LAW OF THE LAND
Posted: October 28, 2010
8:46 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The Colorado Supreme Court has reversed the conviction of a man who admitted using someone else's Social Security number to obtain a loan, concluding that the defendant wasn't really trying to assume a false identity.
The opinion was written by Michael Bender, who was joined by Mary Mullarkey, Gregory Hobbs and Alex Martinez. A strongly worded dissent by Nathan Coats was joined by Nancy Rice and Allison Eid.
The case involved Felix Montes-Rodriguez, who was convicted of criminal impersonation for using another person's Social Security number on a loan application at an automobile dealership.
The ID Theft Center warns on its website, "A dishonest person who has your Social Security number can use it to get other personal information about you. Identity thieves can use your number and your good credit to apply for more credit in your name. Then, they use the credit cards and do not pay the bills. You may not find out that someone is using your number until you are turned down for credit or you begin to get calls from unknown creditors demanding payment for items you never bought."
Center Executiver Director Jay Foley said the court was overlooking the fact that there may be a multitude of people with the same name. The Social Security number is supposed to be the distinguishing characteristic.
"By supply either a fraudulent Social Security number or somebody else's, I am, in fact, identifying myself as somebody other than who I am," he said.
He said it was alarming that such a result would be coming from a state Supreme Court.
The Social Security Administration suggests that while it cannot fix problems from thieves using stolen Social Security numbers, consumers must pay attention to the possible problems.
"An identity thief might also use your Social Security number to file a tax return in order to receive a refund. If the thief files the tax return before you do, the IRS will believe you already filed and received your refund if eligible. If your Social Security number is stolen, another individual may use it to get a job. That person's employer would report income earned to the IRS using your Social Security number, making it appear that you did not report all of your income on your tax return."
Bankrate.com suggests, "The more people who see it, the more susceptible you are to identity theft, where you are victimized by someone fraudulently using your name and credit report to steal money."
In the Colorado case, the court's slim majority concluded that criminal impersonation is "when one assumes a false identity or a false capacity with the intent to unlawfully gain a benefit."
While Montes-Rodriguez "admitted to using the false Social Security number … he argued that he did not assume a false identity or capacity under the statute because he applied for the loan using his proper name, birth date, address and other identifying information."
L-R, Front: Gregory J.Hobbs, Jr., Mary Mullarkey, Alex J. Martinez. Back: Nathan B. Coats, Michael L. Bender, Nancy E. Rice, Allison Eid
A jury had convicted him and a lower appeals court affirmed the result.
But Bender explained the facts of the case: Montes-Rodriguez used another person's Social Security number because the car dealership required a number to check credit-worthiness before approving a loan. The court did not explain why Montes-Rodriguez did not use his own number, or whether he even had one.
But the opinion notes the defendant "impliedly asserted his power or fitness to obtain the loan, and his ability to work legally in this country, and thereby repay it."
"Although Montes-Rodriguez may have lacked the practical capacity to obtain a loan through Hajek Chevrolet because they could not check his credit without a Social Security number, he did not lack the legal capacity to obtain a loan," Bender wrote.
He ordered a judgment of acquittal entered.
Coats, Rice and Eid, however, noted that the majority was "slicing, dicing, parsing, distinguishing, and generally over-analyzing one short and relatively self-explanatory phrase."
"The defendant's deliberate misrepresentation of the single most unique and important piece of identifying data for credit-transaction purposes [is] precisely the kind of conduct meant to be proscribed as criminal," the dissent said.
"By claiming another person's Social Security number in a credit transaction, as the defendant did in this case, a person necessarily identifies himself as the person with the credit history associated with that number," the opinion said.
"Where the nature of the transaction is such that a false Social Security number is not merely incidental but is rather the single piece of identifying data upon which the fraud in question depends, it cannot be assessed as merely 'one of many pieces of identifying information," warned the dissent.
"For the purposes of the fraudulent transaction at issue, it is clearly the assumption of a false or fictitious identity."
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
SOMETHING IN THE AIR, Palin has last laugh on PBS host, Kos......;
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Posted: October 21, 2010
12:35 am Eastern
By Art Moore
Blogger Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos and PBS host Gwen Ifill could barely contain themselves when they came across an apparent elementary historical-knowledge gaffe by tea party favorite Sarah Palin, but it turns out the left-leaning commentators were the ones with egg on their faces.
Moulitsas – a major power-broker in the Democratic Party's left-wing base – dashed off a message to his thousands of followers through the Internet social network Twitter after Palin told tea party activists in Nevada, "Don't party like it's 1773 yet," reported the blogger who uses the pen name Cuffy Meigs.
Get Joseph Farah's "The Tea Party Manifesto: A Vision for an American Rebirth" autographed at WND's Superstore
Moulitsas sneered, "She's so smart."
Ifill wrote: "Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! Ummm."
Others mocked Palin with comments such as "uhhh" and "[expletive] happened in 1773?"
Palin presumably knows the U.S. was born in 1776. But what Moulitsas and his crew didn't recall was that 1773 was the year of the Boston Tea Party, the inspiration for the grass roots movement that is threatening to sweep the Democratic Party from power in Congress next month.
Palin eventually responded with a tweet of her own on the matter: "Gwen Ifill, et al... Really? Silly."
Meigs pointed out that it's clear from video of the speech that Palin was referring to the Boston Tea Party.
Markos Moulitsas, founder and main author of Daily K
As WND reported in 2008, Ifill, host of the PBS program "Washington Week," moderated a vice-presidential candidate debate between Palin and Joseph Biden amid concerns her book, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," gave her a financial stake in the election's outcome.
Moulitsas has influenced the Democratic Party through his blog and annual conference, the YearlyKos.
WND reported that at a forum of leading Democratic presidential candidates at Moulitsas' 2007 conference, the moderator refused to let a man in military uniform speak and demanded he identify himself.
The military man, according to a witness, "stood up to argue that the surge was working and cutting down on Iraqi casualties." But the moderator, according to the American Spectator's Ezra Klein, "largely freaked out" and when "other members of the panel tried to answer his question, he demanded they 'stand down.'"
Posted: October 21, 2010
12:35 am Eastern
By Art Moore
Blogger Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos and PBS host Gwen Ifill could barely contain themselves when they came across an apparent elementary historical-knowledge gaffe by tea party favorite Sarah Palin, but it turns out the left-leaning commentators were the ones with egg on their faces.
Moulitsas – a major power-broker in the Democratic Party's left-wing base – dashed off a message to his thousands of followers through the Internet social network Twitter after Palin told tea party activists in Nevada, "Don't party like it's 1773 yet," reported the blogger who uses the pen name Cuffy Meigs.
Get Joseph Farah's "The Tea Party Manifesto: A Vision for an American Rebirth" autographed at WND's Superstore
Moulitsas sneered, "She's so smart."
Ifill wrote: "Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! Ummm."
Others mocked Palin with comments such as "uhhh" and "[expletive] happened in 1773?"
Palin presumably knows the U.S. was born in 1776. But what Moulitsas and his crew didn't recall was that 1773 was the year of the Boston Tea Party, the inspiration for the grass roots movement that is threatening to sweep the Democratic Party from power in Congress next month.
Palin eventually responded with a tweet of her own on the matter: "Gwen Ifill, et al... Really? Silly."
Meigs pointed out that it's clear from video of the speech that Palin was referring to the Boston Tea Party.
Markos Moulitsas, founder and main author of Daily K
As WND reported in 2008, Ifill, host of the PBS program "Washington Week," moderated a vice-presidential candidate debate between Palin and Joseph Biden amid concerns her book, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," gave her a financial stake in the election's outcome.
Moulitsas has influenced the Democratic Party through his blog and annual conference, the YearlyKos.
WND reported that at a forum of leading Democratic presidential candidates at Moulitsas' 2007 conference, the moderator refused to let a man in military uniform speak and demanded he identify himself.
The military man, according to a witness, "stood up to argue that the surge was working and cutting down on Iraqi casualties." But the moderator, according to the American Spectator's Ezra Klein, "largely freaked out" and when "other members of the panel tried to answer his question, he demanded they 'stand down.'"
Top Ten Leftist Comebacks
Published on October 22nd, 2010
by The Association of Mature American Citizens
Found in the Simply Jedediah category
By Jedediah Bila
You’ve heard them before and you’ll hear them again.
They’ve occasionally inspired you to put on a “Right Wing Extremist” t-shirt – Founding Fathers image included – and stroll around the late-night San Francisco party scene.
That’s right, folks. I’m talking about run-of-the-mill leftist comebacks. They’re plentiful, varied, and – most importantly – infused with just the right amount of insanity to trigger fit after fit of laughter.
So, without further ado, I offer my “Top Ten Leftist Comebacks” (each followed by commentary from a fictional far-left loon).
Drum roll, please …
10. They’re not acts of terrorism. They’re man-caused disasters. Hey, we don’t want to ruffle the feathers of any isolated extremists, now do we? Plus, terrorism is such a mean word. Mean and combative. Like those terror-fighting Republicans.
9. The GOP is the party of the rich. Forget that in 2006, the Center for Responsive Politics determined that seven of the top ten richest members of the Senate were Democrats. And leave Nancy’s vineyard and Harry’s Ritz-Carlton den out of this.
8. Sarah Palin has no experience. Yes, I know – Mayor, Governor, Chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. But … has she voted 129 times as “present”? I think not.
7. Republicans are opposed to immigration. Don’t pull any of that “I support legal immigration” funny stuff. Legal this, Constitution that. It’s unsettling.
6. Republicans don’t care about the environment. Forget your American Energy Act. Let’s allow the government to do what it does best and punish – I mean, reward – businesses.
5. Government stimulus will keep unemployment down. We may just need a little more of your money to prove that. Please? This time the projects will be shovel-ready, we promise!
4. The GOP is opposed to health care reform. Obstructionists! (No, I did not read the GOP health care reform proposal. Keith Olbermann told me not to.)
3. Republicans are the party of “no”. Leave your pledge out of this. “Yes” to stopping tax hikes, “yes” to establishing a hard cap on new discretionary spending, “yes” to holding weekly votes on spending cuts, “yes” to pro-free market alternatives to the health care law, and “yes” to requiring each bill moving through Congress to cite its constitutional justification don’t count.
2. It’s Bush’s fault. So what if Obama added more to the national debt in the first nineteen months of his administration than all presidents from Washington through Reagan combined. He had to spend that money. Paul Krugman said so.
1. Racist! That’s right – all of you: SB 1070 supporters, Rush Limbaugh, the TEA Party, and that guy who told me he prefers the white half of black-and-white cookies.
So, there you have it. I’d love to stick around, but I’m about to slip on my “Reagan Was Right” sweatshirt and head to the Upper West Side.
Black half of a black-and-white cookie in hand.
Jedediah Bila is an author and conservative political commentator living in New York City. For more information on Jedediah, please visit http://jedediahbila.com. The views expressed by conservative author and commentator Jedediah Bila do not necessarily reflect the position of AMAC.
by The Association of Mature American Citizens
Found in the Simply Jedediah category
By Jedediah Bila
You’ve heard them before and you’ll hear them again.
They’ve occasionally inspired you to put on a “Right Wing Extremist” t-shirt – Founding Fathers image included – and stroll around the late-night San Francisco party scene.
That’s right, folks. I’m talking about run-of-the-mill leftist comebacks. They’re plentiful, varied, and – most importantly – infused with just the right amount of insanity to trigger fit after fit of laughter.
So, without further ado, I offer my “Top Ten Leftist Comebacks” (each followed by commentary from a fictional far-left loon).
Drum roll, please …
10. They’re not acts of terrorism. They’re man-caused disasters. Hey, we don’t want to ruffle the feathers of any isolated extremists, now do we? Plus, terrorism is such a mean word. Mean and combative. Like those terror-fighting Republicans.
9. The GOP is the party of the rich. Forget that in 2006, the Center for Responsive Politics determined that seven of the top ten richest members of the Senate were Democrats. And leave Nancy’s vineyard and Harry’s Ritz-Carlton den out of this.
8. Sarah Palin has no experience. Yes, I know – Mayor, Governor, Chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. But … has she voted 129 times as “present”? I think not.
7. Republicans are opposed to immigration. Don’t pull any of that “I support legal immigration” funny stuff. Legal this, Constitution that. It’s unsettling.
6. Republicans don’t care about the environment. Forget your American Energy Act. Let’s allow the government to do what it does best and punish – I mean, reward – businesses.
5. Government stimulus will keep unemployment down. We may just need a little more of your money to prove that. Please? This time the projects will be shovel-ready, we promise!
4. The GOP is opposed to health care reform. Obstructionists! (No, I did not read the GOP health care reform proposal. Keith Olbermann told me not to.)
3. Republicans are the party of “no”. Leave your pledge out of this. “Yes” to stopping tax hikes, “yes” to establishing a hard cap on new discretionary spending, “yes” to holding weekly votes on spending cuts, “yes” to pro-free market alternatives to the health care law, and “yes” to requiring each bill moving through Congress to cite its constitutional justification don’t count.
2. It’s Bush’s fault. So what if Obama added more to the national debt in the first nineteen months of his administration than all presidents from Washington through Reagan combined. He had to spend that money. Paul Krugman said so.
1. Racist! That’s right – all of you: SB 1070 supporters, Rush Limbaugh, the TEA Party, and that guy who told me he prefers the white half of black-and-white cookies.
So, there you have it. I’d love to stick around, but I’m about to slip on my “Reagan Was Right” sweatshirt and head to the Upper West Side.
Black half of a black-and-white cookie in hand.
Jedediah Bila is an author and conservative political commentator living in New York City. For more information on Jedediah, please visit http://jedediahbila.com. The views expressed by conservative author and commentator Jedediah Bila do not necessarily reflect the position of AMAC.
When Will Our Progressive Corporatism Nightmare End?
The Heritage Foundation
Morning Bell
$154 billion. That is the amount of taxpayer money that will be needed to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac according to a new "stress test" performed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. And that is the good news. If the economy dips into a second recession and foreclosures rise, the Fannie and Freddie bailout could nearly double in size. The agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie, released the numbers "to inform public debate about the future of the two companies" ahead of expected Obama administration proposals slated for early next year. But if you are hoping for major policy changes from this administration, don't hold your breath.
In August, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner hosted a meeting in the Treasury's Cash Room with select bankers and administration cheerleaders like Keynesian economist Mark Zandi. This is how Daily Report for Executives summarized the meeting:
The government must continue to play a fundamental role in the future of housing finance, a panel of experts agreed at a conference convened by the Obama administration to begin to frame a comprehensive housing finance reform proposal for delivery to Congress by January 2011.
Just what is the record of government "experts" in preventing financial catastrophe? Well, the 3,814 employees of the Securities Exchange Commission, the 7,241 employees of the FDIC, the 3,216 employees of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the 3,204 employees of the Federal Housing Administration all failed to see, yet alone prevent, the recent financial collapse.
And just how "fundamental" a role is government playing in housing finance today? Well, in the first quarter of 2010, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with the Federal Housing Administration and the Government National Mortgage Association, funded and/or guaranteed 96.5 percent of residential mortgages to homebuyers or homeowners refinancing for an existing home. And thanks to federal subsidies and bank mergers "encouraged" by the FDIC, a staggering 60.26 percent of all residential mortgages in the first quarter of 2010 originated through just four financial institutions: Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Ally Bank.
And these banks are not suffering from their government-granted monopoly. Wells Fargo, for example, reported $4.48 billion in mortgage banking income for the first six months of 2010. And the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) is bullish about its continuing partnership with the Obama White House. A recent SIFMA press release reads:
While we recognize that there is no single right answer to GSE reform, it is critical that, in addressing this complex task, the benefits to consumers and the economy which are created under the current system be preserved. We encourage policymakers to fix what's broken without dismantling the aspects that have provided efficient, cost effective lending and benefits to our economy for the last 30 years.
What planet is SIFMA on? The homeownership rates in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom mirror those in the United States. And their citizens have accomplished this without massive subsidies and interference from the federal government. On the other hand, our "efficient, cost effective" government-managed system led to a massive housing bubble and collapse that millions of Americans are still paying for. Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow Ron Utt comments:
At the moment, the federal government is the mortgage finance market. Today, what passes for the private-sector mortgage market is little more than a government-fostered concentration of private contractors earning attractive fees for their limited but lucrative role in the new federal mortgage finance system.
The Progressive Corporatist partnership between the Obama administration and a few of the nation's largest financial institutions represents a fundamental threat to our nation's economy. Economic freedom is the key to a vibrant, innovative and growing economy. But, for the first time ever in 2010, the United States fell from the ranks of the economically "free," as measured by The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom largely due to the TARP bailouts. Restoring the United States to a "Free Economy" must be one of the next Congress' top priorities.
Morning Bell
$154 billion. That is the amount of taxpayer money that will be needed to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac according to a new "stress test" performed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. And that is the good news. If the economy dips into a second recession and foreclosures rise, the Fannie and Freddie bailout could nearly double in size. The agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie, released the numbers "to inform public debate about the future of the two companies" ahead of expected Obama administration proposals slated for early next year. But if you are hoping for major policy changes from this administration, don't hold your breath.
