Thursday, April 29, 2010
Texas lawmakers closely watching Arizona
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6978757.html
AUSTIN — Texas lawmakers are closely watching Arizona's get-tough immigration law, with some Republicans saying they will push for similar action here while Democrats say the legislation is wrongheaded and the GOP would suffer politically for the attempt.
“The first priority for any elected official is to make sure that the safety and security of Texans is well-established,” said Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball. “If our federal government did their job, then Arizona wouldn't have to take this action, and neither would Texas.”
Riddle introduced a similar measure last legislative session — it stalled in committee — and said she will do the same when the Legislature meets in regular session in January.
Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, called the Arizona law “extremely damaging and hateful” and said any attempt to replicate it in Texas would not pass, but would damage the GOP.
Any such measure that gains traction “just adds to the Democratic side,” said Van de Putte, a former president of the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators.
She said she has scotched Arizona travel plans.
“I will not step into that state, and every single group that I'm a part of, if they plan a meeting there, I will not go, and I will ask all of my colleagues to please not go,” she said. “If my family would be treated differently just because of the color of their skin, then I don't want to be in that state.”
‘A different relationship'
The Arizona law, which has sparked protests and questions over its constitutionality, would require local and state lawmen to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to believe they may be in the country illegally. The measure would make it a crime under Arizona state law if immigrants lack registration documents. They could face arrest, a jail term of up to six months and a fine.
Jim Harrington, of the Texas Civil Rights Project, predicted “zero” chance of a similar effort here, saying Texas has “a different relationship with the Hispanic community.”
Such a push “would cause an enormous political transformation of the state a lot quicker than it's happening at this point,” Harrington said. “It would galvanize the Hispanic community astronomically.”
Asked about the Arizona law, GOP Gov. Rick Perry and his Democratic challenger, Bill White, emphasized through spokespeople that immigration is a federal responsibility.
“You can take the political temperature by just looking at Rick Perry being quiet,” Harrington said.
In Washington, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a U.S. Senate hearing Tuesday that the Obama administration has concerns about Arizona's action and that a Justice Department review is under way to determine the law's constitutionality.
“We believe it will detract from and siphon resources that we need to focus on those in the country illegally who are committing the most serious crimes in addition to violating our nation's immigration laws,” said Napolitano, who was governor of Arizona until joining the Obama administration.
Seen as misguided
Even if the Arizona law is constitutional, she said it is misguided because it would hamper trust between law enforcement investigating crimes such as domestic violence, human trafficking, even routine traffic accidents. Napolitano said she hoped the federal government's review would be complete before the Arizona law takes effect in late July or early August.
The Texas Association of Business' Bill Hammond said that while it is likely similar legislation will be filed in the Lone Star State, “I think and hope there's little likelihood the Texas Legislature would pass anything so misguided as what they've done in Arizona. I think it is blatantly unconstitutional.”
‘Proud of Arizona'
Whether the Arizona move could increase immigration to Texas is an open question. Harrington said he does not think so, partly because people who go to Arizona typically come from a different part of Mexico than those who come to Texas.
But Rep. David Swinford, R-Dumas, former State Affairs Committee chairman who did not advance immigration measures in 2007 because he said he was advised they would violate constitutional standards, said the Arizona action could increase immigration to Texas. He said he expects a similar push here but also expects Arizona to face a court fight.
“I'm real proud of Arizona,” said Swinford. “A lot of this stuff we wanted to do, we just couldn't do because I didn't want Texas going bankrupt trying to defend it in the courts. ...”
Gary Martin contributed to this report from Washington.
AUSTIN — Texas lawmakers are closely watching Arizona's get-tough immigration law, with some Republicans saying they will push for similar action here while Democrats say the legislation is wrongheaded and the GOP would suffer politically for the attempt.
“The first priority for any elected official is to make sure that the safety and security of Texans is well-established,” said Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball. “If our federal government did their job, then Arizona wouldn't have to take this action, and neither would Texas.”
Riddle introduced a similar measure last legislative session — it stalled in committee — and said she will do the same when the Legislature meets in regular session in January.
Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, called the Arizona law “extremely damaging and hateful” and said any attempt to replicate it in Texas would not pass, but would damage the GOP.
Any such measure that gains traction “just adds to the Democratic side,” said Van de Putte, a former president of the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators.
She said she has scotched Arizona travel plans.
“I will not step into that state, and every single group that I'm a part of, if they plan a meeting there, I will not go, and I will ask all of my colleagues to please not go,” she said. “If my family would be treated differently just because of the color of their skin, then I don't want to be in that state.”
‘A different relationship'
The Arizona law, which has sparked protests and questions over its constitutionality, would require local and state lawmen to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to believe they may be in the country illegally. The measure would make it a crime under Arizona state law if immigrants lack registration documents. They could face arrest, a jail term of up to six months and a fine.
Jim Harrington, of the Texas Civil Rights Project, predicted “zero” chance of a similar effort here, saying Texas has “a different relationship with the Hispanic community.”
Such a push “would cause an enormous political transformation of the state a lot quicker than it's happening at this point,” Harrington said. “It would galvanize the Hispanic community astronomically.”
Asked about the Arizona law, GOP Gov. Rick Perry and his Democratic challenger, Bill White, emphasized through spokespeople that immigration is a federal responsibility.
“You can take the political temperature by just looking at Rick Perry being quiet,” Harrington said.
In Washington, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a U.S. Senate hearing Tuesday that the Obama administration has concerns about Arizona's action and that a Justice Department review is under way to determine the law's constitutionality.
“We believe it will detract from and siphon resources that we need to focus on those in the country illegally who are committing the most serious crimes in addition to violating our nation's immigration laws,” said Napolitano, who was governor of Arizona until joining the Obama administration.
Seen as misguided
Even if the Arizona law is constitutional, she said it is misguided because it would hamper trust between law enforcement investigating crimes such as domestic violence, human trafficking, even routine traffic accidents. Napolitano said she hoped the federal government's review would be complete before the Arizona law takes effect in late July or early August.
The Texas Association of Business' Bill Hammond said that while it is likely similar legislation will be filed in the Lone Star State, “I think and hope there's little likelihood the Texas Legislature would pass anything so misguided as what they've done in Arizona. I think it is blatantly unconstitutional.”
‘Proud of Arizona'
Whether the Arizona move could increase immigration to Texas is an open question. Harrington said he does not think so, partly because people who go to Arizona typically come from a different part of Mexico than those who come to Texas.
But Rep. David Swinford, R-Dumas, former State Affairs Committee chairman who did not advance immigration measures in 2007 because he said he was advised they would violate constitutional standards, said the Arizona action could increase immigration to Texas. He said he expects a similar push here but also expects Arizona to face a court fight.
