We are the Liberal Blog From Hollywood
L.A.'s Premier Post Facility

L.A.'s Premier Post Facility

Photographer in L.A.

Hot Pics & Gossip.

Archive for March 31st, 2010

Early Morning Swim

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on March 31st, 2010 4:52 am by HL

Early Morning Swim

And now, without the slogans of a moron
Offshore drilling permits? Oh, that’ll go over well with the base. And what will it get them in response?

The Obama Administration is trying to get movement on a climate change bill and I guess at least they didn’t give this away before negotiating…so that’s progress right?

Well, maybe not.

President Barack Obama is to announce on Wednesday a plan to permit exploration for oil and natural gas off the coast of Virginia as a way to create jobs and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Obama, who wants Congress to move a stalled climate change bill, has sought to reach out to Republicans by signaling he is open to allowing offshore drilling, providing coastlines are protected.

Oh, that’ll work. What will the next bad policy decision based on a Republican idea that causes the GOP not to come along?

(pic from here)

Late Late Night FDL: Sweet Or Memphis Style
How do you prefer your soul music – Sweet or Memphis style? Arthur ConleySweet Soul Music. King Curtis & The KingpinsMemphis Soul Stew.

How do you prefer your soul music – Sweet or Memphis style?

Arthur ConleySweet Soul Music.

King Curtis & The KingpinsMemphis Soul Stew.

What’s on your mind?


Dye Job

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on March 31st, 2010 4:51 am by HL

Dye Job

By Mr. Fish

Related Entries


Sarah Palin, Neocon Messiah
Judge them by their enemies. More evidence that Barack Obama might be shaping up as a good president is that Norman Podhoretz hates him so much.

Sarah Palin

By Robert Scheer

Judge them by their enemies. More evidence that Barack Obama might be shaping up as a good president is that Norman Podhoretz hates him so much.


Related Entries



Dave Johnson: Dear Deficit Commission, It’s Not Hard

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on March 31st, 2010 4:50 am by HL

Dave Johnson: Dear Deficit Commission, It’s Not Hard
Dear Deficit Commission, It’s not hard to figure out why we have a huge deficit. It’s so easy I don’t have to use words. Here…

FBI Questions American Travelers To Cuba
At least 10 Americans who recently traveled to Cuba through cultural exchange programs have been questioned by FBI agents, either at home or over the…

Raymond Leon Roker: Why Health Reform Was the Right Thing to Do
In the wake of the landmark passage of comprehensive health care reform by President Obama and the Democratic congress, I’m reminded of how absolutely necessary…


Morrissey baselessly suggests new nuclear arms treaty limits U.S. missile defense

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on March 31st, 2010 4:49 am by HL

Morrissey baselessly suggests new nuclear arms treaty limits U.S. missile defense

Ed Morrissey baselessly suggested that the proposed U.S.-Russian nuclear arms treaty would limit U.S. missile defense, citing a Russian diplomat’s statement that Russia might pull out of the treaty if the U.S. increases its missile defense capabilities. But the Obama administration says the treaty does not constrain U.S. missile defense, and treaties — including a nuclear arms treaty signed by President Bush — typically allow parties to withdraw.  

HotAir’s Morrissey baselessly suggests U.S. missile defense limited by treaty

Morrissey says “Russians claim the treaty limits” U.S. missile defense. In his March 30 HotAir.com post, headlined “Is the START treaty a non-starter?” Ed Morrissey wrote that “the Obama administration may have bungled the translation of its newly-announced START treaty with Moscow” because “[t]he Russians claim that the treaty limits American efforts on missile defense, which the White House denies.” Morrissey added that “If the treaty does limit American efforts on missile defense,” President Obama will not have the votes in the Senate to pass it.

Article Morrissey cites says on that Russians say they will pull out of treaty if level of U.S. missile defense increases. The sole evidence Morrissey cited for his suggestion that the treaty would limit U.S. missile defense was the following passage from a March 30 Washington Times article:

As the Obama administration prepared to send the new U.S.-Russian arms treaty to the Senate for ratification, differences emerged Monday between Moscow and Washington over whether the agreement limits missile defenses.

Speaking to reporters in Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia reserved the right to pull out of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, if the level of U.S. missile defense forces increases.

“The package of documents presumes that the treaty is concluded in circumstances where the parties have appropriate levels of strategic defensive systems,” Mr. Lavrov said. “Changing these levels gives each party the right to decide the question of its future participation in the process of reducing strategic offensive arms.”

No contradiction between Russian and U.S. comments on missile defense. Contrary to the claim of the Times as forwarded by Morrissey, there is no contradiction between the U.S. statement that the treaty does not impose limits on their missile defense system and the Russian statement that they reserve the right to withdraw from the treaty if the U.S. expands its missile defense capabilities.

White House: “No Constraints on Missile Defense”

A March 26 White House fact sheet on the proposed treaty states:

No Constraints on Missile Defense and Conventional Strike:  The Treaty does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs or current or planned United States long-range conventional strike capabilities.

