When the AP does and interview with Obama and THEY say his responses are NUANCED you know he's bust hedging his bets and covering his behind. What follows is a series of these different parts of the AP interview:

 

OBAMA NUANCE IN AP INTERVIEW:

ON IRAN ATTAINING NUKES: 'NOT RECONCILED WITH THAT'...

Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power
Jul 2 12:16 PM US/Eastern By JENNIFER LOVEN AP White House Correspondent

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama says he is "not reconciled" to the idea of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon within a year. The president told The Associated Press in an interview that U.S. government planning is running in precisely the opposite direction. He said a nuclear-armed Iran would likely trigger an arms race in the already volatile Mideast and said that would be "a recipie for potential disaster." Obama also said Thursday that opposing a nuclear weapons capacity for the Persian Gulf nation isn't simply "a U.S. position." He said "the biggest concern is not simply that Iran can threaten us or our allies, like Israel or its neighbors." The president said that Iran must not be a nuclear power, although he conceded that the challenge ahead is formidable.

ON PROLONGED DETENTIONS: 'GIVES ME HUGE PAUSE'...

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama says he's open to the idea of detaining some Guantanamo Bay terror suspects somewhere else for prolonged periods, but it may turn out that he won't be comfortable with any proposals to do that.

In an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday, Obama said the idea of indefinite detentions as part of his legacy as president "gives me huge pause."

But the president says there are some detainees who don't fall neatly into existing categories for criminal prosecution in the United States or under international law.

Obama says that dealing with these situations is going to be "one of the biggest challenges" of his administration. The president says he's not comfortable imposing indefinite detentions by executive order. But he didn't explicitly rule it out.

ON WHITE FIREFIGHTER COURT RULING: 'VERY NARROW... HARD TO GAUGE'...

Obama downplays affirmative action as an issue
Jul 2 12:29 PM US/Eastern

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama says he's never believed that affirmative action is as much of an issue as it's been made out to be. He says it hasn't been as "potent a force for racial progress" as its supporters have said, and that it hasn't been as bad for white students or job applicants as its critics say. In an Associated Press interview Thursday, Obama said affirmative action can be made an "afterthought" when problems such as malnutrition, poverty and substandard schools are dealt with, and "everybody has a level playing field." He said the recent Supreme Court decision in favor of white firefighters who were denied promotion in New Haven, Conn., was a "very narrow" case, and that it's "hard to gauge" where the court will go next on the issue.

 

ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: 'DON'T THINK THAT HIRING ON BASIS OF RACE...ALONE IS CONSTITUIONALLY POSSIBLE'...

Court 'moving ball' on racial hiring, Obama says
Jul 2 12:58 PM US/Eastern By JENNIFER LOVEN AP White House Correspondent

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama said Thursday the Supreme Court was "moving the ball" on affirmative action in this week's decision favoring white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., but he added that the court had not ruled out the use of racial preferences in the future. In a White House interview with The Associated Press, the president also said, "I don't think that hiring on the basis of race ... alone is constitutionally possible." Obama, a former teacher of constitutional law, said, "I've always believe that affirmative action was less of an issue or should be less of an issue than it has been made out to be in news reports." Scheduled to depart next week on a trip to Russia, Italy and Ghana, Obama praised Moscow and thanked Iran for its cooperation in attempting to persuade North Korea and Iran to abandon their nuclear development programs. The United Nations recently approved "the most robust sanction regime that we've ever seen with respect to North Korea," he said. The president said his agenda in Russia includes talks on a new treaty to curtail long-range nuclear missiles. Asked why he intends to meet with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the former president, Obama said he "still has a lot of sway." Putin now is nominally the second-in-command in the Kremlin. Chiding the former president, he said Putin "has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new." Obama also is to meet with the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, and said it is important that both Medvedev and Putin hear the same message from the United States, the U.S. president said. Obama expressed reservations about his recently announced policy that could leave some detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison indefinitely. "It gives me huge pause," he said, to the point where he may not see it through. He also ruled out establishing a system on his own by executive order if Congress refuses to pass legislation. "We're going to proceed very carefully on this front, and it may turn out that after looking at all the dimensions of this that I don't feel comfortable with (it)," Obama said. The president has pledged to close the prison in Cuba and hopes to send most of those currently held there to other countries. With joblessness rising, the president said he was "deeply concerned" about unemployment and conceded that too many families are worried about "whether they will be next." Still, he said that since he took office almost six months ago "we have successfully stabilized the financial markets," and "started to see some stabilization on housing." "But what we are still seeing is too many jobs lost," said Obama, commenting after new government figures showed the unemployment rate had risen to 9.5 percent last month. Since Obama signed the $780 billion economic stimulus bill in February, the economy has shed more than 2 million jobs. Asked if he was resigned to Iran's possession of nuclear weapons, he said, "I'm not reconciled with that, and I don't think the international community is reconciled with that." In his comments on the Supreme Court case, Obama said the 5-4 ruling was written narrowly, and "didn't close the door to affirmative action" to help minorities. Obama, a former teacher of constitutional law, said of affirmative action, "It hasn't been as potent a force for racial progress as advocates will claim and it hasn't been as bad on white students seeking admissions or seeking a job as its critics say." On other topics: —He said Michael Jackson was "one of our greatest entertainers" and "I still have all his stuff on my iPod." But he said Jackson's life had been tragic and in many ways sad. —The president spoke enthusiastically of the White House pastry chef. "Whatever kind of pie you want, he will make it," Obama said, adding ruefully that that was a problem for him and wife Michelle in regard to their weight. —Asked whether he was a bigger fan of Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan, one the reigning MVP of the National Basketball Association and the other a retired superstar, the basketball-playing president said without hesitation: "Michael. I haven't seen anybody match up with Jordan yet."

