Pix of the day: Knut, the “green” polar bear

October 17, 2009

Knut, a polar bear at Zoo Berlin, swims in a pool covered with common duckweed.

(ranier/jensen EPA)

“babies pollute the planet“
Gore called out by journalist: “Polar bear population increasing”

“Babies pollute the planet”

October 17, 2009

Al Gore called out by journalist
Knut, the “green” polar bear

The myth of global warming has women (allegedly) refusing to have children because of their carbon footprint. It’s their right to do whatever they want but one wonders if they weren’t going to have children anyway and chose to have a cause. One also wonders what they think of their own parents’ choices.

Source: The Daily Mail’s NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH & MORAG TURNER

UK woman TONI VERNELLI made her first husband have a vasectomy (he was 25 when they divorced), had herself sterilized and had an abortion in order to “save the planet”.

Having children is selfish.

It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet. Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.

She says folks look at her crazy when she says she doesn’t want children.

My only frustration is that other people are unable to accept my decision. When I tell people why I don’t want children, they look at me as if I was planning to commit murder. A woman who does not have maternal-feelings is seen as some sort of anomaly.

So why tell them? And why care about whether someone accepts her decision?

It sounds like she’s non-accepting of their non-acceptance. And it’s not the lack of maternal feelings – it’s the explanation of why and the need to share the why.

And then talk of adoption:

We used to say that if ever we did want children, we’d adopt, as there are so many children in need of a loving family.

At least then, we’d be doing something positive for the world, rather than something negative.

Read that again. They don’t think very highly of their eggs and sperm, do they?

But jetting off to South Africa – no problem.

We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population.

Two people in an industrialized country combating overpopulation?

One wonders why she thinks Man exists and why she is so certain Man and Earth will survive barry’s presidency.

And then there’s SARAH IRVING:

I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do.

How many hundreds of folks could her child teach about the environment? Why can’t she find something active to do?

I didn’t want to have an ‘accident’ if contraception didn’t work – we would be faced with the dilemma of whether to keep the baby.

One wonders if it is natural selection taking care of itself – if one thinks a baby is pollution then they shouldn’t be anywhere near one.

When I see a mother with a large family, I don’t resent her,

but I do hope she’s thought through the implications.

The implications of having children vs the complications of contraception, abortion, sterilization and pollution?

Husband MARK:

Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don’t have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly. We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food.

And when they have no teeth and are wearing disposable diapers and being kept alive with tube feedings and being ferried back and forth from the ER in an ambulance because they have no one to care for them?

In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint.

But all this would be undone if we had a child.

And Mrs Einstein? What would be undone if she never gave birth to Albert?

That’s why I had a vasectomy.

It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth.

And when they finally realize climate change is a convenient non-truth, will they regret not having had children?

Inconvenient truth: Polar bear population has increased

October 17, 2009

Knut, the “green” polar bear

Here’s an exchange between Al Gore and an actual journalist. It’s self-explanatory. And you know it’s an actual journalist because he gets censored, as in his mic gets cut off.

Media control can’t get any clearer than this.

Place: “Society of Environmental Journalists Annual Conference”

Environmental journalist: PHELIM MCALEER

Speaker: Nobel Laureate AL GORE

Fairy Tale being told: Global warming is real.

Women: Not having babies because “babies pollute the planet“.

GibbedHGR

Perfect example of pro-barry media bias

October 16, 2009

Found this in the drafts. No need for a study or poll – the bias is clear.

WASHINGTON TIMES
(5-28-08)
MCCAIN RESTRICTS ACCESS TO MEDICAL RECORDS

“McCain won’t release medical records” but no mention of barry’s medical records, which he was/is blocking legal access to.

The headline is a lie.

Sen McCain was “restricting access” and yet 13 words in:

…Sen John McCain will release 400 pages of his medical records…

In 1999, during first run for president, he released 1500 pages of medical records, which they’ve had access to for 8 years. 400 more from 2000 – 2008 vs 1500 pages for his entire life, including his POW years and extensive psychiatric testing is more than reasonable.

And he released them to the major networks: CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg, The Washington Post, the Arizona Republic. and FOX. Not Kos, Huffington Post, Factcheck and politifact.

No mention that Mr Transparency hadn’t released his either.

For more than a year, the four-term senator has repeatedly promised to release his recent medical records, but has not yet done so.

And then they listed Sen McCain’s physical limitations like he was bedridden. No mention of what his injuries were and how hard he worked to overcome them. And of course, no mention of his completely cogent 97 y/o mother and her twin sister, who still drive.

Quoted as written:

Still, the candidate’s age at 72, he would be the oldest president ever to take office and especially his health threaten to become campaign issues.

And barry’s hair hair turned gray and he needed several vacations while Secry Clinton campaigned for him.

And barry’s medical records?

A couple of paragraphs from a neighborhood doctor. No past medical history. No psychiatric history. No immunization records to see where he might have traveled. No mention of the medical records he was “restricting access to” and how he was fighting their release in court.

Just this:

At just 46, Sen. Barack Obama, Mr. McCain’s likely opponent, is young enough to be his son, and he has highlighted his health by doffing his shirt at the beach and sprinting up and down the basketball court, all, of course, in front of news cameras.

Proven lie:

The Obama campaign insists it will not make age an issue in the campaign.

They used McCain’s age and rage and of course race. They said they weren’t going to use religion or patriotism and complained about it constantly.

barry’s medical records still have not been released. The media hasn’t asked and regular citizens don’t have the right to.

The absolute corruption of the press is worse than anything barry might have done because the press has enabled him.

A sitting president is named in lawsuit after lawsuit and there’s no media in the courtroom – a clear breach of their Constitutional duty to The American People and nobody seems to care.

Capt Sullenberger reads from his book

October 16, 2009

To barry: “Why do people hate you?”

October 16, 2009

barry goes to Louisiana to talk in pre-set sterilized townhall meetings. He didn’t go to Katrina-ravaged areas – so what was the point? Swing state and to say he was there?

Here he is a snippet of his hard-hitting townhall at University of New Orleans. In attendance were Gov Bobby Jindal, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Sen Mary Landrieu and a cute little 4th grade boy, Tyren Scott.

Hard to believe this wasn’t scripted. Especially the way he halted asking it like he was trying to remember what to say and also since it was the last question.

If he went to the still-ravaged areas, the question would gave been:

Child who hasn’t been able to go to school: Why do you hate us?

POTUS: What do you mean?

Child: You don’t care about us. We still don’t have a house or a school or a playground. My mom cries all the time cuz she doesn’t have a job cuz where she worked isn’t there any more and my dad left to get a job and never came back and my brother just gets drunk and eats all our food and my grandma died because she couldn’t pay for medicine. We’ve been living in that crummy trailer – you know rats get in that hole there at night and chew on my only pair of shoes – and I can’t play with my friends because they’re all gone.  So, Mr President, you gotta hate us cuz otherwise you’d be helping us.

POTUS: Uh,uh, uh…

alteredstateshow

TRANSCRIPT

It’s hard to tell if the boy thinks barry is God.

POTUS: All right, I’ve got time for one more question. It’s a man’s turn, isn’t it? It’s a guy’s turn. Okay, here’s — this young man, right here. I’m going to let him use my special mic. Hey, this is a big guy — don’t go “awww.” Come on, man, I mean, this is a — all right, what’s your name?

Fourth grader: Tyren Scott.

POTUS: Terrence Scott. What do you have to say?

TYREN SCOTT: I have to say, why do people hate you and why — they supposed to love you, and God is love and –

POTUS: That’s what I’m talking about. (Laughter and applause.) Come on.

barry hugs the crowd and looks right at the cameraman and photographers.

POTUS: That’s what I’m talking about. Terrence. I appreciate that. What grade are you in?

SCOTT: Fourth.

POTUS: You’re in fourth grade? Well, now, first of all, I did get elected President, so not everybody hates me, now. I don’t want you to — (laughter.) I got a whole lot of votes. I want to make sure everybody understands. But you know, what is true is if you were watching TV lately, it seems like everybody is just getting mad all the time. And, you know, I think that you’ve got to take it with a grain of salt. Some of it is just what’s called politics, where once one party wins then the other party kind of gets — feels like it needs to poke you a little bit to keep you on your toes. And so you shouldn’t take it too seriously.

