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.

So the other night, Obama had his big Afghanistan speech. Finally, after months of waiting for a decision regarding the request by General McChrystal, Obama laid out his plan, pretty much what had been telegraphed to us before the speech (yet, he still had to get in his photo op and applause, lest he whither away).

Naturally, there has been lots of response to that speech, as well as the location in which Obama chose to have it. Here is one of my favorite All-Stars, Charles Krauthammer on the Speech:

Uh, yeah. Krauthammer followed up this panel with a commentary, “Uncertain Trumpet,” which lays it all out.

And how about our friends across the pond? What did they think of Obama’s big speech? Well, the headline alone gives it away, “Barack Obama Is No Churchill.” Nope, not even a little bit:

One of the first decisions President Obama made upon taking office was to remove a bust of Sir Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and send it packing to the British Embassy. The gift, a present from the British people in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, was pride of place in the White House under George W. Bush, but was seen as surplus to requirements by his successor. Hardly a good omen for an increasingly unpopular president, whose nation is actively engaged in a global war against a brutal enemy that seeks the destruction of the free world.

Speaking at West Point last night, Barack Obama badly needed to display some Churchillian grit, but there was none on offer. As Commander in Chief President Obama has to project leadership, strength and determination before his country and his foes, as well as offer reassurance to Washington’s international allies. All were in short supply in front of the assembled cadets .The speech was less a rallying cry for victory over barbarism, than a dull professorial-style lecture that sought to justify his confused approach to the US mission in a cold and clinical fashion that simply failed to convince or inspire.

Ah, yes – the bust of Churchill that Obama could not WAIT to get out of the Oval Office. Talk about telegraphing tone – yikes.

Back to the speech itself:

Parts of the highly defensive speech were heavily partisan in nature, involving attacks on the Iraq War, as well as the previous administration’s approach to Afghanistan. He also could not resist a boast that “I’ve prohibited torture”, and that he has pledged to close down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. For a 40 minute speech there was barely any applause from the largely muted audience, except towards the end when he spoke of American values and its distinguished history.

The president went to great lengths to avoid referring to the enemy as terrorists, and refused to use the word Islamists, preferring to refer to the war as a “struggle against violent extremism.” At times it was a weak-kneed address better suited to a group of adoring left-wing students in Paris, Strasbourg or Berlin than the US military academy. Even the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was stone-faced throughout.

After nearly three months of painful dithering over whether to launch an Iraq-style surge against the Taliban, the president disappointingly offered less than half the number of troops that his own commander on the ground had requested. General Stanley McChrystal had sought up to 80,000 soldiers to guarantee success, but was given just 30,000.

“Dithering” would be the operative word. Or, you could use “hemming and hawing,” if that suits better. The point is, a decisive president Obama is not. But there is something else he is:

There was also deflating talk from the president of a clear timetable for withdrawal of forces by July 2011, a hugely risky move that hands the initiative to the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies. In justifying his withdrawal strategy he declared America could not afford to ignore the cost of the war, which at $30 billion this year is massively dwarfed by Obama’s $800 billion pork-laden stimulus package.

Significantly, there was no mention at all of the British contribution, and the Anglo-American Special Relationship was not even on Obama’s teleprompter, let along his radar screen. Great Britain will shortly have over 10,000 troops on the battlefields of southern Afghanistan, and has lost more than 230 brave servicemen and women alongside their American counterparts. The sacrifices made by America’s closest friend deserve to be acknowledged by the US president but were met last night with callous indifference.

And there it is. Do you get the impression that the UK is not so enamored (enamoured – to be inclusive) of Obama? No doubt, it started with the removal of Churchill’s bust from the Oval Office. Then came the numerous slights to Prime Minister Brown who got not so much as a State sandwich on his first visit (in stark contrast to the big huge State Dinner for the Indian Prime Minister). And then the failure to acknowledge the sacrifice of our allies in theater with us.

It all comes down to leadership:

America and the free world need stronger leadership than this. Instead of turning to Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill as role models Barack Obama has so far chosen a middle way of compromise and uncertainty. That must change if the West is to triumph in Afghanistan. The addition of tens of thousands more troops is a step in the right direction, but is simply not enough to secure victory and is dramatically undercut by the bizarre announcement of an exit in 18 months.

The war in Afghanistan is ultimately a battle between good and evil, and is essential to the defence of the United States, Great Britain, Europe and all who believe in the cause of liberty and freedom. It is a war that is vital to keeping our cities safe from attack by Al Qaeda. It must be led by a president who firmly believes that it can be won, and who is willing to commit the resources necessary to bring the enemy to its knees. Today was a huge opportunity for Barack Obama to outline a clear, coherent strategy for victory, and he spectacularly failed to grasp it.

I would have to concur with the final assessment – Obama is not a world leader. He may be a world PLACATER, or a World Courtier, but a Leader? No, most definitely is not, not by a long shot. Spiegel’s take is summed up in this paragraph:

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One could say that.

Since I mentioned the West Point cadets, and in case you didn’t know this already:

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.

One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war — and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

Many of us are not the only ones to acknowledge the timing of the withdrawal:

For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama’s re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

Yes, so coincidental, Obama’s time-frame and his re-election bid. Hahahahahaha. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

At least now others in the world are beginning to awaken to the reality that many of us knew: Obama is a Poseur, completely incapable of governing, much less acting as the Commander in Chief. His continued use of our military, including the West Point Cadets, as a “photo op” to prop him up is disturbing.

Worst of all, though, he has managed to give aid to our enemies by telegraphing to them exactly how long they will have to go underground. He has aided them in his bid to play both sides. He’s not just a failed leader, but his announced withdrawal time line is detrimental to the effort, thus to our military, possibly our country. And for that, he is a disgrace.

“Few would have seen on that day that… that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent.”

That comment was SO out of place, and SO unnecessary.

Yet, SO typical.

Turns out I am not the only one who wonders why Obama continues to get a free pass for actions that, had Bush done them, would be front page news (and again, I have NO love lost for Bush – absolutely zero, but fair is fair). Josh Gerstein of Politico had these same questions, about which he wrote in this article, What If Bush Had Done That?. Indeed:

A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more.

What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.

