Two-thirds of Americans disagree with the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court rather than a military court, according to a new national poll.

But, you know what? All you folks who oppose Obama and Holder’s idea are raaaaacists. And mean. And hate our Constitution. Or something like that.

But six in 10 people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday say that the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks should be tried in the United States, as the administration plans to do, rather than at a U.S. facility in another country.

I have to wonder how that would have changed had the question said Guantanamo Bay rather than at a U.S. facility in another country.

“The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in front of a civilian court is universally unpopular – even a majority of Democrats and liberals say that he should be tried by military authorities,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Despite that, most Americans say that he will get a fair trial in the U.S.”

So, in private, where the Obamazombies do not have to push their talking points, a majority think the Obama/Holder idea is dumb as a bag of rocks. Figures.

“Nearly eight in 10 favor the death penalty if that happens – including one in five who say they normally oppose the death penalty, but would support it in this case,” adds Holland.

Notice how Democrats tend to drop their beliefs in a heartbeat, depending on which way the wind blows?

Shockingly, the only left leaning site that seems to be sort of kind of covering this is TPM. No, wait, they are only pointing out the NY Gov. Paterson is against the plan. I’m waiting with bated breath for some of the bigger supports, who went down the insult people road when the plan was announced Friday morning, such as The Moderate Voice (snicker) and Alan Colmes, to post the survey.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A sampling of those from Jay’s post from last night: Smack Down of Obama Administration on KSM Trial Decision

And guess who celebrates this as some sort of victory for “justice?”

It’s no secret that the greatest threats to America on the international stage can depend on the ACLU’s extended hand of friendship. The ACLU, as the most dangerous threat to this country from within, has long been writhing around passionately with every enemy of this country like mating slugs at the end of a mucus thread. That the ACLU cheers this latest attack on American national security is no surprise. After all, they are up to their ear holes in making sure KSM and Da Boyz get sprung, although the MSM seems to be ignoring the ACLU role. Jay wrote last year at PJM about the execrable “John Adams Project” that undoubtedly played a lead role in securing three hots and a cot for KSM while he awaits his circus trial:

The ACLU has launched an initiative called the “John Adams Project.”…What is it? In a nutshell, the ACLU has assembled a “Dream Team” of attorneys with an $8.5 million budget to defend terrorists currently held at Guantanamo. Who’s the primary object of the ACLU’s affection? Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

The ACLU, true to form, impugns the professionalism and competence of men and women of infinitely more honor than their accusers by referring to tribunals as “kangaroo courts.” But could the ACLU really be so scandalized that this mass murderer will stand before a military tribunal? Could the ACLU truly be standing up for his “fundamental rights?”

What is the true purpose of a multi-million-dollar campaign to get KSM off the hook?

The ACLU explains: “The ACLU chose to focus on Mohammed’s defense, Romero said, because he appears to be “the government’s top priority in the prosecution. And whether or not they are able to convict Khalid Sheik Mohammed under these rules may well determine the fate of the almost 300 other men who are detained at Guantanamo.”

So that’s it. The ACLU wants to set KSM and 300 other terrorists free or at least make it impossible for the tribunals to serve their function. Because KSM is the worst of the worst, because he is the terrorist in custody most responsible for 9/11, the ACLU is his champion.
This PR stunt can only serve to undermine American credibility by creating the illusion – sure to be propagated by the mass media – that mass killers are somehow being denied “justice.” Think our enemies don’t appreciate the ACLU’s efforts on their behalf – on both legal and the PR fronts? Clearly, this will leave America more vulnerable to attack.

So is it really any surprise that the ACLU would be reaching around to pat itself on the back yesterday?

NEW YORK – In a major victory for due process and the rule of law, the Obama administration will announce today that the five defendants represented by the John Adams Project who have been charged in connection with the 9/11 attacks will be tried in federal court rather than in the Guantánamo military commissions. However, the administration will also announce that it will continue to use the illegitimate military commissions system to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees, including the defendant accused in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. The American Civil Liberties Union has been working through the Project, a joint effort with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), to provide legal assistance to the five individuals accused of masterminding the 9/11 attacks and other military commissions defendants. The Guantánamo military commissions proceedings have been plagued from the start with legal challenges and international condemnation due to their disregard for basic due process rights.

