Serendipity SOUL | Friday Open Thread

Wiki: The Brothers Johnson is a band consisting of American musicians, and brothers, George aka ‘Lightnin’ Licks’ and Louis Jagger Johnson aka ‘Thunder Thumbs’.

Guitarist/vocalist George and bassist/vocalist Louis formed the band Johnson Three Plus One with older brother Tommy, and their cousin Alex Weir, while attending school in Los Angeles, California.[1] When they became professionals, the band backed such touring R&B acts as Bobby Womack and the Supremes. George and Louis Johnson later joined Billy Preston‘s band, and wrote Music in My Life and The Kids and Me for him before leaving his group in 1973. In 1976, The Brothers covered the Beatlessong, Hey Jude, for the ephemeral musical documentary All This and World War II.

Among their most popular songs are I’ll Be Good to You (Billboard Hot 100 #3 in 1976), Strawberry Letter 23 (Hot 100 #5 in 1977, originally recorded by Shuggie Otis), Ain’t We Funkin’ Now (1978), and Stomp! (Hot 100 #7 and Hot Dance Music/Club Play #1 in 1980). Their styles include funk, disco, and R&B ballads. In addition, each album would include an instrumental cut or more which would either be considered lite jazz (Tomorrow 1976, Q 1977 Similin’ On Ya 1980 & Tokyo 1984) or Funk (Thunder Thumbs & Lightning Licks 1976, The Brother Man 1976, Mista Cool 1978 & Celebrations 1980

HAPPY FRY-day, Everyone!

This entry was posted in Current Events, Music, Open Thread, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

111 Responses to Serendipity SOUL | Friday Open Thread

  1. creolechild says:

    Go Wisconsin! Have a good weekend, everyone!

    “The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, which oversees elections in the state, is poised to approve recalls for three Republican state senators, as the process unfolds in the wake of Gov. Scott Walker’s anti-public employee union legislation.”

    “The GAB staff has recommended to the board — which is made up of retired judges selected through a non-partisan process — to approve recalls against state Sens. Dan Kapanke, Randy Hopper and Luther Olsen, when the board meets this Monday. As the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports, these were the first three legislators to have recall signatures filed against them.”

    “The GAB staff memorandum notes that the board will meet again next Monday, May 30, to take up the business of six other pending recall petitions: Republicans Sheila Harsdorf, Alberta Darling and Rob Cowles, and Democrats Dave Hansen, Jim Holperin and Robert Wirch.”

    “State election officials are proceeding on a timeline to hold the recall elections all at once, on July 12, following an unsuccessful legal attempt by the Dems to have the Kapanke, Hopper and Olsen recalls held earlier.”

  2. creolechild says:

    Refused funds to improve infrastructure and/or high speed rail for his state because NJ “couldn’t afford it” but he finds money to help subsidize A MALL?!! What? America doesn’t have enough malls?

    “New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has made a name for himself as a “strict fiscal conservative,” by slashing spending. The governor has championed budget cuts that eliminated hundreds of millons of dollars in education funding and is now taking aim at public workers, wanting to instate cutbacks that could almost quadruple health care costs for public workers.”

    “Yet there appears to be one project that Christie does not mind subsidizing to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. For years, a group of developers have been building the Xanadu Meadowlands complex, a massive retail and entertainment complex — complete with indoor water park, skating rink, and 600-foot ski slope — that has been under construction for the past three governors. Yet despite $1.9 billion being spent on the project with little progress, Christie recently struck a deal with the company that built the Mall of America to rescue the project, at huge taxpayer expense.”

    “Late last month, the deal was announced and Xanadu was renamed the American Dream @ Meadowlands. As a part of the deal, Christie will have the state up to $200 million in financing and will also forfeit a similar amount of sales tax revenue:

    Though the Christie administration has criticized Xanadu, once calling it a “failed business model,” and the governor said he was uncomfortable getting the state involved in private development, the state would provide $180 million to $200 million in low-interest financing and forfeit a similar amount in future sales-tax revenue. The administration has argued that the project is too big and too far along to let it lie fallow.”

  3. creolechild says:

    This is a crying shame! What’s wrong with people?!!

    “Last week, ThinkProgress reported on high school sophomore Amy Myers, who challenged history-challenged Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to a public debate on the basic facts of the U.S. Constitution. “Rep. Bachmann, the frequent inability you have shown to accurately and factually present even the most basic information about the United States led me” to the challenge, she wrote in an open letter to the tea party doyenne. Unfortunately, it seems some Bachmann fans haven’t taken Myers’ challenge kindly and are now threatening the teenage girl with violence:

    After it started getting media attention last weekend, commenters on tea party websites have threatened to publish her home address and some have threatened violence. The 16-year-old from Cherry Hill says several commenters have called her a “whore.” Her father, Wayne, says he’s concerned for his daughter’s safety.”

    “The Cherry Hill Courier Press reports that others “threatened violence, including rape” and that “several commenters threatened to publish the Myers’ home address.” Amy’s school has reportedly also received “threatening mail.” The newspaper had planned to do a video interview with the girl, who is running for a student government position, but “a somewhat panicked-sounding Wayne Myers phoned to cancel, citing the alleged threats.” “They’re targeting me just because I’m challenging Bachmann,” Amy said. A Facebook group called “Ask Rep. Michele Bachmann to Debate Amy Myers” already has over 7,000 supporters.”

  4. Nancy Pelosi still GOP’s ‘potent poison’

    Nancy Pelosi’s role in Congress might be significantly diminished, but if you listen to Republicans, you’d think she still runs Washington.

    Even though Pelosi lost the speaker’s gavel in January, she continues to play a starring role in GOP attacks. Pelosi figures prominently in Republican TV ads, robocalls, mailers and press releases — reviving a popular playbook page from the 2010 election, when Republicans consistently disparaged opponents by tethering them to Pelosi.

  5. Obama to visit CIA headquarters to thank intelligence community for helping to find Osama bin Laden,0,4672644.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29

    President Obama will visit CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., later this week to thank the intelligence community for its work in helping to find terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced on Wednesday.

  6. President Obama Addresses CIA Employees
    Langley, Virginia

  7. Ametia says:

    Shout out to creolechild!

    • creolechild says:

      “About the things that I’d like to do”…you know that’s right!

      If I’m dreaming about you, let’s make this dream come true. Don’t wake me…I’m dreaming.

      OOoooooooh….I can’t sleep dreaming about you!

      Okay- bless you my child. My day is complete now that I’ve spilled tea all over the place!LOL!

    • creolechild says:

      Humor serves many functions. It keeps you from taking yourself too seriously, relieves tension and is good for your blood pressure, and it’s just plain fun! It’s been a really rough week and I think we all needed this…I know I did. Don’t want to join the ranks of the perpetually pissed off and frustrated who are mad at everything and everybody. Luckily, my deep southern roots won’t allow that to happen and neither will I!

  8. creolechild says:

    Here we go with the bull. They seem to never get tired of trying to stir up controversy around the POTUS.

