Republicans Fire Back At Boehner For Delaying Sandy Relief Vote

Nicolas Sarkozy says France has too many foreigners

Comments (619)

Nicolas Sarkozy says the system for integrating immigrants is at risk of breaking down

Continue reading the main story

France votes

• Sarkozy's monumental task
• Dream start for Hollande
• 'Detoxifying' the National Front
• Francois Bayrou and self-belief

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said there are too many foreigners in France and the system for integrating them is "working worse and worse".

In a TV debate, Mr Sarkozy defended his plan to almost halve the number of new arrivals if re-elected next month.

Mr Sarkozy is trailing in the opinion polls behind the Socialist candidate Francois Hollande.

He is also competing for conservative voters with the far-right National Front party led by Marine le Pen.

The president said while immigration could be a boon for France, it needed to be controlled more tightly through tougher qualification rules for residency.

Mr Sarkozy, whose father was a Hungarian immigrant, also said he wanted to restrict some benefit payments to immigrants who had been in the country for 10 years.

Tough new rules

He has often made controversial comments on race and immigration issues, sharply dividing opinion in France.

In 2005, just before the Paris riots, he described young delinquents in the Paris suburbs as "racaille", meaning rabble.

He has said that if re-elected, he will reduce the number of immigrants to France from 180,000 a year to 100,000 and introduce tighter controls on access to welfare benefits.

As president, Mr Sarkozy has already pushed through tough new immigration rules, including the controversial deportation of Roma gypsies.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Francois Fillon caused dismay among Muslim and Jewish groups by suggesting the religious slaughter of animals was out of date.

The controversy started when a TV documentary said last month that all the abattoirs in Paris region only produced halal meat.

So far the election campaign seems to have made relatively little impact on voters.

The latest opinion poll published on Tuesday by CSA showed the Socialist leader Francois Hollande widening his lead over President Sarkozy for the 22 April vote.

It also suggested that the Socialist leader would win decisively by 54% to 46% in a second round of voting on 6 May.

Source

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Commentary

"Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

What happened to those human values and why have they been replaced with xenophobia?

What happened to looking at a human for who they are, not by their culture or their skin color?

What happened to human dignity and preciousness?

Sarkozy has flushed it all down his french toilet. His people would do well to get rid of his racist french hiney.

What can political donors learn from history?

By Daniel Nasaw BBC News Magazine, Washington

Adelson could probably finance an entire presidential campaign on his own, Forbes Magazine says

Continue reading the main story

In today's Magazine

• Munch’s Scream and the art of anguish
• Quiz of the week's news
• How dangerous are dingoes?
• Nike launches the era of Paralympic chic

A billionaire Las Vegas casino magnate has said he might donate $100m (£64m) to support Republican Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign. He joins history's long list of great - and ignominious - political money men.

Sheldon Adelson, who is worth an estimated $25bn, is almost single-handedly responsible for keeping Mr Gingrich's bid for the Republican nomination afloat, analysts say.

He and his wife have already donated $10m to a nominally independent political fund that has bought adverts for the former House speaker's campaign.

"What scares me is the continuation of the socialist-style economy we've been experiencing for almost four years," Mr Adelson told Forbes Magazine.

"That scares me because the redistribution of wealth is the path to more socialism, and to more of the government controlling people's lives."

Mr Adelson's big contributions place him among a new generation of US political money men freed to donate millions by recent Supreme Court decisions that overturned campaign finance restrictions.

But he is part of a long tradition - stretching back into antiquity - of wealthy men who used their cash to buy political influence.

Here are some lessons he could heed:

Lesson 1: Patronage can yield profits

Crassus, seated, enabled Caesar's rise by backing his debts and funding his campaign for consul

Known to historian Plutarch as "the richest of the Romans", Marcus Crassus got even richer by staking Julius Caesar's military career and his later election as Roman consul.

"We never would have heard of Caesar without Crassus," says Philip Freeman, chairman of the classics department at Luther College in the US state of Iowa and author of a recent biography of Caesar.

Born in a household of relatively modest means, Crassus aligned himself with Roman dictator Sulla and grew rich by taking property Sulla had expropriated from his own political enemies.

He made "the public calamities his greatest source of revenue", Plutarch wrote, and also made lots of money as a contract tax collector.

In 61BC, Caesar was named to a military post in Spain, but his creditors sought to prevent him from leaving Rome.

Crassus guaranteed his debts - to the sum of about $23m (£14.6m) in 2012 figures, by Prof Freeman's calculation.

Two years later, Caesar ran for election as consul, the highest political office in the Roman republic. Crassus funded his campaign, which depended on officially condemned but widespread vote-buying, Freeman says.

In return, Caesar pushed through legislation giving the contract tax collectors a break in the amount of money they had to return to the central government.

"It's like if Mr Gingrich got to be president and passed a bill making casinos tax exempt - for his benefactor back in Las Vegas," says Prof Freeman.

"It was a great financial play for Crassus purely in monetary terms."

Lesson 2: Have an exit strategy

Sir William de la Pole of Hull was a 14th-Century wine importer, wool merchant and financier who lent staggering sums of money to King Edward III to finance his lavish lifestyle and his wars in France and Scotland.

