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?
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
White House predicts record $1.47 trillion deficit
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."
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
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.
Ex-congressman: President a 'threat,' must be impeached
'We have man in White House who brazenly disregards his oath of office'
Posted: July 23, 20103:05 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2010 WorldNetDaily
President Obama bowing to Japan's emperor
A former member of Congress says for current members of the House and Senate to uphold their oath of office that includes the defense of the United States against enemies "foreign and domestic," they need to be filing impeachment charges against Barack Obama.
Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., joined what has become a growing surge of those recommending the ultimate solution for a president they believe not only has disagreeable policies, but is participating in actions that damage the nation.
Tancredo wrote in a opinion piece in the Washington Times that, "Mr. Obama's refusal to live up to his own oath of office – which includes the duty to defend the United States against foreign invasion – requires senators and representatives to live up to their oaths. Members of Congress must defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today, that means bringing impeachment charges against Mr. Obama."
The ultimate guide to Obama's radical agenda – and how to stop it!
Tancredo is not the first to raise the idea of impeachment against Obama, who has implemented legislation and policies effectively nationalizing financial institutions, automobile companies, health care and many other previously private interests.
In fact, he was not even the only person on this particular day. Times columnist Jeffrey T. Kuhner, who also is president of the Edmund Burke Institute, wrote at the same time, "President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached."
Kuhner continued, "He is slowly – piece by painful piece – erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there – yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above – one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go."
Tancredo's arguments aren't complicated. During his brief presidential run in 2008 he focused on the border security issue of the United States, and he still is concerned that the failure to secure the U.S. boundary – especially with Mexico – will lead to tragic consequences at the hands of border-crossing terrorists.
Tancredo appeared on Fox News today to defend his position from skeptics, saying Obama's responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution and the United States, not "fundamentally transform" them.
"Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms," Tancredo warns, affirming his belief that Obama is more dangerous for the United States than al-Qaida.
"He is more dangerous simply because he is inside," he said. "Few people took him seriously about fundamentally transforming America. That is what he is all about. That is what he has set about doing. He is a committed ideologue. When you have someone like that in the White House, it is a scary proposition."
Obama bowing to Saudi Arabian leader
He cited the president's lack of action to adequately secure the border with Mexico.
"He's putting his country in danger," Tancredo said. "The country the Founders put together, that's what's in jeopardy."
"Barack Obama is one of the most powerful presidents this nation has seen in generations. He is powerful because he is supported by large majorities in Congress, but, more importantly, because he does not feel constrained by the rule of law. Whether he is putting up the weakest possible defense of the Defense of Marriage Act despite the Justice Department's legal obligation to support existing law; disenfranchising Chrysler and GM bondholders in order to transfer billions of investor dollars to his supporters in the United Auto Workers; or implementing yet a third offshore oil-drilling moratorium even after two federal courts have thrown out two previous moratoriums, President Obama is determined to see things done his way regardless of obstacles," Tancredo wrote in his op-ed.
"To Mr. Obama, the rule of law is a mere inconvenience to be ignored, overcome or 'transcended' through international agreements or 'norms.'"
Tancredo wrote that the "dedicated Marxist who lives in the White House" holds power over budgets, the judiciary, national defense and health care. As such, "his regime and his program are not just about changing public policy in the conventional sense. When one considers the combination of his stop-at-nothing attitude, his contempt for limited government, his appointment of judges who want to create law rather than interpret it – all of these make this president today's single greatest threat to the great experiment in freedom that is our republic.
"Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al-Qaida. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat. Mr. Obama can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents."
Tancredo, who served five terms representing Colorado and now is chairman of the Rocky Mountain Foundation, was joined by Kuhner, who accused Obama of abusing his office and violating his oath.
Kuhner cited Obama's demand that all Americans buy health insurance.
"The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power," he wrote. "Yet Obamacare's most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens."
He further cited Obama's actions regarding the BP oil spill.
"There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia's Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda."
He also wrote about the takeovers in the auto and financial industries, and the New Black Panther case.
"Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper," he said. "As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site."
Tancredo nearly two months ago broached the subject of impeachment, suggesting an "impeachment file."
"I believe there is a growing body of evidence of impeachable offenses sufficient to warrant a formal impeachment resolution in the House, followed by a trial in the Senate," he wrote at the time.
And the suggestion even has come from onlookers at a presidential appearance. CNN has documented when Obama made a surprise visit to a crowd on a shuttle bus, one onlooker shouted, "When are you going to quit. When are you going to be impeached?"
The issue even has appeared among online gamers, when Microsoft told an Xbox user the signon name "Impeach Obama" was not allowed because, "If you were President Obama, how would you feel if someone wanted to impeach you?"
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, in a column on WND, discussed the ImpeachObamaCampaign.com that they launched.
They reported that many, instead of examining the evidence, attacked the messengers.
"We expected these attacks," they reported. But they said the unresolved issues include:
"Obama repeatedly lies to the American people when he says we can keep our private insurance, knowing full well that his legislation will inevitably drive private insurers out of business.
"Gerald Walpin, inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, investigated Kevin Johnson, a big buddy of the president, for misuse of funds from an AmeriCorps grant. Obama did not like Walpin's investigation and findings, whereupon he vindictively fired Walpin to cover for his friend, Johnson. A subsequent investigation vindicated Walpin's judgment in the matter.
"Barack Obama oversaw the effective takeover by government of banks, the largest insurance company (AIG), General Motors and Chrysler – the bulk of the U.S. auto industry – thus stripping bondholders, shareholders and others of their personal property.
