Thursday Open Thread| POTUS Visits Ground Zero

President Obama will visit Ground Zero today, lay a wreath for the victims of 911, and visit with families. He will not be speaking during the ceremony.

Go on and Handle your business, Mr, President.

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Current Events, Democracy, Honor, Inspiration, Love, Media, Open Thread, Praise, President Obama, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to Thursday Open Thread| POTUS Visits Ground Zero

  1. Pingback: Friday Open Thread - Jack & Jill Politics

  2. Osama Bin Laden’s Final Message To His Children: ‘I’m Sorry For Neglecting You’

    A Kuwaiti newspaper has published slain Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden’s last message to his wives and children.

    The four-page document is a will, dated December 14, 2001, months after the 9/11 attacks that made him the most wanted man in the world.

    In it, Bin Laden apologizes to his children for his absence in their lives, “You, my children, I apologize for giving you so little of my time because I responded to the need for Jihad,” he writes.

    He also instructs his children not to follow in his footsteps – specifically telling them not to join Al Qaeda. He cites precedents from Islamic texts as a justification for forbidding his children to engage in ‘holy war’. The UK’s Daily Telegraph reports that Omar bin al-Khattab, the successor of the Prophet Mohammad as Islam’s leader, also left written instructions to his son, Abdullah, not to wage holy war.

    The document is largely devoted to justifying Bin Laden’s efforts to destroy America and Israel. There is no mention of passing on his possessions or assets, despite the fact that Bin Laden was at one point believed to have a personal fortune worth tens of millions of dollars.

    The terrorist leader’s will had a message for his wives, “don’t consider marrying again, and devote yourselves to your children and guide them to the right path.”

    He signed the document “Your brother Abu Abdullah Osama Muhammad Bin Laden.”

  3. Ametia says:

    Lawrence O’Donnell one-one with Condi Rice. Condi, TESTY MUCH!

  4. Ametia says:

    LOL WTF?!

    • creolechild says:

      Hmmm…what IS going on here? I was expecting at any minute for Ashton to pop up and yell, “You’ve been punked!” As memory serves me correctly Governor Walker recently attempted to STRIP collective bargaining rights from public workers?

      I guess it isn’t working out quite the way he had planned…

      • Ametia says:

        LMAO Ain’t that some shit. Walker is stretching it with this one minute comedy act. Who da hell does he think is going to play the who do think is an outstanding public employee? My head hurts just listening to this meeley mouthed rat bastard.

  5. rikyrah says:

    whiny little punk ass bitch


    Paul Ryan Falsely Accuses ThinkProgress Of ‘Trying To Stack The Crowds’ At Town Halls
    During a recent interview with Bloomberg, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) described the 19 town halls he held during Congress’ Easter Break as “overwhelmingly supportive” and dismissed the notion that public opposition to the GOP budget “reflected citizens’ sentiment.” Ryan blamed some of the raucous and disagreements at his town halls on ThinkProgress, claiming that we had “organized protesters” for his events:

    QUESTION: Well, Mr. Chairman, these big protests that some members of Congress (OFF-MIKE) Medicare agreement during the recess, do you think that’s unnerved some of the members who supported your plan? And, secondly, do you think these protests reflected citizens’ sentiment? Or do you think they were ginned up by the opposition? […]

    RYAN: So, no, my town halls were phenomenally, overwhelmingly supportive. They were 80/20 crowds. And this was after – you know, it was reported by the media that MoveOn, Think Progress, the labor council from Milwaukee were doing training sessions and trying to stack the crowds. So even though they had organized protesters in opposition, the crowds were overwhelmingly in favor.

    To be clear, ThinkProgress didn’t conduct any kind of “training sessions” for opponents or “stack the crowds.” We didn’t bus people in, tell anyone to attend, or in any other way coordinate with Wisconsinites to oppose Ryan’s reforms. ThinkProgress did attend several of Ryan’s town halls and reported one of the earliest instances of opposition to the Congressman’s plan in Milton, Wisconsin. Throughout the recess, we filed multiple reports describing some of the inaccuracies in Ryan’s talking points and highlighting some of the most contentious moments of the debate.

    • Ametia says:

      WATSAMATTAU, Paulie? Can’t take the blow back from your shit for sugar medicare debacle? Claim your shit, frat boy.

  6. President Obama On Decision To Bury Osama bin Laden At Sea (VIDEO)

    President Barack Obama explains how he and his advisors came to the decision to bury Osama bin Laden at sea. Steve Kroft interviews the president this Sunday, May 8 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

  7. Ametia says:


    Poll: Number of ‘birthers’ plummets
    By Jon Cohen

    The number of Americans saying President Obama was born in another country has been sliced in half, according to a new Washington Post poll.