 

 

Where's The U.N. On Iran?
Claudia Rosett, 06.25.09, 12:01 AM ET

People are being killed in Iran. Where is the U.N.? What institution could be better positioned to relieve President Obama of his worries about America standing up unilaterally for freedom in Iran? The U.N. is the self-styled overlord of the international community, committed in its charter to promote peace, freedom and "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights."

Iran's regime is already in gross violation of a series of U.N. sanctions over a nuclear program the U.N. Security Council deems a threat to international peace. The same regime has now loosed its security apparatus of trained thugs and snipers on Iranians who have been, in huge numbers, demanding their basic rights. Surely top U.N. officials such as Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon should be leading the charge for liberty and justice, with the strongest possible criticism and measures against the Iranian regime.

But that's not happening. While Iranian protesters have been risking their necks to try to rid their country of a malignant despotism, the U.N. has hardly even qualified as voting "present."

During the upheaval following the disputed results of Iran's June 12 presidential election, Ban confined himself to a grand total of three public utterances on the matter. In the first, on June 15, with pictures of bloodied Iranian protesters already flooding the Internet, Ban told reporters in New York that he was "closely following the situation." In words so ritually obtuse that they could have been scripted for him by Iran's supreme tyrant, Ali Khamenei, Ban added that he had "taken note of the instruction by the religious leaders that there should be an investigation into this issue."

The next day, June 16, when asked again about Iran, Ban came up with pretty much the same anodyne answer: "taken note ... very closely following ... just seeing how the situation will develop." Other than that, for the next six days, Ban had lots to say--but not about Iran. He sent a message to a meeting in Yekaterinburg, Russia, of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was attending as an observer, having briefly decamped from the upheaval that his own Ayatollah-blessed, irregularity-fraught "re-election" had sparked in Iran.

To this gathering in Russia, where Ahmadinejad posed for the cameras among a lineup of heads of state, Ban dispatched a message full of buzzwords about poverty, climate change and "combined commitment to a peaceful and prosperous common future." He made no mention of the "situation" in Iran.

Ban also found time for such activities as addressing a seminar on "cyber-hate." He paid tribute to Gabon's late President Omar Bongo Ondimba. He fretted about the effects of desertification on migration patterns by the year 2050. This past weekend, as the world played and replayed the footage of Iranian protester Neda Agha-Soltan bleeding to death on a street in Tehran, Ban was in Birmingham, England, apparently absorbed in accepting an award at a Rotary International Convention.

Not until June 22 did Ban finally return to the subject of Iran. And even then, Ban did not step forth before the cameras himself. At the regular noon press briefing, Ban's spokeswoman, Michele Montas, delivered a long list of announcements, replete with notices of assorted public service awards, and of the demise of a man who served from 1976 to 1981 as the spokesman for former U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim. There was nothing on Iran.

