Sunday, November 9, 2008, 03:00 PM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Newt Gingrich has let it be known that, if Republicans want him, the former U.S House speaker is willing to serve as chairman of the national party and lead it out of the wilderness it’s blundered into.
The question is whether the 168-member Republican National Committee is open to the match.
"If a majority of the RNC thought he was needed, he would accept that appointment,” said Randy Evans’ Gingrich’s close friend and legal counsel. “He fully appreciates the urgency of the moment.”
What might strike some as coyness is in fact caution. The odds are stacked against the former Georgia congressman, for several reasons.
For one thing, six days after the election of Barack Obama and substantial gains by Democrats in the House and Senate, Republicans have yet to decide whether a serious overhaul of the party is required.
If a revolution is in order, then there’s the small matter of which side is issued the pitchforks, and whose castle is to be stormed. Is this a fight to purge moderates, or a battle to expand the tent?
“The RNC has to do some soul-searching and decide what level of change is necessary,” Evans said. “If that answer is bold, energetic change led by someone who has done it before, then Newt would be a good choice.”
If the party is eying a shift toward the middle, Evans added, “that isn’t Newt.”
Though he retains his reputation as a polarizing figure, Gingrich served as a sideline strategist for the GOP during the presidential season. He pointed McCain to the issue of offshore drilling. But Gingrich also helped generate skepticism over the Wall Street bailout — which McCain and other Senate Republicans supported.
A Gingrich chairmanship might get loud support from the GOP’s talk-radio contingent. The former House speaker has close ties to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Neal Boortz.
But the RNC is a different, often parochial animal, made up of the top three members of the GOP establishment in every state and U.S. territory, plus the District of Columbia.
The RNC is scheduled to make its decision in January, shortly after Obama’s historic inauguration. Had John McCain made it to the White House, committee members would have deferred to his choice.
But without White House clout, past elections have shown that the RNC prefers — though is not required — to choose from within its ranks. And the 65-year-old Gingrich is not an RNC member.
Moreover, while President Bush still searches out new lows in popularity, the RNC is peopled with those who helped him win two elections — and many remain loyal. Yet Gingrich, seeing Bush squander the fruits of his ’94 revolution, has been ruthless in his criticism of the out-going president.
A sifting of the ashes will begin in Miami with a Wednesday meeting of the Republican Governors Association. Gingrich and other candidates will be there to buttonhole party leaders in small, private conversations.
Those interested in the job include Saul Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan GOP, and Katon Dawson, the South Carolina chairman. The current RNC chairman, Mike Duncan, also seeks another term.
One potential candidate who has taken himself out of the race is RNC member Alec Poitevint of Bainbridge, who chaired the successful McCain campaign in Georgia. Poitevint said he’ll concentrate on the re-election of Saxby Chambliss to the U.S. Senate.
Pointevint wouldn’t tip his hand on who he intends to vote for in January. But he said any candidate interested in the chairmanship job needs to prove his mettle — by showing up in Georgia to help Chambliss through the runoff.
Sue Everhart, the state GOP chairman and another RNC member, in previous conversations hasn’t expressed enthusiasm for a Gingrich chairmanship. But Georgia’s third RNC member, Linda Herren of Atlanta, said making Gingrich the official voice of the GOP would be fine by her.
“There were too many deals cut with the Democrats. We have no rudder,” Herren said. On the other hand, she said, if Gingrich really wants the GOP chairmanship, a front-porch strategy won’t cut it. She’s already been lobbied by a half-dozen candidates.
“Newt - if he wants to do it, he’ll have to start pedaling now,” Herren said.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Jindal rises in GOP's next generation By: Jan Moller
BATON ROUGE -- Gov. Bobby Jindal is among a short list of Republicans whose political stars stand to rise as the party looks for new ideas and leadership in the wake of Tuesday's landmark Democratic victories.
With the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for the first time since 1992-94, analysts expect attention to shift to the states, where many Republican governors remain popular with constituents despite the national repudiation of presidential standard-bearer John McCain and the GOP losses in Congress.
"This party is going to take on a new face and new leadership and younger leadership and he would seem to fit that bill pretty well," Jennifer Duffy, a senior editor with the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said of Jindal. "Right now it's a party without a leader, so there's a great void to be filled."
Jindal has consistently denied having any political ambitions beyond seeking re-election as governor in 2011. But his recent travels around the country to raise money for himself and other Republicans -- along with a flood of flattering national publicity -- have generated speculation that he could soon turn his attention to higher office.
"The most important role for me is to be the best governor I can be for Louisiana," said Jindal, who recently ruled out being a candidate for president in 2012. He said the out-of-state fundraisers, which included visits to Gainesville, Fla., Washington, D.C., and Greenwich, Conn., are merely a good way to make contacts that can benefit the state in the future.
Still, the speculation about Jindal's future is likely to grow later this month, when he is scheduled to be the featured speaker at a banquet hosted by the Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative Christian group in the state that holds the first presidential nominating caucus in 2012.
"I think there's just no question that Jindal is one of the names that's going to be buzzed about" for 2012, said Norm Ornstein, a senior scholar with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank.
--- On the short list ---
James Garand, a political science professor at Louisiana State University, said Jindal is on an early short list of potential candidates that includes Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. All three have the advantage of having few, if any, ties to the outgoing Bush administration and its historically low approval ratings.
"Now that the Bush administration will be coming to an end, I think the Republicans are going to be looking to reload their national leadership," Garand said, and that means looking outside Washington. "They have to go somewhere, and the states are a prime place for them to go."
Although he has been in the governor's office for less than a year after two terms in Congress, Jindal's reputation has grown steadily among the conservative faithful, with talk-show host Rush Limbaugh calling him "the next Ronald Reagan" and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich singling him out as a leader to watch.
Earlier this year, Jindal was mentioned as a possible vice presidential pick after he was one of a handful of Republican officials invited to spend Memorial Day weekend at McCain's Arizona ranch. The slot eventually went to Palin.
--- States as laboratories ---
In the meantime, Jindal said his job as governor provides the opportunity to test and showcase how conservative ideas can work. He likened the GOP's upcoming exile period to the early 1990s, when Congress was in Democratic hands and President Clinton was in the White House but Republican governors were pursuing welfare reform and other policies that eventually found their way into the national political dialogue.
"I've often thought that the founding fathers got it right," Jindal said. "They wanted the states to be laboratories of experimentation, and they wanted the federal government to learn from what works in each of these states."
Jindal blamed this year's GOP's losses on the party straying from the themes of fiscal conservatism, anti-corruption and policy innovation that worked in the previous decade. "You can't beat something with nothing," Jindal said. "For too long it seemed the Republican message was, 'vote for Republicans because the other side is worse.' And that's simply not a good enough reason to win elections."
Ornstein, of the American Enterprise Institute, said states likely will continue to be crucibles for experimentation during Barack Obama's administration, as the new president will inherit record budget deficits that will make it tough for him to fulfill his ambitious domestic agenda. And that, in turn, could work to Jindal's advantage. "We're not going to have the resources or the votes (in Washington) to do sweeping health care changes," Ornstein said.
--- Allying both wings ---
Should Jindal enter the national fray, Republicans will be hoping he can help reconcile a party that occasionally has been riven by dissent between social conservatives and those who consider economic issues such as spending and taxes to be paramount.
"He is one of the few Republican politicians that has been able to fuse the two parts of the Republican Party, the social conservatives and the business conservatives," said Wayne Parent, an LSU political science professor.
By contrast, Parent said, other Republicans who get mentioned as future party leaders tend to be more popular with one camp or another. He cited former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, whose popularity with Christian conservatives is not matched by similar enthusiasm in the business community, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is popular with economic conservatives but had a tough time selling himself to social conservatives during the Republican primaries this year.
Potential obstacles for Jindal, 37, could be his age and relative inexperience, considering his party has a history of nominating the person considered next in line for the presidency. But Parent said the example set by Obama, who rose from representing Illinois in the U.S. Senate to the pinnacle of American politics in four years, could help overturn that tradition in the GOP.
"I do think that people in the party, the donors and the activists, will be more comfortable with looking closely at someone as young as Bobby Jindal now that President-elect Obama has had such a meteoric rise in a short time," Parent said.
With the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for the first time since 1992-94, analysts expect attention to shift to the states, where many Republican governors remain popular with constituents despite the national repudiation of presidential standard-bearer John McCain and the GOP losses in Congress.
"This party is going to take on a new face and new leadership and younger leadership and he would seem to fit that bill pretty well," Jennifer Duffy, a senior editor with the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said of Jindal. "Right now it's a party without a leader, so there's a great void to be filled."
Jindal has consistently denied having any political ambitions beyond seeking re-election as governor in 2011. But his recent travels around the country to raise money for himself and other Republicans -- along with a flood of flattering national publicity -- have generated speculation that he could soon turn his attention to higher office.
"The most important role for me is to be the best governor I can be for Louisiana," said Jindal, who recently ruled out being a candidate for president in 2012. He said the out-of-state fundraisers, which included visits to Gainesville, Fla., Washington, D.C., and Greenwich, Conn., are merely a good way to make contacts that can benefit the state in the future.
Still, the speculation about Jindal's future is likely to grow later this month, when he is scheduled to be the featured speaker at a banquet hosted by the Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative Christian group in the state that holds the first presidential nominating caucus in 2012.
"I think there's just no question that Jindal is one of the names that's going to be buzzed about" for 2012, said Norm Ornstein, a senior scholar with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank.
--- On the short list ---
James Garand, a political science professor at Louisiana State University, said Jindal is on an early short list of potential candidates that includes Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. All three have the advantage of having few, if any, ties to the outgoing Bush administration and its historically low approval ratings.
"Now that the Bush administration will be coming to an end, I think the Republicans are going to be looking to reload their national leadership," Garand said, and that means looking outside Washington. "They have to go somewhere, and the states are a prime place for them to go."
Although he has been in the governor's office for less than a year after two terms in Congress, Jindal's reputation has grown steadily among the conservative faithful, with talk-show host Rush Limbaugh calling him "the next Ronald Reagan" and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich singling him out as a leader to watch.
Earlier this year, Jindal was mentioned as a possible vice presidential pick after he was one of a handful of Republican officials invited to spend Memorial Day weekend at McCain's Arizona ranch. The slot eventually went to Palin.
--- States as laboratories ---
In the meantime, Jindal said his job as governor provides the opportunity to test and showcase how conservative ideas can work. He likened the GOP's upcoming exile period to the early 1990s, when Congress was in Democratic hands and President Clinton was in the White House but Republican governors were pursuing welfare reform and other policies that eventually found their way into the national political dialogue.
"I've often thought that the founding fathers got it right," Jindal said. "They wanted the states to be laboratories of experimentation, and they wanted the federal government to learn from what works in each of these states."
Jindal blamed this year's GOP's losses on the party straying from the themes of fiscal conservatism, anti-corruption and policy innovation that worked in the previous decade. "You can't beat something with nothing," Jindal said. "For too long it seemed the Republican message was, 'vote for Republicans because the other side is worse.' And that's simply not a good enough reason to win elections."
Ornstein, of the American Enterprise Institute, said states likely will continue to be crucibles for experimentation during Barack Obama's administration, as the new president will inherit record budget deficits that will make it tough for him to fulfill his ambitious domestic agenda. And that, in turn, could work to Jindal's advantage. "We're not going to have the resources or the votes (in Washington) to do sweeping health care changes," Ornstein said.
--- Allying both wings ---
Should Jindal enter the national fray, Republicans will be hoping he can help reconcile a party that occasionally has been riven by dissent between social conservatives and those who consider economic issues such as spending and taxes to be paramount.
"He is one of the few Republican politicians that has been able to fuse the two parts of the Republican Party, the social conservatives and the business conservatives," said Wayne Parent, an LSU political science professor.
By contrast, Parent said, other Republicans who get mentioned as future party leaders tend to be more popular with one camp or another. He cited former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, whose popularity with Christian conservatives is not matched by similar enthusiasm in the business community, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is popular with economic conservatives but had a tough time selling himself to social conservatives during the Republican primaries this year.
Potential obstacles for Jindal, 37, could be his age and relative inexperience, considering his party has a history of nominating the person considered next in line for the presidency. But Parent said the example set by Obama, who rose from representing Illinois in the U.S. Senate to the pinnacle of American politics in four years, could help overturn that tradition in the GOP.
"I do think that people in the party, the donors and the activists, will be more comfortable with looking closely at someone as young as Bobby Jindal now that President-elect Obama has had such a meteoric rise in a short time," Parent said.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Barack Obama truth series
Starting today, I will be releasing 1 of 5 videos that show exactly who Barack Obama really is. Enjoy!
p.s. The video goes kinda fast, so it might be wise to pause when each new paragraph comes up so you will be able to read it completely.
p.s. The video goes kinda fast, so it might be wise to pause when each new paragraph comes up so you will be able to read it completely.
Friday, July 18, 2008
the geographic affect of John McCains VP choices
By: Tanner Stoker
As the summer rolls on, one thing remains on everybody in the Republican party's mind. Who will John McCain pick for his VP? Will he Choose a conservative and rally the base of the party or will he move to the center and try to gain some independents? What ever the case, it's always interesting to see how much affect each possible VP will have geographically. So, we'll go through each of the top contenders one by one then make a final conclusion. Something to consider is what states are swing states, they are, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Minn, Michagan, Ohio Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, New Hamphsire, North Dakota, South Dakota
McCain-Lieberman
swing states: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Minn, Michigan, Ohio, Penn., Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, New Hamphsire, South Dakota, North Dakota
Lieberman should not even be considered, he will not lock up any swing states.
McCain-Crist
swing states: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Minn, Ohio, Penn., Virginia, North Carolina, New Hamphsire, South Dakota, North Dakota
States Gained: Florida
Electoral college:
D:200
R:195
Toss up: 143
My theory is, if McCain needs Crist to win Florida, he has no chance.
McCain-Huckabee
Swing states: New Mexico, Iowa,Minn, Ohio, Penn. North Carolina, New Hamphsire, South Dakota, North Dakota
States gained; Virginia, Missouri
States lost: Nevada, Colorado
Electoral College:
D: 214
R: 192
toss up: 132
McCain-Ridge
Who???
McCain-Romney
Swing States: New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Minn, Ohio, Penn, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hamphsire
States Gained: Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Michigan
Electoral college:
D:200
R:205
toss up: 133
So, of the candidates reviewed so far, Romney appears to be the best. i will continue reviewing each possible VP choice throughout the week.
