From Pravda: "American capitalism gone with a whimper"

From Russia's Pravda:

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin

The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina. (source)

Barry In Charge: How To Handle The Press

Kicking & Screaming: Journo Dragged From Near AF1

A reporter for a small newspaper was forcibly removed from a press area near Air Force One shortly before President Barack Obama arrived at Los Angeles International Airport to depart California early Thursday.

Airport security officers carried the woman away by the feet and arms as she protested her removal.

She later identified herself as Brenda Lee, a writer for the Georgia Informer in Macon and said she has White House press credentials. The newspaper's Web site says it is a monthly publication, and a Brenda Lee column is posted on it.

Calls to the newspaper and the White House press office were not immediately returned.

Lee said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press that she wanted to hand Obama a letter urging him "to take a stand for traditional marriage."

She said she asked a Secret Service agent to give the president her letter, but he refused and referred her to a White House staffer. Lee said she refused to give the staffer the letter.

"I said, 'I'll take my chances if (the president) comes by here,'" said Lee, who identified herself as a Roman Catholic priestess who lives in Anaheim, Calif. "He became annoyed that I wouldn't give him the letter."

Lee, who was wearing what she described as a cassock, said she protested when she was asked to leave.

"I said, 'Why are you bothering me?' They escorted me outside the gate," she said.

She said security officers allowed her to return when she promised she would not yell or wave, but then other officers arrived and told her to leave.

"I said, 'I'm not leaving,'" she said. "They tried to drag me out."

Two officers then picked her up and carried her out. An Associated Press photographer photographed the incident.

"I was afraid you could see under my clothes," she said, her voice choking up.

Lee, who said this was the second presidential event she has covered, was later released.

The incident occurred about 10 minutes before Obama arrived at the airport by helicopter to board Air Force One. He had been in Los Angeles to attend a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Beverly Hills on Wednesday. (source)

North Korea: We No Longer Recognize The 1953 Armistace

North Korean soldiers, officials and people participate in the Pyongyang People’s Rally to celebrate what the North says is a successful second nuclear test, at the Pyongyang Gym May 26, 2009.

TOKYO, May 27 -- North Korea announced Wednesday that it is no longer bound by the 1953 armistice that halted the Korean War, the latest and most profound diplomatic aftershock from the country's latest nuclear test two days earlier.

North Korea also warned that it would respond "with a powerful military strike" should its ships be stopped by international forces trying to stop the export of missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

The twin declarations, delivered by the country's state news agency, followed South Korea's announcement Tuesday that it would join the navies that will stop and inspect suspicious ships at sea. North Korea has repeatedly said that such participation would be a "declaration of war."

They followed other developments in North Korea that have added to the sense of jangled nerves across northeast Asia since Monday's underground nuclear test.

The North fired three more short-range missiles off its east coast on Tuesday, said Yonhap, the South Korean news agency. North Korea had fired two missiles into the same waters on Monday.

And U.S. spy satellites have detected signs that North Korea has restarted its nuclear plant, a South Korean newspaper reported Wednesday. Chosun Ilbo cited an unnamed South Korean government source as saying that steam has been detected from a reprocessing facility at North Korea's Yongbyon plant.

In Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke Tuesday to her Russian counterpart as part of an effort to seek a united response with "consequences" for North Korea. But U.S. officials also stressed that they are still eager for North Korea to return to multilateral disarmament talks and are not ready to declare the multi-year effort to end North Korea's nuclear program a failure.

"We feel the door does still remain open, that we're ready to engage," said State Department spokesman Ian Kelly. He described the Obama administration's effort now as trying to "bring international pressure to bear to get them to reverse their course."

In Tokyo, a former defense minister and ruling party lawmaker said Japan should consider developing the ability to conduct preemptive strikes against North Korea, even though Japan's constitution prohibits it from taking offensive military action.

South Korea had long resisted U.S. pressure to join the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which was created in 2003 by President George W. Bush and includes more than 90 countries that have agreed to stop and inspect suspicious cargo on sea and land.

Seoul was reluctant to rile North Korea, but North Korea's second nuclear test nudged Seoul Korea to change its policy.

North Korea has long been suspected of shipping or flying missiles to customers in the Middle East and South Asia.

As a member of the security initiative, South Korea is likely to receive intelligence information from the United States, Japan and other countries about ships leaving North Korean ports that may be carrying such goods, a government official said in Tokyo.

Joining the international interdiction effort "is a natural obligation for a mature country," said South Korea's foreign minister, Yu Myung-hwan. Even before Monday's nuclear test, peaceful coexistence on the Korean Peninsula had been sorely tested this spring. The North launched a long-range missile, detained a South Korean citizen, kicked out U.N. nuclear inspectors, restarted a plutonium factory and halted the six-nation negotiations on its nuclear program.

"Inter-Korean relations have hit rock bottom," said Yun Duk-min, professor of international politics at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security, a government think tank in Seoul. "So it is the right thing to join PSI, even if North Korea reacts with resistance."

"The current U.S. leadership . . . has drawn the puppets [South Korea] into the PSI," North Korea's military complained Wednesday in a statement.

North Korea is thought to possess more than 200 mid-range Nodong missiles that can strike nearly any part of Japan. The Japanese government, which has invested billions of dollars in a U.S.-made antimissile defense system, is concerned that the North is making progress in designing nuclear warheads that could fit atop its missiles.

"We must look at active missile defense such as attacking an enemy's territory and bases," the former defense minister, Gen Nakatani, said at a meeting of Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party.

In China, where condemnation of the North's nuclear test was surprisingly swift and unambiguous, the state media on Tuesday printed strong reprimands of North Korea from other countries. The shower of criticism was far different from the reaction to North Korea's first nuclear test in 2006, when the Chinese media blamed the United States for provoking Pyongyang by cutting off aid.

"This may well be a reflection of Beijing's frustrations for not being able to assert control and influence over North Korea," said Wenran Jiang, research chair of the China Institute at the University of Alberta. (source)

Barry In Charge: The Truth About The First 100 Days

From Minority Leader John Boehner

Washington, May 27 - Today, the Administration is releasing yet another report on its trillion-dollar “stimulus” spending bill – one that Democrats claim will produce only half the jobs at twice the cost of the House GOP’s better stimulus solution. It’s been a full 100 days since the bill became law, and the Administration is pulling out all the stops to put a positive spin on the legislation, which has been increasingly panned by media and state and local officials as wasteful and inefficient – basically, anything but the “timely, targeted, and temporary” bill Washington Democrats promised earlier this year. As the Administration marks the 100th day of the “stimulus” spending bill, let’s take a closer look at some of the claims Democrats made about the legislation earlier this year – and how those claims stack 100 days later:

Claim: The President claimed that the stimulus “…will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years.” (Remarks by the President in Elkhart, Indiana, WhiteHouse.gov)

Fact Check: “State officials have complained about the difficulty of obtaining grants for construction projects, while economists question administration claims that the effort already has saved or created 150,000 jobs.” (Adriel Bettelheim, “Tinkerbell Effect, Part 3: Obama’s Job Creation Efforts,” CQ Politics, May 27, 2009) The Associated Press reported that: “The early trend seen in the AP analysis runs counter to expectations raised by Obama, that road and infrastructure money from the historic $787 billion stimulus plan would create jobs in areas most devastated by layoffs.” (Matt Apuzzo and Brett Blackledge, “Stimulus Watch: Jobs, But Not Where Needed Most,” Associated Press, May 11, 2009)

Claim: The President claimed that it would contain, “[n]ot a single pet project. Not a single earmark.” (Remarks by the President at his first press conference, WhiteHouse.gov)

