FAA: New Special Flight Rules Hudson corridor

December 8, 2009

Updated posts: Hudson plane vs helicopter mid-air collision

Greetings CaptSpitfire:

The NTSB has not made a final determination in the plane vs helicopter mid-air collision over the Hudson – NTSB Accident Number: ERA09MA447A. It’s the same as included in our September 22 post. They already did an animation and testified before Congress about the Hudson corridor but they probably want to get it exactly right because of the conflict the National Air Traffic Controllers Association had with the their initial report resulting in the NATCA being removed from the investigation. Don’t know what’s happened in the interim with their relationship and whether the Teterboro ATC and supervisor are still on leave until the final results are published.

What I did find today was the FAA’s new safety rules for the Hudson corridor that went into effect November 19th.

Nifty visuals of new rules: transiting pilots 1,000 – 1,300 ft; local flights below 1,000 ft.

[Checked the link and it's a pdf with the visuals sidewise. Go to the link below and click *New Hudson River Airspace Operations* the bottom and the graphic appears.]

FAA Finalizes Changes in Hudson River Airspace to Enhance Safety [emphasis added]

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today finalized a federal rule, effective November 19, 2009, that will enhance safety by separating low-altitude, local aircraft flights over the Hudson River from flights transiting through the river airspace.

“Better separation of aircraft means a higher margin of safety,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “These new rules will ensure that aircraft can operate safely in the busy Hudson River airspace.”

“These changes will define separate corridors for aircraft operating locally and those flying along the Hudson River area,” said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. “Separating aircraft on different missions and improving pilot situational awareness will add more layers of safety to this high-demand airspace.”

The rule also now requires pilots to follow safety procedures that were previously recommended, but were not mandatory. In a new Special Flight Rules Area over the Hudson and East Rivers, pilots must:

• Maintain a speed of 140 knots or less.
• Turn on anti-collision and aircraft position/navigation lights, if equipped.
• Self-announce their position on specific radio frequencies.
• Carry current charts for the airspace and be familiar with them.
• In an exclusion zone below 1,300 feet over the Hudson River, pilots must announce their aircraft type, position, direction and altitude at charted mandatory reporting points and must stay along the New Jersey shoreline when southbound and along the Manhattan shoreline when northbound.

Pilots transiting the Hudson River must fly at an altitude between 1,000 feet and 1,300 feet. Local flights will operate in the lower airspace below 1,000 feet.

The rule also will incorporate provisions of an October 2006 Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) that restricted fixed-wing aircraft in the exclusion zone over the East River to seaplanes landing or taking off on the river or those specifically approved by FAA air traffic control.

All three updated pilot charts that local fixed wing and helicopter pilots use for navigation will include these airspace changes on November 19, 2009.

The FAA will conduct seminars and coordinate with pilot groups to make pilots aware of the new requirements. The FAA also has developed an online training program that covers flight operations in the New York area.

Andy Martin’s movie “Obama: The Hawai’i Years”

December 8, 2009

Birth certificate posts/videos/lawsuits

Just saw this. Evidently Mr Martin has made a movie about barry: “Obama: The Hawai’i Years”:

Our short film “Obama: The Hawai’i Years” is almost ready to view. We plan to release it before the National Conference in December. We are still short of money to complete the project and are running in a deficit situation. We need $7,500 to finish the project. If we receive $10,000 we will be able to afford to post the entire film on the Internet unedited, instead of posting it on YouTube in short segments.

It would be awfully funny, if after all Mr Martin has done to get the truth out about barry, he got elected to barry’s senate seat.

Andy Martin’s “Second National Conference on Barack Obama’s Missing Birth Certificate and College Records”

December 8, 2009

Birth certificate posts/videos/lawsuits

Andy Martin is holding the “Second National Conference on Barack Obama’s Missing Birth Certificate and College Records” December 18-19 in New York City. Don’t know how he has the time since he’s running for barry’s senate seat.

His site: “Sarah Palin joins Andy Martin in Obama birth certificate quest”

Martin is referencing Palin’s comment from her Rusty Humphries’ radio interview where she said, when asked, in reference to barry’s birth certificate: “I think it’s a fair question”. The barrymedia of course went wild. Had they listened to the interview they would have heard that she was talking about the voters – not herself, which she then went on to clarify:

PALIN: But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.

Anyway. Back to the conference details:

Friday Dec 18, 7-9:00pm
Saturday Dec 19 “morning afternoon session”

Not sure if he means morning and afternoon sessions because he mentions that the “surprise” will be revealed Saturday morning.

No exact location as yet.

Will be videotaping.

I didn’t know about this:

Obama saboteurs stole the tapes of our first National Conference in Washington, DC. We will ensure they do not steal the tapes of this meeting.

Wonder who he got the grant from:

2-Hawai’i freedom of information materials [which he has had for a year]

We received a very generous grant to cover the costs of paying the State of Hawai’i for freedom-of-information materials. Unfortunately, those materials did not arrive in time for our first National Conference. We are reviewing the materials for our New York meeting.

3. Conference Registration fee and ID requirement

As always, we need some advance indication of how large the attending group could be to make space-planning decisions. Therefore, we have added a nominal $35 advance registration fee which covers both sessions. The door charge will be $50 to attend one or both meetings. Please fill out the attendance form and mail it back with the $35 to arrive in New York before December 16th. Please include a copy of a photo ID so we can confirm your identity when you arrive at the conference. (The late fee will be $50 cash only “at the door” with a photo ID.) Once we know how many to plan for, we can work out how formal or informal to be.

4. Conference agenda

In the near future you will be receiving the first draft of our proposed agenda. You are invited to begin submitting suggestions, comments and proposals for any future revisions.

We do have a big “surprise” planned for the conference, of course. That will be revealed at the Saturday morning session.

6. Security

We will have adequate arrangements for security in case Obama’s desperate sycophants try to disrupt us again.

Secret service: 91 security breaches since 1980

December 7, 2009

Some things are better left unknown. All this will do is emboldened other nuts to give it a try.

