The Midnight Review

Blackwater Steals Guns From U.S.

2010-03-10T12:14:00.008-05:00

From an article at The Washington Independent by Spencer Ackerman:

Employees of the CIA-connected private security corporation Blackwater diverted hundreds of weapons, including more than 500 AK-47 assault rifles, from a U.S. weapons bunker in Afghanistan intended to equip Afghan policemen, according to an investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee. On at least one occasion, an individual claiming to work for the company evidently signed for a weapons shipment using the name of a “South Park” cartoon character. And Blackwater has yet to return hundreds of the guns to the military.

A Blackwater subsidiary known as Paravant that until recently operated in Afghanistan acquired the weapons for its employees’ “personal use,” according to committee staffers, as did other non-Paravant employees of Blackwater. Yet contractors in Afghanistan are not permitted to operate weapons without explicit permission from U.S. Central Command, something Blackwater never obtained. A November 2008 email from a Paravant vice president named Brian McCracken, obtained by the committee, nevertheless reads: “We have not received formal permission from the Army to carry weapons yet but I will take my chances.”

The committee’s investigation points to the contrary. Blackwater personnel appear to have gone to exceptional lengths to obtain weapons from U.S. military weapons storehouses intended for use by the Afghan police. According to the committee, at the behest of the company’s Afghanistan country manager, Ricky Chambers, Blackwater on at least two occasions acquired hundreds of rifles and pistols from a U.S. military facility near Kabul called 22 Bunkers by the military and Pol-e Charki by the Afghans. Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of all U.S. military forces in the Middle East and South Asia, wrote to the committee to explain that “there is no current or past written policy, order, directive, or instruction that allows U.S. Military contractors or subcontractors in Afghanistan to use weapons stored at 22 Bunkers.”

Blackwater personnel invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination when approached by the committee to explain the weapons acquisitions from 22 Bunkers, according to committee staff. Sailer, who is still deployed to Afghanistan, told the committee that he thought Blackwater was signing for the weapons to train Afghan police, a task it has never conducted.

Additionally, Blackwater personnel in Afghanistan, including those involved in both the May shooting and an earlier improper weapons discharge from December 2008, have been cited for, among other infractions, drug and alcohol abuse and, in one case, an “extensive criminal history.”

Conservatives like to point to systemic corruption when discussing progressives, but it is their unwavering support of the military industrial complex that has bred this culture of corruption. Billions of dollars have been awarded to companies like Blackwater with little government oversight, and considering the previous administration's propensity to either look the other way or out nay-sayers, this abuse of the federal government was allowed to cultivate in these organizations.

A while back, there was a comparison of the disproportionate amount of money each company receives to the amount of air time devoted to stories about them, and incidentally, the conservative media had shown complicity with these criminal organizations and their waste of taxpayer money, yet there seems to be an overabundance of attacks against organizations deemed friendly to the Obama administration. To me, this seems to be disingenuous to the American people, and while these news groups claim to be "fair and balanced," they do nothing but shill for their political parties. We see Andrew Breitbart and his cronies constantly attacking ACORN, and with revelations that conservative activist James O'Keefe lied to even his boss, or so Breitbart claims, the refocus of their attacks are now that the community organization may not have done anything criminal in the videos, but they are knowledgable of cheating the stystem, and they must have stuck it to taxpayers in the past. Where are those same accusations from Breitbart & Co. for these military contractors?

I think I will wait to hold my breath for this one. Lets just hope that the Senate Armed Services Committee doesn't cave in to the industry and I hope we don't reward any future to the renamed Blackwater. A pig by any other name is still a pig.

Glenn Beck On Massa Interview: "I think I've wasted your time."

2010-03-10T10:24:00.000-05:00

Disgraced former New York Representative Eric Massa appeared on Glenn Beck's program March 9th. One would question the motives behind such a move. Massa, who is a Democrat, was no fan of the right, voting for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and supporting a single-payer health care system, but since his resignation, which had come abruptly after a sexual misconduct scandal resulting from complaints of senior member of Massa's staff, involving alleged sexual advances and harassment against a younger male staffer, and claims that the administration browbeated him into retirement. Glenn Beck is no fan of Democrats or the current administration, and guests of his show consist of a steady rotation of right wing activists, journalists, politicians, and analysts, so why would Beck want a former Democratic representative, who is dissatisfied with the current administration, to be on his show, especially after the conservatives latched onto the sexual misconduct story first and ran with it, with other Fox News hosts, such as Sean Hannity, comparing Massa to Mark Foley?

The only answer I can come up with is that he was hoping Massa would dish out some dirty little secrets or damning facts. Glenn Beck pressed, asking if there was any "specific" evidence of corruption in the administration and Massa rambled about the organization of Democratic and Republican "whipping," and then asked Glenn Beck and others to stop throwing around pejorative remarks like calling opponents "communist" or "socialist." Beck was not satisfied with the response, stating that Massa did not give any specifics. When Beck proclaimed that his show was a waste of time, I think it was because he did not get the story he was hoping for. You could see the gears turning in Glenn Beck's head and when no accusations against the administration were made, Beck seemed defeated and shifted to another subject.

While on the show, Massa did admit his sexual misconduct, stating that not only did he "grope" his staffer, but he also "tickled" him, although he had also admitted that his intentions were not sexual in nature and they were misunderstood. In my opinion, if Massa was getting pressure from the Democratic leadership and from the administration, it was most likely over this scandal and not over his health care views, and that the actions by the administration would seem warranted, as well as a departure from Republican handling of similar matters, such as Mark Foley's congressional page scandal or Larry Craig's arrest at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport for suspicion of "lewd conduct".

Massa is just a disgruntled employee, who is trying to save his own skin by lashing out at everyone and everything, making accusations of union bribery, naked confrontations with Rahm Emmanuel, and so on and so forth. If Massa kept his resignation short and sweet, leaving office with his voting record behind, he would have been better off.

Marc Thiessen Caught Selecting Facts To Support His Argument

2010-03-10T09:35:00.001-05:00

Marc Thiessen, speechwriter for former President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, appeared on Comedy Central's The Daily Show on March 9th to promote his new book Courting Disaster. His interview at times was very contentious, but what satisfied me the most was a portion of the interview nine minutes in, where Thiessen states that America was not attacked for seven years after September 11th's terrorist attacks. John Stewart countered, stating that we were not attacked for seven years on American soil after the first World Trade Center bombing. Apparently John hit a sore spot because Thiessen felt it was clear to show up his host, citing the the bombing of the World Trade Center, bombings in East Africa, the bombing of the USS Cole, and then finally September 11th as proof that the United States was attacked in the seven year period John Stewart mentioned, but John had some points to make of his own, mentioning the bombings in Britain, Afghanistan, and Iraq (Stewart could have also mentioned the 2004 Madrid bombings as well to illustrate his point). John Stewart then chastised Thiessen saying that Thiessen lives in a "selective world" and then jumped to commercial, much to Thiessen's dismay - the show was over and the interview would continue on the internet, but Thiessen felt that Stewart steamrolled the interview and that he would not be able to get his point out over the air, which I would have to say that Stewart did interrupt Thiessen quite a bit, but unlike the rest of the mainstream media, he did not allow his guest to perpetuate lies and selective reasoning to support his argument. Why are reporters afraid to ask these questions and stick to them?

