#1
CHINESE MIL FORUM > POSTER - US MUST STOP INTERNATIONAL USDOD/DEFENSE WELFARE SYSTEM [Washington EXAMINER artic source indics that 65% of US GDP is USDOD-related].
Was 'Lady Macbeth' behind Barack Obama's snub of Gordon Brown?
Posted By: James Delingpole at Mar 5, 2009 at 12:58:55 [General]
Posted in: Foreign Correspondents , Politics , Eagle Eye
On US radio's Garrison show today, I was asked for my reaction as a true born Englishman to President Obama's double insult - first the sending back of the Winston Churchill bust, then his snub to Gordon Brown. "Tough one. Really tough one," I said, torn - as most of surely are - between delight at seeing Brown roundly humiliated, and dismay at having the special relationship so peremptorily, cruelly and bafflingly ruptured.
Iain Martin is quite right here: no matter how utterly rubbish we have become as a nation in the Blair/Brown years, Britain's friendship is something Obama will come to regret having dispensed with so lightly. This was not the act of a global statesman, but of a hormonal teenager dismissing her bestest of best BFs for no other reason than that she felt like it and she can, so there.
What was the guy thinking? In researching my new book Welcome to Obamaland, I discovered that Obama's judgment is pretty dreadful - but this? My favourite theory so far - suggested by presenter Greg Garrison - was that it was a move calculated to please his Lady Macbeth. At the moment in Britain, we're still in the "Doesn't she look fabulous in a designer frock" stage of understanding of Michelle Obama. Gradually, though, we'll begin to realise that she is every bit the terrifying executive's wife that Hillary Clinton was. Or, shudder, Cherie Blair.
We may just LURVE Michelle's fashion sense. But Michelle doesn't reciprocate our affection, one bit. Her broad-brush view of history associates Brits with the wicked white global hegemony responsible for the slave trade. Never mind that a white, Tory Englishman - William Wilberforce - brought the slave trade to an end. Judging by her record, Michelle does not make room for such subtle nuance.
Consider her notorious statement that: "For the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country." Consider her (till-recently suppressed) Princeton thesis, "Princeton Educated Blacks And The Black Community."
In it she writes: "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."
Here we see that she has mastered the authentic voice of grievance culture. She also - the thesis was written in 1985 - pre-empts the Macpherson report's ludicrous, catch-all definition of racism: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person." No matter how hard young Michelle's white undergraduate contemporaries try to be nice, it's not their behaviour that counts, but how Michelle feels.
More worrying, though, and dangerous, than young Michelle's desperate quest for validation through victimhood is the other strain within her thesis. "As I enter my final year at Princeton," she writes. "I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates - acceptance to a prestigious graduate or professional school or a high paying position in a successful corporation. Thus, my goals at Princeton are not as clear as before."
"Yes, exactly, you silly girl" you want to shriek at young Michelle as you give her a good shake. "It's called 'opening your mind', 'broadening your experience', 'allowing youthful dogma to be shaped by reality.' It's why people go to university, don't you know?"
Posted by: Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794 ||
03/05/2009 12:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
More like Lady McBatshit if'n you ask me.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/05/2009 15:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I judge people first by attitude, second by smarts.(As opposed to "Education) and not by color at all unless that person is broadcasting "I'm BLACK WHATCHA GONNA DO ABOUT IT, GIMME, GIMME, then they're not worth knowing.
And NO that's not "Racist". Except on their part.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/05/2009 16:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Why do people talk about her 'great sense of fashion' all the time? She dresses like an Avon lady.
If she was a Republican the fashionistas wuld be all over her.
#4
By the end the British will be saying it's not America they loath but this administration.
I don't think it's Lady McBeth at all. I think it's more likely that Obama researched his Kenyan heritage and didn't like some of what he saw, combined with amateurish personel choices (after all he didn't pick the gift himself).
#5
If I was President first thing I'd do would be to invite the leaders of the Uk, Canada, Australia and New Zealand to Camp David for a long barbeque.
He had put clearly great thought into giving the U.S. President lavish gifts to signify Britain's 'special relationship' with the U.S.
During his historic trip to Washington, Gordon Brown gave Barack Obama an ornamental pen holder made from the timbers of the Victorian anti-slave ship HMS Gannet - once called HMS President.