Story in Washington Post by SPENCER S HSU. The Post obtained a summary (39-slide presentation) of a 2003 Secret Service report which revealed 91 security breaches since 1981. SS agent Ed Donovan confirmed its authenticity:

This document reflects a proactive attempt to evaluate our security and obviously raises the awareness of uniformed division officers and agents about their jobs. We have to be concerned about the threats to our protectees at all times, whether at the White House or away from the White House.

The report revealed that intruders/crashers have reached the president or another person under SS protection 8 times since 1980 (including the Salahis) and unbelievable 4 of the incidents involved the same man.

Richard C. Weaver - a California minister:

• 1991 prayer breakfast attended by then-Pres George HW Bush
• 1997 inaugural luncheon for Pres Clinton
• 2001 shook Pres Bush’s hand
• 2003 prayer breakfast attended by Pres Bush

Also:

• 1/3 had cased their targets beforehand
• More than 40% were previously known to federal agencies
• 8 had announced their intent
• 3 were subjects of SS lookouts

What about from 2003 to present?

Dec 2 WH press briefing: April Ryan vs Gibbs

reposted for the second time today – third time overall. Would love to know where these go.

December 4, 2009

WH Press Briefing

Discussion of the crashers and Desiree Rogers – whether she will testify, whether she invited herself to the State Dinner and who made the decision not to post anyone at the checkpoints. Note that the WH went back to the long-standing protocol of having someone at the checkpoints.

Gibbs gets nasty with April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks who gives it right back.

Not answered:

• Whether Ms Rogers was an invited guest per the president or whether she just added her name to the list. She was on the official list.
• Whether there was a request for pre-clearance of the Salahis.
• Who made the decision to not have anyone besides the SS at the checkpoints.

Answered: Rogers will not be attending the hearing.

————————————

Q  (28:00)  And one other topic.  Is Desiree Rogers going to go to Capitol Hill tomorrow and testify? She’s been invited.  Has she made a decision?

GIBBS:  No — well, first of all, I think that — obviously there’s an ongoing assessment and investigation by the Secret Service into what happened I guess a little more than a week ago.  We are working with and are ready to work with anybody that has questions on that.  I think you know that, based on the separation of powers, staff here don’t go to testify in front of Congress.  She won’t — she will not be testifying in front of Congress tomorrow.

Let me add on to this.  One of the — as the Secret Service has reviewed their security procedures for how people get into this complex, so, too, has the White House looked at its procedures.

Q    So you guys have done your own review?

GIBBS:  We have done an assessment.

Q    But how –

GIBBS:  Hold on, let me — you guys are impatient today. One of the things that — and I mentioned this yesterday in interviews that I did on all of your television shows — was that we would assess whether or not all of what we were doing was being done in support of what the Secret Service has to do as part of their mission of keeping this complex safe.

Last night was the first of many holiday parties that will happen in this complex over the next several weeks.  We had staff at the security checkpoint to ensure that if there was any confusion about lists, those would be double-checked with somebody representing the Social Office. That was an assessment made based on something that we believed could have been added, and we’ve made those changes as of last night.

APRIL RYAN: Follow up, Robert, on that?

GIBBS:  Yes, ma’am.

APRIL RYAN Has there been any concerns about Desiree Rogers’ performance prior to this instance?

GIBBS:  No.

APRIL RYAN No one has questioned the President or told the President that she is a very last-minute person, poor planner?

GIBBS:  No, I think you — you all have been to and seen, either whether you’re part of a pool, whether some of you have been to receptions, the remarkable work that they have done in pulling off a lot of events here.  The First Family is quite pleased with her performance, and I’ve heard nothing uttered of what you talk about.

APRIL RYAN Well, what about the issues of her being in fashion spreads early on in the administration?  Did you put the brakes on that?  I mean, that is — it’s been raised, it’s now public, you saw it in the magazines, her pictorals.  You saw her on the cover –

GIBBS:  I get Sports Illustrated at my house.  I don’t  — I don’t get –

APRIL RYAN But could you talk — seriously, could you talk about that?  I mean, was there a concern in this White House that she came out being — some might have called here the belle of the ball, overshadowing the First Lady at the beginning –

GIBBS:  I don’t know who “some” are.  I’ve never heard that.

APRIL RYAN Well, it’s been bantered around Washington, and it’s been in circles — Democratic circles as well as Republican circles, high-ranking people.

GIBBS:  April, that’s not a station I live in in life –

APRIL RYAN — administrations as well.

GIBBS:  No, I understand.

APRIL RYAN Just answer the question, please.

GIBBS:  Are you done speaking so I can?

APRIL RYAN Oh, yes, I’m done now, yes.

GIBBS:  Excellent.  I’ve not heard any of that criticism.  I’ve not read any of that criticism.  The President, the First Lady, and the entire White House staff are grateful for the job that she does and think she has done a terrific and wonderful job pulling off a lot of big and important events here at the White House.

APRIL RYAN Did she invite herself to the state dinner or was she a guest – did the President invite her, or did she put her — no, that’s a real — do not fan it off.  I’m serious — no, seriously.

GIBBS:  Jonathan.

APRIL RYAN: No, no, no, did she invite herself, or did the President ask her — her name was on that list, and social secretaries are the ones who put the names on the list.  Did she invite herself or did the President –

GIBBS:  Was she at the dinner?  April, April, calm down. Just take a deep breath for one second.  See?  This happens with my son, he does the same thing.

Press corps:    Oooh –

APRIL RYAN: Don’t play with me, I’m being serious.  Do not blow it off.

GIBBS:  And I’m giving you a serious answer.  Was she at the dinner?  Yes.

APRIL RYAN: Was she an invited guest?

GIBBS:  She’s the social secretary.  She had the primary –

APRIL RYAN: Social secretaries are not guests of the dinner.

GIBBS:  She is the primary — for running the dinner.  I’m going to get back to weightier topics like 98,000 men and women in Afghanistan.

Jonathan, take us away.

Q    All right, April, please forgive me if I ask this question.

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

Ann (53:00)

Q    To follow up on something — to clarify something earlier, did anyone in an office here at the White House in the days leading up to the India state visit request clearance information for the Salahis in case there was space available for them to attend the arrival ceremony?