Hypocrite Palin Used Canadian Health Care

2010-03-09T03:14:00.002-05:00

Sarah Palin had recently admitted at a Calgary appearance that the Palin clan would cross the border to take advantage of Canada's single-payer system. Her response: "Isn't that ironic?" I believe the correct term would be "hypocritical."

Palin, a harsh critic against President Obama and the Democrat's push for health care reform, has constantly attacked the Canadian system, stating that abysmal government administration and rationing, will bring down the American system, and that the passage of the President Obama's plan will bring Canadian style "death panels" and poor quality care to America, but apparently Canadian care was better for Alaska's first family then, well, Alaska's health care system.

I hope all the Palin propagandists hear loud and clear that their pretty, pretty princess is nothing but a liar, who is willing to exploit our northern neighbor's excellent health care system while leaving the rest of America to fend for themselves. I bet Palin didn't realize news travels pretty fast nowadays, especially with the internet. I'm sure the spin cycle will be on heavy come the following days.

2 ACORN Workers (Out Of 400,000) Charged With Election Fraud

2010-03-09T03:14:00.001-05:00

From Foxnews.com:

Five Wisconsin residents, including two who worked for community organizing group ACORN, were charged Monday with election fraud relating to the 2008 presidential election.

State Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen announced felony charges against Maria Miles, Kevin Clancy, Michael Henderson, Herbert Gunka and Suzanne Gunka.

Miles and Clancy worked for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now and are accused of submitting multiple voter registration applications for the same individuals, including each other, to meet voter registration quotas imposed by the community organizing group.

Henderson is charged with one count of voting by a disqualified person and providing false information to election officials. The allegation claims he was on a felony probation and prohibited from voting at the time.

Herbert and Suzanne Gunka are each charged with double voting -- a felony -- by allegedly absentee voting and then going to the polls to vote.

"The integrity of elections is dependent upon citizens and officials insisting they be conducted lawfully. Wisconsin's citizens should not have to wonder whether their vote has been negated or diminished by illegally cast ballots," Van Hollen said.

My FoxMilwaukee reported that neither could immediately be reached for comment, and it was unclear whether they had lawyers.

Each individual charge carries a potential penalty of imprisonment up to three and a half years and a $10,000 fine. They are scheduled to appear in court on April 20.

I think the right's obsession with ACORN is interesting, and absurd at best, but considering this news article references only two low level employees out of a total of 400,000 members, or .0005%, who committed an act of wrongdoing, then I would have to say that this article is hardly proof of organization-wide corruption. Also taking into consideration that there are three people who have also been charged with election fraud who don't work for ACORN, I would have to draw the conclusion just based on these five people alone that more election fraud is caused by people not employed by ACORN then those who are.

Democrat Calls For Congressional Pay Cuts

2010-03-09T03:14:00.000-05:00

Democratic Representative Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona introduced a bill last week to cut pay for members of Congress by 5 percent.

"I'll tell you, there is nothing like asking the people you work with to take a cut in pay and see the concern on their faces," Kirkpatrick told Fox News on Monday.

The bill has already begun to gain bipartisan support, gaining 21 cosponsors from both parties, and being considered by two House committees. "The last time Congress took a cut in pay was 77 years ago. I don't know anyone who has not had a pay cut in 77 years," she said. While the savings may seem miniscule when compared to the federal deficit, the bill stands to save almost $5 million a year.

The most interesting part of this bill, in my opinion, is that it was introduced by a Democrat. Where were all the fiscal conservatives clamoring to reduce their pay these past few years?

Hannah Giles Defense Letter

2010-03-09T03:13:00.000-05:00

It appears the Hannah Giles Legal Defense Fund is looking for donors, sending out a five page letter on pink paper pleading for help against the evil ACORN. According to the letter, ACORN, "Obama's ally" is out to get her, dangling the threat of a lawsuit over her head, and while there currently is no lawsuit, Hannah fears that she may be faced with future lawsuits from the organization as revenge for her seceret videotapes made with fellow conservative activist James O'Keefe.

What I find particularly interesting is that Giles' letter states that ACORN is speaking to various district attorneys to try and bring criminal charges against her, forcing her to fight legal battles all over the country with "chance" that she would go to jail. Assuming that her defense has merit and that ACORN's claims are baseless, then Giles' fear of going to jail seems to be irrelevant, unless ACORN has substantial evidence against the video prostitute that can send her away. Why else would she need so much money, which according to her letter could be in the millions?

It is also interesting that Giles' letter pins the financial crisis on ACORN's involvement in "mortgage rackets" and refers to O'Keefe as a "would be" politician, not a pimp. It seems that her letter for help is not only a piece of revisionist propaganda, but also an interesting prop in her continuing quest to discredit the community organization and the current administration.

Increasing Trend Of Transfer Fees Placed In Covenants And Restrictions

2010-03-08T10:39:00.004-05:00

Updated March 9th, 2010.

There is an alarming trend involving the covenants and restrictions developers are placing on properties called a "transfer fee." Essentially, the developer writes into the covenants that at each time the property is sold over the next one hundred years, a certain percentage must go back to the developer or investor partners, essentially generating income for the developer years after the original sale.

According to an article at the Daily Herald, National Association of Realtors and the American Land Title Association have already come out against this issue, asking legislators to prohibit or limit these private mandates on property. Even the National Association of Home Builders is weary of such fees.

"It's a very creative concept," said David Ledford, the builder association's senior vice president for housing finance, "but it's largely untested and controversial politically."

Proponents of the fee tout that it is good for both consumers and builders because, in theory, the transfer fee will allow developers to recoup "infrastructure costs," such as project amenities, environmental protection and land use requirements imposed by local governments, without imposing the high costs on the property up front, allowing for properties to be sold for less. Builders can then sell the rights to the transfer fees to investors who may purchase the revenue stream at a cost.

Critics of the fee claim that it will lower property values and make houses with fees tied to their property hardy to sell. There is also question as to whether or not these fees will be disclosed to consumers at the time of purchase as well as how payments, if any, will be made in the future, which could have the potential to hold up land sales.

While some states limit or ban the practice, there are still numerous that don't - 44 to be exact.

The problem I see with this is that I do not see initial costs to the consumer being lowered by much, if by any. If a fee is placed, say 1% on the resale value over the next 99 years, in order to recoup developmental costs, and then the developer is to monetize the fee to a bunch of investors, they may not get the potential full value of their "infrastructure costs" back as compared to selling a home with the costs already included, leaving the property to be encumbered for years with eventual fees. I can also imagine that developers will use this fee to hide their actual costs and profit margins, claiming to be selling at a reduced cost because the transfer fees will recoup the expenses but in reality just using the fees to just make more, and from people they will have no dealings with in the future.

Similarly, Sand Lake Hills Homeowners Association (SLHHOA), as well as other associations had done similar things using covenants and restrictions to ensure revenue streams from properties. SLHHOA, when rewriting their covenants, created an additional article titled "Assessments," which placed a liability on each property, regardless of membership, requiring property owners to pay any amount at any given time. The association also created something called an "initial assessment/transfer fee" that requires new property owners to pay the association a sum of $250 dollars in addition to any other assessment upon transfer of the title. Any transfer also forces new owners to become members of the association, and then in perpetuity, become liable to the corporation for ever.

