This is historic, and if anyone thinks for a second it isn’t, then they are simply fooling themselves. All of those people who screamed about indefinite detention of enemy combatants down at Gitmo, I sure as hell hope you are going to be screaming now. This is not just for those possible terrorists, this is for you, and me.

Now, I am no attorney, or Constitutional scholar, but I can read. The US Constitution, Amendment 6 says this: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

What is not clear about this?

I might add, I said from the very beginning that this alleged “Constitutional Scholar” probably became one so he could better dismantle the law. Sure is looking like it with this.

Glenn Greenwald’s article on this topic is outstanding, and I highly recommend you read the entire piece, but I do want to touch on some highlights here:

[snip] (Y)esterday announced that he would instead sign it into law (this is the same individual, of course, who unequivocally vowed when seeking the Democratic nomination to support a filibuster of “any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom[s],” only to turn around – once he had the nomination secure — and not only vote against such a filibuster, but to vote in favor of the underlying bill itself, so this is perfectly consistent with his past conduct). As a result, the final version of the Levin/McCain bill will be enshrined as law this week as part of the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I wrote aboutthe primary provisions and implications of this bill last week, and won’t repeat those points here.

The ACLU said last night that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.” Human Rights Watch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”

Both groups pointed out that this is the first time indefinite detention has been enshrined in law since the McCarthy era of the 1950s, when — as the ACLU put it — “President Truman had the courage to veto” the Internal Security Act of 1950 on the ground that it “would make a mockery of our Bill of Rights” and then watched Congress override the veto. That Act authorized the imprisonment of Communists and other “subversives” without the necessity of full trials or due process (many of the most egregious provisions of that bill were repealed by the 1971 Non-Detention Act, and are now being rejuvenated by these War on Terror policies of indefinite detention). President Obama, needless to say, is not Harry Truman. He’s not even the Candidate Obama of 2008 who repeatedly insisted that due process and security were not mutually exclusive and who condemned indefinite detention as “black hole” injustice.

A return to McCarthyism under the Obama Administration is what we now have. Wow, great. That is just jake. For all of those people who did not believe us when we said Obama was Bush III, something about which I wrote extensively, who ridiculed, attacked, and demeaned, not only were we right, and bite me, but NOW look what has happened to our nation.

As I said, there is so much more to this article, I cannot begin to do it justice here, read it. But I do want to make sure you see this:

[snip] I need to say that again: long before, and fully independent of, anything Congress did, President Obama made clear that he was going to preserve the indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. (Emphasis mine.)That’s what makes the apologias over Obama and GITMO so misleading: the controversy over Guantanamo was not that about its locale — that it was based in the Caribbean Sea — so that simply closing it and then re-locating it to a different venue would address the problem. The controversy over Guantanamo was that it was a prison camp where people were put in cages indefinitely, for decades or life, without being charged with any crime. And that policy is one that President Obama whole-heartedly embraced from the start. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

If you prefer, you can watch Mr. Greenwald discuss this issue with Cenk Ungar here:

Click here to view the embedded video.

This is historic, this is horrible, this is McCarthyism, this is an affront to the US Constitution, this is abhorrent in every way, shape, and form.

I have just one question for those who voted for Obama: How do you like him NOW??

Naturally, Obama’s Administration has continued the trend of Obama the Candidate. It has taken a major step back in that whole transparency thing, according to the AP. Even when he wins awards for being transparent, he has to do so in a closed ceremony – how much more hypocritical can one be?

Well, there is one bit of transparency that is now coming forth about Obama. And that is how he pays off his big campaign donors. Of course, it is not unusual for a president to give a plum position to a big contributor, but Obama has done so for about 200 – that is two hundred – of his supporters in government positions in just two years. By comparison, George W. Bush hired about 200 contributors over EIGHT years. Uh, yeah.

So much for that “change” in Washington from “special interests,” huh? I know, I know, I am not surprised, either, but I didn’t drink the Kool Aide and vote for the man who made this claim:

[snip] As a candidate, Obama spoke passionately about diminishing the clout of moneyed interests. Kicking off his presidential run on Feb. 10, 2007, he blasted “the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests,” who had “turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.”

“We’re here today to take it back,” he said.[snip]

Ahahahahaha – I know, I know, it is hilarious. Or it would be if so many people hadn’t bought this total BS.

And in direct contradiction to what the candidate said, here are some particulars of Obama the president’s sycophants:

Telecom executive Donald H. Gips raised a big bundle of cash to help finance his friend Barack Obama’s run for the presidency.

Gips, a vice president of Colorado-based Level 3 Communications, delivered more than $500,000 in contributions for the Obama war chest, while two other company executives collected at least $150,000 more.

After the election, Gips was put in charge of hiring in the Obama White House, helping to place loyalists and fundraisers in many key positions. Then, in mid-2009, Obama named him ambassador to South Africa. Meanwhile, Level 3 Communications, in which Gips retained stock, received millions of dollars of government stimulus contracts for broadband projects in six states — though Gips said he had been “completely unaware” that the company had received the contracts.

[...]

• Overall, 184 of 556, or about one-third of Obama bundlers or their spouses joined the administration in some role. But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers. Nearly 80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took “key administration posts,” as defined by the White House. More than half the 24 ambassador nominees who were bundlers raised $500,000.

• The big bundlers had broad access to the White House for meetings with top administration officials and glitzy social events. In all, campaign bundlers and their family members account for more than 3,000 White House meetings and visits. Half of them raised $200,000 or more.

• Some Obama bundlers have ties to companies that stand to gain financially from the president’s policy agenda, particularly in clean energy and telecommunications, and some already have done so. Level 3 Communications, for instance, snared $13.8 million in stimulus money.[snip]

The last one is particularly troublesome to me. I thought the nation generally frowned upon companies having inside tracks to getting our hard earned, tax paying dollars. I dunno about you, but for Level 3 to get that kind of cold, hard cash from the stimulus sounds like payback to me. (You know, the $3 Trillion stimulus that Obama thought was a joking matter the other day? When he flippantly, arrogantly, joked there weren’t as many shovel ready jobs as they thought, that one? What a piece of work. It is not a laughing matter to most of us, President Obama.)

Oh, but wait – there is more:

[snip] The appointment of George Washington University law professor Spencer Overton illustrates how the administration has rewarded many top fundraisers.

Overton wrote in 2003 that the influence big donors wield in elections means that an “overwhelming majority of citizens are effectively excluded from an important stage of the political process.” Yet Overton bundled at least $500,000 for Obama. He was named to the Obama transition team and in February 2009 was appointed principal deputy attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy. Overton visited the White House more than 80 times from January 2009 through the end of 2010 for events ranging from small meetings with high-level staffers to social and entertainment events, sometimes with his wife, records show. Overton resigned the $180,000-a-year job in July 2010. He declined to comment for this story.

