Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise

Rappel du premier message :

U.S. clamps down on banking transactions; terror group finds new funding

By Robert Windrem and Garrett Haake
NBC News
updated 7:56 a.m. ET Nov. 14, 2008
Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. intelligence officials believe they've won many small victories against al-Qaida's ability to finance its operations, but they remain unable to put a concrete dollar figure on their impact.

That's because they have no reliable estimate of al-Qaida's overall budget, according to current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials, which means the only measures of the organization's economic health are sporadic, anecdotal and fragmentary.

"When you see a cell complaining that it hasn't received its monthly or biannual stipend and it's unable to pay the salaries of the people in the cell, unable to make the support payments to the families of terrorists living or dead, that's a tremendous indicator we have pressured the financial channel," said Adam Szubin, the director of the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control and the man in charge of tracking terrorist finance.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27644191

loin de moi l'idee d'oublier qui que ce soit dans cette debauche de generosite; c'est que, au moins, l'Europe n'est pas detestee "la-bas" mais que nous, si; meme si nos nouveaux dirigeants essayent de se convaincre autrement.

Report: Pbama Offers to Scrap Missile Shield If Russia Cooperates on Iran

President Obama wrote to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to tell him Russia's aid in resolving the threat from Iran would make plans for a missile defense shield in Europe unnecessary, according to Russian news agencies.



FOXNews.com

Monday, March 02, 2009


President Obama offered to consider scrapping plans for a missile defense shield in Europe if Russia helps rein in Iran's nuclear program, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported.

The article said Obama wrote to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to tell him Russia's aid in resolving the threat from Iran would make the missile shield plans unnecessary, according to an account from Russian news agency RIA Novosti.
A senior administration official told FOX News that Obama sent a letter to Medvedev but "we won't comment on the specifics."

Obama inherited plans to build the system in Poland and the Czech Republic from the Bush administration, but the new administration has equivocated over the project. Though the plans were put in place to deter nations like Iran and North Korea from launching attacks and developing nuclear weapons, Russia has interpreted the planned installation as a threat.

The senior administration official said the U.S. will continue to "consult with the Czech Republic and Poland on the program," but will also continue to review the plan.
"We'll be evaluating the future of the program based on a number of factors ... whether it will work, whether it will be cost-effective, whether it will reduce the threat and whether that threat can be reduced though diplomacy with Russia and our NATO allies," the official said.

Reuters reported last month that the Obama administration would at least review the plans for a missile defense shield in Europe, provided Russia helps curb Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Clinton is expected to meet with Russia's foreign minister in Geneva later this week.

State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid said last month that the U.S. wants to "engage" Russia on the issue of the missile defense and review their proposals to "counter missiles from rogue states."

Sylvette en 525 a écrit:

loin de moi l'idee d'oublier qui que ce soit dans cette debauche de generosite; c'est que, au moins, l'Europe n'est pas detestee "la-bas" mais que nous, si; meme si nos nouveaux dirigeants essayent de se convaincre autrement.

Il ne faut pas vous désoler, c'était juste une exclamation spontanée, un cri du coeur !

Une sorte de Allahou akbar en français, quoi !

Ah mais bien sur, d'ailleurs vous avez bien du entendre un echo, c'etait moi qui vous repondais!

Question rhetorique. Pendant la campagne, il a ete question a plusieurs occasions du fait qu'Obama avait ete nomme le senateur le plus liberal l'annee derniere au vu de ses votes. Il semble qu'avec les decisions qu'il vient de prendre, le doute n'existe plus. Il a "fait croire" au bipartisme, il s'est rapproche des Republicains par des mots uniquement, le plans de relance, l'omnibus, le budget 2010, les Republicains ne peuvent que les accepter de gre ou de force. Mais la, il me semble que ce n'etait pas necessaire. C'est vraiment une decision de bravade. Un jour Clinton a dit qu'il s'etait mal conduit avec la jeune Lewinski "parce qu'il pouvait" (Of his sexual abuse of his employee, Monica Lewinsky, Clinton said it was “a terrible moral error." Bill explained to kindly, understanding Dan - Dan Rather le meme! -, "I did it ... because I could."). Obama est en train de tout mettre en l'air parce qu'il le peut. (le Congres etant Democrate)

Hier, sur le fil le monde selon Barack, j'ai pense a plusieurs occassions a ce "medecin" qui a la reputation de n'avoir aucune objection a "terminer une grossesse" en 3eme trimestre meme sur des tres jeunes filles. La loi autorise ces avortements si la femme a des problemes de sante uniquement. Le choix d'Obama a la tete de son programme de services medicaux et sociaux, Kathleen Sebelus, soutient ce medecin. Je rappelle qu'elle est/etait Gouverneur du Kansas ou ce docteur pratique.