In August, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner hosted a meeting in the Treasury's Cash Room with select bankers and administration cheerleaders like Keynesian economist Mark Zandi. This is how Daily Report for Executives summarized the meeting:
The government must continue to play a fundamental role in the future of housing finance, a panel of experts agreed at a conference convened by the Obama administration to begin to frame a comprehensive housing finance reform proposal for delivery to Congress by January 2011.
Just what is the record of government "experts" in preventing financial catastrophe? Well, the 3,814 employees of the Securities Exchange Commission, the 7,241 employees of the FDIC, the 3,216 employees of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the 3,204 employees of the Federal Housing Administration all failed to see, yet alone prevent, the recent financial collapse.
And just how "fundamental" a role is government playing in housing finance today? Well, in the first quarter of 2010, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with the Federal Housing Administration and the Government National Mortgage Association, funded and/or guaranteed 96.5 percent of residential mortgages to homebuyers or homeowners refinancing for an existing home. And thanks to federal subsidies and bank mergers "encouraged" by the FDIC, a staggering 60.26 percent of all residential mortgages in the first quarter of 2010 originated through just four financial institutions: Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Ally Bank.
And these banks are not suffering from their government-granted monopoly. Wells Fargo, for example, reported $4.48 billion in mortgage banking income for the first six months of 2010. And the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) is bullish about its continuing partnership with the Obama White House. A recent SIFMA press release reads:
While we recognize that there is no single right answer to GSE reform, it is critical that, in addressing this complex task, the benefits to consumers and the economy which are created under the current system be preserved. We encourage policymakers to fix what's broken without dismantling the aspects that have provided efficient, cost effective lending and benefits to our economy for the last 30 years.
What planet is SIFMA on? The homeownership rates in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom mirror those in the United States. And their citizens have accomplished this without massive subsidies and interference from the federal government. On the other hand, our "efficient, cost effective" government-managed system led to a massive housing bubble and collapse that millions of Americans are still paying for. Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow Ron Utt comments:
At the moment, the federal government is the mortgage finance market. Today, what passes for the private-sector mortgage market is little more than a government-fostered concentration of private contractors earning attractive fees for their limited but lucrative role in the new federal mortgage finance system.
The Progressive Corporatist partnership between the Obama administration and a few of the nation's largest financial institutions represents a fundamental threat to our nation's economy. Economic freedom is the key to a vibrant, innovative and growing economy. But, for the first time ever in 2010, the United States fell from the ranks of the economically "free," as measured by The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom largely due to the TARP bailouts. Restoring the United States to a "Free Economy" must be one of the next Congress' top priorities.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
New York Times: Democrats Backing Fake Tea Party Candidates.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved
Sunday, 24 Oct 2010 05:37 PM
Increasingly desperate and fearful of a GOP takeover of Congress, the Democratic Party is secretly supporting fake tea party and other third-party candidates in the hopes of diverting votes from Republican contenders.
The stunning conclusion was made in a page one New York Times story headlined “Democrats Back Third Parties to Siphon Votes” – a report by correspondent Jim Rutenberg and published in Saturday editions of the paper.
The Times reported: “The efforts are taking place across the country with varying degrees of stealth. And in many cases, they seem to hold as much risk as potential reward for Democrats, prompting accusations of hypocrisy and dirty tricks from Republicans and the third-party movements that are on the receiving end of the unlikely, and sometimes unwelcome, support.”
“It is one of the dirtiest moves,” Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told the Times. “It’s not as though the Democrats are playing to compete against the third party — they’re helping to build the third party up to make those votes not count.”
The Times detailed numerous races across the U.S. where a “Tea Party” candidate has been working to siphon votes from the Republican candidate. In a close race this third party effort could throw the election to the Democrat.
Arguably, the most serious effort is taking place in Nevada where the Times says supporters of Harry Reid are backing a “Tea Party” candidate named Scott Ashjian.
The Times says: “In Nevada, conservative radio listeners have heard an advertisement promoting the Senate campaign of a “Tea Party of Nevada” candidate, Scott Ashjian. The ads criticize Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee and favored candidate of the actual Tea Party movement in the race against Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader. “
The paper claims that unions, casinos and mining companies backing Reid are financing Ashjian to undermine Angle’s campaign.
The Times examined several key races they indicated this stealth third party ploy was underway, including:
California: Democratic Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet has paid for an automated recording that calls Republican voters and purports to be from a registered GOP voter. The unidentified voter reveals she is voting for Bill Lussenheide of the American Independent Party, rather than GOP incumbent Rep. Mary Bono Mack, because Lussenheide is a “true conservative.”
Pennsylvania: Volunteers for Democratic House candidate Bryan Lentz in Pennsylvania aided conservative Jim Schneller in his effort to join the race, turning it into a three-way contest with Republican Pat Meehan.
Florida: Candidates listed as having tea party affiliations are running, even though they have been exposed as having no legitimate tea party supporting them.
Michigan: Fake tea party candidates tried to run for two House seats and a number of state offices. Democratic Party officials were linked to the candidacies, and the candidates were declared ineligible.
New Jersey: Republican House candidate Jon Runyan has a “Stop The Fake Tea Party” appeal on his political website. It states: “Polls indicate that Jon Runyan and career politician John Adler are locked in a dead heat as we head in to election day. Realizing that New Jersey’s 3rd district is tired of the reckless, out of control expansion of government and explosion of debt in Washington DC, John Adler and the Democrat Political Machines in New Jersey and DC have taken this campaign in to the gutter, resorting to baseless attacks and fraud to hold on to this seat. Adler and his cronies have even installed a fake tea party candidate to keep Jon Runyan from winning this seat.”
“It’s the strangest thing I’ve ever seen,” Bono Mack told the Times. “It’s desperate, and I think the voters see right through it.”
When contacted about the subterfuge, the Democratic National Committee issued this statement: “Republicans have no one to blame but their own ideological intolerance for the bloody civil war on their side.”
Sunday, 24 Oct 2010 05:37 PM
Increasingly desperate and fearful of a GOP takeover of Congress, the Democratic Party is secretly supporting fake tea party and other third-party candidates in the hopes of diverting votes from Republican contenders.
The stunning conclusion was made in a page one New York Times story headlined “Democrats Back Third Parties to Siphon Votes” – a report by correspondent Jim Rutenberg and published in Saturday editions of the paper.
The Times reported: “The efforts are taking place across the country with varying degrees of stealth. And in many cases, they seem to hold as much risk as potential reward for Democrats, prompting accusations of hypocrisy and dirty tricks from Republicans and the third-party movements that are on the receiving end of the unlikely, and sometimes unwelcome, support.”
“It is one of the dirtiest moves,” Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told the Times. “It’s not as though the Democrats are playing to compete against the third party — they’re helping to build the third party up to make those votes not count.”
The Times detailed numerous races across the U.S. where a “Tea Party” candidate has been working to siphon votes from the Republican candidate. In a close race this third party effort could throw the election to the Democrat.
Arguably, the most serious effort is taking place in Nevada where the Times says supporters of Harry Reid are backing a “Tea Party” candidate named Scott Ashjian.
The Times says: “In Nevada, conservative radio listeners have heard an advertisement promoting the Senate campaign of a “Tea Party of Nevada” candidate, Scott Ashjian. The ads criticize Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee and favored candidate of the actual Tea Party movement in the race against Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader. “
The paper claims that unions, casinos and mining companies backing Reid are financing Ashjian to undermine Angle’s campaign.
The Times examined several key races they indicated this stealth third party ploy was underway, including:
California: Democratic Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet has paid for an automated recording that calls Republican voters and purports to be from a registered GOP voter. The unidentified voter reveals she is voting for Bill Lussenheide of the American Independent Party, rather than GOP incumbent Rep. Mary Bono Mack, because Lussenheide is a “true conservative.”
Pennsylvania: Volunteers for Democratic House candidate Bryan Lentz in Pennsylvania aided conservative Jim Schneller in his effort to join the race, turning it into a three-way contest with Republican Pat Meehan.
Florida: Candidates listed as having tea party affiliations are running, even though they have been exposed as having no legitimate tea party supporting them.
Michigan: Fake tea party candidates tried to run for two House seats and a number of state offices. Democratic Party officials were linked to the candidacies, and the candidates were declared ineligible.
New Jersey: Republican House candidate Jon Runyan has a “Stop The Fake Tea Party” appeal on his political website. It states: “Polls indicate that Jon Runyan and career politician John Adler are locked in a dead heat as we head in to election day. Realizing that New Jersey’s 3rd district is tired of the reckless, out of control expansion of government and explosion of debt in Washington DC, John Adler and the Democrat Political Machines in New Jersey and DC have taken this campaign in to the gutter, resorting to baseless attacks and fraud to hold on to this seat. Adler and his cronies have even installed a fake tea party candidate to keep Jon Runyan from winning this seat.”
“It’s the strangest thing I’ve ever seen,” Bono Mack told the Times. “It’s desperate, and I think the voters see right through it.”
When contacted about the subterfuge, the Democratic National Committee issued this statement: “Republicans have no one to blame but their own ideological intolerance for the bloody civil war on their side.”
Pretending The Union Money Doesn’t Exist, Dishonest Politicians Aided By Dishonest Reporting.
Posted by Dan McLaughlin (Profile)
Friday, October 22nd at 5:30PM EDT
Desperate Democrats have been hyperventilating for the past month over money being spent by corporate and other groups, notably the Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity, to run campaign commercials. To conservatives, running commercials to attempt to persuade voters in advance of an election is known as “free speech,” and turnabout is fair play after corporate money went heavily for Obama in 2008, but let’s play along here; how much of an advantage does the GOP have here?
Well, according to Greg Sargent, the Washington Post’s in-house left-wing activist, it’s huge: “The total on the right: $74,733,356. On the left: $9,868,057. And the groups on the left, unlike on the right, consist of well-known names like the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife.” This is the standard spin from the Democrats, and Sargent is nothing if not a reliable source for whatever the standard spin from the Democrats happens to be on a particular day. But conspicuously absent from Sargent’s list are the largest unions, led by unions of public employees whose taxpayer-funded salaries are funneled into compulsory union dues and then passed on to the people who set those taxpayer-funded salaries. The lead article on the front page of this morning’s Wall Street Journal tells the story .
That’s right, three of the five largest campaign spenders this year are not business or pro-business groups but unions afffiliated with the Democrats and dominated by public employees.
The largest spender is AFSCME (the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), which is spending $87.5 million, more than any business group and nearly ten times what Sargent claims is the entire spending budget for outside groups on the left (maybe he doesn’t get the Journal, but somebody at the Post should have been embarrassed by how misleading his figures are in light of the Journal’s report, which has been online since last night). The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which consists heavily of public employees, and the National Education Association (NEA), which consists of public school teachers, round out the top five at $44 and $40 million, respectively. It’s not hard to see why they’re running scared: as the WSJ notes, all three benefitted significantly from the funnelling of stimulus money to state and local governments (private sector unions have their own reasons to fear a change in control of Congress in 2010). This is government by the government, of the government, for the government. And it shows the absurd hypocrisy of Democrats complaining about pro-business groups trying to rally a beleaguered private sector to defend itself against the government when the government’s own employees’ unions are outspending the biggest business groups.
The Democrats aren’t against big outside spending in elections. They just don’t like it when the other side gets to fight back
Friday, October 22nd at 5:30PM EDT
Desperate Democrats have been hyperventilating for the past month over money being spent by corporate and other groups, notably the Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity, to run campaign commercials. To conservatives, running commercials to attempt to persuade voters in advance of an election is known as “free speech,” and turnabout is fair play after corporate money went heavily for Obama in 2008, but let’s play along here; how much of an advantage does the GOP have here?
Well, according to Greg Sargent, the Washington Post’s in-house left-wing activist, it’s huge: “The total on the right: $74,733,356. On the left: $9,868,057. And the groups on the left, unlike on the right, consist of well-known names like the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife.” This is the standard spin from the Democrats, and Sargent is nothing if not a reliable source for whatever the standard spin from the Democrats happens to be on a particular day. But conspicuously absent from Sargent’s list are the largest unions, led by unions of public employees whose taxpayer-funded salaries are funneled into compulsory union dues and then passed on to the people who set those taxpayer-funded salaries. The lead article on the front page of this morning’s Wall Street Journal tells the story .
That’s right, three of the five largest campaign spenders this year are not business or pro-business groups but unions afffiliated with the Democrats and dominated by public employees.
The largest spender is AFSCME (the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), which is spending $87.5 million, more than any business group and nearly ten times what Sargent claims is the entire spending budget for outside groups on the left (maybe he doesn’t get the Journal, but somebody at the Post should have been embarrassed by how misleading his figures are in light of the Journal’s report, which has been online since last night). The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which consists heavily of public employees, and the National Education Association (NEA), which consists of public school teachers, round out the top five at $44 and $40 million, respectively. It’s not hard to see why they’re running scared: as the WSJ notes, all three benefitted significantly from the funnelling of stimulus money to state and local governments (private sector unions have their own reasons to fear a change in control of Congress in 2010). This is government by the government, of the government, for the government. And it shows the absurd hypocrisy of Democrats complaining about pro-business groups trying to rally a beleaguered private sector to defend itself against the government when the government’s own employees’ unions are outspending the biggest business groups.
The Democrats aren’t against big outside spending in elections. They just don’t like it when the other side gets to fight back
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
THIS IS HOW DEMOCRATS WIN ELECTIONS : Breaking: Suspect Voting Machines in Nevada Are Serviced By SEIU
Breaking: Suspect Voting Machines in Nevada Are Serviced By SEIU
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, October 26, 2010, 5:46 PM
The suspect voting machines in Clark County Nevada are serviced by the SEIU.
The SEIU is the same corrupt union that is behind thousands of bogus voter registrations across the nation. The group is spending millions this year to help democrats win back their majorities in Congress.
The Washington Examiner reported:
Clark County is where three quarters of Nevada’s residents and live and where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s son Rory is a county commissioner. Rory is also a Democratic candidate for governor.
Since early voting started, there have been credible reports that voting machines in Clark County, Nevada are automatically checking Harry Reid’s name on the ballot:
Voter Joyce Ferrara said when they went to vote for Republican Sharron Angle, her Democratic opponent, Sen. Harry Reid’s name was already checked.
Ferrara said she wasn’t alone in her voting experience. She said her husband and several others voting at the same time all had the same thing happen.
“Something’s not right,” Ferrara said. “One person that’s a fluke. Two, that’s strange. But several within a five minute period of time — that’s wrong.”
Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said there is no voter fraud, although the issues do come up because the touch-screens are sensitive. For that reason, a person may not want to have their fingers linger too long on the screen after they make a selection at any time.
Now there’s absolutely no independently verified evidence of chicanery with the voting machines (yet), but it is worth noting that the voting machine technicians in Clark County are members of the Service Employees International Union. The SEIU spent $63 million in elections in 2008 and is planning on spending $44 million more this election cycle — nearly all of that on Democrats. White House political director Patrick Gaspard is formerly the SEIU’s top lobbyist, and former SEIU president Andy Stern was the most frequent vistor to the White House last year.
UPDATE: Harry Reid is offering free food and gift cards to get people out to vote.
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, October 26, 2010, 5:46 PM
The suspect voting machines in Clark County Nevada are serviced by the SEIU.
The SEIU is the same corrupt union that is behind thousands of bogus voter registrations across the nation. The group is spending millions this year to help democrats win back their majorities in Congress.
The Washington Examiner reported:
Clark County is where three quarters of Nevada’s residents and live and where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s son Rory is a county commissioner. Rory is also a Democratic candidate for governor.
Since early voting started, there have been credible reports that voting machines in Clark County, Nevada are automatically checking Harry Reid’s name on the ballot:
Voter Joyce Ferrara said when they went to vote for Republican Sharron Angle, her Democratic opponent, Sen. Harry Reid’s name was already checked.
Ferrara said she wasn’t alone in her voting experience. She said her husband and several others voting at the same time all had the same thing happen.
“Something’s not right,” Ferrara said. “One person that’s a fluke. Two, that’s strange. But several within a five minute period of time — that’s wrong.”
Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said there is no voter fraud, although the issues do come up because the touch-screens are sensitive. For that reason, a person may not want to have their fingers linger too long on the screen after they make a selection at any time.
Now there’s absolutely no independently verified evidence of chicanery with the voting machines (yet), but it is worth noting that the voting machine technicians in Clark County are members of the Service Employees International Union. The SEIU spent $63 million in elections in 2008 and is planning on spending $44 million more this election cycle — nearly all of that on Democrats. White House political director Patrick Gaspard is formerly the SEIU’s top lobbyist, and former SEIU president Andy Stern was the most frequent vistor to the White House last year.
UPDATE: Harry Reid is offering free food and gift cards to get people out to vote.
AFL-CIO: People who believe in 10th Amendment have “cultish beliefs”
Posted by LaborUnionReport (Profile)
Is this the depths to which today's union bosses have sunk?
Friday, October 22nd at 1:00PM EDT
When the term astro-turf didn’t stick, and tea bagger was thrown into the harbor of bad ideas, union bosses went into overdrive trying to think of new and creative ways to demean Americans who don’t agree with their socio-fascist ideals.
Earlier this week, the CWA’s Larry Cohen decided that the Tea Party Movement advocates slavery. Now, the AFL-CIO is charging that Americans who believe in the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment are like cult worshipers [emphasis added].