When the announcements finally ended, the first question she got was about the Secretary General's reaction to the latest news on election oddities and murdered protesters in Iran. She replied only that a statement from Ban was in the works, which she hoped would be ready "in a few minutes." To a second question on Iran, she said that time was up, and the briefing was over.

Hours later, Ban's office finally issued the promised response on Iran: a one-paragraph statement, "attributable to the Secretary General." It turned out that while Iran's security forces had been spending day after day beating, shooting and arresting demonstrators, Ban had progressed from keeping an eye on Iran to following the situation with "growing concern," and had become "dismayed" by the violence.

As U.N. diplomat lingo goes, this is phrasing so tepid it could double as old dishwater. Compare it, for instance, to Ban's statement the next day about the rape of some 20 women at Goma's central prison in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This was a horrible event, but was it more horrible, or of greater import, than Iran's government assaulting and slaughtering its own people? In the Congo case--keep your eye on the nuances--Ban was not merely "dismayed." He was "deeply distressed."

Or contrast Ban's lukewarm angle on Iran with his "around-the-clock efforts with world leaders"--as his spokeswoman described it--to produce an immediate ceasefire when Israeli forces went into terrorist-run Gaza last December to try to stop Iranian-backed Hamas from launching rockets into Israel. In that case, Ban declared himself "deeply dismayed," "deeply alarmed," and having demanded, urged and condemned, he finally traveled to Gaza.

There, Ban did not wait for any considered inquiry and analysis to unfold. He let fly, condemning Israel for "excessive" use of force, and pronouncing himself incensed that U.N. buildings had been hit--never mind why. He rolled out for the press such phrases as "outrageous, shocking and alarming," demanded a full investigation and pronounced himself too "appalled" to be able to describe his full feelings.

No such vocabulary or demand has been emanating from Ban's office over the carnage that Iran's government, in order to maintain its monstrously repressive grip, has been inflicting on its own people.

To be fair to Ban, in his statement Monday on Iran, he did spell out that his dismay extends particularly to "the use of force against civilians." But he didn't mention anything about this force being "excessive." Perhaps by U.N. lights, the Iranian Basij and rooftop snipers have hit on some eminently proportionate use of force--dismaying to Ban, lethal to an untold number of Iranians, but not worth a denouncement as "outrageous, shocking and alarming."

Ban, in the second half of his one-paragraph statement on Iran, went on to urge "a stop to the arrests, threats and use of force," calling on "the government and the opposition to resolve peacefully their differences through dialogue and legal means." That might be a reasonable notion, were Iran a free society operating with a genuinely democratic system and set of laws. But Iran under the mullahs is a place where they jail women who take off their veils, and hang homosexuals.

Whether disingenuous or simply clueless, Ban, with his morally neutral U.N. mantra, is ignoring the problem that Iran's regime, since its inception 30 years ago, has been grounded not in democratic rule of law, but in rule by diktat and terror. The arrests, threats and force are part of the government's "dialogue."

Beyond Ban, where is the rest of the U.N. on the showdown and brutal crackdown in Iran? Well, last Friday, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, according to the U.N. News Service, "expressed concern" (though apparently not deep concern). With fastidious attention to the small print, Pillay noted that "the legal basis of the arrests that have been taking place, especially those of human rights defenders and political activists, is not clear." She may be right; the details right now are not clear. But the big picture certainly is.

What of the 15-member Security Council, which over the past three years has imposed sanctions on Iran, meant to stop its "proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities." You might suppose that with Iran's government brazenly violating these sanctions, the Security Council would take an interest in the recent tumult within the Islamic Republic. Perhaps the U.S. would be pushing the issue?

Nope. According to a Western diplomat connected with the Security Council, "Iran is not being discussed at the council right now."

Nor is the General Assembly exactly seized of the matter (as they like to say at the U.N.). The current president of the Assembly is Nicaragua's Miguel D'Escoto Brockman, a former Sandinista and current pal of the Tehran regime. In March D'Escoto made a five-day pit stop in Iran, his visit apparently bankrolled by the Iranian regime. This week he's making use of the U.N.'s headquarters in New York to host a conference on remodeling the global financial system.

What of the U.N. agencies? They have a substantial presence inside Iran, and Iran has a substantial presence inside them. As I've written previously in these columns, Iran sits on the governing boards of an array of U.N. agencies, and is currently chairing the 36-member executive board of the U.N.'s flagship agency, the U.N. Development Program--which as part of its brief serves as coordinator for other U.N. operations in the field. In that capacity, as a UNDP official assures me, Iran does not deal with day-to-day management of the UNDP, but merely exercises "oversight." On the current "situation" in Iran, the UNDP top official, Administrator Helen Clark, has remained silent.

