Saturday, April 28, 2012
Carney: ‘I Never Lie’
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff - April 27, 2012 3:09 pm
Jay Carney said he never lies in his capacity as White House press secretary at a Friday scholarship lunch hosted by the White House Correspondents’ Association:
JAY CARNEY: So I don’t have these moments of crisis very much. Credibility’s enormously important for press secretaries. All of the predecessors, my living predecessors, I spoke with all of them before I took this job. I knew all of them, already. Whether they served a Republican president or a Democratic one, they all talked about the need to maintain your credibility. Which means, when I go and stand up in front of the podium, in front of the White House press corps, I never lie. I never say something that I know is not true. That means when I don’t know the answer to something, I say I don’t know and I’ll take that question, that means that when I—which is often the case, I know more than I can say—I answer it in a way that is truthful without obviously betraying the things that I can’t say for national security reasons or other reasons. But that’s—it’s a fundamental principle of doing the job that, for the folks who cover a president, they have to have some faith–substantial faith—that while they know I can’t say everything, and those who work for the president can’t say everything, what we are saying is true.
Carney has made a number of questionable statements as press secretary, however.
Carney told reporters in April that the president had never argued the Buffett Rule would solve the country’s deficit problems. But when the Buffett Rule was first introduced in September, President Obama claimed the tax would “stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade.”
Following a report that Hilary B. Rosen, the Democratic consultant who said Ann Romney had “never actually worked a day in her life,” had visited the Obama White House 35 times, Carney told reporters he personally knew three people named “Hilary Rosen.” Rosen herself said she was the only Hilary Rosen she had met before.
Carney also battled this month with Fox News reporter Ed Henry and CBS News reporter Norah O’Donnell after he claimed the president had not said it would be an “unprecedented” step for the Supreme Court to overturn Obamacare:
ED HENRY: In his original comments he did not draw out that caveat. He just said the whole thing would be unprecedented.
JAY CARNEY: That’s not what he said, Ed, and that’s certainly not what he meant. It was clear to most folks who observe this and understand is at issue here.
NORAH O’DONNELL: Jay, that’s not true. The president said on Monday: “It would an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” It took him until yesterday to talk about the commerce clause and on an economic issue—there are two instances in the past 80 years where the precedent, where the Supreme Court has overturned stuff—U.S. vs. Lopez and U.S. vs. Morrison. These are very specific legal issues. It’s not evident to everybody.
CARNEY: Well, it may not be evident to you. It is clear that the president was talking about matters like this that involve the commerce clause.
Last year, Carney told reporters that Obama was never against signing statements except when George W. Bush abused them–but Obama had come out against signing statements in 2008 while running for president.
White House Walks Back NYPD Support
IPT News
April 27, 2012
In remarks made at NYPD headquarters a week ago, White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan expressed his "full confidence that the NYPD is doing things consistent with the law, and it's something that again has been responsible for keeping this city safe over the past decade."
Brennan's comments triggered immediate outrage from Islamist groups, who claim that the NYPD violated Muslim civil rights with surveillance programs involving public and online activity that were disclosed in a series of Associated Press reports.
A group called Muslim Advocates issued a statement the same day, calling Brennan's comments "appalling" and demanding that President Obama "quickly and clearly repudiate Brennan's comments and reassure the American people that his administration will not tolerate or condone racial and religious profiling by any federal or local law enforcement agency."
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) responded similarly, asking for "immediate public clarification," or else. MPAC's Haris Tarin threatened "There are plenty of robust partnership models that both communities and the government have invested in and those partnerships will be jeopardized if NYPD's current tactics are not halted, and its programs are not adjusted to more successful initiatives."
Muslim Advocates and MPAC got their wish when the White House caved on Tuesday and issued a clarification saying Brennan "never approved of described press accounts of alleged NYPD surveillance … Rather, he was stating that everyone in the counterterrorism and law enforcement community must make sure we are doing things consistent with the law."
The NYPD affirmed its activities as legal and proper. "There is no constitutional prohibition against a police department collecting information," city senior counsel Peter Farrell said in February.
The NYPD's surveillance program has been a source of public debate for months. It is difficult to imagine that Brennan did not consider this in preparing to address the department. On the other hand, he's the same official who advocated reaching out to "moderate" elements in the terrorist groups Hizballah.
The episode demonstrates how deeply both groups have gained influence within the Obama administration.
As we've noted, Tarin is a frequent guest at White House events, including its Iftar Dinner during last Ramadan, President Obama's 9/11 Memorial at the Kennedy Center. Obama called Tarin personally last July to commend him for his and MPAC's work.
Muslim Advocates Executive Director Farhana Khera has also been to the White House several times in the past 2 years and says she worked with the administration to create a list of prohibited charities and their leaders for donors to search before sending contributions.
In a letter to Khera last November, Brennan said he was listening to Muslim Advocates when it came to eliminating law enforcement training material the group complained inappropriately characterized Islam saying "Your letter requests that 'the White House immediately create an interagency task force to address this problem,' and we agree that this is necessary."
In February, the government purged more than 1,000 documents and presentations previously used in training programs that were deemed inaccurate or offensive to Muslims.
These so-called mainstream Muslim advocacy groups have a history of aggressive criticism of U.S. law enforcement agencies.
Khera testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing in March 2011, where she stood by her published advice on the Muslim Advocates' web page advising people "not to speak with law enforcement officials without the presence or advice of an attorney."
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., called that "stunning" because cooperation from Muslim Americans is vital in thwarting potential terrorist plots.
Khera accused the FBI of violating Muslim civil rights in America by casting a series of counter-terrorism sting operations as entrapment. That drew a rebuke from Attorney General Eric Holder during a speech in December 2010 at a Muslim Advocates event.
"Those who characterize the FBI's activities in this case as 'entrapment,'" Holder said, "simply do not have their facts straight or do not have a full understanding of the law."
Holder, however, agreed to a preliminary review of the NYPD's surveillance program but no formal investigation has been launched. The group asked the attorneys general in New York and New Jersey to initiate similar state investigations. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman declined.
A Muslim Advocates statement called Schneiderman's position "deeply disappointing" and cowardly. "We had hoped that Attorney General Schneiderman would have had the moral courage to do the right thing and uphold the civil rights of Muslim New Yorkers, many of whom have been spied on by their police force simply because of their faith, not based on any wrongdoing. By their actions, Mayor Bloomberg and now Attorney General Schneiderman are sending a deeply disturbing message to American Muslims in New York and across the country: they are not deserving of equal protection of our laws."
In testimony submitted for a congressional hearing on the subject, Muslim Advocates argued that, "Our nation has not seen such widespread abuse, discrimination and harassment by federal law enforcement since the J. Edgar Hoover era."
But the overwhelming majority of NYPD's surveillance came in public settings.
"You can go to open meetings and you can go on open websites and look and see what's there and that's really all we've been doing," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
His position is notable because of his past statements criticizing treatment of Muslims in New York. Bloomberg passionately defended the proposed "Ground Zero mosque," saying opponents "ought to be ashamed of themselves."
And he criticized NYPD for showing the documentary "The Third Jihad" as part of its training programs. Somebody [at the NYPD] exercised some terrible judgment," he said in January.
It also is a mistake to assume Muslim Advocates, MPAC and other critics speak for Muslim Americans. Dozens rallied in support of NYPD in early March. On Thursday, physician and author Qanta Ahmed argued that there's a reason for law enforcement to root out dangerous extremism – it exists.
"Our lawmakers and counterterrorism experts seek only to identify and disarm dangerously seditious ideologies, not races or religions," Ahmed wrote in a New York Post guest column. "And these ideologies — radical or political Islamism and other derivatives — are conceived and proliferating only among pockets of the highly diverse Muslim Diaspora."
The White House has sent conflicting signals on the surveillance debate. Holder called the disclosures "disturbing" and vowed a preliminary review. Then Brennan went to New York and hailed the department for keeping the city safe.
"We're going to continue to face these threats, these homegrown threats that are particularly challenging," he said. "There are individuals here who may be incited, encouraged, invigorated by what they see overseas, what they see on the Internet. And there are some tough decisions, and there are some inherent tensions. But it's not a trade-off between our security and our freedoms and our rights as citizens. And I will say that I believe that that balance that we strike has been an appropriate one. We want to make sure that we're able to optimize our security at the same time we optimize those freedoms that we hold and cherish so dearly."
Now the White House says Brennan wasn't talking about the surveillance controversy when he said the balance struck "has been an appropriate one."
He certainly didn't criticize it.
April 27, 2012
Brennan's comments triggered immediate outrage from Islamist groups, who claim that the NYPD violated Muslim civil rights with surveillance programs involving public and online activity that were disclosed in a series of Associated Press reports.
A group called Muslim Advocates issued a statement the same day, calling Brennan's comments "appalling" and demanding that President Obama "quickly and clearly repudiate Brennan's comments and reassure the American people that his administration will not tolerate or condone racial and religious profiling by any federal or local law enforcement agency."
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) responded similarly, asking for "immediate public clarification," or else. MPAC's Haris Tarin threatened "There are plenty of robust partnership models that both communities and the government have invested in and those partnerships will be jeopardized if NYPD's current tactics are not halted, and its programs are not adjusted to more successful initiatives."
Muslim Advocates and MPAC got their wish when the White House caved on Tuesday and issued a clarification saying Brennan "never approved of described press accounts of alleged NYPD surveillance … Rather, he was stating that everyone in the counterterrorism and law enforcement community must make sure we are doing things consistent with the law."
The NYPD affirmed its activities as legal and proper. "There is no constitutional prohibition against a police department collecting information," city senior counsel Peter Farrell said in February.
The NYPD's surveillance program has been a source of public debate for months. It is difficult to imagine that Brennan did not consider this in preparing to address the department. On the other hand, he's the same official who advocated reaching out to "moderate" elements in the terrorist groups Hizballah.
The episode demonstrates how deeply both groups have gained influence within the Obama administration.
As we've noted, Tarin is a frequent guest at White House events, including its Iftar Dinner during last Ramadan, President Obama's 9/11 Memorial at the Kennedy Center. Obama called Tarin personally last July to commend him for his and MPAC's work.
Muslim Advocates Executive Director Farhana Khera has also been to the White House several times in the past 2 years and says she worked with the administration to create a list of prohibited charities and their leaders for donors to search before sending contributions.
In a letter to Khera last November, Brennan said he was listening to Muslim Advocates when it came to eliminating law enforcement training material the group complained inappropriately characterized Islam saying "Your letter requests that 'the White House immediately create an interagency task force to address this problem,' and we agree that this is necessary."
In February, the government purged more than 1,000 documents and presentations previously used in training programs that were deemed inaccurate or offensive to Muslims.
These so-called mainstream Muslim advocacy groups have a history of aggressive criticism of U.S. law enforcement agencies.
Khera testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing in March 2011, where she stood by her published advice on the Muslim Advocates' web page advising people "not to speak with law enforcement officials without the presence or advice of an attorney."
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., called that "stunning" because cooperation from Muslim Americans is vital in thwarting potential terrorist plots.
Khera accused the FBI of violating Muslim civil rights in America by casting a series of counter-terrorism sting operations as entrapment. That drew a rebuke from Attorney General Eric Holder during a speech in December 2010 at a Muslim Advocates event.
"Those who characterize the FBI's activities in this case as 'entrapment,'" Holder said, "simply do not have their facts straight or do not have a full understanding of the law."
Holder, however, agreed to a preliminary review of the NYPD's surveillance program but no formal investigation has been launched. The group asked the attorneys general in New York and New Jersey to initiate similar state investigations. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman declined.
A Muslim Advocates statement called Schneiderman's position "deeply disappointing" and cowardly. "We had hoped that Attorney General Schneiderman would have had the moral courage to do the right thing and uphold the civil rights of Muslim New Yorkers, many of whom have been spied on by their police force simply because of their faith, not based on any wrongdoing. By their actions, Mayor Bloomberg and now Attorney General Schneiderman are sending a deeply disturbing message to American Muslims in New York and across the country: they are not deserving of equal protection of our laws."
