Saturday, January 7, 2012
Silly President, Civilian Trials are for Civilians!
.
Anyone else remember when Eric Holder said we'd try terrorists and find them guilty? When the head of the DOJ is claiming guilt without trial, doesn't that make the trial pointless?
How easy is it for a terrorist to get a mistrial? Simple, just put Eric Holder in charge. Some slick asshole lawyer will use Holder's words against him to have a mistrial declared.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Merry Christmas
Saturday, October 22, 2011
The Mormon Double Standard
These jackasses can argue all they want, but their religious beliefs are no less far-fetched. After all, Christians believe in a Bible that has been edited and re-tranlated by the most powerful among us (King James comes to mind). Most small children are able to tell that the stories held within these sacred texts have a few holes.
A great example is the story of Noah. Basically God pulled an Andrea Yates on all of his children, drowning all of them save Noah and his wife, and whatever animals happened to fit on that mythical boat of his. He flooded the lands, to accomplish this, and apparently Noah was the only guy with a boat. Every animal we have today was represented on that Ark of his? Even the tasmanian devil, giraffe, eagle, chicken, fox, wolf, polar bear, lion, tiger, bear, elk, deer, rabbit, bobcat, were on this boat. How did Noah keep them from eating each other? 40 days is a long time for these animals to survive without food, don't you agree? As of 2010 we've found over 1.3 million species of animals on earth. That comes to 2.6 million animals on a wooden ark that Noah built himself.
Many Christians are reading this and screaming "You're missing the point!" On the contrary, I'm making a point. The story of Noah was to let the faithful know that if they got out of control, God would just smite them and start over. More so, the story is an affirmation of God's power and that you should worship Him. Without faith in God, this story is little more than an obvious fabrication. My point is that Mormons and Christians of other Denominations all believe in something an agnostic like myself can only be skeptical of. It's amazing that these guys are at the throats of Mormons, who by personal experience are more pious than any of the other denominations of the Christian faith. As an agnostic, I myself believe anyone who claims to have all of the answers is either incredibly arrogant, or taking you for a ride. I chose to be an agnostic because it's the only belief humble enough to admit ignorance. I don't know for sure there's a God, because I can't prove his existence. I can't disprove the existence of a higher power either, so I simply say: "I don't know."
Now that I've addressed the idiocy of attacking religion, it's time to explore the double standard our media has for Mormon politicians. Mitt Romney has a target on his back for his mormon faith, as anyone who is paying attention would know. The mainstream media is painfully unaware that one of their champions, their golden boy from Nevada Harry Reid is a mormon. Why is Reid not under constant attack for his faith? Because Reid is a Democrat, and Democrats can do no wrong in the mainstream media's eyes.
This double standard on the faith of politicians is just one of the many ways our media has kept us uninformed and uneducated. By the way, Thomas Jefferson knew how dangerous a nation of dubasses was.
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
― Thomas Jefferson
We can't be expected to hold the media accountable, when all we care about is how our sports teams are doing. We are no different than the citizens of Rome who were distracted from the corruption of their government by the violent games of death in the coliseum. That's life in the decline of a great empire.
Friday, October 21, 2011
The Plan to Save America
One thing I've noticed, people keep saying a national sales tax will be unfair, but none seem to want to explain their position. The only valid point I've read is that seniors will be double taxed on their Roth IRA retirement. That's a problem easily fixed with an exemption, we just need a way to let retirees prove to merchants the money they're using is from a retirement fund. A checkbook or debit card would be easy enough of a fix for me.
I live in Texas, and I'm proud of my state for having no income tax. Income taxes are the enemy, they punish success and reward failure, as well as lead us down a dangerous path to communism. Now, Texas doesn't tax income, but we make up for it by taxing everything else. Fortunately, almost all of these taxes seem necessary. Common sense stuff like $0.20 per gallon of gasoline to maintain the roads, $1 per 300 pound barrel of oysters taken from Texas waters, etc.
Texas is hurting less than every other state right now, and it's because our government has the good sense to trim the fat when we have budget shortfalls. As a matter of fact, for 2011 we were facing a $27 billion shortfall. By the end of our very short legislative session which only meets every two years, we ended up with a $4 billion surplus, without touching our $9 billion rainy day fund.
Not bad for a state with no income tax revenue. The best part about living here in Texas is when tax season comes around and the federal government is raping your wallet, the state government leaves you alone.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
DOJ Will Not Investigate Attack of Civil Rights Activist
If you needed any more evidence of the level of corruption that exists inside the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) when it comes to enforcing civil rights statutes, here it is.
On March 15, 2011, civil rights activist Ted Hayes testified, by invitation, before the Judiciary Committee of the Maryland House of Delegates, against providing taxpayer dollars for in-state tuition benefits for illegal aliens. Shortly after his testimony, Mr. Hayes was subjected to vicious retribution by a radical Hispanic group known as “The Timmytop,” which posted a hate video on a YouTube channel that included racist smears and death threats.
The video begins with the message “[expletive] you ‘Mayate,’” which is reportedly a racist and derogatory term used to smear African-Americans and “dark skinned” people. The video then streams a series of racist images including: The silhouette of a man hanging from a noose; photos of Mr. Hayes adjacent to photos of monkeys and bananas; and doctored photos of Mr. Hayes pictured with a gun next to his head. The video, which runs two minutes and nine seconds, concludes with the message “Your [sic] FREE Now Mayate go back to Africa.”
The video has since been removed from its original placement on YouTube, but it is available on Judicial Watch’s website here. (If you choose to watch it, please be warned that it is extremely offensive and unfit for young eyes.)
You might think that this type of vile behavior would earn the interest of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. (That’s what we thought, too.) After all, this is the division at the DOJ that is responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations of civil rights, including, and perhaps especially, those that could have a chilling effect on the First Amendment. In this case, you have the intimidation of a witness through death threats and humiliation.
Judicial Watch filed a complaint with the DOJ regarding the matter on April 28, 2011, calling for a full investigation. And recently we received a response directly from the office of Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez (of Black Panther scandal fame). It was short and sweet:
The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted an investigation into the matter referenced in your letter. We and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California reviewed the results of that investigation and concluded that this incident does not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes. Accordingly we cannot authorize a criminal prosecution of this matter.That’s it. No further explanation. No review of the evidence “reviewed” by the DOJ. Not even a concession that the treatment of Mr. Hayes was reprehensible and wrong. Just a flat out rejection and a lame reference to the DOJ’s general commitment to “combating violations of federal law that are motivated by racial or ethnic bias.”