Fact Check: The “stimulus” “contains dozens of narrowly defined programs that send money to specific areas or cater to special interests.” In fact, the “stimulus” contains “$50 million for habitat restoration and other water needs in the San Francisco Bay Area” and “$62 million for military projects in Guam.” (Michael Grabell and Christopher Weaver, “In stimulus bills, earmarks by any other name,” ProPublica, Feb. 5, 2009)

Claim: The President claimed that the stimulus “…contains an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability, so that every American will be able to go online and see where and how we’re spending every dime.” (Remarks by the President at his first press conference, WhiteHouse.gov)

Fact Check: “Although President Obama has vowed that citizens will be able to track ‘every dime’ of the $787 billion stimulus bill, a government website dedicated to the spending won’t have details on contracts and grants until October and may not be complete until next spring — halfway through the program, administration officials said.” (Matt Kelley, “Details thin on stimulus contracts,” USA Today, May 6, 2009)

Claim: The President pledged that “nearly 400,000 men and women will go to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges.” (Remarks by the President, WhiteHouse.gov)

Fact Check: So far “a full 99.7 percent” of money allocated to the Transportation Department remains unspent, according to The Washington Post. Perhaps an aide to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) said it best: “To some extent, I think the administration oversold the transportation aspect of this…It was sold as the heart and soul of the package, and it really just isn’t.” (Matt Apuzzo and Brett Blackledge, “Stimulus Watch: Jobs, But Not Where Needed Most,” Associated Press, May 11, 2009)

Claim: Then-Senator Obama promised that was he would, “not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” (Organizing For America, “Obama’s Stance on Ethics”)

Fact Check: Congress passed the stimulus bill on Friday, February 13; the President signed it in Denver on Tuesday, February 17 – less than the five day review period promised by the President. This troubling trend has continued throughout the year. Just last week, for example, the President waited only one day before signing the Defense Department weapons acquisition bill after Congress passed it and waited two after Congress passed the “Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights Act” before his signature made that bill law (Stephen Dinan, “Obama ducks promise to delay bill signings,” Washington Times, May 26, 2009); in fact, as of March, “Of the nine bills Mr. Obama has signed so far in his term, he has signed six of them less than five days after Congress sent them to him,” including the trillion-dollar “stimulus” bill. (Stephen Dinan, “Obama to sign lands bill before 5 days of comment,” Washington Times, March 30, 2009) [source]

MSM Diary: The Wince Of Diane

Two thoughts;
1) Watch how over-the-top Diane becomes (facial contortions, leaning forward for emphasis) as she finally asks the inevitable conclusions of the setup she's used to introduce the entire piece. The bats are flying a little low in old Sawyer's belfry these days.
2) Notice how Carville has lurched for the only weapon he can by mentioning the name of Rush Limbaugh with Ann. To us, it's absolutely NO form of damage to Ann to be sneered at by the likes of this slip-and-fall lawyer's attempt to associate the two. But to the Left, the name and following of Rush Limbaugh produces more hate in them than does the collective movement of jihadists across the world.

Chicago Politics: 'Pay To Play' Still Very Much A Reality

FBI Tape Shows Burris Foresaw Political Firestorm

Senator Suggested Contribution Before He Was Appointed, Later Decided Against It

Sen. Roland Burris was recorded on an FBI wiretap suggesting that he could write a check to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's campaign before the ousted governor appointed Burris to the Senate.

The details of the conversation emerged after a federal judge said Tuesday he would allow the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee to hear a federal wiretap of the former governor's brother, Rob, having a fund-raising conversation with Burris. Rob Blagojevich was running the campaign fund at the time.

Click here to read the full transcript of the conversation.

During the brief conversation, Burris said he feared he would catch hell with the public and admitted contributions to Blagojevich would look bad, but also that he clearly wanted President Barack Obama's former U.S. Senate seat.

The 10 pages of transcript reveal a Burris who foresaw exactly why so many people would be outraged by the political dance he was doing with Rod Blagojevich. But as CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports, Burris went right ahead and did it anyway.

Sources tell CBS 2 the wiretapped phone conversation occurred on Nov. 18 while Blagojevich was still governor and before he named Burris to Obama's vacated seat.

On the tape, Burris suggests that he could contribute, or have associates contribute, money to the Blagojevich campaign. Burris also expresses clear desire to be appointed to the U.S. Senate.

Burris' lawyer, Timothy Wright told CBS 2 that after that conversation, Burris decided against making any contribution.

"I think what it shows is he did not pay to play. And what he told was the truth. And I think that, if anything, this exonerates him, and hopefully take a step to repairing a reputation that I think was unfairly ruined," Wright said.

In February, this is how Burris described what he told Robert Blagojevich when Rob called to ask Burris to help the governor's campaign fund: "I made it very clear to him that I would not contribute, that it would be inappropriate and a major conflict, because I had expressed an interest in the Senate seat," Burris said.

But the FBI transcript tells another story.

Burris did, indeed, express concern about how it would look to the public, telling Robert Blagojevich, when he called: "It has so many negative connotations that Burris is trying to buy an appointment... from the governor… for the Senate seat."

At another point, Burris told Robert Blagojevich: "God knows, number one, I wanna help Rod. Number two, I also wanna, you know, hope I get that appointment."

Rob Blagojevich: "If you guys can just write checks, that'd be fine."

Burris: "I will personally do something, okay."

Rob Blagojevich: "Okay. Alright, Roland."

Burris: "And it'll be done before the 15th of December."

Rob Blagojevich: "Hey, you're a good friend. I'll pass on your message."

Burris: "Please do and... tell Rod to keep me in mind for that seat, would ya. (chuckles)"

Rob Blagojevich: "I'll let him know."

Burris has been under intense scrutiny because of the circumstances of his appointment and for changing his story multiple times about whether he promised anything in exchange for the Senate seat.

The Senate Ethics Committee has begun a preliminary investigation. The Sangamon County State's Attorney is determining whether perjury charges are warranted.

U.S. District Chief Judge James F. Holderman on Tuesday unsealed a government motion requesting permission to release to the ethics committee wiretap material gathered in the Blagojevich investigation.

Rod Blagojevich is charged with scheming to trade or sell the seat and using the political muscle of his office to squeeze people for campaign money. Robert Blagojevich is under indictment along with his brother and a number of other members of the ousted governor's inner circle.

Robert Blagojevich attorney Michael Ettinger and Wright did not object to the government's motion.

And Burris attorney Wright said, "I think that the senator has told the truth every time." He acknowledged that his client had told the impeachment committee that he didn't volunteer to raise money for Blagojevich in exchange for the seat.

"And we think he has been perfectly consistent," Wright said.

Burris spokesman Jim O'Connor said the senator "has said all along he would cooperate in any way possible" and "welcomes this as a chance for more transparency and the opportunity for the full truth to come out."

The Sangamon County state's attorney's office said it has no comment on the status of its review of possible perjury charges against Burris.

Burris testified before the House Committee that impeached Blagojevich in January that he didn't promise anything in exchange for the Senate seat.

Blagojevich appointed Burris just before being kicked out of office.

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed to seat Burris if he gave a full accounting of his Blagojevich contacts to the Illinois House committee that was considering impeachment.

Burris gave the committee an affidavit denying any discussion with Blagojevich's aides before being offered the seat. But when he testified, Burris acknowledged talking to one of Blagojevich's friends and informal advisers about it.

Burris did not admit talking to anyone else and said he could not recall any other contacts.

Then after he was sworn in, Burris released another affidavit, this time acknowledging he had talked to several Blagojevich advisers about his interest in the seat. Soon after, talking to reporters, he said he had been asked to help raise campaign money for the governor and that he tried to find people willing to donate but failed.