In testimony submitted for a congressional hearing on the subject, Muslim Advocates argued that, "Our nation has not seen such widespread abuse, discrimination and harassment by federal law enforcement since the J. Edgar Hoover era."
But the overwhelming majority of NYPD's surveillance came in public settings.
"You can go to open meetings and you can go on open websites and look and see what's there and that's really all we've been doing," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
His position is notable because of his past statements criticizing treatment of Muslims in New York. Bloomberg passionately defended the proposed "Ground Zero mosque," saying opponents "ought to be ashamed of themselves."
And he criticized NYPD for showing the documentary "The Third Jihad" as part of its training programs. Somebody [at the NYPD] exercised some terrible judgment," he said in January.
It also is a mistake to assume Muslim Advocates, MPAC and other critics speak for Muslim Americans. Dozens rallied in support of NYPD in early March. On Thursday, physician and author Qanta Ahmed argued that there's a reason for law enforcement to root out dangerous extremism – it exists.
"Our lawmakers and counterterrorism experts seek only to identify and disarm dangerously seditious ideologies, not races or religions," Ahmed wrote in a New York Post guest column. "And these ideologies — radical or political Islamism and other derivatives — are conceived and proliferating only among pockets of the highly diverse Muslim Diaspora."
The White House has sent conflicting signals on the surveillance debate. Holder called the disclosures "disturbing" and vowed a preliminary review. Then Brennan went to New York and hailed the department for keeping the city safe.
"We're going to continue to face these threats, these homegrown threats that are particularly challenging," he said. "There are individuals here who may be incited, encouraged, invigorated by what they see overseas, what they see on the Internet. And there are some tough decisions, and there are some inherent tensions. But it's not a trade-off between our security and our freedoms and our rights as citizens. And I will say that I believe that that balance that we strike has been an appropriate one. We want to make sure that we're able to optimize our security at the same time we optimize those freedoms that we hold and cherish so dearly."
Now the White House says Brennan wasn't talking about the surveillance controversy when he said the balance struck "has been an appropriate one."
He certainly didn't criticize it.
Newark airport terminal evacuated after baby 'not properly screened'
By PHILIP MESSING
Last Updated: 6:30 PM, April 27, 2012
Posted: 5:12 PM, April 27, 2012
New York Post:
There could have been a bomb in that diaper! Cops shut down a Newark Airport terminal yesterday after TSA screeners let a baby slip through their security apparatus without being checked, sources said.
The terror scare happened when a woman waiting to go through the metal detectors was allowed to hand her child to her husband, who had already been screened, at 1:05 p.m. in Terminal C, Port Authority police sources said.
Realizing their mistake too late, red-faced TSA agents tried to find the family on their own and waited 40 minutes before notifying Port Authority police, sources said — and then tried to convince cops a shutdown wasn't necessary.
“Per protocol, the TSA notified Port Authority Police of the situation and pointed out that this was a low-risk situation and indicated that TSA officers were looking for the family in the terminal," the agency said in a statement.
Cops weren't taking any chances, and overruled the beleaguered agency, which is already under fire for a recent instances of absent-minded behavior. Police evacuated the terminal and sent in five bomb-detecting dogs, but neither explosives nor the family were found.
“What a waste of resources. This means that other areas within the command were left without K-9 detection so this problem could be addressed,” said one PAPD source.
Mom, dad and baby apparently got on their flight and took off, unaware of the panic they sparked.
Last Updated: 6:30 PM, April 27, 2012
Posted: 5:12 PM, April 27, 2012
New York Post:
There could have been a bomb in that diaper! Cops shut down a Newark Airport terminal yesterday after TSA screeners let a baby slip through their security apparatus without being checked, sources said.
The terror scare happened when a woman waiting to go through the metal detectors was allowed to hand her child to her husband, who had already been screened, at 1:05 p.m. in Terminal C, Port Authority police sources said.
Realizing their mistake too late, red-faced TSA agents tried to find the family on their own and waited 40 minutes before notifying Port Authority police, sources said — and then tried to convince cops a shutdown wasn't necessary.
“Per protocol, the TSA notified Port Authority Police of the situation and pointed out that this was a low-risk situation and indicated that TSA officers were looking for the family in the terminal," the agency said in a statement.
Cops weren't taking any chances, and overruled the beleaguered agency, which is already under fire for a recent instances of absent-minded behavior. Police evacuated the terminal and sent in five bomb-detecting dogs, but neither explosives nor the family were found.
“What a waste of resources. This means that other areas within the command were left without K-9 detection so this problem could be addressed,” said one PAPD source.
Mom, dad and baby apparently got on their flight and took off, unaware of the panic they sparked.
Friday Afternoon Roundup - Builders and Destroyers
TRUTH, JUSTICE AND JOURNALISM
It seems almost redundant to link to the Reuters piece on George Zimmerman that nearly everyone has seen by now, but what's interest about it is just how routine it is. It's a standard background piece and thousands like it run after prominent crimes. Any sizable news organization can put one out within a week and smaller community papers and magazines regularly run them when there's a major case. When the case is big enough, some of them get turned into movies, mostly they help set a tone.
All they really involve in meeting with some of the locals, arranging for interviews, taking some notes and writing up the results. And what's really interesting about "Prelude to a Shooting" is how long it took until a media organization chose to run it.
I strongly suspect that there's a dozen pieces like it sitting in file folders and desks in other media organizations that have not decided what to do with them. I suspect the Reuters piece was in that same state until someone decided to finally run it. The Zimmerman family has been proactive in reaching out and trying to tell the story. It's the media that has held the door shut.
"Prelude to a Shooting" is not the last word on the case. It's background on Zimmerman, not the entire set of events, and it wouldn't even be all that significant except for the lynch mob atmosphere in the media and the refusal of the media to do any basic reporting on the case besides spewing back the same 'hoodie and skittles' narrative.
If Zimmerman had just shot a man in cold blood, there would be little point in laying out the background, it would be no more than another Bernie Tiede piece, but instead we do get crucial bits of context that explain what was going on in the neighborhood at the time in the context of property values, constant break ins and a neighborhood on the edge.
It's the final concluding material on Emmanuel Burgess that sets the most important context in the case. It tells us part of why events happened the way they did and that along with Martin's No Limit Nigga material sets a different stage than the one that the media has thrust on us.
BUILDERS AND DESTROYERS
We are more than who we are at any given moment. We are also who we aspire to be.
Both Zimmerman and Martin were flawed men, but Zimmerman's writings and behavior showed a man who aspired to be something better, while Martin's showed that he wanted only to sink down. Martin can't be entirely blamed for that, he did not create and perpetuate the fake gansta culture. It's the mostly white entertainment industry that did that, often embedded in the same news corporations which organized the lynching of George Zimmerman.
The entertainment industry did not tell Martin what would happen if he assaulted an adult man who was concerned about the neighborhood, while Martin was concerned about getting the "Respect" that gangsta culture told him he was entitled to by virtue of his posing.
Martin did not understand that life was different than gangsta culture. That men who have guns don't necessarily go waving them around. And that sometimes when you have someone down on the ground and you're beating on them, they will use what they have.
Had Martin killed Zimmerman, he would be preening for the cameras now, the defiant upward head tilt you see so often in court photos. The pose that says, "I don't care, because I'm too cool to care." It's the pose that the man who might have been Martin's father often wears to tell us that he's going to go on doing whatever he likes, because he can.
But that's not what you see in Zimmerman's face, it's not just regret, it's pain. Zimmerman did not intend to take another human life, and he regrets that and regrets how society sees him, and he is coming to terms with doing what he had to do. There is a basic decency in his expression which cannot be photoshopped onto Martin's face. The photoshopping can pale his skin, younger photos can make him look innocent, but nothing can make him look decent.
Zimmerman quoted Burke. Martin quoted hip hop. That was the fundamental difference between the two men, not race, but culture. Zimmerman aspired to be a good human being. Martin aspired to be street trash.
In a society under siege, there are builders and there are destroyers. Zimmerman was a builder, we will never know what Martin might have become, but he was on a path to becoming a destroyer.
We live in a culture that punishes builders and rewards destroyers. That treats the destroyer as innocent and moral, because he is untainted by knowledge and experience, because he resists the builders and spreads anarchy and chaos.
The gap between Martin and Zimmerman is the gap between the graffiti scrawler and the business owner, the occupy wall street thug and the office worker, the rap star and the composer, the activist and the entrepreneur.
Martin was just another pawn in a culture war waged by the destroyers against civilization. As a a man he gorged himself on destroyer culture, imitated it and then fatally lived it out. As a dead man, he became a rallying cry for the destroyers.
There have been multiple black on white hate crimes in his name. There is a trial in his name. And there is an election campaign in his name.
Destroyers are obsessed with martyrs. They need these tokens to see them along to the next fight, the Horst Wessels, the Pavlik Morozovs, the Hussein ibn Alis and the Trayvon Martins. Idealized figures to justify the destruction and repression that they visit on others. Rituals, show trials, songs, marches whip them up into a frenzy of destruction.
The Destroyers are always out for respect, but when they say 'respect' they really mean power, they really mean the right to destroy because they are somehow superior. They aren't. Decency is worth respecting, power isn't. And those who try to get power by enforcing a mandate to respect them sometimes learn that power works both ways.
VICTORY IN IRAQ
A united Iraq died a few days after the withdrawal. The only people who still believe in the fiction of a centrally governed Iraq are holding down desks in the State Department. There are several Iraqs now. There is Iran’s Iraq, the one overseen by Tehran’s puppet in Baghdad, Prime Minister Maliki. Then there is Iraqi Kurdistan which stands on the verge of declaring its independence, an act that will touch off a violent territorial dispute accompanied by ethnic cleansing.
Iraqi federalism is only popular among some in the Shiite majority, for whom it means majority rule. Maliki’s warrant for Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi and the latter’s subsequent flight and sanctuary in Iraqi Kurdistan has ended the fiction of joint rule in Iraq. The Kurds have branded Maliki a dictator and are swiftly breaking their remaining ties to Baghdad.
President Barzani of Iraqi Kurdistan declared that, “Power-sharing and partnership between Kurds, Sunni and Shiite Arabs, and others is now completely non-existent and has become meaningless” and concluded his speech by hinting at an independence referendum, a move almost certain to touch off a violent conflict, particularly in oil rich Kirkuk.
... part of the story from my Front Page piece on Iraq's Coming Civil War
MAY DAY
Occupy Wall Street is planning the expected freak show for May 1st. There have been stickers all around the city calling for a general strike, they won't get their general strike, this isn't Paris in the 30's, but they may pick up some headlines.
On the other coast though, another sort of strike will be taking place. A Town Hall on Terror. There will be some interesting people there, including Mark Tapson, a friend from another coast, Bosch Fawstin, whose illustrations appear sometimes in these roundups, Nonie Darwish, who knows the problem from the inside out, and Dwight Schultz, whom some of you may know from the A-Team, and a longtime conservative.
This will be a panel discussion on confronting the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic terror and you can find more details about it on the site.
ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER INTERVIEW
...This one with Chai95 radio.
And Adam Taxin of Chai95 also read my article on Israel, A Nation Once Again. If your eyes get tired of looking at all the little black dots on the screen, you can take it along with you and listen along.
To just get the audio file, go to a website that turns YouTube videos into MP3 files and insert the Youtube link.
IRAN'S METH EMPIRE
Iranian gangs and dealers prowl Bangkok plying their crystal meth and muscling out locals with a combination of aggressiveness and underselling. And Bangkok, for all its dangerous reputation, is only one stop on the express train of Iran’s meth empire.
