Archive for March, 2009

Poll: Tim Geithner

March 31, 2009

March 31, 2009

Diageo/Hotline Poll conducted by FD

N=800 registered voters nationwide
MoE ± 3.5 (for all registered voters)

March 26-29, 2009

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner

Favorable  Unfavorable  Can’t rate  Don’t know him  Unsure
37                    30                  19                11               2

And, when thinking about how President Obama and his team of economic advisors are handling the economy, how confident are you that they will be successful in turning around the economy:

Very  Somewhat  Not Too/Not at All Unsure
20           41                 18/18               2

And, when thinking about how Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is handling the economy, how confident are you that he will be successful in turning around the economy: very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not at all confident?

Very  Somewhat Not Too/Not at All Unsure
11             40              19/20                11

***

AIG Timeline
Tim Geithner’s AIG Timeline

AIG $165M bonuses after $170B bailout
AIG bonus breakdown
barry on AIG (video)
AIG: Edward Liddy (video)
Tim Geithner on Charlie Rose (video)
Andrew Cuomo: $30M of AIG bonuses will be returned
Andrew Cuomo’s letter to AIG (10-28-08)

Poll: Which way is the country headed?

March 31, 2009

MARCH 31, 2009

ABC News/Washington Post Poll

March 26-29, 2009.

N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

Do you think things in this country are generally going in the right direction or do you feel things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track?”

RIGHT      WRONG

October           13                   85

December       15                   82

January           19                   78

February         31                   67

March              42                   57

Jay Leno chuckles: G 20

March 31, 2009

March 31, 2009

President Obama left for Europe today for a meeting with the world’s major economic powers known as the G 20 – or as it’s called now – Chapter 11.

The first place President obama landed was England. And  British PM Gordon Brown told President Obama ‘make yourself at home’ – so Obama fired the head of Rolls Royce and Jaguar.

I feel confident that it will go well, because President Obama – he’s very good with these economic leaders. Good speaker of course – good speechwriters. The problem with President Bush – when he went to the summit, whenever anyone said G 20, he’d go “Bingo”!

The economy is bad…real bad.

You know the octomom? Her uterus just filed for Chapter 11.

Gov Tim Kaine: No state funds for embryonic stem cell research

March 31, 2009

March 31, 2009

Virginia Governor, vetted VP candidate and newly-appointed Chairman of the DNC, Tim Kaine, Monday signed a bill banning the use of state funds for embryonic stem cell research. It doesn’t exactly follow barry, who signed an executive order (3-9 EO 13505), reversing President Bush’s ban (6-20-07 EO 13435) on federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells.

Kaine didn’t stop there. He enacted legislation permitting “Choose Life” license plates, much to the ire of pro-choicers.

Yes, he is a democrat, but a Catholic first, and is retaining his morals while practicing what barry espouses: reaching across the aisle. Complication? He’s head of the DNC – meant to follow barry’s every whim.

But above all, he is a politician – he made sure to pass it before he leaves office next January. His bill DOES allow for funding of adult stem cell research.

CNN’s PETER HAMBY: Lynda Tran, the governor’s communications director, said that Kaine’s decision is “in keeping with his faith and his personal beliefs.”

The governor is opposed to the use of state funds to fund embryonic stem cell research, but he generally agrees with the national platform broadly, that there are scientific values to stem cell research. In Virginia, where there has been strong opposition to embryonic research, he has chosen to focus on other forms of research like adult and placental stem cell research.

His hopeful successors: former DNC Chairman, Terry McAuliffe (deserves to win after the abuse he took for Hillary Clinton), Brian Moran and Creigh Deeds all support use of state funds. Perhaps it was a strategic move to allow them to have a platform on which to run against the Republicans, who also oppose use of state funding.

Octuplets: Video of first two octuplets arriving home

March 31, 2009

March 31, 2009

(3-31) Octuplets:  Updated list of posts

Some of you have asked why AIW made reports. First off – because they are mandated by law. And secondly, because they needed to be made. Here is the radaronline video from the night she brought the first two octuplets home. Look for yourself at the dangerous situation and look how Nadya reacts – she laughs.

She says she had no idea that many people would be there and yet she told them exactly when the babies would be coming home and most of the people were there when she left to go to the hospital. On top of that, there was at least one helicopter overhead that she could have seen from miles away. And the people inside the house knew exactly what was going on and Nadya as you can see had her phone right there and it was clearly working. Besides that, radaronline had crews inside and outside the house as well as with Nadya in the car. They, too, knew what they were heading into and did nothing to stop her.

So did she think like a mother concerned about her preemies or the six older children?

Did she call home to assess the safety of the situation?

Did she think twice when she saw the helicopter hovering?

Did she think it was only going to get worse when on the way home paparazzi were jumping out of their cars and pounding on her windows?

Did she think twice about driving right through the mass of people?

Did she think about the possibility of the windows being broken or the vehicle overturned? Or her driver running someone over?

Did she just once think that maybe she shouldn’t go home? That maybe she should drive to the police station and get and escort?

And when folks were pounding on the window did she shield the babies in case the glass broke?

Nope. She sits and giggles. And then calls 911. She says “here we go, another 911 call from octomom” – again backing up AIW/Allred’s statement that Nadya wanted their nanny to call 911 because she had made so many calls herself. Also, what is very clear is that the La Habra police department had no idea what was happening because she had to explain herself.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

“The paparazzi is dangerous at this point.”

At that point they weren’t needed anymore. They had filmed her arrival and all she was going to do was go in the house.

When asked by radaronline if she expected it:

I was shocked. I didn’t really think there’d be anybody. Just a few people in front of the house.

Lie.

There were news vans, I was told, and some photographers.

There’s the unvarnished truth right from the source. She knew what was going on and went home unescorted and without security anyway.

This was beyond anything I expected.

So she expected something and did nothing to safeguard those children. And if you have any doubt – she goes on to describe what they were doing on the way home. She knew that they were going to keep following her home.

They were completely swarming the car. I was really, really worried abut the safety of everybody because they were swerving and getting out of there car every time there was a stoplight and just knocking on all the windshields – it didn’t make sense.

Again words that do not relate to any type of action.

I couldn’t imagine this happening at all.

And yet she told the entire world when she was bringing the children home. Even if she wasn’t nadya – they are still the only surviving octuplets and would have gotten press because of that alone. Note also the proximity of the interviewer and I can hear a photographer clicking away. So there are at least three nonmedical persons in the room who should not be there. Watch the video of the next morning. [update link above]

Interviewer: What was it like whenyou pulled into your house? What did you see?

I saw something unsafe. They were following us into the garage and that scared me and then I called 911. [giggle]

Then you can see there are two cameras, a light/sound guy, an interviewer, a photographer, a nanny/nurse and two octuplets in the small room. [follow link – video tour of home] Listen to this exchange. It sounds like they’re following a script.

Why did you call the police?

I called them because I felt I thought it was dangerous. Because they were posing a danger to the babies. And it felt like they were going to break down the garage door.

You told ne in the past that one of the reasons why you wanted to move to this house was because of safety.

And then she proceeded to not only tell everyone where her new house, when she was moving in, but also provided a video tour for any and all to get a view of the layout of the house.

Is that concern about safety heightened after what happened tonight?

Does she answer: Yes! Absolutely! Nope.

Tonight it does. But I still think it will slowly get less aggressive. I realize now my life is different and I have to be really cautious.

More disassociated words with no reality or actions to them. The next morning – after all this – after the paparazzi assault – after the call to 911 – after the interview where she says these scripted words  – after some unknown man showed up at the door at 2 or 3 am – after she “got reprimanded a lot by the hospital” – after a reprimand by her own nannies and Angels in Waiting – after AIW filed a report – she needed to be reminded to get some type of security by the radaronline interviewer. [morning after video]

Then several other intruders the following nights – one just shortly after the boy with autism was wandering loose in the yard in the middle of the night unknown to Nadya and still no security system. [link] Not even after a nanny walked in without showing any type of identification. Not with all the camera crews coming and going. Not after AIW discussed abduction with Nadya – not even after Gloria Allred notified her lawyer Jeff Czech. [link]

Nothing.

And Victor Munoz – the 2nd publicist to quit, claiming Nadya was “nuts!” and “greedy”- he said in his recent interview [link] that he had offers from people to provide free security that first night. He said he talked with her about it and they clearly did nothing. Nobody around her has a clue and she clearly doesn’t. Not even Kaiser personnel, who she is reliant on now – as are the octuplets. And who is watching out for the older 6 children?

Is there any type of security in place now?

No idea.

Why wasn’t it done before the children came home? Why didn’t the social workers put it on their list? Why didn’t Victor Munoz accept those folks’ offers immediately? Her lawyer Jeff Czech said he couldn’t have known. It would be laughable if 12 – soon to be 14 – innocent children’s safety didn’t depend on it.

In this interview she said she moved there primarily for safety and yet she did nothing to provide it.

Did she even change the locks once the workers finished working on her house?

$1M dollars she didn’t.

That is complete lack of maternal judgment – something that can not be taught by nannies or hospital social workers. This one video proves – definitively – that she was more interested in the paparazzi than the safety of her children.

Video of the day: “One take” LeBron shot

March 31, 2009

March 31, 2009

Here’s Lebron James’ incredible shot when he was being interviewed for 60 Minutes by Steve Kroft.

Reminded me of the Tiger Woods ad where he bounced the ball off his wedge and then hit a homer.

07Jubo07

It wasn’t meant to be a commercial. Woods was just entertaining the crowd while they were setting up for the real commerical. This was the fourth take.

barry skips National Anthem at Camp Lejeune (2-27)

March 31, 2009

March 31, 2009

This is something that I had wondered about since I saw it go down but I didn’t feel it was my place as a civilian to put words into military folks’ mouths. When barry went to give his mission accomplished I’m going back on my campaign promise speech in Camp LeJune, he came out after the singing of the National Anthem. It was shocking, really. Like he was a visiting head of state or the king or a dictator. Like he didn’t have the time.

