Director Oliver Stone belittled the Holocaust during a shocking interview with the Sunday Times today, claiming that America’s focus on the Jewish massacre was a product of the “Jewish domination of the media.”
The director also defended Hitler and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and railed against the “powerful lobby” of Jews in America.

Stone said that his upcoming Showtime documentary series “Secret History of America,” seeks to put Hitler and Communist dictator Joseph Stalin “in context.”

“Hitler was a Frankenstein but there was also a Dr Frankenstein. German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support,” Stone told reporter Camilla Long during the interview, which can be found behind the paywall on the Sunday Times’ website.

Stone said that, “Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 [million killed].”

The Sunday Times interviewer then asked why there was such a focus on the Holocaust.

“The Jewish domination of the media,” responded Stone. “There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f***** up United States foreign policy for years.”

The director, who recently met with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, also slammed the U.S. policy toward Iran as “horrible.”

“Iran isn’t necessarily the good guy,” said Stone. “[B]ut we don’t know the full story!”

The Scarface screenwriter had even more encouraging words for socialist Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, who Stone called “a brave, blunt, earthy” man. The director has recently been promoting his Chavez-praising documentary called “South of the Border.”

When the interviewer pointed out that Chavez has had a less-than-stellar record on human rights, Stone immediately dismissed the criticism.

“The internet’s fully free [in Venezuela],” said Stone. “You can say what the hell you like. Compare it with all the other countries: Mexico, Guatemala, above all Colombia, which is a joke.”

While Stone has not been as blunt about his views on Jews and the Holocaust in the past, he has been outspoken in his fondness for Chavez and his disagreements with the U.S.’s policy on Iran.

On ABC’s Good Morning America on July 28, the director told anchor George Stephanopoulos that he “absolutely” believes Chavez is a good person, and claimed that there was “there’s no pattern of censorship in this country [Venezuela].”

Stone also said that if the U.S. pursued sanctions against Iran, “it’s going to be like North Vietnam again.”

Monti Says: I bet this left wing-nut is part of the same crowd that believes school prayer should be outlawed. Hey Joe, I just wanted to let you know that government pensions are my favorite form of compensation

April 9, 2010

HACKENSACK, N.J. (CBS) ― New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie isn’t laughing about a teachers union’s memo that hints of his death.

The memo is the latest salvo in a war of words between Christie and the union over wage and benefits concessions.

The Record of Bergen County obtained the Bergen County Education Association memo that includes a closing prayer:

“Dear Lord this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor.”

Association president Joe Coppola says the “prayer” was a joke and was never meant to be made public.

Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak says there’s nothing professional about the group.

The New Jersey Education Administration also spoke out against the memo.

NJEA President Barbara Keshishian issued the following statement this morning:

“NJEA condemns the inappropriate ‘prayer’ contained in a letter sent by the NJEA Bergen County regional offices and our Bergen County affiliate. Language such as that has no place in civil discourse. It was intended as humor, but it is not funny. Our ongoing discussion with Gov. Christie is centered on serious issues of significant importance to the state, and that must be the focus of all our conversation. We deeply regret that the ‘prayer’ reference was included in the letter, and we apologize to Gov. Christie for both the content of the ‘prayer’ and the lack of respect it demonstrated.

“I will be reaching out to Gov. Christie’s office to apologize personally on behalf of all NJEA members.”

Meanwhile, Drewniak says the governor is also considering reopening union contracts to try to get salary concessions at the institutes of higher learning.

Unionized employees at the schools deferred a 3.5 percent increase last year when former Gov. Jon Corzine reopened their contracts.

College and university officials are considering cuts to staff and programs to offset a $173 million cut to higher education in Christie’s proposed budget.

On Tuesday, Christie extended a deadline for school districts to receive additional state aide in exchange for teachers agreeing to wage freezes.

13 Action News Las Vegas

February 18, 2010

Las Vegas, NV (KTNV) – Mayor Oscar Goodman has refused an invitation to meet with President Obama when he arrives in town on Thursday. Mayor Goodman called President Obama a slow learner after he told Americans not to blow money on a weekend in Las Vegas if they were saving to put their kids through college.

“I’ve got other things to do quite frankly for my constituents here in Las Vegas who rely on me to do the right thing as a mayor,” explained Mayor Goodman.

Mayor Goodman has more important things like attend budget meetings during a major shortfall than meet with President Barack Obama when he visits Las Vegas Friday, even though he’s invited by the White House.

“Were you surprised to get that invitation in light of comments you’ve made before and your opinion on him and what he says,” asked Action News reporter Heather Klein.

“A little bit in the sense I would think they would know that I would say I’m not coming,” said Mayor Goodman.

They say time heals all wounds but not this time. Mayor Goodman not backing down after the president used Las Vegas the example of where not to go if you’re saving money.

This is strike two for the mayor.

“We are hurting, we have people in foreclosures, we have people having a hard time feeding their families and we can’t stand to have a flippant statement made,” said Mayor Goodman.

“I haven’t heard an apology, I haven’t heard a response, all I do is get invitations,” Goodman went on to say.

Invitations Mayor Oscar Goodman respectfully or depending on your point of view not so respectfully declines. The mayor says his presence isn’t necessary its more protocol than anything else. However, he says all it will take is a simple phone call and he will be there ready to move on.

Politico44

February 15, 2010

Carol E. Lee

Sen. Scott Brown thinks Vice President Joe Biden was “off base” when he suggested Sunday that the Massachusetts Republican get his facts straight on the legal procedures for military tribunals.

“It was insulting,” said Brown, who frequently jabbed the administration during his Senate campaign for giving suspected terrorists legal representation.

On CBS’s “Face the Nation” last weekend, Biden shot back that he doesn’t “know whether the new senator from Massachusetts understands: When you get tried in a military tribunal, you get a lawyer, too.”

“He’s trying to give me a lesson on military law, and I didn’t think it was appropriate,” Brown told POLITICO. “And I thought he was off base when it comes to explaining to the American people that somehow I need a lesson on whether people get attorneys — of course they get attorneys. There’s a difference as to what type of attorney they’re going to get and when they’re going to get that attorney, and how are they treated, and what rights do they, in fact, get.”

Brown said he is particularly incensed by Biden’s remarks because he’s served in the Massachusetts Army National Guard for more than 30 years and is currently the Guard’s top defense attorney in New England.

“I know the military rules and regulations and procedures from A to Z,” Brown said.

Brown said he was spending time with his younger daughter, Arianna, who was home from Syracuse University, Sunday when he learned that Biden had taken a swing at him.

“I was actually surprised,” said Brown. When Biden swore him into office they had a nice chat, Brown said, and the vice president told him he could visit the vice presidential residence.

“I would have thought that he would have reached out personally rather than go through the media,” Brown said. “I’m not quite sure what the message to me was, but I felt that it was important enough to respond.”

Biden’s comments came as part of the White House’s effort to defend its move to try alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a federal court, as well as the decision to read Miranda rights to the accused Christmas Day bomber.

Brown pushed back Monday on one of the White House’s talking points about the handling of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab: that the Bush administration handled Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, in the same way.

“I’ve always felt that suspected terrorists should be tried in military tribunals and not civilian court, and as a matter of fact so do the majority of Americans,” Brown said. “The big difference is are we going to pay $1,000 an hour for a private attorney and treat him as a civilian or ordinary criminal in a criminal court, or are we going give him a military attorney who’s going to be paid as a captain, major or lieutenant colonel, and obviously go through the military tribunal process?”

FOXNews.com

February 15, 2010

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh will not seek re-election this November, an unexpected decision that hands Republicans an opportunity for a pick-up in a year when Democrats are already defending several open Senate seats.

The two-term senator is known as a moderate Democrat. Former GOP Sen. Dan Coats had been planning to challenge Bayh in November — but a senior Democratic source told Fox News that recent polling showed Bayh way ahead of Coats, and that the retirement must have been a personal decision.

Bayh’s staff said the latest polling showed Bayh ahead of Coats by 20 points.

In prepared remarks published by The Indianapolis Star, Bayh said he was “confident” about his prospects for re-election, but discouraged in his work on Capitol Hill by excessive partisanship.

“After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so in Congress has waned,” he said, according to The Star.

Sources told Fox News that Indiana Reps. Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth are possible Democratic contenders to vie for Bayh’s vacant seat.

The timing of the expected Bayh announcement creates a dilemma for Democrats, though, since the deadline for candidates’ petitions to be submitted is Tuesday. That means Bayh’s name could still be on the ballot in May’s Democratic primary — Democrats will have another opportunity to pick a candidate through a separate nominating process.

The retirement decision comes after Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., both announced their retirements in January. Democrats are trying to defend open seats in Delaware and Illinois as well.

Republican incumbents are abandoning seats in Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio. More Senate Democratic incumbents are considered vulnerable, however.

Bayh is a former Indiana governor and secretary of state. An e-mail from the National Republican Congressional Committee suggested that resistance to the Democratic energy agenda, which includes a cap-and-trade policy for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, is contributing to Democratic problems in Indiana and elsewhere in the region.

Fox News’ Major Garrett, Trish Turner and Chad Pergram contributed to this report.

Foxnews.com

February 12, 2010

The Obama administration once again is sparking speculation that the president may break a key campaign pledge, after he was quoted saying he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on those making less than $250,000.

Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported that President Obama made the comment in an interview discussing ways to rein in the soaring federal deficit.

The president’s apparent inclination to keep all options on the table, though, stands in stark contrast to the string of pledges he made during the campaign to shield households making less than $250,000 from any tax.

“Let me be clear — if you are a family making less than $250,000 a year … you will not see your taxes go up,” he said in July 2008 at a Springfield, Mo., town hall meeting — it was a statement he repeated across the country.

So is the president abandoning his promise? The White House insists the answer is no. Aides say Obama is merely giving a deficit reduction commission he will soon establish room to maneuver.

“The president doesn’t believe our economic growth … should be predicated on raising taxes on middle-class families. But that being said, the president’s just not going to get in the game of prejudging the outcome of a commission,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday when asked about the “agnostic” remark.

Even so, it sounds more and more like Obama is girding for some very tough budgetary choices ahead.

“The reality of our fiscal challenge is not subject to interpretation. Math is not partisan,” Obama told reporters Tuesday during a surprise press conference.

This isn’t the first the time the durability of Obama’s middle-class tax promise has come into question.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and top White House economist Larry Summers stirred fears of its demise last summer. At the time, Geithner said in a Sunday-show interview that the nation would have to “do what it takes,” while Summers said the country should not “rule things out no matter what.” Those comments were made in discussions about how the government could control the deficit and pay for health care reform.

The budget outlook may seem even more dire now. Obama on Friday signed a law raising the debt limit to $14.3 trillion, days after sending Congress a budget with a deficit of $1.3 trillion.

Budget experts say these numbers may crush the president’s middle-class pledge.

Maya McGuinness, with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said Obama can’t take any option “off the table” as he examines the immensity of the budget-balancing challenge and realizes that every part of the budget will have to be part of the solution.

But backing off his tax pledge is a big political risk. Former President George H.W. Bush infamously declared, “Read my lips — no new taxes,” during the 1988 presidential campaign, and then raised them three years later as part of a budget deal with Democrats.

Former President Bill Clinton beat him in 1992, promising “an America in which middle-class incomes, not middle-class taxes, are going up.”

One year later, Clinton raised gasoline taxes and Social Security taxes on the middle class and raised income taxes on couples earning more than $140,000.

The White House points out that Obama cut taxes for the middle class last year. The real flip-flopping, aides say, can be found with the seven Senate Republicans who co-sponsored a debt and deficit reduction commission only to recently vote against it — forcing Obama to unilaterally create one.

Fox News’ Major Garrett contributed to this report.

Foxnews.com

January 19, 2010

In a victory few thought possible just a month ago, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley Tuesday in the race for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy — a win that could grind President Obama’s agenda to a halt and portend huge losses for Democrats in the November midterms.

In a victory few thought possible just a month ago, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley Tuesday in the race for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy — a win that could grind President Obama’s agenda to a halt and portend huge losses for Democrats in the November midterms.

In his victory speech, Brown declared that he had “defied the odds and the pundits,” and said he would try to be a “worthy successor” to Kennedy.

“Tonight, the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken,” Brown said. “This Senate seat belongs to no one person, no one political party. … This is the people’s seat.”

With 97 percent of precincts reporting, returns showed Brown leading Coakley 52-47 percent, by a margin of 120,000 votes. Independent candidate Joseph Kennedy was pulling 1 percent.

The victory marks a stunning upset in a race thought to be safe for Democrats until Brown’s campaign began to surge just weeks ago. It has powerful ramifications for Obama’s agenda.

The GOP state senator, once sworn in, will break the Democrats’ 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in Washington. This creates problems for proposed legislation ranging from financial regulatory reform to cap-and-trade, but most immediately Brown’s win sends Democrats into a scramble to pass health care reform before he arrives in Washington. Democrats were already weighing options for how to fast-track the bill before polls closed Tuesday.

Brown blasted the health care bill in his Tuesday night speech. He was visibly giddy during the address, going off script and at one point offering up his daughters to the dating circuit — and later flubbing his campaign pitch line, “I’m Scott Brown. I’m from Wrentham. And I drive a truck.”

Coakley, in her concession speech, said she was “heartbroken” by the result but thanked the Kennedy family for their support in the race and said she respects the voters’ choice.

“There will be plenty of Wednesday-morning quarterbacking about what happened, what went right, what went wrong …. We will be honest about the assessment of this race and although I was very disappointed, I always respect the voters’ choice,” she said.

Brown’s margin of victory is significant, making it difficult for any potential challenges to slow down his certification as the winner. The state senator becomes the first Republican to be elected to the Senate from the Bay State since 1972.

Kennedy, who died in August, held the post for 47 years.

“This is a lot different than my victory,” former Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney told Fox News. “To have a Republican senator, that’s unheard of. … This is monumental. This is epic.”

He and other Republicans said the race sends a warning sign to Washington that voters are not happy with Obama’s policy decisions.

