Les Cohortes Célestes ont le devoir et le regret de vous informer que Libres Propos est entré en sommeil. Ce forum convivial et sympathique reste uniquement accessible en lecture seule. Prenez plaisir à le consulter.
Merci de votre compréhension.
Sujet: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 8/11/2008, 13:47
Rappel du premier message :
Browse Newspapers by country http://newsdirectory.com/
Africa Asia Europe North America Canada United States Oceania South America
Resources Breaking News Business Newspapers College Newspapers Media Industry Associations Metropolitan Daily Press Searchable Archives Coffee Break
Television Broadcast TV Stations Network News TV Networks
Additional Research City Governments County Governments Travel Planner College Locator Browse Magazines by subject Arts and Entertainment Automotive Business Computer Culture and Society Current Issues Health Home Industry Trade Publications Pets and Animals Religion Science Sports Travel . . . more subjects
Magazines by Region Africa Asia Europe North America Oceania South America More
Auteur
Message
Invité Invité
Sujet: 2461 - President 8/6/2010, 22:55
C'est comme Bill, le POTUS n'a pas peur du ridicule.
Fais ce que je dis pas ce que je fais...
Obama Tells Graduating Class, 'Don't Make Excuses,' Drawing GOP Taunts
Published June 08, 2010 | FOXNews.com
That was the advice President Obama gave to a graduating high school class in Michigan Monday night -- advice that sent off an irony alert among Republicans who accuse the president of having "spent his tenure" doing exactly that.
Spoiler:
President Obama delivers the commencement address for Kalamazoo Central High School in Kalamazoo, Mich., on June 7. (AP Photo)
Don't point fingers. Don't make excuses. Don't pass the buck. Obama offered his guidance during the commencement speech at Kalamazoo Central High School.
"Don't make excuses. Take responsibility not just for your successes, but for your failures as well," he told the graduates. "The truth is, no matter how hard you work, you won't necessarily ace every class or succeed in every job. There will be times when you screw up, when you hurt the people you love, when you stray from your most deeply held values.
"And when that happens, it's the easiest thing in the world to start looking around for someone to blame. Your professor was too hard, your boss was a jerk, the coach was playing favorites, your friend just didn't understand. We see it every day out in Washington, with folks calling each other names and making all sorts of accusations on TV."
He told the students that "pointing fingers" and "blaming parents" and everyone else in their lives is not the road to follow.
Senate Republicans reacted quickly to the speech, sending out a "best-of" list of instances in which Obama was "looking around for someone to blame." The quotes showed Obama using Bush as a scapegoat for everything from the deficit to America's image abroad.
Obama over the past 17 months has selectively blamed the Bush administration for the big problems he now faces.
One of the president's favorite rhetorical devices is the figurative "mop" he uses to clean up what he says were the mistakes of his predecessor.
"I don't mind cleaning up the mess that some other folks made. That's what I signed up to do," he said at a Democratic fundraiser last October.
Obama even chalked up Republican Sen. Scott Brown's upset victory in the Massachusetts special election to Bush-directed outrage in January.
"The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," Obama said in an interview with ABC News. "People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."
Ben voyons donc!
Invité Invité
Sujet: 2462 - Tea Party Candidates, Women Roar in Primary Election Night 9/6/2010, 16:22
Tea Party Candidates, Women Roar in Primary Election Night
Published June 09, 2010 | FOXNews.com
The primary elections Tuesday amounted to a night of messages -- from the Tea Party, from female candidates and for the Democrats.
Spoiler:
Shown here are California GOP Senate nominee Carly Fiorinia, left, and Nevada GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle. (AP Photos)
With hundreds of primaries held across 11 states, a number of candidates made history while others pulled out come-from-behind wins. The elections helped set the stage for a November general election in which incumbents are girding for a series of hard-fought battles.
In California, the Republican Party has placed two women at the top of its ticket for the first time, nominating former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina for Senate and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman for governor. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele on Wednesday called them "box-office candidates."
State Rep. Nikki Haley moved a step closer to her goal of becoming South Carolina's first female governor, advancing into a runoff with her top competitor. After a bruising primary in which two men claimed they had affairs with her, Haley blew away her competition with 49 percent of the vote; she was forced into a runoff with Rep. Gresham Barrett, who won 22 percent, only because she did not clear the 50-percent threshold.
The big save of the night came in Arkansas, where Sen. Blanche Lincoln defied expectations by beating Democratic primary challenger Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in a runoff. She moves on to a tough general election battle for her seat.
And in Nevada, Tea Party-backed candidate Sharron Angle claimed a decisive victory after surging in the polls against a more established GOP competitor in the final weeks of the race.
Angle took 40 percent of the vote to 26 percent for Sue Lowden, a former state GOP chairwoman. Businessman Danny Tarkanian won 23 percent.
Angle will face off against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the fall. Though polls have shown Reid's popularity at rock-bottom levels, Democrats are overjoyed that Angle won, saying her conservative stances on the issues are far outside the mainstream
Angle, in her victory speech, thanked the Tea Party for its support and promised Reid a tough race.
"We are going to dump Harry Reid on Nov. 2," she said.
Other top Democrats are in for a challenging contest in November following the results of Tuesday's elections.
In California, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., will face off against Fiorina, and former Gov. Jerry Brown, seeking to reclaim his old job, is poised to battle Whitman. Good Luck Ladies! (sauf a Blanche! desolee mais bon...)
Des resultats surprenants sans doute pour ceux qui ne voyaient dans la Tea Party qu'un groupe sans importance. et sans futur.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 2463 - U.N. Security Council approves Iran sanctions on 12-2 vote 9/6/2010, 18:03
U.N. Security Council approves Iran sanctions on 12-2 vote
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, June 9, 2010; 11:37 AM
UNITED NATIONS, June 9 -- A divided U.N. Security Council on Wednesday imposed a fourth round of financial and commercial sanctions on Iran's military establishment, bringing to a close more than six months of diplomatic efforts by the Obama administration to penalize Tehran for building a covert nuclear facility and accelerating its enrichment of uranium.
Spoiler:
The 15-member council adopted its fourth sanctions resolution on Iran in four years by a vote of 12-2. Brazil and Turkey voted against the resolution, citing concerns that the council had not exhausted diplomatic efforts to resolve its standoff with Iran. Lebanon abstained.
The Obama administration succeeded in securing support for sanctions from the council's major powers, including China and Russia, by ensuring that the measure would not impair their ability to trade with Iran. But the four-year-long campaign faced new challenges from regional powerhouses Brazil and Turkey, which have used the Iran crisis to assert their role on the diplomatic stage.
The 10-page resolution would modestly reinforce a range of economic, high-technology and military sanctions against Iran and target the head of the of Iranian atomic energy agency, Javad Rahiqi, and 40 entities linked to the nation's military elite, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, with a travel ban and an asset freeze. Iran has repeatedly rebuffed calls to halt its uranium-enrichment program; Iranian leaders say their efforts are entirely peaceful, but the United States and others say Iran is set on building a bomb.
The resolution falls short of the "crippling sanctions" U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged to impose on Iran a year ago. But U.S. officials hailed today's vote as a show of international resolve in the face of Iran's continued defiance of Security Council resolutions demanding it suspend its uranium-enrichment program and fully cooperate.
"These are tough, strong and comprehensive sanctions that will be the most significant of all of the resolutions that imposed sanctions on Iran," Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said in an interview before the vote. "The fact that the Iranians have exerted so much effort and spent so much money to block this from coming into effect is one of several indications that they really don't want these sanctions adopted and enacted. I think they share our views, quite frankly, that these are a significant and serious set of new sanctions."