“I'm real proud of Arizona,” said Swinford. “A lot of this stuff we wanted to do, we just couldn't do because I didn't want Texas going bankrupt trying to defend it in the courts. ...”
Gary Martin contributed to this report from Washington.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Obamacare’s Danger Signs - Grace-Marie Turner - Critical Condition on National Review Online
Obamacare’s Danger Signs - Grace-Marie Turner - Critical Condition on National Review Online
Obamacare’s Danger Signs [Grace-Marie Turner]
Not one of its major programs has gotten started, and already the wheels are starting to come off of Obamacare. The administration’s own actuary reported on Thursday that millions of people could lose their health insurance, that health-care costs will rise faster than they would have if the law hadn’t passed, and that the overhaul will mean that people will have a harder and harder time finding physicians to see them.The White House is trying to spin the new report from Medicare’s chief actuary Richard Foster as only half bad because it concludes that, while costs will increase, only 23 million people will remain uninsured (instead of 24 million previously estimated).But looking at the details of Foster’s report shows the many, many danger signs for Obamacare and how many of its promises will be broken:1. People losing coverage: About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on Medicare Advantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.2. Huge fines for companies: Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties in the first five years after the fines trigger in 2014, partly because they can’t afford to offer expensive, government-mandated coverage and partly because some of their employees will apply for taxpayer-subsidized insurance. 3. Higher costs for consumers: Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums,” according to Foster. A separate report shows small businesses will be hit hardest.4. A program created to fail: The new “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance program will face “a significant risk of failure,” according to Foster. Indeed, he finds, “there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable.”5. Spending increases: Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.6. “Free-riders”: An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.7. Spending reductions are fiction: Estimated reductions in the growth rate of health spending “may not be fully achievable” because “Medicare productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even within the next ten years, and over time the reductions in the scope of employer-sponsored health insurance could also become an issue.”8. You can’t keep your doctor: Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.” Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs.9. Coverage but no care: A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.This is an objective report by administration actuaries that shows this sweeping legislation has serious, serious problems.And there’s more: Joint Economic Committee Republicans explain in a new report the impact of a rarely mentioned $14.3 billion per year tax on health insurance, effective in 2014. They find this tax will be mostly passed through to consumers in the form of higher premiums for private coverage. It will cost the typical family of four with job-based coverage an additional $1,000 a year in higher premiums and will fall largely, and inequitably, on small businesses and their employees.States are fighting back. The Florida legislature voted Thursday to place a state constitutional amendment on the ballot that would ban any laws that compel someone to “participate in any health care system.” It requires a 60 percent vote to succeed. The legislation is modeled after the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which has been introduced or announced in 42 states.Obamacare is far from settled policy. There are two more federal elections before the major provisions of the law take effect in 2014. Doctors are fighting mad, patients are scared, and companies are starting to realize that the promises of health-care-reform legislation could turn into a huge and costly burden. The studies released today only fuel the fires to repeal and replace the health-overhaul law.
Obamacare’s Danger Signs [Grace-Marie Turner]
Not one of its major programs has gotten started, and already the wheels are starting to come off of Obamacare. The administration’s own actuary reported on Thursday that millions of people could lose their health insurance, that health-care costs will rise faster than they would have if the law hadn’t passed, and that the overhaul will mean that people will have a harder and harder time finding physicians to see them.The White House is trying to spin the new report from Medicare’s chief actuary Richard Foster as only half bad because it concludes that, while costs will increase, only 23 million people will remain uninsured (instead of 24 million previously estimated).But looking at the details of Foster’s report shows the many, many danger signs for Obamacare and how many of its promises will be broken:1. People losing coverage: About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on Medicare Advantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.2. Huge fines for companies: Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties in the first five years after the fines trigger in 2014, partly because they can’t afford to offer expensive, government-mandated coverage and partly because some of their employees will apply for taxpayer-subsidized insurance. 3. Higher costs for consumers: Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums,” according to Foster. A separate report shows small businesses will be hit hardest.4. A program created to fail: The new “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance program will face “a significant risk of failure,” according to Foster. Indeed, he finds, “there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable.”5. Spending increases: Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.6. “Free-riders”: An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.7. Spending reductions are fiction: Estimated reductions in the growth rate of health spending “may not be fully achievable” because “Medicare productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even within the next ten years, and over time the reductions in the scope of employer-sponsored health insurance could also become an issue.”8. You can’t keep your doctor: Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.” Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs.9. Coverage but no care: A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.This is an objective report by administration actuaries that shows this sweeping legislation has serious, serious problems.And there’s more: Joint Economic Committee Republicans explain in a new report the impact of a rarely mentioned $14.3 billion per year tax on health insurance, effective in 2014. They find this tax will be mostly passed through to consumers in the form of higher premiums for private coverage. It will cost the typical family of four with job-based coverage an additional $1,000 a year in higher premiums and will fall largely, and inequitably, on small businesses and their employees.States are fighting back. The Florida legislature voted Thursday to place a state constitutional amendment on the ballot that would ban any laws that compel someone to “participate in any health care system.” It requires a 60 percent vote to succeed. The legislation is modeled after the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which has been introduced or announced in 42 states.Obamacare is far from settled policy. There are two more federal elections before the major provisions of the law take effect in 2014. Doctors are fighting mad, patients are scared, and companies are starting to realize that the promises of health-care-reform legislation could turn into a huge and costly burden. The studies released today only fuel the fires to repeal and replace the health-overhaul law.
No More Beer Summits: Tea Party ‘N-Word’ Incident Didn’t Happen, And the Congressional Black Caucus Owes America an Apology
No More Beer Summits: Tea Party ‘N-Word’ Incident Didn’t Happen, And the Congressional Black Caucus Owes America an Apology
Now this story is much more important than the accusation of fifteen racists among the thousands of protesters that day. This is now about the accusers.
It’s not just that Congressmen Carson’s accusation of an extraordinary racist verbal assault by the tea party participants on March 20 doesn’t appear to have occurred, it’s that the accusers have now gone into the bunker and, having raised the incendiary subject, are doing everything they can to avoid the discussion. Why? What’s changed? (more…)
Now this story is much more important than the accusation of fifteen racists among the thousands of protesters that day. This is now about the accusers.
It’s not just that Congressmen Carson’s accusation of an extraordinary racist verbal assault by the tea party participants on March 20 doesn’t appear to have occurred, it’s that the accusers have now gone into the bunker and, having raised the incendiary subject, are doing everything they can to avoid the discussion. Why? What’s changed? (more…)
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Goldman's White House connections raise eyebrows | McClatchy
Goldman's White House connections raise eyebrows McClatchy
WASHINGTON — While Goldman Sachs' lawyers negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission over potentially explosive civil fraud charges, Goldman's chief executive visited the White House at least four times.