    “Providing chum for the right-wing feeding frenzy over the President’s Middle East speech, CBS White House correspondent Chip Reid conveniently omitted the second half of Obama’s sentence. “Reporting a story titled “Obama’s Israeli, Palestinian Surprise,” CBS’ Reid removed words from the President’s mouth to alter the meaning of the consistent U.S. position on the peace process:

    “President Obama spent most of his speech talking about the Arab Spring uprisings, but he saved his biggest surprise for the Middle East peace process. [START OBAMA CLIP] “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines.” [END OBAMA CLIP] But by using the borders that existed in 1967 before the Six Day War as the starting point for negotiations, the President is taking the Palestinian side on a key issue.”
    Another story on the CBS News web site similarly claimed Obama’s address “marked a shift in U.S. policy and represents a victory of sorts for Palestinian leaders ahead of delicate, upcoming negotiations with the Israelis.”

    Sadly for CBS, President Obama did no such thing. Instead, in his speech Obama offered an unremarkable summary of the path forward:

    • Ametia says:

      The frat boys can’t help themselves. Apparently they didn’t heed PBO’s message at the WHCD last month.

    • CBS = lying liars!!!!!!!!!!

      • creolechild says:

        They should buy a clue! That’s why so many “news” programs are tanking. They can’t seem to understand that most people want accurate, honest information. Not the talking heads’ opinion, spin, misinformation, distortions, and lies that we’re getting now.

  9. Ametia says:


  10. Johnny Kemp – Just Got Paid

    pump up the sound….

  11. creolechild says:

    Ezra Klein previews the Hope-Crosby ‘Road to Banana Republic’:

    “This country has a proud and bipartisan tradition of risk aversion when it comes to the country’s credit rating. Democratic administrations don’t default on our debt. Republican administrations don’t default on our debt. We don’t default on our debt. We don’t default strategically, as a way of detonating a fiscal bomb in the hope that the ensuing chaos will create an opening for policy measures that wouldn’t pass in normal times, and we don’t default temporarily, for a day or two or three or four. We simply don’t default…. But it’s a position the Republican Party is coming dangerously close to abandoning.”

    “And that’s what will scare the markets. The real danger of the debt ceiling is not that a temporary default will make our bondholders poor. It’s that by doing something that the American political system has previously regarded as unthinkable, the market will cease to believe the stories it tells itself about the safety, security and predictability of the American political system.”

    “In brief, there is no such thing as a short-term default crisis. Any default, by definition, would cripple international confidence in the American political system, hence American stability, hence American finance.”

    “What we can’t know beyond any doubt is whether most of the GOP’s Paul Ryans — the singular version of which, notes Klein, recently “assured CNBC that the market would accept a default ‘for a day or two or three or four’ ” — are merely absolute dunderheads who fathom not in the least the devastating harm they portend, or are wickedly ingenious strategists who believe not a word of their own propaganda, but revel in its long-term, crippling consequences to America’s social safety nets.”

    “What we do know is, we don’t want to find out.”

  12. creolechild says:

    “House Republicans, facing tough questions in their districts for voting to phase out Medicare and replace it with a subsidized private insurance system, are fond of pointing out that the plan they support wouldn’t touch benefits for existing beneficiaries, or for people who will reach eligibility within 10 years. There are a number of problems with that plan, but top Democrats are finally pointing out the biggest one: it’s simply not true.”

    “Though many Republicans are getting jittery about their budget’s Medicare plan, they’re still perfectly proud of the fact that it also repeals the new health care law. But that law includes plenty of goodies for current seniors, all of which would be zapped immediately if Republicans get their way.”

    “The Affordable Care Act this year added an annual wellness benefit to the guaranteed benefit that seniors have,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at a Capitol press conference Thursday.

    “It takes a huge step in closing the donut hole, 50 percent this year of the cost of drugs purchased in the coverage gap would disappear, and over time the whole coverage gap would disappear. Seniors now qualify for screenings — cancer screenings, mammograms, a variety of preventive care without copays out of pocket. That would disappear. A lot of new anti-fraud rules — building a kind of system that can identify fraud at the front end, strike-forces that are now in 10 cities across this country, on the ground, going after people who would steal out of the Medicare trust fund. All of that would go away this year.”

    “A smaller category of Medicare beneficiary would also see additional benefit cuts right away. So-called “dual-eligibles” — people who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid — would lose the new Medicare benefits under the health care law and see their Medicaid benefits slashed instantly. The House GOP budget cuts and caps Medicaid spending and turns it into a block grant program to be administered differently in each state.”

    “Medicaid cuts would start right away, so those seniors would be the first to be impacted,” Sebelius added. “The voucher plan doesn’t hit for 10 years, but not only do the new benefits for every senior go away, but the dually-qualified seniors — the poorest, oldest, sickest seniors, who are often in nursing homes, would have their benefits cut immediately.”

  13. creolechild says:

    I’m not liking this news one bit. I think we’re never going to eliminate now that it’s been enacted. There will always be some reason to keep it longer…not good news, imho. Enough already! If they can reach a bi-partisan agreement to pass this what’s the holdup on the other issues…

    “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) have agreed to a deal on a four-year extension of the Patriot Act, the Associated Press reports.

    “Officials in both parties told the AP that the deal between Reid and Boehner calls for a quick vote. Closure on the motion to proceed on the Patriot Act will take place at 5 p.m. on Monday, Reid said on the floor of the Senate late Thursday. “The idea is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government,” the AP reported.

    Civil liberties groups aren’t thrilled. “This reauthorization process started almost two years ago and it’s beyond disappointing that it will end without any increased institutional oversight or any meaningful limitation on the government’s spying authorities,” Michelle Richardson, ACLU Legislative Counsel, said in a statement to TPM.

    • Ametia says:

      creolechild. I’m not thrilled either. Can you post a synopsis of the Patriot Act for our community to review? Thanks

      • creolechild says:

        Read carefully. All in all only eight people voted against this Act, Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich were two of them; can’t remember who the others were. I’m also providing background so that people will understand the part that fear-mongering had in us losing a lot of our civil liberties, and some politicians, who didn’t even read the bill, just voted yes. And this is what we got in return….

        What is the USA PATRIOT Act?

        “Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the “USA/Patriot Act,” an overnight revision of the nation’s surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government’s authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court.”

        “…Most of the changes to surveillance law made by the Patriot Act were part of a longstanding law enforcement wish list that had been previously rejected by Congress, in some cases repeatedly. Congress reversed course because it was bullied [?] into it by the Bush Administration in the frightening weeks after the September 11 attack.”

        “The Senate version of the Patriot Act, which closely resembled the legislation requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was sent straight to the floor with no discussion, debate, or hearings. Many Senators complained that they had little chance to read it, much less analyze it, before having to vote. In the House, hearings were held, and a carefully constructed compromise bill emerged from the Judiciary Committee.”

        “But then, with no debate or consultation with rank-and-file members, the House leadership threw out the compromise bill and replaced it with legislation that mirrored the Senate version. Neither discussion nor amendments were permitted, and once again members barely had time to read the thick bill before they were forced to cast an up-or-down vote on it.”

        “The Bush Administration implied that members who voted against it would be blamed for any further attacks – a powerful threat at a time when the nation was expecting a second attack to come any moment and when reports of new anthrax letters were appearing daily.”

        “Congress and the Administration acted without any careful or systematic effort to determine whether weaknesses in our surveillance laws had contributed to the attacks, or whether the changes they were making would help prevent further attacks. Indeed, many of the act’s provisions have nothing at all to do with terrorism.”