So here we have another in a long line of examples of corruption at the Obama DOJ concerning the enforcement of civil rights laws. Apparently the enforcement of civil rights at the DOJ no longer has anything to do with violations of the law. It’s all about racial preferences and partisan politics.
Put another way, had Ted Hayes been a left-wing activist testifying on behalf of illegal alien tuition and attacked by white “conservatives,” Perez would have sprung into action. Trust me on that.
How do I know? Just look at the record!
First, consider the Black Panther scandal discussed in the first Weekly Update story. The DOJ dismissed it’s own voter intimidation lawsuit filed against members of Black Panthers, who hurled racial epithets and threatened white voters at a polling station in 2008. The Obama adminstration said no political appointees were involved in this decision. In fact, Perez himself testified to this effect. This testimony was false. JW uncovered evidence that indeed political appointees at the highest levels inside the Obama DOJ were involved. And why is this important?
According to The Washington Post, “[DOJ attorney J. Christian] Adams and a Justice Department colleague have said the [Black Panther] case was dismissed because the department is reluctant to pursue cases against minorities accused of violating the voting rights of whites.”
Describing the environment over at the Obama DOJ, Christopher Coates, a DOJ attorney, testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that there exists at the DOJ “…a deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities and for the protection of whites who have been discriminated against.”
So, we know that the DOJ is involved in the race-based selective enforcement of civil rights laws. (Our friends (and client) over at Pajamas Media have also exposed the radical leftists being planted in the career ranks at DOJ, which further explains why a conservative seeking protection can get no justice at Justice.)
Now, Mr. Hayes is black. But he’s not in left-wing lock-step with the Obama administration on the issue of illegal alien tuition. And his attackers just happen to be part of a key voter block for the Obama 2012 re-election campign. So Mr. Hayes evidently is not entitled to any protection under law.
Remember, too, the immigration issue addressed by Mr. Hayes in the testimony that led to threats on his life. The Obama DOJ has taken a “La Raza” approach to the issue, allowing illegal alien sanctuary cities to thrive, while attacking states that want to crack down on illegal aliens. The Obama administration has also begun dismissing deportation cases against a wide range of illegal aliens, including those convicted of violent crimes.
Mr. Hayes is on the opposite side of the fence of Obama on these issues. And it is his politics that seem to define how the DOJ responded to his case. Which is just shameless and unlawful. This is yet another scandal in the Obama/Holder DOJ that ought to result in a new attorney general.
Friday, May 13, 2011
RIP Dad, Semper Fidelis
In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to the American Heart Association or the American Cancer Society .
Thursday, April 28, 2011
The BC Distraction
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions
The most amazing thing about Adolph Hitler, is the fact that he was not German (if you stayed awake in history class, you know Hitler was Austrian), yet managed to rise to the highest seat of power in Germany. He used scapegoats to explain the tough economy in Germany at the time, the Jews being the most famous, but not the only ones oppressed by Hitler's Nazi party. Why were the Jews such an easy target? Well, they have money. It's very easy to convince an ignorant uneducated population to blame their problems on people more fortunate or harder working than themselves. This is the mentality socialism thrives on, and modern socialists are still using the same tactics.
Now, I know there will be plenty of jack-holes out there calling me paranoid for saying what I'm about to say, and that's okay. After all, who's to say I'm right? I'm not even sure if I'm right, but I have suspicions based on the history I've shared above.
Today the United States of America has it's first socialist president, and the class warfare mentality is thriving in this country. Everyone that doesn't work feels entitled to the same luxuries working people enjoy. While some in America will still point to the Jews as the problem, they are generally dismissed as anti-semetic and ignorant. However, blaming wealthy people for the problems of the poor is still par for the course for a socialist government.
Hitler managed to grab power by capitalizing on disaster (the burning of the Reichstag). Who's to say our government is not doing the same thing? Some smelly terrorists knock down a couple of skyscrapers, and all of the sudden Americans are okay with having TSA Agents feel them up, make them take off there shoes, irradiate them with body scanners, etc. The government also found a way to go to war in two different countries, ignoring the fact that most of the 9/11 highjackers were from Saudi Arabia (a supposed ally). After 9/11 the government grew in scope and size, while the liberties of its citizens dwindled, and continue to dwindle. Who's the big winner in the 9/11 disaster? Well, the US Government. If you've read "The Prince" by Machiaveli, you already know what I'm getting at.
Today is not only Hitler's birthday, but also the anniversary of the Gulf Coast BP Oil disaster. This is probably a coincidence, but it raises my paranoid suspicions. One oil rig blows up, and the next thing we know the executive branch of government shuts down the entire industry. The courts ruled that the moratorium was unconstitutional, so the executive branch simply re-issued the moratorium, blatantly disrespecting the judicial branch, as well as the US Constitution. This makes oil prices go up, causing more stress on our already dying economy. Luckily, Obama's buddy George Soros happens to have just recently invested in Brazilian oil production. Just another coincidence right? I'm just being paranoid, right?
As you may have noticed, even well over halfway into his presidency, Obama has still managed to blame George W. Bush and "Rich people" for the country's economic plight. Nevermind that over half of our population is now using government assistance in some way or another. Nevermind the fact our public schools are overburdened with illegal aliens, and education standards continue to slip in this country. Nevermind the entitlements this country inspire more laziness than anything. Remember, weak economies allow socialism to fester and grow in power. Disasters are their favorite tool, as Rahm Emanuel has said, to push through otherwise unpopular ideas and policies.
There are still quite a few questions about Obama's past, as well as speculation that he is not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore, ineligible to hold the office of the President. Whether he is or not, neither side can (or is willing) to prove his eligibility either way. I personally think Obama's unilateral attack on Libya without Congressional approval is grounds enough for impeachment, but the birther movement is still quite important. Next time you say it doesn't matter whether Obama is a natural born citizen, just try and remember how German Adolph Hitler was.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Medicare actuary: Reform will cost some seniors
A Medicare official concedes that seniors may have to dig deeper into their wallets next year thanks to the health care law.