    In interviews following the public release the president’s “long-form” birth certificate last week, fully 70 percent of Americans say Obama was born in Hawaii, a big bump-up from the 48 percent who said so a year ago. Even more say he was U.S.-born, or call that their best guess, for a total of 86 percent.

    Overall, 10 percent of Americans say Obama was likely born abroad, down from 20 percent in an April 2010 Post-ABC poll. Almost all those who now say Obama was born in a foreign country say that it’s only their “suspicion;” just 1 percent claim “solid evidence” that the president was born elsewhere (9 percent said so last year).

    The drop-off in the mistaken belief that Obama was not-U.S.-born has come most prominently among his sharpest critics. Today, 14 percent of Republicans say Obama was not born in the U.S., down from 31 percent in April of last year. Among the most conservative Republicans, the number of skeptics fell from 35 to 16 percent.

  8. Ametia says:

    Ground Zero’s Politics Are Over
    by Michael Tomasky

    Obama’s low-key appearance at the Twin Towers site today has finally neutralized the area blatantly politicized by the GOP. Michael Tomasky on why it doesn’t belong to either party.

    Without saying a single word, but in the simple act of showing up (90 percent of life, as Woody Allen famously put it), silently laying a wreath, and respectfully speaking with dress-uniformed officers flanking him, Barack Obama managed to neutralize what has arguably been the most potent piece of Republican iconography of the last decade: its total political ownership of 9/11, and of Ground Zero itself.

  9. George W. Bush Reportedly Feels Ignored In Obama ‘Victory Lap’ Following Osama Bin Laden’s Death

    A source tells the New York Daily News that former president George W. Bush feels that his successor has failed to sufficiently recognize the role he played in the manhunt for Osama bin Laden that ensued following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

    Earlier this week it was reported that Bush declined an invitation from President Barack Obama to join him at a ceremony being held at Ground Zero in New York City on Thursday. According to the AP, Bush spokesman David Sherzer said the former president appreciated the offer, but has decided against remaining in the public spotlight in his post-White House life.

    Suggesting Bush sees the president’s actions in the days following bin Laden’s death as an “Obama victory lap,” the source who spoke with the Daily News said, “He doesn’t feel personally snubbed and appreciates the invitation, but Obama’s claiming all the credit and a lot of other people deserve some of it.”

    The source added, “Obama gave no credit whatsoever to the intelligence infrastructure the Bush administration set up that is being hailed from the left and right as setting in motion the operation that got Bin Laden. It rubbed Bush the wrong way.”

    White House spokesman Jay Carney said prior to Obama’s trip to New York City on Thursday that the president intended to have a measured tone during his visit and that it would serve as a “cathartic moment for the American people.”

    You can kick rocks, George Bush! You weren’t concerned about Osama Bin Laden, remember? But now that President Obama got him, you want credit? Must be that alcohol talking because clearly you’re out of your mind?!

    • Ametia says:

      Just like you IGNORED OSAMA BIN LADEN FROM 2001-2008, GW BUSH! GTFOOH

      • “The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.” – G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

        “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” – G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

  10. Pakistan Pays U.S. Lobbyists To Deny It Helped Bin Laden

    WASHINGTON (Reuters/Tim Reid) – Pakistan’s Washington lobbyists have launched an intense campaign on Capitol Hill to counter accusations that Islamabad was complicit in giving refuge to Osama bin Laden.

    Alarmed by lawmakers’ demands to cut off billions of dollars of U.S. aid after bin Laden was found living in a Pakistani safe house for six years, President Asif Ali Zardari has ordered a full-court press to quell mounting accusations that it helped the al Qaeda leader avoid capture.

    Mark Siegel, a partner in the Washington lobbying firm of Locke Lord Strategies — which is paid $75,000 a month by the Pakistani government — told Reuters on Thursday he had spoken twice to Zardari since U.S. special forces killed bin Laden on Sunday, and “countless” times to the Pakistani ambassador in Washington.

    “They are certainly concerned,” Siegel said, adding that suggestions the Pakistani government knew about bin Laden’s whereabouts was nothing more than speculation.

    Referring to a statement by President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, that there must have been a support system for bin Laden inside Pakistan, Siegel said: “There is no proof that a support system was government-based.”

    There is much at stake for Pakistan as many lawmakers question how bin Laden could have lived in a large fortified compound close to a Pakistani military base for so long.

  11. Ametia says:

    Al Sharpton, in a radio interview yesterday, praised President Obama’s “focused and laser mentality” for achieving the goal of killing of Osama bin Laden. Not only because he he did “what George Bush was unable to do,” but also because Obama delivered on his own personal promise. Yet when the topic turned to President Bush, Sharpton’s praise abruptly ended.

