The day’s Top political news:
Angry Republican senators vowed Thursday to put up a fight against President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill after the package passed the House of Representatives with no GOP support and with even 11 Democrats joining with the Republican opposition.
Republicans deny they are indulging in political games against Obama, insisting that the 819-billion-dollar stimulus bill would prove a colossal waste of money without a greater emphasis on tax cuts and targeted investment.
But there is a gaggle of Republicans in the Senate who constitute a caucus of “weak sisters”.
A week-long charm offensive by Obama failed to win over even a single Republican when the House of Representatives voted 244-188 to pass the economic package late Wednesday.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e4627ce39359f01bde98161da17d8210.211&show_article=1
While Obama and his top aides court Senators through phone calls, cocktail parties, West Wing sit-downs and even a politically mixed Super Bowl party, liberal groups are dispensing with the niceties and seeking to drive a wedge between Republicans and one of the right’s most influential leaders.
From those same wonderful people who gave us vicious attacks on our men in combat, comes a new conspiracy -- Americans United for Change, a liberal group, will begin airing radio ads in three states Obama won — Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada — with a tough question aimed at the GOP senators there: Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?
Ham fisted and absurd, but the effort sends a signal the extreme left is willing to play hard ball to get the “stimulus” plan passed. The frenzy raises serious question about the real intent of the Obama plan.
“Every Republican voted with Limbaugh — and against creating 4 million new American jobs. We can understand why a extreme partisan like Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama’s Jobs program to fail — but the members of Congress elected to represent the citizens in their districts? As usual, the left wing claim rings hollow and is contrary to reality.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18194.html
A preview of the 2012 presidential race? Sarah Palin and President Barack Obama will share a stage together this Saturday night in Washington.
The Alaska governor and former GOP vice presidential nominee will join the president at the Alfalfa Dinner, a venerable gathering of the city’s political elite.
The face off, however, is an exclusive from the popular blog, Politico – it has not been confirmed by Palin or the President.
The duo would not be heard by the general public. By tradition, the old world gathering, now in its 96th year, bars reporters.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18161.html
Opinion:
If this is true……….!
A lot of stuff comes in to me “over the transom” – spontaneously, often anonymously, and usually as a part of the night time inventory of stories.
Almost all of them have a fact at their base, but by know means are they exactly as presented at first. Sometimes it’s a matter of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. In such cases, I have tried to shoot down the rumors and provide assurance. I do this by asking friends in Washington who are deeply involved in political matters.
This was the case with the panic regarding the mythical “North American Union” – a rumored attempt to create a boundary-less North American continent and leave us with a European Union sort of mess. Common boundaries, common currency, common nationality.
No where could any viable support for this rumor be found – not even in the back channel passages of Capitol Hill. Even if some nut supported such a conspiracy, Internet traffic quickly demonstrated it would fail to generate widespread support.
The North American Union, turned out to be a myth (but we should remain vigilant).
Now a new accusation arrises:
<<Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution
Conservative News and Reporting "News for the Rest of Us" Michele Chang
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is extremely frustrated with orders that the White House is contemplating. According to sources at the Pentagon, including all branches of the armed forces, the Obama Administration may break with a centuries-old tradition.
A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution.
"The oath to the Constitution is as old as the document itself." the spokesman said, "At no time in American history, not even in the Civil War, did the oath change or the subject of the oath differ. It has always been to the Constitution."
The back-and-forth between the White House and the Defense Department was expected as President George W. Bush left office. President Obama has already signed orders to close Guantanamo and to pull combat troops from Iraq. But, this, say many at the Defense Department, goes to far.
"Technically, we can't talk about it before it becomes official policy." the spokesman continued. "However, the Defense Department, including the Secretary, will not take this laying down. Expect a fight from the bureaucracy and the brass."
Sources at the White House had a different point of view. In a circular distributed by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the rationale for the change was made more clear.
"The President feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing an oath to the American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib."
"We expect a lot of flak over this," the classified memo continues. "But those that would be most against it are those looking either for attention or control."
The time frame for the changes are unknown. However, it is more likely that the changes will be made around the July 4th holiday, in order to dampen any potential backlash. The difference in the oath will actually only be slight. The main differences will be the new phrasing. It is expected that the oath to the Constitution will be entirely phased out within two years.
This story is almost impossible to believe. Any military folks out there know more?”>>
We will follow up and report what comes in. If this story is at all true – the nightmares of the campaign season will be coming true.