Then he stopped answering questions, letting others speak on his behalf.

Durbin says he isn't surprised a federal judge decided to allow the ethics committee to have wiretap conversations between former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's brother and U.S. Sen. Roland Burris.(source)

Barry In Charge: "When I Endorse A Racist, It's OK" pt II (the white firefighters get burned)

What easily should be fodder for the vetting process that SCOTUS nominees must go through is instead probably going to die a quick death with the press, so as to shame any discussion of the race issue in Ricci v. DeStefano. They will simply say that any discussion of that case is unfair to Sotomayor, because she already addressed that issue, she shares a similar experience as a member of a minority in America, etc.

But ruling as she did sets up a dangerous double-standard: If methods of determining ability to progress in work and society are made according to race, where does it stop?

Sotomayor Faces Scrutiny on Controversial Firefighters Ruling

Editor's Note: Among the more controversial cases that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor participated in is Ricci v. DeStefano, involving affirmative action in the New Haven, Conn., fire department. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against a group of white firefighters who passed a promotion exam that was later discarded because no black applicants had passed. Newsmax ran the following story about the case on April 18.


NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- Inside a burning building, fire doesn't discriminate between Matthew Marcarelli and Gary Tinney. Inside the New Haven Fire Department, however, skin color has put them on opposite sides of a lawsuit that could transform hiring procedures nationwide.

The Supreme Court will consider the reverse discrimination claim of Marcarelli and a group of white firefighters. They all passed a promotion exam, but the city threw out the test because no blacks would have been promoted, saying the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities likely to violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Besides affecting how race can be considered in filling government and perhaps even private jobs, the dispute also addresses broader questions about racial progress: Do minorities and women still need legal protection from discrimination, or do the monumental civil rights laws that created a more equal nation now cause more harm than good?

Also, beneath the specific details of the firefighters' lawsuit lies an uncomfortable truth: On most standardized tests, regardless of the subject, blacks score lower than whites.

Reconciling that reality with efforts to ensure "justice for all" remains a work in progress _ one that will be molded by the Supreme Court.

New Haven's population is 44 percent white, 36 percent black and 24 percent Hispanic (who can be any race). At the time of the 2003 test, 53 percent of the city's firefighters, 63 percent of lieutenants and 86 percent of captains were white. Blacks were 30 percent of the firefighters, 22 percent of lieutenants and 4 percent of captains.

The promotion exams were closely focused on firefighting methods, knowledge and skills. The first part had 200 multiple-choice questions and counted for 60 percent of the final score. Candidates returned another day to take an oral exam in which they described responses to various scenarios, which counted for 40 percent.

Tinney, a black lieutenant who has been a firefighter for 14 years, was seeking a promotion to captain when he took the exam.

He says both the test and his fire department have hidden biases against minorities: The department is historically white, with the first blacks joining in 1957, and jobs, relationships, knowledge and choice assignments are passed on from friend to friend and generation to generation.

"I just call it 'the network,'" Tinney says.

The white firefighters' attorney, Karen Torre, said they would not be interviewed for this story. In a conversation on Fox News' "Hannity" program, Marcarelli said it was "gut wrenching" to learn that he was No. 1 on the test but would not get promoted.

"It's something that shakes what you believe in. Because you believe if you work hard, you're rewarded for that, and that's not necessarily the case," Marcarelli said.

Torre said whites have no special advantage in promotions because of laws requiring use of a race-blind, score-based system. She added that many blacks have relatives on the force, including high-ranking officers.

One hundred and eighteen people took the tests; 56 passed. Nineteen of the top scorers were eligible for promotion to 15 open lieutenant and captain positions. Based on the test results, the city said that no minorities would have been eligible for lieutenant, and two Hispanics would have been eligible for captain. (The lawsuit was filed by 20 white plaintiffs, including one man who is both white and Hispanic.)

The exams were designed by a professional testing firm that followed federal guidelines for mitigating disparate racial outcomes, the plaintiffs say.

But after the results came back, the city says it found evidence that the tests were potentially flawed. Sources of bias included that the written section measured memorization rather than actual skills needed for the jobs; giving too much weight to the written section; and lack of testing for leadership in emergency conditions, according to a brief filed by officers of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

"I'm sure there are numerous reasons why (blacks didn't do as well), and not because we're not as intelligent," Tinney says. "There's a lot of underlying issues to that ... these folks are saying, 'We studied the hardest, we passed the test, we should be promoted.' But they're not talking about all the other things."

Torre argues that discarding a test because no minorities would have been promoted violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination because of race.

Call it a legal riddle only the Supreme Court could solve: The white firefighters say Title VII prohibits discrimination against them for being white; New Haven says Title VII prohibits it from using a test that has a disparate impact against blacks.

"All were afforded the same notice, the same study period, the same exam syllabi, etc.," said Torre, who would only answer questions by e-mail. "The rest was up to the individual."

There are long-standing divisions over the concept of hardworking, qualified whites being "victimized" by laws or practices designed to help minorities overcome America's history of racism. What's different today is that the landscape has shifted in many ways, big and small.

The biggest is the election of President Barack Obama, and the support he received from millions of white voters.

"It is not white racism that plays the deciding role in the success of minorities any more," says Edward Blum, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who believes that race should not be considered in employment decisions.

"That was the case in the '60s and '70s and maybe even part of the '80s," he says. "But it is no longer the case in the 21st century that because you are black you are being held back from achieving what your parents and your ambitions will allow you to achieve. I think that has been crystallized with the election of President Obama."(source)

Sotomayor Biography/Recent Rulings:

Try this from the Federal Judicial Center for a quick summary.
Here’s a little more from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
Cases where she has written opinions appear here: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/144e90b4-7041-40e2-8a88-668c948dac04/1-10/list/

Barry In Charge: Showing Us How He Gets Iran To "Unclench Its Fist"

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has sent six warships to international waters, including the Gulf of Aden, to show its ability to confront any foreign threats, its naval commander said on Monday.
Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, quoted by the ISNA news agency, made the announcement five days after Iran said it test-fired a surface-to-surface missile with a range of 2,000 km (1,200 miles), putting Israel and U.S. bases in the area within reach.

Iran said on May 14 it had sent two warships to the Gulf of Aden to protect oil tankers from the world's fifth-largest crude exporter against attacks by pirates but ISNA did not make clear whether they were among the six Sayyari talked about.

Iranian waters stretch along the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman. Iran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 40 percent of the world's traded oil is shipped, if it were attacked over its nuclear programme.

"Iran has dispatched six ... warships to international waters and the Gulf of Aden region in an historically unprecedented move by the Iranian Navy," Sayyari told a gathering of armed forces officials, IRNA reported.

Sayyari said that preserving Iran's territorial integrity in its southern waters called for the "perseverance and firmness" of the navy.

The move to dispatch the warships "is indicative of the country's high military capability in confronting any foreign threat on the country's shores," Sayyari said.

The ISNA report did not mention the threat of pirate attacks, which, fuelled by large ransoms, have continued almost unabated despite the presence of an armada of foreign warships patrolling the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden.

In January, pirates released an Iranian-chartered cargo ship carrying 36,000 tonnes of wheat to Iran from Germany that was seized in November. In March, a regional maritime official said Somali villagers had detained another Iranian vessel.

Nearly 20,000 ships pass through the Gulf of Aden each year, heading to and from the Suez Canal. Seven percent of world oil consumption passed through the Gulf of Aden in 2007, according to Lloyd's Marine Intelligence Unit.

