………..

From the blog for my syndicated radio show.

On Sundays at 11:00 ET: Larry Johnson joins the “experts panel” weekly on my West Coast syndicated radio show. Listen via KFI-AM.

ARE YOU SURE?????????????

There’s a little gift waiting for all of you for endorsing Barack Obama.

Congratulations, the misogyny is about to complete itself. Start hauling all the water all over again. My generation did it once for you and you let it all be whittled down.

It started with things like calling a reporter “Honey”. Playing “99 Problems But a Bitch Ain’t One Of Them” at a rally. Did you attend and bounce around to the moooooosic? There was the vibrating cell phone in his pants, and him telling the woman next to him he wasn’t being “fresh”. You’re likeable enough, Hillary. Hillary has “Periodic” moments of “depression”. She threw the “Kichen sink” at him. There were the Mental Children groping cardboard cutouts. You all saw, but it was just too much FUN to swoon over the sexy man!

“Women’s Rights are Human Rights”. Now, gee who said that again??? Hint: It wasn’t Barack Obama. His idea of Women’s Rights when he spoke in a part of the world that is most noted for maiming, hating on and killing women is women have the Right to wear the hijab. He made it very clear that Human Rights were NOT a priority. Yes He Can and Yes He Did.

You all threw Hillary under the Yes We Can bus and Now You Can’t. You all watched them give away her delegates, restructure how delegates were distributed. You all watched how she would clobber Obama in a state primary and the next day another big shot would endorse him. You said nothing. Nada. Zip. And lo and behold, she would clobber him in a state again and he would get more delegates than she did from that primary or bogus caucus that she won. Now HOW could that BE! Well, you didn’t care. It was all so much FUN! Even when they called women C*nts! Wasn’t that cool!!!!? Expect the same primary and caucus treatment when you are looking to advance yourself in Corporate America, because this kind of shit always rolls downhill.

The Stupak Amendment. You did it yourself, didn’t you? You let it happen. Now I surf the net and read about how you are doing what the rest of us horrible PUMAs did last year. Ripping up those DNC donation cards, writing “Sorry I’m giving my money to Planned Parenthood” notes and mailing them back at their expense. Angry, are ya? Well, this could have been avoided. A President is supposed to wield power. A President is supposed to influence Congress, especially when that Congress is of that President’s own party. Where are you seeing that? Stupak just crapped all over you and your President used, to coin one of his stump speeches, “Just Words”.

I have news for you. Obama will sign that bill with or without the C Street Secret Fundie amendment. If he does, he won’t take the blame either. He never does. Even if that amendment dies in the Senate, don’t you find it more than a little frightening that it even made it to the House, with a WOMAN in charge? You don’t find this in the least disconcerting???? Funny isn’t it, how all the boyz you followed are telling you to stop being “hysterical” and “emotional” now, isn’t it? They are telling you to “Calm down” and you will “Feel better about it later”. Sound familiar? It’s called being Marginalized.

You reap what you sow. But you can still sit around and do nothing. After all, he played golf with a girl last week after people noticed what a Boys Club his White House really is. Keep ignoring the signs, if you want. It’s probably too late anyways. But hey, it will give you something to do for the next decade or so, while you revolt to take back what you already had and lost. My generation marched and stood in the rain and snow to fight for your rights, girlz. We incurred the bruises in Corporate America to make it easy for your asses.We made it and you blew it. Do you have what it takes to take back the rights of women as Human Beings? We’ll see. My money is not on you. Prove me wrong or go quietly into the night.

Let me tell you girlz, and that is what you all are: You can believe me or you can continue to hum with your fingers in your ears: The only difference between the far right and the far left is the far right practically comes right out and says they hate women and want them to live with Father Knows Best. The far left feels exactly the same way, only they have lied to you and the signs were always there. The one thing they always brandished to keep your ass in line was “Abortion”. And now they have forsaken you. You are nothing to them but a vote to help the powerful see to your own subjugation. Did you notice now that all those boyz you stood side-by-side with during campaign time are NOT rallying very loudly for you? Where’s that huge demonstration at the White House and Capitol Hill steps? Just asking.

If the Fundie named Stupak and his amendment written by his Republican co-sponsor goes down in the Senate, they will say,” See??? We love yas!”. If that happens, will you be smart enough to ask loudly, why is it that this amendment ever passed in the House in the first place????? They will be counting on you hockey puck broads do be grateful after they scare the crap out of you. Again. They have been playing this game with women for years, gang. How many times do you have to be a puck before you Get It?

Even George W never tried this, gang, and he was the social conservatives’ and the religious right’s puck. How telling is that? I’m staying home in 2010, you on the other hand will be tossed some bone and you will pull those misogynist levers again, isn’t that right????? The message here is you are the Suckers. You are nothing more than votes. And when the votes are tallied, you are the Target. Rinse and Repeat. Women have Power and they don’t use it! Don’t be a voting fool. The only way to let this “New” Democratic Party remember you are a human being just like the boys are is to show them they don’t have the votes to win without you. Stop being pucks. This is not a ”Progressive” Party. It’s a Regressive Party, starting with subjugating you. Stop voting for your own oppressors! I’m not voting for any Social Conservatives. Not Ever. But I am also never going to again vote for a Liar or a Regressive. That means, both parties will not get my vote. I don’t vote for women’s oppressors. Why would YOU do it? I’m not leaving the Democratic Party. I plan to show my face to vote in primaries against Regressives who hate women. How about you?

Indulge me one more time, here. Let me show you what you missed and what you lost. They are called Signs, girlz. Signs you CHOSE to ignore.

Let’s take a trip to 2007, a little stroll down memory lane. You know, humor the Old Girl, mmmmmkay?:

What’s most interesting about this endorsement from March of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, which the Clinton campaign is trotting out again this morning, is not so much that Bonnie Grabenhofer, president of the Illinois National Organization for Women Political Action Committee would support “our native sister.”

It’s that Grabenhofer underlines that during his 2004 Senate race against Alan Keyes, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, did not receive Illinois NOW PAC’s endorsement.

Why?

“(B)ecause he refused to stand up for a woman’s right to choose and repeatedly voted ‘present’ on important legislation. As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted ‘present’ on seven abortion bills, including a ban on ‘partial birth abortion,’ two parental notification laws and three ‘born alive’ bills. In each case, the right vote was clear, but Senator Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions.

“When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass,” said Grabenhofer. “He wasn’t there for us then and we don’t expect him to be now.”

I guess Kim Gandy was absent that day. And you fought to keep her.

And OOOPS! That Illinois NOW Clinton endorsement link quoted above is gone.

Aren’t you all bright and wise Know It Alls? No sense of listening to those old hippy wimmin who busted their asses for you (Phyllis Chesler comes to mind), when you were having so much fun with the cool charismatic messiah! You hitched your star to a misogynist, girlz. And you attached feminism to one thing and one thing only, while the rest was being whittled away. You hitched your star to abortion rights. And now, even as we speak, your own party is working against you to finish you off and marginalize Pretty Little You.

You have been pwnd. Congratulations! If they don’t succeed now, there’s always tomorrow. You all be sure and continue to support these gender warfare liars, okay?

Now suck it all down, girlz. Move your asses or get thee to the kitchen. Because that’s next. Roll up your sleeves, break some fingernails and get to work. You have a lot to do. Basically you have everything to do that was already done by the second wave feminists. You were given a gift that others worked very hard to give you, and you threw it all away. You’ve got 40 years of progress to take back and believe me it’s going to be WORK!

Terry O’Neill, the president of the National Organization of Women, was not happy to hear President Obama’s response when ABC News asked him about an amendment added to the House Democrats’ health care bill Saturday night that further restricts abortion services in both public and private insurance plans.

“He has passed health care for half the population and an anti-abortion bill for the rest of us,” O’Neill said.