    Today Obama will visit Ground Zero in New York City for an appearance that Bush was invited to but decided not to attend. Sharpton attempted to offer an explanation why Bush declined the invitation:

    “I think Bush was being Bush. Why wouldn’t Bush want to unite the country in what he claimed was his goal. Why wouldn’t he and others from his administration that are now clearly embarrassed that according to all intelligence Bin Laden was right there . . . I think that it tells us more about Bush than it does about Obama.”

    Bush’s spokesman offered a statement to explain the President’s absence: “He appreciated the invite, but has chosen in his post-presidency to remain largely out of the spotlight. He continues to celebrate with Americans this important victory in the war on terror.” While some feel Bush is being gracious by not wanting to “step on Obama’s moment,” others like Sharpton don’t seem satisfied with such explanations.

    Listen to the clip below from The Tom Joyner Morning Show:

  12. Ametia says:

  13. rikyrah says:

    May 05, 2011
    To save the system: Sarah Palin (or some such creature)
    Way back in January of this year, I marveled at the coy overconfidence of SarahPAC Treasurer Tim Crawford, who offered up to Politico this rhythmic response to reports that Sarah Palin’s tentacles were wrapping their way around several influential Iowans:

    “Have there been informal conversations between supporters on the ground in Iowa and with the PAC? Of course there have.

    “Do we have supporters all across the nation? Yes.

    “Do we have supporters in Iowa? Yes.

    “Do those supporters want Sarah Palin to run for higher office? Yes, of course they do.”

    But oh how the unmighty have flatlined. She’s now reduced to merely tweeting about world events: “Show photo as warning to others seeking America’s destruction. No pussy-footing around, no politicking, no drama; it’s part of the mission.”

    This fall from buffoonery’s grace is, I write in all seriousness, a tragic episode in this nation’s two-party course of events.

    There thrives in the GOP a certain recycling of the lunatic elite — if not Palin, then Santorum or Trump or Bachmann or Gingrich or … — which has accelerated and exacerbated in recent years, and which, further, will come to a full and decisive stop only upon a wholesale meltdown: that is, the nomination of a Palin for president, or a Trump for president … you get my drift. And at this point it’s evident that the singular withdrawal or diminution of a Palin, etc., from national GOP notoriety means nothing; there’s always another unschooled guttersnipe ready and willing to take his or her infamous place — simply because the equally guttersniping base is so ready and willing to embrace him or her.

    The danger now, so to speak, in 2012, is the same as it was in 2008, only more intense. And that danger is that the party will nominate a reasonable, McCainlike presidential candidate such as Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney, and not a certified, lunatic guttersnipe such as Sarah Palin. The compromise candidate will then go down in competitive flames, yet competitive nonetheless — the lesson of which will, characteristically, be misconstrued by the GOP base: If only we had nominated a real conservative. You know, an abject crackpot.

    It would seem that what the GOP needs most — and thus the health of the two-party system — is a near-lethal dose of its own medicine. Allow the GOP base precisely what it wants, let it heap more lunacy on lunacies, let it choke down a 50-0 state loss, let it approach its nihilistic deathwish, let it glory momentarily in an ideological mushroom cloud before concluding that a return to Reason and its ejection of lunatics just might work a trifle better.

    A Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels or Huntsman nomination will only postpone the inevitable and necessary. What the GOP needs, what will reboot the integrity of the two-party system, what will reclarify voters’ fundamental choice between genuine conservatism and genuine liberalism, is nothing less than a thunderingly cathartic, pseudoconservative blowout: a Palin-or-some-such presidential nomination.

  14. rikyrah says:

    What’s Jon Huntsman’s Angle?
    By Ta-Nehisi Coates
    May 5 2011, 11:03 AM ET
    Jamelle is baffled, as am I:

    Even with the apparent enthusiasm of Republican elites, Huntsman remains ill-suited for GOP primary voters. Prior to his appointment as ambassador to China, Huntsman was a voice of Republican moderation on issues like immigration, the environment, and gay rights. As governor of Utah, he accepted federal stimulus funds and castigated fellow Republicans for refusing to follow his lead. Before joining the Obama administration, his only attack on the president came from the left, when he complained that the stimulus was “too small.” Yes, Huntsman is anti-abortion and pro-gun, but he’s been absent from the economic debates of the last two years and has yet to establish his Tea Party bona fides.

  15. Ametia says:

  16. Ametia says:

  17. rikyrah says:

    May 5, 2011
    THE MOST UNDER-COVERED SUCCESS STORY OF THE OBAMA ERA…. About two years ago, NBC News established a tough benchmark: “As the GM bailout goes, so goes the Obama presidency.”