And then sometimes — as I said before, people just — I think they’re worried about their own lives. A lot of people are losing their jobs right now. A lot of people are losing their health care or they’ve lost their homes to foreclosure. And they’re feeling frustrated. And when you’re President of the United States, you know, you’ve got to deal with all of that. That’s exactly right. And, you know, you get some of the credit when things go good; and when things are going tough, then you’re going to get some of the blame and that’s part of the job.

But, you know, I’m a pretty tough guy. Are you a tough guy? You look like you’re pretty tough. And so you’ve just got to keep on going even when folks are criticizing you. Because as long as you know that you’re doing it for other people. All right? (Applause.)

Shakes hands with Tyren – Secret Service standing by.

POTUS: So thank you. You’re a fine young man. I appreciate you. (Applause.) Give Terrence a big round of applause.

The end.

barry uh, uh, uh bloopers

October 16, 2009

A reminder of the oratorical genius that is barry – with and without TOTUS.

ensignbay

Taitz: sanction “is a sign of a dictatorial regime, of tyranny”

October 15, 2009

Updated birth certificate posts/videos/lawsuits

hey jaqui -

Here’s Orly Taitz’s own words re: Judge Land’s decision. When she was on the Joy Behar Show, Behar asked her if she was delusional because that’s what Land said in his ruling. Taitz said Land is a “delusional and corrupt judge”.

3 regimes + 1 tyranny. No treason.

From Taitz’s website:

In regards to Judge Clay Land, his outrageous decision to sanction me $20,000 for repeatedly bringing eligibility issue, shows how far this regime will go to harass and intimidate attorneys who dare to question Obama’s legitimacy.

Anybody with half a brain in his head understands that if judge Land really believed that my law suits were frivolous, the easiest way to prove it, would be to order discovery.

If Obama is legitimate, he would’ve shown proof of legitimacy.

The fact that this judge decided to try to intimidate me with $20,000 of sanctions instead of ordering Obama to spend $10 on a copy of his hospital birth certificate and a hospital birthing file, shows how corrupt this regime is, how many in federal judiciary are aiding and abetting this massive fraud perpetrated on each and every member of US military and each and every citizen of this country.

That is a sign of a dictatorial regime, of tyranny.

H1N1: Japanese kids learn to wash hands

October 15, 2009

Updated H1N1 posts/symptoms/vaccine

Japan is fighting H1N1 by teaching kids the proper way to wash their hands using Mr Foamy.

Mustache of the year: Axelrod vs Holder?

October 7, 2009

Winner: Arizona Diamondbacks relief pitcher Clay Zavada

David Axelrod and Eric Holder are 2 of the 18 finalists for the Robert Goulet Mustached American of the Year Award presented by the American Mustache Institute.

DAVID AXELROD:

I am gratified the movement is growing.

ERIC HOLDER:

I’d be honored to have that award, but it’s nothing I’m pining for.

Captain Sullenberger is also on the list

Go vote.

David Axelrod –  Eric Holder — Capt Sullenberger

Sen McCain re: Afghanistan

October 14, 2009

CNN’s State of the Union: Senator John McCain talks with John King about Athe Nobel Peace Prize and Afghanistan.

TRANSCRIPT

Sen McCain handles the Nobel Prize question adeptly but it looks like he wants to laugh. He thinks barry needs to act with “deliberate speed” and not take half-measures aka political expedience and is in favor of more troops.

KING: Senator McCain, thanks for joining us. I want to start with the big news that came at the end of the week. The president of the United States, who a year ago this weekend was your campaign rival, heading into the final month of the campaign, is the Nobel Peace laureate for 2009. Deserved?

MCCAIN: Oh, I’m sure that the president is very honored to receive this award, and Nobel Committee — I can’t divine all their intentions — but I think part of their decision-making was expectations, and

I’m sure the president understands that he now has even more to live up to.

But as Americans, we’re proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category.

KING: Did it surprise you, a little more than eight months into office, at a time when, yes, he has set some lofty goals around the world, but he has not won more NATO troops for Afghanistan; he has not convinced the Israelis to do what he says is necessary to sit down with the Palestinians. Were you surprised?

MCCAIN: I think all of us were surprised at the decision, but I think Americans are always pleased when their president is recognized by something on this order.

KING: The great irony of the moment may be, he voices his humility and his gratitude for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, and then he spends much of his day in the situation room, in a war council meeting, debating the fundamental question of Afghanistan and whether to send more troops.

I want to walk through the threat with you. I know you have had questions about both the policy and the process. Let’s start with the policy. If you listen to the president back in August in a speech to the VFW, he was quite forceful, describing the U.S. military in Afghanistan this way.

========video========

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaida would plot to kill more Americans.

========video========

KING: And yet one week ago…

MCCAIN: Totally agree.

KING: You totally agree with that, and yet one week ago on this program, General Jim Jones, his national security adviser, offered what sounded like a much more optimistic assessment of the security situation.

=======video==========

GENERAL JIM JONES (USMC, RET.), NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: The Al Qaida presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country. No bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.

I don’t foresee the return of the Taliban, and I want to be very clear that Afghanistan is not in danger, imminent danger of falling.

========video=======

KING: Those statements less than two months apart sound very, very different. Does the administration have a mixed message, or perhaps an internal debate about the scope of the threat?

MCCAIN: I think we are all very aware, because of the way this town leaks, we kind of follow one day after another the discussions or debate that’s going on within the White House. How true those reports are, I don’t know, but they’re generally accurate, as we find out.

But, look, I agree with the president in that speech, and I also agree with what he said in March, where he said we have a strategy. And so

I have urged the president to act with deliberate speed, because Admiral Mullen and General McChrystal and General Petraeus have said the situation is deteriorating.

Just over the last several days, as you know, week or so, we lost 10 more brave young Americans. And the longer we delay the decision, the longer it will be before we provide them with what the needed resources are. And I’m not trying to rush the president. I think the president has to be deliberate, because this is the most difficult decision that any president makes, to send young Americans into harm’s way. But we do have the strategy. We do have the leaders. And we have a successful strategy that worked in Iraq, that can be adjusted to the situation in Afghanistan.

And I hope the president will heed the advice of his advisers.

On the specific issue that General Jones raised, I think some people are beginning to differentiate between the Taliban and Al Qaida in the respect that one poses a threat and the other won’t, et cetera. One, they will become inextricably tied.

Two, the Taliban are the most cruel and oppressive and repressive people. I mean, the abuses that they have inflicted on women, as well as all people, are something that we would — should find very distasteful, to see them in power anywhere.

KING: And yet, as you say that, there are those in the White House who say, look, we may find them repugnant, but they are a political force in Afghanistan. And as we move forward, perhaps we have to find a way to bring some of them into the process. Recognizing that, again, we don’t like it, but they have political presence and political support in Afghanistan. Should part of the policy be trying to find a way to integrate some of the Taliban?

MCCAIN: Part of the strategy will clearly be that. I mean, there are people who work for the Taliban for money, for because they think the Taliban is gaining, which they are, for a variety of reasons. But there’s still a hard core of Taliban that are dedicated to the prospect of taking control again in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. I mean, they move freely across the borders, as we know. And there’s a lot of things we talk about, but I’m pleased at the progress that the Pakistani military is making. And the Pakistani foreign minister just this week said, we Pakistani military go in, we clear and we hold and we secure, and you Americans are using the wrong strategy. I’ll tell you, I didn’t think I’d hear that for some time ago.

KING: You said the president — you hope the president takes the advice of his advisers. But there’s a mix in that advice. Admiral Mullen, General McChrystal, General Petraeus have said we need more troops, and General McChrystal wants as many as 40,000, maybe even a little bit in excess of that. But if you listen to General Jones, who says fewer than 100 Al Qaida right now inside Afghanistan. If you accept that view, could you not say, then, maybe the right approach is, as Vice President Biden advocates, a smaller footprint, go to special forces, use the drones, use intelligence and put fewer Americans at risk?

MCCAIN: Well, I think that would be the counterterrorism strategy, which we attempted in Iraq under Rumsfeld and General Casey. It didn’t succeed. The strategy that was developed by General Petraeus, in particular, but also with General McChrystal as his strong right arm, did succeed there.