White House logs show that Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein traveled to Washington for at least two events with President Barack Obama, whose 2008 presidential campaign received $994,795 in donations from Goldman's employees and their relatives. He also met twice with Obama's top economic adviser, Larry Summers.
No evidence has surfaced to suggest that Blankfein or any other Goldman executive raised the SEC case with the president or his aides. SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro said in a statement Wednesday that the SEC doesn't coordinate enforcement actions with the White House or other political bodies.
Meanwhile, however, Goldman is retaining former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig as a member of its legal team. In addition, when he worked as an investment banker in Chicago a decade ago, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advised one client who also retained Goldman as an adviser on the same $8.2 billion deal.
Goldman's connections to the White House and the Obama administration are raising eyebrows at a time when Washington and Wall Street are dueling over how to overhaul regulation of the financial world.
Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political scientist, said that "almost everything that the White House has done has been haunted by the personnel and the money of Goldman . . . as well as the suspicion that the White House, particularly early on, was pulling its punches out of deference to Goldman and its war chest.
"There's now kind of a magnifying glass on the administration for any sign of interference or conversations with the regulators and the judiciary," Jacobs said.
The SEC investigation of Goldman's dealings lasted 18 months and culminated with the SEC filing civil fraud charges against the investment bank last week.
According to White House visitor logs, Blankfein was among the business leaders who attended an Obama speech on Feb. 13, 2009, and he also joined more than a dozen bank CEOs in a meeting with Obama on March 27, 2009.
Blankfein also was supposed be among the CEOs who met with Obama in December, but he and two others phoned in from New York, blaming inclement weather.
He and his wife, Laura, were listed on the logs among 438 presidential guests at the Kennedy Center Honors the previous week.
The logs also indicate that Blankfein met twice in 2009, on Feb. 4 and Sept. 30, with Summers, who was undersecretary of the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration when it was headed by Robert Rubin, a former Goldman CEO.
Asked whether Goldman executives had talked to administration officials about the SEC inquiry, Goldman spokesman Michael DuVally said that the firm doesn't discuss "what conversations we may or may not have had with government officials."
Schapiro's statement said that she's "disappointed" by Republican rhetoric suggesting that the SEC case against Goldman might have been timed to boost legislative prospects for a financial regulation overhaul bill, which Obama plans to pitch in a speech in New York Thursday.
"We do not coordinate our enforcement actions with the White House, Congress or political committees," Schapiro said. "We do not time our cases around political events or the legislative calendar . . . We will neither bring cases, nor refrain from bringing them, because of the political consequences."
Obama dismissed any such suggestion as "completely false" Wednesday, saying in a CNBC television interview that the SEC "never discussed with us anything with respect to the charges that would be brought."
While describing Craig, his former counsel, as "one of the top lawyers in the country," Obama also said that he'd imposed "the toughest ethics rules that any president's ever had."
"One thing he (Craig) knows is that he cannot talk to the White House," Obama said. "He cannot lobby the White House. He cannot in any way use his former position to have any influence on us."
Goldman's chief spokesman, Lucas van Praag, said the firm "wanted Craig . . . for his wisdom and insight."
Craig, now an attorney with the Washington law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagre & Flom, said: "I am a lawyer, not a lobbyist. Goldman Sachs has hired me to provide legal advice and to assist in its legal representation."
Goldman's nearly $1 million in campaign contributions to Obama's presidential campaign were the most from any single employer except the University of California. Still, they represented only a fraction of the more than $700 million that the campaign raised.
"The vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country," Obama told CNBC. "Moreover, anybody who gave me money during the course of my campaign knew that I was on record in 2007 and 2008 pushing very strongly that we needed to reform how Wall Street did business."
One White House insider who knows something about how Wall Street does business is chief of staff Emanuel, who earned millions of dollars in investment banking after he left the Clinton White House. His work for the Chicago-based financial services firm Wasserstein Perella & Co. intersected with Goldman in at least one deal.
In 1999, Emanuel was a key player representing Unicom Corp., the parent of Commonwealth Edison, in forging its merger with Peco Energy Co. to create utility giant Exelon Corp. Goldman was also advising Unicom.
The White House declined immediate comment on that connection.
Several former Goldman executives hold senior positions in the Obama administration, including Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Mark Patterson, a former Goldman lobbyist who is chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Robert Hormats, the undersecretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs.
Jacobs of the University of Minnesota said that the administration now risks "kind of a feeding frenzy."
"The administration has to be very careful," he said, "because . . . they're seen as the ones who bailed out Wall Street. If there are indications that the administration was talking to regulators or to Justice Department people about when and how Goldman or other firms would be investigated, I think that's going to create almost a mob scene."
(Margaret Talev, Steven Thomma and Tish Wells contributed to this article.) Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/21/92637/goldmans-connections-to-white.html#ixzz0lvuRtZ7a
WASHINGTON — While Goldman Sachs' lawyers negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission over potentially explosive civil fraud charges, Goldman's chief executive visited the White House at least four times.
White House logs show that Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein traveled to Washington for at least two events with President Barack Obama, whose 2008 presidential campaign received $994,795 in donations from Goldman's employees and their relatives. He also met twice with Obama's top economic adviser, Larry Summers.
No evidence has surfaced to suggest that Blankfein or any other Goldman executive raised the SEC case with the president or his aides. SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro said in a statement Wednesday that the SEC doesn't coordinate enforcement actions with the White House or other political bodies.
Meanwhile, however, Goldman is retaining former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig as a member of its legal team. In addition, when he worked as an investment banker in Chicago a decade ago, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advised one client who also retained Goldman as an adviser on the same $8.2 billion deal.
Goldman's connections to the White House and the Obama administration are raising eyebrows at a time when Washington and Wall Street are dueling over how to overhaul regulation of the financial world.
Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political scientist, said that "almost everything that the White House has done has been haunted by the personnel and the money of Goldman . . . as well as the suspicion that the White House, particularly early on, was pulling its punches out of deference to Goldman and its war chest.
"There's now kind of a magnifying glass on the administration for any sign of interference or conversations with the regulators and the judiciary," Jacobs said.
The SEC investigation of Goldman's dealings lasted 18 months and culminated with the SEC filing civil fraud charges against the investment bank last week.
According to White House visitor logs, Blankfein was among the business leaders who attended an Obama speech on Feb. 13, 2009, and he also joined more than a dozen bank CEOs in a meeting with Obama on March 27, 2009.
Blankfein also was supposed be among the CEOs who met with Obama in December, but he and two others phoned in from New York, blaming inclement weather.
He and his wife, Laura, were listed on the logs among 438 presidential guests at the Kennedy Center Honors the previous week.
The logs also indicate that Blankfein met twice in 2009, on Feb. 4 and Sept. 30, with Summers, who was undersecretary of the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration when it was headed by Robert Rubin, a former Goldman CEO.