    With that in mind, Jonathan Cohn offers us a helpful update on where things stand.

    On Thursday General Motors announced that, for the fifth consecutive quarter, it had made a profit. And not just a measly one, either. The $3.2 billion was higher than experts had predicted and more than three times the profit of the same quarter in 2010, when the company was still struggling to emerge from its bankruptcy.

    GM sales in North America were up 25 percent over that period. That reflects the recovery, obviously, but the increase in GM sales was still larger than the industry average. Even if GM can’t keep up that pace, it’s a sign of increasing health.

    Still, the most interesting part of the news is not the profit itself. It’s how GM made it.

    Right. After the federal intervention to rescue the automotive industry, GM shifted its focus, reducing excess capacity and developing a better lineup of fuel-efficient cars and crossover vehicles. It’s proven to be quite successful.

    Cohn noted that GM recovery is not with flaw, and the transition has been painful. He concluded, however,

    “[I]f not for the Obama Administration’s intervention, the entire American auto industry might very well have collapsed and taken the Midwest with it. Instead, the industry is on the rebound, at least for now. That’s not bad for government work. Not bad at all.”

    I’d just add, from a purely political perspective, is that Republicans still consider this a failure. As far as the right is concerned, the Obama administration’s rescue of the American automotive industry wasn’t just wrong, it was one of the president’s most dreadful mistakes. Confront conservatives with reports like the latest from GM, and the response tends to be that the success of the policy doesn’t change anything.

    The thesis about the right valuing ideology over practical results needs no better example.

    —Steve Benen 11:30 AM

  18. rikyrah says:

    I don’t give a shyt about how many Frank Luntz phrases that they use…

    Seniors understand

    End Medicare…Replace with Vouchercare

    the GOP couldn’t get past that.

    What we’ve got here is more than failure to communicate
    by Doug Harlan J

    Doug Mataconis thinks that convincing the public to gut Medicare may be as simple as putting together a Draper-worthy PR blitz:

    Republicans may find that they are losing the public relations battle over entitlement reform and deficit reduction…


    For better or worse, the public has become used to these programs in their present form, and they mostly like them. Changing them is going to require convincing the public that it’s necessary, and that they won’t lose out under a system, and that they might even be better off. So far, as Jazz Shaw notes over at Hot Air, that isn’t being done

    It isn’t being done because it can’t be done. The Ryan plan wasn’t ineptitude with insufficient cover, it was a spectacularly slick roll out of a product that no one wants to buy. Slapping another label on the can won’t help Republicans sell their horse meat this time. Somebody stop me before I have to reach for the Canadian Club (if I stick with the clear liquors, I know where I stand).

    Elia Isquire describes the insider fascination with PR magic very well:

    Over-estimating the importance of “messaging” in politics is something I think almost all of us do from one time to another. In part it’s because our media is so narcissistic and spends such time focusing not on policy but “optics” — indeed, fetishizing phrases like that one or “PR” or “damage control” or “photo-op” to the point where they’re now rather mundance parts of our cultural vocabulary — implying that the real game of politics is the one played during commercials and inside the tiny little boxes that float right next to Chris Matthews’ head. I think it’s also a product of our increasingly living in the post-truth era, in which it’s simply assumed that everything can be equally popular, regardless of its merit, provided it’s “packaged” just right. (But that’s a longer, wankier, different post for a different time.)

  19. rikyrah says:

    He simply never was ready for prime time:


    May 5, 2011
    SCOTT BROWN’S IGNOMINIOUS STUMBLES…. Maybe the Senate Armed Services Committee isn’t the right place for Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.).

    US Senator Scott Brown is retracting statements he made earlier today, when he told several news outlets that he had seen photos of Osama bin Laden’s dead body as part of an official briefing.

    Brown made that assertion in an interview with NECN today to bolster his argument that the photos should not be released to the public.

    “Let me assure you that he is dead, that bin Laden is dead,” Brown said. “I have seen the photos and, in fact, we’ve received the briefing and we’ll continue to get the briefings.”

    Brown echoed the sentiment in a separate interview with Fox-25 TV. “Listen, I’ve seen the picture,” Brown said. “He’s definitely dead.”

    It seemed odd that Brown had seen the images before anyone else in the Senate. As it turns out, he didn’t.

    The Massachusetts senator apparently saw doctored photos that were circulating on the Internet, and assumed they were true. They weren’t. When he told reporters, “I have seen the photos and, in fact, we’ve received the briefing and we’ll continue to get the briefings,” the clear implication was that the images were part of the briefings. That wasn’t true, either.