Interestingly enough, Florida, the state where SLHHOA exists, bans the practice of transfer fees. Although the statute excludes "assessments" and "fees" payable to a homeowners' association, I believe that the section is present to differentiate between the typical assessments and fees permitted in covenants and restrictions from transfer fees. While the language may appear to be vague, my interpretation of the intent of the statute is to exclude normal fees from the restriction to avoid conflicts with other statutes. There are also some other issues regarding the SLHHOA - mainly that it is not the legal HOA of the surrounding neighborhood it wishes to collect from.

Essentially, this is just another example of creative developers and interested parties establishing a steady stream of income with no work on their part, so essentially, they had written into the rules of the property a way for them to get free money.

Ridiculous Assertion ACORN Videos Not "Heavily Edited"

2010-03-08T00:13:00.000-05:00

It seems Andrew Breitbart's Big Journalism should be renamed Big Farce because it offers no real journalism, just a collection of opinions of some right wing hacks, who forgo journalistic integrity for political low blows. Just ask Christian Hartsock of Big Journalism, who whines about ACORN, claiming the left has been shifting their narrative against opponents of the organization, changing their angles, whether it be that James O'Keefe's videos were racially motivated or that that the videos were "heavily edited," which I assume Hartsock placed in quotations to insinuate that the videos were not doctored and what you see on the tapes really happened. He even goes as far as to suggest that Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes is in ACORN's back pocket, merely because he was endorsed by the Working Families Party. By that logic, the Tea Party movement, as well as the Republican Party, must be racist, bigoted, sexist, or any other adjective simply because some organization endorses them over the Democrats.

Hartsock states that the left possesses "no tangible evidence" proving the videos were not "heavily edited", but what is ironic is Andrew Breitbart's repeated statements that he will release the full videos publicly, but has yet to do so, instead pushing his "complete" transcripts, which as far as we know are not "complete." Hartsock's rebuttal to claims that the videos have been spliced - "No they weren’t," but he also goes on to state that recent revelations that O'Keefe was not wearing his garish pimp outfit into the offices are irrelevant, even though they are evidence that the videos have been edited.

It is also laughable that Hartsock attacks the criticisms of James O'Keefe's and Hannah Giles being recognized as investigative journalists, but I would believe that in order to achieve that status, one would have to offer extensive documentation, not some edited videos and cut scenes in costume. Not to mention the denial of proof that there were instances where the duo were thrown out of the offices and had the cops called on them.

Big Journalism is the biggest laughingstock of the journalistic world, and I don't know why I visit the site, other then to see what preposterous notion they are currently peddling...

Romney Ignores MA Health Care Similarities To National Overhaul, As Well As Federal Correction Of State's Failures

2010-03-07T11:36:00.005-05:00

It must be nice to have selective memory. Mitt Romney simultaneously blasted Obama's plan for national health care reform while dismissing the similarities between the president's reform and the one he enacted as governor of Massachusetts, claiming that this is a federalist nation, and that decisions such as sweeping health care reforms, should be left to the individual states, but being the hypocrite that he is, defended federal money used to implement the state's reform stating that the funds were "entitled" to Massachusetts, simply because it was part of the disproportionate shared program and that other states were receiving the payments for care of the uninsured, but to me, it seems that Romney is biting the hand that once fed him. According to Romney, while the federal government has no authority to expand health care, the federal government must pay out to states that do wish to have such protections for their residents.

As another interesting example of hypocrisy, on Fox News Sunday, Romney supported the idea of an individual mandate, calling it the "ultimate conservative plan" - something that President Obama has included but congressional Republicans attacked at unconstitutional. Romney also claims that the federal implementation of health reform will not work like the similar plan he put into place as governor, even though the federal plan has safeguards to prevent disproportionately high premiums, something Romeny's plan had failed to accomplish.

It appears obvious what the real issue is for conservatives, and that is the federal government has no place to insure the quality of life of it's citizens, but the states do, and by Romney's logic, can with federal money, so basically, Republicans don't care where the money comes from, despite all this talk of fiscally conservatism and protecting the deficit, and that their real point of contention is that Democrats are the ones that wanted to do it first nationally, not themselves.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Big Government's Solution To Health Care: Spend Money Or "Suck It Up"

2010-03-07T03:56:00.000-05:00

Conservatives seem to worry that "rights" can be taken away by the government at any time, and that allowing certain things such as health care to be called a "right" is a perversion of the word itself. According to Big Government author Kerry J. Byrne, the intellectual left have distorted what a "right" really is by claiming Americans have the right to health care, and to some degree, Byrne agrees with them, or so he writes.

Every American does have a right to health care. In fact, they have that 'right' right now. They have the right to buy insurance. They have the right to not buy insurance. They have the right to pay out of pocket. They have the right get a second opinion. They have the right to rub a little dirt on it and suck it up. They have a right to help out a friend in need.

If you think about it, Byrne has things a bit backwards, confusing the right to health care with the right to pay for health care. While conceding that the current system needs to be fixed, Byrne comes equipped with all the solutions.

You can still find another insurance company, seek help in a different state, find a charitable doctor to pay for it, benefit from a fundraiser or, worst-case scenario, benefit from the generosity of a well-funded, for-profit private health care institution.

He makes it sound so easy. Next time I have a family member dying of cancer or some other life-threatening ailment, I will be sure to shop around for a better insurance policy (impossible), import drugs from Canada (illegal, and not quite sure what a different state would offer), or find some generous and wealthy organization to take care of something that the government was established to do (laughable), and by that, I quote the Preamble of the Constitution, which states that the Constitution was established to "promote the general Welfare," among other things, with the context of the word "welfare" meaning "health, happiness, or prosperity."

What does Byrne predict in the near future, should legislators finalize a bill expanding medical coverage?

At best, your rights will be forced underground into a health care black market: doctors illegally providing care in a cash-only medical economy – but probably one better than the legit “health care” system where patients have no rights but those regally gifted to them by the lords of big government (who, themselves, will never be denied care).

The system that Byrne describes sounds oddly familiar. I think that is because it sounds like what we are experiencing now. If you want medical care, you better pay up.

I am reminded of the narration of Henry Hill in the movie Goodfellas, when Henry mentions someone going into business with Paulie, and forgive me in advance for the language used: "Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning, huh? Fuck you, pay me."

Case Involving Rumsfeld Approved Torture Proceeds In Federal Courts

2010-03-07T03:06:00.000-05:00

From The Huffington Post:

A federal judge refused Friday to dismiss a civil lawsuit accusing former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of responsibility for the alleged torture by U.S. forces of two Americans who worked for an Iraqi contracting firm.

U.S. District Judge Wayne R. Andersen's ruling did not say the two contractors had proven their claims, including that they were tortured after reporting alleged illegal activities by their company. But it did say they had alleged enough specific mistreatment to warrant hearing evidence of exactly what happened.

Andersen said his decision "represents a recognition that federal officials may not strip citizens of well settled constitutional protections against mistreatment simply because they are located in a tumultuous foreign setting."

Andersen did throw out two of the lawsuit's three counts but gave former contractors Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel the green light to go forward with a third count alleging they were unconstitutionally tortured under procedures personally approved by Rumsfeld.