Buddy
The day’s top blogs:
First a brief look at the day’s selections:
1.
Obama’s Bill Hands ACORN $5.2 Billion Bailout
David A. Patten
A rising chorus of GOP leaders are protesting that the blockbuster Democratic stimulus package would provide up to a whopping $5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud.
Most of the money is secreted away under an item in the now $836 billion package titled “Neighborhood Stabilization Programs.”
Ordinarily, neighborhood stabilization funds are distributed to local governments. But revised language in the stimulus bill would make the funds available directly to non-profit entities such as ACORN, the low-income housing organization whose pro-Democrat voter-registration activities have been blasted by Republicans. ACORN is cited by some for tipping the scales in the Democrats' favor in November.
According to Fox news, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., could appear to be a “payoff” for community groups’ partisan political activities in the last election cycle.
“It is of great concern to me,” Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., tells Newsmax. “I think our government has stayed strong because we’ve had a two-party system, we have had robust debate, people have felt that it was one man-one vote. They are privileged and grateful that they have that ability to cast that vote. And when something is done to belittle or diminish that, it is of great concern to me.”
Regarding ACORN, Blackburn added, “Additional funds going to these organizations that have tried to skew that system, it causes me great concern and I believe that it causes many of my colleagues great concern.”
2.
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Economic stimulus? Feds want your medical records
Electronic database to include lawsuit, mental health, abortion, sexual details
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87322
Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A little-discussed provision in President Obama's economic stimulus plan would demand that every American submit to a government program for electronic medical records without a choice to opt out, and it has privacy advocates more than a little alarmed.
Patients might be alarmed, too, privacy advocates said, if they realized information such as documentation on abortions, mental health problems, impotence, being labeled as a non-compliant patient, lawsuits against doctors and sexual problems could be shared electronically with, perhaps, millions of people.
Sue A. Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom, said unless people have the right to decide "if and when" their health information is shared, there is no real privacy.
3.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4EB0434E-5002-41DD-A5FC-476EC530C371
Obama’s Other Pastor Problem
Mark D. Tooley FrontPageMagazine.com
Megachurch Pastor Rick Warren, Obama's pick to deliver his inauguration's invocation, has become controversial because, like most clergy, he opposes same-sex marriage. Getting almost no attention so far is Obama's choice to deliver the benediction, the far left, conspiracy-minded and verbally intemperate Rev. Joseph Lowery, who is an older version of Jeremiah Wright.
A venerated veteran of the Civil Rights Movement, Lowery followed the leftward trajectory of many civil rights colleagues, whose political alliances with white liberals yanked them away from the theological conservatism of traditional black churches. Although his United Methodist denomination prohibits it, Lowery supports same-sex unions. And he affirms abortion rights. Lowery has joined Cindy Sheehan's anti-war demonstrators outside President Bush's Crawford ranch, opining that Iraqi mothers believe U.S. troops are "terrorists." He once linked arms with PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat and sang "We Shall Overcome." He believes that the U.S. Government was complicit in Martin Luther King's assassination, and that the CIA has imported drugs from Central America. When Daniel Ortega headed the Sandinista Marxist dictatorship in Nicaragua, Lowery hosted a reception for him in Atlanta. He apparently was a formal advisor to the now defunct Christic Institute, a 1980's era litigator that alleged that the Iran-Contra episode was merely the cog of a 30 year long "secret team" conspiracy governing U.S. foreign policy.
In 2006, Lowery created media waves by exploiting Coretta Scott King's funeral to declare with his usual political banality: "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor!" Such verbiage has been common for Lowery, now age 87, at United Methodist and other church functions over the years. His oratorical blasts are always vapidly left-wing and assume America has only degenerated since 1968.
4.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/
Obama rips Limbaugh, extends hand of friendship to Iran's genocidal mullahs
We are in deep, deep trouble. What other reaction might a citizen have when informed that President Obama's criticism of Rush Limbaugh is more severe than his words for Iran's genocidal Mullahs.
I've culled several interesting tidbits from the full transcript of President Obama's interview with Al Arabiya. Interestingly, the White House did not deign to reprint the entire transcript, choosing just a few paragraphs. My comments are italicized:
Q: You’ve been saying essentially that we should not look at these issues — like the Palestinian-Israeli track and separation from the border region — you’ve been talking about a kind of holistic approach to the region. Are we expecting a different paradigm in the sense that in the past one of the critiques — at least from the Arab side, the Muslim side — is that everything the Americans always tested with the Israelis, if it works. Now there is an Arab peace plan, there is a regional aspect to it. And you’ve indicated that. Would there be any shift, a paradigm shift?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, here’s what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia... I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage... to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.