The White House said Obama has spoken with both candidates. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama told Brown he “looks forward to working with him on the urgent economic challenges facing Massachusetts families and struggling families across our nation.”

Considering how much was on the line, Brown’s late-in-the-game surge commanded the attention of the Democratic Party establishment, which dispatched top officials over the past week to try to keep the seat formerly held by Kennedy in Democratic hands. Voter interest in the race for U.S. Senate also seemed high throughout the day. Poll workers reported a steady stream of voters at the ballot box despite the snow.

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin was predicting turnout could be as high as 50 percent.

Brown’s campaign marked an upset just by being as competitive as it was against Coakley’s.

Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-to-1 in the state — 37 percent of registered voters are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 51 percent are unaffiliated. Obama won the state by 26 percentage points in the 2008 presidential election.

But Brown was pulling far more support across the state Tuesday than Republican presidential candidate John McCain did in 2008.

The campaigns had been inundated with help from outside the state in recent days. Obama and former President Bill Clinton both came to campaign rallies for Coakley, and Obama appeared in a television ad.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee in Washington also “emptied out the building” of staff to send nearly everyone to Massachusetts to help Brown get out the vote. The NRSC reportedly quietly shifted $500,000 to help Brown’s campaign in the last two weeks.

Brown’s swift rise in the reliably blue state has startled Democrats nationally who are already worried about a backlash in the midterms.

“When there’s trouble in Massachusetts, there’s trouble everywhere, and they know it,” Brown said Tuesday night.

Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, acknowledged the rough road ahead for the party.

“I have no interest in sugar coating what happened in Massachusetts. There is a lot of anxiety in the country right now,” he said in a statement. “In the days ahead, we will sort through the lessons of Massachusetts: the need to redouble our efforts on the economy, the need to show that our commitment to real change is as powerful as it was in 2008, and the reality that we cannot take a single thing for granted and cannot afford even a second of complacency.”

Brown will have to run for re-election in November 2012.

Washingtonexaminer.com

January 15, 2010

Byron York

Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. “I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers,” says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. “If she’s not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout,” the Democrat says. “So right now, she is destined to lose.”
Intensifying the gloom, the Democrat says, is the fact that the same polls showing Coakley falling behind also show President Obama with a healthy approval rating in the state. “With Obama at 60 percent in Massachusetts, this shouldn’t be happening, but it is,” the Democrat says.
Given those numbers, some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor’s race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama’s policies or those of the national Democratic party.
The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. “This is a Creigh Deeds situation,” the Democrat says. “I don’t think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she’s a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware — you better run good campaigns, or you’re going to lose.”
With the election still four days away, Democrats are still hoping that “something could happen” to change the dynamics of the race. But until that thing happens, the situation as it exists today explains Barack Obama’s decision not to travel to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley. “If the White House thinks she can win, Obama will be there,” the Democrat says. “If they don’t think she can win, he won’t be there.” For national Democrats, the task is now to insulate Obama against any suggestion that a Coakley defeat would be a judgment on the president’s agenda and performance in office.
The private talk among Democrats is also reflected in some public polling on the race. Late Thursday, we learned the results of a Suffolk University poll showing Brown in the lead by four points, 50 percent to 46 percent. That poll showed Obama with a 55 percent approval rating. Also on Thursday, two of Washington’s leading political analysts, Stuart Rothenberg and Charlie Cook, each changed their assessment of the Brown/Coakley race from a narrow advantage for Coakley to a toss-up.

January 6, 2010

By Chris Cillizza

Embattled Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) has scheduled a news conference for Wednesday at which he is expected to announce he will not seek reelection, sources familiar with his plans said Tuesday night.

Word of Dodd’s retirement plans comes after months of speculation about his political future, his faltering poll numbers and a growing sense among the Democratic establishment that he could not win a sixth term in the Senate. The news also came on the same day Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) announced he would not seek reelection.

Once among the safest of incumbents, Dodd’s political star fell over a two-year period, during which he moved his family to Iowa to pursue the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination and was linked to a VIP mortgage loan program overseen by a controversial Wall Street financier. He also drew harsh questions about his oversight of Wall Street, as chair of the Senate Banking Committee, in the years when the nation’s financial system was heading toward near collapse.

Dodd’s poll numbers plummeted last spring before rebounding somewhat over the summer. But another dive in the polls late last year led to widespread concern that Dodd needed to vacate the seat for Democrats to have a chance at retaining it in the 2010 elections.

Dodd’s troubles were politically ironic, coming at a time when his power on Capitol Hill had reached a height that most legislators only dream of. In addition to the banking committee, he also held pivotal posts on the health and foreign relations committees.

Over the past 18 months, he has been the primary author or co-author of legislation rewriting housing mortgage rules; the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street; key portions of the $787 billion stimulus package; a consumer protection bill overseeing the credit card industry; and the nearly $900 billion health-care legislation that has passed the Senate and is in final negotiations with the House now.

With each major piece of legislation Dodd ushered into law, the senator also endured criticism that he did not anticipate. The mortgage bill came in mid-2008, which some said was delayed because of Dodd’s presidential aspirations, and the financial bailout became one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation passed in recent memory. His work on the stimulus bill, approved last February, was an attempt to rein in executive compensation at firms that had been bailed out but instead led to sharp criticism when executives at AIG, the largest recipient of taxpayer dollars, still received seven-figure bonuses shortly thereafter.

Without Dodd on the ballot, Republicans’ chances of taking over a seat in solid-blue Connecticut are considerably diminished.

Richard Blumenthal (D), who has served as state attorney general since 1990, is widely expected to declare his candidacy for the seat. The most popular politician in the state, Blumenthal has long coveted a Senate seat, and he had already signaled that he would run for the Democratic nomination against Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I) in 2012.

Former Rep. Rob Simmons and businesswoman Linda McMahon are battling for the Republican nomination, but either would start as an underdog in a general-election match-up with Blumenthal.

Dodd, 65, was elected to the Senate in 1980, after three terms in the House, following the path blazed by his father, Thomas. By the early 1990s, Chris Dodd had set his sights on Senate leadership.

He ran for Democratic leader in the wake of the 1994 elections, but he lost in a close race to Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.). President Bill Clinton selected Dodd to chair the Democratic National Committee, overseeing Clinton’s reelection as president in 1996, but the DNC’s fundraising practices during the 1996 campaign landed him in some political hot water.

After Daschle was voted out of office in 2004, Dodd considered jumping into the race to succeed him, but he quickly stepped aside when he realized Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) had overwhelming support to claim the post.

Instead, Dodd began laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign in 2008. Always a long shot in a field filled with better-known and better-financed candidates, he moved his family to Iowa in fall 2007 in hopes of generating some excitement for his bid. But the move backfired in Connecticut, where voters bristled.

The next year, it was reported that Dodd had received special treatment in his acquisition of a mortgage loan from Countrywide Financial, through a program that labeled him and others as friends of Countrywide chief executive Angelo Mozilo. Dodd insisted he was unaware of his inclusion in the program, and he was cleared of any wrongdoing by the Senate Ethics Committee, but the political damage was done.

Staff writers Paul Kane and Dan Balz contributed to this report.

The Hill

January 5, 2010

By Eric Zimmermann and Michael O’Brien

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defended Congress’ work on a healthcare bill Tuesday saying the process has displayed historic transparency, just as C-SPAN mounts an effort to open the negotiations.

C-SPAN wrote a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday asking that TV cameras be allowed to film negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation.

But Pelosi said Congress has already been transparent throughout the process.

“There has never been a more open process for any legislation,” Pelosi said at a press conference.

Pelosi also hinted that holding informal negotiations–likely without TV cameras–might be the most practical way to push the legislation through.

“We will do what is necessary to pass the bill,” Pelosi said.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), assistant to the Speaker, said the healthcare bill had been “subjected to unprecedented level of public scrutiny.”

Pressed on whether C-SPAN cameras would be allowed in negotiations, Van Hollen hedged.

“We don’t even know if there’s going to be a conference committee,” he said, alluding to the likelihood that Democrats will reconcile the two bills behind closed doors.

JournalStar.com

December 30, 2009

Don Walton

As a fresh poll measured the political cost of Sen. Ben Nelson’s health reform vote, he prepared Tuesday to take his case directly to Nebraskans during Wednesday night’s Holiday Bowl game.
Nelson will air a new TV ad in which he attempts to debunk opposition claims that the Senate legislation represents a government takeover, and he makes the case for health care reform.
“With all the distortions about health care reform, I want you to hear directly from me,” the Democratic senator says in the ad.
Nelson, dressed in an open-necked shirt and sweater, speaks directly into the camera during the 30-second ad.
The message will be launched during the Nebraska-Arizona football game and continue to air statewide for an undisclosed number of days.
The political damage Nelson may have incurred in providing the critical 60th vote that cleared the way for Senate passage of the health care reform bill showed up Tuesday in a poll released by Rasmussen Reports.
The telephone survey of 500 Nebraskans, conducted Monday, suggested Republican Gov. Dave Heineman would defeat Nelson in a potential 2012 Senate race by a 61-30 margin.
The poll showed Nelson with a 55 percent unfavorable rating and 64 percent disapproval for Democratic health care reform legislation.
“The good news for (Nelson) is that he doesn’t have to face Nebraska voters until 2012,” Rasmussen Reports stated in posting results of the survey on its Web site.
Nelson would be seeking a third term should he choose to be a candidate for re-election three years from now.
Heineman is seeking re-election as governor in 2010 and would be at mid-term if he chooses to enter the Senate race in 2012.
Julie Schmit-Albin, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, said the Rasmussen results demonstrate that Nelson’s votes on health care are “clearly out of touch with the majority” of Nebraskans.
Earlier, Schmit-Albin said Nelson betrayed his pro-life supporters when he agreed to compromise language prohibiting federal funding of abortions.
She has argued that the language would allow federal funding to be used to subsidize abortions. Nelson maintains there would be no funding of abortions with federal money.
“One wonders if (Nelson) misjudged the level of opposition to this legislation from his constituents,” Schmit-Albin said.
“Or if he had already made a decision to never seek office again.”
In his TV message to Nebraskans, Nelson says: “I listened to you and took a common-sense approach to improve the bill.
“Now it lowers costs for families and small business, protects Medicare, finally guarantees coverage for pre-existing conditions and reduces the defici
“And it’s not run by the government.
“I’m convinced this is right for Nebraska,” Nelson says.

These Congresspeople ABSOLUTELY MUST be voted out of office.  In a vote of 412 to 12 last night, these morons had the audacity to vote against, vote a meaningless “present” or not vote on a very important piece of legislation that passed overwhelmingly:

The IRAN REFINED PETROLEUM SANCTIONS ACT OF 2009. More than 3/4 of the House co-sponsored this act and these idiots have revealed their true hate for America.  Let’s dump them ALL at the next bus stop, America!

Send this to everyone on your email list!!

—- NOES    12 —

—- ANSWERED “PRESENT”    4 —

—- NOT VOTING    6 —

MSNBC.com

WASHINGTON – With its pomp and glitter, a White House state dinner is a symbol as much as a meal — social evidence of the central leadership role that America plays in world affairs.

 But as President Barack Obama prepares to host his first such dinner — for Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh — I have a nagging sense that all of that grandeur has become a little deceiving.

 I’m not sure the rest of the world sees the White House as “the place to be” any more. And that will have unsettling consequences for all of us.

 Obama’s role as the elegant, path-breaking, intercultural celebrity is not enough to reverse a steady erosion of our global dominance — especially not if he’s seen merely as a new hood ornament on an economic clunker.

 My concern is merely anecdotal. But I have been collecting anecdotal evidence for decades. It’s what I do for a living.

 I was in London and Paris last week while Obama was making his first trip to Asia. I kept paging through the local papers for stories about the trip. They were only few — almost none. He was all but invisible, except when bowing deeply to the emperor of Japan. There weren’t many stories about the United States, either.

 In the business world of London, the talk last week was all about the money pouring into China, India, and Brazil, and to a lesser extent, Russia.

 The cash under discussion wasn’t from American investors, but rather Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf and Europe — and even trickles from one BRIC to another.

 Every fund manager who was living in or passing through London bragged about just having been to — or about to leave for — China.

 I never thought the glitter of Regent Street could match Manhattan, but it does.

 In Paris, the headlines and the political talk I heard and read did not focus on our president or our prospects, but on the selection of a new — and no longer merely symbolic — leader for a United Europe. Europeans were talking to each other directly; Americans were not, as far as I could tell, very much a part of the conversation.

 Even in matters of science and technology, I saw cause for concern. Europe is now pressing ahead successfully with its CERN supercollider, the largest experiment in the history of physics. The open-source management of the project is itself something new — and, like the World Wide Web, a non-U.S. invention.

 Now, I know that one can never — should never — sell the U.S. short. Our economy, as inequitable and capricious as it is, remains the largest if not the strongest of them all. And our military, over-extended as it is, is the only one that can keep peace on the planet.

 I’m not a “declinist.” I have faith in our special destiny and re-generative powers. And the U.K. and Europe have their own fiscal problems — it still isn’t clear whether the BRICs can contain the explosion they’ve unleashed.

 Still, my trip made me ask two questions: why and so what?

 After rivers of cash poured into the U.S., a “flight to safety” induced — ironically, thanks to our own profligacy. Now the world’s trillions are being shipped elsewhere in search of better returns. And the hoard is no longer being counted solely in dollars.

 Much of that money is piled up in China and the Gulf — two places where business is increasingly being done without Wall Street as the middle man.

 For one thing, it’s more efficient. For another, there are fewer cultural and security concerns.

 When Osama Bin Laden attacked New York City, he meant to assault the central switching station for capital assets and direct them elsewhere.

 To some extent, it has worked. In London I met Arab and Muslim moneymen who left the U.S. after 9/11 — and have not been back. “The security is just too much of a hassle,” said one Dubai-based investor. “It’s not worth it.”

 And now New York — the erstwhile center of the financial action — is about to become paralyzed by the emotions of reliving Sept. 11 by the courtroom ravings of Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

 Washington may not prove to be an attractive a place for investors, either. We’re busy here trying to figure out how to deal with a national debt of $12 trillion — which could double in a decade.