So, as protesters die in Iran while calling for freedom, where is the U.N.? With Ban Ki-Moon and the crew above manning the mother ship of global diplomacy, the best rejoinder I can come up with is, the further away, the better.

Claudia Rosett, a journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, writes a weekly column on foreign affairs for Forbes.

 

Yes, in 7 days Obama strongly speaks out of BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH!!!!!!!!!! Oppression and death in Iran is OK per his letter he sent the Mullahs before their election, but freedom and democracy per their constitution in Honduras is not. Common denominator? He supports the Muslim government and then he supports the socialist governments of Venezuela and Cuba.

 

Yes, the Honduras Supreme Court ruled what their president was doing illegal and unconstitutional and he refused to stop. The military had to remove him and the Vice President took charge until the elections. Repeat, the military is not in charge, the Vice President is now in charge per their constitution.

 

Now Obama sides with Chavez and Castro who say the leftist president is really still president. even though that is interfering with the internal activities of another country.

 

Wait, didn't Obama support the dictator MULLAHS in Iran when the people revolted against a rigged election??? didn't he say we would not interfere????

 

Why does Obama now say it is OK to interfere in Honduras??????? Because the dictator is the one he supports, like the Iranian mullahs???  

 

Muslims and Socialists, that is who Obama supports.

 

What the Liberal Media Aren't Telling You About Obama's Healthcare Plans

Breaking News

• ABC ObamaCare Special Turns Into Presidential Filibuster
  
• Obama Not Telling Truth on Gov’t Health Care, Republicans Say
  
• How ABC Stacked the Deck for Obama
  
• ABC Endorses ObamaCare Premise: 'The Need is Obvious'
  
• Critics Push Back Against ABC-Obama Health Care Special
  
• Chris Matthews Attacks: Joe and Mika 'Pussyfoot' Issue of Health Care Reform
  
• DeMint, Price Cry Foul on ObamaCare Proposals: President Has 'Not Been Telling the Truth'
  
• Physician Disputes Obama’s Claim of 46 Million Uninsured Americans
  
• David Westin Reacts Testily to Congressional Critics of ABC News Obamacare Show
  
• Obama Says It's 'Not Logical' to Fear Government-Run Health Care
  
• CNN's Campbell Brown: 'Why Not Be Open to Trying' ObamaCare?
  
• ABC's Jake Tapper Hits Obama for Specifics on Health Care Plan
  
• CBS Confirms ObamaCare Would Oust People from Health Insurance and Doctor
  
• New York Times Poll Showing 72% Support for Obama's Health Care Plan Was Stacked With Obama Supporters

Cost to Taxpayers

• Massachusetts Health Care Reform Not as Successful as Lawmakers Claim, Free Market Analyst Says
  
• The Senate Health Care Bills: $1.5 Trillion Sticker Shock
  
• Obama's Top Economic Adviser Says 'Public Option' Health Plan Will ‘Never’ Take Public Money
  
• Beck on ObamaCare: A Plan Octomom Would Love
  
• What We Would Ask: Questions about Obama's health care plan

more...

Threat to Patients/Health Care Consumers

• Britain--Which White House Suggests is Model of Single-Payer Health Care System That 'Works'--Doesn't 'Work' for Everyone
  
• Healthcare reform puts a price on quality of life
  
• Morning Bell: You Can’t Trust Obama on Health Care
  
• Democrats Bury ‘Community Transformation’ Plans in Health Care Bill

more...

Media Promote Nationalized Health Care

• Fact Sheet: America's Uninsured
  
• Obama Pushes Gov. Health Care; ABC Responds with 'Prescription for America' Coverage from White House
  
• ABC Promises 'Tough Questions' for Obama in 'Television Event'
  
• ABC's Sawyer Swears Health Care Special 'Not an Infomercial'; Touts Network Fairness
  
• A Doctor's Reflections on Health-Care Reform

more...