        “The Patriot Act increases the government’s surveillance powers in four areas:

        1. Records searches. It expands the government’s ability to look at records on an individual’s activity being held by third parties. (Section 215)

        2. Secret searches. It expands the government’s ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)

        3. Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).

        4. “Trap and trace” searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects “addressing” information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).

        1. Expanded access to personal records held by third parties
        One of the most significant provisions of the Patriot Act makes it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizens’ activities being held by a third party. At a time when computerization is leading to the creation of more and more such records, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all – including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers – to turn over records on their clients or customers.

        Unchecked power
        The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals’ financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. Making matters worse:

        * The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an “agent of a foreign power,” a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.

        * The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for “probable cause” that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.

        * Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge – with no need for evidence or proof – that such a search meets the statute’s broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.

        * Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person’s First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.

        * A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.

        [There is much more information which can be found by clicking on the following link:”

      • Ametia says:

        Thanks for posting this detailed origin and functions of the Patriots Act, creolechild. It was created to elicit fear in the guise of stripping away our rights as American citizens.

      • creolechild says:

        There you go! Like I said earlier, it’s unlikely that it will ever be undone now. This is what happens when we don’t push back on the fear-mongering. People get scared and think stuff like this will help to protect them. What many people don’t know is this law has been abused and is targeting crimes like drug dealing. What does that have to do with terrorism? Well, you could consider it terrorism of a different nature but that’s completely beside the point. The point is that they’re using this Act to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want. That’s scary…

  14. creolechild says:

    AH HA! Busted AND called out on it! Priceless…

    “The national Chamber of Commerce is using misleading quotes from the local Tonawanda News in a TV ad to suggest the paper backs Republican Jane Corwin in the NY-26 election, according to the paper. Upset with what they claim is an intentionally phony endorsement, the newspaper’s editors are demanding that the Chamber pull the TV ad and that Corwin’s campaign disavow it.”

    “We have not endorsed Corwin — or any of the candidates, for that matter — and the Chamber’s commercial is a blatant attempt to trick voters into believing we have in order to bolster her credentials,” an editorial in the paper today entitled “Chamber Ad A Shameful Misdirection” read.

  15. creolechild says:

    “If you thought Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) dropped out of the Gang of Six deficit talks because of all the heat he’s taken from anti-tax zealots in the conservative movement, think again. The Oklahoma Republican — and one of the only Republicans with enough credibility among conservatives to sell the idea of higher revenues to rank and file members of his party — still says higher revenues have to be part of any consensus package to reduce deficits and debt over the long term.”

    “[R]ealistically we cannot solve our problems unless we generate growth in this country, and the only way we’re going to do that is back off on a lot of regulations, create a tax structure that’s going to cause investment to happen, and get dynamic returns that actually increase the revenues coming to the federal government,” Coubrn said on CNBC Thursday evening. “We can’t do it all by eliminating large sections and duplicate spending and waste. We can do a large portion of it, but there has to be some revenue component to that, and anybody that says that’s not the case, I think they’re just wrong and they’re not thinking about the long-term health of our country.”

    • Ametia says:

      Yes, and the Ensign debacle, someone set Colburn up as the accomplice to detract him from the deficit talks too. Not that he’s innocent of abetting Ensign, but the GOP are dirty mofos and if you’re not in lockstep with their plan to DESTROY middle and poor working clas America, well too bad, soooo sad!

  16. Michelle Obama mum on bin Laden

    So when did the first lady find out about her husband’s plans for Osama bin Laden?

    Did she know for weeks or months that the CIA had a bead on him? Did she know something was up the night before the May 2nd raid, when she and the president were yukking it up at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner? Did she get the sense that when her husband headed out with his clubs the next morning that he had a whole lot more on his mind than nine holes of golf?

    Or did she find out along with the rest of us, when the president went on TV late that Sunday, that a team of Navy SEALs had taken out the world’s top terrorist?

    She’s not telling.

    “I don’t wish to go into the details of the conversation we’ve had,” the first lady said in an interview with USA TODAY. “We as a nation should be proud of this accomplishment. As (President Obama) said, there’s no need to spike the football or to continue to relive it.”

    Are these fools serious? Like the First Lady is going to give them some info about her husband?

    • Ametia says:

      Did these idiots ask Hillary if she got a since when Bill left the house with his golf clubs that he was secretly meeting up with Monica for a blow job?

      Seriously, they actually thought FLOTUS would provide them with details that top secret. SMGDH

  17. First Lady Michelle Obama Bringing the Support of Joining Forces to West Point

    Tonight, in a historic first, Michelle Obama will address the Cadets and families of the United States Military Academy (USMA) Class of 2011 at their Graduation Banquet. I will have the honor and pleasure of accompanying her on the trip up the Hudson Valley, to what West Point graduates refer to as our “Rockbound Highland Home.”

    I’ve spent a fair amount of time of widely varying lengths on the West Point campus. Four years as a student from 1991 to 1995, four days getting married on a brief break from flight school in 1996, and three and a half years as a history professor from 2005 to 2009. I’ve gotten to know the campus pretty well in that time, but this trip is a chance to see it through the fresh eyes of Mrs. Obama and her staff.

    At the banquet, The First Lady will speak to the core of what it means to serve the nation as an officer in the armed forces. She will invoke those hallowed words shining brightly on the USMA Crest – Duty, Honor, Country – that have served as a signpost for the generations of West Point graduates that have come before, the Long Gray Line. And she’ll talk about the challenges that lie ahead as these men and women move forward to defend a nation at war.

    But she’ll focus on something that we in uniform don’t talk about enough, and that’s family. For those serving in harm’s way, family – however you define it – is what supports and sustains them. It’s what they’re fighting for and what they’re coming home to. Because supporting military families is an issue close to Mrs. Obama’s heart, she and Dr. Jill Biden have spearheaded Joining Forces, a national initiative that mobilizes all sectors of society to give our service members and their families the opportunities and support they have earned. The First Lady will bring the message of Joining Forces to West Point, to let these newly commissioned officers and their families know that America stands behind them.

    I’m proud to be part of the team supporting this initiative, and I hope you’ll take the time to check it out and learn all the different ways that you can support this noble endeavor.

  18. Ametia says:

    Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty will seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012, according to an aide.

  19. Ametia, I love the Brothers Johnson!


  20. rikyrah says:

    No Newt Moment For Jon Huntsman: He’s 100% Behind Ending Medicare

    In his first major television interview of his likely presidential campaign rollout this morning, former Utah Gov. and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman avoided his own Newt Gingrich moment. The House Republican plan to privatize Medicare? Count Huntsman in.

    “I would’ve voted for it,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Friday morning. “Including the Medicare provisions.”

    Huntsman, President Obama’s last ambassador to China, is best known for his moderate positions on hot-button conservative issues like civil unions (he’s for them), man-made climate change (he believes it exists) and even college tuition breaks for the children of illegal immigrants (he opposed Republican efforts to end them in Utah while Governor.)

    He stood by all those positions in the interview with Stephanopoulos, staking his claim on the social moderate end of the Republican presidential field. But when it comes Republican plan to eliminate Medicare in favor of a voucher system, Huntsman’s now staked his claim on the field’s far right end.

