Seems that Washington is as good a place as any for the Taliban to target. Wonder if Obama is taking all this seriously or still thinks we should cut back on security measures on airplanes and so on? ....
Taliban Chief Vows 'Amazing' Attack on Washington 'Soon'
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Print
ShareThis
Mar. 30: Pakistani police officers carry their injured colleague to an armored car on the outskirts of Lahore.
DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan — The commander of the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility Tuesday for a deadly assault on a Pakistani police academy and said the group was planning a terrorist attack on the White House that would "amaze" the world.
Baitullah Mehsud, who has a $5 million bounty on his head from the U.S., said Monday's attack on the outskirts of the eastern city of Lahore was retaliation for U.S. missile strikes against militants along the Afghan border.
"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world," Mehsud told The Associated Press by phone. He provided no details.
Mehsud has never been directly linked to any attacks outside Pakistan, but attacks blamed on his network of fighters have widened in scope and ambition in recent years. The threat comes days after President Barack Obama warned that Al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States from secret havens in Pakistan.
View photos from the attack on Pakistan police academy
Pakistan's former government and the CIA named Mehsud as the prime suspect behind the December 2007 killing of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Pakistani officials accuse him of harboring foreign fighters, including Central Asians linked to Al Qaeda, and of training suicide bombers.
In his latest comments, Mehsud identified the White House as one of the targets in an interview with local Dewa Radio, a copy of which was obtained by the AP.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid said he had not seen any reports of Mehsud's comments but that he would "take the threat under consideration."
Mehsud also claimed responsibility for a suicide car bombing that killed four soldiers Monday in Bannu district and a suicide attack targeting a police station in Islamabad last week that killed one officer.
Such attacks pose a major test for the weak, year-old civilian administration of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari that has been gripped with political turmoil in recent weeks.
An Interior Ministry spokesman said it was too early to respond to Mehsud's claim, but the Interior Ministry chief said Monday that authorities had information linking the attack to Mehsud. He said at least one of the attackers arrived in Lahore about 15 days ago from Mehsud's stronghold of South Waziristan near the border with Pakistan and rented a house.
Related Stories
Pakistani Forces Retake Academy After 12 Killed in Attack
Photo Essays
City Under Siege
The gunmen who attacked the police academy killed seven police and two civilians, holding security forces at bay for about eight hours before being overpowered by Pakistani commandos. Some of the attackers wore police uniforms, and they took hostages and tossed grenades during the assault.
Earlier Tuesday, a spokesman from a little-known militant group linked to the Pakistani Taliban also claimed responsibility for the attack and a similar ambush-style attack against the Sri Lankan cricket team earlier this month in Lahore. It was not immediately possible to reconcile the two claims.
Omar Farooq, who said he is the spokesman for Fedayeen al-Islam, said the group would carry out more attacks unless Pakistani troops withdraw from tribal areas near the Afghan border and the U.S. stops its drone strikes. The group previously said it was behind the deadly September bombing of the Marriott hotel in Islamabad that killed 54 people.
Mehsud declined to comment on Fedayeen al-Islam's claim that it carried out the attack or to say whether the group is linked to his own. The Pakistani Taliban leader also said he was not deterred by the U.S. bounty on his head: "I wish to die and embrace martyrdom."
The AP has spoken to Mehsud several times in the past and recognized his voice, and a request for an interview with Mehsud was submitted through his aide. The militant leader also granted phone interviews to other media organizations.
The Pakistani Taliban has links with Al Qaeda and Afghan Taliban militants who have launched attacks against U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan from a base in the border region between the two countries.
Pakistan faces tremendous U.S. pressure to eradicate militants from its soil and has launched several military operations in the Afghan border region.
The U.S. has stepped up drone attacks against militants in the area, causing tension with Pakistani officials who protest they are a violation of the country's sovereignty and kill innocent civilians.
Monday's highly coordinated attack highlighted that militants in the country pose a threat far outside the border region. It prompted Interior Ministry chief Rehman Malik, Pakistan's top civilian security official, to say that militant groups were "destabilizing the country."
After gunmen stormed the academy, masses of security forces surrounded the compound, exchanging fire in televised scenes reminiscent of the militant siege in the Indian city of Mumbai in November and the attack on Sri Lanka's cricket team.
Officials Tuesday were still trying to sort out how many attackers were involved, giving varying accounts to the media.
A senior Lahore police investigator, Zulfikar Hameed, told the AP that three of the attackers blew themselves up when commandos retook the police academy and one was shot by security forces. Hameed said it was difficult to say precisely how many militants carried out the attack and some may have escaped.
Tasneem Qureshi, a top official at the Interior Ministry, told an Express News TV that four attackers were in custody and "one, who was wounded, managed to escape."
Punjab police chief, Khawaja Khalid Farooq, said one of the captured militants had provided useful information and that about 50 other people in Lahore were detained overnight for questioning.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Dancing with the Stars
Make sure to cast your vote for the BEST couples. Don't keep the bad ones in there.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Why is this imposter our President?
Debs2005:
Why is it okay for our Govt. to break our laws and no price is paid? Not paying taxes, Taking campaign funds from ailing banking institutions? Taking money when it should have been stopped? Everything seems to be fricken Peachy as long as the democrats are doing it. I am sick of hearing things like this every day of the week. President Bush honestly is looking like a Prince of Men compared to this demon spawn in office now. Can you tell Im venting?
EXCLUSIVE:
President Obama continued collecting money for his 2010 Senate re-election campaign even after he resigned his seat from Illinois, including a maximum $2,300 donation the day after Christmas from a top executive of a Wall Street firm that had received a government bailout.
Four contributions - $4,800 in all - were donated to the Obama 2010 fund on Dec. 26, according to Federal Election Commission reports.
The money came from some of Mr. Obama's top presidential fundraisers: Bruce A. Heyman, managing director at Goldman Sachs, which received a $10 billion bailout last year; Steven Koch, vice chairman at Credit Suisse First Boston; and John Levi, a lawyer at the law and lobbying firm of Sidley Austin LLP.
The donations are legal, but the timing is unusual because Mr. Obama formally left the Senate on Nov. 16 and already had a surplus in his Senate campaign treasury.
Under federal election law, Mr. Obama and five other former members of Congress now serving in his Cabinet or the White House can retain congressional campaign funds for years, even if they don't plan to run for Congress again. They can spend the money for any political purpose.
Mr. Obama's transportation secretary, former Rep. Ray LaHood, Illinois Republican, has given $60,000 of his leftover funds to help reduce the campaign debt of his son's failed run for state office. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat who represented Illinois in the House, is one of three administration figures with at least $1 million left over in their congressional campaign funds, FEC records show.
"Other than converting the money to personal use, which is the one thing they can't do, these campaigns can basically operate as political slush funds," said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.
"As much as people talk about change in Washington, and we're seeing plenty of it, money still talks. And one of the ways you remain a political player is to make sure you still have money in your political account," she said.
A former Obama campaign aide said the late-December donations collected for Mr. Obama's Senate campaign were solicited "by a fundraiser who worked for the campaign to cover outstanding expenses that needed to be paid to wind down the campaign committee."
Why is it okay for our Govt. to break our laws and no price is paid? Not paying taxes, Taking campaign funds from ailing banking institutions? Taking money when it should have been stopped? Everything seems to be fricken Peachy as long as the democrats are doing it. I am sick of hearing things like this every day of the week. President Bush honestly is looking like a Prince of Men compared to this demon spawn in office now. Can you tell Im venting?
EXCLUSIVE:
President Obama continued collecting money for his 2010 Senate re-election campaign even after he resigned his seat from Illinois, including a maximum $2,300 donation the day after Christmas from a top executive of a Wall Street firm that had received a government bailout.
Four contributions - $4,800 in all - were donated to the Obama 2010 fund on Dec. 26, according to Federal Election Commission reports.
The money came from some of Mr. Obama's top presidential fundraisers: Bruce A. Heyman, managing director at Goldman Sachs, which received a $10 billion bailout last year; Steven Koch, vice chairman at Credit Suisse First Boston; and John Levi, a lawyer at the law and lobbying firm of Sidley Austin LLP.
The donations are legal, but the timing is unusual because Mr. Obama formally left the Senate on Nov. 16 and already had a surplus in his Senate campaign treasury.
Under federal election law, Mr. Obama and five other former members of Congress now serving in his Cabinet or the White House can retain congressional campaign funds for years, even if they don't plan to run for Congress again. They can spend the money for any political purpose.
Mr. Obama's transportation secretary, former Rep. Ray LaHood, Illinois Republican, has given $60,000 of his leftover funds to help reduce the campaign debt of his son's failed run for state office. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat who represented Illinois in the House, is one of three administration figures with at least $1 million left over in their congressional campaign funds, FEC records show.
"Other than converting the money to personal use, which is the one thing they can't do, these campaigns can basically operate as political slush funds," said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.
"As much as people talk about change in Washington, and we're seeing plenty of it, money still talks. And one of the ways you remain a political player is to make sure you still have money in your political account," she said.
A former Obama campaign aide said the late-December donations collected for Mr. Obama's Senate campaign were solicited "by a fundraiser who worked for the campaign to cover outstanding expenses that needed to be paid to wind down the campaign committee."
