YID With LID

OOPS!!! Obama Accidentally Does The Right Thing in Honduras-Finally "Dumps" Zelaya

2009-11-25T21:35:00.000-05:00

Even a broken clock is correct two times a day. Ever since Honduras deposed President Zelaya in June, the United States has been on the wrong side of the issue, supporting Zelaya and his buddy Hugo Chavez, against the people of Honduras, their democracy and the country's constitution.

The former President's disposal was in line with the Honduras Constitution as the Zelaya was illegally attempting to stay in power despite the constitutional ban on running for another term. There is even a constitutional ban on revising the Presidential term limit. While the military removed him from office, it was ordered by the supreme court and they immediately returned power to the civilian leadership. The new President, Roberto Micheletti is even from the same party as the deposed president.

The Obama administration originally said it would not recognize the election unless Zelaya, was reinstated. Obama changed his naive position after the rival sides signed an agreement backed by the Organization of American States. The agreement calls for the Honduran Congress to vote on whether the ousted Zelaya should be reinstated to complete his term, which ends in January (the congressional vote is scheduled for 12/2)

The Election is next Sunday Nov.29th, former President Zelaya is still holed up in the Brazilian embassy after sneaking back into the country in September, and the United States is indicating that it will support the results of the election.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly says the U.S. thinks it is important that the people of Honduras have the opportunity to "express their votes in a free and transparent way." The United States says it supports Sunday's presidential election in Honduras as an "essential" part of a solution to that country's ongoing political crisis.

Spokesman Kelly noted that the election, in which neither Mr. Micheletti nor Mr. Zelaya is running, is being organized by an electoral tribunal that was selected and installed in a transparent, democratic process before the coup. He said it is important the election be seen as free, fair and transparent, and is monitored by a credible international monitoring process.

Success by accident, but finally Obama does the Right thing, says David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner:

By hanging Zelaya out to dry -- leaving him powerless and languishing in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, possibly facing trial for illegally seeking re-election -- the administration saves face in Honduras and ultimately does the right thing. The Honduran Congress will vote on Dec. 2, after the next president has been elected, whether to reinstate Zelaya as a lame duck, and with the election already decided, they won't be under any pressure to do so and reverse their earlier decision.

So all's well that ends well. But even so, as we recently opined, a happy ending is still no excuse for Obama's half-cocked diplomacy, and no number of low bows to Honduras's next president will make up for the damage he has caused there. Again, his legendary inexperience in world matters shows.

Leading Climate Change Scientists Use the "Obama Defense" to Deflect "Stolen Emails"

2009-11-25T19:41:00.001-05:00

Some of the leading scientists in the "Holy Church of Global Warming Moonbats" have shown they have learned a very important rule from US President Barack Obama, when confronted with bad facts, attack the person(s) delivering the fact, call the news a big lie or say it was taken totally out of context. And NEVER, back up your claims with facts." That's how he defended himself against his Jeremiah Wright association, porkulus detractors and the opponents of Obamacare. Now Scientists are using that strategy to deflect the storm arising from those "Stolen" emails indicating a cover-up of contrary data by global warming proponents:

Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in Copenhagen.

"We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public," said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Dissenters see action to slow global warming as "a threat," he said.

It seems to me that when Scientist Phil Jones wrote I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline, THAT was confusing the public.

Of course dissenters see the global warming moonbats' actions as a threat. The scientists have taken an unproven theory that was shaky even before the "stolen emails" add to it the fact that they are not allowing any peer reviewed research disagreeing with their funky research to be presented. Then add to it the politicians who see it as an opportunity for more government control, and worldwide income redistribution, and they expect the people who haven't drank the Kool aid to think its anything but a threat?

The scientists—Somerville, Michael Mann of Penn State and Eric Steig of University of Washington—were supposed to be discussing their new report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a dismal update of the UN IPCC's 2007 climate data by 26 scientists from eight nations.

Instead they spent much of the time diffusing the hacker controversy, known in the media as "Climate Gate."

CRU is considered one of the world's leading institutions concerned with human-caused global warming. The leaked emails contain private correspondence on climate science dating back to 1996.

Skeptics of global warming say these messages are filled with evidence of manipulated data from lead authors of the UN's highly influential IPCC reports.

U.S. Sen. James Inhofe , a climate skeptic, said he would launch an inquiry into UN climate change research in response.

In an interview with the Washington Times radio show, Inhofe explained the investigation would look into "the way cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."

CRU Vice-Chancellor of Research Trevor Davies responded in an official statement:

"There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation."

Michael Mann, co-author of the Copenhagen Diagnosis and lead author of the UN IPCC Third Assessment Report, blamed skeptics for taking the personal emails out of context.

"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world. Suddenly, all these are subject to cherry picking," he said.

Doesn't that sound a little like the defense of Jeremiah Wright last year. Fine, I will bite Mr. Davies, please tell us, what other meaning could this have?

The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Dr Mann Added, They've turned "something innocent into something nefarious,"

Au contraire Doctor Mann, you have taken something nefarious and are trying to make it seem innocent.

The vital point being left out, he said, is that "regardless of how cherry-picked," there is "absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change."

Its not consensus if it is manufactured through funky data, strong arming and cover-ups. Besides over the past few months many scientists have come out against your data, including that little bogus Hockey Stick data.

Or Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks from its establishment in 1998 until January of 2007. Dr Akasofu is one of the leading scientists in global warming and the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere. Doctor Akasofu stunned the global warming world by publishing a document which recommends canceling the upcoming Copenhagen Conference because there is not enough data to prove that global warming is man made.

This is a "smear campaign to distract the public," said Mann. "Those opposed to climate action, simply don't have the science on their side," he added.

Professor Davies called the stolen data "the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign" designed "to distract from reasoned debate" about urgent action governments must take to reverse climate change.

There has been no debate of the facts above or even the paper published by Scientist Mojib Latif said we were facing 10-20 years of global as the result of changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Latif also said that the NAO may be partly the cause of warming during the past 30 years.

How about this investigation from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition that shows how some that some of the temperature numbers have been manipulated. And don't even get me started on the data that suggests a direct correlation between global warming and sunspots.

The fact is, the Scientists denial of the contrary data has nothing to do with global warming, or science, it is all about the perpetuation of their jobs and the multi-billion-dollar industry they helped found. If they were truly interested in the science, they would be examining the alternate claims rather than putting them aside without inquiry.

Obamacare Unfairly Taxes Families With Handicapped and Chronically Ill Children

2009-11-25T17:43:00.001-05:00

One of the ways congress is proposing to fund Obamacare is by putting a cap on Flexible Spending Medical Accounts. For those who are not familiar with those accounts, they allow you to take pre-tax funds from every paycheck into an account managed by your company (or your company's vendor), that you can remove on a tax free basis to pay for uncovered medical bills.

This has been a particularly useful program in my family as I have two children with learning disabilities as well as chronic physical conditions (one with scoliosis the other with JRA). At various times in their lives each has required constant medical care, drugs, physical therapy, etc. My daughter was in a back brace for four years which had to be changed every six-eight months because she had the nerve to grow (at least our insurance company said she had a lot of nerve for needing a new brace). My son at times needed special treatments for the constant pain. You get the picture. Both, thank God, are doing very well.

While I had a Health Plan at work, when you add up the deductible, the treatments not allowed by the insurance company, the difference between the insurance company's "reasonable fee" and reality, and the difference between the 80% of the fee they are supposed to cover and their version of the reasonable fee, every year my family was thousands of dollars in the medical hole. Without the help of the tax savings from the Flexible Spending Medical Accounts, we might have been up to our "assets" in debt scrambling to get our children the medical care they needed.

My family's case is not unusual, nor is it extreme. That's why many are warning about the effects of Obamacare limiting flexible spending accounts on the nation's poor and middle class.

Plan to Restrict Health Accounts Will Hurt the Disabled, Critics Warn

Families with special-needs children and people with chronic illnesses stand to lose hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in tax benefits under proposed health care reform legislation, critics say, warning that a plan to cap the amount of money people can put into special "flexible spending" health accounts will have "cruel" and "unintended consequences."

Families with special-needs children and people with chronic illnesses stand to lose hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in tax benefits under proposed health care reform legislation, critics say, warning that a plan to cap the amount of money people can put into special "flexible spending" health accounts will have "cruel" and "unintended consequences."

The Senate and House health care bills both include a revenue-raising provision that would cap at $2,500 the amount of money workers can put into flexible spending accounts. The accounts, used by millions, allow workers to store pre-tax dollars to cover out-of-pocket health care expenses during the year.

Many employers set a cap on contributions at about $5,000, according to Save Flexible Spending Plans, a group formed by benefits providers over the summer to lobby against the changes. Federal government workers are subject to a $5,000 limit, and most state governments impose a $3,000-$6,000 cap. But legally there is currently no cap across the board.

The change is projected to bring in about $15 billion over the next decade by limiting the pre-tax dollar savings, but critics say it could have devastating effects on families that rely on flexibile spending accounts to pay for health care expenses that are not covered by their insurance policies.

"It's really become kind of a revenue grab rather than good sound health policy," said Jody Dietel, chief compliance officer for WageWorks, a company that helps administer the accounts. She is also executive director of Save Flexible Spending Plans.

Dietel said her group has succeeded in convincing Congress not to eliminate the accounts altogether, an idea that was floated, but is still pushing to raise the cap to $5,000. The group also wants the Senate bill to make sure the cap is adjusted for inflation.

Dietel's group estimates that about 35 million people use the flex accounts. She said the average deposit is under $1,500 annually, so most people -- who use the money for copays and other small-dollar items -- would not be terribly inconvenienced by a $2,500 cap.

But she said the change would be significant for those who routinely rack up out-of-pocket expenses due to chronic illnesses or special-needs children.

Policy groups estimate that people with chronic illnesses face more than $4,000 annually in out-of-pocket expenses. Flex account money can go toward that.

But the accounts have come under fire for contributing to wasteful health care spending -- something the health care reform effort is trying to curb. Because the money must be spent in a calendar year, those looking to drain their accounts may dump them on unnecessary medical expenses at the last minute.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggested eliminating the accounts altogether when the health care reform debate was kicking into high gear over the summer.

"FSAs encourage the overconsumption of health care, which runs directly counter to a critical goal of health care reform," the group said in a study, arguing that other health care reform provisions that limit out-of-pocket expenses would make FSAs less important anyway.

Ryan Ellis, tax policy director at Americans for Tax Reform, said the real pain from the new policy would be felt among families with special-needs children, who are currently able to use the money to pay for education expenses.

"The No.1 group that would be affected by this are parents of special needs," he said, citing the tuition costs at some specialized schools that climb well into the thousands.

"This is a classic case of unintended consequences," Ellis said. "And they're often fairly cruel ... This is a clear case of that."

The push for the cap came from the Senate Finance Committee, and the cap eventually made its way into both the full House and Senate bills. A representative for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., could not be reached for comment.

White House Logs Show Heavy Lobbyist Influence on Obamacare

2009-11-25T15:56:00.000-05:00

In one of his major campaign promises President Obama pledge to reduce the influence of lobbyists on the government. Remember he made the pledge not to take money from lobbyists (he did).

But he made a good show of it on his first full day in office the NY Times reported:

In what ethics-in-government advocates described as a particularly far-reaching move, Mr. Obama barred officials of his administration from lobbying their former colleagues "for as long as I am president." He barred former lobbyists from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past two years and required them to recuse themselves from issues they had handled during that time.

The President's Perpetual Campaign website, Organizing for America (OFA) blamed lobbyists for Republican opposition to Obamacare:

Today OFA supporters in congressional districts represented by Republican Members of Congress who voted "No" last night received an email from OFA director Mitch Stewart lauding the "220 courageous representatives voted in favor of reform, moving it forward."‬‪ ‬‪

"Unfortunately, your representative," Stewart says in the email, which names the Member of Congress, "caved to intense pressure from insurance industry lobbyists and voted against health reform."‬‪ ‬‪

With all this vitriol against the lobbying profession, it seems hypocritical that the President's senior staff has been working with lobbyists on Obamacare:

Top aides to President Barack Obama have met early and often with lobbyists, Democratic political strategists and other interests with a stake in the administration's national health care overhaul, White House visitor records obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press show.

The AP in early August asked the White House to produce records identifying communications that top Obama aides — including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, senior advisers David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and Pete Rouse, and 18 others — had with outside interests on health care. The AP in late September narrowed its request to White House visitor records for those officials on health care.

The White House on Wednesday provided AP with 575 visitor records covering the period from Jan. 20, when Obama was inaugurated, through August. The records give the name of each visitor to the White House complex to see people on AP's list, the date of the visit, who they were supposed to see, how many people attended the gathering, and in a sampling of cases, the purpose of the visit. The records do not identify the visitors' employers, say on whose behalf they were there or give any specifics on what was discussed.

The records show a broad cross-section of the people most heavily involved in the health care debate, weighted heavily with those who want to overhaul the system. Among them were Dr. Eliot Fisher, a Dartmouth health researcher who has estimated that nearly one-third of health care dollars are wasted on unneeded services, and Dr. David Himmelstein of Harvard Medical School, who is among the top advocates of a single-payer health care system.

