Visit Counter

Friday, September 30, 2011

This smiling dog turd is no longer among the living

I guess there's nothing like waking up in the morning to the smell of coffee and turning on my MBP to discover another terrorist has been killed, and to my delight, a stick in the eye to the ACLU. 

(you know... his civil rights are being violated)


We won the daily double.

Samir (worm food) Khan
 Was the co-editor of an English-language Al Qaeda web magazine called "Inspire." His magazine promoted attacks against U.S. targets, even running articles on how to put together explosives. One of his featured articles... "MAKE A BOMB IN THE KITCHEN OF YOUR MOM". Khan wrote that he had moved to Yemen and joined Al Qaeda's fighters, pledging to "wage jihad for the rest of our lives."

Instead of investing in Green companies we should invest in companies making drones. At least we would see some tangible results.

Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born radical Islamic preacher who rose to the highest level of al Qaeda's franchise in Yemen, has been killed.

Al-Awlaki, born in New Mexico, has been linked to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's (AQAP) attempted bombing of a U.S. passenger jet over Detroit on Christmas day, 2009, and was thought to be a leader of the group.

A U.S. government official confirms to CBS News senior security correspondent David Martin that al-Awlaki was killed. Yemen's Defense Ministry was first to tell CBS News of the strike, but given previous reports which turned out to be erroneous, the relatively rapid U.S. confirmation is crucial, and bolsters witness accounts that it was a U.S. drone strike that killed the al Qaeda figure.

U.S. officials considered al-Awlaki a most-wanted terror suspect, and added his name last year to the kill or capture list - making him a rare American addition to what is effectively a U.S. government hit-list.

Al-Awlaki's father, who still lives in the U.S., filed a lawsuit against the federal government, claiming his son's civil rights were violated by the U.S. call for his killing.

Dr Nasser al-Awlaki had described his son as an 'all-American boy'

 'All-American boy' that's living in Yemen devising ways to kill Americans!

Awlaki's father Nasser Al-Awlaki asked the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights to challenge the government's placement of his son on a list of U.S. citizens who can be assassinated by U.S. forces and intelligence services for ties to terrorism.

A federal court dismissed Nasser al-Awlaki's suit on Dec. 7, 2010, on the grounds that he had no legal standing to challenge the targeting of his son.

A statement from Yemen's foreign press office said the al Qaeda suspect "was targeted and killed 8 KM (about 5 miles) from the town of Khashef in the Province of Jawf, 140KM (about 80 miles) east of the Capital Sana'a."

Al-Arabiya television network cited local tribal sources as saying suspected U.S. drone aircraft - which are known to operate in Yemen - fired two missiles Friday at a convoy of vehicles believed to be carrying al-Awlaki and his guards.

CBS News' Khaled Wassef says Al-Awlaki was first reported dead following U.S. air strikes on southern Yemen in December 2009, and then again in November 2010. He was also the target of a U.S. drone attack that killed two al Qaeda operatives in southern Yemen on May 5, 2011.

Wassef reports that al-Awlaki last appeared in a video released online in August 2010.

Yemen has risen in recent years to the top of the threat list for U.S. security officials - with AQAP seen as the most active branch of the global terror network in planning attacks against the U.S. homeland.

Al-Awlaki was believed to be a prominent member of the group, taking some role in the planning of actual terror plots, in addition to his role as a religious adviser and powerful recruiting officer. His clear English, American roots, and powerful speaking skills are believed to have attracted many young Muslims from within the U.S. to the cause of jihad.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 19-year-old Nigerian who attempted to blow up the flight to Detroit in 2009, may have met al-Awlaki, and was trained at camps run by the cleric, when he traveled to Yemen just before his attack.

Al-Awlaki's voluminous online preaching, in both video and print form, is also thought to have inspired Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, and Time Square car bomber Faisal Shahzad.

His death will deal AQAP a serious blow, particularly, says CBS News terrorism analyst Juan Zarate, his work to draw young Muslims into the jihadi mindset.
"His role as a propagandist actually will be very difficult to fill," says Zarate.

Ben Venzke, who heads intelligence contracting group IntelCenter in the Washington area, says al-Awlaki's death will not, however, seriously diminish the threat posed by the al Qaeda franchise.

