Pennsylvania Avenue. The CIA has been pulled into the center ring before. The result this time will be the same: a hollowed-out service of diminished capabilities. After Sept. 11, the general outcry was, "Why don't we have better overseas capabilities?" I fear that in the years to come this refrain will be heard again: once a threat -- or God forbid, another successful attack -- captures our attention and sends the pendulum swinging back. There is only one person who can shut down this dangerous show: President Obama.

Unfortunately, much of the damage to our capabilities has already been done. It is certainly not trust that is fostered when intelligence officers are told one day "I have your back" only to learn a day later that a knife is being held to it. After the events of this week, morale at the CIA has been shaken to its foundation.

We must not forget: Our intelligence allies overseas view our inability to maintain secrecy as a reason to question our worthiness as a partner. These allies have been vital in almost every capture of a terrorist.

The suggestion that we are safer now because information about interrogation techniques is in the public domain conjures up images of unicorns and fairy dust. We have given our enemy invaluable information about the rules by which we operate. The terrorists captured by the CIA perfected the act of beheading innocents using dull knives. Khalid Sheik Mohammed boasted of the tactic of placing explosives high enough in a building to ensure that innocents trapped above would die if they tried to escape through windows. There is simply no comparison between our professionalism and their brutality.

Our enemies do not subscribe to the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury. "Name, rank and serial number" does not apply to non-state actors but is, regrettably, the only question this administration wants us to ask. Instead of taking risks, our intelligence officers will soon resort to wordsmithing cables to headquarters while opportunities to neutralize brutal radicals are lost.

The days of fortress America are gone. We are the world's superpower. We can sit on our hands or we can become engaged to improve global human conditions. The bottom line is that we cannot succeed unless we have good intelligence. Trading security for partisan political popularity will ensure that our secrets are not secret and that our intelligence is destined to fail us.

The writer, a Republican, was director of the CIA from September 2004 to May 2006 and was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 1997 to 2004.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Cap-And-Trade: Al Gore's Cash Cow

By Investor's Business Daily
Posted Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Global Warming: At the cap-and-trade hearings, it was revealed that not everyone will suffer from this growth-killing energy tax. A congresswoman wanted to know why sea levels aren't rising but Gore's bank account is.

When Gore left office in January 2001, he was said to have a net worth in the neighborhood of $2 million. A mere eight years later, estimates are that he is now worth about $100 million. It seems it's easy being green, at least for some.

Gore has his lectures and speeches, his books, a hit movie and Oscar, and a Nobel Prize. But Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., was curious about how a man dedicated to saving the planet could get so wealthy so quickly. She sought out investment advice we all could use in a shaky economy.

Last May, we noted that Big Al had joined the venture capital group Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers the previous September. On May 1, 2008, the firm announced a $500 million investment in maturing green technology firms called the Green Growth Fund.

Last Friday, Gore was the star witness at the hearings on cap-and- trade legislation before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Blackburn asked Gore about Kleiner-Perkins, noting that at last count they "have invested about a billion dollars invested in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation that we are discussing here today."

Blackburn then asked the $100 million question: "Is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?" Gore gave the stock answer that "the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it but every penny that I have made I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge."

Last May, we also noted that on March 1, Gore, while speaking at a conference in Monterey, Calif., admitted to having "a stake" in a number of green investments that he recommended attendees put money in rather than "subprime carbon assets" such as tar sands and shale oil.

He also is co-founder of Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offsets that allow rich polluters to continue with a clear conscience. It's a scheme that will make traders of this new commodity rich and Bernie Madoff look like a pickpocket. The other founder is former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood.

As Stephen Milloy, author of "Green Hell," points out, Goldman Sachs is lobbying for climate change legislation and is part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange, where carbon credits from cap and trade would be traded.

Others hope to cash in along with Gore. On Earth Day 2007, the various NBC networks gave 75 hours of free air time to Gore to hype climate change. NBC is owned by General Electric, perhaps the largest maker of wind turbines and other green technology in the world. It, too, stands to benefit financially from cap and trade, as Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly has noted, connecting dots others won't.