What excuse could there have been? Not only did he not honor the flag on a military base where he went specifically to talk to the military he completely disrespected the woman soldier who sang the National Anthem – quite beautifully.

How does anyone think this is ok? There had to be some military in the planning that had to have raised some objections.

From Orly Taitz’a website Defend Our Freedoms: Emphasis added.

From Major James Cannon

This was a slap in the face of every Marine of yesterday, of today and of tomorrow. Obamas actions were that of an idiot or a muslim……definitely not of a President of the United States.

Yes I am angry….I’m damn angry.

Jim

A note from a retired Marine Colonel.


Hi, this is one of many e-mails out of the Camp LeJeune area regarding Obama’s recent visit.  Most report that the visit was closely orchestrated by Obama’s handlers to ensure he got the best photo ops.  Here’s one typical comment:  But my main point would be, why did it tee me off to hear Obama spout out Semper Fi and OooRah! This moron has no right to be trying to sound like he knows what we share!!! I am surprised he did not wear his basketball t-shirt with USMC in bold. The only thing as bad was Kerry “Reporting for duty” with a salute!
Well, the enemy knows our plan now! I would not want to be a civilian contractor in Baghdad in 2010; or an Iraqi anywhere in country who had helped America!
February 27, 2009

Obama skips National Anthem at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune

Camp LeJeune, NC — President Barack Obama did NOT come out on stage for the singing of the National Anthem at his Camp LeJeune speech given at 12:00 Noon today.The Marine Band played “Ruffles and Flourishes” but Obama did not come out. The Secretary of Defense, Marine Corps Generals and a Navy Admiral came out. The Marine Corps Chaplain came out and said a Prayer.

A lone female sang the National Anthem and after it was sung, the Marine Band again played “Ruffles and Flourishes,” a speaker introduced the President and only then did the Band play “Hail to the Chief” and did President Obama come out.

This struck me as very odd. Why did the President not come out for the prayer? Why did the President not come out for the National Anthem?

This was no mistake. This was a slap in the face by the President, to the entire nation and it did not go unnoticed.

I’m glad it didn’t go unnoticed or uncommented on by the military. The press is another matter. I didn’t see or hear anything. Each one of those soldiers’ lives depend on barry and he acted like some supreme dictator. He should be made to walk back in there and apologize. Right. When pigs with lipstick on fly.

Commander in Chief of the United States

Maybe he couldn’t bear to put his hand on his heart after all.

[9-16-2007 (Des Moines, Iowa) Tom Harkin Steakfry]

***

What type of Commander in Chief does this?

Octuplets: Nadya’s medical files breeched – 15 workers fired

March 31, 2009

March 31, 2009

(3-31) Octuplets:  Updated list of posts

Not sure why this is a headline – probably because they tracked them down and actually fired them. They did it with Britney Spears and Farah Fawcett and George Clooney and probably a whole lot more. Britney Spears was worse because she was on a psychiatric hold. Thing is anyone in the hospital with proper access to the main computer can get some degree of access to a patient’s records. It all depends on how well hers were protected – specifically in the Medical Records Department, where charts are usually filed just on a shelf. Since workers were repeatedly warned, I imagine hers was protected to some degree.

Then there’s the issue of whether the charts were dictated. If so, a non healthcare professional is responsible for listening and then typing it up. And there’s no way they can keep track of that on paper.

According to CBS 2 News LA, 23 employees were investigated for violations of health care privacy law – HIPAA — 15 were fired and the other 8 received “significant” punishment. Doesn’t say how many times the information was accessed or what exactly was accessed or who did it. It also doesn’t say whether the State of California is looking into it.

Kaiser Permanente Spokesman JIM ANDERSON:

Despite the notoriety of this case, to us this person is a patient who deserves the privacy that all our patients get.

They had set up safeguards back in December when she first got admitted.

Even though no one knew she was there, they knew she was going to have a lot of babies. The extra monitoring helped determine that there were people who looked at the records who did not have reason to do so.

He said he doesn’t think any info was shared with the media, based on the results of their inquiry. How can he be certain?

(LA Times’ JULIE CART) : Anderson said the employees in question “ran the gamut of medical staff”. And that it didn’t appear that employees intended to sell the information or disclose it, but said “at best we can tell there’s nothing to indicate that the people looked at the records provided it to anyone else. You can only guess that this was human nature and curiosity that got the best of people.

Nadya’s lawyer Jeff Czech said she’s not going to sue. He said he thought folks might have been looking for information on the sperm donor.

CZECH: She trusts Kaiser and they said they’d look into it. We feel that they’re on top of it and are taking care of it.

They probably just made a three way deal: Nadya doesn’t sue the hospital – the hospital doesn’t bill Nadya or the State – the State doesn’t investigate and sanction the hospital.

barry still hasn’t admitted the Surge worked

March 31, 2009

March 31, 2009

This is a good montage of barry’s ever changing position on Iraq – here the Surge is highlighted. Note that barry has never admitted the Surge worked.

speakmymind02

Feb 27th Camp Lejeune

Next month will mark the sixth anniversary of the war in Iraq. By any measure, this has already been a long war. For the men and women of America’s armed forces – and for your families – this war has been one of the most extraordinary chapters of service in the history of our nation. You have endured tour after tour after tour of duty. You have known the dangers of combat and the lonely distance of loved ones. You have fought against tyranny and disorder. You have bled for your best friends and for unknown Iraqis. And you have borne an enormous burden for your fellow citizens, while extending a precious opportunity to the people of Iraq.

Under tough circumstances, the men and women of the United States military have served with honor, and succeeded beyond any expectation.

That is as close as he will get to admitting the Surge worked. If there’s one thing about barry – he will never come out and say I was wrong. Geithner he said he “screwed up” which was the first time he even got close. On O’Reilly – when barry finally got the courage to go on – he was forced to admit that the Surge “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” Again “our” not his. His dream was that it not be done.

To understand where we need to go in Iraq, it is important for the American people to understand where we now stand. Thanks in great measure to your service, [not the Surge] the situation in Iraq has improved. Violence has been reduced substantially from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt a serious blow by our troops and Iraq’s Security Forces, and through our partnership with Sunni Arabs. The capacity of Iraq’s Security Forces has improved, and Iraq’s leaders have taken steps toward political accommodation. The relative peace and strong participation in January’s provincial elections sent a powerful message to the world about how far Iraqis have come in pursuing their aspirations through a peaceful political process.

….

In short, today there is a renewed cause for hope in Iraq, but that hope rests upon an emerging foundation.

On my first full day in office, [after he was sworn in a second time] I directed my national security team to undertake a comprehensive review of our strategy in Iraq to determine the best way to strengthen that foundation, while strengthening American national security. I have listened to my Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and commanders on the ground. We have acted with careful consideration of events on the respect for the security agreements between the United States and Iraq; and with a critical recognition that the long-term solution in Iraq must be political – not military. Because the most important decisions that have to be made about Iraq’s future must now be made by Iraqis.

Here’s his “mission accomplished”

America’s men and women in uniform have fought block by block, province by province, year after year, to give the Iraqis this chance to choose a better future. Now, we must ask the Iraqi people to seize it.

And here is lie about his campaign promise. Listen to the video. He was going to have all combat troops home in 16 months. Well, his initial promise when he announced his running was to have the combat troops home by March 2008 = 10 months before he even had a chance to be inaugurated. And then he “refined” it after that according to the polls.

He broke his fundamental promise – what got him the nomination – which basically meant the presidency. The press didn’t even grill him over it. Hilary Rosen said she had “precessed” it.

As a candidate for President, I made clear my support for a timeline of 16 months [Period. It was unconditional.] to carry out this drawdown, [not drawdown – he said withdrawal – very different words with very different meanings.] while pledging to consult closely with our military commanders upon taking office [nope] to ensure that we preserve the gains we’ve made [nope – thought the Surge was wrong and still hasn’t admitted it worked] and protect our troops [never mentioned]. Those consultations are now complete, and I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months.

He picked the middle option. Surprise. He had a chance to stick to his promise and he chose not to – proving once and for all his words on Iraq start to finish were a politically expedient fairy tale.

Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.

And how many “non combat” troops will remain?

As I have long said, [here comes another barry out] we will retain a transitional force [who carry the same weapons, who have the same obligations, who get the same pay, and who have the same one life to give] to carry out three distinct functions: training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian [same risk]; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions [same risk]; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq [same risk].

Initially, [can go up or down] this force will likely [can’t pin down] be made up of 35-50,000 U.S. troops.

How is “conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts” not combat troops? Tell those 35-50K troops they won’t be involved in combat and see what they think.

Fine print:

Through this period of transition, we will carry out further redeployments.

So how much change is it really going to mean? It’s just like his momemntous signing of the Gitmo shut down.

And here he admits he is basically following President Bush’s plan in Senator McCain’s wordage. Note also the campaign: “As president, I will” – instead it’s: “I intend”.

And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. [No change with Bush’s plans] We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned. [Almost verbatim to what Senator McCain campaigned on.]

And had he been president before the Surge? If Bush had listened to him and Biden? Where would those troops be?

And how will the last troops to remain feel knowing that the savages have a deadline in which to provoke and attack? What is going to happen on August 30, 2010?

Andrew Cuomo letter to AIG

March 31, 2009

March 30, 2009

Found this interesting. NY States Attorney Andrew Cuomo set this letter to AIG on October 18, 2008. What are the chances the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank – Tim Geithner – didn’t know about it? What are the chances he didn’t get a copy from somewhere? It’s from the New York States Attorney. Why isn’t the press looking for internal memos?

And what are the chances that at least one of barry’s 2500 campaign operatives saw it? Congress had hearings.

Why isn’t the press going after him about this? Imagine if this were Hillary Clinton or John McCain or George Bush? And none of them every claims transparency! and change! and no old Washington! which is exactly what Chris Dodd and Geithner and barry did. And exactly what the press is doing.

Any wonder that one of the last polls showed htat only 7% of Americans believed barry had knowledge of the bonuses. Not only did the proobamedia get him elected they are continuing to underreport, misreport or flat out ignore the facts.

