Friday, November 6, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
A Political Perspective For Those of Us Who Enjoy The Outdoors...
FEATURE
Truths and Not So True...
It was a sale that passed almost without notice, but last Friday, Cabelas (NYSE:CAB) sold their wildlife-art division, Wild Wings, LLC to RDE Acquisition Company, LLC. RDE is owned by a former executive officer of Wild Wings.
Wild Wings is one of the leading publishers, distributors and retailers of wildlife sporting and nostalgic Americana art prints and art-related products and represents more than 50 top North American wildlife artists.
"Wild Wings and its employees have been an integral part of Cabela's success over the last 10 years, and we are proud to have had them as part of our extended family," says Tommy Millner, Cabela's Chief Executive Officer. "With the sale to RDE Acquisition, we know Wild Wings will be in good hands. We wish them continued success and look forward to working with them in the future."
Cabela's will continue to sell Wild Wings products through storefronts, catalogs and online. The company says the sale was to remain consistent with Cabela's "strategy of focusing on core business operations."
Meanwhile, lots of phone calls yesterday regarding a rumored bankruptcy filing by The Pursuit Channel. Recently, Pursuit's been making lots of announcements regarding programming for 2010, so a bankruptcy filing rumor was creating lots of backchannel chatter, especially inside the cable television industry.
The rumor was true - sort of.
Pursuit Channel, the programming entity, is fine. In fact, insiders tell me it's "strong as new rope" and moving aggressively.
So why the confusion?
Because there have been more than one Pursuit Channel corporate entity. The bankruptcy filing was Pursuit Channel, LLC - the original corporate entity, not Pursuit Media, LLC - the current owner. According to Pursuit's Rusty Faulk, the original company had no assets, but some lingering liabilities the former owners wanted to settle once and for all...
So, the filing.
Corporate entities, especially when they're so closely associated, are confusing. But Faulk assures me everything is fine at Pursuit. I don't think I can get it much straighter from the horse's mouth, so that should settle one rumor.
As election results were coming in Tuesday night, it occurred to me that many of the people I've spoken with - and written about - in the past few weeks while crossing the country weren't exaggerating when they said they'd had enough.
I never took the comments from across the country as pent-up anger or even striking out over becoming increasingly disenfranchised or even being out of step with the times. Never even crossed my mind I might be hearing the last wheezing gasps of conservatism in the country.
That's what many of the "beltway experts" were saying - and have been saying about everything from TEA parties to town hall meetings where average people took the opportunity to speak out against proposed legislation they opposed. The experts' "take" on the statements of average people couldn't get beyond their belief they really are smarter than the rest of us.
Not being one of those smart guys, I look it at face value: average Americans saying they simply were not going to keep electing people to office who had proven - repeatedly- that what they said to get elected wasn't what they were going to do after they were in office.
On Monday, I said my travels over the past eight weeks had convinced me people were first going to try and make their displeasure known at the ballot box. Failing the message being delivered at that point, it sounded to me as if portions of the country were prepared to go for more direct measures.
Many of you wrote to echo that impression, and I apologize for having not written each of you personally. I can assure you, however, that you weren't -and still aren't - alone in your frustrations.
But you can be certain this first installment of your message to the incumbents has been delivered - loudly and clearly - despite the punditry to the contrary. If they choose to ignore the message you've sent, well, "stupid is as stupid does."
In Virginia, a virtual housecleaning of the top elected officials, despite the spinning of the political experts, sent a message.
Yet, one political observer said, "these elections mean nothing, we'll have a few minutes of soul-searching in the Democratic party, then go on as if nothing has happened." In other words, one election where supposedly unbeatable incumbents were beaten - handily- doesn't reverse the course of the country in the minds of the learned observers.
Bull. It sends some very clear messages: in Virginia, the message is that voters are tired of business-as-usual politics.
In New Jersey, the message isn't all political; it's rural New Jersey telling their cosmopolitan counterparts they are tired of being treated like bumpkins. They're also tired of being asked to foot the bill for the inability of state government to keep its hands out of consumer pockets.
And in each race across the country where established political machines have found themselves in the unfamiliar position of loser, regardless of party, the message is, essentially, the same: ignore the will of the people at your peril.
That's the message elections have always been meant to send.
---Jim Shepherd
___________________
Mr. Shepard publishes The Outdoor Wire, The Shooting Wirwe and The Tactical Wire.
You can subscribe to any and all of them...
Best regards!
Truths and Not So True...
It was a sale that passed almost without notice, but last Friday, Cabelas (NYSE:CAB) sold their wildlife-art division, Wild Wings, LLC to RDE Acquisition Company, LLC. RDE is owned by a former executive officer of Wild Wings.
Wild Wings is one of the leading publishers, distributors and retailers of wildlife sporting and nostalgic Americana art prints and art-related products and represents more than 50 top North American wildlife artists.
"Wild Wings and its employees have been an integral part of Cabela's success over the last 10 years, and we are proud to have had them as part of our extended family," says Tommy Millner, Cabela's Chief Executive Officer. "With the sale to RDE Acquisition, we know Wild Wings will be in good hands. We wish them continued success and look forward to working with them in the future."
Cabela's will continue to sell Wild Wings products through storefronts, catalogs and online. The company says the sale was to remain consistent with Cabela's "strategy of focusing on core business operations."
Meanwhile, lots of phone calls yesterday regarding a rumored bankruptcy filing by The Pursuit Channel. Recently, Pursuit's been making lots of announcements regarding programming for 2010, so a bankruptcy filing rumor was creating lots of backchannel chatter, especially inside the cable television industry.
The rumor was true - sort of.
Pursuit Channel, the programming entity, is fine. In fact, insiders tell me it's "strong as new rope" and moving aggressively.
So why the confusion?
Because there have been more than one Pursuit Channel corporate entity. The bankruptcy filing was Pursuit Channel, LLC - the original corporate entity, not Pursuit Media, LLC - the current owner. According to Pursuit's Rusty Faulk, the original company had no assets, but some lingering liabilities the former owners wanted to settle once and for all...
So, the filing.
Corporate entities, especially when they're so closely associated, are confusing. But Faulk assures me everything is fine at Pursuit. I don't think I can get it much straighter from the horse's mouth, so that should settle one rumor.
As election results were coming in Tuesday night, it occurred to me that many of the people I've spoken with - and written about - in the past few weeks while crossing the country weren't exaggerating when they said they'd had enough.
I never took the comments from across the country as pent-up anger or even striking out over becoming increasingly disenfranchised or even being out of step with the times. Never even crossed my mind I might be hearing the last wheezing gasps of conservatism in the country.
That's what many of the "beltway experts" were saying - and have been saying about everything from TEA parties to town hall meetings where average people took the opportunity to speak out against proposed legislation they opposed. The experts' "take" on the statements of average people couldn't get beyond their belief they really are smarter than the rest of us.
Not being one of those smart guys, I look it at face value: average Americans saying they simply were not going to keep electing people to office who had proven - repeatedly- that what they said to get elected wasn't what they were going to do after they were in office.
On Monday, I said my travels over the past eight weeks had convinced me people were first going to try and make their displeasure known at the ballot box. Failing the message being delivered at that point, it sounded to me as if portions of the country were prepared to go for more direct measures.
Many of you wrote to echo that impression, and I apologize for having not written each of you personally. I can assure you, however, that you weren't -and still aren't - alone in your frustrations.
But you can be certain this first installment of your message to the incumbents has been delivered - loudly and clearly - despite the punditry to the contrary. If they choose to ignore the message you've sent, well, "stupid is as stupid does."
In Virginia, a virtual housecleaning of the top elected officials, despite the spinning of the political experts, sent a message.
Yet, one political observer said, "these elections mean nothing, we'll have a few minutes of soul-searching in the Democratic party, then go on as if nothing has happened." In other words, one election where supposedly unbeatable incumbents were beaten - handily- doesn't reverse the course of the country in the minds of the learned observers.
Bull. It sends some very clear messages: in Virginia, the message is that voters are tired of business-as-usual politics.
In New Jersey, the message isn't all political; it's rural New Jersey telling their cosmopolitan counterparts they are tired of being treated like bumpkins. They're also tired of being asked to foot the bill for the inability of state government to keep its hands out of consumer pockets.
And in each race across the country where established political machines have found themselves in the unfamiliar position of loser, regardless of party, the message is, essentially, the same: ignore the will of the people at your peril.
That's the message elections have always been meant to send.
---Jim Shepherd
___________________
Mr. Shepard publishes The Outdoor Wire, The Shooting Wirwe and The Tactical Wire.
You can subscribe to any and all of them...
Best regards!
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Bomb Disposal Hero Killed in Afghanistan Just Days Before Leave
From Fox News...
Bomb Disposal Hero Killed in Afghanistan Just Days Before Leave
A British Army explosives specialist who became a legend by risking his life to defuse more than 60 Taliban roadside bombs was killed in Afghanistan during his final mission before he took leave, the Times of London reported Tuesday.
Staff Sergeant Olaf "Oz" Schmid, 30, died instantly Saturday when an improvised explosives device he was trying to disarm blew up.
It was his last job before a planned two-week break, his widow Christina Schmid told the newspaper.
“Oz was a phenomenal husband and loving father who was cruelly murdered on his last day before two weeks off after a relentless five-month tour," she said.
The bomb disposal expert's exploits were described as "legendary." He defused one in every 19 IEDs found by British troops since his tour in Afghanistan began last June, senior officers told the Daily Mail.
In one 24-hour operation, military officials said Schmid found and disarmed 31 roadside bombs. He deployed to Afghanistan in June, and had since then rendered 64 IEDs safe.
Shortly before his death, he had been promoted to the position of "high-threat operator" and was described by the British Ministry of Defense as having a "natural aptitude" for bomb disposal work.
Another veteran bomb specialist, Capt. Daniel Shepard, was killed in Afghanistan's Helmand Province in July, according to the Times of London.
In addition to his wife, Schmid leaves behind a 5-year-old stepson Laird, the paper reported.
“He was my best friend and soulmate," the grieving widow told the Times of London. "The pain of losing him is overwhelming. I take comfort knowing he saved countless lives with his hard work. I am so proud of him.”
Lt.-Col. Robert Thomson, the commanding officer overseeing the 2 Rifles Battle Group Schmid served with, said his bravery put him above the "best of the best."
“Under relentless IED and small arms attacks he stood taller than the tallest. I adored working with him," Thomson told the Times of London. "No matter how difficult or lethal the task which lay in front of us, he was the man who only saw solutions.”
_______________________
Bomb Disposal Hero Killed in Afghanistan Just Days Before Leave
A British Army explosives specialist who became a legend by risking his life to defuse more than 60 Taliban roadside bombs was killed in Afghanistan during his final mission before he took leave, the Times of London reported Tuesday.
Staff Sergeant Olaf "Oz" Schmid, 30, died instantly Saturday when an improvised explosives device he was trying to disarm blew up.
It was his last job before a planned two-week break, his widow Christina Schmid told the newspaper.
“Oz was a phenomenal husband and loving father who was cruelly murdered on his last day before two weeks off after a relentless five-month tour," she said.
