BEIJING – President Barack Obama prodded China about Internet censorship and free speech, but the message was not widely heard in China where his words were blocked online and shown on only one regional television channel.

Irony? Serendipity? Coincidence? Or just plain pwned?

“I’m a big supporter of non-censorship,” Obama said. “I recognize that different countries have different traditions. I can tell you that in the United States, the fact that we have free Internet — or unrestricted Internet access — is a source of strength, and I think should be encouraged.”

Hmm, we’ll see how that non-censoring thing will work out as Democrats put together plans to take down Conservative talk radio. Oh, and then there was that little spat with Fox News, initiated by the White House.

Obama may have been hoping to set a personal example for China’s leaders when he said he believes that free discussion, including criticism that may be annoying to him, makes him “a better leader because it forces me to hear opinions that I don’t want to hear.”

Spat. Fox News. Fight with Limbaugh. Fight with Hannity. Joe the Plumber. Kevin Miller. Barbara West. Hiring Cass Sunstein, a man who is all about censoring the Internet.

Look, I applaud Obama’s cajones in answering the question in that manner as he stands on Chinese soil. Kudos to him, in all seriousness. But, considering his own opinions and actions here in the US, he really does not have the moral authority to lecture the Chinese.

Just for reference, Pirate’s Cove is banned in China, along with my test site. Not sure about Stop The ACLU or Right Wing News, since the site designed to tell you if your site is blocked has been taken down. Unsurprisingly, The Huffington Post is now unblocked in China, though, the Huff Post’s opinions are farther left then the Chinese governments. But, they have blocked I Can Has Cheeseburger! That’s just mean. See here and here for lists of some who have been blocked.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Just hearing her name causes me pain and normally I wouldn’t waste a minute’s time worrying about what this vacuous little child has to say on much of anything — as is evidenced by the fact that this is the first time my keyboard has shuddered out her name. However, Meghan McCain’s latest blog post is a piece of conventional wisdom that, while not unique to little Meaggie’s fallow mind (which itself is de rigeuer for the girl, sadly), it is one that has been heard since the day women began to stride into the world of western politics. However, it is one that I think no longer applies. So, I’d like to address the empty reasoning on women in politics despite that it emanated from McCain’s somewhat barren pen.

Here is McCain’s prosaic premise: The attacks on Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have made it harder for women and is proof that no woman will ever be “just right” for politics. To which anyone not looking to make excuses can only say a resounding “yeah, right.”

The simple matter of fact is that anyone that clamors for great power will stir great passions in those whom they wish to govern. And those that find wide support among the people will find that such support is ephemeral once decisions start having to be made. It doesn’t matter if the powerful is man or woman.

Let’s take General George Washington, for instance. He was the Father of our country, we all know. When he first deigned to accept the title of our first president his approval rating would most assuredly have been in the upper reaches of the 90th percentile range should early Americans have had the misfortune to have had nation-wide polling services like Zogby or Pew Research in the 1780s.

But even as he took his seat at the head of the nation the grumbling began. It wasn’t long before much of the good will he had truly earned as the general that won our independence began to wear thin, replaced by rumors of his doddering mental state, his purported lack of intellect, and his detached unconcern for his nation. The sniping got so bad that President Washington almost refused to run for a second term and always preferred to be called general instead of Mr. President. Save James Monroe, few presidents since have ever enjoyed an “era of good feeling” without the poison pen of his enemies nipping at his heels.

And this is true of any great leader. It’s been true of Senators, Speakers of the House, presidents, generals and statesmen all over the world and throughout time.

For her part, McCain worries that the constant and virulent attacks on Palin and Clinton is emblematic of how women are unduly attacked in the political realm. She terms it “misogyny” and feels it’s a “double standard” exclusively used against powerful women. Finally she feels that these illicit and unusual attacks will only serve to keep young women from an interest in politics.

The reality is, however, that only one thing is used against women that isn’t used against men: physical looks. Clinton is too ugly, Palin too pretty, so they say, but looks are rarely held against male politicians. If they were Henry Waxman could never have been elected, even to such a lowly position as dog catcher. So, yes, there is one thing unfairly used against female candidates. But is this really such a major factor as to make it so much harder for women to have successful political careers than for men? I, for one, don’t see it.

Long gone are the days when a female politician was looked upon as derelict in the duties of femininity for seeking office. Gone are the days when men considered politics not something women were “allowed” to join. It isn’t 1920 any longer.