"Barack Obama is actively pursuing cap-and-trade legislation. Instead of taxing the very air we breathe, it will instead, in a manner of speaking, tax the air we exhale, giving the government unprecedented control over the economy and American businesses. Those taxed businesses will then pass the fees onto the American people.
"Spending American citizens' money, Barack Hussein Obama is running up our debt at an alarming rate. In just the nine months since Obama assumed office, our national debt has gone up by over a trillion dollars. To put that figure in perspective, it took George W. Bush eight years to add $4.8 trillion to the national debt.
"And, to add insult to injury, Obama is printing money like it's going out of style. The effect will be hyperinflation, a crippling of our economy and, quite possibly, personal hardship on a scale that has not been experienced since the Great Depression.
"Barack Hussein Obama appointed countless "czars" to oversee everything from the closing of Guantanamo to the food we eat. These czars don't have to be approved by the Senate. The czars have unprecedented power and report only to Obama. Members of both parties are disturbed by these extra-constitutional excrescences. Sen. Robert Byrd said: "The accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances." Rep. Jack Kingston called the czars a "parallel government."
"And finally, Obama consistently refuses to approve the release of his actual birth certificate, college transcripts and his medical records. Is he trying to hide something that will threaten his presidency?"
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely
Retired U.S. Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, a noted military leader who now is a presence on the Internet with his Stand Up For America and Veterans Defenders websites, told WND he would like Obama to resign.
Vallely, who served in Vietnam and retired in 1991 from the U.S. Army as deputy commanding general for the Pacific, said, "We now must call for the immediate resignation of Barry Soetero (AKA President Barack Hussein Obama) … based on incompetence, deceit, fraud, corruption, dishonesty and violation of the U.S. oath of office and the Constitution."
"We can wait no longer for a traditional change of power and new government," he has warned.
"'We the People' have had enough. Enough is enough. The Obama White House and identifiable members of Congress are now on a progressive socialist, treasonous death march and are bankrupting and weakening the country. We have watched them violate their sacred oath of office. 'We, the People' cannot wait for and solely rely on the next round of elections in November of this year. It is now and each day that these public servants must put the citizen's interests above self-interest by resigning immediately," he said.
Peter Ferrara, on the American Spectator website, also has predicted Obama's resignation.
"I am now ready to predict that President Obama will not even make it [to 2012]," he wrote. "I predict that he will resign in discredited disgrace before the fall of 2012," Ferrera said.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
By Her Own Words, Kagan Will Violate Her Oath - Bench Memos - National Review Online
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.
By Sen. Tom Coburn
The Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan provided key exchanges about the Commerce Clause, natural rights, and other issues that have convinced me to vote against her nomination. Based on her own testimony, she’ll violate her oath as soon as she’s sworn in.
The hearings, though, were not merely about Elena Kagan per se but about the political culture and philosophy that shaped her views. Her answers exposed profound flaws in the prevailing Big Government wisdom of the Supreme Court and Washington over the past few decades.
When I asked Kagan whether the Constitution gave Congress the authority to tell people to eat their fruits and vegetables, she answered with appropriate humor. “That would be a dumb law,” she quipped. True enough. Her response was humorous because the underlying premise is absurd both as a matter of common sense and law. Of course, Kagan and everyone else knew I was asking a proxy question about the new health law’s individual mandate and the founder’s intent regarding the Commerce Clause.
What is less humorous is the fact that as a Supreme Court justice, she would signal that Congress does in fact have the right to tell people what to eat and, by implication, whether to buy health insurance. With Kagan on the Court, Congress and the executive branch may succeed at sweeping away whatever limitations remain on its power to micromanage the decisions of states and individuals.
In her testimony, it was clear that Kagan subscribes to the progressive view that the wrongly decided precedents of the Supreme Court are more important the clear intent of the Constitution. Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington? They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause.
In “Federalist Paper 45,” James Madison wrote: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly turned a blind eye when Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause. As a result, the federal government can control practically every aspect of our lives. For instance, in the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court decided that a farmer in Ohio, Roscoe Filburn, had to cease growing wheat to feed his chicken because he didn’t have permission from Congress. As a matter of law, we aren’t far from regulating American’s eating habits.
Kagan refused to answer the substance of my question. Her answers indicated she would support the big-government policies that created our $13 trillion debt and the welfare state that is collapsing into a fiscal black hole.
Even more troubling was Kagan’s refusal to say whether she believed in the principle of natural rights contained in the Declaration of Independence. Kagan told me, “I don’t have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution.”
While I understand a nominee’s reluctance to express personal beliefs, it was extraordinary to hear a Supreme Court nominee decline to endorse the concept of natural rights contained in the Declaration of Independence that is the very basis of our Constitution.
Kagan’s answer exposed a troubling train of thought in progressive ideology. Refusing to acknowledge natural or God-given rights removes the morality from the progressive’s moral certitude. Without natural law there would have been no Constitution. Without natural law, “progressives” would take us back to the 17th century, when rights emanated from the state or the king rather than the creator.
Kagan made a number of statements that concerned me such as her statement that Justices can get “good ideas” on how to approach legal issues from the decisions of foreign courts. Instead of looking toward foreign courts for inspiration, Kagan, and more importantly the country, would be wise to look at the United States Constitution. With Kagan on the Court the chances are slim that the Supreme Court will rein in Congress and throw away years of expansive precedents that have nearly destroyed the Constitution. Our only hope is where it has always been in our system — with “We the People” and our willingness to elect leaders who will rediscover and apply the constitutional principles that made our government limited, and our country great.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Here's what 'Obama money' is doing for you – in Kenya!
