I watched Lou Dobbs on Bill O’Reilly and there was no inkling he was fired. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t. But it seems a tad odd that a man who was fired walked away with a reported $8M. More curious is who provided the cash.
According to the NY Post, Dobbs left because of the birth certificate issue. Dobbs said the only thing that changed was the president.
Next on their list: Glenn Beck.
Arianna Huffington fearmongers with Olbermann about “fearmonger-in-chief” Glenn Beck. The whole conversation was rehearsed propaganda to get barry’s poll numbers back up and distract folks away from the healthcare bill. It’s getting so old. Especially the racism.
Ms Huffington uses a decided them vs us “we” as if she has a team behind her. I guess that would be the Huffington Post. Wonder how Axelrod’s son is doing out in Colorado. No practical experience experience and he was “hired” as editor right out of college.
The full transcript is in the next post along with the video. Wanted to put this quote in a separate post.
Olbermann wonders if Beck would just disappear.
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON (4:40)
Well, I hope it‘s going to happen,
but it’s not going to happen without people pointing out what Glenn Beck is doing.
I mean, we saw how it worked with Lou Dobbs and John Klein.
You know,John Klein in the end fired Lou Dobbs from CNN.
Pressure makes a difference.
So, we all have a part to play here in pointing out what Glenn Beck is doing.
Yes comrade.
The way she spoke so matter-of-factly I’m starting to believe they think they are going to get away with everything.
Herr Olbermann is a plain nasty human who spouts lies that no one calls him on. He’s after the birthers again with the same old tired racism. What does he know about racism and/or the birthers? He still thinks barry’s birth certificate was what was posted on barry’s website.
Arianna Huffington is the guest and the two of them talk about Beck’s fear-mongering by fear-mongering themselves. They both say “it’s frightening”. Remember how that was the campaign whine when his numbers dropped? First Secy Clinton and then Palin. It’s getting old.
Then they talk about how “various establishments” are going to have to stop Beck and stop Sen Grassley from giving out Beck’s book. And that if violence erupts – Beck, Ailes and Murdock will be morally liable.
The ugly environment was not fostered overnight, but town hall opposition to health care reform and all those tea bagger rallies gave comfort to racism and even intonations of violence.The Birther movement was nothing more than extreme and desperate attempt to delegitimize a new president. And Congressman Joe Wilson‘s “you lie,” though a first should not have been a surprise.
Our third story on COUNTDOWN, a sweeping new report on anti-government rage in America not only connects the dots it refuses to let off the hook the most irresponsible voice in the mainstream media, the man it describes as the fearmonger-in-chief, Glenn Beck. Simply stated Beck creates an intersection between the mainstream and the extreme, according to the report by the Anti-Defamation League. It calls Beck, “The most important mainstream media figure who has repeatedly helped to stoke fires of anti-government anger…”
Beck has compared Obama to Adolf Hitler.
[Why is it he forgets how Pres Bush was portrayed as AH by his fellow liberals? And DL Hughley said the Rep Convention looked like Nazi Germany.]
One of Beck‘s guests claimed that Obama was trying to create a civilian national security force.
[barry said it himself in a stump. Watch for yourself.
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.
OLBERMANN: Beck once promoted the conspiracy that theory FEMA was building concentration camps to house dissidents, but he eventually backed away from it. But Beck has consistently posed Obama is “dangerous to America.” The United States, Beck say, “Is headed towards socialism, totalitarianism beyond your wildest imagination.”
Beck‘s obsession with so-called czars is one example, decrying a term proudly launched by the Republicans under Nixon and Reagan and not actually used by the current administration.
[What? barry's called them czars.]
OLBERMANN: Beck is just part of the ADL report which takes stock of the ugliest aspect of those town hall meetings and the tea bagger rallies, the birther movement and Joe Wilson‘s “you lie.” But the September 12th rally in Washington, the report notes,featured the worst in racist, violent imagery since Obama was elected. That event, heavily promoted, of course, by Beck, a man who projects his own hate onto others.
[That's the pot calling the kettle black.]
OLBERMANN: It would be nice to think of Glenn Beck just as a joke, as fodder for this show and the “Daily Show” and others that point out how stupid some of this stuff is. But this report, you know, suggests something else, this is—fearmonger-in-chief term is frightening.
HUFFINGTON:It is frightening.
[Talk about fear-mongering.]
HUFFINGTON Well, I would say the fearmonger-in-chief title should still be reserved for Dick Cheney, even in retirement. But barring that, there is something that we need to really pay attention to with Glenn Beck. We cannot just dismiss him. Because the truth of the matter is that there is a good reason why we have an exemption to the free speech protection by the first amendment when we say you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater.
And he‘s doing that every night. He‘s basically using images of violence to bring together with all that he‘s accusing the Obama administration of, which varies from racism to communism, Nazism and everything else in between. So, all that has definitely an impact. I believe words matter, language matters and he‘s using it in incredibly irresponsible ways night after night.
OLBERMANN: What do you say to the argument that this country has always self corrected, that whether Father Coughlin on the radio in the ‘30s or Bo Carter (ph) who was a newscaster who presented literally stuff that was made up on the hour in CBS News in the ‘30s or the columnist Westbook Pegler or Senator Joe McCarthy? All these people a finale in which they exited the stage and suddenly. What is to say that that‘s not going to happen here?
[The internet and talk radio.]
HUFFINGTON: Well, I hope it‘s going to happen, but it‘s not going to happen without people pointing out what Glenn Beck is doing. I mean, we saw how it worked with Lou Dobbs and John Klein. You know, John Klein in the end, fired Lou Dobbs from CNN. Pressure makes a difference.
So, we all have a part to play here in pointing out what Glenn Beck is doing.