The unique present delighted Mr Obama because oak from the Gannet's sister ship, HMS Resolute, was carved to make a desk that already takes place in the Oval Office in the White House, after being presented by Britain to the US in 1880.
The Prime Minister went to the trouble of hunting down the perfect gift after becoming the first world leader invited to the White House by the new Commander In Chief.
So it would be perfectly understandable if Mr Brown felt a little underwhelmed at the official gift he received in return.
For despite being leader of the world's most bountiful nation, President Obama handed over nothing more thought-provoking than 25 classic American films on DVD.
It was the equivalent of receiving a pair of socks from an unfamiliar aunt at Christmas - and a less-than-glowing affirmation of the UK-US bond.
Despite being a 'special collector's box set', any film buff could have picked up the movies from their local video store for just £250.
It is not clear what the Prime Minister - not believed to a great fan of cinema - thought about receiving the films.
Downing Street yesterday THURS refused even to state which movies were in the box set - perhaps a reflection of their embarrassment that the gift was less generous than the ones taken to Washington by the Prime Minister.
But the Mail understands the gift included Hollywood blockbusters such as Star Wars, The Godfather and Orson Welles' ground-breaking flick Citizen Kane.
Perhaps pertinently given Britain is floundering in an economic slump, the DVD collection was thought to feature the movie of John Steinbeck's Great Depression novel, 'The Grapes Of Wrath'.
It also included the Oscar-winning boxing biopic 'Raging Bull' starring Robert Di Nero and Alfred Hitchcock's classic thriller Psycho - maybe a comment on the PM's notorious short fuse?
And he will hope that at a General Election the British public do not shun his imploration for another term in office by thinking at the ballot box of the famous line from another of the movies, Casblanca: 'Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.'
But following Mr Brown's his recent troubles - the UK entering recession, soaring job losses and home repossessions, Labour struggling in the polls and threats of leadership challenges - he may be pleased at being able to settle down for a quiet night in front of the ultimate feel-good movie: It's A Wonderful Life.
Number 10 was staying silent about the gift, but the Mail has learned the American Film Institute produced a box set of 25 top U.S. movies as a "special request" for the White House last month.
Mr Brown also took to Washington a framed commission for HMS Resolute, a vessel that came to mark Anglo-US peace when it was saved from ice packs by Americans and given to Queen Victoria.
He also gave a first edition set of the seven-volume classic biography of Churchill by Sir Martin Gilbert.
Mr Brown and his wife also showered gifts on the Obama children giving Sasha and Malia an outfit each from Topshop and six children's books by British authors which are shortly to be published in America.
In return, the Obamas gave the Browns two models of the presidential helicopter, Marine One, to take home to sons Fraser and John.
The Prime Minister has not had the best of luck when receiving gifts from U.S. presidents.
He was given a fur-trimmed brown leather bomber jacket by George W. Bush during first trip to America in summer 2007.
Emblazoned with the presidential seal and the logo of Camp David, it also boasted a black patch bearing the name 'Rt Hon Gordon Brown'.
Commentators gleefully pointed out that the garment was hardly in keeping with Mr Brown's usual sober attire of business suit and tie.
Not surprisingly, it later emerged that the PM had decided not to keep the gift. Instead, he gave it to charity.
Like all good guests, Sarah Brown arrived bearing gifts for the children, Malia and Sasha. And they were really nice presents. A bit of thought had clearly gone into choosing them: Top Shop dresses (with matching necklaces) and a selection of books by British authors. Lovely.
Mrs Brown may have two boys but she certainly knows the way to a little girls heart. These were gifts chosen in the true spirit of present-giving: to please the recipient, not the giver.
In return Mrs Obama gave the Brown children, Fraser and John, two toy models of Marine One, the Presidential helicopter. Fair enough on the helicopter part, always a popular choice with small boys; but Marine One? Its not as though anyone needs reminding that Barack Obama is President or that he has his own helicopter. Short of giving the boys Action Man models of her own husband smiting the evil forces of neoconservatism, Mrs Obamas gesture could not have been more solipsistic or more inherently dismissive of Mrs Brown.
Not only did she demonstrate that she spent approximately three seconds contemplating the needs of the Brown boys (having an aide pop to the White House gift shop for a piece of merchandising does not imply a great deal of thought), she appeared to show a most uncharacteristic lapse of judgment.