"AQAP remains one of the most dangerous al Qaeda regional arms both in its region and for the direct threat it poses to the U.S. following three recent failed attacks," said Venzke, who monitors jihadi propaganda for myriad U.S. government agencies. "AQAP leader Nasir al-Wuhayshi, who is responsible for expanding the group's focus to conduct attacks on U.S. soil, remains in charge of the group and further attempts to conduct attacks in the U.S. are expected."


Thursday, September 29, 2011

Pakistan...How long should we keep fooling ourselves?

Bush, two days after 911, gave Pakistan an ultimatum, either you're with us or against us.

Now after giving them billions, while we watch them burn our flag, there is indisputable, irrefutable proof they have been double dealing us all along and I'm not talking just about Bin Laden, who felt quite comfortable living 100 yards away from a Pakistani military base.

The article below is in response to this electrifying video.

Adm. Mike Mullen

Pakistan's PM Warns US to End 'Negative Messaging' on Militancy September 27, 2011

Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani is warning the United States it must end "negative messaging" by accusing Pakistan of supporting militant attacks in Afghanistan. He says such accusations will only strengthen anti-American feelings in his country.

In an interview with the Reuters news agency, Gilani said unilateral U.S. military action to hunt down Haqqani network militants inside Pakistan - similar to the raid that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in May - would be a violation of his country's sovereignty.

Gilani's statement came a day after the Pakistani military said it would not target the al-Qaida and Taliban-linked Haqqani network because it is already stretched too thin battling militants elsewhere in northwestern Pakistan.

Also Tuesday, hundreds of Pakistanis turned out for anti-American rallies across the country, and a suspected U.S. drone fired two missiles on a compound near Wana in the South Waziristan tribal region, killing at least three alleged militants.

On the final day of the U.N. General Assembly's annual session in New York Tuesday, Pakistan's Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar said few countries have been as brutally ravaged by terrorism as Pakistan. She told the gathering that 30,000 civilians, police and security forces have been killed since 2002. Khar said Islamabad is determined to eliminate terrorism from its soil, from the region and from the world, and she called for enhanced international cooperation to wipe it out.

Her remarks came as the White House urged the Pakistani government "to take action" to deal with the Haqqani network that Washington says conducts attacks against international forces from its base in Pakistan's lawless North Waziristan tribal region.

But in an online statement Tuesday, the Taliban said that it, not Pakistan, controls the Haqqani network. The group said there are no ties between the Haqqani network and Pakistan's spy agency, the ISI, and that Haqqani fighters do not seek refuge in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal region, as Washington claims.

The Taliban statement also said attempts to link the Haqqani network's founder, Jalaluddin Haqqani, to the Pakistani government are designed to "give a bad name" to its prominent figures by tying them to foreign intelligence services.

He is warning us? 

1. He's a lying son-of-of-bitch.
2. He's not aware of what certain facets of his government are involved in. I suspect the former.

Further evidence:

Cell phones link Pakistan to U.S. embassy attack (Terrorist called Pakistani intelligence)

The insurgents who attacked the U.S. Embassy in Kabul last week were killed but their cell phones left a trail.

The phones had been used to call Pakistani intelligence operatives before and during the assault. Calls were made to the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) the Pakistani intelligence agency. This evidence lies behind the charge made by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the Haqqani network is a "veritable arm" of Pakistani intelligence, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports.

The attack on the U.S. Embassy and NATO's Afghan headquarters resulted in a 22-hour firefight - with American troops pinned down on roof tops.

The Taliban responds:

No rag head is capable of telling the truth, its part of their religion. What would you expect them to say? America is right, we have ties with the Pakistani government?

Taliban Says Haqqani Network Has No Ties To Pakistan

Jalaluddin Haqqani

September 27, 2011

The Taliban has rejected claims that it or any of its allies have ties to the Pakistani government.

The insurgent group said in a statement issued today that it has no bases in Pakistan.

The English-language statement in the name of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan -- the Taliban's name for itself -- was posted on its Voice of Jihad website.

The Taliban also rejected U.S. charges that the Haqqani network, one of its key allies, has ties to Pakistan's intelligence service. The statement said Haqqani network founder Jalaluddin Haqqani is a key member of the Taliban leadership.
The top U.S. military officer, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, recently accused Pakistan's intelligence service of supporting the Haqqani network.
The United States has also blamed the Haqqani network over the September 13 attack on its embassy in Kabul, in which 14 people died.

On September 26, U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner called for action to be taken against militant safe havens.