I find this to be a good move for the justice department. While this administration has taken a very calculated look at the crimes of the previous administration, and at times finding acts of poor judgment but no criminality, I think that allowing a case to proceed, in which the policies approved by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are called into question, with the potential to actually link a former top administration official to a serious violation of constitutional rights, is a step in the right direction. If this story does get picked up by by the conservative media, I would most likely predict that they would attempt to pin this decision on a Democratic vendetta against the previous administration, despite the fact that Judge Andersen was appointed by 41st president of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush.

Breitbart's Sites Breeding Ground For Homegrown Terrorists?

2010-03-06T14:15:00.001-05:00

By now, most of America has heard of the Pentagon shooter already, although some may not be familiar with the circumstances, but in brief, the shooter, Patrick Bedell, attacked the Pentagon out of a strong distrust for the government. I am curious as to whether conservative pundits will be quick to call Bedell a terrorist, much like they did for the Fort Hood shooter, but I doubt that will be the case. According to the Washington Post, "researchers who track violent groups see Bedell's rampage as a distorted manifestation of the anti-Washington view that has driven the rise of right-wing militias" and that the plane crash last month into an IRS building and the shooting of a museum guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum is an alarming trend in that while all three blamed their personal failings on the government, all three had "drawn ideological nourishment" from "online communities of like-minded people who validate and amplify extreme views."

Today, more than in recent years, such communities are tapping into a broad undercurrent of anti-government discontent fueled by economic recession, joblessness and concern over the growing federal deficit, according to experts who have studied the phenomenon.

The Washington Post article states that while Bedell's case was a distortion of the anti-Washington message circulating in right-wing circles, right-wing extremist groups have been on the rise, with a Southern Poverty Law Center study finding that since 2008's election, such organizations increased 244 percent, "from 149 groups to 512, including 127 militias." Prior to this increase, deaths as a result from extremist attacks had fallen for the past 20 years, making these last couple of years abnormal. In my opinion, it seems to coincide with the emergence of the Tea Parties and the right's wholehearted embrace, with Fox News' pundits giving 24/7 airtime to anti-American conspiracies and views, such as calls from the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly regarding topics from school indoctrination to secret security forces established by the administration. "People are bringing completely groundless conspiracy theories into the mainstream, and they are doing it for purely opportunistic reasons," said Mark Potok, author of the Southern Poverty Law Center Report. "To some, it may be only a ratings game, but the danger is that some people actually believe these tall tales and a few will actually act on them."

As for an online companion to the wild topics spewed by conservative pundits, just look to the host of Big websites that promote the same stories seen on Fox News but in greater detail, and to greater extremes, such as the anti-gay smears against Kevin Jennings or the constant fear mongering against Islam and the encroachment of socialism, communism, Marxism, or any other type of "ism". Considering the various topics on any given day on any given Big site, the responses from the readership sound eerily like what the Washington Post described in the article as substantiating these attacks against the government in the minds of those who perpetrated them. Attacks such as these will most likely be on the rise as long as conservatives play this dangerous game of displaying highly sensationalized (and blatantly distorted) stories for the promise of ratings and future political gains at the cost of innocent lives, of course those very same conservatives will probably fail to see any correlation between their actions and the actions of these madmen.

Just consider the report by by the Department of Homeland Security regarding increased "rightwing extremist activity." Conservatives were quick to attack the report, claiming politics to be the cause, and quickly shifted the story around, focusing on the susceptibility of returning war veterans to right wing militias and extremist groups. Maybe there was something to that report that conservatives like Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly were afraid of...

Real Estate Agent's And Lawyer's Inherent Conflict Of Interest With Homeowner's Association (A Look At Paul McGarigal And Larsen & Associates)

2010-03-06T10:37:00.003-05:00

I know I write a bit about the evils of homeowners associations, and in particular, the evils of Sand Lake Hills Homeowners Association, Inc. (SLHHOA). In my most recent installment, I would like to discuss the involvement of a couple people in the unwinding saga of SLHHOA and the process the board of directors had undertaken to rewrite the covenants and restrictions. Those people I would like to discuss are Paul McGarigal, "The Real Estate Coach," and the law firm of Larsen & Associates, which represents SLHHOA, as well as numerous other homeowners associations in the area.

One may ask why I would be discussing a real estate agent and a law firm in relation to a homeowners association, but the point I will make is the inherent conflict of interest the two have with such a corporation, and how these two people's involvement illustrates that their actions, as well as the board of directors, have no interest in protecting the homeowner or their property rights, and are simply acting for their own benefit.

For starters, I would like to look at Paul McGarigal. McGarigal is a real estate agent and property manager in Central Florida. He owns several homes, some of which are located in Sand Lake Hills, and he has worked closely with the SLHHOA in the past, such as donating thousands of dollars for landscaping projects, or sponsoring and writing articles for the association newsletter, but there is an underlying issue. While McGarigal tried to give the appearance that he was helping the community at large, one must also remember that he is a businessman, and businessmen don't just give away thousands of dollars, and real estate agents especially don't give away that kind of money for association landscaping projects unless there is something to gain from it. His participation with the SLHHOA newsletters gave excellent exposure for his business, with the newsletter reaching almost 900 homes. His landscaping endeavors were to go towards another goal - rewriting of the covenants and restrictions of the neighborhood.

According to McGarigal's property management company, DANSCO, "Paul McGarigal participates in several homeowners associations," which in turn benefits his property management company, as well as real estate company, because he is familiar with the covenants and restrictions of the property, but also the associations as well, but here is the conflict of interest - as a real estate agent and property manager, you are in charge of your property, with other homes becoming variables in your business. When selling a home, the curb appeal of not only your client, but their neighbors as well, can effect the decision of possible buyers. To tie this loose end, McGarigal had found an interesting angle. Become involved in the homeowners associations in which he operates and attempt to create stricter rules and regulations, forcing the other non-client homeowners to shape up or ship out. Now, as a real estate agent, McGarigal can rig the system, controlling the appearance of properties he does not represent, and in theory, these homes that may not be up to his selling standards would be forced to fix their curb appeal, quite possibly raising the property value of the homes he does represent, translating into a larger commission for his business. From a business perspective, this sounds like a solid deal, but there is one group of people that gets left out - the average homeowner.

Homeowners associations and real estate agents seem to be concerned with real estate prices. Numerous newsletters published by SLHHOA featured articles written by Paul McGarigal, as well as another resident/agent, Paula Kotzin. Paula Kotzin had taken her involvement a step further, and when the SLHHOA was kicked out of the local library, where they held their membership meetings, for refusing entry to homeowners who were not members to their corporation despite Florida law, Kotzin had offered the association use of her real estate offices for a private meeting. Currently, another real estate agent, Art Lopez, has gotten involved with the HOA, sitting on the board of directors. These real estate agents are not involved merely by coincidence. They are involved because they have an agenda, and that agenda is to sell homes, but if you consider the common theme of neighborhood associations of community cohesion, then you can see that the involvement of real estate agents and all this talk of property values only promotes the interests of those selling their homes and the investors who wish to buy those homes. For the homeowner who wants to live in their home and not sell, they must faced with an encroachment on their property rights and increased property values that will equal increased property taxes and insurance costs. Paul McGarigal does not see the homes in neighborhoods like Sand Lake Hills as a place for people to settle down and raise a family. He views these properties as "starter homes," where the homeowner must eventually "buy up" or down, depending on whether they want to progress to a real home move into something smaller, such as a condominium or retirement community. This process involves a real estate agent, and I am sure Paul knows a real good one.

