Update #2: Here’s the shooter’s website, For what it’s worth; I do not defend what he writes, but I do defend his right to believe it and publish it, there is a thing called freedom of speech still in this country. I DO NOT, AT ALL, DEFEND HIS ACTIONS TODAY. IT WAS WRONG!
Israeli TV newscasters Tuesday night interpreted a photo taken Monday in the Oval Office of President Obama talking on
Insult or no? You decide.
the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an “insult” to Israel.
They saw the incident as somewhat akin to an incident last year, when the Iraqi reporter threw a shoe at President Bush in Baghdad.
It is considered an insult in the Arab world to show the sole of your shoe to someone. It is not a Jewish custom necessarily, but Israel feels enough a part of the Middle East after 60 years to be insulted too.
Was there a subliminal message intended from the White House to Netanyahu in Jerusalem, who is publicly resisting attempts by Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to force Israel to stop any kind of settlement activity in occupied territories once and forever?
Whether or not it is true, it shows the mood in Israel. They feel cornered. The reactions out of Israel reflect that feeling.
and then there’s this:
Israel’s Channel One TV reported that Netanyahu was told Tuesday by an “American official” in Jerusalem that, “We are going to change the world. Please, don’t interfere.” The report said Netanyahu’s aides interpreted this as a “threat.”
While I am not a big fan of the large influence of the various Israeli Lobbies in Washington D.C.; I think that angering some of our stanchest allies in the world is nothing short of a bonehead move on the part of this President. It would cost him in the ratings.
News Corp. is near a deal to sell its right-wing political magazine, the Weekly Standard, to conservative media mogul Philip Anschutz, according to people familiar with the situation.
Launched in 1995 and edited by William Kristol and Fred Barnes, the Weekly Standard has been a pet political project for News Corp. chief Rupert Murdoch. While its circulation, according to the magazine’s website is only 83,000 (it hasn’t been audited by the Audit Bureau of Circulation since 1996), it reaches the upper echelon of Capitol Hill insiders and gave the media mogul cache among the Washington elite.
Now that Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal, however, whose conservative editorial page wields a much bigger political stick, he may no longer really need the Weekly Standard, which preaches much the same message, but to a considerably smaller audience. Murdoch’s own political views seem to have swung more toward the center over the last few years, and that, too, might be a factor in his decision to sell.
Or, to be blunt, News Corp., as the prospects for print media shrink, may be reviewing all its assets and deciding what stays and what goes. Using that rationale, holding on to what we suspect is a money-losing magazine doesn’t make much sense.Anschutz
A spokeswoman for News Corp. declined to comment. A spokeman for Anschutz could not be immediately reached.
I personally attempted to contact the Weekly Standard for a comment. I got the voice mail system there. I also left a message for Jack Horner, who is the Director for corporate affairs at News Corporation ; maybe I will get lucky and Jack will actually e-mail back with a comment. An exclusive on this story would be nice. I will post, if and when I do get a response to the inquiry.
The problem is, the only people that are surprised are the in-the-tank media and possibly some of Obama’s loyal followers.
It’s looking more and more like Barack Obama’s pledge to usher in a new era of openness in government may well go unfulfilled.
Yesterday, administration lawyers cited national security concerns to argue that Bush-era documents detailing the videotaped interrogations of detainees should not be released. And in the wake of that news, open-government advocates are reluctantly acknowledging that, despite Obama’s campaign promises, his approach to secrecy on issues of national security will likely not depart significantly from that of George Bush.
“The Obama administration is not going to represent an abrupt departure from Bush-era policy,” Steven Aftergood, who runs the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, told TPMmuckraker. “If we thought they were, we were mistaken.”
He added that it’s no longer realistic to think that Obama’s administration will take a strong stand in favor of openness on national security issues. “We have to recalibrate our expectations.”
The above is why I believe that Blogs, especially Independent bloggers; like myself, play important role in our Nation’s political process. Because I blogged long ago, on this blog and on my previous blog; that whomever was elected President, would end up not fulfilling all of the campaign promises. As long as our Government is controlled by outside forces, I.E. The UN and others; promises like that ones that President Obama made during his campaign, will go unfulfilled. It is a plain and sobering fact. The President just does not control as much as people are lead to believe.
However, I will make this observation. I do not believe that Obama is totally to blame for some of the reversals. I believe that some of them were forced, because of National Security concerns. Again, more of that “big Government” that the Democrats and Neo-Conservatives just love and what true or Paleo-Conservatives and Libertarians loathe. We must protect our own misdeeds in the interest of National Security. It has been practice of our Government for years, to cover up. There are a great deal of examples of this.
So, while it might be convenient of the Liberal grass roots to go after Obama on this, I believe doing so masks the true issue at heart here, and that’s our already oversized and quite centralized Government.
Another little gem being served up by HotAir.com, is this little gem from the most unfunny so-called comedian in America.
