Posted By Bobby Eberle On June 10, 2009 at 7:15 am
We sure have seen a lot in the nearly five months that Barack Obama has been president. Who could have imagined that the government would be controlling certain financial institutions? Who would have thought that General Motors would be under the control of Obama? Who knew that it was possible to create more debt in five months than all previous presidents combined? Welcome to the new America.
But, it doesn't stop there. We've heard so much weirdness coming from Obama like the jobs that have been "created or saved," when job losses continue and the unemployment rate keeps going up, but it doesn't stop there. Today we see yet another step down the path to government control, and another effort by Obama to take freedom away from the American people. In particular, I'm talking about Obama's new plan to appoint a "Pay Czar" to monitor what people are getting paid. We have now entered the Twilight Zone...
As noted in an Associated Press story, "the Obama administration is ready to issue new regulations limiting the compensation of top executives at financial institutions that have received government rescue funds." FOXNews.com reports that the position will be a "pay czar" formally known as a "special master for compensation." Special master for compensation? Are they serious?
As noted in the stories, the position focuses on those financial institutions that received funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Now, perhaps there are those who believe that if a troubled business accepts government (tax payer relief) then it should come with strings attached. In some ways that makes sense. I, as an investor, would like to see a return on this investment (bailout), but I also realize that the companies are in the best position to manage things... not me or the government.
Now people are probably jumping up and down saying, "If the companies were so good at running things, they wouldn't be in this mess." Well, that's partly true. We all have to keep in mind that this "mess" was created by forcing lending institutions to loan money to people who would normally be considered "bad risks."
Ok, back to the main point... regardless of whether a financial institution received government funds, the government has no business telling the institution how to run itself. Wages, regulations, policies, etc. are established by the company or institution. They form contracts between management and employees. That is how companies are run. For Obama to now say that he wants to control what they get paid shows two things: 1) it further reveals his desire to move America toward more and more government control. 2) It shows that Obama has no understanding of business.
If Obama limits the salaries of top executives at companies A, B, and C, don't you think those executives are more likely to go work for companies D, E, and F? What does that do for companies A, B, and C which are already "troubled?" I guess we already know the answer to that one when we look at General Motors: government "ownership" of production.
But, of course, Obama is not stopping there. Just check out the news story:
The government, however, is not stopping at federally assisted institutions. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke want to give the Fed, which regulates banks, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees the financial markets, greater powers to set compensation guidelines across the financial sector.
Can you believe this? Now, we are not just talking about institutions that accepted TARP funds. We are talking about an entire sector of the economy. Just look at what Obama's treasury secretary had to say:
"I think boards of directors did not do a good job," [Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner said Tuesday. "I think shareholders did not do a good job in terms of discipline and compensation practices."
So, Geithner blasts boards of directors (the managers) and the shareholders (the people). If the managers and regular folks are to blame, what's left to save the day? That's right... the government. Can we please wake up from this bad dream?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Panetta Comment Telegraphs America's Present Weakness
By Christopher G. Adamo
June 18, 2009
Once again, a prominent liberal Democrat is projecting his sordid political tactics and those of his party on the opposition. In an interview for next month's issue of The New Yorker magazine, CIA Director Leon Panetta asserted that former Vice-President Dick Cheney might welcome another major terrorist attack on America, as a means of validating his criticism of misguided Obama Administration "security" policies.
Cheney has had the entire liberal cabal up in arms, ever since his May 21 speech to the American Enterprise Institute in which he bluntly warned of the dangers posed by Obama's naive and ideologically driven decisions relating to the terror war. Cheney flatly explained how those policies are putting America at risk. Worse yet, at least from the liberal perspective, ever since his commentary, Cheney's popularity among the American people has risen dramatically. Consequently, the Democrats view him as a bigger danger than Al Qaeda or a nuclear Iran.
One might expect that, in response to Cheney, Panetta might have simply expounded on the new and improved safeguards implemented by Obama and his cronies since inauguration day. Instead, he sought to vilify Cheney's very motive for speaking out, despite the irrelevancy of that motive as a factor in accurately assessing the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Obama's "security" program. But Panetta and his puppet masters clearly revealed their highest priority as the need to undermine Cheney's personal credibility in the process.
Worse yet, such extreme defensiveness, and the scenario to which it alludes, likely reveals a prevailing nervousness within the Obama Administration to the effect that, in the event of a terror strike, Cheney's warnings might stick. This is a political liability that Obama knows he and his cabinet could not afford. And the magnitude of the response, indicating that they are already in "damage control" mode, is proof that the Obama facade is indeed in the initial stages of collapse.
Recalling events throughout the past sixteen years that led up to the current state of affairs, it is obvious that liberals view any and every situation primarily, perhaps exclusively, from the standpoint of its potential for political gain or loss. Bill Clinton, throughout the 1990s, was wholly indifferent to the burgeoning Islamist threat, only addressing them, on those occasions when he did so, from a perspective of their usefulness to distract America from his other personal problems.
Thus, "retaliatory" cruise missile strikes were ordered against empty terrorist camps on the same day Monica Lewinsky testified before Ken Starr, captured terror "suspects" were dealt with in the judicial swamplands of American courts, and no coherent plan was ever devised to neutralize the emerging danger. Even more deplorable were the actions of Clinton Administration officials such as Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, who did not merely ignore the problem but, at the behest of Clinton, erected barriers to any effective analysis of intelligence information that might have alerted the right people to the imminence of the attacks that did indeed result.
In a similar manner, Obama's first five months have been an unqualified disaster, not just on the security front, but in every aspect of his governing. Once an observer gets past the "hope and change" platitudes, and weighs real outcomes against the empty promises that were offered in such profusion on the campaign trail and during the transition period, it is impossible to assess Obama's tenure as anything else.
The entire "bailout" ruse of last October, for which Obama and his party eagerly took credit at the time, has completely failed to produce any of its promised results while costing current and future taxpayers dearly. The bailout sequel, fraudulently presented as an "economic stimulus," has likewise proven to be every bit as much of a pork-laden sham, and an abomination to every citizen who ever held the Constitution in high regard.
Administration ventures into the auto industry, replete with the predictable squandering of billions of taxpayer dollars, are proving to be just as dismal of a failure. Car companies that had been hit hard by high gasoline prices and the recession are now being completely strangled by meddling bureaucrats who know nothing about building automobiles, but are fanatically devoted to a leftist political agenda.
Gasoline supplies for those cars remain precarious, owing to the fact that Congressional Democrats and Obama refuse to open American territories to oil exploration and drilling. So despite the government's subsidization and takeover of the formerly private auto industry, its prospects for future prosperity are slim to none.
At the onset of a summer that, in many regions of the country, has been one of the coldest on record, the American worker and businessman is being strangled and starved as his livelihood is being subordinated to phony allegations of "global warming."
The hideous face behind the mask of socialized medicine, that "unholy grail" of the liberal agenda, is beginning to be revealed to the public. Massive costs, restricted coverage, and ultimately, rationing of services that will seriously degrade the quality of care received by Americans, ultimately degrading their health and even their lives. As a result, it is no longer resonating with the public as it did when presented in flowery campaign speeches, adorned in those banalities of "hope and change."
Despite Leon Panetta's shameless finger pointing, it must be remembered that the Democrats, his party, were the ones who sought to brazenly exploit catastrophe, whether natural or man-made, as political ammunition. From the Oklahoma City bombing to the Mississippi River floods to Hurricane Katrina, liberals can be counted upon to infuse their political message into any occasion of human suffering.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel characterizes this as good strategy and the proper exploitation of an opportunity. Despite having been appointed as the nation's intelligence chief, as a liberal Panetta's first devotion will be to the political apparatus of his party. So it should come as no surprise that Panetta would expect similar behavior from a political rival.