“The transfer of cases to federal court is a huge victory for restoring due process and the rule of law, as well as repairing America’s international standing, an essential part of ensuring our national security. We can now finally achieve the real and reliable justice that Americans deserve. It would have been an enormous blow to American values if we had tried these defendants in a process riddled with legal problems,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “However, it’s disappointing that the administration has chosen to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees in the unsalvageable military commissions system. Time and again the federal courts have proven themselves capable of handling terrorism cases while protecting both American values and sensitive national security information. Justice can only be served in our tried and true courts.”

This just didn’t seem to smell right, so I ran it through Babel Fish (translating from ACLUgandan to English) and here’s what came out:

BIZARRO CITY – In a major legal and propaganda victory for al Qaeda, the Obama administration will announce today that the five demented killers represented by the John Alan Muhammad Memorial Project who were responsible for the slaughter of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans will await acquittal in federal court by Leftists in New York rather than standing before the incompetent troglodytes who “serve” our country in the Armed Forces…The American Civil Liberties Union has been working through the Project, a joint conspiracy with the National Association of Criminals Disguised as Lawyers (NACDL), to provide legal assistance to the five individuals who’ve blessed us with the glorious 9/11 holiday. The Guantánamo military commissions are staffed by drooling fools in odd uniforms with weird oak leaves, eagles and stars on their shoulders and collars and who are despised by our international comrades.
“The transfer of cases to federal court is a huge victory for al Qaeda and is sure to threaten our national security. We can now finally achieve the real and reliable justice that Americans deserve, but we think should be applied to international terrorists, who until now have never in history been granted the constitutional rights that were once reserved for American citizens. It would have been an enormous blow to ACLU self-esteem and fundraising if we had tried these murderous thugs in a process that actually would have resulted in justice being done,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “However, it’s disappointing that the administration has chosen to prosecute some terrorists using those idiots with really short haircuts. Time and again the federal courts have proven themselves willing to advance the ACLU agenda — truth, justice and national security be damned. This has us just tickled pink.”

As diabolical as this latest move by the Obamanable Administration is, even more demented is the symbolism of trying Mohammed mere steps away from the site of the greatest act of evil — an act of war, not the street crime the Obamanable Administration is treating it like — ever committed against America on our own soil. Miles, or even blocks, away from the husbands, wives, children, mothers and fathers who were left behind to mourn because of the act of terrorism directed by the very man who has now been extended all the protections of the American constitutional system by virtue of nothing but robbing so many innocent AMERICANS of the same, forever.

Say KSM goes free…the blood of all those innocents murdered, on 9/11 and by those aspiring future Islamist killers emboldened by our manifest lack of will and strength, will be splattered and smeared all over the walls of ACLU headquarters.

Update by Lobo: Just a point I want to get covered, but not enough for a post of its own.

The military commissions are obviously constitutional because Congress instituted them and that power is vested in them.

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Congress set up the Commissions for the express purpose of trying enemy combatants. I can not find any vested power in the Executive branch to order ECs tried in federal courts.

I do find it amusingly ironic that for 8 years, liberals screeched about the US going into foreign countries and forcing “democracy” on it and now their leader is ordering foreign enemies be brought into a country they hate, filled with people they want to kill, and force a democracy they despise, on them.

You might want to check out a point that Levin made. (I couldn’t get to it from Google search and could backout)

he said something to the effect that the combatants weren’t “mirandized” and that will create a technicality right from the get go. I’d be willing to bet that Obama is counting on that one!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

They didn’t flat-out refuse Obama’s deal, but they might as well have. Could it be because Ahmadinejad has no respect for Obama?

Iran’s response Thursday to a proposed deal to transform its controversial nuclear material into fuel for a medical reactor is “inadequate,” a senior Western diplomat said, adding that it failed to address key United States and European concerns about Iran’s nuclear intentions.

Iran answered the proposal to temporarily move most of its enriched uranium to Russia and France to be further refined and shaped for use in a medical reactor after a delay of nearly a week and a flurry of contradictory signals.

