Good grief.

Thanks heavens some US Senators are speaking out about this incredibly sanitized, downright false characterization of Major Hasan’s intentions when he began to shoot down unarmed soldiers in the name of Allah. Here is more on this issue:

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.

Thirteen people were killed and dozens more wounded at Fort Hood in 2009, and the number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly since then. Lawmakers said there have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since Sept. 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009. Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, who is being held for the attacks, allegedly was inspired by radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in late September. The two men exchanged as many as 20 emails, according to U.S. officials, and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero.

It is just mind boggling that our government is attempting to sanitize to the point of absurdity the horrific attack by Major Hasan at Fort Hood. Senator Collins is correct, this is taking political correctness to an extreme that is downright dangerous.

And that denial is dangerous not just to the nation, but to our military, specifically:

The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the military has become a “direct target of violent Islamist extremism” within the United States.

“The stark reality is that the American service member is increasingly in the terrorists’ scope and not just overseas in a traditional war setting,” Lieberman told Fox News before the start of Wednesday’s hearing.

In June, two men allegedly plotted to attack a Seattle, Wash., military installation using guns and grenades. In July, Army Pvt. Naser Abdo was accused of planning a second attack on Fort Hood. And in November, New York police arrested Jose Pimentel, who alleged sought to kill service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. (Click here to read the rest.)

And yet, knowing this, our government, in their infinite wisdom (cough, choke), has decided to redefine radical Islamic attacks as “workplace violence.” Wow. This is up there with Napolitano’s “man made disasters” term. But both are disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading at worse.

Of course, radical Islam is not the whole of Islam, but to deny its existence in this country is doing a tremendous disservice to those killed at 9/11, those killed at Fort Hood, those killed at bases overseas, those killed in the attack on the USS Cole, and so, so many more instances too numerous to mention here. Why our government seems more concerned with insulting these groups than naming them for what they are is just beyond me. This revisionist history must stop, and must stop now. Call it what it is by name. Nothing less will do.

So much of this program is disturbing, but what was disturbing about Holder’s testimony yesterday was his sheer and utter refusal to apologize to the family of Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry. He would not apologize to Agent Terry’s family. That speaks volumes about what kind of person Holder is, and it is not good, IMHO.

Here is Holder during the testimony on Tuesday. He says some general comments about how he regrets what the Terry family is going through, but one thing stands out. Listen:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Did you catch that? He refused to acknowledge any blame on the part of the “Fast and Furious” program for Agent Terry’s death. Wow. That is simply mind boggling.

Lest his life be forgotten, just a bit about who Agent Terry was from a statement his family made in June, 2011, at a Congressional hearing:

During BORTAC training, Brian was given a class room writing assignment. The assignment was to write something about himself that would give the instructors some insight as to who he was. He composed a poem that he entitled “If Today Is to Be the Day…So Be It” and I would like to read it to you so that you can have a better understanding of who he was:

“If you seek to do battle with me this day, you will receive the best that I am capable of giving.

“It may not be enough, but it will be everything that I have to give and it will be impressive for I have constantly prepared myself for this day.

“I have trained, drilled and rehearsed my actions so that I might have the best chance of defeating you.

“I have kept myself in peak physical condition, schooled myself in the martial skills and have become proficient in the applications of combat tactics.

“You may defeat me, but I’m willing to die if necessary. I do not fear death for I have been close enough to it on enough occasions that it no longer concerns me.

“But, I do fear the loss of my honor and would rather die fighting than to have it said that I was without courage.

“So I will fight you, no matter how insurmountable it may seem, to the death if need be, in order that it may never be said of me that I was not a warrior.” (Click here to read the rest, and there is so much more to his story, including serving as a Marine, and a police officer.)

And yet, Holder cannot find it in his heart to apologize to this man’s family for the loss of his life due to this insane program. Wow.

Another aspect of this whole fiasco was the outing of the ATF whistle blower. The person who outed that agent was none other than (former) Arizona US Attorney, Dennis Burke:

Former Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, who resigned in August, admitted late Tuesday that he leaked a document aimed at smearing Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent John Dodson, an Operation Fast and Furious whistle-blower.

“Dennis regrets his role in disclosing the memo but he’s a stand-up guy and is willing to take responsibility for what he did,” Chuck Rosenberg, Burke’s lawyer, said according to NPR. “It was absolutely not Dennis’s intent to retaliate against Special Agent Dodson or anyone else for the information they provided Congress.”

[...]

The memo that leaked this summer ended up being an attempt by Justice Department officials to cast aspersions on Dodson — one of the leading ATF Fast and Furious whistle-blowers. Burke admitted he leaked the memo in a Tuesday afternoon letter to Justice Department Inspector General Cynthia Schnedar.

The memo was leaked to press and had the names of criminal suspects deleted — but kept Dodson’s name on it. Attorney General Eric Holder came under fire during Tuesday morning’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing when he wouldn’t answer any questions from Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley about the leaked memo, who was held accountable for it and how they were held accountable. (Click here to read the rest.)

First of all, I have to take umbrage with the characterization of US Attorney Burke being a “stand up guy.” A “stand up guy” does not reveal the name of the whistleblower while protecting the names of the criminals.

Second of all, a “stand up guy” does not attempt to cast aspersions on an agent who has served his country and who speaks out about a program that has cost the lives of numerous people, including at least one US agent.

No, a “stand up guy” supports the whistleblower, goes on record to support hat person, and acknowledges ones own complicity in the program, not throw someone to the wolves. Just sayin’.

This is still far from over. Eric Holder may have testified before Senate, but he left many questions still unanswered. Of course, I am not one bit surprised by that result, or lack thereof. Holder is hardly an honest broker, not when it comes to this program, or others that have occurred under his watch (previously reported here, e.g., this one relating to the New Black Panther Party).

Last I checked, 34 US House of Representatives have called for Holder to step down. I agree with them, he should. At the very least, he needs to apologize to Agent Terry’s family.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

(There is an upcoming benefit on November 12th to help Brian Terry’s mother travel to hearings regarding his death: rememberbrianterry.com.)

UPDATED: Senator Grassley is very upset with Eric Holder regarding his refusal to allow witnesses to testify:

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said Thursday that Attorney General Eric Holder is continuing to stonewall congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious. This time, Holder is refusing to provide 11 of the 12 witnesses Grassley and House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa have requested be made available for interviews.

“We have requested 12 Justice Department witnesses be made available for transcribed interviews,” Grassley said in a Thursday Senate Judiciary Committee executive business meeting. “Despite the department’s promises of good faith cooperation, only one witness has been provided so far — former U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke. The department has refused to schedule interviews with any of the other 11 witnesses. That’s not the good faith cooperation I was promised, and it is unacceptable.”

Grassley and Issa are demanding to know who was involved in crafting a February 4 letter to the Department of Justice sent to Congress, which contained claims — now understood to be false — that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives did not allow guns to walk into Mexico. (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah. So why is it they haven’t brought charges of perjury and obstruction against Holder yet? Any attorneys out there with the answer to that question?

And the number of US Representatives calling for Holder to resign has risen to 38 now. Seriously = why aren’t ALL Of them, Democrats, too, calling for it? His behavior as Head of the DOJ is doing real damage to this country, and they should care more about THAT than about party, and Obama’s freakin’ election.

Wow. Don’t you just love it when the president is all kumbaya and stuff? Doesn’t it make you all warm and fuzzy when he is so bipartisan? Uh huh, sure. Here he is, in his own words (or whoever writes this crap and slaps it on TOTUS):

President Obama launched a three-day bus tour through two states critical to his 2012 reelection campaign by kicking Senate Republicans for blocking his jobs bill, saying he is breaking up his plan because “maybe they just couldn’t understand the whole thing at once.”

Right. That’s the problem with it. Not that the plan sucks, or is yet another stimulus bill, like the other one worked Oh-so-well.

He wasn’t done yet:

“I need you to give Congress a piece of your mind,” Obama said. “These members of Congress work for you. If they’re not delivering, it’s time to let them know.”

