Hey Olbermann you idiot. check your facts

Its like K.Olbermann cares less about the facts everyday. A story as old as World War Ii and he couldn't even check the facts. Even You Tube had a piece from an old Bio on Joe Kennedy Jr. that Olbermann could have Googled and gotten the facts straight.

That is why I can't watch cable television there are just so many idiots who get shows because of "what"? It certainly isn't for their looks and in Olbermanns case it just can't be for his brains. Between him and the man-woman (Matthew Perry's look alike) as I like to call her their network has got some real losers.

A look back into the not to far past and reviewing today.

This was an article printed This year only a few months ago. I think its relevance is important to keep a realistic measure on what is happening right now. It is good to glance back at a previous page just to stay abreast of the direction Obama is attempting to take us.

We must not rest on our laurels and think we have won any battles with this president or congress right now. It is not time to take a break. The fight against tyranny, oppression, and socialism is only beginning.

Posted on Thu, Apr. 9, 2009


The Elephant in the Room: Obama vs. United States
The president is contemptuous of American values. And one key nominee prefers the judgment of other countries and global elites.

By Rick Santorum

Watching President Obama apologize last week for America's arrogance - before a French audience that owes its freedom to the sacrifices of Americans - helped convince me that he has a deep-seated antipathy toward American values and traditions. His nomination of former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh to be the State Department's top lawyer constitutes further evidence of his disdain for American values.

This seemingly obscure position in Foggy Bottom's bureaucratic maze is one of the most important in any administration, shaping foreign policy in the courts and playing a critical role in international negotiations and treaties.

Let's set aside Koh's disputed comments about the possible application of Sharia law in American jurisprudence. The pick is alarming for more fundamental reasons having to do with national sovereignty and constitutional self-governance.

What is indisputable is that Koh calls himself a "transnationalist." He believes U.S. courts "must look beyond national interest to the mutual interests of all nations in a smoothly functioning international legal regime. ..." He thinks the courts have "a central role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law" and should "use their interpretive powers to promote the development of a global legal system."

Koh's "transnationalism" stands in contrast to good, old-fashioned notions of national sovereignty, in which our Constitution is the highest law of the land. In the traditional view, controversial matters, whatever they may be, are subject to democratic debate here. They should be resolved by the American people and their representatives, not "internationalized." What Holland or Belgium or Kenya or any other nation or coalition of nations thinks has no bearing on our exercise of executive, legislative, or judicial power.

Koh disagrees. He would decide such matters based on the views of other countries or transnational organizations - or, rather, those entities' elites.

Unsurprisingly, Koh is a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court, which could subject U.S. soldiers and officials to foreign criminal trials for their actions while fighting for our security. He has recommended that American lawyers work to "undermine" official American opposition to the court.

If only Koh's transnationalism ended there. Our Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment? Koh believes it should be reinterpreted in light of foreign and international law to pay "decent respect to the opinions of humankind."

Old fogies like me believe we ought to pay more attention to the opinions of the Founders who wrote the Constitution and the people who have lived under it. If Americans want to end the death penalty, they can do so through their elected state representatives.

If foreign opinions trump those of Pennsylvanians on capital punishment, why not on other issues? Why not, indeed: Koh thinks "international comity" trumps American sovereignty. He believes that, since certain nations recognize a right to same-sex marriage, our courts should, too. He wrote that "the principles of human dignity and autonomy that are the essence of the modern right-protecting democracy demand that civil marriage be available to all couples and that the equality of all citizens triumph over historical attitudes."

What's beneath this legal jargon? Simply this: Even if marriage in Pennsylvania has always been understood as involving one man and one woman - even if Pennsylvanians, through referendum or constitutional amendment, decide it should remain so - none of that should count. What should count are the views of courts in other nations or international bodies.

"I'd rather have [Supreme Court Justice Harry] Blackmun, who used the wrong reasoning in Roe to get the right results," Koh wrote of the landmark abortion case, "and let other people figure out the right reasoning."

Stunning and revealing: Koh tells us it doesn't matter if the right to abortion can be found in the Constitution. In fact, he concedes that Blackmun's reasoning was wrong. But it is up to others to get it right. How? By finding out what the United Nations, European Union, or particular European nations think.

Koh tops the list of Obama's potential Supreme Court nominees. Is this what Sen. John Kerry meant when he once suggested that American policy must pass a "global test"? Or what Barack Obama meant when he said last week that we have failed to "appreciate Europe's leading role in the world"? Or when he spoke of "change we can believe in"? And just who are "we"?

HARRY REID IS OUT OF LINE BACK HOME

This article is from today's Review_Journal the oldest newspaper in Nevada, it goes to show you just how Harry Reid treats his constituencies at home.


SHERMAN FREDERICK: Enough is enough, Harry

Stop the childish bullying

This newspaper traces its roots to before Las Vegas was Las Vegas.

We've seen cattle ranches give way to railroads. We chronicled the construction of Hoover Dam. We reported on the first day of legalized gambling. The first hospital. The first school. The first church. We survived the mob, Howard Hughes, the Great Depression, several recessions, two world wars, dozens of news competitors and any number of two-bit politicians who couldn't stand scrutiny, much less criticism.

We're still here doing what we do for the people of Las Vegas and Nevada. So, let me assure you, if we weathered all of that, we can damn sure outlast the bully threats of Sen. Harry Reid.

On Wednesday, before he addressed a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Reid joined the chamber's board members for a meet-'n'-greet and a photo. One of the last in line was the Review-Journal's director of advertising, Bob Brown, a hard-working Nevadan who toils every day on behalf of advertisers. He has nothing to do with news coverage or the opinion pages of the Review-Journal.

Yet, as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: "I hope you go out of business."

Later, in his public speech, Reid said he wanted to let everyone know that he wants the Review-Journal to continue selling advertising because the Las Vegas Sun is delivered inside the Review-Journal.

Such behavior cannot go unchallenged.

You could call Reid's remark ugly and be right. It certainly was boorish. Asinine? That goes without saying.

But to fully capture the magnitude of Reid's remark (and to stop him from doing the same thing to others) it must be called what it was -- a full-on threat perpetrated by a bully who has forgotten that he was elected to office to protect Nevadans, not sound like he's shaking them down.

No citizen should expect this kind of behavior from a U.S. senator. It is certainly not becoming of a man who is the majority leader in the U.S. Senate. And it absolutely is not what anyone would expect from a man who now asks Nevadans to send him back to the Senate for a fifth term.

If he thinks he can push the state's largest newspaper around by exacting some kind of economic punishment in retaliation for not seeing eye to eye with him on matters of politics, I can only imagine how he pressures businesses and individuals who don't have the wherewithal of the Review-Journal.

For the sake of all who live and work in Nevada, we can't let this bully behavior pass without calling out Sen. Reid. If he'll try it with the Review-Journal, you can bet that he's tried it with others. So today, we serve notice on Sen. Reid that this creepy tactic will not be tolerated.

We won't allow you to bully us. And if you try it with anyone else, count on going through us first.

That's a promise, not a threat.

And it's a promise to our readers, not to you, Sen. Reid.

Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.
Share & Save

E-verify ruled favorably in District Court

The U.S. District Court in Maryland ruled in favor of an executive order first issued during the Bush Administration that would require all federal government contractors to use E-Verify. The order was delayed once by Pres. Bush and three times by Pres. Obama while they were awaiting the outcome of lawsuits filed by various business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Under the court's ruling, all federal contractors holding contracts of more than $100,000, regardless of size, will be required to use E-Verify, beginning on Sept. 8. Subcontractors will also be subject to the rule if their portion of the contract is more than $3,000. The court rejected all arguments presented by the plaintiffs.

Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. wrote that "the decision to be a government contractor is voluntary" and "no one has a right to be a government contractor."

Last month, the Department of Homeland Security agreed to implement the rule, and it's been backed by the Senate. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) offered an amendment that was adopted to the Homeland Security spending bill that would require all federal contractors to E-Verify on new hires. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) offered another amendment that was also adopted to the same bill that would require federal contractors to use E-Verify on all existing employees as well. Both amendments, however, must make it through a conference committee in the fall that will rectify the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill.

After the court's ruling, U.S. Chamber of Commerce official Robin Conrad said that the Chamber is obviously disappointed with the decision.

"Our concern is the practical impact on employers ... employers will be required to reverify existing employees who work on federal contracts, which has the potential to impact hundreds of thousands of workers."

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) applauded the court's decision.

"There are more than 12 million citizens and legal immigrants unemployed, and even higher-than-average unemployment rates among blacks and U.S.-born Hispanics. It would be wrong to allow jobs that should go to them to go to illegal immigrants instead. I am hopeful that the Chamber will choose not to appeal this decision. The Chamber should stand up for American workers and encourage all its member businesses to enroll in E-Verify."

Does anyone see a parallel here between then and now?

Central America Pushes for One Currency
Carin Zissis
December 9, 2008

With the global financial slowdown dragging on Central American economies, eight heads of state came together in Honduras Friday to discuss how to head off the effects of the credit crisis. Presidents and vice presidents of the seven Central American countries plus the Dominican Republic for the annual Central American Integration System (SICA) leaders summit in San Pedro Sula, Honduras. The leaders hammered out a 41-point economic agreement of “urgent measures,”including proposals to step up integration, food security, and investment. The countries also pitched the idea of creating a common currency. El Salvador and Panama use the U.S. dollar while the remaining countries currently have their own currencies.

