Custom Search

Saturday, January 31, 2009

A Bill to End All Activities Beyond Breathing in Motor Vehicles

By Faultline USA

Today it’s Texas. Tomorrow it could be your state.

Up before the Texas state legislature is another draconian bill designed to eliminate the “inattentive operation” of a motor vehicle. Well actually, the bill is designed to up the fines for accidents to at least twice the minimum fine applicable to any driving offense if “inattentive” behaviors are involved in the offense.

The bill lists a multitude of “inattentive’ behaviors including the consumption of food or beverage, tuning a radio, and even interacting with a passenger. Of course every imaginable behavior that could be deemed as “inattentive” couldn’t be included or the bill would have run on for hundreds of pages, so the sponsor added this little phrase to cover all bases: “engaging in another activity that prevents the operator from safely operating the motor vehicle.”

Since this bill makes every imaginable behavior beyond the act of breathing an “inattentive behavior” wouldn’t the sponsor have been more honest to simply write a bill that doubles all driving fines for offenses of reckless driving laws currently in effect?

Some say that this bill, if passed into law, would be unenforceable, but they are wrong. The police are not going to stop you just because they see you sipping your morning cup of Jo, but if you commit any minor driving violation with even an empty cup of coffee in your cup holder, you will get a double fine. Eventually you will either leave home without your coffee or you will be sure to dump the evidence at your first convenience. The unintended consequences – sleepy drivers and more highway litter!

What would be the point of sponsoring this bill? Perhaps the sponsor just wanted fifteen minutes of fame? Or perhaps this is one of many bills designed to test the waters? Getting people used to accepting seemingly ludicrous or unenforceable laws is a good Orwellian plan. Loading up state legislatures with repressive bills is a kind of socialist lottery. Eventually enough inattentive voters will discover that their own state legislatures actually passed such a bill and then other states will easily fall.

I first heard about this bill on Thursday night when our local TV stations were all a buzz and actually making fun of the bill. None of the news broadcasts mentioned the name or number of the bill or its sponsor.

Naturally, I began to ponder this question: “Who would sponsor such a bill?” My first thought was that it had to be sponsored by a National Socialist (NAZI) hell-bent on dishonest social engineering and someone who actually believes that more government regulation is the answer to all human problems.

I wouldn’t want poor Rep. Chente Quintanilla, Democrat, of El Paso, Texas to be disappointed that his name failed to get mentioned in many of the news broadcasts the other night. Let me give him the fame his bill, 81(R) HB 738, deserves!

If you are a Texan please be sure to drop your state representative a little note about this bill. Tell your representative to “Let it die!!!” If you live in another state check out the bills up before your state legislature today.

Real Americans Don’t CAIR


Faultline USA


The Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR) is starting to lobby Congress for “special considerations” for the Muslim community. I’m not sure what kind of “special considerations” American Muslims desire but if they are to be taken seriously by the rest of America, perhaps they can choose something other than a terrorist supporting organization to represent them?

Obama and his leftist supporter’s appeasement plans will lead us down the same path as that of most of Europe. For an eye-opening account of our likely future we just need to take a look at Europe today.

Right Truth has some riveting accounts of Islamic Europe today. What exactly did exactly Jesse Petrilla see in Europe? And how about the flag of Hezbollah flying over the Louvre??? Can you imagine it flying over the Smithsonian tomorrow?

Today we must ask all members of congress not meet with CAIR given that the FBI has severed contacts with CAIR.




Find Your Officials and e-mail them today.

H/T to Monkey in the Middle for providing the details on this action alert. ACT! for America members, it’s time to take ACTION !!!

P.S. Any member of Congress who meets with the Hamas-support network enemy (CAIR) should be put in the stockade, publically flogged, removed from office, tried for treason, and should spend the rest of his/her days living with the soon to be imported terrorist prisoners of Gitmo!

JBlog Me

Super Bowl History 1966-2009

Politics can wait until Monday.

This is Super Bowl Weekend, where on Sunday we play Super Bowl XLIII (43) between the Arizona Cardinals and Pittsburgh Steelers.

Below is a recap of the the 42 Super Bowls played between 1966 and 2009.

Are you ready for some football!!!!!!

Let's get it on!!!!!

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Friday, January 30, 2009

Never Forget Pat Tillman

On Sunday, we play the Super Bowl.

One player who will not be on the field is Pat Tillman.

Not too long after 9/11, he walked away from a multi-million dollar NFL salary with the Cardinals to serve in an elite unit in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He was killed in 2004 serving America.

Never forget Pat Tillman.

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Rod Blagojevich Impeached- Text of Blago's Closing Argument

Blago has been impeached from his position as Governor of Illinois, by the Illinois Senate.

The Illinois Senate voted late Thursday afternoon to oust Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who earlier told senators he has done nothing wrong.

He becomes the first U.S. governor in more than 20 years to be removed by impeachment.

After days of avoiding the proceedings, the embattled Democrat took the floor Thursday

Transcript of Rod Blagojevich's closing argument:

I'm grateful for the opportunity to be here today and present my closing argument and my chance to talk to you and talk to the people of Illinois and talk to anybody else who is listening.

In the last couple of days I've had a chance to be able to go out and talk to as many people as I possibly could about my desire to be able to appear here before the Senate, the Senate trial, to have a chance to be able to have the whole story, have every single witness I could possibly bring be able to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, present as much evidence is available to be able to have the story told, and have the chance to show you here in the Senate, show the people of Illinois and show anybody else who is listening that I have done absolutely nothing wrong. That I followed every law. That I never ever, ever intended to violate any law and that when the whole truth is heard and the whole story is told that ultimately [is] what will be shown. I was hopeful I would be able to do that in a Senate hearing in this trial, a chance to be able to bring witnesses in, a whole list of witnesses, every single witness in the criminal complaint. It would be nice to have them here so they can tell the truth and tell you under oath what they know. I wanted to be able to bring in witnesses from Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staff, to Sen. Dick Durbin to Sen. Harry Reid and Bob Menendez to every single person connected with any conversation I may have had in relation to picking the United States senator.

Unfortunately, these rules have prevented me from being able to do that. In spite of efforts to try to get you to give me that chance to do it, it didn't work. So I went to the people, talked to as many people as I possibly could, and I was over and over repeating to them -- just give me a chance to be able to let the truth come out so sooner rather than later I can show you that I have done nothing wrong, so sooner rather than later I can clear my name and we can put this behind us and get on with working to do things for people, get on with the business of the people.

