Bob "A Woman's Place Is Barefoot In The Kitchen" McDonnell would love this statement from the Republican Party's congressional campaign committee (emphasis added):
Washington- General Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American commander in Afghanistan rejected a call to scale down troops last week and reasserted the need for a strategy that will lead to victory in Afghanistan. That wasn’t good enough for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) who once called for the same strategy advocated by the military’s top ground commander.
...If Nancy Pelosi’s failed economic policies are any indicator of the effect she may have on Afghanistan, taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place.
Hmm. Where exactly does the GOP think "her place" is? Presumably, we'll have to ask McDonnell.
Also note that the GOP took care to define Pelosi as a San Francisco Democrat, probably because they don't want anybody to think their hateful spirit is limited to misogyny -- there's also the whole homophobia and culture war to remember!
Remember, the true meaning is in the alt-text connected to every figure. Mouse carefully; it's not well calibrated.
Read The Full Article:
Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches
cc: Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.
Dear Chaplain Klingenschmitt,
I see Mikey Weinstein is suing you for asking our Lord, Jesus, to plunder his fields, seize his assets, kill him and his family, and then wipe away his descendants for 10 generations (audio).
Responding to a prayer with a lawsuit seems a little harsh to me, but then if God listens to you better than he listens to the fans of the Fort Oglethorpe Warriors, this whole lawsuit issue could become moot.
Unfortunately, God doesn't seem to be in a hurry to get his smite on, so I guess you have to prepare for court.
That means you'll need legal counsel. Might I suggest Dr. Orly Taitz, esq? You may have heard of her. She's leading the fight to expose Barack Hussein Obama as a black man. Her understanding of the law is so complex and cutting edge, no one in the legal community can figure out what the hell she's talking about. Heck, one judge fears her intellect so much, he's even barred her from his courtroom.
She's also a dentist. Take advantage of that. She can help you focus your prayers to cause the Weinsteins to lose their teeth more efficiently--she knows right where to place the abscesses. So instead of praying, "Lord, please take Mikey Weinstein's teeth from him," you could petition Jesus to "place great and terrible abscesses between the anterior medial and posterior roots of the maxillary second molar, adjacent to the anterior face of the mandibular lateral incisor..." That'll have Weinstein begging the judge for continuances until the final smiting.
One note of caution. Dr. Taitz website appears to be hotbed for viruses. I'd wear a hot suit around her.
Gen. JC Christian, patriot
Fall Fundraiser: Please give if you can.
Welcome to Jay Norris’ Forex Trend Maps, a recap of the Forex markets daily, posted after 4:30 P.M. (CDT). For more information, please contact Jay at…
Even without counting the Olympics, the past few weeks have seen some major blows to American[...]
Read The Full Article:
At the time, the U.S. opposed a resolution focused on Israel but abstained from a more general motion calling for regional disarmament. "We are very pleased with the agreed approach reflected here today," said then-U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA Glyn Davies.Gee, ?Bibi,? isn?t that a little harsh?
Since then, however, relations between the Obama administration and the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, never warm to begin with, have cooled dramatically. The administration accused Tel Aviv of using "disproportionate force" following a Nov. 13 Israeli aerial attack on an apparent munitions depot in Gaza City, in which more than a dozen young children were killed.
Mr. Netanyahu also provoked the administration's ire after he was inadvertently caught on an open microphone calling Mr. Obama "worse than Chamberlain."
If the administration really thinks America needs another stimulus to end the recession, they're going to have to be straightforward about why the February stimulus hasn't worked. America is going to want answers to questions including, ?Where are all the shovel ready projects you talked about? Why is the unemployment rate rising when you said it would go down if we supported the package? And where are all the new green jobs??Well, I?m sorry to trouble her ?beautiful mind? with some reality here, but Think Progress informed us of the following (here, when Perino was busy telling lies about our prior ruling cabal ? it takes a particular kind of gall for this woman to criticize the current administration over the official unemployment rate, considering that she once said that the best way to fix unemployment is for people to ?get back to work?)?
It is both insulting and naive to suggest that people aren?t working because jobless benefits are somehow too generous and they?re too lazy to look for work again. People aren?t working because Bushonomics have hemorrhaged jobs and slashed the safety nets for laid off workers:And of course, Bush had vetoed an extension of unemployment benefits before the incident noted by Think Progress took place.
