Friday, July 30, 2010
ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial
By Publius Huldah Thursday, July 29, 2010
Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.
Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Obamacare reversal? House 75% of the way there!
Plan intends to take nationalized decision-making plan, pull it out 'by the roots'
Posted: July 28, 201011:10 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2010 WorldNetDaily
One of the biggest targets should the GOP regain control of either the U.S. House or Senate in November's elections, according to many polls, will be Obamacare, the president's plan that effectively nationalized the decision-making process for health-care issues.
But a little-reported move to begin demolition of the health-care system takeover already is pending in the House and has gained about three-quarters of the support it needs to repeal the law that demands citizens buy insurance or pay financial penalties.
As of last night, the discharge petition sponsored by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, had collected 162 signatures of the 218 it would need to advance – even in the face of continued opposition from Obamacare promoter House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Under the provisions of the discharge procedures in the House, such a move is required to have the support of 218 members, a majority, of the 435-member chamber before moving forward.
But since it requires a majority, it is virtually assured of approval once it reaches the point of being advanced.
Share your thoughts about the Obamacare nationalization of health-care decision-making.
The newest names, all from just the last few days:
Ed Whitfield, Kentucky
Walter B. Jones, North Carolina
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Doc Hastings, Washington
Don Young, Alaska
Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio
Mike Rogers, Michigan
Joe Barton, Texas
Adam H. Putnam, Florida
Dave Camp, Michigan
King has told WND the entire GOP leadership team in the House is on board, as well as the full delegations from California and Texas. He's working on obtaining the last few GOP signatures before turning his attention to the Democrats.
All of the GOP representatives and 34 Democrats opposed Obamacare when it was passed on a narrow 219-212 vote earlier this year. King said 212 representatives, at least, should be in favor of overturning it, since they opposed it before.
Then it will be up to the four, five or six Democrat votes that would be needed to turn from endorsement to rejection for it to advance.
"This is starting to come together," King told WND just days ago. "All the Republicans [earlier] voted no. We should all be for repeal."
He said he's counting on the 34 Democrats who voted no to "demonstrate the courage of their convictions" by supporting a repeal plan.
Many will be running for re-election, King noted, in districts where the majority of voters want the law repealed. And there are Democrats who voted for Obamacare who face election challenges in a field of voters irritated by the law's new taxes and intrusions into their lives.
King told WND that if the discharge petition is successful, it will be a "resounding message" to Pelosi, who said Congress would have to vote for the health-care takeover before people could know what was in it.
King's plan is to "pull out by the roots" the legislation that, among other things, will require citizens to provide their "Body Mass Index" rating to the government and purchase "government-approved" health insurance whether they want it or not.
Summer sizzle: Obamacare could be repealed before election
The proposal states: "Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XV, I, Steve King of Iowa, move to discharge the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Education and Labor, the Judiciary, Natural Resources, Rules, House Administration and Appropriations from the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4972) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was referred to said committees on March 25, 2010, in support of which motion the undersigned Members of the House of Representatives affix their signatures."
Its target is the $940 billion, or greater, bill adopted by the Democrat-controlled Congress in March.
Advocates say constituents need to call their representatives to tell them to get on board right away so that the petition is positioned to move forward whether or not the GOP becomes the majority in the House after the 2010 fall elections.
The move by King also has prompted an online petition campaign to rally the public to the cause.
"Who would have thought we might have a chance to repeal Obamacare – this term?" exclaimed Joseph Farah, editor and CEO of WND, in response to the plan by King.
Now it's time for the public to turn up the pressure, he urged. Farah's public petition drive is intended to coalesce support for King's measure.
King has explained, "Republicans are the proponents of limited government, personal responsibility and constitutional liberties, principles which 'Obamacare' violates. Recognizing this fact, every House Republican voted against 'Obamacare' just three months ago. Now that our repeal effort has been endorsed by House GOP leadership, House Republicans should stand by their votes by signing onto discharge petition No. 11."
He said, "The American people did not want Obamacare passed, and they have consistently called for their representatives to show that they stand with them by repealing the legislation. Our discharge petition provides an avenue for repeal that even Speaker Pelosi cannot block. Republicans recognize that a clean, 100-percent repeal bill is the best strategy for uprooting 'Obamacare' lock, stock and barrel, and will continue to show their commitment to Obamacare's repeal by quickly signing our discharge petition."
Congressional officials said Pelosi, an adamant advocate for government-controlled health care, never would allow a vote on a plan to overturn Obamacare. But through the discharge-petition process in the House, if a majority of members sign on, she cannot stop it. It still would need to be moved through the Senate and, ultimately, the Oval Office, possibly by a veto override.
An inside congressional source told WND the pressure also will be on all other members as the November 2010 elections approach, since poll after poll has indicated a significant majority of Americans dislike Obamacare to the point of seeking its repeal.
The issue is expected to play a role in the elections, with voters, especially supporters of tea-party principles, calling on their representatives to stand up against what a multitude of lawsuits already are describing as an unconstitutional power grab by Democrats.
Both Democrats and Republicans will have to answer to voters on the issue, the source said.
And, whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in a majority after the fall elections, the petition will put the issue in a position to be forwarded immediately.
"This isn't a battle we want to give up on," the source told WND. "Obamacare needs to get pulled out by the roots."