Asked whether Goldman executives had talked to administration officials about the SEC inquiry, Goldman spokesman Michael DuVally said that the firm doesn't discuss "what conversations we may or may not have had with government officials."
Schapiro's statement said that she's "disappointed" by Republican rhetoric suggesting that the SEC case against Goldman might have been timed to boost legislative prospects for a financial regulation overhaul bill, which Obama plans to pitch in a speech in New York Thursday.
"We do not coordinate our enforcement actions with the White House, Congress or political committees," Schapiro said. "We do not time our cases around political events or the legislative calendar . . . We will neither bring cases, nor refrain from bringing them, because of the political consequences."
Obama dismissed any such suggestion as "completely false" Wednesday, saying in a CNBC television interview that the SEC "never discussed with us anything with respect to the charges that would be brought."
While describing Craig, his former counsel, as "one of the top lawyers in the country," Obama also said that he'd imposed "the toughest ethics rules that any president's ever had."
"One thing he (Craig) knows is that he cannot talk to the White House," Obama said. "He cannot lobby the White House. He cannot in any way use his former position to have any influence on us."
Goldman's chief spokesman, Lucas van Praag, said the firm "wanted Craig . . . for his wisdom and insight."
Craig, now an attorney with the Washington law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagre & Flom, said: "I am a lawyer, not a lobbyist. Goldman Sachs has hired me to provide legal advice and to assist in its legal representation."
Goldman's nearly $1 million in campaign contributions to Obama's presidential campaign were the most from any single employer except the University of California. Still, they represented only a fraction of the more than $700 million that the campaign raised.
"The vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country," Obama told CNBC. "Moreover, anybody who gave me money during the course of my campaign knew that I was on record in 2007 and 2008 pushing very strongly that we needed to reform how Wall Street did business."
One White House insider who knows something about how Wall Street does business is chief of staff Emanuel, who earned millions of dollars in investment banking after he left the Clinton White House. His work for the Chicago-based financial services firm Wasserstein Perella & Co. intersected with Goldman in at least one deal.
In 1999, Emanuel was a key player representing Unicom Corp., the parent of Commonwealth Edison, in forging its merger with Peco Energy Co. to create utility giant Exelon Corp. Goldman was also advising Unicom.
The White House declined immediate comment on that connection.
Several former Goldman executives hold senior positions in the Obama administration, including Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Mark Patterson, a former Goldman lobbyist who is chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Robert Hormats, the undersecretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs.
Jacobs of the University of Minnesota said that the administration now risks "kind of a feeding frenzy."
"The administration has to be very careful," he said, "because . . . they're seen as the ones who bailed out Wall Street. If there are indications that the administration was talking to regulators or to Justice Department people about when and how Goldman or other firms would be investigated, I think that's going to create almost a mob scene."
(Margaret Talev, Steven Thomma and Tish Wells contributed to this article.) Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/21/92637/goldmans-connections-to-white.html#ixzz0lvuRtZ7a
Blagojevich to judge: Make Obama testify :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Gov. Blagojevich
Blagojevich to judge: Make Obama testify :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Gov. Blagojevich
Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s lawyers asked a federal judge today to force President Obama to testify at Blagojevich’s upcoming corruption trial, asserting that Obama played more of a role in the process of selecting someone to replace him in the U.S. Senate than Obama has acknowledged.
Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s lawyers asked a federal judge today to force President Obama to testify at Blagojevich’s upcoming corruption trial, asserting that Obama played more of a role in the process of selecting someone to replace him in the U.S. Senate than Obama has acknowledged.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Why I Support Legalizing Marijuana Now
Kristen Davis: Why I Support Legalizing Marijuana Now
When economic recessions decimate state coffers, politicians usually turn to their traditional streams of revenue to replenish their budgets. In other words, they raise taxes and strain the very system that is already overburdened. Currently, New Yorkers carry one of the highest tax burdens in the country, and city and local budgets all over the state are straining for every dollar. It is clear that New York State has reached critical mass in the taxation of its citizenry. New York needs innovation and recent developments in California can serve as a model for our state.
Californians who use marijuana are asking the government to tax and regulate its use as a potential solution to their current budget crisis. New York should follow suit.
I know talk of legalization of pot immediately sets off a clamor among the anti-drug crowd, but their rhetoric is generally exaggerated, erroneous or plain wrong. They are misinformed and the unfounded fears surrounding marijuana use has stuffed our prisons full of nonviolent people and saddled our state with outlandish incarceration costs for decades. The demonization of marijuana must stop. There is a plethora of scientific opinions that debunk marijuana myths, but the true tragedy is that marijuana criminalization has been an epic failure.
(more…)
When economic recessions decimate state coffers, politicians usually turn to their traditional streams of revenue to replenish their budgets. In other words, they raise taxes and strain the very system that is already overburdened. Currently, New Yorkers carry one of the highest tax burdens in the country, and city and local budgets all over the state are straining for every dollar. It is clear that New York State has reached critical mass in the taxation of its citizenry. New York needs innovation and recent developments in California can serve as a model for our state.
Californians who use marijuana are asking the government to tax and regulate its use as a potential solution to their current budget crisis. New York should follow suit.
I know talk of legalization of pot immediately sets off a clamor among the anti-drug crowd, but their rhetoric is generally exaggerated, erroneous or plain wrong. They are misinformed and the unfounded fears surrounding marijuana use has stuffed our prisons full of nonviolent people and saddled our state with outlandish incarceration costs for decades. The demonization of marijuana must stop. There is a plethora of scientific opinions that debunk marijuana myths, but the true tragedy is that marijuana criminalization has been an epic failure.
(more…)
Monday, April 19, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Mayor joins chorus questioning if Obama 'American'
Mayor joins chorus questioning if Obama 'American'
If Obama has nothing to hide, why have so many things about him been hidden?
If Obama has nothing to hide, why have so many things about him been hidden?
Friday, April 16, 2010
Obama 'amused' by Tea Party rallies - TheHill.com
Obama 'amused' by Tea Party rallies - TheHill.com
Apprently Obama thinks we should be thanking him for his "tax cuts." The elites still haven't figured out that The TEA party isn't just about taxes, it's about tyranny. We wouldn't mind paying our taxes if our elected officials would represent the people instead of big business and special interest groups.
Apprently Obama thinks we should be thanking him for his "tax cuts." The elites still haven't figured out that The TEA party isn't just about taxes, it's about tyranny. We wouldn't mind paying our taxes if our elected officials would represent the people instead of big business and special interest groups.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
New immigration bill puts local police on front line of border battle
http://www.azfamily.com/news/New-bill-puts-local-police-on-front-line-of-border-battle-90805259.html
Are republicans finally hearing us on immigration?
Are republicans finally hearing us on immigration?
Obamacare Kickbacks
All of the kickbacks listed below will be funded by the taxpayers of the United States.