And even though he may not be legally liable if violence ensues from what he does, he‘s morally liable and so is Fox and Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes for keeping him on the air.
[And her and olbermann? They've been lying and riling people up since barry was campaigning. And they're talking about fearmongering even as they do it.]
OLBERMANN: Some of Beck‘s claims, according to the report from the ADL, let me quote it again, “play an important role in drawing people further out of the mainstream making them more receptive to extreme notions and conspiracy theories.” And without going into Sociology 101, isn‘t the point here that people like Beck enable some of the wildest, most paranoid notions about what the U.S. government is doing and instead of people thinking, as they think these things, for whatever they think them, no, that‘s crazy, he says, no you‘re not crazy, come with me down this path?
[A moment of truth. Of course, she makes no connection to the fact they're legitimately angry because of barry. That would be sacrilegious.]
HUFFINGTON: Yes. But, on top of it, Keith, what makes it possible for Glenn Beck to enable and even take advantage of what‘s happening is the fact that there‘s a lot of misery out there, there‘s a lot of legitimate anger. People are losing their jobs. They‘re losing their homes. Or they‘re afraid of losing their jobs or losing their homes, so it‘s in this climate of often legitimate rage that Glenn Beck comes in and provides scapegoats.
I mean, traditionally throughout history, these are the dangerous times. And that‘s why various establishments also need to become much more sensitive to what is happening out there and not leave it up to the Glenn Becks of the world to take advantage of what‘s happening.
[VARIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS?? Take advantage of what? barry's ineffectuality? And what is happening?
Of course, here's the old standby of race-baiting. Every single person who did not vote for barry is a racist. It's getting awfully tired - especially coming from old white men's mouth.]
OLBERMANN: Obviously, the new component to this is the race of the president. And a lot of this rage that we‘re discussing here is rooted in racism, something we certainly knew before the ad put out its analysis. But Beck tried unsuccessfully to turn that one in the other direction, claiming that Mr. Obama is the racist. Is that the twist by which he and the other actual racists are rationalizing their own prejudice simply project it on to the other people?
[He's projecting it onto every person who doesn't agree with barry. Everyone is a racist to him. And Huffington has become Mrs Freud.]
HUFFINGTON: It is a classic case of projection. But, even worse than Glenn Beck saying that is the fact that Rupert Murdoch endorsed it, all though then he took it away. Or to have people like Senator Chuck Grassley giving away books of Glenn Beck.
[Can't give away books? Do they even hear themselves? What's more frightening - state run media or freedom of speech? Even a convicted muslim murderer got access to barry's books.]
HUFFINGTON So, this is really what the ADL report is talking about, this sort of intersection between the mainstream and the extreme. There are always extremes. There are always paranoids who sound like Russell Crowe in “A Beautiful Mind,” you know, connecting everything and scaring everyone. But, it‘s when that becomes part of the mainstream that it becomes dangerous.
—–
Precisely what this rehearsed chat is doing. The entire conversation was fear-mongering to the leftists. One by one they’re trying to pick off non barryfans.
The question is who gave them their marching orders?
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is not a very bright man. He doesn’t seem to understand he was in someone else’s house and they’re not going to tolerate his mouthing off. Must say he has grown a spine since his confirmation hearings.
Joint Economic Committee of Congress
Rep Peter DeFazio (D-OR) thinks Geithner should step down, citing his poor handling of the AIG bailout.
Rep MICHAEL C BURGESS (R-TX):
I don’t think that you should be fired. I thought you should have never been hired.
Rep KEVIN BRADY (R-TX)
Conservatives agree that as point person, you failed. Liberals are growing in that consensus as well. Poll after poll shows Americans have lost confidence in this president’s ability to handle the economy. For the sake of our jobs, will you step down from your post?
GEITHNER:
I think almost nothing you said represents a fair and accurate perception of where this economy is today. If any measure of confidence in the financial system, it is substantially stronger today than when the president took office. We would have had a stronger fiscal position if we hadn’t had eight years of paying for our commitments — not borrowing against them.
Why is it barry people always say ‘it’s not our fault’? Democrats have been in control since 2006 but it’s all Bush’s fault. After 10 months, yes it is their fault and the polls back that up.
Rep BRADY:
At some point you have to take responsibility for your decisions.
GEITHNER:
I take responsibility for anything I am part of doing. What I can’t take responsibility for is the legacy of crisis–
Rep BRADY:
This is your budget, this is your bailout, this is your stimulus, this is your–
GEITHNER:
I take full responsibility for those with great honor--
Why does Geithner pretend he had no idea what was going on until he became Treasury Secretary? He was part of the problem as president of the NY Federal Reserve Bank. And he knew all about the bonuses.
WH statement in defense of Geithner:
Secretary Geithner has helped steer the American economy back from the brink, and is now leading the effort on financial reform. His focus today – and ours – is economic recovery and addressing the challenges the American people face everyday.
Not sure what the reasoning is. One of the Santas will be in close contact with 20-30 thousand children over a period of 4 weeks. It’s not so much for Santa’s protection as it is to hopefully prevent him from spread it. And what are those kids going to do when there’s no Santa?
I am pleased that after numerous investigations, this matter has finally come to a close. I thank the members of the Senate Ethics Committee for their fair and thorough review of this matter, and now look forward to continuing the important work ahead on behalf of the people of Illinois.
The Senate Ethics Committee has finally made a judgment in the investigation of Senator Burris’ possible perjury in relation to barry’s senate seat.
They cleared him of any wrongdoing but issued a public letter of qualified admonition.
It ranks in the middle of sanctions after a private letter of admonition, private letter of qualified admonition and expulsion and censure.
They made sure to include the specifics as a way of embarrassing him so that he’d think twice about his vote on the healthcare bill. He’s holding out for a public option. It’s not a coincidence the committee made their pronouncement just prior to the test vote.