Researching Sand Lake Hills, there was something interesting I had come across. There was a corporation called the Dr. Phillips Preservation Association (DPPA) ten years ago, and SLHHOA was a charter member. I had never heard of such association and there was never any mention of it in any of the newsletters, so, I decided to look up the corporation's records. To my surprise, I found Paul McGarigal's name on the list of initial board of directors. Unfortunately, the articles of incorporation did not really state much, consisting of the minimum amount of information legally required, but I did find something else that was interesting, and that was the list of the other board members - all of whom were real estate agents and/or board members of various local homeowners associations (Bay Lakes, Bay Vista, Clubhouse Estates, Sandpointe). Further research uncovered that fellow Preservation board member Bethany Pendergast was involved in a messy recall lawsuit back in 2006, which coincidentally involved the same lawyer who is representing a current homeowner suing the SLHHOA. Take into consideration that SLHHOA was a charter member and you can start seeing the picture. While the corporate documents are void of any real information, considering who is involved and the fact that it has the word "preservation" in the title should say something about the goal of the company, which I believe the following article written by Paul McGarigal can further show intent of the organization, as well as the real estate agents, and the conflict of interest at hand.

A Clubhouse Estates newsletter from 2008 (the same time SLHHOA started filing paperwork with the county amending their covenants) had a couple articles written by HOA president Paul McGarigal. In the first, McGarigal discusses the neighborhood's push to amend the covenants and restrictions, utilizing a "powerhouse" law firm, Larsen & Associates, to rewrite the existing documents for a set of stricter set of ones, as well as reasoning as to why the original covenants were just so vague, which according to him, the Federal Housing Administration and the Veteran's Association would not make home loans for properties in neighborhoods with mandatory associations, making it easier for blue collar workers to buy a home, but according to McGarigal, things have changed and lending institutions now prefer to loan money for neighborhoods with strict associations in place as a form of protection for their "collateral." Considering that I have read countless articles discussing lending institution's reluctance to lend to buyers seeking property within community associations, mainly because such properties have increased liabilities which can come in the form of association assessments. Banks simply do not want the added burden on their "collateral."

Why make rewrite the covenants and restrictions? McGarigal makes the case that it is time to protect property values, stating that home prices have skyrocketed from $60,000 in "1978ish" to "$200,000, $300,000, or $400,000 values." As an investor, these figures would seem amazing until you put things into perspective. While the homes were originally purchased for $60,000, two things must be taken into consideration. One being inflation and the second being the housing boom (which McGarigal only touches upon briefly). Considering inflation between the original purchase of the home and the time McGarigal's articles were written, the value of $60,000 would be worth approximately $195,925.80 in 2008 (more then triple the value). The housing boom would have added to the value, but as McGarigal writes in his second article, citing The Wall Street Journal (5/6/8), the "housing market crisis is over," but as we all know now, the market has not rebounded, and property values had continued to fall for the next two years. Even insisting in July 2008 would be a bit premature considering the economy was hemorrhaging all over. Why would McGarigal promote the idea that the crisis was over? If you read his article, it is to sell houses. He discusses "buyers" and "sellers" and the best way to get most for your property, recommending renovation services, writing that he has "some good ones." This isn't a real estate update for homeowners who may be on the verge of losing everything because their house had rapidly devalued, this is an article for those who were scared to sell their homes, with McGarigal attempting to calm potential sellers into thinking then was a good time to put their house on the market.

These articles were written in July of 2008. In the article, McGarigal states that he had spent the last five years getting ready to rewrite the covenants. That would put the origins of his desire to rewrite the covenants to the early 2000s, and that would also be around the waning days of the Dr. Phillips Preservation Association, which entered administrative dissolution in 2000, becoming inactive, but according to a SLHHOA document dating after 2001, mention of the DPPA was present. Also take into consideration that Kathy Mulinax was the President of local HOA Bay Lakes, which had also gone under a rewrite of their covenants, using the same "powerhouse" attorneys, Larsen & Associates.

What I found to be the most troublesome is McGarigal's own words in which he states that he believes it is his "civic duty" to protect property values, most likely from the "unsightly problems" that pop up in communities over time. What McGarigal fails to realize is that these "unsightly problems" are other people's homes. Consider Sand Lake Hills and their quest to rid one homeowner of their metal roof, because the board deems it "unsightly" (I believe the word they used in the membership meeting that I had attended was "ugly"). As a board member and real estate agent, McGarigal wants that level of control so that he may try to ensure property values, and in his business, his bottom line. I would like to point out that with all the protection these HOA's claimed to offer, property values still plummeted the past several years, which goes to show that HOAs are also at the whim of the market.

Now comes the second party I wanted to look into - Larsen & Associates. From the evidence at hand, Larsen and Associates has been involved with many of the local neighborhoods, including a large percentage involved with the DPPA. According to their website, they represent "includes condominium associations, homeowners associations, mobile home parks and mobile home owners associations and cooperatives" and are capable of performing the following:

* Assessment Collection/Lien Foreclosure
* Document Interpretation
* Document Amendments
* Legal Opinions
* Covenant & Rule Enforcemen
* Eminent Domain/Condemnation
* Construction Defect Litigation
* Transition/Turnover

As a law firm, they seem to represent the interests of associations, not homeowners, so that should be the first indication who's interest they are looking out for. Now take into consideration that their senior Attorney, Frank A. Ruggieri, is also a Community Association Institute lobbyist, and is the founder of the Community Associations Institute's Mid Florida Chapter.

The CAI is an influential special interest and lobbying group that represent associations and are for legislation granting community associations greater powers. They lobby local, state, and federal government on behalf of associations (not owners) and try to decrease government oversight.

The CAI wants HOAs to have what they call "aesthetic control". They believe that a homeowners lifestyle impacts the economic value of a home and the HOA should have the power to prevent any non-conforming decisions. One example they mention are the infamous pink flamingos that may be found in some Florida lawns! They are against many of the laws established by the state that safeguard the homeowner... they feel these laws take away from the HOA's power granted to them by Covenants and Restrictions and negatively impact the value of homes.

They want Federal Bankruptcy Codes to change allowing an HOA to collect on assessments. They do not care who gives them the money... they want the assessments to be an obligation of the property and they also want assessments to no longer be considered executory contracts.

According to their public policies, "without these changes, bankrupt owners in all types of community associations will continue to avoid their assessment obligations whenever their units are vacant or occupied by people who do not pay rent – while all other association residents are left to pick up the tab.Without these changes, bankrupt owners in all types of community associations will continue to avoid their assessment obligations whenever their units are vacant or occupied by people who do not pay rent – while all other association residents are left to pick up the tab."

Sound familiar? This is what SLH has been saying all along... the good association residents are picking up the tab of everyone else and that it is not fair.

Most importantly and relevant to SLH's most recent activity, the CAI wants to eliminate the restrictions placed on assessments and want the board of directors to increase such assessments without approval of a vote from the owners! They believe such limitations are arbitrary; that they are unrealistic and unreasonable! I did not realize asking to take someone else's money was unreasonable!!!