But there is still this whiny notion that women have a tougher time in politics merely because they are women. I say pish tosh to that notion. Women of strong opinion are no worse treated than men of strong opinion. Ask George W. Bush if he thinks he gets an easier way cleared for him because he was born a George instead of a Georgina! Ask anyone if they think Teddy “the Swimmer” Kennedy was less virulently opposed by the right merely because he was a fella!

No, I believe we have soared past the time when women in politics were eschewed merely because they were women. Women have achieved equality with men in every way that matters in the political arena. Now we can rejoice because we can hate Hillary Clinton because she is a closet Marxist. We are free from having to worry if she’s woman enough to be allowed to run for office. The left can attack Governor Palin because they feel she is an idiot and they don’t have to worry if her gentler, female side will make her too weak to be a politician.

We no longer have to hate a woman solely for her gender. Now, at long last, we can hate her because of her ideas. Now THAT is progress!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

During the interview, Gregory brought up the “big challenges” that Obama was facing, particularly with the healthcare issue. In his question, though, Gregory did not phrase his healthcare question by using qualifiers like “Obama says,” or “Democrats claim.” He seemed to simply take the president’s position as accepted fact without qualifiers.

On healthcare, Gregory asked Clinton if Obama was doing a good job. “And on health care, as this debate rolls through,” Gregory asked, ” do you think the President has leveled with the American people on this fact, that Americans are going to have to pay higher taxes if they want health care reform?”

Notice that Gregory asked Clinton if Obama had done a good job leveling with the American people on “this fact” and that we are “going to have to pay higher taxes” to get that reform? Gregory didn’t say, for instance, that Obama “feels” that the only way to reform healthcare is to pay higher taxes. In essence, Gregory asked his question assuming that Obama’s position is essentially true.

On the heels of that question, Gregory then rehashed Hillary’s “right wing conspiracy” claims from 1998. Even with this part of his question to Clinton Gregory seemed to assume the basic truth of Hillary’s premise.

“Your wife famously talked about the vast right wing conspiracy targeting you,” Gregory began. “As you look at this opposition on the right to President Obama, is it still there?”

Oddly, all of Gregory’s rhetoric assumes that the left leaning premises are correct but an unbiased newsman might have phrased these concepts with more qualifying language instead of presenting the left leaning opinion as simple fact.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Downing Street has hit back at  Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for attacking the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.

President Obama and the US Secretary of State fuelled a fierce American backlash against Britain, claiming Abdelbaset Al Megrahi should have been forced to serve out his jail sentence in Scotland – but a senior Whitehall aide said their reaction was ‘disingenuous’.

British officials claim Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton were kept informed at all stages of discussions concerning Megrahi’s return.

The officials say the Americans spoke out because they were taken aback by the row over Megrahi’s release, not because they did not know it was about to happen.

‘The US was kept fully in touch about everything that was going on with regard to Britain’s discussions with Libya in recent years and about Megrahi,’ said the Whitehall aide.

As Pam Gellar puts it, “What does it say about your President that he signed off on the release of a Muslim terrorist who took down Pan Am flight 103, killing 270 people, while at the same time going after CIA agents protecting this nation?”

Shockingly, I can’t find this story in any of the reports by the liberal MSM. Nothing in the Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Boston Globe, or any of the other Usual Suspects. They all seem to be focusing on Obama’s “crucial moment” for his upcoming speech on Wednesday, once again interrupting prime time television (not that there is really anything on to start with)

President Obama returned to the White House from his summer break (WT: which he took after taking a vacation) on Sunday determined to jump-start his struggling presidency by reasserting command of the health care debate and recalibrating expectations that some advisers believe got away from him. (snip)

Now, as he prepares for Wednesday’s address before a joint session of Congress, Mr. Obama and his team are simultaneously trying to figure out how they got into this dilemma and how to get out of it. An administration that swept into office just seven months ago on a wave of hope and optimism has burned through good will and public patience in swift fashion and now finds itself under fire from both the left and the right.

Will they get out of it? Doubtful. So many of these stories, including the above one by the Times, are no longer cheerleader stories. I dare say that the media themselves are realizing that there is a vast difference between campaigning and actual governance. Over 7 months later, and Obama and his team still haven’t figured out the governance thing.

But, they have figured out how to smear CIA agents and damage Intelligence operations while signing off on the release of a terrorist.