What’s interesting is they looked right past the real pay to play: Burris paid barry for his senate seat. Burris’ lawyer and long time friend and partner donated $50K to barry’s inauguration. It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
Pertinent quotes from the letter:
After an extensive investigation, the Select Committee on Ethics is issuing you this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition for actions and statements that reflected unfavorably on the Senate in connection with your appoint to and seating in the Senate.
The committee found that you should have known that you were providing incorrect, inconsistent, misleading or incomplete information to the public, the Senate and those conducting legitimate inquiries into your appointment to the Senate.
…the Committee did not find that the evidence before it supported any actionable violations of law…
Underlining and bold theirs – link added.
Your sworn affidavit and sworn testimony before the Illinois House of Representatives were incosistent, incomplete and misleading.
Your shifting explanations about your sworn statements appear less than candid.
Your November 13, 2008 call with Robert Blagojevich, while not raising to an explicit level of quid pro quo, was inappropriate.
Thank God Sen Lieberman (I-CT) is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee because he has no problem labeling the muslim murderer’s cowardly rampage what it was: a terror attack. Susan Collins (R-ME) will be working with him.
LIEBERMAN:
We do no favor to all of our fellow Americans who are Muslim by ignoring real evidence that a small number of their community have in fact become violent Islamists and extremists.
And they do no favors to their fellow Americans by staying quiet and only coming forward to complain AFTER another “devout muslim” kills non-muslim Americans just because they are not muslims. And there was no way the muslim murderer could know if the soldiers he was shooting in the back were muslims because he never asked. He just yelled the same thing the insurgents yell after they blow up Americans.
What that impotent, bacon-eating, beer-drinking, perverted strip club-attending islamic terrorist did qualifies as a hate crime and should be labeled as such.
Updated information:
*In the emails he sent to another hate-filled “devout” muslim cleric in Yemen:
I can’t wait to join you in the afterlife.
And this shows without a doubt that he knew what he was planning was wrong because he asked if jihad was permissible:
If there are innocents killed in a suicide attack?
He doesn’t even qualify as a “martyr” because he was too cowardly to kill himself.
*He donated $20-30K/year to overseas Islamic hate-filled charities.
Meaning he was funding the murders of his fellow soldiers. This man is as evil as they come. Take out the muslim hate – he went against everything a doctor stands for and committed unprovoked pre-meditated murder on innocent, unarmed people.
*He was worried about an HIV test he had taken.
Why? As far as was made public he wasn’t married. And “devout muslims” are not to have premarital sex, which is punishable by lashings and imprisonment.
So who was he having sex with? The naked non-muslim blonde women he paid to give him lap dances? Was he homosexual? Did he shoot drugs?
*Pentagon: 45-day investigation into extremism in the military.
Sure makes one wonder if they know he was recruiting others.
Have they discovered the identity of the young men who stayed with the neighbors thought were his sons?
What did the Army know?
LIEBERMAN:
The question is were those concerns conveyed up the chain of command, and were they recorded anywhere in Hasan’s personnel files and did the Army do anything in response to those concerns?
During his meeting with Yukei Matsunaga, president of the Japan Buddhist Federation, Democratic Party of Japan Secretary General, ICHIRO OZAWA, had a few choice words about Christianity and the West.
Christianity:
[Is an] exclusive and self-righteous religion. European and U.S. societies with a (historical) background of Christianity are bogged down.
Not sure with what.
Islam:
It is better than Christianity but it is also exclusive.
Buddhism:
It teaches us a state of mind and way of life from the start about how human beings should be.
Found something interesting though. JACK RYAN has posted a list of barry eligibility lawsuits and their status. I’d like to thank Mr Ryan personally but you have to register to make a comment.
List includes:
–Case Caption (and plaintiff’s full name)
–Court, Case Number, with Justia Docket link (or other, where available)
–Dismissal Order, with link to Order where available
–Appeal Dismissal Order, with link when available
–Supreme Court Docket showing application/writ denied, with link
–Whether Obama’s Attorneys defended the case
Seems there’s a gang of fat collectors down in Peru. They harvest fat from dead humans and then sell it. Problem is they’re not harvesting it from cadavers – they’re murdering unfortunate fat folks. Sixty people are missing from two regions in Peru.
Police arrested four gang members and charged them with the murder of Abel Matos Aranda, after one of them was caught with a container of human fat. Police had found a small container at a bus depot and picked up a suspect after he removed three bottles of the fat, which they suspect belonged to Aranda.
Other suspects: Elmer Segundo Castillejos Aguero, Hilario Cudena Simon and Enedina Estela Claudio.
They confessed to trafficking the human fat and they might also face drug charges.
There is a really weird twist involving “brujos,” the Spanish word for witches. Evidently it’s part of an “Andean mountain culture that believes bodies can be used to ward off evil and prevent disasters”.
The fat was sold in Peru and Europe for “commercial purposes”.
Still not sure what the fat was used for – cosmetics? – but they were paid $15,000 per liter of fat.
How fat are people in Peru?
Think of the market they’d have in the US.
An enterprising plastic surgeon in California, Dr C. Alan Bittner, specialized in “green liposuction”. He was recycling the lipo’d fat from his patients to use as fuel for his vehicle.
Bill Whittle talking about the power of iconography. It is really worth your time to watch. Especially if you’re wondering why his cultists are so obamerized.
Whittle breaks down barry’s “packaging” and discusses the barrylogo and how it is gradually replacing the Presidential Seal and DNC logo. Probably because the barry presidential seal didn’t go over well.
The DNC is branding an ideology centered around the Cult of Personality.
What’s a Cult of Personality?