Fighting Back

• What We Would Ask: Questions about Obama's health care plan
  
• ‘Government-Run’ Health Care is a ‘Buzz Word,’ Says Sen. Chris Dodd
  
• Fox News's 'Special Report' Features MRC's Bozell Reacting to Planned ABC Special
  
• National Review Online: For Republicans A Health Care Opportunity
  
• House GOP Health Plan Superior
  

 

---

---

AFL-CIO Hard Hats

The AFL-CIO is passing around these hard hats today to every office on Capitol Hill. Check out where they're made:

Plus, there's a booklet detailing "the truth about the Employee Free Choice Act." (Card Check.) “Everyone should have the right to join the union,” the group says when they drop the goodies off, according to sources. They don't mention that the voting is not private, everyone wtaches what you vote.

 

 

First the financial industry (control the money), then the "porkulus" bill (keep the rabble happy and distract the princes), then the economy (nationalize everything possible with government ownership or at least management control), the the health care (make everybody depend on the government for healthcare), surround the power industry with regulation (control the power and you control people's energy use) and on and one. Spend like no tomorrow (control peoples income, tax to death) CONTROL. GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

 

Obama's Fairy Dust

John Tamny, 06.21.09, 12:01 AM EDT

Profit and loss are the most effective regulators.

 In a major speech last week in which he rolled out his vision for financial regulatory reform, President Barack Obama said he has "always been a strong believer in the power of free markets." Nice rhetoric for sure, particularly given a series of proposals meant to hamstring natural market activity while surely driving other forms of finance overseas.

As he sees it, "one of the most significant contributors to our economic downturn was an unraveling of our major financial institutions." No doubt that's the conventional wisdom of late, but it's hard to see how it could be completely true.

Indeed, finance as we know it is nothing if not a very broad concept. While Ford Motor Co. ( F - news - people ) can trace its beginnings to car manufacturing, Quicken to tax software and E*TRADE Financial ( ETFC - news - people ) to low-cost stock trading, all are presently significant players in the business of lending. More broadly, retail behemoth Wal-Mart ( WMT - news - people ) would have been in banking years ago if it weren't for regulations meant to keep it out, while leveraged-buyout giants of the Blackstone Group ( BX - news - people ) variety are dying to pick up insolvent financial institutions on the cheap.

In that sense, the true contributor to our economic downturn wasn't so much the failure of banks, but instead a bipartisan failure within Washington to let market forces prevail whereby finance substitutes would have entered a marketplace badly served by various dead banks walking. Put more simply, the unraveling of major financial institutions is not what presently ails us, but an unwillingness to allow them to die so that they could be replaced by healthy substitutes is.

Obama went on to say that the failure of these major financial institutions was due to a "lack of adequate regulatory structures to prevent abuse and excess." The latter constitutes what passes as settled truth at present, but what's less acknowledged is the simple reality that in addition to oversight provided by the Federal Reserve, banks dealt with regulators ranging from the Comptroller of the Currency to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Office of Thrift Supervision, not to mention myriad other state regulators.

Specifically, the very Federal Reserve that proved so stupendously unequal to the task of regulating the nation's biggest banks will now be charged with regulating the "stability of the system as a whole." The Peter Principle has never held relevance in a Washington political culture that regularly rewards failure, but this promotion of sorts for the hapless Bernanke Fed is really quite something. A bureaucracy that was utterly blind to the proverbial trees will now be asked to somehow see the forest.

And as part of the Fed's expanded mandate, what Obama terms a "resolution authority" will be created for "large and interconnected financial firms so that we are not only putting in place safeguards to prevent the failure of these firms, but also a set of orderly procedures that will allow us to protect the economy if such a firm does in fact go under." Translated, just as AIG ( AIG - news - people ), Citigroup ( C - news - people ) and General Motors ( GMGMQ.PK - news - people ) were deemed "too big to fail," the Obama administration will spread fairy dust over other finance firms it deems important to the financial system's overall health.

For the institutions supposedly lucky enough to be tapped by our federal minders as too big to fail, the much remarked upon "optimistic" scenario is one in which their cost of capital will drop for them being protected by Washington. This ensures that the many financial institutions not important enough to fit under the Fed's umbrella will be weakened for having to lend in an environment distorted by larger institutions profiting from their tight relationship with Uncle Sam.