But should we risk — should we risk going against the advice and counsel of our best and strongest advisers? Those we’ve given the responsibility? As you know, General McChrystal’s predecessor was fired by the president because of the confidence that he had in him.

So the question is, is do we take a risk and go to a strategy basically that failed before versus one that succeeded?

And again, this is very tough decision. But I do, again, argue, for some deliberate speed, because our allies in the region are beginning to get the impression that perhaps we are wavering, especially in light of the fact that in March, the president announced that we did have a strategy.

So are we developing a new strategy, or is it just trying to adjust for some changed circumstances?

KING: I want to get to some of the politics of this debate in a minute, but another policy question first, because many see a parallel to Iraq, in the sense that it has been eight years in Afghanistan now, it has been billions of dollars. We have shed American blood there, and yet a European commission report out just this past week says for all the efforts to train the Afghan national army, there’s a 24 percent rate of attrition. And others have said, not only do they leave, but they take their weapons with them, and some of them still get paid. What has gone wrong and what is the United States doing wrong when it comes to the fundamental challenge of getting the Afghans ready to do this themselves?

MCCAIN: First of all, rightly or wrongly, we were focused on Iraq. I happen to believe we had to win there. Whether we should have gone in or not and weapons of mass destruction — you’ve covered on other days. But I think the important point here is that, again, if the military of a country does not think they’re going to succeed, you have all kinds of problems. Look at the total collapse of the Iraqi army at one point after we had built them up.

The Afghan soldiers are very good. They’re the most highly respected in their country. There’s just not enough of them. We’re going to have to train a whole lot more. And it doesn’t mean just training. The thing that works with these militaries is operating side by side with American troops. That’s what really gives them the kind of, not only training, but the kind of morale and esprit that goes to — is an essential ingredient in militaries that succeed.

So we’ve got to expand the military, and could I mention — you mentioned the Karzai government, the corruption has got to stop. If there is a finding and it’s that the election was corrupted to the point where a runoff would have been called for, have a runoff, have it quickly, as soon as possible.

But corruption in the government is a huge problem and we have to have — that’s part of this equation. And we have to have the Karzai government show us that it is going to truly reform. By the way, small item, I’d say his brother should leave the country.

============

KING: Let’s talk about the process and the debate about more troops in Afghanistan, because in the past week, we have seen General Jones, right here on this program saying that…

MCCAIN: I saw it.

KING: Saying that Stanley McChrystal, the commanding general in Afghanistan, the president welcomes his advice, but General Jones made clear he thinks it should have been delivered a different way.

======video=======

GEN. JIM JONES (RET.), NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Ideally, it’s better for military advice to come up through the chain of command.

=========video========

KING: And so then the question in town was whether that was supported elsewhere in the administration, and the defense secretary, a Bush holdover, Robert Gates, says essentially that he agrees with General Jones.

=======video==========

ROBERT GATES, DEFENSE SECRETARY: I think the important thing is for the president to hear the advice of his commanders and to have the advantage of hearing that advice in private.

=======video========

KING: Do you believe they’re trying to muzzle General McChrystal?

MCCAIN: I don’t think they’re trying to muzzle General McChrystal. I have the highest regard for General Jones and Secretary Gates.

The fact is, General McChrystal was told we had a strategy last March.

General McChrystal had to receive clearance to give the speech that he gave in London, and he was asked a direct question, whether the counterterrorism strategy, as I mentioned, the same one that failed in Iraq, would work.

And he said, no. I wouldn’t expect him to say anything else. But, look, this whole thing of leaks and leaks of the assessment and all of this is kind of the ugly side of the way we do business here in Washington. And I do believe that General McChrystal should and will — I mean, he certainly understands that the chain of command has to be observed.

I think he should be consulted very heavily and frequently.

But also, at the same time, since he has a responsibility,

KING: Well, do you think the United States can win in Afghanistan with fewer than 40,000 more troops?

MCCAIN:

I do not. And I think the great danger now is not an American pullout. I think the great danger now is a half measure, sort of a — you know, try to please all ends of the political spectrum.

And again, I have great sympathy for the president, making the toughest decisions that presidents have to make. But I think he needs to use deliberate speed and I think he needs to adopt a strategy which he has basically articulated last March and before.

KING: And if he adopt what you consider to be a half measure and says 10,000 more troops or 20,000 more troops, can General McChrystal stay on as the commander in that capacity, or do you believe that that would be a rebuke to his leadership?

MCCAIN: I really don’t know, because I would have to see exactly what the plan was and General — one thing about our military leaders, they have a spirit that’s indomitable, but

I think to disregard the requirements that have been laid out and agreed to by General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen, I think would be an error of historic proportions.

JOHN KING: And during the Bush administration, when there was resistance to the surge, you used the Senate floor and you used hearings to pressure the administration to listen to General Petraeus. You’re trying to do the same thing now, trying to pressure, or at least convince President Obama, to listen to General McChrystal and General Petraeus, above all others.

To the degree that you went to the Senate floor and you said, you worry that Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, and even your own friend General Jones were now listening to the left wing, the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party. I put your criticism to General Jones last week and he took exception.

=====VIDEO=========

JONES: I don’t play politics and I certainly don’t play it with national security and neither does anyone else I know. The lives of our young men and women are on the line. This is — the strategy does not belong to my political party and I can assure you that the president of the United States is not playing to any political base. And I take exception to that remark.

=======VIDEO=====

KING: Do you accept that, or do you think that Rahm Emanuel and General Jones — who once served under you, when you were the Navy liaison on Capitol Hill, do you think that they are catering to the left?

MCCAIN: No. I have the highest respect and regard for General Jones, and of course great respect for the president’s main adviser, Rahm Emanuel. The point I was trying to make and the point I will continue to make is that General Jones was not correct about Iraq. He called for a strategy that I think would have failed. And I would like for him…

KING: Now do you think he’s wrong again?

MCCAIN: I think — I don’t know, exactly, because I don’t know exactly what his position is. I think he’s working a process that I think is too slow. But I think he’s working a process. I have the highest respect for him,

but I really believe that to not give the resources which are — a sufficient number of troops is a main component, to our leaders in the field, given in light of the experiences we’ve had, would be a fundamental error that would lead to consequences for a long, long time.

Jon Stewart: “Radical gay agenda”

October 14, 2009

Lt Choi/Lt Col Fehrenbach/DADT/posts/interviews

Jon Stewart discusses the gay right activists’ march on Washington. Stewart refers to the National Human Rights Campaign Dinner, where promised once again to repel DADT when he could take action immediately. His words sounded identical to his previous speech during Gay Pride Month in June.

JON STEWART:

Last Saturday, President Obama promised…as he does every month for the last year and a half to two years that he would end don’t ask, don’t tell, but this pronouncement was significant in that it came the night before tens of thousands.

Gay Rights March “Bi-furious”

Then he makes fun of the non-media coverage focusing on FOX, who had actually wondered aloud why the march wasn’t being covered. How desperate is the MSM to protect barry when FOX makes a bigger deal about it than non-FOX.

Here he has a little fun with the nonexistent “radical gay agenda” with “reporter” John Oliver. The word is “boffing” and it means what you think and she didn’t get.

Joy Behar vs Orly Taitz

October 15, 2009

Updated birth certificate posts/videos/lawsuits

Joy Behar is anything but stupid. She wanted Orly Taitz on her show so people would know she has a show. Not sure if she got the press she wanted, though, because she was too polite – especially for her – and she let Orly talk. She also had a better sense of what was going on and knew that that COLB was not a birth certificate.

At every turn Taitz had an answer and came off as reasonable. Behar tried the Muslim route and the Israeli’s are behind it – neither worked.

As opposed to Kitty Pilgrim, whose litany was a steaming pile of lies or non-facts, Behar’s main unsubstantiated comment was about Hawaii Governor Lingle, who has been quoted over and over as having said barry was born in Hawaii – something I have looked extensively for and never found. I believe the origin was Politifact. Also, that just because the birth notices exist means they were put there so he could be president one day, when all it means is that his family wanted him to be a citizen. And then the ridiculous notion that Annenberg is “non-partisan”. Taitz actually got to explain barry’s connection and Behar knew nothing about.

But the real truth came out in Behar’s words:

I can`t accept that you`re right — I won`t.