The new analysis obtained by POLITICO finds the health care overhaul will result in increased out-of-pocket costs for seniors on Medicare Advantage plans.
But Republicans say dramatic changes to the program mean some seniors won’t be able to keep their plans – a promise President Barack Obama made during the reform debate – and the GOP has made the issue part of its attempt to roll back the health law.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, says the administration is trying to downplay the effects of the overhaul on the Medicare Advantage plans.
“Painting a rosy picture of Medicare Advantage options denies the facts from the government’s own chief actuary,” he said in a statement to POLITICO. “And it’s a disservice to the 11 million current beneficiaries who count on this popular program.”
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says, in a separate letter sent recently to Grassley, the changes in the health care overhaul will end up strengthening the program.
“Next year, seniors will have new benefits, new protections against fraud, and better Medicare Advantage choices with meaningful differences at affordable premiums, and more beneficiaries will participate in the program,” she wrote.
Sebelius says that the remaining Medicare Advantage plans have higher standards to meet, stemming from a 2008 Medicare law. In addition, 99.7 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who have access to an Advantage plan this year will have it next year and that premiums are expected to decline by 1 percent next year.
Foster says the additional costs seniors face will be partially offset by other pieces of the law, including reduced cost sharing for Medicare Parts A and B, lower Part B premiums and the filling of the prescription drug donut hole.
Last week, Grassley’s office highlighted an error Sebelius made in a speech to a gathering of AARP members. She incorrectly said the number of Medicare Advantage plans would increase next year. HHS later changed the written copy of the speech online without highlighting the change, which angered Grassley.
“Despite making a limited correction last week to an earlier speech delivered in Florida, the administration refuses to set the record straight appropriately,” Grassley said.
“But a new letter from Medicare’s chief actuary is nonpartisan and indisputable. Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage will pay more out of their own pockets as a result of the new health care law. Their costs will go up by hundreds of dollars on average in the coming years, by $346 in 2011 to a high of $923 in 2017.”
CLARIFICATION: The cost estimate came from the office of the actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, an independent, non-partisan office.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43529.html#ixzz12QWJXPbo
Climate Science’s Worst Week in History
There now appears to be a photo finish in the horse race for the ‘worst week in climate science history’ with that already infamous week of the Climate-Gate hacking, aka the “East Anglia Event Horizon”. The universal increase in knowledge has been devastating to the Royalist-Monopolist-Elitist Alliance hell bent on universal serfdom.
There was so much bad news that it can only be covered as bullet points with one common theme. What had been presented as an appeal to authority, i.e. scientific consensus, is now being presented as an appeal to the COMMON PEOPLE. A point that will be emphasized throughout this article.
The week included the Michael Mann open letter in the Washington Post, begging the COMMON PEOPLE to vote for Democrats. In his best Elmer Fudd impression, Mann complains that the “waskily wepublicans will wack Mann if elected”. Yes, two coats of Penn State whitewash might not hold up under serious Congressional science inquiry.
The Eco-snuff flick “No Pressure” by the lovely 10:10 Division of the Climate Action group brought universal stinging rebukes. First, the two largest sponsors withdrew their support. Then over 20,000 supporters requested to be removed for the 10:10 rolls as supporters.
A protege of the flawed UK Climate Research Unit and a lead author of the IPCC reports was recognized to have tampered with the New Zealand temperature records. This prompted the following statement from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research: “There is no ‘official’ or formal New Zealand temperature record.”
Rumpelstiltskin Spins Fiction to Fact
The term ‘counter-intuitive’ implies an honest presentation of fact, opposed to what was expected. When applied by the warmists, it is intended to have the same effect as ‘settled’ science. Merely by being ‘counter’ it is new, revolutionary evolution of thought to be embraced without question. This week’s coating of greenwash is easy to parse.
The Imperial College and Nature magazine have announced ‘break-thru’ review of solar data, and opposite of reason, is the claim that a ‘cooling Sun, warms the Earth’. This based on a three year study of solar output and Earth temperatures. The study included this quote:
“The idea that science might not have quite understood the Sun’s effect on Climate should not provide ammunition for Climate Change skeptics.”
Thankfully the Earth is NOT a thermal Yo-Yo and there is a three year lag-time for response, rendering this study useless. But at least they are now looking at the SUN as a possible climate factor. It is proper to utilize nursery rhyme analogies to emphasize the adolescent thoughts and actions of this most juvenile branch of science.
The November issues of ‘Popular Science’ and ‘Popular Mechanics’ arrived with virtually NO mention of human caused climate change. Popular Science had a half-page article on a new waste fat bio-fuel conversion process and Popular Mechanics had a two- page comparison of the electric Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf. Neither of these articles made any mention that bio-fuels or EV autos would be of saving the planet.
It has been almost one year since the Hadley hacking and neither Pop Science nor Pop Mechanics have made one mention of this epic, history-making event. But that subject is now going to be unavoidable after a few more of this week events.
It’s Waterloo for You Know Who
Facing mass revolt from its determined objective members, the Royal Society was forced to back off from the previous total endorsement of the ‘human caused climate’ FRAUD. The RS issued new guide lines which included the following statements:
“Lack of access to the latest knowledge about climate research is one of the primary reason[s] for the constant doubt and misinformation in the minds of COMMON PEOPLE”
Yes, COMMON PEOPLE are too stupid to neglect ALL information that is not filtered by the PROPER authority figure. The RS then amplified this statement urging mob rule to demand immediate action:
“COMMON PEOPLE armed with the right scientific knowledge would certainly exert pressure on their respective governments to take action on Climate Change.”
Yes, COMMON PEOPLE of the world rise up and demand to be placed in carbon shackles and chains. Adding to the UK woes, the BBC was forced to admit bias and issued the following statement:
“The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.”
While disgust for this arrogant royalist behavior is rising in the UK, a giant of American science dropped a bomb on the science monopolists of the western hemisphere. Dr. Hal Lewis, a 67-year member of the American Physical Society announced his resignation. His letter is an instant classic in the science freedom movement and too important to be paraphrased or used for bullet quotes. The Dr. Lewis letter is a must read.
Apparently the loss of such a distinguished member must have aroused the over 48,000 members of the APS and the leadership was forced to issue a reply. This reply is posted at ‘Watts Up With That’, along with a brilliant running commentary. Again, too important to paraphrase, but there is one APS statement that should give interested reader’s some insight:
“We know now that the existing APS Statement on Climate Change was developed literally over lunch by a few people, after the duly constituted Committee had signed off on a more moderate statement.”