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.
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.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
The Ku Klux Klan, Terrorist Wing of the Democratic Party
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.
Friday, July 16, 2010
NAACP: Where's the Proof?
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?
Sadly to this date, the United Negro College Fund hasn't received a donation from Andrew Breitbart. That's because the Congressmen who made those accusations are full of shit (as most politicians are). They tried to incite and expose a racial tension that simply doesn't exist. When they failed, they decided to lie to the lapdog press anyway. No evidence can be found anywhere (believe me, I tried). I've seen some signs with religious overtones, but mostly about American being a christian nation, as a rebuke to Obama saying "we are no longer a christian nation."
I did see someone holding a cardboard sign saying: This sign is the brownest thing on the block. Looks racist, but if you look at the guy's t-shirt, which says, "Listen to Bob Marley," it's obvious he was there to infiltrate the TEA Party. A smart and under-handed tactic, when one actually dresses like the people he's supposed to be marginalizing.
I'm forced to categorize the NAACP as a political tool of the left. Why would they pass this resolution without proof? Why won't they present proof they say they have to Andrew Breitbart? I know the United Negro College Fund could use and extra ten grand in these tough economic times.
Well, where's the proof?
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Watchdog: Feds Were Asleep at the Switch When Minnesota Felons Went to the Polls
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.
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+
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.
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
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.
**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
“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″
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″
Friday, July 9, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
Memorial Day
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
God Bless America
Monday, May 10, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
BP Enjoys Lobbying Strength, Close Ties to Lawmakers as Federal Investigation Looms
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.
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.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Texas lawmakers closely watching Arizona
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6978757.html
AUSTIN — Texas lawmakers are closely watching Arizona's get-tough immigration law, with some Republicans saying they will push for similar action here while Democrats say the legislation is wrongheaded and the GOP would suffer politically for the attempt.
“The first priority for any elected official is to make sure that the safety and security of Texans is well-established,” said Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball. “If our federal government did their job, then Arizona wouldn't have to take this action, and neither would Texas.”
Riddle introduced a similar measure last legislative session — it stalled in committee — and said she will do the same when the Legislature meets in regular session in January.
Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, called the Arizona law “extremely damaging and hateful” and said any attempt to replicate it in Texas would not pass, but would damage the GOP.
Any such measure that gains traction “just adds to the Democratic side,” said Van de Putte, a former president of the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators.
She said she has scotched Arizona travel plans.
“I will not step into that state, and every single group that I'm a part of, if they plan a meeting there, I will not go, and I will ask all of my colleagues to please not go,” she said. “If my family would be treated differently just because of the color of their skin, then I don't want to be in that state.”
‘A different relationship'
The Arizona law, which has sparked protests and questions over its constitutionality, would require local and state lawmen to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to believe they may be in the country illegally. The measure would make it a crime under Arizona state law if immigrants lack registration documents. They could face arrest, a jail term of up to six months and a fine.
Jim Harrington, of the Texas Civil Rights Project, predicted “zero” chance of a similar effort here, saying Texas has “a different relationship with the Hispanic community.”
Such a push “would cause an enormous political transformation of the state a lot quicker than it's happening at this point,” Harrington said. “It would galvanize the Hispanic community astronomically.”
Asked about the Arizona law, GOP Gov. Rick Perry and his Democratic challenger, Bill White, emphasized through spokespeople that immigration is a federal responsibility.
“You can take the political temperature by just looking at Rick Perry being quiet,” Harrington said.
In Washington, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a U.S. Senate hearing Tuesday that the Obama administration has concerns about Arizona's action and that a Justice Department review is under way to determine the law's constitutionality.
“We believe it will detract from and siphon resources that we need to focus on those in the country illegally who are committing the most serious crimes in addition to violating our nation's immigration laws,” said Napolitano, who was governor of Arizona until joining the Obama administration.
Seen as misguided
Even if the Arizona law is constitutional, she said it is misguided because it would hamper trust between law enforcement investigating crimes such as domestic violence, human trafficking, even routine traffic accidents. Napolitano said she hoped the federal government's review would be complete before the Arizona law takes effect in late July or early August.
The Texas Association of Business' Bill Hammond said that while it is likely similar legislation will be filed in the Lone Star State, “I think and hope there's little likelihood the Texas Legislature would pass anything so misguided as what they've done in Arizona. I think it is blatantly unconstitutional.”
‘Proud of Arizona'
Whether the Arizona move could increase immigration to Texas is an open question. Harrington said he does not think so, partly because people who go to Arizona typically come from a different part of Mexico than those who come to Texas.
But Rep. David Swinford, R-Dumas, former State Affairs Committee chairman who did not advance immigration measures in 2007 because he said he was advised they would violate constitutional standards, said the Arizona action could increase immigration to Texas. He said he expects a similar push here but also expects Arizona to face a court fight.
“I'm real proud of Arizona,” said Swinford. “A lot of this stuff we wanted to do, we just couldn't do because I didn't want Texas going bankrupt trying to defend it in the courts. ...”
Gary Martin contributed to this report from Washington.
AUSTIN — Texas lawmakers are closely watching Arizona's get-tough immigration law, with some Republicans saying they will push for similar action here while Democrats say the legislation is wrongheaded and the GOP would suffer politically for the attempt.
“The first priority for any elected official is to make sure that the safety and security of Texans is well-established,” said Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball. “If our federal government did their job, then Arizona wouldn't have to take this action, and neither would Texas.”
Riddle introduced a similar measure last legislative session — it stalled in committee — and said she will do the same when the Legislature meets in regular session in January.
Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, called the Arizona law “extremely damaging and hateful” and said any attempt to replicate it in Texas would not pass, but would damage the GOP.
Any such measure that gains traction “just adds to the Democratic side,” said Van de Putte, a former president of the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators.
She said she has scotched Arizona travel plans.
“I will not step into that state, and every single group that I'm a part of, if they plan a meeting there, I will not go, and I will ask all of my colleagues to please not go,” she said. “If my family would be treated differently just because of the color of their skin, then I don't want to be in that state.”
‘A different relationship'
The Arizona law, which has sparked protests and questions over its constitutionality, would require local and state lawmen to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to believe they may be in the country illegally. The measure would make it a crime under Arizona state law if immigrants lack registration documents. They could face arrest, a jail term of up to six months and a fine.
Jim Harrington, of the Texas Civil Rights Project, predicted “zero” chance of a similar effort here, saying Texas has “a different relationship with the Hispanic community.”
Such a push “would cause an enormous political transformation of the state a lot quicker than it's happening at this point,” Harrington said. “It would galvanize the Hispanic community astronomically.”
Asked about the Arizona law, GOP Gov. Rick Perry and his Democratic challenger, Bill White, emphasized through spokespeople that immigration is a federal responsibility.
“You can take the political temperature by just looking at Rick Perry being quiet,” Harrington said.
In Washington, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a U.S. Senate hearing Tuesday that the Obama administration has concerns about Arizona's action and that a Justice Department review is under way to determine the law's constitutionality.
“We believe it will detract from and siphon resources that we need to focus on those in the country illegally who are committing the most serious crimes in addition to violating our nation's immigration laws,” said Napolitano, who was governor of Arizona until joining the Obama administration.
Seen as misguided
Even if the Arizona law is constitutional, she said it is misguided because it would hamper trust between law enforcement investigating crimes such as domestic violence, human trafficking, even routine traffic accidents. Napolitano said she hoped the federal government's review would be complete before the Arizona law takes effect in late July or early August.
The Texas Association of Business' Bill Hammond said that while it is likely similar legislation will be filed in the Lone Star State, “I think and hope there's little likelihood the Texas Legislature would pass anything so misguided as what they've done in Arizona. I think it is blatantly unconstitutional.”
‘Proud of Arizona'
Whether the Arizona move could increase immigration to Texas is an open question. Harrington said he does not think so, partly because people who go to Arizona typically come from a different part of Mexico than those who come to Texas.
But Rep. David Swinford, R-Dumas, former State Affairs Committee chairman who did not advance immigration measures in 2007 because he said he was advised they would violate constitutional standards, said the Arizona action could increase immigration to Texas. He said he expects a similar push here but also expects Arizona to face a court fight.
“I'm real proud of Arizona,” said Swinford. “A lot of this stuff we wanted to do, we just couldn't do because I didn't want Texas going bankrupt trying to defend it in the courts. ...”
Gary Martin contributed to this report from Washington.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Obamacare’s Danger Signs - Grace-Marie Turner - Critical Condition on National Review Online
Obamacare’s Danger Signs - Grace-Marie Turner - Critical Condition on National Review Online
Obamacare’s Danger Signs [Grace-Marie Turner]
Not one of its major programs has gotten started, and already the wheels are starting to come off of Obamacare. The administration’s own actuary reported on Thursday that millions of people could lose their health insurance, that health-care costs will rise faster than they would have if the law hadn’t passed, and that the overhaul will mean that people will have a harder and harder time finding physicians to see them.The White House is trying to spin the new report from Medicare’s chief actuary Richard Foster as only half bad because it concludes that, while costs will increase, only 23 million people will remain uninsured (instead of 24 million previously estimated).But looking at the details of Foster’s report shows the many, many danger signs for Obamacare and how many of its promises will be broken:1. People losing coverage: About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on Medicare Advantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.2. Huge fines for companies: Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties in the first five years after the fines trigger in 2014, partly because they can’t afford to offer expensive, government-mandated coverage and partly because some of their employees will apply for taxpayer-subsidized insurance. 3. Higher costs for consumers: Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums,” according to Foster. A separate report shows small businesses will be hit hardest.4. A program created to fail: The new “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance program will face “a significant risk of failure,” according to Foster. Indeed, he finds, “there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable.”5. Spending increases: Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.6. “Free-riders”: An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.7. Spending reductions are fiction: Estimated reductions in the growth rate of health spending “may not be fully achievable” because “Medicare productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even within the next ten years, and over time the reductions in the scope of employer-sponsored health insurance could also become an issue.”8. You can’t keep your doctor: Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.” Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs.9. Coverage but no care: A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.This is an objective report by administration actuaries that shows this sweeping legislation has serious, serious problems.And there’s more: Joint Economic Committee Republicans explain in a new report the impact of a rarely mentioned $14.3 billion per year tax on health insurance, effective in 2014. They find this tax will be mostly passed through to consumers in the form of higher premiums for private coverage. It will cost the typical family of four with job-based coverage an additional $1,000 a year in higher premiums and will fall largely, and inequitably, on small businesses and their employees.States are fighting back. The Florida legislature voted Thursday to place a state constitutional amendment on the ballot that would ban any laws that compel someone to “participate in any health care system.” It requires a 60 percent vote to succeed. The legislation is modeled after the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which has been introduced or announced in 42 states.Obamacare is far from settled policy. There are two more federal elections before the major provisions of the law take effect in 2014. Doctors are fighting mad, patients are scared, and companies are starting to realize that the promises of health-care-reform legislation could turn into a huge and costly burden. The studies released today only fuel the fires to repeal and replace the health-overhaul law.