She couldn’t bear the possibility that barry is a fraud, as do so many of the anti-birthers, which is why their venom is so great. They can’t take their anger out on barry so they take it out on the person that could expose him as a fraud…and them…as getting sucked in by one. Just like the Nobel Committee, which had 4 women.

It is a very sad situation all the way around.

====================
Aired October 13, 2009

On the screen: “BORN CONSPIRACY” with “Lunatic Fringe”

cnin242

TRANSCRIPT:

JOY BEHAR, HOST: Tonight, a Russian-born Orange County dentist who spends most of her time trying to prove that Barack Obama wasn`t born in the United States. But is this dentist spending too much time with the nitrous oxide?

The far right would like nothing better than to bring down our president. They attack his policies, his opinions and they also look for more creative ways to undermine him. One of the more questionable claims has been that Barack Obama wasn`t born in the United States.

[video clip of that lady in red screaming "I want my country back!"]

BEHAR: Ok, with me now is the woman leading the Birther Movement, Orly Taitz. Ok, Orly, I want to start with — before we get to the birther movement, I want to start with some news that broke this afternoon and that is that you were fined $20,000 for misconduct by a judge in Georgia who called you delusional? Are you delusional?

ORLY TAITZ, BIRTHER MOVEMENT: Absolutely no, it`s a delusional and corrupt judge.

BEHAR: But he was appointed by George Bush.

TAITZ: Listen, people make mistakes. What can I say?
BEHAR: So you`re not a fan of George Bush either.

TAITZ: Well, I wanted to explain that I`m bringing this issue because it`s a Constitutional issue. And as a matter of fact I`ve written a number of articles where I`ve said, Barack Obama is not eligible for presidency not only because he never provided the hospital birth certificate.

BEHAR: Well he does have a birth certificate.

TAITZ: And that`s what I wanted to show because they showed on each and every show. This is — can we…

BEHAR: Yes, I think we can show it.

TAITZ: This is a hospital birth certificate. There`s a lot of information there. That`s one from Hawaii. That`s what Obama posted on the Internet.

BEHAR: Yes, I have a copy too.
TAITZ: Ok and you can see a huge difference.
BEHAR: But Orly this is what — everyone in Hawaii gets this now.
TAITZ: No, but the point is that he was asked to provide information.
BEHAR: Yes.

TAITZ: What`s the name of the hospital, what`s the name of the doctor?

BEHAR: But this is what they gave him?

TAITZ: No, no actually, in his book and I made sure I read this book. He said that he had a birth certificate. So why wouldn`t he provide it? He provided only something that he got a year ago or two years ago in 2007.

BEHAR: Yes.

TAITZ: Why wouldn`t he provide the original where he said in his book that he has and he cherishes and he keeps with all of his documents.

BEHAR: Well, but there are so much verification that he was born here.

TAITZ: No, that`s the whole point.

BEHAR: Let me tell you the Hawaiian Health Department Director released this statement. Let me read this statement. “I have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State of Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born American citizen.”

TAITZ: Ok and let me respond to this.
BEHAR: All right.

TAITZ: Did you know that the State of Hawaii allows foreign-born children of Hawaiian residents to get Hawaiian birth certificate. It`s Rule 338-17. Moreover, State of Hawaii allows one get a birth certificate based on the statement of one relative only. If his mother — birth mother writes a statement, and they could even mail the statements back in `61 saying…

BEHAR: Where is the proof that that happened?

TAITZ: Well, that`s the whole point, the fact his behavior shows a guilty mind. We had over 100 lawsuits.

BEHAR: I don`t see that. I don`t agree with that. Well, listen to this, two separate Hawaiian newspapers. The Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star Bulletin published his birth announcements in August 1961. Was his mother planning? She said to the staff, you know, “In several years from now, he`s going to be president so I`m going to pretend that he was born here.”

TAITZ: Yes.

BEHAR: What kind of planner and she`s not that — I don`t think the woman could plan that far ahead. It`s not logical.

TAITZ: Yes, and that`s a very good point. And that`s why I want to explain it. Because in Hawaii, what they did in 1961, they had something called Hawaiian News Agency. They would bring all of the birth certificate that came from the hospitals and the ones that he probably has based on the statement of a relative. Because there was never any hospital birth certificate found where just appearance-wise he was born here. They send all of them. They don`t say this is illegitimate, this is not legitimate.

BEHAR: So many people disagree with you. Hawaii`s Governor, she`s a Republican who backs John McCain has also confirmed that Obama was born in the states.

TAITZ: No, no never, she never did.
BEHAR: Yes, she did.
TAITZ: When, when tell me when.
BEHAR: I don`t know when…
TAITZ: You don`t know when because it never happened. Joy, it never happened.
BEHAR: I`ll find out.
TAITZ: Ok, it never happened.

BEHAR:

Ok, a nonpartisan group called FACTCHECK.ORG.

Now, with a nonpartisan, they have no interest.

TAITZ: They are partisan.

BEHAR: Why do you say that? Why you say them partisan, I say nonpartisan? Why are you right and I`m wrong?

TAITZ: I`ll tell you why?

BEHAR: Ok.

TAITZ:

They [factcheck.org] are owned by Annenberg Foundation that also owned Annenberg Challenge where Obama was the president and Obama got $50 million from Annenberg fro Annenberg Foundation. There are serious financial ties.

BEHAR:

I really need to see proof of that — I can`t accept that.

TAITZ: Sure, absolutely.

BEHAR: But let me ask you something. It`s a more general idea about this whole thing. What is it that you`re trying to get out of this? Why do you want to discredit this president? What is your motivation?

TAITZ: Ok, I don`t want to discredit this president.
BEHAR: It sure sounds like it.
TAITZ: But first of all, let me show this — can you do a close-up?
BEHAR: That doesn`t matter. They can`t read it anyway.

TAITZ: Ok, it`s a court order. And it`s saying that we are going to trial January 26 in California, Central District of California, Judge David O. Carter, January 26, 8:30 in the morning, jury trial.

BEHAR: All right.

TAITZ: And this judge stated — this is a legitimate issue and it`s important for the whole country, it`s important for the military.

BEHAR: But don`t you see — listen the country is in a lot of trouble. Ok, we`re in a lot of trouble. So what do you want to happen? Do you want him to — let`s say you`re right. You`re not right, but let`s say you are right.

I can`t accept that you`re right — I won`t.

I have too much proof that you`re wrong.

TAITZ: I have too much proof that I`m right.

BEHAR: Ok, well, we`re at a check mate then on that point. But let`s just say that. What is the point of this? This would be harmful for the country for this to happen. Who do you want John McCain to get in there? We don`t even — a lot of people said that he wasn`t even born here. His father and mother and his whole family has been in the United States military. He was born in Panama, he is an American citizen. People say he wasn`t an American citizen.

TAITZ: Let me…
BEHAR: I mean, what do you expect to happen here?

TAITZ: Ok, according to the law, according to (INAUDIBLE) provisions — we have to — we are going to trial in California January 26. And I represent 46 members of U.S. military.

BEHAR: But you`re not answering my question…
TAITZ: Yes, yes, ok.
BEHAR: What are you trying to do?

TAITZ: If, indeed, the court finds that he was not legitimate, then, like in many European countries, we will have a special election. And maybe it will be another Democrat in the White House, maybe it will be Hillary. I don`t know.

BEHAR:

No, what religion do you think he is?

TAITZ:

I don`t know. But it doesn`t matter.

BEHAR:

Does this have anything to do with Israel at all?

TAITZ:

Not at all.

And as a matter of fact, if you read some of my articles, I criticized, for example, Bobby Jindal because he was hailed as the next president of the United States. And I said, just like Obama, Bobby Jindal who`s a staunch Republican cannot be the next president. Because and that`s the most important point.

Natural born — he has to be a natural born citizen. Natural born citizen is one who is not only born in the country, but whose parents, both of them, are citizens of the country.

BEHAR: That`s not true. That is not a fact. You have to know.

TAITZ: I do know?

BEHAR: I mean, people come here illegally, let`s say they come over the Mexican border and she`s pregnant. Then they`re illegal, they have a baby. That baby is an American citizen.

TAITZ: Citizen but not natural born, that`s the whole point…
BEHAR: But they can be president if they`re born here.
TAITZ: No, no that`s the whole point. Because people need to understand the difference and I can show this…
BEHAR: No, not the picture. They can`t see it anyway.