She said she understood the president’s frustration in wanting to pass health care reform, but “it is not acceptable for him to achieve that goal by pushing women back into the back alleys to die.” And the anti-abortion amendment added to the health care reform legislation “does just that.”

Yup, you threw it all away, now YOU do the work. Have fun! Maybe Naomi can help out. She thinks hijab is oh so sexy! How about you, girlz?

Yup, it bears repeating. You thew it all away. If they don’t get you this time, it’s coming. A nice appointment of a Sharia guy named Koh to the SCOTUS would be a good start, don’t you think, girlz?

One more thing. Hillary would have never stood for this. You have to live with that now.

Hey Ms, do you still think Amy Siskind is a pain in the ass and Naomi Wolf is a feminist”? You sure? You be sure and do another cover of what a feminist looks like you hear?

Which woman was right in this video, Amy or Naomi. Take your time. I’ll wait.

Uh huh. Bet it doesn’t feel Christmas, Hanukkah and New Year’s now does it?

So, NOW…………who’s sorry NOW?

Does it matter what we call someone? Is terminology essential for taking action against someone responsible for a monstrous crime? I confess I’m amused by the furor over whether to label Major Nidal Hasan a “terrorist.” But so what? If call him a terrorist does that fast track him to a court martial? The answer is no. If you call him a “terrorist” does that ensure he is executed for his crimes? No.

The key issue with respect to Hasan was whether or not he was acting on behalf of someone else per their instructions. While Hasan certainly tried to reach out to folks that have links back to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda sympathizers, there is no evidence that he was a mole and carried out a secret plot. We also have strong circumstantial evidence that he was unfit for duty as a U.S. military officer and instead of being disciplined was passed along and allowed to become a threat.

News today that the Obama Administration is going to try the 9-11 plotters and other Al Qaeda operatives in a civilian trial in New York City has again awakened the red herring about “fighting terrorism as a war.” Which then leads to my original question, was Adolf Eichmann a terrorist?

Eichmann, for the culturally ignorant, was the mastermind of the Final Solution that helped exterminate 6 million Jews:

Reinhard Heydrich disclosed to Eichmann in autumn 1941 that all the Jews in German-controlled Europe were to be exterminated.[13] In 1942, Heydrich ordered Eichmann to attend the Wannsee Conference as recording secretary, where Germany’s anti-Semitic measures were set down into an official policy of genocide. Eichmann was given the position of Transportation Administrator of the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question”, which put him in charge of all the trains which would carry Jews to the death camps in the territory of occupied Poland.

In 1944, he was sent to Hungary after Germany had occupied that country in fear of a Soviet invasion. Eichmann at once went to work deporting Jews, sending 430,000 Hungarians to their deaths in the gas chambers.

By 1945, Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler had ordered Jewish extermination to be halted and evidence of the Final Solution to be destroyed. Eichmann was appalled by Himmler’s turnabout, and continued his work in Hungary against official orders. Eichmann was also working to avoid being called up in the last ditch German military effort, since a year before he had been commissioned as a Reserve Untersturmführer in the Waffen-SS and was now being ordered to active combat duty.

Eichmann fled Hungary in 1945 as the Soviets entered, and he returned to Austria, where he met up with his old friend Ernst Kaltenbrunner. Kaltenbrunner, however, refused to associate with Eichmann since Eichmann’s duties as an extermination administrator had left him a marked man by the Allies.

While Eichmann certainly inflicted terror on his victims, both directly and indirectly, he was not a terrorist. He was military officer and was fighting in a war. However, when it came time to bring him to justice it was not through a “war or terror.” Israel (correctly so in my view) took matters into its own hands and snatched him from Argentina and took him to Israel for trial:

In 1959, Mossad was informed that Eichmann was in Buenos Aires under the name Ricardo Klement (Clement) and began an effort to locate his exact whereabouts.[21] Through relentless surveillance, it was concluded that Ricardo Klement was, in fact, Adolf Eichmann. The Israeli government then approved an operation to capture Eichmann and bring him to Jerusalem for trial as a war criminal. The Mossad agents continued their surveillance of Eichmann through the first months of 1960 until it was judged safe to take him down, even watching as he delivered flowers to his wife on their 25th wedding anniversary on March 21.

Eichmann was captured by a team of Mossad and Shabak agents in a suburb of Buenos Aires on May 11, 1960, as part of a covert operation.[22] The Mossad agents had arrived in Buenos Aires in April 1960 after Eichmann’s identity was confirmed. After observing Eichmann for an extensive period of time, a team of Mossad agents waited for him as he arrived home from his work as foreman at a Mercedes Benz factory. One kept lookout waiting for his bus to arrive, while two agents pretended to be fixing a broken down car. An unconfirmed fourth would ride on the bus to make sure he would leave. Once Eichmann alighted and began walking the short distance to his home, he was asked by the agent at the car, Zvi Aharoni, for a cigarette. When Eichmann reached in his pocket he was set upon by the two by the car. Eichmann fought but team member Peter Malkin, a Polish Jew and a black belt in karate, knocked Eichmann unconscious with a strike to the back of his neck and bundled him into the car and took him to the safe house.

There a preliminary interrogation was conducted and it was proved that Klement (Clement) was undoubtedly the Nazi Eichmann.[21] The agents kept him in a safe house until they judged that he could be taken to Israel without being detected by Argentine authorities; then smuggled him out of Argentina on board an El Al Bristol Britannia flight from Argentina to Dakar and then to Israel on May 21, 1960, heavily sedated and disguised, like the agents, in the uniform of the El Al crew.[23]

Israel demonstrated that a genuine monster could be brought to justice using the law rather than force. I consider this one of Israel’s finest moments. David Ben Gurion and his Government demonstrated that they could defeat a monster without having to become monsters.

The Bush Administration brought us the nonsense that we must fight terrorism as a war. This still makes no sense because terrorism is a tactic, it is not a strategic organization. This does not mean therefore that we use only “law enforcement” means against people who engage in terrorism. Hell, no. If we can located a terrorist cell and kill them I think that is swell. But I know firsthand from working with the military force that has the capture/kill mission for terrorists that they rarely get the opportunity. The folks who engage in terrorism tend to hang out in groups and small cells that are not easily attacked with military force. More often than not we can get these people thru intelligence or law enforcement operations.

So what do we do about Khalid Sheik Muhammed and the others coming out of Gitmo? I agree with Rudy Guiliani. These individuals are defacto combatants and should be tried in a military tribunal. They are not common criminals and should not be tried in a civilian court.

UPDATE: Here’s Rudy’s comments today:

Unfortunately, as with so many other aspects of the Obama administration, this is a plan not fully thought through.

These are some initial thoughts. Chew away.

Pretty exciting news, especially for us space buffs.

Scientist are sure that they have discovered water on the moon, according to a New York Times article today.

There is water on the Moon, scientists stated unequivocally on Friday, and considerable amounts of it.
“Indeed yes, we found water,” Anthony Colaprete, the principal investigator for NASA’s Lunar Crater Observation and sensing Satellite, said in a news conference.

The confirmation of scientists’ suspicions is welcome news both to future explorers who might set up home on the lunar surface and to scientists who hope that the water, in the form of ice accumulated over billions of years, could hold a record of the solar system’s history.

The satellite, known as Lcross (pronounced L-cross), slammed into a crater near the Moon’s south pole a month ago. The impact carved out a hole 60- to 100-feet wide and kicked up at least 24 gallons of water.

Fascinating! Oxygen and Hydrogen, and what else maybe? The answers are out there. But when I stare up at the night sky, I wonder if we humans are intelligent enough to figure them out. So I mostly enjoy the awe of it all.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be endorsing Rep. Michael Capuano in the Massachusetts Senate special election, choosing her House colleague over Attorney General Martha Coakley, who is seeking to become the first female senator in the state.

Pelosi will be heading to Boston tomorrow morning to make the formal endorsement.