Obamacare’s Danger Signs [Grace-Marie Turner]
Not one of its major programs has gotten started, and already the wheels are starting to come off of Obamacare. The administration’s own actuary reported on Thursday that millions of people could lose their health insurance, that health-care costs will rise faster than they would have if the law hadn’t passed, and that the overhaul will mean that people will have a harder and harder time finding physicians to see them.The White House is trying to spin the new report from Medicare’s chief actuary Richard Foster as only half bad because it concludes that, while costs will increase, only 23 million people will remain uninsured (instead of 24 million previously estimated).But looking at the details of Foster’s report shows the many, many danger signs for Obamacare and how many of its promises will be broken:1. People losing coverage: About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on Medicare Advantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.2. Huge fines for companies: Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties in the first five years after the fines trigger in 2014, partly because they can’t afford to offer expensive, government-mandated coverage and partly because some of their employees will apply for taxpayer-subsidized insurance. 3. Higher costs for consumers: Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums,” according to Foster. A separate report shows small businesses will be hit hardest.4. A program created to fail: The new “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance program will face “a significant risk of failure,” according to Foster. Indeed, he finds, “there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable.”5. Spending increases: Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.6. “Free-riders”: An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.7. Spending reductions are fiction: Estimated reductions in the growth rate of health spending “may not be fully achievable” because “Medicare productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even within the next ten years, and over time the reductions in the scope of employer-sponsored health insurance could also become an issue.”8. You can’t keep your doctor: Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.” Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs.9. Coverage but no care: A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.This is an objective report by administration actuaries that shows this sweeping legislation has serious, serious problems.And there’s more: Joint Economic Committee Republicans explain in a new report the impact of a rarely mentioned $14.3 billion per year tax on health insurance, effective in 2014. They find this tax will be mostly passed through to consumers in the form of higher premiums for private coverage. It will cost the typical family of four with job-based coverage an additional $1,000 a year in higher premiums and will fall largely, and inequitably, on small businesses and their employees.States are fighting back. The Florida legislature voted Thursday to place a state constitutional amendment on the ballot that would ban any laws that compel someone to “participate in any health care system.” It requires a 60 percent vote to succeed. The legislation is modeled after the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which has been introduced or announced in 42 states.Obamacare is far from settled policy. There are two more federal elections before the major provisions of the law take effect in 2014. Doctors are fighting mad, patients are scared, and companies are starting to realize that the promises of health-care-reform legislation could turn into a huge and costly burden. The studies released today only fuel the fires to repeal and replace the health-overhaul law.
No More Beer Summits: Tea Party ‘N-Word’ Incident Didn’t Happen, And the Congressional Black Caucus Owes America an Apology
No More Beer Summits: Tea Party ‘N-Word’ Incident Didn’t Happen, And the Congressional Black Caucus Owes America an Apology
Now this story is much more important than the accusation of fifteen racists among the thousands of protesters that day. This is now about the accusers.
It’s not just that Congressmen Carson’s accusation of an extraordinary racist verbal assault by the tea party participants on March 20 doesn’t appear to have occurred, it’s that the accusers have now gone into the bunker and, having raised the incendiary subject, are doing everything they can to avoid the discussion. Why? What’s changed? (more…)
Now this story is much more important than the accusation of fifteen racists among the thousands of protesters that day. This is now about the accusers.
It’s not just that Congressmen Carson’s accusation of an extraordinary racist verbal assault by the tea party participants on March 20 doesn’t appear to have occurred, it’s that the accusers have now gone into the bunker and, having raised the incendiary subject, are doing everything they can to avoid the discussion. Why? What’s changed? (more…)
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Goldman's White House connections raise eyebrows | McClatchy
Goldman's White House connections raise eyebrows McClatchy
WASHINGTON — While Goldman Sachs' lawyers negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission over potentially explosive civil fraud charges, Goldman's chief executive visited the White House at least four times.
White House logs show that Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein traveled to Washington for at least two events with President Barack Obama, whose 2008 presidential campaign received $994,795 in donations from Goldman's employees and their relatives. He also met twice with Obama's top economic adviser, Larry Summers.
No evidence has surfaced to suggest that Blankfein or any other Goldman executive raised the SEC case with the president or his aides. SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro said in a statement Wednesday that the SEC doesn't coordinate enforcement actions with the White House or other political bodies.
Meanwhile, however, Goldman is retaining former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig as a member of its legal team. In addition, when he worked as an investment banker in Chicago a decade ago, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advised one client who also retained Goldman as an adviser on the same $8.2 billion deal.
Goldman's connections to the White House and the Obama administration are raising eyebrows at a time when Washington and Wall Street are dueling over how to overhaul regulation of the financial world.
Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political scientist, said that "almost everything that the White House has done has been haunted by the personnel and the money of Goldman . . . as well as the suspicion that the White House, particularly early on, was pulling its punches out of deference to Goldman and its war chest.
"There's now kind of a magnifying glass on the administration for any sign of interference or conversations with the regulators and the judiciary," Jacobs said.
The SEC investigation of Goldman's dealings lasted 18 months and culminated with the SEC filing civil fraud charges against the investment bank last week.
According to White House visitor logs, Blankfein was among the business leaders who attended an Obama speech on Feb. 13, 2009, and he also joined more than a dozen bank CEOs in a meeting with Obama on March 27, 2009.
Blankfein also was supposed be among the CEOs who met with Obama in December, but he and two others phoned in from New York, blaming inclement weather.
He and his wife, Laura, were listed on the logs among 438 presidential guests at the Kennedy Center Honors the previous week.