Where is the outrage against the press for not identifying the bonuses before they were handed out?

Click TOP RIGHT for full screen.

View this document on Scribd

***

AIG Timeline
Hardball: timeline of bonuses
Tim Geithner’s AIG Timeline

AIG $165M bonuses after $170B bailout
AIG bonus breakdown
barry on AIG (video)
AIG: Edward Liddy (video)
Tim Geithner on Charlie Rose (video)
Andrew Cuomo: $30M of AIG bonuses will be returned
Andrew Cuomo’s letter to AIG (10-28-08)
Chris Dodd: 33% approval rating

Octuplets: Morning after first two octuplets home (video)

March 30, 2009

March 30, 2009

(3-30) Octuplets:  Updated list of posts

I’m not sure what happened but some of radaronline’s videos have become embeddable. Maybe because they’re not getting as many hits. This is a video from the morning after she brought the first two home from the hospital. [Just added the video from the night she brought them home. Follow update link.] Most interesting is the exchange between the interviewer and Nadya about security. Nadya was talking about a neighbor lady being in the bushes with her kids.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

MAN: Are you going to put in an alarm system – a security system?

NADYA: That’s a good – yes, definitely. I FORGOT ABOUT THAT.

Please compare this to what went on just hours previous and what she said then. Delusional madness.

NADYA:…In the middle of the night, some guy came over. Yeah, I know. Some strange guy came over. Young. Young. They’re always young.

They’re always? So this has happened several times before and she still had not gotten a security system. So did Munoz actually discuss it? [link] And if he had people willing to provide security that first night for free – why didn’t he do something about it?

Watch how she reacts to a stranger at her house in the middle of the night with no security when her preemies came home to utter mayhem and a completely unsafe and LOUD situation.

NADYA: And I don’t get angry. I mean, I don’t know what he wanted.

MAN: That’s gonna be…

NADYA: Kinda feaky, yeah. It scared me.  And the nanny’s like, ‘Who’s this? Who do you want?’ [Laughs]….

MAN:…What time was this?

NADYA: Like two – three o’clock in the morning.

Watch how close the camera gets to the infant in the crib. Later she talks about how no one is to be in there. Then the man asks about the “father”.

MAN: Did you get any calls from the father?

NADYA: The who? The who?

MAN: Is there a father…at all?

NADYA: No.

What’s funny about the fact that 10 boys will have no male role model? Something that was premeditated. Just what how she reacts to the interviewer. She giggles like a teenage girl.

She has frequently said in defense of not needing AIW is that her children are not at risk – not medically fragile. Here she admits it.

NADYA: They’re big. They don’t even remind me of preemies. They’re still at risk because they were born so early.

MAN: Did you get up last night? Were you worried at all about that?

An aside: Does she look distressed about the safety of the children? Does she look tired at all? Worried? Did she spend the night making sure the babies were adapting? Making sure the caregivers knew what they were doing? Caregivers who were handling her preemies for the first time? Making sure her older children were doing ok? No. She went to bed and got 5 hours of sleep – even after the stranger came to the door. That is her prerogative – but it does not in any way match up with her words of concern – or the magnitude of how unsafe it was last night.

NADYA: I walked in and I got worried about contamination. I worried about people in here and we’re not supposed-nobody supposed to be in here. So I did worry, especially that many people. That’s just not ok. I got reprimanded alot by the hospital.

MAN: You did?

NADYA: They said that if we’re considering that allowing that to happen again, they won’t release the babies.

So she just admitted that no one is supposed to be there – no neighborhood people can be there – nobody can be around the octuplets except her kids – and yet standing right there is the interviewer and camera person. Watch how close the camera lens gets to the babies. Last night there were at least four people in there who she just said should not have been. And as she says it – two people and their equipment are still there. So what did she learn?

NADYA: They can’t – it’s RSV season and so nobody would be able to actually come face to face with them except my kids – they’re an exception. Yeah, it’s just not safe – it’s not safe for them – even adults. [laughs]

MAN: All it takes is one crazy…

NADYA: That’s all it takes is one crazy. And sometimes it’s hard to discern who is very emotionally stable and who is not, especially if I just barely see them. I have to be very cautious and protective of me and my family, because it’s hard to discern who is mentally stable and who’s not. So I can’t automatically prejudge them. You don’t know…If they ask for an autograph, I ask for theirs cuz what’s the difference between me and them? Nothing.

So at the beginning she laughs talking about a stranger coming to the door at 3 am and then she says in response to his question that she forgot about a security system and then at the end says she has to be very protective of her family. No connection at all. She says things like they are required lines. Just like the line about how no one is to be face to face with the children or in the nursery and here he and the camera operator are. No clue.

She also admits that the hospital reprimanded her as well as AIW. So a report got back to the hospital independent of AIW and she heard about it by the next morning. It wasn’t just AIW. Somebody else was “spying” on her.

Throughout this interview she confirms – with her own words – what AIW and Allred said in their statement. [link]

Octuplets: Gloria Allred statement (3-25)

March 30, 2009

March 30, 2009

(3-30) Octuplets:  Updated list of posts

March 25th statement by Gloria Allred on behalf of Angels in Waiting (AIW)

[Emphasis added]

On March 9, 2009, Nadya Suleman and “Angels in Waiting USA.org” agreed  to work together and both signed a “Declaration of Principles”, which were developed for the protection of her babies and other children.

We believe that Nadya has violated a number of those principles and that she has also attempted to renege on the principle of transparency to which she had also agreed.(Documentation attached)

[I didn’t see any in the download. Follow update link to see the principles.]

Principle I stated that the best interests of Nadya’s children should, at all times, be the paramount consideration with respect to all decisions made concerning their health, safety and welfare. This principle was violated in many ways, and we will elaborate on quite a few.

First, Nadya announced to the public, including the media, when the first babies were coming home. This resulted in a forseeable frenzy of hundreds of media and onlookers coming to her home for the expected arrival. In addition to the danger presented to the babies by the chaotic situation outside of the home, she and her attorney permitted a dangerous and unhealthy environment inside of the home for the babies arrival.

Inside, media was permitted to set up dirty camera and light equipment, electrical cords, and audio equipment inside the very small nursery which held the cribs and rocking chair. The nursery had been sanitized by the nurse for the benefit of the high risk premature babies, but the presence of the media and many of their reporters, producers, camera men, audio personnel and others changed all of that immediately for the worse. It substantially increased the possibility of infection for these precious little babies and the loud noises, and shouting and decision to have talent also hold and feed the babies increased the risk of harm to them emotionally and physically.

At one point, Linda West-Conforti, tried to rescue one of the babies in the garage and remove the infant from the car seat after the paparazzi swarmed the car, and a loud noise which sounded like a gunshot had gone off. Instead of being permitted to rescue the infant and being thanked for putting herself in peril to rescue the infant, she was told to “get out of the shot”. Also later in the nursery, when one infant regurgitated some milk, another nurse was temporarily blocked from assisting the infant who needed suctioning in order to make sure that a taping of  Nadya feedings would not be interrupted.

All of this was made worse for the babies by the conduct of Jeff Czech, Nadya’s attorney, who entered the house like a raging bull, screaming, pointing and waving his finger about one inch from the face of one of AIW’s nannies and myself. He was shouting and yelling obscenities to our AIW nanny, stating “get the f out of here, all of you are fired”, and then hit his hand hard against the outer wall of the nursery. This violent atmosphere and loud noise we believe, had a negative impact on the babies who had just come from a quiet hospital nursery.

Also Nadya’s other children were permitted to touch the new babies without sanitizing their hands and many of the numerous people  allowed into the nursery also had not sanitized themselves.

All AIW personnel were extremely concerned by the violence and threats of violence . One of the AIW representatives was crying. I told Jeff not to touch me. Linda told him she would “deck him” if he did.

Nadya, as the mother of these babies and other children is responsible for the dangerous environment in her home which she permitted and even encouraged by allowing the media inside, with no security provided and little or no boundaries set.

The babies appeared to be treated as props after their feeding. Nadya handed them off to the nurse to be cared for while she slept all night.

After March 17, the nurses had many concerns about the babies, Nadya’s extremely minimal involvement or even apparent interest in the babies unless cameras were rolling were among their concerns.  For example, AIW spent a total of 102 hours in the Suleman home. Out of this time Nadya spent only 8 hours in the nursery. Much of the time she was out of the house shopping and when she did return she often did not stop at the nursery to see the babies or inquire about how they were doing. She was encouraged by AIW to feed, hold, change and bathe the babies herself, but rarely did it. One baby went for days without being bathed. Finally the nurse did it when Nadya continued to give excuses as to why she could not.

There were many other concerns as well. Security was not provided and Linda will address the specifics of that issue including the fact that 2 intruders entered the property after March 17, 2009 and even though Linda and I asked for security measures (see my e-mail to Jeff) appropriate security was not provided for the babies, nannies and nurses. Another issue is that AIW had a major concern about the nannies that Nadya had obtained to care for the babies.

Finally, although on behalf of AIW, I asked Jeff to arrange for a meeting in person or by telephone with AIW, Nadya, Jeff, myself, and Dr. Phil to address our continuing concerns about the health, safety and welfare of the babies, he would never agree to such a meeting and instead kept insisting that AIW agree to a non-disclosure clause and non-transparency and he insisted that I was not permitted to speak to Nadya about our concerns or anything else.

On Sunday morning, I sent an e-mail to Dr. Phil stating that under the circumstances we could not continue. On Sunday afternoon Jeff sent an e-mail terminating AIW.

Nadya admits that she knew about AIW’s complaint to child protective services which they are required by law to make if they believe babies or children are endangered. We believe that may have been the reason that she and her attorney made the decision that they did to terminate AIW.

We are now concerned about the future of the children. Nadya has decided to have Kaiser Permanente care for her babies. In other words, she has apparently made a conscious decision to put the burden of her babies care on the tax payers, since her lawyer Jeff has conceded publicly that Kaiser nurses will most likely have to bill Medi-Cal. Further Kaiser nurses and doctors will be silenced and not be permitted to speak publicly about the specifics of the care that Nadya gives or fails to give to her babies.