    Brown just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    In the same interview with the local Fox affiliate, Brown expressed frustration that “someone” leaked word of his request to be deployed to Afghanistan, and complained that he has to “talk about it now.” And who, pray tell, leaked the story to the media? That would be Scott Brown — the same person now complaining his own leak.

    Brown has only been in office a little over a year, and during that time, he’s made demonstrably ridiculous remarks about the stimulus, financial regulatory reform, health care, economic policy, energy policy, and foreign policy, among other things. It’s tempting to think, at a certain point, he’d develop an unflattering reputation.

    I’m sure Brown is a nice person, but it’s hard to deny the fact that as a member of the Senate, he’s in over his head.

    —Steve Benen 10:10 AM

  20. rikyrah says:

    POTUS, Bin Laden, the Photos &……GOP Manhood
    The President has decided NOT to release the photos of Osama Bin Laden. Good for him. We killed him; did the DNA test on him, he’s dead, that’s the end of it.

    So, why are so many GOPers ‘insisting ‘ that the President release the photos of Bin Laden?

    I could go into a long treatise about why, but I think I’ll leave the explanation to our poster coop10, who dropped this knowledge yesterday, and all I could say when I read it was AMEN.

    So, why are some GOPers saying that the President should release the photos?:

    • Sick and twisted people want to see the bodies of a corspe for the thrill of it. Hell, look how white people photographed pics of slaves hanging from trees and passed them around like a toy. They posed, danced, ate popcorn and had a d*mn party around the dead bodies. I’m happy with the decision the President has made and I stand and support him. You will not get a chance to taunt, dance & party around this photo of a dead corpse. Change has come to America, now deal with it mofos!

    • Ametia says:

      HAMMER MEET NAIL! Coop10, you threw it down. Man the fuck up white boys.

  21. Ametia says:

  22. rikyrah says:

    Trump Card: White Denial, Racial Resentment and the Art of the Heel
    Posted on May 2, 2011
    There is no one in the world more creative than a white person trying to deny their racism, after having said or done something incredibly racist.

    Whether it’s the Orange County California Republican activist who recently sent around the e-mail with the picture of the Obamas portrayed as chimpanzees, or the folks who show up to Tea Party rallies with signs picturing the president as an African witch doctor with a bone through his nose, no one ever wants to admit the obvious: that they are knuckle-dragging, pathetic bigots. In the case of the above-mentioned Republican activist, she relied on the old stand-by defense; namely, that she has black friends. Of course, she can’t name any of them, because she’s lying; and more to the point, this isn’t a defense to a charge of racism. It would be like a heterosexual man using sexist slurs in the workplace, or pinching female co-workers on the ass, and then insisting that he wasn’t sexist because after all, he has a wife.

    It all reminds me of my senior year of college, when two crosses were burned on our campus. After the first, which was burned when a previously all-white fraternity had offered a bid to a black student, many whites denied that the act had been racist because it had only been a “two-foot cross.” After the second, the perpetrators insisted they had just been throwing wood randomly into a bonfire, when a few pieces “accidentally landed in a cross-like position.” Although the horizontal bar of the cross had an MLK Jr. Boulevard sign attached to it, that was just a coincidence, they insisted.

    But the most recent award for a “White Man Doing Racist Shit and then Lying About it” has to go to Donald Trump. Although Trump insists that he is possibly the “least racist” person on the planet, and that he actually gets along good with “the blacks,” whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean, his actions suggest otherwise. Putting aside the testimony of a former colleague of Trump’s, who has noted that the Donald once said that laziness was a “trait in blacks” (an accusation Trump never denied at the time it was made), his recent rants indicate a definite willingness to push buttons of white racial anxiety and resentment for political gain.

    First, Trump jumped on the birther bandwagon, suggesting that President Obama may not have been born in the U.S. This, despite the fact that state officials in Hawaii had long verified that he was born there, and the fact that the Honolulu newspaper had printed a birth announcement a few days after Obama was born. To believe the president wasn’t born there would require a belief that his mother had purposely concocted a conspiracy to place a phony birth announcement: an act that would have made no sense unless we believe that she somehow knew, even in 1961, that her son — her black son — was going to run for president one day and would need the cover of “natural born” citizenship. What makes birtherism racist is simple: it has been part of a larger narrative that has attempted to “other” Barack Obama, as a secret Muslim, a foreigner, an “anti-colonial” African (in Dinesh D’Souza’s terms), and as someone who doesn’t view America the way the rest of us (read: white people) do. No white president has ever had their citizenship questioned in this way, nor would they. To believe that he would have faced this kind of attack had his name been O’Malley instead of Obama, just because some whack-a-doodle fabricated a phony birth certificate suggesting that O’Malley had been born in Ireland, rather than, say, South Boston, is to believe in unicorns and pixie dust.