Most cults are based in some sort of skewed spiritual vision or the worship of a charismatic leader, but there is a re-emerging cult that bows down at the feet of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Many of them want to bring their cultish beliefs to the halls of Congress and are running for election this fall.
They’re called the “tenthers” and they say federal laws and rules like the minimum wage, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, the Department of Education, even child labor laws and a laundry list of other federal laws and programs are unconstitutional.
Their rationale—irrationale would be a better word—is that if a federal power is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, well the government doesn’t have it, according to their view of the 10th amendment.
It’s a view that has long been discredited, but reappears from time to time, such as during FDR’s New Deal era and after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled school segregation unconstitutional in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education.
So there you have it.
It’s one thing for union bosses to attack corporations—that’s something they’ve done since they were spawned—it’s quite another, however, for union bosses to attack Americans who believe in freedom.
Apparently, according to today’s union-boss mentality, there’s no difference between Jim Jones and James Madison, or Thomas Jefferson and David Koresh. Evidently, freedom is only for cult worshipers.
This is how low today’s union bosses have sunk.
Pathetic.
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
Is this the depths to which today's union bosses have sunk?
Friday, October 22nd at 1:00PM EDT
When the term astro-turf didn’t stick, and tea bagger was thrown into the harbor of bad ideas, union bosses went into overdrive trying to think of new and creative ways to demean Americans who don’t agree with their socio-fascist ideals.
Earlier this week, the CWA’s Larry Cohen decided that the Tea Party Movement advocates slavery. Now, the AFL-CIO is charging that Americans who believe in the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment are like cult worshipers [emphasis added].
Most cults are based in some sort of skewed spiritual vision or the worship of a charismatic leader, but there is a re-emerging cult that bows down at the feet of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Many of them want to bring their cultish beliefs to the halls of Congress and are running for election this fall.
They’re called the “tenthers” and they say federal laws and rules like the minimum wage, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, the Department of Education, even child labor laws and a laundry list of other federal laws and programs are unconstitutional.
Their rationale—irrationale would be a better word—is that if a federal power is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, well the government doesn’t have it, according to their view of the 10th amendment.
It’s a view that has long been discredited, but reappears from time to time, such as during FDR’s New Deal era and after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled school segregation unconstitutional in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education.
So there you have it.
It’s one thing for union bosses to attack corporations—that’s something they’ve done since they were spawned—it’s quite another, however, for union bosses to attack Americans who believe in freedom.
Apparently, according to today’s union-boss mentality, there’s no difference between Jim Jones and James Madison, or Thomas Jefferson and David Koresh. Evidently, freedom is only for cult worshipers.
This is how low today’s union bosses have sunk.
Pathetic.
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
POSTS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED : 10.12.10 TO 10.23.10
1.) Do We Need to Replace the Income Tax wIth a Fair Tax . 10.12.10
2.) Obama's Socialist History Revealed 10.13.10
3.) Morning Bell: The Tea Party Is Here to Stay 10.15.10
4.) IT JUST ME, OR IS JOY BEHAR AN UNHINGED IDIOT !
10.18.10
5.) Armageddon: What Democrats Are Hiding & Why They Are Really Scared. 10.20.10
6.) Morning Bell: What the Left Doesn’t Understand About America. 10.20.10
7.) ObamArrogance 10.22.10
8.) Articles of Impeachment against B.H.O. ? ? ?. 10.22.10
9.) Barack Obama's Real Motivations and Beliefs Exposed ! 10.23.10
10.) Obama Strips the 'Creator' from Declaration of Independence -- Again. 10.23.10
2.) Obama's Socialist History Revealed 10.13.10
3.) Morning Bell: The Tea Party Is Here to Stay 10.15.10
4.) IT JUST ME, OR IS JOY BEHAR AN UNHINGED IDIOT !
10.18.10
5.) Armageddon: What Democrats Are Hiding & Why They Are Really Scared. 10.20.10
6.) Morning Bell: What the Left Doesn’t Understand About America. 10.20.10
7.) ObamArrogance 10.22.10
8.) Articles of Impeachment against B.H.O. ? ? ?. 10.22.10
9.) Barack Obama's Real Motivations and Beliefs Exposed ! 10.23.10
10.) Obama Strips the 'Creator' from Declaration of Independence -- Again. 10.23.10
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Huckabee Knocks Elitist GOP, Rove
10.26.10
I knew all hope was not lost.......You just get a good feeling about some people, This Gentleman just flat out impressd me a few years ago.
I caught up with him on FOX NEWS, (could have been Fox and Friends in the morning.)
He had just lost some weight and was describing how he did it, the back story here is I learned how he was the former Gov. of Arkansas and learned alot more about him.
Just had a good feeling about him........now it all makes sense, read on :
Monday, October 25, 2010 08:58 AM
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Mike Huckabee this week blasted what he termed the elite country club attitude favored by former presidential advisor Karl Rove and others who quickly wrote-off Delaware Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell.
"I was very disappointed in some, particularly Karl and others, who were so dismissive of Christine O'Donnell," Huckabee said, according to a Politico report.
"Unfortunately, there is an elitism within the Republican establishment," the former Arkansas governor added. "And it's one of the reasons the Republicans have not been able to solidify not only the tea party movement but solidify conservatives across America."
"It's about, again, to be blunt, the kind of country club attitude that we're not sure there are certain people we really want as members of the club and we're not going to vote them in. And we don't mind showing up to events to put up signs and making phone calls and going door to door making those pesky little trips that we don't like to do, but we really don't want them dining with us in the main dining room," he concluded.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH NEWSMAX ! ! !
This kid (ME) knows a HERO when he see's one !
Thank You,
Bob Yeager
I knew all hope was not lost.......You just get a good feeling about some people, This Gentleman just flat out impressd me a few years ago.
I caught up with him on FOX NEWS, (could have been Fox and Friends in the morning.)
He had just lost some weight and was describing how he did it, the back story here is I learned how he was the former Gov. of Arkansas and learned alot more about him.
Just had a good feeling about him........now it all makes sense, read on :
Monday, October 25, 2010 08:58 AM
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Mike Huckabee this week blasted what he termed the elite country club attitude favored by former presidential advisor Karl Rove and others who quickly wrote-off Delaware Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell.
"I was very disappointed in some, particularly Karl and others, who were so dismissive of Christine O'Donnell," Huckabee said, according to a Politico report.
"Unfortunately, there is an elitism within the Republican establishment," the former Arkansas governor added. "And it's one of the reasons the Republicans have not been able to solidify not only the tea party movement but solidify conservatives across America."
"It's about, again, to be blunt, the kind of country club attitude that we're not sure there are certain people we really want as members of the club and we're not going to vote them in. And we don't mind showing up to events to put up signs and making phone calls and going door to door making those pesky little trips that we don't like to do, but we really don't want them dining with us in the main dining room," he concluded.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH NEWSMAX ! ! !
This kid (ME) knows a HERO when he see's one !
Thank You,
Bob Yeager
7 days and countng, PEASE GET OUT AND VOTE 11.2.10
OK, I thought it was just me, that noticed the EXTREME elitism in the Republican Party. Glen Beck pointed out on his TV show yesterday, 10.25.10, that the Republicans were fallling intp te Progerssive-Democratic-Socialists Trap.
They ARE falling for the big Gov't running the lives of the people, a very slippery slope to slide down ! ( Insert G.W.Bush years here, AND YES i VOTED FOR GEORGE !)
And to that the TEA PARTY PATRIOTS are being demonized by the Elitist Republicans :
10.18.10
This is the exact reason I removed myself from the Republican Party !
They (the elitest like Carl Rove, Who I use to have alot of respect for) will back the RHINOS all day long. But when somebody not so mainstream comes along like Christie O'Donnell, she is shunned, like she has leprosy.
Thank God the Tea Party is there to support her, because her own party would rather have an extreme left liberal win than have her win.
She asked for help from the GOP, received a $ 48,000 check. Now that sounds like alot of money, more than I ever made in a year, but in political terms, how much advertising did that really buy.
Not a Hell of alot.
I really don't understand the Republican party, which is why I'm a member of the Constitution Party, a party much like the Tea party.
A party with real values. Smaller Government, Less spending ......and waste,and will hold Public officals accountable.
These were all things the GOP embraced before they became the Right Arm of the Big Government Party. The Dems are the left arm.
The Dems and the GOP should soon start getting along together. They are one in the same. The One Big Government Party !........
The OBGP.....Dems and the GOP working towards one common cause .....bigger Goverment.
That's why Christie O'Donnell isn't supported by the GOP.
THEY'RE AFRAID OF HER, BIG TIME !
Delaware you don't have to be, don't vote for some far off the chart Liberal Progressive who will steal your money.
VOTE FOR CHRISTINE O'DONNELL ON 11.02.10.
By the way, she didn't pay for this, or even know about this post, she wouldn't know me from Adam.
I just recognize great talent when I see it.
P.S. Delaware Republicans and Democrats : You need Christine O'donnell in the Senate if you want to get off of the OBAMA trainwreck we are on. !
Thank You,
Bob Yeager
They ARE falling for the big Gov't running the lives of the people, a very slippery slope to slide down ! ( Insert G.W.Bush years here, AND YES i VOTED FOR GEORGE !)
And to that the TEA PARTY PATRIOTS are being demonized by the Elitist Republicans :
10.18.10
This is the exact reason I removed myself from the Republican Party !
They (the elitest like Carl Rove, Who I use to have alot of respect for) will back the RHINOS all day long. But when somebody not so mainstream comes along like Christie O'Donnell, she is shunned, like she has leprosy.
Thank God the Tea Party is there to support her, because her own party would rather have an extreme left liberal win than have her win.
She asked for help from the GOP, received a $ 48,000 check. Now that sounds like alot of money, more than I ever made in a year, but in political terms, how much advertising did that really buy.
Not a Hell of alot.
I really don't understand the Republican party, which is why I'm a member of the Constitution Party, a party much like the Tea party.
A party with real values. Smaller Government, Less spending ......and waste,and will hold Public officals accountable.
These were all things the GOP embraced before they became the Right Arm of the Big Government Party. The Dems are the left arm.
The Dems and the GOP should soon start getting along together. They are one in the same. The One Big Government Party !........
The OBGP.....Dems and the GOP working towards one common cause .....bigger Goverment.
That's why Christie O'Donnell isn't supported by the GOP.
THEY'RE AFRAID OF HER, BIG TIME !
Delaware you don't have to be, don't vote for some far off the chart Liberal Progressive who will steal your money.
VOTE FOR CHRISTINE O'DONNELL ON 11.02.10.
By the way, she didn't pay for this, or even know about this post, she wouldn't know me from Adam.
I just recognize great talent when I see it.
P.S. Delaware Republicans and Democrats : You need Christine O'donnell in the Senate if you want to get off of the OBAMA trainwreck we are on. !
Thank You,
Bob Yeager
Post Confirms Politics Comes Before Justice at Obama DOJ
THANK YOU : WASHINGTON POST. THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION AND MORNING BELL.
Last year, Attorney General Eric Holder told the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs that the Obama administration's "commitment to Equal Protection – and to full participation in our nation's elections – will not waiver. Never." But Friday, The Washington Post published a story that completely undercuts that claim. The story itself breaks little new ground. Followers of this blog have already read all the details in the story. But the Post story does add confirmation from three Justice Department lawyers that the dismissal of charges against the New Black Panther Party and two of its members goes way beyond a slam dunk voter intimidation case.
The facts of the New Black Panther case are these: 1) On Election Day 2008, two members of the New Black Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place dressed in black berets, jackets, shirts, pants and boots; 2) one of the Panthers was brandishing a billy club; 3) witnesses testified that the Panthers intimidated voters and poll watchers; 4) after the Bush Justice Department filed suit, the Panthers failed to respond and on April 2, 2009, a court in Philadelphia entered a "default" against the defendants; 5) after President Obama was sworn in, his political appointees took great interest in the case; and 6) just days before the Justice Department was supposed to file for final judgment, the charges against three of the defendants were completely dismissed and the billy club wielder received a slap on the wrist.
The Washington Post story confirms all of these details and goes even further. The Post confirms the testimonies of former Department of Justice lawyer J. Christian Adams and current DOJ Christopher Coates that, since President Obama took power, there has been a marked hostility to race-neutral law enforcement at the Department of Justice. The Post reports:
Three Justice Department lawyers, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from their supervisors, described the same tensions, among career lawyers as well as political appointees. Employees who worked on the Brown case were harassed by colleagues, they said, and some department lawyers anonymously went on legal blogs "absolutely tearing apart anybody who was involved in that case," said one lawyer.
"There are career people who feel strongly that it is not the voting section's job to protect white voters," the lawyer said. "The environment is that you better toe the line of traditional civil rights ideas or you better keep quiet about it, because you will not advance, you will not receive awards and you will be ostracized."
Not reported by the Post are the specific ways that the Obama DOJ is refusing to enforce the law in a race-neutral manner. Specifically, Coates, who as the Post reports was hired by President Bill Clinton from the American Civil Liberties Union, testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that: 1) Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes ordered DOJ attorneys only to enforce "traditional types of [voter intimidation] cases that would provide political equality for racial and minority language voters;" 2) Fernandes informed DOJ attorneys that it was the policy of the Obama administration not to enforce anti-voter fraud laws since Obama "was not interested in that type of issue, but instead interested in issues that pertained to voter access;" 3) Loretta King (appointed Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division by President Obama) specifically instructed Coates not to ask any job applicants whether they would be willing to "race-neutrally enforce the Voting Rights Act" because King "does not support equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act."
King and Fernandes have never responded to these allegations, and the Obama Justice Department has never denied that these statements were made. Instead, DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler has made blanket statements that: "The department makes enforcement decisions based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved. We are committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of the federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation, as our record reflects." The Obama administration does have a growing record on vigorous enforcement of federal laws. But Schmaler is dead wrong: it is not a race neutral one.
Last year, Attorney General Eric Holder told the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs that the Obama administration's "commitment to Equal Protection – and to full participation in our nation's elections – will not waiver. Never." But Friday, The Washington Post published a story that completely undercuts that claim. The story itself breaks little new ground. Followers of this blog have already read all the details in the story. But the Post story does add confirmation from three Justice Department lawyers that the dismissal of charges against the New Black Panther Party and two of its members goes way beyond a slam dunk voter intimidation case.
The facts of the New Black Panther case are these: 1) On Election Day 2008, two members of the New Black Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place dressed in black berets, jackets, shirts, pants and boots; 2) one of the Panthers was brandishing a billy club; 3) witnesses testified that the Panthers intimidated voters and poll watchers; 4) after the Bush Justice Department filed suit, the Panthers failed to respond and on April 2, 2009, a court in Philadelphia entered a "default" against the defendants; 5) after President Obama was sworn in, his political appointees took great interest in the case; and 6) just days before the Justice Department was supposed to file for final judgment, the charges against three of the defendants were completely dismissed and the billy club wielder received a slap on the wrist.
The Washington Post story confirms all of these details and goes even further. The Post confirms the testimonies of former Department of Justice lawyer J. Christian Adams and current DOJ Christopher Coates that, since President Obama took power, there has been a marked hostility to race-neutral law enforcement at the Department of Justice. The Post reports:
Three Justice Department lawyers, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from their supervisors, described the same tensions, among career lawyers as well as political appointees. Employees who worked on the Brown case were harassed by colleagues, they said, and some department lawyers anonymously went on legal blogs "absolutely tearing apart anybody who was involved in that case," said one lawyer.
"There are career people who feel strongly that it is not the voting section's job to protect white voters," the lawyer said. "The environment is that you better toe the line of traditional civil rights ideas or you better keep quiet about it, because you will not advance, you will not receive awards and you will be ostracized."
Not reported by the Post are the specific ways that the Obama DOJ is refusing to enforce the law in a race-neutral manner. Specifically, Coates, who as the Post reports was hired by President Bill Clinton from the American Civil Liberties Union, testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that: 1) Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes ordered DOJ attorneys only to enforce "traditional types of [voter intimidation] cases that would provide political equality for racial and minority language voters;" 2) Fernandes informed DOJ attorneys that it was the policy of the Obama administration not to enforce anti-voter fraud laws since Obama "was not interested in that type of issue, but instead interested in issues that pertained to voter access;" 3) Loretta King (appointed Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division by President Obama) specifically instructed Coates not to ask any job applicants whether they would be willing to "race-neutrally enforce the Voting Rights Act" because King "does not support equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act."
King and Fernandes have never responded to these allegations, and the Obama Justice Department has never denied that these statements were made. Instead, DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler has made blanket statements that: "The department makes enforcement decisions based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved. We are committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of the federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation, as our record reflects." The Obama administration does have a growing record on vigorous enforcement of federal laws. But Schmaler is dead wrong: it is not a race neutral one.
Monday, October 25, 2010
A Soros Connection to Juan Williams Firing?
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, 21 Oct 2010 02:28 PM
By: Jim Meyers
National Public Radio’s firing of political pundit Juan Williams for comments he made on Fox News has raised speculation that liberal NPR patron George Soros may have influenced the media organization’s decision to ax Williams on Wednesday.
