Tea Flavored Harbor Water

Silly President, Civilian Trials are for Civilians!

2012-01-07T06:53:00.000-08:00

"I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat." -Barack Obama
.
Anyone else remember when Eric Holder said we'd try terrorists and find them guilty? When the head of the DOJ is claiming guilt without trial, doesn't that make the trial pointless?

How easy is it for a terrorist to get a mistrial? Simple, just put Eric Holder in charge. Some slick asshole lawyer will use Holder's words against him to have a mistrial declared.

Merry Christmas

2011-12-25T12:42:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas, to all mankind. Today is a day to celebrate our friends and family.

The Mormon Double Standard

2011-10-22T10:29:00.000-07:00

Being the son of a devout mormon that held rank in the priesthood, I think I'm qualified to at least point this out. Mitt Romney has been put under attack for his mormonism, as people have an uncanny ability to insult and denegrate than which they don't understand. Many christians have called the mormon religion a cult, ironic since they are decendants of christians who faced the same accusations. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has holy texts that are supposedly another testament of Jesus Christ. Many christians believe that adding to The Bible is in itself blasphemy.

These jackasses can argue all they want, but their religious beliefs are no less far-fetched. After all, Christians believe in a Bible that has been edited and re-tranlated by the most powerful among us (King James comes to mind). Most small children are able to tell that the stories held within these sacred texts have a few holes.

A great example is the story of Noah. Basically God pulled an Andrea Yates on all of his children, drowning all of them save Noah and his wife, and whatever animals happened to fit on that mythical boat of his. He flooded the lands, to accomplish this, and apparently Noah was the only guy with a boat. Every animal we have today was represented on that Ark of his? Even the tasmanian devil, giraffe, eagle, chicken, fox, wolf, polar bear, lion, tiger, bear, elk, deer, rabbit, bobcat, were on this boat. How did Noah keep them from eating each other? 40 days is a long time for these animals to survive without food, don't you agree? As of 2010 we've found over 1.3 million species of animals on earth. That comes to 2.6 million animals on a wooden ark that Noah built himself.

Many Christians are reading this and screaming "You're missing the point!" On the contrary, I'm making a point. The story of Noah was to let the faithful know that if they got out of control, God would just smite them and start over. More so, the story is an affirmation of God's power and that you should worship Him. Without faith in God, this story is little more than an obvious fabrication. My point is that Mormons and Christians of other Denominations all believe in something an agnostic like myself can only be skeptical of. It's amazing that these guys are at the throats of Mormons, who by personal experience are more pious than any of the other denominations of the Christian faith. As an agnostic, I myself believe anyone who claims to have all of the answers is either incredibly arrogant, or taking you for a ride. I chose to be an agnostic because it's the only belief humble enough to admit ignorance. I don't know for sure there's a God, because I can't prove his existence. I can't disprove the existence of a higher power either, so I simply say: "I don't know."

Now that I've addressed the idiocy of attacking religion, it's time to explore the double standard our media has for Mormon politicians. Mitt Romney has a target on his back for his mormon faith, as anyone who is paying attention would know. The mainstream media is painfully unaware that one of their champions, their golden boy from Nevada Harry Reid is a mormon. Why is Reid not under constant attack for his faith? Because Reid is a Democrat, and Democrats can do no wrong in the mainstream media's eyes.

This double standard on the faith of politicians is just one of the many ways our media has kept us uninformed and uneducated. By the way, Thomas Jefferson knew how dangerous a nation of dubasses was.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
― Thomas Jefferson

We can't be expected to hold the media accountable, when all we care about is how our sports teams are doing. We are no different than the citizens of Rome who were distracted from the corruption of their government by the violent games of death in the coliseum. That's life in the decline of a great empire.

The Plan to Save America

2011-10-21T18:20:00.000-07:00

What's your plan to save America? Mine's to run it just like we run things on the state level here in Texas.

One thing I've noticed, people keep saying a national sales tax will be unfair, but none seem to want to explain their position. The only valid point I've read is that seniors will be double taxed on their Roth IRA retirement. That's a problem easily fixed with an exemption, we just need a way to let retirees prove to merchants the money they're using is from a retirement fund. A checkbook or debit card would be easy enough of a fix for me.

I live in Texas, and I'm proud of my state for having no income tax. Income taxes are the enemy, they punish success and reward failure, as well as lead us down a dangerous path to communism. Now, Texas doesn't tax income, but we make up for it by taxing everything else. Fortunately, almost all of these taxes seem necessary. Common sense stuff like $0.20 per gallon of gasoline to maintain the roads, $1 per 300 pound barrel of oysters taken from Texas waters, etc.

Texas is hurting less than every other state right now, and it's because our government has the good sense to trim the fat when we have budget shortfalls. As a matter of fact, for 2011 we were facing a $27 billion shortfall. By the end of our very short legislative session which only meets every two years, we ended up with a $4 billion surplus, without touching our $9 billion rainy day fund.

Not bad for a state with no income tax revenue. The best part about living here in Texas is when tax season comes around and the federal government is raping your wallet, the state government leaves you alone.

DOJ Will Not Investigate Attack of Civil Rights Activist

2011-08-18T18:15:00.000-07:00

http://biggovernment.com/tfitton/2011/08/17/doj-will-not-investigate-attack-of-civil-rights-activist/#more-314824

If you needed any more evidence of the level of corruption that exists inside the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) when it comes to enforcing civil rights statutes, here it is.

On March 15, 2011, civil rights activist Ted Hayes testified, by invitation, before the Judiciary Committee of the Maryland House of Delegates, against providing taxpayer dollars for in-state tuition benefits for illegal aliens. Shortly after his testimony, Mr. Hayes was subjected to vicious retribution by a radical Hispanic group known as “The Timmytop,” which posted a hate video on a YouTube channel that included racist smears and death threats.
The video begins with the message “[expletive] you ‘Mayate,’” which is reportedly a racist and derogatory term used to smear African-Americans and “dark skinned” people. The video then streams a series of racist images including: The silhouette of a man hanging from a noose; photos of Mr. Hayes adjacent to photos of monkeys and bananas; and doctored photos of Mr. Hayes pictured with a gun next to his head. The video, which runs two minutes and nine seconds, concludes with the message “Your [sic] FREE Now Mayate go back to Africa.”
The video has since been removed from its original placement on YouTube, but it is available on Judicial Watch’s website here. (If you choose to watch it, please be warned that it is extremely offensive and unfit for young eyes.)
You might think that this type of vile behavior would earn the interest of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. (That’s what we thought, too.) After all, this is the division at the DOJ that is responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations of civil rights, including, and perhaps especially, those that could have a chilling effect on the First Amendment. In this case, you have the intimidation of a witness through death threats and humiliation.
Judicial Watch filed a complaint with the DOJ regarding the matter on April 28, 2011, calling for a full investigation. And recently we received a response directly from the office of Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez (of Black Panther scandal fame). It was short and sweet:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted an investigation into the matter referenced in your letter. We and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California reviewed the results of that investigation and concluded that this incident does not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes. Accordingly we cannot authorize a criminal prosecution of this matter.

That’s it. No further explanation. No review of the evidence “reviewed” by the DOJ. Not even a concession that the treatment of Mr. Hayes was reprehensible and wrong. Just a flat out rejection and a lame reference to the DOJ’s general commitment to “combating violations of federal law that are motivated by racial or ethnic bias.”
So here we have another in a long line of examples of corruption at the Obama DOJ concerning the enforcement of civil rights laws. Apparently the enforcement of civil rights at the DOJ no longer has anything to do with violations of the law. It’s all about racial preferences and partisan politics.
Put another way, had Ted Hayes been a left-wing activist testifying on behalf of illegal alien tuition and attacked by white “conservatives,” Perez would have sprung into action. Trust me on that.
How do I know? Just look at the record!
First, consider the Black Panther scandal discussed in the first Weekly Update story. The DOJ dismissed it’s own voter intimidation lawsuit filed against members of Black Panthers, who hurled racial epithets and threatened white voters at a polling station in 2008. The Obama adminstration said no political appointees were involved in this decision. In fact, Perez himself testified to this effect. This testimony was false. JW uncovered evidence that indeed political appointees at the highest levels inside the Obama DOJ were involved. And why is this important?
According to The Washington Post, “[DOJ attorney J. Christian] Adams and a Justice Department colleague have said the [Black Panther] case was dismissed because the department is reluctant to pursue cases against minorities accused of violating the voting rights of whites.”
Describing the environment over at the Obama DOJ, Christopher Coates, a DOJ attorney, testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that there exists at the DOJ “…a deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities and for the protection of whites who have been discriminated against.”
So, we know that the DOJ is involved in the race-based selective enforcement of civil rights laws. (Our friends (and client) over at Pajamas Media have also exposed the radical leftists being planted in the career ranks at DOJ, which further explains why a conservative seeking protection can get no justice at Justice.)
Now, Mr. Hayes is black. But he’s not in left-wing lock-step with the Obama administration on the issue of illegal alien tuition. And his attackers just happen to be part of a key voter block for the Obama 2012 re-election campign. So Mr. Hayes evidently is not entitled to any protection under law.
Remember, too, the immigration issue addressed by Mr. Hayes in the testimony that led to threats on his life. The Obama DOJ has taken a “La Raza” approach to the issue, allowing illegal alien sanctuary cities to thrive, while attacking states that want to crack down on illegal aliens. The Obama administration has also begun dismissing deportation cases against a wide range of illegal aliens, including those convicted of violent crimes.
Mr. Hayes is on the opposite side of the fence of Obama on these issues. And it is his politics that seem to define how the DOJ responded to his case. Which is just shameless and unlawful. This is yet another scandal in the Obama/Holder DOJ that ought to result in a new attorney general.

U.S. Government Loaning $500M for Solar Power Projects—In India

2011-08-18T18:05:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-investing-500m-sola

RIP Dad, Semper Fidelis

2011-05-13T17:44:00.000-07:00

Gary Egan Cummings, age 73, went to be with the Lord on May 6, 2011. He was born August 23, 1937 in Logan, Utah. He retired from the U.S. Marine Corps and was a two-time Vietnam Purple Heart recipient.

In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to the American Heart Association or the American Cancer Society .

The BC Distraction

2011-04-28T17:50:00.000-07:00

Obama has done something no one could have predicted, he release is long form birth certificate. After 2 1/2 years, he's finally released a certificate of live birth. Now, why would he release this thing, and why would it have such obvious flaws in it (lightly penciled numbers and x's, father's race as African, etc. Well, the answer is simple: Distraction. The economy is failing, the dollar is failing, and the defense secretary decided to quit. That's the long and short of it. Obama needs a boost, and unfortunately, the ignorance and blind acceptance of the American People have given him a much needed boost in the approval polls. The dumbing down of the American people is almost complete. Even I am making grammatical errors. Soon we will all be useful idiots, and who's to say that's not a good thing. After all, ignorance is bliss.

The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

2011-04-20T10:16:00.000-07:00

Today is Adolph Hitler's birthday. Hitler is considered one of the most, if not the most evil man in history. He committed mass genocide, and managed to drag the entire world into a second world war. There is no question that Adolph Hitler was an evil man, but I have a question of my own: Did Hitler realize what he was doing was evil? Did Hitler realize he himself was evil? How could a man commit such arocities, unless he thought he was doing good for his country and the world? Perhaps Hitler felt he was ushering in a new era for humanity, where the weak are not tolerated and allowed to burden the strong. He felt that through eugenics, the human race could attain even greater heights. Phrenology and other junk sciences were the basis of his thinking. Thankfully today, most of us realize the shape of your skull has nothing to do with your intelligence.

The most amazing thing about Adolph Hitler, is the fact that he was not German (if you stayed awake in history class, you know Hitler was Austrian), yet managed to rise to the highest seat of power in Germany. He used scapegoats to explain the tough economy in Germany at the time, the Jews being the most famous, but not the only ones oppressed by Hitler's Nazi party. Why were the Jews such an easy target? Well, they have money. It's very easy to convince an ignorant uneducated population to blame their problems on people more fortunate or harder working than themselves. This is the mentality socialism thrives on, and modern socialists are still using the same tactics.

Now, I know there will be plenty of jack-holes out there calling me paranoid for saying what I'm about to say, and that's okay. After all, who's to say I'm right? I'm not even sure if I'm right, but I have suspicions based on the history I've shared above.

Today the United States of America has it's first socialist president, and the class warfare mentality is thriving in this country. Everyone that doesn't work feels entitled to the same luxuries working people enjoy. While some in America will still point to the Jews as the problem, they are generally dismissed as anti-semetic and ignorant. However, blaming wealthy people for the problems of the poor is still par for the course for a socialist government.