The global credit crisis has delivered a wallop to SICA nations, which were already hit hard by a food crisis that struck earlier in 2008 and a slowdown in remittance flows. Analysts predict a deceleration in Central American growth next year, from 4.3 percent in 2008 to 2.8 percent in 2009. Moreover, many SICA countries command the highest poverty rates in the Americas. For example, although a new report published by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean found that Honduras saw one of the regions sharpest drops in poverty (by 3.7 percent) in 2007, it continued to have the highest poverty rate of any of the countries surveyed, running at nearly 70 percent.

"The architecture of the economy needs changes; we have to achieve financial, trade, and food independence within the region," said the Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. With these goals in mind, leaders of Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and the Dominican Republic agreed to create a credit fund and stimulus packages for various sectors to counter the possibility of slowing foreign investment and slowing remittance flows.

The details of how such credit fund would be created have yet to be worked out. So do plans for a common currency and passport as well as a plan to "standardize laws" in the immigration, education, and security sectors "that will give greater cohesion to Central American integration and that ensure citizens the benefits of that integration." As the Latin Americanist blog points out, should SICA pursue such plans, the region will undoubtedly draw comparisons to the European Union. The SICA proposal comes at a time when the Central American countries continue to negotiate with the EU for an association agreement designed to deepen political dialogue, cooperation, and establish a free trade zone between the two regions. Negotiations are expected to conclude next year.

The SICA meeting coincided with a handover of the organization’s six-month presidency from Honduras’ Zelaya to Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega. On the day before Friday’s summit, Honduran Central Bank President Edwin Araque reported that his country does not plan to follow IMF recommendations to devaluate the lempira. In August, Honduras joined the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) whose other members consist of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Venezuela, and new SICA host country Nicaragua.

Ortega used the moment when taking over SICA’s reins to decry the capitalist model and call for Latin American unity when confronting the global financial crisis. Yet his government could face its own set of crises, given a decision by U.S. and European donors to cut off foreign aid following accusations that the Sandinistas engaged in electoral fraud during recent municipal elections.

Read a recent Houston Chronicle op-ed by Dominican President Leonel Fernández calls for investing a portion of oil profits in countries that have been hit hardest by rising oil and food prices. The article was originally published in the Fall 2008 issue of Americas Quarterly.

Send questions and comments for the editor to: ascoa.online@as-coa.org.

Remember Dancing On Reagans's Grave?

Cross posted at Legal Insurrection

Four years ago, someone published photos of a guy dancing on Ronald Reagan's grave. The photos were posted also at the "Princess Sparkle" blog, with this commentary:

I've never met the sassy youngster in the above photos, but he's a Pony Pal™ by default. What's he doing? Why, he's dancing --and cutting a mean ol' rug from the looks of it-- on Ronald Reagan's grave. The intrepid discoholic then triumphantly posted the photos on this message board, and now Wing-Nut Daily has her panties all in a bunch over it. And they're out for blood. Or jail. Or an anti-Republican-grave-desecration amendment, or something. Just wait 'til Anne Coulter hears about this, then the fur will really fly.

And to top it off, the blog post featured the same guy pissing on Nixon's grave.

So when you hear people complain that Republicans are dancing on Ted Kennedy's grave, figuratively speaking, let's (1) hope it doesn't happen, (2) keep in mind that it is Democrats who are using Kennedy's death for political purposes, and (3) remember it happened to Reagan, literally.

--------------------------------------------
Related Post:
Rush Was Right: Dems Call For "The Kennedy Memorial Health Bill"

Bill by Waxman covers illegals on health care

Cross posted on Hot Air
Congressional Research Service: ObamaCare will cover illegal immigrants
Ed Morrissey
Mark Tapscott discovers a nugget in the analysis provided by the Congressional Research Service on HR3200, the House version of ObamaCare coming to the floor. While Barack Obama insists that the idea that ObamaCare will cover illegal immigrants is a “myth,” the CRS points out that the bill does nothing to prevent it. Since HR3200 doesn’t require people to establish citizenship or legal residency before applying to exchanges for health insurance, including the public option, taxpayer money will certainly flow to illegal immigrants:

In what he called the “first myth” being spread by critics of his proposal for a government-run health care system, Obama said they are wrong in claiming illegal immigrants will be covered: “That is not true. Illegal immigrants would not be covered. That idea has not even been on the table.” Obama said.

Well, Mr. President, that idea must have been tucked under a stack of background briefing papers over there in the corner of the table because the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says this about H.R. 3200, the Obamacare bill approved just before the recess by the House Energy and Commerce Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA:

“Under H.R. 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.”

CRS reports do not get released to the public. CRS offers private analysis to members of Congress on request, but rarely do they see the light of day. However, David Freddoso got his hands on a copy of the 11-page analysis, “Treatment of Non-Citizens in HR3200″ late last night, and confirmed Tapscott’s reading:

In its subsection on health insurance subsidies (known as “affordability credits”), HR 3200 does state, “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” That would seem to solve the problem, but it’s more rhetoric than reality. The bill contains no verification requirement or enforcement process for citizenship or legal residency, as exists for other federal benefit programs. The only verification required for the subsidies pertains to family income. Beyond that, as the CRS report notes, everything is left in the hands of the Health Choices Commissioner.

House Democrats defeated all attempts in committee to add an enforcement mechanism that would require proof of citizenship or legal residency for those getting subsidies.

CRS also notes that “undocumented aliens” who have a “substantial presence” in the US would be required to buy health insurance (page 4) through the exchanges in HR3200. They would also become eligible for “emergency Medicaid,” although not normal Medicaid (page 6) for up to five years.

What about Section 246, which I said would prevent the spending of money on illegal aliens? The CRS analysis is less than impressed with that portion of the bill. Section “246 would bar unauthorized aliens from receiving any premium or cost-sharing credit,” it says, but that may be hard to enforce. It also states later that “absent of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure, that the Commissioner would be responsible for determining a mechanism to verify the eligibility of noncitizens for the credits” — or in other words, HR3200 fails to provide it entirely. I gave it a little too much credit, apparently, more than Congress’ own analysts do.

Be sure to read it all. If Congress tells us that no money will go to cover illegal aliens, we can show them the CRS report and ask them to stop spreading myths.

Why every American born today owes $184,000 and what to do about it.

Taken from American Heritage
First of a four part series over the next 4 days to help inform people of the realities of social programs, and the legacy of debt we are leaving and how to solve it.

Stealing from Our Children

Some truth and Facts we all need to face if we really don't want to leave a legacy of debt to our children and grandchildren.

If you've noticed the trillions of borrowed dollars sent out from Washington in the recent bailout and stimulus packages, you already know that the federal government has a spending problem. But when it comes to "entitlements" like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, this recent spending binge is a drop in the bucket. We're talking about a difference of $2 trillion that went out the door in the recent spending spree compared to $45 trillion (that's in today's dollars, so it will amount to even more down the road in, say, 2050) that we're committed to spending in coming years.

How in the world did we let our debts get so unmanageable? We'll explain....

Every year, Washington is spending money that will have to be repaid with interest by our children and grandchildren. In addition, Washington has promised future benefits for which there is no money. Their excess costs (along with other obligations like the national debt) are $184,000 per person today, an amount that is poised to crush younger generations.

We're not simply spending their inheritance. If we don't fix entitlement spending, massive debt and a crippled economy will be their inheritance. This is more like theft.

Members of Congress know about this problem, but the way Congress budgets for its spending makes it easier for them to do nothing about it. Worse, Members of Congress serve their own interests in preserving the arrangement: Entitlement benefits appeal to voters. Much of the cost of the benefits, however, is punted to the future, long after current Members of Congress are gone.

As a result, Congress probably will never agree on real solutions until millions of ordinary Americans see the dangers ahead and demand real action. To do that, we first need to understand how Washington spends your money and how entitlements threaten to steal the nation's future.

The Maynard Family's Creative Accounting

To understand how wrong Washington's approach to budgeting really is, let's consider how a family should budget. You probably prepare a monthly or annual budget to make sure that you're not spending more money than you're bringing in, right? It's basic arithmetic. You add up the cost of your mortgage payments, food, utilities, clothes, insurance, Blockbuster fees, and so forth. You may borrow money for some things, like a home or college tuition, but not so much that you can't pay off your debt or get buried in unaffordable payments over the long run. If you're overspending, a realistic budget gives you advanced warning so that you can adjust your habits.

Unfortunately, not everyone is this responsible. We all know people who don't budget at all or who write out a budget but don't stick to it. Still others exercise such creativity in budgeting that the results are both unrealistic and reckless.

Imagine a family, the Maynards, who develop a budget with two categories: "regular" and "off-budget" spending. They put many of the ordinary things families budget for, like food, utilities, and entertainment, in the visible column. This seems to be a reasonable approach.But the Maynards have another part of their budget that they exempt from the normal budgetary restraints--they're "off-budget." They include things like cars, house payments, kids' college funds, a second home for use in retirement, and other things that may be added from time to time. Mom and Dad Maynard both have good jobs. Even so, they can't manage to stay within their means because of this off-budget spending. They always spend more than they make, in the process racking up big credit card bills, car loans, mortgages, and the like. And every year, the interest costs keep getting bigger.

The off-budget spending items are important to the Maynards, so they get automatic increases every year. This allows the Maynards to do things like buy a new car every year that's more expensive than the previous one or take money out of the house for a fancy vacation.

They really like the off-budget spending items, so they pay for them before they pay the bills for the rest of the budget. If they run out of money, they simply put the rest on the credit cards. They never compare off-budget spending to other priorities. Still, the policy seems to work for a while, since the Maynards bring home fat paychecks and can pay the minimum payments on the credit cards. Besides, it's really popular with their kids.