A cult of personality arises when a country’s leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.
Sound familiar?
Simply put: cult followers are attracted to the packaging – not the content. Aka barry.
Whittle’s example: A thick grill-marked steak and baked potato on a plate vs pureed in a blender. Same ingredients.
The minions who called the NY Times to demand they change their depiction of barry’s pre-dawn mission (Dover) will find his example racist – just like everything else.
Wiki — Stalinis “often credited with possessing the most extensive personality cult of all time”.
There was no reference to barry in the article but it’s clear he has already outdone Stalin and the media has outdone both Pravda and Goebbels.
Daniel44125
I never knew what barry’s logo was supposed to “mean”. The NY Times did a Q & A with the designers of the logo (Nov 2008). Late 2006, Axelrod contacted Mode, a motion design studio in Chicago, who then approached graphic designer Sol Sender. Allegedly barry had nothing to do with it.
SOL SENDER:
We saw (and visualized as part of the creative process) buttons, billboards, ads, Web banners, T-shirts and hats. We did not foresee the scope of the variations and the personal “ownership” that emerged, though.
We handed the logo and design assets off to the campaign in the summer of 2007. From that point on, everything that you’ve seen was done by the campaign, including the “demographic” variations of the logo.
STEVEN HELLER: I have to ask, since many agencies that do political campaigns are simply “doing a job,” did you have strong feelings one way or the other for the Obama candidacy?
A: We were excited to work on the logo and energized by the prospect of Mr. Obama’s campaign. However, we didn’t pursue or develop the work because we were motivated exclusively by ideology.
And yet:
A: The design development was singularly inspired by the candidate’s message.
Q: What were you thinking when you conceived this idea?
A: When we received the assignment, we immediately read both of Senator Obama’s books. We were struck by the ideas of hope, change and a new perspective on red and blue (not red and blue states, but one country. [Should have been purple then.] There was also a strong sense, from the start, that his campaign represented something entirely new in American politics — “a new day,” so to speak.
Q: Did you have any qualms about this symbol? Did you ever think it was too “branded” and “slick”?
A: We didn’t, though there were certainly instances where we sensed a need to be careful about its application. We never saw the candidate as being “branded,” in the sense of having an identity superficially imposed on the campaign. The identity was for the campaign, not just for the candidate.And to the degree that the campaign spoke to millions of people, it may have become a symbol for something broader — some have termed it a movement, a symbol of hope.
Wonder what he thinks now and what he thought of nonbarry fans’ alterations.
Whoopi Goldberg should study up on what she decides to yap about – especially when it comes to barry. Or rape. She thinks it’s “protocol” for the president of the United States to bow to 90 degrees and greet the emperor with the top of his head and at the same time treat the press corps to a view of his buttocks. Again. It’s a replay of King Saudi — although barry actually genuflected that time (video). And in the interim barry has refused to learn proper protocol. He prefers to show the world how clueless he is of international protocol, while Secy Clinton travels and conducts herself like a head of state.
Ms Goldberg: the emperor doesn’t bow to anyone.
Greeting Emperor, servant barry at your service.
Unfortunately this is the only video I could find. I would have like to hear the whole conversation and whether Ms Walters chimed in about what’s proper or just defended barry like she did with the Saudi bow.
WHOOPI: Dick! It’s called protocol. What’s wrong with you?
A former Army defense lawyer, JAMES F CULP, weighs in on defending the muslim murderer. mm’s present lawyer (Col J P Galligan) is also retired Army.
JAMES F CULP:
The only practical way J. P. Galligan will be able to save Hasan’s life is to convince one military member — one —that Hasan should not die.
One thing about a military jury is, they know people who have been wronged by the military. If you’ve got any kind of case that’s credible, it’s that very kind of jury that would consider it.
Not sure about that. Being wronged doesn’t quite cover declaring war on fellow soldiers because they are non muslims and then opening fire on them.
Mr Culp declined the case when he was asked if he would consider working on it.
Every soldier deserves a great defense, but the crimes Major Hasan is accused of go so harshly against the grain of military honor that, if true, Major Hasan has essentially divested himself of the status of the American soldier.
They’re true. There are a million eyewitnesses. He murdered unarmed soldiers without provocation.
He deserves to rot in hell.
And his crime needs to be called what it was: Islamic terrorism.
Are you aware that David Axelrod sits in the discussions about Afghanistan?
David Axelrod the WH’s resident lobbyist discussed Gitmo closure, Afghanistan decison and KSM being tried in NYC on State of the Union with John King (Lou Dobbs new replacement). Axelrod sets up Holder as the one responsible – barry was informed of the decision and the reasoning behind it. Axelrod admitted Gitmo won’t be closed completely, but wouldn’t give a deadline. He said they are going to “substantially meet the deadline”. barry said it would be closed. He ran on that and people voted for him because of it. Once the deadline passes – barry’s lies will be 100% complete and he will have been proven to be a complete fraud.
KING: Let’s begin with the controversial decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 alleged conspirators in the federal courts in New York City, just a short walk from the site of the twin towers collapsing….This is Jim Webb, Democratic senator from Virginia who says, “they do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.”
Why, David Axelrod, did the administration decide to take this step?
AXELROD:
Well, I think for the same reason that Mayor Bloomberg and others felt strongly that we should. We believe that these folks should be tried in New York City, as you say, near where their heinous acts were conducted, in full view in our court system, which we believe in.
Translation: barry wants to make an impression on the world – 9-11 family members be damned. Just like 9-11 anniversary – neither POTUS or FLOTUS went to NYC and they named Sept 11 day of service – like it needed naming. No reason why Michelle couldn’t have been there. And who are the “others”? And the heinous acts were an act of terrorism that resulted in the deaths of 2974 innocent people.