Anthony Watts goes on to describe the rampant conflicts of interest of APS board members, the ‘green industry’ and government research funding. Expect mass resignations by this corrupt board and a reinstatement of dear Dr. Lewis with full honors. The speed of these events is staggering, and a full week has yet to pass.
It is time for the COMMON PEOPLE to rise up against the Royalist, Monopolists and Elitist Alliance. They have intentionally dumbed-down our schools, corrupted our governments, systematically lied through their puppet media and bankrupted us with fiat financing. It is time for universal freedom from these tyrants.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Gallup: 46 Percent Say U.S. Government 'Poses Immediate Threat to the Rights and Freedoms' of U.S. Citizens | CNSnews.com
(CNSNews.com) - The percentage of Americans who think the federal government poses “an immediate threat” to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens has increased significantly over the last seven years, rising from 30 percent to 46 percent, according to a Gallup poll conducted Sept. 13-16 and released today.
Only 51 percent of Americans now say they do not think the federal government poses “an immediate threat” to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.
Similarly, the percentage of Americans who think the federal government has too much power has also significantly increased, from 39 percent in 2002 to 59 percent today.
In its Sept. 13-16 polling, Gallup asked the 46 percent of respondents who said that they think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of Americans in “what ways” they think the government is posing this threat. The top four answers were that the government has too many laws and is too big in general, that it is too involved in people’s private lives, that it is threatening freedom of speech, and that the health-care law signed by President Barack Obama is a threat.
Since 2003, Gallup has periodically asked adult Americans this question: “Do you think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens, or not?”
When Gallup first asked the question in September 2003, 30 percent said, yes, they did think the federal government posed an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens and 68 percent said, no, it did not. In September 2004, 35 percent said, yes, and 63 percent said, no. In September 2005, 37 percent said, yes, and 62 percent said, no. And in September 2006, 44 percent said, yes, and 54 percent said, no.
This September, 46 percent said, yes, they think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Only 51 percent said, no.
Gallup asked the 46 percent who said yes, this follow-up question: “In what ways do you see the government posing an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of its citizens?” The answers broke down as follows:
Answer Percentage
Too many laws/Gov’t too big in general 18
Too much involvement in people's private lives 17
Taking away freedom of speech/violating First Amendment 15
Healthcare law 11
Socialist government 8
Overtaxing/Taxes too high 7
Taking away freedom of religion 6
Gun control/violating Second Amendment 6
Failing to secure borders/Illegal immigration 3
Over-regulation/Too much involvement in business 3
Too much spending 2
Marriage issue 2
Other 3
None/Nothing 2
No opinion 9
Republicans and Independents were more likely than Democrats to say they think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Sixty-six percent of Republicans said this was the case, 49 percent of Independents, and 21 percent of Democrats.
Since 2002, Gallup has also periodically asked this question: “Do you think the federal government today has too much power, has about the right amount of power, or has too little power?” When Gallup most recently asked this question in its poll conducted Sept. 13-16, 59 percent said the federal government has too much power, 33 percent said it has the right amount of power, and 8 percent said it has too little power.
In a poll conducted, Sept. 5-8, 2002, only 39 percent said they thought the federal government had too much power, while 52 percent said it had the right amount of power, and 7percent said it had too little power.
Gallup has asked this question about the federal government's power ten times over the last eight years. The last time fewer than 50 percent of Americans said they thought the federal government had too much power was in a poll conducted Sept. 13-15, 2004. At that time 42 percent said the federal government had too much power, 49 percent said it had the right amount of power, and 7 percent said it had too little power.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Boxer Tied to Dubious Waters Cash-for-Endorsement Scheme
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee, has paid some $30,000 since 2004 for the endorsement of embattled Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) in the context of a scheme that critics charge is unethical and amounts to Waters using her political station to benefit her family members.
According to the Washington Times, Waters “has turned political endorsements into a family business, using federal election laws to charge California candidates and political causes to include their names as her personal picks on a sample ballot, or ‘slate mailer,’ she sends to as many as 200,000 South Central Los Angeles voters.”
The slate mailer business, it turns out, is run by Waters’ daughter, Karen, via her public relations firm. Records show that Karen Waters’ firm has been paid more than $350,000 since 2004, and has billed a further $82,000 since California’s June primary, for its services in this regard.
It is a scheme that has been criticized by good governance groups including the Sunlight Foundation and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
The Sunlight Foundation, in a blog post last month, equated the scheme to Waters “selling” her endorsement and noted that the amounts of money being paid to Waters’ own campaign committee in exchange for her endorsement often exceed the federal limit applicable to campaign donations.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) meanwhile cited Waters as one of the most corrupt members of Congress in both 2005 and 2006 for operating the scheme. In both years, CREW noted that Waters’ “ethics issues stem from the exercise of [her] power to financially benefit her daughter, husband and son.” The 2005 rating placed Waters in the company of figures like former Reps. Randy “Duke” Cunningham and Bob Ney—both subsequently convicted of corruption-related offenses—and was directly connected to the operation of the political endorsement scheme.
Critics charge that Boxer has actively aided and abetted this scheme, both in the context of her 2004 and 2010 re-election campaigns.
In 2004, Boxer paid $25,000 for Waters’ endorsement. But ahead of this year’s California primary—in which Boxer faced no serious competition– and when it was well-known that Waters was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, Boxer paid Waters $5,000 for her backing. It is this later payment that those monitoring Waters’ ethical woes say could act as an anchor tied to Boxer’s ankle, as she heads towards November.
“The amount is lower than what Boxer paid in 2004, yes,” said one Republican operative with whom we spoke. “But the Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee paying for an endorsement of an official under investigation for ethics infractions connected to her using her standing to benefit her family when that fact has been widely reported presents a major optics problem, to say the least. Ethics are already something of a surprise Achilles Heel for Boxer. Her committee let Chris Dodd off the hook, and she’s been criticized for using her repeat candidacies for the financial benefit of her family, too.” Added that operative, “This is an attack ad waiting to happen.”
