By the time you read this Barack Obama will have made his great speech from Cairo. I have to draw up these notes before the speech is over ... so some guesswork here.
Somehow I don't think he's going to repeat his nonsensical "America is the largest Muslim country in the world" bit ... and he might even refrain from bowing and scraping to the Islamic world. Literally, anyway; figuratively ... well, that's another story. Yesterday PrezBO he met with the King of Saudi Arabia where he got the chance to show off his stellar abs with all the bowing and leaning ... remember, Obama is taller than the King of Saudi Arabia so he has to "lean." Oh yeah .. that's it. He's leaning. OK, I got it.
This time around, everyone is wondering how Obama is going to represent America. Will it be a fawning apology tour? Will he present an image of America as apologetic and weak? These are some strong-willed people he's dealing with ... they can smell weakness miles away. It should be no surprise that there are some leftists out there who believe that Obama SHOULD apologize while in the Middle East. You'll get a kick out of this. This is from Dan Froomkin at the Washington Compost (that's what Oliver North calls it):
Disparaging President Obama's overseas trip as an "Apology Tour", some conservative critics are trying to make the argument that being a powerful champion of liberty and admitting mistakes are somehow mutually exclusive.
But particularly as Obama addresses the Muslim world tomorrow morning in Cairo, he has plenty to apologize for. The entire neoconservative "war on terror" that was supposed to strike fear in the hearts of our enemies instead backfired spectacularly, turning into what some saw as a failed and contemptible war on Islam -- complete with torture chambers -- at enormous cost to our nation's security and moral standing.
For Obama to undo even some of that damage, which is a tall order, of course he needs to acknowledge what went wrong.
Yeah ... that's how to portray strength. Apologize for defending ourselves.
Now .. I will say this. While preparing my morning notes I have been able to eavesdrop on Obama's speech. What I've heard ... and I haven't heard it all ... is impressive. Analysis takes some time ... but my guess is that the media is generally going to give him stellar marks on this one. If you're curious, and you should be, here's a link to the text of Obama's speech released by the White House. Or view the video right here.
... that's not very surprising to hear, I'm sure. But what you may find surprising is that he supports her without having read a single one of her opinions. He knows not WHY he supports Sotomayor, but he boasts to the media that she has "the whole package." Here's what Harry had to say in response to a question about one of Sotomayor's opinions:
I understand that during her career, she's written hundreds and hundreds of opinions. I haven't read a single one of them, and if I'm fortunate before we end this, I won't have to read one of them. But -- I'm not familiar with that opinion, but there will be plenty of time for people who are concerned about the Second Amendment -- and there are lots of people on the Judiciary Committee who are concerned about it -- they'll have lots of time to offer her questions and she'll proceed to answer them. But I don't know anything about that.
Would somebody please explain to me how our Senate Majority leader can get away with admitting that he doesn't plan to read a single one of Sotomayor's opinions before voting for her? This begs the question, if Harry doesn't understand how Sotomayor interprets the law, what is he basing his support on? Is he supporting her simply because Obama nominated her? Well, Obama is a Democrat, therefore he will follow like a sheep ... not offer any sort of intelligent reasoning as to why he may or may not support Sotomayor?
Oh yeah .. there's that "whole package" bit. What a way to support a Supreme Court nominee.
Ok, so I have been saying for days that all this talk of Sotomayor being a racist is pointless. It is ludicrous, not to mention factually incorrect. It contributes absolutely nothing to the question of her confirmation. Regardless, Sotomayor (presumably at the behest of the White House) felt the need to address her comment that a Latina woman would come to a "better" conclusion than a white male. We went through her explanation yesterday on Nealz Nuze. The White House chalked it up to a misspeak. Either way, the comment isn't racist.
But now here's the test. Yet another quote from Sotomayor has surfaced. This one comes from a speech she made in 1994 and was disclosed to Republican Senators during her confirmation for the Court of Appeals in 1998. Here's the quote:
"Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that "a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of 'wise.' Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."
So this time, we don't get the issue of race in the mix, but we do get the issue of gender. As I said, this will be a test. Can the Republicans just cool it already and focus on more important issues when it comes to this nominee, or are they going to take this quote and run with it as well?
For months, Barack Obama has pushed the issue of healthcare reform on the Congress. Yesterday he cranked up the rhetoric a bit. He sent a letter to Max Baucus and others involved in the creation of this behemoth of a government growth bill. Here are a few things that he wants to see done.