Friday, March 27, 2009
"Giggles" OBAMA report by Michael Savage
GIGGLES OBAMA AND THE WEB PRESS CONFERENCEGIGGLES OBAMA HAD ANOTHER PRESS CONFERENCE TODAY. BUT THIS TIME IT WAS A SPECIAL AND NEW AND DIFFERENT PRESS CONFERENCE BECAUSE THIS TIME IT FOCUSED ON QUESTIONS ASKED VIA THE WORLDWIDE WEB. SOME GUY WHO APPEARED TO BE A DISTANT COUSIN OF RAHM EMANUEL, “STURM UND DRANG” EMANUEL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, INTRODUCED OBAMA AND THEN BEGAN READING SUPPOSED QUESTIONS THAT HAD COME IN FOR GIGGLES FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY. ALTHOUGH IT SEEMS POSSIBLE THAT THE QUESTIONS WERE JUST SENT IN BY OTHER COUSINS OF RAHM EMANUEL. MOISHE EMANUEL SENT IN A QUESTION FROM BOSTON. AND JASCHA EMANUEL SENT IN A QUESTION FROM OHIO.THEN HYMAN EMANUEL, POSING AS RICHARD FROM CALIFORNIA, SENT IN ANOTHER QUESTION.BUT PERHAPS THE MOST INTERESTING PART OF THE WHOLE FIASCO WAS WHEN A WOMAN, HARRIET FROM GEORGIA, SENT IN A VIDEO OF HERSELF ASKING ABOUT OUTSOURCED JOBS. OBAMA GAVE A RAMBLING 10-MINUTE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION AND FINALLY ADMITTED AT THE VERY END THAT THE JOBS AREN’T COMING BACK AND HAVE TO BE REPLACED WITH GREEN JOBS. IN THE WORDS OF SHAKESPEARE, IT WAS SOUND AND FURY SIGNIFYING NOTHING. AND THE ONLY THING YOU CAME AWAY WITH AT THE END OF THIS POINTLESS WEB PRESS CONFERENCE IS THE FACT THAT REAL AMERICAN JOBS ARE NEVER COMING BACK AND THAT THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY IS PRIMARILY CENTERED AROUND SHOVELING COMPOST.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Jindal Urges GOP to confront OBAMA.
Jindal Urges GOP to Confront Obama
Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:22 PM
WASHINGTON - Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal again found himself carrying the Republican mantle opposite a primetime appearance from President Barack Obama on Tuesday, saying Republicans must be ready to defy the president when they disagree with his policies.
He also joked about his widely panned response to Obama's address to Congress last month.
"We are now in the position of being the loyal opposition," Jindal said at a Republican congressional fundraising dinner that only by coincidence fell on the same night as Obama's news conference. "The right question to ask is not if we want the president to fail or succeed, but whether we want America to succeed."
Saying "the time for talking about the past is over," Jindal said Republicans have begun to find their voice after back-to-back elections losses—motivated by what he called historic Democratic spending excess.
Jindal is widely considered a potential 2012 GOP presidential candidate, but his televised response to Obama's speech at the Capitol last month was widely panned. Some compared his delivery to the late children's television host Mister Rogers and said the address could hurt Jindal's national potential.
At Tuesday's $2,500-per-plate dinner—which President George W. Bush headlined last year—Jindal opened his speech by poking fun of himself. He threatened to deliver a reprise of the earlier performance and then jokingly compared it to torture.
"They're not allowed to show my speech at Gitmo anymore," he said. "They've banned that."
The National Republican Congressional Committee, which works to get Republicans elected to Congress, said it raised more than $6 million at the event.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:22 PM
WASHINGTON - Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal again found himself carrying the Republican mantle opposite a primetime appearance from President Barack Obama on Tuesday, saying Republicans must be ready to defy the president when they disagree with his policies.
He also joked about his widely panned response to Obama's address to Congress last month.
"We are now in the position of being the loyal opposition," Jindal said at a Republican congressional fundraising dinner that only by coincidence fell on the same night as Obama's news conference. "The right question to ask is not if we want the president to fail or succeed, but whether we want America to succeed."
Saying "the time for talking about the past is over," Jindal said Republicans have begun to find their voice after back-to-back elections losses—motivated by what he called historic Democratic spending excess.
Jindal is widely considered a potential 2012 GOP presidential candidate, but his televised response to Obama's speech at the Capitol last month was widely panned. Some compared his delivery to the late children's television host Mister Rogers and said the address could hurt Jindal's national potential.
At Tuesday's $2,500-per-plate dinner—which President George W. Bush headlined last year—Jindal opened his speech by poking fun of himself. He threatened to deliver a reprise of the earlier performance and then jokingly compared it to torture.
"They're not allowed to show my speech at Gitmo anymore," he said. "They've banned that."
The National Republican Congressional Committee, which works to get Republicans elected to Congress, said it raised more than $6 million at the event.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
You have got to be Kidding "President" Obama!
Stevens Is Said to Head Obama’s Federal Housing Administration
By Mark Drajem
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- David Stevens, president and chief operating officer of real estate brokerage Long & Foster Cos., is President Barack Obama’s choice to head the Federal Housing Administration, according to people familiar with the selection.
Stevens, a former Freddie Mac mortgage executive, would replace Federal Housing Commissioner Brian D. Montgomery, who was appointed by President George W. Bush. The people familiar with Stevens’s selection declined to comment because the Obama administration has yet to make an announcement.
The FHA, a mortgage-insurance division of the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department created in 1934, is regaining a larger role in the housing market as private insurers and lenders scale back, raise fees and tighten eligibility criteria. The agency said in a February report that applications tripled to 2.3 million in 2008, from 2007. FHA-insured loans represented 31 percent of new mortgages in the fourth quarter, the highest on record, according to newsletter Inside Mortgage Finance.
Stevens from 1999 through May 2005 managed the single- family mortgage business and sales force for McLean, Virginia- based Freddie Mac, which was seized by regulators in September as a rise in delinquencies on loans the company guarantees or owns eroded capital. He joined closely held Long & Foster of Chantilly, Virginia in 2006 to help run their mortgage lending businesses.
Stevens’s nomination will need to be confirmed by the Senate. He couldn’t immediately be reached to comment. His selection to head the FHA was reported earlier by the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.
FHA has a $400 billion mortgage portfolio, according to the agency’s Web site
By Mark Drajem
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- David Stevens, president and chief operating officer of real estate brokerage Long & Foster Cos., is President Barack Obama’s choice to head the Federal Housing Administration, according to people familiar with the selection.
Stevens, a former Freddie Mac mortgage executive, would replace Federal Housing Commissioner Brian D. Montgomery, who was appointed by President George W. Bush. The people familiar with Stevens’s selection declined to comment because the Obama administration has yet to make an announcement.
The FHA, a mortgage-insurance division of the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department created in 1934, is regaining a larger role in the housing market as private insurers and lenders scale back, raise fees and tighten eligibility criteria. The agency said in a February report that applications tripled to 2.3 million in 2008, from 2007. FHA-insured loans represented 31 percent of new mortgages in the fourth quarter, the highest on record, according to newsletter Inside Mortgage Finance.
Stevens from 1999 through May 2005 managed the single- family mortgage business and sales force for McLean, Virginia- based Freddie Mac, which was seized by regulators in September as a rise in delinquencies on loans the company guarantees or owns eroded capital. He joined closely held Long & Foster of Chantilly, Virginia in 2006 to help run their mortgage lending businesses.
Stevens’s nomination will need to be confirmed by the Senate. He couldn’t immediately be reached to comment. His selection to head the FHA was reported earlier by the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.
FHA has a $400 billion mortgage portfolio, according to the agency’s Web site
Friday, March 20, 2009
So much for Diplomacy huh
Iran's Leadership Ignores Obama Outreach, Says World Powers Cannot Block Nuclear Program
Friday, March 20, 2009
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's supreme leader said Friday that world powers had been persuaded they could not block Iran's nuclear progress — making no mention of a new-year's message sent by President Obama to his country, Reuters reported.
Neither Ayatollah Ali Khamenei nor Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad noted Obama's attempt to make a "new beginning" with their country in recorded messages they issued to mark the Iranian New Year.
Obama released the video Friday to coincide with the Iranian festival of Nowruz, which marks the arrival of spring. In the video, Obama says the U.S. is prepared to end the strained relations if Tehran tones down its combative rhetoric.
"This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect," Obama said.
A press adviser to Iran's president downplayed the video, saying "minor changes will not end the differences."
Ali Akbar Javanfekr told the Iranian state-run English-language Press TV satellite station that Iran will never forget U.S. meddling in Tehran's affairs. The two countries broke off relations after the 1979 Islamic revolution.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Friday, March 20, 2009
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's supreme leader said Friday that world powers had been persuaded they could not block Iran's nuclear progress — making no mention of a new-year's message sent by President Obama to his country, Reuters reported.
Neither Ayatollah Ali Khamenei nor Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad noted Obama's attempt to make a "new beginning" with their country in recorded messages they issued to mark the Iranian New Year.
Obama released the video Friday to coincide with the Iranian festival of Nowruz, which marks the arrival of spring. In the video, Obama says the U.S. is prepared to end the strained relations if Tehran tones down its combative rhetoric.
"This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect," Obama said.
A press adviser to Iran's president downplayed the video, saying "minor changes will not end the differences."