"There's no doubt that Pole did acquire a great deal of wealth, and wealth brought him social status," says Jonathan Sumption, a historian and jurist who has written three volumes about The Hundred Years War.

"His sons went on to become Earls of Suffolk, noblemen, which nobody would have accused William of being. You couldn't do much better than that. This was simply the normal way in which money was converted into status."

Pole's involvement with the crown began in earnest in 1327, when he lent Edward III £2,001 (about £1.4m in today's money, according to Measuringworth.com, a calculator devised by economists at the University of Illinois at Chicago) to hire mercenaries to fight the Scots.

In 1336-1337, Edward III sought to exploit the wool industry to finance the start of the Hundred Years War with France.

Pole organised other wool growers into the Wool Company, in effect purchasing from Edward III the right to export wool on privileged terms, Mr Sumption says.

Between June 1338 and October 1339, he lent the crown £111,000 (more than £86m in 2012 figures).

For Pole himself, the story did not end well.

Edward III grew resentful at his dependence on Pole and imprisoned him for two years. He was released because the king again needed his help raising money.

Edward defaulted on his debts because the wars cost more than his tax revenue, Mr Sumption says, and Pole and his partners went bust.

"Lending to the king was a mug's game," Mr Sumption says. "The problem was that if you didn't you were likely to be ruined anyway."

Lesson 3: The stakes are high

When Seymour's political intrigue failed, he lost more than his shirt

When Edward VI ascended to the throne in 1547 at the age nine, members of the Tudor court began jockeying for position and influence.

Two of the top intriguers were his uncles Edward and Thomas Seymour.

Edward Seymour managed to have himself declared Lord Protector of the Realm, Governor of the King's Person and later Duke of Somerset, making him the most powerful man in the court.

But Thomas Seymour, who had been well placed under Henry VII, found himself increasingly frozen out.

Among his several schemes to gain influence over the boy king, Seymour began supplying him with pocket money, telling him "you are a beggarly king, you have no money to play or to give".

Edward VI, who had reportedly complained to Seymour that Somerset "deals very hardly with me and keeps me so straight that I cannot have money at my will", wanted the cash to pay for musicians in his court and to reward his personal servants, says John Cooper, a lecturer in early modern history at the University of York.

Seymour gave the king £188 (about £70,400 in today's value), funnelled in part through Edward's personal servants and his tutor.

"It's a political gamble that fails very dramatically," Mr Cooper says.

When Somerset found out about that and other intrigues (Seymour also flirted with the teenaged Princess Elizabeth, whom he may have hoped to marry), he had him arrested and charged with treason.

He was beheaded at the Tower of London.

On hearing of his execution, Elizabeth said: "This day died a man with much wit, and very little judgment."

Lesson 4: Be prepared to lose big

Among the liberals incensed about the Vietnam war in the late 1960s and early 1970s was Stewart Mott, the black-sheep son of a wealthy Detroit car manufacturing family.

Mott, who described himself as an "avant-garde philanthropist", donated more than $200,000 to the 1968 presidential campaign of Eugene McCarthy, and about $400,000 in 1972 to George McGovern, the Democratic challenger to President Richard Nixon, according to Mr Corrado, the campaign finance expert.

His big contributions in part led Congress to enact strict limits on direct contributions to political campaigns that remain in effect to this day (though giving to independent committees are unlimited).

"He identified with their politics, and whatever one means by progressive, he was it," says Victor Navasky, professor of journalism at Columbia University.

"He cared about them, and he hoped to help them attain the White House."

Despite Mott's seed money, Mr McGovern suffered one of the greatest political defeats in American history, winning only the state of Massachusetts and Washington DC.

Mott's support for liberal candidates earned him a spot on Nixon's infamous enemies list. Nixon aide Chuck Colson listed him as "nothing but big money for radic-lib candidates".

Source

Tea Party Vs Occupy Wall Street - Fox News & Rush Limbaugh

Saudi Princess Pushes for Human Rights

She is holding herself back.

She needs to say that this is unjust, wrong, and indefensible.

Saudi Arabia does oppress women. She needs to say that, not defend against it.

Israel NPT treaty Dillema -- Iran asks for Nuclear Free Middle east - Israel Declines showing hypocrisy

