DRUDGE reports Controlled excitement is building inside of Clinton's inner circle as closely guarded internal polling shows the former first lady with an 11-point lead in Pennsylvania! and Gallup Daily reports Support for Barack Obama's nomination bid has rebounded among national Democratic voters, who now favor him over Hillary Clinton by a seven percentage point margin, 49% to 42%.
This is comparing apples to oranges, but Gallup's daily had Clinton on top just a day or two ago.
MSnbc.com reported The leader of Hamas said Monday that his Palestinian militant group would offer Israel a 10-year "hudna," or truce, as implicit proof of recognition of Israel
Even though he said they would never recognize Israel.
if it withdrew from all lands it seized in the 1967 Middle East War.
Maybe they should not have attacked Israel. Would the arabs be willing to give up all the land they took in war, and go back to Saudi Arabia?
Khaled Mashaal told The Associated Press that he made the offer to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter
Dhimmi. Say that rimes with Jimmy. Jimy the Dhimmi.
in talks on Saturday. "We have offered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as a proof of recognition," Mashaal said. In his comments Monday, Mashaal used the Arabic word "hudna," meaning truce, which is more concrete than "tahdiya" — a period of calm — which Hamas often uses to describe a simple cease-fire. Mashaal said Hamas would accept a Palestinian state limited to the lands Israel seized in 1967 — that is, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem.
In other words they want Fatah to give up the West Bank, and Israel to pull out of Jerusalem and the West Bank, so it can all be ruled by Hamas, that had the Gaza strip all to themselves after Israel pulled out, and tey just destroyed it.
But he said the group would never outright formally recognize Israel.
Holly In Cincinnati blogged This is nothing new from Hamas, which would love to import offensive weaponry for the next 10 years while ruling both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Hamas’ terrorist attacks will simply be farmed out to (or conveniently blamed upon) Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Al-Aksa Martyrs’ Brigades etc…while Hamas claims to be at peace and that Israeli self-defense violates this ‘hudna’ (an Islamic temporary truce until victory can be attained over an unwary enemy).
Hamas had its chance to give up violence and become a constructive political organization when it won that so-called election. Hamas could have suppressed violence and dismantled the other terrorist groups (see above list) while working with Israel and the world community to ease the plight of its subjects. Did Hamas choose to grow up? No way! Hamas chose to blow its big chance and continue to bring misery to the Palestinian Arabs.
Only an ignorant, politically-correct, self-righteous moralizing fool would buy-into this nonsense.
Khaleej Times reported A fatwa has been issued by Dubai Islamic Affairs Department (DIAD) to ban printing of names that include the 99 names of Almighty God such as Abdul Rahman, Abdullah, Abdul Salam as well as names of prophets and saints on the labels of sample bottles provided by hospitals and laboratories to the patients. A top official at DIAD said the fatwa bans writing or printing the name of Almighty God on stool or urine samples desecrates the glorious names of God.
Maybe you should stop naming people Muhammad and other "holy names".
The DIAD advised the hospitals and laboratories to write the file number of the patients on the bottles.
But the numbers represent the patient names, just as your "Allah" has 99 names.
The DIAD has alerted the Ministry of Health and Dubai Department of Health and Medical Services (DOHMS) to implement the decision in order to stop this practice immediately.
John Seery gets it sort of right on Huffington PostJohn McCain will win in November--despite a tanking economy, a spiraling national deficit, $4.50 summer gas prices, an ongoing "debacle" in Iraq, rampant Republican corruption, eroded civil liberties, and a campaign that promises to extend many of his predecessor's wildly unpopular policies. No matter. The Democrats will blow it. On paper, you would think that they would sail into the executive office. But the old-shoe white guy tortured war hero will defeat the upstart visionary-albeit-angry black man. Don't bet the ranch on the black guy, hoping against hope.
Plain and simple, Barack Obama won't win enough swing states. MoveOn.org can't deliver them to him. Nor can Oprah. The Clinton camp isn't going to oblige him with a sudden surge of gushing enthusiasm. For that matter, a grand post-convention rapprochement and de-embittering reconciliation between the Obama and the Clinton camps won't be happening anytime soon, even though Hillary and Bill will go through the motions, making nice for public purview, paying lip service to wishing Obama well and all that. But significant numbers--just enough where it matters--of Clintonistas, centrist Democrats, moderate Republicans, and fence-sitting Independents will peel away from risky Obama as November nears.
Exactly.