On May 20, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran had tested a missile that defence analysts say could hit Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, a move likely to fuel concern about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

The United States and its allies suspect the Islamic Republic is seeking to build nuclear bombs, a charge Tehran denies, but President Barack Obama has offered a new beginning of diplomatic engagement with Iran if it "unclenches its fist". (source)

Barry In Charge: Is This What 'Resetting Our Foreign Relations' Gets Us?

North Korean soldiers look south on the north side as they stand guard in front of the border line (bottom) upon Belgium's Prince Philippe's visit at the truce village of Panmunjom in the demilitarised zone separating the two Koreas in Paju, north of Seoul, May 10, 2009.

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea defied international condemnation of its latest nuclear test by firing three short-range missiles off its coast on Tuesday and major powers considered tougher action against the isolated communist state.

With tension in the region high, South Korea said it would join a U.S.-led initiative to intercept ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction, something Pyongyang has warned it would consider a declaration of war.

South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted a government source in Seoul as saying the North had test-fired one surface-to-air and one surface-to-ship missile off its east coast. The missiles had a range of about 130 km (80 miles).

Yonhap later reported that Pyongyang had fired a third short-range rocket on Tuesday.

North Korea also fired three short-range missiles on Monday and South Korean media quoted government sources as saying further missile tests were possible.

Monday's nuclear test, the North's second after one in 2006, drew sharp international condemnation and U.S. President Barack Obama said Pyongyang's nuclear arms program threatened international security.

The nuclear test raised concern about North Korea spreading its weapons to other countries and groups. The United States has accused it of trying try to sell nuclear know-how to Syria and others.

"Another risk is that the North Koreans might peddle some plutonium, or peddle some technology to terrorist groups, that would also be very, very serious," Hans Blix, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the BBC.

Obama assured South Korean President Lee Myung-bak of Washington's unequivocal commitment to defense on the divided peninsula, where some two million troops face off.

UN RESOLUTION "WITH TEETH"

North Korea's actions took a toll on Seoul's jittery financial markets, fearing the impact of its growing belligerence in a region which accounts for a sixth of the global economy.

South Korean stocks and the won currency wobbled for a second day, with the main KOSPI share index ending the day more than 2 percent lower. The won fell almost one percent against the dollar, although many traders said the market was becoming less concerned by North Korea.

In New York, ambassadors from the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Japan and South Korea met to work on resolution meant to add pressure to Pyongyang to rein in its nuclear program.

After the meeting, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told reporters that negotiations on a resolution "will indeed take some time."

She told CNN that Washington wanted "a strong resolution with teeth... Those teeth could take various different forms. They are economic levers, they are other levers that we might pursue."

U.S. State department spokesman Ian Kelly said North Korea would "pay a price" if it did not reverse its course but said the door was still open for it to resume long-running six-party talks meant to draw the reclusive state out of its isolation.
A U.S. Treasury Department official said on condition of anonymity that Washington was "reviewing our options" for further financial sanctions against Pyongyang.

There is little more Washington can do to deter the North, which has been punished for years by international sanctions and is so poor that it relies on aid to feed its 23 million people.

U.N. diplomats said it was clear that China, a veto-wielding permanent council member, opposed new penalties but might accept demands for tougher enforcement, and possibly an expansion, of existing sanctions. So far only the French delegation has publicly called for new U.N. sanctions.

PYONGYANG BLAMES U.S.

Pyongyang said the United States was the aggressor, its usual justification for making nuclear arms. "Our army and people are fully ready for battle ... against any reckless U.S. attempt for a preemptive attack," said its KCNA news agency.

Analysts say Pyongyang's military grandstanding was partly aimed at tightening leader Kim Jong-il's grip on power so he can better engineer his succession. Many speculate he wants his third son to take over.

For China, an immediate concern is a possible breakdown of order inside the ostracized state, which could send a flood of North Korean refugees across its border.

China is believed to want to bring North Korea back to the six-party talks, also involving South Korea, Japan, the United States and Russia, to make it give up a nuclear weapons program in return for aid and an end to its years as a pariah state.

Analysts say North Korea, which now spurns those talks, wants to use its nuclear muscle as leverage in dealing with Washington.

A North Korean diplomat told the 65-nation U.N.-sponsored Conference on Disarmament in Geneva that denunciations of its nuclear test could prevent it from supporting the group's moves to curb production of nuclear bomb-making material, jeopardizing the start of global talks on the issue.

A number of analysts said 67-year-old leader Kim, who is widely thought to have suffered a stroke last year, hopes his defiant weapons tests will help him secure support from the hard-line military for his chosen successor.

Kim was named successor by his father and the country's founding president Kim Il-sung, but has carefully avoided putting any of his three sons in the limelight. (source)

Barry In Charge: How's Hillary Doing?

From National Terror Alert:

North Korea threatened military action in response to South Korea joining an anti-proliferation program and said it’s no longer bound by the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War.

South Korea’s actions are tantamount to a “declaration of war,” the North’s official said in a statement today. North Korea said it can’t guarantee the safety of ships passing through its western waters near the maritime border with the South.

“We will regard any intervention, searches or other minor hostile acts against our peaceful ships as an intolerable violation of our sovereign rights and will counter with an immediate and forceful military strike,” the KCNA statement said. (source)

Barry In Charge: How Are Our Allies Reacting To The New "Help" From The US?

The upcoming home front drill, Turning Point 3, is based a scenario in which “a combined missile and rocket attack on Israel from all sides combined with terror attacks from within,” and is “not a fictional scenario,”, Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilan’i told members of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday.

Matan Vilan’i describes upcoming home front drill simulating war on three fronts

Vilna’i briefed the committee on the state-wide drill, scheduled to begin on May 31. The threat of missiles hitting mainland Israel “is not unrealistic,” Vilna’i continued. “If a war breaks out, that is probably what would happen.”

According to Vilna’i, “In conducting this national home front drill we aren’t looking to scare anyone, but rather prepare ourselves for a threat which has its writing on the wall.”

The drill will include all emergency response teams, all government ministries as well as the entire civilian population. According to the military, people will be asked to choose secured rooms or bomb shelters, and ensure that they know what to do in the event of war.

During the exercise, 252 local councils and municipalities will open ‘crisis rooms’ and will respond to various simulated emergency scenarios. (source)

Barry In Charge: Now, Just How Much Longer Will You Keep Us In Iraq?

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon is prepared to leave fighting forces in Iraq for as long as a decade despite an agreement between the United States and Iraq that would bring all American troops home by 2012, the top U.S. Army officer said Tuesday.

Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, said the world remains dangerous and unpredictable, and the Pentagon must plan for extended U.S. combat and stability operations in two wars. "Global trends are pushing in the wrong direction," Casey said. "They fundamentally will change how the Army works."

He spoke at an invitation-only briefing to a dozen journalists and policy analysts from Washington-based think-tanks. He said his planning envisions combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade as part of a sustained U.S. commitment to fighting extremism and terrorism in the Middle East.

Casey's calculations about force levels are related to his attempt to ease the brutal deployment calendar that he said would "bring the Army to its knees."

Casey would not specify how many combat units would be split between Iraq and Afghanistan. He said U.S. ground commander Gen. Ray Odierno is leading a study to determine how far U.S. forces could be cut back in Iraq and still be effective.

President Barack Obama plans to bring U.S. combat forces home from Iraq in 2010, and the United States and Iraq have agreed that all American forces would leave by 2012. Although several senior U.S. officials have suggested Iraq could request an extension, the legal agreement the two countries signed last year would have to be amended for any significant U.S. presence to remain.

As recently as February, Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated the U.S. commitment to the agreement worked out with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"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," Gates said during an address at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. "We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned."

The United States currently has about 139,000 troops in Iraq and 52,000 in Afghanistan.

Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war as quickly as possible and refocusing U.S. resources on what he called the more important fight in Afghanistan.