Williams’ seemingly innocuous remarks came when he appeared on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday. Asked by host Bill O’Reilly if the nation was facing a “Muslim dilemma,” Williams — who is also a Fox News political analyst — said: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”
NPR said in a statement it had given Williams notice of his termination on Wednesday night. NPR said his remarks were “inconsistent” with NPR’s “editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”
Political analyst Doug Schoen is among observers on not only the left but also the right expressing dismay at NPR’s wholesale firing of Juan Williams. Williams’ fights for civil rights and racial equality are well known, says Schoen, who castigated the firing as a ‘profound injustice.’
Soros has made large donations to NPR and other left-leaning media over the years.
And this week it was revealed that the billionaire currency titan is giving $1 million to liberal Media Matters in what he says is an attempt to stop the growing popularity of Fox News.
Fox News’ Glenn Beck has been outspoken in his criticism of Soros for influencing journalism through huge donations to NPR and other left-leaning media.
Beck said on Tuesday that Soros’ Open Society Institute was giving $1.8 million to add journalists at NPR radio stations across the country.
And he challenged Soros to come on his show and debate, “mano-a-mano, no minions, no spin doctors, no NPR journalists, just you and me.”
According to The Daily Caller, “The firing of National Public Radio news analyst Juan Williams for comments made about Muslims, combined with left-wing billionaire George Soros’ recent $1.8 million donation to the organization, have reignited calls to end NPR’s taxpayer subsidies.”
And Examiner.com Los Angeles stated that “Soros money is now beginning to turn the screws and place pressure.”
Thursday, 21 Oct 2010 02:28 PM
By: Jim Meyers
National Public Radio’s firing of political pundit Juan Williams for comments he made on Fox News has raised speculation that liberal NPR patron George Soros may have influenced the media organization’s decision to ax Williams on Wednesday.
Williams’ seemingly innocuous remarks came when he appeared on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday. Asked by host Bill O’Reilly if the nation was facing a “Muslim dilemma,” Williams — who is also a Fox News political analyst — said: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”
NPR said in a statement it had given Williams notice of his termination on Wednesday night. NPR said his remarks were “inconsistent” with NPR’s “editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”
Political analyst Doug Schoen is among observers on not only the left but also the right expressing dismay at NPR’s wholesale firing of Juan Williams. Williams’ fights for civil rights and racial equality are well known, says Schoen, who castigated the firing as a ‘profound injustice.’
Soros has made large donations to NPR and other left-leaning media over the years.
And this week it was revealed that the billionaire currency titan is giving $1 million to liberal Media Matters in what he says is an attempt to stop the growing popularity of Fox News.
Fox News’ Glenn Beck has been outspoken in his criticism of Soros for influencing journalism through huge donations to NPR and other left-leaning media.
Beck said on Tuesday that Soros’ Open Society Institute was giving $1.8 million to add journalists at NPR radio stations across the country.
And he challenged Soros to come on his show and debate, “mano-a-mano, no minions, no spin doctors, no NPR journalists, just you and me.”
According to The Daily Caller, “The firing of National Public Radio news analyst Juan Williams for comments made about Muslims, combined with left-wing billionaire George Soros’ recent $1.8 million donation to the organization, have reignited calls to end NPR’s taxpayer subsidies.”
And Examiner.com Los Angeles stated that “Soros money is now beginning to turn the screws and place pressure.”
Hot air? White House takes credit for Bush-era wind farm jobs
Very lengthly articele, also very compelling....worth the read,
CREDITS TO : Writer Russ Chroma, MSNBC.COM
By Russ Choma
Administration claims 50,000 jobs created, but many projects were completed
Updated 10/21/2010 5:25:20 PM ET
Administration claims 50,000 jobs created, but many projects were completed
WASHINGTON— The Obama administration
is crediting its anti-recession stimulus plan
with creating up to 50,000 jobs on dozens of
wind farms, even though many of those wind
farms were built before the stimulus money
began to flow or even before President Barack
Obama was inaugurated.
Out of 70 major wind farms that received the
$4.4 billion in federal energy grants through
the stimulus program, public records show
that 11, which received a total of $600 million,
erected their wind towers during the Bush
administration. And a total of 19 wind farms,
which received $1.3 billion, were built before
any of the stimulus money was distributed.
Yet all the jobs at these wind farms are
counted in the administration's figures for
jobs created by the stimulus.
In testimony to Congress earlier this year, the
Department of Energy's senior adviser on the
stimulus plan, Matt Rogers, touted the wind
farm program for creating as many as 50,000
jobs. He acknowledges that these figures were
provided by a wind industry trade and
lobbying group. The trade group, in turn, cites
a government study, which found that most of
the jobs are short term.
The Investigative Reporting Workshop at
advertisementadvertisement Robert F. Bukaty / AP file The blades of a windmill blur as they catch the wind on Stetson Mountain near Stetson, Maine. The project by First Wind was eligible for $40 million in the2009 stimulus program, although federal records show that its wind towers were up by July 2008. Should jobs at Stetson Mountain be counted among those created by the Obama economic stimulus? Hot air? White House takes credit for Bush-era wind farm jobs
Administration claims 50,000 jobs created, but many projects were completed before funds were handed out
American University fact-checked that claim,
using the federal government's own
documents. Not only were 19 of the wind
farms already in place before the first stimulus
payments were made, but 14 of them were
already sending electricity to the grid.
First comes the project, later the stimulus
Here's how we checked the administration's
claim: Wind towers are tall — hundreds of feet
tall — making them dangerous to low-flying
planes. The Federal Aviation Administration
requires every structure over 200 feet to be
recorded in a database, including the date
each structure was built. We reviewed these
records filed by the wind farms that received
stimulus grants. We also checked records kept
by utility regulators, showing when wind farms
began producing electricity.
In western New York, for example, in the hills
near the economically hard-hit cities of
Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo, the
Canandaigua Wind Farm could have created
the sort of green-collar jobs that the Obama
administration promised would be generated
by the stimulus package. The feathery blades
of the farm's 88 gigantic turbines reach more
than 400 feet in the air. Each turbine contains
8,000 components and is almost as
sophisticated as a jet engine. Hundreds of
construction workers were needed to haul
and erect the steel towers, each weighing
hundreds of tons.
The wind farm was built in two phases. The de-
veloper, First Wind, received a total of $61.8
million in stimulus grants on Sept. 1, 2009,
when the administration began rolling out
money for the program. But FAA records
indicate both were completed at least 15
months earlier — by May 20, 2008.
There are other examples.
In the coal country of eastern Pennsylvania,
FAA records show, the last turbine on the 51-
turbine Locust Ridge II wind farm in Mahanoy
City, Pa., was erected on Jan. 1, 2009, the first
day a project could be eligible for a stimulus g
rant. But the other 50 turbines were built in
2008 — 31 of them before Obama was elected.
The farm's developer, Iberdrola Renewables,
the subsidiary of a Spanish utility, collected
$59.1 million in stimulus money.
High above the rolling plains southeast of
Lubbock, Texas, the 166-turbine Pyron Wind
Farm represents the new wave of American
wind farm development. In the heart of the
country's "wind belt," it's far larger and more
labor intensive than the projects in
Pennsylvania and New York. German
developer E.On Climate and Renewables
estimated that 620 construction jobs were
created, and on Sept. 22, 2009, the project
received $121.9 million in stimulus money.
FAA records show the last tower had been
built on Dec. 11, 2008.
The program, known as the Section 1603,
reimburses developers of renewable energy
facilities, such as wind and solar farms, up to
30 percent of the project's cost. Applicants
need only prove they built the facility and are
automatically awarded the money. Unlike
other stimulus programs, the wind farms
aren't judged on job creation or required to
abide by "Buy American" clauses. The money
also comes with virtually no strings, and there
is no obligation to reinvest it.
Administration officials and the companies did
not dispute that much of the work on the wind
farms occurred in late 2008 or early 2009, but
said the stimulus money was vital for creating
jobs down the line. Even if the wind farms that
received the grants had been completed, they
said, the money was vital to ensure that the
next generation of wind power plants is built.
As the stimulus program continues to be hotly
debated on the campaign trail, the Obama
administration's record of touting all these
grants for creating "real jobs" continues.
"These programs were particularly effective in
getting money out the door quickly to put
people back to work on great projects that would otherwise have been idled in the face of
the Great Recession," Matt Rogers, the
Department of Energy's senior adviser on
stimulus, testified to Congress in April of this
year. At other points in his written testimony,
Rogers said the Section 1603 program was
In an interview in late September, however,
Rogers did not dispute the records showing
that a large portion of work on many projects
was completed before 2009. But he defended
the grant program as a vital tool to ensure the
recipients continued to invest in wind farms in
the United States.
"With the first set of projects that were done
before the passage of the Recovery Act — in
almost every case, what they did was reinvest
in the next set of projects," Rogers said.
"Because we now have a set of incentives,
project developers and sponsors are
reinvesting in the U.S. market, instead of
seeing a lot of that money go to other places.
That's one of the most exciting parts of the job
creation story."
Because of the way the law was written, the
Section 1603 grant program has no language
requiring that recipients reinvest their grant
money in the United States. Rogers said he was
basing his claim on the fact that many
companies have reported to the
administration that they reinvested their
grants in future wind projects in the U.S.
Most of the job gains are short term, study
finds
Although the administration has described
50,000 new jobs, Rogers, when pressed,
speaks of 40,000 to 50,000 jobs being
created, saved or supported. He said these
figures were provided by the American Wind
Energy Association, an industry lobbying
group. In February, for example, that group
said, "Were it not for the Recovery Act, we
estimated a loss of as much as 40,000 jobs."
The association, in turn, cites a study by the
Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, which estimated that the
grant program supported more than 51,600
short-term jobs during the construction
phase, the equivalent of that many people
working full time for one year, and an
additional 3,860 long-term full-time jobs. The
study assumed that all the projects finished in the first half of 2009 were not caused by the
stimulus.
When the wind association and the Obama
administration cite such figures as 50,000
jobs, however, they don't mention that the
study found that most were short-term jobs.
Update: The American Wind Energy
Association posted a response to this article,
which you can read here.
Since it gave out its first grants on Sept. 1,
2009, the renewable energy stimulus program
has handed out more than $5 billion to more
than 1,100 projects, many of them small
so lar-energy projects. The largest amount of
money, $4.4 billion, has gone to big wind
farms.
The Investigative Reporting Workshop
previously reported that the majority of the
money was going to foreign-owned
developers, and that the majority of turbines
being installed were built by foreign-owned
manufacturers. The
Treasury Department has rejected Freedom of
Information requests by the Investigative
Reporting Workshop seeking grant application-
s, citing trade secrets.Only one of the companies identified by the
Investigative Reporting Workshop as having
finished construction on a project before Jan.
1, 2009, disputed the date its turbines were
listed as built. The FAA records show that the
final turbine on the Wheat Field wind farm in
Gilliam County, Ore., was built on Nov. 10,
2008. But in a statement, Horizon said
construction on the project began in
September 2008 and the first turbine wasn't
"mechanically completed" until Feb. 2, 2009. In
the statement, Horizon said the FAA
information was filed in February 2008, and
the November 2008 date was only an estimate
to make sure the FAA had the structure on its
maps by the time the tower was built.
Power generated during Bush administration
The Investigative Reporting Workshop also
reviewed publicly available data on each wind
project's electrical generation. The Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission keeps records
of nearly all commercial energy transactions —
recording the time, quantity of power, price
and total cost of the transaction.
The records show that at least 11 wind farms
were generating at least some electricity and
selling it into the grid by March 1, days after
the stimulus bill was passed in late February.
And 14 wind farms were generating electricity
and selling it into the grid by the time the
stimulus money was first given out in
September 2009.
For example, the Locust Ridge II wind project,
in Pennsylvania, first sold electricity to PJM
Interconnect on Oct. 24, 2008, at 11 a.m.
Between Oct. 24 and Dec. 31, 2008, the
holding company that owns the facility sold
advertisementadvertisement
687.6 megawatt/hours of electricity to PJM,
charging a total of $32,788.
Paul Copelman, a spokesman for Iberdrola,
said the Locust Ridge II wind farm wasn't in f
ull commercial operation until March 2009.
The electricity generated in 2008 was the
result of testing, he said.
How they qualified
These wind farms qualified for the stimulus
grants for two reasons.
First, the stimulus bill allowed a wind farm to
qualify if it was "placed in service" on or after
Jan. 1, 2009. The money didn't start flowing
until Sept. 1, 2009, so it was inevitable there
would be payments for work previously done,
particularly for large wind farms that can take
years to develop. To get the money, these
companies didn't have to create new jobs;
they just filled out an application after the fact.
Second, "placed in service" has a peculiar
meaning. Generally, it means a piece of
equipment, like a wind turbine, is ready to be
used for the purpose it was intended. But,
when a developer finishes building the tower
and attaching all the parts — the labor
intensive part of the process where most jobs
are created — there are several more steps,
including testing and installing the equipment
that regulates the flow of electricity and feeds
it into the grid, before it is deemed "in service."
In the operation of other federal incentive
programs for wind energy, each turbine in a
large wind farm is evaluated individually
before being "placed in service." However,
under the Section 1603 program, tax attorneys
and the companies contacted by the
Investigative Reporting Workshop said that
developers were allowed to count all of their
turbines on a wind farm as one. In other
words, what counted was when the last
turbine was "placed in service," and the whole
farm was ready to operate at full capacity.
Tax attorney Jeffrey G. Davis, a Washington
partner at the law firm Mayer Brown, where he
specializes in representing renewable energy
firms, said it's not uncommon for a wind farm
to generate electricity — and even sell it —
before being "placed in service." Wind farms
may need to start turbines and generate
electricity to test them or prove viability for
commercial production.
In addition, all the wind farms contacted stressed that the process of qualifying a wind
farm as "placed in service" involves a number
of steps, like testing and building associated
transformers and transmission equipment.
Iberdrola also noted that it was required to
submit third-party certification of the "placed in service"date.
Rogers, the Energy official, said that some of
the wind farms cited by the Investigative
Reporting Workshop could have been left half-
built during the recession, but that once
Obama was elected in November 2008,
developers decided to finish the work in
hopes of a stimulus package. When pressed
for examples, Rogers declined to name any
projects.
"It's a question you've asked; I've answered.
It's an incredibly successful program," Rogers
said.
Several of the companies contacted by the
Investigative Reporting Workshop said they
had considered halting construction during
the recession. These include Iberdrola, which
considered halting construction on half of its
projects, spokesman Paul Copelman said,
which received $1.3 billion, were built before
any of the stimulus money was distributed.
Yet all the jobs at these wind farms are
counted in the administration's figures for
jobs created by the stimulus.
In testimony to Congress earlier this year, the
Department of Energy's senior adviser on the
stimulus plan, Matt Rogers, touted the wind
farm program for creating as many as 50,000 jobs. He acknowledges that these figures were
provided by a wind industry trade and
lobbying group. The trade group, in turn, cites
a government study, which found that most of
the jobs are short term.
The Investigative Reporting Workshop at when the administration began rolling out
money for the program. But FAA records
indicate both were completed at least 15
months earlier — by May 20, 2008.
There are other examples.
In the coal country of eastern Pennsylvania,
FAA records show, the last turbine on the 51-
turbine Locust Ridge II wind farm in Mahanoy
City, Pa., was erected on Jan. 1, 2009, the first
day a project could be eligible for a stimulus g
rant. But the other 50 turbines were built in
2008 — 31 of them before Obama was elected.
The farm's developer, Iberdrola Renewables,
the subsidiary of a Spanish utility, collected
$59.1 million in stimulus money.
Administration officials and the companies did
not dispute that much of the work on the wind
farms occurred in late 2008 or early 2009, but
said the stimulus money was vital for creating
jobs down the line. Even if the wind farms that
received the grants had been completed, they
said, the money was vital to ensure that the
next generation of wind power plants is built.
As the stimulus program continues to be hotly
debated on the campaign trail, the Obama
administration's record of touting all these
grants for creating "real jobs" continues.
"These programs were particularly effective in
getting money out the door quickly to put
people back to work on great projects that
would otherwise have been idled in the face of
the Great Recession," Matt Rogers, the
Department of Energy's senior adviser on
stimulus, testified to Congress in April of this
year. At other points in his written testimony,
Rogers said the Section 1603 program was
Energy Association, an industry lobbying
group. In February, for example, that group
said, "Were it not for the Recovery Act, we
estimated a loss of as much as 40,000 jobs."
The association, in turn, cites a study by the
Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, which estimated that the
grant program supported more than 51,600
short-term jobs during the construction
phase, the equivalent of that many people
working full time for one year, and an
additional 3,860 long-term full-time jobs. The
study assumed that all the projects finished in
the first half of 2009 were not caused by the
stimulus.
When the wind association and the Obama
administration cite such figures as 50,000
jobs, however, they don't mention that the
study found that most were short-term jobs.
Update: The American Wind Energy
Power generated during Bush administration
The Investigative Reporting Workshop also
reviewed publicly available data on each wind
project's electrical generation. The Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission keeps records
of nearly all commercial energy transactions —
recording the time, quantity of power, price
and total cost of the transaction.
The records show that at least 11 wind farms
were generating at least some electricity and
selling it into the grid by March 1, days after
the stimulus bill was passed in late February.
And 14 wind farms were generating electricity
and selling it into the grid by the time the
stimulus money was first given out in
September 2009.