Obama's negatives are already rising. The McCain people and their shady surrogates will certainly compound matters by deploying every form of
truth
character assassination imaginable. Much mud will be slung, and some will stick--that's the whole point of mud slinging (memo to the above-board Obama: the technique works, don't be naive). The McCain people will surely be playing the guns, God, and gay cards
Actually McCain won't, but there will be plenty of 527s doing exactly that.
and they will be claiming that Obama has some pinko, effete, elitist, defeatist, terrorist-loving, tax-loving, ultra-liberal, anti-Pledge of Allegiance, anti-Flag-lapel-pin cards up his sleeve.
He does.
Oh yes, then there's the abortion trump card, too. Whispered insinuations will be quite enough to tip the balance. The McCain strategists will provide plenty of distractions and abundant rationalizations to convince enough white folks not to vote for a black man. Period. End of story. Alas.
Hillary knows the above. She sees the primary handwriting on the wall. She's nobody's fool. She's already looking to 2012. Thus she's now pursuing a scorched earth policy for the Democratic Party. She's denouncing the activists while belittling Obama and reserving her praise for McCain. Her current strategy betrays her clear intentions: She wants McCain to win in November (though she could never admit that publicly). She's looked at the chess board and has repositioned her pieces, plotting two or three moves ahead of the current match: McCain's winning the presidency in 2008 will virtually guarantee Clinton's winning the presidency in 2012--and then again in 2016.
McCain, she reasons, won't be a two-term president. He'll do nothing about Iraq and Afghanistan, except
win both
perhaps to dig us in deeper. He might bomb Iran's nuclear facility, or at least look the other way while Israel beats us to the punch. He will continue to support tax breaks for the rich, while doing nothing to rebuild the infrastructure of the U.S. economy. He won't be leading the way into a green future.
I hope
He won't be spending his limited political capital on fixing our national health policy, our national educational policy, our national retirement policy, or even our national campaign finance policy.
Since he will be on the bad end of it he may well want to make needed changes.
He'll likely need to work with a Democratic Congress--but he's not amicably collaborative by nature, and he'll blow up behind the scenes the first time he doesn't get his way.
Besides, McCain just wants to be president once. That's enough to satisfy his ego. He'll be too old and too tired for a second term (one need not be ageist against all older persons in order to conclude that McCain in particular, after a tough first term, will be too decrepit to vie for a second).
Which is exactly why his vice presidential pick is so important.
Hillary has thought this through. After becoming the Big Loser Who Couldn't Reverse Bush-ism in 2008, Barack Obama will not be the party's nominee in 2012. By then, Hillary will seem as if she deserves vindication and a second chance, and her off-putting airs of entitlement and superiority will have dissipated. For 2012, however, she won't pull an Al Gore and defer graciously to other candidates. Mark my words: She'll be running. We haven't seen the last of her presidential aspirations.
Santa Barbara News-Press reported U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick wants America to ''wake up'' and stop allowing terrorism to proliferate - and if that means revoking the passport of a former U.S. president or examining the preaching of prison chaplains, that's what she's prepared to do. The Republican from Charlotte, N.C., on Friday released a list of 10 items she hopes will help peel back the layers on how radical elements of Islam might be infiltrating the military, school rooms and other elements of society.... Here is Myrick's 10-point plan to tackle threats posed by radical elements of Islam:
Investigate all military chaplains endorsed by Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was imprisoned for funding a terrorist organization.
Investigate all prison chaplains endorsed by Alamoudi.
Investigate the selection process of Arabic translators working for the Pentagon and the FBI.
Examine the non-profit status of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
And the backgrounds of all of its key leaders.
Make it an act of sedition or solicitation of treason to preach or publish materials that call for the deaths of Americans.
Good idea.
Audit sovereign wealth funds in the United States.
Cancel scholarship student visa program with Saudi Arabia until they reform their text books, which she claims preach hatred and violence against non-Muslims.
Restrict religious visas for imams who come from countries that don't allow reciprocal visits by non-Muslim clergy.
Good idea.
Cancel contracts to train Saudi police and security in U.S. counterterrorism tactics.
Block the sale of sensitive military munitions to Saudi Arabia.
Jules Crittenden has a very interesting response to the Democrats proposing a return to the draft. Read it. Some how I don't think this is what they want, but it might be hard for them to argue against it.