Hitler managed to grab power by capitalizing on disaster (the burning of the Reichstag). Who's to say our government is not doing the same thing? Some smelly terrorists knock down a couple of skyscrapers, and all of the sudden Americans are okay with having TSA Agents feel them up, make them take off there shoes, irradiate them with body scanners, etc. The government also found a way to go to war in two different countries, ignoring the fact that most of the 9/11 highjackers were from Saudi Arabia (a supposed ally). After 9/11 the government grew in scope and size, while the liberties of its citizens dwindled, and continue to dwindle. Who's the big winner in the 9/11 disaster? Well, the US Government. If you've read "The Prince" by Machiaveli, you already know what I'm getting at.

Today is not only Hitler's birthday, but also the anniversary of the Gulf Coast BP Oil disaster. This is probably a coincidence, but it raises my paranoid suspicions. One oil rig blows up, and the next thing we know the executive branch of government shuts down the entire industry. The courts ruled that the moratorium was unconstitutional, so the executive branch simply re-issued the moratorium, blatantly disrespecting the judicial branch, as well as the US Constitution. This makes oil prices go up, causing more stress on our already dying economy. Luckily, Obama's buddy George Soros happens to have just recently invested in Brazilian oil production. Just another coincidence right? I'm just being paranoid, right?

As you may have noticed, even well over halfway into his presidency, Obama has still managed to blame George W. Bush and "Rich people" for the country's economic plight. Nevermind that over half of our population is now using government assistance in some way or another. Nevermind the fact our public schools are overburdened with illegal aliens, and education standards continue to slip in this country. Nevermind the entitlements this country inspire more laziness than anything. Remember, weak economies allow socialism to fester and grow in power. Disasters are their favorite tool, as Rahm Emanuel has said, to push through otherwise unpopular ideas and policies.

There are still quite a few questions about Obama's past, as well as speculation that he is not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore, ineligible to hold the office of the President. Whether he is or not, neither side can (or is willing) to prove his eligibility either way. I personally think Obama's unilateral attack on Libya without Congressional approval is grounds enough for impeachment, but the birther movement is still quite important. Next time you say it doesn't matter whether Obama is a natural born citizen, just try and remember how German Adolph Hitler was.

Medicare actuary: Reform will cost some seniors

2010-10-15T04:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43529.html

A Medicare official concedes that seniors may have to dig deeper into their wallets next year thanks to the health care law.

The new analysis obtained by POLITICO finds the health care overhaul will result in increased out-of-pocket costs for seniors on Medicare Advantage plans.

Richard Foster, the actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, also tells Senate Republicans that the overhaul will result in “less generous benefit packages” for Medicare Advantage plans next year. Foster is independent from the administration and non-partisan.

Democrats have long contended that Medicare Advantage plans – private insurance alternatives to Medicare – overpay private insurers, increasing premiums for everyone, and needs to be reformulated.
But Republicans say dramatic changes to the program mean some seniors won’t be able to keep their plans – a promise President Barack Obama made during the reform debate – and the GOP has made the issue part of its attempt to roll back the health law.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, says the administration is trying to downplay the effects of the overhaul on the Medicare Advantage plans.
“Painting a rosy picture of Medicare Advantage options denies the facts from the government’s own chief actuary,” he said in a statement to POLITICO. “And it’s a disservice to the 11 million current beneficiaries who count on this popular program.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says, in a separate letter sent recently to Grassley, the changes in the health care overhaul will end up strengthening the program.
“Next year, seniors will have new benefits, new protections against fraud, and better Medicare Advantage choices with meaningful differences at affordable premiums, and more beneficiaries will participate in the program,” she wrote.

Sebelius says that the remaining Medicare Advantage plans have higher standards to meet, stemming from a 2008 Medicare law. In addition, 99.7 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who have access to an Advantage plan this year will have it next year and that premiums are expected to decline by 1 percent next year.
Foster says the additional costs seniors face will be partially offset by other pieces of the law, including reduced cost sharing for Medicare Parts A and B, lower Part B premiums and the filling of the prescription drug donut hole.

Last week, Grassley’s office highlighted an error Sebelius made in a speech to a gathering of AARP members. She incorrectly said the number of Medicare Advantage plans would increase next year. HHS later changed the written copy of the speech online without highlighting the change, which angered Grassley.
“Despite making a limited correction last week to an earlier speech delivered in Florida, the administration refuses to set the record straight appropriately,” Grassley said.

“But a new letter from Medicare’s chief actuary is nonpartisan and indisputable. Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage will pay more out of their own pockets as a result of the new health care law. Their costs will go up by hundreds of dollars on average in the coming years, by $346 in 2011 to a high of $923 in 2017.”

CLARIFICATION: The cost estimate came from the office of the actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, an independent, non-partisan office.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43529.html#ixzz12QWJXPbo

Climate Science’s Worst Week in History

2010-10-15T03:35:00.000-07:00

Climate Science’s Worst Week in History

There now appears to be a photo finish in the horse race for the ‘worst week in climate science history’ with that already infamous week of the Climate-Gate hacking, aka the “East Anglia Event Horizon”. The universal increase in knowledge has been devastating to the Royalist-Monopolist-Elitist Alliance hell bent on universal serfdom.

There was so much bad news that it can only be covered as bullet points with one common theme. What had been presented as an appeal to authority, i.e. scientific consensus, is now being presented as an appeal to the COMMON PEOPLE. A point that will be emphasized throughout this article.

The week included the Michael Mann open letter in the Washington Post, begging the COMMON PEOPLE to vote for Democrats. In his best Elmer Fudd impression, Mann complains that the “waskily wepublicans will wack Mann if elected”. Yes, two coats of Penn State whitewash might not hold up under serious Congressional science inquiry.

The Eco-snuff flick “No Pressure” by the lovely 10:10 Division of the Climate Action group brought universal stinging rebukes. First, the two largest sponsors withdrew their support. Then over 20,000 supporters requested to be removed for the 10:10 rolls as supporters.

A protege of the flawed UK Climate Research Unit and a lead author of the IPCC reports was recognized to have tampered with the New Zealand temperature records. This prompted the following statement from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research: “There is no ‘official’ or formal New Zealand temperature record.”

Rumpelstiltskin Spins Fiction to Fact

The term ‘counter-intuitive’ implies an honest presentation of fact, opposed to what was expected. When applied by the warmists, it is intended to have the same effect as ‘settled’ science. Merely by being ‘counter’ it is new, revolutionary evolution of thought to be embraced without question. This week’s coating of greenwash is easy to parse.

The Imperial College and Nature magazine have announced ‘break-thru’ review of solar data, and opposite of reason, is the claim that a ‘cooling Sun, warms the Earth’. This based on a three year study of solar output and Earth temperatures. The study included this quote:

“The idea that science might not have quite understood the Sun’s effect on Climate should not provide ammunition for Climate Change skeptics.”

Thankfully the Earth is NOT a thermal Yo-Yo and there is a three year lag-time for response, rendering this study useless. But at least they are now looking at the SUN as a possible climate factor. It is proper to utilize nursery rhyme analogies to emphasize the adolescent thoughts and actions of this most juvenile branch of science.

The November issues of ‘Popular Science’ and ‘Popular Mechanics’ arrived with virtually NO mention of human caused climate change. Popular Science had a half-page article on a new waste fat bio-fuel conversion process and Popular Mechanics had a two- page comparison of the electric Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf. Neither of these articles made any mention that bio-fuels or EV autos would be of saving the planet.

It has been almost one year since the Hadley hacking and neither Pop Science nor Pop Mechanics have made one mention of this epic, history-making event. But that subject is now going to be unavoidable after a few more of this week events.

It’s Waterloo for You Know Who

Facing mass revolt from its determined objective members, the Royal Society was forced to back off from the previous total endorsement of the ‘human caused climate’ FRAUD. The RS issued new guide lines which included the following statements:

“Lack of access to the latest knowledge about climate research is one of the primary reason[s] for the constant doubt and misinformation in the minds of COMMON PEOPLE”

Yes, COMMON PEOPLE are too stupid to neglect ALL information that is not filtered by the PROPER authority figure. The RS then amplified this statement urging mob rule to demand immediate action:

“COMMON PEOPLE armed with the right scientific knowledge would certainly exert pressure on their respective governments to take action on Climate Change.”

Yes, COMMON PEOPLE of the world rise up and demand to be placed in carbon shackles and chains. Adding to the UK woes, the BBC was forced to admit bias and issued the following statement:

“The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.”

While disgust for this arrogant royalist behavior is rising in the UK, a giant of American science dropped a bomb on the science monopolists of the western hemisphere. Dr. Hal Lewis, a 67-year member of the American Physical Society announced his resignation. His letter is an instant classic in the science freedom movement and too important to be paraphrased or used for bullet quotes. The Dr. Lewis letter is a must read.

Apparently the loss of such a distinguished member must have aroused the over 48,000 members of the APS and the leadership was forced to issue a reply. This reply is posted at ‘Watts Up With That’, along with a brilliant running commentary. Again, too important to paraphrase, but there is one APS statement that should give interested reader’s some insight:

“We know now that the existing APS Statement on Climate Change was developed literally over lunch by a few people, after the duly constituted Committee had signed off on a more moderate statement.”

Anthony Watts goes on to describe the rampant conflicts of interest of APS board members, the ‘green industry’ and government research funding. Expect mass resignations by this corrupt board and a reinstatement of dear Dr. Lewis with full honors. The speed of these events is staggering, and a full week has yet to pass.

It is time for the COMMON PEOPLE to rise up against the Royalist, Monopolists and Elitist Alliance. They have intentionally dumbed-down our schools, corrupted our governments, systematically lied through their puppet media and bankrupted us with fiat financing. It is time for universal freedom from these tyrants.

Gallup: 46 Percent Say U.S. Government 'Poses Immediate Threat to the Rights and Freedoms' of U.S. Citizens | CNSnews.com

2010-10-14T05:08:00.000-07:00

Gallup: 46 Percent Say U.S. Government 'Poses Immediate Threat to the Rights and Freedoms' of U.S. Citizens | CNSnews.com

(CNSNews.com) - The percentage of Americans who think the federal government poses “an immediate threat” to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens has increased significantly over the last seven years, rising from 30 percent to 46 percent, according to a Gallup poll conducted Sept. 13-16 and released today.

Only 51 percent of Americans now say they do not think the federal government poses “an immediate threat” to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.

Similarly, the percentage of Americans who think the federal government has too much power has also significantly increased, from 39 percent in 2002 to 59 percent today.

In its Sept. 13-16 polling, Gallup asked the 46 percent of respondents who said that they think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of Americans in “what ways” they think the government is posing this threat. The top four answers were that the government has too many laws and is too big in general, that it is too involved in people’s private lives, that it is threatening freedom of speech, and that the health-care law signed by President Barack Obama is a threat.

Since 2003, Gallup has periodically asked adult Americans this question: “Do you think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens, or not?”

When Gallup first asked the question in September 2003, 30 percent said, yes, they did think the federal government posed an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens and 68 percent said, no, it did not. In September 2004, 35 percent said, yes, and 63 percent said, no. In September 2005, 37 percent said, yes, and 62 percent said, no. And in September 2006, 44 percent said, yes, and 54 percent said, no.

This September, 46 percent said, yes, they think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Only 51 percent said, no.

Gallup asked the 46 percent who said yes, this follow-up question: “In what ways do you see the government posing an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of its citizens?” The answers broke down as follows:

Answer Percentage

Too many laws/Gov’t too big in general 18

Too much involvement in people's private lives 17

Taking away freedom of speech/violating First Amendment 15

Healthcare law 11

Socialist government 8

Overtaxing/Taxes too high 7

Taking away freedom of religion 6

Gun control/violating Second Amendment 6

Failing to secure borders/Illegal immigration 3

Over-regulation/Too much involvement in business 3

Too much spending 2

Marriage issue 2

Other 3

None/Nothing 2

No opinion 9

Republicans and Independents were more likely than Democrats to say they think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Sixty-six percent of Republicans said this was the case, 49 percent of Independents, and 21 percent of Democrats.

Since 2002, Gallup has also periodically asked this question: “Do you think the federal government today has too much power, has about the right amount of power, or has too little power?” When Gallup most recently asked this question in its poll conducted Sept. 13-16, 59 percent said the federal government has too much power, 33 percent said it has the right amount of power, and 8 percent said it has too little power.