The Bush administration?s refusal to extend a helping hand to those punished by the economy it created is nothing new: Last month, the White House threatened to veto a second stimulus package over opposition to an expansion of food stamps benefits.
Has anyone noticed the apparent uptick in terrorist activity? ?(The) Justice Department has brought charges in three "unrelated" bomb plots. In the most serious case, Najibullah Zazi, an airport shuttle driver from Denver, was indicted in New York on charges of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction against persons or property in the United States. Authorities last week also arrested a 19-year-old Jordanian citizen, Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, and accused him of trying to blow up a downtown Dallas skyscraper. And an Illinois man, Michael C. Finton (aka Talib Islam) was ordered held last week on charges he tried to blow up a federal building in the state's capital.Oh goody, this sounds like fun! Can I play too? Here is what I was able to locate also.
Are we being infiltrated and surrounded by people who want us dead and our country destroyed? Try a little experiment, Google "Islam near" and then type in the name of any city or town. When I tried the small town of Bryn Mawr, Pa., 10 Islamic-related sites came up.
So the presence of Islamic related sites is evidence of a terror conspiracy? What Thomas seeks is the marginalization and rejection of Muslim Americans, the very process that in European countries has made their Muslim communities more prone to radicalization. He seeks to create the very thing he claims to despise.And it?s not as if Thomas has ever drawn the line at former presidents either, as noted here.
It?s useful to recall that after the fall of communism, this very same Thomas called for a ?cultural war crimes tribunal? in which many of his fellow Americans would be forced to answer for their opinions. At those trials, he wrote, ?people from academia, the media, government and the clergy who were wrong in their assessment of communism would be forced to confront their mistakes.?
Sounds just like democracy, doesn?t it?
In 2003, this stalwart defender of democracy again called for a domestic war crimes tribunal, this time to bring to account ?scores of false media prophets who predicted disaster should the U.S. military confront and seek to oust the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein.? This was in those short heady ?Mission Accomplished? days right after the invasion of Iraq, before most Americans truly understood that we were not being greeted with roses and chocolate.
?The purpose of a cultural war crimes tribunal would be to remind the public of journalism?s many mistakes, as well as the errors of certain politicians and retired generals, and allow it to properly judge their words the next time they feel the urge to prophesy?,? Thomas wrote. ?All of the printed and voiced prophecies should be saved in an archive. When these false prophets again appear, they can be reminded of the error of their previous ways and at least be offered an opportunity to recant and repent.?
The mindset of people such as Cal Thomas is far more undemocratic and dangerous than that of most of the Muslim Americans whom he seeks to smear.
Glenn Beck has sued the creators of this parody site, naturally...
Respondent's domain name, glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/, is confusing similar to complainents' "Glenn Beck" trademark as it incorporates the "Glenn Beck" name and mark entirely...
... and the attorney for the site, Marc Randazza, has responded in a brief (PDF):
Beck's skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he wants the site down. Beck is represented by a learned and respected legal team. Accordingly, it is beyond doubt that his counsel advised him that under the First Amendment to the United States' Constitution, no action in a U.S. Court would be successful. Accordingly, Beck is attempting to use this transnational body to circumvent and subvert the Respondent's constitutional rights.
There is no indication that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to confuse anyone searching for Mr. Beck's own website, nor that anyone was unintentionally confused - even initially. Only an abject imbecile could believe that the domain name would have any connection to the Complainant.
We are not here because the domain name could cause confusion. We do not have a declaration from the president of the international association of imbeciles that his members are blankly staring at the Respondent's website wondering "where did all the race baiting content go?" We are here because Mr. Beck wants Respondent's website shut down. He wants it shut down because Respondent's website makes a poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Beck by parodying Beck's very rhetorical style.
None of the factors in ? 4(b) of the UDRP apply. There is no evidence that Respondent has registered and used the domain name for the purpose of selling it for profit. Respondent is not engaged in a pattern of cybersquatting. Respondent did not register the domain name to disrupt the business of a competitor, he registered it to pay homage to an existing internet meme that poked fun at Glenn Beck, to poke fun at Glenn Beck directly, and to express his political opinions.