Obama also discussed the Republican jobs plan, called the “Real American Jobs Act,” saying it “boils down to a few basic ideas: they want to gut regulations, they want to let Wall Street do whatever it wants, they want to drill more and they want to repeal healthcare reform.”

The president said that the Republican plan means “dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.”

“So far, at least, I feel better about my plan,” Obama said. (Click here to read the rest.)

Here’s the thing, Mr. Obama. The Senate is actually controlled by the Democrats (as one astute commenter noted). You are aware of that, aren’t you? If not, maybe you shouldn’t be casting stones about who isn’t the brightest bulb in the pack. Just sayin’.

In another classic Obama flip flop, the president is now claiming he is all for the long term care provision in his terrible Obamacare law (pushed through solely by Democrats, just to remind everyone, against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans – and he is saying the Republicans don’t get it? Gotcha). Yes, just last week, his Administration acknowledged this about the “CLASS Act”:

The administration announced late Friday it did not see a way to make the long-term care CLASS Act, which was crafted by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), pay for itself. But perhaps even more damning is how the White House mishandled the controversy; consumer advocates accused the administration of being disingenuous and gutless.

But that was then, this is now:

“We do not support repeal,” said White House spokesman Nick Papas. “Repealing the CLASS Act isn’t necessary or productive. What we should be doing is working together to address the long-term care challenges we face in this country.”

Huh? Which one is it, exactly? Repeal it or leave it?

Senator John Thune had this to say about the initial admission that this was a terribly flawed plan:

After ignoring repeated warnings from my Republican colleagues and me about the fiscal solvency of the CLASS Act, the Obama Administration jammed Obamacare through Congress in order to score a political win. Now, over a year later, the administration is finally admitting the CLASS Act entitlement is unsustainable and cannot be implemented. Simply setting aside the program for the near-term is not enough. Repeal is the only solution to ensuring American taxpayers will not be on the hook in the future for this disastrous entitlement.

And before Obama opened his big mouth to say he DOESN’T want the CLASS Act removed, there was this acknowledgment from the White House (according to The New Republic) about the repeal:

It’s worth noting that, behind the scenes, the administration was never wild about CLASS. Internally several officials argued against including it, precisely because they were worried about the finances and sustainability. But some supported it, partly because the case for action was so unambiguous. Harold Pollack, the University of Chicago professor and regular TNR contributor, put it well when he said “CLASS seeks to address a huge need – helping disabled men and women live with dignity in their own homes.”

And skeptical administration officials took solace in the fact that, thanks to a provision inserted by Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Secretary of Health and Human Services had discretion to modify the program if, upon further consideration, it appeared unlikely to remain stable. It’s precisely that authority that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius exercised last week. (For more details on the administration’s thinking, see Sarah Kliff‘s account in the Washington Post.)

I see. They didn’t really like it, but figured they would shove it through anyway, and muck around with it if they took too much heat for the expense of it. I see. Oh, wait – no, I don’t. Again, I guess this is what happens when they shove a law down our throats without truly considering the implications or the real costs.

As for where Obama stands now, which one is it? Obama wants it, he doesn’t want it, he wants it, he doesn’t want it. I guess it depends on the day and which way the wind is blowing, or how many petals the daisy has.

What I do know is that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, and that is precisely what Obama is doing. He can’t even decide within a couple of days where he and his Administration stand, and he is attacking other people’s intelligence? Please.

I guess I should not be surprised at Obama’s massive flip flop on this. The initial reaction about how crappy an expensive a plan this was was probably one of the more honest things that came out of this White House, so naturally, Obama had to try and walk it back. Ahem. Thank heavens for TOTUS, huh?

And speaking of TOTUS, isn’t it great that Obama had some spares since the truck full of the podiums and stuff got stolen in Virginia? I am not kidding, and no, this isn’t from The Onion. They really did get stolen. It does beg the question, though – just how many of these things does this guy have? The truck the thieves made off with had about $200,000 worth of equipment in it. Just remember, folks, all these TOTI (I assume that is the proper Latin plural form) are YOUR tax dollars at work. He had MORE than the $200,000 worth of audio and TOTUS equipment in that truck. Good grief, how many does he really need?? And, how the hell was the truck stolen in the first place???

One thing all of this highlights is just how free and easy Obama is with OUR money. Frankly, I am pretty sick of it, and pretty sick of the disparaging remarks directed at anyone who doesn’t toe the Obama line. That’s no way to lead, and no way to govern. Enough of the badgering and bad mouthing, Mr. President. Try a little civility and honesty for a change. I suppose I can count on that happening about the same time I get my unicorn, right?

To celebrate Women in Sports, especially with the Women’s World Cup (soccer) coming up this summer, Secretary Clinton delivered the following remarks:

Now you know, I am a HUGE soccer fan. And I was able to attend the semifinals in DC of the World Cup of which Sec. Clinton spoke. In fact, President Clinton was at the stadium at the same time I was, watching the match. There was even a flyover with fighter jets – cool! Oh, and the US obviously won, since they went on to win the World Cup in the dramatic fashion Sec. Clinton mentioned.

This is a great time, this celebration. But wow, do we still have a long way to go.

While Secretary Clinton is reflecting on Women and Sports, a “Gay Girl in Damascus” was allegedly kidnapped in Syria. In Egypt, another woman journalist was almost killed in Tahrir Square last week, saved by a police officer, who was then beaten himself for rescuing her.

A Libyan student in Australia received only THREE YEARS in jail for sexually assaulting four women, and two girls, one of whom was only 13. Why? Well, you know, it is a whole cultural thing. The way these women dress, oh, my, it just upset him SO much, and made him excited, all at the same time. So he did what any man would do – he attacked them. Oh, wait – most men do NOT do that:

Libyan Almahde Ahmad Atagore, 28, was sentenced to three years behind bars yesterday for sexual assaulting a number of young women in Melbourne in August and September last year, the Herald Sun reports.

Atagore was shocked by the cultural differences and felt isolated and depressed, particularly as he did not have a mosque nearby, said County Court Judge Margaret Rizkalla.

He told a psychiatrist he did not like how Australian women dressed, leaving him angry but also aroused. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Women, and girls, participating in sports is important, there is no doubt about it. And it is very cool that the US does sports exchanges with other countries. The benefits to girls and women who participate in sports are numerous, with higher self esteem and better overall health at the fore.

But it is not enough when men still think they can overpower women, see women purely as sexual objects, or violate them in a sexual manner as a show of power (though it really highlights the man’s weakness, IMHO). It is not enough when they are seeing a very different message coming from the media, and from our political parties. When the Democratic elite are still supporting a complete sleazebag like Anthony Weiner, what kind of message does THAT send to our young women and girls? When judges in countries like Australia grant a short amount of jail time for a man who assaulted several women, and two girls, as a nod to his neanderthalic view of women based on his religion, how do the girls and women in Australia feel? What is the message being sent to them?

I am glad we still have Title IX in this country, and am happy to celebrate its 40th anniversary. Our girls and women deserve it. But all girls and women, here and around the world, deserve to be treated better than we are. We deserve to not have some slimeball US Representative texting a college woman with a photo of his private parts. We deserve for men to serve the time for the crimes committed against us, not some slap on the wrist. We deserve to be able to do our jobs without threat of DEATH because gangs of men descend upon us.

We deserve better. We deserve better from men, we deserve better from the women who support these sleazeballs, we deserve better from our elected officials.

To follow up on Sec. Clinton’s suggestion, and while I can still post videos from YouTube (our illustrious US Senators are threatening to make it a felony to embed videos), I want to honor the US Women’s Soccer Team. Below is look back at the ’99 World Cup win, and the iconic moment of Brandi Chastain scoring the winning goal for the US Women over China for the Gold:

May the US Women play hard, play clean, have no injuries, and bring back the Gold from Germany.