Iranian drug rings are a sizable presence everywhere from Europe to Southeast Asia to the United States. By the spring of last year, Thai authorities had already arrested their twentieth Iranian meth smuggler. The same story repeats itself in Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma and Vietnam. Asia is no stranger to the drug trade, yet it’s being swamped by Iranian meth, Iranian meth labs and Iranian dealers.
In Japan, they were running meth labs, a rarity in the country, and the majority of those arrested on meth charges in the land of the rising sun were Iranians. That pattern too repeats itself in countries with hardly any Muslim populations, such as Korea. Forget oil, Iran is suddenly in the position of supplying the crystal meth needs of half of Asia.
...from my piece on Iran's Meth Empire and the spread of terror
IMAGINE THERE'S NO ISRAEL OR JEWS IN IT
The Forward and the JTA are the rotten leftovers of a Jewish establishment, one with radical left wing roots and the other that used to be semi-legitimate, but is now almost as rotten. So naturally their way to celebrate Israel's Independence Day was by convincing failed singer Neshama Carlebach to sing their Judenrein version of the Israeli National Anthem.
I would say this is sick, and mind you we're talking about a media outlet famous for holding feasts on Yom Kippur, that has now managed to top itself.
The Judenrein lyrics are predictably stupid. Nefesh Yehudi is swapped out for Nefesh Yisraeli, what exactly is a Nefesh Yisraeli? Do you get a soul with your citizenship papers?
The entire point of the anthem was that it represented a Jewish yearning to return to Israel. Take that away and the anthem no longer makes any sense. It no longer has any reason to exist. Much like Israel.
Simply rewriting the anthem not to mention Jews doesn't fix the problem. The anthem is still about a yearning of a people for a land. What people? Did the Arabs yearn to live in Israel? Did Arabs from the Arabian Desert really yearn to move to Jerusalem? Did the Arabs under Ottoman rule yearn to live under non-Muslim rule?
Why was this Israeli eye looking toward 'our country'? Why was it looking east, when the majority of Arabs are to the east of Israel? Why were generations yearning to return to a country that didn't exist? Does anyone seriously believe that Arabs in Israel will be more comfortable singing this nonsense? It doesn't reflect their history, it still reflects ours. Making the anthem multicultural doesn't make it more inclusive, it's still Jewish, just senseless.
One of my Carlebach albums featured a photo of him standing on an IDF tank. His songs always made it clear what he believed. He would never have performed a song erasing Jews from Israel. His daughter is unfortunately another story. He clearly loved her, but her musical abilities were average at best and the only reason anyone paid attention to her was her last name. Now she has managed to drag that through the mud in a desperate bid for attention. I don't have any of her songs, but if I did, I would be erasing them about now.
I would recommend that no one buy her material after this, on grounds of good taste, and because a Jewish singer shouldn't be rewarding for participating in an enterprise to erase Jewish identity. If anyone still needs another reason, here are Neshama Carlebach's comments on the video.
I was honored to have been asked to sing a new version of Hatikva for the Forward, elated to be recognized as someone who prays for and seeks change in our world.
So much ego, so little talent. Seek change in your musical library.
WE LOVE DEATH MORE THAN YOU LOVE LIFE
Necrophilia is not a joke. It is real, and it is being openly ratified and encouraged by the satanic political cult of Islam. A culture of people who are so far gone that they literally see nothing wrong with copulating with dead bodies is a culture that is capable of any evil imaginable, and cannot be stopped with any appeal to decency, morality, or shame. What we are seeing in the Muslim world is the final descent of a human society into hell itself, and they will attempt to take as many others with them as they possibly can.
If these people are capable of "sexual pleasure" with not just corpses, but the corpse of the one person in the world who they should have loved and respected above all others, do you honestly believe that they would hesitate for a moment in merely pushing a button that launched nuclear warheads at Tel Aviv, or London, or New York?
Ann Barnhardt via American Digest
The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then you love life!"
That timeless little quote was last seen penned in the works of one Nidal M Hasan. It's also a popular Muslim slogan.
Muslim young men are taught to lust for the demon virgins of paradise. They are taught to literally love death. So why not?
Women? They're property. A woman in Islam has no right to refuse the sexual advances of her husband. There is no such thing as marital rape in Islam. If she can't refuse him in life, why should she be able to refuse him in death?
The only issues here are impurity and also fatwas that make Islam look stupid, which is why this one has been pulled again, until the Salafis who insist that real Muslims don't care what anyone else thinks, revive it.
LIFE AND DEATH, RIGHT AND WRONG
Speaking of death, American Digest also has an extended moral meditation on abortion. There's no one single section to be excerpted, all I can throw in is that we are regularly confronted with the continuing immoralities that make some level of a society work. Whether or not the society should work that way is another question.
Slave labor goods provide a measure of autonomy to millions of Americans, in a minimal echo of abortion. As does wealth redistribution for some and power triads for others. When given power many act only to protect their own interests, their own autonomy and their own power. There is no easy division. The moral solution favors one group at the expense of another. Some die, some live in poverty so that others may enjoy their lives and their autonomy. The interests of the group become the pinnacle of morality.
There are no easy solutions and moments like these can roll back the curtain on a human society that is just as bad as anything in the Veldt, a reminder that we are neither wise nor good, only powerful.
LIBERAL 'PRO-ISRAEL' LOBBY MAY OR MAY NOT SUPPORT ISRAEL IN TIME OF WAR
In an open letter published in the Boston Jewish Advocate, Paul Sassieni, treasurer of the JCRC, states that J Street’s Regional Director, Melanie Harris, “reiterated proudly that J Street would not necessarily support Israel in a conflict, but would weigh the circumstances.”
In other news, J Street's sugar daddy, George Soros reiterated proudly that he did not necessarily enjoy helping the Nazis, but had to weigh the circumstances to decide which particular bit of Nazi collaboration he enjoyed most. (All of them.)
Melanie Harris appears to be a J Street mouthpiece who worked her way up from J Street U and doesn't seem to have done much besides that.
HOW MANY MOHAMMEDS' CAN DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN ?
Edward Cline reviews Robert Spencer's new book that explores whether our good friend Mo, that serial killer, rapist and pedophile, actually existed. Or whether he was a fictional character like Hannibal Lecter.
Reading Arthur Conan Doyle's novel, The Hound of the Baskervilles, one cannot help but marvel at the thoroughness of Sherlock Holmes's use of reason to piece together disparate clues and evidence and conclude that the least plausible explanation was the most obvious, true one. The legendary, spectral hound that haunted the Dartmoor bogs for two centuries was a piece of unsubstantiated folklore exploited by a devious criminal whose only purpose was to seize wealth that wasn't his. He bought a hound, coated it in phosphorous, and launched his nefarious designs.
If his plans worked out, everyone would believe that the heir to the Baskerville estate was really killed by an elusive, evanescent hound, just as the heir's uncle apparently was. No one would investigate further. After all, the locals might be offended.
Holmes shoots it as it attacks another Baskerville heir. The Hound from Hell was an invention, based on an apocryphal curse. The Hound was a fraud. A hoax. As insubstantial as marsh gas.
Islam, however, is the very real Hound from Hell now roaming the earth, causing unimaginable suffering and death in nations where Islam rules, invading Western countries with hordes of assimilation-hostile faithful imbued with an implacable enmity for Western values and culture, waging constant violent and stealth jihad in countries its advocates mean to conquer and bring under Islamic and Sharia rule. The aspect that makes it frightening is the phosphorous of moral certainty that it is invincible and ineluctable. But the bogeyman is a phony. A contrivance. A will-o'-the-wisp designed to frighten men into submission or silence. Ignis fatuus. Mere methane.
To add to that there is a great deal of posturing in Islam. The entire phony cult of martyrdom is one giant bluff. Lies are constantly being told and believed a moment later until no one can tell the lie from the truth. Everything is blamed on vast external powers. The mind is haunted by devils, taunted by women's hair, the wealth of infidels and constant sandstorms of rage. That is the human reality around which the religion has been constructed.
ABSOLUTE SCUM
I haven't written much about Noam Shalit, the man who managed to get the country to pay a blood price for his son and then used that to launch his political career, but the man is absolute scum. If Israeli voters need a reminder of what scum he is, he's busy giving it to them.
The father of an Israeli soldier held in captivity for more than five years by Hamas has said he would kidnap Israeli soldiers if he were a Palestinian... He also said he would be prepared to negotiate with Hamas if he were an MP, something the Israeli government, along with Britain and the US, refuses to do.
By now the whole country knows that there is absolutely nothing that Noam Shalit would not be prepared to do.
Now Haaretz is only running this because the left is badly confused as to what to do about the Shalit deal, since they shrieked for it until they get it and now they have to criticize it because it helps Netanyahu politically. Still...
A bereaved father who used his speech at a state Memorial Day ceremony to blast the country's attitude toward victims of terror attacks won a rare round of applause for doing so.
Yossi Mendellevich, whose son Yuval was killed in a 2003 attack on a Haifa bus, aimed much of his criticism at last fall's deal in which Israel traded 1,027 Palestinian prisoners for captive soldier Gilad Shalit.
"The view that we can't abandon a live soldier, whom the state sent into battle and for whom it is responsible, can't be on the same level as the protection of civilians, for if so, there would be no justification for endangering soldiers in battle," Mendellevich said in his address on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem, at Wednesday's state ceremony for victims of terror.
What more needs to be said?
WINTER IN SPRING
For the Christian Copts amounting to 10% of the population, the potential victory of Mohamed Morsi, a candidate backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, has sparked fears that the interests of non-Muslim minorities will be disregarded in favour of a stricter application of Shariah Law.
Presidential front-runner Mohamed Morsi, who has re-introduced the former Muslim Brotherhood slogan ‘Islam is the solution’, has in the past called for an Islamic scholar’s council to determine legislation, as well as advocating the exclusion of women and non-Muslims from political office.
Democracy and pluralism don't go together in the Middle East. Oh I'm sure that if the Brotherhood takes over all the way, they will have some Christian representatives to trot out and tell the world that everything is fine. Most countries in the Middle East have them, those who have Jews, also have Jewish representatives. Those who only have Christians left, have Christian representatives. But either way they have people to reassure the world that there's nothing to see here.
HOSTAGES OF THE ANTI-ISRAEL LEFT
Has the left in the UK done to Jewish groups there what it did in the US? There's an intriguing post here at the Adloyada blog on the subject.
For some time now, I've been concerned about the way things are going at the Board of Deputies. There seems to have been a bizarre case of covert left/Peace Now entryism, whereby, despite the predominantly small-c conservative and very pro-Israel outlook of the overwhelming majority of the membership and those they represent, the Presidency of the Board is now someone who is or was the leader of Peace Now UK; two of the most senior officers are either Peace Now supporters or signed up supporters of the Labour Party or the Liberal Party.
THAT MUSLIM VICTIM OF THE MUSLIM TOULOUSE GUNMAN...
... was Catholic
Corporal Abel Chennouf was French of Kabyle and Alsatian descent, born in Martigues (south of France) 1986 and moved with his family to Illzach (a town near Mulhouse, Alsace) in 1987. And he was a Catholic.
There is also another "part of the story that has received too little attention": Loïc Liber, the third paratrooper shot in the throat and the spine by Mohamed Merah in Montauban is originally from the Guadeloupe islands... And a Catholic too.
So there appears to have only been one Muslim who was killed by Merah, two Catholics and a number of Jews.
So much for the narrative.
Source: Daniel Greenfield - Sultan Knish
Silent Killer Elizabeth Warren worked to end asbestos consumer safety suits
BY: Patrick Howley
Washington Free Beacon:
Democratic Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren publicly supports a consumer protection platform, but records show she received more than $100,000 to help suppress personal injury lawsuits against an insurance company accused of misleading the public about the dangers of asbestos.
In 2008, according to her financial disclosure records, Warren received $73,625 from Simpson, Thacher, & Bartlett LLP, the New York law firm representing the Hartford, Conn.-based Travelers Insurance. The following year, she received $94,772 in “non-employee comp” from Travelers, and in 2010 she was paid $43,938 in non-employee comp by the insurance company. Travelers also paid her husband $1,000 in 2009, according to Warren’s financial disclosure records.