There's one problem: Off-budget means out-of-sight and out-of-mind when it comes to budgeting restraint and priority setting. The Maynards don't have a short-term plan to make sure their income covers all their spending. Nor do they have a long-term plan to pay for the ballooning costs from their debt and the interest it's accumulating. Anyone doing a realistic budget would have noticed that the automatic off-budget increases were outpacing the Maynards' annual rises in income. They could also see that those minimum payments would never fully pay off the credit cards either.

Put simply, the Maynards' budget is a lot like a credit card bill that shows the minimum amount due but hides the total balance or the finance charge. In fact, their budget scheme is so bad that if they don't mend their ways, the off-budget costs will eventually consume the Maynards' entire budget, with nothing left over for utilities or food. If the parents do not make major changes in their spending, they will have nothing to pass along to their kids when they are gone.

If you see the problems with the Maynards' reckless finances, you'll soon understand the problems with entitlement spending in the U.S. Congress. Congress, unlike a responsible family, doesn't use commonsense budgeting. Not even close.

Entitlements

Entitlement spending is the most serious fiscal problem that Americans face, but few of us really understand it. In the federal budget, an entitlement is a program that provides guaranteed benefits to eligible recipients, such as retirees. The "big three" entitlements are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Like the Maynards, Congress treats entitlements one way and other parts of the federal budget--called "discretionary" spending--very differently. Discretionary spending includes the majority of those limited functions outlined by the U.S. Constitution, like national defense and a judicial system, but also numerous other functions.

These discretionary programs are budgeted annually and have to be balanced against each other to stay within the budget limit. A dollar spent on defense can't also be spent on education. That reality helps to restrain discretionary spending, since the federal government rightly brings in only so much money from taxpayers every year.

"What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom."

-- Adam Smith

The Problem with Entitlements

Unlike discretionary spending, entitlements are mandatory spending. They run on autopilot, getting first crack at whatever revenues the government collects. They even have mandatory increases every year. In fact, they're often described as if they were "rights."[1]

Individual rights are one of the foundations of American society. As the Declaration of Independence puts it, we are endowed by our Creator "with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." You are a being with intrinsic dignity, and that dignity gives you rights that limit what the government and other people can do to you.

But using rights language where it doesn't apply dilutes our real rights. That's the problem with claiming a right that other people have to pay for, regardless of the consequences. It's a major distortion of the Founders' view of "unalienable rights" to say that I have a right for you to pay for my retirement--regardless of how much money I make and regardless of whether future taxpayers can actually sustain the benefits I'm claiming.

What's an entitlement?

The "big three" entitlements are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In the federal budget, an entitlement is a program that provides guaranteed benefits to eligible recipients, such as retirees.

Unfortunately, when policymakers treat entitlements as if they were rights, many of us start to believe it, and that wrong idea about rights has dramatically harmful long-term consequences. Entitlement spending grows auto-matically each year without ever going through the regular budget process.

With such irresponsible budgeting, is it any wonder we're facing a fiscal crisis in entitlement spending? Congress doesn't have to debate this swelling chunk of the annual budget. Nor do Members of Congress have to account for the long-term costs of Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid when they put together the federal budget to ensure that these programs are affordable and sustainable.

Remember the credit card bill that shows the minimum amount due but never shows the total balance or the finance charge? Could you plan the rest of your finances correctly if you got a bill like that? Of course not, and neither can Congress. And the reality is worse than this: Congress gets the short-term benefits from funding these programs, but the generations who follow will have to pay off these huge costs.

TOMORROW: HOW BAD IS IT?

Green Jobs under Obama's Stymulus Plan

I went and signed up for some night courses at the local college beginning next week.

While paying for my necessary class required literature, I noticed a book on the shelf advertised under "job opportunities for graduates." Sort of like a modern version of the old government job opportunities prospects.

It was called something like "Green Jobs for Graduates, under Obama's Stymulus Plan". It appeared to be thick and I may have the title wrong. But rest assured I plan on going back and taking a closer look.

When I find out what it is all about I will write a column on it. It should be a ripe topic.

Democrats Vow To Return Money From Financier

Nemazee, a Top Fundraiser for Party, Is Charged With Fraud Related to Loan

Norman Hsu, now Hassan Nemazee..

Am I alone with my suspicions here of any connections? Check out Nemazee's holdings Nemazee Arrestand tell me it's just coincidence that Obama's foreign policy (sucking up to Iran and bad mouthing Israel) and domestic scramble for socialist health care are not the subject of specific silent influences.

This is an issue that most probably will get buried as quickly as Hassan paid back his $74 million dollar loan once it was discovered that he had obtained it by fraud and confronted. Um like within twenty four hours.

What kind of people keep that kind of money around that they can just plop down a request and have it wired now?

This guy is very powerful with lots of influence, and unless he has really not played ball with somebody now in power in Washington he may not take a fall.

If he has pissed somebody off this would be a good reason to bury him now before he gets out of control.

Which is it? And how high does his influence go? I think he may have soon been sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom, if he hasn't already.

The WP printed the article below, surprised? I'm not the Post has a long history of Democratic slaughtering when it is convenient for them to do so "for the party".

Lets see how long they cover this issue. I think it could lead to a blow-up as big as Watergate if it hangs around in press for very long. There is something very stinky about this guy and how long he has been pulling his shenanigans for the Dems.

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 27, 2009

Just 11 months ago, Hassan Nemazee ranked as one of the Democratic Party's premier money men -- hosting a $28,500-a-head fundraiser in his luxurious home on New York's Upper East Side for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

On Wednesday, Nemazee returned to the same $20 million Park Avenue apartment under house arrest, charged with lying about his assets in order to secure a $74 million loan from Citibank. He is required to wear an electronic security bracelet to ensure that he doesn't leave the building.

The charges prompted a scramble among top Democrats to distance themselves from Nemazee, 59, who together with his wife has contributed more than $750,000 over the past 15 years to federal committees and candidates, including Obama, Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, records show.

Biden and several others pledged to return at least some of Nemazee's campaign contributions or donate them to charity, while the Democratic National Committee -- which controls Obama's campaign chest -- said it is considering doing the same.

The criminal charges mark a dramatic fall for Nemazee, the Iranian American son of a shipping tycoon who emerged over the past two decades as a major player in Democratic politics and a prominent voice in the debate over U.S. relations with Iran. He is chairman and chief executive of Nemazee Capital, a New York investment firm that originally focused on real estate development, including some in the Washington suburbs.

Nemazee was President Bill Clinton's nominee in 1999 to be ambassador to Argentina, but his name was withdrawn amid objections from Republicans about the propriety of some of his investment activities.

Nemazee became best known in recent years as a major Democratic fundraiser, working for the 2004 presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and later becoming finance chairman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. During the 2008 election, he served as co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential fundraising efforts and went on to raise more than $500,000 for Obama -- making him one of the top bundlers in Obama's campaign.

Advocates of campaign finance restrictions argue that the case illustrates the perils of relying on major fundraisers, such as Nemazee, who play an increasingly central role in modern political campaigns.

"To become president of the United States, you have to rely very heavily on a very special, narrow group of Americans who have access to a lot of money," said Taylor Lincoln, a research director at the advocacy group Public Citizen, which supports public financing of campaigns.

Although he has also contributed to a handful of Republicans, Nemazee's ties with Democrats are deep and wide. The Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group, found that Nemazee had donated to 75 federal candidates since 1990.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee called on Senate Democrats to "return any and all contributions that they received from this disgraced financier to preserve the integrity of fundraising efforts in 2010."

Vice presidential spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander said Biden will return or donate to charity $2,700 that Nemazee gave to his failed 2008 presidential campaign. But Alexander said similar steps would be impossible for a Biden leadership committee that has disbanded and for Biden's former Senate campaign committee, which "is being wound down" and does not have money to issue a refund.

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), said the senator will donate to a foreclosure assistance program $4,800 contributed by Nemazee this year.

Officials with the White House and the DNC declined to comment on their plans.

According to a criminal complaint filed Tuesday in federal court in Manhattan, Nemazee provided false account numbers and other records in order to secure $74 million in financing from Citibank, which discovered the problems while attempting to confirm that Nemazee had $500 million in assets, as he claimed. Many of the phone numbers and addresses were actually controlled by Nemazee rather than by other financial institutions, the complaint says.

Nemazee was first interviewed by FBI agents on Sunday as he prepared to board a flight to Rome at Newark Liberty International Airport, according to the Justice Department. Nemazee paid back the $74 million loan with a wire transfer on Monday, but he was arrested Tuesday in connection with the original allegations of fraud, the Justice Department said.

After spending a night in jail, Nemazee was released into home detention on Wednesday. His lawyer, Marc Mukasey -- son of former U.S. attorney general Michael B. Mukasey -- did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

White House Asks Doctors To Push For Reform

By Beth Sussman

As the health care debate has worn on, President Obama has looked to elected officials, interest groups and his campaign volunteers for help in pushing reform. Now he's hoping for another band of advocates: doctors.

On a conference call Tuesday night, White House health advisers prodded about 3,000 physicians and health industry professionals to take a more active role in promoting health care reform, the AP reports. A pamphlet sent out to doctors before the call suggested they host town hall meetings and hospital tours or hold a whole "Health Insurance Reform Week." The conference call included members of the American College of Physicians and the American College of Surgeons and was similar to ones held earlier this summer with nurses and senior citizens, the article reports.