In a poll conducted, Sept. 5-8, 2002, only 39 percent said they thought the federal government had too much power, while 52 percent said it had the right amount of power, and 7percent said it had too little power.

Gallup has asked this question about the federal government's power ten times over the last eight years. The last time fewer than 50 percent of Americans said they thought the federal government had too much power was in a poll conducted Sept. 13-15, 2004. At that time 42 percent said the federal government had too much power, 49 percent said it had the right amount of power, and 7 percent said it had too little power.

Boxer Tied to Dubious Waters Cash-for-Endorsement Scheme

2010-09-07T15:01:00.000-07:00

Boxer Tied to Dubious Waters Cash-for-Endorsement Scheme

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee, has paid some $30,000 since 2004 for the endorsement of embattled Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) in the context of a scheme that critics charge is unethical and amounts to Waters using her political station to benefit her family members.

According to the Washington Times, Waters “has turned political endorsements into a family business, using federal election laws to charge California candidates and political causes to include their names as her personal picks on a sample ballot, or ‘slate mailer,’ she sends to as many as 200,000 South Central Los Angeles voters.”

The slate mailer business, it turns out, is run by Waters’ daughter, Karen, via her public relations firm. Records show that Karen Waters’ firm has been paid more than $350,000 since 2004, and has billed a further $82,000 since California’s June primary, for its services in this regard.

It is a scheme that has been criticized by good governance groups including the Sunlight Foundation and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
The Sunlight Foundation, in a blog post last month, equated the scheme to Waters “selling” her endorsement and noted that the amounts of money being paid to Waters’ own campaign committee in exchange for her endorsement often exceed the federal limit applicable to campaign donations.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) meanwhile cited Waters as one of the most corrupt members of Congress in both 2005 and 2006 for operating the scheme. In both years, CREW noted that Waters’ “ethics issues stem from the exercise of [her] power to financially benefit her daughter, husband and son.” The 2005 rating placed Waters in the company of figures like former Reps. Randy “Duke” Cunningham and Bob Ney—both subsequently convicted of corruption-related offenses—and was directly connected to the operation of the political endorsement scheme.

Critics charge that Boxer has actively aided and abetted this scheme, both in the context of her 2004 and 2010 re-election campaigns.

In 2004, Boxer paid $25,000 for Waters’ endorsement. But ahead of this year’s California primary—in which Boxer faced no serious competition– and when it was well-known that Waters was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, Boxer paid Waters $5,000 for her backing. It is this later payment that those monitoring Waters’ ethical woes say could act as an anchor tied to Boxer’s ankle, as she heads towards November.

“The amount is lower than what Boxer paid in 2004, yes,” said one Republican operative with whom we spoke. “But the Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee paying for an endorsement of an official under investigation for ethics infractions connected to her using her standing to benefit her family when that fact has been widely reported presents a major optics problem, to say the least. Ethics are already something of a surprise Achilles Heel for Boxer. Her committee let Chris Dodd off the hook, and she’s been criticized for using her repeat candidacies for the financial benefit of her family, too.” Added that operative, “This is an attack ad waiting to happen.”

Indeed, Boxer has been called out for steering about $500,000 in contributions made to her political action committee to her son’s consulting firm between 2001 and 2009. Like Waters’ scheme, this arrangement has attracted the attention of CREW, which focused on Boxer in a 2007 exposé entitled “Family Affair.” “Waters’ problems run far deeper, of course,” said the same operative. “But there are some interesting parallels here, to be sure.”

Boxer is facing what some observers say is her toughest political contest in a career that spans three decades, facing off against former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. The three-term Senator has previously said that she does not expect Democratic ethics scandals, including that of Waters, to affect the race.

Real Clear Politics’ polling average places Boxer about 4 points ahead of Fiorina, with recent SurveyUSA polling showing Fiorina ahead. The race has been rated a “toss-up” by numerous pollsters and analysts.

Teen: Security Told Me To Remove U.S. Flags

2010-09-07T14:55:00.000-07:00

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/24874897/detail.html

NORTHGLENN, Colo. -- A high school student in Northglenn is upset that campus security told him to remove the large American flags flying from his pickup truck because it might make others uncomfortable.

Jeremy Stoppel told 7NEWS he got a ticket at Northglenn High School last Thursday for squealing his tires. He said he deserved that ticket and deserved having his parking lot pass suspended for two weeks.

But he's upset that campus security then told him he can't fly his 3 feet by 5 feet flags in the bed of his pickup truck anymore.

"She said I should take my flags down. She said this is a school that focuses on diversity and she doesn't want anyone to feel uncomfortable," Stoppel said. "How do you suppose anyone would feel uncomfortable in America with an American flag? That's where I'm confused."

He said he started flying his flags around school last week.

"Now that I finally get to drive to school, I have a truck, that's what I want to do. I want to fly my flags. September 11th is coming up so I wanted to fly them in honor of that," said Stoppel, who said his cousin is serving in the Navy.

Stoppel and his father want an apology from that security supervisor.

"To me, she's just threatening him, hoping that she can just bully him so he'll just take 'em down and just put his tail between his legs and say, 'I'm done. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.' And that's just not gonna happen," said Dan Stoppel, Jeremy's father.

7NEWS checked and the school has no policy against flying the American flag. In fact, Northglenn High School has a U.S. flag on the flag pole in front of the school.

"I am unaware of that situation. So I need to talk to that person, see why they did that, if they did that," said Northglenn High School principal Dr. Mary Lindimore. "We have 'em in the hallways upstairs. So we promote flying of American flags."

There is a policy that bans anything that creates a safety problem or which disrupts the educational environment.

When 7NEWS asked Lindimore if she could imagine any scenario in which the American flag would disrupt the educational environment, Lindimore said no.

Lindimore promised to talk to the security supervisor next week.

Audits: ICE isn't cracking down on illegal immigrant employers

2010-09-02T06:43:00.000-07:00

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7180760.html

Immigration inspectors poring over the hiring paperwork of a California company last summer found that 262 employees — a whopping 93 percent of the total workforce — had “suspect” documents on file.

At an Illinois service company, auditors found dubious documents for nearly 8 in 10 of its 200-plus employees.

Inspectors examining records at a Texas manufacturing firm found suspicious paperwork for more than half of the 107 employees on the payroll.

But the companies didn’t pay a penny in fines. None of the employers was led away in handcuffs. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials didn’t even issue them a formal warning, the agency’s internal records show.

Instead, they were instructed to purge their payrolls of illegal immigrants. Armed with assurances that the employees with suspect documents were fired — or, in the Texas case, “self-terminated” — the ICE auditors closed the cases.

The cases are just a few examples included in ICE’s internal records on its audit initiative, an enforcement program launched last July by Obama administration officials.

In the past, ICE had faced criticism for raiding job sites and rounding up large numbers of illegal immigrants for deportation, but not necessarily building cases against employers. With the audit initiative, ICE aims to scrutinize the hiring records of more businesses and impose what top officials describe as “tough” and “smart” employer sanctions.

But ICE audit records obtained recently through a Freedom of Information Act request show that the agency has, in many instances, failed to punish companies found to have significant numbers or high percentages of workers with questionable documents. In response to the public records request, ICE provided limited details on about 430 audit cases listed as “closed” by the agency through February.

The records show inspectors identified more than 110 companies with suspect documents, with nearly half of those having questionable paperwork for 10 or more workers.

No employers arrested

In total, the agency ordered 14 companies to pay fines of nearly $150,000, but noted no employer arrests in connection with any of the cases. ICE agents in Atlanta also reached an agreement with a manufacturing firm that had questionable records on file for 574 of its 1,187 employees. The agreement allowed the company to avoid criminal prosecution on the condition that it complies with certain ICE requirements, though ICE would not provide additional details.

ICE also has refused to disclose the names or locations of companies found through the auditing process to have hired illegal immigrants, saying the businesses have a right to “personal privacy.” The agency did, however, include the location of the ICE field office assigned to each case.

ICE officials insist the audits and the agency’s broader strategy of aggressively pursuing employers are getting results.

'You need evidence’

They point to the fact that this fiscal year the agency has ordered businesses to pay a record-setting $4.6 million in civil penalties and has arrested more than 150 employers, managers or supervisors. However, some of the arrests stem from investigations going back several years. And the fines reflect enforcement actions that date as far back as 2007, including $360,000 from the 2008 raid of a Houston rag factory and more than $536,000 from a 2007 Ohio chicken factory raid.

ICE did not have a breakdown of how much of the $4.6 million or how many of the arrests stemmed directly from the audit initiative, which began in July 2009.

Brett Dreyer, the head of ICE’s worksite enforcement unit, said that ICE attempts to determine which employers may have been duped into unintentionally accepting fraudulent documents from employees, and which ones are “turning a blind eye” to workers’ legal status.

“We look at each of these cases to see if they’re doing that, because that’s the main purpose of this program — check employers’ compliance and make sure that they’re obeying the law,” Dreyer said. “But you need evidence. You need facts. And if we don’t have that, we can’t charge them.”

Several gray areas

Immigration experts said some cases that seem egregious on the surface, like the company with 93 percent of its workers providing suspect documents, may actually have complied with the letter of the law and not be subject to penalties.

“You could have a vast majority of workers ultimately be found to be in undocumented status and yet still have a good faith employer simply because of the way the system works,” said Charles Foster, a Houston immigration attorney who specializes in employer compliance.

Foster said an employer cannot require more than a Social Security card that looks “reasonably genuine” on its face, or he risks committing an unfair employment practice.

Cost of doing business

In July 2009, ICE officials announced plans to serve 654 companies with notice of plans to audit their employment paperwork. In November, ICE announced plans to target an additional 1,000 companies.

In the two rounds of audits, inspectors examined more than 221,000 I-9 forms and identified 22,155 “suspect documents,” which can signal an employee is in the country illegally and lacks work authorization, or that the employer made a simple clerical error on the forms, ICE officials said.

But critics charge that ICE’s new strategy is soft on both illegal immigrants, who generally are not placed into deportation proceedings, and employers who can claim ignorance about fake documents and avoid penalties.

U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, said the audits can be an effective part of an overall enforcement strategy, but that many employers consider them just a cost of doing business.

“They are not an effective deterrent on their own, and do nothing to bring justice in egregious cases,” Smith said.

Immigrant advocates estimated the audits, frequently referred to as “silent raids,” have cost thousands of workers their jobs. Angela Kelley, with the Center for American Progress, said the strategy appears to be more thoughtful than the worksite enforcement raids of the previous administration, but the impact is “equally as devastating.”

“You have this drip, drip, drip of I-9 enforcement audits all over the country, and it has the same effect — people don’t come to work the next day,” she said.

susan.carroll@chron.com

The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown

2010-08-12T11:19:00.000-07:00

The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown

The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.

Against this backdrop, the president’s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer, with the latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of US voters dropping to minus 22 points, the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office. While just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president’s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, strongly disapprove. According to Rasmussen, 65 per cent of voters believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents.
The RealClearPolitics average of polls now has President Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving.

Related link: The Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime
There are an array of reasons behind the stunning decline and political fall of President Obama, chief among them fears over the current state of the US economy, with widespread concern over high levels of unemployment, the unstable housing market, and above all the towering budget deficit. Americans are increasingly rejecting President Obama’s big government solutions to America’s economic woes, which many fear will lead to the United States sharing the same fate as Greece.

Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President’s aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lacklustre handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire.

On the national security and foreign policy front, President Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one.

Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.

1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people

In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.

2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership

This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.

3. Obama fails to inspire

In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2006 Convention speech in Chicago which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.

4. The United States is drowning in debt

The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.

5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat

The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.

6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake

In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”

7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive

While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.

8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration

It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.

9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security

From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.

10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness

Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.

There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.

This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.

Local Democrats wish death upon Sarah Palin

2010-08-12T10:25:00.000-07:00

http://www.nowhampshire.com/2010/08/11/local-democrats-wish-death-upon-sarah-palin/

There’s only one way the tragic airplane crash in Alaska that ended the life of former-U.S. Senator Ted Stevens could have been better, according to New Hampshire Democratic activist and State Rep. candidate Keith Halloran: If Sarah Palin had been on it.

In a Facebook post, Halloran, who describes himself as “an active local citizen and supporter of NH Governor John Lynch,” said of the plane crash, “Just wish Sarah and Levy were on board.”

Democratic State Rep. candidate wants Sarah Palin dead

Halloran serves on the Rindge, NH Planning Board and is a Democratic candidate for State Representative in Cheshire County. He is a prominent supporter of Democratic frontrunner Ann McLane Kuster, who is running for Congress in NH-02. His comment appeared in response to a post by another Facebook user on the tragedy.