It’s a sign that the media’s echo chamber can be a funny thing, prone to the vagaries of news judgment, and an illustration that, in politics, context is everything.

Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?

The media’s “echo chamber”? That is a kind reference for what they are really doing, or rather aren’t doing: their jobs. Conservatives aren’t the only ones questioning why this is happening. Anyone who truly cares about the our democracy and the state of journalism in this country are asking, too. But they do ask a good question:

And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?

“We have a joke about it. We’re going to start a website: IfBushHadDoneThat.com,” former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie said. “The watchdogs are curled up around his feet, sleeping soundly. … There are countless examples: some silly, some serious.”

Indeed, Bush got grief for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House and spending too much time on his beloved bike. But it’s not just Republicans who notice. Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left — Bush’s loudest critics, Obama’s biggest backers.

But others say there’s a larger phenomenon at work — in the story line the media wrote about Obama’s presidency. For Bush, the theme was that of a Big Business Republican who rode the family name to the White House, so stories about secret energy meetings and a certain laziness, intellectual and otherwise, fit neatly into the theme, to be replayed over and over again.

Obama’s story line was more positive from the start: historic newcomer coming to shake up Washington. So the negatives that sprung up around Obama — like a sense that he was more flash than substance — track what negative coverage he’s received, captured in a recent “Saturday Night Live” skit that made fun of his lack of accomplishments in office.

“There may well be almost an unconscious effort on the part of the media to give Obama a bit more slack because he is more likable, because he is the first African-American president. That plays into it,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.

Democrats find the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach in light of the way the press treated Bush — particularly on the single biggest mistake of his presidency, relying on the faulty intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. Now, Obama’s aides say, the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding.

“As our administration makes progress on the agenda that Washington has ignored for too long, we expect we’ll get some news coverage of that progress that we like and some tough coverage that we don’t,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. “It’s not unlike the New Orleans Saints, who are getting lots of good coverage of their perfect record so far — certainly better coverage than the [2-5] Redskins — but it doesn’t mean the Saints have liked every story that’s been written about them since training camp. It goes with the territory.”

There are signs the friendly tone toward Obama is ebbing. Case in point: a front-page story in The New York Times noting that Obama’s all-male basketball games drew fire from the head of the National Organization for Women, who called the games “troubling.”

I agree that Bush seemed to be treated with kit gloves, way, way too much for my liking. The media does seem to enjoy determining who our next president will be. But even Bush’s treatment pales in comparison to the lovefest the MSM has had for Obama.

So yes, they are now asking why Obama excludes women (though he has now tried to rectify that by asking ONE woman, Melody Barnes, to play golf with him) in his games? We have known for ages that often, it is on the golf course or basketball court that favors are curried or power is amassed, hence the desire for women to achieve membership in numerous country clubs across the country. Oh, and Obama’s response to the NY Time’s articles highlighting that women were excluded? “Bunk, ” he said. Uh, yeah, no. It isn’t, President Obama.

There are too many examples of just how Obama has been allowed to skate free:

But here are other stories in which Obama seems to have gotten a pass:

New Orleans

As a candidate, Obama railed against the Bush administration for abandoning and then neglecting the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He made five campaign trips to the city.

But as president, Obama waited almost nine months before visiting the Big Easy, spent less than four hours on the ground there and then jetted to San Francisco for a $3 million Democratic fundraiser.

“Don’t judge anybody on the amount of time that they’ve spent there. Judge only what this administration promised that they would do, what they’ve done every day and what they’re continuing to work on,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said, pointing to positive reviews of the federal government’s efforts under Obama.

For their part, Democrats can’t see how Bush officials can muster much umbrage over anything related to New Orleans, given how the Republican administration handled the initial response to Katrina.

Forget “Bush Officials.” How about us plain ol’ Americans? We’re pretty pissed off about it, too. Just saying. A biggie is this:

Managing The Press

When the Obama administration moved in recent weeks to isolate and disparage Fox News as a wing of the Republican Party, there were few immediate howls of outrage — even from Fox’s fellow journalists in the media.

Press defenders and First Amendment advocates who jumped on the Bush administration for using military analysts to shape war coverage reacted with a yawn to the White House’s announcement that it had deemed Fox to be not a “legitimate news organization.”

“Had I said about MSNBC what the Obama White House said about Fox, the media uproar would still be going on,” said Ari Fleischer, who served as Bush’s press secretary until 2003. “I instinctively would have known … the media would have leapt to their feet to defend them. I’m shocked it’s not happening now.”

One press veteran agreed. “If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened?” said Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle. “That’s one place you can point to a real difference in how I’d imagine Bush would be treated.”

No freakin’ kidding. People would be screaming their fool heads off about free speech. But the Obamam crowd? They just jump on the Fox bashing bandwagon. Nice.

And this is a big one, too:

Politicizing the White House

Throughout the Bush administration, liberal critics warned that the hand of Bush political adviser Karl Rove was spreading politics into all corners of government. Reporters were on alert for any sign that politics was infecting the work of federal agencies. One top appointee got in hot water for allegedly asking agency officials to work to “help our candidates” across the country.

So some Bush aides went nearly apoplectic earlier this month when they spotted Gibbs and Obama’s political guru, David Axelrod, in photos of a Situation Room meeting on Afghanistan policy.

“Oh, the howling and screaming that would have happened if Karl Rove was sitting in on even a deputies-level meeting where strategy was being hammered out. People would have just gone ballistic,” said Peter Feaver, a former White House aide for both Bush and Bill Clinton.

Also, in about nine months, Obama has already attended more than two dozen fundraising events, while Bush did only six in his first year in office, according to a tally by CBS’s Mark Knoller.

Gibbs said Obama had to do more to raise a similar amount of money, since the kinds of soft-money fundraisers Bush did early on were banned. “This president … doesn’t accept money from PACs or lobbyists and doesn’t allow lobbyists to give at fundraisers that he’s at, as well,” Gibbs added.

Uh, yeah, sure, okay, Mr. Mealy Mouth Man. We all buy that one, right? Uh, yeah, no.

Then there is this one:

Dealing With Business, In Secret

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney endured years of criticism and lawsuits that stretched all the way to the Supreme Court over secret meetings Cheney’s Energy Task Force held with oil and gas companies. When the policy emerged, critics said Cheney was carrying water for the industry.