As the summer rolls on, one thing remains on everybody in the Republican party's mind. Who will John McCain pick for his VP? Will he Choose a conservative and rally the base of the party or will he move to the center and try to gain some independents? What ever the case, it's always interesting to see how much affect each possible VP will have geographically. So, we'll go through each of the top contenders one by one then make a final conclusion. Something to consider is what states are swing states, they are, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Minn, Michagan, Ohio Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, New Hamphsire, North Dakota, South Dakota
McCain-Lieberman
swing states: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Minn, Michigan, Ohio, Penn., Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, New Hamphsire, South Dakota, North Dakota
Lieberman should not even be considered, he will not lock up any swing states.
McCain-Crist
swing states: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Minn, Ohio, Penn., Virginia, North Carolina, New Hamphsire, South Dakota, North Dakota
States Gained: Florida
Electoral college:
D:200
R:195
Toss up: 143
My theory is, if McCain needs Crist to win Florida, he has no chance.
McCain-Huckabee
Swing states: New Mexico, Iowa,Minn, Ohio, Penn. North Carolina, New Hamphsire, South Dakota, North Dakota
States gained; Virginia, Missouri
States lost: Nevada, Colorado
Electoral College:
D: 214
R: 192
toss up: 132
McCain-Ridge
Who???
McCain-Romney
Swing States: New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Minn, Ohio, Penn, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hamphsire
States Gained: Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Michigan
Electoral college:
D:200
R:205
toss up: 133
So, of the candidates reviewed so far, Romney appears to be the best. i will continue reviewing each possible VP choice throughout the week.
In Case You Missed It: Obama's Goodie Bag From:From Chicago Sun-Times
From Chicago Sun-Times
By Chris FuscoJuly 17, 2008
PDF Format
Back when Barack Obama was a state senator, the Illinois Legislature offered this perk: You get elected, you get to give out some money.
Like his counterparts, Obama routed this state grant money to parks, libraries and schools during his eight years in the Illinois Senate.
He gave money to domestic-violence, job-creation and social-service programs.
He also pumped cash into St. Sabina Catholic parish, the South Side church whose pastor is the Rev. Michael Pfleger, the outspoken supporter whose comments in a May sermon about Obama's former Democratic presidential rival, Hillary Clinton, landed the priest in trouble with Cardinal Francis George. St. Sabina got $100,000 to help rebuild its community center.
And a venture capital fund linked to the Rev. Jesse Jackson -- who apologized last week after making a crude remark about the Democratic presidential hopeful -- got $200,000, thanks to Obama.
In all, Obama doled out more than $3.6 million in state grants in just the last half of his state legislative career, records show.
A proposed botanic garden in Englewood got $100,000 from Obama, but the project never was completed because an additional $1 million in funding that Obama had said he'd "work tirelessly" to help obtain never materialized, the Chicago Sun-Times reported last week. That was among the biggest chunks of cash Obama gave out during the 2000-2003 budget years. ...
By Chris FuscoJuly 17, 2008
PDF Format
Back when Barack Obama was a state senator, the Illinois Legislature offered this perk: You get elected, you get to give out some money.
Like his counterparts, Obama routed this state grant money to parks, libraries and schools during his eight years in the Illinois Senate.
He gave money to domestic-violence, job-creation and social-service programs.
He also pumped cash into St. Sabina Catholic parish, the South Side church whose pastor is the Rev. Michael Pfleger, the outspoken supporter whose comments in a May sermon about Obama's former Democratic presidential rival, Hillary Clinton, landed the priest in trouble with Cardinal Francis George. St. Sabina got $100,000 to help rebuild its community center.
And a venture capital fund linked to the Rev. Jesse Jackson -- who apologized last week after making a crude remark about the Democratic presidential hopeful -- got $200,000, thanks to Obama.
In all, Obama doled out more than $3.6 million in state grants in just the last half of his state legislative career, records show.
A proposed botanic garden in Englewood got $100,000 from Obama, but the project never was completed because an additional $1 million in funding that Obama had said he'd "work tirelessly" to help obtain never materialized, the Chicago Sun-Times reported last week. That was among the biggest chunks of cash Obama gave out during the 2000-2003 budget years. ...
In Case You Missed It: Welcome, Mr Would-Be President BY: The Economist
From The Economist
EditorialJuly 17, 2008
PDF Format
[M]r Obama has not repealed the basic laws of politics. Most obviously, he may not win. Rasmussen, a pollster, rattled the Obama machine this week by showing the two candidates tied, and most other analysts agree that the bounce he enjoyed after seeing off Hillary Clinton has been small and short-lived. ...
[T]here are some disquieting signs of a tendency on Mr Obama's part to tailor his message to whichever audience he is talking to. All politicians do this of course. But Mr Obama's two-steps have become Astaire-like. For instance, in his primary battle with Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama laid out a timetable for a virtually complete withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months of taking office, specifying a rate of one to two brigades a month. Since starting to campaign in the general election, he has fudged this clear line: he committed to withdrawal again this week (see article), but he has also been careful to give himself wriggle-room on its pace. Similarly, he once talked of negotiating with the Iranian leadership without preconditions: now he talks of the need for "preparations". ...
[M]r Obama recently told the main pro-Israel group in Washington that Jerusalem must never be divided, a position that goes beyond those of the Clinton and Bush administrations (not to mention that of many Israelis). Then he backtracked.
On trade, Mr Obama used to demand the renegotiation of NAFTA; now he stresses his dedication to the cause of free trade. ...
On all these fronts, in fact, there are doubts: doubts as to just what Mr Obama's positions as president would actually be, and doubts over what he could get through Congress. Those doubts will not stop the crowds turning out for him, even if he fails to commandeer the Brandenburg Gate as his backdrop. But the fans should bear in mind that what they see is not precisely what they will get.
EditorialJuly 17, 2008
PDF Format
[M]r Obama has not repealed the basic laws of politics. Most obviously, he may not win. Rasmussen, a pollster, rattled the Obama machine this week by showing the two candidates tied, and most other analysts agree that the bounce he enjoyed after seeing off Hillary Clinton has been small and short-lived. ...
[T]here are some disquieting signs of a tendency on Mr Obama's part to tailor his message to whichever audience he is talking to. All politicians do this of course. But Mr Obama's two-steps have become Astaire-like. For instance, in his primary battle with Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama laid out a timetable for a virtually complete withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months of taking office, specifying a rate of one to two brigades a month. Since starting to campaign in the general election, he has fudged this clear line: he committed to withdrawal again this week (see article), but he has also been careful to give himself wriggle-room on its pace. Similarly, he once talked of negotiating with the Iranian leadership without preconditions: now he talks of the need for "preparations". ...
[M]r Obama recently told the main pro-Israel group in Washington that Jerusalem must never be divided, a position that goes beyond those of the Clinton and Bush administrations (not to mention that of many Israelis). Then he backtracked.
On trade, Mr Obama used to demand the renegotiation of NAFTA; now he stresses his dedication to the cause of free trade. ...
On all these fronts, in fact, there are doubts: doubts as to just what Mr Obama's positions as president would actually be, and doubts over what he could get through Congress. Those doubts will not stop the crowds turning out for him, even if he fails to commandeer the Brandenburg Gate as his backdrop. But the fans should bear in mind that what they see is not precisely what they will get.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Jay leno speaks out By: unknown
hope you will all read to the end. Jay Leno puts it into perspective and makes us think about the pathetic negativity. That's right, Jay Leno!!
Jay Leno wrote this; it's the Jay Leno we don't often see....
"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true, given the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence, 2/3's of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What are we so unhappy about?''Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time, and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough.Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provides services to help all, and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens . They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have , and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here. I know, I know. What about the President who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The Commander-In Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about it...are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the "Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig. So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds, it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about "how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way"...Insane!Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative."With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?" Jay Leno 2007 Please keep this in circulation. There are so many people that need to read this and grasp the truth of it all.
Jay Leno wrote this; it's the Jay Leno we don't often see....
"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true, given the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence, 2/3's of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What are we so unhappy about?''Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time, and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough.Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provides services to help all, and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens . They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have , and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here. I know, I know. What about the President who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The Commander-In Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about it...are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the "Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig. So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds, it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about "how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way"...Insane!Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative."With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?" Jay Leno 2007 Please keep this in circulation. There are so many people that need to read this and grasp the truth of it all.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Ralph Nader Enters Presidential Race By: HOPE YEN,AP
WASHINGTON (Feb. 24) - Ralph Nader on Sunday announced a fresh bid for the White House, criticizing the top contenders as too close to big business and dismissing the possibility that his third-party candidacy could tip the election to Republicans. The longtime consumer advocate is still loathed by many Democrats who accuse him of costing Al Gore the 2000 election.Nader said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. He also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt."You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized, disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine/Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bungling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts." Nader, who turns 74 later this week, announced his candidacy on NBC's "Meet the Press."In a later interview with The Associated Press, he rejected the notion of himself as a spoiler candidate, saying the electorate will not vote for a "pro-war John McCain." He also predicted his campaign would do better than in 2004, when he won just 0.3 percent of the vote as an independent."This time we're ready for them," said Nader of the Democratic Party lawsuits that kept him off the ballot in some states.Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton quickly sought to portray Nader's announcement as having little impact."Obviously, it's not helpful to whomever our Democratic nominee is. But it's a free country," said Clinton, who called Nader's announcement a "passing fancy."Obama dismissed Nader as a perennial presidential campaigner. "He thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush and eight years later I think people realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about," Obama added.Republican Mike Huckabee welcomed Nader into the race."I think it always would probably pull votes away from the Democrats, not the Republicans," the former Arkansas governor said on CNN.Nader said Obama's and Clinton's lukewarm response was not surprising given that both political parties typically treat third-party candidates as "second-class citizens." Nader said he will decide in the coming days whether to run as an independent, Green Party candidate or in some other third party.Pointing a finger at Republicans, he described McCain as a candidate for "perpetual war" and said he welcomed the support of Republican conservatives "who don't like the war in Iraq, who don't like taxpayer dollars wasted, and who don't like the Patriot Act and who treasure their rights of privacy.""If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up," Nader added.
Fit to Print? New York Times in Crosshairs for Report on McCain and Female Lobbyist by: Foxnews.com
The New York Times is in the crosshairs after publishing a lengthy and critical profile of John McCain Thursday that suggests — but does not outright say — that McCain had a romantic relationship with a female lobbyist and did favors for her clients from his position as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.
The New Republic published a long article Thursday afternoon on its Web site detailing the story behind the story and claiming, “What’s most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all.”
The New Republic lambasted The New York Times for giving the green light, claiming the piece was “filled with awkward journalistic moves” and that it stepped around the suggested trysts with lobbyist Vicki Iseman by focusing on the debate in the McCain campaign itself about the relationship.
The presumptive GOP presidential nominee vehemently refuted the article with his wife, Cindy, by his side.
“I’m very disappointed in The New York Times piece. It’s not true,” McCain said at a press conference he called in Toledo, Ohio.
The Arizona senator, along with Hillary Clinton, was endorsed by the newspaper before their parties’ respective presidential primaries in New York on Feb. 5.
With only anecdotal descriptions and no evidence of an improper relationship, focus has shifted from suggestions of McCain’s supposed improprieties to questions over whether the Times should have ran the story.
“I don’t think that there is enough acknowledged sourcing for this story,” U.S. News & World Report Publisher Mort Zuckerman told FOX News, saying it is not news that follows the newspaper’s motto of being fit to print. “I really don’t think it rises to that level.”
A blog on The National Review Online said simply, “The Times doesn’t have the goods — at least from what’s in the story — and shouldn’t have run it.”
“The New York Times is giving the National Enquirer a bad name,” said Brent Bozell of the conservative watchdog Media Research Center. “The New York Times story today is all that about a story that is 10 years old. I have never seen anything like it in my life.”
The Times article described how McCain’s campaign aides kept him and Iseman apart during the 2000 election for fear they were giving the impression they were having an affair. It noted how McCain wrote to government regulators on behalf of a client of the lobbyist while he was Commerce Committee chairman.
The article had been rumored for months after a report on it surfaced on the Drudge Report in December.
The New Republic story reported that the idea for the McCain piece was hatched in November, when four reporters were thrown on the assignment. Over the ensuing months, the magazine reported that the story “pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn’t.”
The Drudge piece sent the McCain article “into hiding,” but in the end, on Feb. 19, top Times editors and the paper’s attorneys gave the final draft a read-through and decided to publish, The New Republic reported.
“The Times ended up publishing a piece in which the institutional tensions about just what the story should be are palpable,” reads The New Republic article.
Keller released a statement Thursday saying, “On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself.
“On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready. ‘Ready’ means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it,” he said.
McCain’s aides have defended the Arizona senator in droves from the story. They argue that the newspaper published a deliberate smear under pressure from The New Republic, which two weeks ago called the campaign for comment on the Times story published Thursday.
“The New York Times — the newspaper that gave MoveOn.org a sweetheart deal to run advertisements attacking General Petraeus — has shown once again that it cannot exercise good journalistic judgment when it comes to dealing with a conservative Republican,” campaign manager Rick Davis said in an e-mail to supporters, urging them to contribute to the campaign “to counteract the liberal establishment and fight back against the New York Times. “
“All I can conclude is that this is the largest liberal newspaper in America trying to unfairly attack the integrity of the new conservative Republican nominee for president,” said McCain adviser Charlie Black. “There is no other good explanation for it.”
McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt called the report “a smear … it reads like a tabloid gossip sheet.”
“I think this is going to play badly for The New York Times and John McCain is going to be fine,” Schmidt said.
The Republican National Committee even used the story as a fundraising pitch of its own Thursday in an e-mail to donors.
McCain himself lamented that “this whole story is based on anonymous sources,” saying that could encompass any of the more than 100 aides he’s had contact with through the Commerce Committee.
The newspaper quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and Iseman to stay away from each other prior to his failed presidential campaign in 2000.
A senior McCain adviser said after the magazine article was released that McCain isn’t planning on talking about the Times story any time soon.
“We answered every question they had this morning. That’s enough,” the adviser said.
The New Republic published a long article Thursday afternoon on its Web site detailing the story behind the story and claiming, “What’s most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all.”
The New Republic lambasted The New York Times for giving the green light, claiming the piece was “filled with awkward journalistic moves” and that it stepped around the suggested trysts with lobbyist Vicki Iseman by focusing on the debate in the McCain campaign itself about the relationship.
The presumptive GOP presidential nominee vehemently refuted the article with his wife, Cindy, by his side.
“I’m very disappointed in The New York Times piece. It’s not true,” McCain said at a press conference he called in Toledo, Ohio.
The Arizona senator, along with Hillary Clinton, was endorsed by the newspaper before their parties’ respective presidential primaries in New York on Feb. 5.