Anti-Abortion Activists Plan to Fight Sebelius' Nomination for HHS

Kansas-based Operation Rescue says it's going to launch a full-out campaign against Kathleen Sebelius because of her support from Dr. George Tiller, who has been indicted for allegedly performing late-term abortions on underage girls.

FOXNews.com

Monday, March 02, 2009

Anti-abortion activists are planning to strongly oppose Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama's pick for secretary of health and human services, saying the Kansas governor's positions on abortion and her ties to a late-term abortion provider are too extreme for her to be in charge of America's health care policy.

Kansas-based Operation Rescue says it will launch a full-out campaign against Sebelius because, as governor, she has had the support of Dr. George Tiller, who has been indicted for allegedly performing late-term abortions on underage girls.

"With Obama's appointment of Gov. Sebelius to the Department of Health and Human Services, he might as well be appointing George Tiller, because Tiller is the one that will be pulling her strings," said Operation Rescue Chief Troy Newman in a post on the group's Web site.

"Sebelius' involvement in Kansas abortion scandals and her indebtedness to the corrupt abortion lobby makes her unfit to serve. We urge our supporters to begin contacting their senators now to voice opposition to Sebelius' confirmation."

Sebelius' opponents point out that HHS already is in the process of undoing a Bush administration regulation that allows medical personnel to refuse to provide abortion or sterilization services based on religious or moral grounds. The regulation went into effect on Inauguration Day.

But it's unlikely Sebelius will face much opposition in the U.S. Senate. Even the two Republican senators from her own state -- Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback -- are fine with the choice. Roberts was in attendance at the White House Monday as Obama announced his nomination of Sebelius -- a point the president noted.

As governor, Sebelius saw the abortion rate decline 8.5 percent in Kansas between 2002 and 2007, according to the state's health department. The state's abortion rate fell 14 percent between 2000 and 2005, according to the Allen Guttmacher Institute, which is generally cited by both abortion rights supporters and opponents for its statistics. The nation's abortion rate declined 9 percent during that time, the institute reported.

Kansas is one of 32 states that uses Medicaid funds to pay for abortion when the mother's life is in danger, or in cases of rape or incest. Sebelius vetoed legislation that would have authorized the secretary of the Department of Health and Environment to disclose information to district and county attorneys and the attorney general on physicians and medical care facilities that provide late-term abortions. The governor said the information could end up compromising women's medical privacy.

Sebelius signed a bill known as "Alexa's Law," which allows for charges to brought against someone who commits violence on a fetus, and she signed legislation to require abortion providers to submit fetal tissue samples to the Kansas Bureau of Investigations when the mother is younger than 14 years old.

But Kansas state Rep. Steve Brunk, a Republican who sponsored Alexa's Law, told FOXNews.com that Sebelius is a clear, committed abortion rights protector who signed the legislation only because it was a criminal statute rolled into five other bills she supported.

"If she vetoed Alexa's Law, she would have vetoed all five others," Brunk said. Instead, he said, Sebelius decided to sign the "mega bill."

"The political fallout from that would have been more than she wanted," he said. "I think if she had a chance, she would have vetoed Alexa's Law in a nanosecond."

Brunk said that, to his knowledge, Sebelius has vetoed every piece of legislation aimed at a "woman's right to know" about abortions, including legislation on statistical reporting and on requiring women to look at sonograms before going through with the procedure.

Nonetheless, Brunk said that he is happy for the governor and "you're always proud to have someone from your home state" in a Cabinet position. He added that while Sebelius is on the opposite end of the spectrum from his philosophy on abortion, her position is consistent with the president's.