    Few candidates have come out with the full-throated support for the plan written by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) Huntsman did today. Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) is supportive of the plan generally, but has said he’ll offer his own solution for dealing with Medicare. Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) also promised to release his own plan, while speaking in generally supportive terms of the Ryan scheme.

    • Ametia says:

      Yep, Huntsman’s being prepped as the GOP’s next Great White Hope. good luck with this Mormon & former Obama ambassador!

  21. ***rolls eyes***

    Sarah Palin Says She Has ‘Fire In The Belly’ Ahead Of 2012

    During an appearance on Fox News’ “On the Record” on Thursday night, Sarah Palin insisted she has “fire in the belly” when pressed on whether she plans to run for president in the next election cycle.

    The former Alaska governor was asked if she really wants the Republican presidential nomination in the wake of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee’s announcement that he will not launch a campaign for the White House in 2012. “All the factors say go, but my heart says no and that’s the decision I have made,” he said last week in explaining his decision.

    “I think my problem is that I do have the fire in my belly,” explained Palin of her own posture toward running 2012. “I am so adamantly supportive of the good, traditional things about America and our free enterprise system, and I want to make sure that America is put back on the right track, and we only do that by defeating Obama in 2012. I have that fire in my belly.”

    Addressing where she is in her decision-making process, Palin added, “It’s a matter for me of some kind of practical, pragmatic decisions that have to be made. One is, with a large family, understanding the huge amount of scrutiny and the sacrifices that have to be made on my children’s part in order to see their mama run for president. But yes, the fire in the belly? It’s there!”

    Run, Sarah Run!

    • creolechild says:

      Bullshit! This was a personal attack and had nothing to do with policy. Why bring his family into the issue. Keep tying yourself in knots trying to defend him Roland but you don’t have a leg to stand on and you know it.

  22. Ametia says:

  23. Ametia says:

    Bill Boyarsky’s Columns
    Obama Gets No Credit for Courage

    Whether you approve of the Osama bin Laden killing, as I do, or are queasy about the act, it’s hard to argue that the president who authorized this risky mission lacked guts. It was a dramatic example of Barack Obama’s courage, but not the only one.

    Presidential courage and convictions will be a strong underlying issue in Obama’s re-election campaign. Conservatives consider him gutless and weak, except when they are assailing him as being dictatorial. Progressive critics scorn him as spineless as well as a sell-out to Wall Street.

    The issue of Obama’s leadership ability was thoroughly examined recently in an influential and controversial New Yorker article by the magazine’s Washington correspondent, Ryan Lizza. He dug deeply into the president’s policy in dealing with the Arab Spring uprising in Libya and elsewhere in the Mideast and North Africa. In a powerful final paragraph, he quoted an Obama adviser as describing “the president’s action in Libya as ‘leading from behind.’ ”

    This phrase, a derogatory reference to Obama’s efforts to join with other nations against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, became the takeaway thought of the article. But to me, it was just plain wrong. When Navy SEALs, acting on Obama’s orders, shot and killed bin Laden in an operation that posed great risk for them and for Obama’s presidency, this was definitely not leading from behind.

    Still, the criticism, coming from both conservatives and liberals, will probably continue to dog Obama as he clings to his centrist views.

    Obama’s first great act of courage was when he pushed for health care reform early in his administration. As the cliché says, no good deed goes unpunished, and Obama continues to be pummeled and ridiculed for his singular achievement in sticking by health care reform, getting it passed and now implementing it, a slow and painful task.

    His goals were simple and clear: assure health insurance for millions, including the working poor, and protect Americans from unjust medical policy cancellations. Presidents going back to Truman had proposed this, but none had succeeded.

    Obama did, after a fight and a Republican propaganda campaign that left him and his party so weakened that the Republicans won the House and almost captured the Senate.

    In doing so, he was criticized as being too involved in the details of the legislation and, at the same time, as not being involved enough. As the bill staggered through Congress and into the White House, it was difficult to know exactly what the president was doing. But since it is now law, he must have been doing something right.

    In many respects, as Lizza described it, the debate within the administration over health care resembled the later discussion on how to handle the Arab Spring. On health care, the advocates of a public option or even Medicare for all fought those who argued such approaches would never pass Congress—the idealists against the realists. As popular uprisings flourished in the Middle East and North Africa, Obama wrote a five-page memorandum to Vice President Joseph Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other members of his foreign policy team in which he was a realist and an idealist. He wrote, “… our regional and international credibility will be undermined if we are seen to be backing repressive regimes and ignoring the rights and aspirations of citizens.”

    In the end, Obama, alienating Israel and Saudi Arabia, said Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak should step down immediately. “An orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful and it must begin now,” Obama said. Then, as Gadhafi began to slaughter his people, Obama had his United Nations representative, Susan Rice, introduce a resolution authorizing member states “to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack” by the Libyan leader’s armed forces. It was passed 10-0 by the U.N. Security Council.

    These were tough actions, and Obama had pursued them vigorously.

    During his presidential campaign, Obama had pledged to get bin Laden. “I had said that if I ever get a shot at bin Laden we’re gonna take it,” he told Steve Kroft on “60 Minutes.” He knew the risks. “I mean you think about ‘Black Hawk Down,’ ” he said. “You think about what happened with the Iranian rescue. And it, you know, I am very sympathetic to the situation for other presidents where you make a decision, you’re making your best call, your best shot, and something goes wrong—because these are tough, complicated operations. … The day before I was thinkin’ about this quite a bit.”

    Afterward, he had no regrets. “As nervous as I was about this whole process, the one thing I didn’t lose sleep over was the possibility of taking bin Laden out,” he said. “Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn’t deserve what he got needs to have their head examined.”

    And those who think Obama is a wimp ought to have their heads examined.

    • creolechild says:

      In my opinion, President Obama’s first great act of courage was running against established politicians who had name recognition. However, he was following in the footsteps of early blacks such as Shirley Chisolm–who has been conveniently forgotten by the media. Many people of color are unaware of her achievements and the risks she took to run for office.

      • Ametia says:

        WELL said, and so true, creolechild.

      • Indeed, Creolechild!

      • creolechild says:

        Here’s another take on the President’s stand for any policy wonks who may be lurking out there! The remainder of this article focuses on criticisms…which are even-handed and don’t diminish in the least the stand taken.

        Cornel, my dear brotha,’ this is an example of what TRUTH and COURAGE is all about. I just thought I’d mention this because you seem to be experiencing some trouble in that particular area! (smirk) Just sayin’…there’s a difference between disagreements over policy issues and pettiness due to a “fragile” ego, imho.

        “President Obama’s major policy address on the Middle East got many things right. He pointed to al-Qaeda and terrorism, which targets civilians, as a dead end. He sided rhetorically with the grassroots movements for greater democracy in the region. He condemned outright the longstanding regimes, like that of Hosni Mubarak, that had been US allies, which ruled through sordid police states. He pledged US support for democracy movements.”

        “He avoided hypocrisy by condemning US allies such as the king of Bahrain and President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen for repressing their own movements. He acknowledged the importance of ending the Palestinian people’s long sojourn in the wilderness of statelessness.”

        “He pointed to the constraining by corrupt elites of the economic and educational opportunities of young people in the Middle East as among the central discontents leading to the Arab Spring. He underlined the importance of women’s rights, and rights for minorities such as Christians and Shiites.”