Warren worked for Travelers on asbestos-related litigation. Her financial disclosure reveals that she served as a consultant to Travelers on Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey, a 2009 Supreme Court case. In the case, Travelers petitioned for immunity against personal injury suits related to its onetime client, the bankrupt asbestos manufacturer Johns Manville Corp. Johns Manville filed for bankruptcy in 1982; Berkshire Hathaway acquired the company in 2001. Travelers served as the company’s primary liability insurer until 1976.
Warren wrote in a Supreme Court brief on behalf of Travelers that the asbestos victims’ lawsuits were part of a “global strategy developed by the asbestos plaintiffs’ bar.” Warren also criticized the victims’ “enterprising” lawyers. According to Warren:
After a full, contested evidentiary hearing, the bankruptcy court concluded that all of the pending direct action suits against Petitioners violated the 1986 confirmation order, finding as a matter of fact that these new claims were part of a global strategy developed by the asbestos plaintiffs’ bar to put Petitioners ‘in Manville’s chair’ and thereby collect on claims that had already been channeled to the Manville trust. …
And by effectively rewriting a long-final confirmation order (at precisely the time when its enforcement was necessary), the court of appeals gave enterprising plaintiffs’ lawyers an “end run” around a final federal court judgment.
Warren referred in her brief to the court’s responsibility to end “the asbestos litigation crisis.”
Warren campaign spokeswoman Alethea Harney told the Free Beacon, “Elizabeth served as a consultant for Travelers because she wanted to ensure that all victims got a fair shake and had an equal chance for compensation. That’s why she supported all insurance proceeds being put in a trust rather than fighting lawsuit-by-lawsuit until the money ran out.”
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Travelers, citing the establishment, by a federal bankruptcy court judge in 1986, of a trust fund for asbestos victims to settle all personal injury claims against the bankrupt Johns Manville. Travelers agreed in 1986 to make hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust in return for immunity from future personal-injury suits from the account.
In his dissenting opinion Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg joined, wrote that while the 1986 agreement should protect Travelers from suits related to its insuring of Johns Manville, it should not protect Travelers from facing civil charges for its own misconduct.
Lawsuits filed in 2001 accused Travelers of breaking consumer protection laws by allegedly hiding the dangers of asbestos and failing to warn the public.
Travelers reportedly knew about the dangers of asbestos for decades. As early as 1932, Travelers considered asbestos exposure enough of a hazard that it instructed its agents not to sell life insurance to asbestos workers over the age of 56. A former Travelers employee said that he was informed of the health risks of asbestos when he joined the insurance company in 1952. In 1971, a former Johns Manville insulation worker dying of mesothelioma won the first product liability suit against Johns Manville, and his claim was upheld on appeal in 1973. In 1975, Travelers formed a new asbestos subcommittee of its “catastrophe committee.” According to the asbestos committee, “punitive damage potentials are extremely large because of the apparent failure to adequately warn workers and the public of the hazards known to makers and large distributors of asbestos.”
By the time of the 2001 lawsuits, the Manville Trust had cut payments to asbestos victims dying of cancer down to $10,000 or less—down from hundreds of thousands of dollars per claimant in the 1980s.
In 2004, Travelers settled with several plaintiffs for $445 million, in exchange for an order from the bankruptcy court clarifying its 1986 decision that no new asbestos cases could be brought against Travelers. However, in 2008 the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and held that the bankruptcy court had no authority in 1986 to block all future lawsuits against Travelers.
Not until the 2009 Supreme Court case, which Warren helped win, did Travelers finally gain binding immunity against all new lawsuits related to its alleged conduct.
In effect, Warren helped end the “asbestos litigation crisis.”
But the late Democratic senator Edward Kennedy disputed such a crisis existed, and took exception to the very term that Warren used in her brief.
“The real crisis which confronts us is not an ‘asbestos litigation crisis,’ it is an asbestos-induced disease crisis. Asbestos is the most lethal substance ever widely used in the workplace,” Kennedy said in a 2006 statement. “All too often, the tragedy these seriously ill workers and their families are enduring becomes lost in a complex debate about the economic impact of asbestos litigation. We should not allow that to happen. The litigation did not create these costs. Exposure to asbestos created them.”
Warren, the architect of the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has spoken out in favor of consumer protection.
“We have to come back to the notion that government really has a function in America. It has the function of creating kind of these basic safety—think about how the world—how well markets have worked,” Warren said in a 2009 Charlie Rose appearance. “My favorite example is toasters. You know there were two ways you could have gone in the toaster market. If you had no safety standards, there would be a way to make profits. Take out the insulation. Because the insulation costs money, right? Use the cheaper wiring. And if one in every five toasters bursts into flames, too bad. Customers can’t tell the difference. You’ll make nice profits.”
Obama's Third Annual Summer of Recovery™ -- By the Numbers
Friday, April 27, 2012
Obama's Third Annual Summer of Recovery™ -- By the Numbers
The Obama "recovery" is just as ephemeral as the media's coverage of Operation Fast and Furious. Which is to say: it sucks.
Here are the critical numbers that you won't see covered in legacy media.
• Strategas Research believes corporate profits may have declined on a quarterly basis for the first time since 2008.
• The U.S. economy grew at an anemic 2.2% annual rate in the first quarter.
• Citigroup and IHS Global believe that the first quarter may represent the best growth we see all year. In other words, that economic growth will dip below 2% for the remainder of 2012.
• The Federal Reserve find that since 1947, if sub-2% growth occurs in two consecutive quarters, there is a 50 percent change of an immediate recession.
• This is the 11th quarter of the Obama "Recovery", during which time the economy has only grown a total of 7 percent. Conversely, during the first 11 quarters of the Reagan Recovery, the economy grew 18%.
• The Obama administration's forecasting skills leave much to be desired. Since 2009, the White House has consistently overestimated its ability at central-planning of the economy:
• In 2009 and even after its $800 billion "stimulus", Obama predicted that GDP would grow 4.3% in 2011, 2012 and 2013.
• In 2010 the White House said the economy would grow by 3.5% in 2012 and 4.4% in 2013.
• In 2011 it forecast 4.0% growth in 2012 and 4.5% in 2013.
• The good news? According to the forecasting model developed by Yale University's Ray Fair, if forecasters are accurate about a continued slowing of the economy, Obama would win only 48.4% of the vote. And that, my friends, would be a crushing loss for America's worst president.
Based upon: "Weak GDP report clouds Obama’s reelection chances", By James Pethokoukis.
Obama's Third Annual Summer of Recovery™ -- By the Numbers
The Obama "recovery" is just as ephemeral as the media's coverage of Operation Fast and Furious. Which is to say: it sucks.
Here are the critical numbers that you won't see covered in legacy media.
• The U.S. economy grew at an anemic 2.2% annual rate in the first quarter.
• Citigroup and IHS Global believe that the first quarter may represent the best growth we see all year. In other words, that economic growth will dip below 2% for the remainder of 2012.
• The Federal Reserve find that since 1947, if sub-2% growth occurs in two consecutive quarters, there is a 50 percent change of an immediate recession.
• This is the 11th quarter of the Obama "Recovery", during which time the economy has only grown a total of 7 percent. Conversely, during the first 11 quarters of the Reagan Recovery, the economy grew 18%.
• The Obama administration's forecasting skills leave much to be desired. Since 2009, the White House has consistently overestimated its ability at central-planning of the economy:
• In 2009 and even after its $800 billion "stimulus", Obama predicted that GDP would grow 4.3% in 2011, 2012 and 2013.
• In 2010 the White House said the economy would grow by 3.5% in 2012 and 4.4% in 2013.
• In 2011 it forecast 4.0% growth in 2012 and 4.5% in 2013.
• The good news? According to the forecasting model developed by Yale University's Ray Fair, if forecasters are accurate about a continued slowing of the economy, Obama would win only 48.4% of the vote. And that, my friends, would be a crushing loss for America's worst president.
Based upon: "Weak GDP report clouds Obama’s reelection chances", By James Pethokoukis.
Businessweek: Dems Want to Pay for Student Loan Pander With Tax on Small Business
Senate Democrats Seek to Boost Obama on Student Loan Rate
U.S. Senate Democrats’ plan to vote on a proposed freeze in student-loan interest rates is their latest effort to boost one of President Barack Obama’s re- election campaign issues.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, told reporters yesterday that he will introduce a bill “in the next 24 hours” modeled on Obama’s rate-freeze plan. The president yesterday pledged to keep student-loan interest rates steady as he campaigned at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, one of three campuses in battleground states he is visiting this week.
“They’re obviously coordinating,” Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican who ran against Obama for president in 2008, said yesterday in an interview. “It’s pretty expected in an election year that they force votes on issues that they think play to their advantage.”
A Senate Democratic leadership aide said the student loan legislation will come up for a vote in May after the Senate returns from next week’s recess.
Senate Republicans on April 17 blocked a proposal to set a minimum 30 percent federal tax rate for the highest earners. In the days before the vote, Obama campaigned for the legislation, maintaining that it’s unfair to let some high-income taxpayers use deductions and preferential tax treatment of investment income to pay lower rates than many middle-income wage earners.
Clear Message
Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat, said Democrats want to make sure the public understands what’s at stake in the November election.
“We need a clear message, we need an echo chamber and really a way of communicating to both the young students and their families this jump in interest rates,” she said in an interview. She said Democrats will continue to press for votes on elements of Obama’s campaign platform.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said today that Democrats were “using the floor as an extension of the Obama campaign.”
“So no one should be surprised that they opted for a political show vote over a solution,” McConnell said.
In his fiscal 2013 budget plan, the president proposed holding student-loan rates steady. The rate on federally subsidized Stafford loans is scheduled to increase on July 1, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, unless Congress acts.
Signed By Bush
Congressional Democrats in 2007 passed legislation cutting the rate in half, and President George W. Bush signed the measure into law.
“We need to go back to what President Bush signed,” Reid said today on the Senate floor. “We cannot have these rates go up.”
Senate Democrats and the White House are seeking a one-year freeze in the interest rate. The $6 billion cost would be offset by limiting a tax provision that allows some owners of so-called S-corporations to avoid paying Medicare payroll taxes on their earnings, Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, told reporters yesterday.
Harkin said the legislation would require the Medicare payroll tax on income of more than $250,000 a year earned at S- corporations with fewer than three shareholders.
Closing a ‘Loophole’
“This is a loophole that needs to be closed anyway,” he said. “So this is the right time to do it and for the right cause.”
Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney are trying to appeal to younger voters. At the University of North Carolina yesterday, Obama said higher education “is the clearest path to the middle class.”
“We can’t make higher education a luxury; it’s an economic imperative,” he said.
Romney, who polls indicate is trailing Obama among younger voters, said in a campaign appearance in Pennsylvania April 23 that he also supports freezing student-loan interest rates.
“I don’t think anybody believes this interest rate should be allowed to rise,” McConnell told reporters yesterday. “The question is: How do you pay for it?”
McConnell said Senate Republicans were discussing what type of rate freeze they could support. He said today that Democrats wanted to pay for their proposal “by raiding Social Security and Medicare.”
House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, today raised the possibility that the House also would act. He told reporters that Republicans who control the House are “trying to find a responsible way to fix” the “student-loan problem which was created by Democrats.”
A higher student-loan interest rate would affect about 7.4 million students, according to the White House, adding an average of $1,000 in payments. The Congressional Budget Office estimates a one-year freeze would cost the federal government $6 billion in forgone revenue.
U.S. Senate Democrats’ plan to vote on a proposed freeze in student-loan interest rates is their latest effort to boost one of President Barack Obama’s re- election campaign issues.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, told reporters yesterday that he will introduce a bill “in the next 24 hours” modeled on Obama’s rate-freeze plan. The president yesterday pledged to keep student-loan interest rates steady as he campaigned at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, one of three campuses in battleground states he is visiting this week.