Now, when I did that and met a lot of different people and made that case to them, they were mostly sympathetic. They understood my position. They said, of course, you're entitled to a fair trial -- every American citizen is. Of course, you're entitled to bring witnesses in so you can disprove things that are being said about you and show that they're not true. Of course, you're entitled to confront your accusers. This is the United States of America, it's guaranteed by the Constitution, it's a fundamental civil liberty that every American enjoys. And imagine what it would be like to live in a country like this if you weren't allowed to be able to defend yourself. And of course, an impeachment trial is not a court of law. It's different. But whether it's a court of law or administrative hearing or whether it's schoolyard justice when one kid hits another, but the kid that hit him wasn't the one who did it. He's got other boys he'd like to have tell the teachers he didn't do it. Whether it's them or whether it's an impeachment process where you're seeking to remove a governor who is twice elected by the people, I think fundamental fairness, fundamental justice, natural law and constitutional rights suggest I should be able to bring witnesses in to say I didn't do the things they said I did.

When I made that case to people, they listened to me and were supportive. But they also said to me if you feel so strongly about it, governor, then why don't you go to the Senate and tell them yourself, why don't you go there and tell them instead of you just telling us. And so that's why I'm here. I'm here to talk to you and appeal to you, to your sense of fairness, to your sense of responsibility, your commitment to the Constitution, your commitment to basic fairness.

And I'm asking you as I speak to you today to imagine yourself walking in my shoes. Think about you, if someone said the things that they've said about me and you know you didn't do it, but there's been a rush to judgment and an evisceration of the presumption of innocence. Imagine how you would approach this and what you would do. Think about it. If you know you were right and you were innocent and you didn't do anything wrong, whether you should be rushed out of office, disgrace your family, disgrace your children and imply, and imply that you may have actually done the things they said you did. Think about your responsibilities when the people choose you and you know you've kept your faith with them but everybody else is saying you didn't, but if you quit and give up and leave without having a chance to prove your innocence, how you've abandoned them and you quit on them and you violated your commitment to them.

I'm here to give every possible explanation to every one of these allegations and I'm grateful that you've at least given me that. But I would hope that maybe when you consider what I have to say, who knows, maybe you'll reconsider and give me a chance to call those witnesses I'd like to call, and who knows, maybe you'll reconsider and give me a chance to see if there's some possible way where every one of those conversations that were taped can be right here before you so you can hear all of them, warts and all, the truth, unadulterated truth, maybe not flattering in some cases, but it's the truth. And there was never a conversation where I intended to break any law. So I'm here to do what I can to explain to you my side of the story.

Now, the articles of impeachment as they're configured are broken up basically in two portions. One is a portion that alleges that I abused the executive discretion that the governor is given. And the other is the allegations in the criminal complaint. Articles 1 through 8 deal with the allegations in the criminal complaint, but here at this trial only Article 3, only [in] Article 3 was there any evidence presented to suggest that something may have been done. In all the other articles no evidence was presented to prove up criminal allegations.

And let's look at the one article where they actually brought evidence. The evidence is the four tapes. You heard those four tapes. I don't have to tell you what they say. You guys are in politics. You know what we have to do to go out and run elections. There was no criminal activity on those four tapes. You can express things in a free country, but those four tapes speak for themselves. Take those four tapes as they are and you, I believe in fairness, will recognize and acknowledge those are conversations relating to the things all of us in politics do in order to run campaigns and try to win elections.

Now, I understand that the federal prosecutor and the U.S. attorney has made it clear and I respect and understand his position --that he doesn't want witnesses called, and he doesn't want evidence called and that's why on all the other seven articles, with the exception of those four tapes that you heard, there hasn't been any evidence to show or prove any criminal conduct. I understand that. That's why I am appealing to you that unless they allow us to bring that evidence in, then that case ought to be heard in the appropriate place, in a court of law and respect the U.S. attorney and his needs to be able to bring those witnesses. But how can you throw a governor out of office on a criminal complaint and you haven't been able to show or prove any criminal activity? How can you throw a governor elected twice by the people out of office when the rules don't even require that you prove up elements of criminal allegations? And more than that, how can you throw a governor out of office who is clamoring and begging and pleading with you to give him a chance to bring witnesses in to prove his innocence, to do more than just ask for a presumption of innocence -- don't even give me that! Let me make my case. Let me bring my witnesses in. Let me show you that I'm innocent and I didn't do anything wrong. So Articles 1 to 8 do not show or prove any criminal case. And if that's the case, how can you throw me out of office without proving something like that and set dangerous precedent that can have an impact on people and governors in Illinois and governors in other states?

Now, the four tapes that you heard speak for themselves. You also had a chance to listen to the FBI agent who was here. What did he do? He just read allegations. He didn't allow you to challenge the allegations. He didn't allow you to cross-examine any of the people involved in those allegations. He simply read a criminal complaint. That's not proving criminal allegations. And again, I would respectfully suggest to you: How can you throw somebody out of office whether it's me, or maybe one day it happens to you, without even expecting someone to try to prove something that they're saying that you did? So I'm appealing to you and your sense of fairness and because Articles 1 through 8 don't allow for having proven any criminal activity, I can't imagine how you could possibly throw me out of office for something that wasn't shown that I did. As for the other allegations--the allegations that I allegedly abused the executive discretion, I'd like to take each one of those one by one.

Let's begin with the first one. The first one I'd like to talk about, and I want to talk about each one of these and what I did in each one of those cases. And I'm glad for having finally been given a chance to be able to explain each of these issues because I've been dying to do this for years.

The first issue is the issue of my giving health care, my giving health care to parents in low-income families, to parents who have children who are getting health care through the All Kids program, to parents who come from low-income families who used to have health care but then in late 2007 President Bush and the Bush administration changed its policies and those 35,000 people who used to have health care didn't have it. Let me talk about what I did here. What did I do in this case but provide health care for low-income families?

Now, I understand the importance of JCAR committee, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules. I understand that six of you here in the Senate are members of that. The fact that you'd be picked to be on JCAR means you're in good standing with your legislative leaders. I remember when I was a legislator. I remember when I was a freshman in Congress and I got a chance to be on what they called a conference committee when you get to sit with the leaders of the different committees in the House and in the Senate and what a thrill it was for me to be able to, as a freshman congressman, be in a room with legendary U.S. senators like John Glenn and Ted Kennedy and John McCain and John Warner, the senator from Virginia who incidentally had once been married to Elizabeth Taylor. That's all I could think about when I saw him in that room. And then he asked me for a cup of coffee because he thought I was a staffer. And I didn't tell him I was a congressman instead I went and asked him, "How do you take it?" And he said "Black." And I went and got him the coffee. I saw him the following weekend and he asked me for another cup of coffee. He obviously forgot I was a congressman.