        “The courage of Obama’s speech should be recognized. He will have angered the two central allies of the US in the region, the governments that have formed the two pillars of US Middle East policy.”

        “Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah is angry at Obama (calling him more or less a wet-behind-the-ears young man) for abandoning long-time Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak. Saudi Arabia views Egypt as key to its own security and is extremely nervous about where politics in that country might go and how it will affect the kingdom.”

        “King Abdullah is also furious that the Obama administration has openly criticized the Sunni king of Bahrain for crushing his own democracy movement, which had a disproportionately Shiite cast (Shiites are now 58% of the citizen population but discriminated against economically and kept from expressing their majority politically).”

        “Obama if anything was more forthright and harsh in his criticisms of Manama on Thursday than he had been before. Saudi Arabia pumps on the order of 11 percent of the world daily petroleum output, has a significant impact on its price, and has hundreds of billions of dollars in reserves that it invests in the West as well as in the Middle East. Obama has taken a major risk in angering its king and adopting a policy he opposes everywhere but in Libya.”

        “Obama was also honest and searing in his implicit criticism of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose government has obstructed peace talks with the Palestinians and pursued an inexorable and wide-ranging project of colonizing the Palestinian West Bank in hopes of ultimately creating a Greater Israel and permanently forestalling the rise of a Palestinian state.”

        ” Obama had put resources and his own prestige on the line in attempting to kick-start negotiations two years ago, but the effort crashed an burned primarily because of Israeli intransigence and Obama’s special envoy on this issue, former Senator George Mitchell (who even more or less resolved the Northern Ireland conflict) has just resigned in a mixture of despair and disgust.”

        “Obama’s call for 1967 borders to be the basis for negotiations (which would require Israel to relinquish large amounts of territory illegally usurped from the Palestinians) marks a major turning point and elicited howls of outrage in Tel Aviv.”

        “Obama has been told by Israel-firsters in the US that his position on moving rapidly to a two-state solution endangers his ability to fund-raise among Jewish Americans (who provide a vastly disproportionate amount of money for political campaigns, estimated as high as 65% among Democrats) and therefore could imperil his campaign for a second term. To his credit, he has stuck to his guns, since a quick move to a two-state solution would benefit both the United States and Israel, not to mention the Palestinians.”

        “So his courage and vision should be recognized.”

    • creolechild says:

      Here’s a clip featuring Shirley Chisolm. She was truly ahead of her time in many ways. Notice that many of the issues she spoke about in 1972 are the SAME ones that we’re dealing with in 2012. Yet, people like Cornel West have the nerve to dump these issues at Barack Obama’s feet and criticize him for not doing enough. If you look back at history, you’d understand that change is not accomplished overnight, it’s achieved, incrementally, over a gradual period of time. And, if that’s not good enough, then step your game up and become more involved in what’s going on around you in your communities and on the national levels instead of sitting around complaining about what’s not being done. Help make it happen! How about that? Or is that too much to ask…

  24. Ametia says:

    May 20, 2011 8:35 AM
    Political whiplash: Huntsman scrambles to the right
    By Steve Benen

    Jon Huntsman is no doubt aware of his predicament. He’s running for president, as a Republican, despite having been a member of the Obama administration. He also has to impress a far-right GOP base, despite taking center-left positions on a range of issues — climate, gays, immigration, economic stimulus, health care, the TARP bank bailout — important to his party.

    What’s his solution? In effect, Huntsman has two choices. He can (a) run as a moderate statesman, hope centrist Republicans still exist, and watch the rest of the GOP field to knock each other out competing for the same right-wing votes; or (b) Huntsman can abandon his moderation and scurry to the right just as fast as he can.

    As of this morning, Huntsman appears to prefer the latter.

    In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America,” the former U.S. ambassador to China maintained a level-headed tone, but nevertheless moved sharply to the right on a range of domestic issues.

    Stimulus: As Utah’s governor, Huntsman put stimulus money to good use and argued the Recovery Act should have been bigger. This morning, he distanced himself from this position, saying, “Let’s face it, every governor took it.” Huntsman added that a better stimulus would have been more “tax cuts.” (All available evidence suggests the tax cuts in the Recovery Act were the least effective form of economic stimulus.)

    Health care: By some accounts, Huntsman expressed support for the Affordable Care Act. This morning, he said, “If I had a chance to repeal it, I would.”

    House Republican budget plan: Asked about Paul Ryan’s radical agenda, Huntsman said, “I would’ve voted for it.”

    Medicare: Asked specifically about his party’s plan to end Medicare and replace it with a privatized voucher scheme, Huntsman said he supports that, too, for debt-reduction reasons. (The GOP plan does not apply savings to the debt, but rather, uses them to pay for more tax cuts. Either Huntsman doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or he’s not telling the truth.)

    Debt limit: Huntsman endorsed House Speaker John Boehner’s (R) line and said the debt ceiling should only be raised after $2 trillion in cuts.

    Cap and trade: Huntsman flip-flopped on this last week, but this morning, he didn’t change his position at all.

    Huntsman: The circumstances change, like on cap and trade, for example. You know, today our focus — although we all care about the environment, today our number one priority’s the economy — and we should not be doing anything that stands in the way of economic growth. And that which is going to move us forward in terms of expanding our economic base and creating jobs, period. That’s not to say that all the while, you won’t have people who are creating and innovating new approaches to dealing with emissions. That’s going to continue.

    Stephanopoulos: But back in 2008, November of 2008, the beginning of the emissions, you said that dealing with those emissions was either going to take cap and trade or a carbon tax. Is that still true?

    Huntsman: And that was exactly what CEOs were saying, and that’s exactly what all the experts were saying, and that’s exactly what a whole lot of governors are saying at that point. The economy collapsed.

    He apparently doesn’t realize that the climate crisis will continue regardless of economic conditions.

    To his credit, Huntsman was less willing to flip on civil unions and immigration, but on everything else, Huntsman was moving to the right so quickly, I’m surprised it didn’t cause whiplash.

    For that matter, his willingness to explicitly endorse the Ryan agenda — including Medicare privatization — would prove to be wildly problematic in the general election, should he get that far.

  25. Ametia says:

  26. Ametia says:

  27. Ametia says:

    GOP Predecessor On Pawlenty: ‘I Don’t Think Any Governor Has Left Behind A Worse Financial Mess’
    Tim Pawlenty is hoping to leverage his record as governor of Minnesota into a successful presidential bid, often touting his tenure as evidence that he can successfully govern as a fiscal conservative. For example, during Fox News’ presidential debate in South Carolina earlier this month, Pawlenty said, “Every budget during my time as governor was balanced and the last one of those two-year budgets ends this coming summer, on June 30, and it’s going to end up in the black.”

    But not everyone agrees with Pawlenty’s fiscal bona fides. Pawlenty’s predecessor, Arne Carlson, a Republican who was governor of Minnesota from 1991 to 1999, recently told Time magazine of the presidential hopeful, “I don’t think any governor has left behind a worse financial mess than he has.” Carlson is an avowed fiscal conservative who, in his retirement, has led a “Paul Revere Tour” to raise alarm about the state’s finances. Carlson has been a frequent critic of Pawlenty’s fiscal mismanagement and in April, he told Minn Post that Pawlenty undid important fiscal reforms and is solely to blame for the state’s fiscal morass:

    “Under Tim Pawlenty, it became deficit heaven,” said Carlson. “All the things we did were undone. Now, what bothers me is you get these holier-than-thou attitudes. Oh, we’re all to blame. But that’s just not true. There’s one person who has the power to insist on a balanced budget. That’s the chief executive officer, the governor.”