For example, the Locust Ridge II wind project,
in Pennsylvania, first sold electricity to PJM
Interconnect on Oct. 24, 2008, at 11 a.m.
Between Oct. 24 and Dec. 31, 2008, the
holding company that owns the facility sold before being "placed in service." However,
under the Section 1603 program, tax attorneys
and the companies contacted by the
Investigative Reporting Workshop said that
developers were allowed to count all of their
turbines on a wind farm as one. In other
words, what counted was when the last
turbine was "placed in service," and the whole
farm was ready to operate at full capacity.
Tax attorney Jeffrey G. Davis, a Washington
partner at the law firm Mayer Brown, where he
specializes in representing renewable energy
firms, said it's not uncommon for a wind farm
to generate electricity — and even sell it —
before being "placed in service." Wind farms
may need to start turbines and generate
electricity to test them or prove viability for
commercial production.
In addition, all the wind farms contacted
stressed that the process of qualifying a wind
farm as "placed in service" involves a number
regardless of how far along they were in the
construction process. And E.ON Climate and
Renewables said it had considered halting the
giant Pyron Wind Farm in Texas, which was
substantially constructed in 2008. Neither
company ultimately halted construction.
When asked how to reconcile claims from the
administration that the jobs associated with
these projects were a result of the stimulus —
even though the work was done months
before the stimulus was passed — Rogers did
not offer a direct response.
"I think it's the simplest thing. You can talk to
the 40[,000] to 50,000 people who have been
working on these projects since they were
passed," he said, "and ask if they are pleased."
CREDITS TO : Writer Russ Chroma, MSNBC.COM
By Russ Choma
Administration claims 50,000 jobs created, but many projects were completed
Updated 10/21/2010 5:25:20 PM ET
Administration claims 50,000 jobs created, but many projects were completed
WASHINGTON— The Obama administration
is crediting its anti-recession stimulus plan
with creating up to 50,000 jobs on dozens of
wind farms, even though many of those wind
farms were built before the stimulus money
began to flow or even before President Barack
Obama was inaugurated.
Out of 70 major wind farms that received the
$4.4 billion in federal energy grants through
the stimulus program, public records show
that 11, which received a total of $600 million,
erected their wind towers during the Bush
administration. And a total of 19 wind farms,
which received $1.3 billion, were built before
any of the stimulus money was distributed.
Yet all the jobs at these wind farms are
counted in the administration's figures for
jobs created by the stimulus.
In testimony to Congress earlier this year, the
Department of Energy's senior adviser on the
stimulus plan, Matt Rogers, touted the wind
farm program for creating as many as 50,000
jobs. He acknowledges that these figures were
provided by a wind industry trade and
lobbying group. The trade group, in turn, cites
a government study, which found that most of
the jobs are short term.
The Investigative Reporting Workshop at
advertisementadvertisement Robert F. Bukaty / AP file The blades of a windmill blur as they catch the wind on Stetson Mountain near Stetson, Maine. The project by First Wind was eligible for $40 million in the2009 stimulus program, although federal records show that its wind towers were up by July 2008. Should jobs at Stetson Mountain be counted among those created by the Obama economic stimulus? Hot air? White House takes credit for Bush-era wind farm jobs
Administration claims 50,000 jobs created, but many projects were completed before funds were handed out
American University fact-checked that claim,
using the federal government's own
documents. Not only were 19 of the wind
farms already in place before the first stimulus
payments were made, but 14 of them were
already sending electricity to the grid.
First comes the project, later the stimulus
Here's how we checked the administration's
claim: Wind towers are tall — hundreds of feet
tall — making them dangerous to low-flying
planes. The Federal Aviation Administration
requires every structure over 200 feet to be
recorded in a database, including the date
each structure was built. We reviewed these
records filed by the wind farms that received
stimulus grants. We also checked records kept
by utility regulators, showing when wind farms
began producing electricity.
In western New York, for example, in the hills
near the economically hard-hit cities of
Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo, the
Canandaigua Wind Farm could have created
the sort of green-collar jobs that the Obama
administration promised would be generated
by the stimulus package. The feathery blades
of the farm's 88 gigantic turbines reach more
than 400 feet in the air. Each turbine contains
8,000 components and is almost as
sophisticated as a jet engine. Hundreds of
construction workers were needed to haul
and erect the steel towers, each weighing
hundreds of tons.
The wind farm was built in two phases. The de-
veloper, First Wind, received a total of $61.8
million in stimulus grants on Sept. 1, 2009,
when the administration began rolling out
money for the program. But FAA records
indicate both were completed at least 15
months earlier — by May 20, 2008.
There are other examples.
In the coal country of eastern Pennsylvania,
FAA records show, the last turbine on the 51-
turbine Locust Ridge II wind farm in Mahanoy
City, Pa., was erected on Jan. 1, 2009, the first
day a project could be eligible for a stimulus g
rant. But the other 50 turbines were built in
2008 — 31 of them before Obama was elected.
The farm's developer, Iberdrola Renewables,
the subsidiary of a Spanish utility, collected
$59.1 million in stimulus money.
High above the rolling plains southeast of
Lubbock, Texas, the 166-turbine Pyron Wind
Farm represents the new wave of American
wind farm development. In the heart of the
country's "wind belt," it's far larger and more
labor intensive than the projects in
Pennsylvania and New York. German
developer E.On Climate and Renewables
estimated that 620 construction jobs were
created, and on Sept. 22, 2009, the project
received $121.9 million in stimulus money.
FAA records show the last tower had been
built on Dec. 11, 2008.
The program, known as the Section 1603,
reimburses developers of renewable energy
facilities, such as wind and solar farms, up to
30 percent of the project's cost. Applicants
need only prove they built the facility and are
automatically awarded the money. Unlike
other stimulus programs, the wind farms
aren't judged on job creation or required to
abide by "Buy American" clauses. The money
also comes with virtually no strings, and there
is no obligation to reinvest it.
Administration officials and the companies did
not dispute that much of the work on the wind
farms occurred in late 2008 or early 2009, but
said the stimulus money was vital for creating
jobs down the line. Even if the wind farms that
received the grants had been completed, they
said, the money was vital to ensure that the
next generation of wind power plants is built.
As the stimulus program continues to be hotly
debated on the campaign trail, the Obama
administration's record of touting all these
grants for creating "real jobs" continues.
"These programs were particularly effective in
getting money out the door quickly to put
people back to work on great projects that would otherwise have been idled in the face of
the Great Recession," Matt Rogers, the
Department of Energy's senior adviser on
stimulus, testified to Congress in April of this
year. At other points in his written testimony,
Rogers said the Section 1603 program was
In an interview in late September, however,
Rogers did not dispute the records showing
that a large portion of work on many projects
was completed before 2009. But he defended
the grant program as a vital tool to ensure the
recipients continued to invest in wind farms in
the United States.
"With the first set of projects that were done
before the passage of the Recovery Act — in
almost every case, what they did was reinvest
in the next set of projects," Rogers said.
"Because we now have a set of incentives,
project developers and sponsors are
reinvesting in the U.S. market, instead of
seeing a lot of that money go to other places.
That's one of the most exciting parts of the job
creation story."
Because of the way the law was written, the
Section 1603 grant program has no language
requiring that recipients reinvest their grant
money in the United States. Rogers said he was
basing his claim on the fact that many
companies have reported to the
administration that they reinvested their
grants in future wind projects in the U.S.
Most of the job gains are short term, study
finds
Although the administration has described
50,000 new jobs, Rogers, when pressed,
speaks of 40,000 to 50,000 jobs being
created, saved or supported. He said these
figures were provided by the American Wind
Energy Association, an industry lobbying
group. In February, for example, that group
said, "Were it not for the Recovery Act, we
estimated a loss of as much as 40,000 jobs."
The association, in turn, cites a study by the
Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, which estimated that the
grant program supported more than 51,600
short-term jobs during the construction
phase, the equivalent of that many people
working full time for one year, and an
additional 3,860 long-term full-time jobs. The
study assumed that all the projects finished in the first half of 2009 were not caused by the
stimulus.
When the wind association and the Obama
administration cite such figures as 50,000
jobs, however, they don't mention that the
study found that most were short-term jobs.
Update: The American Wind Energy
Association posted a response to this article,
which you can read here.
Since it gave out its first grants on Sept. 1,
2009, the renewable energy stimulus program
has handed out more than $5 billion to more
than 1,100 projects, many of them small
so lar-energy projects. The largest amount of
money, $4.4 billion, has gone to big wind
farms.
The Investigative Reporting Workshop
previously reported that the majority of the
money was going to foreign-owned
developers, and that the majority of turbines
being installed were built by foreign-owned
manufacturers. The
Treasury Department has rejected Freedom of
Information requests by the Investigative
Reporting Workshop seeking grant application-
s, citing trade secrets.Only one of the companies identified by the
Investigative Reporting Workshop as having
finished construction on a project before Jan.
1, 2009, disputed the date its turbines were
listed as built. The FAA records show that the
final turbine on the Wheat Field wind farm in
Gilliam County, Ore., was built on Nov. 10,
2008. But in a statement, Horizon said
construction on the project began in
September 2008 and the first turbine wasn't
"mechanically completed" until Feb. 2, 2009. In
the statement, Horizon said the FAA
information was filed in February 2008, and
the November 2008 date was only an estimate
to make sure the FAA had the structure on its
maps by the time the tower was built.
Power generated during Bush administration
The Investigative Reporting Workshop also
reviewed publicly available data on each wind
project's electrical generation. The Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission keeps records
of nearly all commercial energy transactions —
recording the time, quantity of power, price
and total cost of the transaction.
The records show that at least 11 wind farms
were generating at least some electricity and
selling it into the grid by March 1, days after
the stimulus bill was passed in late February.
And 14 wind farms were generating electricity
and selling it into the grid by the time the
stimulus money was first given out in
September 2009.
For example, the Locust Ridge II wind project,
in Pennsylvania, first sold electricity to PJM
Interconnect on Oct. 24, 2008, at 11 a.m.
Between Oct. 24 and Dec. 31, 2008, the
holding company that owns the facility sold
advertisementadvertisement
687.6 megawatt/hours of electricity to PJM,
charging a total of $32,788.
Paul Copelman, a spokesman for Iberdrola,
said the Locust Ridge II wind farm wasn't in f
ull commercial operation until March 2009.
The electricity generated in 2008 was the
result of testing, he said.
How they qualified
These wind farms qualified for the stimulus
grants for two reasons.
First, the stimulus bill allowed a wind farm to
qualify if it was "placed in service" on or after
Jan. 1, 2009. The money didn't start flowing
until Sept. 1, 2009, so it was inevitable there
would be payments for work previously done,
particularly for large wind farms that can take
years to develop. To get the money, these
companies didn't have to create new jobs;
they just filled out an application after the fact.
Second, "placed in service" has a peculiar
meaning. Generally, it means a piece of
equipment, like a wind turbine, is ready to be
used for the purpose it was intended. But,
when a developer finishes building the tower
and attaching all the parts — the labor
intensive part of the process where most jobs
are created — there are several more steps,
including testing and installing the equipment
that regulates the flow of electricity and feeds
it into the grid, before it is deemed "in service."
In the operation of other federal incentive
programs for wind energy, each turbine in a
large wind farm is evaluated individually
before being "placed in service." However,
under the Section 1603 program, tax attorneys
and the companies contacted by the
Investigative Reporting Workshop said that
developers were allowed to count all of their
turbines on a wind farm as one. In other
words, what counted was when the last
turbine was "placed in service," and the whole
farm was ready to operate at full capacity.
Tax attorney Jeffrey G. Davis, a Washington
partner at the law firm Mayer Brown, where he
specializes in representing renewable energy
firms, said it's not uncommon for a wind farm
to generate electricity — and even sell it —
before being "placed in service." Wind farms
may need to start turbines and generate
electricity to test them or prove viability for
commercial production.
In addition, all the wind farms contacted stressed that the process of qualifying a wind
farm as "placed in service" involves a number
of steps, like testing and building associated
transformers and transmission equipment.
Iberdrola also noted that it was required to
submit third-party certification of the "placed in service"date.
Rogers, the Energy official, said that some of
the wind farms cited by the Investigative
Reporting Workshop could have been left half-
built during the recession, but that once
Obama was elected in November 2008,
developers decided to finish the work in
hopes of a stimulus package. When pressed
for examples, Rogers declined to name any
projects.
"It's a question you've asked; I've answered.
It's an incredibly successful program," Rogers
said.
Several of the companies contacted by the
Investigative Reporting Workshop said they
had considered halting construction during
the recession. These include Iberdrola, which
considered halting construction on half of its
projects, spokesman Paul Copelman said,
which received $1.3 billion, were built before
any of the stimulus money was distributed.
Yet all the jobs at these wind farms are
counted in the administration's figures for
jobs created by the stimulus.
In testimony to Congress earlier this year, the
Department of Energy's senior adviser on the
stimulus plan, Matt Rogers, touted the wind
farm program for creating as many as 50,000 jobs. He acknowledges that these figures were
provided by a wind industry trade and
lobbying group. The trade group, in turn, cites
a government study, which found that most of
the jobs are short term.
The Investigative Reporting Workshop at when the administration began rolling out
money for the program. But FAA records
indicate both were completed at least 15
months earlier — by May 20, 2008.
There are other examples.
In the coal country of eastern Pennsylvania,
FAA records show, the last turbine on the 51-
turbine Locust Ridge II wind farm in Mahanoy
City, Pa., was erected on Jan. 1, 2009, the first
day a project could be eligible for a stimulus g
rant. But the other 50 turbines were built in
2008 — 31 of them before Obama was elected.
The farm's developer, Iberdrola Renewables,
the subsidiary of a Spanish utility, collected
$59.1 million in stimulus money.
Administration officials and the companies did
not dispute that much of the work on the wind
farms occurred in late 2008 or early 2009, but
said the stimulus money was vital for creating
jobs down the line. Even if the wind farms that
received the grants had been completed, they
said, the money was vital to ensure that the
next generation of wind power plants is built.
As the stimulus program continues to be hotly
debated on the campaign trail, the Obama
administration's record of touting all these
grants for creating "real jobs" continues.
"These programs were particularly effective in
getting money out the door quickly to put
people back to work on great projects that
would otherwise have been idled in the face of
the Great Recession," Matt Rogers, the
Department of Energy's senior adviser on
stimulus, testified to Congress in April of this
year. At other points in his written testimony,
Rogers said the Section 1603 program was
Energy Association, an industry lobbying
group. In February, for example, that group
said, "Were it not for the Recovery Act, we
estimated a loss of as much as 40,000 jobs."
The association, in turn, cites a study by the
Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, which estimated that the
grant program supported more than 51,600
short-term jobs during the construction
phase, the equivalent of that many people
working full time for one year, and an
additional 3,860 long-term full-time jobs. The
study assumed that all the projects finished in
the first half of 2009 were not caused by the
stimulus.
When the wind association and the Obama
administration cite such figures as 50,000
jobs, however, they don't mention that the
study found that most were short-term jobs.
Update: The American Wind Energy
Power generated during Bush administration
The Investigative Reporting Workshop also
reviewed publicly available data on each wind
project's electrical generation. The Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission keeps records
of nearly all commercial energy transactions —
recording the time, quantity of power, price
and total cost of the transaction.
The records show that at least 11 wind farms
were generating at least some electricity and
selling it into the grid by March 1, days after
the stimulus bill was passed in late February.
And 14 wind farms were generating electricity
and selling it into the grid by the time the
stimulus money was first given out in
September 2009.
For example, the Locust Ridge II wind project,
in Pennsylvania, first sold electricity to PJM
Interconnect on Oct. 24, 2008, at 11 a.m.
Between Oct. 24 and Dec. 31, 2008, the
holding company that owns the facility sold before being "placed in service." However,
under the Section 1603 program, tax attorneys
and the companies contacted by the
Investigative Reporting Workshop said that
developers were allowed to count all of their
turbines on a wind farm as one. In other
words, what counted was when the last
turbine was "placed in service," and the whole
farm was ready to operate at full capacity.
Tax attorney Jeffrey G. Davis, a Washington
partner at the law firm Mayer Brown, where he
specializes in representing renewable energy
firms, said it's not uncommon for a wind farm
to generate electricity — and even sell it —
before being "placed in service." Wind farms
may need to start turbines and generate
electricity to test them or prove viability for
commercial production.
In addition, all the wind farms contacted
stressed that the process of qualifying a wind
farm as "placed in service" involves a number
regardless of how far along they were in the
construction process. And E.ON Climate and
Renewables said it had considered halting the
giant Pyron Wind Farm in Texas, which was
substantially constructed in 2008. Neither
company ultimately halted construction.
When asked how to reconcile claims from the
administration that the jobs associated with
these projects were a result of the stimulus —
even though the work was done months
before the stimulus was passed — Rogers did
not offer a direct response.
"I think it's the simplest thing. You can talk to
the 40[,000] to 50,000 people who have been
working on these projects since they were
passed," he said, "and ask if they are pleased."
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Three Charts that Taxpayers Will Infuriate
GREAT ARTICLE .....Written by Deroy Murdock, Copyright National Review Online.
Deroy Murdock
October 21, 2010 4:00 A.M.
Three Charts that Taxpayers Will Infuriate
Every small-government voter should see these graphs — and vote on Election Day.