I remember what it was like to be in that committee and I know how important it is for those of you who are appointed to a committee like that. But let me respectfully suggest a couple of things. The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules is a committee that other states have too. And in nine other states there have been challenges when the executive branch seeks to do something and then that committee, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, has another idea. Now, ever since I've been governor, for the entire six years I've been governor, I've respected that committee. And as far as I know, our agencies have always approached the JCAR committee and sought requests for the rules. So you guys can decide on that committee whether those rules should be issued or not. But I've been given legal advice by lawyers and I believe they're right and other courts have agreed that those lawyers were right, that JCAR is an advisory committee. That it can not dictate to the executive branch. That if the executive branch seeks to do something, that committee can advise you and suggest whether it's right or wrong, or they agree with you or not. But they can't stop you.

If you want to stop the executive branch under our constitution and the ideas of separation of powers, then you all know how it works. The House passes a bill. You in the Senate pass a bill. I may not like it. You send it to me. I veto that bill. It goes back to you and then you override my veto. That's how you stop the executive branch and a governor. But 12 lawmakers, however, however intelligent and honest and impressive and schooled as you may be, 12 lawmakers picked by legislative leaders cannot constitutionally thwart the executive branch. Nine states, nine states have challenged this case. And in all nine states, the right of the executive branch to do what it sought to do, without the consent of JCAR, was upheld.

There's a current court case pending now about this health care issue as we speak. And the issue is this -- when those 35,000 families, those low-income parents, lost their health care because President Bush changed the rules in Washington, I felt it a moral obligation to try to help those families keep their health care and still be able to go to the doctor. I worked with the Senate Democratic leadership on this issue. Every decision I made was done in conjunction with your previous leader and presumably with your leadership team. And then we made a tactical decision to try to get the House to see if they could pass legislation chose not to do it. Then I chose a way through legal advice and agency directors to protect those families and keep them from losing their health care.

Now, how is it an impeachable offense to protect low-income parents from losing their health care? How is it an impeachable offense to keep those families in a position to be able to see their doctors? In addition, just the other day the Illinois State Supreme Court took this case up and approved the payments to those families. So how can you possibly impeach a governor when a case is pending and taken by the Illinois Supreme Court which may rule in my favor? And even if it doesn't, how can you impeach a governor when what we did was about helping families and kids and not anything that wasn't done in consultation with lawyers and others and is now being tested in a court of law. Then again, what I did in that particular case was one I did with the Senate Democratic leadership at that time, in conjunction with the Senate Democratic leadership at that time, and in partnership with the Senate Democratic leadership at that time.
More from Fox and NYT.


Campaign Promises versus Reality

Am article from the New York Times, titled "Obama Seeks Accord With Military on Iraq", tells of the balance Barack Obama is trying to find between his campaign promises which everyone knew he could not keep, yet they voted for him anyway, and the realities on the ground in Iraq and as his advisers and military commanders are now pointing out to him.

Which, just as we predicted, has him altering his so-called promises to match his new reality, and this has some far far lefties, a tad annoyed.

Since taking office last week, Mr. Obama has recommitted to ending the war in Iraq but not to his specific campaign pledge to pull out roughly one combat brigade a month for the first 16 months of his presidency. His top commander in Iraq has proposed a slower start to the withdrawal, warning of the dangers of drawing down too quickly.

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama visited the Pentagon for the first time since becoming president, and he seemed to be looking for an option that would let him stay true to his campaign promise, at least in theory, without alienating the generals. The White House indicated that Mr. Obama was open to alternatives to his 16-month time frame and emphasized that security was an important factor in his decision.

As the far left points out, his credibility is on the line with them, considering they never could wrap their heads around the fact that credibility and doing what is right for everyone involved can equal two very different answers.

Obama also has a lot of credibility at stake over this. He said during the campaign that he wanted to withdraw within 16 months, and while there's a lot of room to fudge there, he still needs to show that he's serious about that. It may end up being 24 months instead of 16, and the residual force he leaves behind may end up comprising tens of thousands of troops, but he still needs to start. He needs to show the world that his word is good.

So, bottom line for them is that if Obama does what is he thinks is "right" for the country, for Iraq and for the stability of the Middle East by keeping troops there longer than he "promised", then he holds no credibility if he has had to adjust his promises with reality.....BUT according to them, if Obama keeps his word from the campaign trail and forgets about anything else, like National Security, safety, saving lives, etc..., well then he is a credible type of guy!!!

Any wonder why conservatives sometimes think the far far left has lost their grip on sanity?


Liberals Gone Wild--Feminist Claptap II

To be a leftist is bad enough. To be a radical feminist in itself is dreadful. To be mentally ill is another affliction.

Combining these three makes for a psychotic cocktail. Yet the overlap is significant.

This column is dedicated to every one of these people that are simply BSC...Bat Spit Crazy.

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Another War Started....... On Salt

Ridiculous item of the day, NYC Mayor Bloomberg wants another "war on" (insert whatever here) and his new war is on salt.

Singer Jimmy Buffett will never find his "lost shaker of salt" in New York City or any other place in the country if Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his way. The mayor is waging a war on salt and he wants food manufacturers and restaurants to join his army … or else.

Can we say nanny state anyone?

Well yes, we can, in fact some already have:

"Nanny state. We don't need any more nanny state people can take care of themselves. We don't need the government to take care of us," said Patrick Keenan of Hell's Kitchen.

The plan is to reduce salt content in different food items, instead of letting people make the decision for themselves what to eat and when and if they prefer the saltier side of life.

I am sure Bloomberg, or his constituents, could find a better way to spend taxpayer money than an idiotic "war on salt."

This has been your ridiculous item of the day and now back to regularly scheduled programming...........


House Passes Stimulus Bill, No GOP Support

With a vote of 244 to 188, (roll call here) the House passed Obama's stimulus bill, $800+ billion, without a GOP vote being given to it, although a few Democrats did vote against it.

It is being called a hollow victory for Obama as well as a slap in his face.

Problem was, he wanted only to listen and did not want to act on what Republicans said. When he was asked if he would re-structure the package to include more tax cuts, he reportedly responded: "Feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part."

He apparently added: " I understand that and I will watch you on Fox News and feel bad about myself."

That's fine. No doubt Obama will indeed get beaten up on Fox News. But his failure to get even the squishiest moderate Republican - including the 11 entertained in the White House by Rahm Emanuel last night - to back him is not merely a big score for Rep Eric Cantor, Republican Whip, and the rest of the GOP leadership.

It also shows that it is not just Fox, the loony Right or Rush Limbaugh - or however else you might want to characterize the opposition in order to marginalize it - who had grave misgivings about the content of the bill.

The Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill badly miscalculated by treating the bill as a victor's charter. Not that it seemed to bother Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who grinned from ear to ear as she announced the result of the vote.

Obama said yesterday he did not feel he had ownership of the bill. Be that as it may, if it goes through the Senate in similar fashion and is signed into law then - the efforts of Pelosio and Senator Harry Reid notwithstanding - it will be his and his alone.

More importantly, when it doesn't stop the bleeding of the American economy, it is also very clear it is a pure Democratic failure, without bipartisan support.