Many on the right are waiting for the American public to find their way past the fraud of the liberal press, and awaken to the abysmal realities of the Obama/Democrat agenda. No single event would do so more quickly than another major terrorist attack. And the Obama White House is sensitive to the dire significance of such a possibility, if only for fear of its political fallout.
What if national security has been as thoroughly compromised by this Administration as the free market? Leon Panetta, by his excessive and inflamatory words, has shown his awareness of the dangerous game that is being played with the country's security by blinded liberal ideologues. Americans should read between the lines and be very afraid.
---
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets products exclusively made in America. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com
June 18, 2009
Once again, a prominent liberal Democrat is projecting his sordid political tactics and those of his party on the opposition. In an interview for next month's issue of The New Yorker magazine, CIA Director Leon Panetta asserted that former Vice-President Dick Cheney might welcome another major terrorist attack on America, as a means of validating his criticism of misguided Obama Administration "security" policies.
Cheney has had the entire liberal cabal up in arms, ever since his May 21 speech to the American Enterprise Institute in which he bluntly warned of the dangers posed by Obama's naive and ideologically driven decisions relating to the terror war. Cheney flatly explained how those policies are putting America at risk. Worse yet, at least from the liberal perspective, ever since his commentary, Cheney's popularity among the American people has risen dramatically. Consequently, the Democrats view him as a bigger danger than Al Qaeda or a nuclear Iran.
One might expect that, in response to Cheney, Panetta might have simply expounded on the new and improved safeguards implemented by Obama and his cronies since inauguration day. Instead, he sought to vilify Cheney's very motive for speaking out, despite the irrelevancy of that motive as a factor in accurately assessing the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Obama's "security" program. But Panetta and his puppet masters clearly revealed their highest priority as the need to undermine Cheney's personal credibility in the process.
Worse yet, such extreme defensiveness, and the scenario to which it alludes, likely reveals a prevailing nervousness within the Obama Administration to the effect that, in the event of a terror strike, Cheney's warnings might stick. This is a political liability that Obama knows he and his cabinet could not afford. And the magnitude of the response, indicating that they are already in "damage control" mode, is proof that the Obama facade is indeed in the initial stages of collapse.
Recalling events throughout the past sixteen years that led up to the current state of affairs, it is obvious that liberals view any and every situation primarily, perhaps exclusively, from the standpoint of its potential for political gain or loss. Bill Clinton, throughout the 1990s, was wholly indifferent to the burgeoning Islamist threat, only addressing them, on those occasions when he did so, from a perspective of their usefulness to distract America from his other personal problems.
Thus, "retaliatory" cruise missile strikes were ordered against empty terrorist camps on the same day Monica Lewinsky testified before Ken Starr, captured terror "suspects" were dealt with in the judicial swamplands of American courts, and no coherent plan was ever devised to neutralize the emerging danger. Even more deplorable were the actions of Clinton Administration officials such as Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, who did not merely ignore the problem but, at the behest of Clinton, erected barriers to any effective analysis of intelligence information that might have alerted the right people to the imminence of the attacks that did indeed result.
In a similar manner, Obama's first five months have been an unqualified disaster, not just on the security front, but in every aspect of his governing. Once an observer gets past the "hope and change" platitudes, and weighs real outcomes against the empty promises that were offered in such profusion on the campaign trail and during the transition period, it is impossible to assess Obama's tenure as anything else.
The entire "bailout" ruse of last October, for which Obama and his party eagerly took credit at the time, has completely failed to produce any of its promised results while costing current and future taxpayers dearly. The bailout sequel, fraudulently presented as an "economic stimulus," has likewise proven to be every bit as much of a pork-laden sham, and an abomination to every citizen who ever held the Constitution in high regard.
Administration ventures into the auto industry, replete with the predictable squandering of billions of taxpayer dollars, are proving to be just as dismal of a failure. Car companies that had been hit hard by high gasoline prices and the recession are now being completely strangled by meddling bureaucrats who know nothing about building automobiles, but are fanatically devoted to a leftist political agenda.
Gasoline supplies for those cars remain precarious, owing to the fact that Congressional Democrats and Obama refuse to open American territories to oil exploration and drilling. So despite the government's subsidization and takeover of the formerly private auto industry, its prospects for future prosperity are slim to none.
At the onset of a summer that, in many regions of the country, has been one of the coldest on record, the American worker and businessman is being strangled and starved as his livelihood is being subordinated to phony allegations of "global warming."
The hideous face behind the mask of socialized medicine, that "unholy grail" of the liberal agenda, is beginning to be revealed to the public. Massive costs, restricted coverage, and ultimately, rationing of services that will seriously degrade the quality of care received by Americans, ultimately degrading their health and even their lives. As a result, it is no longer resonating with the public as it did when presented in flowery campaign speeches, adorned in those banalities of "hope and change."
Despite Leon Panetta's shameless finger pointing, it must be remembered that the Democrats, his party, were the ones who sought to brazenly exploit catastrophe, whether natural or man-made, as political ammunition. From the Oklahoma City bombing to the Mississippi River floods to Hurricane Katrina, liberals can be counted upon to infuse their political message into any occasion of human suffering.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel characterizes this as good strategy and the proper exploitation of an opportunity. Despite having been appointed as the nation's intelligence chief, as a liberal Panetta's first devotion will be to the political apparatus of his party. So it should come as no surprise that Panetta would expect similar behavior from a political rival.
Many on the right are waiting for the American public to find their way past the fraud of the liberal press, and awaken to the abysmal realities of the Obama/Democrat agenda. No single event would do so more quickly than another major terrorist attack. And the Obama White House is sensitive to the dire significance of such a possibility, if only for fear of its political fallout.
What if national security has been as thoroughly compromised by this Administration as the free market? Leon Panetta, by his excessive and inflamatory words, has shown his awareness of the dangerous game that is being played with the country's security by blinded liberal ideologues. Americans should read between the lines and be very afraid.
---
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets products exclusively made in America. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com
Victor Davis Hanson: Logic is turned upside down in Age of Obama
By Victor Davis Hanson
Posted: 06/18/2009 04:24:40 PM PDT
Updated: 06/18/2009 05:50:28 PM PDT
Are you confused by all that has changed since President Barack Obama took office in January? If so, you're not alone. Perhaps this handy guide to Age of Obama "logic" might be of some assistance.
1. The budget. Wanting to cut $17 billion from the budget, as President Obama has promised, is proof of financial responsibility. Borrowing $1.84 trillion this year for new programs is "stimulus." The old phrase "out-of-control spending" is inoperative.
2. Unemployment. The number of jobs theoretically saved, or created, by new government policies — not the actual percentage of Americans out of work, or the total number of jobs lost — is now the far better indicator of unemployment.
3. The private sector. Nationalizing much of the auto and financial industries, while regulating executive compensation, is an indication of our new government's repeatedly stated reluctance to interfere in the private sector.
4. Race and gender. Not what is said but who says it and about whom reveals racism and sexism. For example, a Hispanic female judge isn't being offensive if she states that Latinas are inherently better judges than white males.
5. Random violence. Some assassinations represent larger American pathologies, but others do not. When a crazed lone gunman murders someone outside the Holocaust Museum or shoots an abortion doctor, we should worry about growing right-wing and Christian extremism. But when an African-American Muslim convert brags about his murder of a military recruitment officer or an Islamic group plots to kill Jews and blow up a military jet, these are largely isolated incidents without larger relevance.