Israel under pressure to join NPT

Nearly 190 nations have agreed to a declaration that pressures Israel to join the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and calls for a 2012 conference on nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Delegates in New York wrapped up a month-long round of talks on Friday aimed at updating the NPT. Their final declaration urges Israel to join the treaty and subject its nuclear facilities to oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The document calls for the United Nations secretary-general to call a meeting of Middle East states in 2012, aimed at creating a region free of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. All 189 signatories to the treaty unanimously approved the declaration on Friday night. The text also reaffirms the commitment of existing nuclear powers to reducing their arsenals. But the future of that 2012 conference is already in doubt: General James Jones, the US national security adviser, said the US "will not permit a conference or actions that could jeopardise Israel’s national security". US defends Israel "We will not accept any approach that singles out Israel or sets unrealistic expectations," he said in a statement. in depth Interview: Queen Noor on nuclear disarmament Iran's arms race with Israel Inside Story: A world without atomic weapons Riz Khan: Global nuclear disarmament Empire: The US nuclear obsession with Iran Countdown: The Iran/Israel arms race In a separate statement released on Saturday, Barack Obama, the US president, said he "strongly oppose[s] efforts to single out Israel." Israel is one of only three states which never signed the NPT, the other two being India and Pakistan. It is believed to have a nuclear arsenal, though it refuses to confirm or deny its existence. An Israeli government official described the deal as "hypocrisy" because it makes no mention of other countries that have not signed the NPT. Israel's reaction "This accord has the hallmark of hypocrisy," the unnamed government official told the AFP news agency. "Only Israel is mentioned, while the text is silent about other countries like India, Pakistan and North Korea, which have nuclear arms, or even more seriously, Iran, which is seeking to obtain them." The 2012 meeting - on a "weapons of mass destruction"-free Middle East - could effectively force Israel to declare and dismantle its nuclear weapons program. Israel has said it backs such an agreement in principle, but only after signing peace treaties with other countries in the region. The US had initially sought to block the provision; Washington has long shielded Israel from pressure to disclose the details of its nuclear programme. But American diplomats eventually agreed to the provision to salvage the conference. "The Arab group basically drew a line in the sand and said, this is as far as we can go in compromising. This language must stay, or we will not back the final document," Al Jazeera's Kristen Saloomey said, reporting from New York. "[And] the United States was very interested in moving this agenda of non-proliferation forward." Ellen Tauscher, the US under-secretary of state for arms control, said "the United States deeply regrets" that the draft pressures Israel to join the NPT. If negotiators agree on a bargain, it would be the first successful NPT review meeting since 2000.

Source

~~~~~~~~~

UN talks back conference on nuclear-free Middle East

Page last updated at 8:56 GMT, Saturday, 29 May 2010 9:56 UK

• E-mail this to a friend
• Printable version

Iran has faced international pressure over its nuclear programme

Nearly 200 nations, signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), have agreed to work towards a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East.

The members, meeting at the UN in New York, called for a conference in 2012 attended by Middle Eastern states - including Iran - to establish the zone.

The unanimously agreed document also said that Israel should sign the NPT.

US President Barack Obama backed the deal but said he was "strongly opposed" to Israel being singled out.

The US says the reference could jeopardise efforts to persuade the Israelis to attend the 2012 talks.

An Israel official later denounced the document as "hypocrisy".

"Only Israel is mentioned, while the text is silent about other countries like India, Pakistan and North Korea, which have nuclear arms, or even more seriously, Iran, which is seeking to obtain them," a senior government official told AFP news agency on condition of anonymity.

'Important step'

The 28-page final declaration was agreed by 189 member states following intense talks on the last day of a month-long conference on strengthening the NPT, the cornerstone of global disarmament efforts.

Continue reading the main story

All eyes the world over are watching us

Libran Cabactulan NPT conference president

The document calls for the United Nations secretary general to organise a meeting of Middle East states in 2012 to agree to the creation of a "zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction".

"All eyes the world over are watching us," said conference president Libran Cabactulan, of the Philippines, as the final text was approved.

Egypt's Maged Abedelaziz, speaking for the Non-Aligned Movement of 118 developing nations, welcomed the decision, saying it was "an important step forward towards the realisation of the goals and objectives of the treaty".

Diplomats discussing the proposals had continued talks late into the night on Thursday before resuming on Friday.

One of the sticking points involved Israel, which is not a member of the NPT, and is widely believed to have nuclear weapons. It has never admitted possessing them.

Arab states and Israel's allies had to work hard to find agreement over wording for the proposed nuclear-weapons-free zone.

However flawed some believe the existing non-proliferation machinery to be, all agree that it has at least been partially rehabilitated after a decade of failure

Barbara Plett BBC UN correspondent Modest progress at NPT talks

Correspondents say Arab nations want to put pressure on Israel to relinquish its undeclared nuclear arsenal.

Iran also made a late demand that the five recognised nuclear-armed nations agree to a timetable for negotiating a treaty to abolish their arsenals.

In the final document adopted, no specific timetable is set out but the five states commit to "accelerate concrete progress" towards reducing their nuclear arsenals and to report back on that in 2014.

Iran has faced repeated questions over its own nuclear programme, which the West believes is aimed at making weapons. Tehran insists it is solely designed to meet its energy needs.

Iran, a member of the NPT, says it will stick to its obligations under the treaty.

The NPT has encountered difficulty in coming up with the best method for monitoring suspect nuclear programmes in Iran and North Korea.

India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel - which are known or suspected to have nuclear weapons - are not signatories to the treaty. They are not covered by any NPT agreement.

The NPT conference meets every five years. The last review conference, in 2005, failed to adopt a consensus declaration.

Source

~~~~~~~~~

Israel rejects Middle East nuclear talks plan

Page last updated at 17:45 GMT, Saturday, 29 May 2010 18:45 UK

• E-mail this to a friend
• Printable version

Israeli leaders do not comment on the country's nuclear status

Israel says it will not take part in a conference aimed at achieving a nuclear-arms free Middle East, proposed at a UN meeting in New York.