Malkin shows which Democrats understood how bad this "crap sandwich" bill is and dared to vote against it:

Dems who voted NAY: Griffith, Peterson, Boyd, Bright, Kanjorski, Kratovil, Cooper, Taylor, Ellsworth, Minnick, and Shuler.

The scariest part of all this, as brought to us by the Wall Street Journal, is that Rush Limbaugh, as far right as one can get, actually spoke up about a plan that was more "bipartisan" than the one the House jammed through.

Notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Obama stimulus plan, most Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that Congress and the president will increase government spending too much. Only 17% worry they will cut taxes too much. Since the American people are not certain that the Obama stimulus plan is the way to go, it seems to me there's an opportunity for genuine compromise. At the same time, we can garner evidence on how to deal with future recessions, so every occurrence will no longer become a matter of partisan debate.

Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $900 billion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector. (It's important to remember that it's the people's money, not Washington's.) In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, "I won. I'm going to trump you on that."

Yes, elections have consequences. But where's the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

My heavens, when Limbaugh is more bipartisan than the Democratic lawmakers in the House, then we have indeed, gone into the Twilight Zone.

The one good thing that comes from having a White House, Senate and House Democrat controlled atmosphere, especially when they pass 800+ billion idiotic stimulus proposals that have no chance of working and do so without any Republican support.... is that when the American people see how badly it fails, the Democrats can no longer point to Republicans with blame, they will finally be held accountable all on their own.

They can no longer hide behind Republican skirts.


"I wanted to protect the US Marines..."

(photo courtesy of Fox News here)

That photograph is secret documents that the US Consulate in Israel didn't even know they had "lost" until an American living in Israel discovered them long after she had bought office furniture in an auction held three years ago.

Now, Israel National News is running the story, and Fox News also has a story about it. From Israel National News:

Go read the rest of this at Assoluta Tranquillita here.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Quarantine the mentally ill

Today I am verbally lighting myself on fire.

I don't care who gets angry.

I will say what others think but will not express.

I am taking the bullets for you.

We must immediately quarantine the mentally ill.

Drug them up, lock them up, but for the love of God, shut them up.

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

The Case For Doing Nothing

Many have been making it clear that this huge $800-900 billion stimulus plan will not help the economy because it does not address the origin of the problems to begin with.

News today includes the House Democrats stripping $200 million out of the proposed plan which would have refurbished a national mall..... this is the type of idiocy lawmakers were proposing taxpayers be responsible for paying.

So, it comes as no surprise when I see articles saying that the huge stimulus plan is doomed to fail if the original problems are not handled that put us where we are to begin with.

Here is the idea....DO NOTHING:

Instead of fighting over what should go in the economic stimulus bill, pitting infrastructure spending against tax cuts and contractors against contraceptives, they say lawmakers should be fighting against the very idea of any economic stimulus at all. Call them the Do-Nothing Crowd.

“The economy was too big. It was all phantom wealth borrowed from abroad,” says Andrew Schiff, an investment consultant at Euro Pacific Capital and a card-carrying member of the stand-tall-against-the-stimulus lobby. “All this stimulus money is geared toward getting consumers spending and borrowing again. But spending and borrowing were the problem in the first place.”

Washington has a habit of passing legislation in a crisis and suffering from morning-after regrets — the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and last year’s original bank bailout plan come to mind. So we thought it would be wise to air the views of the naysayers toward Washington’s latest consensus approach.

Finally, common sense.


Bill Clinton's Foreign Money

The Politico and the AP both report Bill Clinton drew in $5.7 million in 2008 and the majority of it came from foreign sources, such as the National Bank of Kuwait, Hong Kong’s Hybrid Kenetic Automotive Holdings and a Malaysian foundation to name just a few.

Even more interesting, is the tidbit that Clinton brought in nearly $2.1 million from foreign sources, just since the news hit the waves about Hillary Clinton being in line for Secretary of State.

In the last nine months of 2008, Bill Clinton made at least $150,000-a-pop speaking to groups in some of the very places where his wife now will now represent American diplomacy, from India to Kuwait to China to Malaysia. In fact, the latter three speaking stops came in the last month-and-a-half of the year, as the Clinton and Obama camps were hammering out the agreement under which President Obama ultimately offered Hillary Clinton the job as top diplomat.

From the AP's piece, we find out how much of that $5.7 million came from foreign sources:

The documents obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press show that $4.6 million of the former president's reported $5.7 million in 2008 honoraria came from foreign sources, including Kuwait's national bank, other firms and groups in Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico and Portugal and a Hong Kong-based company that spent $100,000 on federal lobbying last year.

That piece also lists specific places that paid him such fees.

Conflict of interest here folks?

You decide.


Tuesday, January 27, 2009

UN Holocaust Remembrance Day Marked With Anti-Semitism

Today the United Nations, an  organization  has done much to add fuel to the Anti-Semitic fire it the world Celebrated its Annual UN Holocaust Remembrance Day. As today is the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

As is Par for the course at the UN, the original host was to be an Jew-hater, UN General Assembly President Miguel "I don't hate all Jews Just the Israeli Ones" d'Escoto Brockmann .

At the last minute Brockmann skipped the world body's ceremony marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day, because American Jewish leaders threatened to demonstratively exit Tuesday's if he used the podium to attack Israel (Brockmann can't help himself).

Some countries marked the day with appropriate ceremonies: 

Survivors, Polish government officials and foreign diplomats placed flowers and wreaths at camp monuments. More than one million people - most of them Jews - died in Auschwitz gas chambers, or through disease, forced labor or starvation.

Germany marked the day with a special session of parliament, where President Horst Koehler praised young Germans for seeking to learn about their country's wartime history as well as Holocaust victims.

Italian lawmakers in Rome observed a moment of silence. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi then urged teachers and students to use the day to advocate the values of peaceful coexistence.
But then there are those "Other Places" the ones who deny the Holocaust or those who try do de-legitimize the Jewish State by accusing it of perpetuating another Holocaust. Read all about those "rememberences" by clicking here.

ACORN Getting $4.1 Billion Stimulus: CALL CONGRESS TODAY!!

Remember ACORN? They were the group that President Obama used to work with. During the presidential campaign their fraudulent voter registration drives were news almost every day. ACORN was famous for registering dead people, the same people in multiple counties, and even giving Mickey Mouse the right to vote.

Two weeks ago I reported that ACORN may get some money out of the Democratic Party Stimulus Plan:
The Democrats are rewarding ACORN for their fine Illegal work by throwing some cash their way in the Obama stimulus plan:

Looks like the infamous ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) that was caught up in voter fraud in 2008 will be in the running to get some funding (pages 72-73 of the report.) The bill provides for $10 million for the SHOP program. The funding will provide competively awarded grants to national and regional nonprofit housing organizations to develop or rehabilitate low-income housing.