"We are very clear in our position on this," Toner said. "We believe that these kind of safe havens are extremely troubling and, indeed, a matter of great concern and a dangerous development for both the United States and for Pakistan. So we want to see action taken against them."
Toner also said the United States is considering placing the Haqqani network on its list of terror groups.

Let Charles put it to rest. As usual he is dead on with his commentary.


On Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen’s testimony that the Haqqani network “acts as a veritable arm” of the ISI, which supported Haqqani’s June truck bombing of the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul and attack this month on the U.S. Embassy:

There’s sort of a complete shift in conceptual thinking here. We went into the war in Afghanistan with Pakistan as our ally against the terrorists — al-Qaeda and the Taliban. And under Musharraf — especially in the early years when we said to the Pakistanis, you either are going to be our ally (it was an ultimatum by the Bush Administration) or we’re going to bomb you back into the Stone Age — they were our allies.

Over the decade, those who were pro-American have been weakened within Pakistan. And now the paradox is that Afghanistan is our base for keeping an eye on and attacking our enemies in Pakistan, namely Haqqani and the other terrorists who are in the northwest frontier regions.

So, rather than thinking of Pakistan as an ally against Afghanistan, Afghanistan, for all of [its] instability and the hostility that America has to face there, is the base of operations from which we keep eye on the bad guys in the region. It’s an interesting and almost a paradoxical reason for continuing our presence in Afghanistan.


On how to pressure Pakistan:

Well, there’s one other step that we can do, and it would be a parallel to the Pakistanis ostentatiously asking the Chinese to make a visit. I would … [involve] the Indians. I think we ought to be sending a high-level delegation to India to discuss regional issues. That will scare the Pakistanis. That’s the one enemy they worry about above all. Showing the beginning of a new kind of alliance between America and India, I think would probably make the Pakistanis think twice about opposing us, and [pursuing] a tight alliance with China.

This just came in as I was about to post.

Pakistan frees Osama bin Laden bodyguard

One final thought.
Did al -Qaeda assassinate Benazir Bhutto or was it something even more disturbing?


Wednesday, September 28, 2011

CNN plays the wrong music and apologizes

On a tip from my brother Gary.

If it was FOX it would have been on the front page of the NYT's.

(Watch to the end because the rap music may make you reach for Excedrin)

Video 11 

Click link if it won't play.


Andy Rooney leaving "60 minutes" after 33 years

I must admit I haven't watched 60 minutes in quite some time. But when I did I always enjoyed Andy Rooney's common sense commentaries.

After reading this article I'm not entirely sure of the reason for his departure. Is he leaving voluntarily or being pushed out?


Andy Rooney, whose folksy and often curmudgeonly essays have been a staple of "60 Minutes" for more than three decades, will end his regular weekly appearances on the program, CBS said Tuesday.

Mr. Rooney, 92, has delivered 1,096 commentaries to the newsmagazine since becoming a regular contributor in 1978, according to CBS. He will formally announce his reduced role in essay No. 1,097 on Sunday night.

His essay will be "preceded by a segment in which Rooney looks back on his career in an interview with Morley Safer," the network said in a statement.

"It's harder for him to do it every week, but he will always have the ability to speak his mind on '60 Minutes' when the urge hits him," said Jeff Fager, the chairman of CBS News and executive producer of the show.

But people close to Mr. Rooney said it was unlikely that he would make many appearances, if any, in the future. The people, who did not want to be identified, said the plan for him to step away from the program had been in the works for some time. Because of the honored place he has occupied on the show, Mr. Rooney's move is not being characterized in terms of a formal retirement, they said.

"There's nobody like Andy and there never will be," Mr. Fager's statement said. "He'll hate hearing this, but he's an American original."

Through CBS, Mr. Rooney declined to comment.

Mr. Rooney was noticeably absent when the newsmagazine started a new season on Sunday night, and he was not quoted in the announcement by CBS.

The change was first reported by TVNewser. In an interview with that Web site last year, Mr. Rooney said that he planned to work for "60 Minutes" until he "dropped dead," and he added, "Until somebody tells me different, I'm not going to quit."

For many viewers, Mr. Rooney's weekly observations on the foibles of life, commerce and politics became a favorite feature of the program, which was for years the most watched on television. But even as his popularity soared, he occasionally ran afoul of some groups, including Hispanics, American Indians and gays and lesbians, because of his comments.