Invité Invité
Sujet: 2464 - OBAMA’S CHARADE ON IRAN SANCTIONS 10/6/2010, 01:31
OBAMA’S CHARADE ON IRAN SANCTIONS
Posted on June 9th, 2010
Today, the United Nations Security Council will adopt a new resolution (see, here) imposing sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear activities. Predictably, the Obama Administration is working to spin its “victory” in New York as both a great diplomatic achievement and a serious intensification of international pressure on Iran over the nuclear issue. It is neither.
Spoiler:
The resolution will be adopted by a Security Council that is more deeply divided overthis resolution than over the three sanctions resolutions against Iran adopted by the Council while George W. Bush was in the White House. It is particularly significant that Brazil, Turkey and Lebanon are refusing to support the resolution. In international political terms, this will very likely turn out to be a pyrrhic victory for the Obama Administration–the Administration will win a narrow, tactical battle today, but at great cost to America’s long term strategic position, in the Middle East and globally.
Moreover, by any substantive criterion, the sanctions actually authorized in the resolution to be adopted today are remarkably weak—for the Obama Administration, embarrassingly so (although you won’t hear them admit it). In the main body of the resolution, there are, literally, no sanctions limiting the capacity of the Islamic Republic to produce and export hydrocarbons. The Obama Administration wanted energy sanctions, but China made clear that it would not support a resolution containing them. So they were not included in the final text. Likewise, there are no sanctions barring the extension of financial services, insurance, reinsurance, etc. to Iranian individuals and entities.
In fact, the only mandatory measures in the resolution—that is, measures which all member states will be obligated to apply—are the following: –States will be required to block Iranian investments outside the Islamic Republic in uranium mining or the production of nuclear materials and technology.
–States will be barred from supplying Iran with specified categories of heavy weaponry that could potentially be used in offensive military operations. (States, however, will be free to continue supplying Iran with weapons and military equipment outside the specified categories—including, for Russia, the S300 anti-aircraft missile.) –States will be required to prevent individuals designated in an annex to the resolution (more on this below) to travel outside of Iran—except where such travel is justified on the grounds of humanitarian need or religious obligation. This provision is similar to travel restrictions imposed on individuals designated in annexes to the previous sanctions resolutions.
–States will be required to freeze assets of individuals and entities designated in annexes to the resolution (again, more on this below). This provision is also similar to asset freezes imposed on individuals and entities designated in annexes to the previous sanctions resolutions.
Beyond these mandatory sanctions, there are other, essentially “optional” measures which states may apply if they are so inclined: –States may impose limits on the extension of financial services to Iranian individuals and entities by financial institutions under their jurisdiction, if they believe that those Iranian individuals and entities are involved in “proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities” or “the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems”. States may also, if they choose to do so, freeze whatever assets these individuals and entities have in their jurisdictions.
–States may inspect ships on the high seas suspected of carrying restricted items to Iran—but only with the consent of the state under which any given suspect ship is registered (the so-called “flag state”). Likewise, states may inspect any and all cargo going to and coming from Iran in their jurisdictions, if states determine that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the cargo contains prohibited items. The Obama Administration has indicated that it anticipates these provisions will provide a legal basis for other states—like members of the European Union and Japan—to enact tougher national sanctions of their own. But the United States is not going to get anything approaching universal compliance with these “optional” sanctions. The net effect will be to accelerate the reallocation of business opportunities in the Islamic Republic from Western states to China and other non-Western powers.
There has been a remarkable amount of sloppy reporting by mainstream newspapers over the last 24 hours or so with regard to the annexes accompanying the new sanctions resolution. In reality, there are four annexes to the resolution. One lists the designated “individuals and entities involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities”. Another annex lists “entities owned, controlled, or acting on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps”. A third lists “entities owned, controlled, or acting on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines”. Finally, the revised P-5+1 incentives package presented to the Islamic Republic in 2008 is once again included as an annex. The first three of these annexes are largely the product of intensive negotiations between U.S. and Chinese diplomats. –Some journalists claim that there are forty-one new individuals captured in the annexes. This is wrong. In fact, there is one new individual listed; the other forty individuals are already listed in annexes to previous sanctions resolutions.
–Among the entities “involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities”, the United States was able to win the agreement of China and other Council members to include only one bank that had not been previously listed—and that bank is a subsidiary to Bank Mellat, which had been previously designated by the United Kingdom and the United States.
–Ostensibly, there are 15 entities listed as “owned, controlled, or acting on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps”. But this is seriously misleading. There is, in fact, only one Revolutionary Guard-affiliated entity captured in the annex—the Khatam al-Anbiya construction company. The other 14 entities are all either subsidiaries of Khatam al-Anbiya or subsidiaries of subsidiaries of Khatam al-Anbiya.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that this resolution will confront Iran with the most significant sanctions it has ever faced. But that statement seems to overlook the Iran-Iraq war, when the Islamic Republic was cut off from international trade and economic activity to a much greater extent than this or any Security Council resolution will ever achieve.
The Obama Administration clearly has its talking points ready—it will claim that these sanctions are broader and tougher than any previous sanctions. But this is all political theater. No one in the Administration really believes that these sanctions will compel Tehran to alter is decision-making and behavior. But the Obama Administration is no longer interested in finding a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue—if it ever was.
As we predicted in a May 2009 Op Ed in The New York Times—before the Islamic Republic’s controversial presidential election—the Obama Administration has already “checked the box” to show that engaging Iran doesn’t work. Now it has started the process of “checking the box” to show that the “broadest and toughest” sanctions ever imposed on the Islamic Republic don’t work. And that will leave the Obama Administration with no other options except formal adoption of regime change as the explicit goal of its Iran policy—and/or military strikes against the Islamic Republic.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Invité Invité
Sujet: 2465 - U.S. Embraces Model That's Failed Europe 10/6/2010, 01:42
Eh bien voila!! C'est tout-a-fait ca!
U.S. Embraces Model That's Failed Europe
By MICHAEL D. TANNER Posted 06/08/2010 06:15 PM ET
The newspaper headlines say it all. On the one hand, "Crisis Imperils Liberal Benefits Long Expected by Europeans," while in this country: "Private Pay Plummets, Government Handouts Soar."
Spoiler:
The modern European welfare state has proven unsustainable. From Greece to Britain, from France to Portugal, European countries are slashing social welfare benefits, raising the retirement age and dismantling government bureaucracies. Yet, even as Europe is learning that you can't forever rob Peter in order to pay Paul, the U.S. is racing to transform itself into a copy of the failing European model.
Greece has been the face of the crisis thus far, with a national debt that equals 108% of GDP, and talk of service cuts sparking spectacular riots in Athens. Spain had its credit rating cut two weeks ago. But Hungary might well be the next debt-explosion poster child: Last Friday the prime minister's spokesman began openly using the word "default," sending markets into a further tizzy.
But how much better off are we? Our national debt just topped $13 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office projects it will equal 90% of our GDP by 2020. The U.S. government spent $83 billion more than it took in last month, and that figure is expected to exceed $1.56 trillion for the year.
Faced with this rising tide of red ink, our Congress blithely enacted a new multitrillion-dollar health care entitlement. It's now engaged in a debate over legislation repealing a scheduled cut in Medicare reimbursements and further extending unemployment benefits.