The list also includes George Halvorson, chairman and CEO of Kaiser Health Plans; Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association; Kenneth Kies, a Washington lobbyist who represents Blue Cross/Blue Shield, among other clients; Billy Tauzin, head of PhRMA, the drug industry lobby; and Richard Umbdenstock, chief of the American Hospital Association.

Several lobbyists for powerful health care interests, including insurers, drug companies and large employers, also visited the White House complex, the records show:
Laird Burnett, a top lobbyist for insurer Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and a former Senate aide. Kaiser has spent some $1.7 million lobbying Congress over the past two years.
Joshua Ackil, a lobbyist whose clients include Intel, U.S. Oncology Inc., and Knoa Software Inc., all of which have reported lobbying on the health care overhaul. Ackil met with Dan Turton, the White House's deputy legislative affairs director who works with the House, in August. Seven people were at the Aug. 21 meeting, the records show.

Alissa Fox, a lobbyist with the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, met March 31 with Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget. Four people attended, the records show. The health insurance federation has spent at least $6.7 million lobbying this year.
Mark Agrast, a lobbyist for the Center for American Progress Action Fund, met in June with Phil Schiliro, the White House legislative affairs director, with 22 people there, the records show.
Amador "Dean" Aguillen, a former aide to Nancy Pelosi who is now with Ogilvy Government Relations, where he lobbies for clients including pharmaceutical companies SanofiPasteur and Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Pfizer Inc., and Amgen USA Inc., all of which reported lobbying on health care issues this year. Aguillen appears to have attended the same Aug. 21 meeting with Turton that Ackil did.
Merribel Ayres, a lobbyist who appears to focus on environmental issues such as energy and climate change. Ayres visited Schiliro on Aug. 18 at a meeting attended by five people, the records show.

The logs show a late-July meeting between Nancy-Ann DeParle, the director of Obama's Office of Health Reform, and lobbyists from the Business Roundtable, the association representing chief executives of major U.S. firms that has spent $9.3 million lobbying over the last two years and is keenly interested in the outcome of the health overhaul debate. Among the attendees at that session were the group's top lobbyist John J. Castellani, and Antonio Perez, the CEO of Eastman Kodak Company.

Demonstrating the political element of the health care debate, the records show that senior adviser Axelrod held what was described as a "communications message meeting" on March 13 with 18 people, including prominent Democratic strategists Brad Woodhouse, the party's communications director, and his predecessor Karen Finney; Steve McMahon, a campaign veteran and media strategist; Hilary Rosen, the former top lobbyist for the music industry; Jennifer Palmieri of the liberal Center for American Progress, John Edwards' former press secretary and a veteran of the Clinton White House; Maria Cardona, a specialist in Hispanic outreach at the Dewey Square Group; and Simon Rosenberg a founder of the centrist New Democrat Network.

Democratic pollsters Joel Benenson, Stanley Greenberg and Celinda Lake met with Jim Messina, the White House deputy chief of staff, on July 17. Twenty-seven people were there, the records show.

Political Correctness is a Cancer in Our Military

2009-11-25T13:35:00.000-05:00

Not all the military is comprised of the heroes that are protecting us from harm. There is a vast uniformed bureaucracy, running, supplying, transporting, feeding etc., the military. Unfortunately this, like all federal bureaucracies is very concerned with self-maintenance, which leads to not making waves, a perfect environment for political correctness.

The writer of the article below is a Colonel (or Navy Captain) stationed in the Washington, D.C. area who desires to keep his identity withheld in order to protect his career. The piece is a warning about how political correctness is cancer in our military:

Ft. Hood Killer at Work in Annapolis
by Anonymous Writer

Political correctness was responsible for the death of thirteen people at Ft. Hood. Of this I am certain. I have watched political correctness at work in the military for more than three decades while serving in two different military branches. I may not have seen it all but, I have seen quite a bit of it.

Aside from academia and the civilian government workforce, there is no place else in America where political correctness is as rampant as military. The rules of political correctness are not listed in military regulations. It is like knowing where to find the chow hall. Everyone just knows.

Press reports indicate Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan grossly misbehaved for years. Not only wasn’t he seriously reprimanded, but he was actually promoted in spite of engaging in behavior that would have quickly ended the careers of others. Many of us who have witnessed similar behavior know what occurred. Hasan’s activities were virtually ignored because he is Muslim.

Politically correctness is a major cancer in today’s military. There are favored minority groups that are given special rights, privileges and treatment not available to non-minorities. Military awards are one example. Sister services -- the Navy and Marine Corps -- have between them at least 15 awards reserved only for women or minorities including Black Engineer of the Year, National Organization for Mexican American Rights Meritorious Service, and the Society of American-Indian Government Employees awards.

The Army’s hands-off approach toward the Muslim Hasan contrasts significantly with how Defense officials have handled those practicing mainstream religions.

Hasan was a medical professional serving in a sacred role administering to the most vulnerable; yet, he was proselytizing to his patients about Islam. In spite of this, he was twice promoted.

About the same time Hasan was preaching Islam to the wounded, complaints arose of alleged proselytizing by Evangelical Christians at the U.S. Air Force Academy. A major Pentagon task force was dispatched, investigated and found a "perception of religious bias." Nonetheless, nearly six years after complaints first arose at USAFA, Christian activity at the school is still closely scrutinized.

Military political correctness is rampant much closer to the nation’s capital. The U.S. Naval Academy is to train young adults to serve in the combat arms of the Navy and Marine Corps. However, Superintendent and Vice Admiral Jeffrey Fowler -- apparently unaware that the U.S. is engaged in two wars -- states his number one priority is to increase diversity.

Fowler is not alone in pumping up multiculturalism. Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen claims diversity is a “strategic imperative.” Following the Ft. Hood massacre, Army Chief of Staff General George Casey was seemingly more concerned about preserving religious diversity in the Army’s ranks than in weeding out soldiers who kill other soldiers.

Naval Academy officials promote the fact that 35% of this year’s freshman class is comprised of favored minority groups: Hispanic, black, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Native American. Twenty percent are female. Admissions officials privately acknowledge they are directed to dramatically increase these percentages each year. This should be easy to achieve since about one-half of the admissions department is devoted exclusively to minority recruiting.

This overemphasis on minority recruiting is both misguided and completely unnecessary considering the USNA admissions process. All 100 Senators and each member of the U.S. House representing 435 diverse Congressional districts nominate youngsters. It may be the single-most diversity-focused college acceptance program in the nation.

Still, it does not appear to be enough for USNA officials. Only about one-half of each incoming freshman class is admitted through the Congressional nominating process, giving the school unfettered discretion in picking the other half.

Naval Academy Professor Bruce Fleming, who served on the admissions board, has reported it has an unofficial two-track admissions process in which nonwhite candidates are graded against easier admissions requirements than white candidates. Fleming claims USNA admits some minority students who are incapable of performing college-level work.

Gender-based political correctness has fostered a poisonous atmosphere, according to numerous midshipmen. The previous Superintendent, Vice Admiral Rodney Rempt, implemented a policy unprecedented anywhere else in the entire military.

Female midshipmen who allege they were victims of sexual misconduct would be given blanket immunity for all rules violations in return for identifying alleged perpetrators. The consequence is that females caught violating regulations would immediately allege they were sex victims sometime previously. It became a Get Out of Jail Free card that was abused repeatedly. According to multiple sources, the blanket immunity program is still in effect.

Scores of females who abide by the rules are understandably angered by this discriminatory policy. The unintended consequence is that many male midshipmen will not associate with any females in order to avoid one-day becoming the target of a baseless allegation. This is a classic example of the breakdown of unit cohesion.

Recently, USNA launched a sexual assault response team staffed almost exclusively with female officers. According to a source, the presumption of the team is that males are always the guilty perpetrators and females are always the innocent victims.

Earlier this year, thousands of pages of Navy documents detailing sexual and other misconduct cases were reviewed by The (Annapolis) Capital. The school practiced a double-standard when punishing men and women guilty of identical offenses. Males were frequently dismissed from the academy and sometimes required to reimburse the Navy upwards of $100,000 in school costs while females generally received only light punishment. In one five-year period, every male midshipman accused of sexual assault but acquitted in a military court martial was still kicked out of the academy, a form of double-jeopardy.

Political correctness has led to officially-sanctioned discrimination against non-minorities. Consider the case of the USNA color guard, the six midshipmen who carry the U.S., Navy, Marine Corps and Naval Academy flags during ceremonial events and home football games.

This year, the color guard was invited to perform at game 2 of the World Series in front of a national television audience. However, two of the six midshipmen who had been longtime members of the color guard were fired the day before the game and replaced with two newcomers. The offense, they were told, was being white males. The new members were a female and a first-generation Pakistani-American. One can only wonder if a similar fate will befall the Navy football team before it plays in a nationally-televised New Year’s Eve bowl game.

The Naval Academy makes no effort to hide its bias toward promoting only female and minority faces. The school’s 60-second “Fulfill Your Destiny” recruiting video, which has played prominently on television the past two years, has not one discernible white face in it except in the distant background. The commercial features two Hispanics, two blacks and an Asian. The video is not representative of the actual student body.

The question arises as to what the Naval Academy will do when President Barack Obama follows through on his promise to end the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” prohibition against homosexuals openly serving in the military. Will USNA pursue minimum quotas of male homosexuals, lesbians and transgender students?

Congressional "Pay Now-Buy Later " Health Care Plan Will Explode The Federal Budget

2009-11-25T12:39:00.001-05:00

Two days from now is "black Friday," the number one, busiest shopping day of the year. Its called black Friday because if sales are low, retailers and manufacturers are going to have a black year. Many of these items are purchased on a Buy Now-Pay Later basis.

In the spirit of black Friday, each house of Congress has passed its own version of Obamacare, unlike this Friday, they are selling us their bill of goods on a Pay Now-Buy Later basis. In each version of the plan Americans are paying billions of dollars of taxes before much money is spent on building their new health care infrastructure.

Why is this a bad thing? Because it is the typical Congressional cover-up. When estimating the costs of these supposedly deficit neutral plans, the CBO figured on ten years of taxes, but only 6-7 years of health plan expenses. In reality, if (God Forbid) they are passed, the health care plans will spend more than than their revenues, every year they are in operation.

The members of Congress are not stupid, they know that Obamacare is a budget-buster. Yet despite all of the warnings, they are going fill steam ahead, driving America into fiscal insolvency:

Damn the deficit: Full speed ahead on health care

Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
November 25, 2009

Double-digit. That hyphenated adjective has been used most often recently to describe October's 10.2 percent unemployment rate. But it can also be used to describe the federal budget deficit as a percentage of the gross domestic product. That precise number is not yet known, but it may turn out to have a more dire effect on our national life than October's unemployment rate.

In the fiscal year just ended, federal spending was nearly 25 percent of GDP while federal revenues slipped below 15 percent because of the financial crisis and recession. We have not seen a budget deficit of this magnitude since World War II, which surely was a greater challenge than recent economic troubles.

Apologists for the Obama administration argue that some 2009 spending, like that on financial bailouts, is nonrecurring. True, but as the Congressional Budget Office has reported, the trajectory of administration spending and revenue is pushing the annual deficit toward $1,000,000,000,000 -- that's $1 trillion -- for the next decade.

Congressional Democrats' health care bills threaten to add to that. The bill currently before the Senate is advertised as costing less than $1 trillion. But significant spending doesn't kick in till 2014 and over the ensuing 10 years adds up to $1.8 trillion, nearly double that.

Thanks to current low interest rates, servicing the debt costs the government only $200 billion this year. But the White House estimates that debt service will exceed $700 billion in 2019. "In a few years," the Economist editorializes, "the AAA rating of Treasury bonds, the world's most important security, could be in jeopardy."

It's not only Republicans who decry this prospect. Examining the Democrats' health care proposals, William Galston, domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House, writes, "We're already facing an unsustainable fiscal future."

Looking further ahead, Scott Winship notes in the Progressive Policy Institute's progressivefix.com blog that federal spending is on course to exceed 40 percent of GDP because of scheduled spending on entitlements -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid -- within the lifetime of today's children.

Yet the congressional Democrats who are pressing to expand federal health care spending do not seem much fazed by the prospect that, as Winship writes, "the level of taxation it would require to meet projected spending needs is far higher than anything the country has ever seen-slash-tolerated."

That suggests that, at least for some Democrats, huge looming budget deficits are not a bug but a feature.Just as Ronald Reagan hoped that cutting taxes would force politicians to cut spending, these Democrats hope that increasing spending will force politicians to increase taxes to levels common in Western Europe. Never mind that those economies have proved more sluggish and less creative than ours over the long haul.

The instrument they may have in mind is the value added tax, which operates as an invisible sales tax on goods and services. Back in May, Budget Director Peter Orszag's spokesman mentioned the VAT as a "credible idea" that he did not want to rule out. In June, House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel suggested a VAT as "a point of discussion."

In September, John Podesta, head of the Obama transition team, spoke of how a VAT would "create a balance" with other economies, and White House adviser Paul Volcker cited a carbon tax and a VAT as ways to raise lots of revenue. In October, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "Somewhere along the way, a value added tax plays into this."

These statements are noteworthy, because American politicians are ordinarily skittish about saying we should imitate Europe's high-tax and high-spending policies. These policies seem more unpopular than ever 10 months into the Obama presidency. Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that 53 percent of voters worry that the federal government will do too much in response to economic problems, while only 37 percent worry it will do too little.