The proposal would have depleted Iran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel below the threshold necessary for making a single nuclear bomb, possibly creating diplomatic breathing room for a broader agreement between Tehran and those worried about its atomic research program.

But according to the diplomat, Iran wants to send its uranium abroad in smaller batches over an undetermined stretch of time rather than the lump transfer by year’s end outlined under the proposal offered by International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

Such a change would allow Iran to quickly replenish its stock.

Gee, I wonder why Iran wants to send its uranium in smaller batches then. Could it be because they have absolutely no intention of abandoning their nuclear program? While Ahmadinejad is shouting his cooperation from the rooftops for anyone to hear, it’s just an empty statement. His actions say something completely different, and it’s clear that he has no respect at all for Obama or the UN.

Of course, we were promised that the world would love us once again if we elected Obama. Obama would usher in “smart diplomacy” and he would be able to negotiate with terrorists other world leaders and everyone would be happy again. And this is our newer, smarter diplomacy? Iran and North Korea are both getting bolder and bolder, launching more and more test missiles, and getting further and further into nuclear weapons programs. Obama’s response is to launch a plan to remove our missile defense shields in eastern Europe and do nothing except ask Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il to please stop. He talks a big game, but doing absolutely nothing to back up what he says. Why should Iran respect or fear him?

Theodore Roosevelt believed in speaking softly and carrying a big stick. With Obama, it’s speak loudly and carry a limp stick.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

White House angry at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan
The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal’s comments on strategy for the war.
By Alex Spillius in Washington

Translation: Gen Stanley McChrystal has the unmitigated gall to speak without Obama’s teleprompter and give real advice about military strategy rather than soft words supporting whatever it is the Prez has to say. That is ticking off the powerbrokers who are pulling the strings.

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

Translation: Gen McChrystal is going against the status quo of the totalitarians who want people to do as they say without question.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago’s unsuccessful Olympic bid.

You’ve got to admit that the timing of this little encounter was just a little bit “off”. Obama’s narcissism was probably blown up to epic proportions at that point while he was preparing to pitch the Chicago Olympics. How dare that lowly General butt in to this star studded event and throw some rain on that parade!

In an apparent rebuke to the commander, Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, said: “It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately.”

Hmmm. We must be candid and private about it…? How so, Defence Secretary Gates?

When asked on CNN about the commander’s public lobbying for more troops, Gen Jim Jones, national security adviser, said:

“Ideally, it’s better for military advice to come up through the chain of command.”

So, then, it should be filtered for Obama’s consumption rather than come directly from McChrystal himself?

Asked if the president had told the general to tone down his remarks, he told CBS: “I wasn’t there so I can’t answer that question. But it was an opportunity for them to get to know each other a little bit better. I am sure they exchanged direct views.”

I can’t imagine that that happened, considering Obama has no military experience so he has no context about what is going on….that is the reason why he has so many advisers – because he’s still the Junior Senator from Illinois – he’s still the community organizer…he’s still blaming Bush for all his failures, unable to cope, apparently, with the reality of what a mess he’s made of things.

I would imagine he was speechless quite a bit of the time when McChrystal spoke and needed to consult a panel of experts and receive a written teleprompter response before he could respond.

Too much of this administration is artificial and orchestrated. Obama can’t speak very well on his own without something prepared beforehand; that we know from his endless gaffes.

An adviser to the administration said: “People aren’t sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn’t seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly.”

hmmm. Washington hard-ball is about…speaking your mind…with nuance and finesse? Saying one thing and doing another? That much we’ve already witnessed.

In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to “Chaos-istan”.

But Chaos-istan is precisely what he’s trying to achieve in everything he’s stuck his finger into. From the Automobile industry to the financial industry – to one fifth of our economy with the healthcare Obamacare overhaul…what Obama has written is the prescription for disaster which was cooked up at Columbia called the Cloward Piven Strategy. It isn’t different where things military are concerned. Chaos-istan is the POINT with Obama. It is the ultimate goal – the coup d’etat his handlers have been salivating for. For McChrystal to have the nerve to point it out just means he’s not one of Obama’s lapdogs, and I say–good for him.