Their site also states that the "CAI opposes the enactment of governmental limitations on effective collection of assessments, fees and other charges of community associations. CAI supports laws strengthening such collection methods and lien rights by associations". They believe the laws stand in their way to collect from "calcitrant, delinquent owners" and the ability to have a "strong lien against the owner's unit".

They also feel that assessments should not be "consumer debt". They do not want community associations governed by the Fair Debt Collections Practices. The law was enacted in 1979 to eliminate abusive practices in the collection of consumer debts, to promote fair debt collection and to provide consumers with an avenue for disputing and obtaining validation of debt information in order to ensure the information's accuracy. It also defined the consumers rights. Some of the restricted conducted defined by the act is the prohibition of the association to threat legal action for non payment of their assessments... The Association has threatened legal action against homeowners who do not pay them assessments and conforms with the CAI's philosophy.

They also believe board members should be protected from poor decisions that they make and be shielded from liability and believe insurance should be considered a common expense.

Why am I focusing heavily on Larsen & Associates and the CAI? For one reason - intent. This shows their motivation. Looking at their involvement with the numerous HOAs I had previously mentioned, liek McGarigal controlling the curb appeal of his neighbors, Larsen & Associates, too, found a a great gig rigging the system.

Considering Larsen & Associates areas of expertise, involving document interpretation, covenant & rule enforcement, document amendments, and assessment collection and lien foreclosure, as well as dealing in collections, they have involved themselves in every aspect of the association's operation. This means that for every covenant infraction incurred by a homeowner, Larsen & Associates will be there to draft letters demanding payment with the eventual goal of taking homeowners to court, receiving legal fees in addition to the amount owed to the association, and the best part, eliminating the burden on their client by placing it solely on the shoulders of the homeowner. With this sweet setup, there was one problem. The neighborhoods don't have mandatory membership, and rewriting the covenants could not force homeowners into membership, so Larsen & Associates got crafty, changing the wording involving assessments to be an obligation of the property, not the homeowner. Since covenants and restrictions run with the land of every home in the neighborhoods, in theory, the assessment would be owed by the property, with the homeowner having to be liable to their own home to pay the association, and the amount of potential cases would increase because every homeowner would now be required to pay the HOA. Creating a stricter set of rules means making more rules for more possible infractions, which equals more business...

Larsen & Associates had already done so previously with neighborhoods, such as the Lime Tree Village Club Association located in the Williamsburg development area, as well as from what I understand, Lake Ridge Village, too. A former board member for the Green Briar Village, also in Williamsburg, had spoken to Larsen to try to figure out how exactly Larsen converted voluntary associations to mandatory. According to this former board member, Larsen's response was "a gray area and as long as no one bucks it, there is no problem, but if someone does then there could be problems."

Both Paul McGarigal and Larsen & Associates illustrate the conflicts of interests that real estate agents have when working in concert with homeowners association, as well as the blatant disregard for homeowners. To people like these, homeowners are nothing more then walking wallets, pawns, and they are the ones who want to pull the strings guaranteeing business is good.

Anti-Gay Senator Gets DUI, Reportedly Coming From Gay Club

2010-03-04T19:12:00.001-05:00

Updated March 10th, 2010.
Since this particular incident, State Senator Roy Ashburn has announced his homosexuality.

Republican state Sen. Roy Ashburn of California was arrested on drunk driving charges in downtown Sacramento. According to reports from local news station CBS 13, Ashburn was coming from a known GLBT club with a male passenger in his car - the passenger, who was not identified as a lawmaker, was not detained.

Critics cite Ashburn's sexual preference as relevant due to his voting record opposing every gay rights measure in the State Senate since he took office eight years ago, including a law recognizing out-of-state gay couples and expanding anti-discrimination laws. Ashburn's response:

"I am deeply sorry for my actions and offer no excuse for my poor judgment. I accept complete responsibility for my conduct and am prepared to accept the consequences for what I did. I am also truly sorry for the impact this incident will have on those who support and trust me – my family, my constituents, my friends, and my colleagues in the Senate."

It is not clear if Ashburn was referring to his drunk driving or his sexuality. I would also like to point out that it is not clear as to whether or not he was at a homosexual establishment or if he was accompanied by a sexual partner, but considering his record, I don't think he would openly admit so, taking the Larry Craig defense instead. Also considering his record as being a staunch social conservative, I would be more likely to believe that the senator is another Republican with a sexual identity crisis.

Obama Emraces Conservative Ideas, GOP Balks

2010-03-03T20:06:00.000-05:00

President Obama had announced that he would incorporate four Republican ideas - "reform the way states handle medical malpractice suits, reduce waste and abuse in the health care system, increase Medicaid reimbursements to doctors and expands health savings accounts." Obama had announced these changes in addition to stripping out parts of the current legislation, such as the conservative dubbed "Corn Husker kickback" or "Lousiana purchase," but the GOP is still not happy.

"I don't know if we should be insulted or humored at the president's feeble attempts to incorporate Republican ideas into his latest health care proposal," Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., said in a written statement.

It seems obvious with this move that Republicans have no interest in working with the administration at all, and that any mention of Democrats not accepting Republicans ideas were only bluffs, and now that Obama had caught the GOP in the middle of their balk, hopefully the passage of the legislation can continue. I doubt that the news will make any mention of this, for they seem infatuated with the idea of reconciliation that any news regarding GOP hypocrisy has been forgotten.

Conservatives Attempt To Immoratlize Reagan On $50 Bill

2010-03-03T19:39:00.000-05:00

Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina had introduced legislation Tuesday that will change the face of the $50 bill from President Ulysses S. Grant to President Ronald Reagan.

"Every generation needs its own heroes," McHenry wrote. "One decade into the 21st century, it’s time to honor the last great president of the 20th and give President Reagan a place beside Presidents Roosevelt and Kennedy," but Democratic Representative Brad Sherman of California, who is on the House Financial Services Committee said he is not prepared to allow the legislation to proceed for "someone whose policies are still controversial."

While McHenry points to a survey from 2005 that shows Reagan polling higher then Grant, this is not the first time this issue has come up. Five years ago, Republicans tried to make the change but it eventually died in the House Financial Services Committee.

"Our currency ought to be something that unites us," Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., told the Los Angeles Times.

In my opinion, it appears that Republicans have been on a quest to bring Reagan to the forefront of that national scene, evoking his name whenever the opportunity arises, and regarding changing the face of our currency, I believe this act in particular to be a form of passive advertising, putting a well-known recent Republican in your pocket, as a reminder of conservatism each time you pull out a bill. While seemingly benign, the GOP will use our own currency as a propaganda tool...

Andy Breitbart Explains It All For You (The ACORN "Pimp" Hoax)

2010-03-02T17:20:00.003-05:00

Bunning Objection Results In Furloughs Of Critical Construction Projects

2010-03-01T18:10:00.000-05:00

"Renegade" Kentucky GOP Senator Jim Bunning, who has decided to block passage of legislation, stating that he did not want to add to the budget deficit, caused numerous furloughs of critical construction projects among other things. The blockage will halt federal reimbursements to states for highway programs, as well as safety programs, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (M.A.D.D.), and national media campaigns, such as the "Click It or Ticket," and "Drunk Driving: Over the Limit. Under Arrest." Bunning is not up for reelection and he did not offer comments on Monday.