There is plenty of more funding that will no doubt find its way to ACORN coffers like the $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants or the $4.1 billion for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Source Swine Line
It has only gotten worse according to the Republican Leadership it looks as if ACORN may get over $4.19 BILLION Dollars out of this Stimulus

Read the Full story Here

GOP to Vote No On Stimulus

Pouring good money in after bad is stupid and it is being reported by The Politico that the GOP will be voting against the $825 billion stimulus plan on the table.

House Republican Leader John A. Boehner and his No. 2, Whip Eric Cantor, told their rank-and-file members Tuesday morning during a closed-door meeting to oppose the bill when it comes to the floor Wednesday, according to an aide familiar with the discussion. Boehner told members that he's voting against the stimulus, and Cantor told the assembled Republicans that there wasn't any reason for them to support the measure, according to another person in the room. Cantor and his whip team are going to urge GOP members to oppose it.

Malkin has the letter sent out of the full analysis from the Congressional Budget Office...pdf here.

More about it from Reuters:

The report expands on another from the same office Republicans had touted last week as showing that less than 40 percent of the stimulus money would filter into the economy over the 19-month period. Democrats complained report was a partial review and CBO on Monday concurred.

The legislation "provides immediate stimulus to help create jobs and makes long-term, targeted, and responsible investments to keep our nation's economy growing for years to come," House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.

Republicans seized on the report as evidence the Democrats' spending plan would take too long to help the economy.

"Once again, it highlights the fact that a huge chunk of the Democrats' so-called stimulus plan comes way too late to make any real difference in fixing the economy," said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner.

Taking action that won't really help is even worse than taking no action at all...

Obama's plan is bad, won't accomplish what is needed for our economy and the GOP needs to block it by any means necessary.


From the Twin Towers to Twin Blunders

In 2001 we lost the Twin Towers.

In 2008, thanks to our new President, we have compounded the problem with a pair of Twin Blunders.

If this hurts us, God help us all.

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Obama Interviews with Al-Arabiya in the White House

By Maggie at Maggie's Notebook


Members of al-Aribiya, the Arab Dubai-based satellite network entered the White House and President Obama "sat" for an the White House.

Obama in the White House - Interview with al-Arabiya

I'm putting this up out of sync with the linked article. This is the most important and abhorrent part of what we know so far (Washington Post):

WAPO says that in "stark contrast" to President G. W. Bush, Obama said:
"...IF America is ready to initiate a new partnership [with the Muslim world] based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress."
This borders on treasonous. What kind of "partnership" can America have now, how can we believe Islam wants a "partnership," and what broke an assumed "partnership" in the first place?

How does America embark on a "new partnership?" Does he have a clue? Will his Envoy, George Mitchell take his message to al-Qaeda or the Taliban? Or maybe they'll see this video in a tricked out cave somewhere.

How does he think he can deal with Hamas? Pre-conceptions. What can be "Pre." We acted "after," not "Pre." We were just sitting here minding our business and they took the towers down.

(NOTE: I just got the video. His comment is not exactly as stated above).

From the Washington Post:
All too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don't always know all the factors that are involved," Obama told al-Arabiya. "So let's listen. He's [George Mitchell] going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response."

He said "I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries,..."
I'm also reading that the interview airs at 11 p.m. EST in the U.S. tonight, January 26th.

As George Mitchell, new Middle East Envoy, prepared to leave for the Middle East, Obama told reporters that that peace in the ME is important to America, and also personally important to him.

Read this from The Politico's Ben Smith, and run for the toi-ty:
President Barack Obama presented a humble and conciliatory face of America to the Islamic world Monday in the first formal interview since he assumed office, stressing his own Muslim ties and shying away from any hint of belligerence even when asked if he could “live with” an Iranian nuclear weapon.

More later...

Monday, January 26, 2009

Videos- Blagojevich On 'The View'

A couple YouTube videos are uploaded from Rod Blagojevich's interview on The View today, videos found here and here at YouTube and both are below.

10 minute video:

8 minute video:

His other television appearance is written about here.


Everything will be fine

For those worried about anything in life, the Obamamessiah is in power.

Puppies and kittens are already hugging. I know this because the media doth say it so. Regardless of the issue...

Everything will be fine.

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

al-Qaeda Hates America No Matter Who Is President

Whether there is a Democrat in the White House or a Republican, makes no matter to the terrorist organization that claimed responsibility for 9/11 and has attacked America and American interests across the world and with Obama's presidency, that hatred toward America hasn't changed a bit.

From Washington Post, who pathetically attempts to put a good "Obama spin" to their article:

That was just a warm-up. In the weeks since, the terrorist group has unleashed a stream of verbal tirades against Barack Obama, each more venomous than the last. Obama has been called a "hypocrite," a "killer" of innocents, an "enemy of Muslims." He was even blamed for the Israeli military assault on Gaza, which began and ended before he took office.

"He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection," an al-Qaeda spokesman declared in a grainy Internet video this month.

The torrent of hateful words is part of what terrorism experts now believe is a deliberate, even desperate, propaganda campaign against a president who appears to have gotten under al-Qaeda's skin. The departure of George W. Bush deprived al-Qaeda of a polarizing American leader who reliably drove recruits and donations to the terrorist group.

Gotten under their skin?


Fact is their hatred has never ended towards the U.S. and will never end towards the U.S.

But for now, the change in Washington appears to have rattled al-Qaeda's leaders, some of whom are scrambling to convince the faithful that Obama and Bush are essentially the same.

They don't give a rats ass, excuse the expression, of who is in the White House, the fact the we, Americas, do not live under Muslim law, makes us "infidels".. period. End of discussion.

Days before Obama's inauguration, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden chimed in with a mocking prediction that the new president would founder under the weight of the military and financial burdens he would inherit. No matter what he tried to do, Obama would ultimately lose, bin Laden said on Jan. 14.

"If he withdraws from the war, it is military defeat," he said in an audiotaped message. "And if he continues it, he drowns in economic crisis. How can it be that [Bush] passed over to him two wars, not one war, and he is unable to continue them? We are on our path to open other fronts, with permission from Allah."

I guess it all comes down to "same shit different day" or better yet, same shit different president.

Despite all the campaign promises about change, some things will never change.


The Executive Order From Hell #1

And so it begins, our Dear President Barack Obama has issued his first substantial and controversy turning executive order.


The order is an interesting read with all of the strong language suddenly halted with a limp wristed comment just to give President Obama a means to backpedal out of any statement made if the case should arise. This move seems to be typical of most Chicago politicians.

When I heard about the inevitable closure of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facilities the question, "Where will all the prisoners go?," came to mind.

As LeVar Burton Said, "The more you read, the more you know." So I took that advice and looked up the order on the very neat and easy to navigate Whitehouse Webpage.