GIBBS:  I’m sorry, say that –

Q    In the days leading up to the India state visit, did anyone at the White House request the actual clearance information for the Salahis in case –

GIBBS:  Let me check with somebody.

Q    Thank you, if you would.

GIBBS:  Let me — this is what it looks like. [He holds up his invitation.]

Q    We know.

Q    Can I follow on that?

Q    I’m asking –

GIBBS:  No, hold on one second.  But let me just — I think what’s important is, you’ve got to have an invitation to get into the White House.

Q    You don’t bring your invitation to the door, though.

Q    Sure you do.

Q    You bring your driver’s license.

GIBBS:  But if you don’t have one of these, you can’t get into the door, April.  If you have a driver’s license but you didn’t have one of these then you weren’t at the dinner.  You got to have one of these to get in the dinner. It’s an invitation.

ANN:  Robert, just to confirm, my question is –

GIBBS:  I’ll have somebody check this out.

ANN:  — if they were under the impression they were being invited, if they could have gotten into –

GIBBS:  Again, nobody would have let anybody into the — under the impression that they had been invited to the dinner because there was no –

Q    I was asking about the Salahis.

GIBBS:  All right, I will double-check.

[...]

Q    Did Desirée Rogers– after she invited herself for the President?

GIBBS:  I’m sorry?

Q    Did Desirée Rogers get the invitation by inviting herself for the President –

GIBBS:  I don’t know.  This one says Robert Gibbs and he had a driver’s license and got in.

APRIL:    Did she invite herself or did the President invite her?

GIBBS:  It said the Honorable Robert — Sheryl, I’m sorry.

Q    I just want to follow up on what you said earlier about that you’ve changed the practice and now a Social Secretary — a person from the office of –

GIBBS:  A staff member representing the Social Secretary’s Office, yes.

Q    — will be at the –

GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    So was that a decision made by the Social Secretary’s Office? In other words — or did the Secret Service make that call?  Who determines –

GIBBS:  That was based on an assessment and a review of our procedures made by Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina.

Q    Okay.  And can I — just previously, when it was determined that it was not needed to have a Social Secretary representative at the gate, was that determination made by the Social Secretary’s Office or by the Secret Service?

GIBBS:  I don’t know about previous decisions.  I know Jim looked at whether we were doing enough to complement the work that the brave men and women do of the Secret Service in ensuring the protection of the President, his family, and, quite frankly, anybody that attends an event here, and decided that to ensure that we would add staff.

Q    Right.  But in administrations past there was a staff member there and then for this dinner there wasn’t.  I’m just wondering who made that call.

GIBBS:  I don’t know the answer.

[A daily refrain.]

What WND asks Gibbs (not birth certificate)

December 5, 2009

Birth certificate posts/videos/suits

Here’s what Lester Kingsolving from World Net Daily finds newsworthy. As far as I know – the last time he directly asked Gibbs about the birth certificate was July 13th when he asked about the Kapiolani letter and Gibbs said he didn’t know the “exact name of the hospital”. On July 27th someone else asked and this was Kingsolving’s exchange with Gibbs.

GIBBS: But I have no doubt that Lester will ask me soon, and that I will receive e-mail –

LESTER KINGSOLVING: You’re wrong — I’ve got another question.

MR. GIBBS: I’m not entirely sure about that, Lester. But let’s not –(Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I’m happy to wager that you’ll never ask me another birth question again.

KINGSOLVING: No, no, no — I didn’t say “never again,” I said, “not today.”

And he didn’t ask today either. Instead it’s this.

LESTER KINGSOLVING: Okay.  And the White House list of those attending the first state dinner listed:  “The Honorable Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary.“  And my question, can you name any previous press secretaries who were given the title usually reserved for judges and elected political leaders?

GIBBS: Speaking on background as somebody intimately familiar with the thinking of “The Honorable Robert Gibbs” –

KINGSOLVING:  I didn’t say you were dishonorable.

GIBBS: I thought it was –

KINGSOLVING: Did you come up with this?  Was this your idea?

GIBBS: Yes, exactly — I write all those.  Look, it was a flattering promotion that I’m sure the press secretary was quite honored to have.

KINGSOLVING: The President wanted this?  Do you think he wanted this?

GIBBS: Lester, I daresay that the President is quite busy doing a number of things; I seriously doubt he was proofreading the press release guest list.  But I will double-check on that.

KINGSOLVING:  Thank you very much.

David Axelrod re: Desiree Rogers

December 7, 2009

David Axelrod re: Desiree Rogers from Lynn Sweet.

DAVID AXELROD:

No doubt there were some screw-ups, probably enough to go around. That does not obviate the fact she has done a good job on the core mission of her office. It is ludicrous for anyone to assume she is less concerned about the president’s security than anybody else.

I think she’s taking it hard because she takes her responsibility seriously.

I think the Obamas appreciate as I do — all of us do — all the great things she is doing.

Adam Lambert interview with Realite (video)

December 6. 2009

Adam Lambert posts/videos/interviews

Adam Lambert in an extended interview with Realite’s Michael Slezak. Covers his AMA performance and his CD.

1-Alison Iraheta, vocals at AMA; discusses technical aspect of mic feed.

Bells and whistles, no matter who you are, it helps.

2-AMA – was it intentioned? Spectacle in front of music?

Wasn’t aiming to be controversial.

It wasn’t my intention to piss people off but the fact that I did didn’t bother me.

Mentions the other acts at the AMAs.

Obviously, in America it’s ok to be violent but not sexual. I’m ok with that.

3-AMA aftermath, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, “trolly stop”

I’m not a babysitter – I’m Adam.

I was inspired. I got a little competitive and I wanted to got out there and do my thing and prove I belonged there, too.

Favs: Lady Gaga performance and Kelly Clarkson’s vocals.

The Early Show blurred the kiss – proved his point of double standard.

Reinforcing the idea that homosexuality is indecent and that’s dangerous.

He didn’t intend to prove the point with his performance – he’s reacting to the criticism.

It was totally over the top. It was ridiculous. That’s my thing. If people don’t get that by now…Don’t take me so seriously, people. Calm down.