That mirrors voters' current opposition to Democratic health care bills. Democratic leaders nonetheless want to jam one through before their current majorities are eroded, as they seem likely to be, in the 2010 elections. This is politically risky, but makes sense if your goal is to expand government.

So the battle over health care is not just about health care. It's about whether government will permanently gobble up more of the private-sector economy and slow it down in the process.

The Barack Obama/Sarah Palin Switcheroo

2009-11-25T11:52:00.000-05:00

There is an old business adage that says, "Be nice to people on the way up, because you will meet those same people on the way down." President Barack Obama would have been well advised to follow that adage.

Think back to a year ago, right after the election. President Obama was at the peak of his popularity. The hope and change president was going to govern from the middle, unite the country, and bring America to new heights.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was almost at her low. Through no fault of her own she was a political joke. Because of her appeal to the "common" American, she was seen as a major threat to the progressives in the Media and to the Democratic Party. She was lampooned as someone not only unqualified to be president, but in some instances unqualified to be a mother. These vicious and in most cases, false attacks continued even after resigned from her position of governor of Alaska.

Now one year later things have changed, President Obama has not governed from the middle, but from the radical left, he has hurt America's image at home and abroad, but in many cases he has united the country (against him). His approval is in a free fall.

The former Governor of Alaska has written a book laying out her experiences and her policy. On her interview tour, she has been seen as intelligent and as in touch with the people as the POTUS is out of touch.

In short, its as if they pulled a switcheroo:

Barack & Sarah's reversal of fortune

By MICHAEL GOODWIN

Last year at this time, Bar ack Obama was fresh off his historic election, riding a honeymoon high that would see him hit 70 per cent approval. Voters gave his party control of Washington, and media acolytes were force-feeding the nation syrupy comparisons to FDR and Lincoln.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, was sent skulking back to Alaska, beaten as well as defeated. John McCain wouldn't let her speak on election night, a final insult in a race where she was ridiculed as a little nutty by the mainstream press and a little slutty by late-night jackals.

What a difference a year makes. And the winds of change are still gaining speed.

Obama's fall from grace has been dramatic as he pushes unpopular policies from a health-care overhaul to 9/11 terror trials in New York. His approval is below 50 percent, and the man who rode the wave of public anger is now the focus of it. Even deep-blue states like New Jersey are falling out of love.

He has redivided the nation he promised to unite, and those who strongly oppose him outnumber those firmly in his corner. Independents and moderate Democrats are jumping ship, having concluded he was not honest about promises to govern from the center.

Even more surprising, Palin is the darling of discontent. Her book, "Going Rogue," is a publishing sensation, selling 600,000 copies in two days. Thousands of people camp out overnight to buy the book and get her autograph.

She's becoming the phenomenon Obama was a year ago.

This flip-flop in fortunes stems from many factors, war and recession chief among them. Yet ultimately, Obama has mostly himself to blame.

He's aligned himself with the left wing of his party instead of the ordinary Americans who identify with Palin. His Ivy League eloquence seems tired next to her wrong-side-of-the-tracks passion.

That she could quit her job as governor and still rise from the dead is a testament to fury at Obama and his policies. She is probably not a viable 2012 candidate; then again, he's not looking so hot himself.

His slide is prompting some beleaguered supporters to argue that expectations for his presidency were naively high. Laugh out loud at that one.

He set those expectations with messianic-like promises, such as the claim his election would mark "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

No sign of that yet, but unemployment and the deficit are soaring. And speaking of the planet, some of his climate-change advisers have been cooking the books by hiding inconvenient data and squelching dissent. So much for science and transparency.

Oh, and the phony stimulus job stats don't pass the smell test.

Recent events perfectly capture his problem. Still undecided after reviewing Afghan policy for over three months, Obama opted for a bowing-and-scraping trip to Asia.

The long visit was a waste of time and showed "disturbing amateurishness in managing America's power," writes Leslie Gelb, a foreign-policy expert whose book aims to help guide Obama. Apparently, the president didn't read it.

Obama then marked his return home with his 25th golf outing and a promise that "I will not rest until . . . businesses are hiring again and people have work again."

He should get his rest. It's the golf he should give up.

His choice of words at the Monday photo op was also revealing. His obsession with health-care bills surfaced as he saw an "urgent need for us to get to the finish line," before conceding that most people are focused on "jobs and the economy."

Indeed they are. So why isn't he?

CBO Projects Congressional Climate Change Bills Will DAMAGE ECONOMY

2009-11-25T10:42:00.027-05:00

President Obama wants to bring Cap and Trade to the United States. The Democratic Party dominated Congressional Budget Office took a look what Cap and Trade would do for the people country they reported it will hurt the poor and middle Class in America. The CBO estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That's about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive, as it hurts the poor more than the rich.

Yesterday the CBO took another look at the pending Climate Change bills, but instead of reporting on its effect on individual Americans, it examines how the legislation will affect the economy in general....and its not good:

CNSNews.com Climate Change Legislation Would Slow Economy, Says Congressional Budget Office
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
By Chris Neefus

The U.S. Capitol Power Plant heats and cools the halls of Congress. In April 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House would “lead by example” by reducing its own carbon footprint. But in late February, the House quietly shelved the idea. (AP File Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
(CNSNews.com) – The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report on Monday saying that the climate change legislation being considered by Congress could reduce the purchasing power of the middle class and shrink or slow the economy.

The report, “The Costs of Reducing Greenhouse-Gas Emissions,” says market-based regulations such as a cap and trade scheme would boost the cost of emission-intensive activities. In turn, household incomes would shrink along with consumer consumption and savings, real wages would fall, the supply of labor would shrink, and economic investments would be discouraged because of rising production costs.

In general, with cap and trade, the government would set a ceiling (cap) on how much carbon a company could emit during its production process. If a company’s emissions went above that cap, it could purchase (trade) carbon credits, the proceeds of which would be redistributed by the government to help foster more environmentally friendly companies.

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act, in June. The Demcrats' bill would create a system of carbon allowances that become more costly over time. The goal is to reduce CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2050 (compared with 2005 levels).

The Senate has not yet approved a climate change bill.

The CBO said if the House bill is enacted, it could shrink real Gross Domestic Product up to 3.5 percent by 2050. The “CBO concluded that H.R. 2454 would slightly reduce real GDP—by roughly 0.25 percent to 0.75 percent in 2020 and by between 1.0 percent and 3.5 percent in 2050,” reads the report.

The Gross Domestic Product is the total market value of all goods and services in the United States over any year.

Generally, a range of provisions like the ones in the House bill “would tend to dampen overall economic activity” by affecting several aspects of the U.S. economy, said the CBO report.

The regulations, for instance, would reduce “the productive capacity of existing capital and labor,” which would in turn “reduce consumption and saving,” reads the report. They also would reduce real wages and “the supply of labor,” they would “discourag(e) investment through increasing the cost of producing capital goods,” and they would divert research dollars to develop “more expensive sources of energy.”

Furthermore, Congress’ auditor said that if the United States were to enact such a range of provisions on its own while other carbon-emitters continued about business as usual, the trade deficit could also be harmed through “leakage,” as other nations benefited from our stricter standards.

“As long as a significant percentage of the world’s economy did not restrict greenhouse-gas emissions, a portion of any reductions achieved in the United States would probably be offset by increases in emissions elsewhere,” the CBO researchers wrote.

“For example, as U.S. consumption of oil declined, pushing down international oil prices, foreign consumption of oil would rise,” states the report. “In addition, energy-intensive production overseas (and exports of such products to the United States) would most likely grow as U.S. manufacturing costs rose relative to foreign costs.”

“Such emissions ‘leakage’ would lead countries that were controlling emissions to achieve smaller net reductions in global emission and to incur greater costs than it would if all countries were controlling emissions simultaneously,” states the report.

The findings are mitigated in the report by the CBO’s assertion that taking no action to curb carbon emissions would also harm the economy. “Unchecked increases in greenhouse-gas emissions would also tend to reduce output compared with a situation where climate change did not occur—especially later in this century as emissions accumulated in the atmosphere,” the report reads.

It also says any “benefits from averting warming are expected to accrue in the second half of the 21st century and beyond.”

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore speaks at the U.S.-China Strategic Forum on Clean Energy Cooperation welcome dinner held at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing, China, Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2009. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan)A CBO spokesperson confirmed that the authors were assuming carbon emissions would cause climate disruption, which in turn would cause economic harm, but said the office would not talk about those effects, nor potential benefits, with any specificity.

The ACES Act narrowly passed the House in June, 219-212, with only eight Republican votes, one of whom was Rep. John McHugh (R-N.Y.) who has since left to join the Obama administration as Secretary of the Army.

One of the few Republican groups that backed the legislation was the national grassroots organization Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP). Its vice president for Government and Political Affairs, David Jenkins, told CNSNews.com that the CBO did not make clear the full range of risks associated with unchecked emissions because it was difficult to predict.

The report “doesn’t really go into trying to analyze it,” he said, “and there’s a lot of that that’s unpredictable. [But] I think doing nothing is a huge gamble.”

His colleague, Vice President for Policy Jim DiPeso, told CNSNews.com that “the use of the atmosphere as a free disposal site carries a cost, which we don’t have right now. By [putting a price on carbon emissions], then the market will get a signal to start redirecting investments away from polluting, wasteful forms of energy production to cleaner energy production that doesn’t use the atmosphere as a free garbage can.”

But David Kreutzer, a senior policy analyst in energy economics and climate change at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that, just like the CBO, no one can fully quantify what risk, if any, emissions or warming impose. “[T]hey (the CBO) don’t give citations and I sort of wonder about that,” he said.

Kreutzer pointed out that he was struck by the fact that a part of the Obama administration was admitting that cap and trade legislation would not help the economy.

“The fact that they even are willing to admit that this is not an economic stimulus, even if we include supposed benefits from reducing global warming -- this is all going to be negative for decades, and any hope from payback is in the second half of the 21st century and beyond,” said Kreutzer. “So you know, we’re talking 100, 200, who knows how many years.”

With all that uncertainty, Kreutzer said the costs to GDP and employment would not be the “slight” changes the CBO reports or the pittance that the REP members called them.

“It’s a big deal,” he said, “and it’s an especially big deal given the current debate where they’re trying to spin this as an economic stimulus. There’s been debate over how much something like [ACES] would cut employment and how much they would cut income, but there’s not a debate over whether they cut it or not, and that’s emphasized here by the CBO. They point that out and it’s true.”

“So I think that people,” he added, “to talk about known catastrophes [as if] there’s any sort of certainty whatsoever, or any sort of consensus on the size of the catastrophe -- that’s so large that we have to do anything that it takes to cut it even the slightest amount-- that’s just silly. I can’t even imagine where they’re getting that, other than ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’”

“An Inconvenient Truth” was a 2006 documentary film about former Vice President Al Gore’s campaign to educate Americans about the alleged dangers of global warming.

The Senate is currently considering legislation that contains a similar market-based regulation of carbon emissions, sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.). It was reported out of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works but has yet to be taken up by the full Senate.

Tell me again why congress is considering climate change legislation again? Doesn't congress read the News....the stolen Emails....evidence that the whole global warming thing is a fraud ?

For Pete's Sake !!!! Maybe they should investigate those stolen emails first. Maybe the legislation would not be necessary. Unless of course global warming was never about the environment, instead it was about increasing government control of our lives and redistribution of income on a worldwide basis.

Settlement Freeze is Netanyahu Challenge to Abbas: "Time to Put Tuchas Offen Tisch!"

2009-11-25T10:19:00.001-05:00

Today Bibi Netanyahu played a brilliant move, in Yiddish its called Hey put tuchas offen tisch, literally, Hey put your "arse" on the table (put up or shut up). He offered a ten month freeze in settlement building in exchange for restarting the peace plans. I doubt very strongly the freeze will every happen.

The truth is the real reason there is no peace is the Palestinians don't want peace. No other country in the world has made concessions the way Israel has. Since 1977, we they given up areas of land three times the size of the State of Israel. The Oslo process began in 1993. Sixteen years have passed since then, and they are no closer to a permanent settlement. The Palestinians don't want peace, its bad for buisness. It is the hatred of Israel that allows the PA to keep power. It deflects public anger from their own fraud, theft of public funds and incompetence, to that "evil Zionist entity:"

Netanyahu: Settlement freeze would prove Israel really wants peace
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent, and Agencies
A 10-month freeze on construction in West Bank settlements would prove that Israel genuinely seeks to reach peace with the Palestinians, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday ahead of a cabinet vote on the move.

"In the international circumstances that have been created, this step will advance Israel's broad international interests. This is not a simple step, nor an easy one; but it has many more advantages than disadvantages," Netanyahu told his aides.

Settlement building has been a key sticking point in U.S. efforts to restart Middle East peace talks; the Palestinians say they will not return to the negotiating table without a complete halt to construction.

Netanyahu added: "It will enable us to show the world this simple truth: The Government of Israel wants to enter into negotiations with the Palestinians, is taking practical steps to enter into negotiations and is very serious in its intention to advance peace."

The prime minister was set to announce the settlement freeze at a special news conference on Wednesday evening. The move is expected be approved at the cabinet meeting Wednesday afternoon.

An official statement from the Prime Minister's Office on Wednesday said Netanyahu would seek approval for the moratorium from his cabinet in order to boost peace prospects.