Ali Akbar Javanfekr told the Iranian state-run English-language Press TV satellite station that Iran will never forget U.S. meddling in Tehran's affairs. The two countries broke off relations after the 1979 Islamic revolution.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Humm this sounds like something else, I might have heard before......
Do you remember when President Bush told "Brownie" the head of Fema that he was doing a terrific job when he visited the hurricane stricken states of Lousinana and Mississippi after Katrina hit???.... "Brownie you're are doing a terrific Job" I believe that was the quote... Bush was not really informed what was really transpiring and that "Brownie" wasn't really doing a good job at all but instead all communication had broken down and created a second disaster out of an already terrible natural disaster... What is any different about this HURRICANE on Wallstreet and Washington going on now? Geitner sucks and he's not doing a good job at all. He was either not informed or is playing cover up but Obama is telling everyone he's dong great.
Obama: Geithner Doing 'Outstanding Job'
Thursday, March 19, 2009 9:04 PM
BURBANK, Calif. – President Barack Obama told Jay Leno on Thurday that he was stunned when he learned of the bonuses that bailed-out insurance giant AIG was paying its employees.
Obama told "The Tonight Show" host the payments raise moral and ethical problems — and vowed again to try to recoup the cash for taxpayers.
"We're going to do everything we can to get these bonuses back", he declared.
Leno asked Obama what he thought when his staff first advised him of the payments, many made to traders in the very division that brought American International Group to ruin.
"'Stunned' is the word," Obama replied in a taped appearance on "Tonight." He said he found it hard to fathom how anyone would accept lavish payments in those circumstances. "People just had this sense of entitlement. We must be the best and the brightest."
But Obama staunchly defended Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who's increasingly come under fire for failing to block the bonuses.
"I think Geithner is doing an outstanding job," Obama said. "He is a smart guy. He is a calm and steady guy. I don't think people fully appreciate the plate that was handed him."
Obama added Geithner's carrying on "with grace and good humor. He understand that he's on the hot seat."
Too many in Washington are trying to figure out who to blame for things — when they should be focused on fixing them, Obama said.
According to NBC, Obama was the first sitting president ever to appear on "The Tonight Show." He'd already appeared twice as a candidate.
Obama spoke with little interference or challenge from Leno, who clearly was enthused about snaring the president as a guest and pronounced it "one of the best nights of my life."
Leno veered away from politics and into the personal toward the end of the 35-minute interview, asking, "How cool is it to fly on Air Force One?" and when Obama daughters Sasha and Malia would get their pet dog.
"This is Washington. That was a campaign promise," Obama replied to audience laughter. "No, I'm teasing. The dog will be there shortly."
The new pet will be in place after he returns from a NATO meeting, Obama said.
The White House bowling alley remains in place, Obama said, bragging that he rolled a 129-point game ("Like the Special Olympics or something," he said), but a basketball court is a priority.
In his opening monologue, Leno said lots of people were surprised Obama would come on NBC — figuring he'd be tired of big companies on the brink of disaster with a bunch of overpaid executives.
Leno also joked about the dismal state of the economy, saying it's so bad Obama flew to California on Southwest Airways — making nine stops.
In recent years, a "Tonight Show" appearance has become a key humanizing touch for aspiring presidents. But its history of such appearances goes back to 1960, when then-Sen. John F. Kennedy came on the show to chat with Jack Paar.
Obama himself has already made two non-presidential appearances — on Dec. 1, 2006, and Oct. 17, 2007.
The White House scheduled the appearance as part of a broader outreach to promote Obama's agenda — one that's already had him on ESPN's "SportsCenter" this week and includes a "60 Minutes" interview airing Sunday, plus a prime-time news conference Tuesday.
But on ESPN, the talk was mostly about basketball. The First Fan filled out an NCAA tournament bracket — picking North Carolina to defeat Louisville in the final. But recalling he picked the Tar Heels last year, he joked, "This year, don't embarrass me in front of the nation, all right? I'm counting on you."
© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Obama: Geithner Doing 'Outstanding Job'
Thursday, March 19, 2009 9:04 PM
BURBANK, Calif. – President Barack Obama told Jay Leno on Thurday that he was stunned when he learned of the bonuses that bailed-out insurance giant AIG was paying its employees.
Obama told "The Tonight Show" host the payments raise moral and ethical problems — and vowed again to try to recoup the cash for taxpayers.
"We're going to do everything we can to get these bonuses back", he declared.
Leno asked Obama what he thought when his staff first advised him of the payments, many made to traders in the very division that brought American International Group to ruin.
"'Stunned' is the word," Obama replied in a taped appearance on "Tonight." He said he found it hard to fathom how anyone would accept lavish payments in those circumstances. "People just had this sense of entitlement. We must be the best and the brightest."
But Obama staunchly defended Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who's increasingly come under fire for failing to block the bonuses.
"I think Geithner is doing an outstanding job," Obama said. "He is a smart guy. He is a calm and steady guy. I don't think people fully appreciate the plate that was handed him."
Obama added Geithner's carrying on "with grace and good humor. He understand that he's on the hot seat."
Too many in Washington are trying to figure out who to blame for things — when they should be focused on fixing them, Obama said.
According to NBC, Obama was the first sitting president ever to appear on "The Tonight Show." He'd already appeared twice as a candidate.
Obama spoke with little interference or challenge from Leno, who clearly was enthused about snaring the president as a guest and pronounced it "one of the best nights of my life."
Leno veered away from politics and into the personal toward the end of the 35-minute interview, asking, "How cool is it to fly on Air Force One?" and when Obama daughters Sasha and Malia would get their pet dog.
"This is Washington. That was a campaign promise," Obama replied to audience laughter. "No, I'm teasing. The dog will be there shortly."
The new pet will be in place after he returns from a NATO meeting, Obama said.
The White House bowling alley remains in place, Obama said, bragging that he rolled a 129-point game ("Like the Special Olympics or something," he said), but a basketball court is a priority.
In his opening monologue, Leno said lots of people were surprised Obama would come on NBC — figuring he'd be tired of big companies on the brink of disaster with a bunch of overpaid executives.
Leno also joked about the dismal state of the economy, saying it's so bad Obama flew to California on Southwest Airways — making nine stops.
In recent years, a "Tonight Show" appearance has become a key humanizing touch for aspiring presidents. But its history of such appearances goes back to 1960, when then-Sen. John F. Kennedy came on the show to chat with Jack Paar.
Obama himself has already made two non-presidential appearances — on Dec. 1, 2006, and Oct. 17, 2007.
The White House scheduled the appearance as part of a broader outreach to promote Obama's agenda — one that's already had him on ESPN's "SportsCenter" this week and includes a "60 Minutes" interview airing Sunday, plus a prime-time news conference Tuesday.
But on ESPN, the talk was mostly about basketball. The First Fan filled out an NCAA tournament bracket — picking North Carolina to defeat Louisville in the final. But recalling he picked the Tar Heels last year, he joked, "This year, don't embarrass me in front of the nation, all right? I'm counting on you."
© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
What is Wrong with this DOOFUS?????
Obama Wants to Disarm U.S. Pilots
Wednesday, March 18, 2009 12:19 PMBy: David A. Patten
The Obama administration is taking steps quietly to shut down the program that qualifies commercial airline pilots to carry firearms in jetliner cockpits in order to ward off another 9/11-type attack.
The administration recently diverted $2 million from a program to train and certify pilots to carry firearms safely while on duty. Instead, it is using the money to hire additional field inspectors to help discipline pilots who step out of line, according to a report in Tuesday’s Washington Times.
A Times editorial condemned the Obama administration's action, calling it “completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots.”
Since Obama took office, the approval process for certifying pilots to carry firearms has ground to a halt, the newspaper reports. Pilots are afraid to speak out about the behind-the-scenes maneuverings, for fear of retaliation, according to the newspaper. No cases have been reported in which pilots have brandished a weapon inappropriately or otherwise abused their eligibility to carry firearms.
About 12,000 pilots have been authorized to carry handguns while flying aircraft as part of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Program. Congress authorized the program in a 310-to-113 vote following the 9/11 attacks to help prevent terrorists from turning jetliners into flying bombs that could be used to attack key sites like the White House, the Pentagon, or Capitol Hill.
Paul Valone, a Second Amendment advocate who directs Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC.org), is calling for citizens to contract their congressional representatives to protest the administration’s anti-gun priorities.
Pilots are already required to pay for their own room and board during training, and use paid leave for the time they’re off the job. Every six months, the program requires them to be requalified for firearm use.
Valone writes on Examiner.com: “While bureaucrats . . . may have attempted to hamstring the program with burdensome requirements, training instructors and the Federal Air Marshals who now oversee the program routinely thank the FFDOs for their professionalism and dedication in protecting the nation’s air commerce against terrorism.”
Valone says the Obama administration is “dismantling yet another layer of defense against terrorism and defying the will of the American people.”
Since coming to power, the Obama administration has undertaken a series of moves that signal a major de-emphasis of programs enacted to keep America’s homeland safe from terrorist attack:
Obama’s choice for U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, labeled enhanced interrogation techniques as outright “torture” during his Senate confirmation hearings.
Obama banned waterboarding and ordered CIA interrogators to abide by U.S. Army Field Manual regulations.
