A credible source claims the embattled left-wing advocacy group ACORN is poised to announce massive staff layoffs but an ACORN spokesman denies this is the case.
A credible source close to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now revealed that the activist network intends to lay off all staff members operating out of its New Orleans headquarters. All information provided by the source to this reporter in the past has turned out to be correct.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/04/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Awwwwww - ain't that just too bad.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/04/2009 0:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
My You Find your Journey as a former community organizer as fruitful as the other 10% of America's unemployed.
Americas unemployed = 30 million unemployed
Number of Illegals = Between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants live in the United States
So much for you - Congratulations - Unemployed and no place to go - I smile upon you ACORN
#7
These aren't shots at Ogabe's program. SNL staffers are just miffed that he hasn't checked off every single item on their wish list. They're also running interference for Ogabe on the charge that he's a radical. He's tried to push every one of these things. The reason conservatives and some independents are so angry is because he's pushed these initiatives. They've not come to fruition not because Ogabe hasn't pushed them - it's because conservatives have pushed back, and won reprieves, despite heavy media support in the form of propaganda blitzes in favor of Ogabe's program and a blackout on conservative counter-arguments.
#8
But it's way early for conservatives to break out the champagne. Ogabe does have majorities in both chambers. We've won a temporary reprieve, at best.
#10
No, the messiahship is over. And that wasn't interference, it was mockery. The messiahship can't be restored. And he doesn't seem as clever as Clinton in 93 when his health care tanked. This is not a reprieve. It is not even the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning. A Walter Chronkite moment as it were. Things amy get a lot worse for us all, but they won't get better for Zero.
#11
Agreed on the aura loss, NS. But he's been called weak in the international press a lot recently. Given his ego and insecurity, it's quite possible he'll try something extreme to show he's really powerful.
And we've still got Congress to deal with. Pelosi and Reid plan to ram public option health care through this Fall, and there are several ways they can do it if the blue dog Dems yield ... as some seem to be doing.
So ... mocked? Sure. But not out of the game yet IMO
Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN
To achieve health care reform, "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."
Sources: Town hall meeting on Aug. 21, 2008, in Chester, Va.
#3
ION BHARAT RAKSHAK > US TO LOSE 263,000 JOBS FROM FORECAST.
VARIOUS MIL FORUM/NET POSTERS > IOW, whatever the "official" US unemployment numbers are, SUBTRACT 263,000 - 300,000 from that. Collectively, some believe that REAL US UNEMPLOYMENT RATE [ALL CAUSES] is actually closer to 16-25%???
After a summer of setbacks on health care reform, Democrats on Capitol Hill again seem to think they have found a formula for success. The latest iteration of Obamacare, emerging this week from the Senate Finance Committee, is said to be a move to the center, avoiding the albatross of a government insurance option and costing "only" $900 billion.
But the bill, shepherded through a series of narrow party-line committee votes by chairman Max Baucus, is far from a compromise measure. It is a massively ambitious, costly, intrusive, inefficient, and clumsy combination of mandates, taxes, subsidies, regulations, and new government programs intended over time to replace the American health insurance industry with an enormous new government entitlement. And it fails to address what even President Obama has said is the core of our health care dilemma: rising costs. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the Baucus bill would actually increase the cost of health insurance premiums. The RIP is at The Link
Earlier this week, House Republican Leader John Boehner criticized Obama's Olympics lobbying jaunt to Copenhagen. "Listen I think it's a great idea to promote Chicago but he's the president of the United States, not the mayor of Chicago," Boehner said. "And the problems we have here at home affect all Americans and that's where his attention ought to be." RNC Chairman Michael Steele also said he wanted the Olympics to come to Chicago, but thought that "at a time of war, at a time of recession ... this trip, while nice, is not necessary for the president." Maybe, just maybe, it would have made more sense to focus on winning the war in Afghanistan than winning the Olympics for Chicago.
On Tuesday, the White House struck back. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs falsely implied that Steele opposed bringing the Olympics to Chicago:
"Who's he rooting for? (Laughter) Is he hoping to hop a plane to Brazil and catch the Olympics in Rio? (Laughter.) Maybe it's Madrid."
The official White House blog also claimed that "In the past, hosting the Olympics has been a source of pride and unity for the country." Actually, that's not always been true: In 1972 60 percent of Coloradans voted against hosting the 1976 Olympics. But the facts weren't really important. The point was that White House wanted you to know that if you opposed bringing the Olympics to Chicago--or even criticized Obama's trip to Copenhagen--you didn't really have "pride" in your country (unlike Michelle Obama, who might have been proud of her country for the second time in her adult life had Chicago won).
I was rooting for Rio. The United States has hosted the Olympics eight times before. Not a single South American country has ever hosted the games. Isn't it only fair for Brazil to get its day in the sun? And after declaring that "no world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed," wasn't it hypocritical for the most powerful man in the world to jet to Copenhagen to demand his country get the Olympics for the 9th time?