Obama pledged to hash out health care reform live on C-SPAN and excoriated Bush for kowtowing to the drug industry. But aides signed off on the drug industry’s agreement to find $80 billion in savings to support reform. However, Obama aides didn’t disclose that the agreement involved the White House promising that current health legislation wouldn’t include further cuts or give the government the right to negotiate over drug prices.

I admit, this did actually get a rise from a few folks, like Greg Palast. But that moment seems to have passed now. Now, people rarely mention it. Big surprise…

And another issue near and dear to many of us:

Toning Down Human Rights

During the campaign, Obama talked tough on China. While candidate Obama pushed Bush to take a hard line, President Obama hasn’t. Hoping to win China’s help on Iran and North Korea, Obama skipped a meeting with the Dalai Lama and said little when China undertook a violent crackdown in its largely Muslim Xinjiang region. The White House has pledged to meet with the Dalai Lama later.

And while candidate Obama warned Bush against a “reckless and cynical initiative [that] would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments,” President Obama’s envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, seemed to lay out a similar incentive-driven approach.

“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies,” said Gration. “Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.” The White House backed away from Gration’s characterization of the strategy but did recently lay out a strategy of engaging with the Sudanese regime.

Obama snubbed the DALAI LAMA. C’mon already – THAT’S not going to get an outcry? He’s the DALAI LAMA, for pete’s sake! No? *Crickets*

Just for, um, fun:

Traveling And Recreating

In his campaign and as president, Bush was mocked for a lack of interest in all things foreign — seven minutes touring the Kremlin, 25 minutes at the Great Wall of China, before declaring, “Let’s go home.”

During a trip to Europe in June, Obama chastised German and French reporters for suggesting that he was snubbing those countries by making only brief stops in each. “There are only 24 hours in the day. And so there’s nothing to any of that speculation beyond us just trying to fit in what we could do on such a short trip,” he told reporters in Germany.

But after taking his wife out for an attention-grabbing date night, Obama promptly jetted back to Washington. Within about 90 minutes of arriving at the White House, the tightly scheduled president was on the move again — headed to Andrews Air Force Base to play nine holes of golf.

How quickly people change. If Bush had done ANY of these things, the HuffPo and Daily Kos crowds would have been going ballistic about it. But now that it’s THEIR guy, it’s peachy keen. Where is the sense of fair play? Where is the concept of right is right? No, all of that gets completely thrown out of the window if it is someone they actually LIKE.

That is just sad. While ethics can be situational, the similarities between Bush and Obama are glaring, as many of us said they were all along. To completely disregard any sense of decency because it’s their guy weakens their arguments about choosing him in the first place. It makes it crystal clear that this is about winning at all costs, and choosing someone with little more than a teleprompter to do so.

It weakens their arguments against Bush, too, though they will most likely never admit that. But it’s true. In this case, what’s god for the gander, is, well, good for the gander.

Maybe if the media actually starts to do its job (for instance, where are all of the photos of Obama playing golf all of the time? Or basketball? They never failed to show Bush playing or riding his bike.), maybe they will start to open their eyes. One can hope, anyway. In the meantime, it continues to be our job to hold Obama’s feet to the fire for decisions he makes, and doesn’t make. It is our job to hold up the glaring similarities between Bush and Obama. And do so we will…

The CIA, which has been monitoring foreign countries’ use of electronic voting systems, has reported apparent vote-rigging schemes in Venezuela, Macedonia and Ukraine and a raft of concerns about the machines’ vulnerability to tampering.

Appearing last month before a U.S. Election Assistance Commission field hearing in Orlando, Fla., a CIA cybersecurity expert suggested that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his allies fixed a 2004 election recount, an assertion that could further roil U.S. relations with the Latin leader.

In a presentation that could provide disturbing lessons for the United States, where electronic voting is becoming universal, Steve Stigall summarized what he described as attempts to use computers to undermine democratic elections in developing nations. His remarks have received no news media attention until now.

Stigall told the Election Assistance Commission, a tiny agency that Congress created in 2002 to modernize U.S. voting, that computerized electoral systems can be manipulated at five stages, from altering voter registration lists to posting results.

“You heard the old adage ‘follow the money,’ ” Stigall said, according to a transcript of his hour-long presentation that McClatchy obtained. “I follow the vote. And wherever the vote becomes an electron and touches a computer, that’s an opportunity for a malicious actor potentially to . . . make bad things happen.”

Stigall said that voting equipment connected to the Internet could be hacked, and machines that weren’t connected could be compromised wirelessly. Eleven U.S. states have banned or limited wireless capability in voting equipment, but Stigall said that election officials didn’t always know it when wireless cards were embedded in their machines.

Oh, goodie – yet more ways for people to commit voter fraud! Ahem. As if they NEED any more ways – and I know he is talking about other countries, but the possibility of wireless and Internet voting coming to a town/city/overseas military base is most DEFINITELY possible.

And now, to the good ol’ USA:

While Stigall said that he wasn’t speaking for the CIA and wouldn’t address U.S. voting systems, his presentation appeared to undercut calls by some U.S. politicians to shift to Internet balloting, at least for military personnel and other American citizens living overseas. Stigall said that most Web-based ballot systems had proved to be insecure.

The commission has been criticized for giving states more than $1 billion to buy electronic equipment without first setting performance standards. Numerous computer-security experts have concluded that U.S. systems can be hacked, and allegations of tampering in Ohio, Florida and other swing states have triggered a campaign to require all voting machines to produce paper audit trails.

The CIA got interested in electronic systems a few years ago, Stigall said, after concluding that foreigners might try to hack U.S. election systems. He said he couldn’t elaborate “in an open, unclassified forum,” but that any concerns would be relayed to U.S. election officials.

Holy frijoles, really?? Yikes – another good reason not to do this. Not that we didn’t have foreign interference this past election with campaign contributions, specifically to the Obama campaign (I wonder just how many laws Obama broke getting himself into the White House??)

The expert got more specific about a few countries:

Stigall, who’s studied electronic systems in about three dozen countries, said that most countries’ machines produced paper receipts that voters then dropped into boxes. However, even that doesn’t prevent corruption, he said.