This is advantageous to Nadya and her lawyer since the public will only be told their side and will not be able to get all of the facts as they could if Nadya had kept her agreement with AIW and Dr. Phil to allow supportive care by AIW, and complete transparency by permitting Linda to speak.

We ask what are they trying to hide and why?

Our concern is and always has been the protection and the care of these babies. If the past week is a predictor of the future, we are not optimistic. AIW, the strong advocates, the voice of these babies has been silenced, in the only way that Nadya and Jeff could.

We wish the best for Nadya and these babies and their six siblings, but we can now only pray to God, that Nadya’s  poor choices, money making schemes, and improper priorities will not result in irreparable harm to any or all of her children in the future.

Gloria Allred
Attorney at Law
representing AIW
March 25, 2009

Octuplets: Publicist #2 to quit Victor Munoz speaks

March 30, 2009

March 30, 2009

(3-30) Octuplets:  Updated list of posts

[CAPS and EMPHASIS throughout added]

The scum continues to rise to the top. Victor Munoz who quit because Nadya “is nuts!” has has come forward to defend Nadya. Who can possibly believe any of these people? The first publicist, Joann Killeen, who also quit (death threats), believed Nadya when she said she was working and supporting the children herself without welfare. Killeen came forward on the 26th and explained that her duties included playing with and bathing the older children. About Nadya and her parents:

KILLEEN: They have a unique way of using people. Manipulating people, getting what they want and moving on.

And now Munoz, who said it was a matter of conscience that he couldn’t work for Nadya – no mention of Allred or AIW – is sticking up for Nadya. How much is he getting paid by Radaronline?

Here is what he said to Usmagazine when he quit. Note that not a word of it mentions AIW or Gloria Allred – just greedy, nutty Nadya.

It just got to be too much. It’s pretty much a free for all over there right now. They are freaking out right now. Not to sound arrogant, but those people depended on me for everything. You have no idea what I’ve had to do for these people.

NADYA GOT REAL GREEDY.

THIS WOMAN IS NUTS.

This I can say: what ultimately destroyed the business arrangement was personal reasons.

People:

In good conscience, I can’t continue representing Nadya.

But his conscience is just fine defending her for a little cash on the side. Everyone associated with her is nuts. The real reason for his coming forward is revealed near the end of the interview. He mentioned that Nadya’s lawyer, Jeff Czech, said on the Dr Phil show that no one could have guessed what would happen when the first octuplets came home. He said: I did! And then went on to defend himself about getting security in place. This interview took place after he saw the Dr Phil show – later that same day. He is just defending himself – he actually says things have gone downhill since he left – implying they were fine when he was there – so if they were – why the complaints now?

Bottom line: no matter what he says in this video or tomorrow or on the witness stand – he “in good conscience” walked away and he said she was NUTS & GREEDY. Period.

Here is Mr Munoz talking with Dr Phil on Larry King –  he admits to being intimidated by Gloria Allred and Dr Phil.

The entire transcript is in another post – follow the link above. CNN video doesn’t embed here.

DR PHIL: are you concerned about her level of problem solving, her level of problem recognition?

MUNOZ: You know what, I don’t. At first, before I met her and I was watching her on television and, also, I was thinking the same thing. But getting to know her and really understanding her — I mean I think I spend more time with her than just about anybody does right now. And the more I get to know her, the more I know she is level-headed. You know, there’sI mean there’s nothing wrong with her. She’s a sweet lady.

So, first impression she’s not together…then she’s level-headed, sweet and there’s nothing wrong with her…then she’s nuts and greedy and his conscience won’t allow him to work with her…and now she’s sweet and needs defending. This man wouldn’t even make it into the witness box. Gloria Allred would probably love to cross examine him. Just listen and read his own words. His own words and tone of voice say exactly what his agenda is.

Here Dr Phil discusses transparency:

MCGRAW: Is she prepared to accept the reality that if these children come home to her, that there has to be total transparency, where the proper authorities, agencies, nurses, whatever, can see what’s going on with those children?

MUNOZ: Absolutely. She knows that her life is going to be an open book.

Seems she forgot very quickly. And in this radaronline interview he says what she does in not anyone’s business as long as she’s not spending the government’s money – which she still is and has been doing since before she started producing babies. Her hospital bill combined with the octuplets has got to be well over a milllion dollars. Kaiser nurses she is using now she is not paying for – California taxpayers are.

As far how as he got his job.

MCGRAW: OK. All right. Now, let me ask you — and then I want to get back to what is going to be required for these children. You’ve taken over as the publicist in this situation. You were asked to do so. You didn’t ask for this, it asked for you.

MUNOZ: I never asked for this.

But he accepted the job and then walked away and is now defending himself by pretending to defend Nadya.

Dr Phil talking with Allred via satellite during the same show.

MCGRAW: And he [Munoz] says that he can’t understand why you’re involved and that he feels threatened, on behalf of his client, that they’re going to be pushed or bullied into something.

Then the interview with Munoz continues.

DR PHIL: What’s wrong with the offer?

MUNOZ: The offer itself, I don’t know. I don’t know what the whole offer is. I have tried to call Linda directly and I haven’t received a phone call back. There’s just not enough hours in the day for me to drive out and see Gloria Allred in Los Angeles and make the meeting on her time

So something that he now says he felt uncomfortable about he didn’t have time to bother with. So what do his words mean? And which ones?

MCGRAW: Do you feel threatened and bullied by her with ultimatums and deadlines and that sort of thing?

MUNOZ: A little. When you hear Gloria Allred, obviously, you feel that way. And me being someone that’s never done this before, I do. And that’s pretty much it.

So he admits to his castration anxiety, which is what it usually comes down to. But that’s not all – he’s scared of Dr Phil.

MCGRAW: Remember the first night this came up, I told you that I knew Gloria. And I said she was a good egg.

MUNOZ: You did. I understand.

MCGRAW: And you’re probably questioning that.

MUNOZ: I did. I’m a little scared of you too.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

In this radaronline he talks about the “anonymous help” he alleges he had lined up but never implemented. He also talked about it with Dr Phil. So why didn’t he as Nadya’s agent push for it then – especially if he felt uncomfortable with AIW? That’s his job – to look out for Nadya and he wasn’t. And then he quit.

MUNOZ: You’re right. If I can get 30 seconds, basically what’s been going on in the last two weeks is I have been working hard with Kaiser. They have been really putting together a great plan to have these children come home. I’ve been getting a lot of calls, a lot of people anonymously that have been wanting to help. We have a lot of help out there.

But what did he do about it? Nothing. He said to radaronline that “he knew from day one that it would not work.”

And his solution?

He quit.

He says AIW “didn’t understand the way Nadya thought.”

How does she think? Does she? A responsible mother would not have walked back into that IVF facility to get implanted with 6 more embyros – something she finally admitted to. Her father said to Oprah that she’s “not mentally complete” and could Oprah get her a mental evaluation and her mother said Nadya was incapable of caring for those children.

Munoz talks about the Kaiser list:

The misunderstanding is that nobody ever said to Dr Phil that the kids were not gonna come home if the list was [sic] completely finished….the list did not say the kids aren’t not coming home if you don’t do these specific things – they were merely suggestions.

Not what he said to Dr Phil. See below.

That’s how it was spun…I’m the one…I’m the one...this list that was really nothing.

Here’s what Munoz said about the list to Dr Phil in their Larry King interview. Munoz made it clear that they had to do the things on the list and that they were more than “suggestions”. Dr Phil clearly says Nadya and Munoz called him and Munoz does not correct him. Opposite of what he says in this radaronline video.

MCGRAW: Good. On Wednesday, you and Nadya called me at the studio right before we taped the last part of the interview show that we put up. And she was very concerned at that point because of a meeting that you guys had had with the Kaiser Permanente people, saying that there had to be certain standards met, of course, which makes common sense. What did they say specifically and who were you talking to and where is that now?

MUNOZ: Well, we were talking with Kaiser. We had a big meeting with, you know, basically, the whole entire staff that was helping her out. And it was one of the first meetings we had talking about releasing the babies. And it hit her. It hit her hard. She realized that she does have eight babies coming home. And she’s excited, she’s scared. And she wants to get the house ready in time for these kids to come home.

MCGRAW: Was there a conclusion that the house was not ready at that point, based on what they had seen with the RadarOnline.com footage and that sort of thing?

MUNOZ: There was some. The — you know, they wanted a couple of things done, obviously, because there are preemies coming home. They wanted carpets changed, fresh paint on the walls, cracks taken care of — you know, normal maintenance on the house.

Just suggestions? Cracks in the wall?

MCGRAW: What is the progress right now on meeting the standards and requirements that you understand to be important in terms of housing and manpower and all of the things that are required to support these children?

MUNOZ: Well, you know, I mean they did ask us to do a lot, you know, as far as refreshing up the house and getting everything ready. And we’re getting close. You know, we’re almost there. You know, we’re in the middle of finding their new home. We narrowed it down to a few and we’re getting ready to pick one. That should be picked out, you know, this weekend. And once we get into that, there’s a big — there’s a big chunk of that list is taken off, you know and…

MCGRAW: Is Nadya doing anything to prepare herself as a mother, in terms of any parenting, there’s logistics training, any type of therapeutic support from her through Kaiser Permanente or others to get herself ready for this challenge?

MUNOZ: You know what, at this point not. No, there’s nothing.
I mean she’s already been taking care of six children. And she’s ready to jump into the new eight.

Then Dr Phil asked if the hospital would let more than one could go home. Remember, the list is nothing – merely suggestions.

MUNOZ: They told us we would — they would not. There’s a couple of things that need to be done. There’s — we need to redo these bedrooms. We need to make sure that there’s enough room for them, you know. And we need to give them their own space. One child, yes. Eight, no.

Does a “normal” list for preemies going home include redoing bedrooms? Dr Phil kept hammering away at this point. Munoz should have read the transcript before he did this video. Here he admits that they couldn’t go home because the “list” wasn’t finished. A tad more than a suggestion.