Wouldn't it have been smart diplomacy for Obama to have opted not to throw his weight around? Or does "smart diplomacy" only involve sacrificing our interests and the the interests of our democratic allies to appease our autocratic adversaries?
Furthermore, 45 percent of Chicagoans oppose bringing the Olympics to Chicago (47 percent were in favor). Presumably opponents have reasons other than a deep-seated hatred of America for wanting to see the city fail in its bid? Or does the White House think Chicagoans who don't want the games are unpatriotic, too? It seems that, like Obamacare, the more people learned what hosting the Olympics really means -- higher taxes, heavy traffic, more corruption -- the less support there was. So, I was wrong to write this morning that Chicago lost. It didn't lose. Neither did America. Obama's cowboy diplomacy lost. And I cheered.
#1
ya know...
some of us just like to go between points A and B in greater Chicago. It is hard enough to do so now. With an Olympics it and prior construction it would be near impossible.
#2
HMMMM, HMMMMM, wehell, a lady friend here on GUam believes that the USA should not fret about losing the 2016 Olympics bid as SOUTH AMERICA + RIO are long overdue to hosting one - she does think, however, that POTUS BAMMER should have sent Lady Love MICHELLE-O intead of self, IIUC so that the USA + OBAMA ADMIN could still gain political points wid the Amer people + UNOC-World while still letting Rio have the Olympics, i.e. "lose with grace"???
#3
Hear hear 3dc. All it takes is somebody changing a tire on the side of one of the expressways and the entire highway net comes to a complete halt. No redundancy in the system whatsoever. Daley the Elder had all sorts of expressways planned that were never built, and you'll get the Olympics in Chicago three times in a row before you build another highway in that city.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/04/2009 1:14 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Tarzan say - Carmen Miranda pictures required - and Bob Hope movie - Road to Rio only then will it all fall into picture.
#6
Congratulations and best wishes to Rio for landing the 2006 summer olympics. See, Ima good sport and have no bitter feelings [other than shame and anger at the world class carbon footprint left by AF-1 between Wash DC and Copenhagen].
/heh
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/04/2009 1:29 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Top 10 reasons President Hussain did not get the Olympics
10. Dead people can't vote at IOC meetings
9. Obama distracted by 25 min meeting with Gen. McChrystal
8. Who cares if Obama couldn't talk the IOC into Chicago? He'll be able to talk Iran out of nukes.
7. The impediment is Israel still building settlements.
6. Obviously no president would have been able to acomplish it.
5. We've been quite clear and said all along that we didn't want the Olympics.
4. This isn't about the number of Olympics "lost", it's about the number of Olympics "saved" or "created".
3. Clearly not enough wise Latina judges on the committee
2. Because the IOC is racist.
1. It's George Bush's fault.
#9
How much did he get paid to diminish the office? How much more would he have been paid had he actually been successful? Who would have benefitted? He is either self-serving or a fool. Neither belong in the office.
#12
social-izm in the guise of public healthcare, and plotting to fatten his post-presidential bank account in order to squeeze in a few minutes with his top general in Afghanistan in response to some inconvenient public perceptions about maybe having been ignoring him.
#13
Sorry for the mess. Fred, your filters wouldn't allow the word I wanted to use get through, so I replaced it with "social-izm". Is this intentional?
Actually, Soci@lism contains varying amounts of Communism which is often associating with economic decline and piles of corpses, something even more annoying than spambots.
#18
Well, advocating Barak Insein Obama's failure for the Olympic is really a tempest in a teapot compared to Congressional Demoncats rooting for the US defeat in Iraq.
The editors of two of the country's most powerful publications, conducting a gloat-fest over the corpse of Reaganism last week, described their idea of true conservatives: Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.
Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham asked a remarkable question of Sam Tanenhaus, editor of the New York Times Book Review, in New York's Greenwich Village Wednesday evening: "Isn't Barack Obama the most significant Burkean in American politics today?"
"Burkean" refers to Edmund Burke, the 18th-century British parliamentarian who sympathized with the freedom-loving revolution in America while vehemently opposing the anarchistic revolution in France.
Tanenhaus, author of an impressive biography of ex-Soviet spy Whittaker Chambers, has just published "The Death of Conservatism," accusing today's conservatives of perverting Burke's vision.
Meacham and Tanenhaus provided a glimpse of the strange planet on which America's dominant journalists live.
According to Tanenhaus, "the engine of industrial capitalism" causes more upheaval than do leftist radicals. Tanenhaus called ex-President Clinton "a classically conservative figure" and charged that the muscular conservatism of the predominant wing of the Republican Party is "in opposition to much of what America does."
While merciless toward the right, the two were nearly servile regarding Obama. Meacham praised the president's restraint in showing "no interest in gun control or universal health care."
He apparently hasn't seen the YouTube clips of then-Sen. Obama endorsing a single-payer health system and an incremental strategy toward arriving at it. Nor has he seemed to notice last year's Supreme Court ruling rendering federal gun control unconstitutional.