House members who previously endorsed King's plan are:
Steve King, Iowa
Connie Mack, Florida
Michele Bachmann, Minnesota
Todd Tiahrt, Kansas
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
Tom Price, Georgia
Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Jerry Moran, Kansas
Tom Graves, Georgia
Rob Bishop, Utah
Joseph R. Pitts, Pennsylvania
Mike Pence, Indiana
Lynn A. Westmoreland, Georgia
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Jeb Hensarling, Texas
Louie Gohmert, Texas
Judy Biggert, Illinois
John Boozman, Arkansas
Kenny Marchant, Texas
Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Gary G. Miller, California
Bob Goodlatte, Virginia
Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Robert E. Latta, Ohio
Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Trent Franks, Arizona
K. Michael Conaway, Texas
Jo Bonner, Alabama
Dan Burton, Indiana
J. Gresham Barrett, South Carolina
John Linder, Georgia
Bill Posey, Florida
Lynn Jenkins, Kansas
Mike Coffman, Colorado
Roscoe G. Bartlett, Maryland
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
John Campbell, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Charles K. Djou, Hawaii
Pete Sessions, Texas
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Wisconsin
Howard Coble, North Carolina
Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Steve Scalise, Louisiana
Robert B. Aderholt, Alabama
Phil Gingrey, Georgia
Kevin Brady, Texas
Pete Olson, Texas
C.W. Bill Young, Florida
Tom McClintock, California
Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Mac Thornberry, Texas
John R. Carter, Texas
John Shimkus, Illinois
Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
John Fleming, Louisiana
Jeff Flake, Arizona
W. Todd Akin, Missouri
Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Donald A. Manzullo, Illinois
Eric Cantor, Virginia
Scott Garrett, New Jersey
John A. Boehner, Ohio
Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina
Kay Granger, Texas
Parker Griffith, Alabama
Ted Poe, Texas
Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Rodney Alexander, Louisiana
Fred Upton, Michigan
Jean Schmidt, Ohio
John Sullivan, Oklahoma
Peter J. Roskam, Illinois
Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri
Michael C. Burgess, Texas
Ken Calvert, California
Lee Terry, Nebraska
Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina
Mary Bono Mack, California
Spencer Bachus, Alabama
Jeff Miller, Florida
John B. Shadegg, Arizona
Gregg Harper, Mississippi
John Abney Culberson, Texas
Dana Rohrabacher, California
David P. Roe, Tennessee
J. Randy Forbes, Virginia
Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
Denny Rehberg, Montana
Sue Wilkins Myrick, North Carolina
Tom Latham, Iowa
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
John Kline, Minnesota
Ron Paul, Texas
Thomas J. Rooney, Florida
Daniel E. Lungren, California
Darrell E. Issa, California
Harold Rogers, Kentucky
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
Duncan Hunter, California
Sam Graves, Missouri
Bob Inglis, South Carolina
Edward R. Royce, California
Ralph M. Hall, Texas
Timothy V. Johnson, Illinois
Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Thaddeus G. McCotter, Michigan
Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Lamar Smith, Texas
Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Wally Herger, California
Vern Buchanan, Florida
Christopher H. Smith, New Jersey
Geoff Davis, Kentucky
Jack Kingston, Georgia
Brian P. Bilbray, California
Zach Wamp, Tennessee
Jerry Lewis, California
Erik Paulsen, Minnesota
Roy Blunt, Missouri
Jo Ann Emerson, Missouri
Frank Wolf, Virginia
George Radanovich, California
Steve Austria, Ohio
Greg Walden, Oregon
Frank D. Lucas, Oklahoma
Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Jeff Fortenberry, Nebraska
Frank A. LoBiondo, New Jersey
Sam Johnson, Texas
Paul Ryan, Wisconsin
John L. Mica, Florida
Michael R. Turner, Ohio
Aaron Schock, Illinois
Cliff Stearns, Florida
Devin Nunes, California
David Dreier, California
Christopher John Lee, New York
Kevin McCarthy, California
Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Leonard Lance, New Jersey
Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, California
Ander Crenshaw, Florida
Elton Gallegly, California
Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, New Jersey
WND reported recently when House Minority Leader John Boehner gave Obamacare a failing grade for its first three months due to evidence of billions in new taxes, job losses it will trigger, its increase of the deficit and other impacts Americans now are discovering.
It's being revealed that nearly another half a billion dollars in taxes for Obama's plan will come from charity-based 501(c)(3) hospitals and a whopping $70 billion will come from those who don't buy "government-approved" health insurance or in some other way fail to comply with the law's demands.
A recent poll by the Obama-friendly CNN revealed 56 percent of the public disapproves of the law.
"While rushing their massive government takeover of health care through Congress, President Obama and congressional Democrats promised it would create jobs, lower costs, reduce the deficit, allow Americans to keep their health care, protect seniors' coverage, prohibit taxpayer-funded abortion and, of course, gain the support of the American people," Boehner's report said.
"It isn't just that none of these promises or predictions have turned out to be true. In every instance, Obamacare has made matters worse," the report said.
Among the study's conclusions:
"Some of the nation's largest employers have announced they will be forced to make cutbacks as a result of Obamacare's job-killing mandates."
"Two independent government entities … have confirmed that the new law fails to lower health-care costs and reduce the deficit."
"Obamacare includes at least a dozen violations of President Obama's pledge to not raise taxes on middle-class families."
"The government has confirmed that the new law's massive Medicare cuts will fall squarely on the backs of seniors, millions of whom will be forced off their current Medicare coverage."
The report also said Obama officials have confirmed their new law "will force some 87 million Americans to drop their current coverage despite President Obama's promise that Americans would be able to keep the coverage that they have."
The report further states Obama has done nothing to implement his executive order that was supposed to prevent taxpayer funding of abortions.
The result is that people like it no better now – or even less – than before they knew many of the details. Dozens of states also have revolted against the plan.
"This report chronicles Obamacare's broken promises in the three months since it became law," Boehner said. "The American people remain squarely opposed to this government takeover of health care that has already failed to live up to specific promises made by President Obama and Washington Democrats.
"Republicans are listening to the American people, and fighting to repeal Obamacare so we can replace it with common-sense reforms focused on lowering costs and protecting jobs," he said.
According to the plan, some $400 million will hit nonprofit hospitals, $17 billion will come from those "who do not purchase government-approved health insurance," another $52 billion will hit workers "who fail to fully comply with government health-insurance mandates," and a tax hike for Medicare will pull another $210 billion from the grocery budgets of Americans.
More than 130 top economists also submitted a document, according to the report, that "the health-care bill contains a number of provisions that will eliminate jobs, reduce hours and wages and limit future job creation."
Obama's law is facing a number of lawsuits contesting its constitutionality, claiming the federal government has no right to require consumers to participate in a business transaction – the purchase of health insurance – if they choose not to.
Sign the petition opposing Obamacare.
Remember that awesome children’s picture book, Where’s Waldo? I loved searching for hours upon hours trying to find that lanky, goofy lookin’ dude with the red and white striped shirt, glasses and bobble hat. The objective was trying to pick Waldo out from other people in similar colored clothing doing all kinds of wacky and zany activities that little kids found amusing. Over the past week, I have been reminded of that game when it comes to trying to find out what happened to our favorite aggrieved, former USDA official, Shirley Sherrod.
Where in the world is Shirley Sherrod?
Recall that she was ousted by the Obama Administration for her now infamous speech at a NAACP event in Georgia where she admits, back in the day, that she “didn’t give the full force” of her resources as a state USDA official to a white farmer because, well, he was white. But then she saw the light and came to realize that it’s not only about white and black (her words), but it’s also about rich and poor. So she helped the guy out.
After Andrew Breitbart released the video of her remarks, the left’s media race-baiters went into all-out attack mode. From CNN to Newsweek, from CBS to CNBC, those outlets helped to saint Sherrod, claiming that Breitbart was a ‘nut job’ (Ed Shultz from MSNBC said that gem), a “bully” (CNN’s Anderson Cooper) and that Breitbart was engaged in, along with Fox News, a “smear campaign” (Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter). This all before we even heard Mrs. Sherrod’s side of the story.
Then, she stepped to the podium and confirmed to America what Breitbart’s video conveyed: Shirley Sherrod is a rambling race-hustler. Speaking with Anderson Cooper, she said that Andrew Breitbart would like to “get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he’d like to see all black people end up again.” Uh. What? How can she even come out and imply that this is how Andrew Breitbart feels when she doesn’t even know him and all she does know about him is of a videotape that he released of her own words?
Then, Shirley took her anger out on—who else?—Fox News. Speaking with the Washington Post, Sherrod said she wouldn’t go on Fox because she felt that they considered her a “pawn” and that the network wanted to go “back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.”
Now, you would like to think that she would have to explain these outrageously outrageous statements, right?
And, you’d be wrong! Since Sherrod’s incoherent and racial media blitz, she hasn’t popped up anywhere. Where’s the media’s canonized darling? “Reporters” have been quieter than a church mouse on the whole incident. Granted, our propagandist press probably realized that they fabricated Fox’s and Breitbart’s involvement in Sherrod’s firing (even Jon Stewart acknowledged this!), but let’s be honest here. Shirley Sherrod went on a racially tinged rant, this time in the safe confines of the leftist media, and was never heard from since. They’ve given her a pass. Sherrod is now harder to find than Waldo. I don’t blame her. She’s demonstrated that her world view is deeply shaped by race and gender. Stay hiding, Shirley. We don’t need any more of your disjointed racial musings.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked some of the toughest provisions in the Arizona illegal immigration law, putting on hold the state's attempt to have local police enforce federal immigration policy.