Cornhusker Kickback:In order to secure the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), the legislation states that Nebraska would be the only state to have the full amount of its increased Medicaid costs paid for by the federal government.
The Louisiana Purchase:In order to secure the vote of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) the Senate bill provides $300 million in extra Medicaid funding for any state in which every county has been declared a disaster area.Every county in Louisiana was declared a Federal Disaster area following Hurricane Katrina.
Gator Aid:At the request of Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fl), the Senate bill includes a formula for protecting certain Medicare Advantage enrollees from billions in cuts.The formula would only apply to five states, but 800,000 of Florida’s one million Medicare Advantage users would be exempt from cuts.
Water for Votes: In a surprising coincidence of timing, on March 17, 2010, the Department of Interior (DOI) announced that they were allowing new water supplies to flow through the Central Valley Project in California.The news was not scheduled to be released for at least two weeks, but the DOI explained that they decided to release the news early at the behest of Congressmen Costa and Cordoza. The Department of Interior stated: “Typically, Reclamation would release the March allocation update around March 22nd, but moved up the announcement at the urging of Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and Congressmen Costa and Cardoza.”
New England Handouts:According to CBO, the Senate bill now contains about $600 million in extra Medicaid cash to Vermont, and about $500 million in additional money for Medicaid to Massachusetts, making these three states the only to receive such funding.
The Dodd Clinic:Section 10502(a) of the bill provides $100 million for construction at an unnamed “health care facility” affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in a state with only one public academic medical and dental school.Connecticut is the only state that fits this description.Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) later sent a press release saying that:”These provisions will bring millions of dollars to the state so that Connecticut’s residents can receive quality, affordable health care.”
Medicare Expansion:A provision slipped into the Senate bill by Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT), Section 1881A(b)(2), specifically expands Medicare coverage for individuals who reside “in or around the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009.”This description can only refer to Libby, Montana which was has suffered from a major asbestos contamination.
Tax Exemptions for “Profiteering” Insurers:The Senate bill exempts Michigan Blue Cross and Blue Shield from the new taxes levied on health insurers.
Billions in Payouts to Insurance Companies:The CBO stated Section 1412(c) provides $436 billion in federal subsidies to insurance companies to provide health care in the exchange.
Cornhusker Kickback:In order to secure the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), the legislation states that Nebraska would be the only state to have the full amount of its increased Medicaid costs paid for by the federal government.
The Louisiana Purchase:In order to secure the vote of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) the Senate bill provides $300 million in extra Medicaid funding for any state in which every county has been declared a disaster area.Every county in Louisiana was declared a Federal Disaster area following Hurricane Katrina.
Gator Aid:At the request of Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fl), the Senate bill includes a formula for protecting certain Medicare Advantage enrollees from billions in cuts.The formula would only apply to five states, but 800,000 of Florida’s one million Medicare Advantage users would be exempt from cuts.
Water for Votes: In a surprising coincidence of timing, on March 17, 2010, the Department of Interior (DOI) announced that they were allowing new water supplies to flow through the Central Valley Project in California.The news was not scheduled to be released for at least two weeks, but the DOI explained that they decided to release the news early at the behest of Congressmen Costa and Cordoza. The Department of Interior stated: “Typically, Reclamation would release the March allocation update around March 22nd, but moved up the announcement at the urging of Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and Congressmen Costa and Cardoza.”
New England Handouts:According to CBO, the Senate bill now contains about $600 million in extra Medicaid cash to Vermont, and about $500 million in additional money for Medicaid to Massachusetts, making these three states the only to receive such funding.
The Dodd Clinic:Section 10502(a) of the bill provides $100 million for construction at an unnamed “health care facility” affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in a state with only one public academic medical and dental school.Connecticut is the only state that fits this description.Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) later sent a press release saying that:”These provisions will bring millions of dollars to the state so that Connecticut’s residents can receive quality, affordable health care.”
Medicare Expansion:A provision slipped into the Senate bill by Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT), Section 1881A(b)(2), specifically expands Medicare coverage for individuals who reside “in or around the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009.”This description can only refer to Libby, Montana which was has suffered from a major asbestos contamination.
Tax Exemptions for “Profiteering” Insurers:The Senate bill exempts Michigan Blue Cross and Blue Shield from the new taxes levied on health insurers.
Billions in Payouts to Insurance Companies:The CBO stated Section 1412(c) provides $436 billion in federal subsidies to insurance companies to provide health care in the exchange.
Bowbama Archives Revisited
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/02/01/2010-02-01_president_obama_seemingly_bows_to_tampa_mayor_pam_iorio_in_photograph_.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/04/obama_bows_down_to_saudi_king.html
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Live Free or Die!
Read the bill: Obamacare socks middle class with $3.9 billion tax increase | Washington Examiner
Read the bill: Obamacare socks middle class with $3.9 billion tax increase Washington Examiner
One more small detail they forgot to tell you about in the health care bill:
Taxpayers earning less than $200,000 a year will pay roughly $3.9 billion more in taxes — in 2019 alone — because of healthcare reform, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ official scorekeeper for legislation.
The new law raises $15.2 billion over 10 years by limiting the medical expense deduction, a provision widely used by taxpayers who either have a serious illness or are older.
Taxpayers can currently deduct medical expenses in excess of 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. Starting in 2013, most taxpayers will only be allowed to deducted expenses greater than 10 percent of AGI. Older taxpayers are hit by this threshold increase in 2017.
This is worse than a tax on the middle class. It’s a tax on the middle class who are seriously ill. And what’s the over/under on how may times Obama is going to break that “no taxes on anyone earning under $250,000 a year” pledge, anyway?
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/read-the-bill-obamacare-socks-middle-class-with-39-billion-tax-increase.html#ixzz0l0N5ks55
One more small detail they forgot to tell you about in the health care bill:
Taxpayers earning less than $200,000 a year will pay roughly $3.9 billion more in taxes — in 2019 alone — because of healthcare reform, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ official scorekeeper for legislation.
The new law raises $15.2 billion over 10 years by limiting the medical expense deduction, a provision widely used by taxpayers who either have a serious illness or are older.
Taxpayers can currently deduct medical expenses in excess of 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. Starting in 2013, most taxpayers will only be allowed to deducted expenses greater than 10 percent of AGI. Older taxpayers are hit by this threshold increase in 2017.
This is worse than a tax on the middle class. It’s a tax on the middle class who are seriously ill. And what’s the over/under on how may times Obama is going to break that “no taxes on anyone earning under $250,000 a year” pledge, anyway?