MCGRAW: So they’ve made it clear, if multiples were ready to be released today, they could not do it?

MUNOZ: CORRECT.

MCGRAW: What would they do? Would they keep them at the hospital? What would they do?

MUNOZ: They would hold onto them as long as they could, you know. But they know that we’re working hard. So they really haven’t given us too many ultimatums.

And here it is:

MUNOZ: THEY DID SAY, ‘LOOK, YOU NEED TO GET THROUGH THIS LIST’.

It wasn’t exactly nothing. It wasn’t merely a suggestion. It lead to Nadya getting another house, which also needed to be cleared by Kaiser people and generated another list. Things that were fixed by people Dr Phil got to donate after Nadya agreed to use AIW. Nadya says in her own words that the house her 6 children were living in was not fit for children. She was speaking to Lara Spencer from “The Insider”.

SPENCER: On a serious note, how are the conditions at the house? Is it a clean, safe place?

NADYA: I don’t believe it’s safe enough for the kids at this moment.

Ok. There are his own words and Nadya’s. She admits that her house is not safe for the octuplets – it wasn’t safe for the older ones either. Then he continues, implying that the problems now are because he left and because they didn’t follow his instructions.

Since I’ve left I’ve seen nothing but a downward spiral, and I feel really bad for that because I left.

Because I left with a lot of information for them to follow up on and apparently they didn’t.

Security – I had many security companies offering their services for free to be there that first night. I mean, Jeffrey Czech said today on Dr Phil that nobody could have foreseen what was gonna happen when those kids came home.

That’s wrong.

I saw it.

And what did he do?

He quit.

His words are useless and meant as a defense for his actions. Just read his words and compare them – nothing else is needed. He’s reacting to what Nadya’s new spokesman (her lawyer) is saying about what wasn’t done before he got there – aka what Munoz didn’t do. And who can possibly prove what information he left with them? If he wasn’t defending her, she would probably come out and say no he didn’t. Who knows, maybe she will anyway.

Now listen to the anger in his voice:

The only way she is going to make money from this point on would be endorsement book deals, future shows…and there’s nothing wrong with that.

So is he setting the stage for a reality show? Defending what he tried to set up?

As long as she doesn’t spend the government’s money, I don’t understand why other people were complaining.

And who is paying for the octuplet’s care? The hospital bill? Her hospital bill? Is she still getting food stamps?

And how can he not understand why people were upset about her having so many children? He, an adult, quit because he couldn’t deal with her. And 14 children?

He was asked what does Nadya need to do to make sure the kids are safe and growing up in a good environment? And the first words he said were the truth, even though he laughed. 14 children’s lives are not funny.

Clean house and start over. [laugh] She needs to continue what she’s doing – and that’s to be the best mother she possible can.

Here you wonder if he wants back in.

I really think she needs to bring in some real professionals to help with her both her personal life and her career. Because without one she doesn’t have another. She’s not gonna have a personal life if she doesn’t have a career. And she’s not gonna be able to build a career if she can’t have a personal life with her children.

That last sentence says it all – she can’t have a career if she doesn’t have the octuplets. And what is with this word “career”. What is Bobbi McCaughey’s career? Tells you exactly what he thinks being a mother is and who he puts first.

And notice there weren’t any questions addressing his comments about her being greedy and nuts and what was it that made him unable to work with her.

Why?

Tim Geithner’s AIG timeline

March 30, 2009

March 30, 2009

Timeline provided by the White House via LYNN SWEET:

TUESDAY (3-10)

Secretary Geithner finds out about impending bonuses

Even though he was president of NY Federal Reserve Bank prior to becoming Treasury Secretary. If I had the time and inclination I would go back and find some of his quotes from September and October. Same with barry and Biden.

WEDNESDAY (3-11)

After 6pm, Geithner calls Liddy to express outrage and says payments are unacceptable and Liddy need to go back and renegotiate.

Secretary Geithner and Treasury lawyers look for legal solutions to not paying the bonuses.

Liddy said the company had entered into the bonus agreements in early 2008 before AIG got into severe financial straits and was forced to obtain a government bailout. Who can possibly believe this? They claim the bonuses were “retention” incentives to keep the “best people: working for them and yet 11 of the people who got the bonuses have already left AIG – including to the top bonus getter $4.6M.

THURSDAY (3-12)

Secretary Geithner informs the White House. Later in the day, senior aides inform the President.

Secretary Geithner and Treasury lawyers continue looking for legal solutions to not paying the bonuses.

FRIDAY (3-13)

Secretary Geithner and Treasury lawyers continue looking for legal solutions to not paying the bonuses until the last possible legal moment.

Secretary Geithner speaks with Liddy again and after some back and forth, AIG agrees to:

  • Cut bonuses in half and to stretch the exec bonuses (that fall outside our contract with them and our FSP rules) out overtime, so that execs are more on the hook for the successful wind down of the company, which is the best way to protect taxpayers
  • [Rather than the Senior Partners (top approx. 50 people) getting an aggregate of $9.6M in bonus now, they will get 50% in cash now (avg. payment of approx. $112K), plus 25% on July 15 and 25% on September 15 (avg. payments of approx $56K each). However, both of the 25% payments will be contingent upon the Board finding that the steps in the disposition plan are being met at each payment date.]
  • Renegotiate and reduce 2009 retention bonuses.
    Recoup the money in 30 billion AIG restructuring agreement

Following the conversation, Secretary Geithner asks for Liddy letter to codify the changes.

SATURDAY AND SUNDAY (3-14 & 15)

Following deadline on Friday, treasury attorneys continue to look at legal solutions for recoupment.

SUNDAY EVENING (3-15)

POTUS asks the economic and legal team to continue looking for ways to recoup the bonuses.

barry in classic obamanator form gets involved after the bonuses were paid out on the 15th even though the WH confirmed he was notified on the 12th.

Folks, do you like having a president with no spine?

***
AIG Timeline
Hardball: timeline of bonuses
Tim Geithner’s AIG Timeline

AIG $165M bonuses after $170B bailout
AIG bonus breakdown
barry on AIG (video)
AIG: Edward Liddy (video)
Tim Geithner on Charlie Rose (video)
Andrew Cuomo: $30M of AIG bonuses will be returned
Andrew Cuomo’s letter to AIG (10-28-08)
Chris Dodd: 33% approval rating

Capehart re: Steele vs barry = “black male jealousy”

March 30, 2009

March 30, 2009

Michael Steele is at it again. Does the RNC want him to keep hanging himself with his crazy words. RNC Chairman thinks abortion is a “personal choice” – how does this speak to the base? And then there’s his kowtowing to a radio host. Now he’s “done” with barry because of the myth of barry’s bipartisanship. Don’t blame him. It’s a figment of barry’s delusional egomania. Look what happened with barry’s attempt at bringing on Judd Gregg.

Anyway Steele was interviewed by CNN’s Don Lemon. The two other guys are RNC Chair of Florida Jim Greer and Sirius XM radio host Michelangelo Signorelli.

NewsPoliticsNews

CNN Transcript:

DON LEMON: OK, well, you know, when I asked him, and I want you to comment on this after Michael, I asked him if he had — he said he’s been trying to reach out to the president for years, President Barack Obama, that there is no professional jealousy when it comes of all — he said there was a Michael Steele before there was a Barack Obama. So he said he’s tried to speak to the president, and I asked him about it.

STEELE: Look, I like the president personally, even though I think he has got a little thing about me, that I haven’t quite figured out what that is.

DON LEMON: You haven’t spoken to him?
STEELE: No.

LEMON: You’ve reach out?
STEELE: Several times, and I’m done.

LEMON: So there is no bipartisanship going on there?
STEELE: Not, not that I know of.

LEMON: Is there any professional jealousy?
STEELE: Not on my part. What would I be jealous of?

LEMON: He’s the president of the United States.

STEELE: I’m chairman of the RNC, so, what’s your point? We both have leadership responsibilities and roles. I’m not equating the two. My point is: you are on your track. I’m on my track. You do your thing. I do my thing.

Don Lemon also asked him if he had considered running for president.

STEELE: No. I’m telling you, I’m looking you in the eye honestly and telling you that, without blinking and without hesitation. Straight up.

LEMON also asked him whether he thought he would have secured his party’s chairmanship had he been white.

STEELE: Yes. If my qualifications and my capabilities and my ideas were the same, and the only thing that was different was my skin color, yes. Why wouldn’t I be?

LEMON: I asked him if Dr. King would be proud of him, or would think that he realized a dream? And he said yes, I think, absolutely he would. Look, we have two black men or African-American men at the pinnacle of political power in this country. He said one was Barack Obama, the other was Michael Steele.

When Steele was on DL Hughley he said:

STEELE: There was a Michael Steele before there was a Barack Obama.

LEMON asked Steele if he felt like he was on the wrong side of history.

STEELE: Is that how that works? So where was all the support for me when I was running for lieutenant governor of Maryland? Where was all of the support for me when I was running for the U.S. Senate as potentially the first black senator from Maryland? I didn’t see a whole lot of, you know, being on the right side or the wrong side of history there. So if I looked at it in that context, I would be stunted in my abilities to do anything. I would become frustrated, angry, to the point where I just give up and go away. And that’s just not how I do things. So this isn’t about being on the right side or the wrong of anything.

What made this all the more interesting is Jonathan Capehart’s pronouncement on Morning Joe. Mika and Joe are looking dumbfounded as to why the question was asked all the while knowing it was a black thing. Mika was waiting for Capehart to say something as the only black on the panel and he obliged.

CAPEHART: They’re not even on the same level – Micheal Steele and Barack Obama – what the questioner was trying to imply was that there was some, you know, black male jealousy going on between the two.

Mika looks utterly shocked – bad actor and Joe goes off.

JOE: If I had a bell I would ring. Ding! Ding! Ding!