Randazza also indicates that the UDRP does not apply to potentially defamatory websites and that the website's content should be judged in the context of common law First Amendment rulings. Which means that Beck will look, publicly, like the enormous hypocritical jackass he is if he attempts to take the case any further to get rid of the site, given his on-the-record statements with respect to foreign and international law (PDF - Randazza):
On March 30, 2009, [Beck] said on his show:Let me tell you something. When you can't win with the people, you bump it up to the courts. When you can't win with the courts, you bump it up to the international level.
Of course, we levy no critique at Mr. Beck for seeking to vindicate his perceived rights in this forum. We do not share his opinion as articulated on March 30, and we respect his creativity in seeking an alternate avenue where his claims might have a chance of success. Unfortunately, despite the general wisdom among UDRP panelists, we find that occasionally they render decisions that make First Amendment champions cringe.
It would be an interesting day indeed if Mr. Beck preferred to risk that a panelist would apply French law to a case between two Americans over a matter of public discourse.
I recall that Beck publicly called Harold Koh, the Dean of Yale Law School, a "threat to American democracy" for his views on transnational law. Beck said of Koh:he wants to subordinate the American Constitution to foreign and international rules. We see that in his attack on First Amendment free speech principles, which he finds opprobrious.
Similarly, Mr. Beck said it best when he warned of the dangers of allowing international legal principles to trump our cherished constitutional rights:Once we sign our rights over to international law, the Constitution is officially dead.
I am certain that neither party wishes to see First Amendment rights subordinated to international trademark principles, thus unwittingly proving Mr. Beck's point.
Randazza outlines the views WIPO might (and one of which it probably will) take if this goes forward:
As you may be aware, from reading our Response in this case, there is a split of authority in the WIPO decisions as to how criticism sites should be examined. See "WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions," at Paragraph 2.4.
View 1 states: "The right to criticize does not extend to registering a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the owner's registered trademark or conveys an association with the mark."
View 2 states: "Irrespective of whether the domain name as such connotes criticism, the respondent has a legitimate interest in using the trademark as part of the domain name of a criticism site if the use is fair and non-commercial."
Naturally, View 2 is the prevailing view of American panelists and panels that apply American law to UDRP proceedings. View 1 seems to be more popular with international panelists and panels that apply European law. Unfortunately, given that UDRP decisions regularly incorporate international legal principles, this case could be assigned to a foreign panelist or to an American panelist who applies transnational principles. I personally would find it distressing if the panel were to make a decision that completely disregards the U.S. Constitution in favor of a foreign perspective that adopts View 1.
Any thoughts as to whether Beck is smart enough to drop this now, BEFORE he makes an even BIGGER ass of himself, or if he'll just wade even further into the muck of hypocrisy because he's just so fucking full of himself he's too blind to see how goddamned idiotic he's already looking and how much MORE foolish he'll continue to look as it progresses?
Hat tip to ED BRAYTON for the briefs online.
Read The Full Article:
I once called AFR "utterly and completely useless," but it appears I was wrong. They do have a purpose, namely -- invite a big funder, Larry Summers' Deputy Director of the White House Economic Council (Diana Farrell) and an Assistant Secretary of the[...]
Read The Full Article:
I have a white colleague who wanted to adopt an African American male baby. (At least that's what he told me.) Unfortunately for him, he was discouraged from doing so, and as a result he ended up going to a foreign country where he adopted what is now a sweet well adjusted little girl.
Now I could do an entire blog post around white couples adopting -or trying to adopt black children and why it is discouraged by many black social workers. I could talk about all the social implications and about the other side of the argument that says children need loving homes regardless of the race or sexual orientation of their parents. I am still trying to figure out where I stand on this subject, and I continue to listen to others who are professionals in these areas as I try to formulate a point of view.
I wrote those two paragraphs so you can better understand the reason I am posting tonight: I caught the following story over at AOL Black Voices. Seems like everyone can't play Madonna. I guess it's cool when we see celebrities doing certain things but when the rubber meets the road things tend to change.
Take the case of Anita Tedaldi, for instance. Who says that once you go black you can never go back? Anita and her husband sure did. Yep, seems Anita just couldn't bond with her adopted African baby, and, sadly, she had to throw him back to the wild.....OK that part isn't true (about throwing him back into the wild) but she did pass on raising the poor little guy.