Turning to Venezuela, he said that Chavez controlled all of the country’s voting equipment before he won a 2004 nationwide recall vote that had threatened to end his rule.

When Chavez won, Venezuelan mathematicians challenged results that showed him to be consistently strong in parts of the country where he had weak support. The mathematicians found “a very subtle algorithm” that appeared to adjust the vote in Chavez’s favor, Stigall said.

Calls for a recount left Chavez facing a dilemma, because the voting machines produced paper ballots, Stigall said.

“How do you defeat the paper ballots the machines spit out?” Stigall asked. “Those numbers must agree, must they not, with the electronic voting-machine count? . . . In this case, he simply took a gamble.”

Stigall said that Chavez agreed to allow 100 of 19,000 voting machines to be audited.

“It is my understanding that the computer software program that generated the random number list of voting machines that were being randomly audited, that program was provided by Chavez,” Stigall said. “That’s my understanding. It generated a list of computers that could be audited, and they audited those computers.

“You know. No pattern of fraud there.”

A Venezuelan Embassy representative in Washington declined immediate comment.

The disclosure of Stigall’s remarks comes amid recent hostile rhetoric between President Barack Obama and Chavez. On Sunday, Chavez was quoted as reacting hotly to Obama’s assertion that he’s been “exporting terrorism,” referring to the new U.S. president as a “poor ignorant person.”

Questions about Venezuela’s voting equipment caused a stir in the United States long before Obama became president, because Smartmatic, a voting machine company that partnered with a firm hired by Chavez’s government, owned U.S.-based Sequoia Voting Systems until 2007. Sequoia machines were in use in 16 states and the District of Columbia at the time.

Reacting to complaints that the arrangement was a national security concern, the Treasury Department’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States launched an investigation. Smartmatic then announced in November 2007 that it had sold Sequoia to a group of investors led by Sequoia’s U.S.-based management team, thus ending the inquiry.

Again, WHY have we not had this level of investigation HERE??? Blackboxvoting.org has documented instance after instance after INSTANCE of electronic voting machine shenanigans (examples below), and we sure have not had the Treasury Department launching full scale investigations HERE! Pathetic.

As for Chavez allegedly fixing the election in 2004, I think it is safe to say we shouldn’t be throwing stones (as in living in a glass house ourselves), no matter whether you like/hate Chavez. We need only look back at our past 3 elections to prove that point. Unless this is one of those, “do as we say, not as we do” kind of things…

And isn’t it interesting that Obama is picking fights with Chavez, too, just like Bush did? Curious…

Back to the international scene:

In the former Soviet republic of Georgia, Stigall said, hackers took resurrecting the dead to “a new art form” by adding the names of people who’d died in the 18th century to computerized voter-registration lists. Macedonia was accused of “voter genocide” because the names of so many Albanians living in the country were eradicated from the computerized lists, Stigall said.

He said that elections also could be manipulated when votes were cast, when ballots were moved or transmitted to central collection points, when official results were tabulated and when the totals were posted on the Internet.

In Ukraine, Stigall said, opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko lost a 2004 presidential election runoff because supporters of Russian-backed Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych “introduced an unauthorized computer into the Ukraine election committee national headquarters. They snuck it in.

“The implication is that these people were . . . making subtle adjustments to the vote. In other words, intercepting the votes before it goes to the official computer for tabulation.”

Taped cell-phone calls of the ensuing cover-up led to nationwide protests and a second runoff, which Yushchenko won.

Election Assistance Commission officials didn’t trumpet Stigall’s appearance Feb. 27, and he began by saying that he didn’t wish to be identified. However, the election agency had posted his name and biography on its Web site before his appearance.

Electronic voting systems have been controversial in advanced countries, too. Germany’s constitutional court banned computerized machines this month on the grounds that they don’t allow voters to check their choices.

Well, there’s a concept. Germany actually cares that the voter can assure his or her vote is recorded accurately. What a concept! Ad more:

Stigall said that some countries had taken novel steps that improved security.

For example, he said, Internet systems that encrypt vote results so they’re unrecognizable during transmission “greatly complicates malicious corruption.” Switzerland, he noted, has had success in securing Internet voting by mailing every registered citizen scratch cards that contain unique identification numbers for signing on to the Internet. Then the voters must answer personal security questions, such as naming their mothers’ birthplaces.

Stigall commended Russia for transmitting vote totals over classified communication lines and inviting hackers to test its electronic voting system for vulnerabilities. He said that Russia now hoped to enable its citizens to vote via cell phones by next year.

“As Russia moves to a one-party state,” he said, “they’re trying to make their elections available . . . so everyone can vote for the one party. That’s the irony.”

After reviewing Stigall’s remarks, Susannah Goodman, the director of election reform for the citizens’ lobby Common Cause, said they showed that “we can no longer ignore the fact that all of these risks are present right here at home . . . and must secure our election system by requiring every voter to have his or her vote recorded on a paper ballot.”

Well, true that, Ms. Goodman. We have our own problems here, like Bev Harris of Black Box Voting finding garbage bags full of CERTIFIED votes tossed out in the trash, while another set were resented as the count. I am not making this crap up. Check it: Certified Votes found in trash in Florida.

Or how about this one: . Oh, now THAT’S some security there, because NO ONE can get a mini-bar key, right??

A NUMBER of states have had issues with voting machine problems. Check HERE – I bet you’ll find your state listed (special nod to my home state, NC, which had some machines that, once they reached their pre-designed total, began to count BACKWARDS.
Mini-bar key can open Diebold Electronic Voting Machines.

The problems in New Mexico were so rampant, it is thought they cost Kerry the presidency. They continued this past year, too, and not just in New Mexico.

Don’t even get me started on Ohio, both in 2004 and 2008 (I have written about the voter fraud issues in Ohio a number of times, as have a bunch of others. You can view previous articles Here, Here, and Here, for starters.)

This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of voting machine issues in this country.

Ms. Goodman is absolutely right – we cannot ignore the voting problems we have at home. I sure wish the FBI, Treasury Department, and anyone else in the upper echelons of government, would do as much work here at home as the CIA is doing abroad on this critical issue. In my humble opinion, we have not had legitimate elections since the introduction of the Diebold machines. Add in blatant voter fraud (and one man gleefully acknowledged he voted more than once on national tv), and I think it is safe to say our elections do not “count every vote” (neither does the Democratic Party for that matter – oh, wait – they do, just not the way in which the people cast them).