6. Terrorism. Acts of terror disappeared about six months ago. Thankfully, we live now in an age where there will be — in the new vocabulary of the Obama administration — only occasional "overseas contingency operations" in which we may be forced to hold a few "detainees." At the same time, ongoing military tribunals, renditions, wiretaps, phone intercepts and predator-drone assassinations are no longer threats to the Constitution. And just saying you're going to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay is proof that it is almost closed.
7. Iraq. The once-despised Iraq war thankfully ended around Jan. 20, 2009, and has now transformed into a noble experiment that is fanning winds of change throughout the Middle East. There will be no need for any more Hollywood cinema exposés of American wartime crimes in Iraq.
8. The West. Western values and history aren't apparently that special or unique. As President Obama told the world during his recent speech in Cairo, the Renaissance and Enlightenment were, in fact, fueled by a brilliant Islamic culture, responsible for landmark discoveries in mathematics, science and medicine. Slavery in America ended without violence. Mistreatment of women and religious intolerance in the Middle East have comparable parallels in America.
9. Media. The media are disinterested and professional observers of the present administration. When television anchormen and senior magazine editors bow to the president, proclaim him a god or feel tingling in the legs when he speaks, it is quite normal.
10. George W. Bush. Former President Bush did all sorts of bad things to the United States that only now we are learning will take at least eight years to sort out. "Bush did it" for the next decade will continue to explain the growing unemployment rate, the most recent deficit, the new round of tensions with Iran and North Korea, and growing global unrest.
Once we remember and accept the logic of the above, then almost everything about this Age of Obama begins to make perfect sense.
Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Posted: 06/18/2009 04:24:40 PM PDT
Updated: 06/18/2009 05:50:28 PM PDT
Are you confused by all that has changed since President Barack Obama took office in January? If so, you're not alone. Perhaps this handy guide to Age of Obama "logic" might be of some assistance.
1. The budget. Wanting to cut $17 billion from the budget, as President Obama has promised, is proof of financial responsibility. Borrowing $1.84 trillion this year for new programs is "stimulus." The old phrase "out-of-control spending" is inoperative.
2. Unemployment. The number of jobs theoretically saved, or created, by new government policies — not the actual percentage of Americans out of work, or the total number of jobs lost — is now the far better indicator of unemployment.
3. The private sector. Nationalizing much of the auto and financial industries, while regulating executive compensation, is an indication of our new government's repeatedly stated reluctance to interfere in the private sector.
4. Race and gender. Not what is said but who says it and about whom reveals racism and sexism. For example, a Hispanic female judge isn't being offensive if she states that Latinas are inherently better judges than white males.
5. Random violence. Some assassinations represent larger American pathologies, but others do not. When a crazed lone gunman murders someone outside the Holocaust Museum or shoots an abortion doctor, we should worry about growing right-wing and Christian extremism. But when an African-American Muslim convert brags about his murder of a military recruitment officer or an Islamic group plots to kill Jews and blow up a military jet, these are largely isolated incidents without larger relevance.
6. Terrorism. Acts of terror disappeared about six months ago. Thankfully, we live now in an age where there will be — in the new vocabulary of the Obama administration — only occasional "overseas contingency operations" in which we may be forced to hold a few "detainees." At the same time, ongoing military tribunals, renditions, wiretaps, phone intercepts and predator-drone assassinations are no longer threats to the Constitution. And just saying you're going to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay is proof that it is almost closed.
7. Iraq. The once-despised Iraq war thankfully ended around Jan. 20, 2009, and has now transformed into a noble experiment that is fanning winds of change throughout the Middle East. There will be no need for any more Hollywood cinema exposés of American wartime crimes in Iraq.
8. The West. Western values and history aren't apparently that special or unique. As President Obama told the world during his recent speech in Cairo, the Renaissance and Enlightenment were, in fact, fueled by a brilliant Islamic culture, responsible for landmark discoveries in mathematics, science and medicine. Slavery in America ended without violence. Mistreatment of women and religious intolerance in the Middle East have comparable parallels in America.
9. Media. The media are disinterested and professional observers of the present administration. When television anchormen and senior magazine editors bow to the president, proclaim him a god or feel tingling in the legs when he speaks, it is quite normal.
10. George W. Bush. Former President Bush did all sorts of bad things to the United States that only now we are learning will take at least eight years to sort out. "Bush did it" for the next decade will continue to explain the growing unemployment rate, the most recent deficit, the new round of tensions with Iran and North Korea, and growing global unrest.
Once we remember and accept the logic of the above, then almost everything about this Age of Obama begins to make perfect sense.
Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
White House Changes the Terms of a Campaign Pledge About Posting Bills Online
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: June 22, 2009
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised that once a bill was passed by Congress, the White House would post it online for five days before he signed it.
“When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government’s doing,” Mr. Obama said as a candidate, telling voters he would make government more transparent and accountable.
When he took office in January, his team added that in posting nonemergency bills, it would “allow the public to review and comment” before Mr. Obama signed them.
Five months into his administration, Mr. Obama has signed two dozen bills, but he has almost never waited five days. On the recent credit card legislation, which included a controversial measure to allow guns in national parks, he waited just two.
Various watchdog groups have slapped Mr. Obama’s wrist for repeatedly failing to live up to the pledge. Politifact.com, the fact-checking arm of The St. Petersburg Times, has branded it a “promise broken.”At the same time, many have questioned the value of the promise, saying it was too late in the process for anything to change in a bill.
“There isn’t anybody in this town who doesn’t know that commenting after a bill has been passed is meaningless,” said Ellen S. Miller, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan group dedicated to making government more transparent.
Now, in a tacit acknowledgment that the campaign pledge was easier to make than to fulfill, the White House is changing its terms. Instead of starting the five-day clock when Congress passes a bill, administration officials say they intend to start it earlier and post the bills sooner.
“In order to continue providing the American people more transparency in government, once it is clear that a bill will be coming to the president’s desk, the White House will post the bill online,” said Nick Shapiro, a White House spokesman. “This will give the American people a greater ability to review the bill, often many more than five days before the president signs it into law.”
Mr. Shapiro said the move would provide more transparency because the White House site drew so much traffic. It also stretches out the time in which a bill will be posted, making it easier for Mr. Obama to abide by the pledge.
Currently, after a bill passes Congress, the White House posts it by linking to the site of the Library of Congress. From now on, the White House plans to link to the site earlier, though Mr. Shapiro did not specify when.
The move marks a departure in the White House position on the pledge. Since January, when Mr. Obama broke the pledge with the first bill he signed, the administration has said it would implement it “in full soon.”
The Obama team has also said that it found unexpected technical hurdles in translating its campaign goals to governing. This is especially true regarding the posting of online comments. Ms. Miller of the Sunlight Foundation said that while the pledge was well intentioned, it was “meaningless” because it would not change anything and it had no mechanism for public comments or initiating a national conversation.
More useful, she said, would be for Congress to post bills earlier in the process, when language can still be changed. (Representative Brian N. Baird, Democrat of Washington, introduced a bill last week that says the House must post bills 72 hours before debate begins; a similar measure has not been introduced in the Senate.)
Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning research organization, has tracked Mr. Obama’s bill-signing history. He said posting bills before final passage could be problematic because of last-minute changes.
One glaring example came in February, when it was discovered that the 1,071-page federal stimulus bill allowed millions of dollars in bonuses for American International Group executives.
If members of Congress know that final language will be “sitting out there” for five days, Mr. Harper said, they might be less likely to try to slip in questionable items. And if Mr. Obama keeps his pledge to wait five days, Mr. Harper said, he might set an example for Congress.
POLITICS
President Obama's Five-Day Promise Video
Published: June 22, 2009
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised that once a bill was passed by Congress, the White House would post it online for five days before he signed it.
“When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government’s doing,” Mr. Obama said as a candidate, telling voters he would make government more transparent and accountable.