The logs also indicate that Blankfein met twice in 2009, on Feb. 4 and Sept. 30, with Summers, who was undersecretary of the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration when it was headed by Robert Rubin, a former Goldman CEO.
Asked whether Goldman executives had talked to administration officials about the SEC inquiry, Goldman spokesman Michael DuVally said that the firm doesn't discuss "what conversations we may or may not have had with government officials."
Schapiro's statement said that she's "disappointed" by Republican rhetoric suggesting that the SEC case against Goldman might have been timed to boost legislative prospects for a financial regulation overhaul bill, which Obama plans to pitch in a speech in New York Thursday.
"We do not coordinate our enforcement actions with the White House, Congress or political committees," Schapiro said. "We do not time our cases around political events or the legislative calendar . . . We will neither bring cases, nor refrain from bringing them, because of the political consequences."
Obama dismissed any such suggestion as "completely false" Wednesday, saying in a CNBC television interview that the SEC "never discussed with us anything with respect to the charges that would be brought."
While describing Craig, his former counsel, as "one of the top lawyers in the country," Obama also said that he'd imposed "the toughest ethics rules that any president's ever had."
"One thing he (Craig) knows is that he cannot talk to the White House," Obama said. "He cannot lobby the White House. He cannot in any way use his former position to have any influence on us."
Goldman's chief spokesman, Lucas van Praag, said the firm "wanted Craig . . . for his wisdom and insight."
Craig, now an attorney with the Washington law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagre & Flom, said: "I am a lawyer, not a lobbyist. Goldman Sachs has hired me to provide legal advice and to assist in its legal representation."
Goldman's nearly $1 million in campaign contributions to Obama's presidential campaign were the most from any single employer except the University of California. Still, they represented only a fraction of the more than $700 million that the campaign raised.
"The vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country," Obama told CNBC. "Moreover, anybody who gave me money during the course of my campaign knew that I was on record in 2007 and 2008 pushing very strongly that we needed to reform how Wall Street did business."
One White House insider who knows something about how Wall Street does business is chief of staff Emanuel, who earned millions of dollars in investment banking after he left the Clinton White House. His work for the Chicago-based financial services firm Wasserstein Perella & Co. intersected with Goldman in at least one deal.
In 1999, Emanuel was a key player representing Unicom Corp., the parent of Commonwealth Edison, in forging its merger with Peco Energy Co. to create utility giant Exelon Corp. Goldman was also advising Unicom.
The White House declined immediate comment on that connection.
Several former Goldman executives hold senior positions in the Obama administration, including Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Mark Patterson, a former Goldman lobbyist who is chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Robert Hormats, the undersecretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs.
Jacobs of the University of Minnesota said that the administration now risks "kind of a feeding frenzy."
"The administration has to be very careful," he said, "because . . . they're seen as the ones who bailed out Wall Street. If there are indications that the administration was talking to regulators or to Justice Department people about when and how Goldman or other firms would be investigated, I think that's going to create almost a mob scene."
(Margaret Talev, Steven Thomma and Tish Wells contributed to this article.) Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/21/92637/goldmans-connections-to-white.html#ixzz0lvuRtZ7a
WASHINGTON — While Goldman Sachs' lawyers negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission over potentially explosive civil fraud charges, Goldman's chief executive visited the White House at least four times.
White House logs show that Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein traveled to Washington for at least two events with President Barack Obama, whose 2008 presidential campaign received $994,795 in donations from Goldman's employees and their relatives. He also met twice with Obama's top economic adviser, Larry Summers.
No evidence has surfaced to suggest that Blankfein or any other Goldman executive raised the SEC case with the president or his aides. SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro said in a statement Wednesday that the SEC doesn't coordinate enforcement actions with the White House or other political bodies.
Meanwhile, however, Goldman is retaining former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig as a member of its legal team. In addition, when he worked as an investment banker in Chicago a decade ago, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advised one client who also retained Goldman as an adviser on the same $8.2 billion deal.
Goldman's connections to the White House and the Obama administration are raising eyebrows at a time when Washington and Wall Street are dueling over how to overhaul regulation of the financial world.
Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political scientist, said that "almost everything that the White House has done has been haunted by the personnel and the money of Goldman . . . as well as the suspicion that the White House, particularly early on, was pulling its punches out of deference to Goldman and its war chest.
"There's now kind of a magnifying glass on the administration for any sign of interference or conversations with the regulators and the judiciary," Jacobs said.
The SEC investigation of Goldman's dealings lasted 18 months and culminated with the SEC filing civil fraud charges against the investment bank last week.
According to White House visitor logs, Blankfein was among the business leaders who attended an Obama speech on Feb. 13, 2009, and he also joined more than a dozen bank CEOs in a meeting with Obama on March 27, 2009.
Blankfein also was supposed be among the CEOs who met with Obama in December, but he and two others phoned in from New York, blaming inclement weather.
He and his wife, Laura, were listed on the logs among 438 presidential guests at the Kennedy Center Honors the previous week.
The logs also indicate that Blankfein met twice in 2009, on Feb. 4 and Sept. 30, with Summers, who was undersecretary of the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration when it was headed by Robert Rubin, a former Goldman CEO.
Asked whether Goldman executives had talked to administration officials about the SEC inquiry, Goldman spokesman Michael DuVally said that the firm doesn't discuss "what conversations we may or may not have had with government officials."
Schapiro's statement said that she's "disappointed" by Republican rhetoric suggesting that the SEC case against Goldman might have been timed to boost legislative prospects for a financial regulation overhaul bill, which Obama plans to pitch in a speech in New York Thursday.