TAITZ: And that`s the law of nations. That`s a legal treatise that was used when the Constitution was written. And it says, natural born citizen is one born in the country to two parents that are citizens. So if somebody who is born to an illegal…

BEHAR: You know what the first president of the United States, George Washington, he was a natural born citizen.

TAITZ: You know what that is very a good point, Joy.

BEHAR: Yes, yes.

TAITZ: You`re absolutely right. They have a provision in Constitution it has to be natural born citizen or citizen at the time the constitution was adapted.

BEHAR: You seem to project a little anxiety. You have anxiety. Is it because you were in the Soviet Union for so long?

TAITZ: Well, I have anxiety in that — a person who is committing massive fraud can become president. Look at this.

BEHAR: How come you never went after George Bush when he invaded a country without any real proof that they had weapons of mass destruction? That would have been a legitimate cause for you.

This is crazy. No one agrees with you.

[Note she said AGREES not BELIEVES.]

TAITZ: No.

BEHAR: The Governor of Hawaii doesn`t agree with you.

TAITZ: Never done though, it never happened, show me when did you say it never happened.

BEHAR: Does anyone have a — what?

TAITZ: It never happened.

BEHAR: It was in “USA Today” article. You can look it up. Google it. Google it.

TAITZ: But look at this. Here`s some more information. Not only he was not legitimate for presidency, but we have found that he has used national data bases 39 different social security numbers. One of them…

BEHAR: You know — I don`t know how you have time for this. You`re a busy dentist. You need to like — this is like such a waste of your time.

TAITZ: You know, the legitimacy of the President of the United States…

BEHAR: You should have done it eight years ago, baby.

TAITZ: … and commander in chief, it is very important.

BEHAR: Thank you anyway for coming on. Your husband is a big fan of mine. Good.

Hillary Clinton more popular than barry!!!

October 15, 2009

(11-3) 27% believe Clinton would be doing BETTER job than barry.
(10-28) NBC/WSJ Poll: barry, Afghanistan, Same-sex marriage

Amazing, isn’t it,  since everybody hates her?

She got trashed to death during the campaign and he’s still getting unjustified praise…NOBEL PRIZE?…and on she goes doing her job whether people hate her or not. Even Chris Hutchins has come around. And what has barry done? Gotten the Noble Prize and TIME Magazine’s Man of the Year for campaigning. World leaders are starting to realize that barry ain’t the one to talk to unless you want a photo op. You want to talk business you talk to Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton.

According to the poll, more people think more favorably of Secry Clinton than barry AND more people think less favorably of barry than Secry Clinton.

The most shocking part being Hillary Clinton is less unpopular than barry!

GALLUP POLL

Mr President:

Favorable 56 – Unfavorable 40

Favorable Index = 16

Secretary Hillary Clinton:

Favorable 62 – Unfavorable 34

Favorable Index = 28

How bad are you in a Republican’s eye when Hillary Clinton out polls you by 16 points? Clinton’s rating has stayed the same (35) since Jan, but barry’s gone from 60-19. And among Independents 75-52.

Methodology:
1,013 adults
Oct. 1-4
MoSE ±4

Anita Dunn: “let’s not pretend [FOX is] a news network the way CNN is”

October 11, 2009

barry’s private lawyer (and DNC lawyer), ROBERT BAUER’s wife, Commie-loving ANITA DUNN, has been out front fighting FOX about their coverage of the WH. Here she chats with whines at CNN’s HOWARD KURTZ. She talks about FOX News like they’re al Jazeera and says ACORN and Bill Ayers (who wrote Dreams) were not newsworthy stories. ACORN was newsworthy enough for the NY Times to bury a story on them.

Transcript

PoliticsNewsPolitics

(1:30) KURTZ: We talked about conservative commentators. Let’s talk about FOX News. You were quoted in “Time” magazine as saying of FOX News, that it’s “opinion journalism masquerading as news.” What do you mean “masquerading?”

DUNN: Howie, I think if we went back a year go to the fall of 2008, to the campaign, that it was a time when this country was in two wars, that we had a financial collapse probably more significant than any financial collapse since the Great Depression.

If you were a FOX News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest stories and biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN.

The reality of it is that FOX News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.

And every other MSM outlet is barrymedia. They whine about the one network who won’t worship him. Just wait till they all turn on him.

And it’s not ideological. Obviously, there are many commentators who have conservative, liberal, centrist, and everybody understands that. But I think what is fair to say about FOX and certainly the way we view it is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party.

KURTZ: Is that the reason the president did not go on FOX News Sunday when he did all the other Sunday shows, and will President Obama appear again on FOX this year?

DUNN: Well, you know, Howie, President Obama, he did “The Factor.” He did “O’Reilly.”

After waiting until the nomination was sewn up.

KURTZ: Yes. That was during the campaign.

DUNN: That was last year. As president earlier this year when he met with news anchors, met with Chris Wallace…

Last year during the campaign.

KURTZ: My question is will he appear on FOX in the next couple of months?

DUNN: You had a two-part question. The first was, is this why he did not appear? And the answer is yes, obviously he’ll go on Fox because he engages with ideological opponents. And he has done that before. He will do it again. I can’t give you a date because, frankly, I can’t give you dates for anybody else right now.

But what I will say is that when he goes on FOX, he understands that he is not going on — it really is not a news network at this point. He’s going to debate the opposition. And that’s fine. He never minds doing that. But…

He doesn’t debate anything. He sits there and chats with barrymedia.

KURTZ: On that point, (inaudible), I want to read a statement from FOX senior V.P. Michael Clemente, who said the following, we’ll put it up on the screen. “An increasing number of viewers are relying on FOX News for both news and opinion, and the average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A-section of the newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents.

So with all due respect to anyone who might still be confused between news reporting and vibrant opinion, my suggestion would be to talk about the stories and the facts rather than attack the messenger, which over time has never worked.” Your response?

[Her response is unbelievable. She flat out says propaganda aka "story selection".]

DUNN: Yes. I think there have been numerous independent analyses that have looked at the difference between CNN, ABC, NBC — ABC and FOX, and have seen there is a very different story selection. There’s a very even down to the chyron they run below stories that, you know, this isn’t us making it up, Howie. You study the media. You know that it’s not just their opinion shows.

[Why is she whining? What did the Democrats - barry and her included - do to President Bush for the last 4 years?]

KURTZ: Take Major Garrett, he’s the White House correspondent for FOX News. Do you think he’s fair? Do you think he’s masquerading as a newsman?

DUNN: I will say — and I’ve done this in my interviews. I’ve differentiated. No, I’ve not said — I’ve differentiated between Major Garrett, who we view as a very good correspondent, and his network, and Major knows this. Major came to me when we didn’t include Chris.

KURTZ: Chris Wallace.

She’s complaining about factchecks. Seems she’s forgotten Tim Russert’s factchecking – though barry wasn’tususally the target.

DUNN: In the round of Sunday shows, Chris Wallace from the Sunday shows. And I told Major quite honestly that we had told Chris Wallace that having fact-checked an administration guest on his show, something I’ve never seen a Sunday show do, and Howie, you can show me examples of where Sunday shows have fact-checked previous weeks’ guests.

We asked Chris for example where he had done that to anybody besides somebody from the administration in the year 2009, and we’re still waiting to hear from him. When they want to treat us like they treat everyone else — but let’s be realistic here, Howie.

They are — they’re widely viewed as, you know, part of the Republican Party. Take their talking points and put them on the air. Take their opposition research and put them on the air, and that’s fine.

But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.

[barrymedia network that carefully "selects" its stories. And ACORN, Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers didn't make the cut.]

KURTZ: You are making a distinction, just before I move on, between the opinion guys, O’Reilly, Hannity, Glenn Beck, and people like Major Garrett.

DUNN: I’m not talking about people like Major Garrett. I’m talking about the overall programming.

KURTZ: OK.

[How does this have anything to do with the White House? And where was the NY Times story on Van Jones?]

DUNN: For instance, Howie, “The New York Times” had a front page story about Nevada Senator John Ensign and the fact that he had gotten his former chief of staff a job as a lobbyist and his former chief of staff’s wife was someone Ensign had had an affair with.

KURTZ: We reported the story.