A war correspondent during World War II, Mr. Rooney joined the network in 1949 as a writer for a show called "Arthur Godfrey's Talent Scouts." In the 1960s he wrote and produced television essays for the correspondent Harry Reasoner, and when CBS established "60 Minutes" in 1968, he produced some of Mr. Reasoner's segments for the program. Ten years later he became a regular commentator.

"60 Minutes" remains by far the most popular newsmagazine on American television. The show has weathered any number of changes over the years, including the death of the correspondent Ed Bradley in 2006. Another veteran correspondent, Mike Wallace, retired from full-time work that year.


Monday, September 26, 2011

Liberal Double Whammy

Obama raps the knuckles of the CBC.

Shut you face and vote for me.. just like last time...
Don't waste time thinking about my record. I'm Black, your Black, that's all you need to know!

He lectures them:
"Quit complaining and crying???" 

This kills me.
He's been blaming Bush for everything ever since he took office!

Noticed the calculated, put-on, phraseology when speaking before the CBC is quite a bit different from the one used to address the general population, dispelling any notion we are all one nation.

(Click post title if it won't load)

Maxine doesn't know who the Messiah was talking to? "Curious" she said. Not surprising since she's made a career of walking around in the dark with her mouth open.  Since the backdrop of the above video states Congressional Black Caucus, which Waters attended, shouldn't that be a clue. She should thank God for her district, Waters couldn't get elected dogcatcher in any other.

(Click post title if it won't load)


Sunday, September 25, 2011


I like Herman Cain but I didn't see this coming. Not only did he win he received more then double the votes of his closest rival Perry!

I guess Perry's "Have a heart" statement concerning illegals, costing taxpayers millions and are a detriment to our own people,  didn't go over that well.

Herman Cain Wins Florida GOP Straw Poll

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain arrives onstage to address the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Orange County Convention Center in Orlando, Fla., Friday, Sept. 23, 2011.

Businessman Herman Cain won the Florida straw poll Saturday, beating Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the GOP presidential front-runner who just two days earlier delivered a debate performance that was widely panned.

Cain finished with 37 percent of the vote, while Perry trailed with 15 percent. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney followed with 14 percent while former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum drew 11 percent. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul finished with 10.5 percent, while former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman finished with 2 percent.

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, who won the Iowa straw poll in August, finished with just 1 percent of the vote.

"Thank you to the Republican voters for this incredible honor of being named the winner of the Presidency 5 straw poll in Florida today," Cain said in a statement after the results were in.

"This is a sign of our growing momentum and my candidacy that cannot be ignored. I will continue to share my message of 'common sense solutions' across this country and look forward to spending more time in Florida, a critical state for both the nomination and the general election," he said.

Perry, who was expected to finish strong had told the more than 3,000 GOP activists who came from across the state that his rivals made a mistake by skipping the straw poll..

Romney and  Bachmann had both left Florida before the voting began and their campaigns discounted the straw poll's role in the campaign.

Other first-tier candidates hadn't actively organized for the Florida vote, either. So the results probably won't shuffle the campaign's standings and were shaping up as little more than a popularity contest among the delegates selected by local party organizations.

Ahead of the test vote, Perry's campaign bought breakfast for hundreds of the party faithful assembled for a three-day conference and debate. Perry said skipping the straw poll was a blunder.

"I think that's a big mistake. I think it's very important," Perry said, citing its history.

Previous straw polls have predicted the GOP nominee.
Ronald Reagan won in 1979, George H.W. Bush in 1987 and Kansas Sen. Bob Dole in 1995. The Republican Party of Florida, however, has not organized the test vote in recent years.

Perry, a late entrant into the Republican primary who quickly led national polls, stumbled in recent weeks.

His strident defense of in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants put him on the wrong side of the GOP's conservative base. His rivals worked to exploit his opposition to a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border and his support of a mandatory vaccine for girls against a sexually transmitted disease.

A Florida poll victory could prove helpful, especially ahead of Friday's deadline for the latest fundraising snapshot.

From Florida, Perry was headed later Saturday to a Republican gathering on Mackinac Island in Michigan. Romney, the son of a former Michigan governor, also was set to address the crowd in the state where he spent his youth.