If you recall, before Kenya became Kenya (1963) it was a British colony known as British East Africa. Between 1952 and 1960, there was this little difference of opinion between the UK and the natives of British East Africaprimarily from the Kikuyu tribe. That conflict is known as the Mau Mau Uprising. There were tens of thousands of African civilians killed and, according to Wiki, seven to ten thousand Africans interned by the British colonial masters. In Dreams from My Father, President Obama says that his grandfather was tortured by the British during the conflict, though he was not a Kikuyu but a Luo. Guess which prime minister ordered the Mau Mau insurgency to be put down.
#7
Thanks Anon. The parallels are striking. The Kikuyu experience became the blueprint for other African wars of liberation as well. Very relevant piece of history.
#9
Fair enough on the helicopter part, always a popular choice with small boys; but Marine One? Its not as though anyone needs reminding that Barack Obama is President or that he has his own helicopter.
Oh, I dunno. A model of Marine One given to you by the President is pretty damn cool, and it's something you probably can't come by in Britain.
Frankly, I find giving presents fraught with peril, especially presents to kids. Dresses? How sexist! Books? How dull! Give 'em what they really want -- Bratz dolls? AIIEEE!
Me, I love getting books. Though I wouldn't have turned up my nose at, say, a model Spitfire. Pocketa pocketa pocketa! Take that, Jerry! Rat-tat-tat-tat! And that bomber jacket would be SWEET. What a weedy wet that Brown is.
And he will hope that at a General Election the British public do not shun his imploration for another term in office by thinking at the ballot box of the famous line from another of the movies, Casblanca: 'Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.'
President Barack Obama doesnt go anywhere without his TelePrompter.
The textbook-sized panes of glass holding the presidents prepared remarks follow him wherever he speaks.
Resting on top of a tall, narrow pole, they flank his podium during speeches in the White Houses stately parlors. They stood next to him on the floor of a manufacturing plant in Indiana as he pitched his economic stimulus plan. They traveled to the Department of Transportation this week and were in the Capitol Rotunda last month when he paid tribute to Abraham Lincoln in six-minute prepared remarks.
Obamas reliance on the teleprompter is unusual not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events large and small.
After the teleprompter malfunctioned a few times last summer and Obama delivered some less-than-soaring speeches, reports surfaced that he was training to wean himself off of the device while on vacation in Hawaii. But no luck.
His use of the teleprompter makes work tricky for the television crews and photographers trying to capture an image of the president announcing a new Cabinet secretary or housing plan without a pane of glass blocking his face. And it is a startling sight to see such sleek, modern technology set against the mahogany doors and Bohemian crystal chandeliers in the East Room or the marble columns of Grand Foyer.
Its just something presidents havent done, said Martha Joynt Kumar, a presidential historian who has held court in the White House since December of 1975. Its jarring to the eye. In a way it stands in the middle between the audience and the president because his eye is on the teleprompter.
Just how much of a crutch the teleprompter has become for Obama was on sharp display during his latest commerce secretary announcement. The president spoke from a teleprompter in the ornate Indian Treaty Room for a few minutes. Then Gov. Gary Locke stepped to the podium and pulled out a piece of paper for reference.
The presidents teleprompter also elicited some uncomfortable laughter after he announced Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as his choice for Health and Human Services secretary. Kathy, Obama said, turning the podium over to Sebelius, who waited at the microphone for an awkward few seconds while the teleprompters were lowered to the floor and the television cameras rolled.
Obama has relied on a teleprompter through even the shortest announcements and when repeating the same lines on his economic stimulus plan that he's been saying for months whereas past presidents have mostly worked off of notes on the podium except during major speeches, such as the State of the Union.
March 5 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve Board of Governors receives daily reports on loans to banks and securities firms, the institution said in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Bloomberg News.
Bloomberg being one of the few news agencies that isn't wholly in the tank for Bambi.
The Fed refused yesterday to disclose the names of the borrowers and the loans, alleging that it would cast a stigma on recipients of more than $1.9 trillion of emergency credit from U.S. taxpayers and the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.
A 'stigma'. Now isn't that an interesting response in the Age of Obama ...
The bank provides select members and staff of the Board of Governors with daily and weekly reports on Primary Dealer Credit Facility borrowing, said Susan E. McLaughlin, a senior vice president in the markets group of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in a deposition. The documents include the names of the primary dealers that have borrowed from the PDCF, individual loan amounts, composition of securities pledged and rates for specific loans.