When asked whether he would support it, he said: “The short answer is: No.”

He went on to say: “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support.”

Again, that is precisely the point. I don’t envy McChrystal’s position here; he’s in a no-win situation with a usurper we are supposed to address “Mr. President”; a loser who makes everything about him.

The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.

Which is how it is in a socialist regime; there are a lot of filters messages need to go through; a lot of people have their hands in the pie.

Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second “principals meeting” on the issue last week.

He will hold at least one more this week, but a decision on how far to follow Gen McChrystal’s recommendation to send 40,000 more US troops will not be made for several weeks.

A military expert said: “They still have working relationship but all in all it’s not great for now.”

While men are dying…Obama has more time for glitz, glitter, and the Chicago crime syndicate than he has for our troops.

It is beyond disgusting. We need to pray for General Stanley McChrystal; he’s going to need it.

Some commentators regarded the general’s London comments as verging on insubordination.

It might be insubordination if Obama knew his a** from a hole in the ground.

Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: “As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements.”

He added that it was highly unusual for a senior military officer to “pressure the president in public to adopt his strategy”.

It’s not unusual, though, for liberal presidents to be at odds with the military – which is why Buzz Patterson wrote several books on the subject, having had intimate knowledge of how the Clintons treated military people and people in uniform. There is – Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America’s National Security, Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security, and War Crimes: The Left’s Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror – and that’s just from one guy.

Relations between the general and the White House began to sour when his report, which painted a grim picture of the allied mission in Afghanistan, was leaked. White House aides have since briefed against the general’s recommendations.

The general has responded with a series of candid interviews as well as the speech. He told Newsweek he was firmly against half measures in Afghanistan: “You can’t hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn.”

Amen to that, General. If nothing else, I will be looking forward to your books coming out that chronicle the embarrassment of having served under this so-called president, the Messiah Obama.

As a divide opened up between the military and the White House, senior military figures began criticising the White House for failing to tackle the issue more quickly.

They made no secret of their view that without the vast ground force recommended by Gen McChrystal, the Afghan mission could end in failure and a return to power of the Taliban.

“They want to make sure people know what they asked for if things go wrong,” said Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defence.

Critics also pointed out that before their Copenhagen encounter Mr Obama had only met Gen McChrystal once since his appointment in June.

I think it’s time we started talking about bringing President Obama up on War Crimes charges. It’s only fair when it’s obvious he is putting off making decisions – putting them off until the war is unwinnable. As we wind up the first year of Obama’s term, one thing is certain; none of this can be blamed on Bush now. It’s all in his court.

By the way, it’s hard to believe any guy that manufactures this much stupidity could have much of an opinion on military matters, anyway.

X posted at CB

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton tells NRO that President Obama’s address to the U.N. was “a post-American speech by our first post-American president. It was a speech high on the personality of Barack Obama and high on multilateralism, but very short in advocating American interests.”

“It was a very naïve, Wilsonian speech, and very revealing of Obama’s foreign policy,” says Bolton. “Overall, it was so apologetic for the actions of prior administrations, in an effort to distance Obama from them, that it became yet another symbol of American weakness in the wake of the president’s decision to abandon missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, and his recent manifest hesitation over what to do in Afghanistan.”

“The most significant point of the speech was how the president put Israel on the chopping block in a variety of references, from calling Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegitimate to talking about ending ‘the occupation that began in 1967.’ That implies that he supports going back to 1967 borders,” says Bolton. “Obama has a very tough road ahead. He is frequently taking the side of the Palestinians, who don’t have a competent leader who can make hard decisions and compromises in the future.”

I listened, or, at least, half listened, to most of Barry’s U.N. address, and, while he attempted to add in some “well, you better like us and help us, or I’m telling mommy’s,” it was all about pandering to thugs and dictators. You know, his standard fare.

Three other parts stand out, of the many many nutty things he said

On my first day in office, I prohibited – without exception or equivocation – the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.