No, not Election Day, though yeah, that’s right around the corner (thank heavens). No, I mean my very last visit with my Physical Therapist. YAY!!! And he came about an hour earlier than usual, too, so that was good. Oh, what a relief. Not that I am done with physical therapy, not by a long shot. That is a lifelong event for me. But I no longer have to deal with Rico Suave (as he sees himself) on a regular basis. And no more political discussions with him, either.

Or so I thought. I had already been doing physical therapy exercises for about 1 1/2 hrs before Mr. Suave showed up, and then he had me do some more exercises. Our time together generally culminated in a walk up and down my (long)driveway, and this visit was no different. I was so relieved, having noticed he already had his glasses with him, and his clipboard, so clearly, he was going to leave as soon as we got back to his car.

Except we started talking about the state of education on the walk, and by the time we got to the car, he said,”Yeah, I wanted to mention something just a little bit political.” He then launched into his impressions of Nikki Haley, going on and on about her platform, though he threw in a dig about Sarah Palin saying that at least Nikki Haley is more eloquent than Palin. I told him that Palin really didn’t say she could see Russia from her house, that was Tina Fey, and mentioned that Palin’s dad was a teacher. That was all I could get out before he brushed it off, didn’t want to hear anything else (because really, why – he had already decided she was a moron, so why listen to anything that might contradict that?).

So, he talked on and on about what Haley wants, and when he took a breath, I said, “Well, what about Vincent Sheheen? What’s HIS platform?” His response? “I don’t really know, but, well, um, uh, probably neither one of them will be all that good” (or words close to that effect). Uh huh. And back to Haley. He made a point of watching Haley, looking for anything he could criticize (that she wants to cut taxes is one of the things on which he focused since SC schools are so crappy). But her male competitor? What was HIS stance on taxes and education? How the hell would the PT know? He just knew he was going to try and convince me not to vote for Nikki Haley. I hadn’t said anything about her one way or the other, so ALL of his pontificating was completely unsolicited. (For the record, Vincent Sheheen has talked about tax reform after being pushed by a small business owner on the rates small businesses pay.)

Imagine my, um, delight, when Mr. PT said he would drop by if he was out this way, and was going to keep my number. Oh, joy. That’s just jake…

While I am talking about SC politics, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the platform for the Democratic candidate for US Senator, Alvin Greene. He is happily campaigning along on this platform: the recession is all Senator Jim DeMint’s fault. Huh? Now, I am no big fan of DeMint’s but honestly, I had no idea the man was that powerful. And if he is, I am going to ask him to pick my lottery numbers for me so we can get that little place down in Montserrat on which I’ve had my eye. Want to know what is REALLY surprising? That DeMint is leading him by ONLY 37%!! Really? Not, say, 100%?? That is pretty scary, if you ask me. Just in time for Halloween!

Okay, I have said some unkind things about N.O.W. recently, all deserved, IMHO (like endorsing Jerry Brown over Meg Whitman), but they have finally realized that they were supposed to represent ALL women. Yep – they have now come out and condemned an online tabloid for running an anonymous article about Christine O’Donnell, US Senate candidate in Delaware:

[snip] O’Neill said that while NOW “finds O’Donnell’s political positions dangerous for women … that does not mean it’s acceptable to use slut-shaming against her, or any woman.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

A bit backhanded “support,” but there you are.

Finally, I asked my good buddy, Divine Democrat, a Chicago suburg resident (who may be posting again at Bad Habit come November – YAY), about how things are playing out in IL with the two candidates running for Obama’s seat. She responded with the following (and I post this with her permission, and with a few edits for typos and space):

Well, elections in IL are always down and dirty so it’s never a surprise to us when the dirty tricks begin. I knew when Obama became President he would be bringing his dirty style politics to Washington with him and he hasn’t disappointed. The thing is, most people blamed it all on Rahm (who is a real sleezeball), but it wasn’t just Rahm, it’s Obama making the calls on the real sleezy stuff…especially if it’s sneaky and backroom style. For instance, that mess in FL with Clinton pressuring Meek to quit. On Greta Van Susteran last night, she was interviewing Crist and he said that he knew about it and that he had spoken to “someone in the White House” about it. Greta, bless her heart, tried to get him to tell who it was but he refused so she started rattling off names…but he said “no, it wasn’t him”. But the one name she didn’t mention was Obama, himself. I know it was him! That’s the way Obama works. I also know if she had mentioned Obama’s name to Crist that he would not be able to say “no” so convincingly. He’s a real sleezeball, too.

In IL, I don’t think Quinn has a chance in hell of winning the Governor race. Everywhere I go I see Brady signs. Oh..and Alexi Giannoulias will only win if the numbers are cooked (which they probably will be, I heard the dead vote will be coming out in droves). I also see Kirk signs wherever I go (although I haven’t been in the Chicago city limits since the last Sox game)…(Alexi) doesn’t look like he’s put in an honest days work in his entire life. Just like Obama, he’s had everything handed to him on a silver platter.

I can tell you this, if the Republicans do well in IL, say they take the Senator and Governor position, it won’t bode well for Rahm Emanuel when he runs for Mayor. Rahm will just be seen as another Obama lackey and Obama is not that well loved, even in IL…

I only wish Dick Durbin was up for re-election this term…I’d love to kick his ass out of office, too.

Divine Democrat made some more interesting comments about Rahm Emanuel in a follow-up email as I asked if the residency issue had been swept under the rug. She wrote:

No one in Chicago is really talking about the eligibility of Rahm, that was buried along with the rest of the corruption within the Chicago political hierarchy. I did hear something about the “Anybody but Rahm” coalition forming which first started within the City Council with aldermen who don’t want another “bully” mayor. It seems to be spreading to Latino and African American leaders. So, we’ll see, I guess. I still won’t count him out, though…I’m sure he’ll get enough Union leaders who will take a few of those aldermen to the back room for a beating…er, talking to.

Short of it is, that Rahm is not popular, but given his methods, one cannot count him out. Yep, we know all about those methods, don’t we?

Well, I’m going to stop rambling now go try and recover from my physical therapy. What is happening in your neck of the woods on the political front? I’d sure be interested to know…

UPDATE: So, not only did my PT give me a hard time about politics, with only his opinion counting, but he gave me his COLD, too! Sheesh! Talk about adding insult to injury…

Happy Halloween, folks! Just for fun, here’s a little toe-tapper for you to take your mind off my crazy PT, and the upcoming election. It’s a classic!

And I am not the only one, though. Senator LeMieux of Florida has this to say about Obama’s not using all resources at his disposal (h/t to Bronwyn’s Harbor for the video):

Why in the hell is Obama not using these skimmers?? Why were they not pressed into duty immediately following the oil spill? What the hell is wrong with him, claiming he was going to let them sit idle, just in case they were needed somewhere. They ARE needed somewhere – the GULF!!!!!

And still – just about 10 weeks into this disaster, Obama has STILL not lifted the Jones Act to allow more ships in from other countries to help. Senators from the Gulf Coast area are tired of waiting for Obama to actually do his job, and are introducing a bill to allow foreign ships to come in and help with this devastating spill:

Three Republican senators from states on the Gulf of Mexico have introduced a bill they say will make it easier for the United States to accept foreign ships to help the BP oil spill clean-up effort.

Florida Senator George LeMieux, along with Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn of Texas have drafted a bill that would temporarily suspend the Jones Act in the Gulf region, which they say is keeping foreign ships from offering aid. The 90-year-old law, which already includes a provision that allows waivers for foreign ships on a case-by-case basis, mandates that vessels may only partake in coastwise transport between U.S. ports if they are “constructed in the United States, owned by United States citizens and crewed by United States citizens and/or permanent residents.” The bill’s sponsors say that given the emergency situation, the provisions currently in place do not go far enough.

“With still only 20 skimmers off the coast of Florida, we need to expedite additional assistance,” LeMieux said. “Any vessels ready to help should be allowed into the Gulf.”