That will not mean a major influx of U.S. fighting forces on the model of the Iraq "surge," however. Obama has agreed to send about 21,000 combat forces and trainers to Afghanistan this year. Combined with additional forces approved before former President George W. Bush left office, the United States is expected to have about 68,000 troops in Afghanistan by the end of this year. That's about double the total at the end of 2008, but Obama's top military and civilian advisers have indicated the number is unlikely to grow much beyond that.

Casey said several times that he wasn't the person making policy, but the military was preparing to have a fighting force deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come. Casey said his planning envisions 10 combat brigades plus command and support forces committed to the two wars.

When asked whether the Army had any measurement for knowing how big it should be, Casey responded, "How about the reality scenario?"

This scenario, he said, must take into account that "we're going to have 10 Army and Marine units deployed for a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Casey stressed that the United States must be ready to take on sustained fights in the Middle East while meeting other commitments.

Casey reiterated statements made by civilian and military leaders that the situation in Afghanistan would get worse before it gets better. "There's going to be a big fight in the South," he said.

Casey added that training of local police and military in Afghanistan was at least a couple years behind the pace in Iraq, and it would be months before the U.S. deployed enough trainers. There's a steeper curve before training could be effective in Afghanistan, requiring three to five years before Afghanis could reach the "tipping point" of control.

He also said the U.S. had to be careful about what assets get deployed to Afghanistan. "Anything you put in there would be in there for a decade," he said.

As Army chief of staff, Casey is primarily responsible for assembling the manpower and determining assignments. He insisted the Army's 1.1-million size was sufficient even to handle the extended Mideast conflicts.

"We ought to build a pretty effective Army with 1.1 million strength," Casey said. He also noted that the Army's budget had grown to $220 billion from $68 billion before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

He said the Army is two-thirds of the way through a complete overhaul from the Cold War-era force built around tanks and artillery to today's terrorist-driven realities. The Army has become more versatile and quicker by switching from division-led units to brigade-level command.

Casey said the Army has moved from 15-month battlefield deployments to 12 months. His goal is to move rotations by 2011 to one year in the battlefield and two years out for regular Army troops, and one year in the battlefield and three years out for reserves. He called the current one-year-in-one-year-out cycle "unsustainable." (source)

Barry In Charge: "When I Endorse A Racist, It's OK"

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” ~Sonia Sotomayor

As you can see, when Barry says that he is looking for a Supreme Court nominee who isn't just "ivory tower", but also has "common touch", Sonia Sotomayor is exactly who he has in mind.

Can you imagine if a white man had made that kind of a comment [above]? There would be hissy fits and psychological meltdowns ALL over America by the self-appointed guardians of our civil rights. First of all, though, just what kind of meaning is there to that statement? One assumes that she is speaking of a hypothetical court case involving some Hispanic. So, in other words, if a Hispanic is caught red-handed of murdering someone, Ms Sotomayor would have more wisdom regarding their innocence or guilt than a white justice? How about a black jurist--would they be able to be wise?

Of course, I'm not the only one who questions Ms Sotomayor's "common sense". You can read a leftist magazine bring up the same question here.

If you remember Barry's setup of this pick,you can tell that this Harvard lawyer was already anticipating the criticisms of Sotomayor when he made them. Instead of answering the obvious question of gender and race bias in Ms Sotomayor ("What I want is not just ivory tower learning. I want somebody who has the intellectual firepower but also a little bit of a common touch and a practical sense of how the world works,"), Barry setup the issue differently: has the person had real-life circumstances in their life that gave them "common touch"?

In a nation of majority whites, why is it not seen as common for a white jurist to be picked? If Sotomayor is better at deciding cases with Latinos involved, wouldn't she be simultaneously less than best to decide on cases involving white people?

With that switch of the debate, he will have the press hard on the question of Sotomayor's ability to cry about her court cases, versus what the role of Supreme Court Justices hold by design of the Constitution. That is, whether the role of the jurist is to make law or interpret the law for constitutionality, according to the original intent of the Constitution itself.

How many of you know whether or not our US Constitution allows for judges to make policy or not? Check out the glib way that the judicial elite treat that very basic dictate in our sacred Constitution:

Colin Powell Fires Back At Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney

Poor Colin. He just can't fathom that most of us understand that Conservatism is already inclusive. You just have to have the bravery to try it. He acts like Conservatives are all rich Daddy Warbucks, passing the homeless everyday with a sneer. As if every wealthy Conservative or Republican was born into money, instead of following Conservative principles to get where he or she is currently.

In short, it looks as if Colin has swallowed the Kool-Aid.

Being attracted to Barry Obama's charms and ethnicity is nothing new to us. We have seen people who are focused on race and personality all of our lives. Our entire culture is consumed with identification by race. Ironically, the self-appointed guardians of civil rights-the Left-simultaneously shriek about seeing a racist under every rock, while orchestrating a numbing society which forces job applications and government forms where you check to which ethnic group you belong.

And hides behind the Democrat Party shield, along with Robert Byrd, Fullbright, Gore, Wallace, and hundreds more segregationist Democrat politicians since before the Civil War. And while you Leftists smugly point and cry "racist" at Conservatives, we just continue quietly like we always have: giving more in charity than the Left, praising God for loving us despite our faults, looking past the State for answers to the deepest problems we confront.

Poor Colin calls himself a Conservative [I think], but he doesn't know what that means. Especially if he thinks that we need to "spread the wealth". It's not all about money, Colin. It's about a formula for life. And we've been talking about it, in articulate, passionate means since Buckley, Chambers, and Reagan.

Just because there are people who refuse to hear our message or get past those who bait disagreement and hostile attitudes-the mainstream media-doesn't meant that we should stop believing in our core Conservative tenets: self-reliance, delayed gratification, respect for authority/order, smaller government, preventing huge concentrations of power, adherence to originalist Constitutional principles, etc.

What you've been listening to, Colin, is the Left attempt to define us. And you've fallen for it, whether you can see it in yourself or not. Perhaps you need to do some more reading.

In the latest round of the increasingly heated intra-GOP feud, former Secretary of State Colin Powell Sunday defended his Republican credentials and fired back at radio host Rush Limbaugh and former Vice President Dick Cheney, saying the party had to expand beyond its conservative base.

“Rush will not get his wish and Mr. Cheney was misinformed – I am still a Republican,” Powell said in a much-anticipated interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” two weeks after Cheney suggested on the same show that the retired general had left the party by endorsing Barack Obama last fall.

Powell outlined his party bona fides, noting his votes for and services under a string of Republican presidents, and said it was not up to Cheney and Limbaugh – the radio host has kept up a steady drumbeat of criticism since Powell's cross-party endorsement last year – to determine who belonged in the GOP.

“Neither [Cheney] nor Rush Limbaugh are members of the membership committee of the Republican Party,” Powell said.

Powell suggested that there were a number of moderates in the party who shared his concerns but were hesitant to speak out “because if you are vocal you’re going to get your voice mail filled up and get lots of e-mails like I did.”

One such Republican did seem to take Powell's side of the fight today, as Former Homeland Security Secretary and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge also joined in the criticism of Limbaugh Sunday.

“I think Rush articulates his point of view in ways that offend very many,” Ridge said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“It's a matter of language and a matter of how you use words. It does get the base all fired up and he's got a strong following. But personally, if he would listen to me and I doubt if he would, the notion is express yourselves but let's respect others opinions and let's not be divisive.”

Ridge also split with Cheney on the vice president's claim that Obama's policies were making Americans less safe. "I do not" agree with that, Ridge plainly told CNN's John King, adding, "Yeah, I disagree with Dick Cheney."