4-His future, fall on AMAs

Wants to secure his place, want more opportunities, doesn’t wan to just fade out, music strong enough to stand for itself. He did fall. He “felt like a cockroach on its back” turned into a “ninja roll”.

5-Album political?

Didn’t set out that – is just defending himself. Personality because of American Idol. Double standard as a gay man — some AI people feel betrayed by his performance. [What he apologized for on Ellen.]

6-Order of songs on album.

Wanted to flow song into song. Discusses: “Music Again”

7-”Whataya Want From Me” Pink

8-”Strut” – Kara

9-”Broken Open”

10-”A Loaded Smile” – Linda Perry is intimidating – power, gets you out of your comfort zone and pushes you.

11-”Fever” Lady Gaga was involved. She is a “persona artist”.

“Soaked” from Muse – “an amazing band, they’re very respected, felt validated”.

12-Cohesiveness – “playlist generation”.

It was more important for to create a variety and something for everybody and something that represented different parts of me as an artist and different sounds that I enjoy. I like singing different styles of music. I’m not just a one-note type of person. The album title sums it up – it’s kind of like a variety show.

In a live situation if I do it in concert, I think it will make for a really strong concert. It’s so sonically diverse that I think people are going to stayed tuned into it.

Album cover

I didn’t expect an uproar and I didn’t expect as much much confusion…I think it was well-executed.

He liked the pix.

I like that it looked kind of weird and off and bizarre.

Identifies with music from the ’70s.

That spirit is what I’m trying to bring to my project.

I think it’s funny that people don’t get it.

What do you not get!?

Google running ads on our site

December 7, 2009

This is getting ridiculous. I just posted about Googles real-time launch and thought I would see if it worked. I googled the title of my post and clicked and up comes the post WITH GOOGLE ADS ATTACHED. I don’t have ad sense or any type of monetizing on my site.

Google now with real-time search results

December 7, 2009

Google has introduced so-called “real-time web” results into its search engine. As soon as something is posted, the search page is updated. Check it out: google real time search . You can disable it as well.

GOOGLE REAL TIME:

Now, immediately after conducting a search, you can see live updates from people on popular sites like Twitter and FriendFeed, as well as headlines from news and blog posts published just seconds before. When they are relevant, we’ll rank these latest results to show the freshest information right on the search results page.

Our real-time search features are based on more than a dozen new search technologies that enable us to monitor more than a billion documents and process hundreds of millions of real-time changes each day. Of course, none of this would be possible without the support of our new partners that we’re announcing today: Facebook, MySpace, FriendFeed, Jaiku and Identi.ca — along with Twitter, which we announced a few weeks ago.

How much of the recent Facebook problems had to do with Google insinuating themselves? How much choice did their “new partners” have?

And what does it mean for Twitter?

GOGGLE GOOGLES: An application for Google Android cellphones that allows users to search for more info about landmarks or artwork by taking a photo of that object. Train your phone on whatever and Google runs it through its database of images. If it finds a match, you get the name, the associated web page and other relevant results. Operates via the GPS software and digital compass built in to many of the phones that run Google’s Android operating system.

It also makes a convenient record of where that cellphone was at that point in time and who’s looking at what. Can find the name of a landmark but 911 can’t locate where a kidnapped or sick person is via their cellphone.

And with their big announcement did they also mention they’re tracking your every search now – logged into Google or not?

Example of WH transparency

December 7, 2009

Lately, the press briefings have been getting posted later and later on the WH website. They used to get posted the same day.

As of right now – Dec 7th 1512 CST – the last press briefing is December 2. You would think if anything they would have try to delay the posting of that one. Watching Gibbs get the smackdown was 11 months in coming.

Big Brother Google now tracking logged out users – that means you

December 7, 2009

Google now with real-time search results

I wondered what happened with Google on Friday. Big Brother barry combined with his bud googleman Eric Schmidt are now tracking your searches even when you’re not signed into your Google account. Love how they make it sound like it’s something people would want.

GOOGLE: Previously, we only offered Personalized Search for signed-in users, and only when they had Web History enabled on their Google Accounts. What we’re doing today is expanding Personalized Search so that we can provide it to signed-out users as well. This addition enables us to customize search results for you based upon 180 days of search activity linked to an anonymous cookie in your browser. It’s completely separate from your Google Account and Web History (which are only available to signed-in users). You’ll know when we customize results because a “View customizations” link will appear on the top right of the search results page. Clicking the link will let you see how we’ve customized your results and also let you turn off this type of customization.

Turning off personalization

Google sometimes customizes your search results based on your past search activity on Google. This customization includes searches you’ve done and results you’ve clicked. Since Personalized Search treats signed-in and signed-out users differently, the instructions for disabling Personalized Search are a little different in each case. Check out the section below that makes the most sense for you.

Signed in searches

To disable history-based search customizations while signed in, you’ll need to remove Web History from your Google Account. You can also choose to remove individual items. Note that removing this service deletes all your old searches from Web History.

Signed out searches
If you aren’t signed in to a Google Account, your search experience will be customized based on past search information linked to a cookie on your browser. To disable history-based customizations, follow these steps:

1. In the top right corner of the search results page, click Web History.
2. On the resulting page, click Disable customizations. (Because this preference is stored in a cookie, it’ll affect anyone else who uses the same browser and computer as you).

Or, if you’d rather just delete the current cookie storing searches from your browser and start fresh, clear your browser’s cookies.

Note: If you’ve disabled search customizations, you’ll need to disable it again after clearing your browser cookies; clearing your Google cookie turns on history-based customizations.

Watch (1:22) the guy on the right’s face when the other guy is making it sound like this is a great advancement that folks want. He knows it’s Big Brother. He blinks, makes a fake smile, swallows and his cheeks slightly flush. Nice to know that at least one person at Google has a conscience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKuG2M6R4VM

Fr Weslin ND court date postponed – DC case dismissed

December 7, 2009

Fr Weslin/Fr Jenkins/Notre Dame posts

Linda from Fr Weslin’s website has been kind enough to supply another update.