Another version of Schism has appeared. I discussed the first one here, together with the bible verses it quoted, and described each one. This version shows the Bible in many different languages, asking which is the real Bible. The Qur'an, of course is translted in many languages, but Muslims hold that only the one in Arabic is valid, but even then, modern Arabic is not the same as ancient Arabic. I guess if we insist on ancient languages we would have to go with ancient Hebrew for the Old Testament, and some combination of Aramaic, Greek, and Latin for the New Testament, but it has been translated so many times, and is available online in many different versions for anyone that wants to compare (New International Version, New American Standard Bible, The Message, Amplified Bible, New Living Translation, King James Version, English Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, New King James Version, New Century Version, 21st Century King James Version, American Standard Version, Young's Literal Translation, Darby Translation, New Life Version, Holman Christian Standard Bible, New International Reader's Version, Wycliffe New Testament, Worldwide English (New Testament), New International Version - UK, Today's New International Version) plus 33 different languages at http://www.biblegateway.com/.
This new Schism shows KKK with a burning cross, Nazi's swearing an oath, and Filipinos alowing themselves to be crucified in Good Friday celebrations. I am not aware of any mainstream Christian religion that supports what either the KKK nor the Nazis did, and while I don't recommend the way Good Friday is celebrated in the Philippines, they are doing it to themselves as a way of showing their faith, they are not doing it to others.
The new Schism quotes Matthew 10:34 and Revelation 3:19. Matthew 10:34 does say Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword, but it is not advicating violence. Some hold that Jesus is using the word "sword" as a metaphor to describe the division that his message would bring between those who accept it and those who reject it. Nowhere in the passage does he instruct them to harm anyone. He does not command them to resort to violence with those who reject the message. On the contrary, he tells them to leave the homes of those who reject them, because God alone will be the judge of those who reject the Truth.
Revelation 3:19 says Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. But even that is not advocating violence, it is God that rebukes and disciplines. And look at the rest: So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."
The new Schism is trying to say there is violence in the Bible, in the Old Testament verses the violence is directed against particular people and at a paricular time, not any disbeliever at any time, and the New Testament quote it is God that uses the weapon, not mankind.
Contrast this with Fitna, which shows people committing violence in current times, and those committing the violence are the ones saying the Qur'an tells them to do it. They are the ones that first quoted from the Qur'an, not Geert Wilders.
Joe Gandelman blogged Did he try to signal it to the crowd? Wasn’t that a knowing look? And, it stands to follow, since he did this (an assumption some are already making — so each viewer is urged to watch the video) doesn’t it therefore mean he lacks class and should immediately apologize? And — not said yet — shouldn’t this disqualify him from the Presidency if he refuses to admit it? And, if he won’t come clean and admit it, shouldn’t he resign his Senate seat?
Macranger blogged Could he have been just scratching his face? Perhaps, kind of like when you disguise a “Bullshit” with a sneeze.
TPM Election Central blogged In an interview with me moments ago, Stephanopoulos strongly defended his handling of the debate. He dismissed criticism that it had focused too heavily on "gotcha" questions, arguing that they had gone to the heart of the "electability" that, he said, is forefront in the minds of voters evaluating the two Dems.
Precisely, and since the candidates have almost identical positions on all of the "issues", focusing on them would not be a debate, bt just a free campaign ad.
"Overall, the questions were tough, fair, relevant, and appropriate," Stephanopoulos argued. And he rejected the claim by many Obama supporters that the debate had been stacked against him, saying Hillary had faced sharp questioning, too.
She just didn't fold under the questioning.
Today on the campaign trail Obama criticized ABC's handling of the debate, characterizing it as "the roll out of the Republican campaign against me in November."
And Demcrats saw how you were not able to handle that.
Asked to respond, Stephanopoulos said that getting criticized "comes with the territory." "Our job is to ask the questions," he said. "His job is to go out and win votes." Asked to defend the fact that policy didn't come up for the first 40 or so minutes of the debate, Stephanopoulos said:
They do not disagree on "policy"
"We decided to focus at the top on the issues that had been at the center of the debate since the last debate. Everything we brought up in that front section had not come up since the last debate. And they all focused on the same theme -- which candidate would be a stronger Democratic candidate in November." "This is the core question for the campaigns, and a lot of Democratic voters right now. That's why we decided to lead with it."
And it made for a more interesting debate.
Asked why we should presume that electability, rather than issues, was the dominant concern of many Dems right now, Stephanopoulos argued that it was a frequent topic of discussion on the campaign trail. "People also take into account...how candidates handle controversy," he said. "That's what campaigns are about, as well." Asked why the moderators had chosen to spend time on Wright, when Obama has repeatedly responded to questions about him,
If he thinks one speech has put that issue behind him, he is going to be in for a big shock in the fall.