Of course, if one points out that we are driving the country toward bankruptcy, the traditional response in Washington is that we must have the "courage" to raise taxes. The Obama administration is preparing to allow Bush era tax cuts to expire, leading to a big jump in income and capital gains taxes.
The health care bill that just passed contained more than $569 billion in tax hikes between now and 2019. And many in the administration and Congress are now pushing for a Value Added Tax (VAT), a sort of federal sales tax imposed at every level of a product's production.
If taxes could solve the problem, Greece would be bailing out the U.S. Taxes currently take a third of Greece's GDP, roughly double the U.S. tax burden. It would be even higher, but the absurdly high tax rates have led to widespread evasion. Greece soaks the rich with a top income tax rate of 40%. It even has a 21% VAT.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 2466 - Dems drop empathy to push immigration reform 10/6/2010, 15:22
Dems drop empathy to push immigration reform
By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 6/10/10 4:36 AM EDT
Long pilloried for being soft on illegal immigration, top Democratic officials have concluded there’s only one way they can hope to pass a comprehensive immigration bill:
Spoiler:
Protestors demonstrate their support for Arizona's new law on illegal immigration. AP
Talk more like Republicans.
They’re seizing on the work of top Democratic Party operatives who, after a legislative defeat in 2007, launched a multiyear polling project to craft an enforcement-first, law-and-order, limited-compassion pitch that now defines the party’s approach to the issue.
The 12 million people who unlawfully reside the country? Call them “illegal immigrants,” not “undocumented workers,” the pollsters say.
Strip out the empathy, too. Democrats used to offer immigrants “an earned path to citizenship” so hardworking people trying to support their families could “come out of the shadows.” To voters, that sounded like a gift, the operatives concluded.
Now, Democrats emphasize that it’s “unacceptable” to allow 12 million people to live in America illegally and that the government must “require” them to register and “get right with the law.” That means three things: “Obey our laws, learn our language and pay our taxes” — or face deportation.
“We lost control of the message in the 2007 debate,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a pro-immigrant rights group that worked with Center for American Progress founder John Podesta on the messaging overhaul.
“We were on the inside fighting off amendments, and the other side was jacking up their opponents and getting Rush and Hannity and O’Reilly on fire about this. We needed to do a much better job on communications.”
President Barack Obama uses the buzzwords. So does the congressional leadership. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), author of the Democratic immigration plan, scolds advocates who refer to illegal immigrants as “undocumented workers.”
The revamped message may not face the real-world test anytime soon.
The appetite to take on immigration before the November elections has faded as the political environment for incumbents grows increasingly hostile. Supporters of comprehensive reform plan to continue to exert pressure, but privately they say legislative action will need to wait until next year.
Even then, the poll-tested words and phrases will only go so far if Democrats fail to exert discipline and unify behind the get-tough message. And at this point, not all immigration reform advocates have bought into the rhetorical hard line, which aims squarely at winning the political center. Even Sharry, who spearheaded the effort, declines the advice of pollsters to excise “undocumented workers” from his lexicon, saying it feels too much like it plays into conservative efforts to “dehumanize” immigrants.
“When [voters] hear ‘undocumented worker,’ they hear a liberal euphemism, it sounds to them like liberal code,” said Drew Westen, a political consultant who has helped Sharry hone the message through dial testing. “I am often joking with leaders of progressive organizations and members of Congress, ‘If the language appears fine to you, it is probably best not to use it. You are an activist, and by definition, you are out of the mainstream.’”
The shift in language is one of the more dramatic changes in the Democratic strategy since foes of comprehensive immigration outmaneuvered the party in 2007, dealing an embarrassing legislative defeat that set back the cause years. But the tougher tone is only one outcome of a broader effort by Democrats and immigration reform advocates to prepare for the next round of battle.
The country’s largest labor unions, which fought each other the last time around, are now on the same team. The Service Employees International Union mended its differences on the issue with the AFL-CIO, which worked against the bill in 2007 and prompted several pro-labor Democratic senators to vote against it. The upshot is a Democratic message with a more combative approach toward employers that “hire illegal immigrants to drive down wages.”
Lacking a coordinated campaign, advocates organized as if they were managing an election. Sharry left his post as executive director of the National Immigration Forum to start America’s Voice, which describes itself as the communications and rapid response arm of the movement. Angela Kelley, an authority on immigration, signed on to lead the lobbying effort through the Center for American Progress.
And a network of community organizations, advocacy groups and labor unions organized under three umbrellas to push citizenship and voter mobilization drives, raise money and develop a field campaign.
But first, Podesta and Sharry assembled a roster of boldfaced Democratic pollsters — Stan Greenberg, Celinda Lake, Guy Molyneaux — to figure out how the party would ever get away from one of the most devastating GOP lines of attack, that a comprehensive immigration plan amounted to “amnesty” for illegals.
The results made Greenberg a convert.
His surveys of swing districts in 2006 and 2007 concluded that Democrats took a political risk by discussing immigration. Greenberg thought frustration with immigrants would spawn an environment similar to the welfare backlash in the 1990s and that Democrats needed to get tough on border security before talking about citizenship
But polling that Greenberg, Lake and Molyneaux conducted in 2008 proved to Greenberg that Democrats could talk in a way that won over voters. It needed to sound tough and pragmatic, but not overly punitive, the pollsters said. The message beat the amnesty charge in their polling.
“There was more and more evidence that there were ways to address the issue,” Greenberg said. “I also came to believe the country wanted to do comprehensive reform. ... People want this to be brought under control, and they know you can’t just expel people.”
The most significant shift in language involves the path to citizenship. Pollsters determined that Democrats sounded as though they wanted to reward illegal immigrants, even though lawmakers almost always laid out that requirements and delays that would precede citizenship.
“It comes back to this idea: We give permission; we set the terms; it’s under our control; and if you meet those conditions, you are us, welcome to America,” Westen said of the new frame.
This time around, the message starts with a pledge to secure the borders and crack down on employers. It then moves to this: “It is unacceptable to have 12 million people in our country who are outside the system. We must require illegal immigrants to register for legal status, pay their taxes, learn English and pass criminal background checks to remain in the country and work toward citizenship. Those who have a criminal record or refuse to register should be deported.”
To get any idea of how the language has infiltrated official Washington, here is what Obama said last month at a Cinco de Mayo celebration at the White House:
“The way to fix our broken immigration system is through common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform. That means responsibility from government to secure our borders, something we have done and will continue to do. It means responsibility from businesses that break the law by undermining American workers and exploiting undocumented workers — they’ve got to be held accountable. It means responsibility from people who are living here illegally. They’ve got to admit that they broke the law and pay taxes and pay a penalty, and learn English, and get right before the law — and then get in line and earn their citizenship.”
Bob Dane, communications director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, predicted the new frame would have limited impact once both sides are fully engaged on the issue.
“They are scrambling to sugarcoat a breakfast cereal that nobody wants to eat,” Dane said.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 2467 - How the White House is Making Oil Recovery Harder 10/6/2010, 16:50
C'est d'un triste!!
How the White House is Making Oil Recovery Harder Five weeks ago Escambia County officials requested permission from the Mobile Unified Command Center to use a sand skimmer, a device pulled behind a tractor that removes oil and tar from the top three feet of sand, to help clean up Pensacola’s beaches.County officials still haven’t heard anything back. Santa Rosa Island Authority Buck Lee told The Daily Caller why: “Escambia County sends a request to the Mobile, Ala., Unified Command Center. Then, it’s reviewed by BP, the federal government, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard. If they don’t like it, they don’t tell us anything.”