Real figures say an awful lot

During his time in office George W. Bush spent a total direct cost of roughly 144 billion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama is spending 1.2 billion a month just to keep the economy from totally tanking.

That means in one year in office he will have spent approximately equal less 20 billion give or take what George W. Bush spent on both wars in 7 years.

Now granted under Bush that does not count the cost of the permanently wounded and the ongoing treatment of the severely wounded for rehab which again will take years. But Obama's economy package doesn't count that either.

There is just no way Obama can try and governmentalize everything and still focus on gaining any type of continuing effort in what is left of "Bush's Wars". Something is going to have to give and my money is on Afghanistan as I have said before.

Who's Really Bailing on Glenn Beck?

Borrowed from New Busters Today
By Mithridate Ombud

"...democracy must be more than what the majority insists upon."
Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope

Let me take this opportunity to look into something the media won't touch. All moonbat hands are unloading every cannon on the deck at Glenn Beck right now. According to the media, Glenn walks down the sidewalk with half a baby hanging out of his mouth pushing old ladies into traffic. Well, as my dear old dad used to say; "If everyone is aiming at you, you know you're on to something."

And what is Glenn on to? If you haven't watched Glenn this week, go back and start at Monday because he has unlocked an unreported movement in this country that he believes may change all of our lives. Glenn's genius is that as he falls on the sword he passes forward a series of questions we should all ask, like "Can we survive this debt? If yes, how?" or why do we have a (self-proclaimed) communist Czar running anything? These are questions that remain long after the media has chewed him up and spit him out. Voters may not remember what the media did to Glenn next year, but his questions are sure to persist as they cast their next vote.

Are these questions so out of line that they dare not be asked? The media thinks so. The left thinks so. Even Glenn's own advertisers think so, they are pulling out by the dozens according to the news. Well let's put our journalist shoes on and go where the media can't seem to find with both hands. Let's look at who is bailing on Glenn Beck.

Progressive Insurance. They don't call it "Progressive" for nothing. This Peter Lewis run supawn was the engine that gave $8.5 million dollars to the ACLU. You may remember Peter Lewis as the billionaire with a painting of Chinese communist Mao Tse-tung hanging in his house. It's a Warhol. The only thing more shocking than Progressive Insurance pulling their advertising from Glenn Beck is the idea that they ever became an advertiser to begin with.

Verizon/AT&T/Sprint. Oh, here come the telecoms strong with Verizon VP Jim Gerace hanging out the passenger window with a shotgun; "We made a decision that we don't want to be advertising on that program for a lot of reasons." I wonder if one of those reasons is that Glenn pointed out that Obama's foot soldiers are the unions? And what union does Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint call daddy? The Communication Workers of America. It's the site with the little AFL-CIO logo at the top. Well I'm sure the Communistcation Workers of America have no dog in this fight, but since we're playing journalist (1940s black coffee journalist, not a Starbucks reporter) let's zip over to OpenSecrets.org to see what we see. Oh, and look at that. OpenSecrets classifies the Communication Workers of America as a "Heavy Hitter". They've given out $26.7 million dollars to politicians. But don't worry, only 99% of that went to Democrats. I'd give these telecoms credit for not grabbing the $5 billion in Obama-dollars offered to them, but I won't since the only reason they didn't is the net neutrality conditions on taking it.

Walmart. Walmart recently "flabbergasted" the National Retail Federation after throwing in for Obama's employer mandate on healthcare. Walmart also has a PAC, of which 64% goes to Democrats in the latest cycle. Oh, one other thing, Walmart's CEO signed the letter announcing this change. Under his signature was the signature of Andrew Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union, and Obama abettor John Podesta, who is chief executive for the Center for American Progress. Why? The SEIU is a union that Glenn has been particularly vocal in outing as an arm of the Obama administration. They land at #9 on the Heavy Hitters list with $27.5 million going to politicians, 95% of which went to Democrats (and no, the other 5% did not go to Republicans.) On the other hand, it's nice to see Walmart finally carrying Glenn's books.

Best Buy. Why would Best Buy turn their back on Glenn Beck? Is it really public outrage or do they have anything at all to gain from going against someone who wants to expose Obama's healthcare sham? MobileHealthNews.com: "Best Buy appears to be gearing up to re-enter the market in a very big way — this time, though, it looks like its healthcare technology offerings will remain in-house."

Campbells Soup. Well this one just makes perfect sense, since they have been trying to transition into marketing the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community. You gotta move that Double Noodle any way you can.

UPS. UPS is Teamster turf. The Teamsters are a part of the AFL-CIO. The Teamsters are #10 on OpenSecret.org's Heavy Hitter list, coming in with $27.4 million in donations, 92% of which went to Democrats. FedEx gave 58% of their PAC to Republicans, remember that next time you ship a package.

I bet you can't wait until you're forced to be in a union that gives your money to Democrats. One might almost think this all looks orchestrated. Nah, that would take one heck of an organizer to pull off something like that.

But just in case, keep in mind that boycotts work both ways.
[Recommend story on Digg.com]

Dems and dirty contributions

It seems that the Democrats just really don't give a shit about how they receive and who rounds up their money for them.

Democratic voters are either just plain "laise faire" about the methods used in collecting contributions or they (as my true belief) are just too plain stupid to know whats going on.

Hassan Nemazee is back in the news and in trouble again this time for fraud and the lies just keep coming out from the people for whom he has rounded up funding.

Funny this stuff always seems to come out "after" the elections and the damage is done.

A look at some of Mr. Nemazee's holdings may give an indication about Barack Obama's politics, and especially his policies. Just look at some of the connections that Nemazee has had and still maintains today.

Mr. Nemazee has interest's in ..health care, media, oil and gas, insurance, investment banking, asset management, newspapers, real estate development, technology, and communications. Mr. Nemazee has been around and in politics since the time he was forced to give up investments in, of all places, "Iran". Well connected through his family interests, Harvard educated and running in the Washington circles for many years Nemazee has shown to be ruthless in business dealings and an apt knowledge of playing the system.

Here is Wikipedia's info on him Hassan Nemazee

Here is some more revelation as to Nemazee's character Forbes Editorial

Dems return Nemazee contributions
By: Kenneth P. Vogel
August 26, 2009 12:33 AM EST

Vice President Joe Biden, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday evening they plan to return or donate to charity campaign contributions from Democratic financier Hassan Nemazee, who was arrested and charged Tuesday with trying to defraud Citibank of $74 million by offering fake collateral on a loan.

If recent history is any indication, expect more politicians to follow suit as the fallout from the latest disgraced-bundler case ripples through Washington in the coming days.

Nemazee made an impact in Democratic politics as a so-called bundler who rounded up checks from others. But a POLITICO analysis found that since the early 1990s, when he first emerged as a prominent moneyman for the Clinton-Gore presidential campaign, Nemazee also has personally contributed more than $500,000 to dozens of primarily Democratic candidates, committees and causes, ranging from President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel to half the members of the U.S. Senate.

Among the biggest beneficiaries were the three national Democratic Party committees.

Nemazee, 59, contributed $113,500 to the Democratic National Committee, $89,200 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and $29,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Federal Election Commission records show.

Nemazee, who lived in New York and primarily made his fortune in investing, also served as national finance chair for the DSCC while Schumer chaired the group during the 2006 election cycle, when the committee raised $121 million (compared to $89 million for its Republican counterpart, the National Republican Senatorial Committee) and helped Democrats take control of the Senate.

The DSCC is considering what to do with Nemazee’s direct contributions, according to a source with knowledge of the group’s fundraising operations.

The moneyman over the years contributed $8,600 to the campaigns of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), and he served as a regional fundraising leader for Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign.

Nemazee, who contributed $8,300 to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaigns for Senate in New York and for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, also was a top bundler for Clinton’s presidential bid, raising at least $100,000 from other donors.

After she conceded the nomination to Obama, Nemazee helped him raise at least $500,000, in addition to contributing $9,200 of his own to a joint committee Obama set up with the DNC.

And when Obama defeated Republican John McCain in the general election, Nemazee contributed another $50,000 to the non-profit corporation Obama set up to pay for his inauguration and the surrounding festivities.

Representatives for Kerry, Obama, Clinton and most other recipients of Nemzee contributions did not immediately respond to questions about their plans for the cash, but expect Republicans to hone in on them.

“For years, Hassan Nemazee has been a major financial contributor to the Democrat Party, including his tenure as the national finance chairman of the DSCC in 2006 and his donations to Harry Reid, Blanche Lincoln, Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Evan Bayh, and other Senate Democrats,” Rob Jesmer, the NRSC’s executive director, said in a statement.

“Given the serious nature of the charges that Nemazee faces, the Democrats should immediately return any and all of the contributions that they received from this disgraced financier to preserve the integrity of their fundraising efforts in 2010.”

Of course, Nemazee also contributed to a handful of Republicans, including Sens. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), who reported receiving a $2,000 Nemazee contribution in 2004, and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who accepted $1,000 for her 2000 campaign, as well as the late Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), who reported contributions totaling $3,500 in the 1990s from Nemazee.

And there’s another difficulty in demanding contributions be returned: Contributions from older campaigns mostly have long since been spent and occasionally the committees themselves have been shuttered, sometimes prompting politicians to make charitable contributions of similar amounts from different campaign committees.

Biden’s spokeswoman, Elizabeth Alexander, explained that Biden couldn’t disgorge the $4,000 Nemazee in 2005 gave to Unite Our States, a leadership political action committee headed by then-Delaware Sen. Biden, nor the $6,100 he contributed to Biden’s Senate campaign committee, Citizens for Biden, from 2000 through 2006.