    Now, with the birth certificate thing settled among remotely sane people, Trump has switched gears, casting doubt on Barack Obama’s academic performance and suggesting he didn’t deserve to get into the Ivy League schools he attended; namely, Columbia and Harvard Law. Although this plays directly into the long-running narrative so common on the white right for the past forty years, to the effect that black folks are getting things they don’t deserve because of racial favoritism, Trump insists it has nothing to do with race. Of course not. Neither could it possibly be about race that Trump would question Obama in this way, despite never having raised the issue of academic merit with any white president or politician, like, for instance, George W. Bush, who was a mediocre student (at best) in prep school and Yale, and actually bragged about his piss-poor performance to Yale students when he gave the commencement address there after becoming president.

    Oh, and let’s not forget that Little Lord Fountleroy gave money to the McCain/Palin campaign, despite the fact that John McCain graduated sixth from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy and was only admitted to Annapolis in the first place because his daddy was an admiral; and that Sarah Palin barely graduated at all, bouncing around at five schools before finally getting her degree. So for Trump to now pose as the protector of academic standards seems a bit disingenuous, to say the least, and by disingenuous I mean really, really racist.

    By suggesting Obama might not have deserved to be in the Ivy League (despite that whole Magna Cum Laude thing at Harvard Law, which is not awarded, after all, by pulling names out of a hat),

  23. rikyrah says:

    Chuck D: Rappers Should Back Obama, Stomp Trump

    Date: Wednesday, May 04, 2011, 5:04 am
    Public Enemy frontman Chuck D shared recently that he’s pretty disappointed in the lack of support for the president from his fellow rappers.

    Although President Barack Obama has had a strong week with announcing the death of Osama Bin Laden and proving his American citizenship, the vocal support from the hip-hop industry has been scarce, as far as speaking out against Donald Trump, said the MC.

    “If rappers are so bold like they used to be, there would be like 10 diss records for Donald Trump right now,” Chuck told Vibe magazine. “But the average rapper is afraid because they don’t know if Trump will have money for them one day. Money has brought their fear out. There are supposed to be 20 cats lined up cursing Trump the f— out. This is supposed to be hip-hop, right?”

    He also went on to share that he’s basically disgusted with the community’s lack of faith in the black man. And he also had some words for Donald Trump.

    “Someone needs to say, ‘Yo, Donald Trump … you full of s— and I’m going to seriously f– you up.’ That’s what the rap community used to do, but now nobody can make that statement because everybody feels politically in debt.”

  24. rikyrah says:

    May 5, 2011
    THE HOUSE GOP’S ODIOUS ANTI-CHOICE BILL…. As best as I can tell, yesterday afternoon’s House vote on the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” (H.R. 3) hasn’t generated much in the way of media attention. To a certain extent, that’s understandable — editors/producers aren’t often inclined to invest a lot of energy covering legislation that’s going to fail, and only got a vote to pander to far-right ideologues.

    But it’s also a shame that the vote is being largely ignored by major outlets, because Americans need to know (a) what House Republicans are doing in their name; and (b) just how awful this bill really is.

    The House of Representatives just passed H.R. 3, the controversial abortion-funding law that pro-choice critics and the White House has said will make it harder for woman to pay for abortion coverage with their own money. […]

    Proponents say the bill will simply make permanent existing bans on using federal money to pay for abortions. But critics say the bill goes much further than existing law, and say it reopens the abortion fight that’s been in detente for years thanks to the Hyde Amendment.

    Any serious scrutiny of the bill shows that the critics are right.

    This recent editorial summarized the point of the bill nicely: “The tax credits that are encouraging small businesses to provide insurance for their workers could not be used to buy policies that cover abortions. People with their own policies who have enough expenses to claim an income tax deduction could not deduct either the premiums for policies that cover abortion or the cost of an abortion. People who use tax-preferred savings accounts to pay medical costs could not use the money to pay for an abortion without paying taxes on it.”

    Indeed, the closer one looks at the bill, the more odious it becomes. The final version included a provision to ensure that only victims of “forcible rape” are eligible for federal funding if they seek abortions. It also raises taxes. It also effectively calls on the IRS to conduct rape audits.

    And how many House Republicans voted for this offensive bill? All of them.

    Yes, there was also a small group of conservative Democrats who went along with this nonsense, but it was Republicans who made the bill one of the top legislative priorities of the 112th Congress, and then unanimously supported it.

    Senate Democrats have said H.R. 3 has absolutely no chance of passing, and in case that weren’t quite enough, the White House formally announced this week that President Obama strongly opposes the bill and would veto it if it reached his desk.