With just 12 days until the November 2 elections, pro-market, small-government candidates, activists, and concerned citizens should study and then disseminate three charts that perfectly encapsulate the status quo that, if all goes well, the midterm vote will capsize.
The first of these looks as intricate as an integrated circuit. Titled “Your New Health Care System,” this schematic shows how Obamacare’s hundreds of moving parts will fit together and whirl — or not, as rising health costs at Boeing, McDonald’s, and the United Federation of Teachers (to name a few affected organizations) already reveal.
Staff members at the Congressional Joint Economic Committee “spent four months, night and day, and weekends” assembling this amazing graphic, Rep. Kevin Brady (R., Texas) tells me by phone. “They vetted it based on all 2,801 pages of the Obamacare legislation. They captured this new law’s stunningly complexity.”
Well, almost.
Literally scores of icons and symbols show how the president, the secretary of health and human services, the IRS, and other existing federal actors and agencies interact with Obamacare’s new entities including, among many others, the Elder Justice Coordinating Council, the Medicare Prescription Drug and MA-PD Complaint System, and the National Oral Health Public Education Campaign.
Even worse, the JEC’s diligent personnel could not fit all of this new law’s boards, commissions, mandates, and other elements onto this chart. So, by way of shorthand, they created “bundles of bureaucracy.” Beyond those functions delineated in the chart, these seven collective symbols respectively represent clusters of four loan repayment and forgiveness programs, four other new regulatory programs, 17 insurance mandates, 19 special-interest provisions, 22 other new bureaucracies, 26 other new demonstration and pilot programs, and 59 other new grant programs. These 151 additional items within Obamacare do not appear individually on this diagram. As Representative Brady explains, “If we included all of these units, this chart would be three times larger.”
Anyone who believes the JEC concocted this out of thin air should think again. Beneath each new program or agency, policy analysts cited the section in the Obamacare law that empowers that particular intervention in the American people’s medical decisions. The lines that connect programs to mandates indicate the pertinent passages of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that bind them together.
The JEC’s 25-megabyte creation is difficult to transmit via e-mail. However, a convenient link opens a PDF that allows readers to zoom in and explore this chart in amazing and shocking detail.
Even those who believe that government actively should heal the American people must wonder if that goal really required something this staggeringly convoluted.
As it is, the JEC’s chart is both an incredibly impressive piece of graphic design and a jaw-dropping glimpse of the health-care Hell that awaits the American people, unless they elect a new Congress to shutter this entire fiasco before it renders this republic irretrievably ill
Three Charts that Will Infuriate Taxpayers
The second chart appeared in the New York Post on September 6 and is based on a Heritage Foundation analysis of figures from the U.S. Labor Department, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Haver Analytics. Between December 2007, when the Great Recession began, and last July, the private sector lost 7,837,000 jobs (down 6.8 percent). Local-government employment dropped 128,000 positions (minus 0.9 percent), while state governments shed 6,000 positions (less 0.1 percent). Meanwhile, Washington, D.C., boomed. Federal employment zoomed by 198,100 slots as Uncle Sam’s workforce expanded by 10 percent.
This graph’s whiff of Marie Antoinette should boil every patriot’s blood. While the American people live increasingly ascetic lives, and even city halls and statehouses have displayed some restraint, Washington, D.C., increasingly resembles Versailles — an out-of-touch, extravagant, and callous place that fuels little beyond the nation’s disgust, fury, and organized rebellion. As the party rages within the Beltway, federal revelers scream, “Let them pay taxes!”
Finally, USA Today on August 10 published this front-page chart based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data. It shows that in 2009, the average private-sector employee saw compensation of $61,051 ($50,462 in wages and $10,589 in benefits). Among state- and local-government workers, the relevant figure was $69,913 ($53,056 in wages and $16,857 in benefits). For federal-civilian employees, the picture was far prettier: Compensation stood at $123,049 ($81,258 in wages and $41,791 in benefits).
These nauseating numbers show federal employees earning 201 percent of the average private worker’s compensation. Federal benefits equal 395 percent of private-sector benefits.
This bloat is bipartisan. While President Obama’s spending spree has exacerbated the inequality of federal vs. private compensation, this problem reaches into the irresponsible Bush-Rove years. Between 2000 and 2009, private salaries and benefits grew by 8.8 percent after inflation. Among federal civilians, however, salaries and benefits exploded by 36.9 percent.
Liberal pundits who wonder why so many Americans are so angry today should examine these graphs, which should answer that question.
If these charts infuriate you, please forward them to your friends. Copy and hand them to your co-workers. Distribute them on street corners.
And ask everyone who sees them to do one thing on November 2: vote.
— Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
© National Review Online 2010. All Rights Reserved.
Deroy Murdock
October 21, 2010 4:00 A.M.
Three Charts that Taxpayers Will Infuriate
Every small-government voter should see these graphs — and vote on Election Day.
With just 12 days until the November 2 elections, pro-market, small-government candidates, activists, and concerned citizens should study and then disseminate three charts that perfectly encapsulate the status quo that, if all goes well, the midterm vote will capsize.
The first of these looks as intricate as an integrated circuit. Titled “Your New Health Care System,” this schematic shows how Obamacare’s hundreds of moving parts will fit together and whirl — or not, as rising health costs at Boeing, McDonald’s, and the United Federation of Teachers (to name a few affected organizations) already reveal.
Staff members at the Congressional Joint Economic Committee “spent four months, night and day, and weekends” assembling this amazing graphic, Rep. Kevin Brady (R., Texas) tells me by phone. “They vetted it based on all 2,801 pages of the Obamacare legislation. They captured this new law’s stunningly complexity.”
Well, almost.
Literally scores of icons and symbols show how the president, the secretary of health and human services, the IRS, and other existing federal actors and agencies interact with Obamacare’s new entities including, among many others, the Elder Justice Coordinating Council, the Medicare Prescription Drug and MA-PD Complaint System, and the National Oral Health Public Education Campaign.
Even worse, the JEC’s diligent personnel could not fit all of this new law’s boards, commissions, mandates, and other elements onto this chart. So, by way of shorthand, they created “bundles of bureaucracy.” Beyond those functions delineated in the chart, these seven collective symbols respectively represent clusters of four loan repayment and forgiveness programs, four other new regulatory programs, 17 insurance mandates, 19 special-interest provisions, 22 other new bureaucracies, 26 other new demonstration and pilot programs, and 59 other new grant programs. These 151 additional items within Obamacare do not appear individually on this diagram. As Representative Brady explains, “If we included all of these units, this chart would be three times larger.”
Anyone who believes the JEC concocted this out of thin air should think again. Beneath each new program or agency, policy analysts cited the section in the Obamacare law that empowers that particular intervention in the American people’s medical decisions. The lines that connect programs to mandates indicate the pertinent passages of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that bind them together.
The JEC’s 25-megabyte creation is difficult to transmit via e-mail. However, a convenient link opens a PDF that allows readers to zoom in and explore this chart in amazing and shocking detail.
Even those who believe that government actively should heal the American people must wonder if that goal really required something this staggeringly convoluted.
As it is, the JEC’s chart is both an incredibly impressive piece of graphic design and a jaw-dropping glimpse of the health-care Hell that awaits the American people, unless they elect a new Congress to shutter this entire fiasco before it renders this republic irretrievably ill
Three Charts that Will Infuriate Taxpayers
The second chart appeared in the New York Post on September 6 and is based on a Heritage Foundation analysis of figures from the U.S. Labor Department, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Haver Analytics. Between December 2007, when the Great Recession began, and last July, the private sector lost 7,837,000 jobs (down 6.8 percent). Local-government employment dropped 128,000 positions (minus 0.9 percent), while state governments shed 6,000 positions (less 0.1 percent). Meanwhile, Washington, D.C., boomed. Federal employment zoomed by 198,100 slots as Uncle Sam’s workforce expanded by 10 percent.
This graph’s whiff of Marie Antoinette should boil every patriot’s blood. While the American people live increasingly ascetic lives, and even city halls and statehouses have displayed some restraint, Washington, D.C., increasingly resembles Versailles — an out-of-touch, extravagant, and callous place that fuels little beyond the nation’s disgust, fury, and organized rebellion. As the party rages within the Beltway, federal revelers scream, “Let them pay taxes!”
Finally, USA Today on August 10 published this front-page chart based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data. It shows that in 2009, the average private-sector employee saw compensation of $61,051 ($50,462 in wages and $10,589 in benefits). Among state- and local-government workers, the relevant figure was $69,913 ($53,056 in wages and $16,857 in benefits). For federal-civilian employees, the picture was far prettier: Compensation stood at $123,049 ($81,258 in wages and $41,791 in benefits).
These nauseating numbers show federal employees earning 201 percent of the average private worker’s compensation. Federal benefits equal 395 percent of private-sector benefits.
This bloat is bipartisan. While President Obama’s spending spree has exacerbated the inequality of federal vs. private compensation, this problem reaches into the irresponsible Bush-Rove years. Between 2000 and 2009, private salaries and benefits grew by 8.8 percent after inflation. Among federal civilians, however, salaries and benefits exploded by 36.9 percent.
Liberal pundits who wonder why so many Americans are so angry today should examine these graphs, which should answer that question.
If these charts infuriate you, please forward them to your friends. Copy and hand them to your co-workers. Distribute them on street corners.
And ask everyone who sees them to do one thing on November 2: vote.
— Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
© National Review Online 2010. All Rights Reserved.
A FEW NECESSARY TRUTHS..........
GREAT JOB ERICK ERICKSON !
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Friday, October 22nd at 5:00AM EDT
“The most significant truth is that had Juan Williams made his comments about Christians he would still have his job. The world is at war with Christ.”The media is largely run and operated by people who are left of center.
Consequently, in the newsrooms of America, instead of dealing with issues of right and wrong, the news revolves around victims and victimizers. It’s why a highly educated lady like Gwen Ifill of PBS could mock Sarah Palin for accurately, though I still did not know it, saying the Boston Tea Party was in 1773.
Because the Boston Tea Party was not carried out by muslims, women, gays, the poor, minorities, or real Indians Native Americans, it is not important in American history — at least not nearly as consequential as anything Sacagawea, Victoria Woodhull, Richard Ely, or Cesar Chavez ever did — to the left.
That, though, is a minor truth.
The second truth is this has nothing to do with political correctness.
NPR has a long history of its reporters and guests making terribly politically incorrect statements and not losing their jobs. You can watch Roland Martin and I discuss this truth on John King USA right here.
A producer at an NPR affiliate said she “”laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” if she saw Rush Limbaugh suffering a heart attack.
NPR darling Terry Gross held an entire conversation with a George Soros funded “evangelical” about how evangelicals had sold their soul to Rush Limbaugh.
Michel Martin, formerly of ABC, and now at NPR, recently implied that Catholicism or Christianity in general had some connection to Timothy McVeigh blowing up the Murrah Federal Building.
When Mother Theresa died, NPR anchor Scott Simon vilified her for her alleged support of “tyrants and criminals” and her “destructive comfort to keep people poor.”
When white powder appeared in the offices of several Democratic Senators, an NPR reporter implicated the Traditional Values Coalition in the attack without any evidence.
Earlier this year, NPR openly speculated without any evidence that historic Cardinal John Henry Newman was gay.
Terry Gross was horrified at the “very extreme” Franklin Graham ruining the image of the United States.
All the way back to 1995, NPR icon Nina Totenberg said of Jesse Helms on Inside Washington, “If there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”
NPR would never, nor would any other network, say anything similar about Islam or any group perceived to be a victim group. Superficially, this is because the left has unyielding sympathy for victim groups, whether or not they actually are real victims. It is how the left can embrace tolerance for both gays and muslims though many of the latter would gladly see all of the former put the death. Additionally, in the case of muslims, there is a great deal of unspoken fear.
No Catholic, Presbyterian, or unaffiliated congregant of the Assemblies of God will ever cut off your head for drawing a cartoon of Jesus. Many, many muslims would should you draw a cartoon of Mohammed. The fear of muslims within the secular left is why the media could be fully fixated on one preacher in Florida burning korans and avoid like the plague the other very legitimate story that we share the Earth with a large group of people who can be incited to global violence by one moron in Florida burning a book.
And this all gets us to the most significant truth — also the one that will offend a great many people, but still needs to be said.
The most significant truth is that had Juan Williams made his comments about Christians or Jews he would still have his job. The world is at war with Christ and, more generally, the Judeo-Christian God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Islam, derived from a man of this world, and the world are in supernatural alliance against Christ. This is the moment non-believers laugh and believers nod knowingly.
The secular world hates the real God of the Bible and those who follow Christ. Any group that is not of Christ or allied with Christ is spared by the world because it is of the world. Any group of Christ or allied with Christ is fair game for attack and ridicule.
Christians are aliens in this world and ultimately, on the last day, win. But until then, the world hates them.
It is a truth that we should all remember
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Friday, October 22nd at 5:00AM EDT
“The most significant truth is that had Juan Williams made his comments about Christians he would still have his job. The world is at war with Christ.”The media is largely run and operated by people who are left of center.
Consequently, in the newsrooms of America, instead of dealing with issues of right and wrong, the news revolves around victims and victimizers. It’s why a highly educated lady like Gwen Ifill of PBS could mock Sarah Palin for accurately, though I still did not know it, saying the Boston Tea Party was in 1773.
Because the Boston Tea Party was not carried out by muslims, women, gays, the poor, minorities, or real Indians Native Americans, it is not important in American history — at least not nearly as consequential as anything Sacagawea, Victoria Woodhull, Richard Ely, or Cesar Chavez ever did — to the left.
That, though, is a minor truth.
The second truth is this has nothing to do with political correctness.
NPR has a long history of its reporters and guests making terribly politically incorrect statements and not losing their jobs. You can watch Roland Martin and I discuss this truth on John King USA right here.
A producer at an NPR affiliate said she “”laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” if she saw Rush Limbaugh suffering a heart attack.
NPR darling Terry Gross held an entire conversation with a George Soros funded “evangelical” about how evangelicals had sold their soul to Rush Limbaugh.
Michel Martin, formerly of ABC, and now at NPR, recently implied that Catholicism or Christianity in general had some connection to Timothy McVeigh blowing up the Murrah Federal Building.
When Mother Theresa died, NPR anchor Scott Simon vilified her for her alleged support of “tyrants and criminals” and her “destructive comfort to keep people poor.”
When white powder appeared in the offices of several Democratic Senators, an NPR reporter implicated the Traditional Values Coalition in the attack without any evidence.
Earlier this year, NPR openly speculated without any evidence that historic Cardinal John Henry Newman was gay.
Terry Gross was horrified at the “very extreme” Franklin Graham ruining the image of the United States.
All the way back to 1995, NPR icon Nina Totenberg said of Jesse Helms on Inside Washington, “If there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”
NPR would never, nor would any other network, say anything similar about Islam or any group perceived to be a victim group. Superficially, this is because the left has unyielding sympathy for victim groups, whether or not they actually are real victims. It is how the left can embrace tolerance for both gays and muslims though many of the latter would gladly see all of the former put the death. Additionally, in the case of muslims, there is a great deal of unspoken fear.
No Catholic, Presbyterian, or unaffiliated congregant of the Assemblies of God will ever cut off your head for drawing a cartoon of Jesus. Many, many muslims would should you draw a cartoon of Mohammed. The fear of muslims within the secular left is why the media could be fully fixated on one preacher in Florida burning korans and avoid like the plague the other very legitimate story that we share the Earth with a large group of people who can be incited to global violence by one moron in Florida burning a book.
And this all gets us to the most significant truth — also the one that will offend a great many people, but still needs to be said.
The most significant truth is that had Juan Williams made his comments about Christians or Jews he would still have his job. The world is at war with Christ and, more generally, the Judeo-Christian God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Islam, derived from a man of this world, and the world are in supernatural alliance against Christ. This is the moment non-believers laugh and believers nod knowingly.
The secular world hates the real God of the Bible and those who follow Christ. Any group that is not of Christ or allied with Christ is spared by the world because it is of the world. Any group of Christ or allied with Christ is fair game for attack and ridicule.
Christians are aliens in this world and ultimately, on the last day, win. But until then, the world hates them.
It is a truth that we should all remember
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Obama Strips the 'Creator' from Declaration of Independence -- Again
GREAT ARTICLE BY PENNY STARR AND - CNSNews.COM
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
By Penny Starr
(CNSNews.com) – For the second time in little over a month, President Barack Obama stripped the word "Creator" from the Declaration of Independence when giving a speech.
"As wonderful as this land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,’” Obama said in Monday's speech. [Emphasis added.]
The Declaration of Independence actually says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” [Emphasis added.]
When asked why the president did not use the words "endowed by their Creator" in his Monday speech, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters on Tuesday, "I haven't seen the comments, Lester. But I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.”
Back on Sept. 15, in a speech before the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s Annual Awards Gala, President Obama said: "But over the centuries, what eventually bound us together -- what made us all Americans -- was not a matter of blood, it was a matter of birth. It was faith and fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” [Emphasis added.]
After that speech and questions about the non-mention of “creator,” the White House, as reported on Sept. 20 by Fox News’ Bret Baier, “said that President Obama went off script and adlibbed when he made that mistake.”
On Sept. 22, President Obama spoke at a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City. In his speech he also omitted the word “creator” when mentionin the "certain inalienable rights" the Declaration says men are endowed with by their Creator.