Hi Mattie,

Father Weslin’s court date has been postponed again until spring, so
nothing will happen any time soon.  His case in DC was dismissed – praise
God! – so he doesn’t have to return for trial there.  Just thought you’d
like an update.

God bless!
Linda

One wonders what Fr Jenkins and ND is up to and why the continued postponements. The St Joseph court docket can’t be that full.

hello nuts&bolters – your answers

December 7, 2009

Good morning nuts&bolters.

WordPress shut me out with “routine maintenance” Friday. I got tired of checking so I never got around to re-posting the crasher hearing – they never made it through to be published. Seems their “routine maintenance” is becoming more frequent. Also Google seems to have changed somehow, hasn’t it?

I have the testimony of Rep King and a few of his TV appearances as well as Valerie Jarrett’s lame attempts to cover. And yes, the exchange between April and Gibbs. I’m glad I finally got to see what April (Ryan) looks like. I only know her from the briefing transcripts. She has been a thorn in his side since the beginning – always challenging him – and that exchange was only a matter of time. His sarcasm has finally met his match. Now if she could make him answer questions instead of saying “he’ll check on it”.

I don’t know who has pretending to be us and I don’t know why anyone would bother – bots don’t even bother us anymore. I’m the only citizen left and don’t have time to go around and leave comments. Don’t even have time to go around and read blogs. Folks link to our posts in private forums that can’t be accessed so I don’t know what’s going on there.

Not bothering with the climate change crap. Always thought it was a hoax and now it’s being proven to be so. They’re always talking about the polar bears – even though the population has increased.

I know there was something else you were looking for but I deleted your email. Let me know.

Thanks for your kind words. It’s nice to know somebody finds something useful.

SNL Weekend Update: “Obama” ecstasy pills

December 6, 2009

SNL wasn’t that tough on barry this week. Their opening sketch was on the the stalkers of course. Here’s two jokes from Weekend Update.

SETH MEYERS:

[The crashers said on "Today" that] the ensuing media firestorm has destroyed everything they’ve worked for. But then they remembered: They’ve never worked for anything.

[Story about the pills]

Police in Texas seized a shipment of Ecstasy pills last week that were shaped like President Obama’s face….

The drug is characterized by a brief powerful high followed by long slow come down.

SNL: “Obama Afghanistan Cold Open” (the crashers)

December 5, 2009

“Obama Afghanistan Cold Open”

Featuring POTUS, the Secret Service and VPOTUS Joe Biden.

“Grateful to get away from Washington and the many distractions…”

Fred Armisen, Kristine Wiig, Jason Sudeikis, Bobby Moynihan

Hosted by Blake Lively, musical guest Rhianna

Weekend Update joke

Rep Thompson opening remarks re: WH crashers

December 3, 2009

House Homeland Security Committee hearing re: security breach during the State Dinner.

Secret Service Director MARK SULLIVAN was the only witness.

REP BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS)

The Committee on Homeland Security will come to order. The committee is meeting today to receive testimony on “The United States Secret Service and Presidential Protection: An Examination of a System Failure.”

Good morning. I want to thank the witnesses for agreeing to testify here today. Some people have asked me why we are having this hearing. Let me be clear: This hearing is not about crashing a party at the White House. Neither is it about wannabe-celebrities or reality television. On the contrary, this hearing is about real world threats to the nation.

AWe cannot forget that amidst all the hullabaloo and uproar, the most important and indisputable fact is that a couple gained unauthorized access to the White House grounds because no one from the Secret Service prevented them from entering. They remained at the White House because no one from the Secret Service required them to leave.

We’re not concerned about agency embarrassment. Discomfort or shame cannot serve as a substitute for performance. The security gaps at issue cannot be explained away as missteps by a few frontline employees. There were undeniable planning and execution failures of the entire Secret Service apparatus with security failings that seemed to hang over that evening like a fog, we are all fortunate that this diplomatic celebration did not become a night of horror.

There’s no doubt that this incident can be an enlightening case study, but it is not enough for us to merely analyze. We must dissect every fact; we must learn the lesson and fix the problem. And after we do these things, we need to give thanks that no lives were lost.

Today, we will take a hard look at Secret Service actions and omissions that have been revealed and confirmed by this incident. This nation’s response to the terrorism threats at home and abroad demands that we maintain vigilance. The fact that unauthorized persons gained access to the White House complex during an official State Dinner, mixed and mingled and were photographed with the president, vice president and the prime minister of India is about as far from vigilance as one can get. It is simply unacceptable. The American people deserve a full accounting and full accountability. And we must be assured that this will never happen again.

I look forward to the testimony presented today and I look forward to the actions that should follow. The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. King, for an opening statement

Robert Gibbs re: Desiree Rogers

December 3, 2009

Robert Gibbs re: Desiree Rogers

The president, the first lady and the entire White House staff are grateful for the job that she does and thinks she has done a terrific and wonderful job pulling off a lot of big and important jobs here at the White House.

Dr Sanjay Gupta re: State Dinner

December 5, 2009

hey B4442

Yes, Dr Gupta (and his wife Rebecca) attended the State Dinner. Here is his call in to  CNN the next day.

He said there were a lot of people concentrated in certain areas, that the first checkpoint was the most crowded and that he didn’t really recall seeing them.

worldnews

Blago plans on testifying

December 4, 2009

Glenn Selig Blagojevich:

Let me make it clear: the governor is not taking the Fifth Amendment The governor is going to testify at his trial. He can’t wait to testify at his trial. He can’t wait for the truth to come out. And when the truth comes out he will be fully vindicated.

Parnevik: “We probably thought [Woods] was a better guy than he is”

December 2, 2009

Woods apologizes for “transgressions”

I can see why Jesper would be angry. Elin was his nanny and he was the one who introduced her to Woods (2001). Plus they’re both Swedes.

Parnevik spoke to the Golf Channel at qualifying school.

That would be very sad, of course. I would be especially sad about it since I’m kind of … I really feel sorry for Elin, since me and my wife were at fault for hooking her up with him.

We probably thought he was a better guy than he is. I would probably need to apologize to her and hope she uses a driver next time instead of the 3-iron.