    That is, to be sure, reassuring, and explains why this bill isn’t front-page news.

    But voters need to understand what they did when they elected a Republican House majority. GOP lawmakers aren’t working on job creation; they’re not working on energy policy; they’re not working on national security; they’re not working on immigration. Instead, Republicans have made abortion one of their top priorities, and yesterday wasted time on a bill they knew would fail, because they want to make it harder for women to pay for abortions with their own money.

    Voters who backed GOP candidates last year because you were unsatisfied with economic growth should be aware of what they elected.

    —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink

  25. rikyrah says:

    May 5, 2011
    BACKING AWAY FROM MEDICARE PRIVATIZATION…. Just last week, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was asked about his caucus’ budget plan, which included, among other things, the elimination of Medicare. The Speaker said he supports the agenda, but added, “I’m not wedded to one single idea.”

    It was the first meaningful hint that Republicans may not be fully prepared to go all the way in support of their own radical vision. The Washington Post’s Lori Montgomery reports today that GOP leaders now appear to be backing away even faster than expected.

    Senior Republicans conceded Wednesday that a deal is unlikely on a contentious plan to overhaul Medicare and offered to open budget talks with the White House by focusing on areas where both parties can agree, such as cutting farm subsidies.

    On the eve of debt-reduction talks led by Vice President Biden, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) said Republicans remain convinced that reining in federal retirement programs is the key to stabilizing the nation’s finances over the long term. But he said Republicans recognize they may need to look elsewhere to achieve consensus after President Obama “excoriated us” for a proposal to privatize Medicare.

    Republicans are certainly entitled to their spin, but I have a hunch the president’s excoriation had less to do with the GOP’s change of heart than polls (Americans hate the Republican agenda) and two weeks of town-hall meetings (angry constituents gave GOP lawmakers an earful).

    Regardless of the motivation, though, Montgomery’s report suggests Republican leaders, at least for now, are scurrying away from their hard-right line and embracing a more “conciliatory tone.”

    That search could start, Cantor said, with a list of GOP proposals that would save $715 billion over the next decade by ending payments to wealthy farmers, limiting lawsuits against doctors, and expanding government auctions of broadcast spectrum to telecommunications companies, among other items.

    Democrats said they were encouraged by the move, which could smooth the way to a compromise allowing Congress to raise the legal limit on government borrowing and avoid a national default.

    Obviously, we’ll need to wait for more details, but at this point, the shift seems encouraging. There are, however, some angles to keep an eye on, and two jump out right away.

    The first is that senior Republican officials may be prepared to narrow the scope of their demands, but it remains to be seen whether the GOP’s rank-and-file agree. As we’ve seen in recent months, party leaders aren’t always the ones doing the leading.

    The other is that Republicans, if they are prepared to scrap their Medicare privatization plan, made a terrible strategic decision when it came to pursuing their agenda. They knew ending Medicare would be unpopular, they knew Democrats would never go for it, but they voted for it anyway. Now GOP leaders are prepared to negotiate it away, which makes sense, but what about the 235 House Republicans — 98% of the caucus — who stuck their necks out and voted for this ridiculous agenda because their leaders asked them to?

    The attack ads they’ll face next year will be brutal — and accurate — and they’ll have nothing to show for their risk.

    —Steve Benen 8:40 AM

  26. rikyrah says:

    Wednesday, May 04, 2011

    Losing their religion

    by digby

    The Republicans are losing it. This is almost as dumb as going after Medicare

    House Republicans say they have no plans to follow the Senate in passing a resolution honoring the military mission that killed Osama bin Laden.

    The decision by GOP leaders follows new rules they enacted in January scrapping the tradition of congratulatory measures, which they complained clogged up the House floor.

    The Senate on Tuesday passed a resolution, 97-0, commending “the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and the United States intelligence community for the tremendous commitment, perseverance, professionalism and sacrifice they displayed in bringing Osama bin Laden to justice.” The measure commended President Obama and reaffirmed the Senate’s commitment “to disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda.” It also recognized former President George W. Bush’s efforts after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    The lack of House action drew criticism from some Democrats, who said an exception to the new rules was more than warranted for the killing of America’s No. 1 enemy.

    Naturally,the Democrats complained about the process instead of attacking them for their lack of patriotism, which is just weak. This is one of those things they should use to embarrass the GOP and make their own followers feel uncomfortable. They may hate Obama and they may hate Osama but no God fearing, flag waving All American wingnut can possibly endorse disrespecting the US Navy SEALS. The lat ten years have created such a military fetish in our culture that you can’t even ask a soldier or sailor to move his coat without thanking him for his service beforehand.