DUNN: Did you see coverage of that on FOX News? I’m not talking Glenn Beck, and I’m not talking Sean or “The Factor.” I’m talking about FOX News.

KURTZ: I will have to check on that. I assume you know the answer. Let me ask you about the main stream media in general — are you and your colleagues at the White House seem to believe that journalists have fallen down on the job when it comes to allowing or spreading or repeating misinformation?

Is that the problem or is the problem that sometimes they’re reporting information that’s not to the administration’s liking?

DUNN: Oh, listen, there’s never been an administration starting with George Washington who thought they were covered the way they should be. We make mistakes. We have problems, and we expect those to get covered. We expect to take our hits and we do.

[Not. Otherwise she wouldn't be whining.]

KURTZ: Are you leading kind of an effort, almost like a war room effort, to combat statements that are made as part of this 24-hour news cycle that the president often deplores?

DUNN: When the statements are untrue and when they mischaracterize, when they are using opposition research that’s inaccurate, when people are just not being honest, absolutely. We’re going to go out there and we’re going to correct those facts.

We learned over the summer that the mainstream media often will start covering these total inaccuracies as a controversy and that’s the way it gets into the press room. That’s the way it gets on the front page of “The New York Times.” We’re not going to let that happen and stand by and let people characterize the president’s policies in ways that are simply not true.

[They've been doing that since day one. Nothing about barry is "true" and his policies change so often who knows what true from day to day.]

KURTZ: The media did blow the whistle on the so-called death panels and said they were completely bogus. Go ahead and make your point.

DUNN: My point is very simple, which is that the Republican member of Congress who delivered the response to the president’s address to the joint session of Congress on health care in September was one of the early sponsors of the so-called death panel legislation, which I don’t believe you know, do you?

KURTZ: I’m happy to be educated. Let me ask you one last question before we go. To some extent, poll numbers being down, problems piling up, things are probably not going well as you would like for the administration, I’m wondering whether people at the White House are a little shell-shocked because Barack Obama got such good coverage during the campaign and now he’s getting pretty typical presidential coverage, which is to say, pretty rough coverage.

DUNN: Oh, you know, the reality is one of the great strengths of President Obama as a candidate and as president is his ability to take the long view, understand there will be good times and bad times. Certainly over the course of a two-year campaign, Howie — and I don’t think you’d disagree — there were times that were quite rough for us, [??] in particular around the Pennsylvania primary and certainly in the general election as well, absolutely. We understand that, and he understands better than anyone that you’re going to be up and you’re going to be down.

What is true, though, is that you do not have to be a passive bystander when your opponents are seeking to not have a debate on the issues but simply to tear down the president and his presidency, and that’s what we’re not going to do. We will push back.

Aka whine. Recall that then Sen Clinton got more negative coverage when Rev Wright couldn’t be ignored anymore. barry outspent her 5 to one and lost by 10 points despite the media doing all it could to paint Sen Clinton as a racist for referring to a demographic. How many black blue collar workers were voting for her? He couldn’t stand the huge loss just like he couldn’t stand losing Ohio. And who chose to make the bitter comment?

As Chris Wallace said – and why they’re after him – barry and his minions are the biggest bunch of crybabies he’s ever seen.

The Daily Show: Capt Sullenberger

October 14, 2009

Capt Sully’s book: Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters

October 14, 2009

Morning Joe: Secy Clinton been marginalized?

October 14, 2009

This is such a ridiculous notion. (Secy Clinton says it’s “absurd”.) They have to dream up controversy because she is too busy working. barry gets the Nobel Prize for talking – time to put down Secy Clinton, who actually has done things to deserve it – starting with her Beijing speech “Women’s Rights are Human Rights” in 1995.

The interesting part of the video clip is Chris Hutchins actually says something positive about Secretary Clinton in reference to Armenia and Turkey.

Here’s Secretary Clinton’s interview with Ann Curry.

Zbigniew Brzezinski re: barry’s Nobel/Afghanistan

October 14, 2009

Zbigniew Brzezinski says barry deserves it, but he has to earn it.

He mentions how people bought their ambassadorships from barry.

Discuss Afghanistan and the Karzai government.

He’s against a pull out – but he’s not for more troops because Afghans don’t need to be trained to fight.

Says right after 911 he was involved in decision making about going into Afghanistan.

His “comprehensive policy”

Give them economic assistance

Engage in buying off local leaders – decentralized country

Engage in limited accommodations with the Taliban not committed to al Qaeda (like this is possible)

Willing to indirectly negotiate with the Taliban at large if it promises not to be a refuge for al Qaeda (like this is realistic)

Support Pakistanis about their strategic concerns – if Pakistanis don’t help we can’t prevail

Unfotunately, it cuts off with Mika commenting that she hopes she is deserving and has earned his respect.

Producer Rob Cavallo re: Adam Lambert’s CD

October 13, 2009

Adam Lambert, AI Top 10 – posts/videos/interviews
Snippet “Time for Miracles” from 2012
To perform at American Music Awards

Producer Rob Cavallo talks about Adam and his new album. Filmed at Yahoo! Yodel Studio in Times Square.

How is he to work with?

Greatest, nicest guy – he comes in and just wants to do a great job. He’s fun to hang out with.

What kind of talent?

Probably one of the most gifted singers I’ve ever recorded. Limitless range – can sing every note on the guitar.

How many songs have you worked with him on?

6 songs, including “Time for Miracles” from the movie 2012 soundtrack. Sneak peak here. Full version release October 18.

What kind of sound?

30 piece orchestra for two song, glam rock, electro-pop, “glam robot invasion”, classic rock – has modern dance and pop elements to it. It’s a completely new sound.

Worried about American Idol fans who liked him singing classic rock?

The songs have rock elements with Adam’s sound.

Any scoops?

Songs: Winners, Music Again, Suburban Decay

Adam Lambert to perform at AMA

October 13, 2009

Adam Lambert, AI Top 10 – posts/videos/interviews
Snippet “Time for Miracles” from soundtrack to “2012″
Producer Rob Cavallo re: Adam Lambert’s CD (video)

Adam Lambert along with Paula Abdul and Snoop Dogg announced the nominees for the 37th annual American Music Awards, which will take place on Sunday, November 22.

Michael Jackson was nominated for 5 awards, including artist of the year.

For what? Dying? An out of control addiction?

His “new” single “This is It” was written in 1983 by Paul Anka and Jackson. It was originally performed by Sapphire, an obscure Latin artist, under the title “I Never Heard” in 1991. Awfully lame to change the title to “This is It”.

Lambert will perform a song off his debut album which he describes as glam rock. David Bowie perhaps?

Other acts: Alicia Keys, Jennifer Lopez, the Black Eyed Peas.

His album will be released on November 24th – sames as Susan Boyle’s. That’ll be quite the battle for #1.

Has Kris Allen done anything yet?

Secretary Clinton in Northern Ireland

October 13, 2009

Secretary Clinton in Belfast to encourage the formal completion of the peace.

Gabriella Podimane

barry: Afghanistan plan ready “in the coming weeks”

October 13, 2009

Oct 27: Gibbs doesn’t know when barry’s decision on Afghanistan will be

barry talks about Afghanistan.

barry very deliberate process very consistent with what he said back in March to secure the election After the election reassess conditions on the ground and that’s what we’re fdoing on military and civilian sides.

Principle goal remainst to root out al qaeda and its extremist allies that can launch attack on US and its allies. That’s our principle mission.

Also interested in stability in the region – includes Afghanistan and Pakinstan

Hope the peoples in those areas are able to achieve peace and prosperity.

Train Afghan forces & building on civilian side: agriculture and education.

I expect that we will have a completion of this current process IN THE COMING WEEKS.

Served by a policy that is sustainable and effective and I’m confident we’re going to be able to achieve that.

National Human Rights Campaign Dinner (text/video)

October 13, 2009

Lt Choi/Lt Col Fehrenbach/DADT/posts/interviews
Gays march on Washington (video)
(June 29) LGBT reception remarks — not a whole lot different

National Human Rights Campaign
Walter E. Convention Center

UpTakeVideo

Listen to the difficulty he has saying “gays” and “lesbians”.

TRANSCRIPT
I want to thank the Human Rights Campaign for inviting me to speak and for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard in their jobs and care deeply about their families — and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.