Nearly 200 nations, signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), backed plans for the meeting in 2012.

In a document agreed at the talks, Israel was singled out for criticism.

Israel, which has not signed the NPT, dismissed the document as "deeply flawed" and "hypocritical".

"It ignores the realities of the Middle East and the real threats facing the region and the entire world," the Israeli government said in a statement quoted by the AFP news agency.

Continue reading the main story

We strongly oppose efforts to single out Israel, and will oppose actions that jeopardise Israel's national security

Barack Obama US president Iran narrowly wins nuclear battle Israel deflects nuclear pressure

"Given the distorted nature of this resolution, Israel will not be able to take part in its implementation."

The statement was issued in Canada, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is visiting.

In the past, the Israeli government has refused to comment on rumours that Israel has a stockpile of nuclear weapons.

In April, Mr Netanyahu pulled out of a US summit on nuclear arms after learning that Egypt and Turkey intended to raise the issue.

'Insignificant' document

Some 189 nations agreed to the 28-page document following a month-long conference on strengthening the NPT, the cornerstone of global disarmament efforts.

The document urged Israel to sign the NPT, but did not mention Iran, a nation widely suspected of having a nuclear-weapons programme.

Analysts say this was a diplomatic victory for Iran, which denies seeking a nuclear weapon.

The US was among the nations who agreed the document, but President Barack Obama warned that he did not agree with Israel's treatment.

"We strongly oppose efforts to single out Israel, and will oppose actions that jeopardise Israel's national security," he said.

Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon promised that his country's co-operation with the US would remain unchanged, but he condemned the document as "insignificant".

"Iran has signed [the treaty], Iraq has signed it... Syria has signed it, and we see that it hasn't stopped them from seriously breaking the treaty and from trying to bypass it," he said.

Israel also questioned why India and Pakistan - declared nuclear states who have not signed the treaty - were not singled out for mention.

Source

(R) Senator Battles O'Reilly Over Fox News Bias

Chief of Staff Draws Fire From Left as Obama Falters

By PETER WALLSTEN

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama's liberal backers have a long list of grievances. The Guantanamo Bay prison is still open. Health care hasn't been transformed. And Wall Street banks are still paying huge bonuses.

But they are directing their anger less at Mr. Obama than at the man who works down the hall from him. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, they say, is the prime obstacle to the changes they thought Mr. Obama's election would bring.

The friction was laid bare in August when Mr. Emanuel showed up at a weekly strategy session featuring liberal groups and White House aides. Some attendees said they were planning to air ads attacking conservative Democrats who were balking at Mr. Obama's health-care overhaul.

"F—ing retarded," Mr. Emanuel scolded the group, according to several participants. He warned them not to alienate lawmakers whose votes would be needed on health care and other top legislative items.

The antipathy reflects deep dissatisfaction on the Democratic left with Mr. Obama's first year in office, and represents a fracturing of the relationship between the president and the political base that mobilized to elect him. A little more than one year ago, Mr. Obama's victory led some to predict an era of Democratic dominance.

The anger on the left shows that Mr. Obama is caught in an internal battle over both the course of his administration and the Democratic Party.

Many in the party, particularly in the wake of the loss last week of a Massachusetts Senate seat, contend that the White House should chart a centrist approach focusing on the economy. They point to polls showing Mr. Obama's approval rating among independent voters has dropped by nearly 20 percentage points since early last year.

The left has gotten some of what it wanted: a ban on torture, an expansion of children's health insurance and an equal-pay law for women. But liberal activists say those and other measures add up to far less than what they expected.

Cenk Uygur, a liberal talk-radio host, calls Mr. Emanuel "Barack Obama's Dick Cheney." One group has run ads against Mr. Emanuel in his hometown of Chicago. And Jane Hamsher, a prominent liberal blogger, is going after Mr. Emanuel's service—10 years ago—on the board of housing-finance giant Freddie Mac.

For the president, Mr. Emanuel is a useful foil, playing a role akin to that of James Baker, who absorbed attacks from unhappy conservatives while chief of staff to Ronald Reagan. Mr. Emanuel is a centrist cut from the Bill Clinton mold, and his presence is useful as the president tries to cut deals with centrists and conservatives.

The unrest among liberals comes at a perilous political time. Party strategists worry that anger on the left could depress turnout in this year's midterm elections and cost the party congressional seats and state governorships. The most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC survey found 55% of Republicans "very interested" in the November elections, compared with 38% of Democrats.

The tension between Mr. Emanuel and liberals has spurred speculation that he might leave the White House, perhaps to run for office again, something he denies.

After the party's Massachusetts loss, criticism of the chief of staff—not only from activists, but from members of Congress—has increased.

In recent days, the White House turned to two other top advisers, Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod, to discuss on network television how the Massachusetts defeat will affect the president's agenda.

There have been reports of tension between Mr. Emanuel and Ms. Jarrett, who is more ideologically in tune with the liberal base and close with the Obama family, but several people who have worked with the two say they get along fine.