AXELROD: We’ve had, you know, since 2001, have had 195 terrorism cases in the courts, and we’ve been successful 91 percent of the time. We’re very confident about these cases, and we believe this is the appropriate thing to do.
And what if this trial ends in that 9%?
They’re relying on the jury to convict and totally ignoring the judge and whether the confession will be allowed. In civil court, torture obtained confessions are inadmissible. Period. It will come down to whether a terrorist, who has no rights under the Geneva Convention, and who carried out an unprovoked on American soil was read his rights.
AXELROD: This is a judgment the attorney general made in concert with the secretary of defense. As you know, there were five other cases that were sent to military commissions, but wefeel strongly that justice will be done here.
And frankly it’s been a long time in coming. A lot of these cases have been delayed for many, many years. And now, the people who suffered so much in that attack will get the justice they deserve.
Did he ask them what they wanted?
A daily reminder? Having to look at the murderers face in the papers and in TV and all over the internet?
KING: We will have later in the program the former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who of course was the mayor when the horrible tragedy of 9/11 took place. And he is among those who say, to him, this reflects returning to a pre-9/11 mentality of treating terrorism as a crime, not an act of war. How would you answer that?
AXELROD: You know, it is odd, because when the 20th 9/11 bomber was tried in Virginia, in a civilian court, and convicted, Mayor Giuliani testified in that case and he heralded the outcome. So he may have changed his view, but we haven’t changed ours.
It may have had something to do with the muslim murderer in Texas.
KING: You mentioned this was the attorney general’s decision. How involved was the president of the United States?
AXELROD: Well, the president was informed of the attorney general’s decision and his reasoning for the decision. This was a decision for the attorney general to make, in concert with the secretary of defense.
Translation: Doesn’t go well, it’s Holder’s head.
KING: It is a reminder bringing these terrorists to New York City for trial, alleged terrorists, a reminder of the controversy about Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We are just now two months and one week away from this promise from the president of the United States.
KING: If you talk, David Axelrod, to top officials at the Pentagon, top officials at the building you work at, in the White House, they say now it is a near impossibility that that deadline will be kept. When will Gitmo be closed?
AXELROD: We believe we are going to substantially meet the deadline. We may not hit it on the date, but we will close Guantanamo. And we are making good progress toward doing that.
“Substantially”?
Open – close are absolutes and barry said one year.
KING: Any idea? Two months, four months, six months more?
AXELROD: I‘m not going to put a deadline on it, John. But we are going to get it done. We are moving toward getting it done in all the different dimensions that are necessary to get it done. The president believes it is important to get it done and to end this chapter in our history. And we are going to get it done.
Too late you already have a deadline. And again, barry’s words mean nothing.
KING: Part of this chapter in our history is the 9/11 attacks, which, of course, were hatched in Afghanistan. And the president is closer to making this big decision he has to make about how many troops. When he makes that decision, will he lay out for the American people not only the rationale for the decision he has made, but an exit strategy for Afghanistan? If you travel the country as I do all the time, people keep saying, eight years later, how long is it going to take? How much is it going to cost? How many lives will be lost? Will the president give us an exit strategy?
AXELROD: Well, I think that is a concern. And it is obviously one of the factors the president is thinking through. We have been there for eight years; it is a long, long time. And we have to keep focused on what our purpose was in the first place. Our purpose was to disrupt and dismantle and destroy Al Qaeda. That remains our purpose.
But obviously we can not make an open-ended commitment. And we want to do this in a way that maximizes our efforts against Al Qaeda, but within the framework of bringing out troops home at some point. And the president has made that clear in all these discussions. There has to be a framework to this decision.
But we are getting close. It has been a good process.
And how many Americans have been killed? How many undeployed soldiers killed themselves so they wouldn’t have to go? He’s not going to make his decision until after the new year.
KING: As you know, conservatives have been critical of the president’s policy review, saying, why is it taking so long? The former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney gave a speech this weekend in which he said, not only why is it taking so long for the president to decide, but he also said, why is David Axelrod, his top political adviser, involved in these deliberations? Let’s listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIT ROMNEY, (R-MA,) FMR. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I find it incomprehensible and inexcusable that this president invites David Axelrod into national security meetings. Polls and politics have no place at that table. He is the commander in chief. What has he been doing? Do you realize he carried out more than 30 campaign visits in this last season, for various Democrats? While he can’t make up his mind on Afghanistan, or have enough time to meet with generals, he is out there campaigning.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Let’s take them in order. Why does David Axelrod deserve a seat at that table? And why is it taking so long?
AXELROD: Well, first of all, let’s be clear. David Axelrod does not have a seat at that table. I have observed these discussions because, as I am today, I have to help communicate the message of the administration. And so it is helpful for me to hear. I have not said a word in any of those meetings.
Now let’s take the second part. Governor Romney has to choose one argument or another. Either he has to say he is not paying attention or he has to say he is taking too long because he has been involved in a rigorous review.
The president has had hours and hours and hours of meetings with his military commanders, with his national security team, to run through every aspect of this, in order to get it right. And we’ve seen in the past what happens when we don’t do that; when we don’t do the necessary preparations. And he is determined to get Afghanistan right. It is something that Secretary Gates supports. It is something that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports. General McChrystal has been supportive of this process.
And, you know, I know that Governor Romney has never had responsibility for any decision akin to this, and so he just may not be familiar with all that it entails. But I think the American people are being well served by a process that is assiduous and in which every aspect of this is considered. Because, after all, lives of American servicemen are involved here. An enormous investment on the part of the American people. We ought to get it right.
He’s Philosopher in Chief not Commander in Chief. Gen McCrystal had to force barry’s hand. It’s clear what he wants.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius put out a statement today to counteract the nuts at the Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), who decided less screening is better preventative medicine for women age 40-49.