The bomb disposal expert's exploits were described as "legendary." He defused one in every 19 IEDs found by British troops since his tour in Afghanistan began last June, senior officers told the Daily Mail.
In one 24-hour operation, military officials said Schmid found and disarmed 31 roadside bombs. He deployed to Afghanistan in June, and had since then rendered 64 IEDs safe.
Shortly before his death, he had been promoted to the position of "high-threat operator" and was described by the British Ministry of Defense as having a "natural aptitude" for bomb disposal work.
Another veteran bomb specialist, Capt. Daniel Shepard, was killed in Afghanistan's Helmand Province in July, according to the Times of London.
In addition to his wife, Schmid leaves behind a 5-year-old stepson Laird, the paper reported.
“He was my best friend and soulmate," the grieving widow told the Times of London. "The pain of losing him is overwhelming. I take comfort knowing he saved countless lives with his hard work. I am so proud of him.”
Lt.-Col. Robert Thomson, the commanding officer overseeing the 2 Rifles Battle Group Schmid served with, said his bravery put him above the "best of the best."
“Under relentless IED and small arms attacks he stood taller than the tallest. I adored working with him," Thomson told the Times of London. "No matter how difficult or lethal the task which lay in front of us, he was the man who only saw solutions.”
_______________________
God Bless you Oz...
We'll all miss you sorely!
Monday, November 2, 2009
Hope & Change?
From FOXNews.com - November 01, 2009
Republican Scozzafava Endorses Democrat After Exiting N.Y. Congressional Race
Republican Dede Scozzafava endorses Democrat Bill Owens in the race for New York's 23rd Congressional District, one day after dropping out of the race.
Republican Dede Scozzafava endorsed her former Democratic opponent Sunday in the race for an upstate New York congressional seat, shaking up the contest for the second day in a row after exiting the race Saturday.
Scozzafava dropped out after Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman experienced a late-in-the-game surge. The move was expected to consolidate GOP voters behind Hoffman on Tuesday.
But on Sunday, Scozzafava issued a written statement in which she backed Democrat Bill Owens.
"I am supporting Bill Owens for Congress and urge you to do the same," she said. "In Bill Owens, I see a sense of duty and integrity that will guide him beyond political partisanship. He will be an independent voice devoted to doing what is right for New York. Bill understands this district and its people, and when he represents us in Congress he will put our interests first."
Hoffman and Owens are competing for the 23rd Congressional District seat formerly held by Republican John McHugh, who was lured away by the Obama administration to be Army secretary.
Scozzafava was criticized by members of her party for being too moderate on social issues. However, it's unclear how much of an impact her endorsement will have as there were mixed messages coming out of the GOP -- a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee said Saturday that Scozzafava was releasing her supporters to vote for Hoffman.
And poll numbers suggest Owens would have to make significant inroads among Republican moderates to pull support away from Hoffman. A Siena Research Institute survey showed 64 percent of Scozzafava voters were self-identified Republicans -- only 19 percent identified themselves as Democrats.
Democrats, though, were clearly banking on Scozzafava to try to tilt the balance in their favor.
White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett said on ABC's "This Week" that Democrats would "love" to have the Republican candidate back Owens.
"It's rather telling when the Republican Party forces out a moderate Republican and it says, I think, a great deal about where the Republican Party is right now," she said.
__________________________________
These idiots are living in their own 'utopia'.
They beleive that the entire world supports their paradigm and wants America to become a 'nanny state', a banana republic, a socialist nation...
Ain't gonna happen.
American's, especially so-called 'paleo-conservatives', have had quite enough thank you, of these RINOs and their 'friends', the liberal Democrats.
RNC Chair Steele better watch out as well... He may be next!
Democrats and RINOs don't know it yet, but this is just the Beginning Of The End for them!
We're going to take back America!
Republican Scozzafava Endorses Democrat After Exiting N.Y. Congressional Race
Republican Dede Scozzafava endorses Democrat Bill Owens in the race for New York's 23rd Congressional District, one day after dropping out of the race.
Republican Dede Scozzafava endorsed her former Democratic opponent Sunday in the race for an upstate New York congressional seat, shaking up the contest for the second day in a row after exiting the race Saturday.
Scozzafava dropped out after Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman experienced a late-in-the-game surge. The move was expected to consolidate GOP voters behind Hoffman on Tuesday.
But on Sunday, Scozzafava issued a written statement in which she backed Democrat Bill Owens.
"I am supporting Bill Owens for Congress and urge you to do the same," she said. "In Bill Owens, I see a sense of duty and integrity that will guide him beyond political partisanship. He will be an independent voice devoted to doing what is right for New York. Bill understands this district and its people, and when he represents us in Congress he will put our interests first."
Hoffman and Owens are competing for the 23rd Congressional District seat formerly held by Republican John McHugh, who was lured away by the Obama administration to be Army secretary.
Scozzafava was criticized by members of her party for being too moderate on social issues. However, it's unclear how much of an impact her endorsement will have as there were mixed messages coming out of the GOP -- a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee said Saturday that Scozzafava was releasing her supporters to vote for Hoffman.
And poll numbers suggest Owens would have to make significant inroads among Republican moderates to pull support away from Hoffman. A Siena Research Institute survey showed 64 percent of Scozzafava voters were self-identified Republicans -- only 19 percent identified themselves as Democrats.
Democrats, though, were clearly banking on Scozzafava to try to tilt the balance in their favor.
White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett said on ABC's "This Week" that Democrats would "love" to have the Republican candidate back Owens.
"It's rather telling when the Republican Party forces out a moderate Republican and it says, I think, a great deal about where the Republican Party is right now," she said.
__________________________________
These idiots are living in their own 'utopia'.
They beleive that the entire world supports their paradigm and wants America to become a 'nanny state', a banana republic, a socialist nation...
Ain't gonna happen.
American's, especially so-called 'paleo-conservatives', have had quite enough thank you, of these RINOs and their 'friends', the liberal Democrats.
RNC Chair Steele better watch out as well... He may be next!
Democrats and RINOs don't know it yet, but this is just the Beginning Of The End for them!
We're going to take back America!
Friday, October 30, 2009
Born In The USA?
Old photos, new questions about Obama nativity...
University friends of Barack Obama Sr. make no mention of Ann Dunham
By Jerome Corsi
WND
After WND's stunning disclosure yesterday that Michelle Obama publicly admitted her husband's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was "very young and very single" when giving birth to the future U.S. president, three photos of Barack Obama Sr. have now surfaced, raising further questions as to whether the two were actually married.
The photos of Barack Obama Sr. attending a University of Hawaii party in the early 1960s, which surfaced on the Internet, show him enjoying the company of fellow students without the presence of Ann Dunham. His demeanor evident in the three photographs suggests a familiarity with women that would give no indication he was engaged to be married or already wed to Ann Dunham.
While the possibility remains the photographs were taken before Obama Sr. met Ann Dunham, the testimonies from Obama's fellow students at the University of Hawaii that accompany the photographs make no mention that Barack Obama Sr. was ever associated with Ann Dunham, at the time the photographs were taken, or later.
The photographs are identified as having been taken at the home of Arnie and Suzie Nachmanoff in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, "in the early 1960s."
One photo shows Barack Obama Sr., smoking a cigarette and talking with an attractive young woman identified on the website only as "Dorothy."
The other two photos show Barack Obama Sr. seated on the floor with other students at the party, again without Dunham.
Several testimonies "by some old friends of Barack Obama when we were in Honolulu, Hawaii," are posted on the website, reminiscencing about Barack Obama Sr.
Several of the testimonies note that Obama had the historical distinction of being Hawaii's first African university student; none of the testimonies make any reference to courtship with or marriage to Dunham.
The website, obviously supportive of President Obama, was created by Naranhkiri Tith, a student at the University of Hawaii's East West Center at the same time Barack Obama Sr. was enrolled. Tith went on to serve for 20 years on the senior staff of the International Monetary Fund.
"Although [Barack Obama Sr.] was not an East-West Center grantee, he was always with us, especially at a Guest House owned and operated by the Asia foundation, situated on the top of a road leading to Manoa valley," Tith Naranhkiri recalled in an essay titled "Remembering my friend Barak (sic) Obama" that "Atherton House was a place where most East-West Center grantees gathered for a drink or a chat."
Naranhkiri said in the 1980s an IMF colleague on a mission to Kenya gave him Obama's telephone number in Nairobi.
"Needless to say that I was very happy to be able to be in contact again with Barak (sic), after more than ten years of silence," Naranhkiri continued. "We had a long conversation and we were able to talk to each other a few more times until one day, when I called him and his secretary told me over the phone that he had passed away of an accident."
Naranhkiri makes no reference to recalling Ann Dunham at the University of Hawaii or of discussing her with Barack Obama Sr. in their subsequent telephone conversations after the president's father had returned to Kenya.
Robert M. Ruenitz, another student at the East-West Center when Barack Obama Sr. was enrolled, had distinct recollections of the president's father living alone in Hawaii.
"For any of us to say we knew Obama well would be difficult," Robert M. Ruenitz wrote. "He was a private man with academic achievement his foremost goal. He lived somewhat like a hermit in a small room up in the valleys of Manoa. I visited him there on my Lambretta and wondered how he sustained himself outside of his focused attention to his academic pursuits."
WND has established that Barack Obama Sr. always maintained his bachelor apartment at 625 11th Avenue. The only family resident at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway – the birth address published in August 1961 in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin – were Ann Dunham's parents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham.
"In my mind, I always picture him at a certain spot under a large tree, just outside the University library," Bob Craft, another East-West student recalled. "There a small group of us would frequently gather, standing around for a short while chatting.
"All these years – I still believe that I can remember his voice distinctly, which had middle and high tones sitting on top of a deep rumble. I also remember him always being dressed in a white shirt and dark trousers, in contrast to everyone else who usually wore flowered Hawaiian shirts and shorts," Craft continued, making no mention of Ann Dunham.
Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D–Hawaii, told the Chicago Tribune that he was part of a group of graduate students at the University of Hawaii along with Barack Obama Sr. and Dunham who spent weekends listening to jazz, drinking beer and debating politics and world affairs. Another of Abercrombie's recollections, however – that Ann Dunham "disappeared from the University of Hawaii student gatherings" only after Barack Obama Sr. was accepted to attend Harvard University – conflicts with new evidence.
WND has obtained evidence that Dunham enrolled in extension classes at the University of Washington in Seattle on Aug. 19, 1961, only 15 days after Barack Obama Jr. was born, and that she lived in an apartment in Seattle's Capitol Hill area, never returning to Hawaii until after Barack Obama Sr. had left for Harvard.
The Chicago Tribune further reported that on a trip to Africa years later, Abercrombie caught up with Barack Obama Sr.
Barack Obama Sr. "was drinking too much; his frustration was apparent," Abercrombie told the newspaper.
"To Abercrombie's surprise, Obama never asked about his ex-wife or his son," Tribune national correspondent Tim Jones wrote.
