Obama and His Storm Troopers ! Jimmy Sued!

Were I tasked to come up with a campaign ad I would show a baby with Obama's face in a dirty diaper and the caption would read: "time for a change!"
---
Jackson Diehl defends Netanyahu.

As for me, Netanyahu is a far better friend to have than the two who accused him of being a liar etc.

Obama is arrogant, thin skinned and childish and does not like being challenged so it is understandable that he would not cotton to Netanyahu.

As for Sarkozy, another typical French leader who chafes under the reality that France is weak, its history is no longer glorious and having Jewish blood in him may, like many others of his ilk, be discomforted by that fact.

Anti-Semitism continues to be worn as a badge of honor among far too many Europeans. Sarkozy fits the mold. (See 1 below.)
---
Just another indication why Obama and his crony left wing politicians are prolonging suffering and delay of an economic recovery by their incompetence.

Bite the bullet now or nibble at it for a longer period, induce more pain and then seek to blame it all on recalcitrant Republicans. (See 2 below.)
---
And now some background information that confirms my own suspicions about allegations against Cain. I have written before, the Obama storm troops are geared up for the ugliest campaign ever and will stop at nothing so don't believe everything you read about the pinatas and straw persons Obama's henchmen will be attacking.

Axelrod is Obama's prize attack dog. (See 3 below.)
---
It's about time someone took on lying Jimmy and so it has come to be. (See 4 below.)
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Why do Sarkozy and Obama hate Netanyahu?
By Jackson Diehl

Binyamin Netanyahu seems to have been the target of some ugly — if off the record — barbs from President Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Speaking privately (they thought) following a news conference in Cannes last week, Sarkozy said “I cannot bear” Netanyahu, adding that he was “a liar.”

“You’re fed up, but I have to deal with him every day,” Obama responded. The conversation was captured on microphones monitored by the press; the French media held back the news for several days before it was reported by a French photo agency Tuesday, and confirmed by a Reuters reporter who also heard the conversation.

This is not exactly a bombshell: It has been known for some time that Obama has poor personal relations with Netanyahu, and blames him for the impasse in the Mideast peace process. Sarkozy, whose government just broke with Washington to vote in favor of Palestinian membership in UNESCO, could be expected to feel the same way.

But are their feelings justified? Though Netanyahu has never been an easy partner for Western leaders, it’s hard to see why he would inspire so much animus from the two presidents now.

Since taking office in early 2009, around the same time as Obama, Netanyahu has been mostly responsive to the U.S. president’s initiatives despite heading a rightwing coalition that views concessions to the Palestinians with distaste, to say the least. Early on he announced his acceptance of Palestinian statehood, something he has never done; he responded to Obama’s misguided demand for a freeze on Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem by imposing a six-month ten-month* moratorium.

Earlier this year Netanyahu reacted angrily when Obama blindsided him with a speech publicly calling on Israel to accept a territorial formula for a Palestinian state based on its pre-1967 borders, with swaps of territory. Less noticed is the fact that the Israeli prime minister has since accepted those terms.

Though Netanyahu has recently allowed new settlement construction, it mostly has been in neighborhoods that Palestinian leders have already conceded will be part of Israel in a final settlement. This week he told his cabinet that West Bank outposts declared illegal by the Israeli Supreme Court would be uprooted.

In other words, Netanyahu has been an occasionally difficult but ultimately cooperative partner. He can be accused of moving too slowly and offering too little, but not of failing to heed American initiatives. And Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas? For five of the sixnine of the ten months* of the Israeli settlement moratorium he refused Obama’s appeals to begin negotiations; after two meetings, he returned to his intransigence. Rejecting a personal appeal from Obama, he took his bid for statehood to the United Nations, where he may yet force the United States to use its Security Council veto.

France last month joined an appeal from the Mideast diplomatic “quartet” — the United States, European Union, Russia and United Nations — for Israel and the Palestinians to return unconditionally to negotiations. Netanyahu accepted. Abbas said no.

Abbas, it’s fair to say, has gone from resisting U.S. and French diplomacy to actively seeking to undermine it. Yet it is Netanyahu whom Sarkozy finds “unbearable,” and whom Obama groans at having to “deal with every day.” If there is an explanation for this, it must be personal; in substance, it makes little sense.