Spoiler:
Keeping local governments in the dark is just one reason why the frustration of residents in the Gulf is so palpable. State and local governments know their geography, people, economic impacts and needs far better than the federal government does. Contrary to popular belief, the federal government has actually been playing a bigger and bigger role in running natural disaster responses. And as Heritage fellow Matt Mayer has documented, the results have gotten worse, not better.
And when the federal government isn’t sapping the initiative and expertise of local governments, it has been preventing foreign governments from helping. Just three days after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the Dutch government offered to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms and proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands. LA Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) supported the idea, but the Obama administration refused the help. All told, thirteen countries have offered to help us clean up the Gulf, and the Obama administration has turned them all down.
According to one Dutch newspaper, European firms could complete the oil spill clean up by themselves in just four months, and three months if they work with the United States, which is much faster than the estimated nine months it would take the Obama administration to go it alone. The major stumbling block is a protectionist piece of legislation called the Jones Act which requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens. But in an emergency this law can be temporarily waived*1 as DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff did after Katrina. Each day our European allies are prevented from helping us speed up the clean up is another day that Gulf fishing and tourism jobs die.
And then there are the energy jobs that the Obama administration is killing with its over-expansive ban on offshore energy development. Experts–who were consulted by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar before he issued his May 27 report recommending a six-month moratorium on all ongoing drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet–now tell The New Orleans Times-Picayune that they only supported a six-month ban on new drilling in waters deeper than 1,000 feet. A letter from the experts protesting the use of their names to support a ban they actually oppose reads: “A blanket moratorium is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation’s economy which may be greater than that of the oil spill. We do not believe punishing the innocent is the right thing to do.”
And just how many innocent jobs is Obama’s oil ban killing? An earlier Times-Picayune report estimated the moratorium could cost Louisiana $2.97 billion in revenue and 7,590 jobs directly related to the oil industry. President Obama still has the power to save many of the jobs. He could reverse his decision and lift the ban. But political considerations make that impossible. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the President was the largest single recipient of campaign contributions from BP and its employees over the past twenty years. Therefore, the President has to put distance between himself and BP, which may be why President Obama has not spoken with BP CEO Tony Hayward one single time since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in April. The problem is, vilifying BP’s corporate leadership does nothing to stop the spill or quicken the cleanup.
After the Obama administration refused help from the Netherlands, Geert Visser, the consul general for the Netherlands in Houston, told Loren Steffy: “Let’s forget about politics; let’s get it done.” It’s sound advice, Mr. President. Let’s free local governments to clean up their shores, waive protectionist laws that keep out foreign help, and let the oil workers who can safely do so get back to work. Let’s get it done.
*1 Ce dont parlait Jack il y a 2 jours.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 2468 - O'Reilly video: Who should we blame for the Gulf oil disaster? 11/6/2010, 11:22
Who should we blame for the Gulf oil disaster?
O'Reilly
Dommage que rien n'ait ete dit au sujet du fait que le POTUS n'ait pas demande l'aide des autres societes petrolieres americaines jusqu'a la semaine derniere, qu'il n'ait A CE JOUR toujours pas rencontre le PDG de BP et qu'il ait refuse l'aide internationale?
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 11/6/2010, 11:44, édité 2 fois
Invité Invité
Sujet: 2469 - Video: Why Is ACLU Chief 'Disgusted' With Obama? 11/6/2010, 11:31
Why Is ACLU Chief 'Disgusted' With Obama?
Member E. Christopher Murray explains organization's beef with president
La reponse est: NON, l'ACLU n'est pas degoutee par le POTUS, lui-meme, mais par ses promesses non-respectees et les reglementations, somme toute tres proches de celles de Bush 43.
En revanche, pour ceux qui se souviennent, le degout pour et les attaques contre Bush et Cheney etaient tout-a-fait personnels, eux. Ben oui, l'ACLU n'est pas une organisation raciste, elle
Invité Invité
Sujet: 2470 - The myth of Iran's 'isolation' 11/6/2010, 13:42
Comme toujours avec Charles Krauthammer, une analyse claire, nette et precise. The myth of Iran's 'isolation'
By Charles Krauthammer Friday, June 11, 2010
In announcing the passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran, President Obama stressed not once but twice Iran's increasing "isolation" from the world. This claim is not surprising considering that after 16 months of an "extended hand" policy, in response to which Iran accelerated its nuclear program -- more centrifuges, more enrichment sites, higher enrichment levels -- Iranian "isolation" is about the only achievement to which the administration can even plausibly lay claim.
Spoiler:
"Isolation" may have failed to deflect Iran's nuclear ambitions, but it does enjoy incessant repetition by the administration. For example, in his State of the Union address, President Obama declared that "the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated." Two months later, Vice President Biden asserted that "since our administration has come to power, I would point out that Iran is more isolated -- internally, externally -- has fewer friends in the world." At the signing of the START treaty in April, Obama declared that "those nations that refuse to meet their obligations [to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, i.e., Iran] will be isolated."
Really? On Tuesday, one day before the president touted passage of a surpassingly weak U.N. resolution and declared Iran yet more isolated, the leaders of Russia, Turkey and Iran gathered at a security summit in Istanbul "in a display of regional power that appeared to be calculated to test the United States," as the New York Times put it. I would add: And calculated to demonstrate the hollowness of U.S. claims of Iranian isolation, to flaunt Iran's growing ties with Russia and quasi-alliance with Turkey, a NATO member no less.
Apart from the fact that isolation is hardly an end in itself and is pointless if, regardless, Iran rushes headlong to become a nuclear power, the very claim of Iran's increasing isolation is increasingly implausible. Just last month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hosted an ostentatious love fest in Tehran with the leaders of Turkey and Brazil. The three raised hands together and announced a uranium transfer deal that was designed to torpedo U.S. attempts to impose U.N. sanctions.
Six weeks ago, Iran was elected to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, a grotesque choice that mocked Obama's attempt to isolate and de-legitimize Iran in the very international institutions he treasures.
Increasing isolation? In the past year alone, Ahmadinejad has been welcomed in Kabul, Istanbul, Copenhagen, Caracas, Brasilia, La Paz, Senegal, Gambia and Uganda. Today, he is in China.
Three Iran sanctions resolutions passed in the Bush years. They were all passed without a single "no" vote. But after 16 months of laboring to produce a mouse, Obama garnered only 12 votes for his sorry sanctions, with Lebanon abstaining and Turkey and Brazil voting against.
From the beginning, the Obama strategy toward Iran and other rogue states had been to offer goodwill and concessions on the premise that this would lead to one of two outcomes: (a) the other side changes policy, or (b) if not, the world isolates the offending state and rallies around us -- now that we have demonstrated last-mile good intentions.
Hence, nearly a year and a half of peace overtures, negotiation, concessions, two New Year's messages to the Iranian people, a bit of groveling about U.S. involvement in the 1953 coup and a disgraceful silence when the regime's very stability was threatened by peaceful demonstrators.
Iran's response? Defiance, contempt and an acceleration of its nuclear program.
And the world's response? Did it rally behind us? The Russians and Chinese bargained furiously and successfully to hollow out the sanctions resolution. Turkey is openly choosing sides with the region's "strong horse" -- Iran and its clients (Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas) -- as it watches the United States flailingly try to placate Syria and appease Iran while it pressures Israel, neglects Lebanon and draws down its power in the region.
To say nothing of Brazil. Et tu, Lula?