"As part of our efforts to give impetus to peace talks with the Palestinian Authority and promote Israel's comprehensive national interests, the prime minister will ask the security cabinet to approve a temporary suspension on construction permits for new residences and the [actual] start of new residential construction for a period of ten months," the statement said.

The move is not unexpected; Netanyahu announced several days ago that he intended to declare a settlement freeze for 10 months. Israel began building in the West Bank in 1967, following the capture of the territory from Jordan during the Six-Day War. Today, more than a quarter of million Israelis live in West Bank settlements.

The construction freeze will not be implemented in predominantly Arab East Jerusalem, which is viewed by Israel as a separate issue to be discussed in a final status agreement with the Palestinians.

The freeze will also not apply to construction that has already been authorized or to work on public buildings conducive to normal life in the territories.

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told reporters Wednesday that a settlement freeze was unacceptable without halt in construction in Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as the capital of a state.

"What has changed to make something that what was not acceptable a week or 10 days ago [acceptable now]?," he told reporters. "The exclusion of Jerusalem is a very serious problem for us."

Today the Government of Israel showed once again that it is interested in making peace with the Palestinians, they made an offer that will undoubtedly be rejected by the Palestinians side. But who knows for sure, Hey Mr. Abbas, put tuchas offen tisch!

Document Dump: ACORN Contacts DA, They Want Their Garbage Back

2009-11-24T22:23:00.001-05:00

Yesterday Big Government broke the story about an attempt by ACORN to obstruct justice by dumping documents into a trash bin just before a visit from the California AG's office:

On October 1st, 2009 California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced that an investigation had been opened into ACORN’s activities in California, resulting from undercover videos showing employees seemingly offering to assist the undercover film makers with human smuggling, child prostitution and even tax advice to boot.

Although ACORN has denied any wrongdoing, some of the employees involved were terminated, and ACORN has publicly stated that they would fully cooperate with any investigations that followed.

Shockingly, we now learn that the ACORN office in National City (San Diego County) engaged in a massive document dump on the evening of October 9th, containing thousands upon thousands of sensitive documents, just days prior to the Attorney General’s visit.

All day long the Big Government site has been showing some of the incriminating documents, but who knows for how long they will be able to continue because the ACORN office has contacted the local DA, apparently they want their garbage back.

Acorn Office Seeks Return of Documents Taken From Trash

NATIONAL CITY, Calif. — An office of the community organization Acorn in San Diego County is trying to recover tens of thousands of documents taken from its garbage by a Republican activist.

It is the latest skirmish in a war between Acorn, which stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and conservative critics who accuse it of corruption.

The Republican activist, Derrick Roach, a private investigator who unsuccessfully ran for a State Assembly seat last year, said he took more than 20,000 documents from a caged trash area behind Acorn’s office in National City on Oct. 9.

Some of the documents, later posted on a Web site and displayed Monday at a news conference, appeared to show driver’s licenses and Social Security

There also were immigration records, credit reports, tax returns, credit card statements and bank account numbers, Mr. Roach said Tuesday.

Acorn’s lead organizer in California, Amy Schur, said that the confidential papers had been carelessly included in the trash and that there had been no intent to dump rather than shred them.

“We want to get our property back so that we can properly secure it,” she said.

An Acorn employee filed a report on Monday with the police in National City, a San Diego suburb that has a law forbidding scavenging of trash, Ms. Schur said.

She also contacted the county district attorney’s office asking for help in retrieving documents that contain personal or confidential information. The district attorney’s office said it was looking into the matter.

Mr. Roach said he was not concerned. “They’re not going to get the documents back,” he said.

Mr. Roach said he was shielded by a 1988 Supreme Court ruling that said there was no privacy expectation for garbage. He also said he had contacted the district attorney’s office and sent copies of some documents because he believed Acorn might have broken privacy laws by failing to shred those papers containing personal information.

Mr. Roach and Republican leaders have questioned why the material was dumped just days before investigators with the office of the state attorney general, Jerry Brown, were expected to visit the office.

Mr. Brown’s office began investigating after employees at Acorn offices in San Bernardino and San Diego were caught on video appearing to advise a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute to lie about the woman’s profession to gain financial help for housing.

Ms. Schur said the documents had been thrown out to make room for a new phone bank, not to avoid scrutiny. numbers of Acorn members or job applicants.

SLAM !! GOP Takes a Seven Point Lead In Generic Congressional Ballot

2009-11-24T21:27:00.000-05:00

Now we can honestly say that President Obama has achieved something worthwhile. Tonight Rasmussen has released its weekly look at party strength via the Generic Congressional Ballot. When the President took office in January of this year the Democratic Party had a seven point lead, but after ten months of an Obama Presidency the GOP has taken a 7 percentage point lead.

The report shows that if elections were held today, 44% of likely voters would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would select the Democratic opponent.

Support for the Republican party held steady from last week, while support for Democrats dropped slightly. Republicans have held the lead for over four months now. Democrats currently have majority control of both the House and Senate.

Key is the news that the GOP has more than a two to one advantage over the Democrats with independent voters, 44% to 20%.

Since late June, support for Republican candidates has ranged from 41% to 44%, while support for Democrats has run from 36% to 40%. Looking back one year ago, the two parties were in a much different place. Throughout the fall of 2008, support for Democratic congressional candidates ranged from 42% to 47%. Republican support ranged from 37% to 41%.

Even as Democrats kept 60 senators in line this past weekend to begin debate on health care reform in the Senate, support for the plan fell to a new low. Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats.
On Tuesday, Obama's job approval rating as measured by the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll dropped to -15, the lowest of his presidency to date.

Thirty-six percent (36%) of voters believe the $787-billion economic stimulus plan passed by Congress in February has helped the U.S. economy, while 34% say it has hurt the economy. Twenty-four percent (24%) say it has had no economic impact.

While some in Congress are pushing for a second stimulus package to fight the country's rising unemployment rate, only 21% believe that additional stimulus spending is the best tool. Sixty-two percent (62%) believe tax cuts are a better way to create jobs and fight unemployment. Fifty-one percent (51%) say a better way to create jobs is to stop all stimulus spending now.

Most voters (53%) worry that the federal government will do too much when it comes to reacting to the nation’s financial problems. Concern about the Federal Reserve's actions in recent months is advancing a bill to audit the Fed in the House.

Voters continue to think that the president’s top budget priority should be cutting the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term in office. But they see it as the goal the president is least likely to achieve.

Thank You Mr. President !

Boehner to Biden: Stop Using Bogus Job Numbers

2009-11-24T16:17:00.001-05:00

The recent unemployment figures. over 10% of Americans out of work, blows through the President's projection at the time of the porkulous debate. At that time, America was promised that if his bill was passed, unemployment would not rise higher than 8%.

The spike in unemployment is a black-eye to the president as it is proof that the President's plan of government spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave is doing very little to help the economy. The administration is so embarrassed about the bad numbers that they have revised their promises. Job creation is no longer the bell weather statistic, now it is a bogus statistic called jobs created or saved.

This is how William McGurn described the term for the Wall Street Journal:

"To begin with, the number is pure fiction -- the administration has no way to measure how many jobs are actually being 'saved.' And if we had tried to use something this flimsy, the press would never have let us get away with it."
“How do you know what a saved job is? How do you know what jobs would have been lost without this?” Davis said. “That was a clever political gimmick to make it even harder to determine whether this policy has any effect.”

This Bogus number is a favorite of the SCHMOTUS, Vice President Joe Biden. The GOP House leadership has asked the SCHMOTUS to stop trying to pull the wool over the eyes of America and Stop using the "Jobs Saved" nonsense:

GOPers to Biden: Stop Using Stimulus Jobs Numbers
November 24, 2009 12:56 PM

Amid the growing outcry about inaccuracies in the Obama administration’s claims of stimulus job growth, top Republican lawmakers today wrote to Vice President Joe Biden asking the administration to stop promoting jobs “saved or created” by the program, according to a letter exclusively obtained by ABC News.

“Following documented gross inaccuracies and confusion associated with the counting of job claims, we ask that the Administration cease public use of the inaccurate jobs ‘created or saved’ metric and instead focus efforts on lowering the unemployment rate,” House Minority Leader John Boehner and House Oversight Committee ranking member Darrell Issa say in the letter.

In their Oct. 30 report on the program, the administration announced that 640,000 jobs have so far been saved or created by stimulus funds -- a number the White House says it continues to believe is accurate. But in recent weeks these claims have been damaged by numerous reports.

Last week, ABC News reported that hundreds of these jobs listed as saved or created were listed as coming from Congressional districts that don’t exist.

Before even releasing the Oct. 30 report, the administration decided to jettison more 60,000 jobs from its claims because of inaccurate data. Then, last Thursday, a government watchdog group found that more than 50,000 jobs included in the report stemmed from projects that reported spending no stimulus money yet.

In their letter to Biden, Boehner and Issa write, “The inaccuracy of the job creation and retention claims posted on the Administration’s website, www.recovery.gov, has not prevented Administration officials from touting this misleading and inaccurate number as evidence that the President’s stimulus spending package is succeeding even as the unemployment rate continues to rise. The reality is that the metric of jobs ‘created or saved’ was invented by politicians, not economists – it cannot be verified as accurate.”

The GOP lawmakers ask Biden to respond to their letter by Dec. 1, in advance of a jobs summit being held by the White House Dec. 3.

At a hearing last Thursday before the House Oversight panel, Issa suggested to Earl Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Act Transparency & Accountability Board, that the administration be more upfront about the flaws in the stimulus reporting system.

“Shouldn’t we be more conservative and say, ‘Look, this is what the reports are. We’re scrubbing it. This is a new system. It has its problems. We hope at least they’re reporting the dollars right and we have no idea whether these people have the ability to calculate the full time jobs equivalent, but we’re going to get to the bottom of it.’ Wouldn’t that be a fairer way to put it?” Issa suggested.

“I like that statement,” Devaney replied.

The recent uproar over inaccuracies in stimulus reporting, Boehner and Issa tell Biden, has now become “a distraction” from efforts to address the nation’s unemployment rate, which currently sits at a 26-year high of 10.2 percent.

Citing that President Obama described the controversy over questions about stimulus job creation as “a side issue”, Boehner and Issa state, “We respectfully submit that the President is missing the point.”

“If the Administration is ready to send a signal that it seeks credible and bipartisan solutions to fix the economy, discontinuing deceptive accounting tricks and returning to tried and tested metrics of measuring economic growth is a good place to begin,” write Boehner and Issa.

The BEST Anti-Political Correctness Editorial EVER !

2009-11-24T12:31:00.005-05:00

If the Ft. Hood terrorist attack teaches us anything, it should teach us that Political Correctness will kill this country. Every day we find out another example of Major Hasan telegraphed his Islamist intentions and the higher ups in the military did nothing for fear of offending the Muslim community.

But it go way beyond Major Hasan, our government still interacts with terrorist supporting organizations such as CAIR, Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Students Association, the Muslim American Society who are all children of the Muslim Brotherhood. We even walked away from the word terrorism for "man made disasters."

Just before Veterans Day Bill Cathcart, Vice President and General Manager of News for CBS affiliate WTOC in Savannah Georgia (home of Paula Dean), broadcast what is IMHO the best anti-PC editorial I have ever seen, it is a must see. The video and the transcript is below:

PC’d To Death

There are no words to ease the agony, outrage and senseless loss caused by the vicious rampage of that American-born Army officer, whose devout Muslim beliefs degenerated from religious faith to politically-based Islamic-fanaticism, leaving in its wake 13 Fort Hood patriots dead and many others wounded.

The President was quick to caution about jumping to conclusions, which is interesting since he, himself, jumped to an erroneous one with that outstanding police officer. Tell you what, when Swedes begin mass murdering Americans, we’ll wait, but given this tax-payer-educated ingrate’s alleged repeated utterances and actions, the conclusion is clear.

This demonic act was almost certainly a pre-meditated, treasonous, act of terrorism, personal or otherwise, against his own nation and military, both of which he betrayed in pursuit of his radicalized views. And who’s ultimately to blame? We are! We’ve become so ridiculous with our political-correctness; so afraid of offending, despite the truth; so overly-tolerant and self-effacing, pandering and apologizing to be liked; putting up with absurd challenges to our Constitution, laws, traditions and freedoms, that we’ve become a nation of enablers for those with evil intent. Case in point, failing to challenge or stop the open proselytizing, and statements against America’s military mission, by this officer, repeatedly uttered and witnessed.

The Army should’ve booted him long ago, but can’t be faulted, as we’ve all now been driven, by fear, to egg-shell sensitivity. Devout Muslim beliefs can’t be challenged, yet the devoted Jewish and Christian faithful remain a continuing target of offensive-actions, insults, mockery and marginalization. In more ways than all of this, we’ve reached the height of absurdity in America. It’s past time to knock-off the elite-ism and level the tolerance playing field. We must, however, pause to note with heartfelt thanks, the efforts of the Muslim faithful who, unseen, help maintain the security of our great nation, both in the community, and through their courageous FBI-work as interpreters, informants and terror-cell infiltrators, working at great risk, to prevent similar barbaric acts.

That said, with Veterans Day upon us, amidst the pain of Fort Hood, regardless of origin, race, or religion, this challenge to those in this magnificent nation, who refuse to accept, adopt and respect our traditions, laws, and freedoms. Either gain English-proficiency, fully-assimilate, contribute positively, and be ever- thankful for the incredible blessing it is to be here, or get the heck out!