Though the rest of the law is still set to go into effect Thursday, the partial injunction on SB 1070 means Arizona, for the time being, will not be able to require police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, reacting to the ruling, said the "fight is far from over" and vowed to take the case "all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary."
"The bottom line is we've known all along that it is the responsibility of the feds," Brewer told The Associated Press. "They haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The Mexican government praised the judge's decision. Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa told reporters that the injunction was a "first step in the right direction."
In all, Bolton struck down four sections of the law, the ones that opponents called the most controversial. Bolton said she was putting those sections on hold until the courts resolve the issues.
The ruling said the Obama administration, which sought the injunction, is likely to "succeed on the merits" in showing the above provisions are preempted by federal law.
"The court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money," the ruling said. "Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws."
A number of provisions will still go into effect as the case is litigated. Arizona will be able to block state officials from so-called "sanctuary city" policies limiting enforcement of federal law; require that state officials work with federal officials on illegal immigration; allow civil suits over sanctuary cities; and make it a crime to pick up day laborers.
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said the court "ruled correctly" with its decision Wednesday.
"While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive," August said.
The Department of Homeland Security released a statement saying the decision "affirms the federal government's responsibilities" to enforce immigration law. The department claimed "unprecedented resources" have been devoted to that effort.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., one of the most vocal advocates on immigration issues on Capitol Hill, applauded the decision.
"Arresting people based on their appearance and holding them until you can investigate their immigration status is patently un-American and unconstitutional," he said.
But supporters of the policy slammed the court's decision.
"This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens," Brewer said.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., called the ruling "misguided."
"The federal government has a right and a responsibility to enforce existing laws, but when they fail to meet that responsibility, we should not stand in the way of the states that take action to respond to the very real threat of border violence, drug cartels and human smuggling," he said in a written statement. "There's nowhere in the Constitution that says a state is limited to what it absolutely won't do and can be stopped for what it might do and to exercise a judgment against a state that has passed a law that is consistent with existing federal law is beyond absurd."
The volume of the protests will likely be turned down a few notches because of the ruling by Bolton, a Clinton appointee who suddenly became a crucial figure in the immigration debate when she was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona law.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona -- the busiest illegal gateway into the country -- to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.
Opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
Localities inside Arizona were already preparing to interpret the law in different ways. The Tucson Unified School District's Governing Board approved by a 5-0 vote a policy Tuesday that maintains the district's stance of not enforcing immigration laws in the district's schools.
The hardest-line approach was expected in the Phoenix area, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio plans his 17th crime and immigration sweep. He planned to hold the sweep regardless of the ruling.
Arpaio, known for his tough stance against illegal immigration, plans to send out about 200 deputies and volunteers who will be looking for traffic violators, people wanted on criminal warrants and others. He has used that tactic before to arrest dozens of people, many of them illegal immigrants.
"We don't wait. We just do it," he said. "If there's a new law out, we're going to enforce it."
Elsewhere in the state, police officials were busy wrapping up training sessions this week. Many of the state's 15,000 police officers have been watching a DVD released this month that signs that might indicate a person is an illegal immigrant are speaking poor English, looking nervous or traveling in an overcrowded vehicle. It warned that race and ethnicity do not.
Some agencies added extra materials, including a test, a role-playing exercise or a question-and-answer session with prosecutors.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
Rachel StevensFederal News Radio
The Defense Department is unable to account for $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion in Development Fund for Iraq monies in received for reconstruction in Iraq. This according to a study published today by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.
"This situation occurred because most DoD organizations receiving DFI (Development Fund for Iraq) funds did not establish the required Department of the Treasury accounts and no DoD organization was designated as the executive agent for managing the use of DFI funds," the report states.
The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) finds that only one Defense organization actually set up the accounts required by the Treasury.
"The breakdown in controls left the funds vulnerable to inappropriate uses and undetected loss," SIGIR says.
The study recommends that the Secretary of Defense create new accounting and reporting procedures to avoid such mistakes in the future. It also recommends designating an executive agent to oversee progress, establishing measurable milestones, and determining whether any DoD organizations are still holding DFI funds.
For more reports and publications from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, see http://www.sigir.mil/publications/index.html
Rachel Stevens is an intern with Federal News Radio.
The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan learns of allegations that subcontractors are stooping to human trafficking to fill positions. For more on that story, click here.
(Copyright 2010 by FederalNewsRadio.com. All Rights Reserved.)
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Sherrod: "We Must Stop The White Man And His Uncle Toms ..."
First, a note of heartfelt appreciation for Joan Walsh of Salon. Her moving post on Charles Sherrod - in defense of his wife, Shirley - provided the inspiration required to dust off my Google skills. I simply had to fulfill her stated desire to share the actual words of Civil Rights icon Charles Sherrod with her readers, so touched was I by her profound tribute. And she's been swamped on TV, justifying Shirley Sherrod calling Fox and Andrew Breitbart racist. I can only hope she will be kind enough to direct her readers here, so we can all share his unique wisdom on race relations together, as one. That is, after all, the way it should be, is it not, Joan?
The civil rights heroism of Charles Sherrod
Andrew Breitbart sure picked the wrong people to symbolize black "racism."
If there's anyone more clueless about our civil rights history than Breitbart, as well as more abusive to it, I'm challenged to think of who it might be. He tests my commitment to nonviolent social change, but I'll share the work of Charles Sherrod to remember my values.
If I get a chance to talk to Charles Sherrod, I'll let him tell you what he thinks, in his own words, here.
Okay, Joan, though I do confess to being somewhat puzzled by the first quote I stumbled upon, especially as it came relatively recently - a full year after America had installed its first black administration in the White House.
Charles Sherrod: "We must stop the white man and his Uncle Toms from stealing our elections."
Gee, Joan, can you tell me what's so heroic about telling a room full of young black minds not even out in the world, yet - that if they ever embrace political, or socio-economic ideas that don't jibe with your hero's, the one elevated in a room before them, that they will be denounced as race-traitors? That is what Uncle Tom means, after all. What REALLY is heroic in that? It looks to me like what your hero does is build up their black identity to an extreme, then sends them a message that, if they don't vote, or act the way he wants them to, he and his community make them outcasts, stripping that very identity from them as traitors to their race. Is that the message heroic Civil Rights leaders are passing on to young blacks today? It sounds like it to me, Joan.
Maybe it's your hero's racism there that keeps young blacks on the Democrat plantation year after after, generation after generation - and not some non-existent racism you imagine on the other side. Why is your hero poisoning young minds, Joan? Or, is that just too much for you to grasp?
Shouldn't young minds be taught to think and explore the world for themselves, and not be infected with such poison perhaps before they even know who they are? Or, are you cool with your hero, there, Joan? How are you going to rationalize, not my reaction to your hero, but the not so subtle message he is delivering to those young black people looking up to him in a room?