Cost-benefit analysis. How many lives saved vs how many dollars wasted on the statistically non-sick.
And why are women being told to stop examining their breasts?
Because if they find a lump they’re just gonna get all hysterical and cost the insurance companies money.
barry’s looking for a way to not have to pay for healthcare and $100 x women age 40-49 x 10 years is worth funding studies and putting together a task force.
Secy Sebelius:
There is no question that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations have caused a great deal of confusion and worry among women and their families across this country. I want to address that confusion head on.
The U.S. Preventive Task Force is an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations. They do not set federal policy and they don’t determine what services are covered by the federal government.
Truth: USPSTD is under the Dept of Health and Human Services. The task force’s recommendations are considered the “gold standard”. Who are they? Academics, insurance companies, HMO and of course the CDC, who seems to be everywhere lately. Not a single cancer specialist – breast or otherwise.
Secy Sebelius:
There has been debate in this country for years about the age at which routine screening mammograms should begin, and how often they should be given.
The Task Force has presented some new evidence for consideration but our policies remain unchanged.
Indeed, I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action.
What is clear is that there is a great need for more evidence, more research and more scientific innovation to help women prevent, detect, and fight breast cancer, the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women.
My message to women is simple. Mammograms have always been an important life-saving tool in the fight against breast cancer and they still are today. Keep doing what you have been doing for years — talk to your doctor about your individual history, ask questions, and make the decision that is right for you.
barry’s defense lists the rules for reconsideration and then declares:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration completely violates, procedurally and substantively, the above quoted Local Rule, and, accordingly, should be summarily denied.
Also: No conference of counsel or Notice of Motion to be filed.
This is Taitz’s most recent declaration concerning her motion for reconsideration. In it she outlines the connection between barry, eligibility lawsuits, Robert Bauer, Perkins Coie, Siddarth Velamoor and Judge Carter.
Orly Taitz has entered her motion for reconsideration in Barnett/Keyes v Obama. She is using Judge Carter’s clerk Siddarth Velamoor as the impetus.
Velamoor worked at Perkins Coie = firm of Robert Bauer = barry’s personal lawyer (birth certificate) + soon to be WH counsel.
From Perkins Coie’s Seattle office, Velamoor went directly to clerk for Judge Carter, who was actively working on a barry birth certificate trial.
Reads pretty well for conflict of interest.
Was Velamoor was responsible for putting together the ruling? Did Bauer or Perkins Coie write it?
Tidy.
Everything with barry is tidy. Like Velamoor living on Mercer Island and attending the same high school as Stanley Ann Dunham.
But Pekins Coie is a large firm with multiple offices, including Seattle.
Taitz claims the Court “misstated the main argument of the case” possibly due to a “biased clerk”.
Judge Carter said the case would have been different if Taitz had filed prior to barry’s swearing-in. She did. The “real” oath didn’t take place until 24 hours after her filing. If it wasn’t the “real” oath – why did he take it?
Also:
She is the only lawyer who has the “bravery of character” to pursue eligibility issue
standing, RICO, quo warranto, whether barry was properly served and his sealing of presidential records,
Judge Carter’s prior to October 5th comments about the case needing to be heard.
Selected quotes:
If the issue wouldn’t be so serious for the National Security, the whole charade would’ve been laughable.
As the undersigned read to the Court a letter written by Senator Sessions of Alabama, the Congress is relying on the courts to resolve the issue eligibility.
In undying words of Chief Judge John Marshall, not exercising jurisdicition, when it is available, is treason to the Constitution.
If we could send a man to the Moon, we can figure out the issues of separation of powers, justiciability and jurisdiction.
I think that we’ve restored America’s standing in the world, and that’s confirmed by polls.
I think a recent one indicated that around the world, before my election, less than half the people — maybe less than 40 percent of the people — thought that you could count on America to do to the right thing. Now it’s up to 75 percent.
1-The number went up as soon as Bush left the White House.
2-Secretary Clinton is out restoring America’s standing. He’s talking about it and taking credit for it.
He’s traveled to 20 countries since becoming president – most of which he had never traveled to previously. Secy Clinton has traveled to 42 and counting and they’re places she has been to before, including war zones. Right now, she is in Afghanistan for the 4th time. barry’s been once – as president. And she acually takes unscreened questions and interacts with the natives.
3-According to the Quinnipiac Poll out today, he’s going to have to restore his own standing in the US – especially among Independents.
Perhaps not. But it is a possibility and that’s the problem.
SEN JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL)
I believe this decision is dangerous. I believe it’s misguided. I believe it’s unnecessary.
I agree. barry wants to prove to the world the muslim murderers can be tried in a court of law and he wants the murderers to be given rights afforded to the people they murdered. It is wrong on every level that exists. Not only for these five but the however many that come after because precedence will have been set.
And what are they planning on doing when the judge throws out his admissions because they were a product of “enhanced interrogation”.
Sen JOHN KYL (R-AZ) questions Attorney General Eric Holder re: bringing muslim murderers to NYC to be tried.
Sen Leahy brings up the conviction record but conveniently omits the fact that those people were not tortured.
Bottom line: How long and how many millions is it going to cost?
moxnewdotcom
ERIC HOLDER:
(2:30) I don’t know what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wants….He will not selection the prosecution venue. I will select it. And I have.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have no more of a platform to spew his hateful ideology in federal court than he would have in military commissions.
Perhaps not. But folks in the courtroom and the press will cover every word if it’s in NYC. Not something that would have happened in a military commission in Cuba.
We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power — civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic and others — to win.
He needs to remind barry we are at war.
I asked a lot of questions, and I weighed every alternative. And at the end of the day it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is in federal court.