Linked at Cao’s trackback party!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Obama administration on Thursday cut all non-humanitarian aid to Honduras over the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya, making permanent a temporary suspension of U.S. aid imposed after he was deposed in June. (snip)

“The secretary of state has made the decision, consistent with U.S. legislation, recognizing the need for strong measures in light of the continued resistance to the adoption of the San Jose Accord by the de facto regime and continuing failure to restore democratic, constitutional rule to Honduras,” Kelly said in a statement.

“Restoration of the terminated assistance will be predicated upon a return to democratic, constitutional governance in Honduras,” he said.

In other words, when Honduras reinstates the ex-president who was attempting to subvert the Honduran constitution to make himself el Presidente for life, similar to Hugo Chavez (who was also providing aid to Zelaya.) The Obama admin has taken the side of the hard core lefty over the “yeah, we’re sort of left” folks.

Related, all sorts of left wing kooks and mainstream papers are calling for the Obama admin to call it a coup, so that all aid can be cut off. The official position of the Los Angeles Times is that it needs to be called a coup

Cutting off assistance is a blunt instrument, one that should not be wielded lightly. It can affect livelihoods and families and industries, in addition to targeting those at the top. But Honduras will hold presidential and parliamentary elections Nov. 29, and every passing day gives Micheletti and his associates the chance to tighten their illegitimate hold on the reins of power.

But, you know, livelihood, families, and industries can go (blank) themselves in the face of creating another Hugo Chavez clone in Honduras.

Over at the Hufftard Post, Laura Carlsen headlines her piece: “To Defend Democracy, U.S. Must Call The Coup.” Only in Liberal World can one leftist group who deposes their president because he was subverting their constitution be called un-democratic.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

On July 15, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared before the Council on Foreign Relations, the much maligned organization often at the center of many global conspiracy theories.

We won’t talk about the merits of the CFR itself, here, but what made me curious is the treatment that MSNBC gave the Clinton speech. It appears that MSNBC edited out Clinton’s opening statement thanking the CFR for having her. When reading what she said at the outset of the speech one might become suspicious that MSNBC was trying to provide cover for the Secretary of State whose comments opened her up to the tongue wagging of conspiracy buffs.

Here is how Hillary began her remarks (my bold):

“Thank you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

Oopsie. If one were a conspiratorial minded sort, one might find Hillary’s claim that the Department of State needs to be told what to think by the Council on Foreign Relations is a bit shocking.

The State Department has helpfully recorded the visit and the video can be seen on its website (for now that is, booga-booga). Right there on the government website, one can clearly see this opening paragraph being uttered by Hillary Clinton. Also, I embedded the video at the end of this post for your enjoyment.

A full transcript of her remarks can also be seen on the government site on which the opening segment is transcribed.

Yet, the video of Clinton’s remarks featured on MSNBC has mysteriously been cleansed of the assertion that Hillary needs to be told what to think by the CFR. Her opening remarks have been excised, struck, boldly eliminated by her pals over at MSNBC.

One has to wonder why? Why was Hillary’s praise for the CFR cut by MSNBC? Was the cable newser trying to spare Clinton the wrath of the anti-CFR conspiracy theorists out there?

Hurry over to MSNBC and watch the video before the space aliens, or the Bilderbergers erase it forever. Wait, maybe it was the Rothchilds… I always get them all mixed up with the Masons and the Jesuits. I think they started the 9/11 attacks, didn’t they?

Well, anyways, I certainly have no answer. Do you? Whatever the reason MSNBC decided to silence those CFR lovin’ words, I find it all rather amusing as well as curious behavior on MSNBC’s part.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the US is prepared to bolster the defence of its Gulf allies if Iran develops a nuclear weapons programme.

Mrs Clinton said if the US extended a “defence umbrella” over the region, it was unlikely that Iran would be any stronger or safer having a weapon.

Speaking in an interview for Thai television, she said: “If the US extends a defence umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it’s unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer because they won’t be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have a nuclear weapon.”

She said the US was still offering engagement to Iran but warned that the “nuclear clock was ticking”.

Interesting that Dear Leader has nixed any defense shield for our Polish and other western European allies, but, he is willing to spend godawful amounts of money (there’s a shocker!) defending other Gulf nations from Iranian nuclear weapons. Which they seem willing to allow Iran to develop, since, even though Obama is open to talks, begging for talks, the Iranians are just patting Obama on the head and telling him to get off their lawn.