Indeed, Boxer has been called out for steering about $500,000 in contributions made to her political action committee to her son’s consulting firm between 2001 and 2009. Like Waters’ scheme, this arrangement has attracted the attention of CREW, which focused on Boxer in a 2007 exposé entitled “Family Affair.” “Waters’ problems run far deeper, of course,” said the same operative. “But there are some interesting parallels here, to be sure.”
Boxer is facing what some observers say is her toughest political contest in a career that spans three decades, facing off against former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. The three-term Senator has previously said that she does not expect Democratic ethics scandals, including that of Waters, to affect the race.
Real Clear Politics’ polling average places Boxer about 4 points ahead of Fiorina, with recent SurveyUSA polling showing Fiorina ahead. The race has been rated a “toss-up” by numerous pollsters and analysts.
Teen: Security Told Me To Remove U.S. Flags
NORTHGLENN, Colo. -- A high school student in Northglenn is upset that campus security told him to remove the large American flags flying from his pickup truck because it might make others uncomfortable.
Jeremy Stoppel told 7NEWS he got a ticket at Northglenn High School last Thursday for squealing his tires. He said he deserved that ticket and deserved having his parking lot pass suspended for two weeks.
But he's upset that campus security then told him he can't fly his 3 feet by 5 feet flags in the bed of his pickup truck anymore.
"She said I should take my flags down. She said this is a school that focuses on diversity and she doesn't want anyone to feel uncomfortable," Stoppel said. "How do you suppose anyone would feel uncomfortable in America with an American flag? That's where I'm confused."
He said he started flying his flags around school last week.
"Now that I finally get to drive to school, I have a truck, that's what I want to do. I want to fly my flags. September 11th is coming up so I wanted to fly them in honor of that," said Stoppel, who said his cousin is serving in the Navy.
Stoppel and his father want an apology from that security supervisor.
"To me, she's just threatening him, hoping that she can just bully him so he'll just take 'em down and just put his tail between his legs and say, 'I'm done. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.' And that's just not gonna happen," said Dan Stoppel, Jeremy's father.
7NEWS checked and the school has no policy against flying the American flag. In fact, Northglenn High School has a U.S. flag on the flag pole in front of the school.
"I am unaware of that situation. So I need to talk to that person, see why they did that, if they did that," said Northglenn High School principal Dr. Mary Lindimore. "We have 'em in the hallways upstairs. So we promote flying of American flags."
There is a policy that bans anything that creates a safety problem or which disrupts the educational environment.
When 7NEWS asked Lindimore if she could imagine any scenario in which the American flag would disrupt the educational environment, Lindimore said no.
Lindimore promised to talk to the security supervisor next week.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Audits: ICE isn't cracking down on illegal immigrant employers
Immigration inspectors poring over the hiring paperwork of a California company last summer found that 262 employees — a whopping 93 percent of the total workforce — had “suspect” documents on file.
At an Illinois service company, auditors found dubious documents for nearly 8 in 10 of its 200-plus employees.
Inspectors examining records at a Texas manufacturing firm found suspicious paperwork for more than half of the 107 employees on the payroll.
But the companies didn’t pay a penny in fines. None of the employers was led away in handcuffs. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials didn’t even issue them a formal warning, the agency’s internal records show.
Instead, they were instructed to purge their payrolls of illegal immigrants. Armed with assurances that the employees with suspect documents were fired — or, in the Texas case, “self-terminated” — the ICE auditors closed the cases.
The cases are just a few examples included in ICE’s internal records on its audit initiative, an enforcement program launched last July by Obama administration officials.
In the past, ICE had faced criticism for raiding job sites and rounding up large numbers of illegal immigrants for deportation, but not necessarily building cases against employers. With the audit initiative, ICE aims to scrutinize the hiring records of more businesses and impose what top officials describe as “tough” and “smart” employer sanctions.
But ICE audit records obtained recently through a Freedom of Information Act request show that the agency has, in many instances, failed to punish companies found to have significant numbers or high percentages of workers with questionable documents. In response to the public records request, ICE provided limited details on about 430 audit cases listed as “closed” by the agency through February.
The records show inspectors identified more than 110 companies with suspect documents, with nearly half of those having questionable paperwork for 10 or more workers.
No employers arrested
In total, the agency ordered 14 companies to pay fines of nearly $150,000, but noted no employer arrests in connection with any of the cases. ICE agents in Atlanta also reached an agreement with a manufacturing firm that had questionable records on file for 574 of its 1,187 employees. The agreement allowed the company to avoid criminal prosecution on the condition that it complies with certain ICE requirements, though ICE would not provide additional details.
ICE also has refused to disclose the names or locations of companies found through the auditing process to have hired illegal immigrants, saying the businesses have a right to “personal privacy.” The agency did, however, include the location of the ICE field office assigned to each case.
ICE officials insist the audits and the agency’s broader strategy of aggressively pursuing employers are getting results.
'You need evidence’
They point to the fact that this fiscal year the agency has ordered businesses to pay a record-setting $4.6 million in civil penalties and has arrested more than 150 employers, managers or supervisors. However, some of the arrests stem from investigations going back several years. And the fines reflect enforcement actions that date as far back as 2007, including $360,000 from the 2008 raid of a Houston rag factory and more than $536,000 from a 2007 Ohio chicken factory raid.
ICE did not have a breakdown of how much of the $4.6 million or how many of the arrests stemmed directly from the audit initiative, which began in July 2009.
Brett Dreyer, the head of ICE’s worksite enforcement unit, said that ICE attempts to determine which employers may have been duped into unintentionally accepting fraudulent documents from employees, and which ones are “turning a blind eye” to workers’ legal status.
“We look at each of these cases to see if they’re doing that, because that’s the main purpose of this program — check employers’ compliance and make sure that they’re obeying the law,” Dreyer said. “But you need evidence. You need facts. And if we don’t have that, we can’t charge them.”
Several gray areas
Immigration experts said some cases that seem egregious on the surface, like the company with 93 percent of its workers providing suspect documents, may actually have complied with the letter of the law and not be subject to penalties.
“You could have a vast majority of workers ultimately be found to be in undocumented status and yet still have a good faith employer simply because of the way the system works,” said Charles Foster, a Houston immigration attorney who specializes in employer compliance.
Foster said an employer cannot require more than a Social Security card that looks “reasonably genuine” on its face, or he risks committing an unfair employment practice.
Cost of doing business
In July 2009, ICE officials announced plans to serve 654 companies with notice of plans to audit their employment paperwork. In November, ICE announced plans to target an additional 1,000 companies.