This comes after 16 months of assiduously courting these powers with one conciliatory gesture after another: "resetting" relations with Russia, kowtowing to China, lavishing a two-day visit on Turkey highlighted by a speech to the Turkish parliament in Ankara, and elevating Brazil by supplanting the G-8 with the G-20. All this has been read as American weakness, evidence that Obama can be rolled.
The result is succinctly, if understatedly, captured in Wednesday's Post headline "U.S. alliance against Iran is showing new signs of vulnerability."
You think?
Invité Invité
Sujet: 2471 - Arizona Immigration Law May Be Driving Hispanics Out of State 11/6/2010, 18:05
Arizona Immigration Law May Be Driving Hispanics Out of State
By Judson Berger
Published June 11, 2010 FOXNews.com
If one Phoenix school district is any gauge, Hispanics in Arizona appear to be leaving the state in anticipation of the tough-on-illegal-immigration law that goes into effect at the end of July.
Spoiler:
Demonstrators protest against Arizona's immigration law in Phoenix May 29. (AP Photo)
While there are no statewide [color:7f63=blue !important][color:7f63=blue !important]statistics to show the population shift and accounts vary as to whether families are so concerned about the law they would pick up and leave, the superintendent of a Phoenix-area school district told FoxNews.com that 95 students have left his system since the law was signed in late April.
Jeffrey Smith, superintendent of the Balsz Elementary School District, said mostly Hispanic students are leaving and that parents have told him they're leaving out of concern for the new law.
"They're concerned at what the law will do ... if they have anyone in their family that's illegal," he said. Enrollment went from 2,773 the day the law was signed to 2,678 this week.
The school district, which is 75 percent Hispanic, is the only district in Arizona where classes are still in session -- those schools have a rare 200-day school year, making it the only system where up-to-date comparisons of student enrollment can be made.
Elsewhere, the data was not as clear. The Arizona Republic reported last month that officials at another Phoenix-area district, Alhambra, were anticipating 200 to 300 students would leave their system over the summer because of the law.
But statewide enrollment figures were not up to date and did not reflect much movement at all in the student population.
Amy Rezzonico, spokeswoman for the Arizona Department of Education, said the state would not have "tangible evidence" of any population change until October when the schools are required to report their enrollment numbers.
"We've been having some decline in enrollment for the past couple years for a variety of factors," she said.
The economy was one of those factors, she said. But some have also pointed to a 2007 law that cracked down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants. Department of Homeland Security statistics show that 100,000 illegal immigrants left the state between fiscal 2008 and fiscal 2009, coinciding with a nationwide drop in illegal populations.
Smith suggested the immigrant flight from Arizona could be even more significant this time around, since the new law's provisions are broad and could drive entire families to leave the state. Smith said he's hearing secondhand that the families are going to New Mexico.
"The statement is something like New Mexico is the way Arizona used to be," he said. "I heard one lady say she might go back to Mexico."
Smith, who declined to offer an opinion on the law, said the drop in enrollment concerns him.
"We develop a bond with our families and we care about them and they care about us," he said. "Our teachers and our staff are understandably concerned."
An official with the New Mexico Public Education Department said it was too early to tell whether its enrollment numbers were rising due to an influx from Arizona. School offices for the state of California and the city of Los Angeles also could not speak to whether enrollment was rising.
The controversial immigration law makes illegal immigration a crime and requires local law enforcement to try to determine the residency status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant provided they don't stop them for that reason alone. The law empowers them to turn over any confirmed illegal immigrants to federal custody.
Though the country's top immigration enforcement official earlier threatened not to process some of those immigrants, he said Thursday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement would continue to accept referrals from Arizona. John Morton said the decision would be made "on a case-by-case basis in light of our resources and in light of our priorities."
The law has drawn numerous complaints from Hispanic advocacy groups, Democratic lawmakers and even law enforcement officials who say the law will make it harder to do their jobs because Hispanics will be reluctant to report crimes.
But Arizona officials who backed the law are standing by it.
If Hispanics are leaving the state, it will take at least until late 2010 before the trend can be substantiated.
Paula Stuht, vice president of business development for the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, said she's seen no sign of Hispanics leaving the Tucson area.
"I've heard nothing like that," she said. "We haven't heard from our members saying they're all leaving."
David Leibowitz, spokesman for Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, said because there's no "exit interview" for people leaving the state it's tough to tell what impact the law is having. But just as the spate of boycotts against Arizona may drive people suffering from its economic effects to leave, Leibowitz said concerns over the law itself could lead to the same thing. Gordon opposes the law.
"I think all of us in Phoenix have bumped into people, know people who are saying that (they are leaving)," he said. "Gut instinct -- I'm sure that it's had an impact."
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/6/2010, 18:17
Invité Invité
Sujet: 2472 - Experts Say White House 'Misrepresented' Views to Justify Drilling Moratorium 11/6/2010, 18:20
Experts Say White House 'Misrepresented' Views to Justify Drilling Moratorium
Published June 11, 2010 FOXNews.com
The seven experts who advised President Obama on how to deal with offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon explosion are accusing his administration of misrepresenting their views to make it appear that they supported a six-month drilling moratorium -- something they actually oppose.
Spoiler:
Reuters May 26: Greenpeace protesters hold up a banner as Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar testifies before the House.
The experts, recommended by the National Academy of Engineering, say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar modified their report last month, after they signed it, to include two paragraphs calling for the moratorium on existing drilling and new permits.
Salazar's report to Obama said a panel of seven experts "peer reviewed" his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs and an immediate halt to drilling operations.
"None of us actually reviewed the memorandum as it is in the report," oil expert Ken Arnold told Fox News. "What was in the report at the time it was reviewed was quite a bit different in its impact to what there is now. So we wanted to distance ourselves from that recommendation."
Salazar apologized to those experts Thursday.
"The experts who are involved in crafting the report gave us their recommendation and their input and I very much appreciate those recommendations," he said. "It was not their decision on the moratorium. It was my decision and the president's decision to move forward."
In a letter the experts sent to Salazar, they said his primary recommendation "misrepresents" their position and that halting the drilling is actually a bad idea.
The oil rig explosion occurred while the well was being shut down – a move that is much more dangerous than continuing ongoing drilling, they said.
They also said that because the floating rigs are scarce and in high demand worldwide, they will not simply sit in the Gulf idle for six months. The rigs will go to the North Sea and West Africa, possibly preventing the U.S. from being able to resume drilling for years.
They also said the best and most advanced rigs will be the first to go, leaving the U.S. with the older and potentially less safe rights operating in the nation's coastal waters.
Fox News' William LaJeunesse contributed to this report.
Gaza flotilla captain: Activists prepared attack against IDF raid
WATCH: Video of Mehmut Tuval shows captain saying he attempted to prevent violent clashes between activists and the Israeli military.By Haaretz Service
The captain and first mate of the Mavi Marmara, the ship which led the Gaza flotilla raided by Israel Defense Forces special forces last week, had attempted to prevent premeditated violent clashes between activists and the Israeli military, evidence released Friday showed.
Spoiler:
Late last month, Israeli commandos rappelled onto the deck of one of the ships trying to break Israel's three-year-old blockade of Gaza. The soldiers were intercepted by a crowd of activists, setting off a clash that killed nine men - eight Turks and a Turkish American.
Israel says its soldiers began shooting only after a mob of pro-Palestinian activists attacked them - a version backed up by video footage released by the army. But the activists and their supporters say Israeli commandos needlessly opened fire.