It isn't like we're asking for the codes to the nuclear football. Taxpayers provided the money, and taxpayers need to know that the money is being handled properly. And since the Federal Reserve is part of the reason we got into this mess in the first place, with lax regulation of mortgages and banks buying mortgage backed securities, someone needs to watch the watchers.
The Board of Governors contends that its separate from its member banks, including the Federal Reserve Bank of New York which runs the lending programs. Most documents relevant to the Bloomberg suit are at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which isnt subject to FOIA law, according to the Fed. The Board of Governors has 231 pages of documents, which it is denying access to under an exemption under trade secrets.
I would assume that information would be shared by the Fed and the New York Fed, said U.S. Representative Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican. At some point, the demand for transparency is paramount to any demand that they have for secrecy.
I think he means, 'superior to any demand'. Then again he's a politician so who the hell knows what he's saying?
I'd explain it to them like this: if you want any more money, you'd better show us how the money we've given you before has been spent.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/05/2009 11:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Fed=Banks
Both don't want their books checked by independent auditors. Why am I not surprised. [Much along the line of why sharks don't eat lawyers - professional courtesy.]
#4
You don't understand that the Fed isn't part of the government However, the Fed's "notes" all say "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private" Not part of the government. Hoo Ha.
#3
NO, NO, NO! You've NOT "been had." You bloody boinked yourselves, and properly at that! Now suck it up, live with your decision, and swim hard with the rest of us! You were all told he was a phueching COMMUNIST long before the election. Bon Apeti you arugula chomping leftest bastards.
#5
Getting over Obamamania is like any other twelve-step program, first you have to admit that you have a problem, then we can help you. You're making good progress, Maureen.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/05/2009 11:05 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Jesus. What does it take to get to the left of Dowd? I honestly didn't think it could be done.
#7
It is certainly very interesting. I have been observing the same thing across the spectrum of OP-ED writers. Sadly, they are the ones that lead the opinion of a lot who have no time to sit down and read details of what is going on. The thundering herd reads the opinion pieces and accepts that view. The other side of the coin, is that as these opinion writers get more and more aggressive in their opposition, the thundering herd will catch up. This is evident in the nonsense of the opinion pols. The willingness of people to respond unthinkingly has what has allowed this "change" to occur. Now people will begin to pay attention. Rush Limbaugh for all his faults is certainly a lightening rod and his audience is rising dramatically as the left wing bloggers and broadcasters, newspapers and magazines who haven't already gone belly up, struggle to sell advertising revenue.
At the end of this there will be a rump of true believers who will keep applauding, there will be the dyed in the wool anti obamaniacs who will be saying "I told you so" and there will be the middle who quietly become more desparate and angry, frustrated and disillusioned.
That is the time we will see the true character of the majority of the American people. Will they be cowered into submission or will they say enough is enough? The primary thing now is for a literate, competent, coherent and gifted spokesman to arise up quietly on the conservative side who will sweep these cockroaches from the Congress in the half term elections, block these changes as best they can and then crush this arrogant Mugabe pretender.
#9
Very good OSforB. A bit off topic but if this comes to pass it might be interesting to see how the Ø responds to criticism and direct action against him. He doesn't seem to know how to respond to that. Perhaps he will go totally grey in the next two years (barring use of "just for men").
#10
I predict that within two months the wrapper will come off of the race game and that will be put in play. As the drumbeat of anger finally begins to sound loudly across America, and the Congree runs for the shelters after seeing thye smoking ruins in economy and confidence these idiots have already created, Obama and Empress Michelle will trot out the racism canard to quiet the restless and cow the timid. When that happens, finally, the true test of American courage can be seen. Can we finally get past that BS? I doun't know.....
#11
They and the rest of the country are figuring out the bitter truth.
The media snipes in the WH press corps have already begun to shred Obamas press secretary. Even the usual cheerleaders are choking when called on their cyclical film-flam. And, most important, the electorate that held their nose and voted for Obama arent exactly pleased. But if Chicago style kick-the-can is what people consider as Hope and Change then he should be fine. If not, Obamas arrogance may be his best asset.
Them (The Fashionably Left™) getting a big taste of what they said they wanted and realizing it doesn't taste so good. My belief is that a lot (majority?) of the so-called Left in this country think this is some kind of game like they played in High School or Jr. High.
