Tuesday, June 30, 2009
THERE'S a huge difference between what South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford did, and what ex-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer did. "I didn't fall in love with any of them," Spitzer was overheard ... . And Spitzer didn't use any taxpayer money on his trysts, while Sanford is reimbursing the state about $12,000 for travel expenses to Buenos Aires.
Ok, let's parse that a little bit:
"I didn't fall in love with any of them," Spitzer was overheard telling LMDC executive director Avi Schick
You didn't fall in love with any of them, huh Eliot? Ok, so those hookers were just pieces of meat, just a place for you to stick your penis to get a cheap thrill (well then again, at $3000 a night I shouldn't call it "cheap"). Yes, that really makes you so much of a better man than Mark Sanford, who fell in love with the woman with whom he had an affair.
And let's not forget that it's been reported that you - a married man - requested to have unprotected sex - with a prostitute. This is mind-bogglingly stupid, so stupid you'd think that if Mr. Spitzer had even an ounce of common sense left, he'd shut the f up about it instead of using Sanford as an opportunity to bring the issue back into the spotlight. As one of the SNL news anchors said "you were client number 9 - really!". If client number 2 had sloppy seconds, what did you have Eliot? Nasty ninths?
And Spitzer didn't use any taxpayer money on his trysts, while Sanford is reimbursing the state about $12,000 for travel expenses to Buenos Aires.
No, you squandered part of Daddy's inheritance on your dalliances with hookers. However, Eliot, you most certainly DID use taxpayer money to break up some high dollar prostitution rings during your tenure as New York state's Attorney General - and were doing so at the same time you were playing "hide the Vienna Sausage" with Kristen, which of course makes you about 10 times the hypocrite that Sanford was.
Don't get me wrong - I am in no way defending Sanford. He cheated, he got caught, and he should pay the price, including losing his wife. Not to mention, he did piss away taxpayer dollars for his dalliances, and was also derelict in his duty as governor of South Carolina by becoming unreachable. For those two things, he should resign. He's shown himself to be as fit for public office as Spitzer was, i.e. not at all.
Nevertheless, there is that saying about people in glass houses and throwing stones and all that. If you've been busted for dropping $3000 a night to have unprotected sex with hookers while your wife is sitting at home, and did so during the same time you were attorney general breaking up other high dollar prostitution rings, well then, you really should refrain from throwing stones, Mr. Spitzer. In fact, the best thing you could do about this and any future scandal involving politicians and adultery is to sit down and have a nice, hot cup of STFU.
This whole thing reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by Robert Heinlein, slightly modified by me:
A whore should be judged by the same criteria as other, professionals offering services for pay--such as dentists, lawyers, hairdressers, physicians, plumbers, etc. Is she professionally competent? Does she give good measure? Is she honest with her clients? It is possible that the percentage of honest and competent whores is higher than that of plumbers and much higher than that of lawyers. And enormously higher than that of
How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature's work?
The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: "You vote for revenue and your career is over." I don't know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it's about free speech, but it's extremely unfair.
This is the same kind of crap leftwing totalitarian movements the world over have pulled in demonizing their opponents on the way to implementing tyranny. Don't believe me? Go read some of the history of the Russian Revolution, paying particular attention to the rhetoric used by V. I. Lenin.
Meanwhile, I think it's time for me to pick up a copy of Liberal Fascism. Seems like Mr. Goldberg was rather prescient.
Monday, June 29, 2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday the coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and would set a "terrible precedent" of transition by military force unless it was reversed.
"We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there," Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.
Read the rest of the story going to this link.
But in Honduras? When a president tries to subvert the constitution? When Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro side with the Honduran president? Of course.
Just like Jimmy Carter. He loves him some dictators.
At best, this is terribly embarrassing for Teleprompter Jesus, as now his nominee can be subjected to grilling for one of her own decisions which the Supreme Court overturned her. I don't know if such a thing has happened in my life.