We need REAL voting machine reform in this country, too, the sooner the better, preferably by 2010 (elections are not THAT far away)…

There is little doubt that Germany carries the most weight within the European Union. Germany suffered massive inflation after the Weimar Republic and the fear of hyperinflation is deeply embedded in their culture. Given my experience and interest, I watch developments there fairly closely.

While China Agrees $10 Billion Trade Deal With Germany, Europe may seem to be a relatively small trade agreement on its face, I actually believe there are much greater implications, both real and symbolic, of this trade deal. What are they?

First off, the bulk of these trade agreements are in the auto, electronics, and tech industries. While U.S. companies may not be the world leaders in electronics, I do think we have some automotive and technology companies that may like a piece of this business especially at this time.

The more important signal of this trade agreement is on the political front. While Secretary of State Clinton has embraced China, the messages from President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner have been decidedly mixed. Don’t think for a second that the administration does not see and feel this agreement. I would bet that we see even further overtures made by both China and Russia towards Europe in an attempt to shift the balance of power.

Lastly, in reviewing this agreement please note that the Germans are exporting products and the Chinese are importing!! Secretary Geithner called on the Chinese to increase consumption and imports, but we did not get the trade!

Just a subtle message under the surface as the Prisoner’s Dilemma between the U.S. and China plays out.

Although this trade agreement got no coverage here in the United States, do you think if there were a multi-billion dollar trade agreement between the U.S. and China it may have been front page news?

LD

First, there was this article in the Chicago Sun Times, Vandals Deface Three Local Synagogues:

Vandals spray-painted the words “Death to Israel’’ on two synagogues and a Jewish school early Saturday in three separate incidents police say could be linked and are being investigated as hate crimes.

In each case, the vandals — at times donning masks — used orange-colored paint, also shattering glass windows with bricks and rocks at two of the buildings.

A witness and security cameras identified the perpetrators as two men.

Moshe Perlstein, rabbi at Lubavitch Mesivta of Chicago, said cameras captured video of the men damaging his rabbinical school at 2756 W. Morse starting at around 4:40 a.m. The footage shows one man spray-painting the side of the building while the other ran around to the front and threw rocks at the front door, breaking a glass window, he said. The video has been turned over to police.

That was not the end of it. There was more:

Similar graffiti was found at Anshe Motele Congregation, 6526 N. California, rabbi Alan Abramson said.

Lincolnwood police said vandals also scrawled “Death to Israel’’ and “Free Palestine’’ on the outside walls of Lincolnwood Jewish Congregation, 7117 N. Crawford. Mitchell Sandler, past president of the congregation, said they threw at least two bricks at the front doors, damaging four windows.

Lincolnwood Police Lt. Mark Brines said police were notified at 6:10 a.m. that a caretaker in the building heard a brick crash through a window at the temple. The caretaker saw “two unknown males running from the scene,’’ Brines said.

Because all three buildings were used by orthodox Jews, Sandler said it appeared the men were targeting more devout Jews.

“This was a cowardly act in the middle of the night,’’ Sandler said. “Obviously there is dismay because of what’s been happening in the Middle East.’’

Local Jewish leaders were alarmed by what they see as a “rash’’ of incidents targeting Jews.

“It’s disturbing,’’ said Jay Tcath, senior vice president of the Chicago Jewish Federation.

Disturbing, indeed. Whenever a group is targeted, when a hate crime occurs, it is disturbing. And there is yet more:

The incidents come a little more than a week after Ida Crown Jewish Academy, at 2828 W. Pratt, received a mailed bomb threat that also made reference to other Chicago-area Jewish institutions and day schools, said Jay Tcath, senior vice president of the Chicago Jewish Federation.

And police said they are investigating as a hate crime a Dec. 29 incident in which a man hurled a Molotov cocktail at Temple Sholom of Chicago, 3480 N. Lake Shore Dr., after making “derogatory comments’’ to a passerby.

The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force has been notified, police said.

No arrests have been made.

Next, Jewish Odysseus had this disturbing story via Mugata: German “Police” Join Jew-Hating Muslim Mob:

1:16 AM Received from Muqata Blog Reader in Germany, Sebastian M.

Today, 10.000 people demonstrated against Israel here in my hometown Duisburg (Germany) and to express their solidarity with Hamas. So, my girlfriend and me put two Israel flags out of the windows of our flat in the 3rd floor. During the demonstration which went through our street the police broke into our flat and removed the flag of Israel. The statement of the police was to de-escalate the situation, because many youth demonstrators were on the brink of breaking into our apartment house. Before this they threw snowballs, knifes and stones against our windows and the complete building. We both were standing on the other side of the street and were shocked by seeing a police officer standing in our bedroom and opening the window to get the flag. The picture illustrate this situation. The police acquiesced in the demands of the mob.

That’s a police officer removing the flag of Israel, just in case you couldn’t tell.

I understand that many people are angry and frustrated with Israel right now. I really do. Larry Johnson had a great piece on this very issue at No Quarter (“This Will Sicken You“). They are not innocent bystanders in this current conflict with Gaza, as they move into deeply populated areas clearly indicates.

That being said, I don’t think it is a stretch to say that for something like this to happen in Germany, for police officers to join in with an anti-Jew mob, raises a pretty ugly specter. We HAVE seen this before, and none of us can allow that to stand. Despite Israel’s incursions into Gaza, we cannot allow the pendulum to swing that far back again. Not in Germany. Not in Israel. Not in Gaza. Not in Bosnia. Not in Serbia. Not in Rwanda. We must be vigilant that this kind of atrocity does not happen again, that groups are not slaughtered for their ethnicity, their religious beliefs, or their political beliefs. We must be brokers for peace.

There is a group who does just that, for Israel and Palestine. For any place where there is war or injustice. Women in Blackis a collective of peace activists who realize that women have a different perspective of war. When I lived in Cambridge, Arabic and Jewish women would hold vigils – together – to call for an end to the violence between Israel and Palestine. They represented the mothers, sisters, daughters of people who had been, or were being killed. They represented the ones who brought forth those who were being killed, or tended to the wounded. Yes, they had a different perspective, indeed. Some of them had seen firsthand the devastation in the Middle East. From their website:

Who are Women in Black?