Of course that's the optimistic scenario. Indeed, Obama made plain that in return for their implicit protection, procedures will be put in place for regulators to seize them if they run into financial trouble. It's a nice idea, but collective investor memory is surely long, and after seeing how secured creditors were dealt with when Chrysler was seized, who in their right mind will deal with banks that redefine the term "federally chartered institution"? More realistically, the anointed among financial institutions will be weakened by their implicit federal protection such that they'll require more in the way of taxpayer subsidies in the future. Backdoor nationalization, here we come.

For banking institutions more broadly, the Obama plan involves raising their capital requirements while putting rules in place to make sure they're got more exposure to the loans they securitize and sell. What's forgotten here is that without investor capital there are no banks, so while it may be comforting to think that the federal government can rearrange the path to banking profits, if investors don't agree, they can surely take their money elsewhere.

Along those lines, the beauty of finance is that it is fungible. If the stringent capital requirements make it difficult for stateside banks to operate profitably, the dollars that fill their coffers will move offshore along with myriad financial jobs. Almost to a man politicians worship at the altar of "job creation," but if the new capital requirements prove problematic, the creation of financial jobs will occur in London, Frankfurt and Tokyo--not on Wall Street. "Systemic risk" will simply find a new address.

Not mentioned once in a talk meant to revolutionize finance was the dollar. This is not insignificant, given the basic truth that the failure on the part of the Treasury and Fed to issue a dollar known for uniformity in its measure of value, like the foot is known for measuring length, is what got us here to begin with. Instead, the Treasury and Fed will take on greater responsibilities while the underlying cause of our financial ills will continue to be ignored.

But most unfortunate was Obama's failure to embrace the basic truth that profit and loss are the best, most effective regulators of all. A free-market profit/loss system ensures that those who treat capital well will be rewarded with more investment, while those who treat it poorly will be put out of business so that they can no longer bring harm to their customers. This simple form of regulation might be worth trying at some point, particularly since it would force the unproductive regulatory class in Washington to actually find real work.

url:  http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/19/regulatory-reform-markets-economy-profit-loss-opinions-columnists-obama.html

Continuing the ample evidence that the world has begun cooling since 1998, here is another anexdote for you! Remember too, over the last three years the four 'official" world temperature measuring groups have all measured a DROP over over one degree, which is unheard of. it's wiped out the supposed temperature increases from the last century - so much for "agreed science".

Meteorologists are reluctant to call a month "nice." They have their data and their science and typically do not describe the weather in such subjective terms.

Except now, because the data prove it.

"It's probably the best June since I've been here, and I've been here most of my life," said the National Weather Service's Valerie Meyers, who is in her late 40s. "It's been really nice."

Possibly the nicest June ever.

It's that type of thing that is fun to say but hard to quantify.

Thursday, however, was the 14th consecutive day to stay below 100 degrees. That's the longest stretch of its kind in any June since 1913.

The lower temperatures have allowed people to sleep with windows open and drive with their arms out vehicle windows. Evenings, too, have been spent chatting with neighbors while children or grandchildren play. Those events are not life-changing, but they are, well, nice.

Typically in June, high-pressure systems begin to form above the Valley. High pressure means clear skies and little wind. And, in June, clear skies let in the sunshine, sending the temperatures soaring.

This June, though, has remained cool because of what Meyers called "a persistent area of low pressure off the West Coast."

The low pressure has prevented the high-pressure systems from getting into place.

 

Skateboarder Tony Hawk on Friday at the White House, the Obama White House' that is.  

 

The White House is the place the president of the United States dwells while he is president. It is passed on to his successors as they are elected to the presidency. It does not belong to any president - it belongs to the people of the United States.

You elected this man, I didn't. Maybe he's having so much fun bankrupting America he just has to show his contempt by having a skateboarder roam the halls.

 

The theme that follows Obama and his henchman is much like that of Al Capone and his men in their day - CONTROL at all costs. It does not matter much to Obama how that control is taken, yes taken. He does not like an AG discovering bad things about a friend? - fire him, without Congressional approval! He does not like the president of GM - fire him, with no Cngressional approval! He does not like the cars US companies make - take over the companies and dictate new ones, with no Congressional approval. He does not like the big financial companies - take them over. He does not have enough money for all he is doing? -  print more. He does not like Israel? - go to the Arabs and aplogize, even bow down before a king! He does not like other people to make a lot of money? - dictate their salaries and benefits. I could go on and one day I'll devote a long article specifying how he is attacking America on all fronts, with control being the objective.