WND has reported the only documentation for Dunham's marriage to Barack Obama Sr. comes from their divorce documents that list the marriage date as Feb. 2, 1961.
However, it isn't clear Obama's parents were married, since official records have never been produced showing a legal ceremony took place. No wedding certificate or photograph of a ceremony for Dunham and Obama Sr. has ever been found or published.
In his book "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage," former Time magazine contributing editor Christopher Anderson elaborates: "There were certainly no witnesses (to the alleged civil marriage ceremony on Maui in 1961 between Obama's parents) – no family members were present, and none of their friends at the university had the slightest inkling that they were even engaged."
Anderson further quoted Abercrombie as saying that "nobody" was invited to the wedding ceremony.
Obama himself, on page 22 of his autobiography "Dreams from My Father," wrote of his parents wedding: "In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I've never quite had the courage to explore. There's no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No families were in attendance; it's not even clear that people back in Kansas were fully informed. Just a small civil ceremony, a justice of the peace. The whole thing seems so fragile in retrospect, so haphazard."
President Obama's birth story is further complicated by the fact that when Barack Obama Sr. arrived in Hawaii as a 23-years-old in September 1959, he already had been married since age 18 to a Kenyan woman named Kezia Aoko.
Obama Sr. ultimately had four children with Aoko, and there is no evidence to suggest he was ever divorced from Aoko, either in Kenya before he left for Hawaii or in Hawaii prior to the alleged marriage with Dunham.
On page 126 of "Dreams from My Father," Barack Obama Jr. described his father's marriage with Kezia in a quotation in which Ann Dunham says, "An then there was a problem with your father's first wife … he had told me they were separated, but it was a village wedding, so there was no legal documentation that could show a divorce …" (Ellipsis in original text.)
Dunham apparently was suggesting bigamy was not involved in her alleged marriage since Barack Obama Sr.'s marriage to Aoko was a "village wedding" that possibly would not have been recognized as legitimate by Hawaii civil law. Barack Obama Sr. was reportedly a polygamist who had at least four wives, including Ruth Nidesand, who he met at Harvard and became his wife after she followed him back to Kenya.
__________________________
Ahhhh... Looks like BHO Sr. was quite a gadabout!
And definitely a 'ladies man'!
One wonders how many other BHO Jrs are out there?
University friends of Barack Obama Sr. make no mention of Ann Dunham
By Jerome Corsi
WND
After WND's stunning disclosure yesterday that Michelle Obama publicly admitted her husband's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was "very young and very single" when giving birth to the future U.S. president, three photos of Barack Obama Sr. have now surfaced, raising further questions as to whether the two were actually married.
The photos of Barack Obama Sr. attending a University of Hawaii party in the early 1960s, which surfaced on the Internet, show him enjoying the company of fellow students without the presence of Ann Dunham. His demeanor evident in the three photographs suggests a familiarity with women that would give no indication he was engaged to be married or already wed to Ann Dunham.
While the possibility remains the photographs were taken before Obama Sr. met Ann Dunham, the testimonies from Obama's fellow students at the University of Hawaii that accompany the photographs make no mention that Barack Obama Sr. was ever associated with Ann Dunham, at the time the photographs were taken, or later.
The photographs are identified as having been taken at the home of Arnie and Suzie Nachmanoff in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, "in the early 1960s."
One photo shows Barack Obama Sr., smoking a cigarette and talking with an attractive young woman identified on the website only as "Dorothy."
The other two photos show Barack Obama Sr. seated on the floor with other students at the party, again without Dunham.
Several testimonies "by some old friends of Barack Obama when we were in Honolulu, Hawaii," are posted on the website, reminiscencing about Barack Obama Sr.
Several of the testimonies note that Obama had the historical distinction of being Hawaii's first African university student; none of the testimonies make any reference to courtship with or marriage to Dunham.
The website, obviously supportive of President Obama, was created by Naranhkiri Tith, a student at the University of Hawaii's East West Center at the same time Barack Obama Sr. was enrolled. Tith went on to serve for 20 years on the senior staff of the International Monetary Fund.
"Although [Barack Obama Sr.] was not an East-West Center grantee, he was always with us, especially at a Guest House owned and operated by the Asia foundation, situated on the top of a road leading to Manoa valley," Tith Naranhkiri recalled in an essay titled "Remembering my friend Barak (sic) Obama" that "Atherton House was a place where most East-West Center grantees gathered for a drink or a chat."
Naranhkiri said in the 1980s an IMF colleague on a mission to Kenya gave him Obama's telephone number in Nairobi.
"Needless to say that I was very happy to be able to be in contact again with Barak (sic), after more than ten years of silence," Naranhkiri continued. "We had a long conversation and we were able to talk to each other a few more times until one day, when I called him and his secretary told me over the phone that he had passed away of an accident."
Naranhkiri makes no reference to recalling Ann Dunham at the University of Hawaii or of discussing her with Barack Obama Sr. in their subsequent telephone conversations after the president's father had returned to Kenya.
Robert M. Ruenitz, another student at the East-West Center when Barack Obama Sr. was enrolled, had distinct recollections of the president's father living alone in Hawaii.
"For any of us to say we knew Obama well would be difficult," Robert M. Ruenitz wrote. "He was a private man with academic achievement his foremost goal. He lived somewhat like a hermit in a small room up in the valleys of Manoa. I visited him there on my Lambretta and wondered how he sustained himself outside of his focused attention to his academic pursuits."
WND has established that Barack Obama Sr. always maintained his bachelor apartment at 625 11th Avenue. The only family resident at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway – the birth address published in August 1961 in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin – were Ann Dunham's parents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham.
"In my mind, I always picture him at a certain spot under a large tree, just outside the University library," Bob Craft, another East-West student recalled. "There a small group of us would frequently gather, standing around for a short while chatting.
"All these years – I still believe that I can remember his voice distinctly, which had middle and high tones sitting on top of a deep rumble. I also remember him always being dressed in a white shirt and dark trousers, in contrast to everyone else who usually wore flowered Hawaiian shirts and shorts," Craft continued, making no mention of Ann Dunham.
Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D–Hawaii, told the Chicago Tribune that he was part of a group of graduate students at the University of Hawaii along with Barack Obama Sr. and Dunham who spent weekends listening to jazz, drinking beer and debating politics and world affairs. Another of Abercrombie's recollections, however – that Ann Dunham "disappeared from the University of Hawaii student gatherings" only after Barack Obama Sr. was accepted to attend Harvard University – conflicts with new evidence.
WND has obtained evidence that Dunham enrolled in extension classes at the University of Washington in Seattle on Aug. 19, 1961, only 15 days after Barack Obama Jr. was born, and that she lived in an apartment in Seattle's Capitol Hill area, never returning to Hawaii until after Barack Obama Sr. had left for Harvard.
The Chicago Tribune further reported that on a trip to Africa years later, Abercrombie caught up with Barack Obama Sr.
Barack Obama Sr. "was drinking too much; his frustration was apparent," Abercrombie told the newspaper.
"To Abercrombie's surprise, Obama never asked about his ex-wife or his son," Tribune national correspondent Tim Jones wrote.
WND has reported the only documentation for Dunham's marriage to Barack Obama Sr. comes from their divorce documents that list the marriage date as Feb. 2, 1961.
However, it isn't clear Obama's parents were married, since official records have never been produced showing a legal ceremony took place. No wedding certificate or photograph of a ceremony for Dunham and Obama Sr. has ever been found or published.
In his book "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage," former Time magazine contributing editor Christopher Anderson elaborates: "There were certainly no witnesses (to the alleged civil marriage ceremony on Maui in 1961 between Obama's parents) – no family members were present, and none of their friends at the university had the slightest inkling that they were even engaged."
Anderson further quoted Abercrombie as saying that "nobody" was invited to the wedding ceremony.
Obama himself, on page 22 of his autobiography "Dreams from My Father," wrote of his parents wedding: "In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I've never quite had the courage to explore. There's no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No families were in attendance; it's not even clear that people back in Kansas were fully informed. Just a small civil ceremony, a justice of the peace. The whole thing seems so fragile in retrospect, so haphazard."
President Obama's birth story is further complicated by the fact that when Barack Obama Sr. arrived in Hawaii as a 23-years-old in September 1959, he already had been married since age 18 to a Kenyan woman named Kezia Aoko.
Obama Sr. ultimately had four children with Aoko, and there is no evidence to suggest he was ever divorced from Aoko, either in Kenya before he left for Hawaii or in Hawaii prior to the alleged marriage with Dunham.
On page 126 of "Dreams from My Father," Barack Obama Jr. described his father's marriage with Kezia in a quotation in which Ann Dunham says, "An then there was a problem with your father's first wife … he had told me they were separated, but it was a village wedding, so there was no legal documentation that could show a divorce …" (Ellipsis in original text.)
Dunham apparently was suggesting bigamy was not involved in her alleged marriage since Barack Obama Sr.'s marriage to Aoko was a "village wedding" that possibly would not have been recognized as legitimate by Hawaii civil law. Barack Obama Sr. was reportedly a polygamist who had at least four wives, including Ruth Nidesand, who he met at Harvard and became his wife after she followed him back to Kenya.
__________________________
Ahhhh... Looks like BHO Sr. was quite a gadabout!
And definitely a 'ladies man'!
One wonders how many other BHO Jrs are out there?
But our President is...
A Natural Born American Citizen, aka 'The Charlatan'...
Thursday, October 29, 2009
More Taxpayer Dollars Being Wasted - Defending Faulty Anti-Gun Legislation... In Seattle!
From The Outdoor Wire - 10/29/09 ...
FEATURE
Litigation & Legislation
Editor's Note: There are a number of stories developing across the outdoor industry. Today, more taxpayer dollars being wasted by litigation to defend legislation that was faulty from its inception.
It's another example of anti-gun obstinacy. The detail on today's story comes from the Second Amendment Foundation, one of the parties to the lawsuit against Seattle Washington's parks regulation banning firearms.
BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association and five local residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a new Seattle parks regulation that bans firearms, arguing that the ban violates Washington State's long-standing preemption statute. They are joined by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Washington Arms Collectors.
The lawsuit was filed in King County Superior Court names the City of Seattle, Mayor Greg Nickels and Timothy Gallagher, superintendent of Parks and Recreation, as defendants. Plaintiffs are represented by Seattle attorney Steve Fogg with the Seattle law firm of Corr, Cronin, Michelson, Baumgardner & Preece LLC.
"This ban violates Washington's 26-year-old model preemption statute," noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "The ban makes it impossible, under threat of criminal trespass penalty, to lawfully carry firearms for the protection of spouses, partners and children on public property where these citizens have a right to be.
We are once again delighted to be joined by the NRA in this action. Our successful collaborations in the past stopped illegal gun confiscations in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, and nullified an illegal gun ban in the City of San Francisco."
Individual plaintiffs in the case are:
Winnie Chan, a Department of Corrections employee who lives in Seattle and works in West Seattle. When she is not on-duty, she often carries her personal concealed handgun, particularly when she is going to be in unfamiliar locations, out late at night, or in large/crowded places. (DOC policy prohibits her from carrying her state-issued firearm when she is off-duty, and therefore she owns a personal firearm.) She is concerned that people she has encountered on the job may be disgruntled and pose a threat to her safety. She sometimes visits Lincoln Park for recreation, and she has seen a sign prohibiting firearms there.