According to the clip, released by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, the ship's captain Mehmut Tuval had attempted to prevent a violent altercation by disposing of metal bars and chains IHH activists had cut ahead of the IDF takeover.
Mehmut said that "once we see that the boats [were] around us…actually not us, but around the total ships…about two hours [before the takeover]… I see they were cutting the steels…chains. And I said to the chief officer, he collected all of them and also we put it in the radio room in the bridge."
The captain also indicated that he had thrown some of the bars and chains into the sea, while adding that he also asked IHH activists to pass over the bars and chains that had collected later on.
Tuval said he sent his chief officer to ask for the bars, "saying …he cannot take directly from the guys..he spoke with the IHH to collect the [steel bars and chains]…we asked them to drop them, drop in the sea, because if they take it from the bridge that's when we have a problem…and [after that] we didn't see any in their hands."
The Mavi Marmara captain said he was indeed worried that the presence of the makeshift weapons would worsen the situations, adding he thought that nothing would eventually happen since the IHH commanders were at hand to prevent any violence.
"I was worried but if their [leader] on the ship that there would be no effect, nobody will fight… I said many of times because I know the end," Tuval told investigators, adding that he thought that nothing would happen since there were civilians on the ship/
"I worried [that's] why I collected the things to the bridge and I take how many I see in their hands and I drop them in the sea." Asked whether or not he knew if the IHH activists were preparing a violent welcome to the IDF takeover, Tuval said that "they were preparing to violence against the soldiers: Yeah from what I was informed."
The ship's first officer, Gokkiran Gokhan, told his investigators that he was sent by the ship's captain to look into an unusual commotion near the life-boat section of the Mavi Marmara.
Once he got there, Gokhan had noticed that bars and chains had been cut off by IHH activists from the deck using rotary saws, which he claims were no part of the ship's equipment.
Asked whose equipment were they, the first officer said: "I don't know, not the ship's. There is no such equipment on the ship. The deck has rods with hooks for chains, and when I got there the rods had been cut."
Gokhan added that this had happened after dark, and when he had asked one of the activists who had cut the rods, he answered that he didn't know. The first officer also said that the IHH activists did not allow anyone but members of their group to pass through their section of the ship.
When asked h the IHH activists communicated with each other, Gokhan told his investigators that "they brought walkie-talkies along with them when they got on board in Istanbul. The radios were distributed to the IHH people and to the ship's crew." The first mate added that other non-IHH passengers were allowed to move freely, with the exception of the control center which was located above the ship's bridge, saying that the IHH group was made up of 40 people who boarded the ship in Istanbul.
Items said to have been found on a flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip - including knives, metal tools, rods, chains, and computer - laid out on Monday May 31, 2010.
Photo by: AP
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/6/2010, 19:10
Oups, Il semble qu'il y ait un probleme avec Spoiler
Ahhh je ne vous avais pas vu, Tsur.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 2476 - 12/6/2010, 12:28
Teen Sailor Abby Sunderland Rescued by French Fishing Vessel
Invité Invité
Sujet: 2477 - Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites 12/6/2010, 12:39
Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites
Hugh Tomlinson
Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.
Spoiler:
In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.
To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.
“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”
Sources in Saudi Arabia say it is common knowledge within defence circles in the kingdom that an arrangement is in place if Israel decides to launch the raid. Despite the tension between the two governments, they share a mutual loathing of the regime in Tehran and a common fear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “We all know this. We will let them [the Israelis] through and see nothing,” said one.
The four main targets for any raid on Iran would be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. Secondary targets include the lightwater reactor at Bushehr, which could produce weapons-grade plutonium when complete.
The targets lie as far as 1,400 miles (2,250km) from Israel; the outer limits of their bombers’ range, even with aerial refuelling. An open corridor across northern Saudi Arabia would significantly shorten the distance. An airstrike would involve multiple waves of bombers, possibly crossing Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Aircraft attacking Bushehr, on the Gulf coast, could swing beneath Kuwait to strike from the southwest.
Passing over Iraq would require at least tacit agreement to the raid from Washington. So far, the Obama Administration has refused to give its approval as it pursues a diplomatic solution to curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Military analysts say Israel has held back only because of this failure to secure consensus from America and Arab states. Military analysts doubt that an airstrike alone would be sufficient to knock out the key nuclear facilities, which are heavily fortified and deep underground or within mountains. However, if the latest sanctions prove ineffective the pressure from the Israelis on Washington to approve military action will intensify. Iran vowed to continue enriching uranium after the UN Security Council imposed its toughest sanctions yet in an effort to halt the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme, which Tehran claims is intended for civil energy purposes only. President Ahmadinejad has described the UN resolution as “a used handkerchief, which should be thrown in the dustbin”.
Israeli officials refused to comment yesterday on details for a raid on Iran, which the Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has refused to rule out. Questioned on the option of a Saudi flight path for Israeli bombers, Aharaon Zeevi Farkash, who headed military intelligence until 2006 and has been involved in war games simulating a strike on Iran, said: “I know that Saudi Arabia is even more afraid than Israel of an Iranian nuclear capacity.”
In 2007 Israel was reported to have used Turkish air space to attack a suspected nuclear reactor being built by Iran’s main regional ally, Syria. Although Turkey publicly protested against the “violation” of its air space, it is thought to have turned a blind eye in what many saw as a dry run for a strike on Iran’s far more substantial — and better-defended — nuclear sites.
Israeli intelligence experts say that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are at least as worried as themselves and the West about an Iranian nuclear arsenal.Israel has sent missile-class warships and at least one submarine capable of launching a nuclear warhead through the Suez Canal for deployment in the Red Sea within the past year, as both a warning to Iran and in anticipation of a possible strike. Israeli newspapers reported last year that high-ranking officials, including the former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, have met their Saudi Arabian counterparts to discuss the Iranian issue. It was also reported that Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, met Saudi intelligence officials last year to gain assurances that Riyadh would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets violating Saudi airspace during the bombing run. Both governments have denied the reports.
Hurricane Katrina. Hostage crisis. Tet Offensive. Is Barack Obama's presidency at a similar tipping point?
Spoiler:
The relevance of the question exemplifies the gravity of Obama's crisis. Obama is learning the lesson of presidents before him. ''Poor Ike," Harry Truman said of the incoming president, "it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll sit here and he'll say, 'Do this, do that,' and nothing will happen.''
Presidents are hostage to events, goes the old political axiom. But that's a half-truth. Presidencies rise and fall far more by their response to great events than the event itself.
"Presidents are ultimately judged by how they handle the unexpected," presidential historian Richard Norton Smith wrote in an email exchange. "JFK may have blown the Bay of Pigs but more than recovered a year later in Cuba. ... Just as he moved away from his cautious approach to civil rights as newspaper pictures and TV reports from Birmingham -- the equivalent of today's unstopped pipe at the bottom of the Gulf -- made him realize that the presidency is, indeed, ultimately a place of moral leadership."
This issue comes down to presidential leadership. The British Petroleum crisis clearly placed Obama's presidency in crisis a couple weeks back. Yet the status quo endured. The media pile on ensued. Impressions solidified. This is what happens when the president does not meet the moment.
History tells us how it happens. Perceptions contrast with promises. The measure of the president appears smaller than the problems before him. Presidencies, subtly and at similar junctures, turn south for a long winter.
"The good presidents are able to basically survive these kinds of events, rarely are they able control of them. They find strong political and strategic responses," said Princeton political historian Julian Zelizer. "The bad presidents make the crisis seem greater than the presidency."