No freakin’ kidding – and they should have been allowed in IMMEDIATELY following this spill. Here we are 2 1/2 months into this mess, and STILL, Obama is dragging his feet. Not so with his predecessor:

Former President Bush temporarily suspended the law in the wake of hurricane disasters in 2005. According to Keith Hennessy, who served as Bush’s deputy at the White House National Economic Council at the time, the waiver’s actual impact was “small and diffuse … [but] every little bit helped.” The senators say they are taking action because President Obama has not issued an executive order to waive the protectionist law.

“The administration has failed to issue a waiver on the Jones Act, which is blockading foreign vessels from working with their American counterparts to remove the oil from the waters of the Gulf,” said Hutchison. “The federal response to this spill has been unacceptable, and we cannot wait around until the disaster gets worse.”

Despite reports that some foreign aid has been turned away, a June 15 letter from U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen to Florida Democratic Senator Bill Nelson explained that all international offers that meet a “validated operational need” have been accepted, including skimmers from Mexico. Nelson’s office concluded that there is no need for any legislation for a blanket waiver.

“In no case has the [Federal On Scene Coordinator] or [Unified Area Command] declined to request assistance or accept offers of assistance of foreign vessels that meet an operational need because the Jones Act was implicated,” Allen wrote. “To date, no Jones Act waivers have been necessary because foreign flagged vessels involved in the BP Deepwater Horizon response have not been engaged in activities that would require such a waiver.”

Well, gosh – how to explain the ships that have been turned away? It would seem a waiver was in order:

Supporters of a blanket waiver say the current process involves more red tape than necessary.

“This bill will provide for a streamlined waiver process for any foreign vessel willing and able to help mitigate the impacts of the spill,” said LeMieux. “We can no longer wait for the Administration to work through its bureaucracy.”

A spokesman for the maritime industry said that the so-called barriers to getting foreign ships into the Gulf are much lower than reported.

“The waiver itself is not cumbersome at all,” said Mark Ruge of the Maritime Cabotage Task Force, adding that ships that operate beyond three miles of shore do not even need a Jones Act waiver.

Still, Hutchison said in a radio interview Monday that there was no reason why the U.S. should not be as open as possible to foreign aid.

“It’s just nonsense to not have every hand on deck,” she said.

I agree – it is nonsense. There is simply no excuse – NONE – for not doing everything humanly possible to get this spill cleaned up. All Obama is doing, especially with his cavalier attitude (“Fore!) is to highlight his incompetence.

Might be spills elsewhere while the Gulf is swimming in oil? Oh, brother. For what the hell is he waiting already??

But the one about whom you may NOT have heard is the Democratic nominee for US Senate, set to face Senator Jim DeMint. I guess with this story, we really do have to accept and acknowledge that we have some whacked out politics in this state. This is a good one.

So, here’s the thing. Okay. The guy who won, Alvin Greene, raised not one dime, had no campaign website, and STILL beat a 4 time state official for the shot to go against Senator DeMint. There is just one tiny little problem with him, though, as this article highlights, S.C. Dems Ask Senate Nominee To Withdraw After Felony Charge. Oh, oops:

Less than 24 hours after Alvin Greene’s surprise win in the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary, the state party has asked him to withdraw from the race because of a pending felony charge.

“Today I spoke with Alvin Greene, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, and asked him to withdraw from the race,” Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said in a statement.

The Associated Press reported Wednesday that Greene is facing felony charges for displaying pornographic pictures to a University of South Carolina student.

Fowler said she didn’t take her decision “lightly.”

“I believe strongly that the Democratic voters of this state have the right to select our nominee,” she said.

“But this new information about Mr. Greene would certainly have affected the decisions of many of those voters.”

The party said that as of Wednesday afternoon it had not received a response from Greene.

I don’t know about you, but for me, it begs the question: how did Greene even get on the ballot? Great that Fowler is stepping in now, but, seriously – how did he even get on the ballot? I hope someone knows, because he ain’t talking:

The candidate could not be reached for comment. He declined to comment on the charges to the AP.

Greene posted bond after his arrest in November for showing the obscene Internet photos to the young woman, according to the report. Though Greene has yet to enter a plea or be indicted, if convicted, he could be imprisoned for up to five years.

In an earlier interview with The Ballot Box, Greene declined to comment about his pending charges, but admitted he was surprised with the results of Tuesday’s vote. At the time of the interview, the party had not called for his resignation.

He said his chances against Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) were good because “this is a dire time in South Carolina and the U.S.”

Greene stunned observers Tuesday when he won the nomination. He raised no money and put up no campaign website but beat former four-term state lawmaker Vic Rawl 59 percent to 41. (Eden Stiffman)

I suppose one could look at this as knowing about his crime BEFORE he got into office, so it would not be a big surprise to anyone…Ahem. Seriously, though, why did people give this man a vote when they knew so little about him? That is just a tad problematic.

Oh, these wacky, wacky South Cackalackians, right? Right. Still, I’d sure like to know how the hell he even got on the ballot. Maybe Carol Fowler can answer that question for us.

Fortunately, though, some people (besides us) are seeing Obama for who he is as this article highlights (h/t to LisaB), “Obama, The Thin Skinned President“. I have been saying it for ages – Obama is an incredibly petulant, immature, arrogant, narcissistic person who seems to want the perks of the job, and none of the responsibility. Hell, if Bush had said something like this, it would be ALL OVER the headlines. I would have been writing about that, too. But Obama? You know the drill: “Leave Barry ALLOOOONNNEEEE!”

Spare me.

Except these guys didn’t, thank heavens:

In their book “The Battle for America 2008,” Haynes Johnson and Dan Balz wrote this:

[Chief political aide David] Axelrod also warned that Obama’s confessions of youthful drug use, described in his memoir, Dreams From My Father, would be used against him. “This is more than an unpleasant inconvenience,” he wrote. “It goes to your willingness and ability to put up with something you have never experienced on a sustained basis: criticism. At the risk of triggering the very reaction that concerns me, I don’t know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch. You care far too much what is written and said about you. You don’t relish combat when it becomes personal and nasty. When the largely irrelevant Alan Keyes attacked you, you flinched,” he said of Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate opponent.

I thought of this memo after reading the comment by Sen. Pat Roberts after he and other Senate Republicans had a contentious 80-minute meeting with the president on Tuesday. “He needs to take a Valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans,” Roberts said. “He’s pretty thin-skinned.”

Sen. Roberts is being too generous. Obama is among the most thin-skinned presidents we have had, and we see evidence of it in every possible venue imaginable, from one-on-one interviews to press conferences, from extemporaneous remarks to set speeches.

The president is constantly complaining about what others are saying about him. He is upset at Fox News, and conservative talk radio, and Republicans, and people carrying unflattering posters of him. He gets upset when his avalanche of faulty facts are challenged, like on health care. He gets upset when he is called on his hypocrisy, on everything from breaking his promise not to hire lobbyists in the White House to broadcasting health care meetings on C-SPAN to not curtailing earmarks to failing in his promises of transparency and bipartisanship.
In Obama’s eyes, he is always the aggrieved, always the violated, always the victim of some injustice. He is America’s virtuous and valorous hero, a man of unusually pure motives and uncommon wisdom, under assault by the forces of darkness.
It is all so darn unfair.

Not surprisingly, Obama’s thin skin leads to self pity. As Daniel Halper of The Weekly Standard pointed out, in a fundraising event for Sen. Barbara Boxer, Obama said,

Let’s face it: this has been the toughest year and a half since any year and a half since the 1930s. (Emphasis mine)

Really, now? Worse than the period surrounding December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001? Worse than what Gerald Ford faced after the resignation of Richard Nixon and Watergate, which constituted the worse constitutional scandal in our history and tore the country apart? Worse than what Ronald Reagan faced after Jimmy Carter (when interest rates were 22 percent, inflation was more than 13 percent, and Reagan faced something entirely new under the sun, “stagflation”)? Worse than 1968, when Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated and there was rioting in our streets? Worse than what LBJ faced during Vietnam — a war which eventually claimed more than 58,000 lives? Worse than what John Kennedy faced in the Bay of Pigs and in the Cuban Missile Crisis, when we and the Soviet Union edged up to the brink of nuclear war? Worse than what Franklin Roosevelt faced on the eve of the Normandy invasion? Worse than what Bush faced in Iraq in 2006, when that nation was on the edge of civil war, or when the financial system collapsed in the last months of his presidency? Worse than what Truman faced in defeating imperial Japan, in reconstructing post-war Europe, and in responding to North Korea’s invasion of South Korea?