Ray Carter, also a West Seattle resident employed as a car salesman at MC Electric Vehicles in Seattle. He is active in the gay community; he co-chaired the Pride Parade in the mid-1990s and founded the Seattle Chapter of Pink Pistols/Cease Fear. He has testified in Olympia and at City Hall regarding gun bans. The Seattle Weekly wrote an article about Ray in June 2000 entitled "Gays and Guns." He carries his concealed pistol any place where it is legal, and he believes this is necessary because he is susceptible to hate-related crimes. Ray sometimes visits Lincoln Park and Alki Beach, and he states that he has seen signs prohibiting firearms at those locations.
Gary Goedecke, owner and proprietor of Pikeplace Marketwear, a 35-year old business at Pike Place Market. A Bothell resident, he has been actively involved with the Pike Place Market for years. Gary is an avid gun owner and carries a concealed pistol wherever he can. Gary notes that Steinbrook Park is directly adjacent to the Market and is a very dangerous place; he fears for the safety of his wife (who also works at the Market) and his employees.
Gray Peterson of Lynnwood, who often visits Seattle parks facilities with his domestic partner. Active in the Seattle-area gay community, Peterson is licensed to carry a concealed firearm and does so where it is lawfully permitted because of concerns that he is susceptible to becoming a victim of hate-related crimes. Signs have been posted at some of his favorite parks that prohibit firearms possession.
Robert Kennar, a Department of Corrections employee and resident of Federal Way. He frequently works in Seattle and visits parks and recreation facilities. Kennar has been a crime victim and he often observes criminal activity in Seattle. He is licensed to carry a concealed handgun and always carries his personal firearm when not on duty where he is permitted to do so. He is concerned about retaliation from people he encounters in his line of work. Kennar enjoys visiting Seattle parks, but one of his favorite parks now displays a sign prohibiting firearms.
"This ban affects the rights of all Washington citizens who may visit Seattle parks property and recreation facilities, and especially thousands of Seattle gun owners, many of whom are members of both organizations," Gottlieb stated.
"It essentially impairs the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms for personal protection, which is explicitly protected by Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution."
Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna has issued an opinion that the ban is illegal. Under provisions of the ban, legally-armed citizens face arrest for criminal trespass if they enter park property.
"The parks ban is a going-away gift of sour grapes from ousted Mayor Greg Nickels to the citizens of Seattle," Gottlieb observed. "He is leaving a mess for his successor, and the taxpayers who rejected his third term bid, to clean up."
________________________________________
The anti-gun crowd will not stop until... either they have ALL our guns - Or there is blood in the street...
FEATURE
Litigation & Legislation
Editor's Note: There are a number of stories developing across the outdoor industry. Today, more taxpayer dollars being wasted by litigation to defend legislation that was faulty from its inception.
It's another example of anti-gun obstinacy. The detail on today's story comes from the Second Amendment Foundation, one of the parties to the lawsuit against Seattle Washington's parks regulation banning firearms.
BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association and five local residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a new Seattle parks regulation that bans firearms, arguing that the ban violates Washington State's long-standing preemption statute. They are joined by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Washington Arms Collectors.
The lawsuit was filed in King County Superior Court names the City of Seattle, Mayor Greg Nickels and Timothy Gallagher, superintendent of Parks and Recreation, as defendants. Plaintiffs are represented by Seattle attorney Steve Fogg with the Seattle law firm of Corr, Cronin, Michelson, Baumgardner & Preece LLC.
"This ban violates Washington's 26-year-old model preemption statute," noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "The ban makes it impossible, under threat of criminal trespass penalty, to lawfully carry firearms for the protection of spouses, partners and children on public property where these citizens have a right to be.
We are once again delighted to be joined by the NRA in this action. Our successful collaborations in the past stopped illegal gun confiscations in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, and nullified an illegal gun ban in the City of San Francisco."
Individual plaintiffs in the case are:
Winnie Chan, a Department of Corrections employee who lives in Seattle and works in West Seattle. When she is not on-duty, she often carries her personal concealed handgun, particularly when she is going to be in unfamiliar locations, out late at night, or in large/crowded places. (DOC policy prohibits her from carrying her state-issued firearm when she is off-duty, and therefore she owns a personal firearm.) She is concerned that people she has encountered on the job may be disgruntled and pose a threat to her safety. She sometimes visits Lincoln Park for recreation, and she has seen a sign prohibiting firearms there.
Ray Carter, also a West Seattle resident employed as a car salesman at MC Electric Vehicles in Seattle. He is active in the gay community; he co-chaired the Pride Parade in the mid-1990s and founded the Seattle Chapter of Pink Pistols/Cease Fear. He has testified in Olympia and at City Hall regarding gun bans. The Seattle Weekly wrote an article about Ray in June 2000 entitled "Gays and Guns." He carries his concealed pistol any place where it is legal, and he believes this is necessary because he is susceptible to hate-related crimes. Ray sometimes visits Lincoln Park and Alki Beach, and he states that he has seen signs prohibiting firearms at those locations.
Gary Goedecke, owner and proprietor of Pikeplace Marketwear, a 35-year old business at Pike Place Market. A Bothell resident, he has been actively involved with the Pike Place Market for years. Gary is an avid gun owner and carries a concealed pistol wherever he can. Gary notes that Steinbrook Park is directly adjacent to the Market and is a very dangerous place; he fears for the safety of his wife (who also works at the Market) and his employees.
Gray Peterson of Lynnwood, who often visits Seattle parks facilities with his domestic partner. Active in the Seattle-area gay community, Peterson is licensed to carry a concealed firearm and does so where it is lawfully permitted because of concerns that he is susceptible to becoming a victim of hate-related crimes. Signs have been posted at some of his favorite parks that prohibit firearms possession.
Robert Kennar, a Department of Corrections employee and resident of Federal Way. He frequently works in Seattle and visits parks and recreation facilities. Kennar has been a crime victim and he often observes criminal activity in Seattle. He is licensed to carry a concealed handgun and always carries his personal firearm when not on duty where he is permitted to do so. He is concerned about retaliation from people he encounters in his line of work. Kennar enjoys visiting Seattle parks, but one of his favorite parks now displays a sign prohibiting firearms.
"This ban affects the rights of all Washington citizens who may visit Seattle parks property and recreation facilities, and especially thousands of Seattle gun owners, many of whom are members of both organizations," Gottlieb stated.
"It essentially impairs the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms for personal protection, which is explicitly protected by Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution."
Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna has issued an opinion that the ban is illegal. Under provisions of the ban, legally-armed citizens face arrest for criminal trespass if they enter park property.
"The parks ban is a going-away gift of sour grapes from ousted Mayor Greg Nickels to the citizens of Seattle," Gottlieb observed. "He is leaving a mess for his successor, and the taxpayers who rejected his third term bid, to clean up."
________________________________________
The anti-gun crowd will not stop until... either they have ALL our guns - Or there is blood in the street...
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
A Time For Choosing...
Funny how history keeps repeating itself when people refuse to learn from it...
Monday, October 26, 2009
Your Choice: The Constitution - or The Democrat's Healthare Care Plan
"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." --John Adams
From The Patriot Post
Government -
"At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today's Americans.
Some of the founders' distrust is seen in our Constitution's language such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate and deny.
If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given rights, they would not have provided those protections. After all, one would not expect to find a Bill of Rights in Heaven; it would be an affront to God.
Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances and the several anti-majoritarian provisions such as the Electoral College and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes in the Constitution.
The three branches of our federal government are no longer bound by the Constitution as the framers envisioned and what is worse is American ignorance and acceptance of such rogue behavior.
Look at the current debate over government involvement in health, business bailouts and stimulus packages.
The debate centers around questions as whether such involvement is a good idea or a bad idea and whether one program is more costly than another.
Those questions are entirely irrelevant to what should be debated, namely: Is such government involvement in our lives permissible under the U.S. Constitution? That question is not part of the debate.
The American people, along with our elected representatives, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, care less about what is and what is not permissible under our Constitution.
They think Congress has the right to do anything upon which they can secure a majority vote, whether they have the constitutional or moral authority to do so or not."
--George Mason economics professor Walter E. Williams
From The Patriot Post
Government -
"At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today's Americans.
Some of the founders' distrust is seen in our Constitution's language such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate and deny.
If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given rights, they would not have provided those protections. After all, one would not expect to find a Bill of Rights in Heaven; it would be an affront to God.
Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances and the several anti-majoritarian provisions such as the Electoral College and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes in the Constitution.
The three branches of our federal government are no longer bound by the Constitution as the framers envisioned and what is worse is American ignorance and acceptance of such rogue behavior.
Look at the current debate over government involvement in health, business bailouts and stimulus packages.
The debate centers around questions as whether such involvement is a good idea or a bad idea and whether one program is more costly than another.
Those questions are entirely irrelevant to what should be debated, namely: Is such government involvement in our lives permissible under the U.S. Constitution? That question is not part of the debate.
The American people, along with our elected representatives, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, care less about what is and what is not permissible under our Constitution.
They think Congress has the right to do anything upon which they can secure a majority vote, whether they have the constitutional or moral authority to do so or not."
--George Mason economics professor Walter E. Williams
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Kenyan-born Obama All Set For US Senate
Well whadaya know...
SOMBODY dug up a news article from the Nairobi Kenya, 'Sunday Standard'(posted from the AP Wire article), dated June 27, 2004 about our 'natural born' President/Imposter/Usurper/Charlatan, getting set to run for the U.S. Senate.
The picture sure looks to be as old as the article...
From The Sunday Standard
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.
The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative.
Ryan’s campaign began to crumble on Monday following the release of embarrassing records from his divorce. In the records, his ex-wife, Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, said her former husband took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans.
"It’s clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race," Ryan, 44, said in a statement. "What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign – the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play."
Although Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one ‘avant-garde’ club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable, lashed out at the media and said it was "truly outrageous" that the Chicago Tribune got a judge to unseal the records.
The Republican choice will become an instant underdog in the campaign for the seat of retiring Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald, since Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke.
"I feel for him actually," Obama told a Chicago TV station. "What he’s gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn’t wish on anybody."
The Republican state committee must now choose a replacement for Ryan, who had won in the primaries against seven contenders. Its task is complicated by the fact that Obama holds a comfortable lead in the polls and is widely regarded as a rising Democratic star.
The chairwoman of the Illinois Republican Party, Judy Topinka, said at a news conference, after Ryan withdrew, that Republicans would probably take several weeks to settle on a new candidate.
"Obviously, this is a bad week for our party and our state," she said.
As recently as Thursday, spokesmen for the Ryan campaign still insisted that Ryan would remain in the race. Ryan had defended himself saying, "There’s no breaking of any laws. There’s no breaking of any marriage laws. There’s no breaking of the Ten Commandments anywhere."