Women in Black… is a world-wide network of women committed to peace with justice and actively opposed to injustice, war, militarism and other forms of violence. As women experiencing these things in different ways in different regions of the world, we support each other’s movements. An important focus is challenging the militarist policies of our own governments. We are not an organisation, but a means of communicating and a formula for action.

It is a start to end the violence, not just in Israel and Gaza, but around the world. Mothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, granddaughters and nieces, working to end injustice in the world, and violence, whether on a whole scale like war, or on the home front, like domestic violence. These women unite for that – peace. And that would be a cause well worth “fighting” for, wouldn’t it?

The suit filed by Mr. McCain’s campaign against elections officials states Mr. McCain could lose votes from military members overseas who support the Vietnam War hero.

“There are many military service members and overseas voters who support Senator John McCain for president in the upcoming election and whose right to vote will be denied without relief from this court,” stated the complaint, also filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond.

The complaint states some Virginia localities did not send absentee ballots to overseas voters at least 45 days before the election, as recommended in 2004 by a congressionally created commission.

Wow. That is just a tad problematic, don’t you think? It is 2008 – surely 4 years is sufficient lead time to make sure that everything is squared away in order to fulfill this recommendation. Just sayin’.

This lawsuit was sparked by one case – see? Making your voice heard DOES matter! Hopefully, anyway. THe article continues:

The complaint cites the specific case of a Marine stationed in Iraq who did not receive his absentee ballot from Arlington County until Oct. 29. It asks that the court order absentee ballots for federal offices sent by Nov. 4 from qualified voters and received by Nov. 14 in the state to be counted.

“The McCain-Palin campaign believes without exception that the servicemen and women on the front line protecting our freedoms deserve every opportunity to make sure their vote counts,” McCain spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said.

It was not clear last night when the suit would be heard in court.

“Of course we want to make sure that all the absentee ballots that are coming in from overseas are counted,” Miss Skinner said. “We’ll comply with whatever order the judge gives on that.”

I dunno – I don’t think 10 days is all that long to wait, all things considered, do you? Whether one agrees with the Iraq War (I don’t), the reality is that these people are putting their lives on the line, their lives at home on hold, making sacrifices the enormity of which many of us cannot fathom, including, sadly, the ultimate sacrifice for some. I think the least we can do is allow them to VOTE. THis goes for ALL of our military serving abroad, whether it be Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Germany – wherever it is, our citizens deserve to execute their right in a democracy to cast their vote. Anything less is unacceptable, especially when they are in harm’s way. And especially when people like these two get to vote unimpeded:

Isn’t it weird seeing people go up and hug them? Like they are just anybody else in the neighborhood, not two unrepentant domestic terrorists who want to teach their children?? I wonder – was it from them that Obama learned to be a con man? Ahem.

So, yeah – I don’t think 10 days is too much to ask to allow late absentee ballots from our military, through no fault of their own, to come back in, do you?

The “ugly frog” is a well-known routine that predates Karl Rove’s infamous “Rovian” tactics. Craig Crawford described the “ugly frog routine” this way:

[A] top Republican operative who specializes in electing weak candidates once explained to me how you derail a powerful foe who’s winning on issues. He called it the ugly frog routine.

Ugly frogs in this game can be anything that opposing candidates do or say that, out of context, puts them on the defense.

“Stick that frog right in their face, shake it all around, and say, ‘Here, look at this BIG UGLY FROG,’” the GOP consultant said. “Then, as they defend themselves and explain the context, real quick grab another ugly frog. Repeat often until they’ve spent most of the campaign reacting to your agenda.”

Crawford pointed out something that McCain has been very good — and consistent in exploiting this routine. McCain’s primary routine has been to point out that Barack Obama is an elitist, rock star, out-of-touch Democrat!

John McCain’s team has been playing the ugly frog routine against Barack Obama almost daily, starting with the Paris Hilton celebrity advertisement, forcing the Democrats to react to a barrage of silly attacks.

Do you remember this?

Craig asked the “dark operative” how to combat the routine:

“Get your own frogs,” he said. “Stay off defense.”

Whether it is the ugly frog routine or getting Obama’s “achille’s heel,” as I call it, McCain has it over Obama. McCain’s tactics are keeping Obama off his game, not knowing where to find his own “ugly frogs”. Obama scrambled to find his own “ugly frog” but came up with one that back-fired:

This ad drew strong criticism of Obama, as Uppity Woman pointed out in “Obama Makes Fun of McCain’s Disabilities in Ad.”

Well, Obama’s first “ugly frog” died. I guess he will have to try again, if he can just find another one!

Obama’s willingness to flip-flop has earned him the moniker Backtrack Obama. He betrayed progressives by voting for the FISA legislation; he promised to expand Bush’s faith-based initiatives; he equivocated on choice by saying that “mental distress” should not be a factor in abortion.

Obama’s newest flip flop was not over a matter of public policy important to progressives, but rather the United State’s historic role in confronting evil. During the debate at Saddleback, Rick Warren asked, “Does evil exist and, if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it, or do we defeat it?”

OBAMA: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil sadly on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. And I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely. And one of the things that I strongly believe is that, you know, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God’s task. But we can be soldiers in that process. And we can confront it when we see it.

Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil. Because, you know, a lot of evil’s been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil.

Think about Obama’s words. He’s talking about the United States. Consider the image below. It’s G.I.s examining a train car at Dachau. During the last century, the United States ended the bloody morass of World War I, freed Europe from genocidal Nazism and freed the Pacific Rim from the horrors of Imperial Japan. We held off Soviet expansionism and our policies eventually freed hundreds of millions who lived under the iron fist of communism.

Our country has undoubtedly made grievous errors confronting evil. We’ve entered conflicts, like Vietnam, where we had only a cursory understanding of the nationalistic feelings of the population. But to accuse the United States of being evil when we confronted communist expansionism in Korea or Vietnam or dictators elsewhere, like Iraq — regardless of how unwise the war policies may have been — is an inaccurate and shameful explanation of our history. It is the typical far-left canard which describes bad policies as having evil intentions.