When he took office in January, his team added that in posting nonemergency bills, it would “allow the public to review and comment” before Mr. Obama signed them.
Five months into his administration, Mr. Obama has signed two dozen bills, but he has almost never waited five days. On the recent credit card legislation, which included a controversial measure to allow guns in national parks, he waited just two.
Various watchdog groups have slapped Mr. Obama’s wrist for repeatedly failing to live up to the pledge. Politifact.com, the fact-checking arm of The St. Petersburg Times, has branded it a “promise broken.”At the same time, many have questioned the value of the promise, saying it was too late in the process for anything to change in a bill.
“There isn’t anybody in this town who doesn’t know that commenting after a bill has been passed is meaningless,” said Ellen S. Miller, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan group dedicated to making government more transparent.
Now, in a tacit acknowledgment that the campaign pledge was easier to make than to fulfill, the White House is changing its terms. Instead of starting the five-day clock when Congress passes a bill, administration officials say they intend to start it earlier and post the bills sooner.
“In order to continue providing the American people more transparency in government, once it is clear that a bill will be coming to the president’s desk, the White House will post the bill online,” said Nick Shapiro, a White House spokesman. “This will give the American people a greater ability to review the bill, often many more than five days before the president signs it into law.”
Mr. Shapiro said the move would provide more transparency because the White House site drew so much traffic. It also stretches out the time in which a bill will be posted, making it easier for Mr. Obama to abide by the pledge.
Currently, after a bill passes Congress, the White House posts it by linking to the site of the Library of Congress. From now on, the White House plans to link to the site earlier, though Mr. Shapiro did not specify when.
The move marks a departure in the White House position on the pledge. Since January, when Mr. Obama broke the pledge with the first bill he signed, the administration has said it would implement it “in full soon.”
The Obama team has also said that it found unexpected technical hurdles in translating its campaign goals to governing. This is especially true regarding the posting of online comments. Ms. Miller of the Sunlight Foundation said that while the pledge was well intentioned, it was “meaningless” because it would not change anything and it had no mechanism for public comments or initiating a national conversation.
More useful, she said, would be for Congress to post bills earlier in the process, when language can still be changed. (Representative Brian N. Baird, Democrat of Washington, introduced a bill last week that says the House must post bills 72 hours before debate begins; a similar measure has not been introduced in the Senate.)
Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning research organization, has tracked Mr. Obama’s bill-signing history. He said posting bills before final passage could be problematic because of last-minute changes.
One glaring example came in February, when it was discovered that the 1,071-page federal stimulus bill allowed millions of dollars in bonuses for American International Group executives.
If members of Congress know that final language will be “sitting out there” for five days, Mr. Harper said, they might be less likely to try to slip in questionable items. And if Mr. Obama keeps his pledge to wait five days, Mr. Harper said, he might set an example for Congress.
POLITICS
President Obama's Five-Day Promise Video
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
This article is from Drudge Report and is another disturbing development in the lack of checks and balances in our new government:
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET
On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
Highlights on the agenda:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
The Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, who worked as a reporter for ABC News from 1998-2006.
Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:
Dear Mr. Westin:
As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.
Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.
In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.
Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff
MORE
ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained 'false premises':
"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.
"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET
On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
Highlights on the agenda:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
The Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, who worked as a reporter for ABC News from 1998-2006.
Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:
Dear Mr. Westin:
As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.
Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.
In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.
Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff
MORE
ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained 'false premises':
"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.
"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."
Friday, June 12, 2009
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
This letter was verified by Snopes and echoes my sentiments exactly:
By Lou Pritchett
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.
Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.
By Lou Pritchett
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.
Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.
Obama Breeds Climate of Hate Against Jews
By Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz
Our new president did not tell a virulent anti-Semite to travel to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington to kill Jews, but he is most certainly creating a climate of hate against us.
It is no coincidence that we are witnessing this level of hatred toward Jews as President Barack Obama positions America against the Jewish state.
Just days ago Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt. It was his second trip in a short time to visit Muslim countries. He sent a clear message by not visiting Israel.
But this was code.
In Cairo, Obama said things that pose a grave danger to Jews in Israel, in America and everywhere.
And if his views are not vigorously opposed they will help create a danger as great as that posed by the Nazis to the Jewish people.
Just last week, Obama told his worldwide audience — more than 100 million people — that the killing of six million Jews during the Holocaust was the equivalent of Israel’s actions in dealing with the Palestinians.
This remark is incredible on its face, an insult to the six million Jews who died as a result of Hitler’s genocide — and it is a form of revisionism that will bode evil for Jews for years to come.
While Obama acknowledged that “six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today” — his discussion about the Holocaust was followed by this statement: “On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”
“On the other hand . . . ”?
Obama’s clever construct comparing the mass genocide of six million Jews to the Palestinian struggle will not be lost on the estimated 100 million Muslims who tuned into to hear him.
Perhaps it was not lost on James W. von Brunn, the 88-year-old white supremacist identified as the alleged attacker Wednesday at the Holocaust Museum. He apparently felt that he could easily take retribution against the Jews for the atrocities Obama implies they are guilty of.
At first blush Mr. Obama’s speech seemed rosy, optimistic — one that espoused tolerance and understanding.
If you scratch the surface it is a dangerous document that history will view as a turning point for America and Israel — one that will lead to dangerous times ahead for both Jews and believing Christians.
The immediate danger posed by Obama’s speech is in its incredible re-writing of the history of Jews, Christians and Muslims from Medieval times to the present.
Obama, continually throughout his speech, talks of Islam’s peaceful intent. And while there are certainly Koranic verses that support this interpretation, Islam has a long and bloody history of violence against fellow Muslims, Jews and Christians.
Has Obama not heard about the Muslim’s violent conquest of the Middle East, Spain and half of Western Europe? Was he never taught that the Crusades sought to turn back this Muslim onslaught that demanded subjugated populations convert or die?
In his almost hour-long speech, there is not a single word about Islam’s well known and checkered past.
Ironically, the American president offered plenty of references to what he sees are America’s evils, such as its “colonialism” and history of slavery.
“For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation,” Obama told his audience, citing a litany of American shortcomings. He failed to mention that Arab Muslims were the greatest slave traders in the history of humanity.
According to Obama, Israelis, too, are guilty of wrongdoing, especially when it comes to their supposed maltreatment of the Palestinians.
Isn’t it odd an American president would go to a foreign country and slander his own country and its long-time ally?
At the same time he praises — unconditionally — a religion and culture that has a long history of being antithetical to the very values that have made America a great nation?
Mr. Obama even has the unbelievable gall, when talking about the treatment of Muslim women, to condemn Western countries for attempting to stop Muslim women from using the full facial cover, or hijab. This is a symbol of Muslim subjugation of women.
Listen to what Obama said: “Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit - for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.”
And Obama not only ignores the gross subjugation of women in many Arab societies — he does not mention even once the almost total religious intolerance throughout the Muslim world against Christians and Jews.
In his speech, Obama’s only plea for Muslim women living in Muslim countries is that they should be afforded an education.
How about a discussion of the beheading of Arab women for “crimes” such as adultery? How about the malicious treatment of women in Muslim countries who choose not to wear the hijab?
Obama insists that Islam has promoted tolerance and that in Islamic societies such ideals have flourished.
Obama claimed that “as a student of history” he understands more than most the truth about “civilization's debt to Islam.”
He added, “And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”
Does he not know that a Jew or Christian would be beheaded in Saudi Arabia for practicing their religion today, now, this minute?
Of course, Obama offers not one example of where religious freedom is truly tolerated in the Muslim world. Yet, he proudly told his audience that in every state of the union and throughout the U.S. there exist more than 1,200 mosques.