New Hampshire Republicans were not pleased with Halloran’s remarks.

“Mr. Halloran’s outrageous comments are a new low, even by the standards of the New Hampshire Democrat Party,” said New Hampshire GOP spokesman Ryan Williams. “His publicly stated death wish for Governor Palin and her family is abhorrent, and has no place in public discourse. Governor Lynch and Ann McLane Kuster need to immediately denounce Mr. Halloran’s hateful remarks and demand that he personally apologize to the Palin family.”

Halloran isn’t alone among New Hampshire Democratic leaders in wishing ill toward the controversial former Republican Vice Presidential nominee.

Natch Greyes, a staffer for Democratic Rep. and Senate hopeful Paul Hodes tweeted the following on July 21st: “I have to wonder if & or when @sarahpalinusa will learn the meaning of our state motto: “live free or die.”

Anatomy of a Smear: Left-Media’s Too-Good-to-Be-True Rand Paul Scoop Debunked… by the Original Source

2010-08-12T10:24:00.000-07:00

Anatomy of a Smear: Left-Media’s Too-Good-to-Be-True Rand Paul Scoop Debunked… by the Original Source

Earlier this week, Left-Wing Gentlemen’s Quarterly (aka GQ) landed a big scoop that was destined to alter the shape of the 2010 elections, if not American politics as we know it: an anonymous source said Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul kidnapped a woman while attending Baylor university and forced her to take illegal drugs. From the article published August 9th at 10:55am:

According to this woman, who requested anonymity because of her current job as a clinical psychologist, “He and Randy came to my house, they knocked on my door, and then they blindfolded me, tied me up, and put me in their car. They took me to their apartment and tried to force me to take bong hits. They’d been smoking pot.” After the woman refused to smoke with them, Paul and his friend put her back in their car and drove to the countryside outside of Waco, where they stopped near a creek. “They told me their god was ‘Aqua Buddha’ and that I needed to bow down and worship him,” the woman recalls. “They blindfolded me and made me bow down to ‘Aqua Buddha’ in the creek. I had to say, ‘I worship you Aqua Buddha, I worship you.’ At Baylor, there were people actively going around trying to save you and we had to go to chapel, so worshiping idols was a big no-no.”

The gossip had been online just an hour and a half before Politico JournoListo Ben Smith reported it to his ample audience at 12:28pm. Key quote:

This allegation from Jason Zengerle’s GQ profile of Rand Paul is a bit too big a deal to be left in its ether of anonymity and non-denial.

Yes, Rand Paul hadn’t publicly denied the allegations within 93 minutes of their publication, so it was time for Smith to play them up! Mind you, this same Ben Smith won’t mention an on-the-record whistle-blower charging the DOJ with discrimination, but a decades-old off-the-record charge against a Tea Party Republican is worthy of his investigative journalism and online real estate. In Smith’s defense, the mistake might be due to the fact that he no longer has his fellow JournoListas to bounce stories off of before taking the plunge.

So the meme spread. And lo and behold, Rand Paul decides it’s worth publicly denying the charges against him. In fact, he went on the offensive and threatened to sue GQ for reporting false allegations. Paul went on record to Fox News and stated, “No, I never was involved with kidnapping. No, I never was involved with forcibly drugging people.” Paul’s spokesman, Jesse Benton, referred to the GQ piece as “a libel story” and said that they are considering pressing charges.

Not yet aware of Paul’s unequivocal denial, GQ doubled down:
We’ve vetted, researched, and exhaustively fact-checked Jason Zengerle’s reporting on Rand Paul’s college days,” GQ editor Jim Nelson said in a statement. “We stand by the story, and we gave the Paul campaign every opportunity to refute it. We notice that they have not, in fact, refuted it.”

Well, now they have. But the journalism malpractice on the part of GQ and others who rushed to spread the meme like Politico’s Smith is fully exposed when the magazine’s anonymous source came out of hiding and dropped this bomb to left-wing blogger Greg Sargent at the Washington Post’s Plum Line blog:

The woman — who was made available to me for an interview by GQ reporter Jason Zengerle in response to the Paul campaign’s denunciations of his article — said she didn’t mean to imply that she was kidnapped “in a legal sense.”

“The whole thing has been blown out of proportion,” she told me. “They didn’t force me, they didn’t make me. They were creating this drama: `We’re messing with you.’”

The woman said that much of the subsequent coverage of her allegations missed a key nuance: As a participant in a college ritual, where lines between acquiescence and victimization are often blurry, she was largely playing along with the notion that she was being forced to follow Paul’s orders.

“I went along because they were my friends,” she said. “There was an implicit degree of cooperation in the whole thing…

Hoisted with your own petard! To GQ, this anonymous woman said the GOP Senate candidate kidnapped her and tried to force her to take illegal drugs, but when she witnessed a man’s character being publicly assassinated by an adversarial media, her tune changed.
And now you understand the anatomy of a smear. Partisan press wildly exaggerates a story based on flimsy evidence, the story is granted credence by allegedly objective media outlets, and a candidate is toxified. They are at war, and this is how they fight.

Thoughtcrime: D.C. Reporter Suspended for Accurate Report on BP’s Donations to Obama

2010-08-12T08:47:00.000-07:00

Thoughtcrime: D.C. Reporter Suspended for Accurate Report on BP’s Donations to Obama

WJLA-TV, a Washington, D.C. ABC affiliate, suspended reporter Doug McKelway following his alleged “partisan” comments at a liberal rally on Capitol Hill marking the three-month anniversary of the Gulf oil spill. Video of the broadcast tells a different story:
Apparently facts are now “partisan.”

McKelway stuck to the truth about BP’s political contributions and pending cap-and-trade legislation, newsworthy subjects given that the event’s organizers were lobbying to “pass legislation to end America’s addiction to oil and urged lawmakers to donate campaign money raised from the oil industry to the clean-up efforts in the Gulf.”

According to the Washington Post, it was McKelway’s supposedly controversial comments on July 20 that led to his suspension. Anonymous sources at the station are now accusing him of “insubordination” in an apparent attempt to fire him.

McKelway’s live report began with a factually correct statement about BP’s donations to President Obama. McKelway accurately noted that Obama received $77,051 from the BP employees, information verified by the Center for Responsive Politics.

When McKelway asked one of the event’s participants to comment on it, Ted Glick of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network acknowledged it was a problem for Obama. The rally was organized by left-wing groups Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Public Citizen.

At the end of the live segment, McKelway talked about the prospect of cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate, a topic related to the rally, which urged lawmakers to “take immediate action to pass climate and energy legislation.”

Nevertheless, the Washington Post, quoting anonymous sources, indicated McKelway’s report crossed the line. The newspaper reported:

According to several of McKelway’s colleagues, the newsman’s reporting may have lapsed into partisan territory when he commented live on the air about the oil industry’s influence in Washington, particularly its contributions to Democratic politicians and legislators.

This is absolutely absurd. The Post’s decision to use anonymous sources to smear McKelway was bad enough, but reporter Paul Farhi also wrote a subjective description of the broadcast instead of simply stating the facts. The newspaper’s own reporters engage in flagrant partisan behavior on a daily basis.

WJLA’s station manager and news director declined to comment on the personnel matter. McKelway isn’t talking either.

Based on what we know — and discounting the questionable and anonymous sources in Farhi’s story — it appears this is a classic case of the mainstream media silencing those who report inconvenient truths about this administration. McKelway is a veteran newsman who has consistently strived for balance in reporting. Unfortunately, in a news environment like Washington, D.C, liberals don’t always like the facts. In this case, McKelway appears to have suffered the consequences.

Students at Lincoln Memorial Told to Stop Singing National Anthem

2010-08-11T13:20:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/09/students-lincoln-memorial-told-stop-singing-national-anthem/

A group of high school students attending a conservative leadership conference in Washington, D.C. said they were ordered by a security guard to stop singing the national anthem during a June 25 visit to the Lincoln Memorial.

“They told them to stop singing,” said Evan Gassman, a spokesman for the Young America’s Foundation. “I was taken aback. You wouldn’t expect a display of national patriotism to be censored."

U.S. Park Police confirmed that the students were in violation of federal law and their impromptu performance constituted a demonstration in an area that must remain “completely content neutral.”

“The area they were standing in and singing is an area that is restricted for this type of activity,” said Sgt. David Schlosser. “The United States Park Police is absolutely content-neutral when it comes to any sort of demonstrations in these areas.”

Schlosser explained that performances, regardless of content, are banned to “maintain a contemplative and reverent area for the Lincoln Memorial, for the other guests and visitors.”

The incident occurred on June 25 as students were taking a monument tour of the nation’s capital. The decision to sing the national anthem at the memorial was a spur of the moment event, according to Shawn Balcomb, of Richmond Hill, GA.

“We got maybe two lines in and a police officer came over and he was yelling,” Balcomb said in a telephone interview. “He quieted us down.” Balcomb, 17, said the officer told the group they were being too loud. “I was dumbfounded,” he said.

“I didn’t realize there was something wrong with singing the national anthem.”

Schlosser said the students would have been in compliance had they moved approximately 25 steps from where they were standing.

“It’s not the content of their activity – that being the national anthem – it’s the location,” he said. “A couple steps and it would have been no problem whatsoever.”

Instead of doing as they were instructed, Gassman said the students resumed the song – an impromptu form of civil disobedience.

“If their idea of civil disobedience is singing the national anthem, then so be it,” Gassman said. “Let them disobey.”

YAF posted video reportedly shot just after the alleged encounter with the security officer. It shows students loudly singing the anthem.

“That’s the most offensive thing out of all this,” he said.

“They really did not provide the students a reason,” said Gassman. Balcomb, who is a high school senior, said they didn’t intend on creating a ruckus – they just wanted to show their patriotism.

“It’s not like we sounded great or anything,” he said.

“We just wanted to pay respect to our nation – in our capital.”

Schlosser, who commended the students on their musical ability, said the students were not cited and to his knowledge no report was filed.

“We need to make certain that all other visitors that don’t want to be a part of that or just choose to be tourists are able to do so in the same light that probably President Lincoln wanted – which is completely content neutral,” he said.

Rangel's rambling floor speech has House Dems wishing they didn't recognize him

2010-08-11T13:17:00.000-07:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/10/AR2010081006230_2.html?sid=ST2010081005758

They had reason to feel ill. Rangel had trampled all over their plan to make the day about teachers and cops. In a larger sense, his determination to answer charges before November is guaranteed to crowd out any message the Democrats were hoping to deliver before voters punish them in the midterm elections.

Republicans were delighted with the problem Rangel had just caused for his party. "It was a Charlie Rangel moment, but it could have been a Jim Traficant moment," Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) observed, recalling the Ohio Democrat's angry defiance as he was expelled eight years ago en route to prison.

The charges against Rangel aren't as heavy as those against Traficant, but there was something wild about the usually composed New Yorker. His jacket was open, his tie askew and his pocket handkerchief spilling from its place. His speech was, literally, a stemwinder: He stood back from the lectern, bending at the waist as he spoke without benefit of notes or apparent structure. He admitted that his lawyers begged him not to antagonize the ethics committee, and that his friends pleaded that he not give a speech on the floor.

But Rangel defied both. "I have a primary next month," he explained, and the charges won't be resolved by then. "Don't leave me swinging in the wind until November," the lawmaker begged, comparing his own ethics plight to the fiscal "emergency" that brought the House back into session. "What about me?" asked the 80-year-old Rangel, who said, "I don't want to die before the hearing."

Republicans were only too happy to lend Rangel their support. "It is certainly unfortunate that members of the Democratic leadership have allowed this to go on for two years without a resolution," Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence said as he left the chamber.

Rangel rambled through the allegations against him. Fundraising with official letterhead: "Grabbing the wrong stationery." The center named after him at the City University of New York: "A broken-down building." The office in the rent-controlled apartment: "The landlord has said he didn't treat me differently." The unpaid taxes on his Caribbean vacation place: "You'd have to be a tax expert" to get that right, said the deposed chairman of the tax-writing committee.

The diatribe was directed mostly at his own side of the aisle, where "no one is coming forward saying Rangel is not corrupt." He said he was told that his colleagues "all love you . . . but they love themselves better." He mocked those who turned against him for political expediency: "Do what you have to do."

Repeatedly, he dared his colleagues to vote on his fate. "Are you going to expel me from this body?" he demanded. "Are you going to say that while there's no evidence that I took a nickel, asked for a nickel, that there's no sworn testimony, no conflict, that I have to leave here?"