    Regardless, this is one of those things that will be noticed by the brass. It’s just not cool to be partisan when it comes to honoring martial courage in a military empire. This is a mistake.


  27. Ametia says:

    May 05, 2011
    Clinton discusses her hand gesture in riveting Situation Room photo
    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says she has “no idea” what she and the rest of President Obama’s national security team were watching at the precise moment when a White House photographer snapped a now famous picture of them in the Situation Room during the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound.

    “Those were 38 of the most intense minutes,” Clinton says today. “I have no idea what any of us were looking at at that particular millisecond when the picture was taken.”

    The shot, taken as the raid unfolded in real time, shows Clinton covering her mouth with her right hand.

    “I am somewhat sheepishly concerned that it was my preventing one of my early spring allergic coughs,” she said. “So, it may have no great meaning whatsoever.”

    The photo, by White House official photographer Pete Souza, passed the 1.7 million views mark on Flickr by mid-day Wednesday and is on the way to become Flickr’s all-time most popular photo, Wired reports.

    Naturally, it has also spawned endless phony versions by adept — and sometime even clever — Photoshop experts who added such people to the group as Jersey Shore’s “The Situation,” to Chloe from 24.

  28. Ametia says:

    Breaking News Alert: U.S. wants to use Gaddafi’s frozen assets to aid Libyans
    May 5, 2011 7:11:33 AM

    The Obama administration wants to use some of the billions of dollars in frozen assets belonging to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi and his government to provide humanitarian and other assistance to the Libyans affected by the country’s ongoing civil war, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday.

    The move, announced at a high-level meeting in Rome on how to shore up Libya’s rebels, appeared to be the first time a country has sought to tap some of the massive Libyan wealth blocked by U.N. sanctions in February.

  29. Ametia says:

    Who is Obama? Now we know

    By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: May 4
    Barack Obama is not the man many Americans thought he was. This sudden realization has transformed American politics.

    The sheer audacity of the successful operation against Osama bin Laden has forced Obama’s friends and foes alike to reassess what they make of a chief executive who defies easy categorization and reveals less about himself than politicians are typically drawn to do.

    Obama is hard to understand because he is many things and not just one thing. He has now proved that he can be bold at an operational level, even as he remains cautious at a philosophical level. His proclivity to gather facts and weigh alternatives does not lead automatically, in the venerable phrase, to the paralysis of analysis. It can also end in daring action tempered by prudence — for example, making sure that additional helicopters were available to our Navy SEALs.

    The president’s rhetoric has often emphasized caring, compassion and community, the language one expects from a moderately liberal politician. Yet as one of his close aides told me long ago, there is inside a very cool, tough, even hard man. Obama is not reluctant to use American military power. He was not at all queasy about authorizing the killing of an American enemy and the disposal of the body at sea to ensure that there would be no memorial to rally bin Laden’s followers.

    • rikyrah says:

      actually, he pretty much is what I thought he was….who are those folks that are surprised?

      • Ametia says:

        I gave a to Dionne’s piece as well. His thinking is along the lines of moving the proverbial “GOALPOST.”

        They sit and wait for the next issue or crisis to pounce on and complain about what, how, and why the president is/isn’t doing to FIX IT!

  30. Ametia says:

    ECONOMYMAY 5, 2011.
    GOP, White House Talk Deal on Debt

    GOP leaders and the White House are discussing a deal that would enact strict deficit targets and some spending cuts to win Republican votes for lifting the ceiling on how much the federal government can borrow.

    The deal would defer contentious decisions about Medicare, Medicaid and taxes until after the 2012 elections. If such an agreement were reached, it would allow both sides to assure financial markets and the public of their commitment to reducing the deficit and then use next year’s campaign to lay out their competing visions for the future of major government programs.

    “We’re not going to …

  31. Ametia says:

    Good Morning, Everyone! :-)

    Thank you, BWD! Coverage of Ground Zero wreath ceremony will begin:

    The big three cable news channels are all planning special coverage for the event.

    CNN will have Anderson Cooper anchoring the program starting at 11 AM ET, hours ahead of his normal 10 PM show. John King will also anchor his 7 PM program from the site.

    Fox News will have reporters on the site starting at 6 AM ET during “Fox & Friends,” with Bill Hemmer anchoring at Ground Zero starting at 9 AM. MSNBC will have Chris Matthews anchoring starting at 1 PM ET, which will include the wreath laying. Tamron Hall will take over anchor duties at 2 PM ET.

    ABC News will produce a special report for Obama’s visit and the wreath laying ceremony. Diane Sawyer anchors.

Leave a Reply