“They’re obviously coordinating,” Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican who ran against Obama for president in 2008, said yesterday in an interview. “It’s pretty expected in an election year that they force votes on issues that they think play to their advantage.”
A Senate Democratic leadership aide said the student loan legislation will come up for a vote in May after the Senate returns from next week’s recess.
Senate Republicans on April 17 blocked a proposal to set a minimum 30 percent federal tax rate for the highest earners. In the days before the vote, Obama campaigned for the legislation, maintaining that it’s unfair to let some high-income taxpayers use deductions and preferential tax treatment of investment income to pay lower rates than many middle-income wage earners.
Clear Message
Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat, said Democrats want to make sure the public understands what’s at stake in the November election.
“We need a clear message, we need an echo chamber and really a way of communicating to both the young students and their families this jump in interest rates,” she said in an interview. She said Democrats will continue to press for votes on elements of Obama’s campaign platform.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said today that Democrats were “using the floor as an extension of the Obama campaign.”
“So no one should be surprised that they opted for a political show vote over a solution,” McConnell said.
In his fiscal 2013 budget plan, the president proposed holding student-loan rates steady. The rate on federally subsidized Stafford loans is scheduled to increase on July 1, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, unless Congress acts.
Signed By Bush
Congressional Democrats in 2007 passed legislation cutting the rate in half, and President George W. Bush signed the measure into law.
“We need to go back to what President Bush signed,” Reid said today on the Senate floor. “We cannot have these rates go up.”
Senate Democrats and the White House are seeking a one-year freeze in the interest rate. The $6 billion cost would be offset by limiting a tax provision that allows some owners of so-called S-corporations to avoid paying Medicare payroll taxes on their earnings, Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, told reporters yesterday.
Harkin said the legislation would require the Medicare payroll tax on income of more than $250,000 a year earned at S- corporations with fewer than three shareholders.
Closing a ‘Loophole’
“This is a loophole that needs to be closed anyway,” he said. “So this is the right time to do it and for the right cause.”
Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney are trying to appeal to younger voters. At the University of North Carolina yesterday, Obama said higher education “is the clearest path to the middle class.”
“We can’t make higher education a luxury; it’s an economic imperative,” he said.
Romney, who polls indicate is trailing Obama among younger voters, said in a campaign appearance in Pennsylvania April 23 that he also supports freezing student-loan interest rates.
“I don’t think anybody believes this interest rate should be allowed to rise,” McConnell told reporters yesterday. “The question is: How do you pay for it?”
McConnell said Senate Republicans were discussing what type of rate freeze they could support. He said today that Democrats wanted to pay for their proposal “by raiding Social Security and Medicare.”
House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, today raised the possibility that the House also would act. He told reporters that Republicans who control the House are “trying to find a responsible way to fix” the “student-loan problem which was created by Democrats.”
A higher student-loan interest rate would affect about 7.4 million students, according to the White House, adding an average of $1,000 in payments. The Congressional Budget Office estimates a one-year freeze would cost the federal government $6 billion in forgone revenue.
New Pic of Young Mooch
No date. See New Pic Of Obama In High School
Via African Heritage City
Posted by WM @ WeaselZippers.us on Friday, April 27, 2012
‘Team Obama’ Names & Shames Eight Private Citizens For Donating to Romney Campaign
Posted on April 27, 2012 at 5:45pm
by Becket Adams
The Blaze:
The Obama reelection team has publicly accused eight private citizens who donated to the Mitt Romney campaign of “betting against America” and of having “less-than-reputable” records.
Apparently, publicly chiding two GOP members of Congress wasn’t enough for President Obama; he has moved on to bigger game.
“This past week, one of [the president's] campaign websites posted an item entitled ‘Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors,’” Kimberly A. Strassel writes in the Wall Street Journal.
As you can see by perusing the the site, President Obama’s reelection campaign “names and shames” eight private citizens and describes them as having “less-than-reputable records.” In fact, the site goes so far as to say that “quite a few” of the donors have been “on the wrong side of the law” and that they have profited at “the expense of so many Americans.”
“The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money,” Strassel reports.
We cannot stress enough that these donors are private citizens.
“These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having ‘outsourced’ jobs,” Strassel writes.
“T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a ‘lobbyist’) and Thomas O’Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a ‘bitter foe of the gay rights movement,’” she adds.
None of the donors hold any type of elected office and none of them have been charged with a crime. Therefore, it would seem that they are only “on the wrong side of the law” because a) they are wealthy and b) they donated to a Republican.
“We don’t tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things,” says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general.
“When you have the power of the presidency — the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC — what you have effectively done is put these guys‘ names up on ’Wanted’ posters in government offices,” he adds.
But maybe the president and his election team have nothing to do with singling out these private citizens –
Well, there goes that argument.
How does the White House plan on explaining this one?
“The White House has couched its attacks in the language of ‘disclosure’ and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals,” Strassel explains.
However, the president is “doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies,” says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation.
And it’s probably only going to get worse from here. Why? Because, as Strasell points out, the money game is not going so well for “Team Obama.”
“Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney,” Strassel writes. “The White House’s new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.”
During the 2008 election cycle, many Americans voted for President Obama in the hopes that, if anything, he would take the U.S. back to the days of Bill Clinton.
But, as Strassel notes, with President Obama stepping up the pressure on his political opponents and their supporters, it seems more like he has taken us back to the days of Richard “Enemies List” Nixon.
Read the shocking WSJ report here.
(H/T: WZ)
The story has been updated.
by Becket Adams
The Blaze:
The Obama reelection team has publicly accused eight private citizens who donated to the Mitt Romney campaign of “betting against America” and of having “less-than-reputable” records.
Apparently, publicly chiding two GOP members of Congress wasn’t enough for President Obama; he has moved on to bigger game.
“This past week, one of [the president's] campaign websites posted an item entitled ‘Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors,’” Kimberly A. Strassel writes in the Wall Street Journal.
As you can see by perusing the the site, President Obama’s reelection campaign “names and shames” eight private citizens and describes them as having “less-than-reputable records.” In fact, the site goes so far as to say that “quite a few” of the donors have been “on the wrong side of the law” and that they have profited at “the expense of so many Americans.”
“The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money,” Strassel reports.
We cannot stress enough that these donors are private citizens.
“These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having ‘outsourced’ jobs,” Strassel writes.
“T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a ‘lobbyist’) and Thomas O’Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a ‘bitter foe of the gay rights movement,’” she adds.
None of the donors hold any type of elected office and none of them have been charged with a crime. Therefore, it would seem that they are only “on the wrong side of the law” because a) they are wealthy and b) they donated to a Republican.
“We don’t tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things,” says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general.
“When you have the power of the presidency — the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC — what you have effectively done is put these guys‘ names up on ’Wanted’ posters in government offices,” he adds.
But maybe the president and his election team have nothing to do with singling out these private citizens –
Well, there goes that argument.
How does the White House plan on explaining this one?
“The White House has couched its attacks in the language of ‘disclosure’ and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals,” Strassel explains.
However, the president is “doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies,” says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation.
And it’s probably only going to get worse from here. Why? Because, as Strasell points out, the money game is not going so well for “Team Obama.”
“Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney,” Strassel writes. “The White House’s new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.”
During the 2008 election cycle, many Americans voted for President Obama in the hopes that, if anything, he would take the U.S. back to the days of Bill Clinton.
But, as Strassel notes, with President Obama stepping up the pressure on his political opponents and their supporters, it seems more like he has taken us back to the days of Richard “Enemies List” Nixon.
Read the shocking WSJ report here.
(H/T: WZ)
The story has been updated.
Russian Troops Coming to U.S. for Terror Drills, DoD Confirms
Written by Alex Newman
Friday, 27 April 2012 10:49
New American:
Russian “Airborne Assault Forces” will be arriving in Colorado this May for joint terror-war exercises with U.S. soldiers, according to U.S. officials and Russian military personnel cited in media reports. The Kremlin’s Defense Ministry and the U.S. Department of Defense both said it would be the first time in history that American and Russian airborne special operations troops would be training together on U.S. soil.
Analysts and commentators across the alternative media expressed alarm about the controversial announcement, likening it to a scene out of the movie Red Dawn or the predictions made by the late radio host Bill Cooper. It was not immediately clear exactly why the Obama administration decided to allow the scheme.
“The Russian soldiers are here as invited guests of the U.S. government; this is part of a formal bilateral exchange program between the U.S. and Russia that seeks to develop transparency and promote defense reform,” Cmdr. Wendy L. Snyder, U.S. Defense Press Officer for policy, told The New American in an e-mail. “This is the first time that American and Russian special operations troops have participated in a bilateral exercise.”
According to Snyder, the exercises — which she said would last about three weeks in all — will serve to train and improve skills related to terror-war fighting. About 20 Russian soldiers will be participating, with most of the training to take place on the Fort Carson, Colorado, Army base and a mountain training area several hours away.
“Aside from typical military training, the exchange will include discussions on the rule of land warfare, developing appropriate rules of engagement, and employing cultural literacy and competency in the tactical environment,” Snyder explained. “This type of training is routinely conducted by 10th Special Forces Group.”
While U.S. officials remained largely silent on the operation until contacted by the press, the Russian government has been touting the unprecedented terror drills through official announcements and news reports in state-controlled media for over a week. In fact, virtually all of the details about the exercise that emerged publicly early on came from Kremlin sources.
“According to the exercise scenario, soldiers of the two countries will hold a tactical airborne operation, including reconnaissance of an imaginary terrorists' camp and a raid,” Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Col. Aleksandr Kucherenko was quoted as saying in official news reports, also noting that it was the first time such an exercise would be held. “The Russian Airborne Assault Force will contribute a special task group that will exercise with U.S. special service weapons.”
Before the official drills begin on May 24, the Russian government’s forces will reportedly be training to use a wide array of American military equipment at the U.S. Army's Fort Carson base. Parachuting, operations planning, reconnaissance, assaults, raids, and evacuations will all be on the agenda. The training is expected to last until May 31, though U.S. officials said it would go until early June.
One of the highlights of the cooperation will be a joint terror assault and raid on a “camp.” The exercise will apparently bring together U.S. and Russian troops from the planning stages to the final evacuation from the scene by helicopter. Russian forces will also be attending a baseball game at some point during their stay, Kremlin sources reported.
According to a report entitled “The Russians are coming! First joint 'Top Gun' drills to be held in US” in the state-funded Russian media outlet RT, the agreement to hold the drills was drafted late last year by the Russian Airborne Command and a U.S. military delegation in Moscow. It was not immediately clear which government proposed the scheme or what the precise goals were, though apparently the Russians were invited to participate by the U.S. government.
“The U.S. military routinely conducts such joint exchanges with foreign forces to strengthen relationships, provide familiarization with each other's tactics and procedures, and to exchange best practices,” DoD spokesperson Snyder explained. “The end result of this type of program is that our military has improved operational effectiveness with foreign forces as well as, and in this case, supporting the defense reform of Russia.”
President Obama has made improved ties with the Russian government a top priority it seems. Last month during a security summit, Obama even promised to pursue yet another controversial agreement with Russian officials to further slash both governments’ nuclear arsenals, saying the U.S. already controls more than enough atomic weapons.
Despite several high-profile apparent disagreements in recent years — on Syria, Libya, missile shields, and more — outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev praised the Obama administration, saying relations between the two governments had reached their “best level” in a decade. Obama, meanwhile, thanked Medvedev for his “cooperation” and said he could not have asked for a “better partner” in Russia.
"Going forward, we'll continue to seek discussions with Russia on a step we have never taken before — reducing not only our strategic nuclear warheads, but also tactical weapons and warheads in reserve," Obama said during a speech at South Korea’s Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. “We can already say with confidence that we have more nuclear weapons than we need.”