"We do not coordinate our enforcement actions with the White House, Congress or political committees," Schapiro said. "We do not time our cases around political events or the legislative calendar . . . We will neither bring cases, nor refrain from bringing them, because of the political consequences."
Obama dismissed any such suggestion as "completely false" Wednesday, saying in a CNBC television interview that the SEC "never discussed with us anything with respect to the charges that would be brought."
While describing Craig, his former counsel, as "one of the top lawyers in the country," Obama also said that he'd imposed "the toughest ethics rules that any president's ever had."
"One thing he (Craig) knows is that he cannot talk to the White House," Obama said. "He cannot lobby the White House. He cannot in any way use his former position to have any influence on us."
Goldman's chief spokesman, Lucas van Praag, said the firm "wanted Craig . . . for his wisdom and insight."
Craig, now an attorney with the Washington law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagre & Flom, said: "I am a lawyer, not a lobbyist. Goldman Sachs has hired me to provide legal advice and to assist in its legal representation."
Goldman's nearly $1 million in campaign contributions to Obama's presidential campaign were the most from any single employer except the University of California. Still, they represented only a fraction of the more than $700 million that the campaign raised.
"The vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country," Obama told CNBC. "Moreover, anybody who gave me money during the course of my campaign knew that I was on record in 2007 and 2008 pushing very strongly that we needed to reform how Wall Street did business."
One White House insider who knows something about how Wall Street does business is chief of staff Emanuel, who earned millions of dollars in investment banking after he left the Clinton White House. His work for the Chicago-based financial services firm Wasserstein Perella & Co. intersected with Goldman in at least one deal.
In 1999, Emanuel was a key player representing Unicom Corp., the parent of Commonwealth Edison, in forging its merger with Peco Energy Co. to create utility giant Exelon Corp. Goldman was also advising Unicom.
The White House declined immediate comment on that connection.
Several former Goldman executives hold senior positions in the Obama administration, including Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Mark Patterson, a former Goldman lobbyist who is chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Robert Hormats, the undersecretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs.
Jacobs of the University of Minnesota said that the administration now risks "kind of a feeding frenzy."
"The administration has to be very careful," he said, "because . . . they're seen as the ones who bailed out Wall Street. If there are indications that the administration was talking to regulators or to Justice Department people about when and how Goldman or other firms would be investigated, I think that's going to create almost a mob scene."
(Margaret Talev, Steven Thomma and Tish Wells contributed to this article.) Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/21/92637/goldmans-connections-to-white.html#ixzz0lvuRtZ7a
Blagojevich to judge: Make Obama testify :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Gov. Blagojevich
Blagojevich to judge: Make Obama testify :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Gov. Blagojevich
Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s lawyers asked a federal judge today to force President Obama to testify at Blagojevich’s upcoming corruption trial, asserting that Obama played more of a role in the process of selecting someone to replace him in the U.S. Senate than Obama has acknowledged.
Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s lawyers asked a federal judge today to force President Obama to testify at Blagojevich’s upcoming corruption trial, asserting that Obama played more of a role in the process of selecting someone to replace him in the U.S. Senate than Obama has acknowledged.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Why I Support Legalizing Marijuana Now
Kristen Davis: Why I Support Legalizing Marijuana Now
When economic recessions decimate state coffers, politicians usually turn to their traditional streams of revenue to replenish their budgets. In other words, they raise taxes and strain the very system that is already overburdened. Currently, New Yorkers carry one of the highest tax burdens in the country, and city and local budgets all over the state are straining for every dollar. It is clear that New York State has reached critical mass in the taxation of its citizenry. New York needs innovation and recent developments in California can serve as a model for our state.
Californians who use marijuana are asking the government to tax and regulate its use as a potential solution to their current budget crisis. New York should follow suit.
I know talk of legalization of pot immediately sets off a clamor among the anti-drug crowd, but their rhetoric is generally exaggerated, erroneous or plain wrong. They are misinformed and the unfounded fears surrounding marijuana use has stuffed our prisons full of nonviolent people and saddled our state with outlandish incarceration costs for decades. The demonization of marijuana must stop. There is a plethora of scientific opinions that debunk marijuana myths, but the true tragedy is that marijuana criminalization has been an epic failure.
(more…)
When economic recessions decimate state coffers, politicians usually turn to their traditional streams of revenue to replenish their budgets. In other words, they raise taxes and strain the very system that is already overburdened. Currently, New Yorkers carry one of the highest tax burdens in the country, and city and local budgets all over the state are straining for every dollar. It is clear that New York State has reached critical mass in the taxation of its citizenry. New York needs innovation and recent developments in California can serve as a model for our state.
Californians who use marijuana are asking the government to tax and regulate its use as a potential solution to their current budget crisis. New York should follow suit.
I know talk of legalization of pot immediately sets off a clamor among the anti-drug crowd, but their rhetoric is generally exaggerated, erroneous or plain wrong. They are misinformed and the unfounded fears surrounding marijuana use has stuffed our prisons full of nonviolent people and saddled our state with outlandish incarceration costs for decades. The demonization of marijuana must stop. There is a plethora of scientific opinions that debunk marijuana myths, but the true tragedy is that marijuana criminalization has been an epic failure.
(more…)
Monday, April 19, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Mayor joins chorus questioning if Obama 'American'
Mayor joins chorus questioning if Obama 'American'
If Obama has nothing to hide, why have so many things about him been hidden?
If Obama has nothing to hide, why have so many things about him been hidden?