The angry lawmaker left his colleagues with two words: "Go home."

Federal workers earning double their private counterparts

2010-08-11T13:15:00.000-07:00

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.

The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.

Public employee unions say the compensation gap reflects the increasingly high level of skill and education required for most federal jobs and the government contracting out lower-paid jobs to the private sector in recent years.

"The data are not useful for a direct public-private pay comparison," says Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union.

Chris Edwards, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, thinks otherwise. "Can't we now all agree that federal workers are overpaid and do something about it?" he asks.

Last week, President Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for 2,900 political appointees. For the rest of the 2-million-person federal workforce, Obama asked for a 1.4% across-the-board pay hike in 2011, the smallest in more than a decade. Federal workers also would qualify for seniority pay hikes.

Congressional Republicans want to cancel the across-the-board increase in 2011, which would save $2.2 billion.

"Americans are fed up with public employee pay scales far exceeding that in the private sector," says Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the second-ranking Republican in the House.

Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., says a pay freeze would unfairly scapegoat federal workers without addressing real budget problems.

What the data show:

•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.

•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.

•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.

The Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime: extravagant and out of touch with the American people

2010-08-10T12:17:00.000-07:00

The Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime: extravagant and out of touch with the American people

What the great French historian Alexis de Tocqueville would make of today’s Obama administration were he alive today is anyone’s guess. But I would wager that the author of L’Ancien Régime and Democracy in America would be less than impressed with the extravagance and arrogance on display among the White House elites that rule America as though they had been handed some divine right to govern with impunity.
It is the kind of impunity that has been highlighted on the world stage this week by Michelle Obama’s hugely costly trip to Spain, which has prompted a New York Post columnist Andrea Tantaros to dub the First Lady a contemporary Marie Antoinette. As The Telegraph reports, while the Obamas are covering their own vacation expenses such as accommodation, the trip may cost US taxpayers as much as $375,000 in terms of secret service security and flight costs on Air Force Two.

The timing of this lavish European vacation could not have come at a worse moment, when unemployment in America stands at 10 percent, and large numbers of Americans are fighting to survive financially in the wake of the global economic downturn. It sends a message of indifference, even contempt, for the millions of Americans who are struggling just to feed their families on a daily basis and pay the mortgage, while the size of the national debt balloons to Greek-style proportions.

While the liberal-dominated US mainstream media have largely ignored the story, it is all over the blogosphere and talk radio, and will undoubtedly add to the President’s free falling poll ratings. As much as the media establishment turn a blind eye to stories like this, which are major news in the international media, the American public is increasingly turning to alternative news sources, including the British press, which has a far less deferential approach towards the White House.

The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Marbella and the complete disregard for public opinion and concerns over excessive government spending is symbolic of a far wider problem with the Obama presidency – the overarching disdain for the principles of limited government, individual liberty and free enterprise that have built the United States over the course of nearly two and a half centuries into the most powerful and free nation on earth.

It is epitomised above all by the President’s relentless drive towards big government against the will of the American people, and the dramatic increases in government spending and borrowing, which threaten to leave the US hugely in debt for generations. It is also showcased by Barack Obama’s drive towards a socialised health care system, which, as I’ve noted before, is “a thinly disguised vanity project for a president who is committed to transforming the United States from the world’s most successful large-scale free enterprise economy, to a highly interventionist society with a massive role for centralized government.”

There is however a political revolution fast approaching Washington that is driven not by mob rule but by the power of ideas and principles, based upon the ideals of the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution. It is a distinctly conservative revolution that is sweeping America and is reflected in almost every poll ahead of this November’s mid-terms. It is based on a belief in individual liberty, limited government, and above all, political accountability from the ruling elites. The Obama administration’s mantra may well be “let them eat cake”, as it continues to gorge itself on taxpayers’ money, but it will be looking nervously over its shoulder as public unease mounts.

Remember King's Dream?

2010-08-10T09:01:00.000-07:00

Race quotas, affirmative action, and hate crimes legislation, stand in the way of Dr. King's dream. Anyone who can comprehend his famous "I Have A Dream" speech already knows that. Unfortunately, there are many Democrats and Liberals who fail to comprehend this idea. They push for race quotas in schools, while encouraging employers to hire people based on skin color rather than qualifications. These ideas are in fact the antithesis of King's Dream.

So, I invite all my readers, left & right, to read the speech that galvanized the civil rights movement. Dr. King's wisdom is invaluable, but only if we remember and use it.

I HAVE A DREAM

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

\And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Advocates of Anti-Shariah Measures Alarmed by Judge's Ruling

2010-08-06T14:19:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/advocates-anti-shariah-measures-alarmed-judges-ruling/

A New Jersey family court judge's decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.

Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs -- and that he did not have "criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife.

According to the court record, the man's wife -- a Moroccan woman who had recently immigrated to the U.S. at the time of the attacks -- alleged:

"Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her "this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do."

In considering the woman's plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but "The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

Charles' ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey's Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband's religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, "was mistaken."

The woman's lawyer, Jennifer Donnelly of New Jersey Legal Services, told FoxNews.com that Charles' ruling should add to the case for a proposed Oklahoma law, which will be on the ballot in November, which would ban judges from considering "international law or Shariah Law" in their rulings.

"Those who don't want the bill to pass say, 'there's really no need for it because why would a judge walk down that road of religion?'" Donnelly said.

"Clearly here, this judge did walk down that road. He may not have said 'Shariah law.' But I think it's indicative that, in trying to be respectful of religion, judges venture into a very slippery slope."

Donnelly said she was surprised when Charles refused to issue a restraining order, adding that the only tipoffs that it might happen were questions he put to the husband's imam when he testified in the case.

The Appeals Court ruling notes, "The imam testified regarding Islamic law as it relates to sexual behavior. The imam confirmed that a wife must comply with her husband's sexual demands, because the husband is prohibited from obtaining sexual satisfaction elsewhere.

"However, a husband was forbidden to approach his wife 'like any animal.' ... he acknowledged that New Jersey law considered coerced sex between married people to be rape."

Charles, a former New Jersey state senator, declined to comment on his ruling. The husband, who represented himself in court, remains unnamed, as does his ex-wife.

While the judge in the case did not specifically mention Islamic or Shariah law, Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch.com, said he might as well have.

"This is a ruling that is strictly in line with Islamic law, which does indeed declare that a wife may not refuse her husband sex under virtually any circumstances," Spencer said. "The only legal framework that would not consider marital rape to be sexual assault is Shariah."

But Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director for the Council for American Islamic Relations, said claims about Shariah law in the U.S. play into irrational fears about Muslims.

"It fits into the whole extremist Muslim-basher theme that Muslims are somehow trying to replace the Constitution with Islamic law," he said.

"That is absolute fantasy, and hateful. Islamic beliefs don't permit rape of any kind," he said, speaking of the New Jersey case.

Asked whether the imam's testimony contradicted that, Hooper replied, "It's just clear that a Muslim husband shouldn't do anything of this sort to his wife. It's just common sense. You don't need a religious figure to tell you that's wrong."

First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA, said, "The Shariah law debate is a total distraction," and he noted that in the U.S., two people may sign a contract and give an Islamic court the power to determine if the contract is breached. In a 2003 case, for instance, a Texas district court ruled that the private "Texas Islamic Court" should decide the amount a husband owed his wife in a divorce proceeding -- because when they got married, they had signed a contract specifying that was what they wanted.

But assault is illegal, regardless of any contract, Volokh said, and the Appellate Court in New Jersey ruled correctly.

"The claimed religious practice of non-consensual sex involved in this case is so heinous that almost everybody thinks that you shouldn't have the right to do that, no matter what your religious beliefs are."

The husband in the case has been indicted on criminal charges and is expected to face trial in the fall.

Donnelly said that, as far as she knew, her client had not had trouble with her ex-husband since they divorced. She added that she hoped the Appeals Court ruling for her client would set a precedent.

"This ruling will really help people coming behind her," she said.

GOP’s Graham: Jesus’s ‘Golden Rule’ Compelled Me to Vote for Kagan

2010-08-06T14:00:00.000-07:00

GOP’s Graham: Jesus’s ‘Golden Rule’ Compelled Me to Vote for Kagan

From CNSNews “It is called the Golden Rule,” said Graham. “‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ That is probably one of the most powerful statements ever made. It is divine in its orientation, and it is probably something that would serve us all well if we thought about it at moments such as this.”

Graham also said Kagan “meets the test” the Framers envisioned for a Supreme Court Justice.

“I am going to vote for Elena Kagan because I believe constitutionally she meets the test the Framers envisioned for someone to serve on the Court,” said Graham. “I don’t think the Framers ever envisioned Lindsey Graham from South Carolina voting no because President Obama picked someone who is clearly different than I would have chosen.”

Sen. Graham was one of only five Republicans to vote to confirm Kagan to the Supreme Court. The other four were Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Richard Lugar of Indiana, and Olympia Snowe of Maine. The Senate confirmed Kagan, 63-37, on Thursday, Aug. 5. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska was the only Democrat who voted against the confirmation of Kagan.

Harry Reid Defends Funding for Coked-Up Stimulus Monkeys - The Feed - National Review Online

2010-08-06T08:15:00.000-07:00

Harry Reid Defends Funding for Coked-Up Stimulus Monkeys - The Feed - National Review Online

[ Via: HarryReid.com ]
. . .The McCain/Coburn report claimed this was a reference to a Federal grant of $71,623 to the Winston-Salem college to “study how monkeys react under cocaine.”

And that’s true. But the report didn’t tell you why the monkeys’ reaction to cocaine is being studied: To develop our understanding of how the brain chemistry of addiction works, in order to better combat drug addiction.

Administration officials say this grant was part of the roughly $8 billion in stimulus grants that the National Institutes of Health has doled out for scientific research, with the goal of creating jobs while advancing scientific knowledge. This particular grant is based on recent studies showing that drug users may get addicted because of a chemical in the brain called glutamate.
This research on cocaine monkeys is meant to determine how the parts of the brain that use glutamate change during and after exposure to cocaine. The idea is that knowing this will help develop more effective treatments for cocaine addiction — in people, not in monkeys.

All such grants are reviewed by NIH scientists to establish the scientific validity of the studies receiving funding.. . . Reid totally misses the point. Please explain why this was in a “stimulus” bill designed to save or create jobs? — GP

Justice Department steers money to favored groups | Washington Examiner

2010-08-06T05:06:00.000-07:00

Justice Department steers money to favored groups | Washington Examiner

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
August 5, 2010

The Justice Department has found a new way to pursue civil rights lawsuits, using the powers of the Civil Rights Division not just to win compensation for victims of alleged discrimination but also to direct large sums of money to activist groups that are not discrimination victims and not connected to a particular suit.

In the past, when the Civil Rights Division filed suit against, say, a bank or a landlord, alleging discrimination in lending or rentals, the cases were often settled by the defendant paying a fine to the U.S. Treasury and agreeing to put aside a sum of money to compensate the alleged discrimination victims. There was then a search for those victims -- people who were actually denied a loan or an apartment -- who stood to be compensated. After everyone who could be found was paid, there was often money left over. That money was returned to the defendant.

Now, Attorney General Eric Holder and Civil Rights Division chief Thomas Perez have a new plan. Any unspent money will not go back to the defendant but will instead go to a "qualified organization" approved by the Justice Department. And if there is not enough unspent money -- that will be determined by the Department -- then the defendant might be required to come up with more money to give to the "qualified organization."

The arrangement was used in a recently-settled case, United States v. AIG Federal Savings Bank and Wilmington Finance. The Justice Department alleged that AIG violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by allowing third-party wholesale mortgage brokers to "charge African-American borrowers higher direct broker fees for residential real estate-related loans than white borrowers." The financial institution denied any wrongdoing, and there was no factual finding of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, under the terms of a March 19, 2010 consent decree, AIG agreed to pay $6.1 million to "aggrieved persons who may have suffered as a result of the alleged violations."

That is standard procedure in such cases. But then AIG also agreed, in the words of the consent decree, to "provide a minimum of $1,000,000 to qualified organization(s) to provide credit counseling, financial literacy, and other related educational programs targeted at African-American borrowers." The money would come from unspent funds in the victim-compensation fund. But if it turned out that, after paying off the victims, there was less than $1 million left in the victim-compensation fund, AIG agreed to "replenish the settlement fund so that it contains $1,000,000 for distribution for those educational purposes."