Saturday, September 24, 2011

Solyndra Execs Plead Fifth At Congressional Hearing

Solyndra Execs Plead Fifth at Congressional Hearing More Than a Dozen Times

Top executives from a bankrupt California solar energy company pleaded the Fifth Amendment more than a dozen times Friday in a congressional hearing that went nowhere but gave members the opportunity to pose dozens of questions about the loss of a half billion dollars in government loans.

Solyndra Inc. CEO Brian Harrison and the company's chief financial officer, Bill Stover, had notified the House Energy and Commerce Committee they were going to invoke their Fifth Amendment right to decline to testify to avoid self-incrimination.

That didn't mean lawmakers didn't have questions for the executives, leading to complaints from committee Democrats that House Republicans were badgering the witnesses.

Read this and then check out the video.

The Supreme Court has ruled it's considered prosecutorial misconduct when the government calls witnesses with the flagrant intent of questioning them to invoke their Fifth Amendment, said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns, who led the hearing, said that Democrats had agreed to the format ahead of time.

I agreed to the format. That doesn't mean I agreed to badgering the witnesses, said ranking committee member Diana DeGette, D-Colo.

This is a video demonstration of Henry Waxman applying the proper etiquette when badgering..I mean... questioning a witness.

Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., told Fox News that the members asked questions that they would have liked to have answers. But he said the executives used their Fifth Amendment rights becaise they feared their testimony would incriminate themselves.

"And indeed I think they would,"  he said.

Silence from the two executives will not stop committee leaders from pursuing their investigation into the $528 million loan Solyndra received from the Energy Department in 2009.

In a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, GOP lawmakers said they were expanding their inquiry into the Solyndra loan, which has become a rallying point for Republican critics of the Obama administration's push for so-called green jobs.

Lawmakers said they want the administration to turn over all communications between the Energy Department and White House related to Solyndra, as well as all communications between Energy and the Treasury, which lent Solyndra the money.

Committee leaders said the Obama administration may have violated the law when it restructured Solyndra's loan in February in such a way that private investors moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of default. The economic stimulus law provides for taxpayers to be ahead of other creditors in the event of bankruptcy or default.

"We are also determined to know why DOE allowed the taxpayers to be subordinated to the private investors during that restructuring in violation of the clear letter of the law. What we do not know is whether the Solyndra executives here today have something to hide. Was all the information they submitted to DOE accurate and complete?" added Stearns.

Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman said Thursday that the restructuring was "entirely legal," noting that another aspect of the law requires Chu and other officials to protect the overall interests of taxpayers. He said the restructuring accomplished that because it gave the struggling company a better chance to succeed.

Solyndra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier this month and laid off its 1,100 employees.

The Fremont, Calif.-based company was the first renewable-energy company to receive a loan guarantee under a stimulus-law program to encourage green energy and was frequently touted by the Obama administration as a model. President Obama visited the company's Silicon Valley headquarters last year, and Vice President Biden spoke by satellite at its groundbreaking ceremony.

Since then, the company's implosion and revelations that the administration hurried Office of Management and Budget officials to finish their review of the loan in time for the September 2009 groundbreaking has become an embarrassment for Obama as he tries to sell his new job-creation program.


Friday, September 23, 2011

GOP debate: Winners and losers

Perry's answer last night when asked about illegals.

PERRY: In the state of Texas, if you've been in the state of Texas for three years, if you're working towards your college degree, and if you are working and pursuing citizenship in the state of Texas, you pay in-state tuition there.

And the bottom line is it doesn't make any difference what the sound of your last name is. That is the American way. No matter how you got into that state, from the standpoint of your parents brought you there or what have you. And that's what we've done in the state of Texas. And I'm proud that we are having those individuals be contributing members of our society rather than telling them, you go be on the government dole.

Two issues I have with this statement:

1. "No matter how you got into that state, from the standpoint of your parents brought you there or what have you."

He means we'll give you say, $100,000 to go to college paid for by the taxpayers even though you are here illegally. This is total bullshit!!!!

This will never sit well with anyone with half a brain; a "Judas kiss" to the Tea Party.

2. He goes on to say the reason behind it is to get them off the government dole. WHAT? I thought that's why he was running for president. To get them off the government dole. I guess it hasn't occured to him these felons shouldn't be on the government dole to begin with. This is why conservatives are pissed off. Taxpayer money used to accommodate and support illegals. What conservative in their right mind could endorse that! Is Perry McCain in sheep's clothing? We already went that route. This time around we want a candidate who says enough is enough, and apparently that ain't Perry.