*Correction: The length of the settlement freeze was in fact ten months, not six months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Troubled homes stuck in a logjam

WASHINGTON - Nov. 9, 2011 - Foreclosure sales are moving so slowly in half of the states that at the current pace, it will take more than eight years on average to clear the 2.1 million homes in foreclosure or with seriously delinquent mortgages, new research shows.

That's twice as long as a year ago in states where foreclosures go through courts - before the mortgage industry was upended by disclosures that court papers in many foreclosure cases were improperly prepared. Since then, new checks have slowed the process.

The backlogs suggest that the fallout from the nation's worst housing-market collapse is likely to weigh on real estate prices in many markets for years to come, and on some markets for longer than on others.

In New York and New Jersey, where courts imposed new rules last fall, it would take lenders more than 50 years at their current pace to clear pipelines of homes that are seriously delinquent or in the foreclosure process, according to LPS Applied Analytics, which collects data on 40 million mortgage loans.

The process is moving faster in the other states, where courts aren't typically involved in foreclosures.

In those, the time to clear foreclosure pipelines has remained at just under three years, according to LPS.

California's pipeline would take about three years to clear, LPS says. In Nevada and Arizona, less than two years.

In New York, foreclosure lawyers now must affirm that they reviewed documents and asked lenders to verify their accuracy. Since that rule took hold last fall, foreclosure filings have slid to about 750 a month from 3,500, according to the office of the chief administrative judge.

In New Jersey, foreclosure activity was curbed after a court requirement that lending companies prove that their foreclosure processes were sound. The companies were cleared this fall to resume foreclosures.

The longer time frames may support home prices by reducing the supply of distressed properties for sale. But they also delay recoveries because buyers may wait, fearing further price drops when distressed homes hit the market, says James Sacchio, RealtyTrac CEO.

"It's a question of whether you rip the Band-Aid off quickly or slowly," says Herb Blecher, LPS senior vice president.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) David Axelrod's Pattern of Sexual Misbehavior
By Ann Coulter

Herman Cain has spent his life living and working all over the country -- Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. -- but never in Chicago.

So it's curious that all the sexual harassment allegations against Cain emanate from Chicago: home of the Daley machine and Obama consigliere David Axelrod.

Suspicions had already fallen on Sheila O'Grady, who is close with David Axelrod and went straight from being former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley's chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA), as being the person who dug up Herman Cain's personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).

The Daley-controlled IRA works hand-in-glove with the NRA. And strangely enough, Cain's short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he's alleged to have been a sexual predator.

After O'Grady's name surfaced in connection with the miraculous appearance of Cain's personnel files from the NRA, she issued a Clintonesque denial of any involvement in producing them -- by vigorously denying that she knew Cain when he was at the NRA. (Duh.)

And now, after a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain, we've suddenly got very specific sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of ... Chicago.

Herman Cain has never lived in Chicago. But you know who has? David Axelrod! And guess who lived in Axelrod's very building? Right again: Cain's latest accuser, Sharon Bialek.

Bialek's accusations were certainly specific. But they also demonstrated why anonymous accusations are worthless.

Within 24 hours of Bialek's press conference, friends and acquaintances of hers stepped forward to say that she's a "gold-digger," that she was constantly in financial trouble -- having filed for personal bankruptcy twice -- and, of course, that she had lived in Axelrod's apartment building at 505 North Lake Shore Drive, where, she admits, she knew the man The New York Times calls Obama's "hired muscle."

Throw in some federal tax evasion, and she's Obama's next Cabinet pick.

The reason all this is relevant is that both Axelrod and Daley have a history of smearing political opponents by digging up claims of sexual misconduct against them.

John Brooks, Chicago's former fire commissioner, filed a lawsuit against Daley six months ago claiming Daley threatened to smear him with sexual harassment accusations if Brooks didn't resign. He resigned -- and the sexual harassment allegations were later found to be completely false.

Meanwhile, as extensively detailed in my book Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America, the only reason Obama became a U.S. senator -- allowing him to run for president -- is that David Axelrod pulled sealed divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama's Democratic primary opponent, and then against Obama's Republican opponent.

One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was way down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader.

But then The Chicago Tribune -- where Axelrod used to work -- began publishing claims that Hull's second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.