"I'd say they are very consistent. I'd say the president wants to move ... has shown every indication that he is not willing to do anything to lessen a woman's right to know or choose" not to get an abortion, Brunk said.
"While I understand the opposition, if it's not Sebelius, I think it would be somebody else, particularly in that job, that would be similar on those views."

Another group that is lining up against Sebelius is the Catholic League, which notes on its Web site that the Roman Catholic governor's "support for abortion is so far off-the-charts that she has been publicly criticized by the last three archbishops of Kansas City."

But Catholics United, a progressive group, has been in Sebelius' corner for a while. And on Monday, a group of 12 Christian leaders issued a statement saying they hope efforts to discredit Sebelius will be ignored.
"We hope that such tactics will not succeed in taking focus off of her record of reducing abortions and supporting women and families in Kansas -- and the task that lies ahead of us all: working together to improve health care and reduce the number of abortions in America," said the group of pastors and religious studies professors led by Joel Hunter, senior pastor at Northland, A Church Distributed in Northland, Fla.

La Cour Supreme a decide que la responsabilite d'accepter ou non le mariage gay revenait a chaque etat. Certains ont deja fait face a la question: entre autres le Massachusetts (qui a accepte) et la Californie (qui a refuse).

Un couple gay, marie depuis 5 ans, et parents de 2 enfants, a depose une plainte devant les tribunaux, la loi federale ne reconnaissant pas le mariage gay, les deux femmes ne peuvent faire une declaration jointe au fisc, elles ont donc paye un exces de $ 15,000.00. Je ne pense pas qu'elles gagnent leur proces (elles ne sont d'ailleurs pas les seules a entamer une procedure) toutefois au cas contraire, le mariage gay serait entre dans les lois federales, meme si c'est par la petite porte.

Lorsque NNP aura eu la possibilite de nommer un Juge Supreme, a la prochaine retraite de l'un d'eux, je pense que le mariage gay, la legalisation de la drogue (meme probleme la, la drogue pour raison medicale est legale en Californie mais illegale au niveau federal), l'abolition de la peine de mort, etc.

Married Gays in Mass. Sue U.S. for Federal Benefits

Married same-sex couples are suing the federal government, claiming the act discriminates against gay couples and is unconstitutional because it denies them access to federal benefits.



AP

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Disons que c'est avec quelques mois de retard!

Angry McCain slams Obama

[table cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"][tr][td]By DAVID ROGERS| 3/2/09 7:54 PM EST


A nearly $410 billion omnibus spending bill is fast becoming a great bone in the throat for Dems and the W.H.
Photo: AP

Long delayed but not shrunken with time, a nearly $410 billion omnibus spending bill is fast becoming a great bone in the throat for Democrats and the White House, just when each hoped to put the past behind them and move onto President Barack Obama’s new 2010 budget.

Minutes after hitting the Senate floor Monday, the bill touched off a fierce, emotional attack from the president’s old rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who lectured Obama for failing to do more to stand up against the thousands of spending earmarks in the 1,132 pages.

At the same time, Democrats admitted privately that the White House itself has hurt their cause by frightening off Republicans, who negotiated the bill in December but are now in “sticker shock” after seeing the full cost of the new president’s agenda.

The giant measure covers more than a dozen Cabinet departments and represents unfinished business from last fall, when Democrats and the Bush administration were at loggerheads over domestic spending. But in today’s environment — of soaring deficits and unemployment — it’s an explosive mix of parochial projects and new spending. And as Obama himself famously quoted Faulkner in the campaign last year, “The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.”

Certainly not for McCain. Monday’s floor speech was the most personal attack yet by the Arizona Republican in what has already become a surprisingly strained, often hostile approach to the new president.

“If it seems like I’m angry, it’s because I am,” McCain said, taking the White House to task for treating the bill as leftover business — and not subject to the full measure of earmark reform promised by candidate Obama.

“Last year’s business?” McCain asked, incredulous. “The president will sign this appropriations bill into law. It is the president’s business. It is the president of the United States’ business. It is the president of the United States’ business to do what he said — stated — when we were in debate seeking the support of the American people — where he said he would work to eliminate earmarks.”