In my opinion, the "lone gunman" approach, as in Senator Bunning not acting with the GOP blessing, sounds all to fake. I can imagine that the GOP will increasingly use retiring legislators to hold up important legislation, because in theory, they would have nothing to lose. I can imagine that the GOP learned all to well from their last attack against the Democrats, with Senator Richard Shelby's failed attempt to block over 70 nominees by the Obama administration until he received several Alabama earmarks, and have shifted to a safer bet - someone who can offer the appearance that they are acting alone, and against the best interest of Americans, while the party can take the position against the lone legislator's actions.

Kings County District Attorney Clears ACORN Of Wrongdoing

2010-03-01T17:24:00.001-05:00

Kings County, New York District Attorney Charles Hynes made a statement on March 1st clearing ACORN of any wrongdoing. Hynes made the following statement:

On Sept. 15, 2009, my office began an investigation into possible criminality on the part of three ACORN employees. The three had been secretly videotaped by two people posing as a pimp and prostitute, who came to ACORN’S Brooklyn office, seeking advice about how to purchase a house with money generated by their ‘business.’ The ‘couple’ later made the recording public. That investigation is now concluded and no criminality has been found.

Conservatives are quickly claiming this as another instance of Democratic corruption. For those who have always viewed ACORN as guilty, this finding is nothing more then a reaffirmation of their belief in corrupt bargaining within the administration, but then again, Fox News, Big Government, and the rest of the conservative misinformation media laid down the guilty verdict before all the facts were ever released from the conservative activists who filmed the interactions with ACORN. This, of course, was the plan, which can be equated to the largest tainting of a jury pool.

Why The Republican's Are Obstructionist (A Brief Opinion)

2010-02-27T19:54:00.000-05:00

I wanted to write something in regards to something else on another website that had me thinking. A commenter, in response to something I had written, asked how the Republican party was being obstructionist if they are a superminority in both houses of Congress, and that I, as well as other Democrats, should stop "whining" about the "powerless oposition."

First, I would like to point out that I am not a Democrat, but am a Republican, as I have been for over the past 10 years. The reason why I believe the powerless Republican party to be obstructionist is mainly because of their desire for bipartisanship, but at the same time refuse to participate on any type of legislation with the Democrats, primarily health care reform. While Democrats had held large "super"-majorities in both houses, there was a call for working across the aisle by President Obama, in an attempt to operate outside the Washington norm. While the Democrats presented a bill, the Republicans refused to offer a counterpoint, and instead, they attacked the legislation as not being bipartisan, when they had prevented the legislation from ever getting that far. Conservatives had then attacked Congressional policy, building up a belief in America that Democrats required a "super-majority" to pass any legislation, and in order to do so, would need either every Democratic senator to vote on the bill or to get other parties to consent, but the Republicans had also solidified their ranks in opposing any legislation. Therefore, this "powerless oposition" successfully convinced the media and the public to believe that Democrats needed the sixty votes, and now with Scott Brown in office, the Republicans believe they have the power to filibuster, which would then obstruct the continuance of the legislative process, which I would safely assume they would try to prolong until midterm elections, so that Republicans may be able to gain seats in both chambers. The Republicans have also attacked use of the procedure known as reconciliation, as a tool to get around the super-majority "requirement," and in essence bypassing the bipartisanship the GOP loves to simultaneously desire and avoid at all costs.

Frank Gaffney Issues Correction Regarding Missile Defense Agency Logo, But Not For Smear Against Islam

2010-02-27T18:54:00.002-05:00

From a February 27th post on Big Government, author Frank Gaffney issued a correction for an earlier article he wrote (which appears to have been removed from Big Government's website), in which he insisted that the redesigned logo for the Missile Defense Agency was proof that the Obama administration was moving towards Shariah law and that the administration was submitting to Islamic pressures. In today's article, Gaffney wrote the following:

In a post here Wednesday, under the headline “Can This Possibly Be True?,” I called attention to a “new” logo being used by the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency (MDA) on the grounds that it bore a disconcerting resemblance to an amalgamation of the Obama campaign’s logo and the symbols of Islam, the crescent and a single star. It turns out the answer is “no,” it isn’t true that the MDA’s logo is exactly new or, apparently, that it reflects an Obama-directed redesign.

We have since learned that the logo has been used at the MDA website since at least October 2009. Matters are made more confusing by the fact that the agency continues to use its older shield-like logo for online and other purposes. The contract for a complete rebranding for MDA was let in 2007, during the Bush administration, although much of the work appears to have been done in 2008 in follow-on contracts during the presidential campaign in which the Obama logo was much in evidence.

It has also been observed that – rather than embracing the symbolic crescent and star, they could be interpreted as the targets of the intercepting swoosh in the MDA’s latest logo. If so, the 2009 design would presumably be offensive to Islamists, rather than evidence of submission to them.

For these reasons, I am content to have the question posed in the last post be answered in the negative, and I regret any confusion caused by my suggesting otherwise. The other criticisms I leveled at the Obama administration in connection with its serial and indisputable assaults on the Pentagon’s missile defense programs and capabilities – which the Missile Defense Agency is responsible for building – stand. Here’s an example:

Visit the Missile Defense Agency website for this extraordinary video of the successful February 11, 2010 Airborne Laser Testbed (ALTB) firing of a High Energy Laser, destroying a threat-representative ballistic missile. It’s a real-life example of what the old MDA logo – and okay, yes, the new MDA logo – represent in our missile defense systems: in this case, our nation’s only program capable of providing a near-term ability to intercept ballistic missiles early in their flight (i.e., the boost-phase).

Yet in the proposed 2011 budget, the Airborne Laser Testbed will never see production. As SpaceNews reports, “The MDA at one time had plans to field operational versions of the ABL for boost-phase missile defense, but the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama has scaled back the program. Plans now call for using the experimental ABL platform as a test bed for research on directed energy weapons.”

After years of effort, the MDA achieved a breakthrough success two weeks ago. The administration should reverse their plans to defund the Airborne Laser Testbed. Build on success – don’t punish it.

What I find interesting is that he does not discuss his anti-Islamic sentiments, and that Gaffney only concedes that he was incorrect about the facts regarding the logo and nothing more, so one could expect further hateful messages to appear in later articles. Another thing I found interesting was the vast number of comments that don't seem to care about the correction, and continue to insist that Obama is a Muslim or that Obama is still connected with the redesign, as one commenter asked who was the firm that handled both the MDA'a and the Obama campaign's logo design. One person wrote "Why do they have this logo? Why not something with our flag, maybe with a missle..or something. What's next the Hammer & Sickle? Give me a break," while another went on to go as far as to write "all hail the '12th Imam Mahdi' the savior and destroyer of all mankind..."

It seems that although Gaffney wrote a correction, his work was done. The lie is now out there and it will not make a difference to the most die hard conservative fringe. I also thought it was interesting that the original article seems to have dissappeared from Big Government's website. I would think good journalistic practices would have involved keeping the original article up, but then again, good journalistic practices would have also involved Gaffney to fact check and research before ever righting his article to begin with, which seems to only have been inspired by his hatred for President Barack Obama and Islam.