The Saudi intiative offers Israel Arab recognition in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from territory it occupied in the 1967 war, including the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and a "just solution for the problem of Palestinian refugees." Consider that for every one acre of land Israel has, Arab nations have 510, begging the question: why do the Muslims even want this miniscule bit of desert?
Now for the full stories:
1.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_bailout_bill/2009/01/27/175729.html?s=sp&promo_code=78EC-1
Obama’s Bill Hands ACORN $5.2 Billion Bailout
David A. Patten
A rising chorus of GOP leaders are protesting that the blockbuster Democratic stimulus package would provide up to a whopping $5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud.
Most of the money is secreted away under an item in the now $836 billion package titled “Neighborhood Stabilization Programs.”
Ordinarily, neighborhood stabilization funds are distributed to local governments. But revised language in the stimulus bill would make the funds available directly to non-profit entities such as ACORN, the low-income housing organization whose pro-Democrat voter-registration activities have been blasted by Republicans. ACORN is cited by some for tipping the scales in the Democrats' favor in November.
According to Fox news, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., could appear to be a “payoff” for community groups’ partisan political activities in the last election cycle.
“It is of great concern to me,” Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., tells Newsmax. “I think our government has stayed strong because we’ve had a two-party system, we have had robust debate, people have felt that it was one man-one vote. They are privileged and grateful that they have that ability to cast that vote. And when something is done to belittle or diminish that, it is of great concern to me.”
Regarding ACORN, Blackburn added, “Additional funds going to these organizations that have tried to skew that system, it causes me great concern and I believe that it causes many of my colleagues great concern.”
The three-term congressman stopped short of suggesting the “neighborhood stabilization” money is a power grab by Democrats seeking partisan political advantage. But radio talk giant Rush Limbaugh did not.
Limbaugh warned his listeners Tuesday: “I’ll tell you what’s going on here: We, ladies & gentlemen, we’re funding Obama and the Democrats’ army on the street. We are funding the forces of the Democrat party’s re-election.”
Blackburn echoed the concerns of Republican leaders who object that the bloated package lacks the short-term stimulus a cut in payroll or sales taxes would provide.
According to Matthew Vadum of the Capitol Research Center, the stimulus package now under consideration includes:
• $1 billion stashed away in Community Development Block Grant money that ACORN often vies for successfully.
• $10 million to develop or refurbish low-income housing, a specialty of ACORN’s.
• $4.19 billion to stave off foreclosures via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Vadum states the current version of the bill would allow nonprofits to compete with cities and states for $3.44 billion of the money. Some $750 million, however, would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN, which is actually an umbrella organization for over 100 progressive organizations.
Regarding the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Vadum writes in American Spectator: “Although ACORN operatives usually get their hands on such funds only after they have first passed through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or state and local governments, the new spending bill largely eliminates these dawdling middle men, making it easier to get Uncle Sam's largess directly into the hands of the same people who run ACORN's various vote fraud and extortion rackets. And the legislative package provides these funds without the usual prohibition on using government money for lobbying or political activities.”
The charges of partisan political payback appear to be resonating in part due to Obama’s longstanding association with partisan get-out-the-vote operations. He was endorsed by ACORN, and during the campaign paid an ACORN affiliate $832,600 to get-out-the-vote assistance. Early in his career, he led a voter drive for an ACORN-affiliated group called Project Vote.
It’s not the first time ACORN has been entangled in a bailout controversy. In September, House Republicans objected that the original $700 billion bailout package included $100 million for ACORN – a tiny fraction of the sums for ACORN now being considered in the stimulus package.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
2.
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Economic stimulus? Feds want your medical records
Electronic database to include lawsuit, mental health, abortion, sexual details
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87322
Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A little-discussed provision in President Obama's economic stimulus plan would demand that every American submit to a government program for electronic medical records without a choice to opt out, and it has privacy advocates more than a little alarmed.
Patients might be alarmed, too, privacy advocates said, if they realized information such as documentation on abortions, mental health problems, impotence, being labeled as a non-compliant patient, lawsuits against doctors and sexual problems could be shared electronically with, perhaps, millions of people.
Sue A. Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom, said unless people have the right to decide "if and when" their health information is shared, there is no real privacy.
"President Obama has pledged to advance freedom," she said. "Therefore the freedom to choose not to participate in a national electronic health-records system must be upheld."