 Other countries are just as heavily leveraged as we are — or even more so — including the UK and Japan. But they don’t have the world’s reserve currency, or our colossal global military commitments.

 Meanwhile, the growth rate in the BRICs for the most part re-mains strong. You can’t overstate smart money’s obsession with China even as our own global brand has been damaged.

 Right now, we seem to be known abroad primarily for war, debt and dirt in the air — and not as the beacon and example of humanity at its best. The wars and borrowing of the Bush administration are a good part of the reason why — and it’s a grim reality Obama confronts every day.

 And so what?

 The “so what” is about the American standard of living, but, more importantly, the standard of thinking. We are built on faith in the future. Our narrative has always been upward and outward.

 So now, we may have to turn inward for a while, and turn the microscope on ourselves. How do we renew and restore ourselves?

 Maybe the prime minister of India has some ideas.

So much to look forward to from the dude who brought you, “Change you can believe in.”   So how’s that “change” working for you now?

This is what happens when Americans pick Presidents like their “American Idol” winners!

AMERICAN THINKER

August 31, 2009

By Geoffrey P. Hunt

Washington, D.C. (November 17, 2009) — Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matthew Brooks commented today on a post-election poll done by McLaughlin & Associates in New Jersey on November 3 and 4, 2009:

“Recently released post-election poll results from New Jersey show that Republican Chris Christie won 38% of the Jewish vote this year in his run for governor. We are pleased by Christie’s strong showing in the Jewish community in a very close race. [Click here to download a memo of the poll results.]

“The Jewish community was a key battleground in this election, with both Republicans and the Democrats actively campaigning for Jewish support. In past elections, when a New Jersey gubernatorial race was close, the Jewish community made an important difference. This year, as in 1993 and 1997, it is clear that the strong Jewish turnout for Chris Christie helped put the Republican candidate over the top.

“We believe that the 2009 election in New Jersey was not just a referendum on the job Jon Corzine has done as governor, but also on the larger national question of whether voters approve of the policies of President Obama and the Democratic Congress. There is a definite sense of ‘buyers’ remorse,’ especially among independents, about the higher taxes, higher deficits, and higher spending that Obama and Corzine represent.

“New Jersey is a state in serious economic crisis. Given the choice for four more years of Corzine/Obama policies, a large segment of the Jewish community voted for Republican Chris Christie and real change.”
###

ACT! FOR AMERICA

Did you know that, from November 5^th to November 10^th, 85% of the news stories about the Ft. Hood attack produced by ABC, CBS and NBC did not mention the words “terror” or “terrorist”?

Did you know that investigators found personal business cards belonging to Nidal Hasan that had the initials “S.O.A” — “Soldier of Allah”?

Only now are more and more news reports and commentators acknowledging, some very grudgingly, that Hasan was a jihadist. There simply is too much evidence to ignore — even for the most stubborn politically correct apologists for radical Islam.

Brigitte Gabriel has, of course, been following the Ft. Hood terrorist attack very closely, conducting numerous interviews since it happened.

Today she gives her take on how this happened, why it could have been prevented, and what this means for the future.

Click here, or the image below, to watch this very important message from Brigitte Gabriel. Then forward this email to everyone you know so we can take Brigitte’s message viral!

And if you haven’t yet signed our petition calling for a government investigation of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, click here to do so today. As of Friday morning, November 13^th, nearly 19,000 people have added their names to this petition. How about you?

October 23, 2009

By Toby Harnden in Washington

Gallup recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per cent he recorded from April.

His current approval rating – hovering just above the level that would make re-election an uphill struggle – is close to the bottom for newly-elected president. Mr Obama entered the White House with a soaring 78 per cent approval rating.

The bad polling news came as Mr Obama returned to the campaign trail to prevent his Democratic party losing two governorships next month in states in which he defeated Senator John McCain in last November’s election.

Jeffrey Jones of Gallup explained: “The dominant political focus for Obama in the third quarter was the push for health care reform, including his nationally televised address to Congress in early September.

“Obama hoped that Congress would vote on health care legislation before its August recess, but that goal was missed, and some members of Congress faced angry constituents at town hall meetings to discuss health care reform. Meanwhile, unemployment continued to climb near 10 per cent.”

Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey is in severe danger of defeat while Democrats are fast losing hope that Creigh Deeds can beat his Republican opponent in Virginia. Twin Democratic losses would be a major blow to Mr Obama’s prestige.

Campaigning for Mr Corzine in Hackensack on Wednesday night, Mr Obama delivered a plea that almost seemed as much for himself as the local candidate: “I’m here today to urge you to cast aside the cynics and the skeptics, and prove to all Americans that leaders who do what’s right and who do what’s hard will be rewarded and not rejected.”

Mr Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs executive and multi-millionaire, is currently running even in New Jersey, which is normally comfortably Democratic, while Mr Deeds is trailing badly in Virginia, a swing state that was key to Mr Obama’s 2008 victory.

Mr Obama is also facing widespread criticism for his drawn-out decision-making process over what to do next in Afghanistan.

Republicans sense Mr Obama is in a vulnerable position and this week saw the return to the public stage of his perhaps most vehement opponent – Vice-President Dick Cheney.

In a blistering speech on Wednesday night, he accused Mr Obama of failing to give Americans troops on the ground a clear mission or defined goals and of being seemingly “afraid to make a decision” about Afghanistan “The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger,” Cheney said at the Center for Security Policy in Washington.

“Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries.”

He hit out at Obama aides who suggested that the Bush administration had failed to weigh up conditions in Afghanistan properly before committing troops.

“Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.”

80% of Americans identify themselves not as Liberals or Conservatives, but as Moderates.   And these Moderates want fiscal conservatism- something the D’s and R’s can’t deliver on.  They want term limits on all elected officials.  And they want a progressive attitude w/r/t social issues.  It’s way past time for a NEW THIRD PARTY in this country- a fiscally conservative/socially progressive platform with the pledge of term limits FOR ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS NATIONWIDE!  Only then can the gridlock, corruption and malfunctions of government be addressed.  Only then can we begin to rebuild our great nation.  This happened before- in 1860, when a relatively unknown lawyer from Illinois ran for President with an upstart third party-  Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party!
IT’S TIME FOR A NEW THIRD PARTY.
You will see it, despite what conventional wisdom tells us- that the vested parties are too rich and powerful to let it happen.  Nope, here’s a place where “follow the money” will not ultimately work.  Follow the hearts and minds of Americans that were sick of the same old Republican Party of George Bush and took a chance and lost on a Democratic powerbroker with a hidden, now blatant, socialist agenda.  No, Americans do not want another Bush and they do not want Obama.  Both parties have failed miserably and have no ability to recover.
IT’S TIME FOR A NEW THIRD PARTY!
Trust me, it’s coming and it’s bigger than Tea Parties.
Spread the word, my friends!

MINISTRY OF TRUTH, OBAMA STYLE

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/ministry_of_truth_obamastyle.html

INTERNET SECURITY IN THE AGE OF OBAMA

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/internet_security_in_the_age_o.html

Monti Says: You knew it was only a matter of minutes before some political hack like Burris; not elected I might add, would put the blame on President Bush. Enjoy your “cup of coffee” term in Washington DC Rowland because the people will be firing you in November 2012. You did make the Monti Hack List though.

October 2, 2009

Senator Rowland Burris of Illinois, the Senator who was appointed to fill President Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat, blames George Bush for Chicago not getting the Olympics in 2016. Burris stated in an interview, shortly after the announcement, that the image of the U. S. has been so tarnished in the last 8 years that, even Barack Obama making an unprecedented pitch for the games could not overcome the hatred the world has for us as a result of George Bush. Wow! When will the Democrats in Congress ever get off this “Blame Bush” syndrome. Burris even went on to say that this is just another way Bush is now hurting Chicago. Yes blame Bush, don’t mind all the crime and corruption that has come out of Illinois over the last year. This “Blame Bush” strategy is getting pretty old.

Author’s Note: While I do think it is commendable for the Obama’s to have made the effort to bring the Olympics to Chicago, I find comments like Burris made reprehensible. I applaud our President for trying. Sen. Burris is the one who should be criticized here and not the President. Agree or disagree with President Obama’s intentions, but he is NOT the one who made such an IDIOTIC statement of blame. All comments on this post should be related to Burris and the discussion of blaming Bush and please keep them civil. Thank you.  -PM

AMERICAN THINKER

September 21, 2009

Rick Moran
President Obama appeared on television yesterday 5 times and it is interesting that very little, if any news, came out of any of them.

The guy is worse than a broken record. At least there, we can take the needle off the disc and make it stop. We are not so lucky with Obama. There’s nothing we can do but turn off the TV when he repeats the same things over and over again about health care reform the same things he has been saying for months. Every speech, every townhall, every interview he makes the same points, tells the same lies, and repeating the same mischaracterizations of what he is trying to do.

George Stephanopoulos bored in on one lie the president has been spreading; that people who don’t have mandated health insurance will be taxed. This exchange as reported by Carol Lee of Politico is indicative:

Obama spent much of his ABC interview denying that his health care plan breaks his campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. He insisted that requiring everyone to have health insurance, or face a fine of up to $3,800 per family, is “absolutely not a tax increase.” Host George Stephanopoulos pressed Obama so much on the issue that, after Obama accused him of making things up, Stephanopoulos read the definition of “tax” from Merriam-Webster’s dictionary. “George, the fact that you looked up [in] Merriam’s dictionary the definition of ‘tax increase’ indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now,” Obama replied.

We on the right are quite familiar with this tactic from the left; their bold as brass ability to simply change the definition of terms when they are losing an argument. Of course the “fine” is a tax – as are “fees,” and other ways that the Democrats are seeking to raise revenue. The liberals believe that simply because they call a tax something else, it is not a tax. Who they think they are trying to fool is a mystery – unless, it is perhaps themselves.

A Wall Street Journal editorial sums up this dishonesty:

If you can follow this reasoning, then you probably also think that a new entitlement is the best way to reduce entitlement spending. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Senate’s individual mandate will result in new revenues of some $20 billion over 10 years because some people will choose to opt out of ObamaCare-or because they can’t afford to buy in, given that other taxes and regulation will make health care more expensive. If that $20 billion doesn’t count as tax revenue, then what is it?And for that matter, what doesn’t count as a nontax under Mr. Obama’s definition? All taxes can be justified in the name of providing some type of service, however wasteful. Mr. Obama complains that “My critics say everything is a tax increase,” as if that is his political problem. His real problem is that the individual mandate really is a tax, but the President doesn’t want voters to think of it that way, because taxes are unpopular.

Ordinary Americans are not fooled by this shell game with terms. They know a tax when they see one and Obama can gloss over the truth all he wants and it still won’t change the fact that his plan will raise taxes on the Middle Class for no other reason than they wish to opt out of his big government takeover of health insurance.

WASHINGTON EXAMINER

September 17, 2009

by David Freddos

The House of Representatives just voted overwhelmingly to de-fund ACORN, 345-75. The vote came on a Republican motion to recommit the educational loan bill. As a result, the anti-ACORN provision made it into the House-passed bill.

Below are the names of all 75 congressmen who voted to preserve ACORN’s stream of funding.

The biggest surprises on the list: Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., and the two Democrats from West Virginia, Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall.

Notable for not voting: Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a staunch defender of ACORN.

ACORN’s defenders:

Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc.
Xavier Becerra, D-Calif.
Robert Brady D-Pa.
Corrine Brown, D-Fla.
G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C.
Mike Capuano, D-Mass.
Andre Carson, D-Ind.
Kathy Castor, D-Fla.
Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo.
James Clyburn, D-S.C.
Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y.
Elijah Cummings, D-Md.
Danny Davis, D-Ill.
Diane DeGette, D-Colo.
Bill Delahunt, D-Mass.
Mike Doyle, D-Pa.
Donna Edwards, D-Md.
Keith Ellison, D-Minn.
Eliot Engel, D-N.Y.
Chaka Fattah, D-Pa.
Bob Filner, D-Calif.
Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio
Al Green, D-Tex.
Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.
Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y.
Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii
Rush Holt, D-N.J.
Mike Honda, D-Calif.
Jesse Jackson, Jr. D-Ill.
Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Tex.
Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Tex.
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich.
Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio
Rick Larsen, D-Wash.
Barbara Lee, D-Calif.
John Lewis, D-Ga.
Stephen Lynch, D-Mass.
Markey, D-Mass.
Betty McCollum, D-Minn.
McDermott, D-Wash.
McGovern, D-Mass.
Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y.
Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va.
Gwen Moore, D-Wisc.
Jim Moran, D-Va.
Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
Richard Neal, D-Mass.
John Olver, D-Mass.
Frank Pallone, D-N.J.
Bill Pascrell, D-N.J.
Donald Payne, D-N.J.
Jared Polis, D-Colo.
David Price, D-N.C.
Nick Rahall, D-W.Va.
Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y.
Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif.
Bobby Rush, D-Ill.
Linda Sánchez, D-Calif.
Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.
David Scott D-Ga.
Bobby Scott, D-Va.
Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
Brad Sherman, D-Calif.
Albio Sires, D-N.J.
Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y.
Pete Stark, D-Calif.
Bennie Thompson, D-Miss.
Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y.
Niki Tsongas, D-Mass.
Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y.
Maxine Waters, D-Calif.
Diane Watson, D-Calif.
Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
Robert Wexler, D-Fla.
Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif.

CNN

September 16, 2009

(CNN) — Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that racial politics played a role in South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst during President Obama’s speech to Congress last week and in some of the opposition the president has faced since taking office.

“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American,” Carter told “NBC Nightly News.” “I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way, and I’ve seen the rest of the country that shares the South’s attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans.”

“That racism inclination still exists, and I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people — not just in the South but around the country — that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply,” Carter said.

Michael Steele, who is the first African-American to chair the Republican National Committee, denied Wednesday that race is fueling protests.

“President Carter is flat-out wrong,” Steele said in a statement. “This isn’t about race. It is about policy.”