First of all, Gitmo is no closer to being closed than when he made the pronouncement that it would be closed within 12 months of January 12, 2009 when he signed the order. Second, a good chunk of the countries represented tend to use torture before they even ask the first question, so, I doubt they were really impressed.

This body was founded on the belief that the nations of the world could solve their problems together.

Not really. It was a way of having the US and USSR snipe at each verbally instead of with weapons.

All of this must support efforts to strengthen the NPT. Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. This is not about singling out individual nations – it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nation’s demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure.

Now, Barry may have been speaking specifically about nuclear weapons, but, if memory serves, Iraq refused to live up to their obligations, including IAEA inspectors, and faced the consequences of 17 UN resolutions, culminating in 1441, authorizing the use of force, which, if memory serves, Barry gave a speech against and refused to vote to fund. How ’bout dat!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Less than 48 hours after Washington and its allies reluctantly accepted an offer of face-to-face negotiations from Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, insisted that the topic of greatest interest to the West would not be on the table.

“From the Iranian nation’s viewpoint, the nuclear case is closed,” he told Britain’s ambassador to Tehran, Simon Gass. “Having peaceful nuclear technology is Iran’s lawful and definite right and Iranians will not negotiate with anyone over their undeniable rights.”

What else is there to say? When one says they will negotiate with another from a position of weakness, one gets owned. When it is with a leader of a rogue country involved in Middle Eastern terrorism hell bent on developing nuclear weapons (were Iran simply looking to create nuclear power, that would be acceptable under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Matter of fact, the USA would be obliged to help), it is even worse. Chamberlain had no pre-conditions, Hitler did. Look how well that turned out.

BTW, do you think this is ending up in the American media? Of course, the answer is “no.”

Ahmadinejad is also taunting Obama, as the AFP points out.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

MACCALLUM: And if so, do you expect [Obama] to step up and say, you know, that, This is not the kind of person that I want in my administration, or not?

MORRIS: Well, I hope — I hope [Obama] does step up and say that, but let’s realize the responsibility he gave this guy. [Van Jones] basically was in charge of running the cap-and-trade legislation. He would be in charge of basically deciding how American manufacturing could cope with the need to reduce carbon output, which firms lived and died. And Obama trusted a guy like this with those kinds of decisions? He’s the czar, the green jobs czar. Incredible.

So, a Twoofer, Communist, community agitator, and Mumia supporter would be in charge of the anthropogenic global warming and destruction of the economy legislation. Does that make you feel good about the economy? A guy with basically no experience in charge of legislation that is already primed, if passed, to be a jobs and economy killer.

Via RBO, who also points out that Mother Jones named Van Jones one of the 17 people who can make or break cap and tax.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

It was after Pearl Harbor, after Midway, after many thousands of our American G.I.’s were killed in desperate battles with the Shintoist Japanese when President Franklin D. Roosevelt went on the radio and issued his heartfelt praise for Japan’s Shinto religion.

To his American audience, in his celebratory message for Japan’s Shinto religious practices, President Roosevelt issued the following line:

These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Shinto’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.

The outrage in America was deafening. No one could deny that there were millions of Shintoists that never raised a finger against the U.S., but the leaders of the war effort were all Shintoists and their religious leaders used the creed as a basis to attack us. Worse, as Americans were dying at the hands of Shintoists, the anger in the nation was…

Well, you know that this never happened. Of course President Roosevelt was never heard praising our enemy during that vicious war with Japan’s Shintoist fanatics. But that doesn’t mean that this whole thing is fantasy, either, because we did have a president that issued a celebratory message to our enemy while American soldiers were engaged in daily battle with representatives of religious fanatics as deadly as the Shintoists of WWII.

… or rather we do have such a president.

That’s right he’s in office right now. President Obama issued such a celebratory statement for the religion of our enemy just this week with a Ramadan statement. And here is the actual line from above as issued by the White House today.

These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.

“Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings”? Is this pandering fool kidding? As the loudest practitioners of Islam infest the whole of the world cutting off people’s heads, stoning women who’ve been raped, hanging homosexuals, spending millions of dollars world wide to sponsor terrorism, bombing people into oblivion and sponsoring riots to force their ideological desires on democratic societies one has to wonder when Islam is going to start “advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings”?