With only anecdotal descriptions and no evidence of an improper relationship, focus has shifted from suggestions of McCain’s supposed improprieties to questions over whether the Times should have ran the story.
“I don’t think that there is enough acknowledged sourcing for this story,” U.S. News & World Report Publisher Mort Zuckerman told FOX News, saying it is not news that follows the newspaper’s motto of being fit to print. “I really don’t think it rises to that level.”
A blog on The National Review Online said simply, “The Times doesn’t have the goods — at least from what’s in the story — and shouldn’t have run it.”
“The New York Times is giving the National Enquirer a bad name,” said Brent Bozell of the conservative watchdog Media Research Center. “The New York Times story today is all that about a story that is 10 years old. I have never seen anything like it in my life.”
The Times article described how McCain’s campaign aides kept him and Iseman apart during the 2000 election for fear they were giving the impression they were having an affair. It noted how McCain wrote to government regulators on behalf of a client of the lobbyist while he was Commerce Committee chairman.
The article had been rumored for months after a report on it surfaced on the Drudge Report in December.
The New Republic story reported that the idea for the McCain piece was hatched in November, when four reporters were thrown on the assignment. Over the ensuing months, the magazine reported that the story “pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn’t.”
The Drudge piece sent the McCain article “into hiding,” but in the end, on Feb. 19, top Times editors and the paper’s attorneys gave the final draft a read-through and decided to publish, The New Republic reported.
“The Times ended up publishing a piece in which the institutional tensions about just what the story should be are palpable,” reads The New Republic article.
Keller released a statement Thursday saying, “On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself.
“On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready. ‘Ready’ means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it,” he said.
McCain’s aides have defended the Arizona senator in droves from the story. They argue that the newspaper published a deliberate smear under pressure from The New Republic, which two weeks ago called the campaign for comment on the Times story published Thursday.
“The New York Times — the newspaper that gave MoveOn.org a sweetheart deal to run advertisements attacking General Petraeus — has shown once again that it cannot exercise good journalistic judgment when it comes to dealing with a conservative Republican,” campaign manager Rick Davis said in an e-mail to supporters, urging them to contribute to the campaign “to counteract the liberal establishment and fight back against the New York Times. “
“All I can conclude is that this is the largest liberal newspaper in America trying to unfairly attack the integrity of the new conservative Republican nominee for president,” said McCain adviser Charlie Black. “There is no other good explanation for it.”
McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt called the report “a smear … it reads like a tabloid gossip sheet.”
“I think this is going to play badly for The New York Times and John McCain is going to be fine,” Schmidt said.
The Republican National Committee even used the story as a fundraising pitch of its own Thursday in an e-mail to donors.
McCain himself lamented that “this whole story is based on anonymous sources,” saying that could encompass any of the more than 100 aides he’s had contact with through the Commerce Committee.
The newspaper quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and Iseman to stay away from each other prior to his failed presidential campaign in 2000.
A senior McCain adviser said after the magazine article was released that McCain isn’t planning on talking about the Times story any time soon.
“We answered every question they had this morning. That’s enough,” the adviser said.
Hillary, Obama Offer Nothing New; Conservatism Brings Real Change By: Rush Limbaugh
RUSH: You know, there's been a lot of talk about plagiarism in this campaign. The charges have been going back and forth from Mrs. Clinton to Obama, Deval Patrick, and they continue. Mrs. Clinton had a couple things to say last night that also boggle the mind. By the way, welcome back to Open Line Friday, I am El Rushbo, he of the dulcet tones and the vocal vibrations, the rhetoric and resonance reflected coast to coast here via the Golden EIB Microphone. By the way, Hillary is plagiarizing her husband, they're both plagiarizing John Edwards. The point is none of this is new. It's not plagiarism, folks, that matters here. It is two things. There is nothing new in liberalism. It's all old. It's just repackaged and recycled with different people on the box, but it's the same old has-been stuff. The second thing is authenticity. We're being told that Obama is this revolutionary new kind of political figure, that there's never been a figure in politics like him. I mean all these Democrats out there say these political rallies, why, this is changing the world kind of stuff, Elijah Cummings is saying. This is all old hat, none of it's authentic. It's not authentic to Mrs. Clinton; it's not authentic to Barack Obama, not even authentic to the Breck Girl, John Edwards. Let's listen to two sound bites here as Mrs. Clinton finds her voice again. Campbell Brown, the moderator at the debate last night says, "Senator Clinton, describe what was the moment that tested you the most, that moment of crisis."HILLARY: Everybody here knows I've lived through some crises and some challenging moments in my life, and I am grateful for the support and the prayers of countless Americans. But people often ask me, how do you do it, you know, how do you keep going? And I just have to shake my head in wonderment, because, with all of the challenges that I've had, they are nothing compared to what I see happening in the lives of Americans every single day. You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country.RUSH: Okay. How many of your hearts melted, those of you watching this last night? Oh, what a brave woman, why, what a courageous babe, sitting there and understanding all these hits that she's taking are nothing compared to life in this country, this foul, besmirched, recession-driven country, that people in this country are really taking the hits because they're poor, and they have no future and we're destroying the planet with global warming, all of these things? Well, no less than the New Republic has a little blog entry today, "'Clinton's Best Moments Not Really Hers?' -- The Obama campaign wasted no time in sending out an email that claims Clinton's best moment of the night was plagiarized from John Edwards." In fact, we gotta play the second sound bite to wrap all this up together. Keep this in mind. Her point here in the first bite was, all these hits I'm taking, they're nothing, Campbell, they're nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country. Here's bite two.HILLARY: No matter what happens in this contest, and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. (applause) Whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about.RUSH: What is it, throwing in the towel? Does it sound like she's throwing in the towel there and giving up? But not just that, "We'll be fine, whatever happens, don't worry about me. Don't cry for me, America. I am Evita Clinton. Don't cry for me. I'll be fine. I'm rich. My husband's rich. And he can start dating again. It will be fine. We'll be fine. Obama will be fine. You will continue to get the excrement sandwich. But we will be fine. We need to make sure the American people have something to eat besides the excrement sandwich, but we will be fine." Okay. So Clinton's hits, nothing compared to what the American people take and don't worry about us, we'll be fine. Hillary Clinton, you just heard say, you know, whatever happens, you're going to be fine, you know we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope we'll be able to say the same for the American people, blah, blah. John Edwards: "What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine." And, "I want to say this to everyone: with Elizabeth, with my family, with my friends, with all of you and all of your support, this son of a millworker's gonna be just fine. Our job now is to make certain that America will be fine." That was the Breck Girl earlier this year in a debate. Mrs. Clinton stealing from the Breck Girl. No authenticity whatsoever. Then Josh Marshall, who is a liberal blogger, writes this. "I mentioned at the end of my debate blog that the pivot of Hillary's powerful concluding remarks came from Clinton's '92 campaign. Clinton had various permutations of it back then. 'Clinton in '92, the hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time.' Hillary Clinton last night: 'You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across this country.'" Now, Josh Marshall says, "Well, let's be a hundred percent clear, nothing in the least wrong with this, it's a great line, but I think it shows the silliness of the plagiarism charges based on a few borrowed lines." Yeah, it does, Josh, it shows the total stupidity of the charge of plagiarism. What it illustrates here is that there are no new or fresh ideas anywhere, including with Obama.
Uh, I'm sorry. Mr. Snerdley, I need to bring you back here as the Official Obama Criticizer. Bo Snerdley back. Please remind the people -- did you hear what I just said? There are no fresh ideas with you-know-who. You ready? Okay, three, two, one.SNERDLEY: Mr. Obama, you need to prove to us that you have fresh ideas. I demand that you have fresh ideas. We want to hope in your fresh ideas, and so far, you've demonstrated none.RUSH: Thank you. The Official Obama Criticizer, Bo Snerdley. The stuff coming out of all these candidates' mouths is the same old same old; it's the same old recycled stuff. There's nothing new, and there's nothing authentic. The lines may be good, but there's nothing authentic. And, of course, one of these candidates, this new rock star type figure, at least with conservatism, there are new approaches as compared to all we have, medical savings plans, changes in Social Security, new ways to deal with the illegals, how to handle the economy. Conservatism is the ideology of change. Conservatism is the agent of change, not those other guys.BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: A couple more thoughts on this. You know, PMSNBC on their website has this thing called the First Read. I guess everybody is trying to do their version of ABC's The Note, a website that was basically a day planner for what was going on in politics and what was in the newspapers and so forth, these wonks get up at three o'clock in the morning, four o'clock, start writing this stuff up. Now MSNBC has one of their own, The Politico has one, Mike Allen does. I don't know who the author of this little segment is on this one because I just had this one little part of it. "Hillary's Closing Line," it is called, and remember now, you just heard the closing line. In fact, let's go back. You may just be joining us. Play number 14 again, Mike.HILLARY: No matter what happens in this contest, and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. (applause) Whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about.RUSH: Right, right, right, right, right. Okay. So there it is. That's what we're talking about here. This is from MSNBC, whatever their early morning mishmash. "Clinton ended the debate on a VERY conciliatory note and for the first time sounded like a candidate who realized she might not win. It must be an odd position for her, but the confidence she exuded for just about the entire debate disappeared there at the end. Was she showing some vulnerability -- a la New Hampshire -- that might actually help her with some undecided voters? The Clinton campaign loved her closing remarks and sent a YouTube of it. But combine this last statement with her lack of negative attacks on Obama throughout the debate. As The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder notes." Now listen to this, if you want to talk about somebody that did not understand and doesn't get what's happening, Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic Blog, "This was the night where we all learned that Hillary Clinton understands the moment in history we are in, and that she is smart enough and gracious enough to realize that her party is more important than personal vanity, that there are things she just cannot say about Obama because it would hurt him in the fall, and that more likely than not, she will not win the nomination." Mr. Ambinder, I respect all of you Drive-Bys, but I have to tell you, your narrowness of focus continues to boggle my mind. There was nothing original in this. This is a sympathy play. She might have been throwing in the towel. When you see her say this in addition to hear it, I have been pointing out for weeks, this woman, Hillary Clinton, has been driven by one thing for 35 years: the presidency. It is the thing that has animated her. It is her family, it is her daughter, it is her life, it is her career, it is her vacation time, it's her car, all these things that you consider important in your life, your family, all of those things are this run for the White House. To sit here and think that she's going to be okay if she gets her backside handed to her by an inexperienced rookie? Black guy to boot? This is hilarious. To think that she's discovered she cares more about the party -- Mr. Ambinder, they haven't given up anything yet. She's still ahead in Ohio, tied in Texas, and don't forget, they could still blow up this convention. It depends. If this is the conciliatory, the other day I asked, they could be bought. Give them something big, like build 'em a toll bridge across the Potomac with the revenue going to Clinton's Library and Massage Parlor, or, how about this, I mean just speculating, but if we're going to say that she's conciliatory, getting out of this, she knows that it's up, and it's over, given there's going to be a Democrat-controlled Senate, given there's probably going to be a Democrat-controlled House, given there's probably going to be a Democrat in the White House, would a Supreme Court nomination not sail rightly through like a hot knife through butter? What better place -- if you can't get the presidency, how about a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court? You can mess America up from there almost as easily as you can from the White House. In some cases, a little easier, because at the Supreme Court you can write your own law if you can find four other idiot judges to go along with you, and she'll have them. If you have to go to Mozambique to find your precedent, go there. Look, I'm just speculating. Because everybody is on this bandwagon now that she's conciliatory and she might have realized that her time is up. She cares more about her party than herself, that's the thing, but none of this, the bottom line, folks, none of this is authentic, none of it's new, none of it's revolutionary. It's all been said before by Clinton, by the Breck Girl, and others. It's been written for these people to say by the powers that be behind the scenes. Conservatism is the new ideology of change. Conservatism looks at problems and tries to solve them: Social Security reform, entitlement reform. People want real change, it is our side that discusses it and would bring it. These people are just a bunch of hacks. They're regurgitating things from the Democrat Party playbook for 30, 40 years ago, just with a different speaker. All right. To the phones. Open Line Friday, Jim in Granger, Indiana, you're up first today. Nice to have you, sir.CALLER: Mega dittos, Rush. I've been listening to you since Bush 41.RUSH: Yeah.CALLER: And my comment is, I think Barack is just Bill Clinton-lite. I was listening to his speech the other day, thinking, "Where have I heard this rhetoric with saying absolutely nothing before," and it was Bill Clinton first time he ran.RUSH: Yeah. Exactly right. I'm sorry you had to call and basically say what I've been saying for the first 40 minutes. But, if you picked that up on your own and didn't need me, then my feelings are hurt, but I'll get over it -- (laughing) -- just kidding. I'm just throwing that out there for the Drive-Bys.CALLER: Yes, I'm part of the mind-numbed robots.RUSH: That's exactly right, waiting for your marching orders.CALLER: Yeah, there you go, there you go.RUSH: But, look, keep in mind as you realize this, what is the great thing that we're hearing that Obama brings to this? That is his authenticity, and it's something we've never foreseen in politics. Just the exact opposite. There's nothing authentic about this. It's just rehashed drivel, bilge, from previous campaigns, uttered by equally phony people. Mr. Snerdley, I need you back here as the Official Obama Criticizer.
BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: Now for another criticism of Senator Barack Obama, we turn to the Official EIB Obama Criticizer, Bo Snerdley.SNERDLEY: There is absolutely nothing authentic about Barack Obama or his wife, for that matter. We've seen it all before. There is absolutely nothing here that we haven't seen before. They are phonies. For those of you brothers and sisters in the EIB hood, they're frontin,' man. That's it. And for our Hispanic brothers and sisters, no es verdad, muy malo.RUSH: Thank you, Mr. Snerdley, the Official Criticizer of Barack Obama here at the EIB Network. But I must respectfully disagree with our Obama criticizer on one point. I think that there is a new idea. I've actually thought about this. It doesn't take away from Mr. Snerdley's criticism of Obama as a phony or inauthentic, but there is a new idea, and it's been running around, it's actually not new, but it's become almost an official stamp of the Democrat Party and the American left. And that is the concept that America is bad and failed, that Americans just can't cut it, that we need help from government, and we need help from illegal immigrants. Look at the Obamas. They are hugely successful. They are black. They are spreading the idea, though, that black people can't make it in America. Not only that, they're spreading the idea that nobody can make it in America, and that is the new idea. If you Democrats want to claim that you have a new idea, then you can steal this from me because it's yours already. The new idea is that no one can make it in America. Now, this has always been one of their underpinnings, one of the foundational building blocks of their ideology but now they're out in the open with it, now they're saying it out loud, now their presidential candidate, a black man and his wife who have made it and are hugely successful, are telling everybody else they can't. Where did they learn this attitude? They learned this attitude at their Ivy League skrools, they learned it in their hate-America church. They think -- and they might be right -- that they are the first generation with this attitude. Do you think Mr. and Mrs. Obama want a better life for their kids than they had for themselves? They're like all normal parents, wouldn't you think? But do you think they're telling their own kids, you can't make it in this country? "What do you mean, Daddy, we see you running for president, what do you mean?" "No, son, you can't make it, you can't make it. Tell 'em, Michelle, they can't make it, can't make it. That's right, boys, you can't make it, not in America. Girls, girls, you can't, especially you girls and you're black, especially you can't make it in America." "But Mommy, but Mommy --" "No, listen to me! This country is failed, it's over, you can't make it unless, of course, Daddy gets to be president." Last night, Barack Obama, as his silver-tongued beliefs were flowing out of his magical mouth, saying he believed in hard work and American values. You know, the old-fashioned ones. But when you really listen, you can see that his projected policies prove that he's lying, as he did not believe that. He believes in massive protective government in all aspects of our lives like every other liberal does because you're incompetent, you can't overcome the obstacles in life, you can't get past those people at Wal-Mart that are going to cheat you. You certainly can't get past those people at Exxon that are going to cheat you. You cannot get past all of those people at the five and dime and at the Kwik Shop, they're going to cheat you. And of course, you can't get past those rich people. The only people that are going to treat you right, the only people gonna care about you will be people in government, massive protective government in all aspects of our lives, because Barack Obama does not believe in us or this country or American exceptionalism, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the new idea that Barack Obama and the whole Democrat Party are peddling.
Uh, I'm sorry. Mr. Snerdley, I need to bring you back here as the Official Obama Criticizer. Bo Snerdley back. Please remind the people -- did you hear what I just said? There are no fresh ideas with you-know-who. You ready? Okay, three, two, one.SNERDLEY: Mr. Obama, you need to prove to us that you have fresh ideas. I demand that you have fresh ideas. We want to hope in your fresh ideas, and so far, you've demonstrated none.RUSH: Thank you. The Official Obama Criticizer, Bo Snerdley. The stuff coming out of all these candidates' mouths is the same old same old; it's the same old recycled stuff. There's nothing new, and there's nothing authentic. The lines may be good, but there's nothing authentic. And, of course, one of these candidates, this new rock star type figure, at least with conservatism, there are new approaches as compared to all we have, medical savings plans, changes in Social Security, new ways to deal with the illegals, how to handle the economy. Conservatism is the ideology of change. Conservatism is the agent of change, not those other guys.BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: A couple more thoughts on this. You know, PMSNBC on their website has this thing called the First Read. I guess everybody is trying to do their version of ABC's The Note, a website that was basically a day planner for what was going on in politics and what was in the newspapers and so forth, these wonks get up at three o'clock in the morning, four o'clock, start writing this stuff up. Now MSNBC has one of their own, The Politico has one, Mike Allen does. I don't know who the author of this little segment is on this one because I just had this one little part of it. "Hillary's Closing Line," it is called, and remember now, you just heard the closing line. In fact, let's go back. You may just be joining us. Play number 14 again, Mike.HILLARY: No matter what happens in this contest, and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. (applause) Whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about.RUSH: Right, right, right, right, right. Okay. So there it is. That's what we're talking about here. This is from MSNBC, whatever their early morning mishmash. "Clinton ended the debate on a VERY conciliatory note and for the first time sounded like a candidate who realized she might not win. It must be an odd position for her, but the confidence she exuded for just about the entire debate disappeared there at the end. Was she showing some vulnerability -- a la New Hampshire -- that might actually help her with some undecided voters? The Clinton campaign loved her closing remarks and sent a YouTube of it. But combine this last statement with her lack of negative attacks on Obama throughout the debate. As The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder notes." Now listen to this, if you want to talk about somebody that did not understand and doesn't get what's happening, Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic Blog, "This was the night where we all learned that Hillary Clinton understands the moment in history we are in, and that she is smart enough and gracious enough to realize that her party is more important than personal vanity, that there are things she just cannot say about Obama because it would hurt him in the fall, and that more likely than not, she will not win the nomination." Mr. Ambinder, I respect all of you Drive-Bys, but I have to tell you, your narrowness of focus continues to boggle my mind. There was nothing original in this. This is a sympathy play. She might have been throwing in the towel. When you see her say this in addition to hear it, I have been pointing out for weeks, this woman, Hillary Clinton, has been driven by one thing for 35 years: the presidency. It is the thing that has animated her. It is her family, it is her daughter, it is her life, it is her career, it is her vacation time, it's her car, all these things that you consider important in your life, your family, all of those things are this run for the White House. To sit here and think that she's going to be okay if she gets her backside handed to her by an inexperienced rookie? Black guy to boot? This is hilarious. To think that she's discovered she cares more about the party -- Mr. Ambinder, they haven't given up anything yet. She's still ahead in Ohio, tied in Texas, and don't forget, they could still blow up this convention. It depends. If this is the conciliatory, the other day I asked, they could be bought. Give them something big, like build 'em a toll bridge across the Potomac with the revenue going to Clinton's Library and Massage Parlor, or, how about this, I mean just speculating, but if we're going to say that she's conciliatory, getting out of this, she knows that it's up, and it's over, given there's going to be a Democrat-controlled Senate, given there's probably going to be a Democrat-controlled House, given there's probably going to be a Democrat in the White House, would a Supreme Court nomination not sail rightly through like a hot knife through butter? What better place -- if you can't get the presidency, how about a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court? You can mess America up from there almost as easily as you can from the White House. In some cases, a little easier, because at the Supreme Court you can write your own law if you can find four other idiot judges to go along with you, and she'll have them. If you have to go to Mozambique to find your precedent, go there. Look, I'm just speculating. Because everybody is on this bandwagon now that she's conciliatory and she might have realized that her time is up. She cares more about her party than herself, that's the thing, but none of this, the bottom line, folks, none of this is authentic, none of it's new, none of it's revolutionary. It's all been said before by Clinton, by the Breck Girl, and others. It's been written for these people to say by the powers that be behind the scenes. Conservatism is the new ideology of change. Conservatism looks at problems and tries to solve them: Social Security reform, entitlement reform. People want real change, it is our side that discusses it and would bring it. These people are just a bunch of hacks. They're regurgitating things from the Democrat Party playbook for 30, 40 years ago, just with a different speaker. All right. To the phones. Open Line Friday, Jim in Granger, Indiana, you're up first today. Nice to have you, sir.CALLER: Mega dittos, Rush. I've been listening to you since Bush 41.RUSH: Yeah.CALLER: And my comment is, I think Barack is just Bill Clinton-lite. I was listening to his speech the other day, thinking, "Where have I heard this rhetoric with saying absolutely nothing before," and it was Bill Clinton first time he ran.RUSH: Yeah. Exactly right. I'm sorry you had to call and basically say what I've been saying for the first 40 minutes. But, if you picked that up on your own and didn't need me, then my feelings are hurt, but I'll get over it -- (laughing) -- just kidding. I'm just throwing that out there for the Drive-Bys.CALLER: Yes, I'm part of the mind-numbed robots.RUSH: That's exactly right, waiting for your marching orders.CALLER: Yeah, there you go, there you go.RUSH: But, look, keep in mind as you realize this, what is the great thing that we're hearing that Obama brings to this? That is his authenticity, and it's something we've never foreseen in politics. Just the exact opposite. There's nothing authentic about this. It's just rehashed drivel, bilge, from previous campaigns, uttered by equally phony people. Mr. Snerdley, I need you back here as the Official Obama Criticizer.
BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: Now for another criticism of Senator Barack Obama, we turn to the Official EIB Obama Criticizer, Bo Snerdley.SNERDLEY: There is absolutely nothing authentic about Barack Obama or his wife, for that matter. We've seen it all before. There is absolutely nothing here that we haven't seen before. They are phonies. For those of you brothers and sisters in the EIB hood, they're frontin,' man. That's it. And for our Hispanic brothers and sisters, no es verdad, muy malo.RUSH: Thank you, Mr. Snerdley, the Official Criticizer of Barack Obama here at the EIB Network. But I must respectfully disagree with our Obama criticizer on one point. I think that there is a new idea. I've actually thought about this. It doesn't take away from Mr. Snerdley's criticism of Obama as a phony or inauthentic, but there is a new idea, and it's been running around, it's actually not new, but it's become almost an official stamp of the Democrat Party and the American left. And that is the concept that America is bad and failed, that Americans just can't cut it, that we need help from government, and we need help from illegal immigrants. Look at the Obamas. They are hugely successful. They are black. They are spreading the idea, though, that black people can't make it in America. Not only that, they're spreading the idea that nobody can make it in America, and that is the new idea. If you Democrats want to claim that you have a new idea, then you can steal this from me because it's yours already. The new idea is that no one can make it in America. Now, this has always been one of their underpinnings, one of the foundational building blocks of their ideology but now they're out in the open with it, now they're saying it out loud, now their presidential candidate, a black man and his wife who have made it and are hugely successful, are telling everybody else they can't. Where did they learn this attitude? They learned this attitude at their Ivy League skrools, they learned it in their hate-America church. They think -- and they might be right -- that they are the first generation with this attitude. Do you think Mr. and Mrs. Obama want a better life for their kids than they had for themselves? They're like all normal parents, wouldn't you think? But do you think they're telling their own kids, you can't make it in this country? "What do you mean, Daddy, we see you running for president, what do you mean?" "No, son, you can't make it, you can't make it. Tell 'em, Michelle, they can't make it, can't make it. That's right, boys, you can't make it, not in America. Girls, girls, you can't, especially you girls and you're black, especially you can't make it in America." "But Mommy, but Mommy --" "No, listen to me! This country is failed, it's over, you can't make it unless, of course, Daddy gets to be president." Last night, Barack Obama, as his silver-tongued beliefs were flowing out of his magical mouth, saying he believed in hard work and American values. You know, the old-fashioned ones. But when you really listen, you can see that his projected policies prove that he's lying, as he did not believe that. He believes in massive protective government in all aspects of our lives like every other liberal does because you're incompetent, you can't overcome the obstacles in life, you can't get past those people at Wal-Mart that are going to cheat you. You certainly can't get past those people at Exxon that are going to cheat you. You cannot get past all of those people at the five and dime and at the Kwik Shop, they're going to cheat you. And of course, you can't get past those rich people. The only people that are going to treat you right, the only people gonna care about you will be people in government, massive protective government in all aspects of our lives, because Barack Obama does not believe in us or this country or American exceptionalism, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the new idea that Barack Obama and the whole Democrat Party are peddling.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Who Are They? By: John Batchelor
Who is Nahdmi Auchi, who according to the British newspaper TimesOnline may have lent money through a company he controls in Panama to support a fundraiser for U.S. Senator Barack Obama in May 2005?
Who is Mr. Auchi? A British billionaire living in London, born in Iraq in 1937. And why would he, as it is alleged, lend money via a Panama company, Fintrade Services -- of which his wife, Ibtisam Auchi, is said to be a director -- to a freshmen U. S. senator from Illinois just a few months after he is sworn in as a very junior member of what was then a Democratic minority?
Who is Mr. Auchi, said to be the 279th richest man in the world, that he would provide through his overseas company wire transfers of $3,499,471 in April 2007, and another $200,000 in July 2007, to Antoin "Tony" Rezko, an indicted Chicago developer accused of defrauding Illinois citizens of at least $6 million? Rezko is a successful and veteran fundraiser for, among others, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and U.S. Senator Barack Obama.
Who is Mr. Auchi that he would be in business at least since 2003 with the Syrian-born American citizen Mr. Rezko, a man who is by the most forgiving accounts an undercapitalized Chicago developer; the same Mr. Rezko who proposed to the lionized British developer Mr. Auchi a joint development for a vacant a 62-acre tract along the Chicago River in downtown Chicago into which eventually Mr. Auchi invested, through his primary company, General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH), at least $170 million, sharing possession with the politically connected and pizza parlor-owning Mr. Rezko? Who is Mr. Auchi, who asserts through his company that the suggestion he transferred covertly at least $3.7 millions to Mr. Rezko is "ridiculous"? Who is Mr. Auchi when the "Motion for Issuance of an Arrest Warrant," presented by United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick J. Fitzgerald, advances the allegation that the reason for Mr. Rezko's surprising re-arrest and detention since January 28, 2008, was that Mr. Rezko was obtaining funds from overseas, overwhelmingly from Mr. Auchi's overseas company GMH, in an apparently nine-month-concealed scheme to avoid the scrutiny of the federal prosecutor.
Who is Mr. Auchi who has not commented publicly about the fact that the federal judge handling the case against Mr. Rezko, U.S District Judge Amy J. St. Eve, revoked the bond of Mr. Auchi's business partner Mr. Rezko and jailed him, even as the case is scheduled to go to trial in two weeks?
Who is Mr. Auchi who, knowing the sensitivity and alarm at Mr. Rezko's case around the Democratic campaign watchfires, has left it to GMH spokesmen to speak only generally and in banal syllables of the wire transfers -- "We are acting with complete transparency" -- while not addressing the suspicion that Mr. Rezko was using the money to prepare for flight?
Who is Mr. Auchi, who founded GMH in 1979 in Saddam's Iraq, that he would also lend an unknown amount of money recently to Christopher Kelly, a former fund-raising colleague of Mr. Rezko's, a man who is under indictment for impeding and obstructing the Internal Revenue Service investigation into how he sought to conceal his million-dollar gambling losses as a business expense of his suburban roofing company?
Who is Mr. Auchi that he traveled to Chicago in April 2004 to visit with Mr. Rezko, who in turn introduced him to Governor Blagojevich and other state officials, including it is alleged, the then-State Senator and Democratic Party candidate for the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama?Who is Mr. Auchi that he was barred from visiting the United States again in November 2005, having difficulties in obtaining a U.S. tourist visa perhaps because of his 2003 conviction in a French court, now under appeal, as part of a graft scandal connecting to French government officials dating back to the first Gulf War; and despite appeals to the State Department by Mr. Rezko and others, including, according to court documents filed by federal prosecutors, "certain Illinois government officials"?
Who is Mr. Auchi, who is lauded as Britain's Donald Trump, that he has involved himself with property discussions with prosaic Illinois politicians and alleged gamblers, defrauders and kickback-seekers, despite the fact he is a man who is presented by his attorneys as "one of Britain's wealthiest men," who, "has been a guest at the White House and met with two of the last three presidents"?