Overton is one of seven campaign bundlers who took jobs at Justice, including Attorney General Eric Holder, who was a $50,000 bundler. Holder had been deputy attorney general in the administration of President Bill Clinton. [snip]

Just to be clear, here is the problem with “bundling” contributions:

[snip] Bundling is controversial because it permits campaigns to skirt individual contribution limits of $2,500 in federal elections. Bundlers pool donations from fundraising networks and, as a result, “play an enormous role in determining the success of political campaigns,” according to government watchdog Public Citizen. [snip]

Yes, that would be a bit of a problem. And it also helps explain how someone who has made such a mess of the DOJ got his position. Of course, I am referring to Eric Holder, who has been just a disaster in upholding federal law (the examples are too numerous to mention here, but the dismissal of the clear cut voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers case is the tip of the iceberg).

There is so much more to this story I cannot possibly recount it all here, so I urge you to read it all. It goes into more detail about those who got these positions, but I have to leave you with one more example:

[snip] In March 2009, Obama appointed $500,000 bundler and law school pal Julius Genachowski to chair the Federal Communications Commission, an independent agency. Two other bundlers at the FCC are chief of staff Edward Lazarus, a litigator and former federal prosecutor, and William T. Lake, a lawyer specializing in communications and e-commerce issues who serves as chief of the media bureau.

Genachowski had previously served as chief counsel to the FCC chairman in the 1990s, but his close ties to Obama have raised eyebrows. He has turned up so often at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. that in March, congressional Republicans demanded an accounting of whom he has met with and what was discussed. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

You know someone is spending a lot of time at the White House when US Representatives are demanding to know just what the hell they are doing there all of the time.

Ah, yes – the only thing transparent about Obama is how much “change” he is getting from his bundlers. I mean, members of his Administration. Heaven knows, they siphoned a whole boatload of it into his coffers. He is returning the favor with OUR change.

That is the kind of change I can do without.

Holy shit. Are you KIDDING me with this? Check out the “rationale” from the maker of this “Hero” figure:

Navy SEALs have become national heroes since news broke that they took down Osama bin Laden, so it’s fitting that the newest action figure from a Connecticut company is a fierce-looking President Barack Obama as a SEAL.

The minute Obama said late on the night of May 1 that the U.S. had found and killed bin Laden, Emil Vicale knew which his action figure company’s would make next — Rambama.

On Wednesday morning, Hero Builders released the Obama SEAL Team 6 action figure — a muscular President in fatigues armed with an M1-A4.

Vicale, who owns the custom action figure company in Oxford, said the speech was a pivotal moment in the Obama presidency.

It was also a parallel to the speech that inspired the company in the first place almost 10 years earlier.

On Sept. 14, 2001, Vicale listened to then-President George Bush’s bullhorn speech from Ground Zero and was inspired to create Hero Builders. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Never mind that Obama did not GIVE the order to take out bin Laden, and had to be yanked off the golf course by the adults in the White House, HE did nothing to get bin Laden. HE did not risk his life. HE likely doesn’t even know how to OPERATE a gun, which I think I can say without fear of contradiction given this:

Yeah, doesn’t sound to me like someone who would have an M-1 in his arms, does it to you? Much less someone I think it is safe to label a “milquetoast,” as someone did in the comments.

Okay – I am too busy being disgusted to write more. What is your reaction?

Basically, a foreign national has been killed by another foreign army. What does Pakistan have to do with this, then? Nothing and everything. And this nothing yet everything has placed Pakistan between a rock and a hard place.

If Pakistan admits that it helped US forces kill bin Laden it fears a backlash from the different militant organizations with in its boundaries, and if it denies any such cooperation then it will be labeled a supporter of Al Qaeda.

For this reason Pakistan – which is defined as the Pakistan Army and the agencies, including the infamous ISI – stayed silent. So silent that it’s scary. It’s the silence before the storm. This storm is not necessarily directed at the US, the CIA, Afghanistan or India. The tempest could be directed at foreign militants. Remaining silent was a wise approach and the best strategy so far for Pakistan. Be aware of that silence. The pendulum could swing either way. The forces that actually control Pakistan — and I’m not referring to politicians — could back any horse at this point. Or spread the wager across the board. Only time will tell.

The US media has been hammering Pakistan day and night. The media should consider Pakistan’s tight spot here. The US needs help, not just rooting terrorist networks out of Pakistan but in Afghanistan as well. It’s not easy for a country to sustain repeated bombardments, knowing that it depends on the country doing the bombing for large quantities of foreign aid. Already, a number of politicians and the Pakistani media are defining the bin Laden raid as another example of infringement of sovereignty and using bin Laden’s death to goad the US to pull out of Afghanistan. Rock, meet hard place. If only the US media understood that.

Then there have been conflicting reports coming out of various US departments. But the fact is that the raid could not have succeeded without the ISI’s help. Clearly bin Laden’s time was up. Given the ISI’s deserved reputation for treachery and intrigues, wouldn’t there have been a strong and deep bunker under that mansion to hide bin Laden? Or a maze of tunnels to help him and his family escape? Bin Laden was trapped, with the local support on the ground.

Obama said last night that he got confirmed reports of bin Laden’s location last week. I looked out for events that happened last week. President Obama was busy dealing with Trump’s nonsense, while the Pentagon was hosting ISI chief General Pasha. Coincidence? I don’t think so. There must have been a deal, a tit for tat.

Pakistan’s religious quarters have already started to question then authenticity of the killing. Above all, they have started asking US to wrap up their “war” and leave the region. Which again the US or NATO cannot afford to do. Not yet at least. The US has to deal with Afghanistan, Karzai, the Taliban, the Quetta shura…and the list goes on.

So let’s not get carried away here. The war is not over yet. Bin Laden killing has improved Obama’s approval ratings, but bin Laden’s death has hardly put a dent on al Qaeda. Keeping in mind that Al Qaeda’s's real ideological inspiration is al-Zuwahiri, who’s still very much alive. And probably on the ISI’s watch list too.

I had another post all ready to go this morning of Lara Logan’s interview on “60 Minutes,” but that can keep until tomorrow. Today, the big news, as President Obama announced late last night, Osama bin Laden has been killed.

The reports have been a bit conflicting on just how he died, however. Initially, reports stated he had been killed by a drone attack last week, and that they had kept his body to determine through DNA analysis that it was indeed him.

Obama’s statement to the nation, though, claimed that he had (reaffirmed) the order to the CIA to get bin Laden (Bush initially gave the order), and that bin Laden was killed yesterday. Now we are told it was a Navy Seal who took him down, on a mission aided by CIA intel, as well as information gleamed from Khalid Sheik Muhammad at Gitmo. Apparently, the Pakistanis aided the US in this mission as well.

Following are excerpts of Obama’s remarks on this historic event (and I am glad he was finally able to use the word, “terrorist,” since it was one he and his Administration have worked hard not to use. Ahem.):

“Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

“It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory — hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.

“And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.

“On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to (emphasis mine – you knew it was coming, right?), or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.

“We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda — an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.

“Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort. We’ve disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.

“Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.

“And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

“Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

“Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

I admit, while watching this, I was waiting for Obama to say, “I just returned from Pakistan where I, personally, took out Osama bin Laden, with the help of our military. And you thought George Bush was a cowboy. He doesn’t have anything on me.” Sorry, but there were just a few too many “I”‘s in there for someone who has downplayed the whole issue of terrorism.

Yes, he gave the command to proceed, which is good. Yet many are acting as if this is showing great leadership on his part, while to me, it seems like a no-brainer. I mean, really – have our expectations of him sunk so low that the opportunity to take out this mastermind of terror is seen as a sign of “leadership”? Wow.

Back to the comments:

“For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.

“Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must — and we will — remain vigilant at home and abroad.

“As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

Hillary Clinton just made the point that bin Laden killed many Muslims, too, just as Obama did, and that bin Laden had made threats against Pakistanis themselves. One can make of that what one will…

More from Obama:

[snip] “Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

“The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who’s been gravely wounded.

“So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done.

“Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

“We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.

“Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores.[snip]

There is a bit more to this speech, and you can click here to read it.

Can I just say, though, listening and watching Obama last night really puts a lie to the meme that he is such a great speaker. He isn’t. His speech was stilted and halting, with a number of mistakes as he read the teleprompter. It was blatantly clear that he was – you could watch his eyes move.

I am confused as to why they chose to bury bin Laden at sea, and so quickly. I would have thought they would want to perform an autopsy, recover the bullet that killed him, see if he really was ill, all of that. So that choice is interesting to me. Why the rush to dispose of him? Oh, wait – here is why – it is in keeping with Islamic tradition.

Huh? Okay, so Obama makes it crystal clear that bin Laden was not a Muslim leader. However, we do know he was the leader of Al Qaeda, a Muslim organization, but alright. Interesting distinction Obama (and Clinton) are making here. Still,we finally get this mass murderer, we have his body, and we forgo obtaining some answers to uphold his religious tradition? Wow. What do you think about that? Is it an attempt to stave off more attacks?

If so, that is a bit misguided. We KNOW there will be reprisals from Al Qaeda as a result,as Leon Panetta has acknowledged we can expect. Honestly, these people are bound and determined to get us anyway, so taking out this one man who has caused so much damage to our great nation is a reason to be thankful, even if one abhors violence, or killing for any reason.

Bringing justice to this man who has done so much damage to our nation as a result of the tireless efforts of our intelligence community and our highly trained military, is a good day. Thanks to all of those who have worked to this end, though it is not an end to the war on terrorism. Bin Laden may be gone, but there are others out there wishing us harm. Our military and intelligence officers continue to have their work cut out for them, regardless of Obama taking the credit for this, it belongs, IMHO, to those who were on the ground. Well done.

There is a video I want to share with you. It is an impromptu celebration at Ground Zero after learning of bin Laden’s demise. This pretty much says it all, though there are many good videos out there of interviews with family members of those lost on 9/11, and first responders. I urge you to take a look and listen when you have time. Until then, I leave you with this:

UPDATE: A few of you have been kind enough to provide links regarding why Osama bin Laden was buried at sea. Here are the pertinent facts:

[snip] The official described the procedure to NBC News as follows:

* The deceased’s body was washed and then placed in a white sheet.
* The body was placed in a weighted bag.
* A military officer read prepared religious remarks that were translated into Arabic by a native speaker.
* After the words were complete, the body was placed on a prepared flat board, tipped up, whereupon the deceased’s body eased into the sea from the USS Carl Vinson.

The rites sparked a debate about Islamic customs, with some Muslim clerics calling the procedure humiliating and others saying it was proper.

A U.S. official said that the burial decision was made after concluding that it would have been difficult to find a country willing to accept the remains. There also was speculation about worry that a grave site could have become a rallying point for militants.

President Barack Obama said the remains had been handled in accordance with Islamic custom, which requires speedy burial. [snip]

Okay, so there weren’t a lot of countries willing to accept his body. There is cremation, after all.

And how do you feel that so much care was taken to prepare his body according to Islamic tradition? Wow…

Let the White House Proclaim:

Happy Hugo Chavez Day!

Happy Ramadan!

Happy 100th Anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire!

Happy Eid-ul-Fitr

Happy Earth Day!

Happy Eid-ul-Adha!

Happy Nowruz!

If you are waiting for a Happy Easter Proclamation, though, you’ll have to wait until at least next year, since Obama didn’t bother to do one this year.

Huh?

According to this Daily Caller piece:

[snip] At a rate of more than one per week, President Obama has issued official proclamations for national holidays, both religious and secular, advocacy campaigns, and even one for the “The 100th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire.” [snip]

But Easter? Nah, the most important thing about that was the White House Easter Egg Roll
on Monday. I am not kidding.

This piece, “White House Fails To Release Easter Proclamation,” makes an important point:

President Obama failed to release a statement or a proclamation recognizing the national observance of Easter Sunday, Christianity’s most sacred holiday.

By comparison, the White House has released statements recognizing the observance of major Muslim holidays and released statements in 2010 on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha.

The White House also failed to release a statement marking Good Friday. However, they did release an eight-paragraph statement heralding Earth Day. Likewise, the president’s weekend address mentioned neither Good Friday or Easter. [snip]

Now, don’t get me wrong – I love a good Earth Day, but to not make one single mention of the most important religious holiday for 83% of Americans is just ridiculous. I don’t care that he and his family went to church for Easter – that hardly makes up for his failure to say ANYTHING about the entire 3 day (Good Friday to Easter) period. It is Easter that marks the transformation from mere mortal to Messiah (Christ is not the last name of Jesus, after all – it is a title), hence making it the most sacred of holidays for Christians. The Resurrection at Easter is the promise of redemption for sins, and for life everlasting. It’s a pretty big deal, and should have been treated with at LEAST as much courtesy as Earth Day, especially from someone who claims to be a Christian.

Let me say this again – our country is comprised primarily of Christians – 83%. The number of those who are unaffiliated is 13%, and the number of all the other faiths together totals 4%. That includes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews. Obama has marked every single Muslim holiday, despite the exceedingly low number of Muslims in this country, but made zero mention of Easter or Good Friday. Not that other religious holidays are not important, but really – this is no small oversight.

Evidently, Obama thought that whole Easter Egg Roll thing was sufficient mention. Ahem.

I suppose his saying nothing at all might be preferable to last year’s address on Easter:

[snip] In 2010, Obama was criticized for releasing an all-inclusive Easter greeting. He reached out to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and people of no faith at all in a statement about a holiday that is uniquely Christian.

“All of us are striving to make a way in this world; to build a purposeful and fulfilling life in the fleeting time we have here,” Obama said in his 2010 “Easter” message. “A dignified life. A healthy life. A life, true to its potential. And a life that serves other.” “These are aspirations that stretch back through the ages – aspirations at the heart of Judaism, at the heart of Christianity, at the heart of all the world’s great religions,” the president added.