The consent decree directs AIG to consult with the Justice Department on which "qualified organizations" could receive money, and it gives the Department the right to approve where the money will go. In any event, the money will go to groups who have no direct connection to the lawsuit and its allegations of discrimination.

Xochitl Hinojosa, a Justice Department spokeswoman, says no money has yet been given to organizations under the AIG agreement. But she adds that the funds, and those from other cases, will "go to 'qualified organizations' that have a mission that addresses whatever the harm is that was the subject of the litigation."

The Department followed a similar procedure in another case, United States v. Sterling. In that suit, which was first filed in 2006, the Department accused a large California landlord of violating the Fair Housing Act and other laws by "refusing to rent to non-Korean prospective tenants, misrepresenting the availability of apartment units to non-Korean prospective tenants, and providing inferior treatment to non-Korean tenants in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles."

The defendants did not admit any wrongdoing, and there was no factual finding of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, in a November 3, 2009 consent decree, the defendants agreed to pay $2.625 million to compensate alleged victims. On top of that, the consent decree stipulated that if there weren't enough alleged victims on which to spend the $2.625 million, then what's left "shall be distributed...to a qualified organization(s) mutually agreed upon by the United States and defendants...for the purpose of conducting fair housing enforcement or educational activities in Los Angeles County."

Hinojosa says that in the Sterling case, $40,000 will be split between the victim fund administrator and a group called the Southern California Housing Rights Center. According to the Center's website, its goal is to promote "freedom of residence" through the use of "education, advocacy and litigation." Thus, money used to settle a lawsuit over alleged discrimination might well go to fund yet another lawsuit over alleged discrimination.

Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, recently learned about the new Justice Department practice and on July 8 sent a letter to Holder asking for an explanation. "While these settlements may appear reasonable on their face, I am concerned that this change in policy has the potential to divert compensation intended for victims to third party interest groups that were not wronged by the defendant," Grassley wrote. "Absent proper safeguards and internal controls, this policy change could drastically alter the way victims are compensated and could set the Department down a path where third party interest groups are compensated to a greater level than victims. Moreover, as a staunch supporter of victims' rights, I want to know what this change in policy means for individual victims and for advocacy groups that are both selected and not selected to serve as 'qualified organizations.'"

Grassley asked Holder which suits have been settled or are being settled in this fashion, how much money is involved, and what guidelines apply to the settlements. "What, if any, qualifications are taken into consideration when determining whether an organization should be designated a 'qualifying organization'?" Grassley asked. "What protections and safeguards are in place to oversee the use of funds by the 'qualified organization' to ensure that monies that could otherwise be used for victim compensation are used in a manner free of fraud, waste, and abuse?"

Grassley has not yet received an answer from Holder.

Republicans are particularly concerned that the "qualified organizations" money might end up with groups that are associated with the community organizing group formerly known as ACORN. Republican lawmakers want to avoid sending federal money to groups that Congress has deemed unsuitable to receive it.

But the concerns of Republicans, and perhaps some Democrats, go beyond ACORN and other activist groups. The new Civil Rights Division tactic represents a departure from a fundamental principle of such cases, which is the pursuit of justice on behalf of actual victims. "If the Department of Justice recovers funds for alleged civil rights violations, the money should go to compensate victims or to the Treasury," says Bob Driscoll, who was a top official in the Civil Rights Division during the first two years of the George W. Bush administration. "The practice of the Civil Rights Division steering settlement funds to favored advocacy groups is at odds with both civil rights laws and common sense. If Congress wants to fund certain advocacy groups or set up grants for agencies to award in order to promote non-discrimination, it can. But allowing the Civil Rights Division to steer a defendant's money to its ideological allies is offensive."

Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on ExaminerPolitics.com

Federal Workers Pocketed 'Fraudulent' Social Security Payments, GAO Finds

2010-08-05T07:08:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/04/federal-workers-pocketed-fraudulent-social-security-payments-watchdog-finds/?test=latestnews

Hundreds of federal employees may have improperly reaped millions in Social Security disability benefits, according to a government watchdog that caught workers at several major agencies pocketing fraudulent payments.

The Government Accountability Office issued a report that showed at least 1,500 federal employees may have wrongly received benefits. The group's investigation, which focused on two Social Security programs for people who have limited incomes due to disabilities, found several specific cases in which beneficiaries were earning well above the income cap while still receiving benefits. In one case, a Transportation Security Administration screener was overpaid $108,000, according to the report.

"Our case studies ... confirmed some examples in which individuals received SSA disability payments that they were not entitled to receive," the GAO said in a letter to Sens. Tom Carper, D-Del.; John McCain, R-Ariz.; and Tom Coburn, R-Okla. Some of the payments were attributed to fraud, others to "administrative error," according to the report. The GAO found that the Social Security Administration does not use its own automated system to flag workers who may be earning too much income to qualify for benefits.

"SSA's internal controls did not prevent improper and fraudulent payments," the GAO said.

The report also found thousands of commercial drivers and transportation business owners who may be skirting the law. It focused in part on federal employees, estimating that 1,500 workers were receiving about $1.7 million monthly. Of them, one-quarter were U.S. Postal Service employees and 16 percent were Defense Department civilians.

The report came with a DVD that showed employees double dipping -- by working and receiving benefits. The video showed overpayments to the TSA employee as well as Postal Service workers.

According to the report, the TSA employee started receiving disability benefits in 1995 for "mood and anxiety disorders." But she started full-time work in 2003 and earned as much as $50,000; the income cap after which disability payments are supposed to stop was $940 per month in 2008.

"Our investigation found that the beneficiary committed fraud in obtaining SSA disability payments," the report said. GAO said the employee told the Social Security Administration she did not want the agency to contact her employer for work information and that she would submit a report herself, though records indicate she never did. Her benefits have since been suspended.

In another case, an X-ray technician for the Department of Veterans Affairs in California was overpaid about $22,000. According to the report, the worker started receiving payments in 2002 for an infection but continued to receive the money after returning to work in 2007. In yet another case, a Postal Service worker in Michigan received an overpayment of about $45,000. That worker was approved for "mood and personality disorders" in 2004 but returned to work later that year. The payments continued through early 2007, and then picked up again in late 2008. According to the report, a repayment of about $37,000 was made in 2008.

Many of these workers received a $250 economic stimulus payment on top of the overpayments.

The report also found problems in the private sector. The GAO found 62,000 workers who received commercial driver's licenses after they were deemed eligible for full disability benefits, "an indication that these individuals may no longer have serious medical conditions." The investigation revealed 7,900 people with "registered transportation businesses" receiving the benefits. The GAO clarified that a more thorough investigation would be needed to see whether those payments were fraudulent, improper or both.

The GAO suggested that the Social Security Administration start making better use of its automated system to catch overpayments in the future. The agency uses the system to track increases in monthly earnings in order to compute changes in benefits payments, but it doesn't use the system to flag people who return to work and may be eligible to have their benefits suspended.

Obamacare Only Looks Worse Upon Further Review: Kevin Hassett

2010-08-03T14:44:00.000-07:00

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-02/obamacare-only-looks-worse-upon-further-review-kevin-hassett.html

One of the more illuminating remarks during the health-care debate in Congress came when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told an audience that Democrats would “pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

That remark captured the truth that, while many Americans have a vague sense that something bad is happening to their health care, few if any understand exactly what the law does.

To fill this vacuum, Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the top House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee, asked his staff to prepare a study of the law, including a flow chart that illustrates how the major provisions will work.

The result, made public July 28, provides citizens with a preview of the impact the health-care overhaul will have on their lives. It’s a terrifying road map that shows Democrats have launched America on the most reckless policy experiment in its history, the economic equivalent of the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Before discussing what the law means for you, we have to look at what it does to government. That’s where the chart comes in handy. It includes the new fees, bureaucracies and programs and connects them into an organizational chart that accounts for the existing structure. It’s so carefully documented that a line connecting two structures cites the legislative language that created the link.

Ornate System

This clearly is a candidate for most disorganized organizational chart ever. It shows that the health system is complex, yes, but also ornate. The new law creates 68 grant programs, 47 bureaucratic entities, 29 demonstration or pilot programs, six regulatory systems, six compliance standards and two entitlements.

Getting that massive enterprise up and running will be next to impossible. So Democrats streamlined the process by granting Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the authority to make judgments that can’t be challenged either administratively or through the courts.

This monarchical protection from challenges is extended as well to the development of new patient-care models under Obama’s controversial recess appointment, Donald Berwick, whom Republicans are calling the rationer-in-chief. Berwick will run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, where he can experiment with ways to use administrative fiat to move our system toward the socialized medicine of Europe, which he has at times embraced.

Closer to Home

A sprawling, complex bureaucracy has been set up that will have almost absolute power to dictate terms for participating in the health-care system. That’s what the law does to government. What it does to you is worse.

Based on the administration’s own numbers, as many as 117 million people might have to change their health plans by 2013 as their employer-provided coverage loses its grandfathered status and becomes subject to the new Obamacare mandates.

Those mandates also might make your health care more expensive. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that premiums for a small number of families who buy their insurance privately will rise by as much as $2,100.

The central Obamacare mechanism for increasing insurance coverage is an expansion of the Medicaid program. Of the 30 million new people covered, 16 million will be enrolled in Medicaid. And you could end up in the program whether you want it or not. The bill states that people who apply for coverage through the new exchanges or who apply for premium-subsidy credits will automatically be enrolled in Medicaid if they qualify.

Hurting the Elderly

To pay for this expansion, the bill takes $529 billion from Medicare, with roughly 39 percent of the cut coming from the Medicare Advantage program. This represents a large transfer of resources, sacrificing the care of the elderly in order to increase the Medicaid rolls.

For all this supposed reform, you, the American taxpayer, can expect a bill to the tune of $569 billion.

Front and center among the new taxes is the 40 percent excise tax on those lucky people with so-called Cadillac health plans. The higher insurance costs that are driven by the government mandates will push many more ordinary plans into Cadillac territory.

If the idea of taxing people with coverage deemed too good doesn’t bother you, maybe the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income will. That will apply even to a small number of home sales, those that generate $250,000 in profit for an individual or $500,000 for a married couple.

In vivid color and detail, Congressman Brady’s chart captures the huge expansion of government coming under Obamacare. Harder to show on paper is the pain it will cause.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@bloomberg.net

Illegal immigrant who killed nun in accident was released by feds

2010-08-03T14:42:00.000-07:00

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/2/illegal-immigrant-killed-nun-released-by-feds/

UPDATED:

The Virginia man suspected in a drunken-driving crash that killed a Catholic nun in Prince William County this weekend is an illegal immigrant and repeat offender who was awaiting deportation and whom federal immigration authorities had released pending further proceedings, police said Monday.

Carlos Montano, a county resident, has been charged with involuntary manslaughter and drunken driving. Mr. Montano had been arrested two other times on drunken-driving charges, and on at least one of those occasions county police reported him to federal authorities.

"We have determined that he is in the country illegally. He has been arrested by Prince William County Police in the past, said police spokesman Jonathan Perok.

He said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was notified at the time of one of those arrests. "At the time of this incident, the accident yesterday, he was in the deportation process and was out on his recognizance for court proceedings."

The crash at around 8:30 Sunday morning killed Sister Denise Mosier and injured two other nuns as they were driving to a retreat at the Benedictine Monastery in Bristow, Va. The two injured nuns were in critical but stable condition late Monday, according to St. Gertrude High School in Richmond run by the Benedictine Sisters of Virginia.

Mr. Montano was being treated for injuries he received in the crash and was expected to be released from the hospital into police custody as early as Monday evening.

Messages left with ICE and the Homeland Security Department were not returned, but the incident raises questions about the agency's policy of detaining only some illegal immigrants awaiting deportation.

"I have been saying for months now that this administration's new policy of concentrating almost solely on 'criminal aliens,' and not enforcing the laws by deporting known illegal aliens, would have devastating consequences. Now, we see the tragic results this 'virtual amnesty' policy of the Obama administration has caused," said Rep. Harold Rogers of Kentucky, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations homeland security subcommittee.

Mexican Drug Cartel Allegedly Puts a Price on Arizona Sheriff's Head

2010-08-03T14:36:00.000-07:00

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/mexican-drug-cartel-sheriff-arpaio-07292010

$1M offered for Arpaio, $1K to join cartel

PHOENIX - He's been at the center of the discussions and controversies surrounding illegal immigration enforcement in Arizona for quite a while.

On the day parts of Arizona's immigration law, SB 1070, went into effect, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is in the news for another reason: there's a price on his head - allegedly offered by a Mexican drug cartel.