Blevins' organization, one of the few raising the alarm at this point, said the stimulus plan would impose an electronic health records system on every person in the U.S. Without any provision for seeking patient consent or allowing them not to participate.
"Without those protections, Americans' electronic health records could be shared – without their consent – with over 600,000 covered entities through the forthcoming nationally linked electronic health-records network," Blevins said.
The organization said Americans who care about health privacy should contact members of Congress and the president to let them know about the need for opt-out and consent provisions.
According to the institute, the measure currently includes plans for:
• An electronic health record "for each person in the United States by 2014."
• A national coordinator to develop a "nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information."
The institute said the medical privacy rule established under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 already allows personal health information to be passed along without patient consent for treatment, payment and "oversight." The recipients of such information could be any of the people in the 600,000 organizations in the industry.
"Nobody wants to stop the proper use of good technology," Blevins said, "and for some people privacy is not an issue."
But she said the bottom line is that patients "would end up losing control of his or her personal health information."
"There's a lot at stake with electronically transferring health data and paying claims within the $2.2 trillion healthcare industry," warned the organization, which works on issues of health freedom in the U.S.
Another group, Consumer Watchdog, even suggested today Google is trying to lobby for the "sale of electronic medical records."
The group said, "Reportedly Google is pushing for the provisions so it may sell patient medical information to its advertising clients on the new 'Google Health' database."
Consumer Watchdog said, "Americans will benefit from an integrated system capable of making our medical records available wherever we may need them, but only if the system is properly used.
"The medical technology portion of the economic stimulus bill does not sufficiently protect patient privacy, and recent amendments have made this situation worse. Medical privacy must be strengthened before the measure's final passage," the group said.
WND previously has reported on attempts in Minnesota by state lawmakers to authorize the collection and warehousing of newborns' DNA without parental consent.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been successful in stopping the action there so far.
The Citizens' Council on Health Care has worked to publicize the issue in Minnesota. The group raised opposition when the state Department of Health continued to warehouse DNA without parental consent in violation of the genetic privacy and DNA property rights of parents and children.
Twila Brase, president of CCHC, said at the time the problem is that "researchers already are looking for genes related to violence, crime and different behaviors."
In an extensive interview with WND at the time, she said, "In England they decided they should have doctors looking for problem children, and have those children reported, and their DNA taken in case they would become criminals."
In fact, published reports in Britain note that senior police forensics experts believe genetic samples should be studied, because it may be possible to identify potential criminals as young as age 5.
Brase said efforts to study traits and gene factors and classify people would be just the beginning. What could happen through subsequent programs to address such conditions, she wondered.
"Not all research is great," she said.
Classifying of people could lead to "discrimination and prejudice. … People can look at data about you and make assessments ultimately of who you are."
The Heartland Regional Genetics and Newborn Screening is one of the organizations that advocates more screening and research.
The group proclaims in its vision statement a desire to see newborns screened for 200 conditions. It also forecasts "every student … with an individual program for education based on confidential interpretation of their family medical history, their brain imaging, their genetic predictors of best learning methods. …"
Further, every individual should share information about "personal and family health histories" as well as "gene tests for recessive conditions and drug metabolism" with the "other parent of their future children."
Still further, it seeks "ecogenetic research that could improve health, lessen disability, and lower costs for sickness."
"They want to test every child for 200 conditions, take the child's history and a brain image, and genetics, and come up with a plan for that child," Brase said at the time. "They want to learn their weaknesses and defects.
"Nobody including and especially the government should be allowed to create such extensive profiles," she said.
The next step, said Brase, is obvious: The government, with information about potential health weaknesses, could say to couples, "We don't want your expensive children."
"I think people have forgotten about eugenics. The fact of the matter is that the eugenicists have not gone away. Newborn genetic testing is the entry into the 21st Century version of eugenics," she said.
3.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4EB0434E-5002-41DD-A5FC-476EC530C371
Obama’s Other Pastor Problem
Mark D. Tooley
FrontPageMagazine.com
Megachurch Pastor Rick Warren, Obama's pick to deliver his inauguration's invocation, has become controversial because, like most clergy, he opposes same-sex marriage. Getting almost no attention so far is Obama's choice to deliver the benediction, the far left, conspiracy-minded and verbally intemperate Rev. Joseph Lowery, who is an older version of Jeremiah Wright.