When the White House released statements about Muslim holidays, no attempts were made to include Christianity or to mention a spirit of inclusivity. For example, in his 2010 statement on Hajj and Eid-ul-Adha, Obama made no references to Christianity or any other religion.[snip]

Huh – imagine that. He didn’t take those opportunities to make it all about religious inclusion? Wassup with that? Yeah, right – as if.

Here’s the thing – I am not even a Christian, and I find this offensive. Christians should not always have to have their holidays become a hallmark of inclusion of all other religions, especially a holiday of this magnitude. No mention, no quoting of Christian Scripture, no acknowledgment whatsoever except the Easter Egg Roll, by the Proclamation President. Wow.

Just to give you an idea, here is one from President Bush:

[snip]In his 2008 Easter message, President Bush said: [snip] “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ reminds people around the world of the presence of a faithful God who offers a love more powerful than death. Easter commemorates our Savior’s triumph over sin, and we take joy in spending this special time with family and friends and reflecting on the many blessings that fill our lives. During this season of renewal, let us come together and give thanks to the Almighty who made us in His image and redeemed us in His love.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

That does seem pretty specifically Christian to me.

Here’s the thing – of course we should acknowledge and respect all faiths in this country. But we should not dismiss, or dilute, one to include all the rest, especially on a sacred holiday unique to Christianity. As much as Christianity or Judaism is not mentioned by Obama during the acknowledgment of Muslim holidays (even though Islam came from both of those religions), so should a high holy day like Easter be kept holy and sacred for Christians.

If it is even mentioned, that is…

Both sides seem terrified of Trump while calling him a joke. It reminds of the Indian warrior in the film “Dances with Wolves” who screams at Kevin Costner’s soldier character at the top of his lungs: “Do you see how I am not afraid of you!!!”

Trump is a forceful competitor who is raising some interesting issues about our economy and global interactions, the “birther” issue notwithstanding. What is the harm in letting the American people decide what interests them? If he talks on long enough, voters might conclude he is a blowhard and not bother. Then they will turn him off without any help from the mainstream media. But of course, the governing elites of both parties must fear the opposite is true. Political analyst Charlie Cook recently offered that after three consecutive “wave elections,” 2012 could be the year Independents rise up and say “a pox on both their houses.”

Many have grown tired of arrogant talking heads who, happily trapped in their own echo chamber, have little awareness of what is transpiring on the ground but see fit to decide for us who is relevant and who is not.

“They” decided to trash Hillary Clinton in 2008. The hazing was non-stop and look where that got us…These self proclaimed political geniuses have now taken to criticizing the inexperienced Illinois Senator they once championed. Yet every time President Obama is in trouble in the polls, another profound pundit floats the idea that Secretary Clinton should trade places with Joe Biden and become the VP next time around. They are content to have her carry President Obama’s water, lift his numbers, and come to his rescue when she could likely do his job far better — though they will never admit it. Certainly, she would not have taken 61 golf outings and who knows how many vacations in the first two years of her presidency.

After dispensing with Hillary, the media went after Palin and now it is Trump’s turn. While each of them bring something different to the table, and one could argue they are not of equal merit, we should be able to decide for ourselves who we want — which means we need to hear all the facts first. But the American people do not get the privilege of making such a decision based on the facts of each person’s record, so loudly do their critics trumpet their negatives, while running interference for our current President much the same way they did for our last one. I used to say that President Bush was made of Teflon, but I have never seen Teflon with the thick protective coating the likes of which the media uses to shield our current chief executive.

Moreover, the alternating tactics of trumpet/trash that comprise the 24-hour news cycle are designed to manufacture crises and obscure the issues with bread and circuses rather than sharing real news. That is part of the reason it seems no punishment is ever meted out for any wrongdoing, so distracted are we with the next bit of nonsense media shoves down our throats. Now the media is shoving “The Donald” down our throats while in the same moment telling us to ignore him. Danger, Will Robinson. That tactic might backfire.

Here’s a thought…what if Donald Trump raises a couple of economic issues worth discussing by all those vying for office? What’s the harm? If pundits complain Trump steals focus from more “serious” candidates, surely they have the ability to cover those other candidates’ policy positions 24/7 and elevate their importance and profile. If the media is choosing not to do so and instead focuses on more demagoguery, is that Donald Trump’s fault? The man hasn’t even said he is running yet.

We need to open the political field up to more than the same old same old. I have no feelings about Trump, nor does that matter. What matters is that free speech be exercised and that the Hillary Clintons and Russ Feingolds and Dennis Kucinichs and Ron Pauls and Sarah Palins and Paul Ryans and yes, even the Donald Trumps of this world — have an opportunity to be heard. Along with Joe and Josephine Q. Public.

Then we can decide what is valid and important. Not the media.

People vote their pocketbooks and ultimately will make their own decision about who best addresses their concerns — that is, if they have an opportunity to hear more than just one person’s incessant drum.

And for those on both sides who are deeply offended by the “birther issue” as it has been called, it is unfortunate that the President has himself to thank for much of this, having spent so much money on lawyers to keep this information secret. While I never gave this matter credence, instead choosing to focus on President Obama’s continuation of George Bush’s policies and his lack of transparency, I can see where all his obfuscation would make even the most dubious person curious.

The President is arguably the most powerful man in the world and could obtain and present his long form BC in about five minutes — so why bother to keep this circus going? And by the way, it could be discovered President Obama is from Mars and such information would never be allowed to surface. The ramifications are too dreadful to imagine. This is no more than tilting at windmills. It will never happen. I think Donald Trump raises this issue just to make a dent in the mystical Obama narrative. No more. No less.

Just spitballing, but it is far more likely that the reason for secrecy is not to do with the place of President Obama’s birth, but something on the birth certificate he would rather not divulge. Although what the big deal secret could be, I cannot imagine.

I remain far more concerned by the world’s most media-exposed politician’s preoccupation with fundraising twenty months before the election rather than dealing with pressing problems, foreign and domestic. Where is the “fierce urgency of now” in dealing with continued joblessness, skyrocketing gas and food prices, Libya…

After hailing and helping to elect as President a man with a short resume, whose past actions and voting record contradicted his lofty campaign rhetoric, it is downright silly for the media to call anyone else a “joke.” They are going to have a hard time condemning a “celebrity candidate” when they were fine with creating one three years ago. Mainstream media and pundits on both sides have made themselves a joke. But if we continue to allow them to dictate the debate, the joke will be on us.

That is pretty dramatic, isn’t it? That it costs us twice as much to fill up our cars in just two short years since Obama got into the White House? Yikes. Not that his followers have said much about it, nosirree. They have been mysteriously silent on that point. Huh. I wonder what they would have said had this happened under, say, Bush? Oh, wait – they are STILL blaming Bush for the prices:

Now y’all know I was not a huge fan of George W. Bush’s, not by a long shot, but comparing 8 years to 2 is just a bit of “fuzzy math.” And forgetting that there was/is tremendous upheaval still in Iraq and Afghanistan is a tad disingenuous. Yes, things are going nuts in the Middle East, but really, that is not new to this president. That is all to say, what a stretch. The most recent turmoil has been going on the past 3 – 4 months – how about the increases from last year, huh? Good grief. Are there any hoops these folks will not jump through in their attempts to exonerate Obama of any wrong-doing, any inaction, any missteps? Apparently not, at least not in Cenk’s case(and feel free to list as many examples of this as you would like).