First of all, the Executive Order starts off listing reasoning under the Geneva Convention.

(a) "Common Article 3" means Article 3 of each of the Geneva

(b) "Geneva
Conventions" means:

(i) the Convention for the
Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces
in the Field, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);

the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded,
Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949
(6 UST 3217);

(iii) the Convention Relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316);

(iv) the Convention Relative to the Protection of
Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).

The Supreme Court has ordered that the men who are neither part of a recognized military or a civilian are protected by both instances in the Geneva Convention. (Note to Self: If and when a revolution occurs, under the Geneva Conventions they cannot touch my ass!)

In 2006 there was a Memorandum sent out by the DoD referencing the rule of law and how it can be abided by, as well as the provisions already enforced to insure the lawful actions of the military.

Does President Obama not trust his employees much, or does he now feel the need to do another review and waste more time and taxpayer money on this issue?

Another question that begs to be answered is why the President thinks it is his duty and the duty of the executive branch to review the lawfulness of any such orders, when the Supreme Court has already had its say? Nothing irritates me more than when the lines of checks and balances become blurry.

(d) It is in the interests of the United States that the executive
branch undertake a prompt and thorough review of the factual and legal bases for
the continued detention of all individuals currently held at Guantánamo, and of
whether their continued detention is in the national security and foreign policy
interests of the United States and in the interests of justice. The
unusual circumstances associated with detentions at Guantánamo require a
comprehensive interagency review.

The executive order also states that:

c) The individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have the constitutional
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Most of those individuals have
filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court challenging the
lawfulness of their detention.

This is also another contentious issue, one that centers around the phrase "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Do these individuals indeed fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution?

No they do not. The Constitution extends to citizens of the United States. Likewise our laws only extend to those who have a temporary allegiance or submit to them willingly, even then we must confer with their host country before applying any punishment beyond initial detainment. Of course the placement of Guantanamo Bay makes all of this very iffy. Take into consideration that all foreign American Bases are considered American Soil, but for us to remain in a foreign country there has to be a SOFA or a Status of Forces Agreement. Neither really applies to these individuals who fall through the cracks of the Geneva Conventions.

In the end the phrase 'Subject to the jurisdiction thereof' applies to only United States citizens born on United States soil, or extended citizenship by the citizenship of their parents, or become naturalized by renouncing all allegiances to other countries. On a side note: this fact can also settle the issue of Anchor Babies, but I digress.

The Executive Order also states that Gitmo must be closed within a year hence, and all the prisoners have to have trails or reviews and be dispersed or detained in other ways.

Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention
facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be
closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of
this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in
detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention
facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released,
transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States
detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national
security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

So everyone gets to be either released to their home country, or if their home country does not want them, another country, or if that doesn't work they get a nice cushy home in a prison in the United State, but that is only if they are supposed to be detained.

The worst case scenario I can see is a guilty SOB being released as innocent under some loophole, but because his home country and other countries who are either smart or devious will deny them entrance. Are you ready for that neighbor? As if we do not have enough lawbreakers on American soil.

My last question and one that perhaps is the most pointed is, " President Obama, you promised to stop foreclosures the minute you got into office. So why do these terrorists and madmen who have three hots and cot merit swifter action than homeless and hungry citizens?"

If this interests you please visit my blog at Daughter of America

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Dead Week 2009

This is Dead Week, the worst week of the Calendar year. The Super Bowl is next Sunday.

Today I am furiously clicking my remote control, but no football game is coming on.

Dear God, make this pain stop.

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Is Dissent Still Patriotic?

The left spent 8 years telling us that dissent was patriotic.

Now after 8 years of viciousness, they want us to all "come together."

Screw that. It's payback time.

Liberals need to emotionally bleed until they stop bashing my President George W. Bush. They couldn't even let him leave with dignity.

Until they knock it off, they get not an ounce of peace.

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Friday, January 23, 2009

Jumbalaya Friday

With so much going on in the news, I shall emulate the media and choose quantity over quality. Why analyze one story with depth when I can cover multiple stories badly?

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Kirsten Gillibrand To Fill Hillary Clinton's Senate Seat?

WPIX 11 is reporting there will be a press conference at noon to announce Governor David Paterson's choice to fill the Senate seat replacing Hillary Clinton and his choice, sources say for that replacement will be Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand.

While some insist Gillibrand is the Governor's choice, another New York Congressman cautioned that "It's not a done deal." He claims there is some political in-fighting and ongoing conversations with the Governor. There appears to be some challenge to Gillibrand's voting record. Reached for comment, the Dean of New York's Congressional delegation, Charlie Rangel, would say nothing more than that he's been invited to join the governor for an announcement in Albany.

Gillibrand represents a district of New York that leans Republican, the 20th congressional district, which, if the sources are correct, may upset some progressives.

You can see Gillibrand's stances on the issues at the website for the district.

It looks solid, but as one source noted, "in politics you never know," but based on the information they have heard and shared with PIX News, Governor Paterson is poised to name Kirsten Gillibrand as New York's next Senator at a news conference at noon Friday and PIX News will carry it live on the air and on the web.

Although reports say it is not a "done deal" NYT has confirmed the story.

The New York Post reports that some members of the state's Democratic congressional delegation are howling at the prospect of Gillibrand's being appointed, with "at least five" of them already called Paterson to protest the possibility of Gillibrand's selection.

Gillibrand has won two successive elections in one of the heaviest GOP districts in the state, first upsetting incumbent Rep. John Sweeney and, in November, defeating former state GOP chairman and multimillionaire Alexander Treadwell, in one of the most expensive races in the nation.

Liberal Democrats have been wary of her because she ran for re-election with the backing of the National Rifle Association, opposed the federal TARP program to rescue banks, and has been less than enthusiastic about gay marriage.

Congressional Democrats are not the only ones howling over this pick, as evidenced by some far far left progressive blogs.


Fail. We can’t have an unreliable Dem vote in the U.S. Senate, but that’s what the Empire State has now.


The overall issue is that, for a NY Democrat, she's pretty darn Republican.

Those are just a couple examples of how progressives are reacting to this pick.

I would hate to be answering Paterson's phone lines about now....heh


Thursday, January 22, 2009

Dear President Obama

I think you all know how I love to share what our boots on the ground have to say. Today, some helpful insights from one of our best in Afghanistan. Writing on Afghanistan Shrugged, he says:
Dear, President Obama

I know that you just took office about 48 hours ago and you’ve got a lot on your plate; but I thought I’d provide you with a small letter for SA, situational awareness. I’m sure that GEN Petraus will provide one for you also; but mine comes from the trenches of the War On Terror. My team is out here every day making sure that the policies you set forth get carried out; so we see the impact, successes and failures first hand.