But why, Mr. President, is there no Christian Church or Jewish synagogue operating within the borders of Saudi Arabia? Not even one.
Why in many countries, including your host Egypt, Christian churches have suffered vicious and continual persecution? Why is a once vibrant Cairo Jewish community — a home for the likes of Maimonides — today practically extinct?
Why, dear president, has the ancient Christian community in the West Bank and places like Bethlehem been almost completely wiped out by the modern Muslim onslaught?
“On the other hand,” to quote you Mr. President, you avoided mentioning some other truths.
Let’s start with the Israeli Arabs who can claim one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world. Indeed, they have more rights than Arabs in any Muslim country, their religious freedom is completely protected, and they even vote in free elections.
Tell me what Muslim country matches Israel’s record in protecting its minorities?
Even Arabs in the West Bank, during the time of Israeli control, saw their standard of living rise dramatically. Today, Arabs there are among the best educated in the world, thanks to Israel.
In your revisionist view, Israel has acted to harm these people. But it was not Israel that could not abide by United Nations resolutions clearly setting borders for both the state of Israel and an entity that had never existed before named Palestine.
You cleverly omitted any discussion of these facts, or the continual attacks against the state of Israel over six decades by its Muslim neighbors. Nor is it the Israelis who persecute from time to time the Coptic Christians of Egypt.
No, Mr. President, I do not accept your assertion that you are seeking religious tolerance or that you are seeking to protect Jews. I do not accept it because you are inventing a false history to fit your own agenda.
Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed that you would offer such a distortion of truth in the hopes of creating a lasting peace. A lasting peace cannot be created out of lies, distortions and half truths.
You profess to be a Christian. But you seem more intent on protecting Muslims. In your speech you talked openly of your Muslim heritage, your admiration of their way of life, and so forth. You said in your speech that you have made one of your chief aims of your presidency repairing the image of Islam.
Why did you hide these views from the American public during the recent presidential campaign?
Why, as president, did you fully bow to the Saudi king, who refuses to allow any religious freedom for any Christian or Jew?
You have made clear, by your words and assertions, that you are re-positioning the United States away from Israel, America’s lone democratic ally in the Mid-East.
You have made clear through your statements and those of your minions that Israel should, under no circumstances, prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
And yes, you have promised to retaliate against Iran if it ever attacks Israel with nuclear weapons.
But you know full well that if Iran succeeds in its admitted goal of “wiping the Jewish state off the map” — and hits this tiny nation with nuclear warheads — there will be no Israel for the U.S. to retaliate on behalf of.
Some Jews may be naïve, but we are not stupid.
Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz is a member of the Reform movement of Judaism and serves as a chaplain for the State of New York. A former Navy and Marine Corps officer and chaplain, he has also served as deputy national chaplain for the Jewish War Veterans of the United States.
Our new president did not tell a virulent anti-Semite to travel to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington to kill Jews, but he is most certainly creating a climate of hate against us.
It is no coincidence that we are witnessing this level of hatred toward Jews as President Barack Obama positions America against the Jewish state.
Just days ago Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt. It was his second trip in a short time to visit Muslim countries. He sent a clear message by not visiting Israel.
But this was code.
In Cairo, Obama said things that pose a grave danger to Jews in Israel, in America and everywhere.
And if his views are not vigorously opposed they will help create a danger as great as that posed by the Nazis to the Jewish people.
Just last week, Obama told his worldwide audience — more than 100 million people — that the killing of six million Jews during the Holocaust was the equivalent of Israel’s actions in dealing with the Palestinians.
This remark is incredible on its face, an insult to the six million Jews who died as a result of Hitler’s genocide — and it is a form of revisionism that will bode evil for Jews for years to come.
While Obama acknowledged that “six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today” — his discussion about the Holocaust was followed by this statement: “On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”
“On the other hand . . . ”?
Obama’s clever construct comparing the mass genocide of six million Jews to the Palestinian struggle will not be lost on the estimated 100 million Muslims who tuned into to hear him.
Perhaps it was not lost on James W. von Brunn, the 88-year-old white supremacist identified as the alleged attacker Wednesday at the Holocaust Museum. He apparently felt that he could easily take retribution against the Jews for the atrocities Obama implies they are guilty of.
At first blush Mr. Obama’s speech seemed rosy, optimistic — one that espoused tolerance and understanding.
If you scratch the surface it is a dangerous document that history will view as a turning point for America and Israel — one that will lead to dangerous times ahead for both Jews and believing Christians.
The immediate danger posed by Obama’s speech is in its incredible re-writing of the history of Jews, Christians and Muslims from Medieval times to the present.
Obama, continually throughout his speech, talks of Islam’s peaceful intent. And while there are certainly Koranic verses that support this interpretation, Islam has a long and bloody history of violence against fellow Muslims, Jews and Christians.
Has Obama not heard about the Muslim’s violent conquest of the Middle East, Spain and half of Western Europe? Was he never taught that the Crusades sought to turn back this Muslim onslaught that demanded subjugated populations convert or die?
In his almost hour-long speech, there is not a single word about Islam’s well known and checkered past.
Ironically, the American president offered plenty of references to what he sees are America’s evils, such as its “colonialism” and history of slavery.
“For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation,” Obama told his audience, citing a litany of American shortcomings. He failed to mention that Arab Muslims were the greatest slave traders in the history of humanity.
According to Obama, Israelis, too, are guilty of wrongdoing, especially when it comes to their supposed maltreatment of the Palestinians.
Isn’t it odd an American president would go to a foreign country and slander his own country and its long-time ally?
At the same time he praises — unconditionally — a religion and culture that has a long history of being antithetical to the very values that have made America a great nation?
Mr. Obama even has the unbelievable gall, when talking about the treatment of Muslim women, to condemn Western countries for attempting to stop Muslim women from using the full facial cover, or hijab. This is a symbol of Muslim subjugation of women.
Listen to what Obama said: “Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit - for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.”
And Obama not only ignores the gross subjugation of women in many Arab societies — he does not mention even once the almost total religious intolerance throughout the Muslim world against Christians and Jews.
In his speech, Obama’s only plea for Muslim women living in Muslim countries is that they should be afforded an education.
How about a discussion of the beheading of Arab women for “crimes” such as adultery? How about the malicious treatment of women in Muslim countries who choose not to wear the hijab?
Obama insists that Islam has promoted tolerance and that in Islamic societies such ideals have flourished.
Obama claimed that “as a student of history” he understands more than most the truth about “civilization's debt to Islam.”
He added, “And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”
Does he not know that a Jew or Christian would be beheaded in Saudi Arabia for practicing their religion today, now, this minute?
Of course, Obama offers not one example of where religious freedom is truly tolerated in the Muslim world. Yet, he proudly told his audience that in every state of the union and throughout the U.S. there exist more than 1,200 mosques.
But why, Mr. President, is there no Christian Church or Jewish synagogue operating within the borders of Saudi Arabia? Not even one.
Why in many countries, including your host Egypt, Christian churches have suffered vicious and continual persecution? Why is a once vibrant Cairo Jewish community — a home for the likes of Maimonides — today practically extinct?
Why, dear president, has the ancient Christian community in the West Bank and places like Bethlehem been almost completely wiped out by the modern Muslim onslaught?
“On the other hand,” to quote you Mr. President, you avoided mentioning some other truths.
Let’s start with the Israeli Arabs who can claim one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world. Indeed, they have more rights than Arabs in any Muslim country, their religious freedom is completely protected, and they even vote in free elections.
Tell me what Muslim country matches Israel’s record in protecting its minorities?
Even Arabs in the West Bank, during the time of Israeli control, saw their standard of living rise dramatically. Today, Arabs there are among the best educated in the world, thanks to Israel.