That isn’t “thin-skinned” – that is DELUSIONAL. He honestly thinks he has had more to deal with in the past 80 years than Roosevelt during a little thing he may have heard of, World War II??? Or how about Vietnam? The WORLD TRADE TOWERS??? Seriously? Wow. Yep, I’d say he’s delusional. Back to the article:

In his autobiography “Present at the Creation,” Dean Acheson wrote about the immensity of the task the Truman administration faced after war ended in 1945, which “only slowly revealed itself. As it did so, it began to appear as just a bit less formidable than that described in the first chapter of Genesis. That was to create a world out of chaos; ours, to create half a world, a free half, out of the same material without blowing the whole to pieces in the process.”

For Obama to complain that the problems he faces are so much worse than any other president in the last 80 years is stunningly self-indulgent, to say nothing of ahistorical.

With Obama there is also the compulsive need to admonish others, to point fingers, to say that the problems he faces are not of his doing. Oh, sure; on occasions there are the grudging concessions, like in Thursday’s press conference devoted to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where Obama says, “In case you’re wondering who’s responsible, I take responsibility” to ensure that “everything is done to shut this down.” But those words are always pro forma, done reluctantly and for tactical political reasons, a rhetorical trick that is meant to get him off the hook. As recently as last week, Obama, in the Rose Garden, was implicitly blaming the previous occupant of the White House for the explosion of the offshore rig Deepwater Horizon [Obama remarks linked here].

The president’s instincts are by now obvious to all: deflect blame, point fingers, and lash out at others, most especially his predecessor. We know from press reports (see here and here) that the strategy for the Democrats in 2010, two years after Obama was elected president, is to – you guessed it – blame George W. Bush.
What explains all this is hard to know. But it’s clear he has adopted an image of himself as something rare and remarkable, a historic figure of almost super-human abilities. “I am absolutely certain that generations from now,” Obama said during the summer of his presidential run, “we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”
“We are the ones we have been waiting for,” Obama and his aides said constantly during the campaign.

Hmmm. Yes, this simply adds credence to my contention that he is delusional. He really does seem to think he is some kind of Messiah figure. The whole “rise of the oceans began to slow” (because it was loaded down with oil, apparently) thing is just scary shit. There is no other way to describe it. And yet his “Resistance Is Futile” Obots didn’t bat an EYE at this Messianic statement. What does that say about them?? Oh, I think we all know that, too. And they walk among us. That’s pretty damn scary, too. They think he’s dreamy, after all, because they haven’t bother to really look, or to believe their own eyes and ears when faced with a ton of information to the contrary. So here we are, stuck with this man:

President Obama’s more unattractive personal qualities probably won’t wear well with the electorate. Americans tend to tire of those who are look back rather than ahead and are always blaming others for the problems they face.

Barack Obama — a man who was as unprepared to be president as any man in our lifetime — has over the last 16 months shown that he is overmatched by events. His poll numbers continue to drop, his health care proposal is becoming less rather than more popular, the oil spill in the Gulf is badly eroding his image for leadership and competence, and his party has been battered in election after election since November. We have now reached the point where Democrats are running against Obama and his agenda in order to survive (witness Mark Critz in Pennsylvania).

We can hope that Obama, an intelligent man, learns from the errors of his ways. But the great danger in all of this is that in the face of his troubles Obama and his aides become increasingly defensive, display a greater sense of entitlement and even a touch of paranoia. When arrogant men lose control of events it can easily lead to feelings of isolation, to striking out at critics, to bullying opponents, and to straying across lines that should not be crossed.

And so the president needs to surround himself with people who can tamp down on the uglier impulses within his administration, who are willing to tell Obama that the lore created by him, Axelrod, Plouffe, and Gibbs during the campaign has given way to reality, that cockiness is not the same as wisdom, and that spin is no substitute for substantive achievements. And Obama needs someone who has standing in his life to tell him that the presidency is a revered institution that should not be treated as if it were a ward in Chicago.

The ingredients are in place for some serious problems down the road. Those who care for the president need to recognize the warning signs now, sooner rather later, before it becomes too late, for him and for the nation.

“Intelligent”? Why oh why do we keep hearing THAT meme? How has he proven this “intelligence” thus far, I’d like to know? Tell me. Oh, sure, he got the DNC to support him, or the DNC PICKED him, more like it, knowing what an empty suit he is, and could be molded to do their bidding. But that isn’t necessarily “intelligence.” He couldn’t come up with his own policies, for crying out loud, so resorted to stealing from the REAL intelligent person in the race, then got the MSM to give him the credit. Again, not “intelligent.” There are other words for that. Corrupt, unethical, morally bankrupt (oh, sorry – that’s two words), conniving, duplicitous, and I could go on. Feel free to add your own. But none of those in and of themselves are markers of intelligence.

Bottom line though, is this: What in the hell is WRONG with this man? HOW in the hell did he get the most powerful job in the world?? WHO would want him to have this much power? And how are we going to recover from him being president? These are the questions with which we must wrestle, and so, so many more. Wow. “Thin-skinned” is the very least of what Obama is…

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

He is right that we need to support our military. But he is wrong about his own service. He received five deferments, and served in the Marine Reserves Stateside. Oops.

Over the years Blumenthal has embellished his record, something that caused concern for his old friend, Christopher Shays, as detailed in this article, “Shays Watched As Blumenthal’s Claims Evolved.” Apparently, this was over a period of years:

[snip] Mr. Shays, a 10-term incumbent who lost a re-election bid in November 2008, was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War. He said he and Mr. Blumenthal began their careers in politics at roughly the same time and frequently addressed the same groups. He recalled that early on, Mr. Blumenthal spoke humbly about his military record, rarely discussing it and always making clear that he had held only desk jobs and had not been in the line of fire, though he remained proud of having been a Marine.

“But as time went on, he would mention it more often, and Vietnam would show up,” even when Mr. Blumenthal was not speaking to veterans, Mr. Shays said.

Eventually, Mr. Shays said, he began hearing Mr. Blumenthal refer to having served in Vietnam. Mr. Shays said he assumed, wrongly, that Mr. Blumenthal had perhaps been a military lawyer there. That alone, he said, was enough for him to have had the impulse to advise Blumenthal to be careful, that people could interpret his remarks as a claim to have seen action there.

“I felt inclined to go to him and say, ‘Dick, in your service in Vietnam, you weren’t on the firing line, you don’t want to overstate that,’ ” Mr. Shays said. “I just felt like he was raising the stakes in a way that was inconsistent with what he’d said in the past. I was actually going to go up and speak to him. And I wish I had.”

Oh dear. Well, CT AG Blumenthal finally addressed his claim:

Um, no one is impugning your character, AG Blumenthal. You did that all by your very own self when you flat out LIED and said you served in Vietnam, and by your dissembling now. I commend you for your decision to join the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War. So did my uncle, only he actually DID go to Vietnam. You dishonor those who actually did serve overseas, who lived through a horrendous war, from which many never recovered even though they made it back to these shores. And you blame OTHERS for pointing out what you yourself said, and what is on video?

Blumenthal’s opponent, Rob Simmons, actually did serve in Vietnam, and has this to say about such a claim:

I think Mr. Simmons summed this up beautifully. And, the additional insult of Blumenthal appearing at a VFW post did not pass Simmons by. Blumnthal had no right to be there, and compounded his infraction by choosing that locale.

Why can Mr. Blumenthal not just admit he lied?? He DOES owe an apology to those who did serve in country. Moreover, he owes an apology for taking the victim stance he is claiming now. It is unbecoming of someone of his stature, and someone who is a Marine (once a Marine, always a Marine).