What's worse, is that Sotomayor has made more than a few racist statements herself, and her decision on the lower court was just ruled as discrimination against white firefighters. Is she still going to try to justify this decision in hearings? Or is she going to back down and admit she screwed the pooch on this one. Either way, it's not going to give average voters a whole lot of confidence in her jurisprudence. I somehow doubt defending the former is going to play well with blue collar whites who might otherwise be inclined to vote Democrat. If it's the latter, questions of her competence will certainly become an issue.
As for Dumbo Ears, he's now going to have to piss away even more political capital on a nominee who has defended the exact kind of racial discrimination that the high court overturned today. Welcome to Obama's post-racial America ... ooops. And in case he hasn't noticed (and I seriously doubt he has), his supply of political capital is dwindling. With each new umemployment report, with each new bit of bad economic news, each new overplayed hand in the form of Cap-And-Tax, Socialized Medicine, etc., his supply of political capital dwindles.
From my perspective, I just hope the Republicans in the Senate can finally muster up enough testicular fortitude to do what opposition parties are supposed to do: oppose. When the Sotomayor nomination first broke, many Republicans were quietly saying her confirmation was a done deal, largely because they lacked the cajones to oppose her for fear that the New York Times might write that their big meanies or something. Now they've been handed a gift on a silver platter. Will they use it? They better.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Well where do I start, with cap & trade passing through the house. We now are going to the senate with this monster. Where Dick Durbin awaits joyfully with those crazed take me to the funny farm eyes. This bill will slide through the house like a kid on a water slide. It is going to send what jobs we have left to China and Mexico. Do have an extra $4000.00 dollars to pay this tax. Obama said we going to make the corporations pay this tax. If McDonalds sells a hamburger for a dollar and the government taxes McDonalds for every hamburger they sell a dollar, how much is the hamburger going to cost you now kiddies?After the very close vote in the House yesterday on cap-and-trade, several documents were revealed that need to be considered prior to any action on your part in the Senate. Well, call me what you will, but the scientific facts simply do not support the Al Gore/Leonardo DiCraprio populist theories based on non-scientific "consensus". The legislation passed in the House does not even address nuclear power, a clean resource that needs to be part of our energy independence. A suppressed and censored report from our own EPA exposes many problems with the theories and "consensus" of the populist (and now debunked) theory of global warming, and the true (and minimal) affect of human activity on the climate. The suppressed EPA report is linked here: http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/cei-releases-global-warming-study-censored-epaThe Illinois senator's 2008 financial disclosure statement shows he sold mutual-fund shares worth $42,696 on Sept. 19, the day after then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged congressional leaders in a closed meeting to craft legislation to help financially troubled banks. The same day, he bought $43,562 worth of Berkshire Hathaway's Class B stock, the disclosure shows.This is reason Dick Durbin for closing Guantanamo and I quote, “I just gave it to you: Major Matthew Alexander, who interrogated the al-Qaeda suspects in Iraq. And it was his conclusion that half of them had been recruited and were fighting, trying to kill Americans because of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Are we going to ignore this? The fact is that closing Guantanamo, that announcement by the president, as well as abandoning torture techniques and so-called enhanced interrogation, finally said to the rest of the world that it's a new day. Join us in a new approach to keeping this world and America safe. I think it was a break from the past we desperately needed. And to turn around now and to take the approach that Mr. Limbaugh has suggested, that Newt Gingrich has suggested, Vice President Cheney, would put us back in that same terrible position where our troops will be less safe by continuing Guantanamo”.Why does he think closing Guantanamo going to make Islamic terrorist that are taught from birth that we are the enemy and there is only one God and he is Allah and others should be killed going to do, not one damn thing. The liberals just don’t get it! Please do what you can to stop this cap& trade bill from sliding through the senate.
You and Chris Buckley enjoy yourselves the next time Tina Brown throws a party for The Republicans Who Really Matter. Ask the bartender to fix you a special drink called the STFU Cocktail.
Go read the whole thing for yourself.