While it may not be popular, wouldn’t it be easier and cheaper to just bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb bomb Iran’s nuclear weapons development centers?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

…And what I don’t know is whether Americans are really willing to understand that and do anything for the benefit of the unborn Chinese.

It’s a tough sell. And probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat. And you can in fact find ways to make the threat serious.
…
But I tend to be rather pessimistic. I sometimes wish that we could have, over the next five or ten years, a lot of horrid things happening — you know, like tornadoes in the Midwest and so forth — that would get people very concerned about climate change. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.

Surprise!

Meanwhile, the Sun is back to being really quiet, and Hillary is now in Obama mode, apologizing to India for global warming.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The two central “health care reform” bills currently moving in Congress – the Kennedy bill and the House Democratic leadership bill – each contain provisions that would, if enacted, represent the greatest expansion of abortion since the Supreme Court handed down its Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1973. These bills contain multiple provisions that would result in federally mandated insurance coverage of abortion on demand, massive federal subsidies for abortion, mandated creation of many new abortion clinics, and nullification of at least some state limitations on abortion.

Next week, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee is expected to consider a number of NRLC-supported amendments offered by Republican senators that would remove the pro-abortion mandates and subsidies from the Kennedy bill. House committees will consider similar amendments during markups of the House Democratic leadership bill, which is also planned for next week.

On July 9, Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), co-chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus, distributed to his colleagues the letter that appears below – a collection of statements by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and five pro-abortion organizations, confirming their intent to greatly expand access to abortion on demand, using “health care reform” as a vehicle. You will find it easier to read if you download the PDF image of the letter from http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/2009July9SmithDearColleague.pdf

If President Obama, congressional Democratic leaders, and the pro-abortion advocacy groups were to succeed in mandating vast expansions of access to abortion, with federal funding, the predictable result would be a great increase in the number of abortions performed – this, from a president who assured the American people that he would pursue policies to reduce abortions.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

President Obama on Monday strongly condemned the ouster of Honduras’s president as an illegal coup that set a “terrible precedent” for the region, as the country’s new government defied international calls to return the toppled president to power and clashed with thousands of protesters.

And, yet, it wasn’t an “illegal coup,” as the Times points out later in the story. It was the removal of a leftist president, Manuel Zelaya (replaced with another leftist fellow of Zelaya’s own party,) who was attempting to subvert the Honduran Constitution by forcing a vote to allow him more terms as president – similar to Chavez, ruled illegal by their Supreme Court. Very basic overview. Even his own Party has come down on the opposite side of Zelaya multiple times (more info from Q&O and the queen of this story, Fausta.) It’s a shame the military had to get involved in such a manner, but, different country, different methods, and it appears that their military was supposed to get involved.

“We do not want to go back to a dark past,” Mr. Obama said, in which military coups override elections. “We always want to stand with democracy,” he added.

Then why were you meddling in their affairs and coming down on the side of Zelaya? Why did it take you so long to make tepid remarks when Iran was burning?

The crisis in Honduras, where members of the country’s military abruptly awakened President Manuel Zelaya on Sunday and forced him out of the country in his bedclothes, is pitting Mr. Obama against the ghosts of past American foreign policy in Latin America.

The United States has a history of backing rival political factions and instigating coups in the region, and administration officials have found themselves on the defensive in recent days, dismissing repeated allegations by President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela that the C.I.A. may have had a hand in the president’s removal.

And there you have it: the Blame America First mentality. Except for those two paragraphs, the rest of the story, 21 paragraphs in all including the 4 above, is about the Obama admin meddling and trying to tell them what to do. So, to what point is the headline “In a Coup in Honduras, Ghosts of Past U.S. Policies“? To what point are those two paragraphs, other then to paint the United States as a past bad guy?

But, considering the amount of meddling the Obama admin. was involved going back to early June, maybe the headline should read “In a Constitutional Presidential Removal, Ghosts of Current anti-Constitutional Leftist U.S. Policies.”

Interestingly, Hillary Clinton states that the U.S. government was holding off in calling it a coup. Sorry, Hillary, too late. President Neophyte has already spoken that it was, and that Zelaya is still Honduras’ president in Dear Leader’s eyes. Wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall when Hillary discusses President Neophyte with Billy Jeff?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post