After the summit, Obama also came under fire when he was overheard telling then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that, “This is my last election. After my election, I'll have more flexibility.” Critics pounced on the statement from all angles to criticize Obama, with some claiming that he had sold out to the Russians.
Meanwhile, e-mails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor released by WikiLeaks show that top executives in the company — well-connected individuals, obviously — believed President Obama had taken Russian money for his campaign. The news has already become something of a scandal among alternative media outlets and commentators.
“The hunt is on for the sleezy Russian money into O-mans coffers. A smoking gun has already been found,” wrote Fred Burton, Stratfor’s Vice President of Intelligence. “My source was too giddy to continue. Can you say Clinton and [Chinese Communist] ChiCom funny money?” The company refused to confirm whether the e-mails were genuine, but most analysts believe they are.
This week, the Russian Navy is also engaged in unprecedented joint “war games” with the Communist regime ruling mainland China. The training exercises, taking place in the Yellow Sea, involve more than two-dozen vessels including submarines and destroyers.
The U.S. government, meanwhile, is simultaneously engaged in war games in the Asia-Pacific region with the Communist regime ruling Vietnam and the government of the Philippines. And in August of 2010, U.S., Russian, and Canadian air forces worked together on terror drills involving hijacked airplanes.
Foreign troops — from Europe, Latin America, and more — have been engaged in countless training exercises on U.S. soil over the years. Critics, meanwhile, have been sounding the alarm about the controversial drills for over a decade.
Several prominent media outlets reporting on the Russian terror training in the U.S. picked up information from a well-known disinformation source. The almost certainly false “article” claimed — citing official “reports” allegedly circulating in the Kremlin — that Russian troops would also be tasked with taking over and holding certain CIA and NSA facilities.
However, the original source of claims — “whatdoesitmean.com” — is widely known as notoriously unreliable. Aside from the Department of Homeland Security, which used the hoax website to compile a report labeling most Americans potential right-wing terrorists, virtually all reputable information services have been aware of the disinformation peddling for years. DHS later retracted the report and apologized.
Friday, 27 April 2012 10:49
New American:
Analysts and commentators across the alternative media expressed alarm about the controversial announcement, likening it to a scene out of the movie Red Dawn or the predictions made by the late radio host Bill Cooper. It was not immediately clear exactly why the Obama administration decided to allow the scheme.
“The Russian soldiers are here as invited guests of the U.S. government; this is part of a formal bilateral exchange program between the U.S. and Russia that seeks to develop transparency and promote defense reform,” Cmdr. Wendy L. Snyder, U.S. Defense Press Officer for policy, told The New American in an e-mail. “This is the first time that American and Russian special operations troops have participated in a bilateral exercise.”
According to Snyder, the exercises — which she said would last about three weeks in all — will serve to train and improve skills related to terror-war fighting. About 20 Russian soldiers will be participating, with most of the training to take place on the Fort Carson, Colorado, Army base and a mountain training area several hours away.
“Aside from typical military training, the exchange will include discussions on the rule of land warfare, developing appropriate rules of engagement, and employing cultural literacy and competency in the tactical environment,” Snyder explained. “This type of training is routinely conducted by 10th Special Forces Group.”
While U.S. officials remained largely silent on the operation until contacted by the press, the Russian government has been touting the unprecedented terror drills through official announcements and news reports in state-controlled media for over a week. In fact, virtually all of the details about the exercise that emerged publicly early on came from Kremlin sources.
“According to the exercise scenario, soldiers of the two countries will hold a tactical airborne operation, including reconnaissance of an imaginary terrorists' camp and a raid,” Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Col. Aleksandr Kucherenko was quoted as saying in official news reports, also noting that it was the first time such an exercise would be held. “The Russian Airborne Assault Force will contribute a special task group that will exercise with U.S. special service weapons.”
Before the official drills begin on May 24, the Russian government’s forces will reportedly be training to use a wide array of American military equipment at the U.S. Army's Fort Carson base. Parachuting, operations planning, reconnaissance, assaults, raids, and evacuations will all be on the agenda. The training is expected to last until May 31, though U.S. officials said it would go until early June.
One of the highlights of the cooperation will be a joint terror assault and raid on a “camp.” The exercise will apparently bring together U.S. and Russian troops from the planning stages to the final evacuation from the scene by helicopter. Russian forces will also be attending a baseball game at some point during their stay, Kremlin sources reported.
According to a report entitled “The Russians are coming! First joint 'Top Gun' drills to be held in US” in the state-funded Russian media outlet RT, the agreement to hold the drills was drafted late last year by the Russian Airborne Command and a U.S. military delegation in Moscow. It was not immediately clear which government proposed the scheme or what the precise goals were, though apparently the Russians were invited to participate by the U.S. government.
“The U.S. military routinely conducts such joint exchanges with foreign forces to strengthen relationships, provide familiarization with each other's tactics and procedures, and to exchange best practices,” DoD spokesperson Snyder explained. “The end result of this type of program is that our military has improved operational effectiveness with foreign forces as well as, and in this case, supporting the defense reform of Russia.”
President Obama has made improved ties with the Russian government a top priority it seems. Last month during a security summit, Obama even promised to pursue yet another controversial agreement with Russian officials to further slash both governments’ nuclear arsenals, saying the U.S. already controls more than enough atomic weapons.
Despite several high-profile apparent disagreements in recent years — on Syria, Libya, missile shields, and more — outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev praised the Obama administration, saying relations between the two governments had reached their “best level” in a decade. Obama, meanwhile, thanked Medvedev for his “cooperation” and said he could not have asked for a “better partner” in Russia.
"Going forward, we'll continue to seek discussions with Russia on a step we have never taken before — reducing not only our strategic nuclear warheads, but also tactical weapons and warheads in reserve," Obama said during a speech at South Korea’s Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. “We can already say with confidence that we have more nuclear weapons than we need.”
After the summit, Obama also came under fire when he was overheard telling then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that, “This is my last election. After my election, I'll have more flexibility.” Critics pounced on the statement from all angles to criticize Obama, with some claiming that he had sold out to the Russians.
Meanwhile, e-mails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor released by WikiLeaks show that top executives in the company — well-connected individuals, obviously — believed President Obama had taken Russian money for his campaign. The news has already become something of a scandal among alternative media outlets and commentators.
“The hunt is on for the sleezy Russian money into O-mans coffers. A smoking gun has already been found,” wrote Fred Burton, Stratfor’s Vice President of Intelligence. “My source was too giddy to continue. Can you say Clinton and [Chinese Communist] ChiCom funny money?” The company refused to confirm whether the e-mails were genuine, but most analysts believe they are.
This week, the Russian Navy is also engaged in unprecedented joint “war games” with the Communist regime ruling mainland China. The training exercises, taking place in the Yellow Sea, involve more than two-dozen vessels including submarines and destroyers.
The U.S. government, meanwhile, is simultaneously engaged in war games in the Asia-Pacific region with the Communist regime ruling Vietnam and the government of the Philippines. And in August of 2010, U.S., Russian, and Canadian air forces worked together on terror drills involving hijacked airplanes.
Foreign troops — from Europe, Latin America, and more — have been engaged in countless training exercises on U.S. soil over the years. Critics, meanwhile, have been sounding the alarm about the controversial drills for over a decade.
Several prominent media outlets reporting on the Russian terror training in the U.S. picked up information from a well-known disinformation source. The almost certainly false “article” claimed — citing official “reports” allegedly circulating in the Kremlin — that Russian troops would also be tasked with taking over and holding certain CIA and NSA facilities.
However, the original source of claims — “whatdoesitmean.com” — is widely known as notoriously unreliable. Aside from the Department of Homeland Security, which used the hoax website to compile a report labeling most Americans potential right-wing terrorists, virtually all reputable information services have been aware of the disinformation peddling for years. DHS later retracted the report and apologized.
Memo Reveals The 'Gutsy' Bin Laden Call That Wasn't
Posted 04/27/2012 06:58 PM ET
Killing Bin Laden: Like so many others, the final decision to pull the trigger on the world's most-wanted man was delegated to an admiral who undoubtedly would have been thrown under the bus had the mission failed.
It's been almost a year since President Obama's leadership and foreign policy bona fides were allegedly established by the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. A campaign film narrated by Oscar-winning actor Tom Hanks tells of the president's alleged solitary, agonizing decision.
With apologies to Vice President Biden, maybe President Obama doesn't carry quite as big a stick as Joe would lead us to believe.
As reported by Big Peace, Time magazine has obtained a memo written by Leon Panetta, then-director of the Central Intelligence Agency and now-Secretary of Defense, that says "operational decision-making and control" was really in the hands of William McRaven, a three-star admiral and former Navy SEAL.
"The timing, operational decision-making and control are in Adm. McRaven's hands," the memo says. "The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the president. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the president for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and, if he is not there, to get out."
In other words, it was McRaven's call to pull the trigger or not on the raid.
Some would say that this is a distinction without a difference, sort of like a head coach in football drawing up the game plan and letting his offensive coordinator actually call the plays. Then, technically, President George W. Bush gets the credit, since it was on his watch our war on terror was declared, Navy SEALs and Special Forces funding was increased and the hunt for Osama bin Laden began.
The Panetta memo, rather than presenting a profile in courage, says "approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the president." This left enough wiggle room to blame the operation planners and controllers if the raid had gone as wrong as President Jimmy Carter's famous failure to rescue American hostages held by Iran. This memo left room for the blame for another "Blackhawk Down" snafu to be blamed on anyone and everyone but President Obama.
Luckily, operational control was in McRaven's hands, and the planning, execution and decision-making were virtually flawless. There was no repeat of the incident years before of Sandy Berger, last seen stuffing classified documents in his pants, telling a CIA and Northern Alliance team in Afghanistan, on that occasion literally a matter of feet away from bin Laden, that if they want to grab him, they'll have to do it on their own. So they didn't.
This time, we had an admiral and former Navy SEAL making the decision.
It was McRaven, heading the Joint Special Operations Command, who, on Jan. 29, 2011, began to plan "finish options" for bin Laden alongside his counterparts in a 7th-floor CIA conference room. It was McRaven who commanded the helicopter assault against the al-Qaida leader's redoubt in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
On that fateful night it was McRaven, linked by secure video from Jalalabad to the White House, who briefed the president, sitting in the corner of the "war room," in real time as the operation progressed.
Finally, it was the courageous and well-trained Navy SEALs who put their lives on the line and got a small measure of revenge for Sept. 11, 2001. It is President Obama who is falsely taking all the credit.
SOURCE: IBD
Killing Bin Laden: Like so many others, the final decision to pull the trigger on the world's most-wanted man was delegated to an admiral who undoubtedly would have been thrown under the bus had the mission failed.
It's been almost a year since President Obama's leadership and foreign policy bona fides were allegedly established by the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. A campaign film narrated by Oscar-winning actor Tom Hanks tells of the president's alleged solitary, agonizing decision.
With apologies to Vice President Biden, maybe President Obama doesn't carry quite as big a stick as Joe would lead us to believe.
As reported by Big Peace, Time magazine has obtained a memo written by Leon Panetta, then-director of the Central Intelligence Agency and now-Secretary of Defense, that says "operational decision-making and control" was really in the hands of William McRaven, a three-star admiral and former Navy SEAL.
"The timing, operational decision-making and control are in Adm. McRaven's hands," the memo says. "The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the president. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the president for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and, if he is not there, to get out."
In other words, it was McRaven's call to pull the trigger or not on the raid.
Some would say that this is a distinction without a difference, sort of like a head coach in football drawing up the game plan and letting his offensive coordinator actually call the plays. Then, technically, President George W. Bush gets the credit, since it was on his watch our war on terror was declared, Navy SEALs and Special Forces funding was increased and the hunt for Osama bin Laden began.
The Panetta memo, rather than presenting a profile in courage, says "approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the president." This left enough wiggle room to blame the operation planners and controllers if the raid had gone as wrong as President Jimmy Carter's famous failure to rescue American hostages held by Iran. This memo left room for the blame for another "Blackhawk Down" snafu to be blamed on anyone and everyone but President Obama.