The audio message in Spanish is a bit garbled, but the text is clear.

It's offering $1 million for Sheriff Joe Arpaio's head and $10,000 for anyone who wants to join the Mexican cartel.

A man who wants to remain anonymous says his wife received the text message Tuesday evening. It also included an international phone number and instructions to pass the message along.

"She showed it to me..I was kind of disgusted..I reported it to the Sheriff's department yesterday..they said they were going to direct the threat squad on it."

Lisa Allen of the Sheriff's office says they believe the message originated in Mexico.

Although the Sheriff has received numerous death threats in the past, they believe this threat is credible because of its timing.

"Arpaio gets threats pretty routinely, but obviously with this heightened awareness of his role in the immigration issue we've got to take this one a little bit more seriously with a million dollar contract out on him," said Allen.

But she says what really concerns investigators is how quickly the message may have been spread. "It's going so many different places that our folks are looking at it and thinking well at any given point in time it could land in front of some crazy person who thinks I can do that."

As for Arpaio's reaction to the threat, "It's a little bit like water off a duck's back for him, but you never know if it's that sense of false bravado with him..you just can't read it, I'm sure he's concerned, I'm sure he's concerned for his family more than anything else," said Allen.

The Sheriff's office says investigators are trying to trace exactly where the text message came from, but because it did originate from an international number, that will be difficult too.

Praying Outside Clinic Gets Man Disorderly Conduct Charge

2010-08-03T14:33:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/31/pub-chicago-man-charged-disorderly-conduct-praying-outside-planned-parenthood/?test=latestnews

A Chicago man says he's fighting charges of disorderly conduct for simply standing on a public sidewalk and praying.

Joseph Holland, a 25-year-old graduate student at Northwestern University, says he was standing still praying the rosary outside a Planned Parenthood facility in downtown Chicago July 3 when police arrested him for violating the city's new "Bubble Zone" ordinance.

The law, passed in October, states that a person cannot approach within 8 feet of another person without consent "for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education or counseling" within 50 feet from any health care facility.

It also says a person cannot "by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction" intentionally interfere with any person entering or leaving any health care facility.

But Holland says he didn't approach or interfere with anyone.

"I was just standing by the building praying the rosary and one of the Planned Parenthood volunteers came up to me and started yelling at me that I needed to move 8 feet away, but the thing is I didn't actually approach anyone; I was just standing by the building and the building doesn't actually have a bubble," Holland told FoxNews.com.

Holland said he never responded to that volunteer or said a word to any Planned Parenthood staffers or anyone entering the building, but he still got arrested.

"I tried to talk to the officer first and explain that the building doesn't have an 8-foot bubble and that I didn't talk to anyone," Holland said. "I said, 'I'm praying, I'm praying to God, not talking to people' and basically he said me praying was a type of approaching people and violated the bubble zone ordinance."

Chicago police spokesman Roderick Drew told FoxNews.com that, according to the report, Holland "stood within an inch of the victim, prayed out loud at a high volume for over 10 minutes" but ultimately got arrested for blocking the entrance.

"The offender refused two requests to move, and continued to block customer access to the establishment after being asked to clear the entrance by the person in charge of the facility," he said.

Holland's attorney, Peter Breen, says since it was the volunteer who approached Holland and not the other way around, Holland couldn't have violated the ordinance no matter how close to him she stood.

In response to the allegations that Holland was blocking the entrance, Breen says, they're "absolutely false."

"If he was actually blocking the entrance to the clinic, then that would be a federal felony, that would not be something the Chicago police would be placing in an ordinance violation," Breen, executive director and legal counsel of the Thomas More Society told FoxNews.com. "…This arrest was about one thing: trying to scare pro-life people away from Planned Parenthood."

Breen, who also is representing a man who was arrested for allegedly violating the ordinance outside the same facility a few days later, says the fact that any arrests were made for alleged bubble zone violations is itself cause for concern.

"This ordinance doesn't have a jail penalty, so normally for an ordinance like that the Chicago police would show up, if they believe a violation had occurred they would write you a ticket, and you would show up a month or two later at an administrative hearing," Breen said. "It would be like getting a ticket for having a beer on the subway."

"In these cases cops are actually taking these men, taking them into custody, booking them – that's an arrest that goes on their record -- keeping them for five hours, then finally releasing them," he added. "So there are a couple of facets to this and our alarm bells really went off when we saw this treatment."

Drew confirmed that Holland was arrested, photographed and kept in jail until he posted bond roughly four hours later.

But Planned Parenthood says it's a good thing that the law is being enforced with a heavy hand.

"Our patients have the right to safely access the reproductive health care services they need to stay healthy," Planned Parenthood spokesperson Lara Philipps told FoxNews.com. "…The bubble zone ordinance is critical to ensuring that those giving and seeking health care can safely enter and leave medical facilities without harassment and intimidation. We hope the law is robustly enforced."

As for whether or not Holland actually was in violation of the ordinance, Phillips said, "We leave it to the court to determine the facts of the case."

Holland says that will hopefully happen Tuesday.

"We had our first court date last Tuesday on the 27th and our next court date is this coming Tuesday and it looks like we're going to have a jury trial -- for a $500 max fine for violating a city ordinance that I clearly didn't violate," he said. "Seems like a big waste of taxpayer money to me, but if that's what we have to do to show that people are being targeted for violating a city ordinance that they're not actually violating, then I guess that's what we have to do."

2010-07-30T10:49:00.000-07:00

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983

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.

Obamacare reversal? House 75% of the way there!

2010-07-29T06:20:00.000-07:00

Obamacare reversal? House 75% of the way there!

DOCTOR'S ORDERS
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.

Where in the World is Shirley Sherrod?

2010-07-29T06:11:00.000-07:00

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38286

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.

Arizona Immigration Law Castrated

2010-07-28T14:35:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/28/federal-judge-rules-arizona-immigration-law-dispute/

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.

Federal News Radio 1500 AM: SIGIR: Defense can't account for $8.7 billion

2010-07-28T14:27:00.000-07:00

Federal News Radio 1500 AM: SIGIR: Defense can't account for $8.7 billion

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.)

Sherrod: "We Must Stop The White Man And His Uncle Toms ..."

2010-07-27T07:53:00.000-07:00

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/07/sherrod-we-must-stop-the-white-man-and-his-uncle-toms-.html

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?

White House predicts record $1.47 trillion deficit

2010-07-23T14:15:00.000-07:00

White House predicts record $1.47 trillion deficit

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

2010-07-23T14:00:00.000-07:00

Ex-congressman: President a 'threat,' must be impeached

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.

By Her Own Words, Kagan Will Violate Her Oath - Bench Memos - National Review Online

2010-07-21T14:33:00.000-07:00

By Her Own Words, Kagan Will Violate Her Oath - Bench Memos - National Review Online

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.

Here's what 'Obama money' is doing for you – in Kenya!

2010-07-20T14:05:00.000-07:00

Here's what 'Obama money' is doing for you – in Kenya!

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."

Islamic courts

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.

The Ku Klux Klan, Terrorist Wing of the Democratic Party

2010-07-18T07:13:00.000-07:00

The Ku Klux Klan, Terrorist Wing of the Democratic Party

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.

(more…)

NAACP: Where's the Proof?

2010-07-16T19:40:00.000-07:00

Last week, the NAACP passed a resolution condemning racism in the TEA Parties. A while back, when a few imaginative (and expendable to their party) Congressmen decided to walk directly in front of the protesters (even when they didn't have to in order to get where they were going) they claimed they were victims of spitting and racial slurs. The media regurgitated their stories immediately to smear the TEA Parties as racist. Then, a rising conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart challenged these R-bomb dropping yellow journalists. He put up $10,000 of his own money for donation to the United Negro College Fund. All he needed in return, was video evidence of the so-called racism of the TEA Parties.

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?

Think Progress Caught Using Liberal-Manufactured Signs From ‘Crash the Tea Party’ as Evidence of Tea Party Racism

2010-07-15T12:56:00.000-07:00

Think Progress Caught Using Liberal-Manufactured Signs From ‘Crash the Tea Party’ as Evidence of Tea Party Racism

Watchdog: Feds Were Asleep at the Switch When Minnesota Felons Went to the Polls

2010-07-15T12:53:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/14/minnesota-majority-voter-fraud-felons-voting-franken-coleman/

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.

U.S. budget deficit tops $1 trillion for 2nd straight year+

2010-07-15T12:49:00.000-07:00

U.S. budget deficit tops $1 trillion for 2nd straight year+

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.

NAACP Direct Tie to Black Panthers

2010-07-15T12:48:00.000-07:00

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jul/14/naacp-direct-tie-black-panthers/print/

**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.

The only thing Orwell got wrong was the year

2010-07-15T08:23:00.001-07:00

“The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon.

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″

Caught on Tape: Racist NAACP Leader Says ‘Kenneth Gladney Not Black Enough,’ an ‘Uncle Tom’

2010-07-09T05:13:00.000-07:00

Caught on Tape: Racist NAACP Leader Says ‘Kenneth Gladney Not Black Enough,’ an ‘Uncle Tom’

Memorial Day

2010-05-31T06:01:00.000-07:00

Tea Flavored Harbor Water would like to thank all of the men and women of the armed forces dedicated to defending the United States of America and her Constitution. As you enjoy your liberties, remember those who fought for them, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

God Bless America

I hope they ask this asshole for his papers if he shows his face in Arizona

2010-05-10T07:01:00.000-07:00

Breaking: Obama Administration Removed Faisal Shahzad From Terror Surveillance List Before Attack

2010-05-07T12:56:00.000-07:00

Breaking: Obama Administration Removed Faisal Shahzad From Terror Surveillance List Before Attack

Obama biggest recipient of BP cash - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com

2010-05-05T14:10:00.000-07:00

Obama biggest recipient of BP cash - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com

BP Enjoys Lobbying Strength, Close Ties to Lawmakers as Federal Investigation Looms

2010-05-04T13:22:00.000-07:00

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/05/01

BP Enjoys Lobbying Strength, Close Ties to Lawmakers as Federal Investigation Looms

by Cassandra LaRussa

On Thursday, oil giant BP asked for U.S. government assistance in cleaning up massive amounts of crude oil ominously approaching the coast of Louisiana -- the messy results of a recent oil rig explosion 40 miles off-shore.

In response, the Obama administration promised support in both clean up and containment of the environmental crisis. The president also sent clear signals indicating a potential federal investigation to determine cause and responsibility for the accident.

If BP faces heavy federal scrutiny, it's well-positioned to fight back: The London-based company has consistently spent top dollar to influence legislative and regulatory activity in Washington, D.C., the Center for Responsive Politics finds.

During the 2008 election cycle, individuals and political action committees associated with BP -- a Center for Responsive Politics' "heavy hitter" -- contributed half a million dollars to federal candidates. About 40 percent of these donations went to Democrats. The top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 cycle was President Barack Obama himself, who collected $71,000.

BP regularly lobbies on Capitol Hill, as well. In 2009, the company spent a massive $16 million to influence legislation. During the first quarter of 2010, it spent $3.53 million on federal lobbying efforts, ranking it second (behind ConocoPhillips) among all oil and gas industry interests.

Its registered lobbyists include a number of former federal government and high-ranking political campaign officials, including longtime political operative Tony Podesta, former congressional chief of staff Bob Brooks, former congressional legislative director David Pore and vice presidential aide Michael S. Berman, the Center's research shows.

The oil and gas industry, of which BP is a member, reported $169 million in 2009 lobbying expenditures.

Comparatively, the entire environmental industry spent $22 million on lobbying in 2009 -- not much more than BP alone spent for the year. The most active member of the environmental industry, the Nature Conservancy, reported $2.2 million in 2009 expenditures. Last year, BP was active lobbying on the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, which allows increased oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico, in areas closer to shore than current law allows.

The bill also calls for additional research and inventory of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who has received $14,000 in campaign donations during the past two decades from those associated with BP, the Center finds.

In 2009, BP also lobbied on the Oil Spill Prevention Act of 2009 and the Clean Water Restoration Act.

The oil spill, which has yet to be remedied, was caused by an explosion on a BP-leased oil rig on April 20.

A state of emergency has since been enacted in Louisiana, and the White House has designated it an event of "national significance." The oil well is reportedly leaking between 1,000 and 5,000 barrels a day, and rescue crews are trying to eliminate the oil by setting it on fire, breaking it up with chemicals and skimming it off the surface of the ocean. Already, questions are being asked about cause and responsibility.

Upon hearing the cry for help in the Gulf of Mexico, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Cal.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called for a "full blown investigation."