Perhaps Mr. Blumenthal has forgotten the motto, Semper fidelis:

Semper Fidelis distinguishes the Marine Corps bond from any other. It goes beyond teamwork – it is a brotherhood and lasts for life.

Latin for “always faithful,” Semper Fidelis became the Marine Corps motto in 1883. It guides Marines to remain faithful to the mission at hand, to each other, to the Corps and to country, no matter what.

Becoming a Marine is a transformation that cannot be undone, and Semper Fi reminds us of that. Once made, a Marine will forever live by the ethics and values of the Corps.

I think that says it all, don’t you?

“We have repeatedly sought your departments’ cooperation,” they wrote. “Our efforts have been met with delay, the production of little that was not already public and shifting reasons for why the departments are withholding [information] that we have requested.”

Before he went on his terrorist rampage, Hasan was in regular e-mail contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, the US-born imam who ministered to at least three 9/11 hijackers as well as the would-be Christmas Day underwear bomber.

Indeed, FBI and Army investigators reportedly intercepted those e-mails, and also knew that he’d been heard making statements justifying suicide bombing.

“Given the warning signals about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s extremist radicalism,” ask Lieberman and Collins, “why was he not stopped before he took 13 American lives?”

Why not, indeed?

That is the question – why WON’T Holder and Gates provide the information the Senate needs to fulfill its duty? I am sure this will be dragging out for a while.

Then I reported that Gov. Rendell claimed the Tea Party is not a legitimate movement, basically asserting that its “popularity” is simply the result of positive media coverage. After I picked my jaw up off the floor at such an incredibly ridiculous statement based on FACTS, I found numerous instances of the media covering the Tea Party, but it was far from positive.

I was not the only one to refute this ridiculous claim, though, A Tea Party member, who is also a DJ, had this to say about Gov. Rendell’s statement:

Uh, yeah. I might add, I was reminded by Karen For Hillary that Rendell had also tried to found an Anti-PUMA group during the election, one he termed, H.O.U.N.D. (thanks, Ani, for acronym). Get it? Ahem. Yeah, he needs some rehab from that Obama Kool Aide.

And while I am on the topic of the media, and the way it covers events, how about the coverage of the AZ protesters of the new Immigration law v. Tea Party coverage:

So Anti-Immigration protesters are heaving full water bottles at police officers, some are being arrested, and this is a PEACEFUL protest? Wow.

Finally, there is this call to violence by Slate’s David Plotz:

Plotz acknowledged that he was indeed calling for violence (isn’t that a crime? “Inciting a riot” is what it sounds like to me, though I’m no lawyer). Moreover, when asked if he wanted to burn people in effigy, he made it clear that “in effigy” was NOT his plan.

Can you imagine, can you JUST imagine, if ANYONE in the middle or the right issued such a call?? Ohmygosh, they would have the FBI at their door tout de suite.

I might add, Plotz is clearly uninformed – there IS a populist uprising in progress in this country right now. It’s the TEA PARTY. Whether you agree with it or not, that is exactly what it is – a populist uprising against wasteful spending, taxation, and government expansion. You’d think someone who was in the news business would be aware of that. Ahem.

Stay tuned – I am sure there will be more to add in the coming days!

This is a story about which we have not heard much in the news of late:

Two Senators Subpoena Obama Administration For Information On Fort Hood Shootings

Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) issued the first congressional subpoenas of the Obama administration Monday after accusing the White House of stonewalling their requests for information about the Fort Hood shootings.

In a letter with the subpoenas, the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said the FBI and Defense Department had ignored their requests for five months. The Nov. 5 shootings at the Texas base, the largest Army post in the United States, left 13 people dead.

Lieberman and Collins said they sought witnesses and documents about what the government previously knew about the alleged gunman, Army psychiatrist Nidal M. Hasan, and whether it had adequately investigated his pre-shooting communications with Yemeni cleric and suspected terrorist Anwar al-Aulaqi.

Lawmakers gave the administration until April 26 to respond or face a committee vote to take the administration to court.

Well, that time is fast approaching. It will be telling to see how Obama responds:

“Given the warning signs of Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s extremist radicalization and growing hostility toward the U.S. military and the United States generally, why was he not stopped before he took thirteen American lives, and how can we prevent such a tragedy from happening again?” Lieberman and Collins wrote Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

“Unfortunately, it is impossible for us to avoid reaching the conclusion that the departments simply do not want to cooperate with our investigation,” they wrote in the letter, which they said followed four other formal letters to the Pentagon and two to the Justice Department.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs referred questions about the matter to the Defense Department.

On Friday, Gates said that the military had “no interest in hiding anything” but that its most important priority was to prevent the release of materials that could compromise Hasan’s prosecution on 13 charges of murder and 32 charges of attempted murder.

“We are going to be reviewing the subpoena and determining the proper way forward,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Monday. “We will continue to cooperate with the Congress as we go forward, but it has to be with the caveat that whatever we do does not have a potentially negative impact on our ability to prosecute.”

The senators said senior Pentagon and FBI personnel had provided closed briefings to lawmakers, but added, “Congress cannot conduct effective oversight based only on those facts the agencies want Congress to have.”

Collins and Lieberman said the FBI and Pentagon had permitted their personnel to speak to internal investigators — including the FBI’s deputy director and a Gates-appointed panel led by former Army secretary Togo West and retired Adm. Vernon Clark, a former chief of naval operations — but not to their committee. “Congress cannot settle for less access than the West-Clark review received,” they said.

In an April 12 letter, Justice and Defense lawyers said that interviews could compromise agents’ testimony at trial and chill future investigations, and that information about how Hasan’s associates and superiors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center dealt with complaints about his alleged radicalization could not be provided until internal disciplinary proceedings were completed.

The following report hits the highlights of this action by Senators Lieberman and Collins:

Here is an interesting comparison. While Major Hasan was allowed to spout jihadist rhetoric and generally appear, well, nuts, including calling the war in Iraq a “War On Islam,” no significant move was made to impede his career in anyway by the Army.

Meanwhile, Lt. Col. Lakin, another doctor, will face a court martial for his refusal to follow an order from Obama, seeing it as unlawful (Lakin is a “birther”). I am not in any way, shape, or form, defending Lakin’s refusal to follow an order to deploy, but it is telling that he is facing a court martial, as well as the Army suggesting this decorated flight surgeon get a brain scan because he doesn’t believe Obama is natural born.

Hey, even the Arizona House has voted to force Obama to prove his citizenship if he hopes to be on the ballot in that state again (better late than never, I’m sure some would say!), so I guess they all need brain scans, too?

Interesting how the two doctors were treated. One, according to this article, injected his political beliefs in a most inappropriate manner in the classroom, and about whom people say they are not surprised he killed a slew of his fellow soldiers. Did anyone suggest a brain scan for him prior to the killings for his rhetoric? Not that I have seen reported.

The other, a highly decorated flight surgeon, questions the authenticity of the president to be president. As a result, he has defied an order to muster to another post, and a return to the theater. His actions are being treated as far more serious than Hasan’s. Not saying he is right, just saying there is a vast disparity between the two. Curious.

And now the Obama Administration is stonewalling Congress on the release of documents related to the Fort Hood shooting. I wish I could say I am surprised, but I am not. Are you?

Those are some forceful words from Senator Byrd. What did President Clinton do? Clinton acknowledged that Senator Byrd was correct, and dropped the pursuit of Reconciliation to pass Healthcare back in the 1990′s.

My question to Senator Byrd is: why are you not arguing in the exact same manner against Obama’s desire to use this process for the EXACT SAME REASON???

How about Senator Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota on Reconciliation? This was Senator Conrad on the floor of the Senate recalling the debate over President Clinton’s consideration of Reconciliation for Healthcare:

And now? Oh, you know what’s coming. Now Conrad has signaled he is willing to use this budgetary procedure to pass Obama’s exceedingly flawed (and not even completely written) Healthcare bill.