“And what was sustaining us was that sense that, that North Star, that sense that, you know what, if we stay true to our values, if we believe that all people are created equal and everybody is endowed with certain inalienable rights and we’re going to make those words live, and we’re going to give everybody opportunity, everybody a ladder into the middle class, every child able to go as far as their dreams will take them--if we stay true to that, then we’re going to be able to maintain the energy and the focus, the fight, the gumption to get stuff done,” Obama said at the DCCC/DSCC event, according to the transcript posted by the White House.
(Fred Lucas contributed to this report.)
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
By Penny Starr
(CNSNews.com) – For the second time in little over a month, President Barack Obama stripped the word "Creator" from the Declaration of Independence when giving a speech.
"As wonderful as this land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,’” Obama said in Monday's speech. [Emphasis added.]
The Declaration of Independence actually says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” [Emphasis added.]
When asked why the president did not use the words "endowed by their Creator" in his Monday speech, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters on Tuesday, "I haven't seen the comments, Lester. But I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.”
Back on Sept. 15, in a speech before the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s Annual Awards Gala, President Obama said: "But over the centuries, what eventually bound us together -- what made us all Americans -- was not a matter of blood, it was a matter of birth. It was faith and fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” [Emphasis added.]
After that speech and questions about the non-mention of “creator,” the White House, as reported on Sept. 20 by Fox News’ Bret Baier, “said that President Obama went off script and adlibbed when he made that mistake.”
On Sept. 22, President Obama spoke at a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City. In his speech he also omitted the word “creator” when mentionin the "certain inalienable rights" the Declaration says men are endowed with by their Creator.
“And what was sustaining us was that sense that, that North Star, that sense that, you know what, if we stay true to our values, if we believe that all people are created equal and everybody is endowed with certain inalienable rights and we’re going to make those words live, and we’re going to give everybody opportunity, everybody a ladder into the middle class, every child able to go as far as their dreams will take them--if we stay true to that, then we’re going to be able to maintain the energy and the focus, the fight, the gumption to get stuff done,” Obama said at the DCCC/DSCC event, according to the transcript posted by the White House.
(Fred Lucas contributed to this report.)
.Barack Obama's Real Motivations and Beliefs Exposed!
CREDITS GO TO : Dinesh D'Souza and Townhall Magizine
Barack Obama's Real Motivations and Beliefs Exposed!
Who is Barack Obama, really? He's been accused of being a socialist, a Marxist, and a covert Muslim but these labels are irrelevant to his true intentions and beliefs. It's also clear that his destructive agenda is unlike anything we have ever seen from any President of the United States. So what does Barack Obama really stand for? Where does this perceived rage against the country come from?
New York Times bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza has the story behind Barack Obama, and you'll be shocked by the results. An inherited anticolonialist rage against domination by Western civilization, stemming from the beliefs of Obama's father is what drives the President. D'Souza lays it all out in his book The Roots of Obama's Rage which you can get for free when you order Townhall Magazine. In this mind-blowing book D'Souza explains why Obama's economic policies are designed to intentionally make America poorer, why he welcomes a nuclear Iran, why he sees the United States as a rogue nation, and much more.
Newt Gingrich calls The Roots of Obama's Rage "Stunning...the most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama." In his most provocative book to date, D'Souza paints a startling picture of the motivations and true beliefs of the man who is leading our nation. Don't wait, get the book that is flying off of bookstore shelves everywhere in the United States, order Townhall Magazine today and receive The Roots of Obama's Rage absolutely free!
Here is an excerpt from the October issue of Townhall Magazine, entitled "Going, Going, Gone: Throwing Out Incompetence":
The Democrats' record of failure under the leadership of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid is not just a result of a bankrupt governing philosophy but also of antipathy for a majority of Americans. It's why U.S. voters are ready to send the Pelosi Democrats packing and strip the San Francisco liberal of her post as Speaker of the House.
To understand how out of touch the nation's three top political leaders are with the American public, the controversial Ground Zero mosque is but one illustration.
When President Barack Obama proclaimed, "I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country, and that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," one could almost give him credit for courage to take a hugely unpopular stance.
But when backtracking the very next day on the Ground Zero mosque that has caused so much controversy among families of 9/11 victims, Obama said, "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding."
The "wisdom" or appropriateness of the location is what the debate was about. Opponents never argued Muslims do not have the right to a mosque, but urged them to build it somewhere else out of respect to victims of 9/11. Does Obama know the difference?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., weighed in, calling for an investigation of those who opposed the mosque construction near Ground Zero. "I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded. How is this being ginned up?"
Unlike Obama and Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is facing a tough re-election fight. His spokesman said in a written statement that the mosque should be built elsewhere, a tepid way of opposing something.
But in a separate matter, Reid -- in an attempt to pander to Hispanic supporters -- said, "I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican. Do I need to say more?"
The apparent presumption by Obama and Pelosi of a bigoted undercurrent among those who oppose the construction of the Ground Zero mosque -- which would be a majority of Americans -- and Reid's belief that an entire demographic must all think the same show a common thread. The Democratic leaders have "antipathy toward people who aren’t like them," to use Obama's own words when describing residents of Pennsylvania.
It is little wonder the president's approval rating continues to decline while Congress' approval rating is in the ditch along with the economy they were supposed to rescue. [...]
It is this total disconnect with reality that has led to Democrats facing serious trouble in the 2010 midterms, as even White House spokesman Robert Gibbs thinks Republicans could recapture the House. Other prognosticators even see a slim chance Republicans will take the Senate.
"I think they [Democrats] have demonstrated disdain for what the American people want. That’s the problem. I've been all across this great country and people are just mad," said Georgia Rep. Tom Price, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the conservative caucus of House Republicans. "They don't think the White House or the leadership in Congress is listening to them. What we see is a disconnect between the leadership, those folks running the country, and the American people."
But it was not supposed to be this way.
Barack Obama's Real Motivations and Beliefs Exposed!
Who is Barack Obama, really? He's been accused of being a socialist, a Marxist, and a covert Muslim but these labels are irrelevant to his true intentions and beliefs. It's also clear that his destructive agenda is unlike anything we have ever seen from any President of the United States. So what does Barack Obama really stand for? Where does this perceived rage against the country come from?
New York Times bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza has the story behind Barack Obama, and you'll be shocked by the results. An inherited anticolonialist rage against domination by Western civilization, stemming from the beliefs of Obama's father is what drives the President. D'Souza lays it all out in his book The Roots of Obama's Rage which you can get for free when you order Townhall Magazine. In this mind-blowing book D'Souza explains why Obama's economic policies are designed to intentionally make America poorer, why he welcomes a nuclear Iran, why he sees the United States as a rogue nation, and much more.
Newt Gingrich calls The Roots of Obama's Rage "Stunning...the most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama." In his most provocative book to date, D'Souza paints a startling picture of the motivations and true beliefs of the man who is leading our nation. Don't wait, get the book that is flying off of bookstore shelves everywhere in the United States, order Townhall Magazine today and receive The Roots of Obama's Rage absolutely free!
Here is an excerpt from the October issue of Townhall Magazine, entitled "Going, Going, Gone: Throwing Out Incompetence":
The Democrats' record of failure under the leadership of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid is not just a result of a bankrupt governing philosophy but also of antipathy for a majority of Americans. It's why U.S. voters are ready to send the Pelosi Democrats packing and strip the San Francisco liberal of her post as Speaker of the House.
To understand how out of touch the nation's three top political leaders are with the American public, the controversial Ground Zero mosque is but one illustration.
When President Barack Obama proclaimed, "I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country, and that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," one could almost give him credit for courage to take a hugely unpopular stance.
But when backtracking the very next day on the Ground Zero mosque that has caused so much controversy among families of 9/11 victims, Obama said, "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding."
The "wisdom" or appropriateness of the location is what the debate was about. Opponents never argued Muslims do not have the right to a mosque, but urged them to build it somewhere else out of respect to victims of 9/11. Does Obama know the difference?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., weighed in, calling for an investigation of those who opposed the mosque construction near Ground Zero. "I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded. How is this being ginned up?"
Unlike Obama and Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is facing a tough re-election fight. His spokesman said in a written statement that the mosque should be built elsewhere, a tepid way of opposing something.
But in a separate matter, Reid -- in an attempt to pander to Hispanic supporters -- said, "I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican. Do I need to say more?"
The apparent presumption by Obama and Pelosi of a bigoted undercurrent among those who oppose the construction of the Ground Zero mosque -- which would be a majority of Americans -- and Reid's belief that an entire demographic must all think the same show a common thread. The Democratic leaders have "antipathy toward people who aren’t like them," to use Obama's own words when describing residents of Pennsylvania.
It is little wonder the president's approval rating continues to decline while Congress' approval rating is in the ditch along with the economy they were supposed to rescue. [...]
It is this total disconnect with reality that has led to Democrats facing serious trouble in the 2010 midterms, as even White House spokesman Robert Gibbs thinks Republicans could recapture the House. Other prognosticators even see a slim chance Republicans will take the Senate.
"I think they [Democrats] have demonstrated disdain for what the American people want. That’s the problem. I've been all across this great country and people are just mad," said Georgia Rep. Tom Price, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the conservative caucus of House Republicans. "They don't think the White House or the leadership in Congress is listening to them. What we see is a disconnect between the leadership, those folks running the country, and the American people."
But it was not supposed to be this way.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Articles of Impeachment against B.H.O. ? ? ?
Found this at FloydReports : I'm thinkn' there really is a Santa Claus !
Resolved, that Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
In his conduct while President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has:
Unlawfully exercised the authority of his office to take private property for public use in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees to the People that “private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation,” and without “due process of law”;
Unlawfully interfered with the management of private companies for the purpose of achieving government control of them, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Unlawfully interfered with the economic rights of the People by imposing unreasonable impairments in the fulfillment of their intended contractual obligations, and their ability to enter into such contracts, and attempting to change our fundamental economic system, where there is no significant or legitimate public purpose to do so.
In doing this, Barack Hussein Obama has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
Article II
In his conduct while President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and to that end, through his subordinates and agents, has:
unlawfully engaged in a conspiracy to suppress evidence of the true place of his birth. This obstruction of justice has resulted in a violation of the Constitutional provision that a President of the United States must be a natural born citizen.
Unlawfully refused his assent to the Laws of the United States, and exercised false powers of veto that are contrary to Constitution.
In all of this, Barack Hussein Obama has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
Resolved, that Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
In his conduct while President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has:
Unlawfully exercised the authority of his office to take private property for public use in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees to the People that “private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation,” and without “due process of law”;
Unlawfully interfered with the management of private companies for the purpose of achieving government control of them, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Unlawfully interfered with the economic rights of the People by imposing unreasonable impairments in the fulfillment of their intended contractual obligations, and their ability to enter into such contracts, and attempting to change our fundamental economic system, where there is no significant or legitimate public purpose to do so.
In doing this, Barack Hussein Obama has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
Article II
In his conduct while President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and to that end, through his subordinates and agents, has:
unlawfully engaged in a conspiracy to suppress evidence of the true place of his birth. This obstruction of justice has resulted in a violation of the Constitutional provision that a President of the United States must be a natural born citizen.
Unlawfully refused his assent to the Laws of the United States, and exercised false powers of veto that are contrary to Constitution.
In all of this, Barack Hussein Obama has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
ObamArrogance
Published by ben johnson and Floyd Reports...Great article !
Posted on October 21, 2010 by Ben Johnson
by Ben Johnson
Barack Obama has a theory about why you do not appreciate him: You’re stupid.
For months, the president has insisted the reason his part is facing an electoral apocalypse is less than two weeks is that the American people fail to properly understand how great he is. The solution, he insists, is more of him. Obama told a campaign stop in Seattle earlier today he could have sold his policies better. He insisted, “We had to move so fast, we were in such emergency mode, that it was very difficult for us to spend time a lot doing victory laps and advertising exactly what we were doing because we had to move onto the next thing.”
He manfully offered, “I take some responsibility for that.” The fifty-cent-piece stops here.
Throughout his push to ram ObamaCare down the collective American throat, he claimed he had not yet made his case. After the summer town hall meetings, Obama gave a mendacious speech before a joint session of Congress designed to sell his bill. He bought off Democratic senators from Louisiana and numerous other states, making this a simultaneous buy-and-sell job.
The bill eventually passed — but the sale has yet to end. As of March 5, Obama had given 54 speeches on health care alone. Yet a Rasmussen poll taken this week shows 55 percent of all Americans want to repeal ObamaCare, 46 percent “strongly favor” repeal. Nearly half the states in the union have sued the federal government to end the legislation.
Instead of listening to the American people, Obama has chosen to double-down on socialism — and call all dissenters imbeciles.
Last Saturday, Obama stood before a “small Democratic fundraiser” where he told those assembled, “Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared.” The trouble is, Republicans are “playing on fear.” If you think you’ve heard this line before, you’re right. Last summer, when ObamaCare seemed doomed, he said August was the month everyone gets “all wee-weed up.” As a candidate for office, jest-plain-folks Obama told a San Francisco fundraiser:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them….And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
This armchair psychology — where economic status creates personality traits — echoes the Marxist line about “the opiate of the masses.” His complaint that “facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day” resembles the old party line rhetoric about the inevitable triumph of “scientific socialism.” His continual (mis)diagnosis of his opposition as somehow suffering from a mental malady calls to mind the Soviet practice of confining dissidents to insane asylums.
But more than anything to Americans, they signal a virtually fathomless arrogance. President Obama looks at most of the American people like this guy:
And he has made clear, no matter how loudly the American people speak, there is no turning back.
President Clinton is remembered fondly, by some at least, because a Republican Congress forced him to compromise or quit, and he famously trimmed his sails to the new political realities.
Obama has replaced triangulation with bloviation.
In his heart, he knows he’s right — that he represents “progress,” that voters have to “guard the change”! He inveighs that “We can go backward, or we can keep moving forward. And I don’t know about you, but I want to move forward.” Democratic pollsters Stan Greenberg and James Carville have found this line drives voters to vote Republican.
But Obama pushes on, no matter the stress it places on his family, his schedule, or his jaw. He keeps talking and talking and talking, and none of you people appreciate him in the least.
The second most powerful woman in the White House, Valerie Jarrett, has some swell advice: “To stay the course and to know that it will get better.”As Keith Olbermann once asked of Republicans: “Is that the lesson…Don’t change the message. Just turn it up to 11?”
The Obama administration is the most ideologically committed presidency in memory, and like its intellectual forebears, it will stop at virtually nothing to enact its agenda. The American constitution presents few problems to agenda — it has been a dead letter for generations, anyway. But the portions still enforced — such as democratic elections, three branches of government, etc — must be worked around.
To the extent the yokels must be motivated, Obama’s Office of Public Engagement keeps the base fire up, ready to go, and the majority of Americans snowed. This administration has emphasized propaganda like no peacetime predecessor.
Jarrett, who heads OPE, uncorked a series of jaw-dropping whoppers in her most recent media haul. Obama, she informed us:
“always keeps an even tone and…he always looks for the better angels in people”…
“I think he is not a slick politician,” Jarrett said. “He doesn’t have the shtick, you know, the way a lot of politicians do. He’s completely sincere and true and I think people are not used to seeing that in their politicians. So it’s taking people a while to realize that he’s actually a real person and he’s not just trying to pretend and fool them and trick them into thinking he’s something else. He’s exactly who he is,” she said. “He doesn’t do the theater.” (In 2008, his aides liked to call him “no drama, Obama.”)
Yes, the man who reads focus-group-tested speeches from teleprompters surrounded by phony Greek columns doesn’t do drama. Not. At. All.
Her “Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life” shtick sounds like all the government-funded propaganda pouring out of the executive branch, lacking subtlety even more than truth. How else is one to interpret Andy Griffith telling seniors, “That new health care law sure sounds good for all of us on Medicare”? Or an administration that erects signs every few dozen feet telling the proles the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” is “Putting Americans Back to Work”? How should we view former OPE flunky (and lifelong fringe leftist) Buffy Wicks telling federal arts grant recipients, “We’re going to come at you with some specific ‘asks’ here” — then instructing them to emulate Obama-centric campaign materials?
The problem Obama’s propaganda is not just its pernicious impact on the nation, its faint echo of totalitarian regimes gone by, or its forced conscription of conservatives’ funds on its behalf — it is the eye-rolling inanity of it all.
Obama has no interest in a democratic republic, the will of the majority, or the rule of law. His plan is to shove through as much “change” as possible in the knowledge some of his schemes may never be undone. Tax rates fluctuate — but new entitlements require a major overhaul of the nation’s economic infrastructure. Economic policies encouraging risk-taking and entrepreneurship only go so far is the national character has been so degraded by long-term unemployment benefits and food stamps that the people are no longer employable. If people become used to turning to government for health care, or get used to receiving money from the government in their paychecks (however tiny a pittance Obama began in 2009), they cease to look to provide for their own needs. Europe’s example also shows us tampering with the military and the family unit could wreak havoc for generations.