Though at least Bob Beckel can acknowledge that, if nothing else, maybe Obama shouldn’t be laughing about how much gas now costs Americans:

At least Beckel has a sense of humor about his support for Obama and his budget policies, but yeah, laughing at how much it is costing people to fill up their cars, not getting the impact these gas prices are having on Americans all across the board, is telling, telling, telling about Obama.

But get this – these current gas prices are going to look like a walk in the park compared to what we can expect this summer. Yes, the experts are now saying we can expect a 40%, yes, that is FORTY percent,increase by this summer:

[snip] According to AAA’s daily fuel-gauge report, the national average price for a gallon of regular gasoline is about $3.79, up about 33% from $2.86 a year earlier.

The average U.S. household’s vehicle fueling costs will rise about $825 from last year’s level, hitting $3,360 in 2011, the EIA said.

The government also expects refiner acquisition costs of crude oil to average $112.50 a barrel this summer, up about 50% from the prior year.

Meanwhile, wholesale gasoline margins — the difference between the wholesale price of gas and the refiner acquisition cost of crude — are forecast to average 53 cents a gallon this summer, up 47% from last year. (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy shit. This is a cascade effect kind of thing, as many of us already know. It affects how often we drive, how much our food and clothes cost, how much we have left over at the end of the month.

Reuters/Ipsos just came out with a poll this morning highlighting this very issue:

[snip] More than six of every 10 Americans have cut back on other expenses and reduced their driving as a result of the rising gas prices caused by tumult in North Africa and the Middle East.

The increase in energy costs also hurt Obama’s approval rating, which dipped for the second consecutive month to 46 percent — his lowest Ipsos poll rating since early December 2010.

“That’s all a function of gas prices. People are feeling the pinch at the pump,” said Ipsos pollster Cliff Young.

“Increased gas prices have a direct impact on the pocketbook, and there is very little lag time between rising gas prices and its effect on presidential approval and confidence,” he said. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, this is having a major impact on Americans all across the country. And it looks like it will only be getting worse.

Bottom line, this is NOT a laughing matter, Mr. Obama, not even close.

Amy,

Help us rebuild more lives in Haiti I recently traveled to Haiti and visited Leogane — the city at the epicenter of the earthquake — where I witnessed the incredible rebuilding efforts you have helped make possible.

I met Jerry Joseph, an inspiring father, who was so proud to tell us how he uses his new IT skills to help build network sites and provide technical support in his town.

The technical training Jerry received was from Inveneo — a Clinton Bush Haiti Fund grant recipient. With the salary that Jerry earns he is able to send his five-year-old son to school. The future looks bright for Jerry and his son Jerus.

Jerry is just one of many success stories I saw in Haiti. And there will be many more stories to come as we continue our transition from emergency relief and assistance programs to long-term reconstruction efforts, which promote job growth and economic opportunity.

The critical work to rebuild Haiti continues. Be a part of it by making a donation to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund now:

http://clintonbushhaitifund.org/donate-today

The creation of jobs does more than change individual lives. Economic stability has the power to transform whole communities and allows Haiti to chart its own successful future.

While visiting the town of Jacmel, we witnessed the powerful impact artisan sales to stores like Macy’s can have on a community. These sales were made possible through organizations like BrandAid and Fairwinds Trading.

As our Fairwinds Trading partner explained, “It was stunning to see this town after that first order from Macy’s hit. The vibe changed. Suddenly there was work, jobs, money was flowing. People were smiling.”

You made these smiles possible. BrandAid and Fairwinds Trading are examples of two incredible Clinton Bush Haiti Fund recipients.

I spoke with Haitians encouraged by job growth. Small business owner and artisan Gerard Dumas, who cares for seven children, previously employed four to five people. He now employs 15 people as the direct result of business through Fairwinds Trading.

Help us transform even more communities. Make a donation to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund today and help us build back Haiti even better:

http://clintonbushhaitifund.org/donate-today

The road to economic security for Haiti will be a long one, but we’re seeing progress in Haiti and we remain hopeful.

Wow, it sounds like things are really turning around there – for some, at least.

What I found to be striking, and disconcerting, about this letter from Mr. Edson is that it said NOTHING about how women are faring in Haiti. See, I had just read the following article by Tracy Wilkinson of the LA Times a day before I got this email, “Rape Flourishes In Rubble Of Haitian Earthquake.”

Well, the title gives you a pretty good idea of what is happening to women in Haiti. In all honesty, this article brought me to tears. It is disturbing on so many levels, including how much a part of the culture sexual assault against women, and girls, is:

Halya Lagunesse thought she knew despair. Nearly seven years ago, the soldiers who had killed her husband gang-raped the Haitian woman and her daughter Joann, who was 17 at the time.

But that pain pales in comparison to the torment of learning last March that her 5-year-old granddaughter had been raped.

The attacker gave the child about 50 cents to go and buy rice. On her way back, he intercepted her and dragged her into a cemetery.

“How did that happen? How did that happen?” Lagunesse, 50, cried, wringing her hands.

“This situation does something to their minds and makes people sick,” she said. “Their hearts are bad.”

Hers is a tragedy of rape compounded: Her granddaughter, now 6, was conceived in the gang rape of her daughter.

Six years old. A child conceived by rape is raped herself at SIX YEARS of age.

As to the culture in Haiti, there is this:

Rape wasn’t even considered a serious criminal offense in Haiti until five years ago.

The women who pushed for the legislation making it so also built Haiti’s first shelter for abused women. Next they had hoped to make fathers legally bound to acknowledge their children and pay some support.

Haitian women are the poorest and most disenfranchised in this poorest of nations in the hemisphere. And yet, through the work of a spirited coterie of feminist activists, real strides were being made.

Until Jan. 12, 2010.

How disturbing is that, that rape was not even considered serious until five years ago. The effect of the earthquake is far-reaching:

Haiti’s cataclysmic earthquake killed hundreds of thousands, left this capital in ruins and sent more than a million people into a life in crowded, squalid camps.

It also devastated a strong and surprisingly successful women’s movement, which, a year later, struggles like the rest of the nation to recover, even as women are being subjected to horrific sexual violence.

So much has been lost.

Magalie Marcelin, the indefatigable activist with the gap-toothed smile who founded one of Haiti’s most important women’s advocacy organizations, Kay Fanm. Crushed to death as she mentored an aspiring feminist.

Myriam Merlet, broad-faced, cheerily abrasive and endlessly effective, whether in her position at the Women’s Ministry she helped shape or lobbying for the rape law she helped enact. Died in her home under a ton of concrete.