He selected Clinton-era political operative Leon Panetta to serve as his CIA director. Panetta’s qualifications to run the agency have been questioned widely.
Obama announced that he would shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba within one year, raising the prospect of hardened terrorists entering the U.S. criminal justice system, or worse, being released to rejoin al-Qaida.
He indicated the U.S. defense budget would be sharply reduced.
He has sent a letter to Russian leaders, apparently offering to back off on the ballistic missile defense system that would protect Europe from Iran and North Korea.
These and other Obama administration moves recently prompted former vice president Dick Cheney to charge that Obama is returning to the Clinton-era view of terrorism as a law enforcement issue.
"Now he's made some choices that in my mind raise the risk to the American people of another attack," Cheney said of Obama on CNN's "State of the Union" program.
The Washington Times points out that about 70 percent of airline pilots have military backgrounds. With airport screening less than 100 percent effective, it states, armed pilots provide a second layer of defense.
“Only anti-gun extremists and terrorist recruits are worried about armed pilots,” the newspaper editorial says.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009 12:19 PMBy: David A. Patten
The Obama administration is taking steps quietly to shut down the program that qualifies commercial airline pilots to carry firearms in jetliner cockpits in order to ward off another 9/11-type attack.
The administration recently diverted $2 million from a program to train and certify pilots to carry firearms safely while on duty. Instead, it is using the money to hire additional field inspectors to help discipline pilots who step out of line, according to a report in Tuesday’s Washington Times.
A Times editorial condemned the Obama administration's action, calling it “completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots.”
Since Obama took office, the approval process for certifying pilots to carry firearms has ground to a halt, the newspaper reports. Pilots are afraid to speak out about the behind-the-scenes maneuverings, for fear of retaliation, according to the newspaper. No cases have been reported in which pilots have brandished a weapon inappropriately or otherwise abused their eligibility to carry firearms.
About 12,000 pilots have been authorized to carry handguns while flying aircraft as part of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Program. Congress authorized the program in a 310-to-113 vote following the 9/11 attacks to help prevent terrorists from turning jetliners into flying bombs that could be used to attack key sites like the White House, the Pentagon, or Capitol Hill.
Paul Valone, a Second Amendment advocate who directs Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC.org), is calling for citizens to contract their congressional representatives to protest the administration’s anti-gun priorities.
Pilots are already required to pay for their own room and board during training, and use paid leave for the time they’re off the job. Every six months, the program requires them to be requalified for firearm use.
Valone writes on Examiner.com: “While bureaucrats . . . may have attempted to hamstring the program with burdensome requirements, training instructors and the Federal Air Marshals who now oversee the program routinely thank the FFDOs for their professionalism and dedication in protecting the nation’s air commerce against terrorism.”
Valone says the Obama administration is “dismantling yet another layer of defense against terrorism and defying the will of the American people.”
Since coming to power, the Obama administration has undertaken a series of moves that signal a major de-emphasis of programs enacted to keep America’s homeland safe from terrorist attack:
Obama’s choice for U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, labeled enhanced interrogation techniques as outright “torture” during his Senate confirmation hearings.
Obama banned waterboarding and ordered CIA interrogators to abide by U.S. Army Field Manual regulations.
He selected Clinton-era political operative Leon Panetta to serve as his CIA director. Panetta’s qualifications to run the agency have been questioned widely.
Obama announced that he would shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba within one year, raising the prospect of hardened terrorists entering the U.S. criminal justice system, or worse, being released to rejoin al-Qaida.
He indicated the U.S. defense budget would be sharply reduced.
He has sent a letter to Russian leaders, apparently offering to back off on the ballistic missile defense system that would protect Europe from Iran and North Korea.
These and other Obama administration moves recently prompted former vice president Dick Cheney to charge that Obama is returning to the Clinton-era view of terrorism as a law enforcement issue.
"Now he's made some choices that in my mind raise the risk to the American people of another attack," Cheney said of Obama on CNN's "State of the Union" program.
The Washington Times points out that about 70 percent of airline pilots have military backgrounds. With airport screening less than 100 percent effective, it states, armed pilots provide a second layer of defense.
“Only anti-gun extremists and terrorist recruits are worried about armed pilots,” the newspaper editorial says.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Gonna give back your Contribution money Obama?
Obama’s $100,000 AIG Bonus
Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:39 AMBy: Jim Meyers
President Barack Obama has called the bonuses that AIG paid its employees an “outrage,” but Obama himself received a “bonus” of sorts from the insurance giant — more than $100,000 in campaign contributions.
In fact, the $101,332 that the Obama campaign received was larger than the amount AIG donated to any other candidate except Sen. Chris Dodd, according to Opensecrets.org.
Newsmax reported on Tuesday that the Connecticut Democrat, who received $103,100 from AIG, inserted language in the $787 billion stimulus bill that allowed all bonuses awarded before February 11, 2009, to be paid to AIG executives.
AIG contributed to 18 Democratic members of the Senate in the last election cycle, including Hillary Clinton ($35,965) and Joe Biden ($19,975), and 34 Democratic House candidates.
The insurance firm also contributed $59,499 to the Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain ($59,499), 14 other GOP senators and 21 Republican House candidates.
All this while AIG was headed for a fourth quarter 2008 loss of $61.7 billion, the biggest quarterly loss in corporate history.
AIG has received $173 billion in federal aid.
“Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay,” President Obama said Monday. “How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?”
Meanwhile, a “tidal wave of public outrage” swamped AIG on Tuesday, the Washington Times reported:
“Hired guards stood watch outside the suburban Connecticut offices of AIG Financial Products, the division whose exotic derivatives brought the insurance giant to the brink of collapse last year.
“Inside, death threats and angry letters flooded e-mail boxes. Irate callers lit up the phone lines. Senior managers submitted their resignations. Some employees didn’t show up at all.”
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Two Americas or more?
Jerome Corsi: U.S. Becoming a 'Dual Country'
Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:35 PMBy: Rick Pedraza
Jerome Corsi says he warned the nation about President Barack Obama’s socialist indoctrination when he wrote last year's New York Times best-selling book, “The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.” Now, he fears, the U.S. is becoming a “dual country."
“I think it’s ongoing right now,” Corsi says. “We’re already becoming a dual country.”
The author, pundit and political scientist says that Obama is using open borders, economic integration, and the crises surrounding the financial meltdown to “advance the agenda of worldwide integration, economically on the way to political integration."
[Editor's Note: Watch Jerome Corsi discuss the coming dual nation - Go Here Now]
The goal is simple: “redistribution of income.” It’s a trait deeply rooted in Obama’s youth as a community organizer and follower of the late Chicago radical Saul Alinsky. Alinsky, Corsi says, advised radicals in the ‘60s “to cut their hair and run for office. Say whatever was necessary to get elected; listen to the grievances of the people so you can appear to be one of them.
“But when you got elected, the goal was to redistribute income,” Corsi adds. “It appears to be the only consistent theme in the early days of the Obama presidency.”
Corsi believes the U.S.A. under Obama could make an alliance with Mexico and Canada. It’s a theme he touched on in his book, “The Late, Great U.S.A.”
How will this happen? It is the intent of the Obama administration, Corsi says, to legalize the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. to make it "virtually impossible for any Republican to be elected president" again.
“President Obama said as much,” he notes. “He went on (Spanish language) Univision radio and told Spanish listeners that comprehensive immigration reform was going to be introduced by the Obama administration very soon.”
Corsi says Obama’s plan will include fast tracks set up for illegal immigrants to achieve citizenship under guest-worker programs, or “some other form of citizenship or entitlement they have by being here.
“I think the idea for Democrats on the left is that open borders imports an underclass which will vote Democratic for generations to come,” Corsi says of the administration's plan to nationalize illegal aliens. But Republicans, too, are responsible for the trend: their pro-business wing favors “cheap workers that can be used in the jobs that can’t be outsourced overseas,” Corsi says.
Corsi says the fact that 10 percent of Mexico’s population currently lives in the U.S. today is another sign of the U.S. becoming a dual country. He also notes there are 50 Mexican consulates in the U.S. to protect civil rights of Mexicans to live as Mexican national citizens, under Mexican law, within the United States.
Democrats also are seeking to gain control over the airwaves. Encouraging and promoting diversity and communication via media ownership is, essentially, accomplishing the same thing as bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, Corsi argues.
“President Obama says he is not in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, and that tends to put everybody asleep saying, ‘Oh, we’ve dodged a bullet,’” Corsi offers.
“But this whole idea of decentralizing radio stations -- where you would say that in any market area, no radio chain could have more than 10 percent of ownership of the radio stations -- this would be an attempt to attack syndication,” Corsi says of syndicated talk radio shows by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Mark Levin.
“It’s an attempt to backdoor the breakup of conservative talk radio. And it will be a tragedy because commercial radio will suffer. If ‘Air America’ and Al Franken had been a commercial success, the Democrats wouldn’t need a government regulation in order to restrain the First Amendment," Corsi says..
“It’s a totally political move,” Corsi warns. “I don’t see the Democrats trying to restrain MSNBC from being totally in love with Barack Obama."
The Democrats, Corsi says, "can’t tolerate criticism. You’ve got a president with a thin skin who doesn’t like to be criticized – and he’s going to attack the First Amendment as a consequence.”