In her statement, Pelosi noted Capuano’s support for the historic health care legislation that she shepherded through the House. Coakley said she opposed the legislation that passed through the House because it contained a provision restricting federal funds from going to abortion providers.

“Saturday the House of Representatives passed a historic health care bill that was a great victory for the American people,” Pelosi said. “Mike Capuano not only cast a courageous vote for this historic legislation, but was a constructive force in improving this bill and moving it to the Senate.”

This would be the “historic” bill featured the Stupak amendment which has pro-choice legislators, feminists and organizations like NOW and NARAL furious. And here’s why. According to Planned Parenthood:

“…This amendment would violate the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all, by creating a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes…

“While Rep. Stupak claims that his amendment simply applies the Hyde amendment to health reform, nothing could be farther from the truth. The Stupak/Pitts amendment would result in a new restriction on women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that covers abortion, even if they pay for most of the premium with their own money…

“Rep. Stupak’s amendment would dramatically shift current federal policy related to abortion coverage and would undermine the principle of abortion neutrality in health care reform. A vote for Rep. Stupak’s amendment is a vote to weaken women’s access to comprehensive reproductive care and to take away private benefits that women currently have.”

Once again, women are the first to be asked to make “compromises” so the man can get his “historic” legislation passed. Where have I heard that before?

And let me get this straight – Capuano’s payback for voting for this thing is the endorsement of the Speaker of the House?

Attorney General Martha Coakley is a fierce advocate for women, children and working families. She’s squeaky clean, tough, and principled but that’s not good enough for Ms. Pelosi? Is she so threatened by having another tough woman in a position of power in government? Could this be more payback for the fact that Martha Coakley endorsed Hillary and refused to give up her vote at the Convention? Or that Coakley has her own ideas about health care and refused to endorse Pelosi’s 2,000 page monstrosity because of the Stupak amendment?

Here is AG Coakley’s statement regarding her opposition:

The House’s vote is in many ways a significant step toward the goal of health care reform. However, I am deeply disturbed that the House adopted the Stupak/Pitts amendment, which would deny millions of women access to reproductive services. The inclusion of the Stupak/Pitts amendment violates the very intent of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for everyone. I believe that the Senate has a responsibility to fix this by eliminating the provision in whatever reform legislation moves forward.

Boston Globe weighed in on the issue pointing out that Capuano is mired in the typical Washington wheeling and dealing, supporting the Stupak Amendment but now that Pelosi is taking a great deal of heat for her action, Capuano now looks to be waffling:

…Capuano’s message to voters quickly became mired in inconsistency.

“You deserve leaders that don’t try to thread the needle,’’ he said at his Monday night rally. Yet, in this case, he threaded it, and then blasted Coakley for saying she wouldn’t do the same. Then, instead of sticking with the principle he said he believed in, Capuano shifted. He said he would vote against health care legislation if a final version included the restrictive amendment.

So he was ‘for’ it before he was ‘agin’ it? I prefer Coakley, who did not feel the need to equivocate and stated, “I do not believe we have to take a step back on women’s rights to get health care reform.”

In the Boston Globe, Ellen Goodman stated:

“We now have pro-life Republicans and Democrats — most notably Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan — demanding that any health plan offering abortion be banned from the newly created health-care exchange. And guess what that will mean? More than 80 percent of private insurance plans cover abortions. But any insurance plan that wants to be eligible for the huge wave of new clients would have to drop the abortion coverage it offers.”

Guess Capuano doesn’t care to thread the needle on that one.

Pelosi led the charge last year saying Republicans would overturn Roe v. Wade if elected, thereby threatening Hillary’s Democratic holdouts if they failed to fall in line and support Barack Obama. The DNC made a big show of how they were the only party to protect women. Yet in order to pass this health care behemoth that most in Congress did not have the time to read, Pelosi’s first act was to throw pro-choice women under the bus. Here’s hoping Pelosi’s endorsement will not help Capuano’s sagging primary bid.

Capuano is lagging behind in the four-way Democratic primary against Coakley, according to public polling. A Suffolk University poll released today showed Coakley leading with 44 percent of the vote, Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca in second with 17 percent, and Capuano in third with 16 percent.

The special election primary will be held December 8 and the winner will be the favorite to fill the Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy. Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) is holding the seat on an interim basis.

Ultra liberal Massachusetts has never had a woman Senator. Now that we have a chance at someone who would really stand up for the working voter and for women, Pelosi says no deal?

What say you?

An Australian Special Forces explosives detection dog has been found alive and well almost 14 months after going missing in action (MIA) in Afghanistan.

Sabi was found by a US soldier at an isolated patrol base in north-eastern Uruzgan last week.

The black Labrador was declared MIA in September 2008 during the same battle with the Taliban in which SAS Trooper Mark Donaldson won his Victoria Cross.

Sabi was present with her handler when their combined Australian, US and Afghan National Army convoy was ambushed by an insurgent force.

Nine Australian soldiers, including Sabi’s handler, were wounded during the engagement.

Sabi spent more than a year in the desolate south of Afghanistan and repeated attempts were made by the Special Operations Task Group to find her.

The US soldier who found her, and who can only be identified by his first name John, was aware Australian Special Forces soldiers were missing one of their explosive detection dogs.

He said it was immediately obvious that Sabi was no ordinary dog.

“I took the dog and gave it some commands it understood,” he said.

How cool is that? It says something about John that he noticed this dog, and approached her in the first place. That is to say, I would guess he had other stuff to do. But notice her he did, and got her to the right people, much to the delight of her trainers:

She was flown to Tarin Kowt to be reunited with one of her trainers and he knew instantly it was Sabi.

“I nudged a tennis ball to her with my foot and she took it straight away. It’s a game we used to play over and over during her training,” the trainer said.

“It’s amazing, just incredible, to have her back.”

Currently in the United Kingdom after meeting Her Majesty the Queen, Trooper Mark Donaldson said Sabi’s return closed a chapter of their shared history.

“She’s the last piece of the puzzle,” he said. “Having Sabi back gives some closure for the handler and the rest of us that served with her in 2008. It’s a fantastic morale booster for the guys.”

At the time of her disappearance Sabi was coming to the end of her second tour of duty in Afghanistan, having previously deployed to Uruzgan in 2007.

Sabi will now undergo a period of quarantine before a decision can be made about the timing of her return to Australia.

Below is the video report of this remarkable dog and her unit (ignore the moniker of the poster - this was the one closest to the original shown in Australia):

How much do you love that shot of Sabi in the big trunk of tennis balls?? I just love that she’s a Special Forces Dog, about to be decorated, and playing with her tennis balls is such a high priority!

As we go into the weekend, I hope this story brings a smile to your face, and a hug to the furry creature of your choice!

The founders of the United States correctly feared the power of a central, national government and sought to mitigate this risk by dividing powers among the various branches and leaving to the states those powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government. Now Democrats want to change this and are putting your freedom at risk with the so-called health care bill.

The Democrats want to require you to buy health insurance. You won’t have a choice. If you don’t do it then you pay a fine and go to jail. Here’s Senator Akaka:

He’s not the only crazy.

Here’s Nancy:

Some brain dead Democrats try to insist that it is just like “car insurance.” If you drive a car you are supposed to have some form of insurance (or course, this is not a Federal law but let’s ignore that minor inconvenience for the moment). Did you catch the key phrase?
IF!!!! There is no requirement that you own a car. None. Zippo. Zero. If you choose to buy a car then you are required in most states to have some form of insurance. But there is no standard penalty and the requirement is enforced in different ways in different parts of the country.

So spare me the bullshit and nonsense that a mandate to purchase Health Insurance is just like insuring your car. It ain’t.

The current issue of Time Magazine has Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the cover, and an article by Joe Klein entitled, “The State of Hillary: A Mixed Record On The Job.” On Joe Scarborough the other morning, they discussed this article (major H/T to Bronwyn’s Harbor for the video):

How cute is Joe Scarborough calling Secretary Clinton his “girlfriend”?? Repeatedly? Evidently, he has NO idea how much competition he has, does he?