And there were so many more, equally and less famous, midwives, nuns and professors, peasant leaders and government officials, all who worked for women. All gone.

“It was a very big loss,” activist Danielle Saint-Lot said. “We cried together. We are mourning together.” [snip]

Indeed. Not only were so many people lost, so much devastation to this already poor nation, but the impact on women and girls is tremendous.

How is it that Mr. Edson missed this in his upbeat review of the situation in Haiti a little more than a year after the quake? He made no mention whatsoever of women in Haiti, and what they are enduring. That is just shameful.

Well, there is the obvious answer to that question, and it is not a good one. Suffice it to say, I am not exactly running for my checkbook to give more money to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund. Rather, I will find a women’s organization working there to support instead.

But I am getting ahead of the story. It is a long article, and I cannot possibly reprint it all here. I encourage you to read the article in its entirety at the LA Times. But here is just a bit more of it:

[snip]
“If you tell anyone,” one of her attackers threatened, “we will kill your brother or your sister.”

After the rape, Simone, 23, sought medical attention. Then an organization that helps rape victims, Kofaviv, took her under its wing and gave her psychological counseling.

But she still lives in the plastic-tarp tent, and her attackers lurk, murmuring their threats, watching her.

“I feel very unsafe,” said the young woman, whose bright eyes widen as she tells her story. “I have nowhere else to go. I am tortured.”

Rape has long been a scourge in Haiti. It was used as a form of political repression in 1994 and in 2004, periods of upheaval when military dictators and their brutish gangs of enforcers seized power. Men who opposed the regime were abducted and killed, women raped. An entire generation of Haitians is filled with children of rape.

The earthquake generated new shockwaves of sexual violence. Hundreds, maybe thousands — there is no comprehensive count — have been raped. Some of the assaults are crimes of opportunity, but increasingly they seem a calculated, predatory form of stalking and attacking.

Only a few of an estimated 1,300 tent encampments that are spread through this shattered capital have nighttime lighting or significant police presence. Tents do not have doors or locks. People are jammed together in dehumanizing density without privacy.

[...]

Young women are easy prey for uneducated, unemployed men who populate the camps, often stoned and with time on their hands. They see women and girls as fair game. Many women have denounced camp leaders, always male, for demanding sexual favors in return for tents, food and building materials.

Activists are bracing for a jump in teen pregnancies and HIV and AIDS cases, whether from rape or unprotected sex, since clinics that dispensed birth control and advice were also destroyed. The United Nations estimates that Port-au-Prince needs at least 1,000 maternal-care clinics. There are 10. [snip](Please click here to read the rest.)

Why is that? Why do so few of these encampments have lighting or a security presence? It seems to me that should have been a major priority post-earthquake: the safety of those who are left. Given that rape and sexual assault are so problematic in Haiti, it is astonishing that more money, more work, more intention has not gone to doing so. It is also unacceptable.

One organization working for the women of Haiti is KOFAVIV. You can access them on Facebook, or through MADRE, another women’s organization which is working with this organization, which was established by rape victims for rape victims in Haiti. If you are so inclined, you can make a donation through the MADRE site.

What is happening to the women in Haiti is reprehensible, abhorrent, and unacceptable. It must stop. And it would sure be nice if the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund added Women’s Rights (and security) to the list of their programs in Haiti (if it is there, I missed it). Until then, I’ll be sending my money to women’s organizations who ARE doing the work to secure women’s and children’s rights, their HUMAN rights, to be free of fear and sexual assault.

And maybe Mr. Edson needs to take another look at what is happening to over half the population in Haiti before he paints so rosy a picture…

Does Pakistan suffer today because of his death? Yes. Does it change anything on the ground? No. 

He was slain because he called the notorious blasphemy law as black law. He stood up for a Christian woman who was accused of blasphemy and was sentenced to death by a local court. Taseer wanted his government to repeal the blasphemy law that was incorporated in the 1980s by the military dictator General Ziaul Haq. It was a legitimate demand. In his own words, “these are man made laws and men can correct this”. 

These black laws will now be repealed or not? This does not change anything on the ground either. 

Nothing will change on the ground because nothing changed a decade ago when a Christian cricket player on the national team was allegedly forced to convert. Nothing changed when pop singers one after another started denouncing their own careers and joined the elite mullah ranks. Not a thing changed when two boys were lynched publicly just last year. These were the obvious symptoms of a society turning intolerant, self-righteous, and violent. A society without the respect for law and order. 

It changed nothing back then, it will not change anything now. Hence, the events that followed Salmaan Taseer’s gruesome murder are disturbing. These events have nothing to do with a religion, or its preaching, but everything to do with the mindset that has been developed over the years. Evidently, this mindset is irrespective of class. The jubilant response on Facebook and YouTube was not by the uneducated and madrassa clan. A Pakistani blogger summed it up well: “If you go through the profiles of Qadri supporters on Facebook, you’d think Justin Bieber was the cause of extremism in Pakistan.” 

The killer’s overwhelming welcome at the courts by men who know how and why a law is made demonstrates that the liberals – a minority in Pakistan – have been reduced to an endangered species.  

And that is what has changed. And that is what matters today on the ground in Pakistan. 

Do a little math. The killer is a 26 year old man and hails from a semi-urban area. He joined the Elite force in 2003 which means he was 18 then. General Musharraf toppled a democratic government in 1999, and the killer must have been 14. And this is the age group that’s using the Internet, Facebook, YouTube and blogs more aggressively. This is the age group that went through a whole “moderate enlightenment” phase fully sponsored by Pervez Musharraf and shamelessly supported by George Bush for almost over a decade. And this is the group that has the street power in Pakistan. This is the group that is the future of Pakistan. Its mind has been infiltrated by private television, launched during Musharraf’s era. Instead of promoting freedom of speech, it promoted violence, illiteracy and conspiracy theories. It produced the “I-know-more-than-you-know-coz-I-like-that-anchor-and-you-dont-watch-that-show” minds, whereas before young men from the same age group used to extract influence from their family heads. 

The dual game of the military government ten years ago, fully supported and encouraged by the US government, produced a whole generation that detests its own constitution and Western freedom of speech values. This generation is the raw material available to and exploited by religious groups, ready to kill and get killed. My philanthropist friend Manzur Ejaz believes that the right wing in Pakistan is organized and has ideological strength. It has been supported by the State machinery through an education system and infested state institutions, while its opposition lacks committed people, organization and a cause. 

This sorry state of Pakistan is pretty much an example of Martin Niemoller’s ‘First They Came.’ 

They came first for the Communists,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.



Then they came for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up.

This existing situation has nothing to do with the drone attacks carried out today or the policy changed in favor of Pakistan. The ruling party was once considered a liberal group, but now its own members and sitting ministers publicly announced that they will shoot a blasphemer themselves. They align themselves with so-called “moderate” Muslim politicians like Imran Khan who have practiced Western values but sympathise with the Taliban. 