This turning point is often gradual. Not made by one event. And like all crossroads, clearest in the rear view mirror. But when the perception goes from good to bad on great events, the entire presidency goes bad.
Obama's leadership problem did not begin with BP. There was the coolness to Wall Street malfeasance. The sure victory of financial reform sidelined. The new New Deal that never was. The healthcare bill that came instead and in time, took hold of his presidency. The president seemingly aligned with all the big boogiemen of the day -- big business and big government.
The change agent personified the establishment. The post-partisan went to the mat for a hyper-partisan issue. The candidate who won his majority with the recession, focused his mandate elsewhere. The man who promised new politics partook in the ugly politics of old, from healthcare's Cornhusker kickback to the Joe Sestak incident.
And now, the competent candidate haunted by perceptions of incompetent presidential leadership.
Somewhere, along the way, was Obama's Bert Lance affair. Jimmy Carter's budget director was legally exonerated from a financial scandal. But the issue was ethics. Critical weeks passed. Amid Watergate's shadow, the candidate who ran on good ethics was now a president tainted by bad ethics.
The hostage crisis cemented what began with Lance. But it's also how the hostage crisis bled on. Like George H.W. Bush's recession. And like too many of Obama's crises. Healthcare bleeds for a year. The jobs crisis still bleeds. Now this oil crisis, bleeding past day 50.
And like the Lance affair, critical weeks have indeed passed. Political triage might be too late. The time with the victims too little. The president's emotive distance from the tragedy too great. The aloofness too constant. The expressions of anger and empathy too contrived. The crisis too far along.
FDR most famously took command of like times. His response to the crisis won the public -- and historic gains in the midterm elections -- despite the Great Depression languishing on. It was not the solution but the response. In Roosevelt, as Zelizer put it, "Americans saw someone from the White House doing as much as anyone could see possible. That's in contrast to the current administration on the oil spill and, many would say, on jobs."
Obama's effort to highlight his command has only underlined his failures. This week he told NBC that he talks to his experts "so I know whose ass to kick." It was like hearing Spock swear.
It was also reminiscent of Bill Clinton in 1995. "The president is still relevant here," Clinton said. But these things are true, of course, when they need not be said.
Obama is flailing. The feckless image haunts him. Meanwhile, from the Korean peninsula to Iran to fragile world markets, myriad potential crises loom.
Obama famously rode an historic wave to the White House. That wave turned on him long ago. But he never seemingly got off. Never succeeded against the tide. Never came close to turning the tide. This is when discipline appears timid, when stability appears stolid and cool appears cold.
Nothing is written. But it's not getting better. No end to the BP crisis is in sight.
And as Zelizer warned, "The public watches a president like they watch a TV-show character. Those perceptions set in and they are incredibly hard to change. That's why the oil spill is significant and the longer it goes on, the more feelings harden."
At some point, the bad show also goes on too long. Negative perceptions of the character are formed. That's the tipping point. And it's possible, but not necessarily probable, that Obama's point has already come to pass.
checkTextResizerCookie('article_body');
David Paul Kuhn is the Chief Political Correspondent for RealClearPolitics and the author of The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma. He can be reached at david@realclearpolitics.com and his writing followed via RSS.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 2479 - 12/6/2010, 16:39
Self-Destruction in Illinois
Democrats melt down in Obama’s home state.
BY Fred BarnesJune 21, 2010, Chicago
Obamaland is crumbling. Democrats have firmly controlled Illinois, the president’s home state, for nearly a decade, turning it into what one Republican called “a deep blue state.” But this has changed almost overnight. In the midterm elections on November 2, Democrats stand to lose the governorship, Obama’s old Senate seat, two to four House seats, and any number of state legislative seats and down-ticket statewide offices.
Spoiler:
Democrats have been hit by a perfect storm, mostly of their own making. Illinois rivals California and New York as a fiscal and economic basket case. Democratic misrule has reached epic proportions, with the school districts, vendors, and doctors who treat Medicaid patients going unpaid for months. Unfunded state liabilities are mounting. And on top of all that, the trial of impeached former governor Rod Blagojevich, already dominating the news, is expected to continuefor months.
“Who would have guessed two years ago that Illinois would be in play,” says veteran Republican official Pat Durante. “Thank you, Democrats, for screwing things up.”
Republicans had little to do with creating the political environment from which they are likely to benefit. Jerry Clarke, campaign manager for Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady, told me prospects for Republicans haven’t been this rosy in Illinois since 1946, when they picked up five House seats and made substantial gains in the state legislature. (Nationally, Republicans netted 55 House seats and 13 in the Senate in 1946, taking control of both chambers.) Republicans have put together a strong slate of candidates. Brady, 49, was expected to finish a distant third or fourth in the gubernatorial primary on February 2. TV stations failed to send correspondents or crews to cover him on election night. They had to interview him on Skype, the computer phone service. Brady prevailed by 193 votes (out of 750,000). He appears to have unified Republicans behind his candidacy.
Brady won the primary thanks to a simple if risky strategy. He’s a homebuilder from downstate Bloomington and has been a state legislator since 1992. He ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2006. This cycle, he concentrated on downstate voters, letting three well-known Republicans from the Chicago area split the vote there. Brady got 50 percent of the downstate vote, just enough to win when added to the small vote he received upstate.
Now he’s devoting most of his time—80 percent, he says—to the Chicago suburbs and “collar counties” that were once a Republican stronghold. There’s a rough formula for a Republican victory in Illinois: Offset a 500,000 vote loss in Chicago by winning by 250,000 votes in inner suburbs and by another 250,000 in the outer suburbs, then rely on the downstate vote. For Brady, the hard part will be breaking even upstate.
Brady’s views are identical to Ronald Reagan’s, which means he’s a bit more conservative than the last three Republican governors and probably the state as well. He opposes legalized abortion except when the life of the mother is threatened—Reagan’s position exactly. And just like Reagan, Democrats are attacking him as a right-wing extremist.
Brady and Republican strategists are convinced such attacks are irrelevant to voters this year. “I’m talking about the issues that resonate with people—jobs, spending, taxes,” Brady says. He favors cuts in spending, a tax decrease of $1 billion, and a reduction in the size and authority of the state government in Springfield.
“Government that has too much power leads to corruption,” Brady says. Four of the past six Illinois governors were indicted. George Ryan, the Republican governor from 1999 to 2003, is in jail.
Since 2003, Illinois has been ruled by an oligarchy of Chicago Democrats, led by Rod Blagojevich (until his impeachment last year), House speaker Mike Madigan, and Senate president John Cullerton.
Pat Quinn succeeded Blagojevich as governor. Madigan’s daughter Lisa is attorney general. All of them, along with treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, auditor Tom Hynes, and secretary of state Jesse White, live within a few miles of each other in Chicago. On their reign has been disastrous for Illinois. This year’s deficit is $12.8 billion. The pension fund for state workers has an unfunded liability of $77.8 billion, and $20 billion in payments on bonds are also unfunded. The state’s credit rating is plunging. One school district announced last week it’d deliver no more property tax revenues to Springfield until the state sends long-overdue education funds.
Illinois suffers from a net loss in migration: More people are leaving than arriving from out of state. The unemployment rate is 11.7 percent, two points higher than the national rate. Governors like Chris Christie of New Jersey and Mitch Daniels of Indiana make unflattering comments about Illinois.