"What happens when a parent and an adopted child don't bond? In blogger Anita Tedaldi's case, she and her husband gave their South American-born toddler son to another family. She related her story to the New York Times' Motherlode blog back in August and repeated it Oct. 1 on NBC's 'Today' show:"I loved him, and I cared deeply for him," Tedaldi told Matt Lauer Thursday in New York. "I tried to do the same exact thing I did with my biological children, but over time, it became clear that our family maybe wasn't a good match for him, that we were unable to meet some of his needs." SOURCE: MSNBC.com Her adopted son, who is only referred to as D., had been found abandoned by the side of a road in South America. He was thought to be somewhere around 1 years old at the time. His legs were underdeveloped, and his head was flat in the back from being left in a crib unattended. Tedaldi and her husband, who is in the military, already had five natural daughters of their own and wanted to welcome an adopted child into their home. She says their decision to adopt was done after a lot of careful research, and that they were thrilled when they found out D. was available. However, once they had D., a host of physical, developmental and emotional problems plagued their relationship with him over the next 18 months. On top of that, parents and child failed to bond with each other.
He wasn't "attaching" and "the realization that I didn't feel for D. the same way I felt for my own flesh and blood shook the foundations of who I thought I was," Tedaldi confessed to Motherlode. They decided to find another family for him. "
"He wasn't "attaching"? Hey, I am not a woman, but maybe one of you ladies who have been blessed with a child can tell me how "attaching " works. Poor Baby D. I sure hope the little guy wasn't feeling his new mommy, cause she sure wasn't feeling him.
Anyway, here is hoping that he can find a nice loving home with folks who can "attach" to him. I am sure that if Mrs. Field didn't already have one big ass child on her hands she would give it a shot.
Read The Full Article:
Senior White House officials are scheduled to be in the room throughout negotiations to merge competing Senate health care bills from the Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committees, with the expectation that they will make key decisions to mediate disagreements. In advance of the floor action to follow, Obama and top administration officials have been lobbying Senate Democrats to secure support for a final package.
“The White House presence in the merger will be huge, and it has to be,” a senior Democratic Senate aide said Monday. “President Obama will have to weigh in on the most difficult issues.”...
Democratic sources say Obama is going to have to make the final call on the controversial issues, including whether to push for the public insurance option.
From that, Greg concludes "Senate Dems are in effect saying to Obama: 'Tell us what to do. It’s your call' Which, of course, it is, though it’s also Harry’s call, and depending on the outcome, he’ll get a fair amount of credit — or blame."
No one wants to be responsible for killing the public option. It's still polling remarkably well, and, as Markos points out, voters are fine with it being a Dem-only bill, if it has to be.
Only 39 percent of Americans care much about "bipartisanship". And it's worse than that, because Republicans don't really care about bipartisanship, but about killing the public option. In fact, this question tracks the first one very closely. In other words, if you want a public option, you don't give a damn about bipartisanship. If you don't want it, you'd obviously rather see a bill that doesn't include it. Only four percent of Democrats defect on this question (2 points go to "no option", the other two to "undecided"), while 2 percent of Republicans who support the public option defect. They also don't care much about bipartisanship.
Even among those vaunted Independents, more would rather see substantive reform in the form of the public option than care if there's a Republican name attached to the bill.
In this round, Harry Reid is taking the position of the public option defender, reiterating last week that he's going to work for it. The White House is only repeating the line that they want a bill that “ensures choice and competition.” There also might be a message from the White House in the players that it's sending to the negotiations (from the Roll Call story):
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Ann DeParle, Obama’s chief health care adviser, are expected to be at the table throughout the talks. White House Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag also is set to play a role, primarily on issues where health care and the federal budget intersect.
Emanuel has proven himself to be pretty much in the "pass anything and call it reform" camp, famously attacking progressive groups for pressuring Dems. Peter Orszag recently said that the public option isn't essential for the administration, and triggers or co-ops would work fine.
I think Greg is right on this one--Congressional Dems don't want to be alone in taking the fall if the public option fails or if it's fatally weakened by appearing as a co-op or Snowe trigger. We're at at point where it's poised to succeed. That it is essential to reform has finally been established, and now the fight is going to be over the form it takes. I think Senate Dems are looking for Obama to put some real skin in the game in determing just what the public option is going to become.