SCOTUS has time for movies and cigarettes but not barry

March 30, 2009

March 22, 2009

The Supreme Court is awfully busy these days with low-tar cigarettes and movies – too busy it seems to chat about whether barry is eligible to be president. They’re looking at the “movie” Hillary and yet Justice Scalia doesn’t recall Orly Tait’s Lightfoot v Bowen case that he had supposed conferenced. What exactly has Danny Bickell done? I know I read something somewhere that he admitted he was a barry fan. Not that it isn’t obvious.

David Bossie was hired as chief investigator for the Whitewater hearing and was then fired at the insistence of Newt Gingrich, who found that Bossie had demanded that certain film be edited so that it portrayed Clinton staffer Webster Hubbell in a negative light. Scumbags being scumbags. He went ahead anyway.

From Wiki:

Remarks that indicated Hillary Clinton did no wrong were left out of the initial release. In several instances the transcripts did not match the actual recordings, and these errors seemed almost willful, as if they were intended to unfairly implicate Hubbell and the Clintons.

His organization Citizens United inspired Rep strategist Roger Stone to establish the 527 group Citizens United Not Timid which of course means nothing other than CUNT. And you can figure out who it was directed at. These beasts have a lot of imagination, don’t they?

Bossie was caught in his own hypocrisy when he went after Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 as violating McCain-Feingold (this is x and I approve this message) and then tried to use Hillary: The Movie during the election. And in a very sweet revenge of castration anxiety he told Politico last June:

We spent 18 months and millions of dollars making ‘Hillary The Movie,’ We’re incredibly proud, but the problem is the film has no relevance anymore.

Hillary Clinton was out before he even got to release it. Foiled again.

The progression of the case:

After the project was denied the right to advertise its eventual release Bossie and Citizens United brought suit in federal court in Washington, D.C., arguing that the film (released Jan. 16, 2009) was exempt from McCain-Feingold restrictions on advertising since it was not released to influence the outcome of a particular candidate or election. They also argued that the free speech of Citizens United had been infringed upon. Ultimately the federal court ruled against them, issuing the opinion that the 90-minute film “is susceptible of no other interpretation than to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous plance in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her.” Upon appeal, the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States.

The issue before the Supreme Court: whether campaign-reform laws unconstitutionally restrict ads for political documentaries. Is it just a nasty documentary or is it what it is: a political attack ad that has to be regulated by campaign finance laws.

Some of the Justices comments from AP’s :

Justice Stephen Breyer:

It’s not a musical comedy.

Justice Anthony Kennedy:

If we think that the application of this to a 90-minute film is unconstitutional, then the whole statute should fall.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Just for example, it concludes with: These are things worth remembering before you go in potentially to vote for Hillary Clinton. Now, if that isn’t an appeal to voters, I can’t imagine what is.

When questioned about the 22 previous decisions they’ve made on McCain-Feingold, John Paul Stevens responded:

Maybe those cases presented more difficult issues than this one.

Justice Scalia focused on the First Amendment:

Not only would the government be preventing the movie’s producers from getting their movie out, they would be blocking someone who specifically wants to see that movie from getting it. Isn’t that a heightened First Amendment?

Ginsburg countered that they never made that argument before the lower court, so they can’t really consider it now.

Dick Morris, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a Clinton critic said Hillary Clinton is:

the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist.

And barry?

David Bossie, leader of Citizens United and producer of

David Bossie (AP/EVAN VUCCI)

Just look at this crazy effer. It’s a movie about “Hillary” and he puts his constipated, castration anxiety-enraged, gyne envy face on it. Looks like somebody’s squeezing his micronads with a Hillary nutcracker.

AIG timeline

March 29, 2009

March 20, 2009

barry was “stunned” but Geithner, ex-president of the NY Federals Reserve Bank was working on TARP before he even got near barry. How stupid do they think we are?

AIG received more than $170 billion, which puts the government – taxpayer’s – stake at about 80 percent.  9 out of the top 10 as well as 15 ou the top 20 have agreed to give the bonus back in full.

Here’s a great recap by REUTERS:

Sept. 16, 2008:

American International Group, the world’s largest insurer, avoids bankruptcy after an $85 billion federal bailout that gives the U.S. government a 79.9% stake in the company.

Sept. 18:

AIG names Edward Liddy, former Allstate chairman, as chairman and chief executive. He succeeds Robert Willumstad, who steps down after three months on the job.

Oct. 3:

AIG announces plan to sell assets to repay its loan from the U.S. government. Moody’s Investors Service cuts AIG’s debt ratings, citing the company’s plans to sell assets, limiting the insurer’s ability to do business.

Oct. 10:

AIG says it had borrowed $70.3 billion from the government as of Oct. 8. AIG draws fire after reports it had spent $223,000 on hotel rooms and spa services days after it got the federal loan.

Oct. 15:

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo says he is investigating “unwarranted and outrageous” spending by AIG. Cuomo seeks a full accounting of “bonuses, stock options, severance payments, gratuities, benefits, junkets and any and all other perks.” He wants AIG to recover or rescind the payments.

So Cuomo was already on to the bonuses. barry gets elected and begins transition.

Nov. 6:

AIG says the total owed under its $85 billion line of credit from the U.S. government is down to $61.3 billion. AIG companies also had borrowed $19.9 billion under a separate $38 billion securities lending agreement, making the total amount the government had made available to AIG about $123 billion.

Nov. 25:

AIG says Liddy’s salary will be $1 for the coming year and rules out 2008 bonuses for AIG’s seven top executives. Fifty more executives won’t get raises in 2009, the company says.

Dec. 2:

AIG and the government agree to clear the insurer of its obligations on about $53.5 billion in bad mortgage debt.

Dec. 22:

German reinsurer Munich Re says it will buy AIG’s HSB Group for $742 million.

Jan. 26, 2009:

AIG says it is working with Bank of America and Merrill Lynch to sell a fund management business that operates 15 funds with more than $12.4 billion in assets.

March 2:

The Treasury and the Fed announce a third new aid plan for AIG, putting $30 billion more at its disposal.

March 14:

AIG once again comes under criticism after reports that its financial products unit is obligated to pay at least $165 million in employee bonuses.

***

AIG Timeline
Hardball: timeline of bonuses
Tim Geithner’s AIG Timeline

AIG $165M bonuses after $170B bailout
AIG bonus breakdown
barry on AIG (video)
AIG: Edward Liddy (video)
Tim Geithner on Charlie Rose (video)
Andrew Cuomo: $30M of AIG bonuses will be returned
Andrew Cuomo’s letter to AIG (10-28-08)
Chris Dodd: 33% approval rating

barry appoints: Dr Howard Koh & Harold Koh

March 29, 2009

March 29, 2008

Another Harvard payback – he has to make sure his records are kept hidden away. If something surfaces, it makes Harvard look bad. The head of their law review broke the most fundamental Constitutional stipulation and he did so as a self-proclaimed constitutional specialist. They’ve got his records locked up in a vault somewhere so nobody can get at them – same with Princeton and Occidental and the Selective Service…

His appointments consist of Chicago paybacks, campaign paybacks, Harvard or Princeton people, experts in their field who he can blame and throw under the bus and folks and who fill the little check boxes.

DR HOWARD KOH, Associate Dean at the Harvard School of Public Health and former Massachusetts  Public Health Commissioner appointed as Assistant Secretary for Health.

His job: establishing the nation’s public health agenda, responsible for Surgeon General and programs that coordinate vaccines, AIDS policy, minority health, and blood safety. I wonder if that means the CDC also.

HAROLD KOH, dean, Yale Law School named as State Department legal adviser.

Source: Boston Globe’s STEPHEN SMITH

Poem presented to Madame Secretary Clinton: “Leaders”

March 29, 2009

March 29, 2009

Here is a nice poem presented to Madame Secretary Clinton by Ms Julie Connor during the International Women’s History Month celebration at the State Department. Here is the exchange after the Q & A portion.

MS. CONNOR: On behalf of everyone here at the program, we have a small gift to present to the Secretary.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

MS. CONNOR: And I don’t know, perhaps we could read the poem on the —

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, wow. Okay, why don’t you read it.

MS. CONNOR:

Leaders

Leaders are called to stand in that lonely place between the no longer and the not yet, and intentionally make decisions that will bind, forge, move, and create history.

We are not called to be popular.

We are not called to be safe.

We are not called to follow.

We are the ones called to take risks.

We are the ones called to change attitudes, to risk displeasures.

We are the ones called to gamble our lives for a better world.

Ms Connor: Madame Secretary, you exemplify this poem.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much. Thank you. (Applause.)

***

I think Secretary Clinton has faced more than “displeasure”.

Madame Secretary Clinton: Women’s History Month
2009 International Women of Courage Awards
Poem presented to Madame Secretary Clinton: “Leaders”
2009 International Woman of Courage: Wazhma Frogh, Afghanistan
2009 International Woman of Courage: Mutabar Tadjibayeva, Uzbekistan
2009 International Woman of Courage: Norma Cruz, Guatemala
2009 International Woman of Courage: Suaad Abbas Salman Allami, Iraq
2009 International Woman of Courage: Reem Al Numery, Yemen
2009 International Woman of Courage: Veronika Marchenko, Russia
2009 International Woman of Courage: Ambiga Sreenevasan, Malaysia
2009 International Woman of Courage: Hadizatou Mani, Niger

Madame Secretary Clinton: Women’s History Month

March 29, 2009

March 12, 2009

Remarks from, Madame Secretary Hilary Clinton re: International Women’s History Month. Transcript from the State Department.

Key quotes:

  • The advancement of women is not only an important humanitarian and moral objective that furthers the cause of justice, it is a contributing factor in how well we will do to advance America’s national security interests.
  • We cannot succeed if humanity is working at half its strength.
  • We need the benefit of women’s life experiences and expertise.
  • In order to secure the full spectrum of women’s rights, we have to create economic opportunity and economic security.

Interesting quote by THOMAS JEFFERSON:

The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared, nor am I.

Nor was The Constitution.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Dean Acheson Auditorium
Washington, DC
March 12, 2009

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, good morning. And it’s wonderful to be here today for this special occasion. I want to thank our musicians and singer, as you can see from the program, the Lavenia Nesmith Quartet. And I’m delighted – John Robinson told me that he was determined to have an all women’s musical performance. So I thanked John for that. (Applause.) I want to thank Julie Connor for those warm words, for her leadership in this event, and to thank the Office of Civil Rights, as well as the women of the Senior Executive Service for organizing today.