In your revisionist view, Israel has acted to harm these people. But it was not Israel that could not abide by United Nations resolutions clearly setting borders for both the state of Israel and an entity that had never existed before named Palestine.
You cleverly omitted any discussion of these facts, or the continual attacks against the state of Israel over six decades by its Muslim neighbors. Nor is it the Israelis who persecute from time to time the Coptic Christians of Egypt.
No, Mr. President, I do not accept your assertion that you are seeking religious tolerance or that you are seeking to protect Jews. I do not accept it because you are inventing a false history to fit your own agenda.
Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed that you would offer such a distortion of truth in the hopes of creating a lasting peace. A lasting peace cannot be created out of lies, distortions and half truths.
You profess to be a Christian. But you seem more intent on protecting Muslims. In your speech you talked openly of your Muslim heritage, your admiration of their way of life, and so forth. You said in your speech that you have made one of your chief aims of your presidency repairing the image of Islam.
Why did you hide these views from the American public during the recent presidential campaign?
Why, as president, did you fully bow to the Saudi king, who refuses to allow any religious freedom for any Christian or Jew?
You have made clear, by your words and assertions, that you are re-positioning the United States away from Israel, America’s lone democratic ally in the Mid-East.
You have made clear through your statements and those of your minions that Israel should, under no circumstances, prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
And yes, you have promised to retaliate against Iran if it ever attacks Israel with nuclear weapons.
But you know full well that if Iran succeeds in its admitted goal of “wiping the Jewish state off the map” — and hits this tiny nation with nuclear warheads — there will be no Israel for the U.S. to retaliate on behalf of.
Some Jews may be naïve, but we are not stupid.
Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz is a member of the Reform movement of Judaism and serves as a chaplain for the State of New York. A former Navy and Marine Corps officer and chaplain, he has also served as deputy national chaplain for the Jewish War Veterans of the United States.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Obama Justice Dept. hunting for 'all actors' in Tiller murder
Fred Jackson - OneNewsNow - 6/6/2009 7:15:00 AM
WASHINGTON - The Justice department announced late Friday afternoon that it is launching an investigation to see who else may have been involved in the murder of abortionist George Tiller.
Tiller was gunned down at his church in Witchita Kansas last Sunday. Authorities quickly tracked down and arrested a man believed to be the shooter. 51-year old Scott Roeder of Merriam, Kansas is now facing a first degree murder charge.
Pro-life groups who have long protested the thousands of abortions that Tiller has performed over the years, including late term abortions, were quick to condemn the Tiller murder.
But in its press release on Friday, the Justice Department made it clear that it believes others may have been involved in Tiller's death.
Here is how the press release reads : "The Department of Justice will work tirelessly to determine the full involvement of any and all actors in this horrible crime, and to ensure that anyone who played a role in the offense is prosecuted to the full extent of federal law," said Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "We will conduct a thorough investigation that will complement and build upon the fine work of the Sedgwick County District Attorney and other state and local law enforcement agencies."
The Justice department's announcement also states " The federal probe will consist of a thorough review of the evidence and an assessment of any potential violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) or other federal statutes. The FACE Act was enacted by Congress in 1994 to establish federal criminal penalties and civil remedies for violent, obstructionist or damaging conduct affecting reproductive health care providers and recipients."
In the wake of the Tiller murder, the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to "offer protection to appropriate people and facilities around the country." The directive was given in the apparent belief that other violent incidents might take place.
Some conservatives have questioned the extent of the reaction to the Tiller killing by the Justice department. They have pointed to an incident in Little Rock, Arkansas, on Monday of this week when a Muslim convert opened fire at a military recruiting center, killing one young man and wounding another. The conservatives have noted that there was no indication from the Obama administration that it feared there might be similar incidents at other military recruiting facilities or any attempt to link the Muslim man's actions to a possible larger Muslim campaign against U.S. military personnel or facilities.
And while President Barack Obama issued a statement saying he was "shocked and outraged" by the Tiller murder, he has made no public statements about the death of the young recruit in Little Rock.
WASHINGTON - The Justice department announced late Friday afternoon that it is launching an investigation to see who else may have been involved in the murder of abortionist George Tiller.
Tiller was gunned down at his church in Witchita Kansas last Sunday. Authorities quickly tracked down and arrested a man believed to be the shooter. 51-year old Scott Roeder of Merriam, Kansas is now facing a first degree murder charge.
Pro-life groups who have long protested the thousands of abortions that Tiller has performed over the years, including late term abortions, were quick to condemn the Tiller murder.
But in its press release on Friday, the Justice Department made it clear that it believes others may have been involved in Tiller's death.
Here is how the press release reads : "The Department of Justice will work tirelessly to determine the full involvement of any and all actors in this horrible crime, and to ensure that anyone who played a role in the offense is prosecuted to the full extent of federal law," said Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "We will conduct a thorough investigation that will complement and build upon the fine work of the Sedgwick County District Attorney and other state and local law enforcement agencies."
The Justice department's announcement also states " The federal probe will consist of a thorough review of the evidence and an assessment of any potential violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) or other federal statutes. The FACE Act was enacted by Congress in 1994 to establish federal criminal penalties and civil remedies for violent, obstructionist or damaging conduct affecting reproductive health care providers and recipients."
In the wake of the Tiller murder, the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to "offer protection to appropriate people and facilities around the country." The directive was given in the apparent belief that other violent incidents might take place.
Some conservatives have questioned the extent of the reaction to the Tiller killing by the Justice department. They have pointed to an incident in Little Rock, Arkansas, on Monday of this week when a Muslim convert opened fire at a military recruiting center, killing one young man and wounding another. The conservatives have noted that there was no indication from the Obama administration that it feared there might be similar incidents at other military recruiting facilities or any attempt to link the Muslim man's actions to a possible larger Muslim campaign against U.S. military personnel or facilities.
And while President Barack Obama issued a statement saying he was "shocked and outraged" by the Tiller murder, he has made no public statements about the death of the young recruit in Little Rock.
Friday, June 5, 2009
The U.S. Department of Injustice
Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist - 6/5/2009 11:20:00 AM
The U.S. Department of Justice seal bears a Latin phrase: "Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur." The motto refers to the attorney general, "who prosecutes on behalf of Lady Justice." But under President Barack Obama's politically corrupt DOJ, Lady Justice is getting the shaft.
To wit: Let's examine the uproar over Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to protect hate-mongering thugs who harassed and bullied precinct workers and voters on Election Day in Philadelphia.
Oh, wait. There's been no uproar. Let me tell you why.
Two weeks ago, in a highly unusual move, Holder dismissed default judgments his department had won against two of three defendants charged with violating the Voting Rights Act. On Nov. 4, 2008, a billy club-wielding militant in military-style boots and beret stood outside a Philly polling location with a similarly dressed partner. Citizen journalists from the Pennsylvania-based blog Election Journal captured the menacing duo on video. One of the watchdogs observed: "I think it might be a little intimidating that you have a stick in your hand." (See related article)
That was an understatement. Witness Bartle Bull, a Democratic lawyer who organized for Bobby Kennedy and worked for the civil rights movement in Mississippi, signed a sworn affidavit decrying the Election Day brutishness. Serving as a poll watcher that day, he called the behavior of Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson "the most blatant form of voter discrimination I have encountered in my life."
One of them, Bull reported, taunted poll observers: "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
If the pair had been dressed in white sheets, pandemonium would have broken loose. But the ebony-clad thugs were members of the New Black Panther Party who had been dispatched by Malcolm X wannabe Malik Shabazz to "guard" the polls. Translation: Protect them from scrutiny. Shield them from sunlight. Keep independent voters and observers out.