First, let me describe the current situation from my fighting position. It’s not great. Currently we’re chasing the wrong thing, that being enemy forces. They can always recruit more people, we need to attack the motivations to join the enemy. Eliminate the supply.

Predators, ROVER and other implements that we’ve paid billions for are most often used to second guess the guys on the ground and tell them that they’re not seeing what they’re seeing. If this seems convoluted it is! It boils down to this, you’re getting shot at and some dude a long way off is telling you you’re not and that by the way you better not shoot back at the enemy.

Logistics suck! No if, and or buts about it. This is day 26 for this team without mail. This is a lot different then you’ll see at the big FOBs where there’s ubiquitous ice cream, coffee and hot chow, and totally different than Iraq. They throw away more than we eat. I haven’t seen a PX in three months and I just ran out of deodorant and soap today, my wife mailed some to me in the middle of December but haven’t seen it yet. As they say, “Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics”.

There are some great American Warriors here doing their darn best to win the war, but the higher ups are too afraid; so they won’t let them off the FOB to do the work that needs to be done. They track things like how many rounds we expended and what patch you’re wearing on your ACUs instead of issues like how many feet of road or the number of schools built.

So now that I’ve painted a little picture of what it looks like, let me indulge myself and highlight a couple of things I think we could do to close the deal.

Roads, we need more of them. A lot more! This is the cornerstone to building Afghanistan and the government. The Romans were successful not because of military technology, it helped, but because they built an extensive road network. Many of which still exist today and are in better shape than roads in Afghanistan.

Without roads the Afghans don’t really need a centralized government. That’s a broad statement but I’ll qualify it here in a minute. The tribe pretty much provides what they need. The tribe protects them, settles disputes and enforces laws. They’re more than capable of doing this and have been for the last several centuries. They fulfill the basic governmental requirements common defense, law and order.

The tribes though can’t build and maintain roads. Now, you need a centralized government to construct, maintain and protect the roads. You get an influx of money as people work on the roads and they quit getting paid to blow us up and it stimulates a demand for goods and services.

With the road comes inter-province commerce for which you need regulation by a central government; a function a tribe can’t accomplish. Sounds kind of like a little situation we had around 1776. The road brings money, communication and progress. You cut the link between Pakistan and the tribal regions because it’s now easier to travel to the interior of Afghanistan to get medical treatment, goods, services the whole lot.

So with a simple road we’ve now created an environment friendly to the support of the Afghan central government. That doesn’t exist now. It’s a lot easier to explain to the Afghans that the Army and police protect the roads and regulate commerce. Additionally taking the, “this is a war on Islam” factor out of the situation. ...

Be SURE and go read the rest here. If we spread this one far enough, maybe President Obama will actually get to read it. And then he may "get" it...

*cross-posted from Assoluta Tranquillita*

Calling all Angels

Soldiers' Angels hero adoption waiting list is over 900 today. All these heroes waiting to be adopted are currently serving overseas, away from their families and could use some additional support from you. Won't you please consider adopting a hero today? All is takes is the commitment from you to write a letter a week and send one small care package a month during the length of the deployment. To adopt a hero, click here now.

If adoption does not suit you and you would like to get involved with Soldiers' Angels, there are many opportunities for everyone to get involved. Just click here to find out more.

And just because this is one of my MOST favourite!:

Liberals Gone Wild--Feminist Claptap

Now that we have little to look forward to but committee hearings that only C-Span Junkies could find tolerable, it is back to fighting ideological bigotry.

Palestinians and other leftists will get their time in the sun, or in their case, eternal darkness. Today is reserved for those angry, hostile, hysterical creatures known as feminists.

One went after me personally. She will not make that feminist mistake again.

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Funniest. Thing. EVER

Former French president Jacques Chirac was rushed to hospital after being mauled by his own 'clinically depressed' pet dog.

A poodle for heaven's sake.

Nuff said?

This has been your ridiculous item of the day.



Obama Takes Oath Again

I don't think this was truly necessary, but it seems after the first Oath of Office was taken, and there were a couple problems, that out of an abundance of caution, Barack Obama has retaken the Oath of Office.

The second oath -- also administered by Roberts -- took place at 7:35 p.m. Wednesday in the White House's Map Room. Roberts asked Obama whether he was ready.

"I am, and we're going to do it very slowly," Obama replied.

The do-over was aimed at dispelling any confusion that might arise from Tuesday's take -- in which "faithfully" was said out of sequence -- and erase any question that Obama is legally the president.

More from the AP.


Caroline Kennedy Withdraws Senate Bid

(Caroline Kennedy)

Caroline Kennedy withdraws her bid to replace Hillary Clinton for the New York Senate seat.

Ms. Kennedy on Wednesday called Gov. David A. Paterson, who will choose a successor to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, to inform him that she was no longer interested.

“I informed Governor Paterson today that for personal reasons I am withdrawing my name from consideration for the United States Senate,” Ms. Kennedy said in a statement released by her public relations firm.

Ms. Kennedy did not elaborate, but a person who spoke to her suggested that her concerns about the health of her uncle, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who suffers from brain cancer and was hospitalized after a seizure on Tuesday, contributed to her decision.

Ms. Kennedy believed that the job was hers if she would accept it, the person said, but aides to Mr. Paterson would not comment on whether that was true.

Read the whole thing at New York Times.

Fact is name is not enough, Kennedy had no practical experience at all and being a Kennedy should not have been reason enough to place her such a position.

Then again, lack of experience for the position didn't stop Obama from winning the presidency, so nothing would have surprised me at this point.

LA Times' Top of the Ticket, gives an update saying there are conflicting reports over this NYT story.

(UPDATE: Later Wednesday evening NBC quoted a Kennedy family source as contradicting those reports, blaming a miscommunication and saying she remained in the running. The Associated Press, quoting an unidentified Albany source, also said the withdrawal reports were erroneous.)

Firedoglake makes this point:

I didn't know how David Paterson was going to justify appointing Kennedy when virtually every poll showed an ever-widening gap between her and Andrew Cuomo as to whom New Yorkers would prefer. The main argument for Kennedy, despite her inexperience and her pathetic roll out (courtesy of Lieberman/Netanyahu handler Josh Isay) was her name recognition and ability to hold the seat in 2010. If Cuomo is beating her handily in the polls, that argument disappears.

Commentary brings up the idiocy of her even being in the running to begin with:

And who thought up this idea of Senator Caroline in the first place? Perhaps Caroline did get the political bug or maybe a pushy relative thought the Senate should always have a Kennedy. But that was a terrible error. It was the perfect storm: putting her in utterly unfamiliar territory (the real world), sending her out to do battle with the media without a political policy idea in her head, and ignoring the obvious pattern of the undeserving “Democrats by appointment” storyline. The end was predictably disastrous.

The only part of the entire sordid episode that worked was the ending — courteous and kind. Quite fitting for the pretend princess.