Matthew Rothschild, editor of the Progressive, an antiwar magazine, wrote this month that Mr. Emanuel has "delivered defeat" for Mr. Obama and should be fired.

The president, he wrote, "needs a chief of staff with the wisdom to help point him down a bold, progressive path."

Mr. Emanuel responds with a reference to the party's base: "They like the president, and that's all that counts."

Allies say the chief of staff's strategy is purely realistic, that compromise is required in order to pass legislation. Mr. Emanuel's defenders note that Mr. Obama campaigned as a pragmatist who would value bipartisanship over ideology.

On health care, Mr. Emanuel negotiated with Republicans, pharmaceutical and health-insurance companies.

He also supported Congress dropping liberal ideas that didn't have enough support, in particular the "public option," a provision in which the government would provide health insurance for a large swath of the population. "Rahm's approach, like the president, is not ideological. It's practical," says Bruce Reed, chief executive of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council and a frequent recipient of Mr. Emanuel's phone calls. "The administration's strategy has been to pass health-care reform, not die trying."

John Podesta, president of the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank with close ties to the White House, says he hears the griping about Mr. Emanuel's health-care strategy all the time, even in his own organization. "He's a pretty skilled practitioner of what it takes to get something done on Capitol Hill," he says. "But by moving in that direction, they've paid a big price on the public side, and the bill is unpopular and misunderstood."

"It's better if everyone on the outside is mad at the chief of staff than mad at the president," adds Mr. Podesta, a chief of staff to President Clinton.

While a number of Mr. Emanuel's predecessors, including Messrs. Baker and Podesta, were considered skilled gatekeepers for their bosses, Mr. Emanuel's résumé is somewhat unique: previous White House experience, a short spell as an investment banker, six years in the House as a representative from Illinois, responsibility for setting national campaign strategy for House races and a reputation as a brass-knuckled enforcer.

From his early days in Washington, Mr. Emanuel, who is 50 years old, was more interested in legislative and political victories than ideological warfare, say friends and critics alike. He saw himself as a "New Democrat," identifying with party centrists who were embroiled in an ideological struggle with liberals. As a senior adviser in the Clinton White House, Mr. Emanuel supported the president's tactic of "triangulation," in which Mr. Clinton joined forces with Republicans to push an overhaul of welfare, crime and illegal-immigration policies.

After winning a House seat in 2002, he was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and was credited with delivering the majority for his party in the 2006 elections. His strategy was to recruit conservative Democrats to run in Republican-leaning districts.

Within weeks of taking up his White House post, Mr. Emanuel was shuttling between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to resolve disagreements over the $787 billion economic-stimulus package. The legislation angered Republicans, but also irked the left, which regarded the package as too small and complained that Mr. Emanuel was intent on negotiating with the party's more conservative members.

Activists and former campaign staff members watched with dismay as Mr. Emanuel and his team pursued a traditional Washington style of Capitol Hill negotiations and deal making. Activists on the left had hoped the administration would use Mr. Obama's grass-roots campaign network, Organizing for America, and its email list with 13 million names to pressure lawmakers into adopting a more left-leaning agenda, such as pushing for universal health-care coverage.

House aides describe Mr. Emanuel's role in legislative negotiations as more involved than any chief of staff in recent times. During tense House votes on the stimulus package, climate-change legislation and health care, Mr. Emanuel barraged skittish members with phone calls and BlackBerry messages. In one case, he tracked down a Democratic member in the showers at the House gym to make sure he was an aye vote, says one congressional aide.

By the spring, civil libertarians and others were pushing the White House to roll back Bush-era antiterrorism policies on matters ranging from Guantanamo Bay to torture. In meetings of senior advisers, Mr. Emanuel was often the loudest voice questioning the wisdom of such changes, according to a participant in the discussions. His concern wasn't so much the substance of the policy, but the political consequences, this person says.

On May 19, civil-liberties advocates joined Mr. Obama, Mr. Emanuel and other aides for a meeting at the White House. They aired their frustrations with the president's policies. The president listened and asked questions.

Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who attended the meeting, says he had grown suspicious of Mr. Emanuel, who as a congressman had a largely pro-ACLU voting record. Mr. Romero says he noticed a shift when Mr. Emanuel became "consigliere at the White House," where he focuses "less on the policy outcomes and more on maintaining a Democratic agenda that will keep the party in power."

In the Clinton White House, Mr. Emanuel saw the pharmaceutical industry kill the administration's health agenda. Avoiding that outcome was his goal last year. He and other White House aides assured industry officials that the legislation wouldn't include price controls, and that the administration wouldn't pursue allowing the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada and Europe if the health plan passed.

The discussions with PhRMA, the drug industry's main lobby group, and other business groups angered many liberals, who felt Mr. Emanuel ceded too much ground. They also opposed the White House's decision to pursue support from Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe.

Mr. Emanuel gave early indication that he was flexible on the public option, telling The Wall Street Journal last July that the door was open to alternative ideas to "keep the private insurers honest." That prompted a mass email from liberal group MoveOn.org, which said that "Emanuel's remarks will only embolden conservative opponents of reform" and that he was backing "disastrous half-measures."