[Editor's Note: Watch Jerome Corsi discuss the coming dual nation - Go Here Now]
Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:35 PMBy: Rick Pedraza
Jerome Corsi says he warned the nation about President Barack Obama’s socialist indoctrination when he wrote last year's New York Times best-selling book, “The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.” Now, he fears, the U.S. is becoming a “dual country."
“I think it’s ongoing right now,” Corsi says. “We’re already becoming a dual country.”
The author, pundit and political scientist says that Obama is using open borders, economic integration, and the crises surrounding the financial meltdown to “advance the agenda of worldwide integration, economically on the way to political integration."
[Editor's Note: Watch Jerome Corsi discuss the coming dual nation - Go Here Now]
The goal is simple: “redistribution of income.” It’s a trait deeply rooted in Obama’s youth as a community organizer and follower of the late Chicago radical Saul Alinsky. Alinsky, Corsi says, advised radicals in the ‘60s “to cut their hair and run for office. Say whatever was necessary to get elected; listen to the grievances of the people so you can appear to be one of them.
“But when you got elected, the goal was to redistribute income,” Corsi adds. “It appears to be the only consistent theme in the early days of the Obama presidency.”
Corsi believes the U.S.A. under Obama could make an alliance with Mexico and Canada. It’s a theme he touched on in his book, “The Late, Great U.S.A.”
How will this happen? It is the intent of the Obama administration, Corsi says, to legalize the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. to make it "virtually impossible for any Republican to be elected president" again.
“President Obama said as much,” he notes. “He went on (Spanish language) Univision radio and told Spanish listeners that comprehensive immigration reform was going to be introduced by the Obama administration very soon.”
Corsi says Obama’s plan will include fast tracks set up for illegal immigrants to achieve citizenship under guest-worker programs, or “some other form of citizenship or entitlement they have by being here.
“I think the idea for Democrats on the left is that open borders imports an underclass which will vote Democratic for generations to come,” Corsi says of the administration's plan to nationalize illegal aliens. But Republicans, too, are responsible for the trend: their pro-business wing favors “cheap workers that can be used in the jobs that can’t be outsourced overseas,” Corsi says.
Corsi says the fact that 10 percent of Mexico’s population currently lives in the U.S. today is another sign of the U.S. becoming a dual country. He also notes there are 50 Mexican consulates in the U.S. to protect civil rights of Mexicans to live as Mexican national citizens, under Mexican law, within the United States.
Democrats also are seeking to gain control over the airwaves. Encouraging and promoting diversity and communication via media ownership is, essentially, accomplishing the same thing as bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, Corsi argues.
“President Obama says he is not in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, and that tends to put everybody asleep saying, ‘Oh, we’ve dodged a bullet,’” Corsi offers.
“But this whole idea of decentralizing radio stations -- where you would say that in any market area, no radio chain could have more than 10 percent of ownership of the radio stations -- this would be an attempt to attack syndication,” Corsi says of syndicated talk radio shows by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Mark Levin.
“It’s an attempt to backdoor the breakup of conservative talk radio. And it will be a tragedy because commercial radio will suffer. If ‘Air America’ and Al Franken had been a commercial success, the Democrats wouldn’t need a government regulation in order to restrain the First Amendment," Corsi says..
“It’s a totally political move,” Corsi warns. “I don’t see the Democrats trying to restrain MSNBC from being totally in love with Barack Obama."
The Democrats, Corsi says, "can’t tolerate criticism. You’ve got a president with a thin skin who doesn’t like to be criticized – and he’s going to attack the First Amendment as a consequence.”
[Editor's Note: Watch Jerome Corsi discuss the coming dual nation - Go Here Now]
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Stem Cell research
I am not against stem cell research but I am against EMBRYONIC stem cells being used for this research. I think what we already had was fine. There are no quarantees that these cells even can help certain things that they are banking on already. Destroying an embryo just doesn't seem right. They were created to be implanted and become children, not to be destroyed and ripped apart for experimental purposes. We had enough lines to work from and scientist already were able to create new stem cells from existing adult lines. OBAMA is horrible for this country. Wake up America before it's too damn late! PLEASE.
Obama decision on stem cells cheers scientists
Published: 3/10/09,
6:45 AM EDTBy SETH BORENSTEIN and BEN FELLERWASHINGTON (AP) -
President Barack Obama's decision to lift the contentious Bush-era restraints on stem-cell research came with a larger message for all scientists: Follow the data, not political ideology.
"Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama declared as he signed documents changing U.S. science policy and removing what some researchers have said were shackles on their work.
"It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology," Obama said.
Researchers said the new president's message was clear: Science, which once propelled men to the moon, again matters in American life.
Obama decision on stem cells cheers scientists
Published: 3/10/09,
6:45 AM EDTBy SETH BORENSTEIN and BEN FELLERWASHINGTON (AP) -
President Barack Obama's decision to lift the contentious Bush-era restraints on stem-cell research came with a larger message for all scientists: Follow the data, not political ideology.
"Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama declared as he signed documents changing U.S. science policy and removing what some researchers have said were shackles on their work.
"It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology," Obama said.
Researchers said the new president's message was clear: Science, which once propelled men to the moon, again matters in American life.
Obama doesn't subscribe to SUCCESS!
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on March 10, 2009
President Obama and his big spenders are moving quickly, to the relief of those who are facing foreclosure on their mortgages. But the program they are offering will do nothing for those most in need.
In the fine print, Obama's plan provides no relief for any homeowner whose mortgage exceeds the total value of his home. But these folks are the ones who have been conned into taking sub-prime mortgages so loaded with brokerage commissions, interest rate subsidies, bank fees and lawyer and title-company charges that the amount of the mortgage has ballooned. These high mortgage amounts, coupled with declining property values, have turned about 20 percent of American mortgages upside down, so that the debt exceeds the value of the property.
By excluding these homeowners from help, Obama is guilty of a holier-than-thou hypocrisy. Was it not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that encouraged such over-mortgaged properties? Was it not the Democrats in Congress who passed legislation urging Fannie and Freddie to weaken the standards to allow more low- and lower-middle-income families to buy homes?
How can Obama suddenly pretend to be so shocked -- shocked -- that about 20 percent of America's home mortgages are now worth more than the property they finance? It was the insistence of liberal Democrats that made it so. When Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros demanded that Fannie and Freddie invest 42 percent of their assets in buying low- and lower-middle-income mortgages, and when his successor Andrew Cuomo raised the quota to 50 percent, what did they think would happen? When they explicitly told Fannie and Freddie not to insist on down payments in the mortgages they purchased, how did they think the purchase would be funded? Obviously, if you don't require the borrower to put money down, the full purchase price must be covered by the mortgage. To now, piously, refuse to come to the rescue of those who fell for your party's seeming generosity and bought homes on the terms it suggested is hypocritical at best.
But it is not only the over-mortgaged whom Obama will ignore, but those who have lost their jobs! If you do not make enough money such that your mortgage payments come to 31 percent of your income, you can't get your mortgage refinanced. If your income has dropped to a point where your monthly payments on your loan consume a greater part of your earnings than 31 percent, you are stuck.
So we have Obama rushing to the aid of those who have been hurt in this bad economy, but exempting from his proposed relief anyone who has lost his job and seen a cut in income or whose property values have dropped below the amount of his mortgage. In other words, he'll help anyone but those most in need.
And, once again, Obama would limit his aid to those who make below $200,000 a year. While he doesn't specify this limit in his proposal, he does limit his intervention to mortgages of less than $720,000. At standard mortgage interest rates, such a loan would call for $60,000 or so in payments a year. To qualify for relief, your mortgage payment can't be larger than 31 percent of your income -- or about $200,000. Once more, Obama makes it clear that he is not the president of anyone who makes that much money or more. He is only the president of the other people.
Obama, of course, forgets -- or doesn't care -- that those making over $200,000 account for almost a third of the total national spending and that you cannot stimulate an economy while constantly cutting off those people from any consideration in any government program. But Obama is determined to try.
Published on TheHill.com on March 10, 2009
President Obama and his big spenders are moving quickly, to the relief of those who are facing foreclosure on their mortgages. But the program they are offering will do nothing for those most in need.
In the fine print, Obama's plan provides no relief for any homeowner whose mortgage exceeds the total value of his home. But these folks are the ones who have been conned into taking sub-prime mortgages so loaded with brokerage commissions, interest rate subsidies, bank fees and lawyer and title-company charges that the amount of the mortgage has ballooned. These high mortgage amounts, coupled with declining property values, have turned about 20 percent of American mortgages upside down, so that the debt exceeds the value of the property.
By excluding these homeowners from help, Obama is guilty of a holier-than-thou hypocrisy. Was it not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that encouraged such over-mortgaged properties? Was it not the Democrats in Congress who passed legislation urging Fannie and Freddie to weaken the standards to allow more low- and lower-middle-income families to buy homes?
How can Obama suddenly pretend to be so shocked -- shocked -- that about 20 percent of America's home mortgages are now worth more than the property they finance? It was the insistence of liberal Democrats that made it so. When Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros demanded that Fannie and Freddie invest 42 percent of their assets in buying low- and lower-middle-income mortgages, and when his successor Andrew Cuomo raised the quota to 50 percent, what did they think would happen? When they explicitly told Fannie and Freddie not to insist on down payments in the mortgages they purchased, how did they think the purchase would be funded? Obviously, if you don't require the borrower to put money down, the full purchase price must be covered by the mortgage. To now, piously, refuse to come to the rescue of those who fell for your party's seeming generosity and bought homes on the terms it suggested is hypocritical at best.