H/T Newsbusters

Is Obama Losing Touch With Reality?

2009-11-24T11:33:00.000-05:00

The President is beginning to resemble the myth about Emperor Nero, who supposedly was playing his fiddle as Rome was burning to the ground. More often than not new facts prove his programs are out of touch with the facts or the will of the people, but he keeps on going almost as if he has lost all touch with reality (or he doesn't own a subscription to a newspaper).

Take the Porkulus bill:

The White House defended the effectiveness of the economic stimulus act on Monday after a government audit last week called many of the reported job numbers into question.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that $173 billion of the $787 billion stimulus package had been paid out by the federal government as of Sept. 30. That’s about 22 percent of the total, and it indicates that 78 percent of the stimulus funds have not been paid out – at a time when unemployment was rising.

Asked why 78 percent of the stimulus funds were not spent in the first fiscal year, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told CNSNews.com that the GAO report probably is counting only the money that actually has been spent, not the amount of money that has been obligated.

“For instance, on a road project, the check may not come until the very end,” Gibbs said. “That doesn’t mean the contract can’t be agreed to and the money can’t be obligated and the effects go with [the] construction company as well as the indirect jobs that are ultimately created. I can get you an updated figure, but I think more than 50 percent (of stimulus funding) has been obligated,” Gibbs said.

(The GAO says groups receiving stimulus funding must report how many “direct jobs” were created or retained with the taxpayer money. Indirect jobs are not counted.)

Global Warming?

Yesterday the news leaked out that the United States will announce a target for reducing its greenhouse gas emissions before the UN climate conference in Copenhagen, removing a major obstacle to a deal, a senior official says.

The official refused to be drawn on specific numbers but the announcement was expected to be in line with legislation being debated in the US Senate that envisages a reduction of up to 20 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020.

Huh Didn't the President Read the News....the stolen Emails....evidence that the whole global warming thing is a fraud ?

It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."

Even if he didn't want to believe the Emails without further proof doesn't it rate an investigation? For Pete's Sake !!!! The President just spent almost three months deciding whether or not he would believe his generals, but he won't spend three weeks deciding whether he can believe scientists OWN EMAILS saying that the warming evidence was doctored? Does he need it explained to him in big letters, or is he simply out of touch? My guess is that that he doesn't care, because PORKULUS was never about Jobs, and Global warming was never about the environment, its all about increasing government control of our lives.

Obama Approval Rating Drops to NEW LOW

2009-11-24T10:16:00.000-05:00

As President Obama continues to ignore the will of the American people, the American People continue to turn against President Obama. The latest Rasmussen report show the POTUS' approval rating (those who strongly approve of the job he is doing vs those who strongly disapprove) has fallen to its lowest point ever -15. 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as President, 42% Disapprove.

As expected, most Democrats strongly approve (52%) and most Republicans strongly disapprove (68%). The continuing problem for the President is that only 16% of independents strongly approve and 51% strongly disapprove.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters worry that the federal government will do too much when it comes to reacting to the nation’s financial problems. That’s up seven points since President Obama took office.

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That matches the lowest level of total approval yet measured for this president. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats approve as do 33% of unaffiliated voters. Eighty-three percent (83%) of Republicans disapprove. Among all voters, 54% now disapprove.

Part of the reason for the drop in the President's approval rating is ObamacarebSupport for the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low of 38%.

During the election Barack Obama forged what seemed like an intimate connection to his supporters. Clearly that connection is lost.

As the Righteous Brothers once sang:

You've lost that lovin' feeling,
Whoa, that lovin' feeling,
You've lost that lovin' feeling,
Now it's gone...gone...gone...wooooooh.

AmeriCorps Scandal Unravels: Johnson's Fiancee Visited IG Walpin Before His Firing

2009-11-24T08:25:00.002-05:00

On Friday a report was issued by two Republican Senators contending that the Obama White House was politically motivated when it fired inspector general Gerald Walpin after his 2008 investigation of Kevin Johnson, friend of the Obamas, and now Sacramento's mayor. The report by Congressman Issa and Senator Grassley criticizes the White House ethics counsel, for not examining what Walpin had been investigating at the time of his dismissal, including the allegations of sexual misconduct by Johnson and hush-money used to cover up the misconduct. The report asserted that Michelle Rhee, now Johnson's fiancee, made the payoffs.

Yesterday documents were found which show that immediately after Mr. Walpin was fired the White House came up with ways to smear Walpin, to cover up the political basis for the firing.

Gerald Walpin has now weighed and says that Johnson's fixer, Ms Rhee also went to the IG in an attempt remove the heat from her future fiancee:

Inspector General: Rhee visited me to intervene for Johnson
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
November 24, 2009
(Andrew Harnik/Examiner)

On June 27, 2008, Michelle Rhee, head of the Washington, D.C., school system, paid a visit to Gerald Walpin, who was inspector general of the government volunteer organization AmeriCorps.

At the time, Walpin was investigating a California private school known as St. Hope, which was founded by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star and friend of Rhee's who was running for mayor of Sacramento. St. Hope had received about $850,000 in AmeriCorps money, and Walpin's investigators were looking into charges that Johnson had misused those funds by assigning paid volunteer tutors to run errands for him and wash his car, as well as making them take part in political activities.

In the course of the investigation, some young female AmeriCorps volunteers also charged that Johnson had made inappropriate sexual advances toward them and offered one of them $1,000 a month to keep quiet.

Rhee, who later became engaged to marry Johnson, had been on St. Hope's board of directors before taking over as chief of the District of Columbia system. Her apparent goal, as she visited Walpin, was to vouch for Johnson.

"The basic point of her meeting with me was to tell me what a great guy he was," Walpin recalls, "and what wonderful work he has done, and that maybe he had made mistakes administratively, but that she thought I should give as much consideration as possible to his good work in deciding what to do."

Rhee's visit wasn't a big success. Not long after the meeting, the Corporation for National and Community Service, which is the agency that oversees AmeriCorps, banned Johnson from receiving any more federal money. Walpin referred the financial allegations, as well as the accusations of sexual misconduct, to the U.S. attorney's office in Sacramento. St. Hope was eventually ordered to pay back $425,000 of the AmeriCorps cash. Prosecutors took no action on the sexual allegations. Johnson, meanwhile, won the mayor's race.

In June of this year, President Obama abruptly fired Walpin. The White House was apparently unhappy with the zeal with which he conducted the St. Hope probe.

Rhee's June 2008 visit to Walpin's office wasn't her first talk with him. Shortly before that, she had called Walpin, apparently to see how the investigation was going. It was widely reported at the time that Rhee was planning to include St. Hope in a group of educational organizations that would be hired to run 10 of the District's most troubled high schools.

"Because she knew we were investigating Johnson, she called me to find out whether there would be anything coming out that she should take into account in deciding whether to contract with Johnson," Walpin says. "I told her I could not give her any bottom line as to what we were doing, but she knew that we were looking into the St. Hope matter."

At the time of her conversations with Walpin, Rhee was not only aware of the financial misuse investigation; she appears to have known about the sexual misconduct allegations, too. According to a new report by Republican investigators in the House and Senate, a former St. Hope employee told Walpin's staff that Rhee "learned of the allegations and played the role of a fixer, doing 'damage control.'"

That was in 2007, well before Rhee visited Walpin. So it appears she knew about both problems, yet was still contemplating having St. Hope take part in running some D.C. high schools.

On Monday, I sent a few questions to Rhee spokeswoman Jennifer Calloway. What was said in the Rhee-Walpin conversations? Why was Rhee planning to include St. Hope in the troubled-school project when she knew about the various allegations? "We put out a statement last week," Calloway responded, and then repeated that statement: "Chancellor Rhee is mentioned in one paragraph of the 62-page [Republican report] -- it rehashes old allegations that have long since been dismissed and deemed meritless by local and federal law enforcement officials, including the Sacramento Police Department and U.S. Attorney."

Democrats have charged that Republicans went overboard in investigating the Walpin firing. But there was no GOP effort to target Rhee, an emerging star on the national education scene who is admired by conservatives for, among other things, her efforts to break the teachers' union stranglehold on Washington's schools. Rhee is, in fact, admired by some of the very Republicans whose investigation has ensnared her.

But the Walpin-AmeriCorps affair has raised questions about Rhee's judgment that could undermine her reform efforts.

ACORN Responds to Reports of "Document Drop"

2009-11-23T21:44:00.001-05:00

View more news videos at: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/video.

This morning Big Government broke the story about an attempt by ACORN to obstruct justice by dumping documents into a trash bin just before a visit from the California AG's office:

On October 1st, 2009 California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced that an investigation had been opened into ACORN’s activities in California, resulting from undercover videos showing employees seemingly offering to assist the undercover film makers with human smuggling, child prostitution and even tax advice to boot.

Although ACORN has denied any wrongdoing, some of the employees involved were terminated, and ACORN has publicly stated that they would fully cooperate with any investigations that followed.

Interestingly, the local head ACORN organizer in California, David Lagstein was caught on tape earlier this month speaking to an East County Democratic Club.

Mr. Lagstein stated: “…the attorney general is a political animal, but certainly every bit of the communication we have had with them has suggested that the fault will be found with the people that did the video and not the people with ACORN.”

Continuing, Mr. Lagstein stated: “…we are fully cooperating, some of the investigators visited our office this morning and I think they really understand what’s going on.”

Shockingly, we now learn that the ACORN office in National City (San Diego County) engaged in a massive document dump on the evening of October 9th, containing thousands upon thousands of sensitive documents, just days prior to the Attorney General’s visit

Of course ACORN has a different explanation for the document drop, theirs is based in bull crap:

When reached for comment, Amy Schur of ACORN's state office, explained why the paperwork was in the trash.

"In early October, when our San Diego staff were doing an office clean-up in preparation for a major 10-station phone bank program being set up in our offices, it appears that included in the piles of garbage being thrown out may have been some documents containing private information," Schur wrote in an e-mail to NBCSanDiego. "To the individuals whose paperwork was pulled out of the dumpster by this guy Derrick Roach - unsuccessful Republican candidate for State Rep in San Diego - we truly apologize. We will seek return of this information so that we may give proper notice of the compromising of the information as required by law."

When asked about ACORN's policy for disposing of sensitive documents, Schur said, "It is ACORN’s policy to shred documents with personal information at the point when they no longer need to be retained."

Tony Krvaric, chairman of the Republican Party of San Diego County a tip-off from the AG's office may have lead to the document dump.

“This is a massive data breach at the very least of individuals who come to ACORN for help and assistance,” said Krvaric. “To have their information, tax returns, immigration documents thrown in the trash like common trash is absolutely an affront to every San Diegan.”

“[ACORN] cannot be trusted to be helping people here,” Krvaric said.

“I have been specifically asked by certain government officials to not release some of the documents,” he said. He could not identify those officials at this time.

For Krvaric, the main question is what is the California State Attorney's General doing about this discovery?

“We have nothing to indicate the attorney general is conducting a thorough, fair, without fear or favor investigation,” said Krvaric. “They’ve not stated anything. Clearly there are documents that they’re missing because of this document dump that occurred only six days prior to the attorney general coming into town.”

They have not heard from Attorney General Jerry Brown's office, according to Krvaric. He would like Brown's office to contact him.

“The question is was ACORN tipped off as to when and where or when the attorney general would be arriving?” Krvaric asked.

Schur confirms the ACORN office was aware of Brown's upcoming visit but said that did not prompt the removal of thousands of documents.

"Absolutely not. Our files were not part of the scope of the visit by the Attorney General’s office, and the majority of what was thrown out was junk – old leaflets, newsletters, etc… It looks like our staff were careless and some documents with personal information were included in the piles of garbage," Schur wrote.

In a written statement, Evan Westrup wrote "The Attorney General's Office has contacted the office of the individual who allegedly recovered these documents and has requested that he turn over all information which he believes relates to a violation of law or otherwise relates to our investigation."

"There is absolutely no truth to the assertion that the Attorney General's Office has come to any conclusions or that the investigation is complete. This investigation, like all investigations conducted by the Attorney General's Office, will be fair, comprehensive and independent."

Roach smiled when he discussed how he happened to be in the right place at the right time for the discovery. He credited both luck and God at times during Monday's news conference.

“This was an investigator’s dream to get information like this,” said Roach who did run for the California State Assembly 79th District Seat in 2008.

In September, California's attorney general and San Diego County's district attorney launched probes into allegations of voter registration fraud by staffers of ACORN.

One month earlier, there was nationwide news coverage of hidden-camera video stings that caught ACORN workers in five regional offices, including one in San Diego County, allegedly offering inappropriate advice and assistance to undercover filmmakers posing as a pimp and prostitute.

A local ACORN staffer in the the group's National City office was recorded Aug. 18 allegedly suggesting that Tijuana was a preferred border-crossing venue for a dozen underage prostitutes from El Salvador, because "I have a lot of contacts" there.

The ACORN staffer also inquired as to how much the purported prostitute charged customers. He was fired after the video was widely broadcast.

“I think we’re seeing the sad, last chapter of ACORN as we speak,” said Krvaric referring to the documents discovered outside the ACORN office.

It is long past the time that this criminal enterprise is put out of buisness.