"Everyone seems to be waiting around for the Chicago street brawler Rahm, because the one that showed up in the White House has little apparent fight in him," says Markos Moulitsas, publisher of the liberal blog Daily Kos. "Sure, he's quick to attack progressives when they criticize Obama or put legislative pressure on him from the left, but he's far too quick and happy to accommodate the Democratic Party's corporatist wing."

Mr. Emanuel's "retarded" outburst in August heightened the belief among some liberal leaders that the chief of staff was tough only on the left, especially when the health-care debate turned into a conflagration during a series of town-hall meetings.

The weekly strategy sessions where he made the remark, called the Common Purpose Project, are by invitation only, and participants are sworn to secrecy. Activists say it's a one-way conversation, with the White House presenting its views and asking liberals to refrain from public criticism. Ms. Hamsher, publisher of the Fire Dog Lake blog, calls the gatherings the "veal pen."

One liberal group, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, founded by ex-MoveOn staff member Adam Green, spent $20,000 to briefly air a television ad featuring a former constituent in Mr. Emanuel's House district. "A lot of us back home hope Rahm Emanuel is fighting for people like us as White House chief of staff," said the man in the ad. "But if he sides with insurance companies and undermines the public option, well, he won't have many fans in Chicago."

Rep. Anthony Weiner, a New York Democrat and one of the House's more liberal members, recalls telling Mr. Emanuel the White House needed to apply more pressure to secure passage of the public option. Mr. Emanuel's response, Mr. Weiner says, was always the same: He was open to any idea that could gain a majority vote.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A1

Source

Cenk Quoted By WSJ & MSNBC: Rahm = Cheney

Afghan aid fails to feed the hungry

Parwan province is quiet, but signs of discontent are growing

By Peter Greste BBC News, Parwan province, Afghanistan

It is not hard to see why Alla Gul is upset. Her two-year-old daughter cries weakly in her arms with barely enough energy to eat.

The child stares vacantly at the other patients in the Charikar hospital ward, her muscles wasted with malnutrition, her angular bones protruding like twigs beneath her papery skin.

When Alla Gul returned with her family from a refugee camp in Iran six years ago to Afghanistan, they expected better things.

The Taliban had fallen, security had returned and international aid began pouring in - billions of dollars' worth.

"It's indeed very difficult. For months, we haven't been able to afford to buy meat for our children. It's very painful to watch," she said.

Alla Gul's two-year-old daughter is weak with hunger

Alla Gul says she never wanted handouts. But she and her husband - a contract farmer who gets a portion of the produce from the land he works - always believed they would lead a comfortable life.

Now, he simply can't earn enough to feed the family.

Dr Aslam Fawad is despairing. Each day he walks the malnutrition ward, watching more and more patients arrive from across this otherwise fertile farming district.

Poverty is so deep that even many farmers are unable to feed their families.

Dr Fawad does his best to help, but the dire state of the economy means that some patients keep returning, time after time.

"The malnutrition problem in Afghanistan, and especially Parwan province, is very bad. That's because of the years of fighting, the damage to our infrastructure and rising unemployment.

"It's all helped to make things worse," he said.

Deep discontent

The statistics bear him out: officially, unemployment is about 40%, though it is probably far higher than that; of those who do have a job in Parwan, 45% earn less than one dollar a day; chronic malnutrition for children under five across Afghanistan is 54%.

And perhaps most surprising of all, on a UN scale of human development indicators, Afghanistan has slipped from 117th in the world, to 181st - second from the bottom - since the Taliban were ousted.

Professor Sayed Massood, an economist from Kabul University, believes that backsliding is responsible for much of the deep discontent with the government, and growing support for the insurgency.

Even farm workers are suffering from malnutrition

He blames the crisis of public confidence on the policy of pouring billions of dollars in development aid into regions where the insurgency is strongest.

"Instead of the benefits [of aid] going to friends, they are going to enemies. We needed to spend money in the places where the people believe in democracy and work for the government.

"But instead only the enemies are getting rich," he said.

"We need to set examples of peaceful provinces that are also prosperous, but that's just not happening."

Prof Massood argues that the international community has adopted an aid policy that has been entirely counter-productive.

"They have politicised aid; they have tried to use their money to bring about political change in the frontline provinces - they have tried to bribe their enemies.

"But they don't understand that it works the other way around. If you improve the economics of the people, the politics will follow. If you don't, you will lose them."

That might explain why the insurgency appears to be spreading to parts of the country that until now have been relatively peaceful.

Slowly switching sides

Rural Parwan province, just to the north of Kabul, is still quiet, but there are growing signs of discontent with the government, and resentment at the way the people have been neglected.

Some patients keep returning to the malnutrition ward in Charikar hospital

Abdullah Khan heads another family struggling to find enough food. He is a tractor driver, working the fields for neighbouring farms.

But a month ago, his two-year-old daughter Rabia also had to be admitted to hospital with severe malnutrition.

Rabia is recovering with Dr Fawad's help, but several days ago his wife gave birth to another girl - one more mouth to feed just when they can least afford it.