Gore's altruism is phony. According to a March 6 Bloomberg report, Gore invested $35 million of his own money not in green nonprofits, but with the very profitable Capricorn Investment Group LLC, a Palo Alto, Calif., firm that directs clients to green investments and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products.

As reported on Green Hell Blog, Capricorn was founded by the billionaire former president of eBay Inc., Jeffrey Skoll, who also happens to be an executive producer of Gore's Oscar-winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."

Gore has not taken a vow of poverty even as he advocates legislation that will push millions into it. He has said greed and corporate profits are behind the studies disproving his alarmism. Maybe it's his desire for profits that's behind his manipulation of the truth.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

What A Shocker! Antisemitic Muslims!

from Cheat-Seeking Missiles
April 29th 2009
Posted by: Laer

Elaina Cohen has labored long and hard for England’s leftist Labour party, slogging the precincts, pimping the candidates, collecting the cash. So she felt it was her turn to head up an inner-city ward and submitted her application.

It came back stamped “Too white and too Jewish.” Here’s the story:

Elaina Cohen claims that Labour councillor Mahmood Hussain said he would not support her application for an inner-city ward because ‘my Muslim members don’t want you because you are Jewish’.

Mrs Cohen, 50, has made an official complaint about the alleged remarks made by Mr Hussain, a Muslim and former lord mayor of Birmingham.

She said: ‘I am shocked and upset that a member of the Labour Party in this day and age could even think something like that, let alone say it.

‘People should not be allowed to make racist comments like that. If someone in the party feels I cannot represent them because of my colour or religion, that’s ridiculous.” (Daily Mail)

Cohen argued that she had worked hard for Birmingham’s Muslim community and had even been on official visits to Pakistan as part of her Labour labors - but, really, who’s she kidding with that “ridiculous” line. Britain’s Labour party has encouraged massive immigration of Muslims in an effort to secure long-term dominance in local government and Parliament and has kowtowed to their every whim. You want British public toilets to not face Mecca? Sure! You want police dogs to wear booties when searching your houses? Sure! You want us to ban our own flag because it offends you? Why the heck not? You want welfare for your mulitple wives even though polygamy is illegal in England? Why didn’t you ask sooner!

You want Jews sent to extermination camps?

Hussssssain has denied making the comments. But then we know the Qur’an says it’s fine and dandy to lie to infidels in order to further the jihad, and, as it happens, Cohen had a witness:

Lorraine Briscoe, who runs a local community association, was sitting next to Mrs Cohen when the conversation took place on speakerphone last Tuesday.

‘I was disgusted that a councillor could make comments like that in 2009,’ she said.

‘He told her, “They will not vote for someone who is white and Jewish. My Muslim members don’t want you because you are Jewish”.

‘Elaina then asked him if he had talked to his Muslim members about it and he said, “I don’t want to talk about it with you” and hung up.

Two days after the incident, Cohen’s application to run was summarily rejected. She has filed an official complaint with, if you’ll excuse the term, Labour’s management. Get ready for liberal antisemitism, round two.

Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

BMI airline wipes Israel off the map

from The Jerusalem Post
April 30, 2009

Israel has been excluded from digital maps displayed for passengers on British airline BMI flights from London Heathrow to Tel Aviv.

Instead of viewing Tel Aviv or other Israeli cities signposted on screens, customers flying on two BMI-owned Airbus A320 airplanes have instead been exclusively shown Haifa, spelled 'Khefa' - the Arab name of the city before 1948.

BMI, which runs flights to Tel Aviv twice daily, has declared that the maps displayed are a logistical error due to the company's failure to modify the system created by British airline BMED (British Mediterranean Airways), now defunct, who BMI acquired the planes from two years ago.