Luckily, operational control was in McRaven's hands, and the planning, execution and decision-making were virtually flawless. There was no repeat of the incident years before of Sandy Berger, last seen stuffing classified documents in his pants, telling a CIA and Northern Alliance team in Afghanistan, on that occasion literally a matter of feet away from bin Laden, that if they want to grab him, they'll have to do it on their own. So they didn't.
This time, we had an admiral and former Navy SEAL making the decision.
It was McRaven, heading the Joint Special Operations Command, who, on Jan. 29, 2011, began to plan "finish options" for bin Laden alongside his counterparts in a 7th-floor CIA conference room. It was McRaven who commanded the helicopter assault against the al-Qaida leader's redoubt in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
On that fateful night it was McRaven, linked by secure video from Jalalabad to the White House, who briefed the president, sitting in the corner of the "war room," in real time as the operation progressed.
Finally, it was the courageous and well-trained Navy SEALs who put their lives on the line and got a small measure of revenge for Sept. 11, 2001. It is President Obama who is falsely taking all the credit.
SOURCE: IBD
Union Leader Says Making It Impossible To Fire Crappy Teachers Is A “Human Right”…
CARSON CITY, Nev. — Is teacher tenure a “human right”?
That’s what the head of the Nevada State Education Association seemed to suggest in a television interview last weekend.
Appearing on a local news show, NSEA President Lynn Warne said the Silver State’s new education reforms — which focus largely on teacher tenure — “really struck at the heart of what are educators’ rights, workers’ rights, human rights really.”
Was Warne just being hysterical, or should education reformers be brought up on charges before the United Nations’ Human Rights Council?
In a recent blog, Victor Joecks of the Nevada Policy Research Institute examines the state’s new tenure laws, and concludes the Warne’s views are “outrageous.”
“Now, while (the new law) certainly represented an improvement over the old system, where 95 percent of teachers received tenure after one year of teaching and became virtually impossible to fire afterwards, the new system only allows a bad teacher with tenure to be removed after three years of poor performance,” Joecks writes.
Keep reading…
Posted by Zip @ WeaselZippers on 4.27.12
Obama’s Truth Team Launches An Enemies List
April 27, 2012
By Sara Noble
Independent Sentinel:
Barack Obama has launched his Truth Team and it is all very Big Brother with not a word of condemnation from the lamestream media.The Truth Team has three sites, Attack Watch, Keeping the GOP Honest, and Keeping His Word. AttackWatch is simply an attack Romney site, Keeping His Word is Obama faux news. Keeping the GOP Honest is my favorite because it is so representative of who Obama is. It is an attack site on Romney and anyone who supports him.
We can all remember when Obama portrayed himself as the outsider, the non-politician and that is still how he likes to come across. He is in fact a master politician who uses an “enemies list.” He is so brazen about it that he doesn’t even hide it, but with a corrupt news media that is squarely in his pocket, he can be out in the open as he flouts peoples’ rights.
What kind of country is this when a President can divide and conquer instead of unite and produce?
The list below comes right from his Keeping the GOP Honest site and it lists some of Romney’s donors with a vicious attack paragraph after each name. These are private citizens he is going after. The only message one can get from this is that if you support Romney, you will be publicly scorned and ridiculed. This is abuse by an out-of-control government.
Keeping the Gop Honest: A closer look at Romney’s donors reveals a group of wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records. Quite a few have been on the wrong side of the law, others have made profits at the expense of so many Americans, and still others are donating to help ensure Romney puts beneficial policies in place for them. Here’s a look at just a few of the people Romney has relied on:
Donors who benefit from betting against America
Paul “Chip” Schorr: Paul Schorr has given $112,500 to Romney’s presidential ambitions through Super PAC and direct campaign donations. As a partner at Blackstone, Schorr closed a deal in 2007 to outsource the services of seven U.S. companies to a firm in India, boosting that firm’s profits by $220 million and making millionaires of the Indian management team. In 2006, he arranged a buyout of a Colorado travel reservations company that led to 841 layoffs while Blackstone and its partners recouped the billions of dollars they invested in less than a year.
Sam and Jeffrey Fox: Sam and Jeffrey Fox serve as co-chairman of Romney’s finance operation in Missouri and, together, have donated $220,000 to Romney’s presidential ambitions. They also control the Harbour Group investment firm which bragged about buying an automotive accessories manufacturing company in Kansas in 1997 and moving production to Mexico. In 2002, the Harbour group’s Mexico operation decided to outsource to China because China was “offering incentives and making it easy to open operations there.” The Chinese government awarded Sam Fox the Marco Polo Award for “his company’s role in China’s economic development and his humanitarian contributions to that country.”
T. Martin Fiorentino: T. Martin Fiorentino is on Romney’s Florida finance team and has bundled over $140,000 for the Romney campaign. He also lobbied on behalf of Lender Processing Services, a “foreclosure mill” that paid him to lobby on legislation aimed at preventing lenders from “making loans that borrowers would have difficulty repaying.” The government has reprimanded Lender Processing Services “for unsound practices related to residential mortgage loan serving and foreclosure processing.”
Special-interest donors
Romney’s stances on social and economic issues, like his long-standing alliance with Big Oil, attracts the contributions of high-dollar donors who are interested in pursuing a specific agenda. Here are just a few of special-interest donors that Romney is taking money from:
Louis Moore Bacon: An early mega-donor for Romney, Louis Moore Bacon donated $500,000 to the Restore Our Future Super PAC. Bacon makes his profit off of oil, first making a huge profit from successfully betting that gas prices would rise before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1989. Bacon’s firm, Moore Capital, was fined $25 million for attempting to manipulate certain commodity futures markets.
Thomas O’Malley: Thomas O’Malley is the CEO of PBF Energy, America’s fourth largest petroleum refining company, and gave $100,000 to Restore Our Future. Not only did PBF energy help drive gas prices up this year by curtailing gas production, but it spilled 6.6 million gallons of oil at a refinery in New Jersey. The release of toxic gas and eventual explosion at another of its refineries in Delaware also directly contributed to a spike in gas prices.
Kent Burton: Kent Burton is one of Romney’s new bundlers who raised more than $25,000 in one month for Romney’s campaign. He is also a registered lobbyist for a wide array of energy clients, including Marathon Oil and Shell Oil.
Frank Vandersloot: Frank Vandersloot is the national finance co-chairman of the Romney campaign and, through his company Melaleuca, has donated $1 million to Restore Our Future. He is also a “litigious, combative, and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement” who “spent big” on ads in an “ultimately unsuccessful effort to force Idaho Public Television to cancel a program that showed gays and lesbians in a favorable light to school children.”
Read more: Barack Obama Truth Team
Obama’s Hope Hypocrisy
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff - April 27, 2012 5:24 pm
State Senator Obama has some sage advice for the current President, as he officially kicks off his re-election campaign.
When he was a rising star in the Democratic Party in 2004, Illinois State Senator Barack Obama had the opportunity to give the Weekly Democratic Address at the end of June.
President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign was in full swing, and he was traveling around the country, much as President Obama is doing now, talking to voters, rallying his base, and raising money.
After almost three years of tough economic times with the bear market and the War on Terror, Bush was optimistic about the future of the country: the unemployment rate was 5.6 percent and falling, and the stock market was on the upswing.
State Senator Obama, who at the time was campaigning for a seat in the U.S. Senate, felt that Bush was going heavy on the hope:
For the past few weeks, President Bush and members of his Administration have traveled the nation to celebrate recent, improved economic statistics.
Well, I’ve been traveling, too. …I’ve heard from people who say it’s way too early to claim victory when it comes to our economy.
For most Americans, the health of our economy is measured in a different and more personal way: If I lose my job, where will I find one that pays as well and offers real benefits? …
It’s not just those who have lost their jobs who are struggling. It’s also those who have jobs, and have suffered through years where their wages haven’t increased, their benefits have diminished and their health care costs have soared.
Eight years later, President Obama is facing his own re-election campaign, as the economy struggles to gain a foothold. Unemployment is at 8.2 percent. The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates that 14.5 percent of the labor force is unemployed or underemployed.
But the candidate who ran his campaign on hope is more optimistic about the future of the country than he was in 2004.
In his State of the Union address in January, the president insisted, “America is back. Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”
By March 1, recovery seemed to be the official theme of 2012. The New York Times’ front page featured a story entitled “President Offers Theme of Nation Seeing Comeback”:
President Obama has a new message: America has gotten its groove back. …
“The Republicans are running on a gloom and doom vision of American decline,” said Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign. Mr. Obama believes that “if we promote policies that invest in the middle class, American will out-innovate and out-educate the rest of the world,” Mr. LaBolt said.
This year’s college graduates are facing job market in which half of them will either not be able to find a job that utilizes their skills or not be able to find a job at all.
But the theme of a country on the upswing has stuck. During a March 9 campaign trip to Texas, Obama told supporters, “The recovery is accelerating. America is coming back.” Acknowledging the hardships many still face, he said, “We’re obviously still in the midst of a lot of struggles for a lot of people but the trend lines are good.”
In 2004, State Senator Obama was more cautious in his optimism:
America needs a strong, vibrant middle class. And until middle class families get their heads above water, we can’t declare victory.
The President attacks those who make this point as “pessimists.”
In the last quarter of 2012, 22.8 percent of home mortgages were underwater, as middle class homeowners continue to struggle with negative equity.
“The President may feel it’s time to celebrate. But my travels tell me that we have a lot of work to do to restore economic security for every American,” said Senator Obama in 2004.
(Thanks to reader Scott from Youngblood news for the tip on the 2004 speech.)
State Senator Obama has some sage advice for the current President, as he officially kicks off his re-election campaign.
When he was a rising star in the Democratic Party in 2004, Illinois State Senator Barack Obama had the opportunity to give the Weekly Democratic Address at the end of June.
President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign was in full swing, and he was traveling around the country, much as President Obama is doing now, talking to voters, rallying his base, and raising money.
After almost three years of tough economic times with the bear market and the War on Terror, Bush was optimistic about the future of the country: the unemployment rate was 5.6 percent and falling, and the stock market was on the upswing.
State Senator Obama, who at the time was campaigning for a seat in the U.S. Senate, felt that Bush was going heavy on the hope:
For the past few weeks, President Bush and members of his Administration have traveled the nation to celebrate recent, improved economic statistics.
Well, I’ve been traveling, too. …I’ve heard from people who say it’s way too early to claim victory when it comes to our economy.
For most Americans, the health of our economy is measured in a different and more personal way: If I lose my job, where will I find one that pays as well and offers real benefits? …
It’s not just those who have lost their jobs who are struggling. It’s also those who have jobs, and have suffered through years where their wages haven’t increased, their benefits have diminished and their health care costs have soared.
Eight years later, President Obama is facing his own re-election campaign, as the economy struggles to gain a foothold. Unemployment is at 8.2 percent. The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates that 14.5 percent of the labor force is unemployed or underemployed.
But the candidate who ran his campaign on hope is more optimistic about the future of the country than he was in 2004.
In his State of the Union address in January, the president insisted, “America is back. Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”
By March 1, recovery seemed to be the official theme of 2012. The New York Times’ front page featured a story entitled “President Offers Theme of Nation Seeing Comeback”:
President Obama has a new message: America has gotten its groove back. …
“The Republicans are running on a gloom and doom vision of American decline,” said Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign. Mr. Obama believes that “if we promote policies that invest in the middle class, American will out-innovate and out-educate the rest of the world,” Mr. LaBolt said.
This year’s college graduates are facing job market in which half of them will either not be able to find a job that utilizes their skills or not be able to find a job at all.
But the theme of a country on the upswing has stuck. During a March 9 campaign trip to Texas, Obama told supporters, “The recovery is accelerating. America is coming back.” Acknowledging the hardships many still face, he said, “We’re obviously still in the midst of a lot of struggles for a lot of people but the trend lines are good.”