But then, and I must admit to this being extremely troubling for me, Joan - I learned from your hero, Charles Sherrod, that because you are a white liberal, I shouldn't actually be reading you. See, I thought that when white liberals like you in the mainstream media provided significant coverage to black candidates at election time, it was because you wanted to be fair, perhaps even wanting to help them out. I would have never guessed that you were actually engaged in a nation-wide conspiracy to invoke fear and hatred into your white readers so that, come election day, they'd be all riled up at the black candidate, turning out to beat him.
But that is precisely what your hero tells me you are up to, Joan. Here I thought you were only trying to be fair. But then, I guess, you are white.
Charles Sherrod: "The tears that we've shed, so many times.... When the TV and the newspaper comes out the day of an election, or the day before an election. And tell white folk, all over, wherever we are running somebody for an office ... that blacks are going to TAKE that office over. And thousands are coming to the polls. And you gotta get it."
Geez, Joan. I'm really kind of disappointed in you and your hero after all this. I'll just let him tell you himself. I'm going to move on down below and write on some interesting things I discovered about the Sherrods and their New Communities project. I mean, racism is one thing, ... but separatist black-Marxist liberation politics? Is that what this is? Wow, you sure does have some interesting heroes for a white gal, Joan. I'll give you that.
Given the length of this, already - I'm going to cut to the chase - mostly just giving you the facts. In the video below, Sherrod claims they couldn't get funding because they were a corporation. He says nothing about racism being involved - though he does again display some of his own. But that is the grounds they sued upon - racism. And his son offers two views of what New Communities actually is, or was - family farm, non-profit corp., black-Marxist commune? Take your pick.
Kenyatta Sherrod remembers when his family’s farm was in foreclosure in the early 1980s. It was huge -- 6,000 acres -- and several people lived on it, raising vegetables and livestock that they would share with each other. Though several people had a stake in it, the property was in the Sherrods' names. “They lost the farm,” Kenyatta Sherrod said. “Life was different after that. We didn’t have a lot after that.”
The Sherrods also have a daughter, one with a rather interesting name. Pretty cool naming your kid after the Berlin Wall coming down, right? Well, not quite, unfortunately.
Son Kenyatta and daughter Russia defended their mother from charges of racism which led to her resignation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture position as director of its Rural Development program in Georgia on Tuesday.
Further research indicates she graduated high school in 1985. If she were 18 at the time, that would mean she was born in 1967. That's an interesting time for an American to name their child Russia - and it also happens to be the year Russia celebrated the 50th anniversary of the revolution. Hmm. But her actual birth year is unconfirmed, for now.
Russia Sherrod 1981-1985
But, is anyone else starting to get a Jeremiah Wright-like vibe here folks? I am. And if so, why would Obama appoint a racist black-Marxist to the USDA, fire her in kneejerk fashion, then grovel on the phone to her, offering her a promotion. By the way, she may just go fishing, instead.
The two joked afterward, Shirley said now that's she's unemployed she might have a little bit of time to do a little fishing a favorite hobby.
Mark Knoller mentioned a potential wrongful termination lawsuit in passing. And now the media and the administration seem intent on making her disappear. One theory on that I've heard is, they don't want people asking questions about her lawsuit. What I'm wondering is, maybe they don't want people asking questions about Obama.
He worshiped with Jeremiah Wright for years. He potentially appointed a racist black liberationist Marxist to the USDA. Just how many of them does he have around him, as he sits in the WH waging war on capitalism? And, finally, what might all those college documents of his they won't let us see tell us about him ... especially given this?
Ultimately, given all this now beginning to come out as a result of Andrew Breitbart's original work makes him a hero in my book. These are the tough questions the press doesn't even want to ask. It brings to the front important issues on race and racism, black, or otherwise, the press and the WH don't wish to confront. But that's what's suppose to happen in a genuinely free, open and democratic society.
As things stand, an extremely controversial woman is sitting there with a free ticket for a promotion at the USDA from an incompetent in the WH who created this mess by appointing her, then firing her too quickly for some reason. This isn't Breitbart's mess. This is now Obama's mess to clean up, or justify, as far as I'm concerned. Heckuva job, Barry. Heckuva job. At least we're starting to get used to it. I believe the word is: incompetent.
Obama really does seem to have some of the strangest friends, just like Joan Walsh, of Sherrod's white media conspiracy against blacks. Who'd a thunk it?
Friday, July 23, 2010
President Barack Obama delivers remarks on the economy in the Roosevelt...
WASHINGTON (AP) - New estimates from the White House on Friday predict the budget deficit will reach a record $1.47 trillion this year. The government is borrowing 41 cents of every dollar it spends.
That's actually a little better than the administration predicted in February.
The new estimates paint a grim unemployment picture as the economy experiences a relatively jobless recovery. The unemployment rate, presently averaging 9.5 percent, would average 9 percent next year under the new estimates.
The Office of Management and Budget report has ominous news for President Barack Obama should he seek re-election in 2012—a still-high unemployment rate of 8.1 percent. That would be well above normal, which is closer to a rate of 5.5 percent to 6 percent. Private economists don't think the unemployment rate will drop to those levels until well into this decade.
"The U.S. economy still faces strong headwinds," the OMB report said. They include tight credit markets, a high inventory of unsold housing and retrenchment by state governments bound by balanced budget mandates. The European debt crisis has also had an impact.
"Despite these headwinds, the administration expects economic growth and job creation to continue for the rest of 2010 and to rise in 2011 and beyond," the report said.
The gaping deficits are of increasing concern to voters. But Obama and Democrats controlling Congress are mostly taking a pass on deficit reduction this year as they await possible recommendations from Obama's deficit commission.
While there's a slight improvement in the deficit for the current year compared to the administration's February forecast, next year's predicted $1.42 trillion worth , next year's predicted $1.42 trillion worth of red ink—that's 37 cents of borrowing for every dollar spent—is looking worse. It's about $150 billion more than previously predicted, because of still-slumping tax revenues.
The current record holder is the $1.41 trillion deficit for 2009.
Economists agree that the most important measure of the deficit is against the size of the economy. Opinions vary, but many economists say a deficit of 3 percent of gross domestic product is sustainable since it would stabilize the overall debt when measured relative to the economy.
The report put the deficit at 10 percent of GDP this year and 9.2 percent of GDP next year. It would never reach the 3 percent figure under Obama's predictions—which underestimate war costs and depend on assumptions of tax hikes that may not materialize.
OMB Director Peter Orszag said the numbers represent a "fiscal situation that requires attention."
Obama "has done little to confront this domestic enemy," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. "Washington desperately needs real leadership. We cannot continue to postpone the hard choices and sacrifices that are necessary to stop this fiscal train wreck."
Deficits have skyrocketed since the recession took hold in 2008 and Congress responded with a massive bailout of the financial system and last year's $862 billion stimulus measure.
"What we should be doing now is putting in place deficit reduction policies that will kick in after the economy has more fully recovered," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota. "It is an unsustainable long-term course."
Ex-congressman: President a 'threat,' must be impeached
'We have man in White House who brazenly disregards his oath of office'
Posted: July 23, 20103:05 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2010 WorldNetDaily
President Obama bowing to Japan's emperor
A former member of Congress says for current members of the House and Senate to uphold their oath of office that includes the defense of the United States against enemies "foreign and domestic," they need to be filing impeachment charges against Barack Obama.
Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., joined what has become a growing surge of those recommending the ultimate solution for a president they believe not only has disagreeable policies, but is participating in actions that damage the nation.
Tancredo wrote in a opinion piece in the Washington Times that, "Mr. Obama's refusal to live up to his own oath of office – which includes the duty to defend the United States against foreign invasion – requires senators and representatives to live up to their oaths. Members of Congress must defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today, that means bringing impeachment charges against Mr. Obama."
The ultimate guide to Obama's radical agenda – and how to stop it!
Tancredo is not the first to raise the idea of impeachment against Obama, who has implemented legislation and policies effectively nationalizing financial institutions, automobile companies, health care and many other previously private interests.
In fact, he was not even the only person on this particular day. Times columnist Jeffrey T. Kuhner, who also is president of the Edmund Burke Institute, wrote at the same time, "President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached."
Kuhner continued, "He is slowly – piece by painful piece – erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there – yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above – one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go."
Tancredo's arguments aren't complicated. During his brief presidential run in 2008 he focused on the border security issue of the United States, and he still is concerned that the failure to secure the U.S. boundary – especially with Mexico – will lead to tragic consequences at the hands of border-crossing terrorists.
Tancredo appeared on Fox News today to defend his position from skeptics, saying Obama's responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution and the United States, not "fundamentally transform" them.
"Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms," Tancredo warns, affirming his belief that Obama is more dangerous for the United States than al-Qaida.
"He is more dangerous simply because he is inside," he said. "Few people took him seriously about fundamentally transforming America. That is what he is all about. That is what he has set about doing. He is a committed ideologue. When you have someone like that in the White House, it is a scary proposition."
Obama bowing to Saudi Arabian leader
He cited the president's lack of action to adequately secure the border with Mexico.
"He's putting his country in danger," Tancredo said. "The country the Founders put together, that's what's in jeopardy."
"Barack Obama is one of the most powerful presidents this nation has seen in generations. He is powerful because he is supported by large majorities in Congress, but, more importantly, because he does not feel constrained by the rule of law. Whether he is putting up the weakest possible defense of the Defense of Marriage Act despite the Justice Department's legal obligation to support existing law; disenfranchising Chrysler and GM bondholders in order to transfer billions of investor dollars to his supporters in the United Auto Workers; or implementing yet a third offshore oil-drilling moratorium even after two federal courts have thrown out two previous moratoriums, President Obama is determined to see things done his way regardless of obstacles," Tancredo wrote in his op-ed.
"To Mr. Obama, the rule of law is a mere inconvenience to be ignored, overcome or 'transcended' through international agreements or 'norms.'"
Tancredo wrote that the "dedicated Marxist who lives in the White House" holds power over budgets, the judiciary, national defense and health care. As such, "his regime and his program are not just about changing public policy in the conventional sense. When one considers the combination of his stop-at-nothing attitude, his contempt for limited government, his appointment of judges who want to create law rather than interpret it – all of these make this president today's single greatest threat to the great experiment in freedom that is our republic.
"Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al-Qaida. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat. Mr. Obama can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents."
Tancredo, who served five terms representing Colorado and now is chairman of the Rocky Mountain Foundation, was joined by Kuhner, who accused Obama of abusing his office and violating his oath.
Kuhner cited Obama's demand that all Americans buy health insurance.
"The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power," he wrote. "Yet Obamacare's most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens."
He further cited Obama's actions regarding the BP oil spill.
"There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia's Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda."
He also wrote about the takeovers in the auto and financial industries, and the New Black Panther case.
"Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper," he said. "As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site."
Tancredo nearly two months ago broached the subject of impeachment, suggesting an "impeachment file."
"I believe there is a growing body of evidence of impeachable offenses sufficient to warrant a formal impeachment resolution in the House, followed by a trial in the Senate," he wrote at the time.
And the suggestion even has come from onlookers at a presidential appearance. CNN has documented when Obama made a surprise visit to a crowd on a shuttle bus, one onlooker shouted, "When are you going to quit. When are you going to be impeached?"
The issue even has appeared among online gamers, when Microsoft told an Xbox user the signon name "Impeach Obama" was not allowed because, "If you were President Obama, how would you feel if someone wanted to impeach you?"
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, in a column on WND, discussed the ImpeachObamaCampaign.com that they launched.
They reported that many, instead of examining the evidence, attacked the messengers.
"We expected these attacks," they reported. But they said the unresolved issues include:
"Obama repeatedly lies to the American people when he says we can keep our private insurance, knowing full well that his legislation will inevitably drive private insurers out of business.
"Gerald Walpin, inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, investigated Kevin Johnson, a big buddy of the president, for misuse of funds from an AmeriCorps grant. Obama did not like Walpin's investigation and findings, whereupon he vindictively fired Walpin to cover for his friend, Johnson. A subsequent investigation vindicated Walpin's judgment in the matter.
"Barack Obama oversaw the effective takeover by government of banks, the largest insurance company (AIG), General Motors and Chrysler – the bulk of the U.S. auto industry – thus stripping bondholders, shareholders and others of their personal property.
"Barack Obama is actively pursuing cap-and-trade legislation. Instead of taxing the very air we breathe, it will instead, in a manner of speaking, tax the air we exhale, giving the government unprecedented control over the economy and American businesses. Those taxed businesses will then pass the fees onto the American people.
"Spending American citizens' money, Barack Hussein Obama is running up our debt at an alarming rate. In just the nine months since Obama assumed office, our national debt has gone up by over a trillion dollars. To put that figure in perspective, it took George W. Bush eight years to add $4.8 trillion to the national debt.
"And, to add insult to injury, Obama is printing money like it's going out of style. The effect will be hyperinflation, a crippling of our economy and, quite possibly, personal hardship on a scale that has not been experienced since the Great Depression.
"Barack Hussein Obama appointed countless "czars" to oversee everything from the closing of Guantanamo to the food we eat. These czars don't have to be approved by the Senate. The czars have unprecedented power and report only to Obama. Members of both parties are disturbed by these extra-constitutional excrescences. Sen. Robert Byrd said: "The accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances." Rep. Jack Kingston called the czars a "parallel government."
"And finally, Obama consistently refuses to approve the release of his actual birth certificate, college transcripts and his medical records. Is he trying to hide something that will threaten his presidency?"
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely
Retired U.S. Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, a noted military leader who now is a presence on the Internet with his Stand Up For America and Veterans Defenders websites, told WND he would like Obama to resign.
Vallely, who served in Vietnam and retired in 1991 from the U.S. Army as deputy commanding general for the Pacific, said, "We now must call for the immediate resignation of Barry Soetero (AKA President Barack Hussein Obama) … based on incompetence, deceit, fraud, corruption, dishonesty and violation of the U.S. oath of office and the Constitution."
"We can wait no longer for a traditional change of power and new government," he has warned.
"'We the People' have had enough. Enough is enough. The Obama White House and identifiable members of Congress are now on a progressive socialist, treasonous death march and are bankrupting and weakening the country. We have watched them violate their sacred oath of office. 'We, the People' cannot wait for and solely rely on the next round of elections in November of this year. It is now and each day that these public servants must put the citizen's interests above self-interest by resigning immediately," he said.