What alternatives?
Would this be happening if barry didn’t make his ridiculously naive promise to close Gitmo?
NO.
There is nothing common about the treatment the alleged 9/11 conspirators will receive. In fact, I expect to direct prosecutors to seek the ultimate and most uncommon penalty for these heinous crimes.
When is Holder going to say to the world that the Ft Hood muslim murderer declared war on American and his fellow soldiers and that what he did was just as much an act of terror as 9-11?
I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is. I’m not scared of what Khalid Sheik Mohammed has to say at trial — and no one else needs to be either.
Confidence does not equal conviction. The nation already knows what a coward he is and the rest of the world doesn’t care. And nobody is scared of what he will say — they’re scared because he could go free.
The comics have begun. Here the Onion has a little fun with POTUS, FLOTUS & TOTUS.
Officials say the President’s home teleprompter is simply a tool to make sure pillow talk with Michelle or conversations with his Mother-In-Law go smoothly.
It’s clear that neither POTUS or FLOTUS can make any remarks without including themselves. And the both make it seem like they had these terrible struggles when they absolutely did not.
FLOTUS spoke at South High School, Denver, Colorado – 1500 students – and talked to just 30 of them. Her remarks were nothing of substance. So why was she there and at what cost to the taxpayers? And if she was going to travel – why didn’t she go with barry?
South High School, Denver, Colorado
FLOTUS: But what I would tell you — and this is something that I learned for myself — was that I had to learn not to let just a test score define me. Because if I relied solely on my test score — and this is just personal, because all you have is control over how you handle the test, no matter where you are — but if I had solely made a decision on what schools I was going to apply to just on my test scores, my test scores said, there’s no reason you should have applied to Princeton or you would get in or you would be able to do well at Princeton. That’s what my test scores said.
My grades, on the other hand, and everything else that I had invested in said just the opposite.
I was a straight-A student.
I was an honors student.
I was involved in student government.
I was active and I was engaged.
And fortunately, the universities in this country recognize that there’s more to being a good student than a test score. So fortunately for me, Princeton looked at the big picture. They didn’t just look at my test scores — they looked at my grades, they looked at my teacher recommendations, they looked at my extra-curricular activities, they looked at how well I could write in my personal essays.
Most importantly, they looked at the little check box.
Lou Dobbs on Bill O’Reilly discussing why he left CNN. Dobbs says the only thing that changed was barry and that CNN wanted to be “neutral” aka intolerant of barry naysayers. The “birther” issue was brought up, as well as the threats and shooting of Dobbs’ house (after which the threats ended), illegal immigration and barry. Dobbs said he has alot of opportunities – but hasn’t decided what he’s going to do outside his radio show. Whatever it is he says he will remain in the public arena. Running for senate is not off the table.
BILL O’REILLY: Now for the top story tonight, here he is, the recently emancipated Lou Dobbs. OK, you still got your radio show, three hours a day.
LOU DOBBS, FORMER CNN ANCHOR: I sure do.
O’REILLY: And you’re still popping off on there. But on CNN, you did quite well in the ratings when the immigration thing was in the forefront. And CNN actually moved you up from a — what they call the early fringe to 7 o’clock, because your ratings were strong.
DOBBS: Right. Right.
O’REILLY: Then your ratings leveled, as well as all the ratings for CNN, and began to go down. Just correct me if I’m wrong.
DOBBS: No, no, you’re absolutely right.
O’REILLY: OK. So then they didn’t like your anti-immigration stuff so much, did they?
DOBBS: You know, I discern more of a difference between then, which was under the Bush administration whom I was criticizing, and now, when it is the Obama administration and an entirely different tone was taken, not so much in the case of CNN management, certainly, because there’s no — my contract was very explicit. I had absolute editorial control. What I reported is what I chose to report…
O’REILLY: So they never said to you in the hallway, “You know, we don’t like this,” or, “This doesn’t make you or the network look good.” You never got that kind of feedback?
DOBBS: Never. The only issue that came up in the last 90 days of my employment there was Jon Klein and I had talked about the issue of opinion itself and advocacy journalism, and he wanted to take the network in a different direction, and I quite understood that and tried to accommodate him though.
O’REILLY: But it doesn’t make any sense, so let’s just go back. Under the Bush administration, and President Bush didn’t do a lot to stem illegal immigration until his last two years…
DOBBS: Yes, he was… O’REILLY: So you hammered him. DOBBS: Absolutely. O’REILLY: You hammered him. But at the same time, La Raza and other groups labeled you an anti-immigrant guy, not an anti-illegal immigrant guy, an anti-immigrant guy. DOBBS: And so did, by the way, The New York Times… O’REILLY: Right. DOBBS: …which conflated illegal immigration with immigrant… O’REILLY: With legal immigration. DOBBS: Right. Right. O’REILLY: So you were demonized by the left… DOBBS: Right. O’REILLY: …as a bad guy. You don’t think CNN bought into that at all? DOBBS: I don’t. I really don’t. But that’s just purely subjective on my part. CNN’s management never tried — and, by the way, in 27 years — and this goes back to when Ted was running the operation… O’REILLY: Ted Turner. DOBBS: …they never tried to do… O’REILLY: OK, and I believe you, because as I said, they moved you up in the time slot when your numbers were good.
DOBBS: Sure.
O’REILLY: But then the numbers leveled and went down, and then a new president came in, and you were saying, as soon as the new president came in, and you went after him, not only on illegal immigration, but economic issues…
DOBBS: Right, other issues, right.
O’REILLY: …they didn’t like you anymore.
DOBBS: Well, I — I don’t know whether that was the distinction that triggered any sort of response or difference in perspective on the part of CNN’s management, but it is the only difference between the way I’m — I was conducting myself under this administration and the previous administration.