“We need earmark reform and when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure we’re not spending money unwisely,” McCain said, reading back Obama’s words at a debate last fall. “That’s the quote, the promise of the president of the United States made to the American people in a debate with me in Oxford, Miss. So what is brought to the floor today — 9,000 earmarks.…So much for change.”

...

CHANGE

A Republican Road to Economic Recovery

Obama's proposals – the good, the bad, and some better alternatives.
By PAUL RYAN

Inheriting countless challenges, Congress and the Obama administration have moved quickly on many fronts to implement their economic agenda. After two months of drastic interventions, has hope replaced fear, and confidence pushed aside uncertainty? Hardly.

David Gothard

The budget the president released last week, however, does provide some certainty about where we are headed: higher taxes on small businesses, work and capital investment.
Add to this the costly burdens of a cap-and-trade carbon emissions scheme and an effective nationalization of health care, and it is clear that the government is going to grow while the economy will shrink. In a nutshell, the president's budget seemingly seeks to replace the American political idea of equalizing opportunity with the European notion of equalizing results.

A constructive opposition party should be willing to call out the majority when it falls short. More important, Republicans must offer alternatives. In this spirit, here is what I would do differently:

- [i]A pro-growth tax policy. Rather than raise the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6%, it should be dropped to 25%. The lower tax brackets should be collapsed to one 10% rate on the first $100,000 for couples. And the top corporate tax rate should be lowered to 25%. This modest reform would put American companies' tax liability more in line with the prevailing rates of our competitors.

We've seen 10 years of growth in our equity markets wiped out in recent months, while 401(k)s, IRAs and college savings plans are down by an average of 40%. The administration and congressional Democrats want to raise capital gains tax rates by a third. Instead, we should eliminate the capital gains tax. It supplies about 4% of federal revenues, yet it places a substantial drag on economic growth. Individuals already pay taxes on income when they earn it. They should not be socked again when they are saving and investing for their retirement and their children's education.
Capital gains taxes are a needless burden on investment, savings and risk-taking, activities in short supply these days. Getting rid of this tax could help establish a floor on stock prices and stem the decline in the value of retirement plans by increasing the after-tax rate of return on capital.

Democrats oppose this, playing on emotions of fear and envy. But while class warfare may make good short-term politics, it produces terrible economics.

- Guarantee sound money. For the last decade, the Federal Reserve's easy-money policy has helped fuel the housing bubble that precipitated our current crisis. We need to return to a sound money policy. That would end uncertainty, help keep interest rates down, and increase the confidence entrepreneurs and investors need to take the risks required for future growth.

I believe the best way to guarantee sound money is to use an explicit, market-based price guide, such as a basket of commodities, in setting monetary policy. A more politically realistic path to price stability would be for the Fed to explicitly embrace inflation targeting.

Transcripts from recent meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee meetings suggest that the Fed may already be moving in this direction. This would be an improvement over the status quo: It could help combat near-term deflation concerns while also calming the market's longer-term inflation fears.

- Fix the financial sector. A durable economic recovery requires a solution to the banking crisis. There are no easy or painless solutions, but the most damaging solution over the long term would be to nationalize our financial system. Once we put politicians in charge of allocating credit and resources in our economy, it is hard to imagine them letting go.

The underlying structural problem at our financial institutions is the toxic assets infecting their balance sheets and impairing their operations. In order to help purge these assets from the system, we need a government-sponsored, comprehensive solution, but one that is transparent and temporary, and which leverages -- rather than chases away -- private-sector capital.

The general idea is to establish an entity or fund to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions and then hold them until they could be sold once the market has recovered. The Treasury has announced its intention to use capital from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, along with financing from the Fed's soon-to-be operational Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, to set up such an entity. It will be a tall task to get all the details and incentives right, but the administration's general strategy appears to be sound.

A good model for this government-sponsored entity is the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), which helped clean up bank failures in the wake of the savings-and-loan crisis in the late 1980s and early 1990s by absorbing and selling off bad bank assets. The circumstances of today's financial sector are different, but the goals of our current efforts should mirror the general merits of an RTC-like entity. We should aim to recoup a portion of our initial expenditures, and we should leave only a fleeting government footprint on the financial sector and the economy.