Peter Ferrara, on the American Spectator website, also has predicted Obama's resignation.
"I am now ready to predict that President Obama will not even make it [to 2012]," he wrote. "I predict that he will resign in discredited disgrace before the fall of 2012," Ferrera said.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
By Sen. Tom Coburn
The Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan provided key exchanges about the Commerce Clause, natural rights, and other issues that have convinced me to vote against her nomination. Based on her own testimony, she’ll violate her oath as soon as she’s sworn in.
The hearings, though, were not merely about Elena Kagan per se but about the political culture and philosophy that shaped her views. Her answers exposed profound flaws in the prevailing Big Government wisdom of the Supreme Court and Washington over the past few decades.
When I asked Kagan whether the Constitution gave Congress the authority to tell people to eat their fruits and vegetables, she answered with appropriate humor. “That would be a dumb law,” she quipped. True enough. Her response was humorous because the underlying premise is absurd both as a matter of common sense and law. Of course, Kagan and everyone else knew I was asking a proxy question about the new health law’s individual mandate and the founder’s intent regarding the Commerce Clause.
What is less humorous is the fact that as a Supreme Court justice, she would signal that Congress does in fact have the right to tell people what to eat and, by implication, whether to buy health insurance. With Kagan on the Court, Congress and the executive branch may succeed at sweeping away whatever limitations remain on its power to micromanage the decisions of states and individuals.
In her testimony, it was clear that Kagan subscribes to the progressive view that the wrongly decided precedents of the Supreme Court are more important the clear intent of the Constitution. Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington? They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause.
In “Federalist Paper 45,” James Madison wrote: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly turned a blind eye when Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause. As a result, the federal government can control practically every aspect of our lives. For instance, in the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court decided that a farmer in Ohio, Roscoe Filburn, had to cease growing wheat to feed his chicken because he didn’t have permission from Congress. As a matter of law, we aren’t far from regulating American’s eating habits.
Kagan refused to answer the substance of my question. Her answers indicated she would support the big-government policies that created our $13 trillion debt and the welfare state that is collapsing into a fiscal black hole.
Even more troubling was Kagan’s refusal to say whether she believed in the principle of natural rights contained in the Declaration of Independence. Kagan told me, “I don’t have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution.”
While I understand a nominee’s reluctance to express personal beliefs, it was extraordinary to hear a Supreme Court nominee decline to endorse the concept of natural rights contained in the Declaration of Independence that is the very basis of our Constitution.
Kagan’s answer exposed a troubling train of thought in progressive ideology. Refusing to acknowledge natural or God-given rights removes the morality from the progressive’s moral certitude. Without natural law there would have been no Constitution. Without natural law, “progressives” would take us back to the 17th century, when rights emanated from the state or the king rather than the creator.
Kagan made a number of statements that concerned me such as her statement that Justices can get “good ideas” on how to approach legal issues from the decisions of foreign courts. Instead of looking toward foreign courts for inspiration, Kagan, and more importantly the country, would be wise to look at the United States Constitution. With Kagan on the Court the chances are slim that the Supreme Court will rein in Congress and throw away years of expansive precedents that have nearly destroyed the Constitution. Our only hope is where it has always been in our system — with “We the People” and our willingness to elect leaders who will rediscover and apply the constitutional principles that made our government limited, and our country great.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
By Jerome R. Corsi© 2010 WorldNetDaily
An investigation by three Republican congressmen has revealed the Obama administration has secretly spent $23 million of U.S. taxpayer dollars in Kenya to fund a "Yes" vote on a constitutional referendum scheduled for Aug. 4 that would increase access to abortions in Kenya and establish legal status for Islamic law tribunals.
Meanwhile, trusted sources in Kenya tell WND that the White House has used Vice President Joseph Biden's trip to Kenya in June and the office of U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Michael E. Ranneberger to put out the message that passage of the referendum would enable the White House to open the floodgates to allow millions of dollars of additional U.S. government aid and private investment capital to flow into Kenya.
Last week, in response to inquiries from Reps. Chris Smith, R-N.J., Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, admitted to spending more than $23 million of U.S. taxpayer money to influence voters in Kenya to pass the highly contentious constitution.
Learn details of Obama's Kenya connections. Get Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," autographed by the author, exclusively from WND's online store.
"Despite denials, the Obama administration's funding to support passage of the controversial Kenyan proposed constitution is clear," Jeff Sagnip, spokesman for Rep. Smith, told WND in an e-mail over the weekend. "It constitutes U.S. monetary interference in a sovereign nation's voting process. If passed the constitution would dramatically alter existing pro-life laws."
Sagnip pointed out that the proposed constitution would water down the existing abortion law. It would permit abortion when "in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law." That language, Sagnip said, is "obviously vague" and riddled with "blatant loopholes."
The proposed constitution would also give legal status to what are known as "Kadhi Courts," constituting an Islamic judicial structure within the overall structure of the Kenyan legal structure, to resolve disputes between Muslims under Shariah, or Islamic law.
Critics have charged that the constitutional provision to codify Kadhi Courts would violate the separation of state and religion by allowing Islamic law to have official legal status.
WND previously reported that in the 2007 presidential campaign in Kenya, Raila Odinga – the presidential candidate of the Orange Democratic Party and a Luo tribesman like Obama's father –signed an undisclosed memorandum of understanding with radical Muslims in Kenya to expand Islamic law within the country in exchange for Muslim support of his candidacy.
As reported by Ecumenical News International in the U.K., many Kenyans believe the provision in the proposed referendum that would establish Kadhi courts is a fulfillment of the agreement Odinga made with Sheik Abdullah Abdi, the chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum.
U.S. taxpayers suppory "Yes" vote
According to Smith's office, the USAID inspector general had identified the following programs with direct ties to supporting the "Yes" vote the Obama administration had funded in Kenya:
Provincial Peace Forum, Eastern Providence: $97,633.33 to "gain buy-in for the new proposed constitution by educating the professional elites in Isiolo South Constituency about its benefits and getting their commitment to use their influence to ensure people register and vote 'Yes' at the referendum."
Central Organization of Trade Unions, Kenya (COTU): $91,106.66 to "marshal a coalition of pro-Constitution individuals, institutions, and organizations to drum up political support for the Proposed Constitution by organizing a public rally at the historic Kamukunji Grounds, Nairobi."
Provincial Commissioner North Eastern Province: $99,220 for "one of a series of activities that aim to contribute to an 'overrepresentation' of the 'Yes' voters at the next referendum. Specifically, OTI will provide support to the office of the Provincial Commissioner (PC) in the form of transportation and fuel.
Kenya Muslim Youth Alliance (KMYA): $56,953.33 for "one of a series of activities that aim to contribute to an 'overrepresentation' of the 'Yes' voters at the next referendum. Specifically, OTI will provide support to Kenya Muslims Youth Alliance (KMYA) in the form of transportation and communications.
Provincial Peace Forum, Rift Valley Province: $94,193.33 to "build on previous activities in the North Rift as an entry point for a 'Yes' campaign on the constitution. Specifically, this activity will serve to gain buy-in for the new proposed constitution by getting the professional elites' commitment."