And now they are coming to realize that they have been played for the useful idiots that they are. We will all suffer, but I do believe we will come through this and Leftism/Liberalism/...etc. will perish. Obama is going to destroy the Democrat Party for decades. God, I pray it is so.
Oh, I do not think we will manage to come this without bloodshed however. That is going to have to happen, I see no way around it. Also, there is going to have to be some major return to a strict adherence to the Constitution and some undoing of the damage wrought since around 1913. JMHO.
#13
NMBS understands the dynamic. You;ll know when you've wounded the leper Messiah badly when he trots out the "anyone who opposes my policies for any reason is a proven racist" tactic. I've been saying this since before the inauguration.
When that happens, it will be due to desperation on the part of the leper messiah and his goons. As ugly a time as that will be, it will be a time to celebrate.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/05/2009 16:35 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Why are you all bitching,? He's done exactly what he was elected to do, break open the treasury and shovel it out with both hands and a shovel.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/05/2009 20:19 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Well,with Rev Wright, Black Liberation theology, Bill Ayres, The Che flag in his campaign office in Houston, Michele Obama's "hate America speech", community organizing and most liberal voting record in Congress, someone is actually surprised?
In the first two months of 2009, the Democratic Congress and the White House have spent more money than the combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the response to Hurricane Katrina. After they doled out taxpayer dollars at such a blistering pace, the instinct of many inside the Beltway is to do what's most convenient: desperately try to change the subject by creating straw men -- called "the party of no" -- to rally against.
And in a carefully calculated campaign, operatives and allies of the Obama administration are seeking to divert attention toward radio host Rush Limbaugh, and away from a debate about our alternative solutions on the economy and the irresponsible spending binge they are presiding over. This diversionary tactic will not create a single job or help a single family struggling in today's economic crisis. And that is where our focus should be.
Make no mistake: This strategy did not develop out of thin air. Democratic pollsters began laying the groundwork for this effort last fall. What's particularly regrettable is that all this is unfolding at a time our nation can least afford it.
President Obama has said that we must change the way Washington operates in order to address the unprecedented challenges of today. I hope that those inside and close to the administration begin heeding his advice, because the change-the-subject campaign they are employing is the oldest trick in Washington's book. This isn't about the leadership of political party officials or the influence of radio hosts. It's about the need for both parties to work together toward real solutions to end this recession and put Americans back to work.
It's no secret that middle-class families and small businesses across our nation are hurting. Their job security is diminishing, their budgets are tightening, and their 401(k)s and college savings are evaporating. During this recession, they are being forced to make difficult budget decisions; unfortunately, Congress and the administration do not feel the responsibility to do likewise. Instead, the profligate spending we've seen over the past two months is simply breathtaking -- and it's exactly why some here in Washington are scrambling to change the subject.
Consider what Washington Democrats have "accomplished" since the beginning of the year: The administration requested $350 billion from the Troubled Assets Relief Program even though neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration has adequately answered questions about where the first $350 billion went and what strategy Treasury officials have developed to get the government out of the private sector. President Obama signed "stimulus" legislation that costs twice as much as the House GOP's alternative bill but that will create only half as many jobs.
The president apparently plans to sign the $410 billion "omnibus" spending bill, even though it is loaded with some 9,000 unscrutinized earmarks and the largest increase in discretionary spending -- save for a brief increase after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- since the Carter administration. And the Obama administration has proposed a budget blueprint that increases taxes on every American, to the total tune of $1.4 trillion. Each of these policy proposals is meant to lay the groundwork for a new era of big government -- and neither Main Street nor Wall Street likes what it is seeing.
Markets are plunging, businesses are cutting jobs and families are growing more anxious every day. Moments like this demand the kind of cooperation and new way of doing business that Obama has promised. Instead, those around him are taking to the airwaves and the pages of our nation's newspapers to carry out a campaign intended to change the subject and divert attention from what matters most: finding a way to work together to get our economy moving again.
Something is wrong when the discourse in Washington is more focused on a political sideshow than, say, the fact that Congress is attempting to terminate a school choice program that serves thousands of needy children in the District of Columbia, or the impact of a presidential budget that raises taxes on millions of Americans during a recession. When it comes to jobs, the budget, children's health care and other issues, House Republicans have offered what we believe are better solutions to the problems facing middle-class families and small businesses. We will continue to do so in the coming months and hope that White House political operatives abandon their cynical "change the subject" strategy by joining us.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democrats on Wednesday suggested Republicans should join their call for a nonpartisan "truth commission" to probe whether the Bush administration abused its power, or face partisan congressional investigations.