Carter made similar remarks at an event at his presidential center in Atlanta, Georgia, The Associated Press reported Tuesday, pointing to some protesters who have compared Obama to a Nazi. “Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care,” the former president said at the Carter Center, according to AP. “It’s deeper than that.” Video Watch Carter link animosity toward Obama to racism »

He grouped Wilson’s shout of “You lie!” during Obama’s speech in that category, according to AP. “I think it’s based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president,” he said.

“The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state. And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect.”

The House voted Tuesday to formally disapprove of Wilson’s behavior during the joint session of Congress. The resolution was approved largely along party lines, with Republicans calling the measure unnecessary partisan politics.

Wilson apologized to the White House last week, but congressional Democrats said he owed the chamber a similar statement of regret.
advertisement

Steele said Democrats are just trying to divert attention from what he called the president’s “wildly unpopular government-run health care plan.”

“Injecting race into the debate over critical issues facing American families doesn’t create jobs, reform our health care system or reduce the growing deficit. It only divides Americans rather than uniting us to find solutions to challenges facing our nation,” he said.

Monti Says: Never bet against the WWE, a Monti Love List favorite Go Linda!

The Hill – Blog Briefing Room

September 16, 2009

By Aaron Blake

Saying she will largely self-fund her campaign and won’t accept individual contributions above $100, former WWE CEO Linda McMahon officially entered the GOP primary to face Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) this morning.

“I have spent the past 30 years growing what began as a 13-employee small business into a publicly traded, global entertainment company that now provides over 500 jobs here in Connecticut. I understand what it takes to balance a budget, create jobs and grow the economy,” McMahon said in a statement. “Washington is out of control, and sadly, Sen. Chris Dodd has lost his way and our trust. I can’t sit by on the sidelines anymore knowing that I have both the experience and the strength to stand up to special interests and bring badly needed change to Washington.”

McMahon has resigned her position at the WWE.

McMahon will also not accept PAC money, making her fundraising a virtual non-factor. Now it will be up to her to see how much she will put in.

Dodd probably wishes he had the Millionaire’s Amendment about now. If McMahon is the nominee and dumps the tens of millions of dollars into the race that is rumored, Dodd’s individual contribution limits won’t go up as they have in past cycles. That could have been big for Dodd.

Dick Durbin (D-IL)

Roland Burris (D-IL)

Robert Casey (D-PA)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Lamar Smith has it right.  This criminal organization needs to be cut off at the knees.  Let’s tee off with applying the RICO statutes against these crooks and let it lead as far up as it may!  Let no one in the Washington cesspool be exempt!

POLITICO

September 15, 2009

By Andy Barr

Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, on Tuesday called on the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice to open investigations into the embattled Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, better known by the acronym ACORN.

“For years, ACORN has been the subject of allegations of fraud, misconduct and possible criminal activity. In fact, voter registration fraud allegations have led ACORN to be subject to investigation in 15 states,” Smith wrote in a statement attached to letters sent to FBI Director Robert Mueller and Glenn Fine, the Justice Department’s inspector general.

“Despite these serious concerns, Congress and the Administration continue to provide federal funding to a corrupt organization,” Smith continued. “Our democracy depends on the integrity of our election process. ACORN’s efforts to swing election results through voter registration fraud undermine the integrity of our elections and shake the American people’s faith in their government.”

In Smith’s letter to the Mueller, the Judiciary Committee’s highest-ranking Republican asserts that he “no longer” doubts that ACORN “engages in extremely questionable, if not illegal, activity.”

ACORN has faced intensifying scrutiny after the recent release of several disturbing hidden camera videos that showed staffers providing advice on how to falsify tax forms and set-up a child prostitution business—to a man and a woman posing as a pimp and a prostitute.

Smith asks the bureau to examine launching a RICO investigation into ACORN.

“Based on ACORN’s previous conduct and recent reports suggesting continued fraudulent and other illegal activity, it is clear there exists significant justification for federal law enforcement officials to conclude that ACORN should be investigated for potential criminal conduct, including the question of whether the organizations itself is a criminal enterprise,” he wrote.

In his letter to the Justice Department, Smith requests that the inspector general investigate whether some of the department’s grant funding was allocated to ACORN.

“Since 1994, ACORN has received over $53 million in federal funds, yet it has been plagued with numerous instances of wrong-doing and fraud,” Smith wrote. “If in the course of your investigation you find any evidence of criminal conduct I presume that such evidence would be referred to the appropriate U.S. Attorney for prosecution.”

Tagged: ACORN, Community Organiziations for Reform Now, FBI, House Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith ]]> http://blog.mycountrymatters.com/2009/09/15/push-for-fbi-probe-of-acorn/feed/ 1 lokiwhitewood http://blog.mycountrymatters.com/2009/09/11/traficant-i-could-have-been-hurt-while-in-prisona/ http://blog.mycountrymatters.com/2009/09/11/traficant-i-could-have-been-hurt-while-in-prisona/#comments Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:30:54 +0000 Loki Whitewood http://blog.mycountrymatters.com/?p=1322 ]]> Could have been hurt while in prison?  Too bad he wasn’t!   Seven years in prison and this neo-Nazi sympathizing knucklehead criminal is still a stooge.  His anti-Semitic rhetoric is all to familiar to us by now.  Hopefully the fair minded  Ohio electorate will prevail and keep this piece of trash out of office!  Another wonderful Democrat to toss on the dungheap…  When will the liberal Jews in America wake up and realize that this is no longer the party of choice for them or for Israel? And that poor excuse for a hairpiece, YIKES!!! This guy is a poor excuse for a human being.

go here to watch and listen to this moron as he appeared on Greta Van Susteren’s show last night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=0scNGzWfv8A#t=539

ASSOCIATED PRESS

September 11, 2009

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — A former Ohio congressman who was freed after seven years in federal prison said he was put in jeopardy behind bars because of his views.

James Traficant spoke in an interview broadcast Thursday night on the Fox News show “On The Record With Greta Van Susteren.”

Traficant said life behind bars was “tough,” and that it wasn’t long before he was in “the hole.” He said he was “put in a position to be hurt” at the federal prison in Allenwood, Pa., because it had many illegal immigrants unhappy with his idea of patrolling the Mexican border with troops.

The nine-term Democrat from Youngstown was released from a medical prison in Rochester, Minn., last week after serving time for racketeering, bribery, obstruction of justice and tax evasion.

Traficant said his days at Allenwood were followed by time at the upstate New York Ray Brook prison, which he refers to as a “medium-high” security prison nicknamed “The Gladiator School.”

“There’s a lot of violence. … Most political figures go to some camps in country clubs. I didn’t,” he said.

The government considers the New York facility medium security; the Allenwood prison has low, medium and high security areas.

The Bureau of Prisons said Traficant was treated like any other inmate, and that prison assignments are based on several factors. There also are a number of reasons why an inmate might be placed in a special housing unit, the bureau said, and privacy polices prevent the release of information on inmates’ disciplinary records.

Traficant said he spent the bulk of his time in Rochester with a “lot of good guys.”

“I understood the dynamics of prison life,” he said. “And now what you have is, they want to keep the prisons open, keep the jobs going. They’re putting 20, 30 years on some of these young people, and it’s out of hand.”

Traficant said he hasn’t decided yet whether he will run again for Congress, and that he forfeited his future. He also said he doesn’t care about anyone did to him or does to him in the future.

“I’m going to say what I think is right, I’m going to do what I think is right,” he said. “And if it offends some people, then so be it. You see, because I’m still, I guess, the same jackass I was.”

At a weekend “welcome home” event for Traficant in suburban Youngstown. the Democrat said the government had to “cheat” to convict him, reiterating his trial defense that the government was out to get him.

In the interview aired Thursday, he said he holds some grudges.

“I want to go at them,” he said “They came to me and said if I said I was guilty, I might even get a pardon. And I told them to shove the pardon up their derriere sideways.”

In the interview, Traficant also denies that he is anti-Semitic and argues that “Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government,” controlling members of the House and Senate and involving the U.S. in wars in which it has little or no interest.

He says he predicted another economic depression and people just laughed at him.

“Stevie Wonder could see this coming,” he said. “Stevie Wonder could see America’s troubles now.”

Tagged: anti-Semitism, Greta Van Susteren, James Traficant, Jim Traficant, Ohio congressman ]]>

Washington Times

September 6, 2009

By Tom LoBianco and Christina Bellantoni

UPDATED:

Top White House advisers deflected questions Sunday about former “green jobs czar” Van Jones early Sunday, just hours after he submitted his resignation amid a growing furor over his previous statements and political associations.

Politicians had been calling for Mr. Jones to resign after it was revealed in recent days he signed a petition supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories and called Republicans a series of vulgar epithets in a widely circulated video of a speech he made shortly before joining the Obama White House.

The Jones resignation capped a series of political missteps by the Obama administration as Congress and the president prepare to tackle one of his top priorities: health care.

“What Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual. The president thanks Van Jones for his service in the first eight months,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

He said Mr. Jones “understood that he was going to get in the way” of the president’s agenda and opted not to do so.

Senior White House adviser David Axelrod said he did not believe the president knew about all of Mr. Jones’ previous associations and was unfamiliar with his remarks, which included calls for an investigation of whether the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks but let them happen in order to provide a pretext for war.

The abrupt resignation — in a controversy that grew to a head in less than a week — renewed questions about the Obama administration’s ability to vet top aides.

The White House has been beset by quiet resignations from top picks — including former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle — and the almost-departures of some of his most important lieutenants, including Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who failed to report taxes owed the government.

In a resignation letter released by the White House via e-mail without advance notice just after midnight Sunday on a holiday weekend, Mr. Jones said he was the victim of a smear campaign.

“On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me,” he wrote. “They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.”

Mr. Jones said that while he’s been getting encouragement from both political parties to “stay and fight,” he “cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past.”

“We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future,” he said, adding in the letter for Council on Environmental Quality Chairman Nancy Sutley that he has been honored to serve the president.

Ms. Sutley issued a short statement thanking Mr. Jones for his work and calling him a “strong voice for creating 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and utilize renewable resources.”

On Sunday, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean called the Jones resignation “a loss for the country.”

Mr. Jones “was brought down, and I think it’s too bad. Washington’s a tough place that way,” he told “Fox News Sunday.”

“All of us campaigning for office have had people throw clipboards in front of our face and ask us to sign, and he learned the hard way you ought not to do that. But I don’t think he really thinks the government had anything to do with causing 9/11,” he said.

September 3, 2009

Reporting
Marcia Kramer

CBS 2 HD has learned of more alleged back-door dealings and political power peddling by Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel.

The reigning member of Congress’ top tax committee is apparently “wrangling” other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles.

Here’s a look at Charlie’s so-called “angels” involved in his ethics investigation.

Congressman Rangel has been arrogant in refusing to discuss how, as the man who writes this country’s tax laws, he failed to report over $1 million in outside income and $3 million in business transactions as required by the House, lapses under investigation by the House Ethics Committee.

“I recognize that all of you have an obligation to ask questions knowing that there’s none of you smart enough to frame it in such a way that I’m going to respond,” Rangel said.

There may be a reason for Rangel’s arrogance. CBS 2 HD has discovered that since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him.

Charlie’s “angels” on the committee include Congressmen Ben Chandler of Kentucky, G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina and Peter Welch of Vermont. All have received donations from Rangel.

Only Welch sees something wrong with being financial beholden to Charlie.

“In an abundance of caution, he has returned all campaign contributions from Mr. Rangel,” said spokesman Bob Rogan, Welch’s Chief of Staff.

It amounted to nearly 20 grand.

Experts say the congressman’s largess makes him crazy like a fox.

“Certainly money does make friends and influence people and perhaps make him a little bit more popular and at this particular moment that might help,” said pundit Micheline Blum of Baruch College.

“Buying insurance, you know? Don’t bite the hand that’s feeding you. Clearly he sees himself as having a problem and he is contributing to members who might look favorably,” added Doug Muzzio of Baruch.

Congressman Rangel has said he expects the House Ethics Committee to rule quickly on the ethical charges that are being brought against him. The problem is he’s been saying the same thing for well over a year.

Rangel’s office did not return a request for comment on the question of whether the congressman thought members receiving donations from him should step aside and let others rule on the ethics charges.

New York Post

September 1, 2009

By MAGGIE HABERMAN

Disgraced former Gov. Eliot Spitzer has been privately talking with friends about a possible comeback, and is considering a run for statewide office next year, several sources told The Post.

Less than 18 months after he left Albany in a prostitution scandal, Spitzer has held informal discussions in recent weeks about the possibility of making a bid for state comptroller or the US Senate seat currently held by Kirsten Gillibrand, sources said.

The hooker-happy Democrat has also discussed his own halfway-decent poll numbers in recent surveys, which have shown him more popular than Gov. Paterson, whose own numbers have tanked.
“He’s weighing it,” said one source.

But Spitzer hasn’t shown any interest in campaigning for the office he briefly held, sources said.

The sources stressed that Spitzer, who also served two terms as state attorney general before his landslide election as governor in 2006, has not engaged in any active discussions with political consultants.

Reached at his father’s real-estate firm, where he has been working since he resigned as governor last spring, Spitzer declined comment.

But a source close to him insisted, “It’s not true,” and two other close associates also insisted he was not interested in running for office again and was looking at a range of other options.

Two sources said Spitzer had thought about a gamut of different electoral choices in his months of political exile.

But one ally insisted he’s realized he can’t do anything, at least not next year, saying, “There are people around him who want to see him [in office], and he sees himself there, too. He loves to be in the limelight. But he knows it can’t happen.”

Spitzer quit in disgrace in March 2008 after he was unmasked in Manhattan federal court as “Client 9″ in a prostitution bust involving a major call-girl ring. He was revealed to have paid $4,300 for a romp with escort Ashley Dupre, then 22.

Still, the sources said, Spitzer has been looking at avenues for a return to elective office, even if it means mounting a challenge against a fellow Democrat.

State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, appointed to his post by the state Legislature after Alan Hevesi resigned amid scandal two years ago, is widely seen in Democratic circles as a weak link on the ticket.