And Scarborough makes a great argument about Hillary Clinton “not going rogue.” Of course she is taking the tack Obama has directed her to take. It is not a surprise that Obama would want her to do the HARD work while he “flying at 40,000 ft”.

Just to be clear on Pakistan, the White House does back Secretary Clinton on what she said there. While it may not be the language Mika wants her to use (and honestly, could Hillary Clinton say anything of which Mika approved? Just asking, in a snarky kind of way.)

Don’t even get me started on the whole election thing, though. Don’t even get me started. Good for JOE for pointing out - AGAIN - that the media played a huge role in how she was treated, as we all know already.

The remarks by General Petraeus were telling, telling indeed. That, along with the relationship she has developed with our military personnel is exactly why I contend she would have gotten to Fort Hood tout suite after the tragedy there. Because she truly cares about those serving in uniform. She, unlike our President, has made that support crystal clear.

Okay. About this “unnamed White House source” crapola. I am referring to the “Unnamed White House sources” who claimed Secretary Clinton had made big mistakes in foreign policy since becoming Secretary of State reminded me of the “Unnamed McCain aides” who made the most outrageous, and false, allegations about Gov. Sarah Palin, including that “she didn’t know Africa was a continent.” That is to say, I just cannot take their claims seriously. Especially when one of those high up in the Obama Administration, Jon Favreau, has demonstrated just how much he respected Hillary Clinton when he posted a photo of himself groping a life-size Hillary Clinton cutout on Facebook. Yeah, right. I’m not buying what they’re selling. I’ve seen plenty from those folks already, and have been singularly unimpressed. Whatever.

Anyway, it was an interesting discussion about Secretary Clinton, the work she is doing, and Joe’s undying love for her. All I can say about that is, join the club, Joe, join the club.

Speaking of Secretary Clinton, Saturday is when she commissions the assault ship, USS New York. There will be video available later, which I will then put up. For more on the USS New York, its 7.5 tons of steel from the World Trade Towers, and the emotions it elicits, please watch the video below:

Very moving, and powerful. Great thanks to those who serve aboard this state of the art vessel, and who sought to serve aboard this ship. The motto of the ship is apt: Strength Forged Through Sacrifice. Never Forget.

They won’t forget, and neither will we.

May this ship and its crew have smooth sailing for years to come.

(Photo by Michael Loccisano/Getty Images North America)

UPDATE: Here is the link to NavyTV’s video of the Commission of the USS New York.

After yet another evening of being thrown under the bus, it is high time that women’s organizations drastically change their approach!

Women in the Democratic Party have been taken for granted and have lost their bargaining power as a result. Ladies, this is business, plain and simple, and what it comes down to this: We can no longer work with only one political party: that is “speaking.” Women’s organizations must learn to “negotiate” and establish dialogues with all political parties. Party exclusivity is why women’s organizations are failing in their missions to protect their members and their members’ interests. Women’s organizations must become non-partisan immediately.

Last night (November 10th), our Congress, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi primarily and President Obama secondarily, approved a health care bill that does not include funding for abortion. What did they gain for this concession? Nothing. Still, 39 blue dog Democrats voted against the bill. There is no better indication of how little bargaining power organizations such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood currently have thanks to their efforts with one party.

The organizations and religious groups that are against abortion have amply made their case with the Democratic leaders. The DNC Chair is anti-choice. Half our country does not know whether President Obama is pro-choice.

Here are some short-term suggestions for women’s advocacy groups:

1. Change of leadership. I agree with parts of what Jane Hamsher wrote last night at HuffPost. Groups set up for this issue failed. Nancy Keenan in particular who endorsed then Senator Obama over Senator Clinton in 2008 when only Clinton had any clear record on reproductive rights — the sole issue on which her organization is focused — should step down immediately. Records show that Keenan has had ample access to the White House and yet has been ineffective at advancing her organization’s cause. She must go.

2. The leaders of the women’s group devoted to choice must immediately head this bill off at the next pass. These organizations should mobilize their members to write to their senators and ask them NOT to pass the bill in its current form.

3. The leaders of women’s groups devoted to choice should immediately set up meetings with Michael Steele, Chair of the RNC, to make their pitch. While opinions in our country are split on abortion, most believe that this a personal decision.

4. The leaders of the all women’s organizations should open lines of communication with political leaders of all political parties. Starting immediately. On all issues concerning women and girls. We need advocates in all parties and this is attainable.

The days of women’s organizations being an appendage of the DNC must end immediately. Women have been taken for granted and speaking to one political party has led to defeat after defeat for causes important to women.

It is high time that women’s organizations blaze a brave new path for their constituents. It is time that we fight for women and girls. And in order to do so, we need to make our case to all political parties. Else, women and women’s issues will continue the easiest give for the Democrats.

Walter Reed Officials Asked: Was Hasan Psychotic?, NPR, November 12, 2009:

Starting in the spring of 2008, key officials from Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences held a series of meetings and conversations, in part about Maj. Nidal Hasan, the man accused of killing 13 people and wounding dozens of others last week during a shooting spree at Fort Hood. One of the questions they pondered: Was Hasan psychotic?

“Put it this way,” says one official familiar with the conversations that took place. “Everybody felt that if you were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, you would not want Nidal Hasan in your foxhole.”

And, get this: They had “serious concerns.” Well, hell’s bells, yeah!!!

In documents reviewed by NPR and conversations with medical officials at Walter Reed and USUHS, new details have emerged regarding serious concerns that officials raised about Hasan during his time at both institutions.

Here’s more from the excellent NPR investigative report that will shock anyone:

Deeply Troubling, Schizoid Behavior

When a group of key officials gathered in the spring of 2008 for their monthly meeting in a Bethesda, Md., office, one of the leading — and most perplexing — items on their agenda was: What should we do about Hasan?

Hasan had been a trouble spot on officials’ radar since he started training at Walter Reed, six years earlier. Several officials confirm that supervisors had repeatedly given him poor evaluations and warned him that he was doing substandard work.

Both fellow students and faculty were deeply troubled by Hasan’s behavior — which they variously called disconnected, aloof, paranoid, belligerent, and schizoid. The officials say he antagonized some students and faculty by espousing what they perceived to be extremist Islamic views. His supervisors at Walter Reed had even reprimanded him for telling at least one patient that “Islam can save your soul.”

Participants in the spring meeting and in subsequent conversations about Hasan reportedly included John Bradley, chief of psychiatry at Walter Reed; Robert Ursano, chairman of the Psychiatry Department at USUHS; Charles Engel, assistant chair of the Psychiatry Department and director of Hasan’s psychiatry fellowship; Dr. David Benedek, another assistant chairman of psychiatry at USUHS; psychiatrist Carroll J. Diebold; and Scott Moran, director of the psychiatric residency program at Walter Reed, according to colleagues and other sources who monitor the meetings.

NPR tried to contact all these officials and the public affairs officers at the institutions. They either didn’t return phone calls or said they could not comment.

But psychiatrists and officials who are familiar with the conversations, which continued into the spring of 2009, say they took a remarkable turn: Is it possible, some mused, that Hasan was mentally unstable and unfit to be an Army psychiatrist?

Now GET THIS:

One official involved in the conversations had reportedly told colleagues that he worried that if Hasan deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, he might leak secret military information to Islamic extremists. Another official reportedly wondered aloud to colleagues whether Hasan might be capable of committing fratricide, like the Muslim U.S. Army sergeant who, in 2003, killed two fellow soldiers and injured 14 others by setting off grenades at a base in Kuwait.