In 2009, individuals and political action committees associated with BP donated $16,000 to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

In addition, five of the all-time top 10 recipients of BP money in the House of Representatives sit on the House Energy Committee: John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) Joe Barton (R-Tex.), Ralph M. Hall (R-Tex.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Fred Upton, (R-Mich.).

All have received upward of $13,000 from BP-related individuals and political action committees during the past two decades. Dingell, the second most favored recipient of BP money in the House, has received $31,000.

Contributing to the Kenneth Earl Gladney Trust

2010-05-04T13:12:00.000-07:00

Contributing to the Kenneth Earl Gladney Trust

Hedge Funds Donate Big to Democrats; Get Exemption from Bank Bill

2010-05-04T13:10:00.000-07:00

Hedge Funds Donate Big to Democrats; Get Exemption from Bank Bill

AZ Immigration Facts and the Left’s New Hate of Affirmative Action

2010-05-02T19:07:00.000-07:00

AZ Immigration Facts and the Left’s New Hate of Affirmative Action

New investigation into Obama background spells trouble ahead

2010-04-29T09:05:00.001-07:00

http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m4d28-New-investigation-into-Obama-background-spells-trouble-ahead

Texas lawmakers closely watching Arizona

2010-04-29T08:55:00.000-07:00

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.

Poll Bounce for Arizona Governor After Signing Immigration Law

2010-04-29T06:43:00.000-07:00

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/arizona/election_2010_arizona_governor

Petition for Validation of Barack Obama's Constitutional Eligibility

2010-04-29T06:40:00.000-07:00

Petition for Validation of Barack Obama's Constitutional Eligibility

Maybe people should see how bad the problem it is themselves before passing judgement on AZ

2010-04-27T11:13:00.000-07:00

http://www.borderinvasionpics.com/

Breitbart.tv » Obama’s Budget Director: Powerful Rationing Panel (Not Doctors) Will Control Health Care Levels

2010-04-27T10:58:00.000-07:00

Breitbart.tv » Obama’s Budget Director: Powerful Rationing Panel (Not Doctors) Will Control Health Care Levels

Death Panel?

Furor grows over Ariz. law against immigrants

2010-04-27T10:55:00.000-07:00

Furor grows over Ariz. law against immigrants

Breaking: Dems Hid Damning Health Care Report From Public Until a Month After Vote!

2010-04-27T06:28:00.000-07:00

Breaking: Dems Hid Damning Health Care Report From Public Until a Month After Vote!

Obamacare’s Danger Signs - Grace-Marie Turner - Critical Condition on National Review Online

2010-04-26T13:33:00.000-07:00

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.

No More Beer Summits: Tea Party ‘N-Word’ Incident Didn’t Happen, And the Congressional Black Caucus Owes America an Apology

2010-04-26T13:02:00.000-07:00

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…)

Bay Area Dems Request $2.8 Million in Earmarks, GOP Requests $0

2010-04-26T06:51:00.000-07:00

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/24/MNAE1D3UPM.DTL&tsp=1

Road to Radicalism: The Man Behind the 'South Park' Threats

2010-04-26T06:49:00.001-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/23/road-radicalism-man-south-park-threats/

US clears 2nd Navy SEAL in Iraqi abuse case

2010-04-26T06:48:00.002-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/23/clears-nd-navy-seal-iraqi-abuse-case/

"The vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country.''

2010-04-26T06:48:00.000-07:00

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/22/barack-obama/obama-campaign-financed-large-donors-too/

Scientist says Arctic getting colder

2010-04-26T06:47:00.000-07:00

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/04/23/Scientist-says-Arctic-getting-colder/UPI-94431272034113/

PolitiFact | Obama campaign financed by large donors, too

2010-04-26T06:44:00.001-07:00

PolitiFact | Obama campaign financed by large donors, too

Posted using ShareThis

Arizona immigration law may prompt influx of immigrants into Texas, professor says

2010-04-24T20:12:00.001-07:00

http://www.examiner.com/x-37614-Austin-Market-Examiner~y2010m4d23-Arizona-immigration-law-may-prompt-influx-of-immigrants-into-Texas-professor-says

Army to 'inquire' into charges against Lakin

2010-04-24T05:51:00.001-07:00

Army to 'inquire' into charges against Lakin

Another state considers Arizona eligibility plan

2010-04-24T05:51:00.000-07:00

Another state considers Arizona eligibility plan

Goldman's White House connections raise eyebrows | McClatchy

2010-04-23T07:28:00.000-07:00

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

Blagojevich to judge: Make Obama testify :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Gov. Blagojevich

2010-04-23T07:27:00.000-07:00

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.

Retired Army general: Lt. Col. Lakin has 'valid point'

2010-04-23T07:09:00.000-07:00

Retired Army general: Lt. Col. Lakin has 'valid point'

Pay raises for Congress? No dice in election year

2010-04-22T12:15:00.000-07:00

Pay raises for Congress? No dice in election year

Both national party committees spend big chunks on fancy meals, hotels, travel

2010-04-22T11:10:00.000-07:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/20/AR2010042005183.html

FOXNews.com - 'South Park' Creators Could Face Retribution for Depicting Muhammad, Website Warns

2010-04-22T11:01:00.001-07:00

FOXNews.com - 'South Park' Creators Could Face Retribution for Depicting Muhammad, Website Warns

Posted using ShareThis

Why I Support Legalizing Marijuana Now

2010-04-20T11:55:00.000-07:00

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…)

Long Live the King!

2010-04-19T13:16:00.000-07:00

No Joy in Mudville As MSM’s Coverage of Tea Party Strikes Out

2010-04-17T14:17:00.000-07:00

No Joy in Mudville As MSM’s Coverage of Tea Party Strikes Out

Mayor joins chorus questioning if Obama 'American'

2010-04-17T11:19:00.000-07:00

Mayor joins chorus questioning if Obama 'American'

If Obama has nothing to hide, why have so many things about him been hidden?

Obama 'amused' by Tea Party rallies - TheHill.com

2010-04-16T08:43:00.000-07:00

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.

Web Site Vows to Infiltrate Tea Party Movement

2010-04-15T08:23:00.001-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591112,00.html

New poll: Ron Paul and President Obama tied in a 2012 match up

2010-04-15T08:10:00.001-07:00

New poll: Ron Paul and President Obama tied in a 2012 match up

Posted using ShareThis

White House press corps sued for doing Obama's 'bidding'

2010-04-14T14:52:00.000-07:00

White House press corps sued for doing Obama's 'bidding'

Obama's disregard for media reaches new heights at nuclear summit

2010-04-14T14:46:00.001-07:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041303067.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

New immigration bill puts local police on front line of border battle

2010-04-14T14:40:00.000-07:00

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?

Tea party touts 'Maryland miracle' - Marin Cogan - POLITICO.com

2010-04-14T14:37:00.000-07:00

Tea party touts 'Maryland miracle' - Marin Cogan - POLITICO.com

Obamacare Kickbacks

2010-04-14T11:19:00.000-07:00

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.

Bowbama Archives Revisited

2010-04-14T06:08:00.000-07:00

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

Live Free or Die!

2010-04-13T15:32:00.000-07:00

This lovely billboard in Missouri on I-70 is a welcome sight to those who would resist tyranny.

Read the bill: Obamacare socks middle class with $3.9 billion tax increase | Washington Examiner

2010-04-13T11:18:00.000-07:00

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

MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell Plays Race Card on Gingrich, Colleagues Laugh At Her | NewsBusters.org

2010-04-13T10:49:00.000-07:00

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.

Tea Flavored Harbor Water

Silly President, Civilian Trials are for Civilians!

Merry Christmas

The Mormon Double Standard

The Plan to Save America

DOJ Will Not Investigate Attack of Civil Rights Activist

U.S. Government Loaning $500M for Solar Power Projects—In India

RIP Dad, Semper Fidelis

The BC Distraction

The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

Medicare actuary: Reform will cost some seniors

Climate Science’s Worst Week in History

Rumpelstiltskin Spins Fiction to Fact

It’s Waterloo for You Know Who

Gallup: 46 Percent Say U.S. Government 'Poses Immediate Threat to the Rights and Freedoms' of U.S. Citizens | CNSnews.com

Boxer Tied to Dubious Waters Cash-for-Endorsement Scheme

Teen: Security Told Me To Remove U.S. Flags

Audits: ICE isn't cracking down on illegal immigrant employers

The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown

Local Democrats wish death upon Sarah Palin

Anatomy of a Smear: Left-Media’s Too-Good-to-Be-True Rand Paul Scoop Debunked… by the Original Source

Thoughtcrime: D.C. Reporter Suspended for Accurate Report on BP’s Donations to Obama

Students at Lincoln Memorial Told to Stop Singing National Anthem

Rangel's rambling floor speech has House Dems wishing they didn't recognize him

Federal workers earning double their private counterparts

The Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime: extravagant and out of touch with the American people

Remember King's Dream?

Advocates of Anti-Shariah Measures Alarmed by Judge's Ruling

GOP’s Graham: Jesus’s ‘Golden Rule’ Compelled Me to Vote for Kagan

Harry Reid Defends Funding for Coked-Up Stimulus Monkeys - The Feed - National Review Online

Justice Department steers money to favored groups | Washington Examiner

By: Byron York Chief Political Correspondent August 5, 2010

Federal Workers Pocketed 'Fraudulent' Social Security Payments, GAO Finds

Obamacare Only Looks Worse Upon Further Review: Kevin Hassett

Illegal immigrant who killed nun in accident was released by feds

Mexican Drug Cartel Allegedly Puts a Price on Arizona Sheriff's Head

Praying Outside Clinic Gets Man Disorderly Conduct Charge

Obamacare reversal? House 75% of the way there!

Where in the World is Shirley Sherrod?

Arizona Immigration Law Castrated

Federal News Radio 1500 AM: SIGIR: Defense can't account for $8.7 billion

Sherrod: "We Must Stop The White Man And His Uncle Toms ..."

White House predicts record $1.47 trillion deficit

Ex-congressman: President a 'threat,' must be impeached

By Her Own Words, Kagan Will Violate Her Oath - Bench Memos - National Review Online

Here's what 'Obama money' is doing for you – in Kenya!

The Ku Klux Klan, Terrorist Wing of the Democratic Party

NAACP: Where's the Proof?

Think Progress Caught Using Liberal-Manufactured Signs From ‘Crash the Tea Party’ as Evidence of Tea Party Racism

Watchdog: Feds Were Asleep at the Switch When Minnesota Felons Went to the Polls

U.S. budget deficit tops $1 trillion for 2nd straight year+

NAACP Direct Tie to Black Panthers

The only thing Orwell got wrong was the year

Caught on Tape: Racist NAACP Leader Says ‘Kenneth Gladney Not Black Enough,’ an ‘Uncle Tom’

Memorial Day

I hope they ask this asshole for his papers if he shows his face in Arizona

Breaking: Obama Administration Removed Faisal Shahzad From Terror Surveillance List Before Attack

Obama biggest recipient of BP cash - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com

BP Enjoys Lobbying Strength, Close Ties to Lawmakers as Federal Investigation Looms

Contributing to the Kenneth Earl Gladney Trust

Hedge Funds Donate Big to Democrats; Get Exemption from Bank Bill

AZ Immigration Facts and the Left’s New Hate of Affirmative Action

New investigation into Obama background spells trouble ahead

Texas lawmakers closely watching Arizona

Poll Bounce for Arizona Governor After Signing Immigration Law

Petition for Validation of Barack Obama's Constitutional Eligibility

Maybe people should see how bad the problem it is themselves before passing judgement on AZ

Breitbart.tv » Obama’s Budget Director: Powerful Rationing Panel (Not Doctors) Will Control Health Care Levels

Furor grows over Ariz. law against immigrants

Breaking: Dems Hid Damning Health Care Report From Public Until a Month After Vote!

Obamacare’s Danger Signs - Grace-Marie Turner - Critical Condition on National Review Online

No More Beer Summits: Tea Party ‘N-Word’ Incident Didn’t Happen, And the Congressional Black Caucus Owes America an Apology

Bay Area Dems Request $2.8 Million in Earmarks, GOP Requests $0

Road to Radicalism: The Man Behind the 'South Park' Threats

US clears 2nd Navy SEAL in Iraqi abuse case

"The vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country.''

Scientist says Arctic getting colder

PolitiFact | Obama campaign financed by large donors, too

Arizona immigration law may prompt influx of immigrants into Texas, professor says

Army to 'inquire' into charges against Lakin

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
August 5, 2010