“Unite Our States no longer exists, and Citizens for Biden is being wound down, and therefore neither entity has funds to issue a refund,” she said, explaining only Biden’s presidential campaign, which reported contributions totaling $2,700 from Nemazee and which is still functioning, would “return the funds or donate the funds to charity.”

Sen. Dodd of Connecticut reported receiving $2,000 in contributions from Nemazee in the mid-1990s. Dodd spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said his boss would donate the contributions to charity.

Paul Blank, spokesman for Maloney (D-N.Y.) said “given the allegations” against Nemazee, his boss would give the $5,500 she accepted in contributions from Nemazee starting in the late 1990s “to a 9/11 charity.”

Boxer will give the $3,000 she got from Nemazee to a charity, likely in California, said her campaign manager Rose Kapolczynski.

And Schumer, who over the years has received $6,000 in contributions from Nemazee, will give the cash to a foreclosure prevention program run by the nonprofit Neighborhood Housing Service.

NPR Discovers Reason a Third Want Universal Health Care! Many Baby Boomers Addicted To Drugs !

Report from NPR

The 'Baby Boomer' generation came of age in the 1960's, an era defined by 'sex, drugs and rock and roll'. Those days have long past, but new research suggests the boomers are still facing higher than normal rates of drug use. Peter Delany, from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, discusses the new data and what it tells us about boomers. And offering a personal perspective, Juan Harris, Program Director for the Hanley Center for Older Adult Recovery,Hanley Center and Rod Dash, a graduate of the program.



JENNIFER LUDDEN, host:

I'm Jennifer Ludden, and this is TELL ME MORE from NPR News.

Coming up, a tribute to one of NASCAR's forgotten heroes. But first, sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll define the baby-boomer generation. Now, recent studies suggest that for many baby boomers, the drugs, at least, are still a lifestyle.

Two studies released this month find cause for concern. The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration found that drug use between ages 50 and 59 is nearly double that of previous generations. Another study released by Duke University medical center last week found that a significant percentage of middle-aged adults are binge drinking.

Joining us now to discuss this are Peter Delany, he's the director with the Office of Applied Studies at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. They released the study on drug addiction among baby boomers. Also with us, Juan Harris, he's program director for the Hanley Center for Older Adult Recovery. And Rod Dash is a graduate of that program. Welcome to you all.

Mr. PETER DELANY (Director, Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration): Thank you.

Mr. JUAN HARRIS (Program Director, Hanley Center for Older Adult Recovery): Thank you.

Mr. ROD DASH (Graduate, Hanley Center for Older Adult Recovery): Thank you.

LUDDEN: Peter Delany, let me start with you. Do the results of either of these studies surprise you?

Mr. DELANY: No, they aren't. We've been kind of tracking this age range for a number of years, and there's been concern about growing substance abuse among older adults for a number of years.

This is the first time where we've tracked this, what we call the cohort, the 50 to 59 group, where all of them are baby boomers in the generation. So, this is the first time where we had all baby boomers in the 50s.

LUDDEN: So this is why the numbers are going up, because this generation is moving into this age bracket.

Mr. DELANY: Right. They're moving into this age bracket. That's correct.

LUDDEN: And it's mostly males, you found.

Mr. DELANY: What we found is that when you look at a typical person who is using drugs, they tend to be more male. They tend to be unemployed. They tend to be on the West Coast, oddly enough. They tend to be unmarried. Those are just demographic characteristics that characterize them.

LUDDEN: And I gather that having an addiction problem in your 50s is altogether different and worse than having it in your 20s in some ways, health-wise. Is that right?

Mr. DELANY: It's more complicated when you're in your 50s or your 60s because your metabolism isn't as fast, not like when you were 20. At the same time, people who are in their 50s and 60s tend to have other things going on with their bodies, hypertension, they may have another chronic illness. And with the drug use happening at the same time, the drug use can exacerbate any other conditions. If that condition comes on, it tends to sometimes mask it. So it goes back and forth.

LUDDEN: So you're thinking, oh, I'm just getting old, I have whatever. But in fact, people can't detect your addiction?

Mr. DELANY: Well, no, I think people can detect the addiction. The issue is, are people asking about it. People don't tend to think of people in the 50-to60-year-old range as being addicts or having a problem. And I want to kind of be clear. We weren't talking about just people with an addiction, we were talking people who were using, people who have an abuse problem and people who meet the criteria for addiction. So…

LUDDEN: And when you talk about metabolism changing at this age, what effect does that have if you use drugs or binge drink?

Mr. DELANY: Well, any drug may take a little bit longer to metabolize out of your system. So if there's significant cognitive impairment, it may take longer for that to improve. So you're at higher risk for other complications. You might fall. You might have bad judgment. A number of things happen. So it's a risk factor for other things happening to you.

LUDDEN: Juan, you deal with older adults who come in to your recovery center. I'm curious. Have they been perhaps abusing drugs, you know, for decades now, since Woodstock, or are these people who may have developed some additions along the way? Maybe they're heavier users now than they were?

Mr. HARRIS: What I've seen at Hanley Center in our older adult program definitely supports the results of the studies in that this is a group, as the mantra when we came on, sex, drugs and rock and roll, this is a group that began using at an early age, and used illicit drugs. And when we add to that what we call the early onset dynamic of addiction, this group really has not discontinued using for all of these years.

I'd also like to add to what Peter was talking about in terms of age-related changes in the body. As a person ages - we know that the muscle has more water content than fat, and as a person ages, the body has more fat, so it's less water content to dilute say, alcohol. Wherein a person could really be honest and says they were taking like one drink a night now they - that one drink is really sort of knocking them on their butt.

LUDDEN: So, I think they can't hold their liquor like they could before.

Mr. HARRIS: A dynamic, one of the diagnostic criteria that we look for is tolerance. Interestingly enough, as patients age we look for a dynamic that's known as reverse tolerance. And a little goes a lot further as they age, which kind of increases the potentiality of the addiction.

Part II Continued 8/27/09
Bio of Hanley Center

Clorox whitewashing its advertising

Clorox announced last week that it was pulling its ads off all political talk shows.

"We do not want to be associated with inflammatory speech used by either liberal or conservative talk show host,” the company said in a statement. “After a comprehensive review of political talks shows across the spectrum, at this time we have made a decision not to advertise on them. Clorox has done very little advertising on political talk shows overall, and given the sometimes inflammatory nature of these shows, we feel our advertising investment is best directed elsewhere.”

Guliani to announce run for President

RUDY GUILIANI MAY ANNOUNCE A RE-RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

FINE, NOT A TERRIBLE THING TO TRY.

BUT ! . HE HAS GOT TO BREAK THE HABIT OF INTERJECTING IN THE BEGINNING OF EVERY OTHER SENTENCE......

THE REALITY IS !

Whether he knows it or not, people are not concerned with reality!

They want to be sold a dream, bullshit, an escape from reality.

Sure they like to be lied to but not with repetition of "the reality is"

So Rudy if you are going to run again, fine.

But for Christ's sake. The reality is ! you need a new copy writer.

The Political Strategy of the Broken Clock

A post by Maynard

This note will shed light on a basic trick used by just about all politicians, both left and right. The tactic relies upon two points:

1. It’s an old cliché that a clock that loses a minute each hour is almost always wrong, wheras a broken clock is right twice a day. But which one is of more practical use?
2. The human heart is deceptive. Whatever the current trend is, it feels like it will continue forever. When things are getting worse, they feel like they’ll never get better. Likewise, good times feel like they’ll never end. Intellectually, we know the world is dynamic, and trends come and go. But we don’t really believe it.

So the manipulative politician’s task is very simple: Like the broken clock, he regularly makes the statement that the bad trend is about to break (or, if he’s out of power, he makes the opposite statement). This is completely without regard to the reality. If he turns out to have been wrong, his words are forgotten. But he keeps predicting, and eventually he’ll turn out to be right (or at least his claim may not seem ridiculous). At that point, he trumpets his genius to the four corners of the earth, and people start listening to him as if he knew what he was talking about.

At a time of serious financial crisis, Mr. Obama’s strategy is obvious enough: On one hand, declare the dawn of a new day, meanwhile doing whatever it takes to quickly create the aura of a turnaround, and never mind the cost. Then repeatedly claim “success”, watching carefully to see whether anyone believes you. When your number eventually comes up, use the influx of political capital to act upon your agenda. That last step has got to be taken quickly, before the sham becomes apparent.

There’s a pitfall here, and it’s a big part of the reason politics is so dysfunctional: The quick-fix feelgood “solutions” usually do harm rather than good. For example, “Cash for Clunkers” borrows money from China to buy cars from Japan; this is ridiculous on the face of it, but it causes a short-term uptick in statistics for auto sales. The result is bad for the nation but good for the politicians, as the day ends with a “good” headline. Thus Obama claims credit for “saving” the economy, and anybody opposing his plan to take over the health care industry is labeled as an ungrateful un-American swastika-carrying evil-monger.

We’ve heard furious debate about whether the “stimulus” has done any good. I’d argue this is the wrong question entirely. As you see, “Cash for Clunkers” “works”. But then, a shot of heroin “works” for an addict. That doesn’t make it right. There will be hell to pay when the bill comes due.

The reality is it takes years for the full effects of policies to percolate through the system, and we only have full feedback when it’s far too late. Ronald Reagan beat the Soviet Union, but we didn’t see his policies bear fruit until he’d been out of office for ten years. Jimmy Carter served as midwife to the genocidal Iranian regime and enabler of the North Korean madmen, and we’ve watched his missteps metastasize into region-threatening monsters. History reveals the true legacy of leaders, and it’s to history we must look for wisdom, rather than at yesterday’s unemployment report. Keep this in mind the next time you hear a broken clock announcing the time.