"Instead of aid going to those like me who need it, it goes to rich, corrupt people. I'm very angry at the government," Abdullah Khan said.

The government badly needs the trust of Abdullah Khan and those like him - moderates who just want a peaceful life.

But the more Afghanistan's children suffer, the more support for the government slips, and the more it grows for the insurgency.

Source

Inside Story - Corruption and Politics in Pakistan - 21 Dec 09

Corruption is an everyday policy at Pakistan. If you want a $200,000 dollar road job done, you pay double. If you pay what it should cost, you get half the work done, and a poor quality road.

Kickbacks are everywhere and are a part of doing business. Corruption is open in any airport you go to where people will be asked for bribes or not allowed to board planes.

Pakistan will not modernize an inch if this corruption does not end now.

Health Insurance Companies Win

There is hope yet. If the reconciliation between the House and Senate bill goes well, it can fix most, if not all, of the problems in the Senate bill.

Reconciliation of those two bills will be our final chance to change the bill. Then there is a final vote in congress, and then finally, if that vote passes, the President gets to sign or veto.

Please Congress, please fix this mess before it gets to the President. If you can't, VOTE THE BILL DEAD! Do that or expect calls from my end every day until it's overturned.

Obama Giving Taxpayer Money For Banker Bonuses

Classic GOP Hypocrisy

TYT Destroys Chris Matthews

Jane Hamsher reveals the truth

Thank you Jane Hamsher for revealing the truth.

Flashback: McCain Objected To Granting Dem Senator More Time

Barack Obama Is A Liar

I told you so, I told you so, I told you so.

There's a reason why i voted third party and why I plan on almost always voting third party, Because i don't want my vote to be useless.

If you have conservative leanings, you have only 1 vote they say, the republicans, sounds like a monarchy.

If you have liberal leanings, you have only 1 vote they say, the dems, sounds like a monarchy.

But if you vote your will, and you vote with someone who agrees with you, and you vote third party, you get exactly what you paid for.

Enough people realize that, we get real success stories.

Third party is throwing your vote away? Please, it's obvious who threw their vote away, and that's for whoever supports the beasts of Dem and Rep.

US media on Obama Nobel award

The surprise decision to award the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama has prompted a flurry of reaction from US media commentators.

Barack Obama said he was humbled and surprised to win the award

Conservatives have been quick to ask what concrete achievements Mr Obama has made to be worthy of the prize - and some liberals have asked the same question. This selection reflects some of their views.

Political commentator Mark Halperin, writing in Time magazine's The Page blog, thinks the award may be a boon to Mr Obama's opponents.

"Barack Obama's critics have long accused him of being a man of 'just words', rather than concrete actions and accomplishments. The stunning decision to award him the Nobel Peace Prize for, basically, his rhetoric, will almost certainly infuriate his detractors in America more than it will delight his supporters."

Nicolas Kristof, of the New York Times, reflects the view of many commentators when he asks what Mr Obama has done to deserve the award.

"So what do you think of President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize? I'm nonplussed - I admire his efforts toward Middle East peace, but the prize still seems very premature. What has he done?... Shouldn't the Nobel Peace Prize have a higher bar than high expectations? Especially when there are so many people who have worked for years and years on the front lines, often in dangerous situations, to make a difference to the most voiceless people of the world?"

Michelle Malkin, a conservative commentator, is much more scathing.

"Isn't it so fitting? From community organiser to Illinois state senator (present!) to US Senator for 143 days before moving into the White House, and now, the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize - not for anything he's actually done, but for the symbolism of what he might possibly accomplish sometime way off in the future. It's the final nail in the Nobel Peace Prize Committee's coffin."

Fox News turns to Tommy De Seno, who blogs at JustifiedRight.com, for his take on what Mr Obama has done to merit the prize. He runs through his early days in office.

"President Obama has broken new ground here. Nominations for potential winners of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ended on February 1. The president took office only 12 days earlier on January 20. Let's take a look at the president's first 12 days in the White House according to his public schedule to see what he did to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize: January 20: Went to a parade. Partied..."

Another conservative pundit, Peter Wehner, blogging for commentarymagazine.com, thinks Mr Obama is being rewarded for not just acknowledging but agreeing with the negative views of the US held by many overseas.

"Barack Obama has given voice to what many of the world think about America - and it's not flattering. That much of the world - composed as it is of autocrats and dictators and weak and wobbly defenders of human rights and human dignity - isn't happy with the United States is not news. What is news is that an American president would validate many of those charges. I find that deeply disquieting. The Norwegian Nobel Committee, not surprisingly, considers it worthy of its highest honour."

The Washington Post's David Ignatius is more positive, arguing that Mr Obama's work to build America's international relations has real value.

"The Nobel Peace Prize award to Barack Obama seems so goofy - even if you're a fan, you have to admit that he hasn't really done much yet as a peacemaker. But there's an aspect of this prize that is real and important - and that validates Obama's strategy from the day he took office... America was too unpopular under Bush. The Nobel committee is expressing a collective sigh of relief that America has rejoined the global consensus. They're right. It's a good thing. It's just a little weird that they gave him a prize for it."