Ya think??? Look at these headlines:

“Fort Hood shootings suspect may have wired money to Pakistan,” Dallas Morning News || blog reactions

“EXCLUSIVE: Fort Hood suspect contacted Muslim extremists, Washington Times (just published minutes ago) || blog reactions

Back to the NPR report:

Bureaucratic And Other Obstacles

So why didn’t officials act on their concerns and seek to remove Hasan from his duties, or at least order him to receive a mental health evaluation? Interviews with these officials suggest that a chain of unrelated events and factors deterred them.

For one thing, Walter Reed and most medical institutions have a cumbersome and lengthy process for expelling doctors, involving hearings and potential legal battles. As a result, sources say, key decision-makers decided it would be too difficult, if not unfeasible, to put Hasan on probation and possibly expel him from the program.

Second, some of Hasan’s supervisors and instructors had told colleagues that they repeatedly bent over backward to support and encourage him, because they didn’t have clear evidence that he was unstable, and they worried they might be “discriminating” against Hasan because of his seemingly extremist Islamic beliefs. …

And ultimately what did the bureaucrats at Walter Reed do? They passed the buck:

And finally, Hasan was about to leave Walter Reed and USUHS for good and transfer to Fort Hood, in Texas. Fort Hood has more psychiatrists and other mental specialists than some other Army bases, so officials figured there would be plenty of co-workers who would support Hasan — and monitor him.

You can catch more blog reactions via Memeorandum.com.

I get that the U.S. Army is a huge military structure, but this man’s behavior and stated views screamed for ACTION. That’s all I have to say on this.

Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. Sure never saw THAT one coming. I’ll give you a moment to recover from the shock.

Okay. So, yeah - check out what brought this about for the Mormon Church:

It looked like a stunning reversal: the same church that helped defeat gay marriage in California standing with gay-rights activists on an anti-discrimination law in its own backyard.

On Tuesday night, after a series of clandestine meetings between local gay-rights backers and Mormons in Salt Lake City, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it would support proposed city laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

The ordinances passed and history was made: It marked the first time the Salt Lake City-based church had supported gay-rights legislation.

The Mormon church — which continues to suffer a backlash over its support last year of Proposition 8, the measure banning gay marriage in California — emphasized that its latest position in no way contradicts its teachings on homosexuality.

But the action is one of the strongest signs yet that even conservative religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage might be willing to support legal protections for gays that fall short of that.

Well, that is good news. Personally, I felt like the Mormon Church was being used as a bit of a scapegoat in CA. Sure, they supported Prop 8, but apparently, so did the majority of Californians. It’s a hard truth to swallow, but the evidence is indisputable. The majority voted for Proposition 8. Are you telling me that that many Californians could be swayed to violate their internal beliefs by the Mormons? Really? Exactly.

More about the Church:

At the same time, the church’s position has angered some of its conservative allies on social issues, prompted questions about whether public relations is its real motivation, and put the church on the spot over how far it will go on similar legislation on the state and federal level.

“This is a very good public relations response that has the additional benefit of actually representing the way the current church leadership thinks,” said Armand Mauss, a retired professor at Washington State University and scholar of Mormonism.

Some of the church’s conservative allies in the gay marriage battles, however, call it a setback. The two new ordinances make it illegal to fire or evict someone for being gay, bisexual or transgender.

Such legislation robs employers and landlords of their rights and gives legal ammunition to judges sympathetic to gay marriage, said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the conservative Family Research Council.

“It’s disappointing and I’m fearful that it reflects in part a reaction to the attacks they came under after Proposition 8 — an effort to bend over backwards to exhibit tolerance toward homosexuals in some way,” Sprigg said.

Michael Otterson, director of public affairs for the Mormon church, said Wednesday that church leaders were able to support the ordinance because it doesn’t carve out special rights for gays.

Supporting “basic civil values,” Otterson said, does not compromise the church’s religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and that same-sex marriage poses a threat to traditional marriage.

“There are going to be gay advocates who don’t think we’ve gone nearly far enough, and people very conservative who think we’ve gone too far,” Otterson said. “The vast majority of people are between those polar extremes and we think that’s going to resonate with people on the basis of fair-mindedness.”

The position is not a reversal, Otterson said. In August 2008 the church issued a statement saying it supports gay rights related to hospitalization, medical care, employment, housing or probate as long as they “do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”

I have to admit - given the attacks on the Mormon Church, I am a tad surprised to see this is their position. Honestly, that’s more progressive than many people would believe. More than I would have believed had I not read it for myself. The way in which the Mormons have been demonized by LGBT rights activists and supporters, one would have thought the Mormons were the Devil Incarnate. Evidently not:

Church officials say the city ordinances were not discussed in the recent meetings between church staff and gay rights leaders, and that it was the mayor who put the proposals on the table.

Harry Knox, director of the religion and faith program at the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign, said the Mormon church’s stand on the Salt Lake City ordinances could help alter the debate over gay rights.

“The church deserves credit, but that credit really comes because people have been pushing for it,” Knox said. “It’s not something thing they arrived at on their own and out of the goodness of their hearts.”

The church’s action is the latest sign of a softening among some conservative Christians toward offering some legal protections to gays.

Activists are trying to garner support from evangelicals for a federal employment anti-discrimination law that would cover gays. However, religious reaction was largely negative to a federal hate crimes act protecting homosexuals that President Barack Obama recently signed into law. Several conservative Christian groups argued that preaching against homosexuality could be deemed a hate crime under the legislation.

The Mormon church has not taken a stance on either piece of federal legislation.

Otterson, the church spokesman, said that in the case of the Salt Lake City ordinances, Mormon leaders weighed in because they were responding to a request for feedback on specific legislation.

Asked whether the church would take a stand on similar state or federal legislation, Otterson said: “The church leadership is not inclined to offer free advice where it’s not being requested.”

Well, that’s an interesting response. But the rest of it is a bit eye-opening for a church that has been completely demonized by liberals. Perhaps, at some point, they might actually have to start looking at just who it was who voted for Prop 8. I guarantee you, they weren’t all Mormons…

And speaking of religious types, it seems Donnie McClurkin, Obama’s big campaign buddy, has been out and about spewing hate against the GLBT community. Oh, yes. No doubt, Jesus told him to call us “vampires,” and “perversions.” Yep:

The last time we heard from Donnie McClurkin, he was campaigning with Barack Obama. At the Obama campaign event, you may recall, McClurkin harangued gays for over thirty minutes and proclaimed:

“God delivered me from homosexuality.”

Well, McClurkin is back. This weekend, he re-emerged spewing homophobic hate in Memphis. Rod 2.0 reports:

Donnie McClurkin ramps up the ridiculous to speak in tongues and call gays “vampires”. The infamously “ex-gay” — or should we say merely “re-closeted” — Grammy Award winning gospel singer and evangelist rants against gays, gay youth and recently out gospel singer Tonex at the Church of God in Christ’s Holy Convocation Youth Service. This happened last Saturday at the COGIC convention in Memphis.

Oh, it doesn’t stop there: I

n the first of three disgusting YouTube videos, McClurkin begins his rant against Tonex, the gospel star and minister who recently confirmed his long-rumored sexuality. McClurkin says Tonex is a “perversion” and must pray away the gay: “God did not call young people to such peversion. Society has failed him, his church has failed him … I would be homosexual to this day if Jesus hadn’t delivered.”

McClurkin also rails against against openly gay youth as “broken and feminine”: “I see feminine men, feminine boys, everywhere I go … No, don’t applaud ‘cuz it ain’t funny. It’s because we failed. I see them everywhere.”

Rod has posted the three videos of McClurkin’s rant. Check them out. It’s ugly.

Again, it begs the question: why did people in the GLBT community ever think Obama stood with them considering the people with whom he surrounded himself?

I might add, if you really want to see where the community is these days, check out some of comments at posts that have anything to do with the DNC at Gay Americablog - I know Aravosis was an Obama water carrier. He sems to have realized the error of his ways. TOo late, I know, but nothing like being scorned, right? The anger in the comments is palpable by people in the GLBT community at Obama and the DNC. Hence the latest, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Give” campaign being generated against the DNC. Oh, yeah. They are shutting down their wallets. About damn time, too, if you ask me.