Powell also found a less likely ally in former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said on "Meet the Press" that "I don't want to pick a fight with Dick Cheney, but the fact is, the Republican party has to be a broad party that appeals across the country," adding, "To be a national party, you have to have a big enough tent that you inevitably have fights inside the tent."

Pointing to President Ronald Reagan's at appealing to Democrats and independents as he carried 49 states in 1984, Gingrich – himself a potential 2012 contender for the party's presidential nomination – concluded, "I think Republicans are going to be very foolish if thy run around deciding that they're going to see how much they can purge us down to the smallest possible space."

It's a point Powell made, even as reiterated his commitment to the GOP, stressing that the party had to broaden itself to stay relevant, framing his critique as the political version of a military after-action report following last year’s election.

“I think the Republican Party has to take a hard look at itself and decide what kind of party are we,” Powell said. “Are we simply moving further to the right and by so doing opening up the right of center and the center to be taken over by independents and be taken over by Democrats.”

Powell – who held up the late Jack Kemp as a model for the party, a conservative who was inclusive – also had some choice words for his two critics.

Reiterating his support for closing down the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Powell said Cheney’s opposition was an affront to Obama’s predecessor as well.

“Mr. Cheney is not only disagreeing with President Obama’s policy, he’s disagreeing with President Bush’s policy,” Powell said.

And, citing Cheney’s suggestion in a speech last week that President Obama only wanted to close Guantanamo to make Europeans happy, Powell said, “No, we’re doing it to reassure Europeans, Muslims, Arabs, all the people around the world, that we’re a nation of law.”

Lending credence to Democrats argument that moving the Gitmo detainees to American soil would not put the country in danger, Powell said he was “not terribly worried about one of these guys going to a super lock-up.”

As for Limbaugh – whose name Powell pronounced as “Lim-bow” – the former secretary of state said he was an “entertainer” but who had such influence over the party that officials had to live in fear of offending him.

He lamented that RNC Chairman Michael Steele had “to lay prostrate on the floor” apologizing to Limbaugh after criticizing him and that other GOP members of Congress had to be similarly repentant after taking on the radio host.

“Well, if he’s out there he should be subject to criticism, just as I’m subject to criticism,” Powell said.

Steele, who's giving on Tuesday what the RNC is touting as a major speech out his vision for the party, said in an interview this week with "Fox News," that "I want a party that speaks to people. The idea that we only narrowly speak to one segment of the population is boneheaded and it's not reflective of the history of this party," adding, "How is kicking Colin Powell out or kicking Dick Cheney out or Rush Limbaugh in going to feed a child who's hungry tonight?"

In an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Karl Rove dismissed the dust-up between Cheney and Powell, since "neither one of those two are candidates," and deemed the fight "a false debate that Washington loves."

Asked if he agreed with Cheney's contention that Limbaugh was better for the Republican Party than Powell, Rove said: "Yes, if I had to pick between the two."(source)

Lawmakers Want Obama To Slow Down On GM, Chrysler

WASHINGTON (AP) - Lawmakers appealed to the Obama administration on Friday to slow down the restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler, wary of shuttered car dealerships, job losses and the big unknown of a GM bankruptcy.
"We are asking President Obama to call 'time-out' on his automobile task force," said Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio.

Members of Congress urged the White House to re-examine its work to stabilize the U.S. auto industry, prompted by sweeping plans outlined last week by Chrysler LLC and General Motors Corp. to shutter hundreds of car dealerships.

They said a pending June 1 deadline for a GM bankruptcy created more uncertainty for the industry, and could lead to a rash of more job losses and dealership closings.

Thirty-six members of Congress, mostly Republican, told the White House they were troubled by the work of the auto industry task force appointed by the president earlier this year. The panel has worked with GM and Chrysler to try to restructure the companies.

"They represent various Wall Street interests who have long looked at exporting jobs out of this country," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who accused the task force of facilitating plans by GM to import Chinese-made vehicles to the U.S.

Five House members, including Kucinich, LaTourette and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., met with a representative of the Obama task force on Friday. "They're anxious to have additional meetings," said LaTourette spokeswoman Deborah Setliff.

The White House said it was focused on helping the companies become viable to preserve jobs and strengthen the auto industry.

"Saving the auto industry is an urgent priority for our nation and our workers. The task force has worked diligently and deliberatively throughout this process and we will continue to work with all stakeholders," said White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage.

Chrysler LLC, which has received $5.8 billion in federal aid, disclosed in bankruptcy court last week its plans to close about a quarter of its 3,200 U.S. dealerships by June 9.

General Motors, which has received $19.4 billion in aid and could be forced into bankruptcy, has told about 1,100 of its dealers—about 20 percent—that their franchise agreements will not be renewed by late next year. GM said Friday it had borrowed an additional $4 billion from the government, bringing its total to $19.4 billion.

Chrysler plans to close eight manufacturing plants, part of its work to shed assets, debt and contracts and shift its good assets to Italian automaker Fiat Group SpA.

GM and the United Auto Workers union reached a tentative agreement Thursday on labor and health care concessions. Details have not yet emerged but GM had previously said it would close 16 factories, laying off 21,000 hourly workers.

While many auto plants are confined to Rust Belt states, the loss of car dealership jobs affect communities throughout the country. With an upcoming Memorial Day recess looming, members of Congress are expected to field questions about the job losses.

While GM has not made its list public, Chrysler has identified 789 dealerships in 49 states that are scheduled to be closed. Only Alaska was spared.

"These dealers deserve a little more than a pink slip in the mail," wrote Missouri Sens. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, and Kit Bond, a Republican.

The job losses have also brought vows of congressional oversight. Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, the ranking members on the Senate Commerce Committee, said they would hold hearings on the dealerships in early June.

Rockefeller's home state could lose 17 of its 24 Chrysler dealerships while 50 Chrysler dealerships in Texas are expected to go out of business.

"These companies cannot be allowed to take taxpayer funds for a bailout and then leave local dealers and their customers to fend for themselves with no real notice and no real help," Rockefeller said.(source)

Flip-Flops and Governance

By KARL ROVE

Barack Obama inherited a set of national-security policies that he rejected during the campaign but now embraces as president. This is a stunning and welcome about-face.

For example, President Obama kept George W. Bush's military tribunals for terror detainees after calling them an "enormous failure" and a "legal black hole." His campaign claimed last summer that "court systems . . . are capable of convicting terrorists." Upon entering office, he found out they aren't.

He insisted in an interview with NBC in 2007 that Congress mandate "consequences" for "a failure to meet various benchmarks and milestones" on aid to Iraq. Earlier this month he fought off legislatively mandated benchmarks in the $97 billion funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama agreed on April 23 to American Civil Liberties Union demands to release investigative photos of detainee abuse. Now's he reversed himself. Pentagon officials apparently convinced him that releasing the photos would increase the risk to U.S. troops and civilian personnel.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama excoriated Mr. Bush's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, insisting it could not succeed. Earlier this year, facing increasing violence in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama rejected warnings of a "quagmire" and ordered more troops to that country. He isn't calling it a "surge" but that's what it is. He is applying in Afghanistan the counterinsurgency strategy Mr. Bush used in Iraq.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama promised to end the Iraq war by withdrawing all troops by March 2009. As president, he set a slower pace of drawdown. He has also said he will leave as many as 50,000 Americans troops there.

These reversals are both praiseworthy and evidence that, when it comes to national security, being briefed on terror threats as president is a lot different than placating MoveOn.org and Code Pink activists as a candidate. The realities of governing trump the realities of campaigning.

We are also seeing Mr. Obama reverse himself on the domestic front, but this time in a manner that will do more harm than good.