It’s a private thing, of course. But when you are the guy he is, the world’s best athlete, you should think more before you do stuff. And maybe not just do it, like Nike says.

Golf Channel’s longer video with comments from other golfers: Steve Stricker, David Duval, Chris Riley and Todd Hamilton.  It’s autoplay which is why I didn’t embed it.

yo barry: what about gambling, drugs and prostitution?

December 4, 2009

Schnecksville PA

It’s these types of questions that reinforce the notion that nothing barry does is unscripted. Just like that “why do they hate you” kid in New Orleans.’

I think a lot of the kids must have know he was going to ask something because he looks like he got a new suit.

Girl with the striped scarf is fun to watch react.

——

joegerarden

STUDENT: Mr Obama, I really appreciate how you are trying to stimulate the economy to help this country out and, uhm, I was just wondering in….at College we’ve been studying some criminology and I was wondering if maybe if you checked out some of the statistics about legalizing prostitution, gambling, drugs and nonviolent crime in order to stuimulate some of the economy?

BARRY: You know I have to say this. I-I-I appreciate the boldness of your question…That will not be my job strategy. Bu,t let me say this…First of all, part of what you’re supposed to do in college is question conventional wisdom. And so you’re doing exactly what you’re supposed to be dong, which is thinking in new ways about things.

CNN is back doing their little clips of barry eating.

Wonder if the SS is collecting all of the plates, glasses and cutlery barry uses so nobody can do a DNA test. Actually it would be a very easy way to see which side of Africa his ancestors hail from.

SOTUS looks like a ginormous vacuum attachment with a quarter stuck on it.

Gibbs has made fun of it before. Evidently barrry must have his signage or the speech can’t go on…

CNN Poll: barry approval rate = 48%

December 5, 2009

CNN/Opinion poll
Dec 2-3
+/-3

First time approval rating has dropped below 50

(Dec 2-3) — (Nov 13-15)

Handling job as president
Approve 48 – 55
Disapprove 50 – 42

Plan to send 30K more troops
Favor 62
Oppose 36

Plans to start removing troops from Afghanistan in July 2011
Favor 66
Oppose 32

Decision to announce troop withdrawal in 2011?
Good idea 39
Bad idea 58

He did the same with Iraq.

And what took so long for his Afghanistan strategy when it is basically the same as he had in March?

He wanted to stall to punish Gen McCrystal for calling him out on Afghanistan.

Rep Sanchez statement following crasher hearing

Crasher hearing: Rep King questions Mark Sullivan

December 4, 2009

Hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee
Subject: The United States Secret Service and presidential protection: An examination of a system failure

Rep King questions SS Director Mark Sullivan. King says it never would have happened had WH staff been present – Sullivan said it would have helped. Also Sullivan said that there have been times where a person arrived who was not on the list – was not vetted and together the SS & WH decided they could enter– though that was not the case with the crasherts.

REP. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, my understanding is that the Salahis, when they went to the first checkpoint and their name was not on the list –

MR. SULLIVAN: I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman and Mr. King –

REP. KING: No problem. My understanding is that when the Salahis came to the first checkpoint, their name was not on the list and they told the Secret Service agent that they should be on the list and they had been invited and they talked themselves through. Is that a fair analysis or is that part of the investigation?

MR. SULLIVAN: You know, it’s part of the investigation. What I will tell you is these two individuals did show up at the list representing themselves to be on the list. Our officer looked at the guest list, did not see their names there and allowed them to proceed to the next checkpoint to have their names checked up there.

REP. KING: Now, my understanding is — and I have seen this personally myself — certainly, at times, people who should be on the list are not. And when they say they should be on the list and they’re not, somebody from the social secretary’s office is there, the Secret Service agency hands the guests over to the social secretary and goes back to processing those who are next on line. Is that the way it’s been done in the past?

MR. SULLIVAN: Sir, for every event that we have at the White House, we have a planning meeting with the White House staff. And we did have a planning meeting for this particular visit. During that planning meeting, we all agree about what our predetermined responsibility will be for that particular event. In this meeting, we agreed at that particular checkpoint, we would take control of the list.

REP. KING: Can I just ask you, are you aware of any other events at the White House — certainly one of this significance — a state dinner — where there was no one from the social secretary’s office there with the Secret Service?

MR. SULLIVAN: Sir, I’ve asked our people to go back and look at that, and we have seen other events where that has occurred. It does not happen often, but we have seen other events, Mr. King, where that does in fact occur.

REP. KING: Do you know if it’s happened at any previous state dinner?

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know that, but I can get back to you on that.

REP. KING: Okay, if — this is a hypothetical — if, when they come up to the security checkpoint, they said, we are on the list and the Secret Service agent says, you’re not, if there had been somebody from the social secretary’s office there, would the agent have referred them to the social secretary’s office and continued to process those on line?

MR. SULLIVAN: I believe what they would have done is they would have worked the issue together. I don’t think that the officer would have totally just dismissed it to that particular person; I would think that –

REP. KING: Well, I don’t mean dismiss it, but would they have waited to see what the social secretary’s office could find, then come back to the Secret Service agent, rather than the Secret Service agent stop processing everyone on line ahead of them and just deal with this individual or these individuals?

MR. SULLIVAN: You know, Mr. King, I think that is one of the things we talked about in our after-action review of this as we talked with the White House staff. I believe we both recognized that there is a need to have somebody there from the White House. And that’s why, as we saw yesterday, new guidelines were put out where, for all of these events in the future, without exception, there will be somebody there from the White House staff.

REP. KING: And won’t those guidelines be similar to almost everything that’s been done before, other than last week?

MR. SULLIVAN: You know, again, Mr. King, many of the events we have done over the past nine or 10 months, there have been people from the White House staff at this checkpoint. For this particular event, prior to this event, we agreed that we would control that and there would be somebody from the White House staff –

REP. KING: Excuse me because my time is starting to run. You said it was agreed; who initiated that? Did you ask the social secretary’s office not to be there or did they ask not to be there?

MR. SULLIVAN: I just know that, that’s what the result of our meeting was, sir.