For nearly 30 years, you’ve advocated on behalf of those without a voice. That’s not easy. For despite the real gains that we’ve made, there’s still laws to change and there’s still hearts to open. There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones — good and decent people — who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that’s painful and it’s heartbreaking.  And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives — as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities. And you’re making a difference.

That’s the story of the movement for fairness and equality, and not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who’ve been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship for all who’ve been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them. It’s the story of progress sought by those with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion — and defiance — wherever and whenever they could.

It’s the story of the Stonewall protests, when a group of citizens when a group of citizens with few options, and fewer supporters stood up against discrimination and helped to inspire a movement. It’s the story of an epidemic that decimated a community — and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; who continue to fight this scourge; and who have demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion in a time of need.  And it’s the story of the Human Rights Campaign and the fights you’ve fought for nearly 30 years: helping to elect candidates who share your values; standing against those who would enshrine discrimination into our Constitution; advocating on behalf of those living with HIV/AIDS; and fighting for progress in our capital and across America.

This story, this fight continue now. And I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight. For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot — and we will not — put aside issues of basic equality. I greatly appreciate the support I’ve received from many in this room. I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that, because it’s important to be honest among friends.

(6:00) Now, I’ve said this before, I’ll repeat it again — it’s not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago.  But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I think it’s important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community. We all have a stake in reviving this economy. We all have a stake in putting people back to work. We all have a stake in improving our schools and achieving quality, affordable health care. We all have a stake in meeting the difficult challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For while some may wish to define you solely by your sexual orientation or gender identity alone, you know — and I know — that none of us wants to be defined by just one part of what makes us whole. You’re also parents worried about your children’s futures. You’re spouses who fear that you or the person you love will lose a job. You’re workers worried about the rising cost of health insurance. You’re soldiers. You are neighbors. You are friends. And, most importantly, you are Americans who care deeply about this country and its future.

(8:00) So I know you want me working on jobs and the economy and all the other issues that we’re dealing with. But my commitment to you is unwavering even as we wrestle with these enormous problems. And while progress may be taking longer than you’d like as a result of all that we face — and that’s the truth — do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach.

My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians — whether in the office or on the battlefield. You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.  You will see a nation that’s valuing and cherishing these families as we build a more perfect union — a union in which gay Americans are an important part. I am committed to these goals. And my administration will continue fighting to achieve them.

And there’s no more poignant or painful reminder of how important it is that we do so than the loss experienced by Dennis and Judy Shepard, whose son Matthew was stolen in a terrible act of violence 11 years ago. In May, I met with Judy — who’s here tonight with her husband — I met her in the Oval Office, and I promised her that we were going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill — a bill named for her son.

This struggle has been long. Time and again we faced opposition. Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. But the Shepards never gave up. They turned tragedy into an unshakeable commitment. Countless activists and organizers never gave up. You held vigils, you spoke out, year after year, Congress after Congress. The House passed the bill again this week. And I can announce that after more than a decade, this bill is set to pass and I will sign it into law.

It’s a testament to the decade-long struggle of Judy and Dennis, who tonight will receive a tribute named for somebody who inspired so many of us — named for Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought tirelessly for this legislation. And it’s a testament to the Human Rights Campaign and those who organized and advocated. And it’s a testament to Matthew and to others who’ve been the victims of attacks not just meant to break bones, but to break spirits — not meant just to inflict harm, but to instill fear. Together, we will have moved closer to that day when no one has to be afraid to be gay in America.  When no one has to fear walking down the street holding the hand of the person they love.

But we know there’s far more work to do. We’re pushing hard to pass an inclusive employee non-discrimination bill. For the first time ever, an administration official testified in Congress in favor of this law. Nobody in America should be fired because they’re gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities. It’s not fair. It’s not right. We’re going to put a stop to it.  And it’s for this reason that if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support, because I will not waver in my commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms.

We are reinvigorating our response to HIV/AIDS here at home and around the world. We’re working closely with the Congress to renew the Ryan White program and I look forward to signing it into law in the very near future. We are rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status. The regulatory process to enact this important change is already underway. And we also know that HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia. Jeffrey Crowley, the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, recently held a forum in Washington, D.C., and is holding forums across the country, to seek input as we craft a national strategy to address this crisis.

(14:27) We are moving ahead on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars.

We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford — for our military’s integrity — to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie. So I’m working with the Pentagon, its leadership, and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy. Legislation has been introduced in the House to make this happen.

(15:40) I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That’s my commitment to you.

It is no secret that issues of great concern to gays and lesbians are ones that raise a great deal of emotion in this country. And it’s no secret that progress has been incredibly difficult — we can see that with the time and dedication it took to pass hate crimes legislation. But these issues also go to the heart of who we are as a people. Are we a nation that can transcend old attitudes and worn divides? Can we embrace our differences and look to the hopes and dreams that we share? Will we uphold the ideals on which this nation was founded: that all of us are equal, that all of us deserve the same opportunity to live our lives freely and pursue our chance at happiness? I believe we can; I believe we will.

And that is why — that’s why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country. I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I’ve required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows. And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act. And we must all stand together against divisive and deceptive efforts to feed people’s lingering fears for political and ideological gain.

For the struggle waged by the Human Rights Campaign is about more than any policy we can enshrine into law. It’s about our capacity to love and commit to one another. It’s about whether or not we value as a society that love and commitment. It’s about our common humanity and our willingness to walk in someone else’s shoes: to imagine losing a job not because of your performance at work but because of your relationship at home; to imagine worrying about a spouse in the hospital, with the added fear that you’ll have to produce a legal document just to comfort the person you love to imagine the pain of losing a partner of decades and then discovering that the law treats you like a stranger.

If we are honest with ourselves we’ll admit that there are too many who do not yet know in their lives or feel in their hearts the urgency of this struggle. That’s why I continue to speak about the importance of equality for LGBT families — and not just in front of gay audiences. That’s why Michelle and I have invited LGBT families to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll — because we want to send a message.  And that’s why it’s so important that you continue to speak out, that you continue to set an example, that you continue to pressure leaders — including me – and to make the case all across America.

So, tonight I’m hopeful — because of the activism I see in this room, because of the compassion I’ve seen all across America, and because of the progress we have made throughout our history, including the history of the movement for LGBT equality.

Soon after the protests at Stonewall 40 years ago, the phone rang in the home of a soft-spoken elementary school teacher named Jeanne Manford. It was 1:00 in the morning, and it was the police. Now, her son, Morty, had been at the Stonewall the night of the raids. Ever since, he had felt within him a new sense of purpose. So when the officer told Jeanne that her son had been arrested, which was happening often to gay protesters, she was not entirely caught off guard. And then the officer added one more thing, “And you know, he’s homosexual.” Well, that police officer sure was surprised when Jeanne responded, “Yes, I know. Why are you bothering him?”

And not long after, Jeanne would be marching side-by-side with her son through the streets of New York. She carried a sign that stated her support. People cheered. Young men and women ran up to her, kissed her, and asked her to talk to their parents. And this gave Jeanne and Morty an idea.

And so, after that march on the anniversary of the Stonewall protests, amidst the violence and the vitriol of a difficult time for our nation, Jeanne and her husband Jules — two parents who loved their son deeply — formed a group to support other parents and, in turn, to support their children, as well. At the first meeting Jeanne held, in 1973, about 20 people showed up. But slowly, interest grew. Morty’s life, tragically, was cut short by AIDS. But the cause endured. Today, the organization they founded for parents, families, and friends of lesbians and gays  has more than 200,000 members and supporters, and has made a difference for countless families across America. And Jeanne would later say, “I considered myself such a traditional person. I didn’t even cross the street against the light. But I wasn’t going to let anybody walk over Morty.”

That’s the story of America: of ordinary citizens organizing, agitating and advocating for change; of hope stronger than hate; of love more powerful than any insult or injury; of Americans fighting to build for themselves and their families a nation in which no one is a second-class citizen, in which no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit.

Tonight, somewhere in America, a young person, let’s say a young man, will struggle to fall to sleep, wrestling alone with a secret he’s held as long as he can remember. Soon, perhaps, he will decide it’s time to let that secret out. What happens next depends on him, his family, as well as his friends and his teachers and his community. But it also depends on us — on the kind of society we engender, the kind of future we build.