"I've never seen anything like Obama in Philadelphia," Tanenhaus gushed of Obama's March 2008 speech on race. Candidate Obama was trying to distance himself from his longtime pastor, the anti-Semitic, anti-American Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But Tanenhaus said it proved he could "penetrate the minds of those who would dislike him or disagree with him."
For all the supposedly deep analysis of the history of political thought on show last week, Tanenhaus revealed that he thinks Edmund Burke was Scottish. (He was born and educated in Dublin.)
And he did indeed agree with Meacham that the man who taught the leftist agitation methods of Saul Alinsky "seems like a Burkean figure today."
On the other hand, to Tanenhaus most influential modern conservative writers and thinkers, like Charles Krauthammer, Michael Barone and even the late William F. Buckley Jr., of whom Tanenhaus is writing a biography, are not true Burkean conservatives but extremist "revanchists."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/04/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What really pisses me off is that these morons actually get big paychecks. They should be in the unemployment lines.
#3
Meacham and Tanenhaus - No this is all good - they sell books to unsuspecting liberals - very needy of self re-inforcement of their views - the money goes to keeping the New York Times away from Bankruptcy and they praise the "Great One" with saving the economy !
They don't call me TARZAN for nothin' -- AAAAHHH--AAAHHH ==== AAAAAAAA - Cheeta don't play with Jane like that, that is TARZAN's job.
Helen Thomas is 89 years old and requires some assistance to get to and from the daily White House briefing. Yet her backbone has proved stronger than that of the president she covers.
On Thursday afternoon, Thomas gave a clinic in fortitude to President Obama's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, during the briefing. "Has the president given up on the public option?" she inquired from her front-row-middle seat.
The press secretary laughed at this repetition of a common Thomas inquiry, but this questioner, who has covered every president since Kennedy, wasn't about to be silenced. "I ask it day after day because it has great meaning in this country, and you never answer it," she said.
"Well, I -- I -- I apparently don't answer it to your satisfaction," Gibbs stammered.
"That's right," Thomas snarled.
Does she do anything else ...
"I -- I'll -- I'll give you the same answer that I gave you unsatisfactorily for many of those other days," Gibbs offered. "It's what the president believes in --"
"Is he going to fight for it or not?" Thomas snapped.
"We're going to work to get choice and competition into health-care reform" was Gibbs's vague response.
Thomas took that as a no. "You're not going to get it," she advised.
"Then why do you keep asking me?" Gibbs inquired.
"Because I want your conscience to bother you," Thomas replied. The room erupted; Gibbs reddened.
Actually, conscience isn't the problem for Gibbs and his boss; it's spine. Thomas's question got at an Obama administration trait that is puzzling opponents and demoralizing supporters: Why isn't the president more decisive and forceful? On many of the most pressing issues -- the public option in health reform, troop levels in Afghanistan, sanctions against Iran -- the administration has hewed to hemming and hawing.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/04/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That cretinous fossil should not be allowed in. She's not "press", she's a partisan dirtbaglady
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/04/2009 11:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
C'mon - even crazy old ladies need to get out once in a while.
New Zeal blog. Doing the research the news media have abdicated.
In June 2009 Patrick Gaspard, a Brooklyn-based, 41-year-old Democratic operative, became White House director of the Office of Political Affairs. Patrick Gaspard's official responsibility is to provide the president with an "accurate assessment of the political dynamics affecting the work of his administration" and to "work with powerbrokers around the country to help push the president's agenda".
According to Rep. Gregory Meeks; "He's a low key, behind-the-scenes, no-fingerprints kind of guy. I need something, I call Patrick. And if he calls, it's a big deal. He's close to the president."
Considerable attention has been focused on Gaspard's ties to the radical community group ACORN.
This post looks at Gaspard's ties to the groups behind ACORN-the groups that helped President Obama during his Chicago days-Democratic Socia1ists of America and the Communist Party offshoot Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socia1ism.
Posted by: ed ||
10/04/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
TARZAN say Kenyan no good. Must call Elephants to shew bad Kenyan away. Have word of Elephant leader: "Must Keep up Pressure on Kenyan before Elephant arrive in 2010"
Unga-Engawa! - Aaaaaahhh- aaaaa- aaauuuaaa ! -
I have called elephant leader - He say vote Republican in 2009 - 2010 - 2012 ..... or more bad magic by Kenyan comes your way.
#2
Boy, oh, boy!!!! I hope this really bites Kerry in the butt for the long term. Even Hillary distanced herself so there must be something of concern to find.
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.
A credible source claims the embattled left-wing advocacy group ACORN is poised to announce massive staff layoffs but an ACORN spokesman denies this is the case.
The editors of two of the country's most powerful publications, conducting a gloat-fest over the corpse of Reaganism last week, described their idea of true conservatives: Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.
Helen Thomas is 89 years old and requires some assistance to get to and from the daily White House briefing. Yet her backbone has proved stronger than that of the president she covers. 