Who is Malik Shabazz? The bespectacled race hustler grabbed the spotlight in the weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks by defending Osama bin Laden, blaming President Bush for 9/11, bashing Israel and blasting our Founding Fathers as "snakes." His group also infamously rallied behind the Duke University lacrosse rape hoaxer. And on the day before the presidential election last fall, one of Shabazz's "field marshals," Minister Najee Muhammad, held a "black power" rally promising to send his forces to polls across the country "to ensure that the enemy does not sabotage the black vote."
The Bush DOJ filed suit against Malik Shabazz, Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson in early January 2009. None of the defendants filed an answer to the lawsuit, putting them all into default. Instead of taking the default judgment that DOJ is entitled to against all of the defendants, the Obama team fully dismissed the lawsuits against Malik Shabazz and Jackson. Jackson, you should know, is an elected member of the Philadelphia Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher. Witness Greg Lugones told me, "Obama campaign operatives were on site throughout the entire episode."
Former Justice Department official and voting rights scholar Hans von Spakovsky added: "I have never heard of the Department dismissing a case it has already won by default. They have...sent the message that hurling racial epithets and slurs at voters and intimidating and threatening voters at the polls is fine with the Holder Justice Department -- at least if you are African-American. I seriously doubt that would have happened if the races had been reversed in this case."
Exactly. And the harassment was aimed not just at voters, but at white poll workers trying to ensure a fair and lawful process in a city infamous for machine politics and street money pollution.
Who are the racial cowards, Holder?
On the heels of this voter intimidation protection plan, the Obama Justice Department issued another decision that undermines electoral integrity -- but bolsters Democratic voter drives. The department this week denied the state of Georgia the ability to enact strict citizenship voter-verification rules previously approved by two federal courts. As Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel explained: "DOJ has thrown open the door for activist organizations such as ACORN to register non-citizens to vote in Georgia's elections, and the state has no ability to verify an applicant's citizenship status or whether the individual even exists."
On top of all that, Holder recently politicized the legal review process involving the contentious issue of DC voting rights. After careful study, the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion that a House bill on the matter was unconstitutional. Holder, who supports DC voting rights along with Obama, overrode his staff lawyers' ruling -- and simply ordered up an alternative opinion that fit the White House agenda.
Lady Justice is now protected by a security force armed with billy clubs and lawyers who serve the cause of protecting the re-election of Barack Obama over the rule of law.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
The U.S. Department of Justice seal bears a Latin phrase: "Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur." The motto refers to the attorney general, "who prosecutes on behalf of Lady Justice." But under President Barack Obama's politically corrupt DOJ, Lady Justice is getting the shaft.
To wit: Let's examine the uproar over Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to protect hate-mongering thugs who harassed and bullied precinct workers and voters on Election Day in Philadelphia.
Oh, wait. There's been no uproar. Let me tell you why.
Two weeks ago, in a highly unusual move, Holder dismissed default judgments his department had won against two of three defendants charged with violating the Voting Rights Act. On Nov. 4, 2008, a billy club-wielding militant in military-style boots and beret stood outside a Philly polling location with a similarly dressed partner. Citizen journalists from the Pennsylvania-based blog Election Journal captured the menacing duo on video. One of the watchdogs observed: "I think it might be a little intimidating that you have a stick in your hand." (See related article)
That was an understatement. Witness Bartle Bull, a Democratic lawyer who organized for Bobby Kennedy and worked for the civil rights movement in Mississippi, signed a sworn affidavit decrying the Election Day brutishness. Serving as a poll watcher that day, he called the behavior of Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson "the most blatant form of voter discrimination I have encountered in my life."
One of them, Bull reported, taunted poll observers: "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
If the pair had been dressed in white sheets, pandemonium would have broken loose. But the ebony-clad thugs were members of the New Black Panther Party who had been dispatched by Malcolm X wannabe Malik Shabazz to "guard" the polls. Translation: Protect them from scrutiny. Shield them from sunlight. Keep independent voters and observers out.
Who is Malik Shabazz? The bespectacled race hustler grabbed the spotlight in the weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks by defending Osama bin Laden, blaming President Bush for 9/11, bashing Israel and blasting our Founding Fathers as "snakes." His group also infamously rallied behind the Duke University lacrosse rape hoaxer. And on the day before the presidential election last fall, one of Shabazz's "field marshals," Minister Najee Muhammad, held a "black power" rally promising to send his forces to polls across the country "to ensure that the enemy does not sabotage the black vote."
The Bush DOJ filed suit against Malik Shabazz, Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson in early January 2009. None of the defendants filed an answer to the lawsuit, putting them all into default. Instead of taking the default judgment that DOJ is entitled to against all of the defendants, the Obama team fully dismissed the lawsuits against Malik Shabazz and Jackson. Jackson, you should know, is an elected member of the Philadelphia Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher. Witness Greg Lugones told me, "Obama campaign operatives were on site throughout the entire episode."
Former Justice Department official and voting rights scholar Hans von Spakovsky added: "I have never heard of the Department dismissing a case it has already won by default. They have...sent the message that hurling racial epithets and slurs at voters and intimidating and threatening voters at the polls is fine with the Holder Justice Department -- at least if you are African-American. I seriously doubt that would have happened if the races had been reversed in this case."
Exactly. And the harassment was aimed not just at voters, but at white poll workers trying to ensure a fair and lawful process in a city infamous for machine politics and street money pollution.
Who are the racial cowards, Holder?
On the heels of this voter intimidation protection plan, the Obama Justice Department issued another decision that undermines electoral integrity -- but bolsters Democratic voter drives. The department this week denied the state of Georgia the ability to enact strict citizenship voter-verification rules previously approved by two federal courts. As Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel explained: "DOJ has thrown open the door for activist organizations such as ACORN to register non-citizens to vote in Georgia's elections, and the state has no ability to verify an applicant's citizenship status or whether the individual even exists."
On top of all that, Holder recently politicized the legal review process involving the contentious issue of DC voting rights. After careful study, the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion that a House bill on the matter was unconstitutional. Holder, who supports DC voting rights along with Obama, overrode his staff lawyers' ruling -- and simply ordered up an alternative opinion that fit the White House agenda.
Lady Justice is now protected by a security force armed with billy clubs and lawyers who serve the cause of protecting the re-election of Barack Obama over the rule of law.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Obama more than tolerant of homosexual lifestyle
Allie Martin - OneNewsNow - 6/5/2009 5:00:00 AM
A leader in the Southern Baptist Convention says President Barack Obama's recent proclamation designating a homosexual "pride" month goes beyond mere tolerance.
Earlier this week, the White House released a proclamation recognizing June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month." The proclamation was signed by President Obama and mentioned the record number of homosexuals he has nominated and chosen for positions in his administration. It also called for equal justice under the law for homosexuals and transgendered Americans. (See earlier story)
Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, says the proclamation advocates more than mere tolerance.
"The United States federal government, now by executive order, signed by the President of the United States, is declaring national pride in these lifestyles," he contends. "This is not mere toleration; it's not calling for legalization, an end to criminal sanctions. It's not calling even for something like civil unions...it's calling for pride."
Scripture, Mohler points out, does not allow Christians to be proud of sin.
A leader in the Southern Baptist Convention says President Barack Obama's recent proclamation designating a homosexual "pride" month goes beyond mere tolerance.
Earlier this week, the White House released a proclamation recognizing June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month." The proclamation was signed by President Obama and mentioned the record number of homosexuals he has nominated and chosen for positions in his administration. It also called for equal justice under the law for homosexuals and transgendered Americans. (See earlier story)
Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, says the proclamation advocates more than mere tolerance.
"The United States federal government, now by executive order, signed by the President of the United States, is declaring national pride in these lifestyles," he contends. "This is not mere toleration; it's not calling for legalization, an end to criminal sanctions. It's not calling even for something like civil unions...it's calling for pride."