But it is not only the over-mortgaged whom Obama will ignore, but those who have lost their jobs! If you do not make enough money such that your mortgage payments come to 31 percent of your income, you can't get your mortgage refinanced. If your income has dropped to a point where your monthly payments on your loan consume a greater part of your earnings than 31 percent, you are stuck.
So we have Obama rushing to the aid of those who have been hurt in this bad economy, but exempting from his proposed relief anyone who has lost his job and seen a cut in income or whose property values have dropped below the amount of his mortgage. In other words, he'll help anyone but those most in need.
And, once again, Obama would limit his aid to those who make below $200,000 a year. While he doesn't specify this limit in his proposal, he does limit his intervention to mortgages of less than $720,000. At standard mortgage interest rates, such a loan would call for $60,000 or so in payments a year. To qualify for relief, your mortgage payment can't be larger than 31 percent of your income -- or about $200,000. Once more, Obama makes it clear that he is not the president of anyone who makes that much money or more. He is only the president of the other people.
Obama, of course, forgets -- or doesn't care -- that those making over $200,000 account for almost a third of the total national spending and that you cannot stimulate an economy while constantly cutting off those people from any consideration in any government program. But Obama is determined to try.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Global Warming Goons
NEW YORK CITY - Speakers at a conference on climate change are making the case that the alarmism behind the global-warming bandwagon is politically motivated, has nothing to do with science, and could affect the sovereignty of the U.S.
The second annual International Conference on Climate Change hosted by The Heartland Institute is well under way in New York City. More than 700 registrants have gathered in the Big Apple to hear more than 70 scientists -- representing the views of tens of thousands of their colleagues -- make the argument that media and environmental advocacy groups have it all wrong, that global warming is not a crisis.
One of the headlining speakers to open the event Sunday evening was European Union and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who was welcomed with a standing ovation. Klaus, one of the most outspoken critics of manmade global warming in Europe, says those who propagate global-warming hysteria are like the communists of old Europe. Like global-warming alarmists, he stated, the communists did not listen to opposing views.
"They didn't even try to argue back," said Klaus. "They considered you a naïve, uninformed and confused person, an eccentric complainer....It is very similar now."
Klaus believes that politicians who propagate global warming hysteria only have one goal in mind: control of the public. "It is evident that the environmentalists don't want to change the climate," he said. "They want to change our behavior...to control and manipulate us."
And he warns that those same politicians wish to engage in energy rationing -- all because of a problem that he believes does not exist. Klaus concluded his speech with this remark.
"The environmentalists speak about saving the planet. We have to ask -- From what? And from whom?" said the EU leader. "I think I know [those answers] for sure. We have to save the planet, and us, from them."
Story continues below ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why isn't the mainstream press covering the
EU president's visit to the U.S.?
Vote in our poll
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opposition an 'uphill battle' (audio report)
Dr. Richard Lindzen, who has been Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT for over 25 years, was one of the keynote speakers on the opening day. He said global warming hysteria is more about a political agenda and has nothing to do with science.
"I think [there is] one point you should notice as one discusses the science, and that is that global warming alarm -- as far as I can tell -- has always been a political movement, a highly organized one," Lindzen observed. "And although it took me a while to realize this, opposing it has always been an uphill battle."
The MIT professor, one of the world's most respected atmospheric physicists, said that many of his good friends and colleagues have subscribed to global warming alarmism because they either fear for their jobs or see it as a way to get funding for scientific projects. He also discussed the use of supposed "climate models," and quipped that as scientists debate intelligent design, climate models are an example of "unintelligent design."
Lindzen contends that climate models are being fed erroneous information in order to get the results that global-warming alarmists want.
Throwing money away (audio report)
Dr. Michael Coffman is the CEO of Sovereignty International, a U.N. watchdog organization. During an interview at the conference with OneNewsNow, he explained that the basis of his skepticism regarding global warming comes from research he himself has conducted.
"During the 1980s and early 1990s, I lead a multimillion-dollar research effort on global warming and found that the data that was being collected just didn't support the hypothesis that man was causing global warming," says Coffman.
Therefore he concludes that any money thrown at fixing the alleged problem is a waste.
"Any amount of money that we spend on it is not going to change any temperatures whatsoever," he observes, arguing that every family in America will be affected. "Because depending upon what legislation is passed, it will actually cause every American family to spend at least two- to five-thousand dollars more a year...to try to support this effort to curb carbon-dioxide emissions."
Coffman warns that politicians are moving towards having an international tribunal established which will regulate carbon emissions.
"Which means basically since carbon dioxide is involved in all elements of business in the United States, ...whoever does this controls the economy of the United States, and therefore our sovereignty," he cautions.
Later Monday a keynote speaker from Congress will be discussing the political aspect of global warming in greater detail.
Rate this Story (1 Star = Not so Good -and- 5 Stars = Excellent!)
(average 5 out of 5)
The second annual International Conference on Climate Change hosted by The Heartland Institute is well under way in New York City. More than 700 registrants have gathered in the Big Apple to hear more than 70 scientists -- representing the views of tens of thousands of their colleagues -- make the argument that media and environmental advocacy groups have it all wrong, that global warming is not a crisis.
One of the headlining speakers to open the event Sunday evening was European Union and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who was welcomed with a standing ovation. Klaus, one of the most outspoken critics of manmade global warming in Europe, says those who propagate global-warming hysteria are like the communists of old Europe. Like global-warming alarmists, he stated, the communists did not listen to opposing views.
"They didn't even try to argue back," said Klaus. "They considered you a naïve, uninformed and confused person, an eccentric complainer....It is very similar now."
Klaus believes that politicians who propagate global warming hysteria only have one goal in mind: control of the public. "It is evident that the environmentalists don't want to change the climate," he said. "They want to change our behavior...to control and manipulate us."
And he warns that those same politicians wish to engage in energy rationing -- all because of a problem that he believes does not exist. Klaus concluded his speech with this remark.
"The environmentalists speak about saving the planet. We have to ask -- From what? And from whom?" said the EU leader. "I think I know [those answers] for sure. We have to save the planet, and us, from them."
Story continues below ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why isn't the mainstream press covering the
EU president's visit to the U.S.?
Vote in our poll
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opposition an 'uphill battle' (audio report)
Dr. Richard Lindzen, who has been Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT for over 25 years, was one of the keynote speakers on the opening day. He said global warming hysteria is more about a political agenda and has nothing to do with science.
"I think [there is] one point you should notice as one discusses the science, and that is that global warming alarm -- as far as I can tell -- has always been a political movement, a highly organized one," Lindzen observed. "And although it took me a while to realize this, opposing it has always been an uphill battle."
The MIT professor, one of the world's most respected atmospheric physicists, said that many of his good friends and colleagues have subscribed to global warming alarmism because they either fear for their jobs or see it as a way to get funding for scientific projects. He also discussed the use of supposed "climate models," and quipped that as scientists debate intelligent design, climate models are an example of "unintelligent design."
Lindzen contends that climate models are being fed erroneous information in order to get the results that global-warming alarmists want.
Throwing money away (audio report)
Dr. Michael Coffman is the CEO of Sovereignty International, a U.N. watchdog organization. During an interview at the conference with OneNewsNow, he explained that the basis of his skepticism regarding global warming comes from research he himself has conducted.
"During the 1980s and early 1990s, I lead a multimillion-dollar research effort on global warming and found that the data that was being collected just didn't support the hypothesis that man was causing global warming," says Coffman.
Therefore he concludes that any money thrown at fixing the alleged problem is a waste.
"Any amount of money that we spend on it is not going to change any temperatures whatsoever," he observes, arguing that every family in America will be affected. "Because depending upon what legislation is passed, it will actually cause every American family to spend at least two- to five-thousand dollars more a year...to try to support this effort to curb carbon-dioxide emissions."
Coffman warns that politicians are moving towards having an international tribunal established which will regulate carbon emissions.
"Which means basically since carbon dioxide is involved in all elements of business in the United States, ...whoever does this controls the economy of the United States, and therefore our sovereignty," he cautions.
Later Monday a keynote speaker from Congress will be discussing the political aspect of global warming in greater detail.
Rate this Story (1 Star = Not so Good -and- 5 Stars = Excellent!)
(average 5 out of 5)
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Will Al Gore Ever Back down? Probably not.
He's already looking pretty foolish because of our record cold winters and snow fall over the last 2 years. Also the fact that his carbon foot print is enormous and bigger than nearly all Americans. Will he ever admit he just might have jumped the gun in blabbing his big mouth about Global warming without even caring what the other side said? If you don't agree with him and your a scientist, I guess you just don't matter.
A scientist forces Al Gore to back down
Apocalypse is political theater, not good science
For years, Al Gore has predicted that man's sins of carbon dioxide will bring calamity and apocalypse. He cited an increase in natural disasters.
Gore quietly dropped the contention that the increase is connected to manmade global warming this week after being called on it by Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado.
"Gore is pulling a dramatic slide from his ever-evolving global warming presentation," reported Andrew Revkin on a blog for the New York Times.