- Get a grip on entitlements. With $56 trillion in unfunded liabilities and our social insurance programs set to implode, we must tackle the entitlement crisis. President Barack Obama deserves credit for his recent efforts to build a bipartisan consensus on entitlement reform. But we can't solve the entitlement problem unless we acknowledge why the costs are exploding, and then take action.

I have proposed legislation, called "A Roadmap for America's Future," that would bring permanent solvency to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. By transforming these open-ended entitlements into a system with a defined benefit safety net for the low-income and chronically ill, in conjunction with an individually owned, defined contribution system for health and retirement, we can reach the goal of these programs without bankrupting the next generation. It would also show the world and the credit markets that we are serious about our debt and unfunded liabilities.

Republicans can help Washington become part of the solution, not part of the problem. We can do this by pushing to enact tax policies that boost incentives for economic growth and job creation, focus the Fed on price stability, fix our banking system to get credit flowing again, stop reckless spending, and reform our entitlement programs.
Our economy is begging for clear leadership that inspires confidence and hope that the entrepreneurial spirit will flourish again. Our goal must be to offer Americans that leadership.

Mr. Ryan, from Wisconsin, is ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee and also serves on Ways and Means.

que c'est une photo sympa.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele is taking issue with the notion that Rush Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the GOP, calling the conservative radio talk show host an entertainer whose comments can be ugly.
"Rush will say what Rush has to say; we'll do what we have to do," RNC Chairman Michael Steele has said.

"Rush will say what Rush has to say; we'll do what we have to do," RNC Chairman Michael Steele has said.

Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in an interview with CNN that he, rather than Limbaugh, is "the de facto leader of the Republican Party."

And Steele described Limbaugh as a performer.

"Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh's whole thing is entertainment," Steele said. "Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly."

Limbaugh fired back on his radio show Monday that the GOP leader appears to be supporting President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"Why do you claim to lead the Republican Party when you seem obsessed with seeing to it President Obama succeeds?" Limbaugh said to Steele.

"I frankly am stunned that the chairman of the Republican National Committee endorses such an agenda. I have to conclude that he does because he attacks me for wanting it to fail," said Limbaugh.

Last month, Steele, a former lieutenant governor of Maryland, was elected chairman of the RNC. He is the first African-American to lead the Republican Party. At the time of his election, Steele said that "Rush will say what Rush has to say; we'll do what we have to do."

Steele made his latest comments regarding Limbaugh on CNN's "D.L. Hughley Breaks the News," which aired this weekend. The Steele interview was taped before Limbaugh's appearance before the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual meeting of conservatives from across the nation. Video Watch Steele, Hughley talk politics »

Limbaugh brought a cheering crowd to its feet several times as he called on fellow conservatives to take back the country.

He used his self-described "first national address," which ran more than an hour longer than his allotted 20 minutes, to accuse President Obama of inspiring fear in Americans in order to push a liberal agenda of "big government."

Limbaugh also backed up comments he made earlier this year in which he said he hoped Obama failed.

"What is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and re-form this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?" he said.

But a top Republican in Congress disagreed.

"I don't think anyone wants anything to fail right now," House Republican Whip Eric Cantor said on ABC's "This Week." "We have such challenges. What we need to do is we need to put forth solutions to the problems that real families are facing today."

RNC spokesman Alex Conant on Monday did not directly address Steele's comments about Limbaugh but pointed out the back-and-forth between the White House and the conservative radio host.

"Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats know they lose an argument with the Republican Party on substance, so they are building straw men to attack and distract," he said. "The feud between radio host Rush and Rahm makes great political theater, but it is a sideshow to the important work going on in Washington.
advertisement

"RNC Chairman Michael Steele and elected Republicans are focused on fighting for reform and winning elections. The Democrats' problem is that the American people are growing skeptical of the massive government spending being pushed by congressional leaders like [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi," Conant said.

A spokesman for Limbaugh said the radio host did not have an immediate response, but added he would probably address Steele's comments Monday on his nationally syndicated radio program.

Posted by John Nichols 3/3/09

Unfortunately, Limbaugh got wind of the chairman's heresy.

Then things really got incendiary and, yes, ugly.