The GOP response: Forget it.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was supported in his commission proposal by a former career diplomat and a retired admiral. But he told a hearing he convened that if Republicans "remain absent or resistant, this opportunity can be lost."
As it should be. This is more than a partisan witch-hunt; it's an attempt to attack government officials for policy decisions. It's what you do when you think you're safe from retaliation. Leahy wants to criminalize policy decisions and keep the Pubs on the defensive.
Leahy said the alternative was "accountability through more traditional means" -- defined by Leahy's aides as congressional hearings controlled by Democrats.
Which he'll do anyway. Let him try and have the Pubs mount a full-throated defense.
Both moderate and conservative Republicans made clear to Leahy, D-Vt., that they'll take their chances with the alternatives to a truth commission. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., ranking GOP member on the committee, said he opposes a truth commission because Democrats "can walk in the front door" of the Justice Department and "ask directions to the relevant filing cabinet."
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, part of his party's conservative wing, added: "The idea that this so-called truth commission would somehow resolve the good-faith disagreements ... is just asking us to believe in the tooth fairy." He said he's willing to have Congress do the job itself.
A 'truth commission' would be owned and operated by the progressive Left. They'd install a few Pub fools and has-beens onto the commission as window-dressing but those Pubs would always get rolled. The commission would hire a whole bunch of young progressive lawyers and staffers, thus providing both a payroll and a way to start grooming the next generation of hacks and thugs.
This is all about beating down any conservative or Pub who might want to serve in a Republican administration in the future, and it has as to do with 'truth' as 'Pravda'.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think its a terrific idea. A "truth" commission addressing liberal concerns on the WoT may not get much attention, but can you imagine a "truth" commission about the mortgage problems,including Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?
#5
I'm all for it, as long as they open each session with a rousing rendition of "The Internationale", and address Chairman Leahy as "Dorogai Senator".
(If you're gonna have a show trial, it's best to follow tradition IMAO.)
#6
Call it a coincidence if you will, but the model for Senator Leahy's proposal appears to have as it's foundation the South African Truth and Reconciliation Act (TRC) of 1995. The TRC exercised it's mandate through three committees: the Amnesty Committee, Reparation and Rehabilitation (R&R) Committee and Human Rights Violations (HRV) Committee.
"... a commission is a necessary exercise to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation."
Mr Dullah Omar, former Minister of Justice
South African Minister of Justice the late Abdullah Mohammed "Dullah" Omar attended Kipling Street Muslim primary school, University of Cape Town and later became a legal representative to the African National Congress (ANC). You are certainly free to draw your own parallels and conclusions.
Not even eventually. With the economy in freefall and foreign affairs in shambles the voters will be even harsher than they were with the Clinton impeachment.
This would a particularly bad move for a government that's already getting to be known for attacking its critics.
#12
I dunno, Pat. "Truth conmmision" sounds too Cultural Revolutiony. But I'll bet you'd look good in your little Mao suit and the foopy hat with the red star on it screeching at enemies of the people.
Then again, you could go home this weekend and get bit by a rabid cow. Which would be nice...
#15
My prediction for the Dems AFTER Hussein's first and ONLY term : no major candidates for President that have not been in the military, have not been Governor of a major state, or are not Caucasian. Plus, I think that the Repubs will have another 12 year lock on the Presidency just like they did after Carter.
#16
Plus, this type of Stalinist show trial will piss-off so many people that the Dems would be guaranteeing the loss of the House in 2010, and possibly the loss of the Senate in 2012.
When I come to work each day, whether as a commentator for TheStreet.com or a host of Mad Money With Jim Cramer, I have only one thought in mind: helping people with their money.
I fight to help viewers and readers make and preserve capital. I fight for their 401(k)s, for their 529s and their IRAs. I fight for their annuities and for their life insurance policies. I fight for their profits, trading and investing. And in this horrible market, I fight to keep their losses to a minimum by having some good dividend-yielding stocks from different sectors, some bonds, some gold and some cash.