Inter community Peace Choir Organization: $38,600 for "one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in cosmopolitan areas occupied by IDPs for a 'Yes' vote at the next referendum."
North Rift Theatre Ambassadors: $37,773.33 for "one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in cosmopolitan areas of Uasin Gishu, namely Turbo, Maili Maili Nne-Chepkanaga, and Huruma divisions for a 'Yes' vote at the next referendum."
Amani Peoples Theatre: $41,400 for "one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in Kachiliba and Psigor Constituencies-North Pokot for a 'Yes' vote at the next referendum."
Christian Community Services: $37,466.67 for "one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in the three Constituencies of Turkana South, Central, and North for a 'Yes' vote at the next referendum."
Pokot Outreach Ministries: $38,133.34 for "one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 additional voters in the entire Constituency of Kapenguria for a 'Yes' vote at the next referendum."
"By funding NGOs (non-governmental organizations) with obtaining 'yes' votes, the administration has crossed the line," Smith said last week in a statement. "Directly supporting efforts to register 'yes' voters and 'get out the yes vote' means the U.S. government is running a political campaign in Kenya. U.S. taxpayer funds should not be used to support one side or the other."
The Standard in Kenya reported Kenyan Higher Education Minister William Ruto, who is leading the "Red" team opposing the Kenyan constitutional referendum, has accused Ambassador Ranneberger of crossing the "no-go-zone for foreign diplomats."
In defending his actions, Ranneberger argued he was operating within his diplomatic orbit, but "more so because the U.S. is a friend of Kenya and is pro-reform," according to the report published by the Standard.
"Ranneberger maintained he was a friend of Kenya and would therefore not shy away from pointing out the lies being propagated by the 'No' team," the Standard wrote.
"Separated by a few kilometers from another meeting, where Ruto was selling his views against the draft, the envoy promised to continue helping the push for reforms," the paper said. "The American ambassador again pointed out Obama was interested in ensuring the country embraces reforms to pave way for better governance, improved livelihood for citizens."
Obama's links to Odinga
The Obama administration's funding of Kenyan internal politics appears to follow a pattern then-Sen. Obama first set on his 2006 Senate-funded visit to Kenya.
During that trip in 2006, Obama campaigned so openly for Odinga that Kenyan government spokesman Alfred Mutua went on Kenyan television on behalf of Kenyan President Kibaki to object that Obama was meddling inappropriately in Kenyan politics, as WND reported.
WND reported in 2008 that Obama raised almost $1 million for Odinga during the run-up to Kenya's 2007 presidential election.
Also as WND previously reported, Odinga called for protests over alleged voter fraud during the December 2007 Kenyan presidential election, with the resulting protest violence leaving an estimated 1,000 members of the dominant Kiduyu tribe in Kenya dead and an estimated 500,000 displaced from their homes.
In a horrifying incident following the election, at least 50 people, including women and children, were killed when an angry mob forced Kiduyu Christians into an Assembly of God church in the village of Eldoret, about 185 miles northwest of Nairobi. The mob set fire to the church, hacking with machetes any of the Christians who attempted to escape the flames.
In the final days of the New Hampshire Democratic primary, after the post-election violence in Kenya, Obama told reporters he continued to remain in contact with Odinga by telephone.
Obama did not object to Odinga's continued push to share the head of state with President Mwai Kibaki despite Odinga's electoral defeat.
Instead, Obama worked with former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to end the violence by creating for Odinga the position of prime minister – a position not defined in the Kenyan constitution – so Odinga could become co-head of state with Kibaki.
As recently as May, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the top prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, was in Kenya to investigate the possibility of bringing criminal charges against both Kibaki and Odinga for their roles in the post-election violence.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) has falsely accused the Tea Party of having ties to the Ku Klux Klan. Speaking at the NAACP convention, she said: “All those who wore sheets a long time ago lifted them off to wear Tea Party clothing.”
Now is the time to speak some Truth to Power.
It would have been far more truthful for the congresswoman to have admitted the fact that all those who wore sheets a long time ago lifted them to wear Democratic Party clothing. Yes, the Ku Klux Klan was established by the Democratic Party. Yes, the Ku Klux Klan murdered thousands of Republicans — African-American and white – in the years following the Civil War. Yes, the Republican Party and a Republican President, Ulysses Grant, destroyed the KKK with their Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.
How did the Ku Klux Klan re-emerge in the 20th century? For that, the Democratic Party is to blame.
It was a racist Democrat President, Woodrow Wilson, who premiered Birth of a Nation in the White House. That racist movie was based on a racist book written by one of Wilson’s racist friends from college. In 1915, the movie spawned the modern-day Klan, with its burning crosses and white sheets.
Inspired by the movie, some Georgia Democrats revived the Klan. Soon, the Ku Klux Klan again became a powerful force within the Democratic Party. The KKK so dominated the 1924 Democratic Convention that Republicans, speaking truth to power, called it the Klanbake. In the 1930s, a Democrat President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, appointed a Klansman, Senator Hugo Black (D-AL), to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the 1950s, the Klansmen against whom the civil rights movement struggled were Democrats. The notorious police commissioner Bull Connor, who attacked African-Americans with dogs and clubs and fire hoses, was both a Klansman and the Democratic Party’s National Committeeman for Alabama. Starting in the 1980s, the Democratic Party elevated a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), to third-in-line for the presidency.
Speaking more Truth to Power, the Republican Party has been a resolute enemy of the Ku Klux Klan, terrorist wing of the Democratic Party.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Sadly to this date, the United Negro College Fund hasn't received a donation from Andrew Breitbart. That's because the Congressmen who made those accusations are full of shit (as most politicians are). They tried to incite and expose a racial tension that simply doesn't exist. When they failed, they decided to lie to the lapdog press anyway. No evidence can be found anywhere (believe me, I tried). I've seen some signs with religious overtones, but mostly about American being a christian nation, as a rebuke to Obama saying "we are no longer a christian nation."
I did see someone holding a cardboard sign saying: This sign is the brownest thing on the block. Looks racist, but if you look at the guy's t-shirt, which says, "Listen to Bob Marley," it's obvious he was there to infiltrate the TEA Party. A smart and under-handed tactic, when one actually dresses like the people he's supposed to be marginalizing.
I'm forced to categorize the NAACP as a political tool of the left. Why would they pass this resolution without proof? Why won't they present proof they say they have to Andrew Breitbart? I know the United Negro College Fund could use and extra ten grand in these tough economic times.
Well, where's the proof?
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The group that uncovered evidence of large-scale illegal voting by felons in Minnesota's contested 2008 Senate race says the whole mess might have been prevented if the federal government had just done its job.
The federal government is required under the Civil Rights Act and the Help America Vote Act to make sure that states purge their voter rolls of ineligible voters — the dead, those who have moved, felons, undocumented immigrants, etc. — and to ensure that elections are administered and conducted fairly, said Dan McGrath, executive director of Minnesota Majority.
But the conservative watchdog group's review of Minnesota's voting records found that the government apparently did not fulfill that obligation in the state in 2008, which in turn affected the number of voters whose ballots were counted -- and possibly the outcome of the dead-heat election.
The group's recently published report found that hundreds of felons voted in the election in which Al Franken, a Democrat, beat then-incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman by just 312 votes out of more than 3 million cast -- a margin that was determined after six months of legal challenges and recounts.