In addition to recognizing the women of the Senior Executive Service, I want to acknowledge all the women of the State Department – Foreign Service, Civil Service, contractors, spouses, partners who accompany Department employees on assignments overseas. I thank you for every time you have spoken out on behalf of those who don’t have a voice at the table, for every day that you have served our country after being up all night with a sick child, for every girl you have inspired to believe she really can change the world. You have my gratitude and the thanks of a grateful nation.

I was thinking as I was listening to Julie speak that I remember well the first time I was here at the State Department for an event concerning women. It was shortly after Madeleine Albright had been confirmed as the first woman Secretary of State. This is becoming a trend with Secretary Rice and now myself. (Applause.) And I had been working with Madeleine in her prior role at the UN. And following our presence at United Nations Conference on Women in Beijing, we had come back with a commitment both to improve our own government’s contributions to advancing women’s progress, but also to work in concert with the UN and with governments around the world to do the same.

And I came here with Secretary Albright to talk about the importance that we placed on the role of women and the empowerment of women in the foreign policy of the United States of America. But it was not a marginal issue, it was not a luxury to be gotten to after all of the other problems were solved, but that it was a critical component of our strategic objectives. And at the time, that seemed like a radical idea. But as Julie has said, we now know beyond any doubt, that the advancement of women is not only an important humanitarian and moral objective that furthers the cause of justice, it is a contributing factor in how well we will do to advance America’s national security interests. And it is a pleasure to be here with all of you in recognition of International Women’s History Month to discuss an issue that is critical to our foreign policy and incredibly important to me personally.

I don’t need to tell any of you that we face daunting challenges from a global financial crisis to the continuing threat of changes wrought by climate change to chronic disease, hunger, poverty that sap the energies, the dreams, and the talents of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Solving these problems, even managing them, takes all of our efforts. But I am convinced that we cannot succeed if humanity is working at half its strength.

We need women in the State Department, women throughout our United States Government, women everywhere, to step up and take the lead in addressing the crises that confront us. We need the benefit of women’s life experiences and expertise. And women here in the United States, as well as women around the world, need a State Department that is committed to the advancement of women and to the furthering of women’s rights. And that will be – (applause) – that will be a building block of our foreign policy in the Obama Administration and certainly during my tenure.

I recognize that there is a long way to go for our country and our Department in ensuring full and equal representation for women. But we have a lot to be proud of today. It is no longer at all unusual to have women serving as Foreign Service officers, as very high-ranking Civil Service officers, ambassadors, or certainly Secretary of State.

Now, as Julie alluded to the fact, this was not always the case. I don’t think that will surprise you. When some of his cabinet suggested the idea of women diplomats to Thomas Jefferson, he said, and I quote, “The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared, nor am I.” (Laughter.) So instead of serving as diplomats, the few women who were employed – the first, as Julie said, in 1800, I think – were relegated to part-time positions, copying correspondence and scrubbing floors.

Now there was a long period where not much changed until 1874, when the Department hired the first women to work as full-time employees. The group consisted of five clerks, several of whom had been personally recommended by President Ulysses S. Grant. Now Mary Markoe, one of the clerks, served the Department faithfully for more than 30 years. When she retired, she was receiving the same salary she had earned in 1877.

Now, one of my heroines, Eleanor Roosevelt, provided an example of American diplomacy at its best. After her husband’s death, she was asked to work for this newly created entity known as the United Nations, and she headed the drafting committee responsible for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Her appetite for hard work was such that a fellow participant once had to remind her that the committee members also had human rights, including the right to sleep and some time off. (Laughter.) You know, there’s that old saying: If you want something done, ask a busy woman to do it. And there seems to be some truth to that.

So we can pay tribute to the pioneers who began charting the path that we ourselves walk today. We are heirs to their tradition of courage and excellence. But this is not just about looking backwards. I know neither you nor the women I have just mentioned would be satisfied if that’s all we did today. Around the world, women are taking the lead to help save and change their families, their villages and neighborhoods, their communities and countries, and indeed the planet.

I am continually inspired, as I have been for 35 years, by the women I meet who are risking their lives, their reputations, their standing in their families and communities, facing difficult and dangerous circumstances to advance the cause of human rights. As Julie said, we have had the great privilege in the Department to recognize some of those women, and I would like to ask the women who received our awards yesterday to please stand so that we can once again show our appreciation. (Applause.)

You know, from Iraq and Afghanistan, from Russia and Guatemala, from Uzbekistan and Niger, they come here after surviving slavery, torture, prison, and abuse. When First Lady Michelle Obama and I presented the Department’s Courage Awards to them, I confess that I was, you know, so emotionally moved by not only their stories, but their dignity. These are women who have seen the worst that their fellow men and women can possibly do to another person, but they persevere and they never quit believing in the importance and the righteousness of their cause. As they fight for equal treatment and broader political rights, they represent not only the women of their own countries, but all of us.

Now, these women are not isolated phenomena. I think many of you, like I, have met with similar women across the world. When I was First Lady, I never went to a country without meeting with women. And one of the objectives I had was to bring together women who might not otherwise know one another, who were on the front lines of advancing the cause of women’s progress. And as a senator in my travels, I did the same. Because so many of these women look to us, not only American women but others, to provide support and encouragement, resources, protection that they need to continue the difficult work they do.

I think of Mukhtar Mai of Pakistan, who survived a horrific assault in that oxymoronic practice known as an honor crime, and then used the money she received in a court settlement to help educate the rural poor in Pakistan.

Or Aung San Suu Kyi, whom I mentioned yesterday and I mention as often as I can, because having been in prison now for most of the past two decades, she still remains a beacon of hope, strength, and liberty for people around the world.

Now, these women are not just improving the world for other women. Their courage and actions are helping to create societies where every boy and girl, every man and woman, has the opportunity to live up to his or her God-given potential.

These women understand that the struggle for women’s rights in the 21st century is no longer limited to fighting for the ballot, or equal pay for equal work, or the end of the cancer known as domestic violence, or the right to speak out, or the right to worship or associate. All of these items are critical and necessary, but they are no longer sufficient. In order to secure the full spectrum of women’s rights, we have to create economic opportunity and economic security. It is essential that we improve access to healthcare and that we protect Mother Earth from our assaults, so that we can guarantee a better future, and that we do all that we can to help improve education so that we will have more allies and partners and fewer adversaries.

We will need all of our intelligence and our courage, our grit, and our grace to address these challenges. But I have not only optimism, but confidence.

Wherever there is oppression, we as women need to stand against it.

Wherever there is violence, we as women must work to end it.

Wherever there is poverty or sickness, we as women must work to cure it.

And wherever our planet is in danger, we as women must work to protect it.

Now, there are different ways that we will fulfill these responsibilities. But we need as a nation to reaffirm a strategic commitment to doing this, because it is not only behalf of someone else, it is on behalf of ourselves, our children, our children’s children, and so many yet to come.

I don’t know each of you individually here in the Department, but I do know more and more about the work you perform. I have seen it in refugee camps and in the corridors of power. I have seen it at the front desk of this building and at the Security Council of the United Nations.

As we celebrate the achievements of women at this gathering and throughout the month, we should remember the individual stories we’ve heard. But we should also work to create not only more stories of struggle, but more stories of success. A struggle for human rights and human liberty springs from the founding of our nation. It is a struggle predicated on the simple but profound belief that all men and all women are created equal, that they are endowed by our Creator with rights that transcend any government, any family structure, any social system. The United States is grounded in these ideals, and so should our foreign policy be. So therefore, we have a lot of work to do.

I want us to think both broadly and in a more creative way about how we advance this. I don’t think talking about human rights for the sake of talking about human rights is necessarily the most effective strategy. I’m interested in outcomes and results, changed lives, increased opportunities, helping those who are on the frontlines changing their own societies in ways we never could, no matter how eloquent the speech or powerful the speaker. [ahem]

So I invite you to join with us in proposing ideas and approaches that you have seen work, that you would like to see taken to scale, that you understand will truly make a difference. Because at the end of the day, that is how we should be judged. History will hold us to the same standard of courage and excellence that our awardees from yesterday represent. And I am confident that with your help and your leadership, our country will continue to make clear to all who aspire for the rights they were endowed with at birth, that they, too, can look to a better future.

Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

MR. ROBINSON: Now, when it comes to questions and answers, Secretary Clinton needs little help from me. However, it’s my responsibility to explain to you that this program is a celebration of Women’s History Month. We need to respect the occasion and do two things. First, no speeches or soliloquies. The speech has already been given. (Laughter.) So now we need your questions – I repeat, we need your questions. We have two mikes available and the Secretary will alternate from right to left.

Secondly, the question should be devoted to the occasion as opposed to general policy questions or your, or my, special agenda, unless they’re related to the occasion.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, John. Well, I’m always up for a good speech. But you know, I can understand John’s instructions. So let’s start right there.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you so much for addressing us this morning. My name is Elise Carlson-Rainer, and as you can tell, this might be a personal question, but I am about nine months pregnant and I was wondering if you plan to engage at all on maternity leave for the State Department. You know, we’re one of four countries in the world without a national maternity leave plan, so I’m just wondering if you have any thoughts on that. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Is this your first, second?

QUESTION: First.

SECRETARY CLINTON: This – what?

QUESTION: First.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Your first baby?

QUESTION: Yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, congratulations, and — (Applause.)

QUESTION: Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: You know, when I was pregnant back a hundred years ago – (laughter) – this was a debate then, and it still is a debate, isn’t it? And I personally find it inexplicable that a country like ours doesn’t recognize the importance of supporting parents in the critical work they do in raising the next generation.

When I was pregnant, I was working as a lawyer in a law firm. They – you know, I was the first woman partner. They had never had a pregnant lawyer before – (laughter) – and nobody knew what to say. So I just kept getting more and more pregnant and – (laughter) – you know, the men in the firm would just look at – everywhere except – (laughter) – and nobody ever said a word to me about what was going to happen after I had this baby. (Laughter.)