Maybe this photo can help put things in proper perspective.

Special thanks to Ed Kilbane

The six Republican presidential debate this year, which took place Thursday night in Orlando, Florida, left some candidates more prepared than others and gave some candidates some key standout moments. Here's the breakdown of the winners and losers:


Mitt Romney: The former governor of Massachusetts was the clear winner of the Orlando debate hosted by Fox News and Google. He's run a presidential campaign before and it shows. His answers were polished and on message. When he didn't have an answer, he quickly went on to the main talking point of his campaign -- attacking President Obama. And he held his ground in a back and forth with front-runner Rick Perry over what each said in their respective books, telling the Texas governor "words have meaning."

Rick Santorum: While still relegated to the lower tier in the race, the former Pennsylvania senator shone through with forceful answers highlighting his positions which are popular with the conservative base. He notably went on the attack against Perry on immigration and against Huntsman's call to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan.

Herman Cain: The former CEO of Godfather's Pizza continues to poll in the single digits, but he always seems to win over a crowd. The audience at the Fox News/ Google debate responded positively to his "999" economic plan, which calls for a 9 percent corporate tax, 9 percent flat income tax, and a new 9 percent national sales tax.

Cain also proved to be charismatic when playing along with the last, light-hearted question about which of his opponents he'd choose for vice president. Cain said he may choose Romney -- as long as Romney adopts the 999 plan.

Newt Gingrich: The debate audience responded well to the former House speaker's remarks in the debate, and he received plenty of praise from his opponents. Multiple candidates were quick to name Gingrich when asked which of their opponents they'd choose for VP -- they cited Gingrich's policy expertise and leadership (although they could have been thinking Gingrich's low standing in the polls made him a safe answer).

Fido, the New Mexican pooch: Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson finally got a ticket to the dance. And he came prepared. When he delivered an obviously planned remark about his neighbor's dog having more shovel-ready jobs than Mr. Obama, the audience roared. The other candidates offered praise for the four-legged friend. Even debate host Bret Baier remarked, 'your dog is famous now!"


Rick Perry: The Texas governor was caught flat footed from the very beginning when asked about the specific policies he would implement to revive the economy. Perry didn't seem to have a response and resorted to speaking in generalities.

The governor was more prepared for the anticipated repeat-attack on the controversial HPV vaccine mandate he implemented in Texas, but his solid answer may not satisfy conservatives uncomfortable with that 2007 policy. Furthermore, Perry's opposition to a border fence and support for giving illegal immigrants in-state tuition put him on the defense again, and his answers may not have seemed conservative enough to primary voters.

Michele Bachmann: The darling of the Tea Party was virtually non-existent in Thursday's debate. And when she did get her time in the limelight, she notably gave a non-sensical answer and a whopper. Asked what the ideal tax rate should be, she said Americans should not have to pay any taxes. But then she added that the government had to collect something, without saying how much. Asked about her claim that HPV causes retardation among young women, Bachmann incredulously claimed she never made the charge. "I didn't make that claim nor did I make that statement," she said when moderator Chris Wallace asked if she stood by a quotation he read verbatim to her.

Ron Paul: The staunch libertarian has been trying expand his reach beyond his small, but devoted, fan base and catapult himself into the top tier of candidates, and even announced a new $1 million ad buy today. But Paul didn't seem to get much airtime in this debate and didn't break through to the crowd. He will need to produce some more memorable moments to prove he's a serious contender.

Jon Huntsman: The former Utah governor has failed to gain traction in the race and he once again fell into the background. He capped off the night with an awkward answer to the question of who he would choose as vice president, suggesting the frontrunners, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, will eventually fade into obscurity like Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson in the 2008 race.


Thursday, September 22, 2011

The Book of Exodus...

This time Mayor Koch played the part of Moses.

The Obama administration continues downplaying the New York Ninth District disaster. They shrug it off again and again as an isolated election of no consequence to the bigger picture. 

Nevertheless, they did feel the "necessity" to create another website targeted squarely at the Jewish vote.

Jewish Americans for Obama

BTW speaking of another web site.
Have you ever clicked on

It looks like it was designed by Joseph Goebbels.
Please click on it and report me. I would consider it an honor.