Advocates Blamed For WhiteHouse.gov Goof

After individuals went on Fox News and took to the Internet last week complaining they'd received unsolicited e-mails from the White House, the administration said it would change how it collects addresses. That's a good idea, e-mail experts say, because the White House has plenty of room for improvement.

"I would grade their e-mail collection process as an F," said Marco Marini, CEO of ClickMail Marketing, citing privacy and e-mail campaign effectiveness concerns.

The box at the top of WhiteHouse.gov allows anyone to subscribe by simply typing in an e-mail address and ZIP code. What's stopping my friend, or political opponent, from signing me up, Marini wondered? Adding an e-mail confirmation step would be "very easy to implement and would save a lot of headaches," he said.

Most sites that users must register for -- from newspapers to banks to stores -- send a confirmation to the e-mail addresses provided before beginning to use the address to communicate with the user. Though the White House said it was changing its e-mail collection process, Marini's basic suggestion is not among the changes made.

"We are implementing measures to make subscribing to e-mails clearer, including preventing advocacy organizations from signing people up to our lists without permission when they deliver petition signatures and other messages on individual's behalf," White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said in a statement last week.

The White House's online director, Macon Phillips, followed that up with a blog post reiterating their suspicion that outside groups were signing up individuals without their permission and saying that changes had been made.

"It has come to our attention that some people may have been subscribed to our e-mail lists without their knowledge -- likely as a result of efforts by outside groups of all political stripes -- and we regret any inconvenience caused by receiving an unexpected message," Phillips wrote in the blog post. "We have ... implemented measures on WhiteHouse.gov to boost the security of the mailing list and we will carefully evaluate signups already received to work toward preventing this problem in the future."

What are the new measures Phillips mentions in the blog post? The only noticeable one is a CAPTCHA -- the disfigured words used to confuse automated computer programs -- on WhiteHouse.gov's "Contact Us" page, where a contact form requires an e-mail address and the sender is given the option of clicking a box to subscribe to e-mail updates. The White House believes groups were using this feature to send petitions to the administration from its members' e-mail addresses, resulting in the unsolicited e-mails.

But elsewhere on the site, users can still sign up directly for e-mail updates by simply inputting an e-mail address and ZIP code.

Shapiro declined to comment on whether the White House would add an e-mail confirmation step in its collection process.

This is not good for CIA

Panetta will be leaving the CIA, and 911 is just around the corner.

Earlier last month or so I predicted that one of the clear indications of Obama's presidency unraveling was the loss of at least one head cabinet member before the end of the year. Here it comes.

When you have dissension in your staff this can happen to anybody. But it is how you handle it that makes all the difference in a leader and maintaining strength around you.

Obama has no experience in this category. And I don't think a sit down over a bear with Joe Biden as referee will solve nor settle the matter of William Panetta leaving his cabinet.

My big concern is that the CIA needs strong leadership. There has been a loss of moral for sometime now and even more so when Obama has announced releasing certain papers and files that should be kept off the news.

Panetta in my opinion was not the man for the job but at least he did have a sense of organization that Obama severely needed from the agency.

Now what? Somehow I don't think with such a naive and worthless president that this country can stand the loss of anyone in government that can contribute to keeping things together until Obama is out of office in 2012, if we make it that long.

I know I sound like a severe pessimist and yes I am, at times, and this is one of those times. Obama has demonstrated his total ineptness under pressure and now is not a good time for a man even the likes of Panetta (as I said) not my favorite choice, but acceptable for the job until a more placid change could be managed.

Afghanistan is in the shitter, Iraq is resuming its territorial split among tribes,Iran will build its bomb, and Central America could blow wide open due to the Mexican cartels invading the lessor defensible countries.

There are many things that the CIA does for other organizations of government in the area of planning and disruptions that truthfully keep the world stabilized even though they may appear as chaos at the moment.

But without a strong chief staff member, no one with any experience is going to be willing to put their neck in a noose. This means that much will be left up to inexperienced agents both in the field and in at Langely.

Many senior members will be retiring soon as early as this coming year and then much expertise in areas of clandestine ops, and counter intelligence will be lost, perhaps forever.

What bothers me most though is that the anniversary of 911 is just around the corner. What is Obama doing to protect us?

It would be nice to have a little reassurance from the "faithless leader" even if we know it is a lie.

YEAH LETS HEAR IT FOR DEMONOCRACY! LEST YOU LIBERALS HAVE SHORT MEMORIES

What a disgusting display of democracy and non-violent freedom of expression. I don’t know about you, but I long for the days when comparing George W. Bush to Hitler and calling anybody who disagreed with you a “neocon” was the highest form of patriotism.

VA's Denial-of-Care-Oriented 'Your Life, Your Choices,' Quashed Under Bush, Revived Under Obama

If you were a reporter trying to gauge the credibility of Obama administration protests that it is really serious when it says that it will honor patient, doctor, and family treatment wishes in serious illness situations if the government takes an exponentially greater role in health care, you might look into how areas of health care already controlled by the government are dealing with these sensitive matters.

Apparently either no journalist has cared to look, or if anyone has looked, they haven't found anything they believe is worth reporting.

In today's Wall Street Journal, Jim Towey, a former director of the Bush White House's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives and founder of the nonprofit Aging with Dignity, found a troubling, newsworthy, death-encouraging decision that has already been made during Barack Obama's short term in office.

As Towey chronicles and explains, it's in the Veterans Administration, and it really is appalling. Here are key excerpts from his column (bolds are mine):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

If President Obama wants to better understand why America's discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.

Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."

Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.

"Your Life, Your Choices" presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political "push poll." For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living."

The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to "shake the blues." There is a section which provocatively asks, "Have you ever heard anyone say, 'If I'm a vegetable, pull the plug'?" There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as "I can no longer contribute to my family's well being," "I am a severe financial burden on my family" and that the vet's situation "causes severe emotional burden for my family."

When the government can steer vulnerable individuals to conclude for themselves that life is not worth living, who needs a death panel?

..... only one organization was listed in the new version as a resource on advance directives: the Hemlock Society (now euphemistically known as "Compassion and Choices").

This hurry-up-and-die message is clear and unconscionable. Worse, a July 2009 VA directive instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to "Your Life, Your Choices." Not just those of advanced age and debilitated condition—all patients. America's 24 million veterans deserve better.

Towey wraps by challenging the president "to walk two blocks from the Oval Office and pull the plug on 'Your Life, Your Choices.'"

Don't hold your breath, Jim -- waiting for the president to make the walk, or waiting for anyone else in the press to note a federally-controlled health care system that is realizing the worst fears of those who believe in the dignity of life.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

The authentic Ass-troturfer!

Borrowed from Llana Mercer

It was wicked when assorted neoconservative organs and tools presented anti-war activists such as Cindy Sheehan as something other than what they were. And it is still execrable now that the left-liberal news filters are tarring anti-Obamacare town hall protesters as something other than what they are.

Sheehan's cause was just. She spoke stirringly against Bush's crimes in Iraq. Yet again and again she was dismissed by the neoconservatives as a George-Soros sponsored stooge (the details of that particular conspiracy evade me).

The outcry against state takeover of medicine is in the best of traditions too. Yet the malpracticing media are discounting the fractious town hall attendees as proxies for corporate and political interests. And worse.

The job of the press is to report events, not blanket the facts with conjecture and interpretations that end up being absorbed into the narrative and serve to fuse fact with fancy. Moreover, it matters not with which organizations groups of protesters, left or right, seek solidarity. What matters is the case they present. The rest is ad hominem, which is where discourse in the U.S. stands.

Cronkite died the other day; news coverage croaked a long time ago.

Meanwhile, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow stumbled on a "scoop" in the form of some online "memos," and was intoning like a solemn commissar about corporate agents and their foot soldiers, all conspiring against state-mediated munificence.

As she expounded ominously on imagined conspiracies that were really unremarkable events and associations, I was reminded of Glenn Beck's delusional diagrams of multiplying giant ACORNS. (Beck before a blackboard, in turn, conjures Russell Crow doing John Forbes Nash in "A Beautiful Mind," minus the mind.)

Unlike comrade Keith (Olbermann), at least Maddow obeyed the journalistic imperative to interview one of the malevolent men mentioned in The Memos. And how delightful this corporatist turned out to be: "Do the oil companies fund us? No, Rachel, but I'd like to take the opportunity to urge them to support our impetus for free medicine."

Americans with a bias for small government and big society! What next?

Sometime during the week, the Svengali shifted into campaign mode. B.O. took the time to mix it up at a town hall in New Hampshire, during which he promised those invited into the charmed circle that it was not to the converted that he was preaching, but to a randomly selected group.

Outside, the country was roiling – still is. Inside Barack's Bubble the debate was flatlining like Nancy Pelosi's brainwaves.

Speaking of whom, that frozen face and unsupple mind teamed up with Ring Leader Steny Hoyer (House majority leader) to label and libel 50 percent of Americans as "un-American," in a USA Today op-ed titled, "'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate."

Compounding their misleading conflation of the political will with the will of the people ("Health coverage for all was on the national agenda as early as 1912. … Americans have been waiting for nearly a century for quality, affordable health care"), the dastardly duo dishonestly failed to mention a minor detail: The protests mirrored the polls.