—AP
The Standard Ltd
I & M Building, Kenyatta Avenue,
P.O Box 30080, 00100 GPO, Nairobi-Kenya.
Tel. +254 20 3222111, Fax: +254 20 214467, 229218, 218965.
Email: editorial@eastandard.net, online@eastandard.net
News room Tel: +254 20 3222111, Fax: +254 20 213108.
SOMBODY dug up a news article from the Nairobi Kenya, 'Sunday Standard'(posted from the AP Wire article), dated June 27, 2004 about our 'natural born' President/Imposter/Usurper/Charlatan, getting set to run for the U.S. Senate.
The picture sure looks to be as old as the article...
From The Sunday Standard
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.
The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative.
Ryan’s campaign began to crumble on Monday following the release of embarrassing records from his divorce. In the records, his ex-wife, Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, said her former husband took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans.
"It’s clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race," Ryan, 44, said in a statement. "What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign – the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play."
Although Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one ‘avant-garde’ club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable, lashed out at the media and said it was "truly outrageous" that the Chicago Tribune got a judge to unseal the records.
The Republican choice will become an instant underdog in the campaign for the seat of retiring Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald, since Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke.
"I feel for him actually," Obama told a Chicago TV station. "What he’s gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn’t wish on anybody."
The Republican state committee must now choose a replacement for Ryan, who had won in the primaries against seven contenders. Its task is complicated by the fact that Obama holds a comfortable lead in the polls and is widely regarded as a rising Democratic star.
The chairwoman of the Illinois Republican Party, Judy Topinka, said at a news conference, after Ryan withdrew, that Republicans would probably take several weeks to settle on a new candidate.
"Obviously, this is a bad week for our party and our state," she said.
As recently as Thursday, spokesmen for the Ryan campaign still insisted that Ryan would remain in the race. Ryan had defended himself saying, "There’s no breaking of any laws. There’s no breaking of any marriage laws. There’s no breaking of the Ten Commandments anywhere."
—AP
The Standard Ltd
I & M Building, Kenyatta Avenue,
P.O Box 30080, 00100 GPO, Nairobi-Kenya.
Tel. +254 20 3222111, Fax: +254 20 214467, 229218, 218965.
Email: editorial@eastandard.net, online@eastandard.net
News room Tel: +254 20 3222111, Fax: +254 20 213108.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Garhering Storm
The caption reads...
"We're From The Government & We're Here For Your Guns."
_________________________________________________
On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton gave a presentation in St. Paul, MN on the subject of global warming. In this 4-minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans...
Russia and India To Develop Supersonic Missile Invincible to Interception
So... Obama wants to slow down military spending and make peace with the world...
I guess 'the charlatan' forgot that there are some other points of view out there?
From English Pravda:
Russia and India To Develop Supersonic Missile Invincible to Interception
Russia and India will start the development of a new supersonic missile nearly invincible to interception. No army in the world has anything similar to it. The sum of the investment has not been defined yet, but it can be expected to reach billions of dollars.
The missile is to become a successor of the supersonic missile BrahMos (known as Yahont in the Russian army) that is now installed on ships, land missile complexes and may soon be installed on Su-30 MKI fighter jets and submarines.
This possibility was discussed on Tuesday at the meeting of an intergovernmental committee on military and technical collaboration that took place in Moscow and was chaired by Russian and Indian Defense Ministers, Anatoly Serdyukov and Arackaparambil Kurien Antony.
The missile was named in honor of two rivers, the Brahmaputra of India and the Moskva of Russia. BrahMos is considered to be a successful Russian-Indian joint project.
It is unique since it’s the only cruise missile in the world that can be launched both as a single unit and a group.
Its highly intelligent operational system allows the missile to reach the speed of Mach 3.0, which is three times faster than the speed of the subsonic American Tomahawk cruise-missile). BrahMos can engage any sea target, and a group of these missiles can destroy an entire ship formation.
The missiles are so clever that they not only detect a target but develop a plan of attack based on the enemy’s air defense. They know exactly which target is the primary one, which of them is an attacker and which is a defender. When the main target is destroyed, they re-prioritize and continue with the attack. Now even more advanced missile is on the way.
“These intentions mean that Delhi has strategic goals, and I believe they are realistic,” said Alexander Lukyanov, head of the Scientific Development and Production Center where the missile was designed.
On Tuesday, India confirmed its intentions of the joint development of the fifth generation of fighter jets and financing of modernization of Admiral Gorshkov cruiser.
____________________________
Hmmmmmm... I wonder if this is even on Obama's radar?
He's so focused on making America one of 'them', I'll wager he has a great big smile on his face when he's told...
I guess 'the charlatan' forgot that there are some other points of view out there?
From English Pravda:
Russia and India To Develop Supersonic Missile Invincible to Interception
Russia and India will start the development of a new supersonic missile nearly invincible to interception. No army in the world has anything similar to it. The sum of the investment has not been defined yet, but it can be expected to reach billions of dollars.
The missile is to become a successor of the supersonic missile BrahMos (known as Yahont in the Russian army) that is now installed on ships, land missile complexes and may soon be installed on Su-30 MKI fighter jets and submarines.
This possibility was discussed on Tuesday at the meeting of an intergovernmental committee on military and technical collaboration that took place in Moscow and was chaired by Russian and Indian Defense Ministers, Anatoly Serdyukov and Arackaparambil Kurien Antony.
The missile was named in honor of two rivers, the Brahmaputra of India and the Moskva of Russia. BrahMos is considered to be a successful Russian-Indian joint project.
It is unique since it’s the only cruise missile in the world that can be launched both as a single unit and a group.
Its highly intelligent operational system allows the missile to reach the speed of Mach 3.0, which is three times faster than the speed of the subsonic American Tomahawk cruise-missile). BrahMos can engage any sea target, and a group of these missiles can destroy an entire ship formation.
The missiles are so clever that they not only detect a target but develop a plan of attack based on the enemy’s air defense. They know exactly which target is the primary one, which of them is an attacker and which is a defender. When the main target is destroyed, they re-prioritize and continue with the attack. Now even more advanced missile is on the way.
“These intentions mean that Delhi has strategic goals, and I believe they are realistic,” said Alexander Lukyanov, head of the Scientific Development and Production Center where the missile was designed.
On Tuesday, India confirmed its intentions of the joint development of the fifth generation of fighter jets and financing of modernization of Admiral Gorshkov cruiser.
____________________________
Hmmmmmm... I wonder if this is even on Obama's radar?
He's so focused on making America one of 'them', I'll wager he has a great big smile on his face when he's told...
Friday, October 16, 2009
Rush Tells All About the Rams Deal
From PatriotUpdate.com
Rush Tells All About The Rams Deal
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, folks, let me tell you what I now can tell you about the National Football League, the St. Louis Rams and my participation in a group seeking to buy the St. Louis Rams.
There's a lot of things I've not been able to say because we were bound by a confidentiality agreement that all of the bidding groups have with Goldman Sachs, which is the broker handling the potential sale, but now that I'm no longer part of the group there's some things that I can tell you that are fascinating that you probably don't know. And not about me and not about the bid per se, but what really led to this result taking place.
Now, let me first trace my interest in this. It goes back to maybe the first part of this year. I forget exactly when it was, but when it was made public that the St. Louis Rams might be for sale, I said, "Oh, that's cool," and I said something about it on the radio.
The St. Louis media started calling me, "Are you really going to put in a bid for the Rams?" I said, "I can't talk about that. I've not talked to anybody at the Rams. I've always had a dream of being involved in the National Football League, being an owner," and so forth and so on. It went on for a period of weeks and months, and it would go dormant for a while, then it would come back to life.
And one Saturday I was out playing golf at Donald Trump's course here in West Palm Beach, and as I hit the practice range I saw a guy that I had met a couple of times previously, Dave Checketts. And Dave Checketts said, "You know, this Rams thing is real. I really would love to talk to you about it." I said, "Okay."
So we set a date and Dave Checketts and a mutual friend came to my home, I served them lunch and Checketts made his pitch, "This is what we think it's going to take. This is what we would like from you. We would like you very much to be part of this."
They had a brief preliminary financial breakdown of what was involved, but at that point in time nobody knew anything because the bids hadn't taken place and the status of the Rams as a business wasn't known, so it was preliminary. And based on what he showed me, I said, "Okay, I'm in."
So he came to me, probably with knowledge I had interest in this, but I met him on the practice range at a golf course. He came to my home some weeks later, it was either late May or early June for about an hour-and-a-half or two hours, and we sealed the deal and that was that. And I said to him at this meeting, "Are you aware of the firestorm this --" "Oh, yes, totally aware, Rush, and believe me, I wouldn't have approached you if I hadn't taken care of that. I would not have even come and asked you to be part of the group if I had not cleared your involvement with people at the highest levels of the National Football League."
And my mistake at that point was not asking him, "All right, do you really mean it, and who did you speak to?" He gave me a couple of names that are pretty high up and led me to believe that it was all handled and that he was fully prepared for what was going to happen.
When the whole thing started to unravel last week, whenever this thing leaked -- and, by the way, I learned yesterday that George Soros might be in this group.
Reuters had a story that George Soros is one of Dave Checketts's partners. I did not know that. I wasn't told that. Mr. Checketts is not the primary partner here.
The NFL has a rule that the primary owner has to have 30% equity in the team, and our group lost our 30% equity guy, and we had to scramble and find a new one, and I was told who it was, but now I'm wondering if it was Soros and I wasn't told.
Soros and Checketts did, I have learned, partner together previously to try to buy the Los Angeles Dodgers. Mr. Soros, of course, is well known politically for his left-wing slants, his politics fit in perfectly, apparently, with what the National Football League is becoming.
But I wonder if they know that he is also involved in the movement to legalize marijuana and how that will play as the owners decide whether or not he's fit. This is all speculative because I don't know that he's in the group. Reuters reported it yesterday.
So when this all started to unravel with the leaking of my being part of the group, the predictable firestorm started, and I said, "Are you guys prepared here? Do you understand what's going on?" "Oh, yeah, we want you to be a partner, don't worry, Rush, I would not have gone this far if I hadn't wired this before I even spoke to you."
Now, remember, I did not seek them out, they sought me out. They came here to my home. So eventually when DeMaurice Smith -- and he may pronounce it DeMaurice, I'm not sure -- DeMaurice Smith is the new executive director of the National Football League Players Association, he sent a letter to the Commissioner Roger Goodell strongly objecting to my being anywhere near the National Football League on the basis that I don't unify, I'm a divider and divisive and this sort of thing.
Then of course the two race hustlers, the Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton got involved, and I got a call on Tuesday night from Dave Checketts, "I'm sorry, I have to ask you to withdraw." And I said, "I thought you had this wired, I thought --" "Well, Rush, obviously I'm sorry, I feel terrible about this but we can't go forward with you in the group."
And I said, "Well, I'm not going to withdraw. If you want me out you go public and fire me," which he did.