This indicates that now the dominant political philosophies are right, center to right and very right groups. It has men that have a soft heart for fundamentalists. The absence of a left–because the representative parties or groups were systematically dismantled by military dictators–will bring more extremism. 

Persons with liberal thoughts need protection, which requires some strategy as well as strength. It has to organize itself and build an anti-mullah manpower. It’s a war now, and decisions taken today will reflect the systems adopted in the future. And that will change everything on the ground.

–
Crosspost: ThePakistanUpdate.com

These progressive champions don’t seem to realize they have delivered the President more grievous insults than the ones they have long sought to protect him from. By framing President Obama as lacking in leadership skills, or being held captive by the opposition party, or too beholden to the far left of his own party, these pundits are telegraphing their belief that he is too soft, not a capable executive, not responsible for his own actions and a victim.

Their reasons for depicting Obama this way are their own, but I suspect it is too horrible for them to contemplate that they were taken in by branding and attractive rhetoric. Mr. Obama is doing precisely what he has done since well before his election – capitulate in the face of challenge. Were the “principles” pundits expected the President to uphold really his or theirs? A candidate must draw a line in the sand via his or her own record, demonstrating a willingness to go down fighting for a cause over the course of years before it can be proven that such principles are any more than projections by optimists wanting to be swept up by “history” and romance.

His State Senate record in Illinois recalled a man who voted “present” 130 times, along with 6 “wrong” or “oops, I hit the wrong button” votes. As a freshman US Senator he missed over 40% of his votes, particularly risky ones. In 2008, he reneged on FISA, was guilty of double dealing on NAFTA, reneged on his written promise to take public financing in his presidential campaign, and surrounded himself with corporatist advisors like Austan Goolsbee who have long favored privatizing Social Security. Contrary to his upstart, new kind of politics image, he receiving more money from Wall Street than any other candidate and was backed by the old guard of the Democratic Party. He praised President Reagan while belittling President Clinton and campaigned down south with Donnie McCurkin, ex-gay man “reformed through prayer. That the Obamas had long lived beyond their own means, receiving help with their house purchase from now convicted felon Tony Rezko and his wife should have given pundits pause.

This list went largely unchecked.

Most important, though the left favored Obama because of his purported anti-war stance, his little known 2002 anti-war speech regarding Iraq involved no vote or political risk yet when in the Senate three years later, he voted twice to continue funding a war he disagreed with.

Reviewing the above facts along with contradictory campaign promises Mr. Obama made in 2008, one has to wonder who these pundits thought they were urging the rest of us to vote for. And why do they complain that he is behaving in an unthinkable or incomprehensible way now? If one logically considers his record and his actions, not just his words, his current behavior was at least somewhat predictable via his past deeds.

President Obama showed himself to be a political opportunist wont to help those who helped him the most. Ergo, special considerations to unions and corporate bailouts by the truckload. This is not to fault Mr. Obama by the way. He presented his best self to the American people. If there were those who chose not to question his contradictions, who would not take advantage of such great good fortune?

The fault and responsibility must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the mainstream media and pundit class who abjectly refused to do their jobs in vetting Mr. Obama as a candidate. Those of us on the ground who saw inconsistencies and voiced our concerns were roundly and viciously insulted.

Further, the current furious flailing and complaints of liberal pundits are as empty and false as their previous accusations of “racism” were toward President Obama’s critics. Come 2012, they will all fall in line behind his candidacy, believing Republicans to be six kinds of evil. This is precisely why our President feels comfortable capitulating on tax rates, or pushing healthcare (without a public option) that is years away from being fully enacted rather than concentrating on putting Americans back to work. As far as President Obama is concerned, the left “has nowhere else to go,” despite Politico posting an article yesterday stating that President Obama was continuing and even growing a number of President Bush’s past policies.

While editorials on Huffington Post, diaries on DailyKos along with other print media are rumbling about a primary challenge to President Obama in 2012, the likelihood of its success is slim. And whether one feels the left’s wish list is right or wrong headed, or “sanctimonious” – as President Obama just called it – is hardly the point. Unless those who are furious now are willing to lose to win, offering more than idle threats, we will have more of the same rhetoric that we have been getting from both parties for years – lip service paid to a cause without effective solutions or legislation to back it up.

Solutions, anyone?

Why? Well, I bet you can guess if you think about it for a minute. Give up? This headline by Brent Baker at Newsbusters will make it clear, “Newsweek Ranks U.S. the 11th ‘Best Country’ – Bush’s Fault, Obama Can Stem The Tide.” Yep, it’s all Bush’s fault, but Obama the Messiah can right this listing ship:

Newsweek, recently sold for one dollar by the Washington Post Company but still in its hands, ranked the United States 11th, just behind Denmark, in this week’s “The Best Countries in the World” cover story which put Finland at #1, followed by Switzerland and Sweden. There’s hope for improvement, however, thanks to George W. Bush’s departure from the White House and Barack Obama’s arrival. Michael Hirsh explained the beyond the top ten rank:

America hasn’t recovered from the serious blows to its stature delivered by nearly a decade of policy debacles. As Obama never tires of reminding the American public…he inherited a Herculean task: the Augean-stable-size mess left behind by George W. Bush.

The August 23 & 30 two-week edition cover story package certainly reflected Obama’s policy agenda. A sidebar (apparently not online) on the nations with the best health care, which put Japan at the top, touted fourth-best Spain where “universal coverage is a constitutionally guaranteed right, and there are no out-of-pocket expenses aside from some prescription drugs.” The U.S. wasn’t even one of the top ten countries listed (the full list online has the U.S. at #26 in health, tied with the Czech Republic and Chile and behind Slovenia.) [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Blech. Seriously, these people need to put down the Hopium pipe, and you know they’re on it. How else to explain selling a magazine for a BUCK? I mean, I know things are tight right now, but c’mon! Ahem.

Perhaps it would interest the authors of this piece to learn that Bush is actually more popular in some major “frontline” districts than their Revered One. It seems those areas are ones of great concern to Democrats since they currently hold the seats there. Oops!

But back to being Number 11 – woohoo, celebrate, woot, woot! I’ll let Stephen Colbert have the last word on this (again), and Newsweek, too:

While there may be debate on what constitutes success in Iraq, there is one area in which strides are being made:

That is good news indeed, though, clearly, women have a long, long way to go in countries where Sharia Law is dominant, like Afghanistan. Certainly it is my hope that women’s rights will be written into the Constitution in Iraq, and that women will obtain equality.

As for this most auspicious occasion, surely President Obama weighed in. Wait, what? He didn’t? Well, um, you know, he was busy. Yeah, right, that’s the ticket. Yep, he was on his way to vacation on Martha’s Vineyard. Hey, being president is “hard work,” so he needs another vacation after a few days of working. Leave Barry aloooonnnneeeee!

Well, Stephen Colbert has a few suggestions for Obama about what he SHOULD have done to mark this day as only Colbert can:

So glad you are on your way back, troops. Welcome home!