  28. rikyrah says:

    Thu May 19, 2011 at 01:25 PM PDT

    Pelosi: ‘We have a plan. It’s called Medicare.’by Joan McCarter for Daily Kos

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has the talking points every single Democrat should be using when talking about the Republican budget and protecting America’s senior and disabled citizens: “We have a plan. It’s called Medicare.” That’s from a conversation she had with Greg Sargent today.

    “It is a flag we’ve planted that we will protect and defend. We have a plan. It’s called Medicare.”
    …Pelosi said she hopes Dems frame their defense of Medicare as a matter of values, to remind voters what’s at stake. “It is a value, an ethic, a pillar,” Pelosi said, charging that Republicans want to “undermine one of the strongest pillars of economic security that seniors have.”

    Sargent asked her about confusing reports in which she said Medicare should be “on the table” for deficit reduction.

    Asked to clarify what she meant, and to detail what sort of changes she’d be open to, Pelosi insisted that any claims she could support cuts in the program are wrong. “No benefits cuts,” she said flatly. Pelosi added that Dems have already put on the table the type of reform they should continue advocating for: The Affordable Care Act.

    “We gave the blueprint for how we strengthen Medicare in the Affordable Care Act,” Pelosi said, a plan which is still “ripening” and “which does not reduce benefits. It lowers costs to taxpayers, the deficit, and beneficiaries.” She said the only type of Medicare cuts she’s open to are extracting savings via bureaucratic and pharmecutical reforms that don’t touch benefits.

  29. rikyrah says:

    Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:10 PM PDT

    GOP: Obama speech was anti-Israel. ADL: It reflected core American Jed Lewison for Daily Kos

    Earlier today, President Obama delivered a speech on American policy in the Middle East and North Africa. The GOP’s 2012 field naturally seized upon this as an opportunity to go on the attack. Mitt Romney led the charge, accusing him of throwing Israel “under the bus,” but most of the rest of the GOP field joined in the assault.

    The basis of their attack? Obama said any peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians should be based on 1967 borders. What they forgot to mention was that he also said there should be mutually agreed upon land swaps, a recognition of the fact that a return to the precise pre-1967 borders would be unacceptable to Israel.

    While Republicans are accusing President Obama of being anti-Israel, it’s worth pointing out that the Anti-Defamation League praised the speech not just as being constructive for Middle East peace and good for Israel, but also as being an expression of American values and ideals:

    We welcome President Obama’s compelling speech on the priorities for American policy in the Middle East. We applaud his strong outlining of the principles which motivate that policy, including supporting the universal rights of free speech, equality and religious freedom, opposing the use of force and political repression, and promoting political and economic reforms. These are a reflection of American values and promote American interests.

    We further commend his strong affirmation of the importance of the deep and unshakeable U.S.-Israel relationship, and his clear articulation of the moral and strategic connections between America and Israel. We support the President’s vision of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement with strong security provisions for Israel, and a non-militarized Palestinian state.

    As ADL’s statement underscores, the idea that Barack Obama is pursuing some sort of anti-Israel agenda is completely absurd. But then again, so is the field of Republican candidates for 2012

  30. rikyrah says:

    Fox Business Rebukes Poor People For Not Being Ashamed Of Their Poverty
    May 19, 2011 11:59 am ET by Zachary Pleat

    Fox Business maligned essential anti-poverty programs, deriding food stamps, unemployment insurance, and the Earned Income Tax Credit as “a form a welfare, income redistribution” and evidence that America now has an “entitlement mentality.”

    Host Stuart Varney’s attack on these programs came just as a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research showed just how essential these and other government programs are to keeping tens of millions of Americans out of poverty


    Arloc Sherman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted that “public programs keep one in six Americans out of poverty — primarily the elderly, disabled, and working poor — and that the poverty rate would double without these programs.” The CBPP included a graph to show just how important these programs are for reducing poverty amongst millions of Americans:

    Yet Varney bemoaned “all these people on food stamps,” Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit and unemployment insurance as “a form of welfare, income redistribution” and “entitlement mentality.” Watch:

    Varney completely ignored the need for such programs to keep millions of Americans out of poverty. After guest and Democratic strategist Krystal Ball defended the social safety net, Fox’s Charles Payne (WHO IS A SLAVE CATCHER) castigated poor people for not being embarrassed enough about their situation:

    PAYNE: Krystal, there’s no doubt that these are good programs. I think the real narrative here, though, is that people aren’t embarrassed by it. People aren’t ashamed by it. In other words, the there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on food stamps; there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on unemployment for six months, let alone demanding to be on it for more than two years. I think that’s what Stu is trying to say, is that, when the president says Wall Street is at fault, so, you are entitled to get anything that you want from the government, because it’s not really your fault. No longer is the man being told to look in the mirror and cast down a judgment on himself; it’s someone else’s fault. So food stamps, unemployment, all of this stuff, is something that they probably earned in some indirect way.

    • creolechild says:

      “Many policymakers and pundits claim “we’re broke”1 and “can’t afford”2 public investments and policies that support workers. These claims are meant to justify efforts to scale back government programs and public sector workers’ wages and benefits. The “we’re broke” theme also implies that America’s working families should be satisfied with the status quo in terms of wages that have been stagnant for 30 years.”

      “Despite the rhetoric, it is clear that “we” as a nation are not broke. While the recession has led to job loss and shrinking incomes in recent years, the economy has produced substantial gains in average incomes and wealth over the last three decades, and economists agree that we can expect comparable growth over the next three decades as well.”

      “Between 1980 and 2010, income per capita grew 66.4%, and wealth per capita grew 73.2%. Over the next 30 years, per capita income is projected to grow by a comparable 60.6%. In other words, “we” are much richer as a nation than we used to be and can expect those riches to rise substantially in the future.”

      “Oh my goodness. If we aren’t really consigning our children to a life of garbage picking if we don’t end “entitlements” right now, whatever will the political class do with themselves?”

      “I know why the message of “we’re broke” sells. When most of the wealth is going directly to the very top while everyone else is stagnating or falling backwards, it’s easy to get that impression. But the fact is that the US will be able to deal with its financial obligations in the future. Our real problem is income inequality. But those who get the best end of that deal can hardly be expected to take up that cause can they?

      • creolechild says:

        On Tuesday, House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) was in Chicago to tour the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and speak with commodities speculators at the CME Group, where he assured that the Republican caucus would “do our part” to block the implementation of the Dodd-Frank. The CME Group has particular interest in the bill because, as ThinkProgress pointed out Tuesday, they are the biggest owner and operator of private exchanges for derivatives in the world. The CME Group specializes in trading contracts and derivatives products related to oil and food.
        Here’s that “incestuous” relationship at work again…

        “Republicans in the House of Representatives have already pushed to defund regulators mandated by Dodd-Frank with limiting the amount of oil speculation in private exchanges such as the CME Group. In addition, they have pushed to delay new rules on derivatives. Where could Republicans be getting these dangerous ideas? At one point during his speech, Cantor admits that executives from the CME Group had met with Cantor to help guide his approach to financial policy:”

        CANTOR: To me, it all comes down to the very, very end user that you serve, and those are the customers. Those are the working families who consume, who invest in our economy every single day, and can do so in a competitive posture partly because of what you do to help this economy of ours function. […] So again, I thank you very much for what CME group does, thank you for your team, your management team—Terry and others, who have been terrific in helping us in Washington understand a very complex regulatory system we’ve got so that we can make sense of it and produce a commonsense result that will help everybody.”