Who is Mr. Auchi who "was co-chair of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, is President of the Anglo-Arab Association, and has received numerous awards and honorary positions from heads of state, including Queen Elizabeth II, Pope John II, and King Abdullah II of Jordan," and who received a congratulatory greeting card in 1999signed by Tony Blair, William Hague, and Charles Kennedy, then the leaders of the major British parties, and some130 other British parliamentarians?
Who is Mr. Auchi -- in connection with whom is it alleged that two websites belonging to GMH holdings have deleted information on Mr. Auchi's April 2004 visit to Illinois when Mr. Auchi met and was photographed with Governor Rod Blagojevich; Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones Jr.; the Mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick; Mr. Auchi's business partner, Mr. Rezko, and, it is speculated, the then-State Senator and Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama?
Who is Mr. Auchi such that the British attorney Alisdair Pepper, who represents Mr. Auchi especially with regard Britain's stringent media laws, has recently sent warning letters to those, such as "RezkoWatch" blog and Larry Johnson of "No Quarter" blog, who have published remarks and questions about Mr. Auchi and his unclear and complex links to the troubled and castigated Mr. Rezko?
This is the same Mr. Rezko of whom the prominent presidential candidate Barack Obama told ABC This Week host George Stephanopoulos on January 27, 2008, the day before Mr. Rezko's re-arrest apparently because of Mr. Auchi's generous loans, "Tony Rezko was a friend of mine, a supporter, whom I had known for 20 years."
Who is Mr. Auchi with the sometimes unsubstantiated European newspaper comments about his activities before and after the two Gulf Wars -- including involvement with theFrench government scandals with oil giant TotalFinaElf, including long-standing involvement with European bank BNP Paribas; including unproven financial links with strongmen such as Saddam Hussein and Colonel Muammar Qaddafi?
Who is this Mr. Auchi who is characterized by a Baghdad political commentator as a "Saddam guy" from way back in the early days of the Baathists, who was not trusted by the Iraqi opposition to Saddam Hussein in London in December 2002, and who today is regarded as no friend of the Iraqi government or people, having failed to visit Baghdad once since its liberation despite seeking lucrative and controversial communications business opportunities in the new Iraq?
Who is Nadhmi Auchi, this colorful and proud billionaire, whose history and politics are now crashing into the robust and necessary inquiry about who is Barrack Obama? Who indeed?
Who is Mr. Auchi? A British billionaire living in London, born in Iraq in 1937. And why would he, as it is alleged, lend money via a Panama company, Fintrade Services -- of which his wife, Ibtisam Auchi, is said to be a director -- to a freshmen U. S. senator from Illinois just a few months after he is sworn in as a very junior member of what was then a Democratic minority?
Who is Mr. Auchi, said to be the 279th richest man in the world, that he would provide through his overseas company wire transfers of $3,499,471 in April 2007, and another $200,000 in July 2007, to Antoin "Tony" Rezko, an indicted Chicago developer accused of defrauding Illinois citizens of at least $6 million? Rezko is a successful and veteran fundraiser for, among others, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and U.S. Senator Barack Obama.
Who is Mr. Auchi that he would be in business at least since 2003 with the Syrian-born American citizen Mr. Rezko, a man who is by the most forgiving accounts an undercapitalized Chicago developer; the same Mr. Rezko who proposed to the lionized British developer Mr. Auchi a joint development for a vacant a 62-acre tract along the Chicago River in downtown Chicago into which eventually Mr. Auchi invested, through his primary company, General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH), at least $170 million, sharing possession with the politically connected and pizza parlor-owning Mr. Rezko? Who is Mr. Auchi, who asserts through his company that the suggestion he transferred covertly at least $3.7 millions to Mr. Rezko is "ridiculous"? Who is Mr. Auchi when the "Motion for Issuance of an Arrest Warrant," presented by United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick J. Fitzgerald, advances the allegation that the reason for Mr. Rezko's surprising re-arrest and detention since January 28, 2008, was that Mr. Rezko was obtaining funds from overseas, overwhelmingly from Mr. Auchi's overseas company GMH, in an apparently nine-month-concealed scheme to avoid the scrutiny of the federal prosecutor.
Who is Mr. Auchi who has not commented publicly about the fact that the federal judge handling the case against Mr. Rezko, U.S District Judge Amy J. St. Eve, revoked the bond of Mr. Auchi's business partner Mr. Rezko and jailed him, even as the case is scheduled to go to trial in two weeks?
Who is Mr. Auchi who, knowing the sensitivity and alarm at Mr. Rezko's case around the Democratic campaign watchfires, has left it to GMH spokesmen to speak only generally and in banal syllables of the wire transfers -- "We are acting with complete transparency" -- while not addressing the suspicion that Mr. Rezko was using the money to prepare for flight?
Who is Mr. Auchi, who founded GMH in 1979 in Saddam's Iraq, that he would also lend an unknown amount of money recently to Christopher Kelly, a former fund-raising colleague of Mr. Rezko's, a man who is under indictment for impeding and obstructing the Internal Revenue Service investigation into how he sought to conceal his million-dollar gambling losses as a business expense of his suburban roofing company?
Who is Mr. Auchi that he traveled to Chicago in April 2004 to visit with Mr. Rezko, who in turn introduced him to Governor Blagojevich and other state officials, including it is alleged, the then-State Senator and Democratic Party candidate for the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama?Who is Mr. Auchi that he was barred from visiting the United States again in November 2005, having difficulties in obtaining a U.S. tourist visa perhaps because of his 2003 conviction in a French court, now under appeal, as part of a graft scandal connecting to French government officials dating back to the first Gulf War; and despite appeals to the State Department by Mr. Rezko and others, including, according to court documents filed by federal prosecutors, "certain Illinois government officials"?
Who is Mr. Auchi, who is lauded as Britain's Donald Trump, that he has involved himself with property discussions with prosaic Illinois politicians and alleged gamblers, defrauders and kickback-seekers, despite the fact he is a man who is presented by his attorneys as "one of Britain's wealthiest men," who, "has been a guest at the White House and met with two of the last three presidents"?
Who is Mr. Auchi who "was co-chair of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, is President of the Anglo-Arab Association, and has received numerous awards and honorary positions from heads of state, including Queen Elizabeth II, Pope John II, and King Abdullah II of Jordan," and who received a congratulatory greeting card in 1999signed by Tony Blair, William Hague, and Charles Kennedy, then the leaders of the major British parties, and some130 other British parliamentarians?
Who is Mr. Auchi -- in connection with whom is it alleged that two websites belonging to GMH holdings have deleted information on Mr. Auchi's April 2004 visit to Illinois when Mr. Auchi met and was photographed with Governor Rod Blagojevich; Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones Jr.; the Mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick; Mr. Auchi's business partner, Mr. Rezko, and, it is speculated, the then-State Senator and Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama?
Who is Mr. Auchi such that the British attorney Alisdair Pepper, who represents Mr. Auchi especially with regard Britain's stringent media laws, has recently sent warning letters to those, such as "RezkoWatch" blog and Larry Johnson of "No Quarter" blog, who have published remarks and questions about Mr. Auchi and his unclear and complex links to the troubled and castigated Mr. Rezko?
This is the same Mr. Rezko of whom the prominent presidential candidate Barack Obama told ABC This Week host George Stephanopoulos on January 27, 2008, the day before Mr. Rezko's re-arrest apparently because of Mr. Auchi's generous loans, "Tony Rezko was a friend of mine, a supporter, whom I had known for 20 years."
Who is Mr. Auchi with the sometimes unsubstantiated European newspaper comments about his activities before and after the two Gulf Wars -- including involvement with theFrench government scandals with oil giant TotalFinaElf, including long-standing involvement with European bank BNP Paribas; including unproven financial links with strongmen such as Saddam Hussein and Colonel Muammar Qaddafi?
Who is this Mr. Auchi who is characterized by a Baghdad political commentator as a "Saddam guy" from way back in the early days of the Baathists, who was not trusted by the Iraqi opposition to Saddam Hussein in London in December 2002, and who today is regarded as no friend of the Iraqi government or people, having failed to visit Baghdad once since its liberation despite seeking lucrative and controversial communications business opportunities in the new Iraq?
Who is Nadhmi Auchi, this colorful and proud billionaire, whose history and politics are now crashing into the robust and necessary inquiry about who is Barrack Obama? Who indeed?
Obama’s Communist Mentor By: Cliff Kincaid
In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama’s life as a “secret smoker” and how he “went to great lengths to conceal the habit.” But what about Obama’s secret political life? It turns out that Obama’s childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.
In his books, Obama admits attending “socialist conferences” and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a “hard-core academic Marxist,” which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.
However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”
The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What’s more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.
Trevor Loudon, a New Zealand-based libertarian activist, researcher and blogger, noted evidence that “Frank” was Frank Marshall Davis in a posting in March of 2007.
Obama’s communist connection adds to mounting public concern about a candidate who has come out of virtually nowhere, with a brief U.S. Senate legislative record, to become the Democratic Party frontrunner for the U.S. presidency. In the latest Real Clear Politics poll average, Obama beats Republican John McCain by almost four percentage points.
AIM recently disclosed that Obama has well-documented socialist connections, which help explain why he sponsored a ”Global Poverty Act” designed to send hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. foreign aid to the rest of the world, in order to meet U.N. demands. The bill has passed the House and a Senate committee, and awaits full Senate action.
But the Communist Party connection through Davis is even more ominous. Decades ago, the CPUSA had tens of thousands of members, some of them covert agents who had penetrated the U.S. Government. It received secret subsidies from the old Soviet Union.
You won’t find any of this discussed in the David Mendell book, Obama: From Promise to Power. It is typical of the superficial biographies of Obama now on the market. Secret smoking seems to be Obama’s most controversial activity. At best, Mendell and the liberal media describe Obama as “left-leaning.”
But you will find it briefly discussed, sort of, in Obama’s own book, Dreams From My Father. He writes about “a poet named Frank,” who visited them in Hawaii, read poetry, and was full of “hard-earned knowledge” and advice. Who was Frank? Obama only says that he had “some modest notoriety once,” was “a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago...” but was now “pushing eighty.” He writes about “Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self” giving him advice before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the age of 18.
This “Frank” is none other than Frank Marshall Davis, the black communist writer now considered by some to be in the same category of prominence as Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. In the summer/fall 2003 issue of African American Review, James A. Miller of George Washington University reviews a book by John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the University of Kansas, about Davis’s career, and notes, “In Davis’s case, his political commitments led him to join the American Communist Party during the middle of World War II-even though he never publicly admitted his Party membership.” Tidwell is an expert on the life and writings of Davis.
Is it possible that Obama did not know who Davis was when he wrote his book, Dreams From My Father, first published in 1995? That’s not plausible since Obama refers to him as a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes and says he saw a book of his black poetry.
The communists knew who “Frank” was, and they know who Obama is. In fact, one academic who travels in communist circles understands the significance of the Davis-Obama relationship.
Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, talked about it during a speech last March at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University. The remarks are posted online under the headline, “Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party.”
Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that Davis, who moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 “at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson,” came into contact with Barack Obama and his family and became the young man’s mentor, influencing Obama’s sense of identity and career moves. Robeson, of course, was the well-known black actor and singer who served as a member of the CPUSA and apologist for the old Soviet Union. Davis had known Robeson from his time in Chicago.
As Horne describes it, Davis “befriended” a “Euro-American family” that had “migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago.”
It was in Chicago that Obama became a “community organizer” and came into contact with more far-left political forces, including the Democratic Socialists of America, which maintains close ties to European socialist groups and parties through the Socialist International (SI), and two former members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), William Ayers and Carl Davidson.
The SDS laid siege to college campuses across America in the 1960s, mostly in order to protest the Vietnam War, and spawned the terrorist Weather Underground organization. Ayers was a member of the terrorist group and turned himself in to authorities in 1981. He is now a college professor and served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Davidson is now a figure in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, an offshoot of the old Moscow-controlled CPUSA, and helped organize the 2002 rally where Obama came out against the Iraq War.
Both communism and socialism trace their roots to Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, who endorsed the first meeting of the Socialist International, then called the “First International.” According to Pierre Mauroy, president of the SI from 1992-1996, “It was he [Marx] who formally launched it, gave the inaugural address and devised its structure...”
Apparently unaware that Davis had been publicly named as a CPUSA member, Horne said only that Davis “was certainly in the orbit of the CP [Communist Party]-if not a member...”
In addition to Tidwell’s book, Black Moods: Collected Poems of Frank Marshall Davis, confirming Davis’s Communist Party membership, another book, The New Red Negro: The Literary Left and African American Poetry, 1930-1946, names Davis as one of several black poets who continued to publish in CPUSA-supported publications after the 1939 Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact. The author, James Edward Smethurst, associate professor of Afro-American studies at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, says that Davis, however, would later claim that he was “deeply troubled” by the pact.
While blacks such as Richard Wright left the CPUSA, it is not clear if or when Davis ever left the party.
However, Obama writes in Dreams From My Father that he saw “Frank” only a few days before he left Hawaii for college, and that Davis seemed just as radical as ever. Davis called college “An advanced degree in compromise” and warned Obama not to forget his “people” and not to “start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit.” Davis also complained about foot problems, the result of “trying to force African feet into European shoes,” Obama wrote.
For his part, Horne says that Obama’s giving of credit to Davis will be important in history. “At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, Living the Blues and when that day comes, I’m sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside,” he said.
Dr. Kathryn Takara, a professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa who also confirms that Davis is the “Frank” in Obama’s book, did her dissertation on Davis and spent much time with him between 1972 until he passed away in 1987.
In an analysis posted online, she notes that Davis, who was a columnist for the Honolulu Record, brought “an acute sense of race relations and class struggle throughout America and the world” and that he openly discussed subjects such as American imperialism, colonialism and exploitation. She described him as a “socialist realist” who attacked the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Davis, in his own writings, had said that Robeson and Harry Bridges, the head of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and a secret member of the CPUSA, had suggested that he take a job as a columnist with the Honolulu Record “and see if I could do something for them.” The ILWU was organizing workers there and Robeson’s contacts were “passed on” to Davis, Takara writes.
Takara says that Davis “espoused freedom, radicalism, solidarity, labor unions, due process, peace, affirmative action, civil rights, Negro History week, and true Democracy to fight imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy. He urged coalition politics.”
Is “coalition politics” at work in Obama’s rise to power?
Trevor Loudon, the New Zealand-based blogger who has been analyzing the political forces behind Obama and specializes in studying the impact of Marxist and leftist political organizations, notes that Frank Chapman, a CPUSA supporter, has written a letter to the party newspaper hailing the Illinois senator’s victory in the Iowa caucuses.
“Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle,” Chapman wrote. “Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary ‘mole,’ not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.”
Let’s challenge the liberal media to report on this. Will they have the honesty and integrity to do so?
In his books, Obama admits attending “socialist conferences” and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a “hard-core academic Marxist,” which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.
However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”
The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What’s more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.
Trevor Loudon, a New Zealand-based libertarian activist, researcher and blogger, noted evidence that “Frank” was Frank Marshall Davis in a posting in March of 2007.
Obama’s communist connection adds to mounting public concern about a candidate who has come out of virtually nowhere, with a brief U.S. Senate legislative record, to become the Democratic Party frontrunner for the U.S. presidency. In the latest Real Clear Politics poll average, Obama beats Republican John McCain by almost four percentage points.
AIM recently disclosed that Obama has well-documented socialist connections, which help explain why he sponsored a ”Global Poverty Act” designed to send hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. foreign aid to the rest of the world, in order to meet U.N. demands. The bill has passed the House and a Senate committee, and awaits full Senate action.
But the Communist Party connection through Davis is even more ominous. Decades ago, the CPUSA had tens of thousands of members, some of them covert agents who had penetrated the U.S. Government. It received secret subsidies from the old Soviet Union.
You won’t find any of this discussed in the David Mendell book, Obama: From Promise to Power. It is typical of the superficial biographies of Obama now on the market. Secret smoking seems to be Obama’s most controversial activity. At best, Mendell and the liberal media describe Obama as “left-leaning.”
But you will find it briefly discussed, sort of, in Obama’s own book, Dreams From My Father. He writes about “a poet named Frank,” who visited them in Hawaii, read poetry, and was full of “hard-earned knowledge” and advice. Who was Frank? Obama only says that he had “some modest notoriety once,” was “a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago...” but was now “pushing eighty.” He writes about “Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self” giving him advice before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the age of 18.
This “Frank” is none other than Frank Marshall Davis, the black communist writer now considered by some to be in the same category of prominence as Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. In the summer/fall 2003 issue of African American Review, James A. Miller of George Washington University reviews a book by John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the University of Kansas, about Davis’s career, and notes, “In Davis’s case, his political commitments led him to join the American Communist Party during the middle of World War II-even though he never publicly admitted his Party membership.” Tidwell is an expert on the life and writings of Davis.
Is it possible that Obama did not know who Davis was when he wrote his book, Dreams From My Father, first published in 1995? That’s not plausible since Obama refers to him as a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes and says he saw a book of his black poetry.
The communists knew who “Frank” was, and they know who Obama is. In fact, one academic who travels in communist circles understands the significance of the Davis-Obama relationship.
Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, talked about it during a speech last March at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University. The remarks are posted online under the headline, “Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party.”
Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that Davis, who moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 “at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson,” came into contact with Barack Obama and his family and became the young man’s mentor, influencing Obama’s sense of identity and career moves. Robeson, of course, was the well-known black actor and singer who served as a member of the CPUSA and apologist for the old Soviet Union. Davis had known Robeson from his time in Chicago.
As Horne describes it, Davis “befriended” a “Euro-American family” that had “migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago.”
It was in Chicago that Obama became a “community organizer” and came into contact with more far-left political forces, including the Democratic Socialists of America, which maintains close ties to European socialist groups and parties through the Socialist International (SI), and two former members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), William Ayers and Carl Davidson.
The SDS laid siege to college campuses across America in the 1960s, mostly in order to protest the Vietnam War, and spawned the terrorist Weather Underground organization. Ayers was a member of the terrorist group and turned himself in to authorities in 1981. He is now a college professor and served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Davidson is now a figure in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, an offshoot of the old Moscow-controlled CPUSA, and helped organize the 2002 rally where Obama came out against the Iraq War.
Both communism and socialism trace their roots to Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, who endorsed the first meeting of the Socialist International, then called the “First International.” According to Pierre Mauroy, president of the SI from 1992-1996, “It was he [Marx] who formally launched it, gave the inaugural address and devised its structure...”
Apparently unaware that Davis had been publicly named as a CPUSA member, Horne said only that Davis “was certainly in the orbit of the CP [Communist Party]-if not a member...”
In addition to Tidwell’s book, Black Moods: Collected Poems of Frank Marshall Davis, confirming Davis’s Communist Party membership, another book, The New Red Negro: The Literary Left and African American Poetry, 1930-1946, names Davis as one of several black poets who continued to publish in CPUSA-supported publications after the 1939 Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact. The author, James Edward Smethurst, associate professor of Afro-American studies at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, says that Davis, however, would later claim that he was “deeply troubled” by the pact.
While blacks such as Richard Wright left the CPUSA, it is not clear if or when Davis ever left the party.
However, Obama writes in Dreams From My Father that he saw “Frank” only a few days before he left Hawaii for college, and that Davis seemed just as radical as ever. Davis called college “An advanced degree in compromise” and warned Obama not to forget his “people” and not to “start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit.” Davis also complained about foot problems, the result of “trying to force African feet into European shoes,” Obama wrote.
For his part, Horne says that Obama’s giving of credit to Davis will be important in history. “At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, Living the Blues and when that day comes, I’m sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside,” he said.
Dr. Kathryn Takara, a professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa who also confirms that Davis is the “Frank” in Obama’s book, did her dissertation on Davis and spent much time with him between 1972 until he passed away in 1987.
In an analysis posted online, she notes that Davis, who was a columnist for the Honolulu Record, brought “an acute sense of race relations and class struggle throughout America and the world” and that he openly discussed subjects such as American imperialism, colonialism and exploitation. She described him as a “socialist realist” who attacked the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Davis, in his own writings, had said that Robeson and Harry Bridges, the head of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and a secret member of the CPUSA, had suggested that he take a job as a columnist with the Honolulu Record “and see if I could do something for them.” The ILWU was organizing workers there and Robeson’s contacts were “passed on” to Davis, Takara writes.
Takara says that Davis “espoused freedom, radicalism, solidarity, labor unions, due process, peace, affirmative action, civil rights, Negro History week, and true Democracy to fight imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy. He urged coalition politics.”
Is “coalition politics” at work in Obama’s rise to power?
Trevor Loudon, the New Zealand-based blogger who has been analyzing the political forces behind Obama and specializes in studying the impact of Marxist and leftist political organizations, notes that Frank Chapman, a CPUSA supporter, has written a letter to the party newspaper hailing the Illinois senator’s victory in the Iowa caucuses.
“Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle,” Chapman wrote. “Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary ‘mole,’ not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.”
Let’s challenge the liberal media to report on this. Will they have the honesty and integrity to do so?
The Real Barack Obama By: Ronald Kessler
Michelle Obama’s comment that, for the first time in her adult life, she feels proud of America helps crystallize who Barack Obama is.
To be sure, the wife of a candidate is perfectly free to have views that are distinct from her husband’s. But on a matter that is so fundamental to one’s being as love of country, it is difficult to imagine that Michelle Obama would publicly twice make such a statement suggesting disdain for America unless she felt it comported with her husband’s views.
Equally important, her statement aligns perfectly with the hate-America views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s minister, friend, and sounding board for more than two decades. On the Sunday following 9/11, Wright characterized the terrorist attacks as a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.
“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in his church magazine Trumpet. “White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”
Wright has been a key supporter of Louis Farrakhan, and in December, honored the Nation of Islam leader for lifetime achievement, saying he “truly epitomize[s] greatness.”
Farrakhan has repeatedly made hate-filled statements targeting Jews, whites, America, and homosexuals.
Those who think two of the closest people to Obama could publicly make anti-America statements unless Obama himself felt that way, are fooling themselves. To date, Obama has proven himself to be nothing more than a great orator, rendering the statements of those around him even more important in illuminating his true character and agenda. During his Senate career, he skipped 17 percent of the votes and sponsored only one bill that became law. That bill was to promote “relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.”
Bereft of official accomplishments, Obama has distinguished himself mainly by being against measures that protect American security, such as finishing the mission in Iraq. If we were to leave Iraq quickly, as Obama vows he would do, it would become a launch pad for al-Qaida attacks on the U.S.
Obama avoided voting on extending the Protect America Act, thus putting America at risk when immediate interception of terrorist communications is required. Last August, Obama voted against a measure that would have allowed the U.S. to continue to monitor overseas conversations of terrorists like Osama bin Laden without first obtaining a warrant.
If his radical vote had prevailed, bin Laden would have been given the same rights as Americans.
To this day, Obama has not distanced himself from most of Rev. Wright’s comments. In a statement supposedly issued to address the matter, Obama ignored the point that his minister and friend had spoken adoringly of Farrakhan and that Wright’s church was behind the award to the Nation of Islam leader. Instead, as outlined in a Jan. 17 Newsmax article, he disingenuously claimed he thought the magazine bestowed the award on Farrakhan for his efforts to rehabilitate ex-prisoners.
Neither Wright’s encomiums about Farrakhan nor the Trumpet article mentions ex-prisoners.
Similarly, after John McCain’s wife Cindy responded to Michelle Obama’s remarks by telling a Wisconsin rally, “I have, and always will be, proud of my country,” Barack Obama told a radio interviewer that his wife did not say what people think she said. He then proceeded to rewrite her comments, claiming that she had meant she was encouraged by the “large numbers of people” who have gotten involved in the political process. Michelle Obama then made a similar revision of her remarks.
In her speech in Milwaukee, Michelle Obama said flatly, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”
And what has been wrong with America up to now? That it gave Michelle the opportunity to attend Princeton and Harvard Law School? That it gave Barack Obama the chance to attend Columbia University and Harvard Law School and become a U.S. senator making more than $1 million a year from book royalties?
Was it that America stopped Nazi Germany from continuing to murder millions of Jews? That America has provided Africa and other countries with $15 billion to combat the spread of AIDS/HIV and that another $30 billion is on the way? That 46 percent of all Americans classified by the Census Bureau as poor own their own homes, 76 percent of them have air conditioning, and 75 percent of them have at least one car? Or that America allows us to express our views freely without fear of being put in jail, as is the case in Russia?
A lawyer, Michelle Obama is perfectly capable of expressing herself precisely. In fact, she spoke from a written speech.
Those who do not want to believe she meant what she said — and that Barack Obama could not be so close to Rev. Wright if he did not himself believe in much of what he has said — are in denial.
The real Barack Obama is starting to emerge, and for those of us who are grateful to America for everything it represents, it is not a pretty sight.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail.
To be sure, the wife of a candidate is perfectly free to have views that are distinct from her husband’s. But on a matter that is so fundamental to one’s being as love of country, it is difficult to imagine that Michelle Obama would publicly twice make such a statement suggesting disdain for America unless she felt it comported with her husband’s views.
Equally important, her statement aligns perfectly with the hate-America views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s minister, friend, and sounding board for more than two decades. On the Sunday following 9/11, Wright characterized the terrorist attacks as a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.
“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in his church magazine Trumpet. “White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”
Wright has been a key supporter of Louis Farrakhan, and in December, honored the Nation of Islam leader for lifetime achievement, saying he “truly epitomize[s] greatness.”
Farrakhan has repeatedly made hate-filled statements targeting Jews, whites, America, and homosexuals.
Those who think two of the closest people to Obama could publicly make anti-America statements unless Obama himself felt that way, are fooling themselves. To date, Obama has proven himself to be nothing more than a great orator, rendering the statements of those around him even more important in illuminating his true character and agenda. During his Senate career, he skipped 17 percent of the votes and sponsored only one bill that became law. That bill was to promote “relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.”
Bereft of official accomplishments, Obama has distinguished himself mainly by being against measures that protect American security, such as finishing the mission in Iraq. If we were to leave Iraq quickly, as Obama vows he would do, it would become a launch pad for al-Qaida attacks on the U.S.
Obama avoided voting on extending the Protect America Act, thus putting America at risk when immediate interception of terrorist communications is required. Last August, Obama voted against a measure that would have allowed the U.S. to continue to monitor overseas conversations of terrorists like Osama bin Laden without first obtaining a warrant.
If his radical vote had prevailed, bin Laden would have been given the same rights as Americans.
To this day, Obama has not distanced himself from most of Rev. Wright’s comments. In a statement supposedly issued to address the matter, Obama ignored the point that his minister and friend had spoken adoringly of Farrakhan and that Wright’s church was behind the award to the Nation of Islam leader. Instead, as outlined in a Jan. 17 Newsmax article, he disingenuously claimed he thought the magazine bestowed the award on Farrakhan for his efforts to rehabilitate ex-prisoners.
Neither Wright’s encomiums about Farrakhan nor the Trumpet article mentions ex-prisoners.
Similarly, after John McCain’s wife Cindy responded to Michelle Obama’s remarks by telling a Wisconsin rally, “I have, and always will be, proud of my country,” Barack Obama told a radio interviewer that his wife did not say what people think she said. He then proceeded to rewrite her comments, claiming that she had meant she was encouraged by the “large numbers of people” who have gotten involved in the political process. Michelle Obama then made a similar revision of her remarks.
In her speech in Milwaukee, Michelle Obama said flatly, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”
And what has been wrong with America up to now? That it gave Michelle the opportunity to attend Princeton and Harvard Law School? That it gave Barack Obama the chance to attend Columbia University and Harvard Law School and become a U.S. senator making more than $1 million a year from book royalties?
Was it that America stopped Nazi Germany from continuing to murder millions of Jews? That America has provided Africa and other countries with $15 billion to combat the spread of AIDS/HIV and that another $30 billion is on the way? That 46 percent of all Americans classified by the Census Bureau as poor own their own homes, 76 percent of them have air conditioning, and 75 percent of them have at least one car? Or that America allows us to express our views freely without fear of being put in jail, as is the case in Russia?
A lawyer, Michelle Obama is perfectly capable of expressing herself precisely. In fact, she spoke from a written speech.
Those who do not want to believe she meant what she said — and that Barack Obama could not be so close to Rev. Wright if he did not himself believe in much of what he has said — are in denial.
The real Barack Obama is starting to emerge, and for those of us who are grateful to America for everything it represents, it is not a pretty sight.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Military Hopes to Bring Down Satellite By ROBERT BURNS
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon counted down Wednesday toward an unprecedented effort to shoot down a dying and potentially deadly U.S. spy satellite, using a souped-up missile fired from a ship in the Pacific.
The timing was tricky. For the best chance to succeed, the military awaited a combination of favorable factors: steady seas around the Navy cruiser that would fire the missile, optimum positioning of the satellite as it passed in polar orbit and the readiness of an array of space- and ground-based sensors to help cue the missile and track the results.
The operation was so extraordinary, with such intense international publicity and political ramifications, that Defense Secretary Robert Gates - not a military commander - was to make the final decision to pull the trigger.