Stephanopoulos defended it by saying that Wright's most incendiary comments had come to light, and Obama's speech in response, had both come after the previous debate. When I asked him whether asking about Obama's derelict approach to his flag lapel pin risked making it look like right-wing frames were dictating the line of questioning, Stephanopoulos said:
Is he not prepared to answer the questions?
"Sure, there's a risk." But he added: "If you look at the fall campaign, there are some clear signals from Senator Obama's opponents that all of these issues are going to be put together in a general argument. They all go back to that same theme."
Which McCain may not hit him on but which the 527s will use to blat him.
Stephanopoulos rejected the contention of many Obama supporters that the debate, with its focus on Wright and William Ayers -- not to mention that flag-pin -- was unduly stacked against Obama. "The first series of questions to Senator Clinton were not questions she wanted to answer," he said.
And didn't answer
"The second series of questions were on credibility and honesty."
And flunked them too.
Asked whether his background as a political operative had resulted in too much of a focus on electability and on the candidates' handling of media "scandals," Stephanopoulos said: "You can't help but be shaped by your experience," but he added: "I don't think it's unique to me. This is a conversation that Democrats and some Republicans are having every single day.
And the Dems are upset that it has come down to two candidates that don't have a chance of winning.
It's not only, who will be the best president, but who has the best chance of winning."
CNN.com reported Sen. Barack Obama suggested Thursday that he doesn't see any point in having another debate with Democratic rival Sen. Hillary Clinton.
He got his clock cleaned so bad at the last one that he is now afraid of debates.
Clinton has agreed to a debate next week, but Obama has not accepted the invitation. At an appearance in Raleigh, North Carolina, Obama said he has a lot of campaigning to do in a limited amount of time.
Now tat the press has decided to start looking into what he stands for, maybe they can just do stories about him, and he can try to answer those stories in his campaign stops.
Obama said he had agreed to an earlier debate, but Clinton declined that one. "I'll be honest with you, we've now had 21," he said. "It's not as if we don't know how to do these things. I could deliver Sen. Clinton's lines; she could, I'm sure, deliver mine."
I would like to see that debate. He can explain sniper fire in Bosnia, and she can explain Rev Wright and why bitter people turn to guns and religion.
Obama said he has to look at his schedule, considering the upcoming primaries.
Betsy Newmark blogged This debate provided plenty of fodder for future questions. Both Obama and Clinton, as well as McCain should be pressed to explicitly explain where they'll get the money for the new programs they are saying they will enact if elected. And they shouldn't be allowed to get away with saying they won't raise taxes on those they clearly intend to raise taxes on.
Allahpundit blogged I don’t get it. After America was so cruelly deprived by ABC of a chance to hear the thousandth iteration of whether his health-care plan is truly “universal,” now he’s going to deprive us of another? What could explain this sudden reluctance to shine the light of Substance upon a grateful people?
Greg blogged it must be a real shock to have journalists start asking you tough questions, not the sort of softballs you've fielded up until now. Just wait until John McCain starts to hammer you on substance later on this year. You'll wilt like a week-old lettuce leaf in Death Valley, dude. Maybe you can get William Ayers to blow something up for you -- just to distract from how weak and unqualified a candidate you really are.
StopTheACLU blogged After facing tough questions at last night’s debate, squirming uncomfortably and stuttering spin to answer them….Barack Obama wants to take his ball and go home when it comes to debates.
Taylor Marsh blogged Yeah, that's it. I thought there wasn't enough substance last night? I think Barack is confused. Just leave Barack alone! Frankly, I'm sick of them. But let's be clear why Obama doesn't want any more debates. He simply can't afford them.
Lee Ward blogged Obama is already whining, and the DailyKos/Moveon.org folks are really piling it on as well. They're setting the stage for Barack to duck out of future debates thereby avoiding tough questions on national television with Clinton by his side to press harder.
Gateway Pundit blogged This rookie does not like getting his widdle feelings hurt!... How dare he be asked about his racist America-hating pastor on national TV? How dare he be asked about his associations with unrepentant terrorists? How dare he be asked about his bitter attitude against "Midwest" Bible-thumpers!
memeorandum lists Howard Dean saying: I need a decision ‘now’ — (CNN)— An increasingly firm Howard Dean told CNN again Thursday that he needs superdelegates to say who they're for - and “I need them to say who they're for starting now.” — “We cannot give up two or three months of active campaigning and healing time … but then when I click on it I get Not Found Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
I guess Howard changed his mind, and decided he could at least wait until all of the states had voted. I really wish he would not press for a decision then, and wait for the convention, so there would really be a reason to televise it. If he pushes for a decision before then, why even have the convention?