I might add, he was that upset in 2001 over a $138 Billion dollar initiative? Ahahahahah, isn’t that just precious? Especially considering Obama and the Democrats racked up $223 Billion in DEBT just this past month alone!! In just ONE month they have spent more $90 billion MORE than Bill Clinton’s Healthcare Initiative. Wow, Senator Conrad, way to really stick to your budgetary guns there.

No wonder Democrats are referred to as the “Tax and Spend” Party. I used to take offense at that, but they are earning that label in a big way now.

And then, there is Obama as a US Senator on how we cannot use Reconciliation. Yo knew it was coming. Oh, make sure to check out the date when he is talking about getting a bill to his desk to his sign:

Did you catch that? September of 2007 he was already claiming the presidency. Talk about hubris. Now? You know that, too. Obama wants to use it. In the following video from the Blair Street Summit, Obama’s essentially saying we are a bunch of dumbasses who don’t care how Congress does its job:

Here’s a newsflash for you, Obama – we DO pay attention to how things get done in Washington, or not, and how much you all are listening to us or not. You most definitely are NOT.

Just to digress for a moment, I just wonder why in the world this man wanted this position so much that he was willing to lie, cheat and steal to get it when he CLEARLY has such little regard for the people whom he is SUPPOSED to be serving. Must be those perks he mentioned in the first video because it isn’t any respect he has for us.

And talk about HYPOCRISY. Byrd, Conrad, and Obama are poster boys for it in their flipflop about Reconciliation to shove this extremely expensive, pork laden, Big Pharma gifting, increased insurance premium making, Medicare curring healthcare bill down our throats.

Obama wants to “get ‘er done” before he leaves next week, another false deadline.

To that end, the House Democrats have locked themselves away in their “transparent” attempt to come to some agreement about this bill so they can try and meet Obama’s time frame.

So glad they are spending SO Much time on this when 462,000 people have filed for unemployment this WEEK. The numbers were expected to be lower.

In my own state, the front page news included that unemployment in South Carolina has hit another record high:

Employers cut 27,700 positions throughout the month, including seasonal jobs in tourism and retail, as the jobless rate reached 12.6 percent, the state Employment Security Commission said Wednesday.

South Carolina’s unemployed population — a total of 273,455 residents — is the biggest on record.

Compare that number with the data recorded several years ago and a grim picture emerges. That figure, for example, never topped 100,000 people in 2000. Throughout 2005, the number averaged 140,000.

“It gives us a sense of how many jobs the economy needs to create in order

to put a majority of people back to work,” said economist Don Schunk of Coastal Carolina University. “More so than the unemployment rate, (that number) tells us how far we have to go before we return to some sense of normalcy.”

The preliminary January rate eclipsed the previous record set in December. That number originally came in at 12.6 percent, but it was revised downward to 12.4 percent last week, based on more current information.

So, yes, Congress, by all means, cancel all of your other meetings like you did today (Thursday), continue to focus all of your time and energy on a healthcare bill we have been telling you for months we do not want, while we continue to lose our jobs, our homes, and our faith in you.

November cannot come soon enough.

The other night, Stewart went after Olbermann for his baseless attacks on Scott Brown, the new US Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (see, I know how to spell it, even without spell-check! Ahem.). It was absolutely priceless, and is continued within Olbermann’s response to Stewart below:

Yeah, I think there is one person who was funny in that clip, and it sure wasn’t Olbermann.

Stewart gave Olbermann a couple of points, but when someone uses as a reference a video clip (a Brown rally) that has been discredited, yet still insists on making the point with no context (that what was shouted off camera related to a case on which Coakley worked), it is demonstrative of some of the hoops Olbermann will jump through to attack someone. It is disingenuous at best, but that is what we have come to expect from Olbermann. Bluster, innuendo, and attacks based on the thinnest of inferences. I mean, really, for Olbermann, of all people, to attack ANYONE else for being sexist, is just, well, laughable. Go back to the 2008 Primary campaign on just about any night, but this one in particular is pretty indicative:

Olbermann was discussing the election with Newsweek’s Howard Fineman, a frequent guest. They topic was, how can a winner finally be determined in this never-ending Democratic race for the nomination? Of course, the assumption was that it was Clinton that should be shown the door (despite clearly still earning her spot in the race thanks to, um, voters). Fineman said that, all the delegate math aside, ultimately it was going to take “some adults somewhere in the Democratic party to step in and stop this thing, like a referee in a fight that could go on for thirty rounds. Those are the super, super, super delegates who are going to have to decide this.”

Said Olbermann: “Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.”

Now, WHO’S sexist, exactly, Keith? Yeah, uh huh – I’ll give you a hint. It ain’t Scott Brown.

And since Jon Stewart mentioned John Edwards, I just had to see what he said about him. Here it is – a newsflash for “idiots”:

Well, I certainly cannot disagree with Stewart’s assessment of those who did NOT know this child really was Edwards, all protests aside.

Yep, I may just have to start watching The Daily Show again if he keeps going this way. I guess people really ARE starting to wake up! And about damn time, too…

Many of you may know that I spent a few years in the Boston area. And no, this isn’t about baseball, though I can say – it is hard being a Fan of the Pinstripes in Red Sox Nation. Clearly, though, I survived.

No, this is about some of the legal cases that have Martha Coakley’s name on them. Recently, Bronwyn’s Harbor made mention of one case, the Fells Acres Case, with which I am very familiar. Why? Because I knew Cheryl LaFave and her mother, Violet Amirault. They, along with their brother, were falsely accused of child abuse at the daycare center they ran. They are now all out of prison. John Stossel did an investigative report for ABC News on the Fells Acres case, and the imprisonment of the Amirault family (h/t to Brownyn’s Harbor):

Three lives were destroyed by false allegations – three. People, GOOD people, who never deserved the horrible stigma that became attached to them. And Martha Coakley was hellbent on keeping Gerald Amirault in prison, even after the glaring lack of evidence, and the glaring coercion of testimony from the children.

There was another big case with which Coakley was connected (h/t to Nazareth Priest for this article). That was the “Pedophile Priest” case,t he second in a three-part series of “Martha’s Greatest Hits: The Things The Democrats Would Like You To Forget About Martha Coakley.” Click HERE for Part Three.

Back to the case at hand. This one is a doozy:

The “Pedophile Priest” Case, 1995-2002: Coakley cut secret deal in 1995 that allowed Father Geoghan to molest again.

Martha Coakley is running for the U.S. Senate in part on her track record of keeping children safe from predators. The actual facts, however, are somewhat at odds with her campaign biography.

One of the most notorious cases of homosexual child abuse in the “pedophile priests” scandal that rocked the American Catholic Church in general and the Archdiocese of Boston in particular over the past twenty years involved Father John Geoghan, who came to symbolize the cancer in the church.

Here’s a brief introduction to the late, defrocked Father Geoghan by Denise Noe in Crime Magazine. Be sure to read the whole story, then come back.

The unofficial poster boy for priest pedophilia was a Boston priest named Father John Geoghan. He became a symbol for everything the church had done wrong in handling this problem when, on Jan. 6, 2002, The Boston Globe broke the story about how Boston’s archbishop, Cardinal Bernard Law, had moved the abusive Geoghan from parish to parish over the years. The article also discussed the $10 million dollar settlement the church had already made with families of his victims. After the article ran, an embarrassed Law apologized – and turned over to law enforcement the names of dozens of Boston priests who had been similarly accused.

The Geoghan scandal rocked Boston, and eventually resulted in Cardinal Law’s removal as Archbishop. In part to shield him from possible prosecution, the late Pope John Paul II summoned Law to Rome, where he was ensconced as the Archpriest of the historic Basilica of St. Mary Major, and replaced him in Boston with Archbishop Sean O’Malley.

And what was Ms. Coakley’s role in all this? At first, she was applauded for her role in the successful prosecution of Father Geoghan in 2002. But then it was discovered that she had plea-bargained away molestation charges against him in 1995, letting him off with probation in a deal that was kept secret from the public.