According to the latest USA Today/Gallup survey , "More Americans disapprove (50 percent) than approve (44 percent) of the way U.S. President Barack Obama is handling health care policy."

Finally, at the time of writing, a breakthrough. Oh, the medicine of mercy.

The tone on MSNBC took a turn. Anchors David "Shyster" and Tamron Hall inferred that, rather than "un-American," the turbulent town hallers were a little simple.

T. Hall, who could never be called simple (her online fans vouch for the quality of her cleavage), believes "these people" – clearly aliens to a member of the "multicultural noise machine" – don't know that Medicare and Medicaid are government-run; and they don't get that insurance (a word she pronounces incorrectly with the emphasis on the first syllable) is a third-party entity.

Note to T. Hall from me

Dear T. Non sequitur Hall:

From the fact that Veterans Health, Medicare and Medicaid are government-run, it doesn't follow that transferring more of the medical industry into the same gulag is constitutional, insignificant, negligible, or unworthy of fighting.

From the fact that there are one too many mediating entities between doctor and patient, it does not follow that another – subject to all the wrong incentives – ought to be inserted.

There was one other thing that led our sleuth in a C Cup to "inform" her viewers that the mutinous multitudes were muddled beyond belief: Town hall attendees seemed to be harping on the proper role of government, and not on the minutia of the messiah's medical plan.

Lo! Making a philosophical point instead of a utilitarian one ─ now that is dimwitted.

Let me further dim the debate:

Demonstrators for a government takeover of medicine have a right to discuss their demands, but no right to enact these demands.

As Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute put it, "Rights, as our Founding Fathers conceived them, are not claims to economic goods, but freedoms of action. There can be no such thing as a 'right' to products or services created by the effort of others, and this most definitely includes medical products and services."

Protesters for a public plan have the right to seek out a doctor and pay him for his services; they have no claim to the products of his labor – and no right to enlist the State to compel third parties to pay for those products.

This should help Tamron Hall (and her ilk), whose gaping vacuity is ameliorated only by an unbuttoned blouse.

related video

chiropractor says its time to grow a spine !

Borrowed from Pajamas Media.

To Hell with the Political Class

Posted By Melissa Clouthier

It’s no big mystery why President Obama’s poll numbers [1] have dropped like a scorching potato on a summer day in Houston. He’s stinking it up. The man came into office with a 72% approval rating. Nearly everyone gave him the benefit of the doubt. Six months of flimflam have soured all except his most adoring sycophants.

The press still loves Barack Obama. Enough said.

For everyone else, for those who hoped for change, disappointment mounts. Maegan Carberry [2] expresses the frustrations of young Obama voters:

To single out health care is myopic, when what’s really happening is a collective re-evaluation of Obama’s delivery on his campaign promises to our generation. Young people, many of whom were first-time political participants in ‘08, are often not seasoned in the way governing works. After disappointments like failed bipartisanship on the stimulus bill, lip service on torture, a perplexing stance on gay marriage that even Dick Cheney’s got right, half-hearted transparency and use of new media tools, and an ambiguously undefined and possibly unwinnable war in Afghanistan, we’re frustrated. We signed on for change in Washington, and our leader is not cracking down on the Democratic Congress and its futile leadership, which has disappointed us for almost a decade.

Strap on your boots, liberals. It’s about to get worse. An Air America host called President Obama a “charming liar.” [3] That’s being charitable. By years end, the word “charming” will be dropped.

To liberals and Democrats hoping for the socialist promised land, conservatives feel your pain. They’ve been there. Hell, they’re still there. Those who voted for Republicans hoping for sensible government, fiscal restraint, and less intrusion got none of it — even when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and the presidency. Can you say drug plan to buy off seniors and drug companies? Can you say TARP?

But the reason President Obama is tanking so quickly is that he has a problem that President Bush didn’t have. Candidate Obama promised the world, sun, stars, and moon to everyone. People pinned their hopes and dreams on him. He stayed vague and hope-n-changy enough that all people felt reassured when he spoke to them. The problem is, he said whatever worked to whatever crowd he stood before. Or rather, his words were suitably bland that people projected their desires on his words. They heard what they wanted to hear, but what was he saying?

George W. Bush governed exactly how he campaigned. The term “compassionate conservatism” was wince-inducing. We believe being conservative is compassionate. When President Bush “reached across the aisle” to Teddy Kennedy, it seemed the height of naivete. The split was coming, and it did. And to burn credibility with the base over education reform, of all things.

Still, the magnanimous ways and the mushy center were classic blue blood Republican and for all the twang, which so irritated liberals, President Bush governed and was motivated by noblesse oblige. He campaigned this way. No surprises.

So President Obama has a problem that President Bush didn’t: deception or delusion. But more than that, President Obama comes into his presidency after Democrats spent years in the wilderness nursing notions of a stolen presidency. They feel owed, man. They are entitled to some legislation going their way for once.

And actually, President Obama has another problem: American values don’t mesh with liberal values. President Obama campaigned sounding centrist and moderate even though his Senate record was the most liberal of any of his peers. President Obama campaigned on fiscal restraint. He promised to right the Republican wrongs. It’s difficult to stifle a guffaw, but people bought it. Swing voters and independents believed him. They believed that a Democrat Congress and president would actually be sensible and responsible.

The Democrats pushed through a pork-laden, special-interest awarding stimulus bill that benefited no one besides political cronies. This was Nancy Pelosi’s gift to the big corporate Democrat donors. On election night, I talked to a prominent liberal blogger who said,”Well, we’ll just have to keep big special interests out of the White House.” I laughed out loud and said, “Good luck with that. They’re already there. They’re your problem now.”

But really, the political class and the various special interest parasites sucking off the American taxpayer are everyone’s problem. The tea party movement was not born of President Barack Obama, much as the left would like to think so. Discontent raged around the TARP bailouts after years of excessive spending and Americans were helpless to stop it. It took me hours to unwind the root of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess, and as fear-inducing bank failures struck me, the bailouts couldn’t assure that they wouldn’t fail anyway. And, in fact, many have. Meanwhile, the remaining banks prop up real estate, but that will soon end and then what?

And now, the president and Congress want to push through health care Reform that won’t help people’s health, cares little for the American taxpayer, and is anything but reform. And while California and Michigan face 15% unemployment rates and higher in some cities/industries, these same people want to raise taxes on Americans and kill the energy industry with cap and trade. It’s sheer insanity. It’s like the politicians live in some dream state where the reality of paying the bills doesn’t exist. It’s like they believe the American people will lay down and consent to a vast redistribution [4] of hard-earned wealth when they’ve already lost so much to the hands of a wrong-headed governance.

But that’s exactly where politicians live. It’s a bubble land of no consequences. The only thing that engenders fear is the prospect of losing personal power. But even that concerns them little as they rig the system so that incumbents can enjoy permanent places of power. They spend the taxpayer’s money like tax revenue falls from magical, ever-producing gold trees. Americans thought this new administration would be rational. It’s not just more of the same. It’s worse.

And while the Democrats hatch plans to bury America in a tax and regulatory burden never before seen, where are the Republicans? They’re where they’ve been for years. They are tremulous, attempting to curry favor with the press and with Democrats. Still, President Obama tries to blame these classic enablers for obstruction. It would be laughable if the charge wasn’t so insane. The Republicans have zero power. None. Their mismanagement when they had the reins has sent them into the political wilderness and yet they refuse to even fight rhetorically now when they have nothing to lose. The war of ideas is being fought by an out-of-power Republican governor from the furthest reaches of America. Sarah Palin is the only one willing to call BS on the nonsense in plain language.

The Republicans worry about being called obstructionists instead of worrying that they have no core principles that they can, without hypocrisy, champion or defend. Believe something already! And then vote a value without undercutting it by amoral behavior. Yeah, that might happen. The only chance of it happening is an engaged populace holding their feet to the fire.

The people, at long last, rise. The political class needs guidance, to put it mildly. Basically, things have been good enough and people have been busy enough that they stopped holding those entrusted with the keys to the law and treasury accountable. That time is over. All politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, would like the grassroots people to just go away. It seems evident that these folks are just getting warmed up.

Call them the mob, terrorists, haters, un-American, disloyal, treasonous, immoral, racist, and deranged. They’re not going away. They are Americans. They deserve better than what they’re getting from the ruling class.

Tonight, a friend tweeted this timely quote: “It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” — Thomas Paine

The government needs to relearn its place.

The Moral Obligation to Provide Health Care

HereBorrowed from Right Wing News

Dave Schuler poses an interesting question:

As I've said before, I don't believe that there's a right to healthcare nor have I seen a coherent argument made that it is, merely a claim. However, bear with me.

Is is possible to make a coherent argument that government-provided healthcare is a moral obligation but that our obligation doesn't extend to people in Zambia? I don't think it is but I'm willing to listen to the arguments.

A few observations. The most obvious thing that comes to mind here is that if Barack Obama thinks moral obligations are so important that the federal government should impose them by force, does that mean he thinks the federal government should force him to take care of his siblings? After all, that's arguably a pretty basic moral obligation. It's pretty unfair that he was raised by white grandparents and given the opportunity to attend an elite private school in Hawaii.

If equality of income and opportunity are the moral imperatives of the 21st Century in America, why didn't he put his money where his mouth is and extend a helping hand to his own family?

In his defense, Obama is hardly alone in wanting the government to step in and shoulder his moral obligations:

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

But more importantly, precisely what is the moral obligation to provide universal health care?

Interestingly, Obama never got around to that part.