Perhaps the most irreversible of Obama’s goals is his drive for permanent demographic change. As a good community organizer, Barack Obama knows the way to promote an agenda is to create large “coalitions of power” composed of groups that agree with your proposal. Since the majority of Americans are proving they will not elect those who share his views, Obama is attempting to “dissolve the people and elect another.” Obama’s policies have followed the same contours I outlined in a September 2009 interview of “The B-Cast” hosted by Scott Baker (currently managing editor of Glenn Beck’s new website, TheBlaze.com) and Liz Stephans. (The relevant portion begins at 55:30.) The only aspect I failed to anticipate was the push for Puerto Rican statehood.
Until Obama can form the New Soviet Man on our shores, he will continue to advance his agenda by propaganda, by bribery — even, as he has recently speculated, by executive order. Perhaps it is fitting in his most recent assault on the current American people he loathes, Obama made an inadvertent admission: “The country is scared, and they have good reason to be.”
That’s why 54 percent of Americans think Obama should be a one-term president. That term would end in 27 months.
Some of us think that’s too long.
Posted on October 21, 2010 by Ben Johnson
by Ben Johnson
Barack Obama has a theory about why you do not appreciate him: You’re stupid.
For months, the president has insisted the reason his part is facing an electoral apocalypse is less than two weeks is that the American people fail to properly understand how great he is. The solution, he insists, is more of him. Obama told a campaign stop in Seattle earlier today he could have sold his policies better. He insisted, “We had to move so fast, we were in such emergency mode, that it was very difficult for us to spend time a lot doing victory laps and advertising exactly what we were doing because we had to move onto the next thing.”
He manfully offered, “I take some responsibility for that.” The fifty-cent-piece stops here.
Throughout his push to ram ObamaCare down the collective American throat, he claimed he had not yet made his case. After the summer town hall meetings, Obama gave a mendacious speech before a joint session of Congress designed to sell his bill. He bought off Democratic senators from Louisiana and numerous other states, making this a simultaneous buy-and-sell job.
The bill eventually passed — but the sale has yet to end. As of March 5, Obama had given 54 speeches on health care alone. Yet a Rasmussen poll taken this week shows 55 percent of all Americans want to repeal ObamaCare, 46 percent “strongly favor” repeal. Nearly half the states in the union have sued the federal government to end the legislation.
Instead of listening to the American people, Obama has chosen to double-down on socialism — and call all dissenters imbeciles.
Last Saturday, Obama stood before a “small Democratic fundraiser” where he told those assembled, “Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared.” The trouble is, Republicans are “playing on fear.” If you think you’ve heard this line before, you’re right. Last summer, when ObamaCare seemed doomed, he said August was the month everyone gets “all wee-weed up.” As a candidate for office, jest-plain-folks Obama told a San Francisco fundraiser:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them….And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
This armchair psychology — where economic status creates personality traits — echoes the Marxist line about “the opiate of the masses.” His complaint that “facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day” resembles the old party line rhetoric about the inevitable triumph of “scientific socialism.” His continual (mis)diagnosis of his opposition as somehow suffering from a mental malady calls to mind the Soviet practice of confining dissidents to insane asylums.
But more than anything to Americans, they signal a virtually fathomless arrogance. President Obama looks at most of the American people like this guy:
And he has made clear, no matter how loudly the American people speak, there is no turning back.
President Clinton is remembered fondly, by some at least, because a Republican Congress forced him to compromise or quit, and he famously trimmed his sails to the new political realities.
Obama has replaced triangulation with bloviation.
In his heart, he knows he’s right — that he represents “progress,” that voters have to “guard the change”! He inveighs that “We can go backward, or we can keep moving forward. And I don’t know about you, but I want to move forward.” Democratic pollsters Stan Greenberg and James Carville have found this line drives voters to vote Republican.
But Obama pushes on, no matter the stress it places on his family, his schedule, or his jaw. He keeps talking and talking and talking, and none of you people appreciate him in the least.
The second most powerful woman in the White House, Valerie Jarrett, has some swell advice: “To stay the course and to know that it will get better.”As Keith Olbermann once asked of Republicans: “Is that the lesson…Don’t change the message. Just turn it up to 11?”
The Obama administration is the most ideologically committed presidency in memory, and like its intellectual forebears, it will stop at virtually nothing to enact its agenda. The American constitution presents few problems to agenda — it has been a dead letter for generations, anyway. But the portions still enforced — such as democratic elections, three branches of government, etc — must be worked around.
To the extent the yokels must be motivated, Obama’s Office of Public Engagement keeps the base fire up, ready to go, and the majority of Americans snowed. This administration has emphasized propaganda like no peacetime predecessor.
Jarrett, who heads OPE, uncorked a series of jaw-dropping whoppers in her most recent media haul. Obama, she informed us:
“always keeps an even tone and…he always looks for the better angels in people”…
“I think he is not a slick politician,” Jarrett said. “He doesn’t have the shtick, you know, the way a lot of politicians do. He’s completely sincere and true and I think people are not used to seeing that in their politicians. So it’s taking people a while to realize that he’s actually a real person and he’s not just trying to pretend and fool them and trick them into thinking he’s something else. He’s exactly who he is,” she said. “He doesn’t do the theater.” (In 2008, his aides liked to call him “no drama, Obama.”)
Yes, the man who reads focus-group-tested speeches from teleprompters surrounded by phony Greek columns doesn’t do drama. Not. At. All.
Her “Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life” shtick sounds like all the government-funded propaganda pouring out of the executive branch, lacking subtlety even more than truth. How else is one to interpret Andy Griffith telling seniors, “That new health care law sure sounds good for all of us on Medicare”? Or an administration that erects signs every few dozen feet telling the proles the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” is “Putting Americans Back to Work”? How should we view former OPE flunky (and lifelong fringe leftist) Buffy Wicks telling federal arts grant recipients, “We’re going to come at you with some specific ‘asks’ here” — then instructing them to emulate Obama-centric campaign materials?
The problem Obama’s propaganda is not just its pernicious impact on the nation, its faint echo of totalitarian regimes gone by, or its forced conscription of conservatives’ funds on its behalf — it is the eye-rolling inanity of it all.
Obama has no interest in a democratic republic, the will of the majority, or the rule of law. His plan is to shove through as much “change” as possible in the knowledge some of his schemes may never be undone. Tax rates fluctuate — but new entitlements require a major overhaul of the nation’s economic infrastructure. Economic policies encouraging risk-taking and entrepreneurship only go so far is the national character has been so degraded by long-term unemployment benefits and food stamps that the people are no longer employable. If people become used to turning to government for health care, or get used to receiving money from the government in their paychecks (however tiny a pittance Obama began in 2009), they cease to look to provide for their own needs. Europe’s example also shows us tampering with the military and the family unit could wreak havoc for generations.
Perhaps the most irreversible of Obama’s goals is his drive for permanent demographic change. As a good community organizer, Barack Obama knows the way to promote an agenda is to create large “coalitions of power” composed of groups that agree with your proposal. Since the majority of Americans are proving they will not elect those who share his views, Obama is attempting to “dissolve the people and elect another.” Obama’s policies have followed the same contours I outlined in a September 2009 interview of “The B-Cast” hosted by Scott Baker (currently managing editor of Glenn Beck’s new website, TheBlaze.com) and Liz Stephans. (The relevant portion begins at 55:30.) The only aspect I failed to anticipate was the push for Puerto Rican statehood.
Until Obama can form the New Soviet Man on our shores, he will continue to advance his agenda by propaganda, by bribery — even, as he has recently speculated, by executive order. Perhaps it is fitting in his most recent assault on the current American people he loathes, Obama made an inadvertent admission: “The country is scared, and they have good reason to be.”
That’s why 54 percent of Americans think Obama should be a one-term president. That term would end in 27 months.
Some of us think that’s too long.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
THE 12 DAYS OF POLITICS ? ( IN THE SPIRIT OF THE 12 DAYS OF CHRISTMAS )
Ok, my 50th post, some extremely dry political humor, Blame me .....12 days 'til Election Day, 12 Days of Politics:
On the First day of Politics, my State gave to me...A Dan Onorato defeat ! ( Dem.Canidate for Pa. Governor.)
On the Second day of Politics, my Country gave to me...An Anthony Weiner defeat ! ( Dem. Congressman NY, 9th District )
On the Third day of Politics, my Country gave to me...A Debbie Wasserman-Schultz defeat ! ( Dem. Congresswoman FLA 20th District )
On the Fourth day of Politics, my Country gave to me...An Alan Grayson defeat ! ( Dem. Congressman FLA 8th District. )
On the Fifth day of Politics, my Country gave to me, DUCT TAPE FOR THE MOUTHS OF JUAN WILLIAMS AND ELLIS
HENICAN ! ! !
On the Sixth day of Politics, my Country gave to me...A Nancy Pelosi defeat ! ( We all know her. )
On the Seventh day Of Politics, my Country gave to me...A Harry reid defeat ! ( We all know him! )
On the Eighth day of Politics, my Country gave to me... A Chris Coons defeat ! ( Dem. canidate for Senate in Delaware. )
On the Ninth day of Politics,my Country gave to me...A Barbara Boxer defeat ! ( Enough said ! )
On the Tenth day of Politics, my Country gave to me...A Barney Frank defeat ! ( Enough said, again ! )
On the Eleventh day of Politics, my Country gave to me ...An Andrew Cuomo defeat ! ( Need I say more. )
Finally !!!!!
On the Twelfth Day of Politics, my State gave to me...A Joe Sestak defeat ! ( Dem. canidate for Turncoat's Arlen Spectors Senate seat in Pa. )
GOD BLESS THE U.S.A. ! ! !
Bob Yeager
On the First day of Politics, my State gave to me...A Dan Onorato defeat ! ( Dem.Canidate for Pa. Governor.)
On the Second day of Politics, my Country gave to me...An Anthony Weiner defeat ! ( Dem. Congressman NY, 9th District )
On the Third day of Politics, my Country gave to me...A Debbie Wasserman-Schultz defeat ! ( Dem. Congresswoman FLA 20th District )
On the Fourth day of Politics, my Country gave to me...An Alan Grayson defeat ! ( Dem. Congressman FLA 8th District. )
On the Fifth day of Politics, my Country gave to me, DUCT TAPE FOR THE MOUTHS OF JUAN WILLIAMS AND ELLIS
HENICAN ! ! !
On the Sixth day of Politics, my Country gave to me...A Nancy Pelosi defeat ! ( We all know her. )
On the Seventh day Of Politics, my Country gave to me...A Harry reid defeat ! ( We all know him! )
On the Eighth day of Politics, my Country gave to me... A Chris Coons defeat ! ( Dem. canidate for Senate in Delaware. )
On the Ninth day of Politics,my Country gave to me...A Barbara Boxer defeat ! ( Enough said ! )
On the Tenth day of Politics, my Country gave to me...A Barney Frank defeat ! ( Enough said, again ! )
On the Eleventh day of Politics, my Country gave to me ...An Andrew Cuomo defeat ! ( Need I say more. )
Finally !!!!!
On the Twelfth Day of Politics, my State gave to me...A Joe Sestak defeat ! ( Dem. canidate for Turncoat's Arlen Spectors Senate seat in Pa. )
GOD BLESS THE U.S.A. ! ! !
Bob Yeager
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Morning Bell: What the Left Doesn’t Understand About America
- The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. - http://blog.heritage.org -
Posted By Conn Carroll On October 20, 2010 @ 9:24 am In First Principles
Monday night in Rockville, Md., President Barack Obama told [1] Democratic Senate candidate donors: “As wonderful as the land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’”
At first blush, that seems like a fine statement about what makes America exceptional. But look at President Obama’s “quote” from the Declaration of Independence again. Here is what the Declaration actually says [2]: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” If you think that President Obama’s abandonment of the Creator was an accident, think again. Monday was the third time in a little over a month that President Obama wrote the Creator out of one of our nation’s founding documents. He omitted the exact same phrase at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s 33rd Annual Awards Gala on September 15 [3] and again at a September 23 [4] fundraiser in New York City.
Remember this is the same President who admonished [5] “small towns in Pennsylvania” and “a lot of small towns in the Midwest” because they “get bitter” and “cling to guns or religion.” And the President is not alone. MSNBC’s new “Lean Forward” Progressive Movement branding campaign also leaves out “by their Creator” from their reading of the Declaration [6]. Again, this is no accident. Writing faith in God out of the public sphere allows and encourages Big Government to replace it. The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Messmore explains [7]:
[G]overnment power is inherently limited by the role of other social institutions, such as families, religious congregations, schools, and businesses. The rightful authority of these institutions helps to check the authority of the state. … As government claims responsibility for more tasks, it absorbs the allegiance that citizens once placed in other relationships and forms of association. When the federal government assumes more responsibility for fulfilling the moral obligations among citizens, it tends to undermine the perceived significance and authority of local institutions and communities.
This encourages citizens, instead of looking to their families, churches, or local communities for guidance and assistance, to depend on the government for education, welfare, and various other services. As individuals begin to look more consistently to the government for support, the institutions that are able to generate virtues like trust and responsibility begin to lose their sway in the community. Excessive bureaucratic centralization thus sets in motion a dangerous cycle of dependence and social decay.
For far too long the American people have allowed the Progressive Movement to read out of existence the checks that America’s Founders placed on government in our founding documents. That is why The Heritage Foundation is now distributing a series of pamphlets titled “Understanding America” [8] that explores how the United States’ commitment to the universal truths of human equality and the right to self-government—as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence—requires a vigilant defense of the cause of liberty, both at home and abroad. In the first volume, Heritage’s Matthew Spalding writes [9]:
America’s principles establish religious liberty as a fundamental right. It is in our nature to pursue our convictions of faith. Government must not establish an official religion, just as it must guarantee the free exercise of religion. Indeed, popular government requires a flourishing of religious faith. If a free people are to govern themselves politically, they must first govern themselves morally.
The United States did not grow from a small thirteen colonies to a vast 50 states that produce almost a quarter of the world’s wealth due to an all powerful federal government. It was American civil society, led by families, churches, businesses, communities and associations that built this country. According to the latest Gallup poll [10], 58% of Americans believe that “the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses.” Contrast that with President Obama who recently told a Democratic campaign rally in Philadelphia [11], the very place where the Declaration of Independence was signed, that the United States Chamber of Commerce was “a threat to our democracy.” With all due respect to the President, the American people have a much different view of where the threat to our democracy is coming from.
Posted By Conn Carroll On October 20, 2010 @ 9:24 am In First Principles
Monday night in Rockville, Md., President Barack Obama told [1] Democratic Senate candidate donors: “As wonderful as the land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’”
At first blush, that seems like a fine statement about what makes America exceptional. But look at President Obama’s “quote” from the Declaration of Independence again. Here is what the Declaration actually says [2]: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” If you think that President Obama’s abandonment of the Creator was an accident, think again. Monday was the third time in a little over a month that President Obama wrote the Creator out of one of our nation’s founding documents. He omitted the exact same phrase at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s 33rd Annual Awards Gala on September 15 [3] and again at a September 23 [4] fundraiser in New York City.
Remember this is the same President who admonished [5] “small towns in Pennsylvania” and “a lot of small towns in the Midwest” because they “get bitter” and “cling to guns or religion.” And the President is not alone. MSNBC’s new “Lean Forward” Progressive Movement branding campaign also leaves out “by their Creator” from their reading of the Declaration [6]. Again, this is no accident. Writing faith in God out of the public sphere allows and encourages Big Government to replace it. The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Messmore explains [7]:
[G]overnment power is inherently limited by the role of other social institutions, such as families, religious congregations, schools, and businesses. The rightful authority of these institutions helps to check the authority of the state. … As government claims responsibility for more tasks, it absorbs the allegiance that citizens once placed in other relationships and forms of association. When the federal government assumes more responsibility for fulfilling the moral obligations among citizens, it tends to undermine the perceived significance and authority of local institutions and communities.
This encourages citizens, instead of looking to their families, churches, or local communities for guidance and assistance, to depend on the government for education, welfare, and various other services. As individuals begin to look more consistently to the government for support, the institutions that are able to generate virtues like trust and responsibility begin to lose their sway in the community. Excessive bureaucratic centralization thus sets in motion a dangerous cycle of dependence and social decay.
For far too long the American people have allowed the Progressive Movement to read out of existence the checks that America’s Founders placed on government in our founding documents. That is why The Heritage Foundation is now distributing a series of pamphlets titled “Understanding America” [8] that explores how the United States’ commitment to the universal truths of human equality and the right to self-government—as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence—requires a vigilant defense of the cause of liberty, both at home and abroad. In the first volume, Heritage’s Matthew Spalding writes [9]:
America’s principles establish religious liberty as a fundamental right. It is in our nature to pursue our convictions of faith. Government must not establish an official religion, just as it must guarantee the free exercise of religion. Indeed, popular government requires a flourishing of religious faith. If a free people are to govern themselves politically, they must first govern themselves morally.
The United States did not grow from a small thirteen colonies to a vast 50 states that produce almost a quarter of the world’s wealth due to an all powerful federal government. It was American civil society, led by families, churches, businesses, communities and associations that built this country. According to the latest Gallup poll [10], 58% of Americans believe that “the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses.” Contrast that with President Obama who recently told a Democratic campaign rally in Philadelphia [11], the very place where the Declaration of Independence was signed, that the United States Chamber of Commerce was “a threat to our democracy.” With all due respect to the President, the American people have a much different view of where the threat to our democracy is coming from.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)