The report, using public election records, state felony conviction documents and hand-sorted searches of voting rosters, found “irrefutable evidence” that hundreds of felons voted illegally in the election, and that the number of felons whose votes were wrongly counted exceeded the margin by which Franken beat Coleman.
“If the feds had done their job and ensured that the voting records were up to date, things would have turned out very differently,” McGrath said.
McGrath charged that efforts to get the federal government involved, even after the election, were met with a wall of silence, despite letters and a meeting with the FBI.
“We sent two letters to the United States Justice Department detailing the problem and met with the FBI, and nothing happened,” he said.
Among the early findings submitted to the Department of Justice in the first letter, dated Nov. 17, 2008, were that thousands more votes were cast than voter records supported, and that the registration rolls contained thousands more voters who had died, moved away, were registered at vacant lots or were undocumented aliens. Those charges, sent to the Justice Department in the waning days of the Bush administration, were supported by the former Minnesota Secretary of State, Mary Kiffmeyer, a Republican.
Two months later, "just as the administrations were changing, we met with FBI agent Brian Kinney in our office and he went through the documentation," McGrath continued. "When he left he said he had enough to file a complaint. We never heard from him again.”
A second letter, sent in October 2009 as results of the study began to emerge, also requested a federal investigation, It too was never answered.
E.K. Wilson, spokesman for the FBI in Minnesota, did not respond to calls to his office or cell phone.
McGrath said Minnesota Majority's study hadn’t been able to pinpoint where the problem lay in failing to keep the voting records up to date. He said that there are three groups responsible for the effort. “Courts must notify the secretary of state when someone is convicted of a felony, who then must notify the counties of the conviction, and the county auditors must then update the books. We are not sure where the fault lies,” he said.
“But if the federal government had paid attention, we wouldn’t have to ask that question,” he said.
Minnesota isn’t the only state with deep electoral problems, said Robert Pastor of American University’s Center for Democracy and Election Management. He said the management of elections in the U.S. has become increasingly partisan, especially since the disputed 2000 presidential election.
“We are worse than many Third World countries,” Pastor said. “Having partisan election officials oversee election decisions makes those decisions suspect.”
Minnesota Majority says it does not want the 2008 election overturned, but it wants to make sure the next election is less prone to fraud.
WASHINGTON, July 13 (AP) - (Kyodo)—The U.S. federal budget deficit stood at $1,004.0 billion in the first nine months of fiscal 2010, topping the $1 trillion for the second straight year, according to a monthly data released Tuesday by the Treasury Department.
The budget deficit from October 2009 to June this year was 7.6 percent smaller than that registered a year earlier as the financial crisis has subdued, but it remains at a critical level.
The U.S. federal deficit marked a record high of $1,417.1 billion in fiscal 2009 ended last September as life-supporting measures for the banking industry amid the financial crisis boosted spending.
In the nine-month period through June, revenue inched up 0.5 percent from a year before to $1,597.0 billion due to increased tax receipts amid the economic recovery.
Expenditures dipped 2.8 percent to $2,601.0 billion, the department said.
**UPDATE Below (Response from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund)
In the past 24 hours, more than a few pundits and writers have noted that the NAACP resolution accusing Tea Partiers of racism is hard to swallow when the NAACP seems unconcerned with the New Black Panther voting intimidation case. Their points would be valid by analogy only. Their points are even more valid, though, because of a direct, rather than just analagous, tie between the NAACP and the Panther case.
It was first reported here at the Washington Times that "Kristen Clarke, director of political participation at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in Washington, however, confirmed to The Times that she talked about the case with lawyers at the Justice Department and shared copies of the complaint with several persons. She said, however, her organization was 'not involved in the decision to dismiss the civil complaint.'"
Ms. Clarke testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights a few months back that that account was wrong. But J. Christian Adams, the main lawyer who built the case against the Black Panthers, contradicted her when he testified to the commission on July 6. Here is the exchange between Mr. Adams and commission general counsel David Blackwood:
MR. BLACKWOOD: During the decision making process about the Panther case, did you hear that anyone at the Department was consulting with any outside groups such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund?
MR. ADAMS: Well, I did, but we were also consulting with outside groups. We visited the Southern Poverty Law Center. We visited the Anti-Defamation League and would have probably hired them as an expert in this case if it had gone forward. Because of course the Black Panthers, they're a militant, anti-Semitic group. They're not just black nationalists. They hate Jews. And the ADL has an extensive database on this organization.
MR. BLACKWOOD: But the -- Your communications with the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center I assume were related to the substance of the case.
MR. ADAMS: That's correct.
MR. BLACKWOOD: Do you know whether anybody was consulting as to whether to proceed or the merits of the case with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund?
MR. ADAMS: Well, listen. This is not firsthand. But I was told by section management that NAACP members or staffers were talking with the Voting section attorney in March of 2009 and asking, "When is this case going to get dismissed" which, of course, is interesting to hear for the first time that someone's even thinking about dismissing the case that you're in the middle of building. And that was -- It seemed strange. But it didn't really give me much pause other than to think that's a really strange request.
MR. BLACKWOOD: Well, all press reports indicated a conversation between Kristen Clark of the Legal Defense Fund and a Laura Coates of the Department. Who is Laura Coates?
MR. ADAMS: She is a line attorney in the Voting section, no relation to Christopher Coates.
MR. BLACKWOOD: And according to the press reports Laura Coates reported this contact, this conversation, with Kristen Clark of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund "to her superiors." Do you know whether that occurred?
MR. ADAMS: I do. And if Mr. Coates were able to comply with his subpoena and testify under oath I'm quite confident that he would be able to share the full details of those communications as conveyed to him.
MR. BLACKWOOD: But you're not in the position to do that.
MR. ADAMS: Other than they existed and you accurately -- and that I characterized them as a request as to when the case was going to be dismissed as conveyed to me by Mr. Coates.
Mr. Coates was the top attorney directly involved in building the case. After he was subpoenaed by the commission, the Justice Department summarily transferred him to South Carolina, which just so happens to be outside the commission's statutory subpoena range. The department has repeatedly refused to compy with or enforce the commission's subpoenas, even though federal law mandates that all federal agencies shall cooperate with the commission.
Anyway, if, as has been believably alleged, the NAACP attorney was lobbying or actively hinting to the new Obama appointees or their "friendlies" in the "career" ranks of DoJ that DoJ should drop the Black Panther case, it makes the NAACP's charges of racism against Tea Partiers even more tendentious. These New Black Panthers, after all, are some of the most virulently racist people around. Witness, again, this video of one of them advocating "killing crakkas" and "kill[ing] they [sic] babies."
Racism in all forms needs to be stamped out. The NAACP should be on the side of those wanting to punish the Black Panthers, not on the side of the Panthers.
Note from Quin Hillyer:
I was careful to include in my original report this sentence: "Ms. Clarke testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights a few months back that that account was wrong." Mr. Adams contradicted Ms. Clarke. I await further investigation to find out who is right.
And since the party is in full control of all records, and in
equally full control of the minds of it’s members, it follows
that the past is whatever the party chooses to make it. Six
means eighteen, two plus two equals five, war is peace,
freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.”…George Orwell, “1984″