REP. KING: But isn’t it unusual, I mean, for all these events — I think I’ve been to over 40 of them — probably all of my colleagues have been to a similar amount, whether it’s Christmas parties or barbecues, an occasional state dinner. We always see somebody, whether it’s the social secretary’s office, president’s staff, legislative affairs — there’s always someone there with the Secret Service.And it’s interesting to me that for this one event — the most important one of the year — where we have a prime minister from a country which was attacked by terrorists last year — that at this event, which was also with a larger crowd with rain expected — the social secretary’s office just left and the Secret Service was there by itself.

So listen, I thank you for accepting responsibility, but the only way we can find out as to who initiated this change and what the real procedures are going to be in the future and why it was done this way last Tuesday — I mean, we can’t do it unless we have someone from the White House having the guts to come down here and testify instead of hiding behind a phony claim of the separation of powers. I yield back.

MR. SULLIVAN: And the other thing I would say, Mr. King, is that during that meeting, I mean, it was agreed upon that there would be people from the White House staff available in a roving capacity. And again, I take responsibility for the fact that we did have that available to us – you know, that those people just should have been stopped there and we should have called for someone to come out and help to expedite those people.

REP. KING: But if there had been someone next to the Secret Service agent this would not have happened; they would never have gotten in. If somebody from the social secretary’s office was standing where they’ve always stood in the past, the Salahis would not have gotten in.

MR. SULLIVAN: It would have helped.

[Mr Sullivan's face gave it away here. There should have been someone there.]

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you very much. Just for the record, again, no one would have been allowed in that event if they had not been vetted? Am I correct?

MR. SULLIVAN: That’s correct, Mr. Chairman.

REP. THOMPSON: Whether they talked to the social secretary or whoever.

REP. KING: Mr. Chairman, if you’d just yield for a moment, my understanding was –

(Cross talk.)

REP. KING: — left off the list.

REP. THOMPSON: What? No, let me –

REP. KING: And that’s the purpose of having the social secretary.

REP. THOMPSON: Well, I deferred to your questions. (Pause.)

MR. SULLIVAN: I’m sorry, Chairman. All I was going to say is, you know, there have been occasions where people have shown up that have not been vetted where we will have conversation with the White House staff and those people have been allowed to enter.

That’s very rare, but on occasion, people have come and, if both the White House staff and us agree — and this is in every — not just this administration; other administrations — where if we feel that there’s a need to let those individuals through that haven’t been vetted and we and the staff are both in agreement with that, those people will be allowed in. But again, that’s to answer your question, not what happened here.

Crasher hearing: Rep Sanchez questions Mark Sullivan

December 4, 2009

Crasher hearing: Rep Thompson questions Mark Sullivan

December 4, 2009

Hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee
Subject: The United States Secret Service and presidential protection: An examination of a system failure

Rep Thompson’s comments after Rep King’s initial remarks.

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you very much. Just for the record, the Salahis were not on the list. They were not stopped. So a social secretary wouldn’t have had a responsibility in this situation. They’re party planners, they’re not security personnel. And I think one of the reasons that we brought Director Sullivan here is to explain the role of the Secret Service from a security standpoint. And he can answer a number of these questions as we go forward.

[He refuses to consider the possibility that Desiree Rogers was at fault. There really was no need for a hearing.]

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you very much, Director Sullivan, for your testimony. I remind each member that he or she will have five minutes to question Mr. Sullivan. I recognize myself for the beginning questions. Director Sullivan, let me be clear that all of us support the men and women of the Secret Service. There’s no question about it.

Our oversight responsibility, though, is when situations like this occur, we have to look at them; we have to do our job. And it is in that pursuit of doing our job this hearing is being held today. In addition to that, there are a couple of questions I’d like to just get on the record. Who is responsible for security at the White House?

MR. SULLIVAN: The U.S. Secret Service is responsible for that security, Mr. Chairman.

REP. THOMPSON: The U.S. Secret Service. Who is responsible for access control at the White House?

MR. SULLIVAN: We are, sir.

REP. THOMPSON: How many checkpoints are we normally manning from access control at the White House at any point, at the state dinner?

MR. SULLIVAN: You know, for this particular event, we had three vehicle checkpoints and we had two pedestrian checkpoints.

REP. THOMPSON: Okay, at each checkpoint, did those individuals have lists of the guests that would be in attendance?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, they did, Chairman.

REP. THOMPSON: The two individuals in question — the Salahis — were they on any of those lists?

MR. SULLIVAN: They were not.

REP. THOMPSON: And it’s your testimony before us today that they should not have been allowed entrance to this event because they were not on the list.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct.

REP. THOMPSON: Just for the record, if an individual is not on a list, what is the procedure?

MR. SULLIVAN: The procedure would be that they should not be allowed entry, at that point. For this particular event, the protocol would be that, that officer should contact their immediate supervisor. The supervisor would get together with an individual from the White House staff. They would determine if, in fact, that individual was cleared to come in. Additionally, we would call over to our control center to see if these names had been provided for clearance.

REP. THOMPSON: Did any of this occur on the evening in question?

MR. SULLIVAN: It did not.

REP. THOMPSON: Have you identified all of the personnel who would have been responsible for this not occurring?

MR. SULLIVAN: Sir, right now, that is ongoing. We have identified three individuals right now. We continue to investigate. We’ve done — since this occurred, we have done numerous interviews. We continue to go back and reinterview people, but right now, we have three individuals we have identified. But I’m not sure if that will change or not. But one thing we are sure of — the checkpoints where this did occur.

REP. THOMPSON: So they were not on the list. Have you determined how an individual not on the list could gain entrance to this event?

MR. SULLIVAN: I have, sir.

REP. THOMPSON: Is that something you’re comfortable in sharing in this setting, or you would like to do it in another setting?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I’d be more than happy to share that. We had established protocols. They weren’t followed. What we find is that if the protocols are followed, we won’t run into this type of a situation. Clearly, this protocol was not followed. A mistake was made — an error in judgment — and that allowed these two individuals, who should not have been allowed entry, into the White House.

REP. THOMPSON: Can you tell us whether or not any other individuals may have gained entry into the White House in a similar manner this evening?