Gillibrand is similarly viewed as ripe for a primary challenge, with large numbers of voters saying they have no opinion of her.

Spitzer has suggested in recent interviews that he’s not interested subjecting his family to the rigors of another campaign — although he has seemed to stop short of ruling it out.

“If by politics you mean running for office again, I’ve a hard time seeing politics as a career. I wouldn’t want to put my family through the agony,” he told Vanity Fair magazine in its July issue.

“But that doesn’t mean I can’t participate somehow in the public debate about the issues.”

Spitzer, who wasn’t convicted of any crime in the hooker scandal, has been rehabbing his image in recent months, writing a column for the Web magazine Slate and giving a string of interviews on issues such as the financial crisis.

Seems that Michelle Malkin has it right (in her new book, “Culture of Corruption”) …  America put a criminal enterprise into  power in Washington- the Obama Administration.

AMERICAN THINKER

August 28, 2009

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

“If you want the next four years lookin’ like the last eight, then I’m not your candidate.  But if you want real change…then I need you.  I need you to go out and talk to your friends, talk to your neighbors…I want you to argue with them, get in their faces…you guys are the ones who can make the change.”
- Candidate Barack Obama to supporters September, 2008

Well, first, I was there to sell, you know, flags and buttons and stuff that said, “Don’t tread on me.” And I was setting out there, and I guess something got — just went through my head. I said I’m just going to give them away and stuff like that. So a pastor’s wife walked up to me, and she just took a liking to some of the buttons. So I start showing her some of the buttons and everything. This guy walked up and he said, “Who in the — who in the blank is selling or giving away this stuff here?” I said, “Sir, this is my merchandise. And would you like a flag or a button or something like that?” And he said, “What kind of ‘n’ are you to be giving this stuff out.”

Yes, they surrounded me. Actually, after the first two guys got me on the ground, they surrounded me and started kicking me in the head and in the back, and the knees and stuff like that. And after it was done, I got up, kind of dazed, looking for my glasses. And the one guy actually was coming at me again, and that’s when the police came in and, you know, cordoned off everything and started, you know, started arresting people.

Real Clear Politics

August 28, 2009

By Emmett Tyrrell

Canada Free Press

July 9, 2009

By Dr. Paul L. Williams

By the staff of thelastcrusade.org

Update: First Lady Now Requires 26 Servants

“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it”
—Albert Einstein

“In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, “ Michelle Obama

No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn’t perform any official duties. But this hasn’t deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary.

How things have changed! If you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz Michele are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by John Q. Public:

$172,2000 – Sher, Susan (CHIEF OF STAFF)
$140,000 – Frye, Jocelyn C. (DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
$113,000 – Rogers, Desiree G. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE SOCIAL SECRETARY)
$102,000 – Johnston, Camille Y. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
Winter, Melissa E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
$90,000 – Medina, David S. (DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
$84,000 – Lelyveld, Catherine M. (DIRECTOR AND PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)
$75,000 – Starkey, Frances M. (DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND ADVANCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
$70,000 – Sanders, Trooper (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
$65,000 – Burnough, Erinn J. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)
Reinstein, Joseph B. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)
$62,000 – Goodman, Jennifer R. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND EVENTS COORDINATOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)
$60,000 – Fitts, Alan O. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ADVANCE AND TRIP DIRECTOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)
Lewis, Dana M. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT AND PERSONAL AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)
$52,500 – Mustaphi, Semonti M. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)
$50,000 – Jarvis, Kristen E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR SCHEDULING AND TRAVELING AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)
$45,000 – Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
Tubman, Samantha (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,SOCIAL OFFICE)
$40,000 – Boswell, Joseph J. (EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
$36,000 – Armbruster, Sally M. (STAFF ASSISTANT TO THE SOCIAL SECRETARY)
Bookey, Natalie (STAFF ASSISTANT)
Jackson, Deilia A. (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)

NewsBusters

August 13, 2009

By Matthew Balan

On Thursday’s Newsroom, CNN’s Rick Sanchez couldn’t get a straight answer out of Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee about her cell phone use during a recent health care town hall, and after he repeatedly asked why she did it and if it was disrespectful, the Texas Democrat bizarrely raised the possibility that the YouTube video of her on the phone was “doctored”.

Sanchez brought on the Jackson-Lee to ask her about the viral video of her phone use as a woman tried to ask her a question at the town hall. He first asked, “How do you explain what you were doing there? What were you thinking, Congresswoman?” For about a minute and a half, the Democrat filibustered by talking about her town hall appearances and the health care issue. The CNN anchor repeatedly tried to get her to answer his question. He asked again: “Why were you talking on the phone?” She continued by avoiding the issue, talking about the “congressional hotline” her office had set up on the health care proposal. Sanchez interrupted, “Congresswoman, you’re not being fair. I asked you a very specific question….The question is, why were you on the phone and was it disrespectful?”

Jackson-Lee plowed ahead about how she didn’t have the bill memorized, but Sanchez wasn’t having it: “Congresswoman, you’re absolutely ignoring my question. I don’t think that’s very nice.” The Democrat denied that she was, and so the anchor rephrased his question in a very parental fashion: “I say to my children it’s impolite to text- it’s wrong to be on the phone when you’re talking to people, and it’s rude to do that especially when you’re dealing with adults. Here you have people who have come to hear you speak. They are asking you a question, and it appears on the video like you’re not giving them their due. How do you explain that?”

The Representative replied, “I’m so glad you said that. It appears on the video. Maybe it’s a doctored video.” After going into another protracted explanation, Jackson-Lee hinted that the video was just a distraction from the health care issue: “My question to those who have YouTube- and I love YouTube- who’ve made an issue- are they concerned about health care reform? Are they concerned about a robust public option? Are they concerned about eliminating pre-existing diseases? All of that I talked about.”

After asking if the Democrat had apologized to the woman who was trying to ask her a question as she used her cell phone (and another extended “answer”), Sanchez followed up on her “doctored video” accusation: “Do you think the video was doctored? Do you think the video may have been doctored?” Jackson-Lee answered by specifically calling the cell phone issue a “distraction” from her priorities:

JACKSON-LEE: Let me say this- we who are members of congress who believe in democracy are not going to focus on distractions. We’re really going to focus on giving the people the opportunity to express themselves in any way they desire-

SANCHEZ: Well- well, look at it. I mean- let’s- I’ll tell you what- let’s play it and you tell us if this is you or not you and if we’ve made a mistake by showing video- that may have been doctored- is there anything about this video that isn-t reflective of what happened?

JACKSON-LEE I know nothing about the video- I know nothing about the video, Rick, and I’m not going to comment on it.

Then why make the accusation in the first place, Representative?

The Wall Street Journal

August 10. 2009

 By BRODY MULLINS and T.W. FARNAM

WASHINGTON — Bipartisan opposition is emerging in the Senate to a plan by House lawmakers to spend $550 million for additional passenger jets for senior government officials.

The resistance to buying eight Gulfstream and Boeing planes comes as members of both chambers of Congress embark on the busiest month of the year for official overseas travel. The plan to upgrade the fleet of government jets, which was included in a broader defense-funding bill, has also sparked criticism from the Pentagon, which has said it doesn’t need half of the new jets.

View Full Image

Associated PressHouse Minority Leader John Boehner opposes the jet purchase.

 

“The whole thing kind of makes me sick to my stomach,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) in an interview Sunday. “It is evidence that some of the cynicism about Washington is well placed — that people get out of touch and they spend money like it’s Monopoly money.”

Several other senators said they share the concerns and will work to oppose the funding for the jets when the legislation is taken up by the Senate in September, including Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.,) Jack Reed (D., R.I.), Richard Burr (R., N.C.), Christopher Bond (R., Mo.) and John Thune (R., S.D.).

The funding for new planes is “a classic example of Congress being out of touch with the realities of deficit spending,” said Mr. Thune.

The Obama administration had sought $220 million to buy four passenger jets, including two that are currently being leased by the Air Force, to replace a fleet of older planes. Before leaving town for the August break, House lawmakers doubled the aircraft order to eight, at a total cost of $550 million.

Mrs. McCaskill said she was lobbying members of the Senate Appropriations Committee to oppose funding for the planes. She said she has spoken to several senators on the panel who oppose the funding, including Mr. Bond. A spokesman for Mr. Bond confirmed that he “opposed the funds for the jets.”

Several House Republicans Sunday said they are against the purchase, including Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio. Tennessee Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a senior member of a group of House conservatives, also voiced opposition to the House plan.

Lawmakers who support funding for the planes say the move would save the government money down the road because the new planes are less expensive to operate than the older planes, some of which are now grounded.

“The key here is not whether or not planes will be bought, it’s when planes will be bought,” said Ellis Brachman, a spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, the panel that approved the spending. He has said the planes are predominately used by the military, with roughly 15% of the Air Force’s passenger flights dedicated to congressional travel.

View Full Image

Getty ImagesSen. Christopher Bond (R., Mo.) also opposes the jet purchase.

 

The tension over the jets is erupting just as lawmakers embark on the high season for government travel. Traditionally, August is the busiest travel period of the year, since Congress usually recesses for a month. Since 1995, House lawmakers have disclosed a total of $6.2 million in travel expenses for all the months of August, according to a Wall Street Journal computer-assisted analysis of 60,000 travel records.

While some legislators take issue with the pricey new aircraft that would ferry officials around, they still see merit in the trips themselves. Politicians from both sides of the aisle have publicly defended their far-flung forays, which they say strengthens relations with foreign leaders, gives them a first-hand look at how U.S. funds are being spent overseas and allows them to speak directly with battlefield commanders and troops.

The day after the House began its summer holiday, Mr. Boehner, the House Republican leader, and five other lawmakers departed for a two-week trip around the globe. They were Reps. David Camp of Michigan, the senior Republican on the Ways and Means Committee; Dan Boren (D., Okla.); Jo Bonner (R., Ala.); Tom Latham (R., Iowa); and Greg Walden (R., Ore.), according to a travel document reviewed by the Journal and an aide to one member.

The goal of the trip, which will include stops in Germany, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and China, was to discuss issues surrounding the global economic crisis and national security with government and private-sector officials in those countries. At least some of the lawmakers took their spouses, which they are allowed to do under House rules for “protocol” purposes.

After visiting Asia, the delegation is scheduled to fly to Vancouver before returning to Washington in mid-August, according to the travel document and the aide.

This month, Mr. McCain is scheduled to leave with a group of senators for a weeklong trip to Libya, Kuwait, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan and Iceland. A spokeswoman for Sen. McCain didn’t respond to calls or emails for comment about the trip.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) and other senators and their spouses are planning to travel to the U.K. for the week before the Senate reconvenes after Labor Day. The purpose of the trip, according to a spokeswoman for Sen. Gregg, is an annual meeting with members of the British Parliament.

Write to Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com and T.W. Farnam at timothy.farnam@wsj.com

 

Associated Press

August 6, 2009

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and ERICA WERNER

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Senate’s most powerful Democrat on Thursday scolded health care protesters dogging his party’s lawmakers at local meetings, arguing that some critics on the political right have run out of ideas—and ditched their civic manners. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada accused the protesters of trying to “sabotage” the democratic process.
A small group of lawmakers blocked out the fevered rhetoric and vowed to keep pursuing an elusive bipartisan deal on a broad remaking of the health care system. With encouragement from President Barack Obama and business leaders, the group reported progress on financing an overhaul. But as polls show Obama’s approach losing favor with voters—particularly independents—Democrats are talking more openly about the possibility of moving legislation without Republican support.

Energized conservative activists said they’ll keep up their fight against Obama’s effort. The president wants to use the government’s clout to subsidize coverage for millions now uninsured, regulate insurance companies more closely and attempt to slow the rise of medical costs. The protesters’ shouts and chants, captured on amateur video, went viral on the Internet.

The Republican Party says it’s not behind the protests, but Reid scoffed at the notion that the protesters reflect grass-roots sentiment. He held up a piece of artificial turf during a session with reporters.

“These are nothing more than destructive efforts to interrupt a debate that we should have, and are having,” Reid said. “They are doing this because they don’t have any better ideas. They have no interest in letting the negotiators, even though few in number, negotiate. It’s really simple: they’re taking their cues from talk show hosts, Internet rumor-mongerers … and insurance rackets.”

Republicans answered back.

“All the polls show there is serious concern, if not outright opposition, to the president’s health care plan,” said Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio. “Democrats are ginning up this cynical shell game.”

Boehner had said last week the Democrats would be in for a hot summer on health care. Republicans say the political pressure is also on them, from unions and liberal activists targeting conservative lawmakers.

Obama’s top political adviser, David Axelrod, participated in a Capitol Hill session at which senators were shown video of some of the boisterous town-hall meetings, and discussed how to respond to disruptions.

“It’s a challenge, no question about it, and you’ve got to get out there and make the case,” Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said afterward. “This is not the time for the faint-hearted.”

Democrats and the White House are claiming that the sometimes rowdy protests that have disrupted Democratic lawmakers’ meetings and health care events around the country are largely orchestrated from afar by insurers, lobbyists, Republican Party activists and others.

Some of the activists who’ve shown up at town-hall meetings held recently by Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., and other lawmakers are affiliated with loosely connected right-leaning groups, including Conservatives for Patients’ Rights and Americans for Prosperity, according to officials at those groups. Some of the activists say they came together during the “Tea Party” anti-big-government protests that happened earlier this year, and they’ve formed small groups and stayed in touch over e-mail, Facebook and in other ways.

But they insist they’re part of a ground-level movement that represents real frustration with government spending and growth.

About 20 protesters gathered in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., Thursday to let Democratic Rep. Scott Murphy know they oppose the health care plans in Washington. They carried signs saying: “Obamacare Seniors beware! Rationing is here,” and “If socialized medicine is best … why didn’t Ted Kennedy go to Canada?” Motorists honked as they drove by.

Most said they learned about the event from various community groups that oppose the health care overhaul. All rejected the notion that they had been organized on a large scale, or had connections to the insurance industry.