What?

One possible explanation for her actions is that she had lost a high-profile case against a priest in suburban Woburn, Father Paul Manning; Manning’s parishioners reportedly cheered when he was acquitted of molesting an 11-year-old altar boy at his 1994 trial.

Still, as David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, noted at the time: “Charging Geoghan with something and exposing him publicly might well have brought forward victims, witnesses, whistle-blowers, and evidence that could have resulted in a conviction and a tougher sentence.’’

Sigh. I don’t even know what to say about this. But here is what Martha Coakley has to say in defending this decision:

Wow. I am no attorney, but I have worked with and for attorneys. I cannot imagine them not pursuing every lead they could in a case. I cannot imagine them pushing to get the records from the Roman Catholic Diocese, even if they were freakin’ deacons in the church. Holy smokes.

The article continues:

And here’s the Boston Globe story, recounting the whole sordid mess:

When Martha Coakley was the Middlesex district attorney, her office prosecuted the Rev. John J. Geoghan based on an allegation that he squeezed the buttocks of a 10-year-old boy a single time at a public swimming pool. The highly publicized 2002 conviction won Coakley widespread praise for bringing the first successful criminal case against the widely accused pedophile, a priest many had called “Father Jack.’’

But seven years earlier, Coakley, then the head of the Middlesex child abuse unit, had Geoghan in her sights and took a dramatically different approach. Back then, three grade-school brothers told investigators that Geoghan had inappropriately touched them during numerous visits to their Waltham home, and had made lewd telephone calls to them. Rather than prosecute, Coakley agreed to grant Geoghan a year of probation in a closed-door proceeding that received no media attention at all.

Because of the deal, Geoghan faced no formal charges and no criminal record.

In sanctioning the 1995 probation agreement, Coakley, now the front-runner in a special election for the United States Senate, never pressed the Boston Archdiocese for any prior complaints against Geoghan.

That’s one way to make a name for yourself: let a pedophile off the hook privately so that he can molest more children, and then make a big, public conviction to take credit for your amazing work keeping children safe from……the pedophile priest you secretly let go seven years earlier.

And as for Father Geoghan, he was strangled and killed by a fellow inmate in February, 2004.

That is quite a sordid tale indeed. I encourage you to read the other two parts of this series (I’ll give you a hint about Part Three – it has to do with unreported assets). It is eye opening.

Now, I know some people are surprised I am not supporting the woman in this case (though since I live in SC, I don’t exactly have a vote – oh wait, maybe if I worked for ACORN I could…Ahem.). And I did like Coakley when I first heard about her. I was excited at the prospect of a woman taking over Teddy’s seat, an irony considering his way with women. But, as Scott Brown has reminded us, it isn’t Teddy’s Seat:

As I have stated all along, it is the RECORD of the candidates that needs to be considered. The decisions Coakley made as Attorney General are indicative of the decisions she will make as a US Senator, and those DO affect all of us. This is exactly for what I was calling during the 2008 Primary Season – look at the records of the candidates, and vote for the one who stands above.

That means, when the Massachusetts Democrats send out a four page mailer with the claim that Scott Brown wants to turn away ALL rape victims from hospitals, they sure as hell better be able to back that up with his RECORD. This is to what they are referring:

Brown is a state senator, and in 2005 he filed an amendment that would have allowed workers at religious hospitals or with firmly held religious beliefs to avoid giving emergency contraception to rape victims. The amendment failed, and Brown voted in favor of a bill allowing the contraception. He also voted to override a veto issued by his fellow Republican, then-Gov. Mitt Romney.

This is casting aspersions plain and simple. Stick to the facts, stick to the records, let the people decide based on that. Don’t take (yet another)page out of the Obama playbook a la the “Harry and Louise” ads. If the party believes she is the best candidate, they shouldn’t have to resort to flat-out lies about her opponent’s record.

So we need more women in Congress? Hells yeah. But that doesn’t mean we should want any woman, regardless of her record or the (stupid) things she says. In this particular case, Scott Brown appears to be the better candidate. He is pro-choice, a lieutenant colonel (30 years) in the National Guard JAG Corps, and supports civil unions for LGB people, like (too) many Democrats. As far as I can tell, Brown knows Curt Schilling is NOT a Yankees fan, so there’s that…

The people will decide who will fill the people’s seat. Until then, it is sure to be an interesting ride.

On the ol’ Inspiro-meter, I’d say the president has hit that rarely reached sweet spot right between Droopy the Dog and Eyeore. Note, in particular, the deadness in his eyes as he closes out his appeal.

How could I NOT watch the ad?

And now, so can you:

Ms. Ham is right on target.

It is to the ad above that State Senator Scott Brown said to Obama, Scott Brown: Obama Not Invited To This Party. Whoa. There’s more:

Surging GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown yesterday warned President Obama to “stay away” from the Bay State during his roiling race against Democratic rival Martha Coakley and not to interfere with their intensifying battle in the campaign’s final days.

“He should stay away and let Martha and I discuss the issues one on one,” Brown said. “The machine is coming out of the woodwork to get her elected. They’re bringing in outsiders, and we don’t need them.”

Coakley’s campaign showed signs of panic as they scrambled to get a last-minute appearance by Obama to bolster their effort before Tuesday’s election.

Some polls are showing the Senate contest far closer than any pundits expected, and Coakley in danger of losing her clear shot at the historic seat.

Coakley said yesterday she hasn’t heard from the White House. “I welcome his support, but we’ve got a lot of support here in Massachusetts (and) I think he’s got a lot on his plate in Washington,” she said.

Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday that the president had no plans to visit Massachusetts, even though he realizes “there’s a lot at stake in the election.”

But sources said Coakley is pushing for a Sunday event with Obama as the race remains glued to the national spotlight.

“We would love to see Obama any time,” said Boston City Council President Michael Ross, a Coakley supporter who attended her event at Dorchester’s Kit Clark Senior Center yesterday. “Any time the president of the United States comes it will remind Democrats to get involved.”

Considering Obama’s continually tanking poll numbers, not to mention the swing to Brown, I imagine Senator Brown would love to see Obama come there to stump for Coakley, too, right? Oh, yeah:

But Republican consultant Charlie Manning said a visit from a president with tanking ratings would make Coakley look desperate as upstart Brown enjoys a last-minute boost from climbing poll numbers and media momentum.

“It’s sort of like trying to bail out a boat that’s already sinking. I don’t think they can fool the voters of Massachusetts this time,” Manning said.

National interest in the race centers on an impending vote on health-care reform – championed by the late U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

A Brown win would be crushing for Obama, who would lose a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate, said Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

In addition to a rally headed by former President Bill Clinton planned for tomorrow, Coakley’s team circulated a heartfelt plea from Kennedy’s widow, Vicki, last night asking supporters for help. They’re also rumored to be pushing for a potential event with Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy.

“It’s a real fight at this point in time,” said U.S. Rep. William Delahunt (D-Quincy). “We’re doing everything we can to help.”

Brown urged Coakley’s campaign to keep the race about local issues instead of national figures.

“It’s me against the machine,” he said. “And it always has been.”

No doubt Brown has that right.

But the other thing he has right is highlighting Coakley’s support for a Healthcare Bill opposed by TWO-THIRDS of the country, not to mention the possibility of Cap And Trade (which might as well be called, “Cost and Tax”), also opposed by two-thirds of Americans.

I don’t know what the outcome will be on Tuesday. Previously, I had thought Coakley would be good, but then she keeps opening her mouth and demonstrating how clueless she is (no terrorists in Afghanistan? Really?? Oh, that’s good news. I wonder why she knows this and no one else in the entire country does?). To support her just because she is a woman isn’t good enough. She has to be a good choice, the best choice, too. If Brown can put the brakes on this Senate Run Wild, well, I can support that. Someone needs to do it, that’s for damn sure.

What I do know is I will be watching with great anticipation come Tuesday night!