O’REILLY: But what did you hear? I mean, what — did you hear that they were uncomfortable with you?
DOBBS: No, what I heard very directly was that they had decided to take CNN in a direction in which advocacy journalism would not — wouldn’t be a part of it.
O’REILLY: OK, so they just wanted — they just want an objective presentation in primetime.
DOBBS: Correct. Correct.
O’REILLY: But it doesn’t make any sense, because their numbers — and with all due respect, because we don’t have anything against CNN. NBC News, we don’t like. But CNN, I don’t have anything against you guys, Campbell Brown, Larry King…
DOBBS: By the way, it’s “those guys” now.
O’REILLY: OK. Right. Those guys, I’m sorry. But every show that — that doesn’t have an opinion is dying. It’s dying. Campbell Brown is getting murdered. Larry King has declined like 80 percent. Anderson Cooper is getting hammered. So they want more of the same? They want more of that? Does that make sense to you, as an economic guy?
DOBBS: Well, you know, I’m just talent. They’re — they’re…
O’REILLY: No, you’re an economic guy. You can read. You can read the numbers. They’re in dire trouble.
DOBBS: Their — their ratings are — are objectively, without question, as you suggest, lower than they should be, than they’d been. By the way, I was partly to blame for that, because my broadcast was in that line-up. They’re making choices now trying, obviously, to change that direction.
O’REILLY: But what? By knocking out all opinion? Opinion is what works. That’s what works.
DOBBS: You know, I — you’re going to have to talk to them on that one, Bill.
O’REILLY: OK. So you were in a position where you weren’t getting criticized directly, you say. OK…
DOBBS: Correct.
O’REILLY: …but the perception was things weren’t — the perception was you were just too opinionated and they didn’t want that.
DOBBS: That was — well, obviously, that’s what they didn’t want, because the direction was to move toward purely a neutral presentation.
And when is that going to happen?
Now about the birthers. BO says it’s ok top give them voice but he refuses to invite Taitz on his show. He’s a coward who doesn’t want to lose his job.
O’REILLY: OK. Now, the birther thing, I think that hurts you. You gave them voice, and, you know, it’s OK to give them voice, but they appeared a lot on your program.
DOBBS: Well, actually, no. This is about a two-week period. And by the way, my big offense here, and by the way, we have a (INAUDIBLE) — CNN has a broadcast called “Reliable Sources” with Howie Kurtz of The Washington Post. They ran some excerpts of what I had said about birthers.
Here’s what I said about birthers, Bill. I said, “Birthers have a question about a birth certificate. I personally believe that Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States. What I don’t understand is that with Army officers refusing to serve in Afghanistan, with lawsuits going forward, why not just produce the doggone birth certificate and be done with it?”
That was my offense, to ask the question.
And my question to you is, what kind of country is it when someone in the media asks a question and that becomes a controversy?
O’REILLY: Well, if you’re going to ask a question that Barack Obama doesn’t want to answer, you’re going to get hammered by the Obama people – and that’s what happened, and it happened to the extent that you say you were shot at out in New Jersey where you live, right?
DOBBS: Well, it followed that shot at our house on a mid-morning on a…
O’REILLY: Do you — do you really believe that, that somebody shot at your house?
DOBBS: No, I know it.
O’REILLY: You know it?
DOBBS: It’s a demonstrable fact. And that followed months and months of threats on the issue of illegal immigration over our phone…
O’REILLY: I get them, too. I know what you’re going through.
DOBBS: And it became — it became a matter of some intensity in the last two or three months preceding that shot. And there are those who — you know, what’s interesting, on the far left, there are people saying, you know, that just didn’t happen. He made that up.
O’REILLY: Yes, they are.
DOBBS: Well, here’s the conclusive evidence to my — to my thinking and to my wife’s, and that is the threats stopped on that very day that that shot was fired. We haven’t received a threat since then.
O’REILLY: Because the cops came out, and everybody — I’m going to carry Lou over for a couple of minutes here.
DOBBS: Sure.
O’REILLY:Now, there’s been speculation you might run for the Senate in New Jersey. Is that on your mind?
DOBBS:A lot of things are on my mind. I’m not going to be coy about this.
O’REILLY: But I — yes, I mean, you would be a legitimate contender for the Senate.
DOBBS: I’m thinking — my wife and I are thinking about a lot of opportunities. I’m very blessed to have a lot of opportunities. I’m going to remain — I can guarantee you 100 percent — I’m going to remain in the public arena. These issues that matter so much to me, many of the same that matter to you, are not changing. What is immutable here is, I’m going to remain in the public arena.
BO’s final question has a very curious wording.
O’REILLY: All right. So you’ll be in the radio, you might come back to TV if the right circumstance presented itself, and you might run for office.
Final question. Barack Obama, is he the devil?
DOBBS:He’s not the devil, but he is certainly a man who is right now not making it easy to understand why he’s making the public policy choices that he is. There has to be a better understanding from — and it can only result from his expression to the American people as to what is taking so long to come to a decision in Afghanistan, why it is so necessary to turn over a sixth of the economy to the United States government, which is not showered itself…
O’REILLY: Health care, right.
DOBBS: …with glory on any other sector…
O’REILLY: So you don’t think he’s a devil, but you think he’s mismanaging the country at this point?
DOBBS:I think that — absolutely.
O’REILLY: All right. I’m sorry to put words in your mouth, but we’ve got — we’ve got to go.
DOBBS: No, I decided those were a pretty good choice.
O’REILLY: I’d like you to come back on like a semi-regular basis. Would you be willing to do that?
DOBBS: It’d be my honor.
O’REILLY: OK. All right, Lou Dobbs, everybody. And we appreciate it. Good luck, Lou. Thanks for coming in.