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had a few choice words about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) landmark climate-change bill after its passage Friday.
When asked why he read portions of the cap-and-trade bill on the floor Friday night, Boehner told The Hill, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s--t."
The part that might have raised my eye even more comes toward the end:
Further, officials with the House GOP's campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee, confirm that they will run with paid media over recess in districts of conservative Dems who voted for the bill. The official would not reveal details on the ad buys at this time.
When I looked at the roll call of the vote, there were several surprise yes votes among Democrats - mainly because these democrats represent districts in the rust belt states that will feel a disproportionately large number of job losses that will result from Cap and Tax, but also because a number of these Democrats are in conservative or conservative-leaning districts that usually go Republican but went Democrat the last two cycles. The tide is definitely changing, and these should be good targets for GOP pickups in the 2010 mid-terms. Let's just hope we can actually get some real conservatives running in opposition.
If you live in one of these districts, contact the NRCC and demand they get a good conservative to run against the Cap-And-Taxers of these districts.
Let's make the 1994 mid-terms look like nothing more than a blip on the political radar screen.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Where am I going with this? Well, just bear with me, it has relevance to our goal of sticking it to liberals, but the digression is necessary.
Anyway, as long as I’ve been a football fan, I’ve been a fan of the Los Angeles/St. Louis Rams. And therein lies the root of my hatred for that stupid cliché. Consider this paragraph from about Rams Hall of Fame end Jack Youngblood, from a 2001 issue of Pro Football Weekly:
Consider this: From 1970 through 1979, the Rams’ defense allowed the fewest rushing yards, allowed the fewest rushing touchdowns, allowed the fewest total yards and allowed the fewest points while amassing the most sacks. That is not for just one year but for the entire decade, and Jack Youngblood was the cornerstone of that Ray Malavasi-coached odd-man-approach defense. Those feats are even more impressive when you consider that during that decade, defensive units with names like Steel Curtain, Doomsday Defense, No-Name Defense, Purple People Eaters, Orange Crush and Sack Pack were roaming the NFL.
If you have been a football fan as long as me, the situation is becoming a little bit clearer. For all of those impressive statistics – made even more impressive in light of the other great defenses of that era – the Rams never once won a championship during that decade. Not once.
Now consider the Rams team that did win a championship, the 1999 St. Louis Rams. While they had an above average defense, it wasn’t that unit that got them over the top. No, what got them over the top was an offense that was dynamic, explosive, dangerous against even the best competition and one that absolutely and without mercy crushed the life out of lesser opposition.
So here’s the hook – just as a good offense is required in football, the same is true in politics and in winning elections. Maybe even moreso. And even when you play defense in politics, you can’t be defensive.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot since the election. We have heard all kinds of advice from our supposed betters – David Frum, David Brooks, Rod Dreher, Peggy Noonan, blah blah freakin blah – that Republicans need to “change their tone.” Rush Limbaugh states the obvious when he says he want Obama to fail, and a bunch of so-called conservatives like the ones just mentioned proceed to wet their moderate man panties. Mark Levin says something indelicate to a caller and Conor Friesendorf gets upset because Levin was a big mean poopy-head.
No, instead these guys immediately want to assume the fetal position (or the bent over position), as they start lecturing us knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing troglodytes (in their view), telling us we need to moderate our conservative views. We need to move more towards the left, we need to be more liberal to get more voters. Frum tells us we need to accept a carbon tax, Colin Powell tells us we need to embrace more government in our lives, Ross Douthat writes a book where he advises Republicans to embrace wage subsidies. And don’t get me even started on David Brooks, who’s so squishy he makes Sponge Bob look like a steel beam, or Peggy Noonan, who now sounds like nothing more than a substance-less, menopausal F. Scott Fitzgerald wannabe. Gag me.