        Stop your lying! This is exactly what helped created the Wall Street meltdown where millions lost their retirement savings.

      • creolechild says:

        “Currently, the public knows very little about the oil speculation industry because a conservative majority on the CFTC has refused to implement a mandate from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill to curb abuses. Meanwhile, Republicans are pushing steep cuts to the CFTC, hampering any new rules on oil speculation that may be released later this summer. Fortunately, both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the CFTC have so far survived the latest round of budget cuts.”

        “While much of the attention on oil speculators has rested on the backs of investors and commodity traders, the petrochemical conglomerate Koch Industries occupies a unique role in manipulating the oil market. Koch has little business in the extraction process. Instead, Koch focuses on shipping crude oil, refining it, distributing it to retailers — then speculating on the future price.”

        “With control of every part of the market, Koch is able to bet on future prices with superior information. As Yasha Levine notes, Koch along with Enron pioneered a number of complex financial products to leverage its privileged position in the energy industry.”

        “In 2008, Koch called attention to itself for “contango” oil market manipulation. A commodity market is said to be in contango when future prices are expected to rise, that is, when demand is expected to outstrip supply. Big banks and companies like Koch employ a contango strategy by buying up oil and storing it in massive containers both on land and offshore to lock in the oil for sale later at a set price.”

        “In December of 2008, Koch leased “four supertankers to hold oil in the U.S. Gulf Coast to take advantage of rising prices in the months ahead.” Writing about Koch’s contango efforts to artificially drive down supply, Fortune magazine writer Jon Birger noted they could be raising “gasoline prices by anywhere from 20 to 40 cents a gallon” at the time. Speaking with the Business Times, Koch executive David Chang even boasted that falling crude prices in 2008 provided an opportunity remove oil from the market for future delivery…”

    • creolechild says:

      Poor but proud. And they can kiss my gumbo!

  31. Ametia says:

    Regarding the Jealous, Destructive, Ignorance of Cornel West, Tavis Smiley and Others

    By Greg Jones
    National Director
    Blacks4Barack Org.

    Our biggest foe moving ahead is not the right-wing nor the Tea Baggers. Our biggest battle will be from the folks supposedly on our side who love to preface their statements with ” I supported Obama….BUT….” This includes the pro-lefties….the whacky so-called Progressives (many of whom generate donations through being anti-Obama)…then there’s the ‘super Blacks’ like Cornel West, Tavis Smiley and others…all of whom feel a need to ‘teach Obama a lesson’ through their whining and de-energizing of support. In the November midterms we should have learned the power of de-energizing, as we experienced the biggest beat-down in modern day political history….NOT because the Right ran such competent campaigns….but simply because Dems DID NOT show up to vote. As some justify the ignorance and self-destructiveness of these types….while labeling others as uninformed…please be aware that in 2012 there are a number of Senate seats up for grabs.

    With the already announced retirements of a number of Dem Senators, combined with the possible Dem de-energizing from the self-destructives like West, whacky Progressives and the like…the FACT is….we could definitely lose the Senate in 2012 (just as we lost the House and multiple states in the midterms). And I must also remind all that the loss of many states like Ohio and others will make winning the Presidential re-election a major uphill battle regardless who or how incompetent the republican candidate is…due to the electoral map (votes)….therefore ALL self-destructive, de-energizing, ignorant rhetoric needs to be addressed, labeled as such and SHUT DOWN…..or we could all wake up….in shock…the day after the next election saying in unison…..How’d THAT happen ? The Time is NOW….to WAKE UP !

    Also….if all of these ‘super Blacks’ were actually sincere about seeing the needs of Black America being addressed (which there are many)…they would be (and would have ALWAYS been) focusing their attention/efforts to the Congressional Black Caucus, which is the group of Black politicians in D.C. created over 40 years ago under the auspices that THEY would create legislation needed to address Black needs. But what exactly have THEY done ? Absolutely NOTHING ! Since we did not elect a dictator, it is important to remember that true change comes through the legislative process, meaning Congresspeople and Senators drafting and passing bills that address our needs and concerns.

    The President DOES NOT write legislation….he simply passes or vetoes bills already passed by the Congress. So MOST times when we hear the whiny phrase….” Obama should….”….the FACT is….9 times out of 10….OBAMA CAN’T ! That’s NOT how the process works. So for those who ARE sincere and DO want to see TRUE changes implemented for a Better Tomorrow for ALL…time to place you focus on the correct target….which is the legislators….the Senators/Congresspeople….the CBC (for Black issues). In other words….West, Smiley, Pro-lefties, whacky ‘re’-gressives and company should ALL place the blame where the blame is truly due…because when they don’t….they simply expose themselves as ignorant to the process (of which we’ll gladly help to educate them) or just another Obama-hater…of which they WILL be exposed.

  32. Ametia says:

    • rikyrah says:

      G-T-F-O-H with that bullshyt

    • What utter bullsh*t!

    • creolechild says:

      Here’s some more ignorance to add to the steaming, hot pile that’s being served these days:

      “The whole point of the “It Gets Better” campaign is to affirm young people who may be questioning their sexual orientation and gender identity that even though they may be bullied or made to feel less than, they will be able to grow strong and live healthy fulfilling lives.”

      “But Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission wants folks to know it does not get better; in fact, he calls the tens of thousands of It Gets Better videos “deceitful,” and he is all too eager to encourage young people to be afraid and to hate themselves for possibly being gay:

      ” …The commercial is intended to leave viewers with the feeling that there is a hopeful future for those who live as homosexuals. But, unfortunately, the facts tell a very different story. […]” [YOUR FACTS MAYBE..}

      “Social acceptance of homosexual behavior doesn’t bring individuals peace or eliminate its tragic consequences. […]” [SAYS WHO?]

      “Homosexual behavior is a terrible health risk. […]” [JUST LIKE HETERO…WHAT’S YOUR POINT?]

      “They may believe it’s getting better, but it’s really not.” [NOT WITH ASSHOLES LIKE YOU AROUND.]

      • creolechild says:

        (Continuation of previous post. I was too pissed off at the moment to submit the entire post.) Enough with the hating on gays…it’s old and unproductive. Just do you, live your own life, and mind your business because it ain’t about you! That is all…

        “Plenty of research shows that many of the mental and physical health disparities the LGBT community experience are the direct result of minority stress and stigma. Some of the “facts” Cass cites about rates of suicide, cancer, and HIV are true, but are actually direct results of the very stigma Cass reinforces in this video. For example, gays and lesbians are more likely to smoke cigarettes because of minority stress, which would contribute to higher cancer rates.”

        “In his accompanying article, Cass cites debunked “research” from ex-gay organizations such as NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) and Exodus International that suggests that a person’s sexual orientation can be changed. Most major medical organizations condemn such therapy as harmful and ineffective, and one study demonstrates that the actions of the ex-gay movement constitute four of the United Nations’ five definitions of genocide against the LGBT community.”