In the two rounds of audits, inspectors examined more than 221,000 I-9 forms and identified 22,155 “suspect documents,” which can signal an employee is in the country illegally and lacks work authorization, or that the employer made a simple clerical error on the forms, ICE officials said.
But critics charge that ICE’s new strategy is soft on both illegal immigrants, who generally are not placed into deportation proceedings, and employers who can claim ignorance about fake documents and avoid penalties.
U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, said the audits can be an effective part of an overall enforcement strategy, but that many employers consider them just a cost of doing business.
“They are not an effective deterrent on their own, and do nothing to bring justice in egregious cases,” Smith said.
Immigrant advocates estimated the audits, frequently referred to as “silent raids,” have cost thousands of workers their jobs. Angela Kelley, with the Center for American Progress, said the strategy appears to be more thoughtful than the worksite enforcement raids of the previous administration, but the impact is “equally as devastating.”
“You have this drip, drip, drip of I-9 enforcement audits all over the country, and it has the same effect — people don’t come to work the next day,” she said.
susan.carroll@chron.com
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown
The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.
Against this backdrop, the president’s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer, with the latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of US voters dropping to minus 22 points, the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office. While just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president’s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, strongly disapprove. According to Rasmussen, 65 per cent of voters believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents.
The RealClearPolitics average of polls now has President Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving.
Related link: The Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime
There are an array of reasons behind the stunning decline and political fall of President Obama, chief among them fears over the current state of the US economy, with widespread concern over high levels of unemployment, the unstable housing market, and above all the towering budget deficit. Americans are increasingly rejecting President Obama’s big government solutions to America’s economic woes, which many fear will lead to the United States sharing the same fate as Greece.
Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President’s aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lacklustre handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire.
On the national security and foreign policy front, President Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one.
Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.
1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people
In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.
2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership
This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.
3. Obama fails to inspire
In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2006 Convention speech in Chicago which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.
4. The United States is drowning in debt
The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.
5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat
The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.
6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake
In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”
7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.
8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration
It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.
9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security
From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.
10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness
Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.
There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.
This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.
Local Democrats wish death upon Sarah Palin
There’s only one way the tragic airplane crash in Alaska that ended the life of former-U.S. Senator Ted Stevens could have been better, according to New Hampshire Democratic activist and State Rep. candidate Keith Halloran: If Sarah Palin had been on it.
In a Facebook post, Halloran, who describes himself as “an active local citizen and supporter of NH Governor John Lynch,” said of the plane crash, “Just wish Sarah and Levy were on board.”
Democratic State Rep. candidate wants Sarah Palin dead
Halloran serves on the Rindge, NH Planning Board and is a Democratic candidate for State Representative in Cheshire County. He is a prominent supporter of Democratic frontrunner Ann McLane Kuster, who is running for Congress in NH-02. His comment appeared in response to a post by another Facebook user on the tragedy.
New Hampshire Republicans were not pleased with Halloran’s remarks.
“Mr. Halloran’s outrageous comments are a new low, even by the standards of the New Hampshire Democrat Party,” said New Hampshire GOP spokesman Ryan Williams. “His publicly stated death wish for Governor Palin and her family is abhorrent, and has no place in public discourse. Governor Lynch and Ann McLane Kuster need to immediately denounce Mr. Halloran’s hateful remarks and demand that he personally apologize to the Palin family.”
Halloran isn’t alone among New Hampshire Democratic leaders in wishing ill toward the controversial former Republican Vice Presidential nominee.
Natch Greyes, a staffer for Democratic Rep. and Senate hopeful Paul Hodes tweeted the following on July 21st: “I have to wonder if & or when @sarahpalinusa will learn the meaning of our state motto: “live free or die.”
Anatomy of a Smear: Left-Media’s Too-Good-to-Be-True Rand Paul Scoop Debunked… by the Original Source
Earlier this week, Left-Wing Gentlemen’s Quarterly (aka GQ) landed a big scoop that was destined to alter the shape of the 2010 elections, if not American politics as we know it: an anonymous source said Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul kidnapped a woman while attending Baylor university and forced her to take illegal drugs. From the article published August 9th at 10:55am:
According to this woman, who requested anonymity because of her current job as a clinical psychologist, “He and Randy came to my house, they knocked on my door, and then they blindfolded me, tied me up, and put me in their car. They took me to their apartment and tried to force me to take bong hits. They’d been smoking pot.” After the woman refused to smoke with them, Paul and his friend put her back in their car and drove to the countryside outside of Waco, where they stopped near a creek. “They told me their god was ‘Aqua Buddha’ and that I needed to bow down and worship him,” the woman recalls. “They blindfolded me and made me bow down to ‘Aqua Buddha’ in the creek. I had to say, ‘I worship you Aqua Buddha, I worship you.’ At Baylor, there were people actively going around trying to save you and we had to go to chapel, so worshiping idols was a big no-no.”
The gossip had been online just an hour and a half before Politico JournoListo Ben Smith reported it to his ample audience at 12:28pm. Key quote:
This allegation from Jason Zengerle’s GQ profile of Rand Paul is a bit too big a deal to be left in its ether of anonymity and non-denial.
Yes, Rand Paul hadn’t publicly denied the allegations within 93 minutes of their publication, so it was time for Smith to play them up! Mind you, this same Ben Smith won’t mention an on-the-record whistle-blower charging the DOJ with discrimination, but a decades-old off-the-record charge against a Tea Party Republican is worthy of his investigative journalism and online real estate. In Smith’s defense, the mistake might be due to the fact that he no longer has his fellow JournoListas to bounce stories off of before taking the plunge.
So the meme spread. And lo and behold, Rand Paul decides it’s worth publicly denying the charges against him. In fact, he went on the offensive and threatened to sue GQ for reporting false allegations. Paul went on record to Fox News and stated, “No, I never was involved with kidnapping. No, I never was involved with forcibly drugging people.” Paul’s spokesman, Jesse Benton, referred to the GQ piece as “a libel story” and said that they are considering pressing charges.
Not yet aware of Paul’s unequivocal denial, GQ doubled down:
We’ve vetted, researched, and exhaustively fact-checked Jason Zengerle’s reporting on Rand Paul’s college days,” GQ editor Jim Nelson said in a statement. “We stand by the story, and we gave the Paul campaign every opportunity to refute it. We notice that they have not, in fact, refuted it.”