Keith Ellison: The Islamist's "Main Man" in Congress

2009-11-23T16:20:00.000-05:00

The PC-Police be dammed ! When Keith Ellison ran for and was elected to congress in the 2006 mid-term election he was the darling of the PC world and the Democratic leadership -- America's First Muslim Congressman a perfect example of the diversity of this nation. Despite the fact that there were warning signs about his "friends".

Soon after his election he joined with the most powerful woman in the world, Nancy Pelosi to try and create a federal law against profiling. Its no wonder the PC police loved him. And the fact that he has associated with Anti-Semitic organizations didn't matter. Nor does his association with the domestic terrorist group, CAIR matter either. In only three years as a congressman, Congressman Ellison has become the Islamists main man in Congress:

Rep. Keith Ellison, the Islamists' Man on Capitol Hill November 23, 2009

As a U.S. representative, Keith Ellison's primary responsibility is to represent his constituents in Minnesota's 5th congressional district.

The first Muslim elected to Congress, Ellison, a Democrat, also seems to feel an obligation to be the voice of Muslim Americans in Washington. That alone would not be an issue. But in his two terms, he has established a disturbing record of promoting and defending radical Islamists who hide beneath a veneer of moderation.

When those organizations are criticized, Ellison often jumps to their defense. He also travels the country to raise money on their behalf. In 2009, Ellison spoke at three fundraising dinners for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and provided videotaped remarks at others, including the CAIR-Sacramento Valley dinner last weekend. He also appeared with CAIR officials at events on health care reform and celebrating the Muslim Eid holiday.

Last month, Ellison took to the House floor to rebuke four colleagues who called for an investigation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and whether it was targeting offices tied to committees on the judiciary, homeland security and intelligence to place interns. According to the book Muslim Mafia, internal CAIR records show the group sought to infiltrate those congressional offices.

"These charges smack of an America 60 years ago where lists of 'un-American' agitators were identified," Ellison said in his floor remarks. "The idea that we should investigate Muslim interns as spies is a blow to the very principle of religious freedom that our Founding Fathers cherished so dearly. If anything, we should be encouraging all Americans to take part in the U.S. political process."

The four Republican officials never asked that Muslim interns be investigated. Their concern focused solely on CAIR and cited internal CAIR documents published in the book.

CAIR deserves special scrutiny because of documented proof that it was founded by members of a U.S.-based Hamas support network created by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood is an Egyptian religious/political movement which aims to spread Islamic law throughout the world. The Hamas support by CAIR founders documented in the terror-financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development prompted the FBI to cut off communications with CAIR in 2008. CAIR's access reportedly could be restored if it pledged not to support Hamas. CAIR officials have rejected that pledge.

Debating Muslim Moderates

Two weeks before defending CAIR on the House floor, Ellison engaged in a brief debate with M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Jasser, a former Navy physician, challenges the insidious threat from political Islam and is a staunch advocate of separating "mosque and state."

Ellison responded to this message with a tirade in which he all but called Jasser an Islamic "Uncle Tom." Blacks, he said, are "familiar with people who would seek to ingratiate themselves with powerful people in the white community and would there turn them on the rest of us and give license to attack us all. Arguing 'African-Americans are criminally inclined, they're all in gangs, they're all on welfare.' Black people who say stuff like this. But what they're really trying to do is win themselves individual benefit at the expense of everyone else."

"I don't know you well enough to know that's what you're doing," Ellison told Jasser. "But I must admit that when I heard you speaking, that's what I thought of."

Muslims must "stand against" extremist members of their faith, Ellison said. But he seemed more threatened by Jasser. "Now is somebody going to snatch my 13-year-old daughter's hijab off, call her a horrible name, spit on her because of something that you said, Dr. Jasser, I worry about that," he added. Read more about it and watch the video here.

Inconsistent Stands

Ellison also wants to be regarded as a statesman and an advocate of inter-religious cooperation and peace. When he addressed the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) on October 15, he denounced Muslim Brotherhood luminary Sayyid Qutb, whom he described as one of a number of "theorists" who "are responsible for what we would regard today as violent extremism with what I call a Muslim veneer."

In the same speech, however, Ellison praised one very questionable Islamist role model: Hamza Yusuf, president and chairman of the Zaytuna Institute in California. Ellison described Yusuf as one of several "respected religious authorities who converted to Islam." But Yusuf has a long record of anti-Jewish rabble-rousing and other extremist statements. In a 1995 videotape, Yusuf called Judaism a "most racist religion."

On September 9, 2001, Yusuf spoke at a fundraiser at the University of California-Irvine for Jamal Al-Amin, then-accused of murdering a Fulton County, Ga. sheriff's deputy and wounding his partner. Al-Amin would be convicted in 2002. Speaking just two days before the September 11 attacks, Yusuf warned: "We saw the destruction of Russia after its invasion of Afghanistan, This country [America] unfortunately has a great…tribulation coming to it. And much of it is already here, yet people are too illiterate to read the writing on the wall."

Read more about Yusuf here and here. Watch him here.

Ellison went on to describe himself as a "supporter" of Israel, which he described as "an important country, our ally."

But Ellison has also received plaudits from the virulently anti-Israel Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, which publishes hateful stories like this supporting the magazine's position on all eight issues polled during the 110th Congress. The issues ranged from opposing sanctions against Iran to calling on the U.S. government to press Israel and Hamas for a Gaza ceasefire. conspiracy theory of an international Jewish organ theft program. Ellison was one of only 33 House members who earned a spot in the Washington Report's "Hall of Fame,"

In his USIP speech, Ellison designated himself pro-Israel to make a segue to a larger point - to urge support for a questionable report from a United Nations "fact-finding" mission on the war this past winter between Israel and Hamas. As careful analysts have pointed out, the mission, headed by South African jurist Richard Goldstone, was skewed from the start against Israel and in favor of Hamas.

The United Nations Human Rights Council resolution which established the Goldstone mission prejudged Israel's guilt and denounced its behavior while omitting criticism of Hamas. The resolution asserted that Israel's military operation in Gaza "resulted in massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people." The resolution called on the Goldstone mission to investigate Israel's conduct in Gaza but not that of Hamas.

Earlier this month, Ellison backed up his words by joining the losing side of a 344-36 House vote in favor of a resolution calling on the President and Secretary of State to oppose any endorsement of the report.

Jonathan Halevi, a research fellow with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and others have documented in great detail how Goldstone and Company misrepresented the facts in attacking Israel's conduct of the war while ignoring the fact that Hamas and other Gaza-based terror groups engaged in war crimes by using civilians as human shields. See here and here and here.

But Ellison said it was "unfortunate" to hear reports that the Obama Administration had tried to persuade the Palestinian Authority not to press for a United Nations Security Council debate on the Goldstone report. Israel, Ellison suggested at one point, needn't fear Goldstone because he calls himself "a Zionist Jew." In fact, Israel would benefit if it were to admit its wrongdoing, according to Ellison.

"I also know that the United States has seen Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Jim Crow, all types of problems," Ellison told USIP. "Don't be afraid of a report that might reflect something unflattering about our ally. It won't hurt them. It may strengthen them."

It would be difficult to imagine a more false, disingenuous formulation.

First, it is slanderous to liken Israel's efforts to defend its civilian population from terrorist attack to a genuine moral evil like segregation in the South. Second, the Goldstone mission and the one-sided report it produced weren't authorized by the United Nations Human Rights Council in order to further Israel's moral betterment as Ellison suggests. The resolution, which passed 33-1 (with supporters that included Russia, Cuba, China, Qatar, Bahrain and Jordan), was aimed at undercutting the ability of a democratic nation to defend itself against terrorists who attacked it by operating out of densely populated civilian areas.

Hints of Hamas Support

In the wake of the Gaza conflict, Ellison voted "present" rather than take a stand on a January 9, 2009 nonbinding House resolution "recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The resolution passed 390-5, with 22 lawmakers who voted "present." Ellison explained his vote by saying he was "torn" on the issue. The congressman said he supported Israel's right to defend itself but complained that the resolution "barely mentions the human suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza."

In mid-February 2009, Ellison, accompanied by Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), visited Gaza and Israel to observe the humanitarian situation after the Gaza War. Although the pair spent time on both sides of the border, most of their public statements emphasized the idea that Israel, and not Hamas, was victimizing Palestinians in Gaza.

In a subsequent BBC interview, Ellison was asked why he wasn't emulating European nations by talking to Hamas. It wasn't because Hamas is a terrorist group. Rather, the congressman said if he did "I'd have to defend myself to my colleagues why I reached out to a terrorist organization. It would absorb all of my time. I would spend a lot of time fighting off personal attack and would not be able to achieve the goals that I have."

Ellison expressed hope that European parliamentarians could persuade Hamas "that if they soften their position it would be a lot easier for American politicians to talk to them."

Ellison has become an increasingly strident critic of Israel. In a recent op-ed, for example, he praised John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, stating that they "point out the hypocrisy of aid to Israel" in their book.

Ignoring decades of strategic cooperation that has benefited the United States, Walt and Mearsheimer claim that no compelling strategic argument can explain U.S. support for Israel. Instead, they argue, it is a result of the excessive power of the "Israel lobby." They blame Israeli interests for the fact that the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003 (ignoring U.S. policymakers' concerns about a range of issues, including weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's threats to energy resources in Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states).

The authors also suggest that pro-Israel interests are pushing the United States toward war with Iran, overlooking the fact that Israel's Arab neighbors, including the Gulf states, also are deeply worried about Iranian nuclear weapons. Leslie Gelb, former New York Times columnist and president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, criticizes the pair for "shoddy scholarship" – exaggerating the role of the lobby on issues like Iran and Iraq while ignoring issues such as arms sales to Arab states, where American policymakers have frequently taken positions counter to those of Israel. Read more here and here and here.

In the same op-ed, Ellison also suggested a link between aid to Israel and Americans losing their homes: "In January 2008, in the middle of a financial meltdown with millions of American families facing the loss of their homes, President George W. Bush went to the Middle East and gave Israel's prime minister $30 billion, which America had to borrow to give to Israel. BBC News reported Israel wanted the money to buy two missile-firing submarines."

CAIR 's Go-To Congressman

Among all these activities, Ellison's collaboration with CAIR has been the most persistent dating back to his taking office in 2007. He also appears at functions for the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Islamic Society of North America created by Muslim Brotherhood members in the U.S. In fact, when Ellison traveled to Saudi Arabia last year to make the hajj, a pilgrimage required of Muslims able to get there once in their lives, the MAS-Minnesota chapter paid his way. (ISNA), both entities

Among other examples:
In November 2007, Ellison spoke at CAIR-National's 13th Annual Banquet, where he thanked CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad for appearing there. This occurred after Awad was identified by the FBI as someone who participated in a 1993 summit of Hamas supporters in Philadelphia.

At the banquet, Ellison touted "Muslim finance" as a solution to the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis. He questioned whether the United States would be facing a subprime mortgage crisis if Muslims were to "truly promote" it. He suggested that many Jews and Christians would favor such financing schemes which could enable them to "actually hang on to their house" and "not be thrown out when the interest rate jumped up."

Ellison also said Americans should "thank God" for groups like CAIR who were working to safeguard their liberties against a reprise of the Salem witchcraft trials.
In November 2008, Ellison, interviewed at CAIR-Tampa's 6th Annual Banquet by a local radio station, urged support for Sami Al-Arian, who pleaded guilty in April 2006 to conspiring to provide goods and services to the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Evidence in Al-Arian's 2005 criminal trial showed he was a member of the PIJ's governing board and that he solicited donations by praising the group's terrorist attacks.

Al-Arian faces a criminal contempt charge for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating terror financing in northern Virginia, despite a grant of immunity, but Ellison saw the PIJ member as a victim.

"I hope that Dr. Al-Arian and his family have peace" and "justice, and are able to secure a greater quality of justice for their case. You don't declare democracy and the rule of law and then it's that way forever. You have to fight for it," he told WMNF Radio. "That's why we have an appeals process, habeas corpus, various legal instruments to try to get ourselves a just and proper result." Ellison added that "there are some things about his [Al-Arian's] case that I think raise legitimate questions."

In his speech at the banquet, Ellison urged CAIR members in the audience to get jobs in the Obama Administration in order to make "recommendations about how the United States can safely extricate itself from Iraq."
Eight days after speaking to CAIR-Florida, Ellison spoke at a CAIR-National fundraiser in Washington, D.C, where he called for closing the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay; urged the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq; said Muslims should mobilize to make sure that U.S. forces are not sent to Iran; and repeated his call for CAIR supporters to apply for jobs in the incoming Obama Administration.

After Ellison and Rep. Baird visited Gaza last February, earning praise from Hamas (see above), MAS Freedom sent out a press release announcing that it "Commends Congressman Ellison and Baird on Call for Immediate Relief and Change in Policy in Gaza."
Ellison boasted of his work on behalf of "the flying imams" during CAIR-Arizona's banquet in September 2009. US Airways removed the six imams from a 2006 after passengers and crew members expressed concern about their behavior. They sued the airline and tried to sue the passengers who reported them. The case ended October 20 when the airline agreed to pay an undisclosed amount.

Congress passed legislation over the objections of Ellison and many of his fellow Democratic lawmakers, protecting private citizens who report suspicious activity and law enforcement authorities who act in good faith based on reasonable suspicion. Read more here.