A venerated veteran of the Civil Rights Movement, Lowery followed the leftward trajectory of many civil rights colleagues, whose political alliances with white liberals yanked them away from the theological conservatism of traditional black churches. Although his United Methodist denomination prohibits it, Lowery supports same-sex unions. And he affirms abortion rights. Lowery has joined Cindy Sheehan's anti-war demonstrators outside President Bush's Crawford ranch, opining that Iraqi mothers believe U.S. troops are "terrorists." He once linked arms with PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat and sang "We Shall Overcome." He believes that the U.S. Government was complicit in Martin Luther King's assassination, and that the CIA has imported drugs from Central America. When Daniel Ortega headed the Sandinista Marxist dictatorship in Nicaragua, Lowery hosted a reception for him in Atlanta. He apparently was a formal advisor to the now defunct Christic Institute, a 1980's era litigator that alleged that the Iran-Contra episode was merely the cog of a 30 year long "secret team" conspiracy governing U.S. foreign policy.
In 2006, Lowery created media waves by exploiting Coretta Scott King's funeral to declare with his usual political banality: "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor!" Such verbiage has been common for Lowery, now age 87, at United Methodist and other church functions over the years. His oratorical blasts are always vapidly left-wing and assume America has only degenerated since 1968.
"You could get away with anything as long as you said you were fighting communism," Lowery exclaimed at a 2000 banquet of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society in Cleveland. "We demonized the saints and canonized the Devil!," is how he described America's role in the Cold War. "We've sown the seed and now we're reaping the whirlwind."
Dismissive of the then recent forcible return of little Elian Gonzalez to Castro's Cuba by the Clinton Administration, Lowery scoffingly asked: "What if Reagan had ordered the raid in Miami!" And he sarcastically complained, "We're still fearful of the great empire of Cuba." Lowery claimed conservatives would make God "male, white [and] racist," that affirmative action was "born in the New Testament, not the Nixon Administration," that America sends "smart bombs on dumb missions," that America's criminal justice system in 1999 was "almost a replica of the system of 1909," and that capital punishment by lethal injection was something the "Nazis started." Of America's military and its "don't ask, don't tell policy," he asserted: "If you deceive you can be a general, but if you're honest you can't serve."
Four years later, Lowery again spoke to the same United Methodist audience, this time in Pittsburgh, speaking just as incorrigibly as ever, urging the church to take a sinful America "down by the riverside." Repeating the usual bromides about the poorer getting poorer at the hands of the rich, he called low minimum wages and the absence of socialized medicine "weapons of mass destruction." And he urged beating missiles into "morsels of bread" and tanks into tractors. "Don't we have something better to offer the world than swords and missiles and smart bombs on stupid missions?" he asked. "The God I serve loves the motherless child in Baghdad as much as he loves the motherless child in Boston," he declared, implying that his targets do not care about Iraqi children.
Lowery blamed America's supposed "re-segregation" on "these judges appointed by [Presidents] Reagan and Bush." The 2000 election in Florida proved that some Americans are still denied voting rights, resulting in Bush's being "selected" rather than elected, he claimed. Denouncing the U.S. War on Terror, Lowery asserted: "We've have done more to help Bin Laden in his demagoguery than anything I know of" by killing and outraging Muslims. After sarcastically asking if President Bush were a fellow United Methodist, Lowery smilingly responded to the left-wing crowd's audible disapproval: "Don't blame me; I didn't let him in!" And he incomprehensibly compared Bush to segregationist George Wallace.
Such high-toned comments earned Lowery the Robert O. Cooper Peace and Justice Award from the Human Rights Center at Southern Methodist University (SMU) earlier this year, which he received at Munger Place United Methodist Church in Dallas by delivering his usual rambling and politicized sermon. According to the Dallas Morning News, United Methodist and SMU reports, he was dismissive of Christians who affirm traditional teachings about marriage and the sanctity of life, preferring ostensibly more important causes, like opposing the Iraq War. "We have lost too many Americans (in the Iraq war)," he proclaimed. "There are too many Americans who have been injured ... millions of Iraqis have been killed, (and) you are worried about someone's sexuality?
"We have to find out what really matters," Lowery insisted. "Too many of our people believe that propaganda of looking for weapons of mass destruction. Creating weapons of mass destruction keeps us from focusing on major issues like feeding the hungry and poverty." He condemned the Bush administration for making "God the god of war, and the god of the rich and powerful." Lowery evidently shares the typical Religious Left emphasis on political correctness over personal morality. "We need to be discerning about the major issues. Abortion -- that's a minor issue. I'm all for life, but I'm also for freedom of choice. We can't be the judge of what a woman does with her body. We have too many distractions."