Despite the confusion and conflicting reports... AP sent out a short bulletin saying a spokesperson confirmed her withdrawal.

That as they say is ...that.


Wednesday, January 21, 2009

The Racist Benediction

"We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to
give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red
man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right," Lowery

Yesterday's inauguration had difficulty keeping my attention between the boring hours of news anchor filling the screen with their polished and poised countenance and their ever present white noise. When I was not tuning out news anchors I was attending to my children. I was trying to make them watch the events of the day even though they were too young to understand what was going on. However when I heard the benediction my attention was piqued.

I had a hard time understanding why a Reverend would be awakening racial anger on such an important day for America, but that is what the benediction did. It surely put off many people.

As a white woman I feel that it is only my right to express my opinion to the last part of the benediction, yes I have opinions about the entire paragraph, but I want to keep the focus on what upset me the most.

When white will embrace what is right...

Allow me to give examples with freedom and equality as specifics.

To read the rest visit my blog at Daughter of America

And so it begins...

From ABC News: Obama Moves toward Shuttering Gitmo

Last night, just hours after he took the oath of office, Obama ordered Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to direct the chief prosecutor of the Office of Military Commissions to seek a continuance of 120 days for any case that has been referred to the office of military commissions and to cease referring any new cases for prosecution.

This morning, military judges hearing the cases of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11, and his co-conspirators, as well as a different judge hearing the case of Canadian detainee Omar Khadr, granted the prosecution's motion. According to the motion filed by the prosecutors, the continuance was requested "in order to provide the administration sufficient time to conduct a review of detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to evaluate the cases of detainees not approved for release or transfer to determine whether prosecution may be warranted for any offenses those detainees may have committed, and to determine which forum best suits any future prosecution."
Is it even possible to grasp the enormity of these fateful decisions? to understand the dire implications for our future? Let's just focus our attention for a moment on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Just who is he and how important is he in our attempts to prosecute this Global War on Terror?

According to the 9/11 Commission Report he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks". He is also thought to have had, or has confessed to, a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, the Operation Bojinka
plot, an aborted 2002 attack on Los Angeles' U.S. Bank Tower, the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, the Millennium Plot, and the murder of Daniel Pearl.

Think you already know all about Sheikh Khalid's terrorist activities? You might just be surprised. Here is what he has confessed to (so far):

The February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City
A failed "shoe bomber" operation
The October 2002 attack in Kuwait
The nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia
A plan for a "second wave" of attacks on major U.S. landmarks to be set in the spring or summer of 2002 after the 9/11 attacks, which includes more hijackings of commercial airlines and having them flown into various buildings in the U.S. including the Library Tower in Los Angeles , the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Columbia Center in Seattle and the Empire State Building in New York
Plots to attack oil tankers and U.S. naval ships in
the Straits of Hormuz, the Straits of Gibraltar and in Singapore
A plan to blow up the Panama Canal
Plans to assassinate Jimmy Carter [Yes, that's right, even Jimmy Carter]
A plot to blow up suspension bridges in New York City
A plan to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago with burning fuel trucks
Plans to "destroy" Heathrow Airport, Canary Wharf and Big Ben in London
A planned attack on "many" nightclubs in Thailand
A plot targeting the New York Stock Exchange and other U.S. financial targets

A plan to destroy buildings in Eilat, Israel
Plans to destroy U.S. embassies in Indonesia, Australia and Japan in 2002.
Plots to destroy Israeli embassies in India, Azerbaijan, the Philippines and Australia
Surveying and financing an attack on an Israeli El-Al flight from Bangkok Sending several "mujahideen" into Israel to survey "strategic targets" with the intention of attacking them
The November 2002 suicide bombing of a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya
The failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli passenger jet leaving Mombasa airport in Kenya Plans to attack U.S. targets in South Korea
Providing financial support for a plan to attack U.S., British and Jewish targets in Turkey
Surveillance of U.S. nuclear power plants in order to attack them
A plot to attack NATO's headquarters in Europe
Planning and surveillance in a 1995 plan (the "Bojinka Operation") tobomb 12 American passenger jets
The planned assassination attempt against then-U.S. President Bill Clinton during a mid-1990s trip to the Philippines. [Sorry Bill, no pass for Democrats]
"Shared responsibility" for a plot to kill Pope John Paul II
Plans to assassinate Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
An attempt to attack a U.S. oil company in Sumatra, Indonesia, "owned by the Jewish former [U.S.] Secretary of State Henry Kissinger"
The beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl

Of course, not everyone is pleased with the circumstances of poor Khalid's incarceration.

Human rights groups, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Center for Constitutional Rights, and US military defense lawyers have criticised the military commissions for lacking necessary rights for a fair trial. Critics generally argue for a trial either in a civilian federal court as a common criminal suspect, or by court martial as a prisoner under the Geneva Conventions.
And so it begins... Our beloved new leader has spoken, and the good Khalid will find his way into that labyrinth of the American criminal justice system. And if our new president and his followers have their way, he will be tried in a NYC courtroom, with all, or almost all, of the benefits of an American citizen. High-profile trial lawyers will trip all over themselves to represent him. O. J. Simpson look out, your days of enjoying the dubious distinction of having the most watched criminal trial in the twentieth century are about to be eclipsed. Of course, the old media will be thrilled. I can almost hear Nancy Grace and Geraldo Rivera licking their chops in anticipation.

Is this how it's going to be? Is this how it will all end? Have we just voted ourselves into the dustbin of history? If the Sword of Justice does not fall upon this monster's head, is there any hope, any hope at all for a just and righteous world? Have we just bartered away justice for the appearance of justice? Have we sold our precious souls to please a jaded world? - rg

For more on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed see: href="">

Time to get to work

Ok, enough partying, dancing, and "balling."

Yes, they can party, and they talked a good enough game to get elecected.

Can they actually govern?

It's time to get to work.

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Quick Links On Obama

Late start today so in running through some of the news out there, I found a few interesting tidbits.

The White House website has changed the website address and has been revamped.

The White House Blog "The Briefing Room" is up and running with a few posts up already.

Robert Gibbs will be President Obama's new Press Secretary, via The Politico, they have questions they would like seen asked of Gibbs.

Shares in the biggest names in American banking plunged Tuesday, this is a problem Obama's team hasn't figured out how to deal with yet according to the New York Times.

While people celebrated in America and across the word on inauguration day, others were busy rioting, such as Iran where protesters burnt posters of U.S. President Barack Obama and waved flags in support of Gaza.

Obama is seeking to halt legal proceedings at Gitmo.

Last but never least, the far far left, as evidenced by Firedoglake, always has something to complain about with a post called "Worst. Inauguration. Ever."

Some folks just do not know what the word happy means and are incapable of being so.

Happy reading....