The government organized hazardous materials teams, under the code name "Burnt Frost," to be flown to the site of any dangerous or otherwise sensitive debris that might land in the United States or elsewhere.
Also, six federal response groups that are positioned across the country by the Federal Emergency Management Agency have been alerted but not activated, FEMA spokesman James McIntyre said. "These are purely precautionary and preparedness actions only," he said.
High seas in the north Pacific posed the first obstacle as the USS Lake Erie prepared to launch a three-stage missile. Beyond a certain point, rough seas can interfere with the cruiser's launch procedures.
The plan was for the SM-3 to soar 130 miles to just beyond the edge of the Earth's atmosphere in an attempt to speed its non-explosive warhead directly into the satellite.
Early in the day, a senior military officer said it didn't look as if the weather would be good enough. That was shortly after the space shuttle Atlantis landed at 9:07 a.m. EST, removing the last safety issue for the military to begin determining the best moment for launch.
Another officer said hours later the weather was improving and might permit a launch by Wednesday night. Or the military could try again on Thursday or any day until about Feb. 29, when the satellite is expected to have re-entered the Earth's atmosphere.
The aim is not just to hit the bus-sized satellite - which would burn up upon re-entering the atmosphere anyway - but to obliterate a tank onboard that is carrying 1,000 pounds of hydrazine, a toxic fuel. The fuel, unused because the satellite died shortly after reaching orbit in December 2006 - could be hazardous if it landed in a populated area.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a health bulletin saying that the health risk from satellite debris was considered to be low. "However, CDC is encouraging health officials and clinicians to review information about the health effects related to hydrazine to prepare in case their communities are affected by satellite debris."
In a routine precaution, notifications have been issued worldwide to mariners and aviators to stay clear of an area in the Pacific where the satellite debris might fall. The military has calculated that the risk to aviation is so low that U.S. and international aviation officials have decided they are probably not going to reroute air traffic, a senior military officer said Wednesday.
The officer briefed reporters at the Pentagon on technical and logistical matters related to the effort. Under ground rules set by the Pentagon, the officer could not be identified by name.
The attempted shootdown, already approved by President Bush, is seen by some as blurring the lines between defending against a hostile long-range missile and targeting satellites in orbit.
Much of the equipment used in the satellite shootdown is part of the Pentagon's missile defense system, a far-flung network of interceptors, radars and communications systems designed primarily to hit an incoming hostile ballistic missile fired at the United States by North Korea. The equipment, including the Navy missile, has never been used against a satellite or other such target.
The three-stage Navy missile, the SM-3, has chalked up a high rate of success in tests since 2002 - in each case targeting a short- or medium-range missile. A hurry-up program to adapt the missile for this anti-satellite mission was completed in a matter of weeks; Navy officials say the changes will be reversed once this satellite is down.
Some people were skeptical.
"The potential political cost of shooting down this satellite is high," said Laura Grego, an astrophysicist with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Whatever the motivation for it, demonstrating an anti-satellite weapon is counterproductive to U.S. long-term interests, given that the United States has the most to gain from an international space weapons ban. Instead, it should be taking the lead in negotiating a treaty."
Gates is being advised directly by Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, commander of U.S. Strategic Command. Gates was traveling to Hawaii on Wednesday to kick off a nine-day trip. Officials said his stop at U.S. Pacific Command was scheduled before it was known that the satellite shootdown could happen while he was there.
The military has hours each day to monitor a long checklist of technical factors and conditions before deciding whether to proceed with the missile launch. But there was a very narrow window - described by the senior military officers as "tens of seconds" - in which the missile must be launched in order to have the best chance of having the satellite debris land mainly in the Pacific.
Officials will know within minutes whether the missile has hit the satellite, but it will take a day or two to know whether the fuel tank has been destroyed, officials said.
Left alone, the satellite would be expected to hit Earth during the first week of March. About half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft would be expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and would scatter debris over several hundred miles.
The timing was tricky. For the best chance to succeed, the military awaited a combination of favorable factors: steady seas around the Navy cruiser that would fire the missile, optimum positioning of the satellite as it passed in polar orbit and the readiness of an array of space- and ground-based sensors to help cue the missile and track the results.
The operation was so extraordinary, with such intense international publicity and political ramifications, that Defense Secretary Robert Gates - not a military commander - was to make the final decision to pull the trigger.
The government organized hazardous materials teams, under the code name "Burnt Frost," to be flown to the site of any dangerous or otherwise sensitive debris that might land in the United States or elsewhere.
Also, six federal response groups that are positioned across the country by the Federal Emergency Management Agency have been alerted but not activated, FEMA spokesman James McIntyre said. "These are purely precautionary and preparedness actions only," he said.
High seas in the north Pacific posed the first obstacle as the USS Lake Erie prepared to launch a three-stage missile. Beyond a certain point, rough seas can interfere with the cruiser's launch procedures.
The plan was for the SM-3 to soar 130 miles to just beyond the edge of the Earth's atmosphere in an attempt to speed its non-explosive warhead directly into the satellite.
Early in the day, a senior military officer said it didn't look as if the weather would be good enough. That was shortly after the space shuttle Atlantis landed at 9:07 a.m. EST, removing the last safety issue for the military to begin determining the best moment for launch.
Another officer said hours later the weather was improving and might permit a launch by Wednesday night. Or the military could try again on Thursday or any day until about Feb. 29, when the satellite is expected to have re-entered the Earth's atmosphere.
The aim is not just to hit the bus-sized satellite - which would burn up upon re-entering the atmosphere anyway - but to obliterate a tank onboard that is carrying 1,000 pounds of hydrazine, a toxic fuel. The fuel, unused because the satellite died shortly after reaching orbit in December 2006 - could be hazardous if it landed in a populated area.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a health bulletin saying that the health risk from satellite debris was considered to be low. "However, CDC is encouraging health officials and clinicians to review information about the health effects related to hydrazine to prepare in case their communities are affected by satellite debris."
In a routine precaution, notifications have been issued worldwide to mariners and aviators to stay clear of an area in the Pacific where the satellite debris might fall. The military has calculated that the risk to aviation is so low that U.S. and international aviation officials have decided they are probably not going to reroute air traffic, a senior military officer said Wednesday.
The officer briefed reporters at the Pentagon on technical and logistical matters related to the effort. Under ground rules set by the Pentagon, the officer could not be identified by name.
The attempted shootdown, already approved by President Bush, is seen by some as blurring the lines between defending against a hostile long-range missile and targeting satellites in orbit.
Much of the equipment used in the satellite shootdown is part of the Pentagon's missile defense system, a far-flung network of interceptors, radars and communications systems designed primarily to hit an incoming hostile ballistic missile fired at the United States by North Korea. The equipment, including the Navy missile, has never been used against a satellite or other such target.
The three-stage Navy missile, the SM-3, has chalked up a high rate of success in tests since 2002 - in each case targeting a short- or medium-range missile. A hurry-up program to adapt the missile for this anti-satellite mission was completed in a matter of weeks; Navy officials say the changes will be reversed once this satellite is down.
Some people were skeptical.
"The potential political cost of shooting down this satellite is high," said Laura Grego, an astrophysicist with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Whatever the motivation for it, demonstrating an anti-satellite weapon is counterproductive to U.S. long-term interests, given that the United States has the most to gain from an international space weapons ban. Instead, it should be taking the lead in negotiating a treaty."
Gates is being advised directly by Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, commander of U.S. Strategic Command. Gates was traveling to Hawaii on Wednesday to kick off a nine-day trip. Officials said his stop at U.S. Pacific Command was scheduled before it was known that the satellite shootdown could happen while he was there.
The military has hours each day to monitor a long checklist of technical factors and conditions before deciding whether to proceed with the missile launch. But there was a very narrow window - described by the senior military officers as "tens of seconds" - in which the missile must be launched in order to have the best chance of having the satellite debris land mainly in the Pacific.
Officials will know within minutes whether the missile has hit the satellite, but it will take a day or two to know whether the fuel tank has been destroyed, officials said.
Left alone, the satellite would be expected to hit Earth during the first week of March. About half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft would be expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and would scatter debris over several hundred miles.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Election 2008 (for short) By Tanner Stoker
Well, so far this year has been full of suprises, but for republicans, it ended the way it started, and for the democrats, well who knows. All I know is the longer it takes for them to nominate either Barack or Hillary the better. I still wish Mitt could have done better but hey, their's always 2012, and yes, he'll be running against a second term for Barack Obama. Some might say no way but its the simple truth. Republicans have no chance with the candidate they nominated. John McCain is to close to the liberals on to many issues and like they always say, if you put a liberal Republican against a liberal democrat, the democrat wins! Come November conservative republicans are going to stay home. Most of the blame could be placed on the preacher Mike Huckabee who if he had dropped out before Florida, Mitt Romnay would be our nominee and we would be looking towards a candidate which the conservative base can relate to. Though Barack has Zero experiance and no qualifications to be president, he has the ability of great speech and remember, this election is all about change and he is louder than any other candidate on that front although it might not be change for good. If John McCain picks a decent running mate, he'll have a slim chance against Barack. As republicans, we need to focus on winning seats in the house and the senate and electing state and local conservative leaders. That is our duty and only chance at keeping a say in anything. We must get involved in local elections even if we are not satisfied with the presidential election. We must Take a Stand against Liberalism and push Conservatism forward so we as Americans can remain safe and Free.
McCain VP Names Floating Around By Rush Limbaugh
RUSH: Kelly in Denver, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.CALLER: Rush, thank you very much for taking my call. It's an honor to talk to you.RUSH: Thank you, sir, el mucho.CALLER: (laughs) A little nervous today. Proud member of the cutting edge. Over the last few weeks, it just seems like you're not saying something. You've got something in the back of your mind or maybe right on the front of your mind, but you're not saying it yet. I talked with the owner of the company that I work with -- RUSH: You mean "the guy who lays people off" -- CALLER: No, no, no, no.RUSH: -- quote, unquote, Governor Huckabee?CALLER: No, sir. I am an independent contractor, so... But you said several times in the last few weeks that we had to endure a Carter to get a Reagan, and you sort of leave it hanging for us to ponder and think about. I'm just wondering if something like this might be in play. I don't know what the relationship is between Newt Gingrich and John McCain. But is there a possibility if McCain -- well, McCain's going to win the nomination for us -- of a McCain-Gingrich ticket?RUSH: Um... (sigh) I don't think it's in the cards. Here are the names. I'll tell you the names I'm hearing. I'm hearing at the top of the list Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota. That's a liberal state and McCain would want to win it. I'm hearing Mark Sanford, South Carolina. That might be problematic because McCain carries grudges and Mark Sanford did not endorse him in 2000 in South Carolina, and it was huge there. He was in Congress. Charlie Crist, governor of Florida, who wants it so bad -- he wants it so bad! -- and he's owed because the Drive-Bys, the political pundits are saying, "If it weren't for Crist's endorsement of McCain on the Saturday before the election, McCain would have lost to Romney." A lot of people are putting credence in that. You know, Romney had a ten-point lead in Florida, and on that Saturday before the election McCain came out with a lie about Romney and the "timeline." Crist came out and endorsed him. With some voters in Florida, Crist is pretty popular because he's trying to cut property taxes and so forth. So he's on the list. But McCain may not need Florida. I'll tell you somebody else on the list is Richard Burr, a senator from North Carolina, but McCain doesn't need North Carolina. I'll tell you.... I'm going to give you a name that would make me jump for joy. It's not going to happen because he's not been...Bobby Jindal. I did an interview with Bobby Jindal. He is the next Ronald Reagan, if he doesn't change. Bobby Jindal, the new governor of Louisiana is the next Ronald Reagan. He's young. He was just sworn in for his first term. He's the guy that beat the liberal Democrat machine throughout Louisiana. He did it on 100% conservatism. We interviewed him for The Limbaugh Letter about three issues ago. In fact, I am hereby ordering the editrix of The Limbaugh Letter, Diana Schneider to make -- since it's a past issue -- the interview with Bobby Jindal in The Limbaugh Letter available at RushLimbaugh.com this afternoon. You can send it up to Koko as a PDF file or text or whatever you want. This guy could be the next Ronald Reagan. If McCain chose him, here's a Southern state; this is Louisiana, but I think he may be too conservative for McCain. That depends on who they think McCain will need or want, but Jindal is very young, and he's only in his first year as governor and doesn't really have... He came from the House of Representatives. Also being talked about is Haley Barbour, the governor of Miss'ssippi, but it is said by those in touch with the conventional wisdom that Haley's got too many lobbyist ties for McCain. These are some of the names. There are others that I can't think of right off the top of my head, but they're out there. But I don't think it would be Newt.CALLER: Well, Newt is the guy that I was thinking could probably be the next Reagan.RUSH: Yeah, a lot of people are harboring fantasies about Newt.CALLER: I haven't read his new book yet.RUSH: Well, I got a couple of copies in the backseat of the car.
Michelle Obama Slams America, Says Husband Can Save Its Soul By Rush Limbaugh
RUSH: Here is Michelle Obama. This is yesterday in Madison, Wisconsin, at a Barack Obama campaign event, a portion of her remarks.MRS. OBAMA: What we've learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback, and let me tell you something, for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic, common issues, and it's made me proud.RUSH: Now, this, folks, is unhinged. I mean, I have had heard some female commentators today, "I totally understand what she's talking about. She's black; she's African-American." Let's see, "for the first time in my adult lifetime I'm really proud of my country." She and her husband are in the upper 1% of wage earners in this country. Where did she go to school? She went to, I think, Harvard, Yale or whatever. They went to private schools. They are millionaires. They live in the suburbs. I don't think he marched at Selma. I don't think he got beat upside the head. I don't think Bull Connor turned the fire hose on him. I don't think dogs were unleashed on Barack Obama. She, Mrs. Obama did not experience any of the 1950 segregation. To say something like that and to get a complete pass; people acting as though this is something unique and revelatory, that this is some special couple. Did she not feel proud about the Berlin Wall coming down? Has she not felt proud about the way we came together after 9/11? It is unbelievable to me that -- and this goes to the root, I think, of some of the things we discuss here frequently, and that is people taking this country for granted, not having any understanding what it took to get this country where it is. Here are two relatively young people, who grew up after a road had been paved for them. They have nothing in the world to be miserable about. He is running for the presidency of the United States. He ran for the Senate and made it. They have nothing in the world to be miserable or unhappy about or embarrassed about when it comes to this country. It is just outrageous for this kind of thing to be stated. The sad thing is it's going to resonate with a lot of people because over the years many Americans have been told from grade school on up how unfair, how unjust, how racist, how sexist, how bigoted this country is. Look at Oprah Winfrey. Does Oprah not make her proud? Oprah's success, the movies, the TV show, how can that not make her proud? Oprah is a black woman as is Michelle Obama. By the way, there's something else I had in the stack yesterday, didn't have a chance to get to it so I saved it for today, and it has to do with the fact that she said, "Only Barack Obama can fix America's soul. Only Barack Obama can fix America's broken soul." Now, Michelle Malkin had a great reaction to this. Can you imagine if Huckabee or if Mitt Romney or if McCain, or any Republican presidential candidate came out and said, "America's soul is broken, and only Huckabee can fix it, or only McCain can"? There would be an outcry from the separation of church and state crowd. And of course the soul, whether you people want to admit this or not, is a religious concept in many ways and in most ways. So now we're getting religion mixed into all of this from Barack Obama, and his wife says this is the first time in her life she has been proud of this country. Doesn't it just grate on you that liberals in general are not proud of their country, period? Doesn't it grate on you that they're embarrassed; that they hate the country; that they dislike it, and now she comes out with this kind of comment and all these people sitting around and hoping for whatever, are swooning and fainting?