As expected the Conservative Blogosphere is absolutely livid about this; and rightly so. Hell, there’s even a Conservative-turned-Liberal Blogger who is a bit pissed about Letterman’s performance as well:
You know, I have no idea what the hell David Letterman is thinking or what he thinks he is accomplishing with crap like this, but this was inexcusable. He should be ashamed of himself.
And I’m not trying to sound like some politically correct scold, and I have no problem with comedians being comedians. There are lots of reasons to dislike Sarah Palin, there are lots of reasons to not be impressed with her leadership, her beliefs, or, well, anything about her, but when you start with the “slutty” crap, or are making jokes about her daughter getting “knocked up,” you’ve crossed a line. I have no problem attacking Palin for her idiotic proposals and all the stupid things she has said, but this just is the kind of nonsense that is no good for anyone.
Maybe I’m over-reacting, and I know I’m not always perfect, but I’m really losing my patience and tolerance for this kind of stuff. There was no place for this kind of stuff with Hillary and Chelsea, there is no room for it with Michelle and their kids, and the same standard should apply for Sarah Palin and her kids. Hell, it should apply to all women. – John Cole @ Balloon Juice
Let me be the first to say that, not only do I wholeheartedly agree with Cole; I also commend him for having the guts to stand up and say, “Wait a Minute!” on this little issue here. Hats off to you John, you’re one hell of a good man for doing this.
Not only was this a classless attack on Palin, everyone is assuming Palin’s oldest daughter went with her to the ballgame. It was not her, it was her 14 year old daughter Willow that went with her to the Ballgame. Not smart David, Not smart at all. When your own fellow Liberal Democrats are calling you on stupid joke; an apology is order. expect to see that here in the next few days.
I realize I’m just an inbred backwoods moron who can’t abide by any criticism of Sarah Palin whatsoever, but is this really the precedent we want to set for our politicians and their families?
“How come the First Family never invites Uncle Samson to visit? Because whenever Sasha and Malia sit on his knee, it takes six Secret Service guys to pry them off!”
Or how about this?
“Joe Biden keeps saying he’s not really sure where all that stimulus money is going. In other news, Ashley Biden’s coke dealer just bought Luxembourg.”
Hey, I didn’t say they were good jokes. But are they really worse than what Letterman just got away with on national TV? If so, why?
Good point, good point indeed.
Memeornadum has the Roundup of other Blogs covering the story.
It’s a little early for this yet. But it’s quite true and very powerful:
What is the matter with Obama that he cannot defend our Cold War conduct and Cold War presidents like Ike and JFK?
Answer: Obama cannot, because at heart he buys into the anti-American narrative that ours is a deplorable history — of genocide against the Indians, of slavery and segregation, of robbing Mexicans of their land and of disrespecting our Latin neighbors.
Obama is determined to make the requisite apologies to show the world he does not condone the sins our fathers committed.
Thus, as Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation has cataloged, Obama has apologized to Europe for our having “shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” He apologized to Latin America for our having been “disengaged and at times … sought to dictate.”
He told the Turks that we are “working through our own darker periods in our history. … Our nation still struggles with the legacy of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.”
Obama, however, did not ask the Turks to confess to their own “darker periods,” which might have taken some time.
Obama is the anti-Reagan. Where Reagan ever spoke of the greatness and glory of America, her history and heroes, her capacity to make the world all over again, Obama is like a dismal parson, forever reminding us — and everyone within earshot — of our own and our fathers’ sins.
Obama is not only demoralizing Middle America, he is driving away the God-and-country patriots who are sick of hearing this rot from professors and journalists, and prefer not to hear it from their president. He is ceding moral high ground to regimes and nations that do not deserve it.
If Obama believes he can build himself up by tearing America down, he is mistaken. Cynical foreigners will view it with snickering contempt, patriotic Americans with disgust. What kind of leader is it who talks down his own country on foreign soil?
America’s performance in the Cold War was hardly flawless. But does anyone deny that we were on the right side, that the Soviet Empire and Mao’s China and communist Vietnam and Castro’s Cuba were on the side of tyranny — and that the neutrals were by and large irrelevant or worse in that great cause?
A nation is an extended family. While families fight and quarrel, often bitterly, you do not take the family quarrel outside the family.
You don’t hang the family’s dirty linen on the communal clothesline.
Obama, however — like some Hollywood actress seeking sympathy and public approbation with her tell-all biography detailing how she was abused by her father — trolls for popularity with America’s adversaries by reciting for the benefit of the world all the sins his country has allegedly committed.
When did this become the duty of the president of the United States?
This one’s via HotAir, In the interest of full disclosure; I have not watched this. I cannot handle watching stuff like this, it gets my blood pressure up and I want throw stuff. The back story is here, with a partial transcript.
This goes on and people wonder why citizens like Richard Poplawski take up arms and kill 3 police officers. You cannot assault the people and not have people retaliate in kind; When will the Government figure that out?
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
_gac_
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