The men responsible for our entry into Vietnam — Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson — were idealists who were responding to the pressures of their era. They collectively made many mistakes, but they were not evil men. Similarly, the men who had to deal with Saddam Hussein — Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II — were all criticized for their actions or inactions but all of them, I believe, wanted to make the best decisions for the security of their country. So while mistakes were made, colossal mistakes, it was not on par with the evil we confronted, as Obama suggests.

When Warren asked the same question of McCain, he responded:

MCCAIN: Defeat it.

(APPLAUSE) A couple points. One, if I’m president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that and I know how to do it. I will get that guy. No one, no one should be allowed to take thousands of innocent American lives.

This one question put into stark relief each man’s attitude towards the United States. McCain is a man who personally sacrificed in a war which lasted far too long, but he does not ascribe evil to his own country. He knows evil exists and he is ready to confront it. McCain is an old-fashioned patriot, and Obama believes in the moral relativists values of the extreme left. In Obama’s flip flop, the good guys become the bad guys. No wonder he felt at home at Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church.

Click here to view the embedded video.

After the Standard in Kenya was burned, Obama decided to offer criticism of Kenya and the current president.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Earlier this year discord broke out in Kenya. Odinga backers burned a church and hacked 50 people to death, some of them women and children. Do we want Obama who is backed by a fellow LUO tribesman, Odinga as our president? Why hasn’t Obama condemned Odinga?

The second one is a story you will find everywhere. Obama played the race card AGAIN! Once again, he is accusing his opponent of using racial attacks. This time, Obama said (three different times, three different campaign stops) McCain was trying to scare voters away from him by pointing out he had “a funny name, and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills.” (ALL the presidents on the dollar bills? I thought we had ONE president on the dollar bill, and a different president on the five dollar bill – that makes two dudes.)

Well, actually, Obama does resemble Lincoln a bit. They are both tall and skinny. But, who does Obama think he is, to compare himself to two of our greatest presidents in history? He isn’t even President! Does he actually think he belongs on a bill? Maybe he should be on the $3 bill.

The race card will allow voters to once again focus on the issue of trust with Obama. He did it against Hillary, he did it in Germany, and now he is doing it against McCain. And, back to Germany – he said that he does not look like other Americans who have spoken there. Again, he is comparing himself to Reagan and Kennedy, who were PRESIDENTS. But other Americans have spoken in Germany, and *gasp* they were (whisper) black (Powell, Rice to name a couple). Obama has already crowned himself King, and keeps comparing himself to our most beloved Presidents. He really, really needs to stop doing that.

Jake Tapper schooled Obama for it, too, Did Obama Accuse McCain of Running a Racist, Xenophobic Campaign ?

Another controversy that is growing, and swirling is the Wailing Wall prayer *scandal*. American Thinker has a breakdown of how the events unfolded. I have also read on other pro-Obama blog (which I will not name here) that they believe he gave the prayer to the media as well. And you can see the video, of an Obama campaign worker, retrieving the prayer from the wall. It is linked to, in the story.

And, there was ANOTHER scandalish story brewing this week, this time involving an Obama fan. Did you see the video Ludacris made? If not, here it is. Of course, Obama’s camp gave the ol’ *wink wink* type of condemnation. (you know, “ya, know I’m just messing with you, man”).

Burton said in an e-mail statement Wednesday. “This song is not only outrageously offensive to Sen. Clinton, Rev. Jackson, Sen. McCain and President Bush, it is offensive to all of us who are trying to raise our children with the values we hold dear. While Ludacris is a talented individual he should be ashamed of these lyrics.” So, in other words, *this is not the Ludacris we have known*. These are snipits from other Ludacris songs:

“Fuck That! Get the fuck back! Luda make your skull crack Tuck that Bitch, your whole town’s on my nutsack Cuff that Put it in your weed, nigga, puff that What’s that People gon’ die tonight”.

“Yeah come see this nigga come see this ol’ light-skinned mothafucka I seen him and I’m addicted disturbin tha peace is the clickplease tell these fake ass niggas who you are”

“You frostin’ like a flake and Ludacris feels grrreat! Who want come face me, face come want who? And women give me face until they’re face turns blue They can’t breathe, dick to mouth recessatation A tight squeeze witch stops the length to conversations”.

“You see I’m from a small town called “Fresh out a cop’s ass” Where Mr. Head-Potatoes are skinned they get mashed I smell puss from fifty yards Y’all not playin with full decks as if I jacked out ya Jacks and left fifty cards Catch me in Vegas spinnin’ the green”.

I’m not exactly sure what most of them say, but it doesn’t seem like this new song is that much different from his other ones…in fact, it seems more tame. I wonder if Obama will be deleting Ludacris from his iPod now?
And, I thought this one was most interesting. O’S TOUR DE FARCE – PHOTO OPS & FECKLESSNESS You really need to read the whole piece, but here is a snipit.

In private, though, Iraqi officials admit that Obama’s analysis is “way off the mark.” Without the surge, the Sunni tribes wouldn’t have switched sides to help flush out al Qaeda. And the strong US military presence enabled the new Iraqi army to defeat Iran-backed Shiite militias in Basra and Baghdad.

Nevertheless, in public at least, no Iraqi politician wants to appear more appreciative of American sacrifices than the man who may become the next US president.

Iraqis were most surprised by Obama’s apparent readiness to throw away all the gains made in Iraq simply to prove that he’d been right in opposing the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein. “He gave us the impression that the last thing he wanted was for Iraq to look anything like a success for the United States,” a senior Iraqi official told me. “As far as he is concerned, this is Bush’s war and must end in lack of success, if not actual defeat.”

And if you ever wondered what, exactly, IS a community organizer, you can read this.

Oh, and one other thing. Rumors are swirling that the reason John Edwards endorsed Obama immediately after Hillary’s HUGE win in West Virginia, is because Obama threatened him with the baby scandal. It sure makes sense, to me. Edwards said for months that he would not endorse. And then BAM, out he comes. And then, now, the scandal comes out. Why? Well, it took me a few days to figure out why it would be leaked, but I don’t really think it was. I think National Enquirer really just caught him. They broke the story last year (wasn’t it right around the time John dropped out? I forget) so, they knew there was a story. They just couldn’t prove it. But, catching him in the hotel did it. And now, they have the birth certificate, and there is not a father listed.