BMED, formerly a franchise of British Airways, was absorbed into BMI in October 2007 and previously flew primarily to the Middle East - specifically to Amman, Beirut and Damascus, but not Israel. The maps were therefore previously tailored to its Muslim passengers, said the company, and also highlighted Islamic holy sites.

BMI spokesperson Phil Shepherd told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday that the "old maps" were due to be deactivated on Thursday night and new maps, which will label Israel and Tel Aviv, were set to appear on screens in two weeks.

Shepherd commented, "Because of the routes that [BMED] flew at that time, that's why the digital map was showing what it was showing… When we bought [BMED] out, we integrated it into BMI… The moving map should have been disabled when the software was updated, so the moving map shouldn't have been operating at all. It only came to light recently that it was still showing. We had a procedure to switch it off… when we started the Tel Aviv route… but for some reason it wasn't disabled."

British Airways declined to comment on the BMED maps, stating that the airline was simply a franchise that was not run by British Airways.

BMI also made headlines lately for firing a staff member refusing to fly to Saudi Arabia. $22,000-a-year flight attendant Lisa Ashton was told to wear a black robe, known as an 'abaya,' which covers everything but the face, feet and hands, in public places in Saudi Arabia. She was also instructed to walk behind her male colleagues, irrespective of rank. Ashton, a practicing Christian, filed for unfair dismissal at a UK employment tribunal earlier this year; however the court dismissed the case, stating that BMI was justified in imposing "rules of a different culture" on staff. Ashton may seek a judicial review of the decision and has been in consultations with human rights organization Liberty.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Fairness Doctrine 'unconstitutional'

Clarence Thomas: Controversial policy 'deep intrusion' into broadcasters' rights

Posted: April 29, 200911:04 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

For the first time, a U.S. Supreme Court justice is offering some legal insight about the so-called Fairness Doctrine, suggesting the off-the-books policy could be declared unconstitutional if it's revived and brought before the bench.

In written discussion on yesterday's ruling cracking down on indecent language on television, Justice Clarence Thomas called the policy "problematic" and a "deep intrusion into the First Amendment rights of broadcasters."

The doctrine requiring broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues was brought to an end in the 1980s under the direction of President Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission. There has been widespread fear, though, the policy could be resurrected during the term of President Barack Obama.

The Pacific Justice Institute, a California-based legal group specializing in the defense of religious freedom and other civil liberties, is calling the remarks by Thomas "very significant."

"To my knowledge, this is the first time a sitting Supreme Court justice has weighed in on this issue," Matt McReynolds, a PJI staff attorney, told WND.

"It could potentially take a lot of steam out of the movement from those who want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. It also provides a lot of ammo to those who have been saying it's unconstitutional. Now we have some validation from a member of the court."

Thomas is questioning the viability of Supreme Court precedents dating back to the 1960s, long before the explosion of media sources beyond radio airwaves.

"The text of the First Amendment makes no distinctions among print, broadcast, and cable media, but we have done so," Thomas noted.

"It is certainly true that broadcast frequencies are scarce but it is unclear why that fact justifies content regulation of broadcasting in a way that would be intolerable if applied to the editorial process of the print media."

He also noticed "the number of over-the-air broadcast stations grew from 7,411 in 1969 ... to 15,273 by the end of 2004."

If Congress and the president bring the doctrine back to life, there is no doubt lawsuits will fly.

"We are prepared to take legal action should it be reinstated," said Brad Dacus, president of PJI. "Justice Thomas' opinion is very encouraging to everyone who believes in free speech and government non-interference with public debate."

Meanwhile, as WND is also reporting today, the leader of a newly formed public awareness campaign to alert U.S. citizens about an effort to stifle free speech says he expects local "boards" will be assembled within 90 days to begin censoring talk radio, a move that will come as an "Arctic blast" against the expression of opinion in the United States.

"I think the FCC is on the cusp of enacting regulations that would fundamentally alter the traditional American assumption that we have the right to share and debate political opinions," said talk-show host Roger Hedgecock, whose new initiative is called "Don't Touch My Dial."