Castro Resigns as President, Cuban Commander-in-Chief By Michael Smith and Laura Zelenko
Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Fidel Castro resigned as president and commander-in-chief of Cuba, after almost 50 years as the country's leader, the official daily Granma said.
``I neither will aspire to nor will I accept, the position of president of the council of state and commander-in-chief,'' Castro wrote, according to Granma in its online edition. ``My only desire is to fight as a soldier for my ideas.''
Castro, 81, the world's longest serving president, seized power in Cuba almost a half-century ago promising liberty and economic justice only to turn the Caribbean island into a communist bastion and a flashpoint of the Cold War.
The resignation should be ``the beginning of a democratic transition for the people of Cuba,'' President George W. Bush said in a news conference in Kigali, Rwanda, and promised U.S. help. The international community should support ``free and fair elections, and I mean free and I mean fair, not these kinds of staged elections that the Castro brothers try to foist off.''
Raul Castro has been acting president since July 2006, when Fidel handed control to him after undergoing surgery to treat an intestinal ailment. Castro failed to attend the May Day parade in Havana last year, missing the celebration for only the third time since taking power in 1959.
By June, though, he was well enough to meet with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for six hours.
Castro, a lawyer by training, ruled the nation of 11 million people since the 1959 revolution. He boosted literacy and health care for the island's poor, while imprisoning thousands of dissidents, seizing private property and sparking an exodus of Cubans who braved treacherous, shark-infested waters on rickety, homemade boats to flee for the U.S.
Cold War
The Cuban leader took his place on the world stage at the height of the Cold War by making his country an outpost of the Soviet Union only 90 miles (145 kilometers) from Florida. In Latin America and Africa, Castro gave military and political support to revolutionary groups and Marxist governments for more than three decades after taking power.
He pushed the superpowers toward nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and turned the nation into the region's strongest military power until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
``This proves just how courageous he is,'' former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze said in a telephone interview. ``I'd say he is still very confident that the course he has set will continue even after he's gone.''
Unrepentant Revolutionary
Projecting the image of an unrepentant revolutionary dressed in green military fatigues, Castro was a stubborn nemesis for U.S. presidents, from Dwight Eisenhower to Bush. His regime survived a U.S.-sponsored invasion, known as the Bay of Pigs, and at least eight assassination plots. President John F. Kennedy imposed the embargo in 1962, which was tightened by successive U.S. leaders, depriving the country of its largest trade partner and starving the economy of dollars.
The loss of Soviet aid plunged Cuba's economy into a deep depression, forcing Castro to ration food and order people to ride bicycles to save gasoline. In recent years, Castro recovered from the loss of his Soviet patron to antagonize the U.S. once again. Castro has also inspired a new generation of Latin American leaders, including Chavez.
Bush drew up a plan to force Castro from power and tightened the embargo in 2004.
In the past decade, Castro's health deteriorated. In 2004, he made international headlines when he tripped and fell at a graduation ceremony, breaking his left knee and suffering a hairline fracture in his upper right arm.
Soviet Support
At the peak of his power in the 1960s through the 1980s, Castro used his clout and backing from the Soviet Union to aid leftist revolutionary groups, including sending troops to help Marxist governments in Angola, Grenada and Nicaragua.
The bearded Cuban leader communicated best to vast crowds, giving speeches that might last six hours. He often toured Havana in an open military jeep, clutching a Cohiba cigar.
After Cuba plunged into financial ruin following the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991, Castro found ways to mitigate the loss of Soviet aid and the U.S. embargo. He generated foreign exchange by allowing Spanish-built hotels, filled with European tourists, to line the country's resort beaches.
He also cultivated his relationship with Venezuela, the largest oil exporter in the Americas.
``Castro managed to survive all the catastrophes that Cuba faced: droughts, financial and economic isolation, riots,'' said Wilson Borja, an opposition Colombian lawmaker who met with Castro three times.
Overthrow Trujillo
While still in school, the future Cuban leader joined 1,200 men who set out to invade the Dominican Republic and overthrow dictator Rafael Trujillo. The Cuban navy turned the expedition back.
After General Fulgencio Batista staged a coup in 1952 and canceled elections, Castro challenged him in court, lost and began a six-year effort to oust him.
On July 26, 1953, Castro led about 165 men in an attack on an army barracks, hoping to spark a popular uprising. The troops killed eight of Castro's men and executed scores. The survivors fled and were later captured and tried.
Batista released Castro in 1955 as part of a general amnesty. Castro went into exile in Mexico, where he joined forces with Argentine communist revolutionary Ernesto ``Che'' Guevara. In 1956, Castro and Guevara crossed the Caribbean with about 80 men on a yacht called the Granma to start a guerrilla campaign against Batista. Cuban forces killed all but 12 on landing.
Castro's Retreat
Castro retreated into the Sierra Maestra mountains with the survivors, rallied popular support and, at the age of 32, drove Batista into exile on Jan. 1, 1959.
Over the next two years, Castro transformed Cuba into a communist dictatorship, seizing land and nationalizing sugar mills, ranches and oil refineries owned by U.S. interests. His government imprisoned or killed political opponents and declared the country atheist.
On Sept. 29, 1960, amid the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, Castro embraced Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in the Theresa Hotel in New York's Harlem when the two visited the city for a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. The gesture deepened the rift with the U.S., which imposed the trade embargo.
Under Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, the U.S. made clandestine efforts to remove Castro. From 1960 to 1965, the Central Intelligence Agency mounted at least eight assassination plots, according to the 1975 report of a U.S. Senate committee headed by Democratic Senator Frank Church of Idaho.
Poisoned Cigar
The plots included lacing Castro's cigars with a botulinum toxin and enlisting Mafia bosses Sam Giancana and Santo Trafficante Jr. to have someone add poison to one of Castro's drinks, the report said.
President Kennedy authorized the Bay of Pigs invasion. On April 17, 1961, refugees armed by the CIA staged an amphibious landing at the bay on the island's southwest coast with the goal of sparking an uprising. Castro's forces killed more than 100 invaders and captured more than 1,100
Eighteen months later, in October 1962, photographs taken by a U.S. spy plane showed Castro had allowed the Soviet Union to build nuclear-missile bases in Cuba. The discovery marked the start of the Cuban Missile Crisis, 13 days during which the world stared down ``the gun barrel of nuclear war,'' in the words of Kennedy speechwriter Theodore Sorensen.
Kennedy imposed a naval quarantine to block Soviet ships and said the U.S. would regard a strike by Cuba as a Soviet attack. As Soviet ships cruised toward Cuba, Kennedy ordered nuclear weapons loaded onto aircraft.
On the 12th day of the confrontation, Kennedy wrote to Khrushchev offering assurances that the U.S. wouldn't invade Cuba, eliminating Castro's stated reason for the missiles. The next day, Radio Moscow broadcast a statement by the Soviet leader that the weapons would be dismantled.
To contact the reporters on this story: Michael Smith in Santiago at mssmith@bloomberg.net
``I neither will aspire to nor will I accept, the position of president of the council of state and commander-in-chief,'' Castro wrote, according to Granma in its online edition. ``My only desire is to fight as a soldier for my ideas.''
Castro, 81, the world's longest serving president, seized power in Cuba almost a half-century ago promising liberty and economic justice only to turn the Caribbean island into a communist bastion and a flashpoint of the Cold War.
The resignation should be ``the beginning of a democratic transition for the people of Cuba,'' President George W. Bush said in a news conference in Kigali, Rwanda, and promised U.S. help. The international community should support ``free and fair elections, and I mean free and I mean fair, not these kinds of staged elections that the Castro brothers try to foist off.''
Raul Castro has been acting president since July 2006, when Fidel handed control to him after undergoing surgery to treat an intestinal ailment. Castro failed to attend the May Day parade in Havana last year, missing the celebration for only the third time since taking power in 1959.
By June, though, he was well enough to meet with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for six hours.
Castro, a lawyer by training, ruled the nation of 11 million people since the 1959 revolution. He boosted literacy and health care for the island's poor, while imprisoning thousands of dissidents, seizing private property and sparking an exodus of Cubans who braved treacherous, shark-infested waters on rickety, homemade boats to flee for the U.S.
Cold War
The Cuban leader took his place on the world stage at the height of the Cold War by making his country an outpost of the Soviet Union only 90 miles (145 kilometers) from Florida. In Latin America and Africa, Castro gave military and political support to revolutionary groups and Marxist governments for more than three decades after taking power.
He pushed the superpowers toward nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and turned the nation into the region's strongest military power until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
``This proves just how courageous he is,'' former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze said in a telephone interview. ``I'd say he is still very confident that the course he has set will continue even after he's gone.''
Unrepentant Revolutionary
Projecting the image of an unrepentant revolutionary dressed in green military fatigues, Castro was a stubborn nemesis for U.S. presidents, from Dwight Eisenhower to Bush. His regime survived a U.S.-sponsored invasion, known as the Bay of Pigs, and at least eight assassination plots. President John F. Kennedy imposed the embargo in 1962, which was tightened by successive U.S. leaders, depriving the country of its largest trade partner and starving the economy of dollars.
The loss of Soviet aid plunged Cuba's economy into a deep depression, forcing Castro to ration food and order people to ride bicycles to save gasoline. In recent years, Castro recovered from the loss of his Soviet patron to antagonize the U.S. once again. Castro has also inspired a new generation of Latin American leaders, including Chavez.
Bush drew up a plan to force Castro from power and tightened the embargo in 2004.
In the past decade, Castro's health deteriorated. In 2004, he made international headlines when he tripped and fell at a graduation ceremony, breaking his left knee and suffering a hairline fracture in his upper right arm.
Soviet Support
At the peak of his power in the 1960s through the 1980s, Castro used his clout and backing from the Soviet Union to aid leftist revolutionary groups, including sending troops to help Marxist governments in Angola, Grenada and Nicaragua.
The bearded Cuban leader communicated best to vast crowds, giving speeches that might last six hours. He often toured Havana in an open military jeep, clutching a Cohiba cigar.
After Cuba plunged into financial ruin following the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991, Castro found ways to mitigate the loss of Soviet aid and the U.S. embargo. He generated foreign exchange by allowing Spanish-built hotels, filled with European tourists, to line the country's resort beaches.
He also cultivated his relationship with Venezuela, the largest oil exporter in the Americas.
``Castro managed to survive all the catastrophes that Cuba faced: droughts, financial and economic isolation, riots,'' said Wilson Borja, an opposition Colombian lawmaker who met with Castro three times.
Overthrow Trujillo
While still in school, the future Cuban leader joined 1,200 men who set out to invade the Dominican Republic and overthrow dictator Rafael Trujillo. The Cuban navy turned the expedition back.
After General Fulgencio Batista staged a coup in 1952 and canceled elections, Castro challenged him in court, lost and began a six-year effort to oust him.
On July 26, 1953, Castro led about 165 men in an attack on an army barracks, hoping to spark a popular uprising. The troops killed eight of Castro's men and executed scores. The survivors fled and were later captured and tried.
Batista released Castro in 1955 as part of a general amnesty. Castro went into exile in Mexico, where he joined forces with Argentine communist revolutionary Ernesto ``Che'' Guevara. In 1956, Castro and Guevara crossed the Caribbean with about 80 men on a yacht called the Granma to start a guerrilla campaign against Batista. Cuban forces killed all but 12 on landing.
Castro's Retreat
Castro retreated into the Sierra Maestra mountains with the survivors, rallied popular support and, at the age of 32, drove Batista into exile on Jan. 1, 1959.
Over the next two years, Castro transformed Cuba into a communist dictatorship, seizing land and nationalizing sugar mills, ranches and oil refineries owned by U.S. interests. His government imprisoned or killed political opponents and declared the country atheist.
On Sept. 29, 1960, amid the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, Castro embraced Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in the Theresa Hotel in New York's Harlem when the two visited the city for a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. The gesture deepened the rift with the U.S., which imposed the trade embargo.
Under Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, the U.S. made clandestine efforts to remove Castro. From 1960 to 1965, the Central Intelligence Agency mounted at least eight assassination plots, according to the 1975 report of a U.S. Senate committee headed by Democratic Senator Frank Church of Idaho.
Poisoned Cigar
The plots included lacing Castro's cigars with a botulinum toxin and enlisting Mafia bosses Sam Giancana and Santo Trafficante Jr. to have someone add poison to one of Castro's drinks, the report said.
President Kennedy authorized the Bay of Pigs invasion. On April 17, 1961, refugees armed by the CIA staged an amphibious landing at the bay on the island's southwest coast with the goal of sparking an uprising. Castro's forces killed more than 100 invaders and captured more than 1,100
Eighteen months later, in October 1962, photographs taken by a U.S. spy plane showed Castro had allowed the Soviet Union to build nuclear-missile bases in Cuba. The discovery marked the start of the Cuban Missile Crisis, 13 days during which the world stared down ``the gun barrel of nuclear war,'' in the words of Kennedy speechwriter Theodore Sorensen.
Kennedy imposed a naval quarantine to block Soviet ships and said the U.S. would regard a strike by Cuba as a Soviet attack. As Soviet ships cruised toward Cuba, Kennedy ordered nuclear weapons loaded onto aircraft.
On the 12th day of the confrontation, Kennedy wrote to Khrushchev offering assurances that the U.S. wouldn't invade Cuba, eliminating Castro's stated reason for the missiles. The next day, Radio Moscow broadcast a statement by the Soviet leader that the weapons would be dismantled.
To contact the reporters on this story: Michael Smith in Santiago at mssmith@bloomberg.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)