That is to say, Upside Down World continues - the Mormon Church is supporting a number of GLBT rights, Obama’s good buddy is ranting against GLBT people, and the is dragging its feet. Maybe it’s because of its new leadership - Gov. Tim Kaine, homophobe. Okey dokey.

I think I need to sit down now.

“I was thinking about it this morning, how this story ties into everything we’re going through,” says Carrey, who, thanks to the technology, plays Scrooge as well as the three ghosts haunting him. “Every construct we’ve built in American life is falling apart. Why? Because of personal greed and ambition. Capitalism without regulation can’t protect us against personal greed.. . .

Carey is right. We need protection.

From what? His self-inflated sense of self. Let’s prove to him that capitalism is bad and ensure that this turd of a movie makes no money. Then maybe he can go back to Canada and sign up for welfare. Hell, why allow him to soil himself by making millions of dollars because Americans are so stupid as to want to spend money on a film featuring him? Let’s regulate his ass and see if he still thinks it is a swell idea for the rest of the huddled masses.

1) CNN reports today that the WH is refuting claims by CBS and the AP that Obama has tentatively decided to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

The statement was issued shortly after CBS News’ veteran Pentagon Correspondent David Martin reported that Obama has “tentatively decided” to send four more combat brigades to Afghanistan and several thousand more support troops starting early next year. That would bring the total number of new troops to close to the 40,000 figure originally requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Two other senior administration officials flatly told CNN that the CBS report and other similar speculation is false. The Associated Press reported Monday that Obama is “nearing a decision to add tens of thousands more forces to Afghanistan, though not quite the 40,000 sought [by] his top general there.”

The two senior administration officials suggested the information is being leaked by Pentagon sources who are trying to box Obama in by setting public expectations that he will send close to 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan as McChrystal requested.

“People at the Pentagon are trying to force a certain outcome,” one of the senior administration officials told CNN.

What’s going on? Obviously CBS and AP thought they had a solid story. Where did they get it? The WH says the Pentagon. But do you believe that? Honestly, it’s hard to say. Regardless of where the story originated and what the truth of it is at this point, the argument between the WH and the Pentagon is smack dab in the public sphere. Soooooo reassuring.

Also, Obama is clearly in no hurry to decide.

Obama is scheduled to return from Asia on Friday November 20 after stops in Japan, Singapore, China, and South Korea. Officials have suggested the President could announce a troop decision sometime shortly before or after Thanksgiving, though Gibbs has vaguely said the decision will be revealed in “coming weeks” so as not to be pinned down.

“Pinned down.” BO HATES being pinned down. On anything. But that also means he stands for little.

2) Breitbart at Biggovernment posted a video of Code Pink protesters during the WH Halloween party. Code Pink doesn’t really bother me much. They like publicity and push the envelope during their protests, but whatever.

What makes this interesting is the kids waiting to get to the WH Halloween party were from military families. Code Pink was doing its obnoxious best to to connect Halloween to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - to military children. On purpose.

Dressed as ‘zombie soldiers’ killed in combat, ‘ghosts of war victims,’ witches and healthcare fairies, members of Code Pink menacingly paraded in front of a captive audience of children one block from the White House, who waited along the sidewalk in front of Decatur House just off Lafayette Park for a Halloween party hosted by President Obama.

Last Saturday, the President hosted several hundred military families for trick or treating. Also invited were children of White House staff and about 2000 children from eleven D.C. area elementary schools.
In a press release published at their website, key Obama ally Code Pink  – a group co-founded by one of Obama’s top funders Jodie Evans, announced they were targeting military families . . . by conducting a macabre protest of the war in Afghanistan as the families waited in line to enter the White House grounds.
———

Dressed in fatigues with a bloody bandage wrapped around her head, Benjamin [co-founder of Code Pink] loudly moaned as she emoted being a ‘zombie soldier’, while holding a black cut-out of a rifle and wearing a pink sign that read, “The White House is haunted by the ghosts of Bush’s war.”

Even the Reuters reporter was appalled and used the word “taunting” in his photograph caption to describe what the Code Pink “ladies” were doing to the children. Later, Reuters posted a blog entry defending its word choice.

Code Pink created a rather lame (seriously, it’s NOT great) video of their efforts to get to mom and dad through the kids, behavior that is remarkably similar to that of huge corporations trying to sell high sugar cereals.

If you watch, the quality is poor, the editing non existent and the sound. . . well it’s pretty awful. But then again, look at the kids’ faces.

Clearly, Code Pink adheres to the “by any means necessary” mantra. I’ve got to tell you though, ruining my kid’s holiday isn’t the way to get me to consider your point of view. It just makes me think less of you and your cause.

3) Cue the Twilight Zone music over at eyeblast.tv. Chris Matthews isn’t sure what might have proved Maj Hasan was actually dangerous (presumably BEFORE he started spraying bullets). Matthews wonders when Hasan should have been stopped - certainly not just for calling al Qaeda.

In addition, Chris, in true Spitball fashion, talks so much his clearly weary guest can’t get a word in edgewise and must be wondering why he bothered to go to makeup. Tingleguy seems to suggest that until bullets fly, you can’t really stop someone.

So what is the point of this interview? Darned if I know. He certainly was willing to convict HRC of various bad behavior (just search here for old posts on THAT) - but is very careful with Hasan. Can’t call a guy who shot and killed many colleagues a murderer, doncha know. But you can call HRC a senator who gained her seat due to BC’s infidelities. Personally, I’d say there is far more evidence for the former than the latter. But then again, I’m not a highly paid political analyst.

The band, O.A.R., has created a new video to support the work of IAVA.org (Iraq Afghanistan Veterans Association). It seems fitting for today. Even if you don’t turn on the sound, please watch to see the statistics they supply. They were eye-opening, at least for me:

“War Song” by O.A.R. from IAVA on Vimeo.

In light of the terrorist attack at Fort Hood, another very good organization is the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors(TAPS). From their website:

Caring for the families of the fallen…

TAPS is the 24/7 tragedy assistance resource for ANYONE who has suffered the loss of a military loved one, regardless of the relationship to the deceased or the circumstance of the death.

Founded out of tragedy in 1994, TAPS has established itself as the front line resource to the families and loved ones of our military men and women. TAPS provides comfort and care through comprehensive services and programs including peer based emotional support, case work assistance, crisis intervention, and grief and trauma resources.

TAPS HAS ASSISTED OVER 25,000 SURVIVING FAMILY MEMBERS, CASUALTY OFFICERS AND CAREGIVERS.

Our National Military Survivor Seminars and Good Grief Camps have been conducted for fourteen years, and are now complemented by regional seminars across the country.

If you are suffering the loss of a military loved one, or if you know someone who can use our support, please call our toll-free hotline now: 1-800-509-TAPS (8277).

Another organization about which you may have heard is the Wounded Warriors Project:

To raise awareness and enlist the public’s aid for the needs of severely injured service men and women,
To help severely injured service members aid and assist each other, and
To provide unique, direct programs and services to meet the needs of severely injured service members.

There are a couple of organizations working with active military I would like to highlight as well. One is the USO, which has put out an appeal for Veteran’s Day to to help “The Heroes of Yesterday and Today”. You may be surprised to learn, as I was, that the USO does not get government funds. It is a non-profit organization. Here is the appeal:

Deadline - November 11: Help The USO Reach Out To Those Who Need Us Most

Veterans Day is the day we celebrate – and say thanks… not just to those veterans who’ve returned home, but also the soldiers who are now serving in combat zones overseas.