The common thread of all of these squishes is that they think Republicans should only play defense. The think we should on good faith accept the premises of every left wing argument that comes down the pike. We need to kick out of our “big tent” the social conservatives, the fiscal conservatives, the defense conservatives … then who’s left? Not only do these squishes want to play defense, they want to take half the players off the field in their desperate hopes that the other team will like us more. And let someone like Rush, Levin, or Laura Ingraham go on the offense, and what do they do? Squeal like a stuck pig.
Well screw that, and screw playing defense. The Democrats didn’t regain power by playing defense, did they? No, they stayed on offense, attack, attack, attack. Yes, a lot of their attacks were unadulterated BS, but there were so many of them that some of them stuck. So while we were trying to play defense, they were busy playing offense, effectively so, and stealing the electorate right out from under our noses. Next on the list is our wallets and guns.
We need to stop listening to the squishes, the ones who think we can win elections by assuming a purely defensive posture. We need to go on offense, and we need to be aggressive. And lord knows, Obama and the Democrats are providing us with an extremely target rich environment. From deficits that dwarf anything that came out of the Bush years, to his weak-ass response to the situation in Iran, to a cap and trade economy killer, to the attempted socialization of health care, to the corruption behind the inspector general firings … you get the picture. Plenty of targets. Start shooting.
Now don’t get me wrong – we don’t need to be like the “Bush=Hitler” moonbats of the left. You do want to focus your aim on worthy targets. You don’t shoot at squirrels when you’re out hunting deer, now do you? However, as noted, the current environment is extremely target rich, and getting richer by the day.
As for defense? Well, yes, you have to play it sometimes, when it is necessary. One of the things that most drove me crazy about Bush is that he so often failed to defend himself against some of the most ridiculous charges. That failure gave many of those charges an undeserved credibility. Nevertheless, it’s worth remembering that the goal of defense, in football and politics, is to get off the field as quick as possible without the other team scoring. The goal is to get your team back on offense, in the attack mode.
All of which leads me full circle back to a football cliché that I like – the best defense is a good offense. It’s true in football, and even truer in politics.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
There is a tendency for newly installed presidents, like adolescents suddenly liberated from adult supervision, to do the exact opposite of what their predecessors did. Presidents of both parties indulge in this behavior, though Democrats who campaign as candidates of hope and change are more likely to do so.
Some of this is a legitimate response to the political process: Voters tend to elect presidents who seem to possess qualities and views they thought lacking in their predecessors. But some of it, and especially in the case of Barack Obama, seems to come from an adolescentlike confidence that everything done by those who came before is (insert your own generation’s expletive here).
The other example of adolescent rejection of a policy has come on missile defense. Back in the 1970s and 1980s Democratic politicians opposed missile defense on the grounds — mistaken in my view, but arguable at the time — that it would destabilize the balance of nuclear terror between the United States and the Soviet Union. Democrats have clung to that position even after the fall of the Soviet Union and Obama, as a senator and presidential candidate, joined them, routinely expressing doubts that missile defense could ever work.
As president, he has singled out missile defense for cuts, even in the face of missile launches by North Korea and evidence of continuing missile development by Iran. Bush abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and pushed ahead on missile defense, so it must be bad even if there’s no U.S.-Soviet balance of terror to destabilize any more.
How many days until Jan. 20, 2013? Can we hang on that long?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
1930 - 1979
At the end of this blog is a quote of the month by Jay Leno. If you don't read anything else, please
read what he said.
Very well stated, Mr.. Leno.
TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED THE
1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's!!
First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant.
They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can and didn't get tested for diabetes.
Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-base paints.
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, locks on doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had baseball caps not helmets on our heads.
As infants & children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, no booster seats, no seat belts, no air bags, bald tires and sometimes no brakes.
Riding in the back of a pick- up truck on a warm day was always a special treat.
We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle.
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and no one actually died from this..
We ate cupcakes, white bread, real butter and bacon. We drank Kool-Aid made with real white sugar. And, we weren't overweight WHY?
Because we were always outside playing.....that's why!
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on..
No one was able to reach us all day. And, we were O.K.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride them down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes.. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem
We did not have Play stations, Nintendo's and X-boxes. There were no video games, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's, no surround-sound or CD's, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet and no chat rooms.
WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.. We would get spankings with wooden spoons, switches, ping pong paddles, or just a bare hand and no one would call child services to report abuse.
We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.
We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them.
Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment.
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!
These generations have produced some of the best
risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever.
The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all.
If YOU are one of them? CONGRATULATIONS!
You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives for our own good.
Independent voters are the canaries in the coal mine of American politics, telling a leader whether the air is safe or starting to fill up with some toxic gases.
Bearing that in mind, President Barack Obama and his team ought to start worrying about the health of those canaries.
While the president remains broadly popular, his standing has eroded noticeably among political independents in recent weeks. That slide, among a set of citizens central to Mr. Obama's sizable victory in last year's election, means he has reached a politically hazardous juncture at the midpoint of his first, exceptionally hectic year.
Hmm, what could they be thinking about?
In particular, the survey suggests, independents are developing gnawing fears about government spending. They are markedly more worried about the federal budget deficit as an economic issue than are Americans in general, and they are more likely to be skeptical of Mr. Obama's plan for a health-care overhaul.
Worried about deficits? Who'd a thunk it after the $ bazillion stimulus plan and the $ cajillion budget. Well, fiscal conservatives would have - but now independents are as well.
Above all, though, independents are starting to simply view the president as more liberal than they expected. The share of independents who say Mr. Obama is a liberal has risen to a substantial 64% from 46% two months ago. A large portion of them actually classify him as "very liberal." That's a particular problem because independents tend to view themselves as center-right -- 78% call themselves moderate or conservative -- so they see a president moving to the left of where they are.
He's a liberal??!?!? Get the frak outta here!! Wow, it's too bad he didn't have a voting record or some other history to examine that might have indicated he was indeed a liberal.
Ok, enough with my sarcasm - I'm glad independents are starting to wake up. It's just too bad they didn't do it before the election, when the current insanity could have been stopped.
Rasmussen is now showing that equal numbers strongly approve and strongly disapprove, with the trend moving in an ominous direction for the weasel in chief. The "Blame Bush" meme is also starting to wear thin with voters. The honeymoon is definitely over.
Monday, June 22, 2009
The fact is that, as a man of the hard Left, Obama is more comfortable with a totalitarian Islamic regime than he would be with a free Iranian society. In this he is no different from his allies like the Congressional Black Caucus and Bill Ayers, who have shown themselves perfectly comfortable with Castro and Chàvez. Indeed, he is the product of a hard-Left tradition that apologized for Stalin and was more comfortable with the Soviets than the anti-Communists (and that, in Soros parlance, saw George Bush as a bigger terrorist than bin Laden).
Because of obvious divergences (inequality for women and non-Muslims, hatred of homosexuals) radical Islam and radical Leftism are commonly mistaken to be incompatible. In fact, they have much more in common than not, especially when it comes to suppression of freedom, intrusiveness in all aspects of life, notions of "social justice," and their economic programs. (On this, as in so many other things, Anthony Daniels should be required reading — see his incisive New English Review essay, "There Is No God but Politics", comparing Marx and Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb.) The divergences between radical Islam and radical Leftism are much overrated — "equal rights" and "social justice" are always more rally-cry propaganda than real goals for totalitarians, and hatred of certain groups is always a feature of their societies.
Head on over and read the whole thing for a view into the mind of someone who really, truly, does not believe in freedom.
By ANNE GEARAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama stuck to his carefully tailored response to Iran's internal crisis Sunday despite pressure from Republican critics, as he continued to speak up for protesters' rights without making specific demands on Iran's hard-line leaders.
"The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States," Obama said in an interview released Sunday. "We shouldn't be playing into that."
The president spoke Friday during an interview with CBS News' Harry Smith. It will be broadcast Monday on "The Early Show."
Obama's measured statements so far attempt to speak up for human rights while preserving U.S. options and lessening the chance that he becomes a scapegoat for the cleric-led government, which has blamed the West for stirring up street protests that turned into bloody clashes with police and militia.