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/read-the-bill-obamacare-socks-middle-class-with-39-billion-tax-increase.html#ixzz0l0N5ks55
MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell Plays Race Card on Gingrich, Colleagues Laugh At Her | NewsBusters.org
MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell Plays Race Card on Gingrich, Colleagues Laugh At Her NewsBusters.org
MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell on Friday went too far for even her colleagues at the liberal cable channel, receiving mockery for her assertion that Newt Gingrich made racially charged remarks about Barack Obama. At the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, Thursday, the former House Speaker commented that “shooting three-point shots may be clever, but it doesn’t put anybody to work.”Speaking of the President’s basketball skills, Gingrich continued: "What we need is a President, not an athlete. We need somebody who actually focuses on getting people back to work.” After the clip was played, Morning Joe guest host O’Donnell lobbed her accusation at Gingrich:
But I’m not sure what he means by this particular soundbite and I think it’s open to some criticism because it suggests that the President is an athlete and some people may suggest, you know, because all black people are good athletes. I mean that’s what it sort of sounds like to me.
The rest of the Morning Joe panel scoffed at O’Donnell’s claim, erupting in a flurry of dismissiveness.“Oh, I didn’t see that at all,” claimed Guthrie.“I didn’t get that (impression),” asserted Barnicle.“That went right by me!” proclaimed Pat Buchanan, laughing.While the rest of panel laughed it off, O’Donnell pressed on with her criticism, asking, “Well what’s this suggestion about him playing basketball? That he’s not doing his job?”But the panel continued to ignore O’Donnell, electing instead to joke about Obama’s athletic abilities.“You can easily disprove that President Obama is an athlete by showing his first pitch,” sneered Barnicle. “You can show that clip. He is not an athlete.”“You can show him at the bowling alley in Pennsylvania!” suggested Buchanan.O’Donnell’s lone defender was the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart, who declared, “Norah, I will back you up, because my eyebrow arched as well.”In the end, O’Donnell’s attempt to further the argument that Republicans, particularly Southern Republicans, are racist backfired. Instead of making Republicans look radical, O’Donnell made herself look like a fringe liberal.The transcript for the segment, which aired Friday, April 9, can be found below:
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: We played Newt Gingrich’s comments at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference last night; let’s play it again because I know Norah wanted to get in on this. Let’s play it in case anybody missed it.
NEWT GINGRICH, former Speaker of the House: Will presently sink in on people that, you know, shooting three-point shots may be clever, but it doesn’t put anybody to work. And what we need is a President, not an athlete. We need somebody who actually focuses on getting people back to work.
GUTHRIE: O.K. Norah O’Donnell.
NORAH O’DONNELL: I mean this was largely a good speech. Gingrich’s speech about not being the party of no, let’s be yes on this, yes on this. But I’m not sure what he means by this particular soundbite and I think it’s open to some criticism because it suggests that the President is an athlete and some people may suggest, you know, because all black people are good athletes. I mean that’s what it sort of sounds like to me.
GUTHRIE: Oh, I didn’t see that at all.
MIKE BARNICLE: Oh, I didn’t get that.
GUTHRIE: Yeah I didn’t hear that!
PAT BUCHANAN: That went right by me! Hahahaha.
JONATHAN CAPEHART, Washington Post: Norah, I will back you up, because my eyebrow arched as well. But let’s put this in perspective. The president does play basketball, he did, you know, do a three-pointer.
O’DONNELL: Well what’s this suggestion about him playing basketball? That he’s not doing his job?
CAPEHART: I know! I know!
GUTHRIE: That’s what I thought was odd about it as though we see him on the basketball court all the time, actually it’s the golf course where we see him at.
BUCHANAN: He just had that one-on-one with the fellow shooting three point shots and stuff.
BARNICLE: You can easily disprove that President Obama is an athlete by showing his first pitch. (Laughter) You can show that clip. He is not an athlete.
BUCHANAN: You can show him at the bowling alley in Pennsylvania.
GUTHRIE: Yeah maybe the DNC could do a whole ad around that as a counter argument to what Gingrich said.
O’DONNELL: Well what does that mean we need a president not an athlete?
BARNICLE: I think it’s a typical Newt Gingrich cheap shot. I didn’t read into the–
GUTHRIE: I didn’t hear it either. But we’re insensitive aren’t we? We don’t know.
CAPEHART: I’m with you (O’Donnell). It’s not like the guy’s on the court all the time.
MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell on Friday went too far for even her colleagues at the liberal cable channel, receiving mockery for her assertion that Newt Gingrich made racially charged remarks about Barack Obama. At the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, Thursday, the former House Speaker commented that “shooting three-point shots may be clever, but it doesn’t put anybody to work.”Speaking of the President’s basketball skills, Gingrich continued: "What we need is a President, not an athlete. We need somebody who actually focuses on getting people back to work.” After the clip was played, Morning Joe guest host O’Donnell lobbed her accusation at Gingrich:
But I’m not sure what he means by this particular soundbite and I think it’s open to some criticism because it suggests that the President is an athlete and some people may suggest, you know, because all black people are good athletes. I mean that’s what it sort of sounds like to me.
The rest of the Morning Joe panel scoffed at O’Donnell’s claim, erupting in a flurry of dismissiveness.“Oh, I didn’t see that at all,” claimed Guthrie.“I didn’t get that (impression),” asserted Barnicle.“That went right by me!” proclaimed Pat Buchanan, laughing.While the rest of panel laughed it off, O’Donnell pressed on with her criticism, asking, “Well what’s this suggestion about him playing basketball? That he’s not doing his job?”But the panel continued to ignore O’Donnell, electing instead to joke about Obama’s athletic abilities.“You can easily disprove that President Obama is an athlete by showing his first pitch,” sneered Barnicle. “You can show that clip. He is not an athlete.”“You can show him at the bowling alley in Pennsylvania!” suggested Buchanan.O’Donnell’s lone defender was the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart, who declared, “Norah, I will back you up, because my eyebrow arched as well.”In the end, O’Donnell’s attempt to further the argument that Republicans, particularly Southern Republicans, are racist backfired. Instead of making Republicans look radical, O’Donnell made herself look like a fringe liberal.The transcript for the segment, which aired Friday, April 9, can be found below:
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: We played Newt Gingrich’s comments at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference last night; let’s play it again because I know Norah wanted to get in on this. Let’s play it in case anybody missed it.
NEWT GINGRICH, former Speaker of the House: Will presently sink in on people that, you know, shooting three-point shots may be clever, but it doesn’t put anybody to work. And what we need is a President, not an athlete. We need somebody who actually focuses on getting people back to work.
GUTHRIE: O.K. Norah O’Donnell.
NORAH O’DONNELL: I mean this was largely a good speech. Gingrich’s speech about not being the party of no, let’s be yes on this, yes on this. But I’m not sure what he means by this particular soundbite and I think it’s open to some criticism because it suggests that the President is an athlete and some people may suggest, you know, because all black people are good athletes. I mean that’s what it sort of sounds like to me.
GUTHRIE: Oh, I didn’t see that at all.