Mr. Obama campaigned on "responsible fiscal policies," arguing in a speech on the Senate floor in 2006 that the "rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy." In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he pledged to "go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work." Even now, he says he'll "cut the deficit . . . by half by the end of his first term in office" and is "rooting out waste and abuse" in the budget.

However, Mr. Obama's fiscally conservative words are betrayed by his liberal actions. He offers an orgy of spending and a bacchanal of debt. His budget plans a 25% increase in the federal government's share of the GDP, a doubling of the national debt in five years, and a near tripling of it in 10 years.

On health care, Mr. Obama's election ads decried "government-run health care" as "extreme," saying it would lead to "higher costs." Now he is promoting a plan that would result in a de facto government-run health-care system. Even the Washington Post questions it, saying, "It is difficult to imagine . . . benefits from a government-run system."

Making adjustments in office is one thing. Constantly governing in direct opposition to what you said as a candidate is something else. Mr. Obama's flip-flops on national security have been wise; on the domestic front, they have been harmful.

In both cases, though, we have learned something about Mr. Obama. What animated him during the campaign is what historian Forrest McDonald once called "the projection of appealing images." All politicians want to project an appealing image. What Mr. McDonald warned against is focusing on this so much that an appealing image "becomes a self-sustaining end unto itself." Such an approach can work in a campaign, as Mr. Obama discovered. But it can also complicate life once elected, as he is finding out.

Mr. Obama's appealing campaign images turned out to have been fleeting. He ran hard to the left on national security to win the nomination, only to discover the campaign commitments he made were shallow and at odds with America's security interests.

Mr. Obama ran hard to the center on economic issues to win the general election. He has since discovered his campaign commitments were obstacles to ramming through the most ideologically liberal economic agenda since the Great Society.

Mr. Obama either had very little grasp of what governing would involve or, if he did, he used words meant to mislead the public. Neither option is particularly encouraging. America now has a president quite different from the person who advertised himself for the job last year. Over time, those things can catch up to a politician. (source)

1 in 7 Freed Detainees Rejoins Fight, Report Finds

Released detainee Said Ali al-Shihri is now an al-Qaida commander in Yemen.

Thanks to Barry's unnecessary inflammation of conditions during our fight against terrorism, we now have intelligence officers paralyzed with fear over helping our country fight these fanatics.

This is what happens when you're concerned first with impressing your leftist cowards who wouldn't put up a fight to save their families, instead of keeping our secrets safe so that our solidiers' next move won't be telegraphed straight to the enemy.

The blood on Barry's soft hands has only begun to stain him.

WASHINGTON — An unreleased Pentagon report concludes that about one in seven of the 534 prisoners already transferred abroad from the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has returned to terrorism or militant activity, according to administration officials.

The conclusion could strengthen the arguments of critics who have warned against the transfer or release of any more detainees as part of President Obama’s plan to shut down the prison by January. Past Pentagon reports on Guantánamo recidivism have been met with skepticism from civil liberties groups and criticized for their lack of detail.

The Pentagon promised in January that the latest report would be released soon, but Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said this week that the findings were still “under review.”

Two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said the report was being held up by Defense Department employees fearful of upsetting the White House, at a time when even Congressional Democrats have begun to show misgivings over Mr. Obama’s plan to close Guantánamo.

At the White House on Wednesday, Mr. Obama ran into a different kind of resistance when he met with human rights advocates who told him they would oppose any plan that would hold terrorism suspects without charges.

The White House has said Mr. Obama will provide further details about his plans for Guantánamo detainees in a speech Thursday.

To relocate the 240 prisoners now at Guantánamo Bay, administration officials have said the plan will ultimately rely on some combination of sending some overseas for release, transferring others to the custody of foreign governments, and moving the rest to facilities in the United States, either for military or civilian trials or, in some cases, perhaps, to be held without charges.

But the prospect that detainees might be moved to American soil has run into strong opposition in Congress. To show its misgivings, the Senate voted on Wednesday, 90 to 6, to cut from a war-spending bill the $80 million requested by Mr. Obama to close the prison, and overwhelmingly approved a second amendment requiring that a threat assessment be prepared for each prisoner now at Guantánamo to address what might happen on release.

The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, said Wednesday that moving detainees to American prisons would bring with it risks including “the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States.”

But Michele A. Flournoy, the under secretary of defense for policy, said of the detainees: “I think there will be some that need to end up in the United States.”

Pentagon officials said there had been no pressure from the Obama White House to suppress the report about the Guantánamo detainees who had been transferred abroad under the Bush administration. The officials said they believed that Defense Department employees, some of them holdovers from the Bush administration, were acting to protect their jobs.

The report is the subject of numerous Freedom of Information Act requests from news media organizations, and Mr. Whitman said he expected it to be released shortly. The report, a copy of which was made available to The New York Times, says the Pentagon believes that 74 prisoners released from Guantánamo have returned to terrorism or militant activity, making for a recidivism rate of nearly 14 percent.

The report was made available by an official who said the delay in releasing it was creating unnecessary “conspiracy theories” about the holdup.

A Defense Department official said there was little will at the Pentagon to release the report because it had become politically radioactive under Mr. Obama.

“If we hold it, then everybody claims it’s political and you’re protecting the Obama administration,” said the official, who asked for anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation. “And if we let it go, then everybody says you’re undermining Obama.”

Previous assertions by the Pentagon that substantial numbers of former Guantánamo prisoners had returned to terrorism were sharply criticized by civil liberties and human rights groups who said the information was too vague to be credible and amounted to propaganda in favor of keeping the prison open. The Pentagon began making the assertions in 2007 but stopped earlier this year, shortly before Mr. Obama took office.

Among the 74 former prisoners that the report says are again engaged in terrorism, 29 have been identified by name by the Pentagon, including 16 named for the first time in the report. The Pentagon has said that the remaining 45 could not be named because of national security and intelligence-gathering concerns.

In the report, the Pentagon confirmed that two former Guantánamo prisoners whose terrorist activities had been previously reported had indeed returned to the fight. They are Said Ali al-Shihri, a leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch suspected in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Sana, Yemen’s capital, last year, and Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, an Afghan Taliban commander, who also goes by the name Mullah Abdullah Zakir.

The Pentagon has provided no way of authenticating its 45 unnamed recidivists, and only a few of the 29 people identified by name can be independently verified as having engaged in terrorism since their release. Many of the 29 are simply described as associating with terrorists or training with terrorists, with almost no other details provided.

“It’s part of a campaign to win the hearts and minds of history for Guantánamo,” said Mark P. Denbeaux, a professor at Seton Hall University School of Law who has represented Guantánamo detainees and co-written three studies highly critical of the Pentagon’s previous recidivism reports. “They want to be able to claim there really were bad people there.”

Mr. Denbeaux acknowledged that some of the named detainees had engaged in verifiable terrorist acts since their release, but he said his research showed that their numbers were small.

“We’ve never said there weren’t some people who would return to the fight,” Mr. Denbeaux said. “It seems to be unavoidable. Nothing is perfect.”

Terrorism experts said a 14 percent recidivism rate was far lower than the rate for prisoners in the United States, which, they said, can run as high as 68 percent three years after release. They also said that while Americans might have a lower level of tolerance for recidivism among Guantánamo detainees, there was no evidence that any of those released had engaged in elaborate operations like the Sept. 11 attacks.

In addition to Mr. Shihri and Mr. Rasoul, at least three others among the 29 named have engaged in verifiable terrorist activity or have threatened terrorist acts. (source)

CORRECTED - UPDATE 1-GM Bankruptcy Plan Eyes Quick Sale To Gov't

You really have to have not only a dangerously large ego, but a dangerously large need for power in order to pull off this kind of a charade.