He has a habit of making grand, sweeping statements that conveniently manage to avoid the kind of pesky details that might subject his imperial pronouncements to critical review. It would be interesting to hear Obama spell out the precise nature of the moral obligation to provide health care: where does it begin? How far does it extend? If we all share a moral obligation to make sure every American has equal benefits, why should some people pay more for that benefit than others? On what moral basis do we (as Obama has assured us) exclude illegal immigrants from this benefit?

Like Dave, I'm willing to entertain the argument for a shared moral obligation to provide universal health care. I'm just not sure it exists. But if it does, surely the President of the United States ought to be able to make that case, shouldn't he?

Drudge ..Artificial life will created within months... News flash ! Its already here

ITS CALLED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Marine speaks out, with courage

You better listen up this guy is pissin mad and he ain't alone these folks ARE YOUR CONSTITUENTS AS LONG AS THEY ALLOW YOU TO KEEP YOUR OFFICE. And guess what your time is short.

Video from Insta Pundit, I think

"White Ignorance, Black Guilt" and the politics of racism

By Jack Kerwick
To most whites the phenomenon of affluent and privileged blacks like Henry Louis Gates, Jr. harboring racial grievances toward the United States is a baffling curiosity. The phenomenon is best explained by the twin concepts of White Ignorance, which demands a post-racial or trans-racial world, and Black Guilt, which, in glaring contrast, demands an enlivened racial awareness.

Nationally syndicated radio talk show host and FOX News personality Glenn Beck has recently positioned himself at the center of some controversy for having accused President Obama of being a "racist." The President is a "racist," Beck concluded, because of his readiness to side with his black friend, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., over and against the white police sergeant who arrested him for disorderly conduct. This, we now all know, Obama did in spite of having conceded his ignorance of the facts of the situation.

All with eyes to see and ears to hear must admit that the phenomenon that Beck aspires to explain is indeed both puzzling and unprecedented. "Racism," as readers of my work well know, is a term that I believe is beset with intractable and potentially fatal problems. It is a term that I would like to see go the way of the dinosaur. However, my reservations regarding the term "racism" aside, I believe that Beck's explanation of the President's conduct — he is a "racist" — is grossly simplistic and, hence, nearly worthless. Unfortunately, though, this is precisely the sort of explanation that can be expected to spring from the incorrigibly naive mindset concerning race that Beck and countless whites share.

From this perspective, racial awareness is something that the world would be vastly better off without, for racial awareness is the source of all racial animosities or, in a word, "racism." Because "racism" is a great evil, its cause, racial consciousness, is a great evil as well. In fact, this view of the matter has led its proponents to lose sight of the distinction between cause and effect altogether and identify the former — racial awareness — with the latter — "racism."

Thus, whether they are affirmative of the race of the person who utters them or critical of other races, all expressions of racial awareness are alike "racist."

This perspective, I contend, is a function of White Ignorance. Even if it were desirable that racial consciousness should vanish from the Earth — and I am not convinced that it is — it is impossible that it ever should. As long as our world remains comprised of a multiplicity of racial groups, racial consciousness promises to remain with us. Each person knows himself as much by what he is not as by what he is. What this means is that everyone's personal identity derives in part from his or her racial awareness.

White Ignorance is a strikingly peculiar thing, especially when it appears in whites who consider themselves, or who are so considered by others, as "conservative." I confess that for a good part of my life, ever since I was a young teenager, I have been at once fascinated and exasperated by it. My fascination stems from the consideration that of all of the peoples of the Earth, whites alone are concerned, and intensely so, with eradicating everything and anything that smacks of race consciousness. It exasperates me in that White Ignorance, though not usually recognized as such, is an ideology as rigid and utopian as any that has ever been conceived and, like any ideology, fiercely hostile to both facts and the flesh-and-blood persons who embody them.

White Ignorance may be the product of noble intentions, but that moral worth should reside in intention alone is a highly contentious proposition. In fact, just a moment's reflection, whether on our individual lives or any number of historical events, will readily convince most of us that beyond being disputatious, it is outright false: good intentions alone do not immunize agents from blame. And when an agent continues to repeat his mistakes in spite of having had ample opportunity to identify them, then he is that much more culpable for his actions, regardless of whether the intentions underlying them are noble or not.

The purveyors of White Ignorance conceive themselves as champions of a colorless Humanity. Yet in promoting a world without race, they can't but exercise an unmitigated insensitivity to the identity-defining concerns and experiences of all racially embodied humans, black, white, and other. Whites, working class and lower-to-middle class whites residing in racially mixed population centers in particular, have been made to feel like socially unacceptable retrogrades — "racists" — for expressing, whether explicitly in word or tacitly in conduct, less than flattering thoughts concerning the blacks with whom they have had to co-exist and interact daily. Yet these are the thoughts born of the nit and grit of everyday experience, thoughts that the racial utopianism of White Ignorance can never succeed (try and try as it will) in expunging.

To the convictions of whites for whom "multiculturalism" isn't a self-congratulatory engagement in indulging an abstract taste for cosmetic diversity but, rather, a concrete and often tension-filled reality, I will not speak further at the moment. Rather, it is to the indignities that White Ignorance inflicts on blacks specifically and black-white relations generally that I shift my focus.

That American blacks should possess a racial consciousness, and an exceptionally heightened racial consciousness at that, should come as no surprise to anyone remotely familiar with the historical experience of blacks. But even had slavery and Jim Crow discrimination never occurred, and even if they always fared just as well if not better than the majority population, the very fact that blacks are a racial minority would alone suffice to explain this awareness. The advocates of White Ignorance, in proclaiming from the rooftops the need to "get beyond race," convict themselves of neglecting entirely the situation in which blacks find themselves. Yet as is the case with the white person whose experiences are dismissed away with the simple but explosive charge of "racism," so a refusal, whether advertent or inadvertent, to recognize, to affirm, the experiences that make the black person the person that he or she is, is a refusal to recognize that person.

The individuality of both blacks and whites dissolves before the abstraction of a colorless Humanity that White Ignorance is determined to impose upon them.

White Ignorance is also destructive of inter-racial harmony in that it is oblivious to its invisible partner in crime, Black Guilt, another intriguing phenomenon that is rarely if ever remarked upon and which is parasitic upon it. How far and wide this sense of guilt is among blacks generally is not an easy matter to determine, but that it is keenly felt among black professionals of all kinds — artists, academics, politicians, activists, etc. — is a position that can easily be defended.

Black Guilt works something like this. As a result of having spent a lifetime imbibing a narrative of white oppression and black suffering, those blacks — and they are an ever increasing number — who have managed to become successful in an overwhelmingly white world — i.e. by servicing whites — while avoiding any real racial indignities have gnawing at them a lurking sensation of racial self-doubt. This concern that they are not "authentically black" in turn engenders guilt that is further fed by the twofold belief that they have betrayed their people and, as a result, have erased themselves from the heroic story of which their people are at the center.

Notice, unless these black achievers remain a part of the story, unless they regard themselves and are so regarded by their brethren as "authentically black," they will never see the fruits of their labor as being essentially any different from those of the "house slave," that most detested figure in black American culture. That is, they will perceive their possessions, prestige, and very persons as the product of their having ingratiated themselves to whites. But to perceive oneself as a "sell out" is, psychologically, an act of self-mutilation. Thus, Black Guilt leads these same blacks to exploit White Ignorance with its utopian fantasies of a raceless Humanity so as to preserve their own self-image.

White Ignorance demands a post-racial or trans-racial world, the end of all racial awareness. Black Guilt, in glaring contrast, demands an enlivened racial awareness. Black Guilt, however, can be eased only if it denies its true self and affirms the objective of White Ignorance, for as long as all that is Just and Good is thought to require "color blindness," those at all turns haunted by Black Guilt can perpetually assure themselves of a role in the epic drama of white oppression and black suffering. Color blindness, as we have already noted, is a hopelessly unattainable goal as it is, yet inasmuch as the bearers of Black Guilt can continually accentuate both their distinctiveness as a people as well as the sufferings that they allegedly continue to endure because of that distinction, it can be made to appear that much further beyond the horizon. But as long as color blindness and, hence, Justice, remain elusive, the bearers of Black Guilt restore their racial authenticity by locating themselves back into the story of their people and, thus, back into the role of a perpetual victim of injustice.

Now, everything and anything that the successful black possesses, in both his property and person, can be viewed as the fruits of Justice reaped after generations of persevering and ultimately overcoming seemingly insurmountable hardships. If the only two alternatives in accounting for black success are exploiting White Ignorance and thinking of oneself as a traitor to one's people (they aren't, but that is grist for another mill), it is obvious which of the two is more appealing.

To most whites the phenomenon of affluent and privileged blacks like Henry Louis Gates, Jr. harboring racial grievances toward the United States is a baffling curiosity. However, if what I have said about Black Guilt and its need to exploit White Ignorance is correct, there is nothing at all curious about it, for the Gateses of the world have to convince whites, blacks, and, perhaps most importantly, their very selves, that in spite of their social standing and wealth accumulation, they are as "authentically black" and, thus, "oppressed," as any other black. And as long as they continue to adopt, as the great black writer Thomas Sowell once said, a "blacker-than-thou" attitude, they deepen race consciousness and motivate all the much more the bearers of White Ignorance to move us one step closer to color blindness.

White Ignorance is an accomplice in this game for it refuses to acknowledge the psychological and moral dynamics that characterize the lives of so many blacks.

Too much has already been said of "White Guilt" and "Black Innocence." I urge people to begin thinking along the lines of White Ignorance and Black Guilt for which I here argue.

Article printed from Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy:intellectual conservative