John Wagner, a 71-year-old retired salesman said he wasn’t affiliated with any political groups. He said he and his wife, 68-year-old Anne Wagner, came try to talk to Murphy. Both of the registered independents voted for Murphy’s Republican opponent.

“We think it’s the start of our government taking over every facet of our economy, and of our health, to make sure that the government runs everything,” John Wagner said.

At one point, a constituent asked Murphy if he thought the country was headed for universal health care.

“That phrase means a lot of things to a lot of people,” Murphy said. His answer was greeted with a chorus of groans.

In the end, the real action may still be in Washington. Six senators—three from each party, all members of the Senate Finance Committee—agreed to keep working over the August break and assess the situation when they return, working against a Sept. 15 deadline.

Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said Thursday the group is making progress.

The outlines of a the Finance Committee compromise have emerged in recent weeks—although nothing is final. The package would cost around $900 billion over 10 years and would be fully paid for through a variety of revenue raisers including a tax on health insurers that offer high-cost plans worth more than $20,000 a year.

Individuals would be required to get insurance, either through an employer, on their own, or through a government program. Federal subsidies would help low-income and many middle-class households afford the premiums. Medicaid would be expanded to cover more people close to the poverty line. Nearly all Americans would be covered.

But even the usually optimistic Baucus says it’s not a done deal.

“If Republicans aren’t there, it could get to the point where some time after the recess … Democrats may have to go in a different direction,” Baucus said after the group returned from a meeting with Obama at the White House.

“I hope not,” Baucus added, “but we have to face facts.”

___

Associated Press Writers Sam Hananel in Washington and Valerie Bauman in Albany, N.Y., contributed to this report.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Steve Emerson, terrorism expert and founder of The Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Here is a link to the letter sent by these Democratic stooges to AG Holder :

http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/282.pdf

FRONTPAGEMAG.COM
By: Jamie Glazov

August 04, 2009

There are some Congressional Democratic stooges operating on behalf of Islamist groups. Can you tell us what is going on?

Emerson: We obtained a letter sent on July 24 by seven House Democrats to Attorney General Holder on behalf of 9 radical Islamic front groups relaying the complaints of the groups about law enforcement techniques in terrorist cases, including the use of informants.

The Congressmen acted as virtual lobbyists for these militant groups, asking that the AG stop employing tried and proven counter-terrorist techniques and also echoed information that was blatantly false claiming the FBI was engaged in racial profiling. The Congressmen asked that the AG meet with these groups, which are almost all derivatives of the Muslim Brotherhood.

FP: CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) is one of the groups, yes? Tell us about CAIR.

Emerson: Yes, they included CAIR, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Hamas (Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development) funding trial last year in which an FBI agent labelled CAIR a front group for Hamas and ISNA, another un-indicted co-conspirator in the same case. CAIR has defended suicide bombings and ISNA has featured anti-Semitic speakers and terrorist supporters at its most recent conference a month ago in DC.

Another group represented by the Congressmen included the Muslim American Society (MAS) which is the defacto arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the US (by its own admission) and whose leaders have openly called for jihad and support for Hamas and Hezbollah.

FP: And we have members of Congress actually working on behalf of these terrorist-related groups? Who are these Congressmen?

Emerson: The letter was signed by California representatives Loretta Sanchez, Adam Schiff, Mike Honda and Lois Capps, along with Ohio representatives Mary Jo Kilroy and Dennis Kucinich. Northern Virginia Congressman James Moran joined the group. Moran serves on the House Appropriations Committee subcommittee on defense. Schiff and Honda serve on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies. Kilroy sits on the House Homeland Security Committee.

These issues have been pushed by radical Islamist groups for months. The letter’s close tracking of the interest groups’ positions indicates that their officials dictated its terms for the members of Congress to sign. In fact, the nine entities all are listed in exactly the same sequence in this release from CAIR. The April 2009 release also cites two of the same issues as in the letter to Holder.

As I wrote in my piece, many of the representatives who signed this letter have a history of supporting CAIR. For example, Kucinich sent a video message praising the organization to the CAIR-Chicago 4^th Annual Banquet on February 23, 2008:

“As the Council on American-Islamic Relations meets I want to pledge to you. I continue to pledge for your efforts to make sure that the powerful message of Islam, a message of peace and reconciliation reverberates. I want to make sure that you know that you have a friend in the United States Congress.”

Sanchez has repeatedly attended annual CAIR banquets in Anaheim. Likewise, Honda spoke at CAIR’s 2006 national banquet in Virginia, where called his hosts “the civil rights group that will speak on behalf of the community.” Capps is included on a page of laudatory statements about CAIR, saying “I applaud CAIR for its important role in advocating for civil liberties, enhancing the understanding of Islam, and condemning acts of terrorism.”

Moran is included on the same page, saying “It is through the activities of groups like CAIR that cooperation—rather than competition—between the various faiths can be achieved.” Honda is quoted saying “CAIR’s commitment to social justice and civil rights for all Americans will help our country to ensure that respect and tolerance exists for people of all religions and ethnicities.”

In their letter, the representatives accept the claims of defendants in two criminal cases unquestioningly, despite sworn testimony to the contrary.

FP: Well we obviously see the unholy alliance at work here, the Left and radical Islam holding hands in solidarity. Can you talk about that alliance a bit and how it is working?

Emerson: This phenomenon is part of the Grand Deception, when radical Islam wittingly and unwittingly convinces the American government and the media that radical Islamists have no other agenda than to play pluralist politics when the real (and demonstrably unconcealed goal) is to infiltrate the American government and media and ultimately take over. The documents released from the Holy Land Foundation trial were shockingly clear: the Muslim Brotherhood in this country secretly aspires to a “civilizational-jihadist process” in which the Islamist groups will infiltrate the institutions of power and American society. No one can argue with hundreds of such documents that were released at the HLF trial. They were shocking and had never been seen before.

Their aim is simple: infiltrate the corridors of power (Congress and the government), the media, Hollywood, the intelligentsia and even law enforcement. Eighteen years after the documents were written, we can see the Muslim Brotherhood game plan has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams. Hollywood, for example the likes of Howard Gordon, executive producer of the series “24” has already been conned into legitimizing radical Islamic groups  that espouse anti-Semitism, defend Hezbollah, denigrate the Holocaust, tell their members not to cooperate with the FBI, etc.
The Hollywood-based Writers Guild of America is about to hold a special seminar for CAIR, a front group for Hamas that has defended the killing of Jews and has sponsored as speakers Holocaust deniers. When was the last time the Writer’s Guild held a seminar for the KKK or, for that, matter evangelical Christians? That members of the Writer’s Guild are allowing this to happen is one of the most scandalous indicators of the pact between the left and the Islamic fascists. Where are the voices of the Guild protesting this outrageous seminar? Does the Guild endorse the notion of suicide bombers and also undermining the prosecution of Islamic terrorists? Does the Guild support Hezbollah and Hamas? Does the Guild support raw anti-Semitism? And the Muslim Public Affair Committee (MPAC), a radical group that has supported Hezbollah, claimed Israel was behind 9/11,  and has made derogatory comments about the Holocaust. Now it has established a Hollywood liaison bureau where, believe it or not, studios submit their scripts in advance for approval.
The Left’s Faustian alliance with radical Islamists is a pact with the devil that will ultimately behead the same leaders of the Left. Melissa Etheridge, avowedly gay, played in a concert for an annual conference for the MPAC, a group that believes homosexuality is a sin and that has claimed that Islamic law protects women, when the undeniable truth is that Sharia treats women as cattle and second class citizens, not to mention how it treats Jews and Christians. What does that tell us about the sheer stupidity of Etheridge, willing to sacrifice her own bedrock principles for the sake of collaborating with a group that defends Hezbollah, the group that has killed the second largest number of Americans next to Al Qaeda? And what do you think will happen to gays like Melissa Etheridge when Sharia law is imposed? Why would she lend her support to a group that has made pro-terrorist comments, published anti-Semitic cartoons and supported Hezbollah, as well as condemned her own gay lifestyle as evil?
These are not the only groups and individuals that have signed up to work with radical Islamic organizations. Fairness for Accuracy in Reporting, FAIR, the ultra left wing group that defends Venezuala’s anti-Semitic President Hugo Chavez, works closely with CAIR. FAIR and CAIR share the public relations firm and work so closely that FAIR is considered by many to be an extension of the terrorist front group CAIR.  FAIR is so much in the pocket of CAIR that the IRS should immediately launch an investigation into the financial and other ties between the two groups to determine their abuse of the tax laws governing non profits. I know with 100% certainty that CAIR has violated the tax laws for example.
J Street, the ultra left wing Jewish group, has also secretly worked with CAIR. The ACLU, founded on the notion of the need for separation of church and state, actually collaborates with CAIR—a group whose officials want to impose blasphemy laws in this country–to the point that it has appointed members of CAIR to local ACLU boards around the country. In terms of the media, NPR and PBS have actively colluded with CAIR and other radical Islamic groups to dishonestly portray them simply as “civil rights” or advocacy groups, when in fact these groups have actively championed terrorism. We have emails showing that CAIR actually “owns” reporters at various newspapers, which suggests the degree of penetration by CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood groups into the media is far more extensive and far more frightening than anyone has known to this point.

FP: And the Congressmen who signed the letter?

Emerson: Either they are thinking in terms of votes and donations or they actually believe the fascist propaganda put forth by the groups on whose behalf they signed the letter. But above all else, it demonstrates the frighteningly enormous political strides that radical Islamic groups—those that purposefully undermine the security of this great nation by attacking law enforcement’s prosecution of Islamic terrorists and also support violent jihad and who defend Hamas and Hezbollah—have succeed in getting the support of 7 Congressmen, 6 if you believe that Congressman Schiff actually made a “mistake” as he claims in signing the letter.
Finally and most disturbing is the fact that the seven congressmen actually accepted CAIR’s views of a particular Al Qaeda case in Irvine when in fact the reality is that CAIR actively colluded with the suspected terrorist to obstruct justice. When the alleged terrorist, a member of Al Qaeda, began to suspect he had been recorded by an informant calling for bombings in the US and for praising Osama bin Laden, the terrorist conspired with CAIR’s LA official Hussam Ayloush to deliberately lie and pin the blame for the terrorist rantings on the informant. This was such a blatant obstruction of justice by CAIR that Justice Department officials have considered charging CAIR’s Ayloush with obstruction of justice and lying to federal officials. But the seven Congressmen actually accepted Ayloush’s point of view and endorsed the notion that CAIR dutifully reported the informant as a terrorist suspect in the manner of a good citizen. That they accepted this version shows that the congressmen are in the pocket of CAIR.
All of this means that the secret Muslim Brotherhood plan to infiltrate the US has succeeded beyond the MB’s wildest dreams.

FP: One of the Congressman, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, is actually denying that he ever had a role in this. How can this be possible and what does it tell us about him?

Emerson: Something smells to high heaven here.

An aide to U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) contacted the Investigative Project on Terrorism to report that Schiff’s name and signature appear erroneously on the letter to Attorney General Eric Holder. After reading about the letter in this story, Schiff wrote his own letter to Holder in which he said “I never saw or approved the letter and my signature should not have appeared on the correspondence.”

According to the aide, a staffer from U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez’s office brought the letter to Schiff’s office and said Schiff approved having his signature added to it. Schiff, the aide said, never agreed to that. The aide said he did not know whether Schiff participated in any earlier discussions about the letter and could not explain why Sanchez’s office had the impression that he was on board.

None of this makes any sense, suggesting that Congressman Schiff got embarrassed when his name was disclosed as one of the signatories and simply sought a way out of it. Our sources tell us that the Congressman actually read the letter and approved signing it personally, something his aides deny.

FP: What does this Schiff affair say about Schiff?

Emerson: Schiff is a Congressmen who has long befriended MPAC, a group whose anti-Semitic cartoons published in their magazine, the Minaret, make the Danish cartoons look like child’s play. Schiff has been befriending radical Islamic groups for years ever since his election. That he suddenly decided to concoct a story claiming that he signed on to the letter by mistake—without explaining how that mistake could have occurred—shows that some  members of Congress are not exactly profiles in courage.
On the other hand, Congressmen like Frank Wolf, Pete Hoekstra and Sue Myrick have shown a backbone that is unparalleled in Congress in courageously tackling the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and radical Islamic groups. So it shows there are brave Congressmen as well. The FBI should be noted for standing tall and courageous in making the decision last year to sever its relations with CAIR because of its ties to Hamas. Yet, various members of Congress—like the seven who signed the letter—have deliberately flouted the FBI intelligence and policies in such an egregious way that these Congressmen are actually endangering the security of the United States.

FP: So what lessons do we draw here?

Emerson: The chief lesson here is that the Islamist plan to infiltrate American society—Congress, law enforcement, the administration (the vast extent of Obama’s willing acceptance of radical Islamic groups and leaders into key positions into his government including CAIR which I have not yet divulged), think tanks, public relations firms, academia, et—has succeeded in ways that are truly endangering our security. Yet, the stealth jihad—which is what this is—has gone unreported by the mainstream media because of factors such as laziness, the “useful idiot” syndrome, and active collaboration between these groups and reporters as well as collaboration with  other influential sectors of society.
In fact, the stealth jihad is in many ways more dangerous than acts of terrorism, which seems the only time that the American public and media wake up. The American public would be absolutely shocked to witness the degree of the radical Islamic deception perpetuated, wittingly and unwittingly, across society including law enforcement, journalism, Hollywood, Congress, think-tanks, the left, and the intelligentsia. I am not talking about an unproven conspiracy. This deception—what I call Militant Islam’s Grand Deception–is the subject of my upcoming documentary and book. It will shock viewers to their core.

FP: What can the average citizen do to counter-act these developments?

Emerson: They have to start bombarding Congress and the Obama administration with protests every day. They need to be protesting the one-sided coverage of these Islamic groups with their local newspapers who have been assiduously involved in a campaign to legitimize these groups and suppress the real evidence about them. Our organization, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, has been collecting intelligence on these groups for more than 15 years. I urge your readers to go to our site and learn about the secret Muslim Brotherhood plan to infiltrate and subvert this country, to find out more about the pro terrorist agenda of these so called “civil rights” groups. And yet, I fear that only when a violent attack occurs will the American public wake up. In his darkest hours before the war that he so courageously predicted, the great Winston Churchill said presciently that “Democracies only act when there is blood in the streets.” I fear he is right.