Friday, April 16, 2010
Obama 'amused' by Tea Party rallies - TheHill.com
Obama 'amused' by Tea Party rallies - TheHill.com
Apprently Obama thinks we should be thanking him for his "tax cuts." The elites still haven't figured out that The TEA party isn't just about taxes, it's about tyranny. We wouldn't mind paying our taxes if our elected officials would represent the people instead of big business and special interest groups.
Apprently Obama thinks we should be thanking him for his "tax cuts." The elites still haven't figured out that The TEA party isn't just about taxes, it's about tyranny. We wouldn't mind paying our taxes if our elected officials would represent the people instead of big business and special interest groups.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
New immigration bill puts local police on front line of border battle
http://www.azfamily.com/news/New-bill-puts-local-police-on-front-line-of-border-battle-90805259.html
Are republicans finally hearing us on immigration?
Are republicans finally hearing us on immigration?
Obamacare Kickbacks
All of the kickbacks listed below will be funded by the taxpayers of the United States.
Cornhusker Kickback:In order to secure the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), the legislation states that Nebraska would be the only state to have the full amount of its increased Medicaid costs paid for by the federal government.
The Louisiana Purchase:In order to secure the vote of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) the Senate bill provides $300 million in extra Medicaid funding for any state in which every county has been declared a disaster area.Every county in Louisiana was declared a Federal Disaster area following Hurricane Katrina.
Gator Aid:At the request of Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fl), the Senate bill includes a formula for protecting certain Medicare Advantage enrollees from billions in cuts.The formula would only apply to five states, but 800,000 of Florida’s one million Medicare Advantage users would be exempt from cuts.
Water for Votes: In a surprising coincidence of timing, on March 17, 2010, the Department of Interior (DOI) announced that they were allowing new water supplies to flow through the Central Valley Project in California.The news was not scheduled to be released for at least two weeks, but the DOI explained that they decided to release the news early at the behest of Congressmen Costa and Cordoza. The Department of Interior stated: “Typically, Reclamation would release the March allocation update around March 22nd, but moved up the announcement at the urging of Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and Congressmen Costa and Cardoza.”
New England Handouts:According to CBO, the Senate bill now contains about $600 million in extra Medicaid cash to Vermont, and about $500 million in additional money for Medicaid to Massachusetts, making these three states the only to receive such funding.
The Dodd Clinic:Section 10502(a) of the bill provides $100 million for construction at an unnamed “health care facility” affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in a state with only one public academic medical and dental school.Connecticut is the only state that fits this description.Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) later sent a press release saying that:”These provisions will bring millions of dollars to the state so that Connecticut’s residents can receive quality, affordable health care.”
Medicare Expansion:A provision slipped into the Senate bill by Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT), Section 1881A(b)(2), specifically expands Medicare coverage for individuals who reside “in or around the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009.”This description can only refer to Libby, Montana which was has suffered from a major asbestos contamination.
Tax Exemptions for “Profiteering” Insurers:The Senate bill exempts Michigan Blue Cross and Blue Shield from the new taxes levied on health insurers.
Billions in Payouts to Insurance Companies:The CBO stated Section 1412(c) provides $436 billion in federal subsidies to insurance companies to provide health care in the exchange.
Cornhusker Kickback:In order to secure the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), the legislation states that Nebraska would be the only state to have the full amount of its increased Medicaid costs paid for by the federal government.
The Louisiana Purchase:In order to secure the vote of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) the Senate bill provides $300 million in extra Medicaid funding for any state in which every county has been declared a disaster area.Every county in Louisiana was declared a Federal Disaster area following Hurricane Katrina.
Gator Aid:At the request of Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fl), the Senate bill includes a formula for protecting certain Medicare Advantage enrollees from billions in cuts.The formula would only apply to five states, but 800,000 of Florida’s one million Medicare Advantage users would be exempt from cuts.
Water for Votes: In a surprising coincidence of timing, on March 17, 2010, the Department of Interior (DOI) announced that they were allowing new water supplies to flow through the Central Valley Project in California.The news was not scheduled to be released for at least two weeks, but the DOI explained that they decided to release the news early at the behest of Congressmen Costa and Cordoza. The Department of Interior stated: “Typically, Reclamation would release the March allocation update around March 22nd, but moved up the announcement at the urging of Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and Congressmen Costa and Cardoza.”
New England Handouts:According to CBO, the Senate bill now contains about $600 million in extra Medicaid cash to Vermont, and about $500 million in additional money for Medicaid to Massachusetts, making these three states the only to receive such funding.
The Dodd Clinic:Section 10502(a) of the bill provides $100 million for construction at an unnamed “health care facility” affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in a state with only one public academic medical and dental school.Connecticut is the only state that fits this description.Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) later sent a press release saying that:”These provisions will bring millions of dollars to the state so that Connecticut’s residents can receive quality, affordable health care.”
Medicare Expansion:A provision slipped into the Senate bill by Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT), Section 1881A(b)(2), specifically expands Medicare coverage for individuals who reside “in or around the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009.”This description can only refer to Libby, Montana which was has suffered from a major asbestos contamination.
Tax Exemptions for “Profiteering” Insurers:The Senate bill exempts Michigan Blue Cross and Blue Shield from the new taxes levied on health insurers.
Billions in Payouts to Insurance Companies:The CBO stated Section 1412(c) provides $436 billion in federal subsidies to insurance companies to provide health care in the exchange.
Bowbama Archives Revisited
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/02/01/2010-02-01_president_obama_seemingly_bows_to_tampa_mayor_pam_iorio_in_photograph_.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/04/obama_bows_down_to_saudi_king.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