Greg Mitchell was disappointed they did not parrot their talking points on Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues
On which Hillary and Obama hold basically the same views.
and instead were asked about trivial issues like Obama's recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.
They may have been "trivial" but at least there was a debate between their positions.
Ed Morrissey thought Thanks to a surprisingly tenacious set of questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from ABC moderaters Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous, Barack Obama got exposed over and over again as an empty suit, while Hillary cleaned his clock.... Obama, however, never did figure out the First Rule of Holes. Once again, he described religion as a refuge people use when government doesn’t work — a fatal misreading of religious faith in America.
"Religion as a refuge people use when government doesn’t work" is consistent with what Rev Wright taught at the "church" Obama spent 20 years in.
He not only came up with bad answers, he looked lost and tentative throughout the entire period.
Joe Gandelman blogged it wasn’t Obama’s best night (possibly his worst debate performance), Clinton continued effectively and relentlessly on the attack — and ABC and the debate moderators will come under fire from Obama supporters and perhaps others due to the first 45-minutes being questions that basically put Obama on the defensive.
If he can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.
Marc Ambinder blogged Obama's supporters like to see him fight back against the Man... witness his quick response to "bittergate".....; tonight, it seemed as if he was surprised by the pace of the questions and all the air was gone from his answers. There was no fight. Unless you paid attention, you might have missed a few firsts: the first time the candidates debated gun control. The first time that Obama attacked Clinton about her husband's pardon. Obama's floating the idea that he would exempt workers who make between $97,000 and $200,000 from his payroll tax hike.
2. Obama has always had a blandness about him. When you're feeling good about him, you project your hopes onto that blandness and he seems wonderful. When you're anxious about him, you think he's effete and ennervated. He's always the same. His face did look puffy and not as fresh as it once did. Deal with it. He's a human being.
Despite what his supporters may think.
3. Hillary bloomed with bright energy in the environment of ABC's questions. She can reel out the policy when that's what's required. But cruel political fighting unleashes her super powers.
Scott blogged Most striking to me was Obama's dour attitude. The man is not a happy warrior. Obama was unhappiest when questioned by George Stephanopoulos about his friendly association with the terrorist Bill Ayers. He weirdly likened his friendly relationship with Ayers to his relationship with Republican Senator Tom Coburn,
who disagreed with him on abortion, but who had never bombed any abortion clinics.
and therefore a tribute to his own magnanimity.
Nitya Venkataraman blogged Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opened Wednesday's presidential debate on a point of accord: neither would answer head-on whether they'd be willing to name the other as vice president.
Hillary missed a good oportunity here. Obama answered first, and dodged the question, and Hillary could have hit it out of the park by saying if the voters picked her she certainly would include Barack. He would be a fool to accept, since he would be in third place behind Bill, but illary would have pleased a LO of super delegates if she accepted the idea.
... Pressed by Stephanopoulos on whether Obama would be able to defeat McCain in the general election, Clinton — after a long statement that avoided the question — said, "Yes, yes, yes."
OKDHS certainly has a number of problems. Most are in the Child Protective Services area, although I personally am more upset with problems in the Adult Protective Services area.
When news stories of problems with OKDHS appear, news forums frequently have posts from people saying similar things happen in their area. A good journalist would need to do some investigating to verify the accuracy of those reports, but some could easily add confirmation and additional examples to a news story of the latest OKDHS scandal.
or bloggers like myself, may just blog about it, like this, this, and this, and some even create Forums where other people can add their experiences. These should be a goldmine for journalists wanting to flesh out a story.
As asm from Broken Arrow put it Those same Workers then DO NOT follow the Oklahoma or Federal Laws. They think that they are above the law. To a great extent I believe that is true. From my experience, dealing with the APS side of OKDHS, I don't think they care what the Governor thinks, what the legislature thinks, what the law says, what the court thinks, or what the general public thinks. Eventually the Governor and the legislature will both need to concern themselves with what the general public thinks (like in November), and I am hoping that the legislature will consider changes to the law before November. Rep. Richard Morrissette wants to break OKDHS into several smaller agencies. I am not convinced that is necessary or even appropriate, since we culd end up with several agencies that don't care what the Governor thinks, what the legislature thinks, what the law says, what the court thinks, or what the general public thinks. But I would like to see a law that permits any person to get a complete copy of whatever file OKDHS has on him or on his children, with complete sourcing for all of the information, and I would like to see criminal penalties apply if OKDHS refuses to make it available.