MR. SULLIVAN: Sir, that was a concern on my part as well, and I can tell you that our investigation indicates that no other individuals were allowed entry that evening that should not have been allowed to come in.

REP. THOMPSON: And one question: Because these individuals were not on the list, they did not get vetted or anything like that? Do you think this not occurring provided any risk to those individuals who attended the state dinner?

MR. SULLIVAN: Sir, like everyone, I am extremely disappointed that these people were able to enter the White House. However, I would say that these people went through every layer of security that every other individual went through going into that building. And again, I’d be more than happy to talk about what those levels of security are in a closed briefing. But I would say, from a risk perspective, I feel confident, based on what I’ve heard, based on what I’ve seen, based on what I’ve been briefed on, that they did not provide a risk to the president.

REP. THOMPSON: So you are comfortable in making that statement?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am comfortable in making that statement, sir.

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you. I yield to the ranking member.

Crasher Hearing: Rep King opening remarks (video/text)

December 4, 2009

Hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee
Subject: The United States Secret Service and presidential protection: An examination of a system failure

Opening remarks by Rep King (R-NY)

TRANSCRIPT FOLLOWS

Crasher hearing: Director SS Mark Sullivan opening remarks

December 4, 2009

Hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee
Subject: The United States Secret Service and presidential protection: An examination of a system failure

Mark Sullivan, Director of the Secret Service opening remarks. Takes full blame for the security breach, States it was a breakdown in judgment at the initial checkpoint – established procedures were not followed. Unable to comment on possible criminal charges,

REP THOMPSON: Other members of the committee are reminded that under the committee rule, opening statements may be submitted for the record. Our sole witness is Mr. Mark Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan was sworn in as the 22nd director of the United States Secret Service on May 31st, 2006. Mr. Sullivan has been the recipient of numerous awards for superior performance throughout his 26-year tenure with the Secret Service, including a distinguished Presidential Rank Award in 2005.

Welcome, Mr. Sullivan. I thank you for being here today. Without objection, the witness’s full statement will be inserted in the record. I’ll now ask Director Sullivan to summarize his statement for five minutes.

MARK SULLIVAN, DIRECTOR OF THE SECRET SERVICE: Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member King and other distinguished members of the committee. The U.S. Secret Service is an organization that maintains deep pride in the work it does on behalf of our nation. Based on the high standards to which the men and women of this agency hold themselves and the standards the nation expects, I regret on Tuesday, November 24th, established protocols and procedures were not followed, allowing two individuals entry into the White House.

The moment this was brought to my attention on Wednesday, November 25th, I immediately directed our Office of Professional Responsibility to begin an investigation and a review into the events surrounding the previous evening. Further, I directed the Office of Professional Responsibility to contact the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General in order to advise them of our investigation.

While the investigation remains ongoing, preliminary findings have determined that established procedures related to entering the White House were not followed at an initial checkpoint. An error in judgment; a mistake was made. In our line of work, we cannot afford even one mistake.

In this particular circumstance, two individuals who should have been prohibited from passing through a checkpoint and entering the grounds were allowed to proceed the magnetometers and other levels of screening before they were then allowed to enter the White House. Although these individuals went through magnetometers and other levels of screening, their entry into the White House is unacceptable and indefensible.

The U.S. Secret Service relies heavily on the professionalism and training of our men and women to make informed decisions based upon sound judgment. In this case, I fully acknowledge the proper procedures were not followed and human error occurred in the execution of our duties.

This flaw has not changed our agency standard, which is to be right 100 percent of the time. This event does not represent the quality of protection that the dedicated men and women of this agency provide every day. This past year, we’ve processed more than 1.2 million visitors into the White House without instance.

In our profession, however, there is no margin for error. I realize many people share our disappointment in this instance. As an agency, we will continue to remain our harshest critic and take the necessary actions to remedy this issue and continually to successfully carry out our critical mission.

I am extremely confident in and proud of the work of our men and women and the security measures we put in place on a daily basis at the White House, the vice presidential residence, in the thousands of venues located throughout the world which are visited by those we protect.

The men and women of the U.S. Secret Service work 24 hours a day, seven days a week every day of the year. Their sacrifice and commitment make us the agency that the American people can be proud of and depend on.

As a career special agent, I am confident in our men and women and in our ability to successfully execute our mission. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member King and members of the committee, I am willing to answer questions at this time, however any questions regarding our security procedures will need to be discussed in a closed setting.

Additionally, I would like to respectfully advise this committee that, due to the fact that this is an ongoing investigation, I am unable to answer any question regarding the potential criminal aspect of this incident, here or in a closed setting.

Thank you.

Wife Crasher = “Former Miss USA” and “SuperModel”

December 4, 2009

What do you know?

Wife crasher is a “supermodel” and a former “Miss USA”.

Uh-uh. It says so right on the pix!

Which was taken in June 2005 at the 12th annual Rock the Vote Awards Dinner at the National Building Museum – honorees: Sen John McCain, Sen Barack Obama, former President Bill Clinton and the Black Eyed Peas…so where was Mr Bill?

Either wife crasher gets around or barry does.

Kind of the same theme isn’t it?

Tall, thin, appeared on the national scene with no accomplishments to speak of, ever-evolving personal history at odds with reality, publicity-seeking narcissists that don’t seem to have a problem bending the truth and love to have their pix taken.

From Left to Right is: Randy Jackson, better known as a Judge on American Idol – his previous life he was a bass player for the Rock band JOURNEY, which also performed at the America’s Polo Cup.

Others pictured are Black Eyed Peas Rock Band, Tareq Salahi the President of the America’s Polo Cup, President Elect Obama (??), Fergie from Black Eyed Peas and Michaele Salahi a former Miss USA and SuperModel

———-

Found this funny. Wonder how Tim feels now.

Tim Bloomington, Illinois (Jan 31, 2005)

Being from Illinois, the most disappointing senator to vote for Condi Rice was Barack Obama. He had all the cover he needed to vote against her (his senior senator voted no, Illinois is a blue state, he was elected by a huge margin, etc.), but he voted in favor. Very disappointing to me. Senator Obama is not the future of the Democratic party.