MIKE BARNICLE: Oh, I didn’t get that.
GUTHRIE: Yeah I didn’t hear that!
PAT BUCHANAN: That went right by me! Hahahaha.
JONATHAN CAPEHART, Washington Post: Norah, I will back you up, because my eyebrow arched as well. But let’s put this in perspective. The president does play basketball, he did, you know, do a three-pointer.
O’DONNELL: Well what’s this suggestion about him playing basketball? That he’s not doing his job?
CAPEHART: I know! I know!
GUTHRIE: That’s what I thought was odd about it as though we see him on the basketball court all the time, actually it’s the golf course where we see him at.
BUCHANAN: He just had that one-on-one with the fellow shooting three point shots and stuff.
BARNICLE: You can easily disprove that President Obama is an athlete by showing his first pitch. (Laughter) You can show that clip. He is not an athlete.
BUCHANAN: You can show him at the bowling alley in Pennsylvania.
GUTHRIE: Yeah maybe the DNC could do a whole ad around that as a counter argument to what Gingrich said.
O’DONNELL: Well what does that mean we need a president not an athlete?
BARNICLE: I think it’s a typical Newt Gingrich cheap shot. I didn’t read into the–
GUTHRIE: I didn’t hear it either. But we’re insensitive aren’t we? We don’t know.
CAPEHART: I’m with you (O’Donnell). It’s not like the guy’s on the court all the time.
Western Hero: Liberal Anger We Can Believe In
Western Hero: Liberal Anger We Can Believe In
Here are the factors that accompany liberal unhappiness:
- Secularism
- Overreliance on government to solve problems
- An addiction to security
Here are the things that make conservatives a happier group:
- Faith in God
- Work (job satisfaction)
- Marriage and Family
- Charitable giving and volunteering
- Freedom (economic, political, religious)
Here are the factors that accompany liberal unhappiness:
- Secularism
- Overreliance on government to solve problems
- An addiction to security
Here are the things that make conservatives a happier group:
- Faith in God
- Work (job satisfaction)
- Marriage and Family
- Charitable giving and volunteering
- Freedom (economic, political, religious)
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Terry Lakin Letter to POTUS
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/terry-lakins-letter-to-potus.html
March 30, 2010
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
For more than seventeen years, I have had the privilege of serving my country as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, including overseas assignments in imminent danger/combat areas in Bosnia and Afghanistan.
The United States is an example to the rest of the world of a stable, civilized democratic government where all men are created equal and the rule of law is cherished and obeyed. The U.S. military teaches and promotes the rule of law and civilian control of the military to many other nations and militaries around the world. Every soldier learns what constitutes a lawful order and is encouraged to stand up and object to unlawful orders. My officer's oath of office requires that I swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I recently received deployment orders for a second deployment to Afghanistan. My orders included a requirement to bring copies of my birth certificate. I will provide a certified copy of my original birth certificate with common, standard identifiers, including the name of an attending physician and a hospital. Every day in transactions across the country, American citizens are required to prove their identity, and standards for identification have become even stricter since the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
Since the fall of 2008, I have been troubled by reports that your original birth certificate remains concealed from public view along with many other records which, if released, would quickly end questions surrounding your place of birth and "natural born" status. Many people mistake the online Certification of Live Birth for an original birth certificate. Until the summer of 2009, the Hawaiian Department of Homelands would not accept this Certification of Live Birth to determine native Hawaiian identity--the Department insisted upon also reviewing an original birth certificate. Many do not understand that the online document was from 2007, generated by computer, laser-printed, and merely a certification that there is an original birth certificate on file which may or may not be sufficiently probative. An original birth certificate is the underlying document that presumably includes a hospital and attending physician's or midwife's name that should lay to rest the "natural born" dispute.
In 2008, after pressure from the news media, Senator McCain produced an original birth certificate from the Panama Canal Zone; a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing examined and affirmed his "natural born" status and Constitutional eligibility to serve as President. The U.S. Senate was silent about your eligibility, despite statements from Kenyan citizens that you were born in Mombasa, including your paternal grandmother and the Ambassador from Kenya to the U.S. during a radio interview. Hawaiian state officials claim they cannot release an original birth certificate without your consent.
I have attempted through my chain of command for many months to get answers to the questions surrounding your eligibility. I also sought answers, unsuccessfully, through my Congressional delegation. You serve as my Commander-in-Chief. Given the fact that the certification that your campaign posted online was not a document that the Hawaiian Department of Homelands regarded as a sufficient substitute for the original birth certificate and given that it has been your personal decision that has prevented the Hawaiian Department of Health from releasing your original birth certificate or any Hawaiian hospital from releasing your records, the burden of proof must rest with you.
Please assure the American people that you are indeed constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief and thereby may lawfully direct service members into harm's way. I will be proud to deploy to Afghanistan to further serve my country and my fellow soldiers, but I should only do so with the knowledge that this important provision of our Constitution is respected and obeyed. The people that continue to risk their lives and give the ultimate sacrifice to the service of our country deserve to know they do so upholding their vows to the oath of office and the Constitution.
Unless it is established (by this sufficient proof that should be easily within your power to provide) that you are constitutionally eligible to serve as President and my Commander-in-Chief, I, and all other military officers may be following illegal orders. Therefore, sir, until an original birth certificate is brought forward that validates your eligibility and puts to rest the other reasonable questions surrounding your unproven eligibility; I cannot in good conscience obey ANY military orders.
Respectfully,
// Terry Lakin
Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, USA
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
For more than seventeen years, I have had the privilege of serving my country as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, including overseas assignments in imminent danger/combat areas in Bosnia and Afghanistan.
The United States is an example to the rest of the world of a stable, civilized democratic government where all men are created equal and the rule of law is cherished and obeyed. The U.S. military teaches and promotes the rule of law and civilian control of the military to many other nations and militaries around the world. Every soldier learns what constitutes a lawful order and is encouraged to stand up and object to unlawful orders. My officer's oath of office requires that I swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I recently received deployment orders for a second deployment to Afghanistan. My orders included a requirement to bring copies of my birth certificate. I will provide a certified copy of my original birth certificate with common, standard identifiers, including the name of an attending physician and a hospital. Every day in transactions across the country, American citizens are required to prove their identity, and standards for identification have become even stricter since the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
Since the fall of 2008, I have been troubled by reports that your original birth certificate remains concealed from public view along with many other records which, if released, would quickly end questions surrounding your place of birth and "natural born" status. Many people mistake the online Certification of Live Birth for an original birth certificate. Until the summer of 2009, the Hawaiian Department of Homelands would not accept this Certification of Live Birth to determine native Hawaiian identity--the Department insisted upon also reviewing an original birth certificate. Many do not understand that the online document was from 2007, generated by computer, laser-printed, and merely a certification that there is an original birth certificate on file which may or may not be sufficiently probative. An original birth certificate is the underlying document that presumably includes a hospital and attending physician's or midwife's name that should lay to rest the "natural born" dispute.