Telegraph reported Moderate Muslim clerics are to be brought in from Pakistan in an effort to combat extremism in British mosques, the Home Secretary will announce today.
Do you think they will be any better than the Saudi clerics you have now?
Jacqui Smith struck a deal on a recent visit to Pakistan under which respected imams could be invited to help British Muslims counter the fundamentalists.
The best way to counter the fundamentalists is to deport them
The move is part of Government efforts to step up its so-called prevent agenda, which is aimed at tackling jihadi propaganda in Muslim communities.
You should be concerned with tackling jihadi propaganda in Britain.
NewKerala reported Hundreds of Pakistani lawyers on Tuesday staged a protest against a Dutch film that satirically depicted the Prophet Mohammad and accused the Koran of inciting violence.
Thus proving the film was true.
Reports said that 500 lawyers took part in the demonstration and shouted slogans like "Death is acceptable in the service of the prophet"
It sounds to me like the lawyers in Pakistan support violence and even death for a simple movie. Are you sure that Pakistani clerics are any less extreme? As Marisol said Cartoons and movies don't kill people. People overreacting to them do.
and "God is greatest".... Manzoor Qadir, the president of the Lahore Bar Association, said that the present government was not doing enough to rein in foreigners indulging in blasphemous acts. He demanded the expulsion of the Danish envoy and called for a snapping of diplomatic ties with Denmark.
How do you snap a diplomatic tie? Do you pull it and then let it go, so it snaps back?
... The Pakistan Senate has condemned efforts to denigrate Islam
Does this include acts of violence and blaming them on the Qur'an or Muhammad?
Mike blogged Rep. Richard Morrissette today called on House leaders to appoint a bipartisan committee with subpoena power to investigate allegations of mismanagement at the Department of Human Services.
They are focusing on the CPS side of OKDHS. My beef is with the Adult Protective Services side of the agency. I blogged about this earlier, both here and here. It was covered by Tulsa Today.
I ran out of email addresses for the OKDHS Bureaucracy, but I did not let that stop me. I snail mailed this letter to Howard H Hendrick - Director of Human Services (Cabinet Secretary) and Richard L.DeVaughn - Chairman Oklahoma Commission for Human Services.
Think Progress blogged In his New York Times column today, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol claimed that Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) now-infamous “bitter” remarks sound like Karl Marx’s “famous statement about religion.” On the Brian and the Judge radio show today, Fox News’ senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano asked Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) if Obama is “a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case?”
He is certainly a socialist; whether he goes all the way to communist is a separate question.
“I must say that’s a good question,” replied Lieberman, before stepping back to say that he would “hesitate to say he’s a Marxist”
Allahpundit blogged Obama was goofing on the idea of Her Majesty being a gunslinger and connected it up to the absurdity of her squatting in a duck blind. Nothing more to it than that, unless you think he’s so removed from rural culture and such a fantastic idiot
I believe both of those points
that he thinks birds are hunted with handguns. If he knows what a duck blind is, I’m guessing he has a basic idea of what kind of weapons are apt to turn up in one.
ahoo! News reported Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is demanding the Iraqi government reinstate all security forces fired for deserting during fighting in Basra.
I hope they tell im to pound sand (and they have plenty of it).
Monday's statement comes a day after more than 1,300 soldiers and policemen were sacked for abandoning their posts or refusing to fight when clashes broke out.
They should be shot.
The anti-U.S. cleric says those who gave up their arms "were only obeying their grand religious leaders" and "were driven by their religious duties."
Then make them priests, but they should not be in the police or the army.
He says in a statement issued by his office in holy city of Najaf that they should be reinstated and even rewarded for their loyalty.
BBC News reported An Italian woman artist who was hitch-hiking to the Middle East dressed as a bride to promote world peace has been found murdered in Turkey. The naked body of Giuseppina Pasqualino di Marineo, 33, known as Pippa Bacca, was found in bushes near the northern city of Gebze on Friday. She had said she wanted to show that she could put her trust in the kindness of local people.
It did not work out that well, did it?
Turkish police say they have detained a man in connection with the killing. Reports say the man led the police to the body. Ms di Marineo was hitch-hiking from Milan to Israel and the Palestinian Territories
There is a lot of World Peace there.
with a fellow artist on their "Brides on Tour" project.