Obama kept a public silence Sunday, although a spokesman said he discussed Iran with foreign policy advisers in the Oval Office for more than 30 minutes. He later went golfing in Virginia.
Tehran's streets fell mostly quiet for the first time since a bitterly disputed June 12 presidential election, but there were reports that government forces appeared to be pressing arrests of defiant protesters after the official death toll swelled to at least 17.
The White House did not book any surrogates on the Sunday talk shows to defend or explain the administration's approach. Republicans used their broadcast appearances to call the president timid or feckless, while the Democrat who leads the Senate Intelligence Committee said the U.S. had no hand in the disputed election.
Like other Democrats who spoke Sunday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein backed the president's approach.
"It is very crucial as I see that we not have our fingerprints on this," she said, "that this really be ... truly inspired by the Iranian people. We don't know where this goes."
A day earlier, Obama invoked the American civil rights struggle to condemn violence against demonstrators, some of whom have carried signs in English asking, "Where is My Vote?"
It was his strongest statement on what has become the most significant challenge to Iran's ruling structure since the Islamic revolution 30 years ago, but it stopped short of demanding a recount or new election, as many of the demonstrators seek.
He avoided mentioning either incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or his principal challenger by name, and said nothing about his oft-repeated campaign promise of a fresh start in diplomatic talks with the main U.S. adversary in the Middle East.
Obama has tried to hold a middle ground as the crisis unfolds, and found the ground shifting by the day. His advisers say any thunderous denunciation of Iran's rulers would invite them to blame Western interference and might worsen the violence instead of end it.
Both the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly last week to condemn an official crackdown on the mostly peaceful demonstrations, a stronger action than the White House has yet taken.
"The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "He's been timid and passive more than I would like."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and others noted that Western leaders, including French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have demanded a recount or more forcefully condemned the government crackdown.
"I'd like to see the president be stronger than he has been, although I appreciate the comments that he made yesterday," McCain said. "I think we ought to have America lead."
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said a slow or muted U.S. response risks undermining the aspirations of Iranian voters to change or question their government.
"If America stands for democracy and all of these demonstrations are going on in Tehran and other cities over there, and people don't think that we really care, then obviously they're going to question, 'do we really believe in our principles?'" Grassley said.
Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, a moderate Republican who holds the party's top position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, seemed to echo Obama's caution.
"The challenge continues, which is going to come to a conclusion one way or another," Lugar said. "Either the protesters bring about change or they're suppressed, and it's a potentially very brutal outcome at the end of the day."
Obama on Saturday challenged Iran's government to halt a "violent and unjust" crackdown on dissenters, and he quoted Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
"Right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian people's belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness," Obama said.
The statement calling for an end to violence against demonstrators followed days of agonizing among his staff over what to say and how strongly to say it.
It also followed a false note from Obama last week, when he said he saw little difference between Ahmadinejad, the hard-liner who claims a landslide re-election mandate, and his conservative but pro-reform challenger. That left the impression that Obama discounted the votes of Mir Hossein Mousavi's supporters or the bravery of protesters who marched to say their votes were stolen.
Ahmadinejad claimed victory by an overwhelming margin following a lively campaign that many analysts predicted would yield razor-close results. The speed with which his victory was announced and vote claims in areas where he was at a clear disadvantage outraged Mousavi's backers.
Democrats in the Senate say Obama has struck the right balance.
"He's got a very delicate path to walk here," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. "You don't want to take ownership of this."
Dodd and Graham appeared on ABC's "This Week," McCain was on CBS'"Face the Nation," and Feinstein, Lugar and Grassley spoke on "State of the Union" on CNN.
John Kennedy once said to a assembled group of scholars in the White House, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
The quotes below could prove his point.
When we get piled upon one a nother in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe. Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson
Very Interesting Quote: In light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
Doesn't this sound eerily familiar to what is happening in America today?