In 2008, after pressure from the news media, Senator McCain produced an original birth certificate from the Panama Canal Zone; a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing examined and affirmed his "natural born" status and Constitutional eligibility to serve as President. The U.S. Senate was silent about your eligibility, despite statements from Kenyan citizens that you were born in Mombasa, including your paternal grandmother and the Ambassador from Kenya to the U.S. during a radio interview. Hawaiian state officials claim they cannot release an original birth certificate without your consent.
I have attempted through my chain of command for many months to get answers to the questions surrounding your eligibility. I also sought answers, unsuccessfully, through my Congressional delegation. You serve as my Commander-in-Chief. Given the fact that the certification that your campaign posted online was not a document that the Hawaiian Department of Homelands regarded as a sufficient substitute for the original birth certificate and given that it has been your personal decision that has prevented the Hawaiian Department of Health from releasing your original birth certificate or any Hawaiian hospital from releasing your records, the burden of proof must rest with you.
Please assure the American people that you are indeed constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief and thereby may lawfully direct service members into harm's way. I will be proud to deploy to Afghanistan to further serve my country and my fellow soldiers, but I should only do so with the knowledge that this important provision of our Constitution is respected and obeyed. The people that continue to risk their lives and give the ultimate sacrifice to the service of our country deserve to know they do so upholding their vows to the oath of office and the Constitution.
Unless it is established (by this sufficient proof that should be easily within your power to provide) that you are constitutionally eligible to serve as President and my Commander-in-Chief, I, and all other military officers may be following illegal orders. Therefore, sir, until an original birth certificate is brought forward that validates your eligibility and puts to rest the other reasonable questions surrounding your unproven eligibility; I cannot in good conscience obey ANY military orders.
Respectfully,
// Terry Lakin
Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, USA
Friday, April 9, 2010
Affirmative Action is Racism
"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."--Martin Luther King Jr.
Sorry King, you're dream will have to wait.
Whether the color of your skin matches the hue of the majority or not is still a consideration employers have before hiring someone. Simply put, instead of people being denied employment because they are a minority or female, we've started denying people employment if they're a majority or male. How is one less racist than the other?
Affirmative action is hurting our economy, by accelerating unqualified people through the ranks based on their skin color. Michael Steele is a good example. This retard has wasted tons of RNC donor money, and caught in a few scandals, because he wasn't qualified for the job. The republicans felt they needed a response from a "black man" to keep from appearing racist while opposing Barack Obama. So, instead of looking at who they had based on qualifications, they made their decision based on race. Now they have an idiot who says he has a "slimmer margin" because he's black. The same garbage Obama throws out there when things get sticky: The Race Card.
How can making a decision to hire someone based on race not be considered racist? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, doesn't anyone else see it?
Not only is affirmative action racist, it proliferates racism. EVERY single place I've ever worked has one thing in common. All of the white people think the black employees are there simply to make a quota, and have no real skill. It doesn't matter if the black man is the best worker there, the assumption is affirmative action put him there.
Sadly, the Republicans have decided to join the Democrats in this racist practice, and are even dumb enough to apologize for "racist tea-partiers" even when there is no evidence of such.
It's a sick, sad world, where we're still more worried about the color of skin, instead of the content of character.
Sorry King, you're dream will have to wait.
Whether the color of your skin matches the hue of the majority or not is still a consideration employers have before hiring someone. Simply put, instead of people being denied employment because they are a minority or female, we've started denying people employment if they're a majority or male. How is one less racist than the other?
Affirmative action is hurting our economy, by accelerating unqualified people through the ranks based on their skin color. Michael Steele is a good example. This retard has wasted tons of RNC donor money, and caught in a few scandals, because he wasn't qualified for the job. The republicans felt they needed a response from a "black man" to keep from appearing racist while opposing Barack Obama. So, instead of looking at who they had based on qualifications, they made their decision based on race. Now they have an idiot who says he has a "slimmer margin" because he's black. The same garbage Obama throws out there when things get sticky: The Race Card.
How can making a decision to hire someone based on race not be considered racist? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, doesn't anyone else see it?
Not only is affirmative action racist, it proliferates racism. EVERY single place I've ever worked has one thing in common. All of the white people think the black employees are there simply to make a quota, and have no real skill. It doesn't matter if the black man is the best worker there, the assumption is affirmative action put him there.
Sadly, the Republicans have decided to join the Democrats in this racist practice, and are even dumb enough to apologize for "racist tea-partiers" even when there is no evidence of such.
It's a sick, sad world, where we're still more worried about the color of skin, instead of the content of character.
NPR outted as "Birthers"
Click image to enlarge
No one requested a correction, but then again, who listens to NPR?
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Nurse Who Exposed Infanticide-Based Abortions: Obama Lied During Debate
Nurse Who Exposed Infanticide-Based Abortions: Obama Lied During Debate
This is old, but I think most people missed it the first time around. Even if you're pro-abortion, how can you be pro-infanticide?
This is old, but I think most people missed it the first time around. Even if you're pro-abortion, how can you be pro-infanticide?
Issa aims to unmask health care deals - Chris Frates - POLITICO.com
Issa aims to unmask health care deals - Chris Frates - POLITICO.com
Let's have a look at the back-door shenanigans that made this terrible health care bill possible.
Let's have a look at the back-door shenanigans that made this terrible health care bill possible.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Michael Steele: I'm not going anywhere - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
Michael Steele: I'm not going anywhere - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
Steele plays the race card, brings more shame to America.
We already have a president who plays the race card, we don't need that garbage from the leader of the GOP. Another example of how affirmative action puts unqualified people in high places.
Steele plays the race card, brings more shame to America.
We already have a president who plays the race card, we don't need that garbage from the leader of the GOP. Another example of how affirmative action puts unqualified people in high places.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Army threatens officer questioning eligibility
Army threatens officer questioning eligibility
Well, here we go again. Remember the Stefan Cook fiasco? Let's see if the government puts up some evidence this time, or cops out and cancels his orders. They'll see a string of challenges if they don't answer this question soon. There are already quite a few soldiers questioning their commander in chief publicly.
Well, here we go again. Remember the Stefan Cook fiasco? Let's see if the government puts up some evidence this time, or cops out and cancels his orders. They'll see a string of challenges if they don't answer this question soon. There are already quite a few soldiers questioning their commander in chief publicly.
Housing protest leads to takeover of duplex
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/04/BUTO1CPN1U.DTL
It's official, SFPD are a bunch of impotent security guards.
It's official, SFPD are a bunch of impotent security guards.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace
Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace
Take a good hard look and make your own decision.
Take a good hard look and make your own decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