Jews Defect from Obama in Droves

September 21, 2011 by Isi Leibler 

In a column published two months ago, I commented on the findings of an opinion poll by Dick Morris which indicated that, contrary to the predictions of most political commentators, the Jewish community's century-long nexus with the Democratic Party was dramatically eroding as Jews increasingly began to absorb Obama's negative approach to Israel…writes Isi Leibler.

Isi Leibler

The stunning electoral upset in New York's Ninth District – the most Jewish populated congressional district in the United States which had not elected a Republican candidate since 1922 – indisputably confirmed this. The defeat of the Democratic candidate 54% – 46% was a massive display of non-confidence in the Obama administration and could represent a watershed in Jewish commitment to the Democratic Party. Even if a majority of Jews continue to back Obama, the level of defections from a record support of 78% at the last election represents a massive turnabout.

Yes, the economy was undoubtedly also a major factor. Yes, there were quite a few Orthodox and Jews of Russian origin who are inclined to be more conservative than the broader Jewish community.

But the Democratic candidate was a respectable Orthodox Jew, a lifelong supporter of Israel whist his opponent a Gentile, was relatively unknown to Jewish voters. The Republican success in elevating Obama's Israel policies to a major issue in the platform was undoubtedly a significant contributing factor to their victory.

The effervescent 86-year-old former New York Mayor, Ed Koch (himself a Democrat), had called on Jews to vote Republican in order to send President Obama the message that Jews do not take kindly to their president "throwing Israel under a bus with impunity".

It is now clear that the frequent assertion that the voting patterns of American Jews are only marginally influenced by attitudes towards Israel is unfounded. Indeed, a Public Policy poll taken days before the election found a plurality of voters saying that Israel policy was "very important" in determining their votes. Among those voters, Republican candidate Robert Turner was leading by a 71-22 margin. Only 22% of Jewish voters approved President Obama's handling of Israel.

Needless to say, Obama has never "broken" with Israel. Indeed, some of his actions have been highly praiseworthy. In terms of defense support, he has behaved impeccably and the United States has made it clear that, if necessary, it will veto recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN Security Council. But, ironically, by falsely raising Palestinian expectations, nobody is more responsible for creating this diplomatic impasse than Obama himself. And his offers to induce the Palestinians to defer their request for recognition (for up to 6 months) do not bode well for Israel.

It is also clear that the disaffection over Obama's Israel policies is not based on misconception or inadequate communication. It reflects anger with the identifiable hostility towards Israel which, despite even repeated mantras to the contrary by the Israeli government, is now becoming abundantly clear. There is a feeling of betrayal that Obama failed to fulfill his promise in 2008 to be a pro-Israel president.

Manifestations of hostility in recent months include President Obama's renewal of pressure on Israel to accept the indefensible 1949 armistice lines (with swaps agreed to by the Palestinians) as the opening basis for negotiations; his renewed condemnation of construction in Jewish Jerusalem; the recent State Department challenge of West Jerusalem's legal status as being Israeli; efforts to bludgeon Israel into apologizing to the bullying ant-Semitic Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan; the disastrous outcome of simplistic US support for the Arab spring; Obama's recent 9/11 speech in which he notably omitted Israel when enumerating countries suffering terrorism; the leak from Richard Gates (retired Secretary of Defense) castigating Netanyahu for being " ungrateful" for America's largesse. These and other similar provocations created a maelstrom within the Jewish community, convincing many that their president was excessively hostile and biased against Israel.

It is unclear whether these trends will be duplicated, or as pronounced, in the forthcoming 2012 election. But if they are, it could crucially impact on the outcome in the key states of Florida and Pennsylvania. It has already also resulted in a dramatic decline in the level of Jewish contributions towards Obama's reelection campaign.

In the wake of the result of the New York Ninth District election, panic has set in and the Democratic National Committee has been desperately seeking to minimize the defeat or describe it as an aberration.

The Democratic machine has been drumming up Obama's support for Israel with an outreach program, sending emails to influential Jewish donors and supporters. Ira Forman, recently appointed Democratic Jewish point man for the elections, has been working overtime, repeatedly highlighting the gratitude and appreciation conveyed to the president by Netanyahu for Obama's intervention with Egyptians to prevent a lynch of Israelis in the Cairo Israeli embassy when the Egyptian police stood by and enabled rioters to storm the building. Needless to say, Israel had every reason to express its appreciation and applaud Obama's intervention. On the other hand, one can just imagine the impact on Obama – not merely from Jews but from all Americans – if after having unceremoniously abandoned his long standing ally Mubarak, such a lynching would have occurred.