Quinn is in a bind. For years, he was a liberal gadfly. But he joined the Democratic hierarchy in 2002 when he was elected lieutenant governor. Now he’s dependent on the Democratic machine in Chicago. Blagojevich, twice his running mate, is a double drag on Quinn: He left behind both a fiscal wreck and a poisonous political atmosphere. Quinn is desperate to raise taxes, which isn’t the best campaign message. He’s proposed, at one time or another, a 50 percent hike in the state income tax (from 3 to 4.5 percent) and another 1 percent surtax. He appears ready to accept any tax increase the Democrat-controlled legislature can pass. Not surprisingly, he trails Brady 47 percent to 36 percent in a Rasmussen poll.
Brady’s campaign figured to play out in the shadow of Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk, but the roles may be reversed. Kirk, a moderate House member from the ritzy suburbs north of Chicago, is regarded as one of the most impressive Republican candidates in the nation. He’s a Naval reservist and expert on intelligence and national security who’s served in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he’s an unusually energeticcampaigner.
But Kirk, 50, was caught with an embellished résumé, claiming an award that was actually given to his unit, not to him personally. Last week, the Chicago Tribune printed his explanation next to that of umpire Jim Joyce, whose bad call spoiled the perfect game of a Detroit Tigers pitcher. Joyce was unequivocal in admitting his error. Kirk looked less forthright in comparison.
A big advantage for Kirk is his Democratic opponent, Alexi Giannoulias, a pal of President Obama. The Giannoulias family bank, now defunct, lent to felons, thus earning him the label “mob banker.” Giannoulias, 34, also hyped his résumé, claiming to run a charity. It turned out the charity doled out a pittance and no longer exists. Kirk leads 42 percent to 39 percent in a Rasmussen poll.
Republicans have at least an even chance of capturing two Democratic House seats, one held for years by former House speaker Denny Hastert, the other by one-term Democrat Debbie Halvorson. Against her, Republicans have one of their star recruits, 32-year-old Adam Kinzinger, an Air Force pilot who enlisted after 9/11.
The Republican resurgence is all the more surprising after the deep and seemingly permanent hole that they had dug for themselves. In Illinois last week, I asked Republicans to identify their low point.
Most said it came in 2004 when, unable to find a candidate to run for the Senate against Obama, they imported Alan Keyes from Maryland to run. Keyes got 27 percent of the vote. Ryan’s conviction on corruption charges in 2006 came second.
In 2010, Illinois Republicans are experiencing a political dream come true—or maybe a dream that’s not quite true yet. At the moment, they have good candidates, strong poll numbers, and weakened opponents. Those are indicative of a strong Republican recovery. But, as Clarke puts it, “November 2 needs to get here.”
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566 Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 13/6/2010, 00:41
Désolé, Sylvette, espérons que ce sera vite réparé...
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 13/6/2010, 01:07
Pas de probleme, Biloulou
Zed
Nombre de messages : 16907 Age : 59 Localisation : Longueuil, Québec, Canada, Amérique du nord, planète Terre, du système solaire Galarneau de la voie lactée Date d'inscription : 13/11/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 13/6/2010, 06:02
Biloulou a écrit:
Désolé, Sylvette, espérons que ce sera vite réparé...
C'est une conspiration Une magouille Un prolétariat Une chimère Une invisibilité
Mais bon, faut rester Zed, heuuuu, je veux dire Zen
Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566 Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 14/6/2010, 15:32
Arrête, mauvaise langue, ça marche à nouveau !
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 18/6/2010, 08:39
Video
Rudy Giuliani on MSNBC's "Morning Joe"
Invité Invité
Sujet: 2485 - Administration Plans Suit to Block Arizona Immigrant Law 19/6/2010, 01:12
Le gouvernement Obama n'a aucune honte.
Administration Plans Suit to Block Arizona Immigrant Law
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD and MARK LANDLER
Published: June 18, 2010
The Obama administration has decided to file suit to block a new Arizona law aimed at deporting illegal immigrants, thrusting itself into the fierce national debate over how the United States enforces immigration policies.
Spoiler:
The latest on President Obama, his administration and other news from Washington and around the nation.
The move is a rare instance of the federal government forcefully intervening in a state’s affairs, and it carries significant political risks. With immigration continuing to be a hot-button issue in political campaigns across the country, the Arizona law, which gives local police greater power to check the legal status of people they stop, has become a rallying point for the Tea Party and other conservative groups.
The decision to intervene, though widely anticipated, was confirmed by an unexpected source: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who answered a question about it from an Ecuadorian TV journalist in an interview on June 8 that went all but unnoticed until this week.
Reiterating the publicly stated objections of President Obama and senior officials to the Arizona law, Mrs. Clinton said of the president, “The Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.”
A spokesman for the Justice Department said the matter was still under review, but other senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a decision had indeed been made and that only the details of the suit were still being worked out.
These officials said several government agencies were being consulted over the best approach to blocking the law, which, barring any successful legal challenges, is scheduled to take effect July 29. At least five lawsuits have already been filed in Federal court by other plaintiffs, and civil rights groups have asked a Federal judge to issue an injunction to forestall the law from taking effect while the cases are heard.
A State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, said Mrs. Clinton was responding to deep unhappiness over the law that has been expressed in Mexico and other Latin American countries. At home, polls show that a majority of Americans support the law, or at least the concept of states more rigorously enforcing immigration laws. But Latino groups and elected officials have denounced it as an affront to Hispanics. Several large demonstrations, for and against the law, have been held in Phoenix and other cities.
Some kind of legal action by the Justice Department against the law seemed likely, given Mr. Obama’s repeated statements against it, as well as concerns Attorney General Eric Holder has voiced in interviews and news conferences.
In late May, Justice Department lawyers traveled to Phoenix to speak with lawyers from the offices of the state attorney general, Terry Goddard, and of Gov. Jan Brewer about possible litigation. Mr. Goddard, a Democrat, and Ms. Brewer, a Republican, are both running for governor, and both have said that a Federal lawsuit would be unwarranted.
Mrs. Clinton’s disclosure quickly became fodder for political campaigns in Arizona, with Republicans seizing on the notion of a domestic policy decision being disclosed on foreign soil. Ms. Brewer chastised the administration for using an Ecuadorean television interview to inform the public about a momentous decision.
“This is no way to treat the people of Arizona,” the governor said in a statement. “To learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorean interview with the Secretary of State is just outrageous. If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation.”
EddieCochran Admin
Nombre de messages : 12768 Age : 64 Localisation : Countat da Nissa Date d'inscription : 03/11/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 19/6/2010, 02:43
486 -
Citation :
The latest on President Obama, his administration and other news from Washington and around the nation.
The move is a rare instance of the federal government forcefully intervening in a state’s affairs, and it carries significant political risks. (..)
Cette opinion piquée sous le clapet magique du billet précédent est porteuse de sens. En effet, le signe est historiquement vérifié que le déclin d'une Nation s'amorce à partir du moment où la politique étatique consiste à escagacer ses propres administrés qu'elle devrait laisser tranquilles.
.gif)
Les Cohortes Célestes ont le devoir et le regret de vous informer que Libres Propos est entré en sommeil. Ce forum convivial et sympathique reste uniquement accessible en lecture seule. Prenez plaisir à le consulter.
Merci de votre compréhension.
It means responsibility from businesses that break the law by undermining American workers and exploiting undocumented workers — they’ve got to be held accountable. It means responsibility from people who are living here illegally. They’ve got to admit that they broke the law and pay taxes and pay a penalty, and learn English, and get right before the law — and then get in line and earn their citizenship.” 
Une magouille 