Huffington Post Outlines GOP's Reasons Against Democratic Health Reform

2010-02-25T17:27:00.002-05:00

From the Huffington Post on February 24th, regarding Republican's reasons not to work with Democrats on a health care compromise:

1. Democrats aren't willing to start from scratch
"Tomorrow, the White House will convene a so-called 'summit' on health care reform. It's supposedly an effort to find bipartisan agreement and consensus on reform," said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.). "And frankly, if the administration and Democrats in Congress were actually willing to scrap the bill and start over with a clean sheet of paper, I'd be all for it."

"It's not a matter of taking this or that out of the Senate-passed bill or the House-passed bill, it's a matter of starting with basic principles and going one step at a time, solving particular problems," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)

2. President Obama actually introduced a bill -- a criticism related to the one above, but more focused on the idea that Democrats are still very much engaged in back-room shenanigans.
"The President has crippled the credibility of this week's summit by proposing the same massive government takeover of health care based on a partisan bill the American people have already rejected," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) declared. "This new Democrats-only backroom deal doubles down on the same failed approach that will drive up premiums, destroy jobs, raise taxes, and slash Medicare benefits."

3. The bill Obama introduced is too short.
"The White House's 'plan' consists of an 11-page outline, which has not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office or posted online as legislative text," said Boehner's spokesperson, Michael Steel. "So they want to reorganize one-sixth of the United States' economy with a document shorter than a comic book, and they're complaining that they can't find our plan on their own website? C'mon,"

4. The summit is superficial and designed to make Republicans look bad.
"It's a trap, a sandbag and a farce," said Curt Smith, a speechwriter for former president George H.W. Bush. "This meeting is tailor-made to present Obama at his rhetorical best and Republicans at their inarticulate worst... Health care was RIP and Republicans have given it CPR."

5. No governors were invited to the summit -- making it too D.C.-centric.
"WH has advised Boehner only Members of Congress may participate in #hc summit," tweeted Boehner. "No governors. Apparently Washington knows best."

6. No state legislators were invited to the summit (see above for explanation).
"Leader Boehner is disappointed the White House has not listened to the American people, who want Washington Democrats to scrap their job-killing health care bill and start over, and he is disappointed the White House has excluded our nation's governors and state legislators from the summit," said Steel.

7. The summit is taxpayer-funded -- which makes it a waste of money.
"Instead of starting over, Democrats in Congress continue to threaten to abuse the very rules of this institution by passing some version of their health care reform bill by a simple majority in the Senate, known as reconciliation," said Pence. "You know, tomorrow's summit is looking more and more like a taxpayer-funded media event designed to set up passage of ObamaCare 2.0, and the American people deserve to know it."
Expectation-setting is inherently a part of any major political event. The White House, likewise, has downplayed expectations that this summit is somehow a do-or-die moment for getting health care legislation passed. But the intensity with which the GOP is spinning Thursday's meeting before it happens is something usually seen before a presidential debate. And the rhetorical flourishes seem likely to get only grander once the summit ends.

Of course the GOP was going to have something negative to say about the health care summit, but the most interesting complaint I had seen was number three, which stated that Obama's proposal was "too short," when just last year, conservative representatives and media attacked the health care reform bill for being too big! Media Matters also had an interesting post regarding the contradictory nature of GOP rhetoric.

Newest Right-Wing Islam Smear

2010-02-24T18:02:00.002-05:00

The anti-Islamic, right-wing, Christian fundamentalists over at Andrew Breitbart's Big Government are at it again with their Obama conspiracy theories and the attack on supposed American-Christian values. In an article by Frank Gaffney, Gaffney first starts off discussing the ballistic missile policies of the Obama administration but then turns into a short rant against Islam, pointing out a new design for the Missile Defense Agency's logo, in which the right-wing delusional Gaffney seems to believe the new logo features a "crescent" and that it seems to "fit an increasingly obvious and worrying pattern of official U.S. submission to Islam and the theo-political-legal program the latter’s authorities call Shariah." Really?

I cannot understand how Gaffney comes up with the conclusion that a redesigned logo is proof that the United States is on the path to Shariah law. Even looking at the redesigned logo, I see what the right-wing claims to be an Islamic crescent, but I do not draw the same conclusion that Gaffney does. Maybe he is upset because the logo changed for the Reagan-era agency, but there appears to be no change in function. According to their "About Us" page, the agency's purpose is as follows:

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is a research, development, and acquisition agency within the Department of Defense. Our workforce includes government civilians, military service members, and contractor personnel in multiple locations across the United States. We are focused on retaining and recruiting a dedicated workforce interested in supporting our national security.

As we develop, test, and field an integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), the MDA works closely with the Combatant Commanders (e.g. Pacific Command, Northern Command, etc.) who will rely on the system to protect the United States, our forward deployed forces, and our friends and allies from hostile ballistic missile attack. We work with the Combatant Commanders to ensure that we develop a robust BMDS technology and development program to address the challenges of an evolving threat. We are also steadily increasing our international cooperation by supporting mutual security interests in missile defense.

The MDA is committed to maximizing the mission assurance and cost effectiveness of our management and operations through continuous process improvement.

The only question I have is "why the change," although I do enjoy seeing such stupid criticisms such as Gaffney's, for they only aid in illustrating the hatred and ignorance of the right-wing.

Recent History Of Reconciliation For Health Care

2010-02-24T11:19:00.003-05:00

Ever since Democrats considered reforming health care, Republicans and conservatives quickly made America think that Democrats would need a super-majority to pass any legislation and labeled a process known as reconciliation as the "nuclear option," in which they railed against it's potential use as undemocratic and wrong, despite it's use in the past by not only Republicans, but also for health care related legislation. I have seen reports of bills that used the process that Republicans supported and those bills were not met with such animosity. Some reconciliation bills that were passed during Republican majorities in congress between 1994 and 2006 included the following:

* Balanced Budget Act of 1995, H.R. 2491 (vetoed December 6, 1995)
* Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, Pub.L. 104-193 (1996)
* Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub.L. 105-33 (1997)
* Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Pub.L. 105-34 (1997)
* Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, H.R. 2488 (vetoed September 23, 1999)
* Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, H.R. 4810 (vetoed August 5, 2000)
* Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), Pub.L. 107-16 (2001)
* Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, Pub.L. 108-27 (2003)
* Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-171 (2006)
* Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (TIPRA), Pub.L. 109-222 (2006)

NPR's Morning Edition had pointed out today a thirty year history of reconciliation bills that had made major changes to health care, 3 of which were conducted during the Republican majorities in Congress. This raises the question as to why Republicans are dead set to oppose any bill. If you recall last year, they were against any bill that would have garnered all sixty Democratic votes because it would not be bipartisan enough, and then the Republicans solidified as a party, determined to say no. Once Senator Kennedy passed away, Republicans then focused against the possibility of using reconciliation to pass legislation, claiming it to be undemocratic, even though it would still require a majority of votes in the Senate to pass. In my opinion, it appears that the Republicans are dragging their feet, hoping to delay passage of any bill until after the midterm elections because it is believed Republicans may pick up a couple seats, in which they would have more leverage and political capital. Republicans have no interest in working with Democrats to compose a bill. Republicans are only interested in bcoming the majority party once again and passing their bill.