First, he wants at least $200 billion cut from Medicare and Medicaid spending in order to pay for the changes in the healthcare system. Ok, that is definitely a lot of money. However, is it going to cover the costs of creating a government healthcare system? Absolutely not. Economists believe that the true tab for Obama's healthcare scheme is over $1 trillion. But I guess it is the thought that counts.
Obama also said that if ... and that is a big if ... Congress ends up "requiring individuals to purchase health insurance," Obama would make sure to exempt "people who can't afford it." This "hardship waiver" would be a new government entitlement program. Also exempt would be small businesses. He says that small businesses should be exempt from any mandate that employers offer health benefits or pay a tax to finance government subsidies. Oh, so now we are talking about the government MANDATING that private businesses offer employees medical benefits. Can someone please point out the clause in our Constitution that gives the imperial federal government the authority to compel businesses of any size to cover the health care costs of their employees? I've looked ... and I can't find it.
That leads to the next point - tax increases. Obama did not address the issue of taxing healthcare benefits to pay for the poor, poor pitiful poor to have health insurance. He did, however, remind Congress of his tax proposal to "limit itemized deductions for upper-income earners." That's another way of saying that he wants to increase taxes on the rich. But the point is ...... he's gonna spend the money somehow, and cutting Medicare spending isn't going to do it. Your children are going to pay for this folly, and your grandchildren.
Note, please, that there is nothing in Obama's letter, or in his rhetoric, that speaks to any enhanced role for the private sector in our health care future. The goal here has long been to put government in complete control of each and every American's health care. It's about power. In Washington it is always about power. Legislation and ideas that enhance the power of Washington over the people of this country are celebrated, while legislation and idea that transfer power from Washington to the people are denigrated and fought. The FairTax comes to mind. Washington is having a rather easy time taking full control over our health care system because Americans welcome it. One month from today is July 4th, America's most hypocritical holiday. Americans who today are clamoring for the government to take responsibility for their healthcare will, in one month, be singing the praises of freedom. Give me a break.
This is an example of what Webguy and Cristina see on a regular basis. Day in and day out, hundreds of emails like this are sent to the show, and day and day out hundreds of emails like this are deleted. I never see 'em. But I guess we are all just going to have to get used to these types of emails for the next four to eight years while Obama is in office. By the way, this truther didn't have the gonads to use a real email address.
Name:Andrew Subject:Your a tool
It is so funny. We have a pretty strong case against Obama and his citizenship issue. It is grounds for impeachment at the minimum.
We might need impeachment in the end to slow down Obama's socialization of the United States. Unfortunately, it is individual Americans and not the Press that is doing the digging.
I am fine with you not wanting to talk about it, but please don't turn listeners into loons by belittling their efforts. We are all trying to save the country, not just you Neal.
Notice the misspelling of the word "your" in the subject line. Must be government educated.
Get over it folks. Obama was born in Hawaii. He's a citizen. Deal with it.
A Fox News Channel crew visited me in the studio yesterday. They wanted my comments on the closing of Bowen Homes in Atlanta. I understand that Bowen Homes, a breeding ground for crime, is this city's last welfare housing project. Residents are going to be given vouchers to be used in finding a place to live elsewhere in the city.
I knew when they came to me for a opinion that it would never be aired ... and it would seem that I was right. My feelings here are what you might call somewhat politically incorrect.
Let's keep Bowen Homes. Let's keep the parasites and crime breeders right where they are so we can watch them. Why spread this culture of crime and dependency throughout the city? I told Fox news that people who are looking to rent an apartment or condo should always inquire about the presence of Section 8 housing in the neighborhood. For the most part, you don't want these people around. They do nothing to enhance your living experience. They bring nothing to your neighborhood but crime and drugs.
Any wonder I didn't (so far as I know) end up on any Fox newscast?
Ben Bernanke says that large budget deficits threaten financial stability and the government can't continue indefinitely to borrow at the current rate. Someone tell the congress and Obama. The message isn't getting through.
Michelle Obama decided to throw herself right into the middle of this debate over Sonia Sotomayor, relating her own experiences to that of Sotomayor's.
Alan Greenspan says that bailing out financial institutions viewed as "too big too fail" is the greatest threat to the free market and the economic future of America.
If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.
Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!
Avg. rating: N/A
What others are saying
There are no comments yet. Be the first to post one!