From then until Election Day, Hull was embroiled in fighting the allegation that he was a "wife beater." He and his ex-wife eventually agreed to release their sealed divorce records. His first ex-wife, daughters and nanny defended him at a press conference, swearing he was never violent. During a Democratic debate, Hull was forced to explain that his wife kicked him and he had merely kicked her back.

Hull's substantial lead just a month before the primary collapsed with the nonstop media attention to his divorce records. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.

Luckily for Axelrod, Obama's opponent in the general election had also been divorced.

The Republican nominee was Jack Ryan, a graduate of Dartmouth and Harvard law and business schools, who had left his lucrative partnership at Goldman Sachs to teach at an inner-city school on the South Side of Chicago.

But in a child custody dispute some years earlier, Ryan's ex-wife, Hollywood sex kitten Jeri Lynn Ryan, had alleged that, while the couple was married, Jack had taken her to swingers clubs in Paris and New York.

Jack Ryan adamantly denied the allegations. In the interest of protecting their son, he also requested that the records be put permanently under seal.

Axelrod's courthouse moles obtained the "sealed" records and, in no time, they were in the hands of every political operative in Chicago. Knowing perfectly well what was in the records, Chicago Tribune attorneys flew to California and requested that the court officially "unseal" them -- over the objections of both Jack and Jeri Ryan.

Your honor, who knows what could be in these records!

A California judge ordered them unsealed, which allowed newspapers to publish the salacious allegations, and four days later, Ryan dropped out of the race under pressure from idiot Republicans (who should be tracked down and shot).

With a last-minute replacement of Alan Keyes as Obama's Republican opponent, Obama was able to set an all-time record in an Illinois Senate election, winning with a 43 percent margin.

And that's how Obama became a senator four years after losing a congressional race to Bobby Rush. (In a disastrous turn of events, Rush was not divorced.)

Axelrod destroyed the only two men who stood between Obama and the Senate with illicitly obtained, lurid allegations from their pasts.

In 2007, long after Obama was safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, The New York Times reported: "The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece (on Hull's sealed divorce records) later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had 'worked aggressively behind the scenes' to push the story."

Some had suggested, the Times article continued, that Axelrod had "an even more significant role -- that he leaked the initial story."

This time, Obama's little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the Republican primary, but also are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)$5 million lawsuit against former US president alleges one of his books on Israel intended to deceive public, promote anti-Israel agenda.


NEW YORK – A $5 million lawsuit filed in federal court in New York on Tuesday against former US President Jimmy Carter and publisher Simon & Schuster alleges that Carter’s 2006 book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid contains false information and was intended to deceive the public and promote an anti-Israel agenda.

The five plaintiffs in the suit, readers of the book, want their lawsuit, which seeks compensatory and punitive damages, to be deemed a class action, meaning that the plaintiffs would be seen to represent a much larger group – that is, everyone who purchased Carter’s $27 book.

The plaintiffs are Americans, with two of the five holding dual American-Israeli citizenship.

The suit alleges that the five plaintiffs in the suit who purchased Carter’s book, as well as others, assumed they were buying an accurate record of historic events relating to Israel and the Palestinians.

By claiming to be a Middle East expert, the suit claims, Carter and, by extension, his publisher, intentionally presented inaccurate information that was highly critical of Israel and therefore violated a New York law that makes it illegal to “engage in deceptive acts in the course of conducting business.”

According to a press release sent out by plaintiffs’ attorneys David Schoen and Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, the suit is “the first time a former President and a publishing house have been sued for violating consumer protection laws by knowingly publishing inaccurate information while promoting a book as factual.”

The complaint notes that former Carter aides and colleagues contacted Simon & Schuster with concerns about inaccuracies in the book, but that the allegations were not investigated further.

Schoen, in an e-mail to The Jerusalem Post, noted that there is precedent in New York for a class-action suit against writer and publisher “for falsely marketing as true and accurate a book that is neither.”

Similar suits, Schoen said, have been filed in New York against James Frey, the muchreviled author of the notentirely- accurate memoir A Million Little Pieces. Those suits ended in settlements.

“Ours is a much more serious subject I believe, because the book intentionally misleads and misrepresents about actual historic events and much of the public debate going on today about Israel is based on what people believe actually has transpired in past discussions, etc.,” Schoen wrote in his e-mail.

“For a former President to misstate these things obviously was anathema enough for his closest aides, supporters, and confidantes to quit over it and expose the falsehoods for what they were.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________