And I was – you know, I was so uncertain about what I would do, and I remember, you know, after Chelsea was born, I was in the hospital and one of my partners called, and I think he was trying to be funny. He said, “Well, when are you coming back to work?” He said – first, he said congratulations and then he said, “When are you coming back to work?” (Laughter.) And I said, “Oh, I don’t know, maybe four months.” Silence. (Laughter.) So I set a maternity policy for us at that point. But that’s not recommended as the way to set policy. (Laughter.)

You know, this is an issue that I have worked on unsuccessfully along with many allies over the years. I will look into what the State Department and the government policy is. I honestly don’t know right now what it is. I have always tried to have a very family-friendly workplace wherever I am. And, you know, when I was First Lady, we kind of, ad hoc, created family arrangements so that people could take time off after they had a baby. The Family Medical Leave Act, of course, helped, but it is unpaid, which makes it difficult for some people to participate.

So we should look at that, and I will find out what it is. The real answer is we need a national policy that recognizes it and supports it. You know, I always was grateful for the fact that I had rather unusual circumstances; not only was I a lawyer, but at the time, my husband was the governor, and so we had a certain level of support that most people don’t have. Although it’s a little – you know, it’s a little hard to, you know, think back and imagine, you know, how all of that unfolded because it seems so long ago, but I’m struck by how little has changed in all of those years.

So I would like to do more if I can. And I think that the objections to maternity leave – and, you know, I’m very non-gender specific. Parental leave is the term of art, but it’s 90 percent maternity leave, and for obvious reasons. But when you look at the consequences of it, it has such a positive effect. It has not only a positive effect on the parent-child relationship and the bonding experience and the getting started – I don’t know about any of you, but I – you know, I was way overeducated to be a first-time mother. (Laughter.) And I read everything there was to read and I was still totally overwhelmed by the experience.

And I had a friend who, at that time, was living in England in part of the National Health Service, and she told me a story about how, you know, the first time the National Health Service nurse came by, which was, I think, her first trimester, my friend said, “Oh, I don’t need any help, thank you very much.” And the second time, which was, you know, beginning of the third trimester, “Oh, I don’t need any help.” But her mother, who she had expected to come over and help her, got sick and couldn’t come. And this friend of mine told me about how the National Health Service nurse knocked on the door after the baby was born and my friend goes, “Please come in, I don’t know what I’m doing.” (Laughter.)

And I think there’s some truth in that experience for a lot of us. So as you can tell, you have hit a button with me. (Laughter.) And I wish you well with your new baby. Good luck. (Applause.)

QUESTION: In many states around the world —

SECRETARY CLINTON: Could you identify yourself, just so —

QUESTION: Oh, I’m so sorry, Rachel Sosin, I’m an intern in ISN. In many states around the world, women still hold a peripheral role at best within the government. When placing Foreign Service workers there, how much weight do you think we should give to the preferences of those governments? And do you think in giving weight to their preference, we’re in some way betraying something intrinsic to the American character?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Great question. I think we are at the stage now where we give very little or no weight. I’m not saying we never give weight, because obviously, that may not be the case in every instance where we have to look at all the factors. But I can tell you that from my perspective, we have women ambassadors serving in some of the most difficult assignments anywhere in the world. I personally have considered in the last six or seven weeks, however long – how long have we been here? I can’t remember. (Laughter.) It seems like – I mean, you know, I feel like Eleanor Roosevelt. I mean, we’ve just been working around the clock and lost track of time.

In, certainly, the assignments that I have been recommending and reviewing, that has not entered into it. Sometimes we’ll have questions like, you know, how will this work, how will this be received, but those are not determinative in any way. And we’ve got some extraordinary women ambassadors and chargés and counselors in places that are very difficult – unaccompanied posts, I mean, all kinds of challenging circumstances. I really think we’ve got to look for the best people – you know, what’s the prior experience, what are the language skills required, what special experiences are suited to the problems we have. I mean, I don’t think it’s a surprise to any of you that, you know, Pakistan is one of our most consuming countries right now and we have an excellent ambassador, Anne Patterson, who is there working, you know, 24/7.

So I just think that we’re beyond that, but we also – you know, we have to be smart. We don’t want to be provocative or, you know, send someone who – just to make a statement. We want to send someone who can do the job. And thankfully, there are lots and lots of women who meet that criterion. (Applause.)

Yes.

QUESTION: Yes, good morning, Madame Secretary. My name is Stephanie Ortoleva and I work in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.

Earlier this week, I had the privilege of speaking at a panel at the World Bank on women with disabilities and development and how we can advance the rights of women in that arena. And one of the issues that I raised was how we increase the involvement of women with disabilities in conflict resolution and conflict management and peacekeeping around the world. And there was recently a report by the United States Institute for Peace on the very issue of women and peacekeeping, and like under so many other similar circumstances, that role of women with disabilities in that context wasn’t addressed.

So I’d like to hear your thoughts, and of course, I’d welcome the opportunity to be of any assistance that I can in your efforts on that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, and thanks for your work and attention to this issue. You know, I think that people with disabilities face particular challenges in many settings around the world, particularly in regions of conflict. And I would just reiterate that people with disabilities who have the necessary experiences and expertise to play a role in helping to resolve such conflicts should be very determinedly recruited and involved. I think that there are lots of lessons that can be learned, and I know that from the aftermath of the horrors of the Rwanda genocide, there were many people, as you know, who had been brutally attacked, losing limbs and eyes and ears and other terrible injuries who played an instrumental role in the resolution of many of the immediate crises arising out of an effort to reconcile the country so it could begin working again.

And I believe that people with disabilities, whether they are from a horrific experience like that or in some other – from some other source, you know, carry a reminder of the full range of human potential. So I would hope that we would find ways to involve people who can make a contribution, and I would look forward to your suggestions. (Applause.)

Yes.

QUESTION: Greeting, Madame Secretary. My name is Shirley Miles and I work at the overseas building operation. My question is what would be your plans for addressing workplace bullying of women, an issue that I know you would have zero tolerance for?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I do have zero tolerance for it. (Applause.) You know, I have zero tolerance for any kind of bullying. I find it intolerable. I hate people who use a position of either superior rank or physical dominance or any other aspect to lord it over or mistreat other people, especially those in the workplace. I mean, we have policies, we have all kinds of grievance procedures. You know, obviously, I expect those to be adhered to and followed.

And also I think, too, that, you know, I’ve – I have experienced a lot of strange behavior in my life. (Laughter.) And I think that, you know, part of it is trying to make it clear that what might have been acceptable 10, 20, 30 years ago in the workplace no longer is. That comes as a revelation still today. (Laughter.) And really, people could pass a lie detector test who engage in this behavior, that they are not because the previous work environments were either more permissive or traditional in a conventional sense of, you know, pre-1964, 1973, and 19 everything else. (Laughter.)

So I think that there still needs to be some outreach and some efforts to try to modify and change behavior. I don’t think everybody who engages in behavior that I would consider beyond the bounds is a bad person. I think some people are just stuck in bad habits. And so I would hope you would, you know, use the kind of processes we have here at the Department, including, if there needs to be, you know, intervention, sensitization, explanation as to how certain words or actions are perceived. And we would welcome that. (Applause.)

Is it time?

MR. ROBINSON: It’s time.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I hope to come back and do events like this on a regular basis. (Applause.) And I thank you all for being here. (Applause.)

MS. CONNOR: We’d like to present you a gift.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, okay.

MS. CONNOR: On behalf of everyone here at the program, we have a small gift to present to the Secretary.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

MS. CONNOR: And I don’t know, perhaps we could read the poem on the —

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, wow. Okay, why don’t you read it.

MS. CONNOR:

Leaders

Leaders are called to stand in that lonely place between the no longer and the not yet, and intentionally make decisions that will bind, forge, move, and create history.

We are not called to be popular.

We are not called to be safe.

We are not called to follow.

We are the ones called to take risks.

We are the ones called to change attitudes, to risk displeasures.

We are the ones called to gamble our lives for a better world.

Ms Connor: Madame Secretary, you exemplify this poem.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much. Thank you. (Applause.)

***

Madame Secretary Clinton: Women’s History Month
2009 International Women of Courage Awards
Poem presented to Madame Secretary Clinton: “Leaders”
2009 International Woman of Courage: Wazhma Frogh, Afghanistan
2009 International Woman of Courage: Mutabar Tadjibayeva, Uzbekistan
2009 International Woman of Courage: Norma Cruz, Guatemala
2009 International Woman of Courage: Suaad Abbas Salman Allami, Iraq
2009 International Woman of Courage: Reem Al Numery, Yemen
2009 International Woman of Courage: Veronika Marchenko, Russia
2009 International Woman of Courage: Ambiga Sreenevasan, Malaysia
2009 International Woman of Courage: Hadizatou Mani, Niger

Orly Taitz letter to US Atty Jeffrey Taylor

March 29, 2009

March 29, 2009

(more…)

Jake Tapper: No birth certificate questions

March 29, 2009

March 29, 2009

(more…)

2009 International Woman of Courage: Wazhma Frogh, Afghanistan

March 28, 2009

March 28, 2009

(more…)

2009 International Woman of Courage: Mutabar Tadjibayeva, Uzbekistan

March 28, 2009

March 28, 2009

(more…)

2009 International Woman of Courage: Norma Cruz, Guatemala

March 28, 2009

March 28, 2009

(more…)

2009 International Woman of Courage: Suaad Abbas Salman Allami, Iraq

March 28, 2009

March 28, 2009

(more…)

2009 International Woman of Courage: Reem Al Numery, Yemen

March 28, 2009

updated

(more…)

2009 International Woman of Courage: Veronika Marchenko

March 28, 2009

March 28, 2009

(more…)

DNA test rules out 13 y/o as impregnator?

March 28, 2009

(more…)

2009 International Woman of Courage: Ambiga Sreenevasan, Malaysia

March 28, 2009

March 28, 2009

(more…)