Scripture, Mohler points out, does not allow Christians to be proud of sin.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Obama's "New" Beginning speech
OK. So here is the White House's spin on things... He hasn't got a clue, plus there's nothing "new" under the sun. Same old rhetoric with a smooth as honey delivery. Sheeple...
White House Article/Speech Video
ACLU picks on school district, eventually loses
Some good news...
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 6/4/2009 5:20:00 AM
A Florida school district has reversed two decisions concerning a Christian club and private baccalaureate services.
Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the Santa Rosa County School District for allowing the Fellowship of Christian Athletes to meet on campus and for allowing teachers to attend private baccalaureate services. David Cortman, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), explains that the school initially capitulated to the ACLU's demands.
"We've all heard of those [situations], now that it's graduation time, where private organizations -- [in this case a local] ministerial association -- rents out school facilities to hold a private religious graduation service," says Cortman. "But because of the ACLU's lawsuit, the school prohibited teachers from participating at all."
The school also prohibited the Fellowship of Christian Athletes from meeting on campus, but the ADF sent letters to the school district outlining its rights concerning both situations. According to Cortman, the district has since done the "right thing" by standing up to the ACLU's threats and reversing its decision on both issues.
"[The] ACLU tends to pick on smaller communities throughout the country and basically looks to completely eradicate any mention of religion at all in the public square," the attorney explains.
"And so we sent these letters to give some push-back to the ACLU to basically tell the school regardless of what they want you to do in their zeal to eliminate all mention of religion, what the law actually requires is that you allow the Christian clubs to meet on the same terms as other clubs."
Cortman says the ADF also argued that allowing teachers to participate in the private graduation services is no different than a teacher going to church on the weekend.
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 6/4/2009 5:20:00 AM
A Florida school district has reversed two decisions concerning a Christian club and private baccalaureate services.
Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the Santa Rosa County School District for allowing the Fellowship of Christian Athletes to meet on campus and for allowing teachers to attend private baccalaureate services. David Cortman, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), explains that the school initially capitulated to the ACLU's demands.
"We've all heard of those [situations], now that it's graduation time, where private organizations -- [in this case a local] ministerial association -- rents out school facilities to hold a private religious graduation service," says Cortman. "But because of the ACLU's lawsuit, the school prohibited teachers from participating at all."
The school also prohibited the Fellowship of Christian Athletes from meeting on campus, but the ADF sent letters to the school district outlining its rights concerning both situations. According to Cortman, the district has since done the "right thing" by standing up to the ACLU's threats and reversing its decision on both issues.
"[The] ACLU tends to pick on smaller communities throughout the country and basically looks to completely eradicate any mention of religion at all in the public square," the attorney explains.
"And so we sent these letters to give some push-back to the ACLU to basically tell the school regardless of what they want you to do in their zeal to eliminate all mention of religion, what the law actually requires is that you allow the Christian clubs to meet on the same terms as other clubs."
Cortman says the ADF also argued that allowing teachers to participate in the private graduation services is no different than a teacher going to church on the weekend.
County apologies for citing pastor's home Bible studies
Update:
Associated Press - 6/4/2009 7:30:00 AM
SAN DIEGO, CA - San Diego County has rescinded its citation and apologized to a pastor who was warned that he needed a permit to hold weekly Bible studies in his home.
David Jones and his wife Mary had been warned that they could be fined $100 to $1,000 if they held religious assemblies without a major use permit. (See earlier article)
Their attorney, who argued that the Jones' constitutional rights were being violated, has now released two responses he received from San Diego County officials.
A letter from the county attorney rescinds the citation and says the permit is not required.
In a second letter, Chief Administrative Officer Walter Ekard apologizes and assures the couple that steps are being taken so that similar religious gatherings won't be issued citations in the future.
Associated Press - 6/4/2009 7:30:00 AM
SAN DIEGO, CA - San Diego County has rescinded its citation and apologized to a pastor who was warned that he needed a permit to hold weekly Bible studies in his home.
David Jones and his wife Mary had been warned that they could be fined $100 to $1,000 if they held religious assemblies without a major use permit. (See earlier article)
Their attorney, who argued that the Jones' constitutional rights were being violated, has now released two responses he received from San Diego County officials.
A letter from the county attorney rescinds the citation and says the permit is not required.
In a second letter, Chief Administrative Officer Walter Ekard apologizes and assures the couple that steps are being taken so that similar religious gatherings won't be issued citations in the future.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Children to Learn about Penguin with Two Daddies
Posted By Bobby Eberle On June 2, 2009 at 7:22 am
Think back to when you were in elementary school. Those first years of education were (at least for me) so much fun. There was the thrill of math (don't laugh), the excitement of making new projects, and the joy of reading. These fundamentally important years were spent on... the fundamentals. They were done in a way that 6 to 11 year olds could understand, but the focus was clear: build a base of learning in math, reading, science, history, and more.
My how times have changed. Now, in addition to teaching the basics (in a watered-down way) and then letting the kids burn off energy by playing tag (oops... we can't do that anymore), the children are being exposed to the liberal ideology of gay, lesbian, and transgender issues. It appears that every lifestyle is not only accepted, but embraced... that is, unless you believe in traditional, religious definitions.
As noted in a story on CNSNews.com, "The Alameda, Calif., public schools are adopting a curriculum that will require first graders to read literature that equates same-sex unions with a family made up of a mother, father and child."
Members of the Alameda United School District (AUSD) school board voted 3 to 2 last week to implement the "Safe Schools" curriculum, which supporters say is aimed at stopping anti-homosexual bullying in schools.
The program includes between one and four lessons each year between grades 1 and 5 to introduce students to "LGBT" (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual) issues.
There are a number of problems here, and they speak to the liberal mindset and the problems our country is facing. The overall issue of whether you believe that gay marriage is right or wrong is not even one of the issues to which I am referring. That can be left for another day.
In this case, there are two topics that come to mind: appropriateness and tolerance.
First, appropriateness. Whether we are talking about "gay" issues or "straight" issues, it is simply inappropriate to talk about them with elementary school children. They are CHILDREN! They are in school to learn how to read, write, spell, and absorb basic facts that will allow them to learn even more later. They are NOT in school to be subjects of some left-wing agenda! Math has no agenda. Spelling has no agenda. Let's stick with the basics so we actually have children who know what's going on and who can compete against other students around the world.
The elementary school classroom is simply not the place to be delving into sexuality. Let the kids be kids and focus on teaching them the basics!
Second, tolerance. Yes, I'm sure you are cringing when I mention the word "tolerance." The liberals have twisted that word so much that it has lost meaning. For liberals, "tolerance" means not only an acceptance of any lifestyle (no matter how perverted), but also a blatant hostility to those who embrace traditional and religious models for society.
The new school curriculum adopted by the Alameda school district is one where parents will be forced to have their children participate. They will not be allowed to opt out.
"This will be done whether parents like it or not, and it shows the hostility against parental rights and traditional family values," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, speaking for parents who, he said, are adamantly opposed to the plan.
This is simply outrageous. The whole idea of this curriculum is supposed to combat bullying that students face because of gay or lesbian issues. Again, we are talking about elementary school children. How do you think those kids will be treated who object to these teachings?
The story "And Tango Makes Three" (about two male penguins who hatch an egg and raise the baby penguin together) will be used as part of the teaching lesson. In other words, it will be used by teachers to promote a certain lifestyle all in the name of tolerance. Except, there is no tolerance for those children whose religious beliefs teach them something different.
It's time to stop the insanity. Elementary schools used to focus on the "3 Rs." Now, the letters of choice are LGBT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