Susan Davis, in the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog, comments on Mr Obama's reversal of fortune on the world stage.

"Exactly one week after President Barack Obama suffered an embarrassing defeat before an international body to secure his hometown of Chicago with the 2016 Games, he stuns the world and wins the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama won for his diplomatic efforts - and he remains popular overseas - but reactions about the merits and timing of the honour were immediate."

Tom Matlack, blogging for the Huffington Post news site, says Mr Obama's merit is in being an inspiration to the common man.

"Our president aspires to greatness, no doubt about that. So far he hasn't been great. Many things he wants to get done have proven a thousand times more complicated than he ever could have imagined, from health care to Afghanistan. But when the congressman on Capitol Hill shouted out 'liar' in prime time, our president showed that even if he isn't yet great he most certainly is a Good Man that we can all be proud of. In the end that's why he was awarded the Nobel peace prize."

Source

Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama

Obama was woken very early by staff bringing news of the award

US President Barack Obama has said he was "surprised and deeply humbled" to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, less than 10 months into his presidency.

Speaking at the White House hours after the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee named him as a surprise winner, he said the award should be a "call to action".

The world faced challenges that "cannot be met by one person or by one nation alone," Mr Obama said.

The committee said he won for efforts to boost diplomacy and co-operation.

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the Norwegian committee said in a statement.

"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Long-term goals

Standing in the Rose Garden to make his first public statement since being woken early by aides bringing news of the award, Mr Obama stressed that his win was just the beginning of his work.

MARDELL'S AMERICA There was already a huge weight of responsibility on Obama's shoulders, and this medal hung round his neck has just made it a little heavier Mark Mardell BBC North America editor Read Mark's thoughts in full

He said he did not feel he deserved to be in the company of some of the "transformative figures" who had previously received the award.

Some of his aims, particularly the goal of universal nuclear disarmament, would be difficult to achieve even within his lifetime, let alone his presidency, Mr Obama said.

And he sought to deflect some of the global surprise at his win, describing the award as "affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations".

"I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honour specific achievements," he said.

"It's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st Century."

Public bemused

There were a record 205 nominations for this year's peace prize. Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and Chinese dissident Hu Jia had been among the favourites.

ANALYSIS Paul Reynolds BBC News, London The award is certainly unexpected and might be regarded as more of an encouragement for intentions than a reward for achievements. After all, the president has been in office for a little over eight months and he might hope to serve eight years. His ambition for a world free of nuclear weapons is one that is easier to declare than to achieve and a climate control agreement has yet to be reached. Indeed, the citation indicates that it is President Obama's world view that attracted the Nobel committee - that diplomacy should be founded "on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population". Obama rewarded for world view

Instead the committee chose Mr Obama, who was inaugurated less than two weeks before the 1 February nomination deadline.

There was widespread surprise at the decision, with about 75% of comments sent to the BBC either disagreeing with the award or saying it had come too soon.

The Nobel laureate - chosen by a five-member committee - wins a gold medal, a diploma and 10m Swedish kronor ($1.4m).

Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".

He specifically mentioned Mr Obama's work to strengthen international institutions and work towards a world free of nuclear arms.

'New climate'

Reaction to the committee's decision from around the world was swift and varied.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, said he could not think of anyone more deserving of the award.

But spokesmen from anti-US Islamist groups such as the Taliban, Hamas and Islamic Jihad said they had seen no evidence yet of improvements in security for people in their regions.

Since taking office in January, President Obama has pursued an ambitious international agenda including a push for peace in the Middle East and negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme.

THE SELECTION PROCESS Those qualified to nominate candidates include members of national governments, international judiciary, academics and previous prize winners Five Norwegians are chosen by Norway's parliament to sit on the Nobel Committee The committee compiles a shortlist of between five and 20 candidates The shortlist is considered by the Nobel Institute's permanent advisers, mainly Norwegian academics The Nobel Committee chooses the winner Details of the nominations and selection process are kept secret for 50 years World reacts to Obama peace prize Profile: Barack Obama

However, critics say he has failed to make breakthroughs. Domestically, Mr Obama has been working to tackle an economic crisis and win support for healthcare reform.

Some said they saw the prize as a way of encouraging the US leader early in his presidency.

"It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama's message of hope," said Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, a former winner.

The statement from the Nobel Committee said Mr Obama had "created a new climate in international politics".

"Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play," it said.

Mr Obama is the first US president to win the prize since former US President Jimmy Carter in 2002. Theodore Roosevelt won the prize in 1906 and Woodrow Wilson won it in 1919.

The prize was invented by the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite Alfred Nobel, and was first awarded in 1901.

As Sweden was at the time united with Norway, Nobel designated the parliament in Norway to elect the peace prize committee. Swedish academies are responsible for other prizes.

The prize-giving ceremony for the peace award is due to take place on 10 December in the Norwegian capital, Oslo. Mr Obama has indicated he will attend.

Source

What a waste of an award. Given to someone who has done nothing, absolutely nothing, in the senate before he was elected and now in the presidency.

Give us peace with Iran, Peace in the Middle east, and Health Care, and EARN that medal.