The USO needs your help by November 11th, to bring cheer and comfort to the American men and women currently serving all over the world:

• USO Care Packages offer lonely GIs useful personal items and treats — the little necessities and indulgences they’re most likely to miss during a lengthy deployment.
• Pre-paid phone cards bring a soldier home for a few precious minutes. With a FREE phone call, they can talk to their families, share a laugh, hear the news and reassure those they love that they’re OK.
• Celebrity Entertainment Tours travel all the way to the Front and offer music and laughter to our troops so they can forget the stress of combat for a few happy hours.

In previous American wars, citizens at home participated in scrap drives, endured rationing, purchased bonds, planted gardens, and helped the troops in many meaningful ways. Today’s conflicts don’t ask much from those of us who are not part of a military family. But now here’s a way to “do your part” to honor the veterans of the past and the soldiers who protect us today…

Should you choose to make a donation, the USO has a place to make your donation in honor of, or in memory of, a veteran or current service member. It is a great organization, to be sure.

Another very worthy organization working with current military members and their families is the National Military Family Association. Here is a little more on this 40 year old organization:

The National Military Family Association is an organization with strong grassroots support balanced with professionalism that makes us a leader in the field. Not only do we support military families – we are military families. Spouses, parents, and family members make up our staff and board positions. We speak up on behalf of military families and empower husbands, wives, and children to understand and access their benefits. Based on what we hear from our members, we meet the needs of service members and their families with insightful recommendations, innovative programs, and grassroots efforts to better the quality of life for military families.

My deepest appreciation to those who are currently wearing the uniform.

I would like to leave you with this tribute to our Veterans on this day:

Thank you, from the bottom of my heart…

These days, says that old crab* Charles Krauthammer, P.C.-ness is “endemic.” He is such a pessimist that he thinks we’re hopelessly overcome by the P.C. crowd. Well, I must say, I concur. We are all so much more sensitive these days, aren’t we? If Americans had been as sympathetic to others’ travails over a hundred years ago, perhaps history would have been so much more progressive in its treatment of terrorists (forgive me, criminals), and the “report” of the tragedy referenced below may have been reported thus:

When John Wilkes Booth opened fire on President Abraham Lincoln in Ford’s Theatre in April 1865, the media was puzzled. “True, the actor was outspoken in his Confederate sympathies and viewed himself as a Southerner,” said someone who knew him, “but that was no reason he might want Lincoln to be dead.” The day before he went on his shooting spree, Booth hoisted a big Confederate flag outside his hotel room. After he leaped onto the stage he shouted, “Thus ever to tyrants!” the motto of the rebel state of Virginia.

The New York Times reported that Booth was psychologically unstable and was frightened of the Civil War coming to an end and having to face a peacetime actors’ surplus. “His political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act,” it said, quoting experts. …

Can’t you just see something like that happening now? I heard this on Bret’s Baier’s Special Report yesterday and fell off my chair. In case you could not tell, it’s from a satirical site, “RubinReports.com.” The way things are going, though, it is possible that, in order to be PC, many real tragedies will be written up just like this.

*Of note: It is not anti-P.C. to call Charles Krauthammer an “old crab” even though it refers negatively both to his age and to his tone of observations. That is because Dr. Krauthammer is a conservative. I’d never say that about any liberal, would I. Especially if I were a commentator on the Lamestream Mainstream Media. I’m too tingly these days with the influences of Chris Matthews’ virile passion and the top Newsweek analyst Evan Thomas’s deeply profound and infinitely more fashionable definition of Major Hassan as a “nutjob,” not a terrorist. D.C. insiders are so much more cool and cerebral than the common people.

Truth be told, I am very, very fond of Charles Krauthammer’s always insightful, wry remarks on Fox’s Special Report and look forward to his columns, several of which Rev. Amy has discussed in her posts. It appears I am not the only viewer who looks forward to Krauthammer’s remarks since, one day, Bret Baier said that viewers in droves were writing e-mails demanding to hear Krauthammer’s views on a particular topic.

President Barack Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, will go down in history as one of America’s worst presidents, squandering diplomatic, international and economic assets that were bequeathed to him. As a result of the perfidy of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, Obama inherited a great deal of low-hanging foreign policy fruit that he has been slow and even hesitant to pick.

Two losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; policies of unilateralism and preemption, and a global war on terrorism that included torture and abuse, secret prisons and extraordinary renditions left US foreign and national security policy in a shambles and created numerous opportunities for creative diplomacy.

President Obama dramatically rejected in his inaugural speech the "false … choice between our safety and our ideals" and subsequently vowed to press the "reset button" in those bilateral relations that the Bush administration had worsened. Ten months later, we are still waiting for the genuine use of a reset button.

At the same time, the Obama administration is copying too many aspects of the Bush administration’s cover-up of abuses committed in the name of fighting terrorism, including blanket claims of national security to stop lawsuits; resisting orders to release photographs of torture and abuse, and threats to stop intelligence-sharing with Britain if a High Court Panel declassified intelligence documents relating to torture allegations.

There are numerous situations where the Obama administration has been halting in its efforts to arrange for genuine change in the international arena. Although President Obama has been creative in his use of diplomacy to get a handle on Iran’s nuclear program, it made no sense to hold a weeklong joint missile defense exercise with Israel as a deadline neared for Iran to accept or reject an export deal for Iran’s enriched uranium.

The United States is holding important talks with Russia on strategic nuclear weapons, but at the same time the Obama administration is holding out possible NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, which merely adds to the long list of irritants that Washington has created in its bilateral relations with the Kremlin.

The United States has held joint military exercises with Georgia, which is a totally gratuitous affront to Moscow. The plan to shelve an unnecessary and unworkable missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic was offset by the decision to deploy an even more extensive system in the Middle East and Europe over the next ten years.

President Obama promised a "new beginning" in Latin America, but continues to pursue the feckless 47-year embargo as a means of leverage to press for political change in Cuba.

The United States is the only nation in the Western Hemisphere without normal diplomatic relations with Cuba, and the United Nations has condemned the embargo for the past seventeen years, with the United States receiving support for its embargo only from Israel and Palau.

North Korea has obviously softened its policies toward the United States and South Korea in an effort to elicit one-on-one talks with Washington as a prelude to resuming the six-power talks on Pyongyang’s nuclear program. Again, the Obama administration has turned a deaf ear to North Korea.

President Obama has contributed significantly to the problem by complicating the policy process with the appointment of foreign policy tsars as well as the selection of a weak cabinet in the area of international security. The tsars are a mixed group to begin with. There is a tsar for Iran and the Persian Gulf (Dennis Ross) who has not been heard from since his selection and has been forced to move his office from the State Department to the White House.

There is a tsar for Afghanistan and Pakistan (Richard Holbrooke) who failed to create a working relationship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which necessitated the selection of Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) to convince the Afghan president of the need to hold a run-off election.

And there is a tsar for the Middle East (George Mitchell) who is being diddled by Israeli President Binyamin Netanyahu and even undercut by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who incredibly praised the Israelis for making "unprecedented" concessions in their settlement policy on the West Bank. (Earlier in her trip to Southwest Asia and the Middle East, Clinton irritated the Pakistani government by accusing the Pakistani intelligence service of concealing the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, at a time when the Pakistani army has mounted a major offensive against the Taliban.)

Thus far, the three tsars have had no success in their so-called regions of expertise, and the State Department once again has proven feckless in playing a key diplomatic role.

The Obama cabinet is reminiscent of the weak Clinton cabinet in 1993, which was responsible for a series of errors in foreign policy that got President Clinton off to a weak start on national security. Clinton’s initial choices for secretary of state, secretary of defense, national security adviser and CIA director were inadequate, and all were replaced before Clinton’s second term.

Obama’s choices also appear lacking, and there is no single adviser who appears to have a strategic command of the foreign policy agenda. As a result, more power is being centralized in the White House where domestic advisers, not international ones, are dominating decision-making on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Cuba.

President Obama could learn from Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev who resorted to "perestroika" and "glasnost" in order to reduce the Soviet military’s domination of resources and allocations and thus invest in the domestic infrastructure.

