Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Chas Freeman pulls outI feel like we're playing bop-the-gopher.
By Ben Smith, Politico
The controversial appointee to chair President Barack Obama’s National Intelligence Council walked away from the job Tuesday as criticism on Capitol Hill escalated.
Charles W. Freeman Jr., the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, had been praised by allies and by the director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, as a brilliant, iconoclastic analyst. Critics said he was too hard on Israel and too soft on China, and blasted him for taking funding from Saudi royals.
Freeman “requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed,” Blair’s office said in a statement. “Director Blair accepted Ambassador Freeman’s decision with regret.” [link]
And the same deep-thinkers find it perfectly acceptable to punish the poorest of the poor through higher cigarette taxes. Another levy that falls most heavily on the poor.
And when Virginia's poor reach the point of starvation, due in part to government seizure of a considerable portion of their meager income, what should be done?
Why, have the government take a portion of that money seized and buy food - for the poor.
Virginia's food aidLawmakers and the governor are to be thanked for taking - at the point of a gun - precious dollars belonging to Virginia's poor and giving a small part of it back to them.
The poor economy forced Virginia lawmakers to slash the state budget by billions of dollars this year. Yet the General Assembly added a new, $1 million expenditure for fiscal 2010: an Emergency Food Purchase Program.
For that, lawmakers and the governor deserve thanks. [link]
Please. I'm in no mood for this.
It was never about stem cells, you see. The people who so vehemently demanded federal action really don't give a shit about stem cells or the lives that might supposedly be saved by them.
It was all about those hated Christians and their silly beliefs about human life.
Well, Obama showed them.
And now we move on.
Investor's Business Daily:
A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll of 900 registered voters taken Aug. 8-9, 2006, asked this question: "Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?" Fifty-one percent of Democrats said no, they did not want Bush to succeed.
Another Fox poll taken Jan. 16-17, 2007, asked respondents about the surge in Iraq: "Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?" An astounding 34% said they did not want the surge to succeed. Among Democratic Party leaders the percentage was probably close to 100%.
So millions of Democrats (if I may extrapolate) wanted Bush to fail? They wanted us to lose the war?
And Rush is crucified for what again?
A Turning Tide?So we picked the wrong guy after all.
By Howard Fineman, Newsweek
Luckily for Obama, the public still likes and trusts him, at least judging by the latest polls, including NEWSWEEK's.But, in ways both large and small, what's left of the American establishment is taking his measure and, with surprising swiftness, they are finding him lacking.
They have some reasons to be concerned. I trace them to a central trait of the president's character: he's not really an in-your-face guy. By recent standards—and that includes Bill Clinton as well as George Bush—Obama for the most part is seeking to govern from the left, looking to solidify and rely on his own party more than woo Republicans. And yet he is by temperament judicious, even judicial. He'd have made a fine judge. But we don't need a judge. We need a blunt-spoken coach. [link]
Is it too late for a do-over?
"Ronnie Lowenstein, who serves as the director of the [New York City] Independent Budget Office, told a City Council committee that the city will lose 270,000 jobs from the first quarter of last year through the second quarter of 2010." [source]
It's going to require a whole lot of ACORN boots to be on the ground in the Big Apple to make up for the losses in the financial sector.
New York, Shooting Victims Rebuffed by Court on Gunmaker SuitsThey "sought to hold the firearms industry accountable for urban violence." I still laugh when I read it.
By Greg Stohr, Bloomberg News
March 9 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court left intact lower court decisions shielding Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., Sturm, Ruger & Co. and other gunmakers from lawsuits pressed by New York City and shooting victims in Washington, D.C.
The justices, without comment, rejected appeals that sought to revive the two suits and challenged the constitutionality of a federal law signed in 2005 by then-President George W. Bush to protect the industry from a wave of lawsuits.
The New York and Washington suits were among dozens that sought to hold the firearms industry accountable for urban violence, claiming that manufacturers knew their weapons would fall into the hands of criminals. Most of those suits have been dismissed. [link]