Treaties typically allow parties to withdraw

White House fact sheet calls new treaty’s withdrawal clause “standard.” The White House fact sheet states that it “includes a withdrawal clause that is standard in arms-control agreements.”

Bush-signed arms treaty included withdrawal clause. The Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, signed by Bush and former Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2002 — which the new proposed treaty would replace — stated: “Each Party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may withdraw from this Treaty upon three months written notice to the other Party.”

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty also provided both nations “right to withdraw.” The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 between the United States and the Soviet Union contained a withdrawal provision, which stated:

Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from the Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

President Bush exercised the United States’ right to withdraw from the ABM treaty in 2001.


Undercover FBI Agent Helped In Sting Of Hutaree Militia

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on March 31st, 2010 4:47 am by HL

Undercover FBI Agent Helped In Sting Of Hutaree Militia
A court document in the Hutaree case appears to have inadvertently revealed that an undercover FBI agent was involved in bringing down the Christian militia group.

Accused Christian Militia Member Posted Video Last Year: ‘I’m Just A Simple Militant … What’s Wrong With That?’
Another YouTube video, posted last year by one of the Christian militia members accused of conspiring to kill law enforcement, sheds light on his grievances against the government and “corporate media.” “I’m just a simple militant,” he says.



Why again?

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on March 31st, 2010 4:43 am by HL

Why again?


Big Republican Donors Bypassing RNC

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on March 31st, 2010 4:42 am by HL

Big Republican Donors Bypassing RNC
Since Michael Steele became RNC chairman in January 2009, “a growing number of prominent GOP donors has stopped contributing to the RNC, choosing instead to direct their money to outlets such as the party’s Senatorial Committee,” the Daily Caller reports.

“According to filings with the Federal Election Commission, at least eight of the RNC’s top individual donors have declined to contribute in the past 14 months… Each of the individuals had a record of contributing thousands to the RNC in past years but since 2009 have chosen to direct their money to the NRSC, National Republican Congressional Committee or individual campaign committees.”

Hutchison Plans Big Announcement
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) has called a press conference for 11 a.m. ET in San Antonio and is expected to announce whether she will stay in the Senate for the rest of her term, the Austin American-Statesman reports.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) “will join her for the announcement. Cornyn confirmed on Twitter that he would be on hand but did not elaborate.”

Hutchison said last fall that she would resign her Senate seat after the March primary for governor, but it’s unlikely McConnell would be on hand if she were planning to follow through on those plans.

The Hotline reports Hutchison will serve out the final two years of her terms.

Democrats Gain in Ohio
A new Quinnipiac poll finds that Democrats are having a mini-surge in Ohio and now lead in both the U.S. Senate and Governor’s races.

In the Senate race, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D) leads Rob Portman (R) 41% to 37%, reversing a three point Portman lead in February. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (D) also edges Portman, 38% to 37%, reversing a five point Portman lead.

In the gubernatorial race, Gov. Ted Strickland (D) leading challenger John Kasich (R), 43% to 38%.


Obama’s Next Major Task: Jobs

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on March 31st, 2010 4:41 am by HL

Obama’s Next Major Task: Jobs
We need $300 billion for jobs, and we need it now.

We need $300 billion for jobs, and we need it now.

Exposing the Deep Swamp of Republican Hypocrisy — How a Party Alienated the Nation
"I grew up in a profoundly Republican home so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now."

"I grew up in a profoundly Republican home so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now."

What If Fox News Actually Wants Mob Violence?
Fox News talkers did their best to trivialize the illegal, terrorist threats made against elected officials, and implied they were deserved.

Fox News talkers did their best to trivialize the illegal, terrorist threats made against elected officials, and implied they were deserved.

ICE Out of Control: Time to Rein in Rogue Agency, Pass Immigration Reform
A group of grassroots leaders are demanding that the President fire John Morton, the head of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

A group of grassroots leaders are demanding that the President fire John Morton, the head of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

How Afraid Are You?
Threats of violence are stinking up the air in America — and they need to be taken seriously. We need your help.

Threats of violence are stinking up the air in America — and they need to be taken seriously. We need your help.


U.S. Green Dreams Pricked By Tough International Realities

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on March 31st, 2010 4:40 am by HL

U.S. Green Dreams Pricked By Tough International Realities
I don’t know the figure myself but someone should compute how much of every federal $ committed to non-agricultural, non-nuclear renewable energy sticks inside the U.S. vs. how much leaks out to Germany, China, India, and Scandinavia. The Washington Post’s…


United StatesChinaWashington PostRenewable energyGermany

AIPAC Leaves Town, But Who Are These People? (Revised)
Yeah, yeah, I know I’m a “self-hating Jew.” Of course, by AIPAC’s standards the assimilated Theodor Herzl, who founded Zionism, was another SHJ. But, I’m not going to focus on the implications of being a SHJ, one who has been…