He sent me a letter yesterday afternoon right after the program and told me that the announcement would come this morning, and he wanted me to know that it was a very tough personal decision for him to make, he had a lot of respect for me, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but when I got to the airport -- Kathryn and I flew to Missouri last night for a family dinner in Cape Girardeau and I had to go to St. Louis first to pick up some of the family, then back down to Cape Girardeau.
And, by the way, we arrived back in Palm Beach at -- what was it, 2:30, something like that? -- and the flight crew says, "The airport's closed. We gotta go to Ft. Lauderdale. Do you want to rent a car and drive home or do you want them to drive your car down to the airport?"
"What? The airport's closed? For what?"
"I don't know. Repairs," whatever it was.
So we landed at Ft. Lauderdale and slept for two hours on the airplane. We got wheels up back home at 5:30 and rolled into the house at six. And I got about an hour's worth of sleep.
My point is, when I got on the airplane yesterday afternoon at four o'clock I got my iPhone and it's already on ESPN that I've been dropped. I was thinking it wasn't going to happen 'til this morning because that's what Checketts said. But obviously that all leaked.
So the thing that's happened here, now, the very slippery slope -- and this, by the way, is very crucial. I know all of the you people say, "Rush, don't be distracted!" I'm not being distracted because what is happening to the National Football League and what is about to happen to it, has already happened to Wall Street, has already happened to the automobile business.
DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the Players Association is an Obamaite. He's donated to Obama. He is a Washington lobbyist at Patton Boggs, and I think he even served on Obama's transition team. He has no experience in professional sports.
The National Football League's agreement, collective bargaining agreement with the players expires soon. Next year, the salary cap -- if they don't get a new deal done, next year the salary cap -- will go away. And after that, there is a fear that the owners -- who think they're giving up too much of the gross in salary, compensation to the players -- might lock them out, a work stoppage. This is something that the Players Association doesn't want, obviously.
And the real reason, the real reason -- and there are many, many reasons that are valid, but the real reason -- that pressure was brought upon me by Sharpton and Jackson and DeMaurice Smith and the commissioner is that the Players Association is using my involvement in the Rams and this whole episode as a bit of leverage in their negotiations, the upcoming negotiations with the league and with the owners on a new collective bargaining agreement.
That is what's really going on, and the Players Association... I don't know how many players know this, but Mr. Smith has let it be known that if he has to he'll bring the White House into this. He'll bring the Congressional Black Caucus into this.
So Obama's America is quite possibly going to include the National Football League, and pressure from Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus and other places might be brought to bear on the owners. I can't imagine that that's anything they want. You know, as all businesses are, they're regulated to a certain extent by the federal government but this would be a huge expansion of that. And that threat is being bandied about. And I don't expect anyone to admit it. The owners are not going to admit that. They don't want to. I'm sure that the reaction to this today will be, "Ah, Limbaugh doesn't know what he's talking about." It will be another one of these things, but that is one of the things that I do know is going on behind the scenes.
And of course to make me the poster boy here for, "Oh, my God look! These guys, would they ever consider Limbaugh?" It's designed to intimidate the owners, frighten the owners and say, "We're running this league now, gang, not you. Even though you may own the teams, we're running it, not you," and this was a little warning shot fired across the bow to the owners to say, "Get ready, here we come," for the next collective bargaining agreement. So we'll see how it all unfolds.
The end result of this, folks... Let me run through it very, very quickly. I have lost nothing. I have lost very little. On the other hand, our country has lost a great deal -- a lot more than most people realize at the moment.
Oh, yeah, I would prefer to be noted as a part-owner of an NFL team. By the way, my stake was "minority." (chuckles) I was a minority owner, and Checketts has made it clear in his statement that I would have no operational control over the team and the operation of the club.
I was also not told that specifically, but regardless. That doesn't matter. What I'm now going to be known as is The Mirror. I am the man who showed the country what America is becoming.
I still love professional football. I'll still love the people that play it and admire them, and I'll probably end up remaining the biggest nonpaid promoter of the sport. But those people who enabled this event -- for their own racial reasons, for their own ratings, their own fundraising, their own face time, their own business reasons -- they're going to be just as unhappy as they were before this happened.
It's a collection of unhappy, angry, agitated people, and that's not going to change. But this kind of stuff: This misreporting; lying; repeating lies while also saying "Limbaugh denies," repeating the made-up quotes, the blind hatred -- and, believe me, the hatred that exists in this is found in the sportswriter community.
It's found in the news business.
It's found in the race hustler business.
As I said yesterday and I've said I don't know how many times in this program, "I love the National Football League." I don't dislike anything about it. I'm a fan.
But the hatred that I am able now to mirror for the country to see is all over the place. And I tell you with absolute sincerity: I am more sad for our country than I am for myself. I'll be right back after this. Do not go away. These are dark days that we face, and I'm not talking about the National Football League or me. I'm talking about my news stack today.
END TRANSCRIPT
Rush Tells All About The Rams Deal
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, folks, let me tell you what I now can tell you about the National Football League, the St. Louis Rams and my participation in a group seeking to buy the St. Louis Rams.
There's a lot of things I've not been able to say because we were bound by a confidentiality agreement that all of the bidding groups have with Goldman Sachs, which is the broker handling the potential sale, but now that I'm no longer part of the group there's some things that I can tell you that are fascinating that you probably don't know. And not about me and not about the bid per se, but what really led to this result taking place.
Now, let me first trace my interest in this. It goes back to maybe the first part of this year. I forget exactly when it was, but when it was made public that the St. Louis Rams might be for sale, I said, "Oh, that's cool," and I said something about it on the radio.
The St. Louis media started calling me, "Are you really going to put in a bid for the Rams?" I said, "I can't talk about that. I've not talked to anybody at the Rams. I've always had a dream of being involved in the National Football League, being an owner," and so forth and so on. It went on for a period of weeks and months, and it would go dormant for a while, then it would come back to life.
And one Saturday I was out playing golf at Donald Trump's course here in West Palm Beach, and as I hit the practice range I saw a guy that I had met a couple of times previously, Dave Checketts. And Dave Checketts said, "You know, this Rams thing is real. I really would love to talk to you about it." I said, "Okay."
So we set a date and Dave Checketts and a mutual friend came to my home, I served them lunch and Checketts made his pitch, "This is what we think it's going to take. This is what we would like from you. We would like you very much to be part of this."
They had a brief preliminary financial breakdown of what was involved, but at that point in time nobody knew anything because the bids hadn't taken place and the status of the Rams as a business wasn't known, so it was preliminary. And based on what he showed me, I said, "Okay, I'm in."
So he came to me, probably with knowledge I had interest in this, but I met him on the practice range at a golf course. He came to my home some weeks later, it was either late May or early June for about an hour-and-a-half or two hours, and we sealed the deal and that was that. And I said to him at this meeting, "Are you aware of the firestorm this --" "Oh, yes, totally aware, Rush, and believe me, I wouldn't have approached you if I hadn't taken care of that. I would not have even come and asked you to be part of the group if I had not cleared your involvement with people at the highest levels of the National Football League."
And my mistake at that point was not asking him, "All right, do you really mean it, and who did you speak to?" He gave me a couple of names that are pretty high up and led me to believe that it was all handled and that he was fully prepared for what was going to happen.
When the whole thing started to unravel last week, whenever this thing leaked -- and, by the way, I learned yesterday that George Soros might be in this group.
Reuters had a story that George Soros is one of Dave Checketts's partners. I did not know that. I wasn't told that. Mr. Checketts is not the primary partner here.
The NFL has a rule that the primary owner has to have 30% equity in the team, and our group lost our 30% equity guy, and we had to scramble and find a new one, and I was told who it was, but now I'm wondering if it was Soros and I wasn't told.
Soros and Checketts did, I have learned, partner together previously to try to buy the Los Angeles Dodgers. Mr. Soros, of course, is well known politically for his left-wing slants, his politics fit in perfectly, apparently, with what the National Football League is becoming.
But I wonder if they know that he is also involved in the movement to legalize marijuana and how that will play as the owners decide whether or not he's fit. This is all speculative because I don't know that he's in the group. Reuters reported it yesterday.
So when this all started to unravel with the leaking of my being part of the group, the predictable firestorm started, and I said, "Are you guys prepared here? Do you understand what's going on?" "Oh, yeah, we want you to be a partner, don't worry, Rush, I would not have gone this far if I hadn't wired this before I even spoke to you."
Now, remember, I did not seek them out, they sought me out. They came here to my home. So eventually when DeMaurice Smith -- and he may pronounce it DeMaurice, I'm not sure -- DeMaurice Smith is the new executive director of the National Football League Players Association, he sent a letter to the Commissioner Roger Goodell strongly objecting to my being anywhere near the National Football League on the basis that I don't unify, I'm a divider and divisive and this sort of thing.
Then of course the two race hustlers, the Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton got involved, and I got a call on Tuesday night from Dave Checketts, "I'm sorry, I have to ask you to withdraw." And I said, "I thought you had this wired, I thought --" "Well, Rush, obviously I'm sorry, I feel terrible about this but we can't go forward with you in the group."
And I said, "Well, I'm not going to withdraw. If you want me out you go public and fire me," which he did.
He sent me a letter yesterday afternoon right after the program and told me that the announcement would come this morning, and he wanted me to know that it was a very tough personal decision for him to make, he had a lot of respect for me, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but when I got to the airport -- Kathryn and I flew to Missouri last night for a family dinner in Cape Girardeau and I had to go to St. Louis first to pick up some of the family, then back down to Cape Girardeau.
And, by the way, we arrived back in Palm Beach at -- what was it, 2:30, something like that? -- and the flight crew says, "The airport's closed. We gotta go to Ft. Lauderdale. Do you want to rent a car and drive home or do you want them to drive your car down to the airport?"
"What? The airport's closed? For what?"
"I don't know. Repairs," whatever it was.
So we landed at Ft. Lauderdale and slept for two hours on the airplane. We got wheels up back home at 5:30 and rolled into the house at six. And I got about an hour's worth of sleep.
My point is, when I got on the airplane yesterday afternoon at four o'clock I got my iPhone and it's already on ESPN that I've been dropped. I was thinking it wasn't going to happen 'til this morning because that's what Checketts said. But obviously that all leaked.
So the thing that's happened here, now, the very slippery slope -- and this, by the way, is very crucial. I know all of the you people say, "Rush, don't be distracted!" I'm not being distracted because what is happening to the National Football League and what is about to happen to it, has already happened to Wall Street, has already happened to the automobile business.
DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the Players Association is an Obamaite. He's donated to Obama. He is a Washington lobbyist at Patton Boggs, and I think he even served on Obama's transition team. He has no experience in professional sports.
The National Football League's agreement, collective bargaining agreement with the players expires soon. Next year, the salary cap -- if they don't get a new deal done, next year the salary cap -- will go away. And after that, there is a fear that the owners -- who think they're giving up too much of the gross in salary, compensation to the players -- might lock them out, a work stoppage. This is something that the Players Association doesn't want, obviously.