<blockquote>Mr. Steele, if you want to lead the Republican Party,
as you say you do, then you need to run for and win the presidency. You
are chairman of the Republican National Committee. That is your job. To
run the Republican establishment bureaucracy and prove you can defeat
Democrats and elect Republicans, to come up with a new primary system
that eliminates Democrats participating in ours and choosing our
candidates and getting the grassroots revved up again. This is how
you're going to be measured, not by how entertaining or cute you are on
talk shows," growled Limbaugh, as part of a twenty-minute long rant on
his program Monday. "By the same token, I'm not in charge of the
Republican Party, and I don't want to be. I would be embarrassed to say
that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in the sad-sack state that
it's in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state
that it's in, I would quit. I might get out the hari-kari knife because
I would have presided over a failure that is embarrassing to the
Republicans and conservatives who have supported it and invested in it
all these years. I certainly couldn't say I am proud of the Republican
Party, as I am leading the Republican Party. Right now the Republican
Party needs to be led, and it will be. The next Republican president is
going to be the head of the party. Last time I checked, I don't think
Mr. Steele is running.</blockquote>

Limbaugh wasn't done.

<blockquote>Mr. Steele, we do like to entertain people here. The
audience is very smart, sir," the millionaire radio host explained to
the minion. "They know the difference between entertainment, and they
know the difference between deadly serious issues that affect their
country. Don't underestimate the intelligence of this audience or
Republicans and conservatives generally. The biggest problem with all
of you who live inside the Beltway is you look out over America and you
think you see idiocy and unsophisticated people, ignorant people, and
when you're looking at liberal Democrats, largely you're correct, but
your own voters are every bit as informed, involved, engaged, and
caring, if not more so than you are. We don't care, first and foremost,
about the success of the Republican Party. We care about the United
States of America and its future, because we cherish it and love it,
and we know what it is that made it the greatest nation on earth, and
we don't hear you articulating that you understand that, not just you,
Mr. Steele, but hardly anybody else in Washington, DC. So send those
fundraising requests out, and, by the way, when you send those
fundraising requests out, Mr. Steele, make sure you say, "We want Obama
to succeed." So people understand your compassion. Republicans,
conservatives, are sick and tired of being talked down to, sick and
tired of being lectured to, and until you show some understanding and
respect for who they are, you're going to have a tough time rebuilding
your party.</blockquote>

Eh be........

AP/Updated 6:42 p.m. ET March 3, 2009

GOP chief apologizes for Limbaugh remarks
Steele had described conservative radio host as an 'entertainer'

March 3: Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele apologizes to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. NBC's Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd and the ‘Morning Joe’ team listen and analyze the latest spat within the Republican party.

WASHINGTON - Two days after calling conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh a mere "entertainer" with an "incendiary" talk show, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele apologized and acknowledged him as a "national conservative leader."

"To the extent that my remarks helped the Democrats in Washington to take the focus, even for one minute, off of their irresponsible expansion of government, I truly apologize," Steele said late Monday.

Steele's statement capped a remarkable weekend of awkward sparring between Republican officials and Limbaugh, who has repeatedly voiced his desire that President Barack Obama's economic policies fail.

le seul souhait de Rush Limbaugh est de voir les idees liberales de NNP de changer notre pays echouer. En dehore de cela, il le dit et le redit, il veut des Etats Unis forts du pouvoir des Americains pas affaibli par le gouvernement comme c'est ce qui est en train de se passer. Alors attention de ne pas melanger ou de donner une fausse image.

J'ai vu RUsh Limbaugh pour la premiere fois il y a bien des annees, Il avait une emission assez tard le soir. On aurait dit un peu un maitre d'ecole derriere son bureau. (ses cravattes faisaient sensation...) J'ignore precisement pourquoi ces "conferences" n'ont pas dure plus longtemps, mais bon assez rapidement, il a disparu des ecrans pour revenir plus tard sur ESPN. Ses deux amours dans sa vie professionnelle: la politique et le sport. La encore, il n'a pas fait long feu. Avec son franc parler, il a ose dire quelque chose qui a ete qualifie de raciste:

"I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Bon, on lui avait deja colle l'etiquette, des lors, il etait surveille a tout moment. Rush est "raciste", Bill O'Reilly est "raciste", Sean Hannity est "raciste, le GOP est "raciste", la droite en general est "raciste", Bill et Hillary sont "racistes".... ah non pardon, eux c'etait seulement pendant la campagne electorale, maintenant ce sont des gens bien, ils sont rentres dans les rangs et glorifient le messie. Allons! Un peu de serieux! Mais bon, comme pour une partie de la droite la demagogie de Rush marche, meme topo avec la gauche, a la limite, syndrome de Nathalie aidant, elle en redemande. Je ne parle pas la des idees conservatrices mais des attaquest personnelles parfois ciblees contre Kerry par exemple.