If you're like me, you can't handle too many minutes of Barry's reading or, worse yet, extemporaneous speaking. At the 7:00 minute mark of this above clip, you will see Barry try to fool the American people. He is acting as if his "leadership" has fostered this meeting of auto executives and union bosses.

How hard is it to "lead" when you can threaten the players with the long arm of the law to "come together"? How about threatening to fire an auto company ceo because you're the big, bad president of the United States Of America?

Anything's possible when you're a Marxist. As Saul Alinsky said, breaking the rules is justified for the ends of communism. Who has respect for something like a self-made corporation 100 years old? When you're a punk ass kid who's never had a real job in your 47 years, there's nothing respectable in getting up every day and going to a job for a living.

NEW YORK, May 19 (Reuters) - General Motors Corp's (GM.N) plan for a bankruptcy filing involves a quick sale of the company's healthy assets to a new company initially owned by the U.S. government, a source familiar with the situation said on Tuesday.

The source, who would not be named because he was not cleared to speak with the media, did not specify a purchase price. The new company is expected to honor the claims of secured lenders, possibly in full, according to the source.

The remaining assets of GM would stay in bankruptcy protection to satisfy other outstanding claims.

GM has about $6 billion in secured debt, including a secured revolving credit and bank debt.

The government's plans include giving stakes in the new company to GM's union and bondholders, although the ownership structure of the company is still being negotiated, said the source who is familiar with the company's plans.

In addition, the government would extend a credit line to the new company and forgive the bulk of the $15.4 billion in emergency loans that the U.S. has already provided to GM, the source said.

The government has given GM until June 1 to restructure its operations to lower its debt burden and employee costs.

If those talks failed, the company has said it would follow rival Chrysler LLC into bankruptcy.

Setting up a new company to buy the healthy assets is aimed at reassuring consumers who might not be willing to make a major purchase from a bankrupt company, fearing it would not honor warranties or provide service.

The board of the new company would be established with the tacit approval of the government. Fritz Henderson, who took the helm of GM earlier this year after the government pushed out Rick Wagoner, would likely head the new company, the source said.

GM could not be immediately reached for comment.

GM shares were up about 9 percent at $1.29. (Editing by Gerald E. McCormick)[source]

Barry In Charge: "Just Words"?

Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons

Carson City - The Office of Governor Jim Gibbons was notified today that President Barack Obama has refused to meet with the Governor and key business leaders from Nevada. Governor Gibbons requested the meeting in a letter to President Obama so the President could address statements he made that were critical to Nevada and have caused economic damage to convention business and tourism business in the Silver State. Earlier this year, the President told an audience in Elkhart, Indiana, "You can't get corporate jets. You can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer's dime." That quote was seen by many as an insult to Las Vegas and as a message to companies across the Nation to stay away from Las Vegas for corporate meetings and conventions.

The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority reports over 400 conventions and business meetings scheduled to take place in Las Vegas recently have cancelled. These cancelled events translate into 111,800 guests in Las Vegas and over 250,000 "room-nights". The cancelled conventions and meetings have cost the Las Vegas economy over $100-million, not including gaming revenue.

"I am disappointed at the hypocrisy shown by this Administration," Gibbons said, "President Obama is coming to Las Vegas later this month for a political fundraiser, but he will not help the struggling families in Las Vegas and Nevada who are out of work because of his reckless comments." Governor Gibbons noted, "President Obama is coming to Las Vegas to raise campaign cash for Senator Harry Reid, apparently our money is good enough for the President, but our tourism, jobs, and economic future are not." Gibbons added, "This is politics, pure and simple, President Obama stood for change, but all he has done is brought negative economic change to Nevada."

Governor Gibbons is calling upon Senator Reid to use any influence he might have to ask President Obama to encourage Americans to visit America during their summer vacations this year. "Sometimes Washington politicians forget that the people of Nevada are Americans," Governor Gibbons said, "This President needs to repair the damage he has done."(source)

The Obamas Were In Debt -- And Now So Are We

This is a great article. For me, it conjurs up 2 thoughts:

1) Barry is a reincarnation of the despotic Soviet commisars who secretly kept beautiful summer homes and other treasures while inflicting the socialist nightmare on the Russian masses that weren’t sent to the gulags or executed;

2) The smug self-righteous quality of all liberals who insist on YOUR kids being sent to public schools while they grace their own kids with private education. His sickening personality is on display here:

Richard Henry Lee

An examination of the Obama’s finances show that they were living off lines of credit along with their salaries until 2005, when the book royalties came through and Michelle received her astonishing 260% pay raise at the University of Chicago.

This reexamination of the Obama’s finances was triggered by a Chicago Tribune story on whether the Obama’s should refinance their home in Chicago. In addition, it is tax time with tea parties and that is another good reason to take another look.

As we first reported here last year, the Obamas received a better mortgage rate from Northern Trust than the market rate when they bought their mansion in the upscale Kenwood area of Chicago with the aid of now-convicted felon, Tony Rezko. The Tribune story asked mortgage experts if the Obama’s should refinance and the answer is “no”.

But the public record of their spending shows that they had to regularly take out lines of credit to pay their bills. As reported during the campaign, Michelle Obama complained in hard hit Ohio:
I know we’re spending — I added it up for the first time — we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we’re spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth,”

The Obamas were living beyond their means for several years according to an examination of their tax records and their mortgage documents.

In 2000, the first year that we have tax records, the Obamas had an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $240,505 and yet reported only a paltry $38 in interest, which indicates either a small savings account or interest on a checking account. In 2002 they reported $33 in interest and no interest in 2001, 2002 and 2004. This means there was virtually no savings account for those years. They were spending their entire income, plus whatever they had from lines of credit. During the five year period from 2000 to 2004, their combined AGI was $1,217,482.

In 2005, the year the book royalties came in and Michelle received her remarkable raise (coincident with Obama’s swearing-in to the US Senate), they reported a total of $13,285 in interest along with an AGI of $1,665,106. This is also the year they bought their Hyde Park mansion.

Acording to Cook County property records, the Obama’s purchased a condo on South East View Park in Chicago in 1999. They took out a 30 year adjustable rate mortgage of $159,250 with an initial rate of 6.6% on April 6, 1999. One month later on May 7, 1999, they took out a line of credit for $20,750.

On September 25, 2002, they refinanced their condo with a $210,000 30 year mortgage. This means they took out at least $60,000 of equity from their home. But that was not enough. On May 3, 2004, they took out another line of credit for $100,000 with a variable interest rate. Interest rates are not given for these mortgages, but they paid $14,395 in mortgage interest deductions in 2004. It is hard to estimate total debt outstanding since this deduction could include points. Mortgage interest deductions in 2003 were $12,241 by comparison.

In 2003, they reported almost $24,000 in child care expenses and in 2004, about $23,000. They also paid about $3400 in household employment taxes each year. They did receive a $700 child care credit each year.

Their AGI for these two years was $238,237 in 2003 and $207,647 in 2004. This drop in income was probably the reason for the refinanced mortgage.

In 2005, their AGI jumped to $1,217,482 due to the aforementioned book deal and Michelle’s pay raise. At this time, the Obama’s purchased their mansion for $1,650,000 and obtained a $1,320,000 mortgage from Northern Trust. But once again, six months later, they took out a $250,000 line of credit also from Northern Trust.


It is apparent from these numbers that the Obama’s were living beyond their means. They had to borrow again and again to make ends meet. And now President Obama is spending our nation's treasury at a profligate rate, far beyond previous presidents. But maybe Obama has a plan: perhaps he will write another best-selling book and donate the proceeds to the US to get us out of debt. One possible title might be: "The Decline and Fall of the American Republic". (source)