And the real reason, the real reason -- and there are many, many reasons that are valid, but the real reason -- that pressure was brought upon me by Sharpton and Jackson and DeMaurice Smith and the commissioner is that the Players Association is using my involvement in the Rams and this whole episode as a bit of leverage in their negotiations, the upcoming negotiations with the league and with the owners on a new collective bargaining agreement.
That is what's really going on, and the Players Association... I don't know how many players know this, but Mr. Smith has let it be known that if he has to he'll bring the White House into this. He'll bring the Congressional Black Caucus into this.
So Obama's America is quite possibly going to include the National Football League, and pressure from Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus and other places might be brought to bear on the owners. I can't imagine that that's anything they want. You know, as all businesses are, they're regulated to a certain extent by the federal government but this would be a huge expansion of that. And that threat is being bandied about. And I don't expect anyone to admit it. The owners are not going to admit that. They don't want to. I'm sure that the reaction to this today will be, "Ah, Limbaugh doesn't know what he's talking about." It will be another one of these things, but that is one of the things that I do know is going on behind the scenes.
And of course to make me the poster boy here for, "Oh, my God look! These guys, would they ever consider Limbaugh?" It's designed to intimidate the owners, frighten the owners and say, "We're running this league now, gang, not you. Even though you may own the teams, we're running it, not you," and this was a little warning shot fired across the bow to the owners to say, "Get ready, here we come," for the next collective bargaining agreement. So we'll see how it all unfolds.
The end result of this, folks... Let me run through it very, very quickly. I have lost nothing. I have lost very little. On the other hand, our country has lost a great deal -- a lot more than most people realize at the moment.
Oh, yeah, I would prefer to be noted as a part-owner of an NFL team. By the way, my stake was "minority." (chuckles) I was a minority owner, and Checketts has made it clear in his statement that I would have no operational control over the team and the operation of the club.
I was also not told that specifically, but regardless. That doesn't matter. What I'm now going to be known as is The Mirror. I am the man who showed the country what America is becoming.
I still love professional football. I'll still love the people that play it and admire them, and I'll probably end up remaining the biggest nonpaid promoter of the sport. But those people who enabled this event -- for their own racial reasons, for their own ratings, their own fundraising, their own face time, their own business reasons -- they're going to be just as unhappy as they were before this happened.
It's a collection of unhappy, angry, agitated people, and that's not going to change. But this kind of stuff: This misreporting; lying; repeating lies while also saying "Limbaugh denies," repeating the made-up quotes, the blind hatred -- and, believe me, the hatred that exists in this is found in the sportswriter community.
It's found in the news business.
It's found in the race hustler business.
As I said yesterday and I've said I don't know how many times in this program, "I love the National Football League." I don't dislike anything about it. I'm a fan.
But the hatred that I am able now to mirror for the country to see is all over the place. And I tell you with absolute sincerity: I am more sad for our country than I am for myself. I'll be right back after this. Do not go away. These are dark days that we face, and I'm not talking about the National Football League or me. I'm talking about my news stack today.
END TRANSCRIPT
Debacle in Moscow
From TownHall.com
Debacle In Moscow
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- About the only thing more comical than Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was the reaction of those who deemed the award "premature," as if the brilliance of Obama's foreign policy is so self-evident and its success so assured that if only the Norway Five had waited a few years, his Nobel worthiness would have been universally acknowledged.
To believe this, you have to be a dreamy adolescent (preferably Scandinavian and a member of the Socialist International) or an indiscriminate imbiber of White House talking points. After all, this was precisely the spin on the president's various apology tours through Europe and the Middle East: National self-denigration -- excuse me, outreach and understanding -- is not meant to yield immediate results; it simply plants the seeds of good feeling from which foreign policy successes shall come.
Chauncey Gardiner could not have said it better.
Well, at nine months, let's review.
What's come from Obama holding his tongue while Iranian demonstrators were being shot and from his recognizing the legitimacy of a thug regime illegitimately returned to power in a fraudulent election? Iran cracks down even more mercilessly on the opposition and races ahead with its nuclear program.
What's come from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton taking human rights off the table on a visit to China and from Obama's shameful refusal to see the Dalai Lama (a postponement, we are told). China hasn't moved an inch on North Korea, Iran or human rights. Indeed it's pushing with Russia to dethrone the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
What's come from the new-respect-for-Muslims Cairo speech and the unprecedented pressure on Israel for a total settlement freeze? "The settlement push backfired," reports The Washington Post, and Arab-Israeli peace prospects have "arguably regressed."
And what's come from Obama's single most dramatic foreign policy stroke -- the sudden abrogation of missile defense arrangements with Poland and the Czech Republic that Russia had virulently opposed? For the East Europeans it was a crushing blow, a gratuitous restoration of Russian influence over a region that thought it had regained independence under American protection.
But maybe not gratuitous. Surely we got something in return for selling out our friends. Some brilliant secret trade-off to get strong Russian support for stopping Iran from going nuclear before it's too late? Just wait and see, said administration officials, who then gleefully played up an oblique statement by President Dmitry Medvedev a week later as vindication of the missile defense betrayal.
The Russian statement was so equivocal that such a claim seemed a ridiculous stretch at the time. Well, Clinton went to Moscow this week to nail down the deal. What did she get?
"Russia Not Budging On Iran Sanctions: Clinton Unable to Sway Counterpart." Such was The Washington Post headline's succinct summary of the debacle.
Note how thoroughly Clinton was rebuffed. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared that "threats, sanctions and threats of pressure" are "counterproductive." Note: It's not just sanctions that are worse than useless, but even the threat of mere pressure.
It gets worse. Having failed to get any movement from the Russians, Clinton herself moved -- to accommodate the Russian position! Sanctions? What sanctions? "We are not at that point yet," she averred. "That is not a conclusion we have reached ... it is our preference that Iran work with the international community."
But wait a minute. Didn't Obama say in July that Iran had to show compliance by the G-20 summit in late September? And when that deadline passed, did he not then warn Iran that it would face "sanctions that have bite" and that it would have to take "a new course or face consequences"?
Gone with the wind. It's the U.S. that's now retreating from its already flimsy position of just three weeks ago. We're not doing sanctions now, you see. We're back to engagement. Just as the Russians suggest.
Henry Kissinger once said that the main job of Anatoly Dobrynin, the perennial Soviet ambassador to Washington, was to tell the Kremlin leadership that whenever they received a proposal from the United States that appeared disadvantageous to the United States, not to assume it was a trick.
No need for a Dobrynin today.
The Russian leadership, hardly believing its luck, needs no interpreter to understand that when the Obama team clownishly rushes in bearing gifts and "reset" buttons, there is nothing ulterior, diabolical, clever or even serious behind it.
It is amateurishness, wrapped in naivete, inside credulity.
In short, the very stuff of Nobels.
Debacle In Moscow
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- About the only thing more comical than Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was the reaction of those who deemed the award "premature," as if the brilliance of Obama's foreign policy is so self-evident and its success so assured that if only the Norway Five had waited a few years, his Nobel worthiness would have been universally acknowledged.
To believe this, you have to be a dreamy adolescent (preferably Scandinavian and a member of the Socialist International) or an indiscriminate imbiber of White House talking points. After all, this was precisely the spin on the president's various apology tours through Europe and the Middle East: National self-denigration -- excuse me, outreach and understanding -- is not meant to yield immediate results; it simply plants the seeds of good feeling from which foreign policy successes shall come.
Chauncey Gardiner could not have said it better.
Well, at nine months, let's review.
What's come from Obama holding his tongue while Iranian demonstrators were being shot and from his recognizing the legitimacy of a thug regime illegitimately returned to power in a fraudulent election? Iran cracks down even more mercilessly on the opposition and races ahead with its nuclear program.
What's come from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton taking human rights off the table on a visit to China and from Obama's shameful refusal to see the Dalai Lama (a postponement, we are told). China hasn't moved an inch on North Korea, Iran or human rights. Indeed it's pushing with Russia to dethrone the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
What's come from the new-respect-for-Muslims Cairo speech and the unprecedented pressure on Israel for a total settlement freeze? "The settlement push backfired," reports The Washington Post, and Arab-Israeli peace prospects have "arguably regressed."
And what's come from Obama's single most dramatic foreign policy stroke -- the sudden abrogation of missile defense arrangements with Poland and the Czech Republic that Russia had virulently opposed? For the East Europeans it was a crushing blow, a gratuitous restoration of Russian influence over a region that thought it had regained independence under American protection.
But maybe not gratuitous. Surely we got something in return for selling out our friends. Some brilliant secret trade-off to get strong Russian support for stopping Iran from going nuclear before it's too late? Just wait and see, said administration officials, who then gleefully played up an oblique statement by President Dmitry Medvedev a week later as vindication of the missile defense betrayal.
The Russian statement was so equivocal that such a claim seemed a ridiculous stretch at the time. Well, Clinton went to Moscow this week to nail down the deal. What did she get?
"Russia Not Budging On Iran Sanctions: Clinton Unable to Sway Counterpart." Such was The Washington Post headline's succinct summary of the debacle.
Note how thoroughly Clinton was rebuffed. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared that "threats, sanctions and threats of pressure" are "counterproductive." Note: It's not just sanctions that are worse than useless, but even the threat of mere pressure.
It gets worse. Having failed to get any movement from the Russians, Clinton herself moved -- to accommodate the Russian position! Sanctions? What sanctions? "We are not at that point yet," she averred. "That is not a conclusion we have reached ... it is our preference that Iran work with the international community."
But wait a minute. Didn't Obama say in July that Iran had to show compliance by the G-20 summit in late September? And when that deadline passed, did he not then warn Iran that it would face "sanctions that have bite" and that it would have to take "a new course or face consequences"?
Gone with the wind. It's the U.S. that's now retreating from its already flimsy position of just three weeks ago. We're not doing sanctions now, you see. We're back to engagement. Just as the Russians suggest.
Henry Kissinger once said that the main job of Anatoly Dobrynin, the perennial Soviet ambassador to Washington, was to tell the Kremlin leadership that whenever they received a proposal from the United States that appeared disadvantageous to the United States, not to assume it was a trick.
No need for a Dobrynin today.
The Russian leadership, hardly believing its luck, needs no interpreter to understand that when the Obama team clownishly rushes in bearing gifts and "reset" buttons, there is nothing ulterior, diabolical, clever or even serious behind it.
It is amateurishness, wrapped in naivete, inside credulity.
In short, the very stuff of Nobels.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
PUNT The NFL!
From MoltonThought.com
and
BigGovernment.com
Excellent Idea!!!
Since Roger Goodell wants to bend over for Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the other bigots and race-baiters among the sportswriter community by shafting Rush Limbaugh, we ought to return the favor by punting the NFL this season.
I have cancelled my DirecTV NFL Sunday Ticket package (including the Supercast). I will not watch ONE MINUTE of NFL games or coverage this season---including the Super Bowl.
And I challenge you to join me.
Let's show Roger Goodell who REALLY runs the NFL---the fans.
NFL Offices: 1-212-450-2000
Ask for the comment line.
___________________
Count me in!
BOTCOTT The NFL!
Great Idea!
and
BigGovernment.com
Excellent Idea!!!