Ellison's record is clear. Ellison has spoken on the behalf of radical Islamists, defended Hamas over Israel and has a dubious voting record. The Congressman either doesn't know about the nefarious connections of those he works to support, or he doesn't care. It might not be the issue Minneapolis voters hinge their votes on, but it is a part of his public record on which he can be judged.

Andrew Cuomo Took Contributions From Lawyers Representing People He Was Investigating

2009-11-23T13:20:00.000-05:00

NY State is trying to do its best to surpass Illinois in Scandals. According to Bloomberg News NY State Attorney General and President Obama's choice for the next NY Governor, Andrew Cuomo took campaign contributions from law firms defending clients who the AG's office was investigating for wrong-doing.

Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, a New York law firm led by David Boies, gave Cuomo $35,000 this year, records show. The firm represents former American International Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Maurice “Hank” Greenberg in a civil fraud case the attorney general is pursuing. Lawyers defending Dell Inc., Deutsche Bank AG and a former state political party chief in Cuomo cases also contributed to him, records show.

Cuomo’s campaign ask donors to sign statement saying they have no “matter” pending with the AG's office. The loophole is that rule “does not extend to attorneys representing persons or entities with matters before the NYS Attorney General’s office,” the form states. According to Cuomo's campaign they are mirroring his predecessors’ policies.

“If Cuomo doesn’t want to accept contributions that have the appearance of being corrupting, then he would need to include those attorneys as well,” said Allison Hayward, a former Federal Election Commission chief of staff and counsel who teaches legal ethics at George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, Virginia.

Middlemen, such as lawyers, are sometimes seen as a bigger threat to an official’s integrity than their clients, because “they are working the political system for a profession, and the public sees them as insincere and manipulative,” she said.

Cuomo plans to run for governor, according to a person familiar with his plans. His ‘Andrew Cuomo 2010’’ campaign fund has raised $16 million to challenge fellow Democrat, Governor David Paterson, a person familiar with his plans said.

If Cuomo were to reject lawyer donations to avoid any appearance of conflict, he could still raise enough for “a credible campaign,” said Ronald Michaelson, a former national chairman of the Council of Governmental Ethics Laws who teaches at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

“Even if he’s going to use the money in a gubernatorial race, he would still be the attorney general,” he said in an e- mail. “The perception of impropriety is obviously clear, and that’s reason enough to refuse the money.”

It is a clear choice for Cuomo, it might be made easier as Governor Patterson is perceived as a weak candidate. On The other hand, while Cuomo is believed to have the support of the POTUS, as Obama's approval rating falls his support may become more of a liability even in fiercely Democratic New York State, or at the very least, not help a lick as was the case in the recent New Jersey Election.

Excluding large groups of donors might make Cuomo a leader in ethics while hurting his chance to be elected, said Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause, New York, a nonprofit that promotes honesty in government.

“People who run for office are between a rock and a hard place,” she said. “The system stinks. If you don’t want people running for office to be influenced by campaign contributions, then you have to give them public money to run.”

It seems as if Cuomo is going to take the money despite the appearance of conflict of interest:

Richard Bamberger, a Cuomo spokesman, said in an e-mail, “Lawyers appear constantly before all sorts of government agencies, whether it is the Mayor’s Office, the Governor’s Office, or countless agencies and boards. No one would argue that lawyers can’t donate to candidates for any of these offices. Indeed, the ABA and New York State rules specifically encourage lawyers to participate in the political process.”

According to State Records, former Attorney General and Governor Eliot Spitzer, took lawyer donations too from those with cases before him when he was AG. Boies gave him $15,000 and the Boies Schiller firm gave $10,000 in 2004 (it is not known whether he was wearing socks).

“Candidates in New York State for district attorney, judge, attorneys general, and all other offices have operated under the very same rules for decades,” Bamberger said.

Peter Harvey, a partner at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, who attended a Nov. 18 lawyer fundraiser for Cuomo and has been a supporter since Cuomo ran for attorney general, said that a contribution means “you get a meeting.”

But even that meeting is more than the rest of us can get.

The issue is not whether Cuomo did something wrong or not, the Issue is taking money from lawyers representing clients who are under AG investigation gives the appearance of scandal, that alone should stop this suspect practice.

NY Times Predicting US Economic Collapse?

2009-11-23T11:55:00.002-05:00

Many conservative sources have been predicting problems for the United States Economy based on the record-setting national debt whose growth has been accelerated during the first year of the Obama Administration. Today in a front page, top of the fold story, the "Bible of Progressiveness," the NY Times has joined the conservatives in predicting severe problems for the US economy based on the fiscal irresponsibility of our government.

In this first article of a series, the Times looks at the structure of the debt and how it looms as a danger on the country's horizon. The United States Economy has become like those sub-prime mortgages that almost brought down the banking system last year. We have borrowed more than we can afford but as long as interest rates stay low, we will be able to make payments. Once rates go up, the federal government will have to "default on its homes."

...Treasury officials now face a trifecta of headaches: a mountain of new debt, a balloon of short-term borrowings that come due in the months ahead, and interest rates that are sure to climb back to normal as soon as the Federal Reserve decides that the emergency has passed.

Even as Treasury officials are racing to lock in today’s low rates by exchanging short-term borrowings for long-term bonds, the government faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners into default on their mortgages.

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.

In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The potential for rapidly escalating interest payouts is just one of the wrenching challenges facing the United States after decades of living beyond its means.

Interest rates are being kept artificially low, but that can't last:

Even a small increase in interest rates has a big impact. An increase of one percentage point in the Treasury’s average cost of borrowing would cost American taxpayers an extra $80 billion this year — about equal to the combined budgets of the Department of Energy and the Department of Education.

But that could seem like a relatively modest pinch. Alan Levenson, chief economist at T. Rowe Price, estimated that the Treasury’s tab for debt service this year would have been $221 billion higher if it had faced the same interest rates as it did last year.

The White House estimates that the government will have to borrow about $3.5 trillion more over the next three years. On top of that, the Treasury has to refinance, or roll over, a huge amount of short-term debt that was issued during the financial crisis. Treasury officials estimate that about 36 percent of the government’s marketable debt — about $1.6 trillion — is coming due in the months ahead.

When the NY Times begins to worry about the national debt, it means we are really in trouble. And this is just the very tip of the iceberg. Remember, these debt figures do not include ObamaCare, a second stimulus, Cap and Trade and any of the other debt producing programs in the Democrat party agenda.

A link to the entire times story is below:

Wave of Debt Payments Facing U.S. Government

Rassmussen-->Support For Obamacare at NEW LOW!

2009-11-23T10:35:00.000-05:00

Before today the lowest reported support for Obamacare from the Rasmussen poll was 41%. Today's results show another drop in support for the government take-over of health care, only 38% of Americans now support Obamacare. Opposition to the bill was 56%.

According to Rasmussen, half the survey was taken before Saturday's vote, the rest after the vote. support for Obamacare was lower after the vote than before. This may indicate the closer we get to the passage of Obamacare the less America wants it.

Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nation’s health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.

The more passionate a voter is about a particular issue the more likely they are to us it to determine their vote in the next election. So this continuing trend should be a warning to bill supporters.

Only 16% now believe passage of the plan will lead to lower health care costs. Nearly four times as many (60%) believe the plan will increase health care costs. Most (54%) also believe passage of the plan will hurt the quality of care.

As has been the case for months, Democrats favor the plan while Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are opposed. The latest numbers show support from 73% of those in the president’s party. The plan is opposed by 83% of Republicans and 70% of unaffiliated [independent] voters.

Among the nation’s senior citizens, 34% favor the health care plan and 60% are opposed. A majority of those under 30 favor the plan, but a majority of all other age groups are opposed.

....While Senate Democrats this weekend assembled enough votes to begin debate on the plan, many challenges remain. All Republican Senators and several Democrats, for example, have expressed opposition to the so-called “public option.” Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters nationwide say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage is a higher priority than giving consumers the choice of a "public option" government-run health insurance company. Most liberal voters say giving people the choice of a "public option" is more important. But most moderates take the opposite view and say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance is the top priority.

Overall, 46% favor the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan. However, if the plan encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers, support for the public option falls to 29%, and opposition rises to 58%.

As Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “The most important fundamental is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent. … Most of these voters approach the health care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.”

Other challenging issues in the Senate debate include abortion and illegal immigration. Ever since the House's passage of the Stupak Amendment which says the "public option" would not cover elective abortions and that recipients of federal insurance subsidies could not use them to buy abortion coverage, the divide among Democrats has been visible.

Earlier polling showed that 48% nationwide favored the abortion ban, but most supporters of health care reform didn’t want to address the issue. Just 13% of all voters wanted abortion coverage mandated in the legislation.

On immigration, 83% say that proof of citizenship should be required before anyone can get health care assistance from a government program. Most Democrats while claiming the plan will not cover illegal immigrants are opposed to including a proof-of-citizenship stipulation.

Senate Health Care Bill: Section 2708-NO MAMMOGRAMS FOR YOU!

2009-11-23T09:23:00.070-05:00

Under the Senate bill approved to be moved to the Senate floor this past Saturday night it will be United States Preventive Services Task Force, deciding what tests and procedures getting covered by the government and private health care plans. The US Preventative Services Task Force is not a new agency. The Task Force is part of the Healthcare Research and Quality Agency (AHRQ). The task force is the 'bean counting part of the Dept. Health and Human Services. AHRQ's mission is to improve the quality, safety, efficiency, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of health care for all Americans. The Senate bill makes medical care a matter of cost-effectiveness, not saving lives:

SEC. 2708. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements (other than minimal cost sharing in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) for— (1) items or services that have in effect a rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force; (2) immunizations that have in effect a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect to the individual involved; and (3) with respect to infants, children and adolescents, preventive care and screenings provided for in the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.

But wait, you say, it says they have to cover services with a A or B rating it doesn't say that they don't have to cover services with a lower rating. True, but when was the last time an insurance company covered a procedure that was considered effective by the government.

If the name United States Preventive Services Task Force sounds familiar that's because they were the group that made the recent recommendation about mammograms.

The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. Grade: C recommendation.

Despite what Government Officials said last week to gain approval of the Senate Obamacare debate, under the Harry Reid version of the Obamacare bill, mammograms for women 40-49 will not be covered. Just as bad are the items that the task force is looking at next. They include:

Cervical Cancer Screening

Depression in Adults

Falls in Older Adults

Hearing Impairment, Older Adults

Oral Cancer Screening

Osteoporosis Screening

Osteoporosis Preventive Medicine

Ovarian Cancer

Skin Cancer Counseling

Vitamin Supplements to Prevent Cancer and CHD

Who knows what treatments will be off limits to insurance coverage next.

COVER-UP!! : The Obama Administrations Rush to Verify The Walpin/AmeriCorp Firing

2009-11-23T08:11:00.001-05:00

On Friday a report was issued by two Republican Senators contending that the Obama White House was politically motivated when it fired inspector general Gerald Walpin after his 2008 investigation of Kevin Johnson, now Sacramento's mayor. The report by Senators Issa and Grassley criticizes the White House ethics counsel, for not examining what Walpin had been investigating at the time of his dismissal, including the allegations of sexual misconduct by Johnson and hush-money used to cover up the misconduct. The report asserted that Michelle Rhee, now Johnson's fiancee, made the payoffs.

New Documents show that immediately after Mr. Walpin was fired the White House tried to cover up the political basis for the firing. The administration raced to give everyone involved a made-up excusethe politically motivated firing:

New documents: White House scrambled to justify AmeriCorps firing after the fact
By: Byron York

Just hours after Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa released a report Friday on their investigation into the abrupt firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin, the Obama White House gave the lawmakers a trove of new, previously-withheld documents on the affair. It was a twist on the now-familiar White House late-Friday release of bad news; this time, the new evidence was put out not only at the start of a weekend but also hours too late for inclusion in the report.

The new documents support the Republican investigators' conclusion that the White House's explanation for Walpin's dismissal -- that it came after the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, unanimously decided that Walpin must go -- was in fact a public story cobbled together after Walpin was fired, not before.

Walpin was axed on the evening of June 10, when he received a call from Norman Eisen, the special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, who told Walpin he had one hour either to resign or be fired. The next day, congressional Republicans, led by Grassley, objected, charging that Walpin's dismissal violated a recently-passed law requiring the president to give Congress 30 days' notice before dismissing an inspector general.

Pressed for the reason Walpin was fired, Eisen told House and Senate aides that the White House conducted an "extensive review" of complaints about Walpin’s performance before deciding to dismiss him. According to the new report, Eisen told Congress that "his investigation into the merits of removing Gerald Walpin involved contacting members of the Corporation for National and Community Service [CNCS] board to confirm the existence of a 'consensus' in favor of removal." But Republican investigators later discovered that during that "extensive review," the White House did not even seek the views of the corporation's board -- the very people whose "consensus" purportedly led to Walpin's firing.

Other than board chairman Alan Solomont, the Democratic mega-donor and Obama supporter who originally told the White House of his dissatisfaction with Walpin, "no member of the CNCS board had any substantive input about whether the removal of Gerald Walpin was appropriate," according to the report. Only one other board member, vice-chairman Stephen Goldsmith, was even called by the White House, and that was on June 10, a few hours before Walpin was fired. According to the report, Goldsmith told investigators that "the White House had already decided to remove Walpin and wanted to confirm [Goldsmith's] support for the action."