FP: Steve Emerson, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Press Release

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
http://republicans.oversight.house.gov

News Release

Issa to Emanuel: Back Off!

August 4, 2009
WASHINGTON. D.C. – Following reports that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been orchestrating an effort to intimidate members of Congress and Governors who raise legitimate concerns regarding the effectiveness of the stimulus, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Darrell Issa (R-CA) sent a letter to Emanuel saying “While this type of scare tactic may work In Chicago, it will not work to intimidate me or other Members of the United States Congress.”

“I and others have dared to bring these facts to the attention of President Obama, the Congress and the American people,” Issa wrote. “You’ve unfortunately reacted by once again resorting to the playbook of the Chicago political machine.”

Last month, Politico reported that Emanuel had “launched a coordinated effort to jam” Senator Kyl and other Administration critics… “[A]fter seeing Kyl and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) again paint the legislation as a failure on Sunday talk shows, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel directed that the letters from the Cabinet secretaries be sent to [Governor] Brewer, according to two administration officials.”

Issa noted, “The fact that the letters were coordinated by you to maximize the level of intimidation is supported by the timing, structure, and content of each letter. Not only were the four letters all sent the day following Senator Kyl’s remarks, but they were also remarkably similar in tone and sentence structure.”

Letter from Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation:
On Sunday, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl publicly questioned whether the stimulus is working and stated that he wants to cancel projects that aren’t presently underway. I believe the stimulus has been very effective in creating job opportunities throughout the country. However, if you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Senator Kyl suggests, please let me know [emphasis added].

Letter from Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior:
Some key Republican leaders in Congress have publicly questioned whether the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is working and suggested cancelling all projects that are not currently in progress. I believe they are wrong. The stimulus funds provided through the Recovery Act are a very effective way to create job opportunities throughout the Country. However, if you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to Arizona, please let me know [emphasis added].

“At what point do you believe your practice of Chicago-style politics violates a public official’s right to speak out in favor of alternative policies,” Issa asks. “The American people have a right to know what role you played in developing the threatening letters to Governor Brewer and whether you intend to continue to engage in these tactics in the future.”

In order to assist the Committee with its investigation of this issue, please provide the following information by close of business on Tuesday, August 11, 2009:
Your response to Politico’s report that “White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel directed that the letters from the Cabinet secretaries be sent to [Governor] Brewer, according to two administration officials.”
A full and complete explanation of the development of the four July 13 letters from the cabinet secretaries to Governor Brewer, including but not limited to the role you or any other White House official played in writing the letters or encouraging the writing of the letters.
All records and communications between you and Secretary LaHood, Secretary Salazar, Secretary Donovan, and Secretary Vilsack referring or relating to the decision to send the July 13 letters to Governor Brewer.
A full and complete explanation of the role of the Democratic National Committee and the White House Office of Political Affairs in authoring, encouraging, facilitating, or directing the four July 13 letters from the cabinet secretaries to Governor Brewer.

 Drawing African political parallels, he warns us of the Obameister’s socialist march…

AMERICAN THINKER  

by L.E. Ikenga

August 04, 2009

In times like these, it is tempting to focus only on the issue at hand. But if you do, you do so at your own peril. As I watch what is happening to this great country, I find myself just shaking my head more and more while thinking, Mark Twain was absolutely right: “history does not always repeat itself, but it does often rhyme.”

I call these men, who appeared all over Africa in the wake of independence, African Colonial politicians (ACP’s). They were the direct offspring of the European Imperialists, imposing radical European leftist political theory on tribal cultures. ACP’s and their unscrupulous followers were able to almost completely destroy many African cultures.

For the most part, these ACP’s were intellectual frauds, completely unworthy of the honors bestowed upon them. But they sounded and looked good; so the people listened to them. With their fancy Oxbridge degrees, grandiloquent speeches given with perfectly accented “Queen’s English”, finely tailored European suits, and fabled family histories, ACP’s took the masses by storm.

ACP’s convinced their constituents that they were as dumb as baboons and did not have what it took to make good decisions for themselves and for the future. They made Africans feel embarrassed about their entire histories and conservative values. They persuaded Africans to follow the “European way” of doing things, and assured that this blueprint for progress was one that could not fail.

The people believed them. And so, over the course of many decades, and by means of the standard instruments of cultural indoctrination that included liberal education, elite professional career paths, and new religious and political paradigms, Africans began to consume ideas and theories that implicitly alienated them from their own roots. Today, many of those Africans and their respective cultures are well on their way to being nothing more than topics for discussion at some freshman anthropology seminar at some elite university.  

Colonialism in Africa ended but the ACP remained. He is now a touchstone in African political culture — and so are his imperialist policies. The ACP will never go away. He dominates all politics, all of the time. His presence is ubiquitous. He is being cloned by the thousands everyday at universities in Africa and in other parts of the world. Marxist mentors rear him in his professional and private life. Thus, he has been taught to see himself as a benevolent Pan-Africanist. Instead, he is an uncontrollable cancer, steadily pushing African cultures to the point of extinction.

This all happened because African conservatives lost their way, took their cultures for granted, and underestimated the cupidity of their wanton politicians. They failed to make adjustments that would have helped to preserve their necessary values. The challenge for any culture is knowing when and how to make these adjustments, because if you do not, you die.

Africans allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by smooth-talking elitist charlatans; they are now paying a very dear price for this.

Politically speaking, most of Africa is now the laughingstock of the world with little to show for all of the progress that was once so intensely promised. In his 1947 essay, Path to Nigerian Freedom, Chief Obafemi Awolowo declared that,

Chief Awolowo, where is that development now?

It is a very painful thing to know that something that you hold dear will soon cease to exist. It is even more painful to know that you are only one of a small few who can actually see that it is happening. This is what I am faced with. My Igbo heritage, passed down especially by my mother, has become a very precious thing to me, particularly because it is something that will soon cease to exist. I am sure that my great-grandchildren’s children will have to go to some Museum of Natural History to know who I was, and so I continue to fight to make sure that they have something to see.

All of this is because my ancestors did not make the necessary adjustments. And most importantly, they never saw that there was always a large troupe of African colonial politicians, each impatiently waiting in the wings for the chance to audition for the role of a lifetime. (Obama’s 2004 DNC speech was an audition.)     

The Barack Obamas of the world helped to kill off so many cultures throughout the African continent. He is now here, with his Bacchic attendants, working hard to kill (conservative) American culture. He is killing everything that this country stands for. He is doing it under the guise of altruism. However, there is nothing altruistic about Obama. Instead, what we are witnessing is the greatest comedy of fateful errors that the world has seen in quite some time. The gods must be laughing like crazy.

The move towards the Euro-style imperialist socialism that has taken over this country has been a long time coming. For decades, oblivious youth have been indoctrinated at American universities to sympathize with far-left values; the entertainment industry is filled with leftist blowhards who wear the mask of intellect; liberals of all stripes have become unselfconscious in mocking (Christian) religious customs, and the juggernaut that is the left-stream media has been sealing the deal for years, helping to make this Republic increasingly vulnerable to demagoguery and despotism.

During the campaign, there was a reason why Obama’s handlers kept telling him to say, “We are the ones we have been waiting for!” So many are waiting in the wings for their chance to audition. Obama is now the playing the lead role. But new faces will come and take his place when he is done.

This is why our nation is under siege with “all Obama, all the time”. They want you to focus on him so that you do not see what is coming. As difficult as it may be to believe, Obama is probably not the worst that this far-left faction will use to win future elections. There will be others who will be more “eloquent”, more charismatic, more racially mixed, more (once) oppressed by “the man”…

In closing, I offer a wish list. If I could go back in time and meet some of my ancestors, here are a few things that I would tell them to watch out for and consider. And to my fellow American Conservatives, here are a few things to help us avoid the next Obama:

Brand name market academics: the killers of common sense

I cannot emphasize enough how these types of people continue to destroy cultures throughout the world. I have seen it happen; I am seeing it happen. Most of their ideas are based on book theories and not reality. They cannot relate to everyday people. Bottom line: if someone needs to tell you where they went to school in order to explain why they voted a certain way, change the subject, or better yet, if you can, just walk away.

Spread your message, especially to the young

One of the biggest mistakes that many Igbos continue to make is not teaching their kids about their ancestry and culture. In the West especially, some of those kids do not speak the language, understand any of the traditions, nor do they have the desire to visit the land of their forefathers. By default, these children have become Igbos in name only. A person without knowledge of their history and culture is like a tree without roots-a shell of a thing that can be easily blown away. Ironically, irreverence towards one’s culture and history is always part of a tradition that is passed down from one generation to the next.  Be the one to put an end to this tradition.

In praise of patriarchs

The whole truth, not half of it. The Igbos are a patriarchal people, and I grew up listening to fantastic tales of how my great forefathers lived impeccable lives. I understand why this was necessary but some of those tales just bordered on the absurd. I might as well have been reading the Aeneid. Patriarchs are people, and it is equally important that we learn from their successes AND their failures. Avoiding talk of their failures leads to a loss of trust from those who really want to learn. The reality is that many Igbo patriarchs made crucial mistakes, which allowed the Imperialists to gain access and power; this must be acknowledged. The American Founders achieved tremendous goals. The United States Constitution is the Crown Jewel of Western civilization. The Founders paved the way for liberty and justice for all; this was no small feat. But mistakes were still made, and the legacy of some of those mistakes still haunt us today. Telling the whole truth is what sets people free.  

Intellectual integrity

The Imperialists let the genie out. It is now up to you to put it back in the bottle.  The Igbos allowed many things to be redefined for them by Imperialists who then took these new definitions and ran with them in order to make the Africans feel inferior. One of my favorites is how the Imperialists began calling African medicinal herbalists, “witchdoctors”. (I always crack up when I hear this word!)

Something similar is starting to happen with the word racism. The far-lefties are now using this word willy-nilly to defame innocent people. Racism, in my opinion, is something very specific: an assault — of any kind — that attacks the humanity of a specific ethnic group. A racist is someone who believes in and sees the good in these attacks. And then there is bigotry; and there are bigots. By thoughtlessly throwing around the word racism we truly dishonor the memory of those who, throughout human history, actually went through the real thing. Imperialists and their liberal offspring, have no real intellectual integrity. They will stoop to any low to get their message across. Do not let these fools tell you what is and what isn’t.     

African Colonial Politicians and Black Liberationist Preachers: Best Friends Forever

This point is more for future African and American generations. ACP’s and BLP’s go together like peanut butter & jelly. Black Liberation Theology (and all of its strange offshoots) is wreaking havoc in Africa and it will soon do the same here. The pastor and politician work like a tag-team to rob people of their dignity, culture, and political capital. Both teach their congregants/constituents to wear their (imagined) victim status like a badge of honor. By using all sorts of hocus-pocus and mumbo-jumbo techniques, they exact votes, cash, and “AMENS!” from lost and impressionable people. The less of a real history that people have to “cling to” the more they will seek these soothsayer/snake oil sales people out.

Countries like Nigeria most definitely have what I call a “pastor problem”, and it looks like America is starting to have one too. As many have already figured out, the Obama-Wright relationship was no chance coincidence. Despite the Showtime at the Apollo theatrics in which they engaged the nation during the election, right now, both are laughing all the way to the bank.

Chukwu duwe anyi (May God be with us).
For additional comments: leikenga@gmail.com

Saudi Arabia has thoroughly rejected appeals by U.S. President Barack Obama that the Arab world make modest gestures to Israel to show it is interested in advancing a regional peace that would include the establishment of a Palestinian Authority state within Israel’s current borders.

“The question is not what the Arab world will offer,” Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said at a joint press conference with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday. “The question really is: What will Israel give in exchange for this comprehensive offer?”

The Saudi rebuff, which also ignored an appeal by more than 200 members of Congress for “gestures” towards Israel, leaves President Obama with little room for maneuvering after his two-month-old demand that Israel freeze all building for Jews in eastern Jerusalem as well as in Judea and Samaria fell on deaf ears in Israel. American media and the Jewish community increasingly have criticized President Obama for going too far in trying to pressure Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East and a close ally of the United States.

Prince Saud sidestepped a question from a reporter who asked what Saudi Arabia would do if Israel were to agree to a freeze on building, as the U.S. has demanded. He charged that Israel is “trying to distract attention from the core issue” of creating a new PA state.

“This is not the way to peace,” he said, warning that Israel may face a future of more “instability and violence.”

He reiterated demands for a “comprehensive approach.” which would include full acceptance of the Saudi Arabia 2002 initiative. It calls for Israel to surrender all of the land restored to the Jewish state in the Six-Day War in 1967, including the Old City in Jerusalem and several residential neighborhoods in the capital that are home to approximately 300,000 Jews. The plan also demands that Israel allow the immigration of five million foreign Arabs who claim to have ancestry in Israel.

Israel for the past several years has continually granted concessions to the PA while allowing the U.S. to change its Roadmap peace plan and skip over steps for an interim PA state, pending moves to halt violent and incitement.

Reporters covering the State Department have noted that the U.S. in effect has been a proxy negotiator for the PA over a future state. In an attempt to change the focus from Israel to the PA, State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said at the Friday news briefing in Washington that the PA has a “responsibility to promote the peace process and return to negotiation.”

Following recent comments by American officials that indicated a more moderate tone towards Israel, Crowley added, “There’s this perception that we’re leaning in one direction and not others. We’re leaning in all directions.” One reporter drew laughter from colleagues when he responded, “Is that physically possible?”

REUTERS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama played bartender-in-chief on Thursday at a “beer summit” of the main players in a racially charged case that he hoped would be a “positive lesson” in a national dialogue on race.