Rush Limbaugh donc a, je le pense un role preponderant a jouer en ce moment precis de la GRise politique (et oui, elle n'est pas qu'economique) et c'est exactement pourquoi, il fait tant peur aux liberaux.

Il remplit le vide laisser par la direction et les elus du GOP.

Ceux-ci sont baillonnes, pieds et poings lies, incapacites devant l'horreur de ce qui se passe sous leurs yeux et a laquelle ils ne peuvent rien changer. Le Congres est majoritairement Democrate et notre Nancy favorie a changer les regles de la Maison des Representants donnant un coup de pouce aux passages de textes en direction du Senat qui autrement pourraient avoir quelques difficultes.

De plus, ils sont politiquement dans de gros problemes pour le futur nos elus Republicains: Ils disent pas NON au plan de relance, a l'omnibus, au budget de 200 et ils sont montres comme les opposants sur lesquels toute idee de bipartisme est perdue et pourtant comment pourraient-ils dire OUI?

Alors asolument, tant mieux que Rush Limbaugh soit la, il redonne un peu d'ESPOIR et rappelle a ceux qui partagent ses idees qu'ils ne sont pas seuls. On comprend que la gauche tente de faire une divide entre lui et les elus, menacant (son importance sur les ondes radio), ridiculant (les elus qui suivraient Rush comme un leader - Il se trouve que Rush ait des idees conservatrices, il semble normal que des elus Republicains pensent comme lui, enfin, il me semble)

=====

En atttendant, et toujours au sujet des "droits" des medecins ou de ce qui va devenir la perte de ceux-ci, NNP signera


sous l'oeil bienveillant de Madame Sebelius incessament sous peu.


Obama to Repeal BUsh Abortion Regulation

The regulation, instituted in the last days of the Bush administration, strengthened job protections for doctors and nurses who refuse to provide a medial service because of moral qualms.

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

President Obama intends to repeal a Bush administration rule that has become a flash point in the debate over a doctor's right not to perform abortions.

The regulation, instituted in the last days of the Bush administration, strengthened job protections for doctors and nurses who refuse to provide a medial service because of moral qualms.

A Health and Human Services official said Friday the administration will publish notice of its plans early next week, opening a 30-day comment period for advocates on both sides, medical groups and the public.

But Republicans are already voicing strong opposition.

"I will do nothing against my conscience in the practice of medicine ever regardless of what any law is at any time, " Sen. Tom Coburn told FOX News. "And I can tell you that there are a lot of physicians that feel exactly that same way across the country."

Federal law has long forbidden discrimination against health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or provide referrals for them on religious or moral grounds. The Bush administration's rule adds a requirement that institutions that get federal money certify their compliance with laws protecting the rights of moral objectors. It was intended to block the flow of federal funds to hospitals and other institutions that ignore those rights.

A senior Obama administration official told FOX News the Bush regulation is too vague and could prevent some professionals from offering a full range of services to their patients.

"This policy of potentially allowing providers to refuse to provide contraception or family planning runs counter to the [Obama] administration's goal of reducing abortions and unwanted pregnancies," the official said. "It also could lead into other areas of medical care."

The regulation in question falls under the Department of Health and Human Services. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who has a long history of supporting abortion rights, has been nominated to head up the department, sparking an outcry from a number of conservative groups who worry she may influence the repeal of this regulation

=====

Je me demande jusqu'ou va le risque d'un tel "progressisme" (c'est le terme choye des liberaux, celui-ci s'oppose si bien a celui de "conservateur" si stagnant et fetide selon eux) et je ne peux m'empecher de penser aux medecins des camps.