The lines are drawn pretty clearly: If you can help people make money to be able to retire, enjoy life, pay for college, pay down debt, etc., you are a "good guy," so to speak. If you take the other side of the trade, you are, well, let's say, a less favored fellow. And if you gun for the gigantic investor class that is out there that includes 90 million people in one form or another, whether it be 401(k)s or individual stocks or pension plans, then you are on my enemies list.
Now some, including Rush Limbaugh, would say I am on another enemies list: that of the White House. Limbaugh says there are only a handful of us on it, and if I am on it for defending all of the shareholders out there, then I am in good company. Limbaugh -- whom I do not know personally, but having been in radio myself, know professionally as a genius of the medium -- says, "They're going to shut Cramer up pretty soon, too, but he'll go down with a fight."
Limbaugh's dead right. I am a fight-not-flight guy, so I was on my hackles when I heard White Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' answer to a question about my pointed criticism of the president on multiple venues, including the Today Show.
"I'm not entirely sure what he's pointing to to make some of the statements," Gibbs said about my point that President Obama's budget may be one of the great wealth destroyers of all time. "And you can go back and look at any number of statements he's made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the backup for those are, too."
Huh? Backup? Look at the incredible decline in the stock market, in all indices, since the inauguration of the president, with the drop accelerating when the budget plan came to light because of the massive fear and indecision the document sowed: Raising taxes on the eve of what could be a second Great Depression, destroying the profits in healthcare companies (one of the few areas still robust in the economy), tinkering with the mortgage deduction at a time when U.S. house price depreciation is behind much of the world's morass and certainly the devastation affecting our banks, and pushing an aggressive cap and trade program that could raise the price of energy for millions of people.
The market's the effect; much of what the president is fighting for is the cause. The market's signal can't be ignored. It's too palpable, too predictive to be ignored, despite the prattle that the market's predicted far more recessions than we have.
#1
The market's the effect, not the cause. Perfect summation.
"I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years After popped up on my iPod yesterday. While I enjoy the song, one verse really chafes my a** everytime:
Tax the rich, feed the poor,
'Til there are no rich no more.
Sums up perfectly what the current administration of morons is all about--we don't want to raise up the poor, we just want to bring the rich down to their level and have everybody equally miserable and dependent on government for all their needs!
At least the guys who wrote the lyrics were young hippies likely stoned at the time. What's the excuse for Obama, Geithner, Pelosi, et al?
Posted by: Dar ||
03/05/2009 13:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Dow Jones:
Nov 4: 9625
Jan 20: 7949 -17.5%
Mar 5: 6650 -31%
Before Obama got the nomination the DOW was 11-12K.
Thanks for wiping out 1/3 of Americans wealth and near half from last summer (i.e. When McCain/Palin pulled ahead in the polls).
Posted by: ed ||
03/05/2009 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'd have gone with something shorter. Like..."bite me".
#6
I predict that Rush and Kramer are going to have the fight of their lives on this. The WHAM(White House Attack Machine) is feeling incredibly powerful and will crank up the attack on those critical of them. God bless and good luck.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
03/05/2009 15:43 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The Right Wing Hate Machine vs. The White House Attack Machine! Liiiiiiiiiive on Pay Per View!!!
U.S. oil and natural gas producing companies should not receive federal subsidies in the form of tax breaks because their businesses contribute to global warming, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress on Wednesday. Tim knows as much about global warming as he does about filing his own taxes. He does seem to know a lot about expanding the power of the state while strangling the economy.
#5
What will it take for the government to conclude that nationalization of the domestic oil industry is the solution to some perceived problem (lines, high prices, CO2 emissions, etc.)?
#6
How many years after the nationalization will government conclude that they actually need to drill instead of railing against drillers?
And will they have any money to reverse policy with, or will they just look wistfully at all the drilling rigs that used to be offfshore of the US, and are now offshore of Brazil?
(For those who don't know, _today_ some 70% of the world's deepwater drilling capacity is currenty under contract to Petrobras).
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
President Barack Obama doesnt go anywhere without his TelePrompter. 
In the first two months of 2009, the Democratic Congress and the White House have spent more money than the combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the response to Hurricane Katrina. After they doled out taxpayer dollars at such a blistering pace, the instinct of many inside the Beltway is to do what's most convenient: desperately try to change the subject by creating straw men -- called "the party of no" -- to rally against. 
When I come to work each day, whether as a commentator for TheStreet.com or a host of Mad Money With Jim Cramer, I have only one thought in mind: helping people with their money.