IsraelUnited StatesAmerican Israel Public Affairs CommitteeZionismTheodor Herzl

Presented By:


DOJ Cites Powell’s Past Support For DADT To Defend The Policy In Court

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on March 31st, 2010 4:39 am by HL

DOJ Cites Powell’s Past Support For DADT To Defend The Policy In Court
The New York Times reported in January that President Obama, who deeply believes banning gay men and women from serving openly in the military is “just wrong,” was finally spurred to push for repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by the realization that “if he did not change the policy, his administration would be forced […]

PowellHandsThe New York Times reported in January that President Obama, who deeply believes banning gay men and women from serving openly in the military is “just wrong,” was finally spurred to push for repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by the realization that “if he did not change the policy, his administration would be forced to defend publicly the constitutionality of a law he had long opposed.”

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what the Justice Department is doing, defending the constitutionality of DADT against a lawsuit filed by the Log Cabin Republicans in 2004. This brief, submitted yesterday, notes that Congress is considering repealing the policy, but quotes “from retired Gen. Colin Powell’s statements nearly two decades ago in favor of the gays-in-the-military ban without noting that Powell has since reversed himself on the issue.” The brief also regurgitates numerous conservative talking points:

– General Colin Powell similarly testified that, “[t]o win wars, we create cohesive teams of warriors who will bond so tightly that they are prepared to go into battle and give their lives if necessary for the accomplishment of the mission and for the cohesion of the group and for their individual buddies.” Id. Congress found that unit cohesion is improved by reducing or eliminating the potential for sexual tension to distract the members of the unit, and by protecting the personal privacy of service members.

– General Powell testified that homosexual conduct in units “involves matters of privacy and human sexuality that, . . . if allowed to exist openly in the military, would affect the cohesion and well-being of the force.”…He further testified that “it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline” if the military required heterosexuals and persons who demonstrate that they do or are likely to engage in homosexual acts “to share the most private facilities together,” id. at 283, and that “[c]ohesion is strengthened or weakened in the intimate living arrangements we force upon our people.

– Among other things, Congress determined that the statute was necessary because “[t]he presence in the Armed Forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

Gen. Collin Powell officially announced his opposition to DADT back in February, noting that “attitudes and circumstances have changed.” Yet DOJ continues to cite his outdated views to justify a policy that the government is supposed to be unraveling.

All this puts Obama and repeal advocates in a strange position. It’s difficult to push for reform and push back against supporters of the policy when the federal government is using their arguments to defend it. If anything will motivate the president and his national security team to begin working directly with Congress to get repeal legislation into this year’s defense authorization bill, this is it.

Former Bush officials rip Tea Parties: They?re ?outrageous,? based on ?fear and hatred,? bad for GOP.
Last night on CNN, Larry King discussed the growth of the Tea Parties and their effect on the Republican Party. While Nancy Pfotenhauer, a Republican strategist who has worked in the past for David Koch, the oil billionaire funding the top groups organizing the Tea Parties, praised the development as “phenomenal,” other Republicans were doubtful. […]

Last night on CNN, Larry King discussed the growth of the Tea Parties and their effect on the Republican Party. While Nancy Pfotenhauer, a Republican strategist who has worked in the past for David Koch, the oil billionaire funding the top groups organizing the Tea Parties, praised the development as “phenomenal,” other Republicans were doubtful. David Frum, a speech writer in the Bush White House, and Scott McClellan, the former press secretary to Bush, decried the Tea Parties for their extreme views, like seeking to abolish Social Security. McClellan explained that the Tea Parties have “limited appeal” because they are simply a “divisive protest movement” that “plays too much to people’s fears and hatred”:

FRUM: When you bring on two people on to an important show like this, and they represent themselves as leading a conservative and libertarian uprising against the president, and you say what you would really like to do, and they say, we would like to abolish Social Security, if given half a chance, is that helpful to the Republican Party? There probably aren’t even two percent of the members of the Republican Party who think that way. But that — those are the people on television. That’s not helpful. […]

MCCLELLAN: And then you also had the comments from the one Tea Party activist that was at the rally over the weekend in Searchlight, referring to President Obama as a terrorist. I mean, that’s just outrageous. You know, I think that there are probably many decent people in the Tea Party movement that have some legitimate concerns about their economic security. […]

But this is a divisive protest movement that plays too much to people’s fears and hatred. And it’s got limited appeal. I think that after the 2010 elections, you’re going to see this party or the Tea Party movement dissipate to a great degree. … It has limited influence. It really hasn’t shown itself to be a strong, powerful force, even within the Republican Party. However, it is pushing Republicans too far to the right.

Watch it:

As ThinkProgress has documented, rather than lead the Tea Parties into a responsible direction, GOP lawmakers have sought to inflame the movement with violent rhetoric, outlandish conspiracy theories, and hate towards Democrats. The Tea Parties are providing loyal protesters and campaign volunteers to Republican campaigns though, so it is unclear if the Republican Party is even capable of separating from them.