Islam is the single most violent, oppressive, and dangerous religion currently in practice in the world today, yet President Obama is pandering to this rabble that has vocally called for all our deaths or forcible conversion to Islam?

Is Islam beyond redemption? With an internal reformation, it likely isn’t. But no one of any prominence has made a move toward any such reformation. As it stands right now, there is little in Islam worth recommending much less praising.

It is a disgrace that as our soldiers are facing mortal danger from Islamists in many spots on the globe the president is celebrating the ideology that is used to justify our soldier’s deaths, not to mention the religion that was used to justify the most outrageous attack on American civilians in our history, 9/11.

Roosevelt was a bad enough president. His actions led to the socialist mess we are living with today and his New Deal led to the lengthening of The Great Depression by up to seven years, but he was at least smart enough not to praise our enemy in the midst of a war with them.

Would that Obama were as smart.

(Cross posted at PubliusForum.com.)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The White House hired a private communications company based in Minnesota to distribute mass e-mails, helping to shed light on how some recipients received e-mails in support of President Obama’s health care plan without signing up for them, FOX News has learned.

The company, Govdelivery, describes itself as the world’s leading provider of government-to-citizen communication solutions and says its e-mail service provides a fully-automated on-demand public communication system.

It is still unknown how much taxpayer money the White House provides to Govdelivery for its services.

Hey, let’s all ask the ACLU what they think about this blatant invasion of privacy……..huh? They do not care? They say we should just “trust” Obambi? Hmmph. How ’bout dat?

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has sent a letter to the White House asking for the “full truth” behind the Axelrod e-mails and expressing concern that “political e-mail address lists were used for official purposes.”

Most of us who are not Obamazombies would also like to know what is going on. Personally, I NEVER gave my email info to the White House. I did give it to the Obama campaign in order to receive emails on what the little socialists were doing, but, the info was never supposed to be shared outside of the campaign. Apparently, it now is.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

U.S. Postal Service managers are upset with President Barack Obama for denigrating the Postal Service as part of his argument defending the idea of creating a government-run health insurance plan to compete with private insurers.

In a town hall meeting last week in Portsmouth, N.H., Obama sought to reassure the public that creating the so-called “public option” health insurance plan–a government-run health insurance organization that would compete with private sector insurers–would not mean the death of private insurers. He pointed to the financially troubled Post Office as an example of a government-run system that does not compete very well with private delivery services.

All in all, Obama was correct, though, I doubt he meant it to come out the way it did. I’m sure he did ye olde face palm afterwards when he heard what he said. However, was it completely fair to diss the USPS like that? They do have to run under government rules not always set by the organization, but, by others. People send way more electronic mail and communicate through other electronic means, making sending letters worthless for many. Of course, they aren’t great, either. But, is that any reason for Obama to diss them?

But the Postal Service has said things are looking up, and in an Aug. 14 letter, Ted Keating, president of the National Association of Postal Supervisors, criticized President Obama.

“On behalf of 35,000 members of our association, I am writing to express our collective disappointment that you chose to use the Postal Service as a scapegoat and an example of inefficiency,” Keating wrote.

“Your negative comments on the Postal Service–without knowledge of the facts–was not only a disservice to members of our organization, but to all the postal employees,” he added.

“Employees of the Postal Service are largely represented by unions and management associations, all of whom strongly supported your candidacy last year,” the letter said. “For our support we do not expect any special consideration. However, we would like to be treated fairly and not have our current situation misrepresented, especially by the commander-in-chief.”

So, not only did he diss private citizens, but, his own voters. Good job, Sparky!

So, add them to the list which includes Special Olympians, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Wall Street, Joe The Plumber, Nancy Reagan, people with Guns and Bibles, Fox News and its employees, most Conservatives with his DHS report, Tea Party attendees, not to mention every person who stands against his attempt to implement single payer. Oh, and every American when he called America “arrogant.” And, heck, really, every person who bought into his hopenchange lies.

Plus, let’s not forget all those around the world who he insulted, some of whom are elected officials, and others private citizens..

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post