"When Mr. Gore addressed a packed, cheering hall at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago earlier this month, his climate slide show contained a startling graph showing a ceiling-high spike in disasters in recent years.
"The data came from the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (also called CRED) at the Catholic University of Louvain in Brussels."
The slide has since disappeared from the show, Revkin wrote.
This was not happenstance. Pielke called Gore on his assertions. The link between manmade activity and natural disasters has not been established.
CRED, the source cited by Gore, even said so.
"Indeed, justifying the upward trend in hydro-meteorological disaster occurrence and impacts essentially through climate change would be misleading.
"Climate change is probably an actor in this increase but not the major one - even if its impact on the figures will likely become more evident in the future," CRED said about its own database.
We don't know what effect human activity is having on the climate.
I do not discount that better record keeping makes it appear as if conditions are getting worse.
It seems as if every rainstorm in the Atlantic in September gets a name now.
But Gore has been seizing on anything that moves as proof of his predictions of pending catastrophe.
I might take Gore seriously if he cut back on his own consumption of the Earth's resources, but since he consumes far more than I do, I just assume the guy is after political power. He was born into politics and will remain there until he dies at a very, very old age.
I interviewed Harold Stassen in 1984. He was running for president. Again.
As Mo Udall said, only embalming fluid removes the lust for the presidency from one's blood.
A scientist forces Al Gore to back down
Apocalypse is political theater, not good science
For years, Al Gore has predicted that man's sins of carbon dioxide will bring calamity and apocalypse. He cited an increase in natural disasters.
Gore quietly dropped the contention that the increase is connected to manmade global warming this week after being called on it by Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado.
"Gore is pulling a dramatic slide from his ever-evolving global warming presentation," reported Andrew Revkin on a blog for the New York Times.
"When Mr. Gore addressed a packed, cheering hall at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago earlier this month, his climate slide show contained a startling graph showing a ceiling-high spike in disasters in recent years.
"The data came from the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (also called CRED) at the Catholic University of Louvain in Brussels."
The slide has since disappeared from the show, Revkin wrote.
This was not happenstance. Pielke called Gore on his assertions. The link between manmade activity and natural disasters has not been established.
CRED, the source cited by Gore, even said so.
"Indeed, justifying the upward trend in hydro-meteorological disaster occurrence and impacts essentially through climate change would be misleading.
"Climate change is probably an actor in this increase but not the major one - even if its impact on the figures will likely become more evident in the future," CRED said about its own database.
We don't know what effect human activity is having on the climate.
I do not discount that better record keeping makes it appear as if conditions are getting worse.
It seems as if every rainstorm in the Atlantic in September gets a name now.
But Gore has been seizing on anything that moves as proof of his predictions of pending catastrophe.
I might take Gore seriously if he cut back on his own consumption of the Earth's resources, but since he consumes far more than I do, I just assume the guy is after political power. He was born into politics and will remain there until he dies at a very, very old age.
I interviewed Harold Stassen in 1984. He was running for president. Again.
As Mo Udall said, only embalming fluid removes the lust for the presidency from one's blood.
Personal blog today. Sadness for a Fellow mommy friend.
I got some really crummy news today. An online friend of mine, who has been probably more than a friend than locals have been since our children were born within days of each other, got some really bad news a few days ago and just shared it. This brave woman is in her early 40s. She battled Breast cancer over a year ago. After her treatment courses, her scans were clear.
She mentioned she had a dr. appt the other day and I have to admit.. I worried .
She mentioned she had a dr. appt the other day and I have to admit.. I worried .
She's been having some back problems and has been in a lot of pain. She found out why. Her new scans aren't clear. The original cancer she had spread like wild fire through her body. It's now in her liver, bones , spine etc. She is still being optimistic. So are the doctors. Her first treatments for her Breast Cancer were very aggressive and she fought so hard. I suppose if anyone can have a good outcome and really battle and beat this stuff it's her but I try to think how I would react or be in her shoes. I would probably chose quality of life over length of life. A few crummy months or maybe a year or so undergoing treatment and feeling dead with an already compromised immune system is not my idea of Quality. She, like I have a 7 year old boy. He's her only child. She has a super hubby and great support system in him but.... I personally would rather spend what time I have doing things on my "bucket list" I would travel with my family, visit extended family and say my goodbyes while I felt good. Who knows.. There are alternatives, natural ones that could actually do a better job than Barbaric surgery and chemo therapy and the burning of radiation treatments and leave you with whatever immune system you do have , some hair on your head etc. I have seen several women in recent years have a breast cancer diagnosis, opt for radical surgery and chemo/radiation therapies and then within a year or two the cancer is back and bigger than ever. Personally I think surgery spreads it. The moment that body cavity is exposed to outside air... Poof... Cancer cells rejoice and go hide elsewhere and breed and spread to other healthy non suspecting organs.
It's so sad to see a wonderful woman, wife, mom, sister have to deal with this... Especially a second time. I do not want to meet this woman at her funeral. I want to meet her in person though and soon. I love her and her family and we haven't even met in person. I grieve for her diagnosis and what she and her family are going to endure over the months and time to come. She hasn't told her little boy yet about the recurrence. That is a toughie. He took it like a trooper the first time around and was so happy when his mommy was finished with treatment and "cancer free" Now he has to face it again. He has to now grow up more than he should have to and will have to worry if Mommy will be here for him as he grows up.
I will be only thinking good thoughts and praying for this woman and friend and won't allow the bad thoughts to surface. I won't give up before she does. She's strong. She's a fighter and if anyone can fight and win this battle.. It's her. Slay that Cancer Dragon Patty. I Love you.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Wish the "BLUE DOG DEM" would just BITE Pelosi !
'Blue Dog' Shuler Tops Pelosi's 'Enemies List'
Tuesday, March 3, 2009 3:19 PM
Former professional football player and Blue Dog Democrat Heath Shuler is at the top of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “enemies list,’’ according to Politico.
Why? Shuler, D-N.C., has staked out a leadership position as a fiscal conservative who doesn’t ride with the pack on issues like the massive stimulus package, which he and five other conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats voted against. Shuler’s name tops a list of 10 alleged enemies of the speaker. While many are predictable – Rush Limbaugh occupies the No. 2 spot, Virginia Republican Eric Cantor comes in at No. 4 – others are Pelosi’s ostensible compatriots in the Democratic Party.
“No Democrat has done quite so much in so short a time to arouse Pelosi’s disdain as the failed-Redskins-quarterback-turned-ambitious-North-Carolina-congressman,” according to Politico.
“The conservative, anti-abortion Shuler would have made the list for voting against both bank bailout bills and the stimulus package, but the way he went about it didn’t help; Shuler told an audience back home that “House leadership and Senate leadership have really failed” on the $787 billion package.” What most riles Pelosi, according to several accounts, is that Shuler may be positioning himself for a run against Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., next year.
Unless Shuler is planning a long House career, picking a fight with Pelosi may indeed have its advantages: His 2006 opponent, incumbent GOP Rep. Charles Taylor, scored points by portraying Shuler as a Pelosi acolyte.
Shuler, a second-term member, is clearly being noticed among Pelosi’s allies as a potential problem. He opposed Democratic leaders when he was a freshman, including on a high-profile debate on immigration. He ruffled feathers last week, according to The Hill, when, in publicly objecting to abortion-related foreign-aid provisions in the omnibus spending bill, he twice referred to the “Democrat leadership” — omitting the “-ic” from word’s end and, in so doing, repeating a refrain used by Republicans to insult Democrats. It was a tactic sometimes used by former President George Bush.
“It is an issue,” a Democratic leadership aide told The Hill. “He (Shuler) is either trying to sound Republican, or he is confused by the Republicans how to refer to us Democrats.”
Other Democrats on the enemies list: Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., (“too hawkish”); Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, D-Pa., (voted ‘no’ on original stimulus bill); Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., (“outspoken, too conservative Blue Dog”); and Rep. Peter DeFazio ,D-Ore. (“squeaky liberal wheel”).
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009 3:19 PM
Former professional football player and Blue Dog Democrat Heath Shuler is at the top of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “enemies list,’’ according to Politico.
Why? Shuler, D-N.C., has staked out a leadership position as a fiscal conservative who doesn’t ride with the pack on issues like the massive stimulus package, which he and five other conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats voted against. Shuler’s name tops a list of 10 alleged enemies of the speaker. While many are predictable – Rush Limbaugh occupies the No. 2 spot, Virginia Republican Eric Cantor comes in at No. 4 – others are Pelosi’s ostensible compatriots in the Democratic Party.
“No Democrat has done quite so much in so short a time to arouse Pelosi’s disdain as the failed-Redskins-quarterback-turned-ambitious-North-Carolina-congressman,” according to Politico.
“The conservative, anti-abortion Shuler would have made the list for voting against both bank bailout bills and the stimulus package, but the way he went about it didn’t help; Shuler told an audience back home that “House leadership and Senate leadership have really failed” on the $787 billion package.” What most riles Pelosi, according to several accounts, is that Shuler may be positioning himself for a run against Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., next year.
Unless Shuler is planning a long House career, picking a fight with Pelosi may indeed have its advantages: His 2006 opponent, incumbent GOP Rep. Charles Taylor, scored points by portraying Shuler as a Pelosi acolyte.