The New York Times last week quoted Ed Koch, stating "I'm hopeful the president will read the tea leaves, will get the message – he has to be deaf not to", adding "I'm hopeful that he will change his position". He warned that if he did not do so, he would campaign against him at a national level.

If Jews are no longer to be taken for granted by any political party, it will have major long term repercussions.

Most important of all, it will represent a healthy sign of normalcy and maturity on the part of the Jewish community not to be considered an automatic supporter of any political party. Even though the Jewish community is not monolithic and incorporates a wide variety of different, even opposing viewpoints, the influence of Jews in relation to issues most of its adherents regard as vital to their interests would be strengthened. It would certainly encourage a more even-handed US policy towards Israel if no party could rely on the automatic support of the Jews. Ironically, in the long term, it would also strengthen bi-partisanship towards Israel which for the first time, is now being questioned.


Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Update: When an apology is not a apology

Tony Bennett
"apologizes" for 9/11 remark

Tony Bennett has apologized for remarks he made during an interview with Howard Stern Monday.

Talking about 9/11, Bennett said the U.S. caused the attacks.

In a statement issued late Tuesday, according to, Bennett said, "There is simply no excuse for terrorism and the murder of the nearly 3,000 innocent victims of the 9/11 attacks on our country. My life experiences -- ranging from the Battle of the Bulge (in World War II) to marching with Martin Luther King -- made me a lifelong humanist and pacifist, and reinforced my belief that violence begets violence and that war is the lowest form of human behavior.

"I am sorry if my statements suggested anything other than an expression of my love for my country, my hope for humanity and my desire for peace throughout the world."

While promoting his new album of duets, "Duets II," on Stern's radio show, Bennett asserted that the U.S. was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

"They flew the plane in, but we caused it," Bennett told Stern, according to the New York Daily News. The "they" in his statement is presumably terrorists.

(This is particularly disturbing) 

Bennett also says former president George W. Bush admitted to him that the war in Iraq was a mistake. At an event at the Kennedy Center to honor Bennett, the singer says Mr. Bush told him, "I think I made a mistake," according to the Daily News.

A spokesman for Mr. Bush denied that to the Daily News, telling the newspaper, calling the account "flatly wrong."

"President Bush has always felt, and consistently expressed, that America is safer without Saddam Hussein in power," spokesman Freddy Ford said to the Daily News. "He has never said the decision to liberate Iraq was a mistake to Mr. Bennett or to anyone."


Author Provides Evidence Of 'Hostile' Workplace Claim In White House

The author of an explosive new book offering an inside account of the Obama presidency is fighting back against charges that he plagiarized material and falsely accused the White House of creating a "hostile" work environment for women. 

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ron Suskind's book, "Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and The Education of A President," was released Tuesday amid a firestorm of controversy over the depiction of a dysfunctional White House fueled by testosterone at the expense of top female advisers who said they felt outgunned at meetings and excluded from key conversations.

On Tuesday, Suskind described the book as "solid as a brick."

"The book was pushed through with great effort and the fact is, is that this book, like all the books that I've written, is densely sourced and the analysis is picture-perfect," Suskind told NBC's "Today" show. 

According to a Washington Post account of the book, former White House communications director Anita Dunn is quoted as saying, "This place would be in court for a hostile workplace. Because it actually fits all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women."

But Dunn, who is married to former White House counsel Bob Bauer, told the newspaper in an interview on Friday that she told Suskind "point blank" that the White House "was not a hostile environment."

"The president is someone who when he goes home at night he goes home to a house full of very strong women," she said. "He values having strong women around him."

But Suskind allowed a Post reporter to listen to a recorded excerpt of the original interview, which occurred via telephone in April, that includes Dunn's "hostile" remark. 

"With Anita, The Washington Post this morning confirms the quote," Suskind said. "I had to do something that I've never done before, but I said it's a special occasion, which is I let The Washington Post listen to the tape. "They're like, there it is clear as a bell."

Although Jarrett acknowledged the Obama White House had a problem with women, White House spokesman Jay Carney still questioned the accuracy of the book overall.

Carney acknowledged he has yet to read the book.

Dunn made the comment as she recounted for Suskind a conversation she had with senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, the newspaper reported.