 

Meanwhile, here is an interesting article;

 

Third Inspector General Controversy Emerges

Friday, June 19, 2009 3:59 PM

By: Dave Eberhart

Judith Gwynn, the Inspector General for the International Trade Commission, has been told that her contract will not be renewed, making her the third IG in the Obama administration to draw controversy, according to a report by ABC News.

Gwynn’s release appears to be linked to an incident she recorded in her April 2009 Semiannual Report to Congress where she complained that “in the course of conducting an investigation regarding contractor activities, certain procurement files were removed forcibly from the possession of the Inspector General by a Commission employee.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent the chair of the ITC a letter asking about the March 5 tug-of-war with the files, noting his chagrin that the Inspector General was treated in such a manner. Shortly thereafter Gwynn got notice that her tenure would end.

According to the ABC report, Grassley wrote to ITC Chair Shara L. Aranoff, noting: “The ability of Inspectors General to secure agency records subject to audit or investigation is essential to ensure the integrity and reliability of their work on behalf of Congress and the American People.”

According to a report in AllGov.com, Gwynn had been auditing ITC activities and contracting while on temporary status since January 2008, when she was appointed. Since then Gwynn had been employed in a succession of six-month contracts with her current contract set to lapse next month.

In addition to uncovering what was beneath the file controversy, Grassley wants to know why the ITC has been permitted to keep its IG on six-month contracts. “I am unaware of any other agency Inspector General that serves under such a constraint and am curious to learn what statutory authority gives the USITC the ability to make a limited term appointment,” Grassley wrote.

Unlike most IGs in the federal service, the ITC’s IG is classified as a “non-independent” office -- giving the commission’s watchdog less independence and flexibility to carry out investigations.

ABC noted that the Gwynn controversy differed from the other two IG flaps because of its apparent lack of connection to the Obama administration. The White House does not appoint the inspector general of the ITC – Aranoff has that authority. Aranoff was appointed to the position by President Bush.

Since the Obama administration took over, the president has fired the IG for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), and there is a charge that IG investigations at the Library of Congress have been allegedly interfered with.

The Inspector General for CNCS, Gerald Walpin, 77, has denied the charge that he had grown fuzzy and disoriented, saying the White House was simply discriminating against someone who is older than most. “I’m not senile. I’m not disoriented. It’s an absolute lie,” he said.

There is one similarity between Gwynn and Walpin, however.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., the author of a law that requires 30-day notice of the firing of an IG to Congress, has opined that the law has been violated in both cases.

 

Shades of thunder and lightning! The Obama mafia is now literally using the entire resources of a supposedly free press to sell Obama's dangerous health care plan to Americans. Already in debt for $40-60 TRILLION dollars, several TRILLION already overspent by Obama for 2009 alone, the Fed literally printing money to cover debt (about $1.25 TRILLION in last 5 months), inflation poised to reach sky high rates with this incredible spending, America is going to subject to a smooth snake-oil sales approach. Not just Obama and his henchmen, mind you, but an ENTIRE TV NETWORK is going all out to support the Obama scheme, WILLINGLY, not allowing any dissent to reach the screen on any show they use.

 

THIS IS ORWELLIAN - DISHONEST- DISHONORING TO AMERICAN MEN AND WOMEN - SNEAKY - CHEATING, and the work of a man the press treat as a god!

 

The latest from Drudge:

 

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

The Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, who worked as a reporter for ABC News from 1998-2006.

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

MORE

ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained 'false premises':

"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

Developing...

 

 

2009 Chicago - June's record cold

The cloudy, chilly and rainy open to June here has been the talk of the town. So far this June is running more than 12 degrees cooler than last year, and the clouds, rain and chilly lake winds have been persistent. The average temperature at O'Hare International Airport through Friday has been only 59.5 degrees: nearly 7 degrees below normal and the coldest since records there began 50 years ago.

More bad weather is on the way Saturday with a cold rain expected to linger through the bulk of the morning. Rainfall could be heavy -- especially north of the city, which would be a reversal of Thursday's deluge that targeted the southern suburbs.

Better days ahead
Encouraging signs in recent computer runs signal a change to more typical June weather which by now should feature daily highs around 80 degrees. A return of sunshine should boost temperatures well into the 70s Sunday and Monday, though lake cooling will continue. By midweek a northward shift in the jet stream promises a steady diet of highs in the 80s, though showers and thunderstorms are likely to accompany the warm-up.