 Obama, the first black U.S. president, said it was a “friendly, thoughtful” conversation over beer at the White House with prominent Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates, who is black, and police Sergeant James Crowley, who is white. Crowley arrested Gates, a well-known documentary filmmaker, for disorderly conduct on July 16 after a confrontation at the professor’s home, sparking a media frenzy as Gates, 58, accused the policeman of racial profiling. Crowley, who had taught courses against racial profiling, denied that.

 Obama inflamed the situation by saying he thought police “acted stupidly” in arresting his friend.”I have always believed that what brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart,” Obama said in a statement after the meeting in a garden outside the Oval Office.

“I am confident that has happened here tonight, and I am hopeful that all of us are able to draw this positive lesson from this episode.”

Race remains a prominent and sensitive issue in the United States, which has struggled to overcome a legacy of slavery, segregation and discrimination.

Crowley said it was a private and frank discussion, adding he and Gates have different perspectives.

“I think what you had today was two gentlemen who agreed to disagree on a particular issue,” Crowley told reporters. “I don’t think that we spent too much time dwelling on the past. We spent a lot of time discussing the future.”

Asked about the president’s contribution to the meeting, Crowley said: “He provided the beer.”

Gates said he and Crowley had been cast together “through an accident of time and place” and must use the opportunity “to foster greater sympathy among the American public for the daily perils of policing on the one hand, and for the genuine fears of racial profiling on the other hand.”

Obama’s job approval rating has fallen from 61 percent in mid-June to 54 percent now, in part due to his handling of the Gates-Crowley situation, a Pew Research Center poll found.

Obama and the White House had tried to lower expectations for the gathering, saying there would be no big announcements and portraying it as just three guys having a beer.

NATIONAL DEBATE

The menu for the meeting round an outside table in the warm Washington afternoon featured each man’s preferred brew: Bud Light for Obama, Blue Moon for Crowley and Sam Adams Light for Gates. Vice President Joe Biden, also at the table, had a Buckler nonalcoholic beer.

The men drank from clear glass mugs and munched on peanuts and pretzels served in small silver bowls. Gates and Crowley brought their families to the White House and they toured the East Wing together before they sat down with Obama.

A national debate about the arrest, the reaction and the “beer summit” carried into evening news shows as commentators dissected the implications of the meeting for the race issue.

Crowley arrested Gates after being dispatched to the house to investigate a possible burglary in progress. Gates had returned from a trip to China to discover his door jammed.

Obama’s remark about the arrest during a televised news conference became a major talking point in the United States, with critics saying he had insulted Crowley and the police department in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Some conservative commentators have accused Obama of racism.

After a two-day frenzy that distracted public attention from Obama’s push to reform the U.S. healthcare system, the president called Crowley to say he should have chosen his words more carefully. The White House meeting grew out of that conversation.

(Additional reporting by JoAnne Allen; Editing by John O’Callaghan)

MSNBC.com

In her new book, “Culture of Corruption,” Michelle Malkin says that President Barack Obama has had dozens of corrupt dealings. An excerpt.

Introduction: All hail the achievatrons!
Phew. Janitors in newsrooms across America worked overtime in the halcyon days after Barack Obama won the presidency. It wasn’t easy cleaning the drool off laptops and floors in the offices of journalists covering the Greatest Transition in World History.

New York Times columnist David Brooks laid claim to the most soaked keyboard and stained carpet in the business. He praised Team Obama’s “open-minded individuals” and “admired professionals.” He raved about their “postpartisan rhetoric” and “practical creativity.” And — ooooh-la-la! — how about the brains of all those brainy brainiacs? So smokin’ hot:

This truly will be an administration that looks like America, or at least that slice of America that got double 800s on their SATs. Even more than past administrations, this will be a valedictocracy — rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes. If a foreign enemy attacks the United States during the Harvard-Yale game any time over the next four years, we’re screwed.

Already the culture of the Obama administration is coming into focus. Its members are twice as smart as the poor reporters who have to cover them, three times if you include the columnists. They typically served in the Clinton administration and then, like Cincinnatus, retreated to the comforts of private life — that is, if Cincinnatus had worked at Goldman Sachs, Williams & Connolly or the Brookings Institution. So many of them send their kids to Georgetown Day School, the posh leftish private school in D.C., that they’ll be able to hold White House staff meetings in the carpool line.

It had only been seventeen days since Election Day. But the president-elect (complete with his own “Office of the President-Elect” logo) and his team of valedictocrats (armed with their Ivy League degrees) had already bowled Brooks over with their organizational prowess:

And yet as much as I want to resent these overeducated Achievatrons (not to mention the incursion of a French-style government dominated by highly trained Enarchs), I find myself tremendously impressed by the Obama transition…

Most of all, they are picking Washington insiders. Or to be more precise, they are picking the best of the Washington insiders. As a result, the team he has announced so far is more impressive than any other in recent memory.

…Believe me, I’m trying not to join in the vast, heaving Ophoria now sweeping the coastal haute bourgeoisie. But the personnel decisions have been superb. The events of the past two weeks should be reassuring to anybody who feared that Obama would veer to the left or would suffer self-inflicted wounds because of his inexperience. He’s off to a start that nearly justifies the hype.

And Brooks’s employer has profited mightily from the hype. Celebrating Obama’s 100-day mark, New York Times reporter Jennifer Lee exulted that the financially troubled Fishwrap of Record had sold $2 million worth of Obama-themed merchandise. The Times has a vested financial interest in propping up the Obama administration.

At ABC News, former Democrat operative-turned-objective newsman George Stephanopoulos also exhibited the symptoms of the Obama transition’s salivary gland stimulus. “We have not seen this kind of combination of star power and brain power and political muscle this early in a cabinet in our lifetimes,” Stephanopoulos dribbled. After blotting his chin a bit, he added: “[He]’s managed his transition with the same kind of precision and discipline that he managed to show during the campaign. … It’s hard to imagine this transition going much better for the president-elect.”

The Washington Post and Newsweek both indulged in Transition-mania, launching websites featuring by-the-minute blogging of Barack Obama’s “historic” and “unprecedented” ascension to power. The New York Times told the story of how the savvy Obama made a phone call thirteen days before the election to send a feeler out to General James Jones for the national security adviser post. Thirteen whole days! As if no other incoming president over the last 232 years had come up with the genius concept of reaching out to potential nominees before inauguration day.

This used to be called planning ahead.

In the most “historic” and “unprecedented” incoming administration in our lifetimes, Obama’s phone call was hailed as a visionary advance mobilization for the benefit of Western civilization.

An inconvenient aside: For all the hype about the Greatest Transition in World History, Obama failed to beat the pace of the Reagan White House. By Day 100, Obama had 65 officials confirmed. Reagan had 73 — and the Evil Republicans did it without all the bungles and baggage that the Angels of Obama brought with them. “Obama’s a faster turtle, but he’s still a turtle,” transition analyst Paul Light observed — his voice of reason drowned out amid the media frenzy.

Journalists and cable TV talking heads chattered endlessly about Obama’s “record speed” on the one hand and his “exhaustive” vetting process on the other. Application forms ran on for 7 pages and 63 questions, the New York Times marveled. (The Bush-Cheney vice presidential application form was 200 pages. But when Republicans require rigorous background checks, it’s not “exhaustive,” it’s a paranoid invasion of privacy. But I digress.)

President-elect Obama next dispatched hundreds of meticulous “agency review team” members — “135 people divided into 10 groups, along with a list of other advisers” — into the bowels of the federal government. Their mission: To “rigorously examine programs and policies” and expedite the transfer of power. The transition team leaders wore smart yellow badges on the job with “Yes, We Can”-do attitudes to match.

Awestruck Good Morning America anchor Robin Roberts of ABC News echoed the conventional wisdom: “Some would say it’s a team of rivals, à la President Lincoln, or is a better comparison a team of geniuses as FDR did?”

I wrote this book to give you the exhaustive answer that President Obama’s gyrating media harem doesn’t want you to read.

“Crony,” William Safire tells us, comes from seventeenth-century college slang at Cambridge University in England. The word is rooted in the Greek khronios (“long-lasting”) from khronos (“time”). Safire traced its etymological evolution in the United States:

…[C]rony took on a pejorative connotation as the sinister side of “friend” — more of a hanger-on, the recipient of favors for old times’ sake. In 1946, when President Harry Truman’s poker-playing friends brought disrepute on his Administration, the New York Times columnist Arthur Krock wrote that “New Dealers and Conservatives found themselves together in opposition to what a press gallery wit has called a ‘government by crony.’”

Obama’s team — the “best of the Washington insiders,” as David Brooks called it — is a dysfunctional and dangerous conglomerate of business-as-usual cronies. They play basketball with the president now instead of poker, but they are every bit as disreputable and demanding as their 1940s counterparts. The administration is teeming with long-lasting favor-seekers in government, business, and the lucrative bridge in between. The corruption stretches from wealthy power brokers Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett, to pay-to-play-tainted Michelle Obama and Joe Biden, to ethically challenged, bailout-bungling money men Larry Summers and Tim Geithner at Treasury, crime-coddling corporate lawyer Eric Holder at DOJ, to the crooked Service Employees International Union, the shakedown artists at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and the ever-expanding swamp of Washington lobbyists.

This book pulls together the familiar and not-so-familiar pieces of the transition in crisis to force Obama hagiographers to confront an alternate narrative. A reality-based narrative. A narrative of incompetence, nepotism, influence-peddling, and self-dealing that defies the stubborn myth that Barack Obama is the One True Agent of Hope and Change.

While pundits cooed over Obama’s “Achievatrons” and their unbridled “star power,” nomination after nomination imploded. The White House and its allies dismissed each failure as a “hiccup,” a “bump in the road,” or a “goof.” Meanwhile, the pace of withdrawals and botched appointments was “record-setting” and “unprecedented.” Some of the names you’ll recognize. Some you’ve never heard of because Obama’s cheerleaders were too busy glorifying the Greatest Transition in World History. Among the fallen:

• Bill Richardson (corruption scandal)

• Tom Daschle (taxes, ethics)

• Nancy Killefer (taxes)

• Annette Nazareth (allegations of incompetence)

• Caroline Atkinson (taxes)

• H. Rodgin Cohen (conflicts of interest)

• Frank Brosens (“personal” reasons)

• Scott Polakoff (allegations of fraud)

• Jon Cannon (ties to embezzlement scam)

• Charles Freeman (foreign government cronyism)

And those were just some of the bodies thrown under the bus before the 100-day mark. Heckuva job, Obama vetters!

But getting through the confirmation process was no guarantee of ethical cleanliness or competence. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, of course, tops the list of Senate-confirmed Obama bombs. Mentored by Wall Street power brokers Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, he played key roles in bungling Indonesia’s economy and engineering the Bear Stearns and AIG bailout fiascos. And that was before his prolonged failure to pay back taxes on illegal immigrant household help (along with his acceptance of reimbursement money for taxes he didn’t pay) was discovered and before his sheepish admission that he had approved the AIG bonuses his boss decried as “shameful” and “outrageous.”

After Bill Richardson and GOP Senator Judd Gregg bowed out of the Commerce Secretary position, President Obama settled on former Democrat Governor of Washington, Gary Locke. The national papers called him “strait-laced” and hailed his “clean reputation.” Both liberals and conservatives in his home state called that a crock. As governor, he gave billions in tax breaks to Boeing while failing to disclose that he had retained a paid Boeing private consultant and auditor to advise him on the matter. In the governor’s mansion, Locke had his own Billy Carter — a brother-in-law who mooched off the family name to secure tax breaks and job opportunities. And on top of all that, the corporate lawyer Locke (who specialized in trade issues with China) was involved in not one, not two, but three campaign finance scandals involving tainted Asian cash. Perhaps suffering from Commerce Secretary withdrawal fatigue, the Senate confirmed Locke by unanimous consent.

 Hostility to transparency is a running thread through Obama’s cabinet:

• The No. 2 official at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, former King County, Washington, Executive Ron Sims, has the distinction of being the most fined government official in his state’s history for suppressing public records from taxpayers.

• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for years fought disclosure of massive donations from foreign governments and corporations who filled her husband’s library and foundation coffers.

• Top Obama advisor David Axelrod ran fear-mongering campaigns in Illinois in support of a huge utility rate hike — and failed to disclose that his ads were funded by Commonwealth Edison in Chicago.

• Labor Secretary Hilda Solis failed to disclose that she was director and treasurer of a union-promoting lobbying group pushing legislation that she was co-sponsoring as a congresswoman.

• Attorney General Eric Holder overruled his own lawyers in the Justice Department over the issue of D.C. voting rights (which he and President Obama support) and refused to make public the staffers’ opinion that a House bill on the matter was unconstitutional.

President Obama set the tone, breaking his transparency pledge with the very first bill he signed into law. On January 29, 2009, the White House announced that the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act had been posted online for review. One problem: Obama had already signed it—in violation of his “sunlight before signing” pledge to post legislation for public comment on the White House website five days before he sealed any deal. “[W]hen there is a bill that ends up on my desk as a president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government’s doing,” he had vowed.

But Obama broke the pledge again with the mad rush to pass his trillion-dollar, pork-stuffed stimulus package full of earmarks he denied existed. Jim Harper of the Cato Institute reported in April 2009: “Of the eleven bills President Obama has signed, only six have been posted on Whitehouse.gov. None have been posted for a full five days after presentment from Congress. The President has signed most bills within a day or two of their presentment from Congress, violating his campaign promise. He has signed two bills more than five days after presentment, but — ironically, because it preserves the broken promise — not posted them on Whitehouse.gov.”

It’s this utter disregard for taxpayer accountability that prompted hundreds of thousands of citizens to take to the streets on Tax Day 2009 for Tea Party protests. The trampling of transparency in the stimulus debate inspired signs that read: “No legislation without deliberation” and “READ THE BILL FIRST.” Obama’s response was first to claim that he hadn’t even heard of the Tea Party movement and then, on his 100-day celebration, to deride all those Americans he is supposed to represent of “playing games.” Projection, anyone?

Excerpted from “Culture of Corruption” by Michelle Malkin. Copyright (c) 2009, reprinted with permission from Penguin Group.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32174484/