The Obama administration is spending far too much time and effort on its Afghan policy, when it really needs to address the larger issues of the expansion of military power (which has not led to success vis-à-vis Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan) and the decline in economic power (growing deficits and debts).

We are spending more than the rest of the world on defense, intelligence and homeland security, with few perceptible benefits. The defense and intelligence budgets have more than doubled in the past ten years, and we have no answers for the ethnic conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and no coercive influence over the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. It is long past time to resort to the far less expensive and far less onerous policy of diplomacy and constructive engagement.

……………………………………………………………….

Melvin A. Goodman, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, is a former intelligence analyst at the CIA (1966-1990) and the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA. Mr. Goodman is a longtime friend of Larry Johnson’s and gave his express consent to reprint this article. We strongly suggest that you read Mr. Goodman’s other op-eds published here at No Quarter.

NPR has posted photographs and biographies of each of the soldiers murdered by madman Maj. Hasan. And, below, is a poem to remember Veterans Day:

First, about Fort Hood, let me just say that it is cruel enough when any soldier dies in combat zones. This is insane, and must make the grief of the families all the more painful to bear. I appreciate NPR’s effort to give us the faces and stories of each of the dead. We should also remember the many who are still in intensive care and surely face a lifetime of agonizing and daunting therapy.

Here is a poem, from a site for patriotic poetry, to commemorate Veterans Day:

A recent auction-rate securities arbitration case involving an investor who purchased ARS from a Raymond James financial representative acknowledges the ignorance of the sales rep, but effectively absolves the firm in the process. The implications of this decision should not be underestimated. The Wall Street Journal sheds further light on this case in a recent review, GETTING PERSONAL: Investor Loses Out In Auction-Rate Case:

A complaint brought by an auction-rate securities investor offers insight into the plight of those stranded in the instruments as well as the arbitration process some investors dread.

Like many investors, Gene McCutchin, a real-estate entrepreneur, was holding auction-rate securities when the $330 billion market froze up in early 2008. He filed a complaint against his broker, Raymond James Financial Services Inc., in September 2008 asserting negligence, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, among other things. He said the brokerage failed to warn him about the risks before his purchase, and he asked for compensation and punitive damages.

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel, in an Oct. 26 resolution, didn’t award damages or order that the share sale be rescinded. It supported some of McCutchin’s assertions, finding that a Raymond James broker, Rick Woolfolk, “was poorly trained with respect to the ARS product,” and it did order the brokerage to pay forum costs.

But the panel also said that McCutchin identified himself as “a sophisticated investor.” While McCutchin wasn’t informed about the extent of risk before the transaction, it was clear that his personal adviser, Dan Chilton, understood that he was buying ARS bonds, and that the higher returns they offered came with higher risk, the panel’s resolution said.

Let’s zero in on the phrase, “wasn’t informed about the extent of the risk before the transaction.” The fact that the FINRA arbitration panel is absolving Raymond James in this transaction, despite the fact that the customer was not informed of all the risks, should send chills down the spine of every investor in our public markets. With that statement, the arbitration panel is sending a message, loud and clear: “Buyer Beware!!” You are on your own.

To mitigate the enormous risk of purchasing an investment that a sales representative may not understand, I would strongly encourage individual investors to do the following:

1. Make sure your conversations with your sales reps are on taped lines.

2. Ask the sales rep if he fully understands ALL of the risks in the dog meat, I mean the investment, he is trying to sell you.

3. Ask the sales rep to put his understanding of the risks in writing and have him sign it. Have his sales manager sign it as well.

4. To the sales reps in the audience, compel your product and sales managers to provide a fully written explanation of ALL the risks which you can share with your customers. While individually sales reps may think that may be a tough request, if the entire salesforce makes the request, management will have to listen.

If the financial industry is going to send incompetent and uninformed sales reps out to lay garbage investments on the American public, and FINRA is not going to hold the firms and individuals accountable, then American investors only have one choice: play offense.

I strongly encourage each and every investor to put the burden back on Wall Street and utilize the above approach. If the firms, reps, and managers are not willing to accomodate you, then take your business elsewhere.

Caveat Emptor . . . Buyer Beware?? No, I don’t think so.

Caveat Venditor . . . Seller Beware!!

Comments, color, constructive criticisms always appreciated.

LD

“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.

The health-care abortion mess is just the latest example of how Barack Obama took women’s votes—then let the country’s majority constituency down.

We knew it would end eventually. Just like a Hollywood romance, great love affairs just don’t seem to stand the test of time. As the Obama administration began, we were gleefully informed by a leading lady feminist that President Obama was Christmas and Hannukah and New Years all rolled into one when it came to women’s issues. Turns out, it’s a bit more like April Fools.

For the millions of women who voted for Obama on his promise to protect their reproductive rights, this past weekend’s whipsaw on abortion funding is just the latest example of a president who frankly could care less about women beyond their votes. Ladies, we were sold a political brand name that touted diversity. But we were delivered a president with a woman problem. Now it’s time to do something about it.

He appointed fewer women into his cabinet than President Bill Clinton. He surrounded himself with czars, more than 90% of whom are male. He appointed Larry Summers, of “girls are inferior in math and science” fame, to a key economic post. And he played basketball with men and men only.

Women’s love affair with Obama started in 2007. Some loved the idea of him—while not questioning his ideas. So when some women leaders heard the candidate say things like “sweetie” or “you’re likable enough,” or saw Obama’s speechwriter Jon Favreau groping the breast of a cardboard cutout of Hillary Clinton on Facebook (no comment), these leaders ignored the signs of subtle misogyny. The National Organization for Women (under its former leader) endorsed its first all-male ticket. And NARAL endorsed Obama over Sen. Clinton, even though she had a proven track record on reproductive rights. In January 2009, Ms. Magazine’s cover featured a now-infamous image of Obama in a superman pose sporting a t-shirt that reads: This is What a Feminist Looks Like.

With these women leaders behind him, President Obama felt he could be himself. He appointed fewer women into his cabinet than President Bill Clinton. He surrounded himself with czars, more than 90% of whom are male. He appointed Larry Summers, of “girls are inferior in math and science” fame, to a key economic post. He played basketball, golfed and fished with men and men only. He had beers with Skip Gates, but ignored it when Rihanna was almost strangled to death. And so on.

The love affair started to fade with Obama’s off-handed response during an MSNBC interview questioning his all-male outings: “I think this is bunk.” That remark gave women a reason to take a closer look at the inner workings of Obama and his ideas. And just as Betty Friedan described the subtlety of sexism as “the problem that has no name,” “bunk” revealed that the boys club was still alive and well at the White House.

• Peter Beinart: Why Democrats Were Smart to Bail on Abortion

• Dana Goldstein: How Abortion Splits the Reform Coalition

• Paul Begala: Forget BipartisanshipAnd then came the Stupak Amendment. There were signs that Obama was agnostic on choice, but this sealed the deal. Analyst Taylor Marsh sums it up most eloquently: “It was Pres. Obama who opened the door to sell us out when he decided to put the Hyde Amendment in the budget, something Bill Clinton never did. But Mr. Obama didn’t stop there. During the stimulus fight, at the first sign of displeasure, our president personally asked that contraceptives be taken out. Now the president seems ready to finish the job, with Democrats in the House helping him do it.”

But did women let this pass? Not this time. The sleeping giant—America’s majority constituency—is awakening. Note how few men are speaking out about the fact that a major issue for women was thrown under the bus to get a deal done: That women were not valued. It is the women leaders doing the talking and the typing.

Women’s organization such as Emily’s List, NOW, Planned Parenthood and The New Agenda spoke out—each with its own message and solutions—loud and clear. Women on Capitol Hill, led by vocal heroines like Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado and Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, built a coalition unwilling to sign a bill including the Stupak Amendment. Passionate women advocates such as Phyllis Chesler and Jane Hamsher among countless others penned their displeasure.