Since Roger Goodell wants to bend over for Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the other bigots and race-baiters among the sportswriter community by shafting Rush Limbaugh, we ought to return the favor by punting the NFL this season.
I have cancelled my DirecTV NFL Sunday Ticket package (including the Supercast). I will not watch ONE MINUTE of NFL games or coverage this season---including the Super Bowl.
And I challenge you to join me.
Let's show Roger Goodell who REALLY runs the NFL---the fans.
NFL Offices: 1-212-450-2000
Ask for the comment line.
___________________
Count me in!
BOTCOTT The NFL!
Great Idea!
The Rush Limbaugh Media Lynch Mob
From The UK Telegraph
The Rush Limbaugh media lynch mob
By Toby Harnden
Which public figure can be quoted as having said something bigoted and disgusting and it doesn’t matter whether he did or not because he might have? Who can Big Media brand a racist without checking the facts? Who has to prove he did not say something racist, rather than the accuser proving he did?
A pat on the back for anyone who guessed the answer: Rush Limbaugh (OK, the blog headline was a clue). From CNN to MSNBC to ABC, it’s been put about that Limbaugh said this:
I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.
It’s also been spread around that he said this, about the death of the man who assassinated Martin Luther King:
You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honour? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed.
Here’s CNN’s Rick Sanchez baldly stating at the 1.14 point that Limbaugh made the slavery comment:
Trouble is, he didn’t say either of these outrageous things.
And it wasn’t difficult to check, as protein wisdom shows here.
They originated from, er, Wikipedia and Wikiquotes. Both quotes ended up in this book – a hit job that doesn’t cite any sources. They’re also included in this internet list posted a year ago and endlessly ripped off ever since.
The irony is, of course, that the people reporting this as fact are the same types who are always denouncing bloggers and the internet as forces of evil intent on destroying proper journalism – proper journalism being the kind that involves checking facts.
In the case of Rush Limbaugh, however, it seems to be enough that the intention (i.e. to show the talk radio host is a racist) is considered pure.
Even those who have been primary movers in spreading these malicious falsehoods – which would lead to payouts of hundreds of thousands in British libel courts if lawsuits were ever filed there – are brazenly unapologetic.
Thus, St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bryan Burwell pens this column containing the slavery quote and then follows up with another column with a kind-of-sort-of-well-not-really-at-all mea culpa in which he states that the quote seemed “so in character with the many things that Limbaugh has said before that we didn’t verify it beyond the book”.
OK, so it sounded right and it was on the internet or in a book or something so it was fine to just go ahead and print it as stone-cold fact without any attribution? I wonder which journalism school teaches that?
And Burwell caps it off by implying – nudge, nudge, wink, wink – that Limbaugh’s really lying: “Fine, let’s play along for the time being and take him at his word that he was inaccurately quoted in the Huberman book.” I’m no fan of British libel laws but, again, if that had been printed in the UK it would have led to a hefty payout for aggravated damages.
Limbaugh is, understandably, on the war path because the smear of racism is one is very, very difficult to wipe clean:
When race is brought into it, that you can’t let stand. I mean, if you, if people are trying to destroy your reputation and your credibility, your life, and your career by attacking you as a racist, then you have to stand up and, like that.
Now we are in the process behind the scenes working to get apologies and retractions, with the force of legal action, against every journalist who has published these entirely fabricated quotes about me, slavery, and James Earl Ray.
I never said them. We have tracked them. We know where they came from. We don’t know the identity, but we know where they came from – a single blogger who posted the stuff on my Wikipedia page and Wikiquotes, unsourced.
Wikipedia says, ‘Well, this is in dispute.’ It’s not in dispute.
They were never uttered. I never said them.
And I’ve even told reporters I never said them.
As Mark Steyn points out, in this instance it’s for Limbaugh to prove the negative – an impossible task. And Dan Calebrese asks why if Limbaugh really is a racist then it takes bogus quotes to “prove” that he is?
What’s the term for those who are setting about “racist” Rush Limbaugh right now? Ironically, it seems to be “lynch mob”. And they’ve succeeded – word is that Limbaugh’s been dropped from the consortium seeking to buy the St Louis Rams.
________________________
These liars will get thier due rewards!
Thanks Toby!
The Rush Limbaugh media lynch mob
By Toby Harnden
Which public figure can be quoted as having said something bigoted and disgusting and it doesn’t matter whether he did or not because he might have? Who can Big Media brand a racist without checking the facts? Who has to prove he did not say something racist, rather than the accuser proving he did?
A pat on the back for anyone who guessed the answer: Rush Limbaugh (OK, the blog headline was a clue). From CNN to MSNBC to ABC, it’s been put about that Limbaugh said this:
I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.
It’s also been spread around that he said this, about the death of the man who assassinated Martin Luther King:
You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honour? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed.
Here’s CNN’s Rick Sanchez baldly stating at the 1.14 point that Limbaugh made the slavery comment:
Trouble is, he didn’t say either of these outrageous things.
And it wasn’t difficult to check, as protein wisdom shows here.
They originated from, er, Wikipedia and Wikiquotes. Both quotes ended up in this book – a hit job that doesn’t cite any sources. They’re also included in this internet list posted a year ago and endlessly ripped off ever since.
The irony is, of course, that the people reporting this as fact are the same types who are always denouncing bloggers and the internet as forces of evil intent on destroying proper journalism – proper journalism being the kind that involves checking facts.
In the case of Rush Limbaugh, however, it seems to be enough that the intention (i.e. to show the talk radio host is a racist) is considered pure.
Even those who have been primary movers in spreading these malicious falsehoods – which would lead to payouts of hundreds of thousands in British libel courts if lawsuits were ever filed there – are brazenly unapologetic.
Thus, St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bryan Burwell pens this column containing the slavery quote and then follows up with another column with a kind-of-sort-of-well-not-really-at-all mea culpa in which he states that the quote seemed “so in character with the many things that Limbaugh has said before that we didn’t verify it beyond the book”.
OK, so it sounded right and it was on the internet or in a book or something so it was fine to just go ahead and print it as stone-cold fact without any attribution? I wonder which journalism school teaches that?
And Burwell caps it off by implying – nudge, nudge, wink, wink – that Limbaugh’s really lying: “Fine, let’s play along for the time being and take him at his word that he was inaccurately quoted in the Huberman book.” I’m no fan of British libel laws but, again, if that had been printed in the UK it would have led to a hefty payout for aggravated damages.
Limbaugh is, understandably, on the war path because the smear of racism is one is very, very difficult to wipe clean:
When race is brought into it, that you can’t let stand. I mean, if you, if people are trying to destroy your reputation and your credibility, your life, and your career by attacking you as a racist, then you have to stand up and, like that.
Now we are in the process behind the scenes working to get apologies and retractions, with the force of legal action, against every journalist who has published these entirely fabricated quotes about me, slavery, and James Earl Ray.
I never said them. We have tracked them. We know where they came from. We don’t know the identity, but we know where they came from – a single blogger who posted the stuff on my Wikipedia page and Wikiquotes, unsourced.
Wikipedia says, ‘Well, this is in dispute.’ It’s not in dispute.
They were never uttered. I never said them.
And I’ve even told reporters I never said them.
As Mark Steyn points out, in this instance it’s for Limbaugh to prove the negative – an impossible task. And Dan Calebrese asks why if Limbaugh really is a racist then it takes bogus quotes to “prove” that he is?
What’s the term for those who are setting about “racist” Rush Limbaugh right now? Ironically, it seems to be “lynch mob”. And they’ve succeeded – word is that Limbaugh’s been dropped from the consortium seeking to buy the St Louis Rams.
________________________
These liars will get thier due rewards!
Thanks Toby!
The Lunatics Are Back!
From The Tactical Wire
The Lunatics Are Back
By Rich Grassi
The AP ran a story on Wednesday entitled "New Assault Weapon Ban Urged: Meant to prevent guns from reaching Mexican drug cartels."
The Binational Task Force on the United States-Mexican Border issued a statement announcing this brainstorm. The group consists of political retreads such as an appointee who ran DEA and Customs and Border Protection in the past.
The story said that "U.S. and Mexican officials" allege that the drug cartels "frequently use assault rifles, which are banned in Mexico but easily purchased in the United States."
Readers of this wire know that statement to be baseless and without foundation.
Drug cartels use the M2 machine gun, a U.S. weapon currently only available in arms sales between the U.S. Government and the government of Mexico!
They also use a submarine - I guess that came from a gun show in Galveston.
In case the scoundrels acquire reading skills, they should try this on:
1. Assault rifles are select fire rifles currently only available for transfer between citizens who are photographed, finger printed, pass a background check and submit $200 to the U.S. Treasury to cover the transfer tax.
They are not easily purchased in the United States.
2. Assault rifles are banned in Mexico as many other types of guns are - but the drug gangs bribe Mexican officials and get guns. They kill Mexican soldiers and take their guns. They buy guns - real assault rifles - from China and other foreign ports.
3. Gun bans and other silly government regulation is of no force and has no effect on rates of violent crime. That's as true now as it always has been.
You want an end to the drug violence in Mexico?
Have tough drug laws and enforce them.
Want the U.S. to help?
Insist the U.S. button the border up - so guns, like the cheap, easily obtainable single shot hunting guns don't migrate south and so that drugs can't migrate north.
Oh, seize that submarine just in case they try to bring the dope in underwater.
______________________________
Thanks Rich!
The Lunatics Are Back
By Rich Grassi
The AP ran a story on Wednesday entitled "New Assault Weapon Ban Urged: Meant to prevent guns from reaching Mexican drug cartels."
The Binational Task Force on the United States-Mexican Border issued a statement announcing this brainstorm. The group consists of political retreads such as an appointee who ran DEA and Customs and Border Protection in the past.
The story said that "U.S. and Mexican officials" allege that the drug cartels "frequently use assault rifles, which are banned in Mexico but easily purchased in the United States."
Readers of this wire know that statement to be baseless and without foundation.
Drug cartels use the M2 machine gun, a U.S. weapon currently only available in arms sales between the U.S. Government and the government of Mexico!
They also use a submarine - I guess that came from a gun show in Galveston.
In case the scoundrels acquire reading skills, they should try this on:
1. Assault rifles are select fire rifles currently only available for transfer between citizens who are photographed, finger printed, pass a background check and submit $200 to the U.S. Treasury to cover the transfer tax.
They are not easily purchased in the United States.
2. Assault rifles are banned in Mexico as many other types of guns are - but the drug gangs bribe Mexican officials and get guns. They kill Mexican soldiers and take their guns. They buy guns - real assault rifles - from China and other foreign ports.
3. Gun bans and other silly government regulation is of no force and has no effect on rates of violent crime. That's as true now as it always has been.
You want an end to the drug violence in Mexico?
Have tough drug laws and enforce them.
Want the U.S. to help?
Insist the U.S. button the border up - so guns, like the cheap, easily obtainable single shot hunting guns don't migrate south and so that drugs can't migrate north.
Oh, seize that submarine just in case they try to bring the dope in underwater.
______________________________
Thanks Rich!
Monday, October 12, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