So, I just want to say, I think America will forgive John his affair. After all, he does have a lot going on at home, and who knows what has been happening behind closed doors. We all have so much sympathy and respect for Elizabeth, but I wouldn’t doubt that she knows much more about this than anyone else. She seems very intelligent. My point it, she might very well have known about this from the beginning. People deal with trauma in different ways, I am not judging him for an affair. But, I will never forgive him, if he was blackmailed into supporting Obama, and never came forward with it. We know the story to be true, but out of respect for Elizabeth, the media is not talking about it. But, if John knows something about Obama, he needs to come forward. (I am not sure if this is coming across right….) Well, anyway, it sure was a busy week, chock full of WORMS (what Obama really means) and controversy, and scandal.

Can we have Hillary back now, please!?

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

NoQuarterUSA Action Of The Day: We ask that you take part in the I Own My Vote Virtual Platform Committee Meeting now! It takes five minutes. Click here to start. If you have not yet signed the pledge, click here to do so.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::

NoQuarterUSA Action Of The Day: We ask that you take part in the I Own My Vote Virtual Platform Committee Meeting now! It takes five minutes. Click here to start. If you have not yet signed the pledge, click here to do so.

Click here to view the embedded video.

He schmoozed Sarkozy in France and renegotiated some treaties. According to Sean Carman, Senator Barack Obama announced today that on his recent overseas tour he successfully negotiated a wide-ranging treaty with America’s European allies. Logan Act violations anyone?

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times in her op-ed piece Cyclops and Cunning chatted with Obama about gifts for his girls and Foreign Heads of States. It turns out Obama has a key chain and snow globe aide to get gifts for his girls.

She asked about those blue boxes with the ribbons that “body man”, Reggie Love, was toting for heads of state. Obama said this about those boxes:

“I was not well organized enough to personally think of what presents to give these guys,” Obama said. “Hopefully, should I end up being president, I can put my touch on the present thing. But I didn’t even know it was a custom to give presents other than state visits.”

Dowd said this:

Sure enough, “our hero” came home to a passel of economic troubles in Dreamerica, rushing to talk to Bernanke & Paulson. Some news analyses of his trip wondered “Where’s the Bounce?” The old Hillary refrain — why can’t he close the deal against a supposedly flawed opponent — echoes.

.
I heard Amazon.com sells “Protocol 101 for Dummies” for $14.95! Well someone needs to order one for our “pretend president”!

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

NoQuarterUSA Action Of The Day: We ask that you take part in the I Own My Vote Virtual Platform Committee Meeting now! It takes five minutes. Click here to start. If you have not yet signed the pledge, click here to do so.

The Republican National Committee went to Berlin on Obama’s trail and had a few candid conversations with Europeans about Obama.

This spot is Internet-only and was paid for by the RNC. It’s a bit amateurish if you ask me.

From my blog, By The Fault.

George Stephanopoulos interviewed John McCain at length on his Sunday morning program, ABC’s This Week, and asked Sen. McCain about Obama’s decision not to visit the wounded soldiers at Landstuhl:

As Memeorandum.com makes clear, this issue has “legs.” In case you missed it, Larry Johnson wrote an excellent analysis early this morning, “Obama Using the Troops.”

Via the McCain press release:

“I think people make a judgment by what we do and what we don’t do. He certainly found time to do other things.” — John McCain

John McCain
ABC’s “This Week”
July 27, 2008

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “There’s also been a flap about Senator Obama’s decision in Germany not to visit the troops at Landstuhl. He now says that, based on what he was hearing from the Pentagon, there was no way that wouldn’t be seen as a political trip, which is why he decided not to go. Do you accept that explanation?”

John McCain: “Well, I know this, those troops would have loved to have seen him. And I know of no Pentagon regulation that would have prevented him from going there without the media and the press and all of the associated people. Nothing that I know of would have kept him from visiting those wounded troops. And they are gravely wounded, many of them.”

…

“In Landstuhl, Germany, when I went through, I visited the hospital. But the important thing is that, if I had been told by the Pentagon that I couldn’t visit those troops, and I was there and wanted to be there, I guarantee you, there would have been a seismic event. And so, I believe he had the opportunity to go without the media. And I’ll let the facts speak for themselves.”

…

“There was nothing to prevent him from going, if he went without the press and the media and his campaign people. But we’ll see what happens.”

…

“I think people make a judgment by what we do and what we don’t do. He certainly found time to do other things.”

Fox News
July 26, 2008

Fox News’ Molly Henneberg: “Tucker joins us from Virginia. So Tucker, Senator Obama decided to not to visit wounded soldiers in Germany when he was there, and this has not gone unnoticed by the McCain campaign. In fact, just a couple of minutes ago on my Blackberry, I got a new statement from your campaign, from a military advisor, Lt. Col. Joe Repya. He says, this is quoting, ‘For a young man so apt at playing president, Barack Obama badly misjudged the important demands of the office he seeks. Visiting with world leaders and speeches to cheering Europeans should not be a substitute for comforting injured American heroes.’ So you guys think he really made a significant mistake by not going to Landstuhl Medical Center in Germany?”

Tucker Bounds: “It is significant and I think what is most significant about it, Molly, is it speaks to his judgment. He prioritizes throngs of fawning Germans over meeting with wounded combat troops in Germany. And, you know, it really speaks to the experience that Barack Obama lacks. This is a serious position he runs to fill, and he needs to understand exactly where his role is and how important it is to lead as the commander-in-chief.”

Henneberg: “Now, the Obama campaign says they didn’t want to do it for political purposes, but you were telling me earlier that your campaign wouldn’t have criticized him even if he had gone?”

Bounds: “No, that’s right Molly. I think there have been nine different excuses out of Barack Obama’s campaign as to why that trip and that visit never took place, and all of them fundamentally ignore one fact, which is that he couldn’t make time in his schedule to meet with wounded combat troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it speaks again to the judgment of the candidate that’s running to be the Commander-in-Chief of our military.”