        “Cass and others want to enforce their anti-gay evangelical perspective on others, and the consequences extend far beyond political inequality. The takeaway from this video is that Cass does not want it to get better for gays and lesbians. He wants them to continue to be depressed, to hate themselves, and to spend their lives never accepting their identity or finding happiness. Unfortunately for Cass, his point of view is less popular than ever.”

      • creolechild says:

        “For the first time, a majority of Americans said they support the right of same-sex couples to marry, according to a Gallup poll released Friday.”

        “Fifty-three percent of Americans said that same-sex marriages should be seen as equal under the law and enjoy the same rights as traditional marriages, the first time a majority of Americans have expressed that viewpoint since Gallup started tracking the issue in 1996.”

        “Forty-five percent of Americans expressed opposition to legal same-sex marriage, which, similarly, is the lowest level of opposition in the tracking of the poll.”

  33. Ametia says:

    Obama, Netanyahu to meet at White House following president’s challenge to Israel on peace
    By Associated Press, Updated: Friday, May 20, 2:33 AM
    WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is set to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (neh-ten-YAH’-hoo) a day after challenging the Israeli leader to cede more territory than he wants to in pursuit of peace with the Palestinians.

    That could make for a tense encounter when Netanyahu comes to the White House on Friday.

    In a speech Thursday, Obama called for a Palestinian state next to Israel based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Six Day War in which Israeli forces occupied east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Netanyahu said that would be “indefensible.”

    Obama wants Israel and the Palestinians to restart stalled peace talks and is certain to push Netanyahu on the issue. But numerous barriers stand in the way.

    Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

    • creolechild says:

      “Conservative huckster Glenn Beck is packing up his white board and floppy clown shoes and heading to Jerusalem, where he hopes to inspire the world to join him in scuttling any hope of a two-state solution to the 60-year-old Israel-Palestine conflict.”

      “Of late, Beck has been making some mention of Israel on his show every day. He just returned from a “fact-finding” trip to the Holy Land, he’s reportedly making a movie about the Jewish state, and this week he announced that he’ll be holding a “restoring courage” rally in Jerusalem this summer, where he hopes his legion of devoted fans will take few days out of their retirements to join him.”
      “It’s the stuff of comedy – Loathsome American Protagonist Saves the Holy Land! – but Beck’s newfound adoration for Israel represents a convergence of right-wing ideologies that is in fact quite dangerous. Beck’s trying to turn an audience of very low-information viewers into hawkish “pro-Israel” hardliners who will “stand with Israel” even against long-standing US foreign policy — they’ll support more settlements and oppose the “roadmap” if their beloved leader tells them to. And the region already has ample rejectionists on both sides.”

      “In one sense, Beck is trying to undo some of the damage after his relentless, anti-Semitic-tinged attacks on George Soros were condemned by observers across the political spectrum. As Anthea Butler noted, Beck’s “obsessions with Jews, from his attacks on George Soros, to his statement that Reform Judaism was like radical Islam, have brought the religious huckster condemnation and scorn,” and he now “wants to prove himself a true ‘friend’ of Israel with this rally.”

      • creolechild says:

        Oh, oh…it looks like “the witless twit” may actually be running for office. (shudder) Watch all of the white supremacists and extremist groups come out of the wood work to attack President Obama. Oh, that’s right…they’re already here. You know what that means…prepare yourselves for even more hate and race-baiting–this time from the right.

        “Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) hasn’t decided whether to run for president, but she insisted Thursday she has the “fire in my belly” to do it. Fox News’s Greta van Susteren asked Palin, who has provided few hints about her decisionmaking process or timeline, if she has the “fire in your belly” to run, citing former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s claim that his “heart says no” to another presidential bid.”

        “I think my problem is that I do have the fire in my belly,” she said. “I’m so adamantly supportive of the good traditional things about America and our free enterprise system and I want to make sure that America is put back on the right track and we only do that by defeating Obama in 2012.”

        “Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, is one of a few potential GOP candidates still sitting on the sidelines, along with Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) The ex-governor has said she is waiting to see how the field shapes up before she makes a decision.”

      • creolechild says:

        (Thank you to p m carpenter’s commentary!)

        “Pardon me for asking, but isn’t this … ”dithering”?”

        “In an interview with Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren on Thursday night, the former Alaska governor said she has the inner drive to run, though she hasn’t decided whether to launch a campaign.”

        “Palin has, of course, decided not to launch a campaign. But how she can sit and publicly advertise doubt and indecision after excoriating so many others for those transgressions is just another example of Sarah Palin’s truly grotesque goofiness.”

  34. Ametia says:

    Goodwin Liu and the Politics of Personal Pique
    — By Kevin Drum
    Thu May. 19, 2011 10:50 AM PDT.

    Goodwin Liu is a smart, accomplished, liberal constitutional lawyer who’s been nominated for a seat on the 9th Circuit Court. Lots of conservatives support him, but his confirmation looks increasingly unlikely regardless. Yesterday Adam Serwer tried to figure out why Republicans are so hellbent on blocking his nomination:

    The real reason Republicans are trying to block Liu is this: Because of his youth
    (he’s 39), intelligence and outlook, he’d be a tempting choice the next time a

    spot opens up on the Supreme Court.

    But I think Adam’s take today is much closer to the truth:

    Senate Republicans appear poised to filibuster the nomination of Goodwin Liu to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals, and they’ve settled on their reason why: Liu was awful mean to Justice Samuel Alito. As the Legal Times reports, Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Johnny Isakson all cited Liu’s testimony against Alito’s nomination as a reason for blocking him.

    Yep. Liu is plenty liberal, which gives Republicans cover for voting against him. But honestly, it’s mostly pique that’s driving this. Here’s conservative Jonathan Adler writing about Liu over a year ago:

    I believe Senate Republicans are likely to oppose Prof. Liu for multiple reasons. First, Prof. Liu Chairs the Board of Directors the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. This is not the sort of thing that should be disqualifying for a federal judgship, to be sure. Yet Senate Democrats firecely opposed, and ultimately blocked, confirmation of Peter Keisler to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, largely because he was a co-founder of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (where he is also now Chairman of the Board).

    • rikyrah says:

      Liu told the truth about Alito

    • creolechild says:

      Nice way to get the support of Latinos, Newt! Good luck with that!

      “Last week, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich announced his run for the presidency. If he wins the Republican primary, Gingrich will have to garner the votes of a sizable percentage of the Latino vote to make it all the way to the White House. It’s no coincidence that one of Gingrich’s first appearances as a presidential candidate was on one of the most popular Spanish-language programs, Unvision’s Al Punto.”

      “Anchor Jorge Ramos grilled Gingrich on his immigration platform which will play a big role in how Latinos vote in 2012. While the immigration debate during the Republican primary leading up to the 2008 presidential election focused on which candidate could present himself as being the toughest on the issue, Gingrich clumsily staked out a middle ground, suggesting that it might be a good idea to set up local community panels that decide which immigrants get to stay and which don’t. Gingrich’s remarks were cut out of the final video clip on Univision’s website, but they were included in a transcript of the interview issued by the network….”

  35. Ametia says:

    Good Morning, Everyone! :-))

Leave a Reply