In 2004, State Senator Obama was more cautious in his optimism:
America needs a strong, vibrant middle class. And until middle class families get their heads above water, we can’t declare victory.
The President attacks those who make this point as “pessimists.”
In the last quarter of 2012, 22.8 percent of home mortgages were underwater, as middle class homeowners continue to struggle with negative equity.
“The President may feel it’s time to celebrate. But my travels tell me that we have a lot of work to do to restore economic security for every American,” said Senator Obama in 2004.
(Thanks to reader Scott from Youngblood news for the tip on the 2004 speech.)
The list: Obama’s campaign attacking private citizens again; Update: Backfire?
April 27, 2012
by Allahpundit
HotAir.Com:
Kimberley Strassel explains it all to you. Actual quote from The One’s attack website: “A closer look at Romney’s donors reveals a group of wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records. Quite a few have been on the wrong side of the law, others have made profits at the expense of so many Americans, and still others are donating to help ensure Romney puts beneficial policies in place for them.” This from a guy who’s still using Jon Corzine as a bundler.
Remember, when asked last month at his White House presser about Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke, the Unicorn Prince intoned that he doesn’t like to see private citizens attacked for their political advocacy. Here’s Strassel on how seriously he takes that:
Richard Nixon’s “enemies list” appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers — to jail, to fine, to bankrupt — are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.
Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.” In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having “less-than-reputable records,” the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that “quite a few” have also been “on the wrong side of the law” and profiting at “the expense of so many Americans.”…
“We don’t tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things,” says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. “When you have the power of the presidency — the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC — what you have effectively done is put these guys’ names up on ‘Wanted’ posters in government offices.” Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He’s been ignored.
The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney.
They’ve been demagoging the Kochs for months but the flaw in that tactic is that it doesn’t do much to intimidate other wealthy Republicans. Arguably, it achieves the opposite effect. The more lefty rage is directed at “the Kochtopus” as an all-purpose explanation for the country’s ills, the less attention is paid to lower-profile conservatives. If you want to pressure people into not donating to Romney, you’re better off spreading the hate around. Hence “the list.”
That said, while reading Strassel’s piece I kept thinking of this post from the other night about how many of Obama’s “policy” speeches have been transparently political over the last few months. In his case, part of the shock in seeing the president call out private citizens is lost because for months he’s seemed much more like a candidate than a C-in-C. That’s one of the reasons they’re hitting the Bin Laden anniversary so hard, I think — it’s not only one of his few unambiguous triumphs as president, it’s a rare moment when he was acting unambiguously as president. That’s a smart image to push while you’re busy smearing Romney’s “less-than-reputable” donors.
Update: Patrick Ishmael e-mails with a good point:
Doesn’t this make it more likely that they’d donate to SuperPACs, where they can give unlimited amounts anonymously? And how exactly is that advantageous to Obama? At least Romney has to stand by his ads. He doesn’t have to do squat with American Crossroads and the rest.
Yep. If you’re worried about being hassled by Obama and his base, you’re better off sticking with Super PAC donations. That means even less transparency from political donors in the aggregate, but I’m not sure O minds that. He doesn’t really care about transparency, he cares about choking off funds to Romney’s campaign for organizational and other GOTV uses. Funneling rich donors away from that and entirely into Super PACs may be his best bet since many of them are bound to be donating heavily to Super PACs anyway.
by Allahpundit
HotAir.Com:
Kimberley Strassel explains it all to you. Actual quote from The One’s attack website: “A closer look at Romney’s donors reveals a group of wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records. Quite a few have been on the wrong side of the law, others have made profits at the expense of so many Americans, and still others are donating to help ensure Romney puts beneficial policies in place for them.” This from a guy who’s still using Jon Corzine as a bundler.
Remember, when asked last month at his White House presser about Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke, the Unicorn Prince intoned that he doesn’t like to see private citizens attacked for their political advocacy. Here’s Strassel on how seriously he takes that:
Richard Nixon’s “enemies list” appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers — to jail, to fine, to bankrupt — are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.
Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.” In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having “less-than-reputable records,” the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that “quite a few” have also been “on the wrong side of the law” and profiting at “the expense of so many Americans.”…
“We don’t tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things,” says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. “When you have the power of the presidency — the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC — what you have effectively done is put these guys’ names up on ‘Wanted’ posters in government offices.” Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He’s been ignored.
The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney.
They’ve been demagoging the Kochs for months but the flaw in that tactic is that it doesn’t do much to intimidate other wealthy Republicans. Arguably, it achieves the opposite effect. The more lefty rage is directed at “the Kochtopus” as an all-purpose explanation for the country’s ills, the less attention is paid to lower-profile conservatives. If you want to pressure people into not donating to Romney, you’re better off spreading the hate around. Hence “the list.”
That said, while reading Strassel’s piece I kept thinking of this post from the other night about how many of Obama’s “policy” speeches have been transparently political over the last few months. In his case, part of the shock in seeing the president call out private citizens is lost because for months he’s seemed much more like a candidate than a C-in-C. That’s one of the reasons they’re hitting the Bin Laden anniversary so hard, I think — it’s not only one of his few unambiguous triumphs as president, it’s a rare moment when he was acting unambiguously as president. That’s a smart image to push while you’re busy smearing Romney’s “less-than-reputable” donors.
Update: Patrick Ishmael e-mails with a good point:
Doesn’t this make it more likely that they’d donate to SuperPACs, where they can give unlimited amounts anonymously? And how exactly is that advantageous to Obama? At least Romney has to stand by his ads. He doesn’t have to do squat with American Crossroads and the rest.
Yep. If you’re worried about being hassled by Obama and his base, you’re better off sticking with Super PAC donations. That means even less transparency from political donors in the aggregate, but I’m not sure O minds that. He doesn’t really care about transparency, he cares about choking off funds to Romney’s campaign for organizational and other GOTV uses. Funneling rich donors away from that and entirely into Super PACs may be his best bet since many of them are bound to be donating heavily to Super PACs anyway.
One Chart to Rule Them All
Friday, April 27, 2012
One Chart to Rule Them All
I spotted this chart (courtesy Larwyn, of course) at The Jacksonian Party. It explains a great deal about our current situation; one in which the people find themselves pitted against their elected officials.
Prior to 1902, Congress had never reached a 70% reelection rate.
Jacksonian argues that when the Senate became a directly elected body and no longer represented Statehouses, taxation and other federal usurpations of Constitutional bounds became rife. In other words, the federal government could and did use its power to begin punishing the states, regulating local affairs and interfering in every sort of arcane transaction.
That change triggered an ever-increasing federal budget that went far beyond national defense. Budget-busting initiatives, politically motivated in nature, purported to help retirees, the sick, the elderly and so on, while concentrating ever more power in Washington.
The federal government now consists of a body of lifetime bureaucrats, many of whom couldn't power a flashlight with all of their brainpower combined, who are reelected automatically through their use of federal tax funds. They reward, they punish, they anoint.
And they continue to aggregate more power at the federal level -- and to build their own personal wealth -- ignoring and flouting the law. Rangel, Feinstein, Frank, Reid, Waters, Conyers -- to name but a few -- have repeatedly thumbed their noses at financial disclosures, ethics violations, criminal complaints, FOIA requests, and the like.
If government worked as Obama and the National Socialist Democrats say it will, then why would we care about separation of powers? Why would we care about different levels of government?
Why would we care about the Constitution?
Why was this nation founded in the first place?
If government is so beneficent, so effective, so humane and compassionate, how is it that throughout all of human history, the great philosophers and thinkers were so fearful of it?
Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Montesquieu, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and so many more.
Were they all wrong about government and Obama right?
Were they all wrong about limiting, balancing, placing checks on government? Were they all wrong about liberty?
Is human history all wrong and Obama right?
Is human history all wrong and Nancy Pelosi right?
Is human history all wrong and Harry Reid right?
Do you really think Obama, Pelosi and Reid hold a candle to the greatest thinkers civilization has ever seen?
Because for Obama to be right; and for his party, now in the hands of the radical left, to be right; the Founders had to be wrong.
For Obama to be right, the Declaration of Independence has to be wrong.
For Obama to be right, the Constitution has to be wrong.
For Obama to be right, Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Montesquieu, Burke, Smith and the founding fathers all had to be wrong.
And so it is clear how all of this will end.
Government-run health care will be used as a tool by government officials. As these programs always are. It will be used to punish political enemies, to reward friends, to entice supporters and -- always -- to aggregate more power.
It must be repealed. It must be obliterated.
Hat tips: The Jacksonian Party, Thirty Thousand and Mark Levin.
One Chart to Rule Them All
I spotted this chart (courtesy Larwyn, of course) at The Jacksonian Party. It explains a great deal about our current situation; one in which the people find themselves pitted against their elected officials.
Prior to 1902, Congress had never reached a 70% reelection rate.
Jacksonian argues that when the Senate became a directly elected body and no longer represented Statehouses, taxation and other federal usurpations of Constitutional bounds became rife. In other words, the federal government could and did use its power to begin punishing the states, regulating local affairs and interfering in every sort of arcane transaction.
That change triggered an ever-increasing federal budget that went far beyond national defense. Budget-busting initiatives, politically motivated in nature, purported to help retirees, the sick, the elderly and so on, while concentrating ever more power in Washington.
The federal government now consists of a body of lifetime bureaucrats, many of whom couldn't power a flashlight with all of their brainpower combined, who are reelected automatically through their use of federal tax funds. They reward, they punish, they anoint.
And they continue to aggregate more power at the federal level -- and to build their own personal wealth -- ignoring and flouting the law. Rangel, Feinstein, Frank, Reid, Waters, Conyers -- to name but a few -- have repeatedly thumbed their noses at financial disclosures, ethics violations, criminal complaints, FOIA requests, and the like.
If government worked as Obama and the National Socialist Democrats say it will, then why would we care about separation of powers? Why would we care about different levels of government?
Why would we care about the Constitution?
Why was this nation founded in the first place?
If government is so beneficent, so effective, so humane and compassionate, how is it that throughout all of human history, the great philosophers and thinkers were so fearful of it?
Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Montesquieu, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and so many more.
Were they all wrong about government and Obama right?
Were they all wrong about limiting, balancing, placing checks on government? Were they all wrong about liberty?
Is human history all wrong and Obama right?
Is human history all wrong and Nancy Pelosi right?
Is human history all wrong and Harry Reid right?
Do you really think Obama, Pelosi and Reid hold a candle to the greatest thinkers civilization has ever seen?
Because for Obama to be right; and for his party, now in the hands of the radical left, to be right; the Founders had to be wrong.
For Obama to be right, the Declaration of Independence has to be wrong.
For Obama to be right, the Constitution has to be wrong.
For Obama to be right, Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Montesquieu, Burke, Smith and the founding fathers all had to be wrong.
And so it is clear how all of this will end.
Government-run health care will be used as a tool by government officials. As these programs always are. It will be used to punish political enemies, to reward friends, to entice supporters and -- always -- to aggregate more power.
It must be repealed. It must be obliterated.
Hat tips: The Jacksonian Party, Thirty Thousand and Mark Levin.
Obama’s U.S. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to resign soon over Fast and Furious and Virgin Islands bribery scandals
Weich, who has served as Attorney General Eric Holder’s emissary in congressional communications, will become the next dean of the University of Baltimore School of Law in July, according to the National Law Journal.
The DOJ official is the same Holder deputy who falsely told Congress that neither the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives nor any part of the Department of Justice ever allowed illicit firearms to “walk” across the U.S.-Mexico border — even as contrary facts emerged from the investigation into Operation Fast and Furious.
On Feb. 4, 2011, Weich wrote to Congress that the idea that “ATF ‘sanctioned’ or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser who then transported them into Mexico … is false.”
“ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico,” Weich added in that letter.
Source: FireAndreaMitchell.Com