George W. Bush. No, really – I’m serious. They want George W. Bush to weigh in on the building of this particular mosque near Ground Zero. Would I lie to you? No. And wait until you see who a couple of the writers are requesting Bush’s input in this Byron York article in the Washington Examiner, “Mosque supporters beg George W. Bush to come to Obama’s rescue“:

It’s time for W. to weigh in,” writes the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. Bush, Dowd explains, understands that “you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.” Dowd finds it “odd” that Obama seems less sure on that matter. But to set things back on the right course, she says, “W. needs to get his bullhorn back out” — a reference to Bush’s famous “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” speech at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. “I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue,” Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session. “He held Ramadan iftar dinners in the White House as part of a much broader effort to show that our fight against the al-Qaeda murderers who attacked us on 9/11 was not a crusade against Islam. He was absolutely right on this point, and it would be helpful to hear his views.”

And Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic, is also feeling some nostalgia for the former president. “Words I never thought I’d write: I pine for George W. Bush,” Beinart wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast. “Whatever his flaws, the man respected religion, all religion.” Beinart longs for the days when Bush “used to say that the ‘war on terror’ was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me…”

Come on, isn’t that hilarious? These are the same people who vilified Bush routinely, routinely!!! And now, now that the man they supported after consuming massive amounts of Kool Aide, and smoking tons of Hopium, and shoved down our throats, refusing to do any vetting whatsoever, has made such a mess of this issue, they want BUSH to weigh in? This is one of the funniest things I have heard in a while. Maureen Dowd?? Eugene ROBINSON?? Oh, wow.

Well, someone else who has weighed in is Debra Burlingame, from the 9/11 Families. Did she ever have something to say, especially about Madam Speaker Pelosi’s remarks about funding:

Well, Ms. Burlingame certainly didn’t mince words. Agree with her or not, there is no misunderstanding from where she is coming on this issue.

There is one group from whom we have not heard on this whole mosque business. And that would be moderate Muslims. What is their take on Imam Rauf’s building the mosque near Ground Zero? They, too, are quite clear: don’t build it. That is the upshot of this Daily Caller article by Caroline May, “Moderate Muslims Oppose Location of Cordoba Mosque – On Religious Grounds.” This article is well worth the read, but a few salient quotes:

[snip] Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, told TheDC that moderate Muslims have been silent on the matter, despite possible disagreements, due to religious concerns. According to Fatah, however, the need to avoid causing another person pain should trump such conflicts.

“There is a widespread belief among Muslim teaching that anyone who opposes the construction of a mosque, which is the house of God, is committing a sin,” he said. “So a lot of people who want to voice their opinion do not want to become a part of the controversy. But especially during the month of Ramadan it is important that our actions not cause pain to anyone. Any action by a Muslim that causes any pain to anyone else should be halted!” [snip]

That explains a lot – the widespread belief, that is. It helps to know why moderate Muslims have been quiet throughout this discussion. There is more:

Fatah believes the mosque plans are moving forward because they have the support of the American government. “I think they have an official green light either from the State Department or the White House telling them to, ‘Go ahead, you have our full backing,’ and they want to use this Islamic center as a place for diplomacy to the Middle East to demonstrate that the United States is a place where Muslims thrive. But that has backfired because this could have been done in many other ways.”

Jasser said that the building of this mosque is ‘fitna,’ a religious term meaning mischief-making, which is severely frowned upon in Islam. “‘Fitna’ is anything that causes chaos in society,” he said. “This mosque is causing chaos, it is causing ‘fitna’ and that is not the Islamic thing to do … This is ‘fitna’ and ‘fitna’ is wrong.”

Fatah agreed saying that ‘fitna’ is an ethical and moral issue that ought not be taken lightly. “If a step taken by an individual causes disharmony then it is ‘fitna.’ [The mosque] has caused so much pain. There are many mosques already in New York, nobody has ever opposed a mosque, if there is opposition to a mosque on grounds of hatred I would be the first to confront it. But over here it is a matter of sensitivity and there is no residential community even near the community center.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

“Mischief-making.” Yes, that seems to be a good term for what Imam Rauk is doing, along with Obama, I might add. And yes, the State Department sending Imam Rauf on a tour of the Middle East on our dime, at a cost of $16,000, certainly appears to condone the building the mosque by essentially endorsing Rauf.

But Fatah said it all. This is not about hatred. It is about sensitivity (about which I wrote recently, too). This decision is causing pain, to a number of people. Two thirds of New Yorkers oppose building the mosque there. Two thirds of Americans oppose building the mosque within two blocks of Ground Zero. Not because they/we/I oppose building mosques in general, but because we oppose it being built THERE, overlooking where Ground Zero stands, a hallowed ground to New Yorkers, to our nation.

George W. Bush can say something or not, doesn’t really matter to me. As far as I am concerned, the opposition is about sensitivity to those who lost loved ones, and to a nation that suffered a devastating attack there. It is not a matter of “freedom of religion,” or “freedom to practice religion.” It is about ceasing the mischief making, an “ethical and moral issue” of some weight.

I think that pretty much says it all, don’t you?

So about that new person at West Point. He may be new there, but he is definitely not a “newbie.” That would be Lt. Gen. David Huntoon, the new Superintendent of West Point, the prestigious military academy. How refreshing to see someone so accomplished, especially these days (talking about you, Obama).

Below Lt. Gen. Huntoon gives his first interview as Superintendent to Fox & Friends Brian Kilmeade:

The General is an impressive man, to be sure. His three sons, all currently in service to our country, are chips off the old block, apparently. Wow.

I admit, Kilmeade is not my favorite, but he is right – the courage these young people demonstrate by their sheer desire to attend not just West Point, but any military academy, knowing they will see combat, speaks volumes.

One last thing, speaking of West Point. One of their best, and brightest, Katherine Miller, ranked #9 in her class, has decided to tender her resignation to West Point. Why? Because she is a lesbian, and can no longer abide hiding who she is as a result of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” While she has had a stellar career at West Point, she has also endured some hardships as a result of her sexual orientation. That is disturbing. It is one thing to abolish a poorly conceived (though way better than what they had before) law, but it is another thing to change attitudes.

Certainly, I hope for both to happen – DADT abolished, and attitudes changed, but we are not there yet. That is sad for Ms. Miller, and sad for both West Point and the Army in losing such a tremendous young woman.

I wonder how Lt. Gen. Huntoon’s tenure will change the environment at West Point, or will it? Time will tell.

The following video, about which I learned from my oldest niece, also speaks volumes. Her husband, a Marine, is about to re-deploy, leaving his four young children. My niece suggested people get a box of Kleenex, and I concur with that suggestion. Get some tissues before you watch:

Finally, you know I was not a fan of George W. Bush, to put it mildly. But, I have to hand it to him for what he and his wife, Laura, did the other day:

Thank you, indeed…

(Katmoon, Ferd, and Armymom, thinking of you…)