The new documents show the White House scrambling, in the days after the controversy erupted, to put together a public explanation for the firing. On June 11, less than 24 hours after Walpin received the call from Eisen, the board held a conference call. The next day, Ranit Schmelzer, who is part of the corporation's press office, sent an email to board members giving them talking points to use if contacted by reporters seeking information about the matter.

"Indicate that you support the president's decision to remove IG Walpin," was Schmelzer's first instruction to the board. Then: "If asked why he was removed, indicate that the president lost confidence in Mr. Walpin." And then: "If the reporter continues to press, say that you can't get into details on a personnel matter, but you understand there were some performance-based issues." Finally, Schmelzer advised the board to avoid "getting into any specifics about IG Walpin's performance-based issues. The WH has stayed away from this and has counseled us to do the same."

The next day, June 13, after having instructed board members that the correct answer was to express support for the firing, the White House, for the first time, solicited the members' actual views on the matter. In an email to the board headlined "Time-sensitive request from White House Counsel re IG matter," corporation general counsel Frank Trinity wrote, "I was just contacted by Elana Tyrangiel, Associate Counsel to the President, seeking your assistance in responding to questions from members of Congress about President Obama's removal of Gerald Walpin as inspector general. Specifically, the White House Counsel's office would like to compile statements from board members and CNCS staff who were present at the inspector general's presentation to the board immediately before the public board meeting last month." Trinity said each member would receive a call from White House lawyer Tyrangiel, who "will prepare statements for your review for accuracy."

The mention of Walpin's "presentation to the board" was a reference to a May 20 board meeting that played a key part in the White House's evolving explanations for Walpin's firing. After initially explaining that President Obama no longer had the "fullest confidence" in Walpin, the White House later changed its story to say that Walpin, who was 77 years old at the time, had become "confused, disoriented [and] unable to answer questions" at the May 20 meeting. Later, the White House cited other "performance-based" issues. But Republican investigators concluded that the key motive behind the firing was unhappiness with Walpin's aggressive investigation of misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California who is a prominent political ally of President Obama.

Through it all, the White House and top management of the corporation struggled to keep the story straight. By June 18, a week after the firing, with news coverage dying down -- it had never been very intense in the first place -- they felt they had succeeded. "I understand how much work you are doing to prevent and control damage from the IG matter," Solomont wrote in an email to Eric Tanenblatt, a board member who had talked to the press. "I want you to know how much I personally appreciate all your efforts."

Wasn't this the administration who promised to be the most transparent in history? Instead this President has been amongst the most secretive and politically motivated in our history.

OMG!!! OPEC Sets World Record for Chutzpa

2009-11-22T23:14:00.000-05:00

For those of you who are not familiar with the term, Chutzpa it means unmitigated gall. It has best been described as a man who kills his father and mother and then throws himself on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he’s an orphan.

OPEC has Chutzpah. The oil cartel has been milking the rest of the world for decades by helping to keep oil prices artificially high. Now it's members are saying they might need a bailout.

Led by Saudi Arabia, OPEC is telling the world that as the world moves to green energy, and use of oil is substantially reduced. the OPEC countries will face great hardship, and the "rich" nations should give it a hand out:

OPEC head backs Saudi compensation claims over lost oil revenues
The Media Line News Agency , THE JERUSALEM POST

Saudi Arabia is gaining support from the Organization for the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) for its appeals to secure compensation for oil producing countries, as developed countries move away from oil towards greener energy sources.

Abdalla Salem el-Badri Secretary-General of OPEC said in an interview with The Times that he would support Saudi's claims for compensation if talks at next month's United Nations Climate Change Conference in the Danish capital, Copenhagen, end with commitments to reduce oil consumption in developed countries.

Dr. Mohammed Aly Raouf, Program Manager of Environmental Research at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, told The Media Line such a claim would set a problematic precedent.

"Sooner or later the world will switch to another source of energy and if they say they want to be compensated then the coal producing countries can also say they want to be compensated," Dr. Raouf said. "We are not looking at the interests of individual countries, we are looking at the interest of the whole world to save the planet."

At least 193 countries are expected to take part in the conference as signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty signed a decade ago, which some viewed as a critical turning point in global climate talks.

According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, tackling climate change is key to ensuring sustainable development, poverty eradication and safeguarding economic growth.

Pressure to secure compensation for loss of oil revenue is mounting due to OPEC's increased dependence on oil revenue, and a growing international support for green energy.

Saudi Arabia first proposed a program for compensation in 1992, during the United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro.

Oil in the region is currently being traded at $80 a barrel. Last year prices fell to $47 and numerous development projects across the region were either put on hold or cancelled.

Over the last 20 years Gulf States have attempted to diversify their economies away from a dependence on oil income. Dubai in the United Arab Emirates has been most successful with expansion into the financial services industry and real estate.

When the global economic crisis hit the region last year, the countries least affected were those most able to fall back on oil revenue. Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates' capital, bailed Dubai's state-owned companies at a cost of $10 billion, raising concerns that despite attempts at diversification, oil underscores the region's economy stability.

Abu Dhabi is the world's fourth largest oil producer and is estimated to control 10% of the world's known oil reserves.

Saudi Arabia is the world's top oil producer with an estimated daily production of ten million barrels a day.

Why its Important to call Major Hasan an Islamist Terrorist

2009-11-22T22:45:00.003-05:00

To some people the debate about whether the Fort Hood Jihadist was a terrorist is a silly semantics discussion. The Fact is two years ago we were warned that future acts of terror would not come from al-Qaeda but from home grown Jihadists. Back in 2007 the Council on Foreign Relations reported:

Experts say it is quite likely the next terrorist attack in the United States will not be the work of well-trained al-Qaeda operatives sent from abroad, but rather that of an American citizen. As al-Qaeda leaders focus more of their energy on trying to inspire others to commit acts of terror, most security and counterterrorism officials believe their message will resonate with at least some small number of Americans. Such fears tend to focus on American Muslims, which might seem logical given recent events in Europe. Yet the American Islamic community also has proven one of the government’s best resources for preventing the emergence of homegrown Islamic terrorists.

“The possibility of a ‘homegrown’ terrorist attack against New York City or any other American city is real and is worsening with time (PDF),” Richard A. Falkenrath, New York City’s deputy police commissioner for counterterrorism, recently told the Senate Homeland Security Committee. This kind of threat is particularly troublesome to counterterrorism officials because it is hard to anticipate the motives or actions of a homegrown terrorist. Yet despite the high probability of a homegrown terrorist attack, experts say such an event is likely to have a relatively small impact when compared to attacks by conventional terrorist networks. As CFR Senior Fellow Steven Simon told a recent symposium, homegrown terrorists are often “feckless and ineffective,” though they have at times proven quite lethal. Simon cautioned that self-radicalized individuals and groups can become far more dangerous when they reach out for support from more established terrorist networks.

Two years after this report Major Hasan shot and killed 14 people at Fort Hood and we are still figuring out what to call it? Of course it is terrorism, it is what we were warned about. But we are are still ignoring the threat. That's why it is so important to call Hasan's action what it is...an act of terror, home grown terror. If our criminal authorities don't start recognizing the domestic threat there will be many more Major Hasans threatening our lives:

Major Hasan and Holy War A domestic Islamic threat is real, and the FBI is unprepared to fight it.

By REUEL MARC GERECHT

For those of us who have tracked Islamic militancy in Europe, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's actions are not extraordinary. Since Muslim militants first tried to blow a French high-speed train off its rails in 1995, European intelligence and internal-security services have increasingly monitored European Muslim radicals. Whether it's anti-Muslim bigotry, the large numbers of immigrant and native-born Muslims in Europe, an appreciation of how hard it is to become European, or just an understanding of how dangerous Islamic radicalism is, most Europeans are far less circumspect and politically correct when discussing their Muslim compatriots than are Americans.

A concern for not giving offense to Muslims would never prevent the French internal-security service, the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST), which deploys a large number of Muslim officers, from aggressively trying to pre-empt terrorism. As Maj. Hasan's case shows, this is not true in the United States. The American military and especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation were in great part inattentive because they were too sensitive.

Moreover, President Barack Obama's determined effort not to mention Islam in terrorist discussions—which means that we must not suggest that Maj. Hasan's murderous actions flowed from his faith—will weaken American counterterrorism. Worse, the president's position is an enormous wasted opportunity to advance an all-critical Muslim debate about the nature and legitimacy of jihad.

European counterterrorist officers know well that jihadists can appear, self-generated or tutored by extremist groups, inside Muslim families where parents and siblings lead peaceful lives. Security officials live in fear of the quiet believer who quickly radicalizes, or the secular down-and-out European who enthusiastically converts to a militant creed. Both cases allow little time and often few leads to neutralize a possible lethal explosion of the faith.

It shouldn't require the U.S. to have a French-style, internal-security service to neutralize the likes of Maj. Hasan. He combines all of the factors—especially his public ruminations about American villainy in the Middle East and his overriding sense of Muslim fraternity—that should have had him under surveillance by counterintelligence units. Add the outrageous fact that he was in email correspondence with Anwar al-Awlaqi, a pro-al Qaeda imam well-known to American intelligence, and it is hard not to conclude that the FBI is still incapable of counterterrorism against an Islamic target.

For the FBI, religion remains a much too sensitive subject, much more so than the threatening ideologies of yesteryear. Imagine if Maj. Hasan had been an officer during the Cold War, regularly expressing his sympathy for the Soviet Union and American criminality against the working man. Imagine him writing to a KGB front organization espousing socialist solidarity. The major would have been surrounded by counterintelligence officers.

A law-enforcement agency par excellence, the FBI reflects American legal ethics. Because the FBI is always thinking about criminal prosecutions and admissible evidence, its intelligence-collecting inevitably gets defined by its judicial procedures. Good counterintelligence curiosity—that must come into play before any crime is committed—is at odds with a G-man's raison d'être. And much more so than local police departments—which are grounded to the unpleasantness of daily life—it is highly susceptible to politically correct behavior.

Powerfully intertwined in all of this is liberal America's reluctance to discuss Islam, Islamic militancy, jihadism, or anything that might be construed as invidious to Muslims. The Obama administration obviously doesn't want to get tagged with an Islamist terrorist strike in the U.S.—the first since 9/11. The Muslim-sensitive 9/11 Commission Report, which unambiguously named the enemy as "Islamist terrorism," now seems distinctly passé.

Thoughtful men should certainly not want to see a U.S. president propel a "clash of civilizations" with devout Muslims. However, clash-avoidance shouldn't lead us into a philosophical cul-de-sac. The stakes are so enormous—jihadists would if they could let loose a weapon of mass destruction in a Western city—that we should not prevaricate out of politeness, or deceive ourselves into believing that a debate between Muslims and non-Muslims can only be counterproductive.

The great Muslim reformers of the last 200 years have all been intellectually deeply intertwined with the West. The West has stimulated every single great modern Muslim conversation. The abolition of slavery, the study of science, public schools and widespread literacy, the widely felt and growing need for constitutional and representative government—and less meritorious subjects like socialism, communism and fascism—came about because of Westernization. The Westernization, moreover, was usually driven by Muslims themselves.

This "globalization" has not always been appreciated on the Muslim side. Britain's imperialistic doggedness against the slave trade was deeply resented by Muslims who, like American Southerners, saw slavery, as sacred. Devout Muslims often go ballistic when Westerners and secular Muslims push hard for an expansion of women's rights. Militant Islam is a response to the unstoppable Westernization of Muslim society.

But unavoidably invidious dialogue is the essence of modernity—it is the lifeblood of autocratic societies that have successfully made the painful jump into a democratic era.

The brilliant Iranian revolutionary-turned dissident, Abd al-Karim Soroush, whose ideas contributed to the pro-democracy tumult we've witnessed in Iran since the June 12 election, has forcefully argued for Muslims to critique themselves unsparingly, to happily import and use the West's rational relentlessness to strengthen the faith. An elemental part of Mr. Soroush's critique is that Muslims are capable of thinking on their own. They can take the heat.

In his Cairo speech in June, Mr. Obama pledged "to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Muslims don't need his help protecting Islam from mean-spirited Westerners—or from Western novelists, film directors or scholars who might see something in Islamic history that devout Muslims find insulting.

But Westerners could certainly benefit from Mr. Obama underscoring something else he touched on in his Cairo speech: Muslims should stop blaming non-Muslims for their crippling problems. He could ask, as some Muslims have, why is it that Islam has produced so many jihadists? Why is it that Maj. Hasan's rampage has produced so little questioning among Muslim clerics about why a man, one in a long line of Muslim militants, so easily takes God's name to slaughter his fellow citizens?

Had Mr. Obama asked this, we might now be witnessing convulsive debate among Muslims. He missed the opportunity to start this conversation before what is clearly the first Islamist terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. He will probably get another opportunity.

As it stands now, however, Iranian youth who once so eagerly welcomed Mr. Obama's election by shouting his name in Persian—U ba ma! ("He is with us!")—are now writing the president's likely legacy among Muslims who yearn for a better modernity. Disappointed to see how determined Mr. Obama has remained to engage the regime they despise, they now forlornly chant U ba unhast ("He is with them.").

For Muslims who are on the front lines of Islam's bloody reformation, as well as for American counterterrorist officers who must find holy warriors in our midst, Mr. Obama has come down on the wrong side of history.