I believe the future is bright for that young person. For while there will be setbacks and bumps along the road, the truth is that our common ideals are a force far stronger than any division that some might sow. These ideals, when voiced by generations of citizens, are what made it possible for me to stand here today. These ideals are what made it possible for the people in this room to live freely and openly when for most of history that would have been inconceivable. That’s the promise of America, HRC. That’s the promise we’re called to fulfill. Day by day, law by law, changing mind by mind, that is the promise we are fulfilling.

Gays march on Washington (10-11)

October 13, 2009

Lt Choi/Lt Col Fehrenbach/DADT/posts/interviews
National Human Rights Campaign Dinner (text/video)
DADT Factoids

Gays march on Washington the morning after barry chatted them up promising to repeal DADT. Same thing as he said at the Gay Pride Month reception in June. It’s not happening folks until you make him do it as a matter of political expedience.

AP

Lt Dan Choi was in attendance dressed in full uniform so he must not have been completely discharged yet?

CHOI: I marched for many things in the Army. We fought for many things. But when there are some people being discriminated in this country it is our responsibility to step up for them.

Today Show: Capt Sullenberger’s book: “Highest Duty”

October 13, 2009

Today: Ann Curry & Secretary Hillary Clinton

October 13, 2009

Morning Joe discusses Secy Clinton’s “marginalization”

Secretary Clinton spoke with Today’s Ann Curry. They’re back to that craziness about her being marginalized. Hillary Clinton being marginalized? Even Chris Hutchins had something nice to say about her. They talk about barry’s Nobel Prize and Afghanistan. She laughs when Ann Curry asks her about running for president.

besttubevideo

TRANSCRIPT

QUESTION: The President is joining the ranks of Martin Luther King, of Mother Teresa, of Nelson Mandela. Does he deserve to be in those ranks? What has he done specifically for world peace?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the fact that the Nobel committee – and I can’t read their minds, none of us can – but the fact that they recognized that his attitude toward America’s role in the world, his willingness to challenge everyone, to kind of step up and take responsibility, really restores an image and appreciation of our country.

QUESTION: Will winning the Nobel Peace Prize, in your view, influence the President’s decision on whether or not to send more U.S. troops to war in Afghanistan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Ann, I think that the President makes each decision on the merits. It’s not going to influence some of these tough decisions that he has to make. And I think he is very well aware of the multiple responsibilities he bears.

QUESTION: Well, given the top commander’s assessment that the situation is deteriorating in Afghanistan, and in the weeks the President has already taken, at least 10 U.S. troops have died, with all due respect to the Administration, what is taking so long?

SECRETARY CLINTON: First of all, every one of those deaths and all of the injuries of any of our men and women in uniform weighs heavily on all of us who are sitting around at the table in the Situation Room. And what is going on in this analysis is the kind of deep, stripped-down investigation of assumptions, because when we make this decision and we recommend to the President what we believe he should do, we’re going to be all in.

QUESTION: If the President decides not to send more troops to Afghanistan, morally can he still keep 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan given what we’re hearing from the commander, the top commander?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I want to not only guarantee you, but guarantee all of your listeners, that this process will result in a very well-thought-out approach and the number of troops will reflect how we are going to implement the strategy. I know there are many Americans who say get out of Afghanistan, bring them all home, and there are others who say put in hundreds of thousands of more. But I think neither extreme is really focused on the situation as we are.

QUESTION: At this very important moment in history, The Washington Post writes about you, quote, “She is largely invisible on the big issues that dominate the foreign policy agenda, including Afghanistan and Iran.” Why are you not more out in front on these very important issues of our time?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I honestly don’t have any reaction to something like that, which is so at variance with what I do every day.

QUESTION: What do you say to the people who are concerned that you have been marginalized, that you – that the highest ranking woman in the United States is having to fight against being marginalized?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Ann, I find it absurd.

QUESTION: So you’re not?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I find it beyond any realistic assessment of what I’m doing every day. Maybe there is some misunderstanding which needs to be clarified. I believe in delegating power. I’m not one of these people who feels that I’ve got to have my face in the front of the newspaper or on the TV in every moment of the day. Now, maybe that is a woman’s thing. Maybe I’m totally secure and feel absolutely no need to go running around in order for people to see what I’m doing. It’s just the way I am.

My goal is to be a very positive force to implement the kind of changes that the President and I believe are in the best interest of our country.

QUESTION: I can’t help but think nine months into this Administration, having campaigned so fiercely to be president yourself, that there can’t be moments for you where you wish you could make the decisions yourself.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I have to tell you it never crosses my mind.

QUESTION: Never?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, not at all. I am part of the team that makes the decisions.

QUESTION: Will you ever run for president again?

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) No. No, I mean, this is a great job. It is a 24/7 job, and I’m looking forward to retirement at some point.

Susan Boyle “Wild Horses” recording

October 13, 2009

Susan Boyle posts/videos/interviews

I think she sounds much better here than she did singing it on America’s Got Talent.

Susan Boyle CD Playlist

October 13, 2009

Susan Boyle posts/videos/interviews

Here’s the playlist to Susan Boyle’s debut CD “I Dreamed a Dream” due out November 24.

Update: All tracks linked to video

1.   Wild Horses (BBC audio) (America’s Got Talent video)
2.   I Dreamed A Dream
3.   Cry Me A River
4.   How Great Thou Art
5.   You’ll See
6.   Daydream Believer
7.   Up to The Mountain
8.   Amazing Grace
9.   *Who I Was Born To Be
10. Proud
11. The End Of The World
12. Silent Night

*Original song written for her by new artist  AUDRA MAE (great niece of Judy Garland).

Glad to see Amazing Grace and Silent Night – but I was hoping for Ave Maria and O Holy Night.

Looking forward to duets with Andrea Bocelli, Elaine Paige, Paul Potts and Josh Groban. Maybe once Bono sees how popular she is, he’ll do something with her for charity.

FYI: the barmaid who got busted at the pub Susan Boyle use to sing karaoke at is just that – the barmaid. Ms Boyle has nothing to do with her. It’s just another opportunity for the UK press to sell papers.

Taitz sanctioned $20K by Judge Land

October 13, 2009

Updated birth certificate posts/videos/lawsuits

Judge Land had a surge of testosterone and fined Orly Taitz $20K as sanction for bringing Capt Rhodes’ TRO before his mighty Court. He truly has no clue how that is not only going to piss Taitz off, it’s going to piss off a lot of her faithful, and things are going to get uglier than they already are. This is no longer a laughing matter. Anger and frustration are building and it’s going to come to head once Judge Carter rules in favor of barry’s motion to dismiss. And whatever happens, the anti-birthers, like Dave Weigel, who make a living off ridicule and sarcasm are going to be just as responsible.

JUDGE LAND:

For justice to be administered justly and efficiently, lawyers must understand the conditions that govern their privilege to practice law. Lawyers who do not understand those conditions are at best woefully unprepared to practice the profession and at worst a menace to it.

Abuse of privilege to practice law:

• Files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing they are supported by existing law or by a modification or extension of existing law.

• Uses the court as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legal course of action.

• Personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary.

• Recklessly accuses a judge of violating the Judicial Code of Conduct beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings.

Land’s sanction is based on violation of Rule 11 of the Federal of Civil Procedure.

Regrettably, the conduct of Counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel’s conduct leading up to that and Counsel’s response to the Court’s show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20K shall be imposed on counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court.

As in, protect the integrity of his manhood.

The Court does not take lightly this action, and in fact, cannot recall having previously imposed monetary sanctions upon an attorney sua sponte.

Aka the judge acting on his own.

The Court takes no joy in reaching the conclusions it has reached in today’s order.

LIE.

He allowed the hearing to go forward just so he could sanction her.

While the Court derives no pleasure from its imposition of sanctions upon counsel Orly Taitz, it likewise has no reservations about the necessity of doing so. A clearer case could not exist; a weaker message would not suffice.

Bottom line:

Motion to recuse DENIED

Motion for more time DENIED

Sanctioned for misconduct for violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Sanction imposed: $20K

Payment due within 30 days.

Copy of order sent to California Bar.

Thanks to JACK RYAN.

View this document on Scribd

=======================