"The assault on the First Amendment that is being planned by the government and the extremist Left is not limited to their desire to silence conservative talk radio," Hedgecock said.

"Newspapers and television are not immune to the anti-First Amendment efforts that are at work here. In addition, the Internet is also a target for receiving the restrictive aspects of the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine.'"
Click to read the rest of the article of the comments

Israeli intel warns Netanyahu on Obama policy: 'We have become an obstacle'

from The World Tribune
April 30, 2009

TEL AVIV — A classified assessment relayed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Obama and his senior advisers would incrementally diminish U.S. strategic cooperation with Israel developed over the last 20 years.

"Obama wants to make friends with our worst enemies and until now the worst enemies of the United States," an Israeli source familiar with the intelligence assessment said.

"Under this policy, we are more than irrelevant. We have become an obstacle."

[On April 21, Obama said he would meet Netanyahu in Washington as part of revived U.S.-led peace efforts in the Middle East, Middle East Newsline reported. The president said the summit would take place over the next few weeks.]

Israeli sources said the administration would reject Israel intelligence on such threats as Iran and Syria while advancing the Obama agenda to reconcile with the two states, both listed as state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. State Dept.

On April 20, Israeli military intelligence commander Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin warned the Cabinet that Obama was prepared to allow Iran to retain its capability to assemble nuclear weapons and support Hamas and Hizbullah.

"Obama wants to advance the peace process in the direction of realistic discussions with extremist elements," Yadlin said.

The Israeli intelligence assessment envisioned that Obama would maintain his reconciliation policy with Iran and Syria through at least 2010. The sources said the assessment determined that Obama was convinced that such a policy would enable a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Obama will want to show Iran, Syria and radical Muslims that the United States could pressure Israel on a strategic level," the source said. "The pressure has already begun and will intensify throughout the next year or two."

The military intelligence chief said Obama was also courting the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Yadlin said both Damascus and Teheran have not significantly reduced their support for insurgency groups throughout the region.

"President Bashar Assad hopes to turn over a new leaf with U.S. President Barack Obama," Yadlin said. "However, while Western powers are being hosted at the palace in Damascus, Syria is continuing to be used as the back yard of the axis of evil. Assad is letting Hizbullah and Iranian forces freely conduct their affairs in Syria and use its territory for Hizbullah deployment."

Yadlin said Obama's policies have generated dismay among Arab allies of the United States. He said Arab countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia were concerned that U.S. reconciliation efforts would merely encourage Teheran and its proxies to intensify destabilization efforts. In April 2009, Egypt reported a Hizbullah network that operated in Cairo and the Sinai Peninsula.
"The Arab world is starting to understand that Iranian proxies are a threat to the region," Yadlin said. "The Hizbullah activity in Egypt is not an isolated incident. Iran has infrastructures across the world seeking to perpetrate terror attacks against Israel."

At the same time, the Obama administration was expected to restrict U.S. arms exports to Israel in an effort to deny systems that could be used in any attack against Iran or Syria. The intelligence sources said this policy was implemented during the last year of the Bush administration and would intensify under Obama.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

CURL: Obama looks back in anger

Places blame on the GOP
from The Washington Times
By Joseph Curl
Thursday, April 30, 2009

President Obama said his prime-time press conference on Day 100 of his presidency was intended as a "look forward to ... all of the hundreds of days to follow," but it turned into more of a look back in anger, complete with finger-pointing.

Throughout his hourlong session in the White House East Room on Wednesday, the candidate who vowed a new post-partisan Washington, free from the rancorous bickering that often grinds the city to gridlock, ripped Republicans as the members of a do-nothing party of no.

He began at the top, calling his predecessor, the former head of the Republican Party, a torturer.

"Waterboarding was torture," he said, making no exception for post-Sept. 11 circumstances and giving no credence to claims that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" authorized by George W. Bush saved Americans lives.