Ayant reecrit mon 542 apres l'avoir perdu et tentant de reconstituer le texte dans son entier, j'ai toutefois oublie ce point:

Au sujet du GOP et des elus Republicains: l'obamaisme en place

- il faut lui laisser ce qui lui appartient donc: partiellement du sa personnalite mais surtout du aux media et aux organismes liberaux qui ont mis autant d'argent (Soros, etc..), de force (dans les media ecrits, parles, emails et sur internet) et de specificite (la carte raciale) pour faire d'Obama, celui que le monde attendait!

et donc de preciser la difficulte majeure pour les dirigeants Republicains: s'opposer a un president qui a 60% d'approbation.

Le travail mediatique a ete aussi bien fait en faveur de NNP qu'il l'avait ete pour soulever haine et indignation pour Bush 43. Ce n'est pas peu dire...

La encore, Rush Limbaugh est blinde, pardon, presque blinde et il peut lui continuer a faire passer le message. Evidemment, le probleme politiquement parlant est que seuls ceux qui sont deja d'accord avec ce message l'ecoutent.

Mais, ca a deja son importance. HOPE!

As the DOW keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.

As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.
Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.

The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.

And those sources have been forming for some time. The price of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year's easing will eventually stir economic activity.

Housing prices have fallen 27% from their Case-Shiller peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year.

So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter.

What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.
His Treasury has been making a similar mistake with its financial bailout plans. The banking system needs to work through its losses, and one necessary use of public capital is to assist in burning down those bad assets as fast as possible. Yet most of Team Obama's ministrations so far have gone toward triage and life support, rather than repair and recovery.

AIG yesterday received its fourth "rescue," including $70 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program cash, without any clear business direction. (See here.) Citigroup's restructuring last week added not a dollar of new capital, and also no clear direction. Perhaps the imminent Treasury "stress tests" will clear the decks, but until they do the banks are all living in fear of becoming the next AIG. All of this squanders public money that could better go toward burning down bank debt.

The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.

Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.

Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want.
Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that's right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive.

Je me demande si pour mieux montrer les mauvais cotes d'un systeme politico-economique (le capitalisme) il n'est pas de l'interet de certains de faire tout pour qu'il s'auto-detruise?

Vous zetes bien toujours la?

=====

Bon, sauf erreur personne n'ayant encore repondu a votre dernier message sur le monde selon Obama, j'y vais de ce pas y faire une tentative. Toujours pas facile ce sujet, et bien evidemment, il le demeurera certainement a jamais.

Faisez, faisez...

Cela étant, plus je lis et plus j'écris sur les actes délibérés pour mettre fin à une vie humaine, que ce soit en début qu'en fin d'existence, plus je me dis qu'il y a des domaines tellement intimes et délicats que la sécheresse d'un article de loi ne pourra jamis cerner.

Mais je comprends néanmoins une certaine nécessité à légiférer pour éviter tout et n'importe quoi en attendant autre chose de mieux et plus humain qu'une loi...

En lisant le nom du General (reconnu dernierement comme un des plus grands Generaux de l'armee americaine.. ) je me demandais si Hillary qui l'avait plus ou moins traite de menteur*1 (Le New York Times ayant fait plus que "plus ou moins" acceptant le fameux: General Betray Us d'une page de moveon.org, grand supporter de NNP) lors d'une seance publique devant un groupe de senateurs lui presentera jamais des excuses.

*1): Senator Clinton: I want to thank both of you, General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, for your long and distinguished service to our nation. Nobody believes that your jobs or the jobs of the thousands of American forces and civilian personnel in Iraq are anything but incredibly difficult.

But today you are testifying about the current status of our policy in Iraq and the prospects of that policy. It is a policy that you have been ordered to implement by the president. And you have been made the de facto spokesmen for what many of us believe to be a failed policy.

Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.


* 2):
=======

MARCH 4, 2009

U.S. Strategy in Afghan War Hinges on Far-Flung Outposts


Gen. David Petraeus and his backers within the U.S. military believe small, remote bases in Afghanistan will help protect against insurgent attack and build strong relationships with local residents.

...

Ce qui avait deja fait ses preuves en Iraq