Well, now they have. But the journalism malpractice on the part of GQ and others who rushed to spread the meme like Politico’s Smith is fully exposed when the magazine’s anonymous source came out of hiding and dropped this bomb to left-wing blogger Greg Sargent at the Washington Post’s Plum Line blog:
The woman — who was made available to me for an interview by GQ reporter Jason Zengerle in response to the Paul campaign’s denunciations of his article — said she didn’t mean to imply that she was kidnapped “in a legal sense.”
“The whole thing has been blown out of proportion,” she told me. “They didn’t force me, they didn’t make me. They were creating this drama: `We’re messing with you.’”
The woman said that much of the subsequent coverage of her allegations missed a key nuance: As a participant in a college ritual, where lines between acquiescence and victimization are often blurry, she was largely playing along with the notion that she was being forced to follow Paul’s orders.
“I went along because they were my friends,” she said. “There was an implicit degree of cooperation in the whole thing…
Hoisted with your own petard! To GQ, this anonymous woman said the GOP Senate candidate kidnapped her and tried to force her to take illegal drugs, but when she witnessed a man’s character being publicly assassinated by an adversarial media, her tune changed.
And now you understand the anatomy of a smear. Partisan press wildly exaggerates a story based on flimsy evidence, the story is granted credence by allegedly objective media outlets, and a candidate is toxified. They are at war, and this is how they fight.
Thoughtcrime: D.C. Reporter Suspended for Accurate Report on BP’s Donations to Obama
WJLA-TV, a Washington, D.C. ABC affiliate, suspended reporter Doug McKelway following his alleged “partisan” comments at a liberal rally on Capitol Hill marking the three-month anniversary of the Gulf oil spill. Video of the broadcast tells a different story:
Apparently facts are now “partisan.”
McKelway stuck to the truth about BP’s political contributions and pending cap-and-trade legislation, newsworthy subjects given that the event’s organizers were lobbying to “pass legislation to end America’s addiction to oil and urged lawmakers to donate campaign money raised from the oil industry to the clean-up efforts in the Gulf.”
According to the Washington Post, it was McKelway’s supposedly controversial comments on July 20 that led to his suspension. Anonymous sources at the station are now accusing him of “insubordination” in an apparent attempt to fire him.
McKelway’s live report began with a factually correct statement about BP’s donations to President Obama. McKelway accurately noted that Obama received $77,051 from the BP employees, information verified by the Center for Responsive Politics.
When McKelway asked one of the event’s participants to comment on it, Ted Glick of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network acknowledged it was a problem for Obama. The rally was organized by left-wing groups Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Public Citizen.
At the end of the live segment, McKelway talked about the prospect of cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate, a topic related to the rally, which urged lawmakers to “take immediate action to pass climate and energy legislation.”
Nevertheless, the Washington Post, quoting anonymous sources, indicated McKelway’s report crossed the line. The newspaper reported:
According to several of McKelway’s colleagues, the newsman’s reporting may have lapsed into partisan territory when he commented live on the air about the oil industry’s influence in Washington, particularly its contributions to Democratic politicians and legislators.
This is absolutely absurd. The Post’s decision to use anonymous sources to smear McKelway was bad enough, but reporter Paul Farhi also wrote a subjective description of the broadcast instead of simply stating the facts. The newspaper’s own reporters engage in flagrant partisan behavior on a daily basis.
WJLA’s station manager and news director declined to comment on the personnel matter. McKelway isn’t talking either.
Based on what we know — and discounting the questionable and anonymous sources in Farhi’s story — it appears this is a classic case of the mainstream media silencing those who report inconvenient truths about this administration. McKelway is a veteran newsman who has consistently strived for balance in reporting. Unfortunately, in a news environment like Washington, D.C, liberals don’t always like the facts. In this case, McKelway appears to have suffered the consequences.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Students at Lincoln Memorial Told to Stop Singing National Anthem
A group of high school students attending a conservative leadership conference in Washington, D.C. said they were ordered by a security guard to stop singing the national anthem during a June 25 visit to the Lincoln Memorial.
“They told them to stop singing,” said Evan Gassman, a spokesman for the Young America’s Foundation. “I was taken aback. You wouldn’t expect a display of national patriotism to be censored."
U.S. Park Police confirmed that the students were in violation of federal law and their impromptu performance constituted a demonstration in an area that must remain “completely content neutral.”
“The area they were standing in and singing is an area that is restricted for this type of activity,” said Sgt. David Schlosser. “The United States Park Police is absolutely content-neutral when it comes to any sort of demonstrations in these areas.”
Schlosser explained that performances, regardless of content, are banned to “maintain a contemplative and reverent area for the Lincoln Memorial, for the other guests and visitors.”
The incident occurred on June 25 as students were taking a monument tour of the nation’s capital. The decision to sing the national anthem at the memorial was a spur of the moment event, according to Shawn Balcomb, of Richmond Hill, GA.
“We got maybe two lines in and a police officer came over and he was yelling,” Balcomb said in a telephone interview. “He quieted us down.” Balcomb, 17, said the officer told the group they were being too loud. “I was dumbfounded,” he said.
“I didn’t realize there was something wrong with singing the national anthem.”
Schlosser said the students would have been in compliance had they moved approximately 25 steps from where they were standing.
“It’s not the content of their activity – that being the national anthem – it’s the location,” he said. “A couple steps and it would have been no problem whatsoever.”
Instead of doing as they were instructed, Gassman said the students resumed the song – an impromptu form of civil disobedience.
“If their idea of civil disobedience is singing the national anthem, then so be it,” Gassman said. “Let them disobey.”
YAF posted video reportedly shot just after the alleged encounter with the security officer. It shows students loudly singing the anthem.
“That’s the most offensive thing out of all this,” he said.
“They really did not provide the students a reason,” said Gassman. Balcomb, who is a high school senior, said they didn’t intend on creating a ruckus – they just wanted to show their patriotism.
“It’s not like we sounded great or anything,” he said.
“We just wanted to pay respect to our nation – in our capital.”
Schlosser, who commended the students on their musical ability, said the students were not cited and to his knowledge no report was filed.