Shuler, a second-term member, is clearly being noticed among Pelosi’s allies as a potential problem. He opposed Democratic leaders when he was a freshman, including on a high-profile debate on immigration. He ruffled feathers last week, according to The Hill, when, in publicly objecting to abortion-related foreign-aid provisions in the omnibus spending bill, he twice referred to the “Democrat leadership” — omitting the “-ic” from word’s end and, in so doing, repeating a refrain used by Republicans to insult Democrats. It was a tactic sometimes used by former President George Bush.
“It is an issue,” a Democratic leadership aide told The Hill. “He (Shuler) is either trying to sound Republican, or he is confused by the Republicans how to refer to us Democrats.”
Other Democrats on the enemies list: Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., (“too hawkish”); Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, D-Pa., (voted ‘no’ on original stimulus bill); Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., (“outspoken, too conservative Blue Dog”); and Rep. Peter DeFazio ,D-Ore. (“squeaky liberal wheel”).
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Steele Apologized To Rush. Jindal glad.
Video: Jindal Glad Steele Apologized to Rush
Tuesday, March 3, 2009 1:53 PM
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called Rush Limbaugh an important leader of the conservative movement Monday night and said he was glad that Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele had apologized for describing Limbaugh’s show as “ugly” and ‘incendiary.” But he also described Steele as a “breath of fresh air” for the Republican Party.
Appearing on CNN’s “Larry King” show, Jindal explained that he agrees with Limbaugh’s opinion that President Barack Obama’s massive deficit spending programs are not good for the country.
The transcript:
King: All right, governor, here was Rush Limbaugh at this weekend's CPAC Conference. Watch.
Rush Limbaugh: What is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?
King: Governor, do you think people are thinking about capitalism now or are they thinking about problems?
Jindal: Look, clearly, the American people are worried about paying their mortgages, keeping their jobs and paying their health care bills. I think Rush is a great leader for conservatives. I think he articulates what a lot of people are concerned about.
King: Do you want him [Obama] to fail?
Jindal: I don't want those policies to be adopted. I want my country to succeed, but I don't want policies to be adopted.
King: What if the policies work?
Jindal: Well, again...
King: What if they work?
Jindal: This is where we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think it's going work ... to spend in excess of our revenues. I want my country to succeed. But what I worry about is that simply spending money on new programs. Look at every new bailout. You talked about the auto bailouts. Then you had the fourth, I think it's the fourth -- it's hard to keep track -- AIG bailout today. It seems like every time you turn around, there's another trillion dollar plan.
King: One more thing. It may be moot now, but RNC Chairman Michael Steele took some shots at Limbaugh and then apologized. What do you make of all of that?
Jindal: Well, I didn't follow the day's events. I'm glad he apologized. I think the chairman is a breath of fresh air for the party. As I said before, I think Rush is a leader for many conservatives and says things that people are concerned about. [He] articulates very well the concern people have about growing government spending without an end in sight.
King: Thanks, governor. We'll call on you again. Always good seeing you.
Jindal: Thank you, Larry
The segment:
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009 1:53 PM
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called Rush Limbaugh an important leader of the conservative movement Monday night and said he was glad that Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele had apologized for describing Limbaugh’s show as “ugly” and ‘incendiary.” But he also described Steele as a “breath of fresh air” for the Republican Party.
Appearing on CNN’s “Larry King” show, Jindal explained that he agrees with Limbaugh’s opinion that President Barack Obama’s massive deficit spending programs are not good for the country.
The transcript:
King: All right, governor, here was Rush Limbaugh at this weekend's CPAC Conference. Watch.
Rush Limbaugh: What is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?
King: Governor, do you think people are thinking about capitalism now or are they thinking about problems?
Jindal: Look, clearly, the American people are worried about paying their mortgages, keeping their jobs and paying their health care bills. I think Rush is a great leader for conservatives. I think he articulates what a lot of people are concerned about.
King: Do you want him [Obama] to fail?
Jindal: I don't want those policies to be adopted. I want my country to succeed, but I don't want policies to be adopted.
King: What if the policies work?
Jindal: Well, again...
King: What if they work?
Jindal: This is where we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think it's going work ... to spend in excess of our revenues. I want my country to succeed. But what I worry about is that simply spending money on new programs. Look at every new bailout. You talked about the auto bailouts. Then you had the fourth, I think it's the fourth -- it's hard to keep track -- AIG bailout today. It seems like every time you turn around, there's another trillion dollar plan.
King: One more thing. It may be moot now, but RNC Chairman Michael Steele took some shots at Limbaugh and then apologized. What do you make of all of that?
Jindal: Well, I didn't follow the day's events. I'm glad he apologized. I think the chairman is a breath of fresh air for the party. As I said before, I think Rush is a leader for many conservatives and says things that people are concerned about. [He] articulates very well the concern people have about growing government spending without an end in sight.
King: Thanks, governor. We'll call on you again. Always good seeing you.
Jindal: Thank you, Larry
The segment:
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Obama sends letter to Russia... (He's killing our nation in the first couple of months)
More details are emerging about a letter President Obama sent to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev discussing plans for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe.
Though the Kremlin disputes the account, senior U.S. administration officials say Obama suggested in his letter that those plans might be unnecessary if Moscow helped in blocking Iran's progress toward building long-range missiles.
"President Obama sent a letter to Russian President Medvedev discussing a broad range of issues, including missile defense as it relates to Iran," a senior administration official told FOX News.
"The suggestion is that need for missile defense deployment could become unnecessary if, working together with Russia, the Iran missile threat is addressed," an official told The Associated Press.
Plans for deploying U.S. missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, ostensibly to guard against Iranian attacks on U.S. allies in Europe, are among a host of issues that soured U.S.-Russia relations during the former Bush administration. There have been indications Obama, who has vowed to shake up American foreign policy, might be willing to set aside the missile defense system.
The senior official told FOX News that the U.S. will continue to "consult with Poles and Czechs as we move forward with decisions on missile defense."
Obama and Medvedev were expected to meet at the G-20 economic summit of advanced and developing nations in London next month, according to the officials.
The administration has previously hinted that the policy on the missile defense shield that former President George B. Bush fiercely advocated was open to reassessment.
In Moscow, a Kremlin source told FOX News there was no quid pro quo on Iran and missile defense in the letter, but said the correspondence was considered very positive and contained a number of initiatives.
On Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov urged the United States to restore diplomatic relations with Iran, Russian news agencies reported. "This would be an important element in stabilizing the situation in the region," he said.
Lavrov is scheduled to hold talks with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Geneva on Friday in the highest-level meeting between the two nations since Obama took office.
At a February gathering of NATO defense chiefs in Krakow, Poland, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Washington would review the missile plan "in the context of our relationship with both Poland and the Czech Republic" as well as with NATO and Russia. The language marked a departure from the tone of the Bush administration, which enthusiastically promoted the plan and signed deals last year with Warsaw and Prague.
Gates said that if Moscow really wants to stop the missile shield, it should help eliminate the threat of a missile attack from Iran.
The Obama administration has been vocal about its desire to repair rifts between the U.S. and Russia. In Munich last month, Vice President Joe Biden told a gathering of world leaders, "It's time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Though the Kremlin disputes the account, senior U.S. administration officials say Obama suggested in his letter that those plans might be unnecessary if Moscow helped in blocking Iran's progress toward building long-range missiles.
"President Obama sent a letter to Russian President Medvedev discussing a broad range of issues, including missile defense as it relates to Iran," a senior administration official told FOX News.
"The suggestion is that need for missile defense deployment could become unnecessary if, working together with Russia, the Iran missile threat is addressed," an official told The Associated Press.
Plans for deploying U.S. missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, ostensibly to guard against Iranian attacks on U.S. allies in Europe, are among a host of issues that soured U.S.-Russia relations during the former Bush administration. There have been indications Obama, who has vowed to shake up American foreign policy, might be willing to set aside the missile defense system.
The senior official told FOX News that the U.S. will continue to "consult with Poles and Czechs as we move forward with decisions on missile defense."
Obama and Medvedev were expected to meet at the G-20 economic summit of advanced and developing nations in London next month, according to the officials.
The administration has previously hinted that the policy on the missile defense shield that former President George B. Bush fiercely advocated was open to reassessment.
In Moscow, a Kremlin source told FOX News there was no quid pro quo on Iran and missile defense in the letter, but said the correspondence was considered very positive and contained a number of initiatives.
On Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov urged the United States to restore diplomatic relations with Iran, Russian news agencies reported. "This would be an important element in stabilizing the situation in the region," he said.
Lavrov is scheduled to hold talks with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Geneva on Friday in the highest-level meeting between the two nations since Obama took office.
At a February gathering of NATO defense chiefs in Krakow, Poland, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Washington would review the missile plan "in the context of our relationship with both Poland and the Czech Republic" as well as with NATO and Russia. The language marked a departure from the tone of the Bush administration, which enthusiastically promoted the plan and signed deals last year with Warsaw and Prague.
Gates said that if Moscow really wants to stop the missile shield, it should help eliminate the threat of a missile attack from Iran.
The Obama administration has been vocal about its desire to repair rifts between the U.S. and Russia. In Munich last month, Vice President Joe Biden told a gathering of world leaders, "It's time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