"We could have gotten this information in other ways," Mr. Obama said, without adding that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, was waterboarded 183 times before he divulged plans of a massive attack planned against Los Angeles.

The cerebral president, who most recently shook hands with America-hater Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and plans talks with nuke-happy Iranian leaders, was content to muse philosophically: "Could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques?"

(Still, he did steal Mr. Bush's daily mantra that his first obligation is to keep the American people safe: "That's the responsibility I wake up with and it's the responsibility I go to sleep with.)

But on the arbitrary day of presidential measurement, Mr. Obama often appeared to still be running for office. In one breath, he said: "I do think that, to my Republican friends, I want them to realize that me reaching out to them has been genuine."

In another: "There is still a certain quotient of political posturing and bickering that takes place even when we're in the middle of really big crises," with "political posturing" targeted at Republicans who apparently do not believe their jobs are to rubber-stamp each expensive Obama initiative.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Dear President Obama: Your partisan arrogance makes me sick.

from the blog Dear President Obama
Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Mr. President, as unfortunate for us as it is that you were elected president (God help us) the fact is that you were elected president of ALL of us... including those of us "waving tea bags around."

Your insistence on once again playing the race card is yet another in the many sickening chapters you're writing as you destroy our economy and enslave my children to pay for your socialism. Let me make this clear enough that even a high functioning moron can understand it:

The fact that half of your genetic make up comes from the continent of Africa means nothing to me. It is you incompetence, your fringe-leftist partisanship, your total cluelessness on both domestic and foreign polciy and your massive, unrelenting arrogance that makes you such a colassal waste of skin as our President.

If you were a green lepricon, my distain for you and the damage that you and your minions are causing would be precisely the same. You've made the idiotic mistake of surrounding yourself with yes men and women; you've politicized issues that should not be politicized; you've shown a massive level of disdain for those of us wise enough to oppose your rank stupidity and you've done absoluitely nothing to bring us together except to insult, belittle and punish us with trillions of dollars of debt.

As we wise up to the truth of your perfidy, your popularity will shrink at a rate that even your media leg-humpers will not be able to fix.

And then what?

Idiot.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Biden would avoid subways, planes after swine flu outbreak

from Politico.com
by Politico Staff
4/30/09

Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday that he would not recommend taking any commercial flight or riding in a subway car “at this point” because swine flu virus can spread “in confined places.”

““I would not be, at this point – if they had another way of transportation – suggesting they ride the subway,” Biden said on NBC’s “Today” show.

That contradicted more restrained advice from President Barack Obama and the federal government, and could hurt tourism during a recession.

The administration said a clarifying statement is forthcoming.

Host Matt Lauer had asked the vice president: “This is by no means a ‘gotcha’ type of question. … But if a member of your family came to you … and said, ‘Look, I want to go on a commercial airliner to Mexico, and back within the next week,’ would you think it’s a good idea?”

“I would tell members of my family – and I have – I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now,” Biden replied. “It’s not that it’s going to Mexico. It’s [that] you’re in a confined aircraft. When one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft. That’s me. …

“So, from my perspective, what it relates to is mitigation. If you’re out in the middle of a field when someone sneezes, that’s one thing. If you’re in a closed aircraft or closed container or closed car or closed classroom, it’s a different thing.”

To keep from getting sick, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends: “Try to avoid close contact with sick people. If you get sick with influenza, CDC recommends that you stay home from work or school and limit contact with others to keep from infecting them.”

Obama said at his news conference on Wednesday night that “individual families [need to] start taking very sensible precautions —that can make a huge difference.

“So wash your hands when you shake hands,” he advised. “Cover your mouth when you cough. I know it sounds trivial, but it makes a huge difference. If you are sick, stay home. If your child is sick, keep them out of school.

“If you are feeling certain flu symptoms, don't get on an airplane, don't get on any system of public transportation where you're confined and you could potentially spread the virus. So those are the steps that I think we need to take right now. But understand that because this is a new strain. We have to be cautious.”
Click to read the rest of the article and comments