“We need to make certain that all other visitors that don’t want to be a part of that or just choose to be tourists are able to do so in the same light that probably President Lincoln wanted – which is completely content neutral,” he said.
Rangel's rambling floor speech has House Dems wishing they didn't recognize him
They had reason to feel ill. Rangel had trampled all over their plan to make the day about teachers and cops. In a larger sense, his determination to answer charges before November is guaranteed to crowd out any message the Democrats were hoping to deliver before voters punish them in the midterm elections.
Republicans were delighted with the problem Rangel had just caused for his party. "It was a Charlie Rangel moment, but it could have been a Jim Traficant moment," Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) observed, recalling the Ohio Democrat's angry defiance as he was expelled eight years ago en route to prison.
The charges against Rangel aren't as heavy as those against Traficant, but there was something wild about the usually composed New Yorker. His jacket was open, his tie askew and his pocket handkerchief spilling from its place. His speech was, literally, a stemwinder: He stood back from the lectern, bending at the waist as he spoke without benefit of notes or apparent structure. He admitted that his lawyers begged him not to antagonize the ethics committee, and that his friends pleaded that he not give a speech on the floor.
But Rangel defied both. "I have a primary next month," he explained, and the charges won't be resolved by then. "Don't leave me swinging in the wind until November," the lawmaker begged, comparing his own ethics plight to the fiscal "emergency" that brought the House back into session. "What about me?" asked the 80-year-old Rangel, who said, "I don't want to die before the hearing."
Republicans were only too happy to lend Rangel their support. "It is certainly unfortunate that members of the Democratic leadership have allowed this to go on for two years without a resolution," Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence said as he left the chamber.
Rangel rambled through the allegations against him. Fundraising with official letterhead: "Grabbing the wrong stationery." The center named after him at the City University of New York: "A broken-down building." The office in the rent-controlled apartment: "The landlord has said he didn't treat me differently." The unpaid taxes on his Caribbean vacation place: "You'd have to be a tax expert" to get that right, said the deposed chairman of the tax-writing committee.
The diatribe was directed mostly at his own side of the aisle, where "no one is coming forward saying Rangel is not corrupt." He said he was told that his colleagues "all love you . . . but they love themselves better." He mocked those who turned against him for political expediency: "Do what you have to do."
Repeatedly, he dared his colleagues to vote on his fate. "Are you going to expel me from this body?" he demanded. "Are you going to say that while there's no evidence that I took a nickel, asked for a nickel, that there's no sworn testimony, no conflict, that I have to leave here?"
The angry lawmaker left his colleagues with two words: "Go home."
Federal workers earning double their private counterparts
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.
Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.
The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.
Public employee unions say the compensation gap reflects the increasingly high level of skill and education required for most federal jobs and the government contracting out lower-paid jobs to the private sector in recent years.
"The data are not useful for a direct public-private pay comparison," says Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union.
Chris Edwards, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, thinks otherwise. "Can't we now all agree that federal workers are overpaid and do something about it?" he asks.
Last week, President Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for 2,900 political appointees. For the rest of the 2-million-person federal workforce, Obama asked for a 1.4% across-the-board pay hike in 2011, the smallest in more than a decade. Federal workers also would qualify for seniority pay hikes.
Congressional Republicans want to cancel the across-the-board increase in 2011, which would save $2.2 billion.
"Americans are fed up with public employee pay scales far exceeding that in the private sector," says Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the second-ranking Republican in the House.
Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., says a pay freeze would unfairly scapegoat federal workers without addressing real budget problems.
What the data show:
•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.
•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.
•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime: extravagant and out of touch with the American people
What the great French historian Alexis de Tocqueville would make of today’s Obama administration were he alive today is anyone’s guess. But I would wager that the author of L’Ancien Régime and Democracy in America would be less than impressed with the extravagance and arrogance on display among the White House elites that rule America as though they had been handed some divine right to govern with impunity.
It is the kind of impunity that has been highlighted on the world stage this week by Michelle Obama’s hugely costly trip to Spain, which has prompted a New York Post columnist Andrea Tantaros to dub the First Lady a contemporary Marie Antoinette. As The Telegraph reports, while the Obamas are covering their own vacation expenses such as accommodation, the trip may cost US taxpayers as much as $375,000 in terms of secret service security and flight costs on Air Force Two.
The timing of this lavish European vacation could not have come at a worse moment, when unemployment in America stands at 10 percent, and large numbers of Americans are fighting to survive financially in the wake of the global economic downturn. It sends a message of indifference, even contempt, for the millions of Americans who are struggling just to feed their families on a daily basis and pay the mortgage, while the size of the national debt balloons to Greek-style proportions.
While the liberal-dominated US mainstream media have largely ignored the story, it is all over the blogosphere and talk radio, and will undoubtedly add to the President’s free falling poll ratings. As much as the media establishment turn a blind eye to stories like this, which are major news in the international media, the American public is increasingly turning to alternative news sources, including the British press, which has a far less deferential approach towards the White House.
The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Marbella and the complete disregard for public opinion and concerns over excessive government spending is symbolic of a far wider problem with the Obama presidency – the overarching disdain for the principles of limited government, individual liberty and free enterprise that have built the United States over the course of nearly two and a half centuries into the most powerful and free nation on earth.
It is epitomised above all by the President’s relentless drive towards big government against the will of the American people, and the dramatic increases in government spending and borrowing, which threaten to leave the US hugely in debt for generations. It is also showcased by Barack Obama’s drive towards a socialised health care system, which, as I’ve noted before, is “a thinly disguised vanity project for a president who is committed to transforming the United States from the world’s most successful large-scale free enterprise economy, to a highly interventionist society with a massive role for centralized government.”
There is however a political revolution fast approaching Washington that is driven not by mob rule but by the power of ideas and principles, based upon the ideals of the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution. It is a distinctly conservative revolution that is sweeping America and is reflected in almost every poll ahead of this November’s mid-terms. It is based on a belief in individual liberty, limited government, and above all, political accountability from the ruling elites. The Obama administration’s mantra may well be “let them eat cake”, as it continues to gorge itself on taxpayers’ money, but it will be looking nervously over its shoulder as public unease mounts.
Remember King's Dream?
So, I invite all my readers, left & right, to read the speech that galvanized the civil rights movement. Dr. King's wisdom is invaluable, but only if we remember and use it.
I HAVE A DREAM
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
\And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