Naturally, Lowery defended his kindred spirit, Jeremiah Wright. "What's wrong with Jeremiah Wright's preaching?" he wondered. "Prophetic preaching has been around in the black church for years. That's all I do. The only reason why no one says anything about me is because I don't have a member who is a presidential candidate."
Of course, Lowery did not then know he would serve prominently in Obama's inauguration. But rather than become the object of deserved controversy for his leftist theology and paranoid politics, he has been overshadowed by Rick Warren's conventional views on same-sex marriage. Perhaps the public will awake to the reality that it is Lowery and not Warren who is the clerical oddity.
4.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/
Obama rips Limbaugh, extends hand of friendship to Iran's genocidal mullahs
We are in deep, deep trouble. What other reaction might a citizen have when informed that President Obama's criticism of Rush Limbaugh is more severe than his words for Iran's genocidal Mullahs.
I've culled several interesting tidbits from the full transcript of President Obama's interview with Al Arabiya. Interestingly, the White House did not deign to reprint the entire transcript, choosing just a few paragraphs. My comments are italicized:
Q: You’ve been saying essentially that we should not look at these issues — like the Palestinian-Israeli track and separation from the border region — you’ve been talking about a kind of holistic approach to the region. Are we expecting a different paradigm in the sense that in the past one of the critiques — at least from the Arab side, the Muslim side — is that everything the Americans always tested with the Israelis, if it works. Now there is an Arab peace plan, there is a regional aspect to it. And you’ve indicated that. Would there be any shift, a paradigm shift?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, here’s what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia... I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage... to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.
The Saudi intiative offers Israel Arab recognition in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from territory it occupied in the 1967 war, including the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and a "just solution for the problem of Palestinian refugees." Consider that for every one acre of land Israel has, Arab nations have 510, begging the question: why do the Muslims even want this miniscule bit of desert?
THE PRESIDENT: ...we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress... Now, Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel’s security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.
Six decades of war just to survive isn't, apparently, enough of a sacrifice. Is there a word that means "naive", only multiplied by a million?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state — I’m
not going to put a time frame on it — that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life...
Which would mean opening Israel's tiny sliver of land to another wave of suicidal terrorists. Brilliant! Why didn't anyone think of that before?
THE PRESIDENT: Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.
Countries? We knew about Indonesia, but do tell.
Q: Tell me, time is running out, any decision on from where you will be visiting the Muslim world?
THE PRESIDENT: ...We’re going to follow through on our commitment for me to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital. We are going to follow through on many of my commitments to do a more effective job of reaching out, listening, as well as speaking to the Muslim world.
And you’re going to see me following through with dealing with a drawdown of troops in Iraq, so that Iraqis can start taking more responsibility. And finally, I think you’ve already seen a commitment, in terms of closing Guantanamo, and making clear that even as we are decisive in going after terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians, that we’re going to do so on our terms, and we’re going to do so respecting the rule of law that I think makes America great.
What Obama describes is a return to lawfare -- the treatment of terrorist acts of war as law enforcement issues. It's almost as if 9/11 never happened. At least for Democrats, that is.
Q: President Bush framed the war on terror conceptually in a way that was very broad, “war on terror,” and used sometimes certain terminology that the many people — Islamic fascism. You’ve always framed it in a different way, specifically against one group called al Qaeda and their collaborators. And is this one way of –
THE PRESIDENT: I think that you’re making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations — whether Muslim or any other faith in the past — that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name.
He has a point. Whether it's nuns quietly passing SBDs in church, or Jewish dentists performing dental surgery with insufficent anasthesia, or even militant Quakers engaging in random cow-tipping, religious extremism in any form is completely unacceptable.
And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda — that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it — and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down.
Because only those carrying laminated Al Qaeda Life Member cards can be targeted. We know that Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda-in-Iraq, Ansar al-Islam, Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiyah, Fatah and Darul Islam have nothing to do with one another and can only be targeted with a complete police investigation after a crime has been committed.
Q: Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran... Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that’s not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past — none of these things have been helpful.
But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us...
Diplomacy... not conducive to peace... pursuing nukes... setting off an arms race... supporting terrorists... all of that is "not helpful". So let's extend a hand.
Correction: is there a word that means "naive", only multiplied by ten trillion? Oh. Yeah. "Jimmy Carter".
We are in deep, deep, deep manure.
